"The social media rules are a very 19th century approach to a 21st century problem."

PTA & the IHC, part 2

In the December 6th newsletter, the Chief Justice of Pakistan’s Islamabad High Court, Athar Minallah, argued that the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority’s “Removal and Blocking of Online Content Rules” – incorporated into Pakistan’s Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act – violated the constitutional rights of Pakistani citizens to freedom of expression and information. To quote Minallah again,

Criticism is very important for democracy. Let the people have information and let them judge the government. PTA is discouraging accountability. PTA should encourage accountability by facilitating access to information. When even the courts and judges are not immune from constructive criticism, how can government be shielded from criticism?

At the time, the hearing had been adjourned until December 18th. The 17th, however, saw two petitions filed against the PTA – one by senior and respected journalist Amber Rahim Shamsi and Tiktok personality Ahfaq Jutt, and another by the Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ).

As reported by Pakistan’s Media Matters for Democracy, the petition filed by Shamsi and Jutt argues that the PTA’s Social Media Rules,

violate constitutionally secured freedom of speech and expression, right to access to information, right to privacy, and freedom of trade, business, and profession, and right to property, of all Pakistani citizens.

The petition also requested that the IHC consider components of the Social Media Rules to be ultra vires (or “beyond the scope or in excess of legal power or authority”).

Ms. Amber Rahim Shamsi remarked that,

The social media rules are a very 19th century approach to a 21st century problem. The idea should have been ideally to protect citizens, protect them from online harm. Instead what we have seen is that journalists, dissidents and people who have a different view, different political view from the state have regularly been targeted through PECA…my fear is these new social media rules will accelerate that process. they will make it much harder for journalists and political commentators to use social media to express themselves, to differ from state narratives. (ellipsis mine)

Ms. Shamsi also said that,

If content is going to be concentrated in the hands of a state that is already guilty of suppressing the freedom of expression, then these new social rules that require companies to hand over private material to the state, could endanger what is already a fragile space. Social media is the only space where there is a little more breathing space available and I am afraid that these new social media rules will strangulate it further.

The petition also echoes concerns raised by Chief Justice Minallah that, contrary to the PTA’s claims, there was no actual and transparent consultative process regarding the Social Media Rules, which the tech industry Asia Internet Coalition had pointed out in their November 20th open letter.

The petition by the PFUJ in turn echoes the sentiments of Ms. Shamsi’s petition, with the PFUJ arguing that that the Social Media Rules were “inconsistent with and in derogation of the Fundamental Rights” in the Pakistani Constitution, and that they (the Rules) were "essentially” a tool for arbitrary and excessive censorship in online spaces and an attempt to stifle criticism and dissent on online platforms”. The PFUJ also argued that the Social Media Rules should be considered by the IHC to be ultra vires.

On the 18th and 21st of December, the IHC issued legal notices to the PTA in response to the petitions filed by the PFUJ and Ms. Shamsi, respectively. The December 18th hearing of the PFUJ petition also included two other petitions that were bundled together, according to Media Matters for Democracy: a “contempt petition filed by the Awami Workers Party” and Ashfaq Jutt’s (see above) petition against the PTA’s TikTok ban. This hearing saw the PTA and the Federal Government of Pakistan (the latter defended by the Deputy Attorney General) ask for more time to “submit their arguements”, which would show that the PTA’s Social Media Rules would, according to MMfD’s article, would be “in line with international laws and standards” (which as we saw last time, worked so well for the PTA).

The IHC has adjourned the hearing for January 25th 2021, with the PTA required to respond in writing before that. January 25th will also see the PFUJ case be joined by the Awami Workers Party and Ms. Amber Rahim Shamshi’s own cases.

Given that the IHC reiterated once more that the PTA and the government should a) respect freedom of expression and other rights given to citizens of Pakistan and b) actually try to commit to a transparent and inclusive consultative process, January 25th could be interesting.

PTA vs. Google…and Wikipedia

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, “comstockery” is defined as:

1: strict censorship of materials considered obscene

2 : censorious opposition to alleged immorality (as in literature)

The word comes from the name of the notorious 19th century American US Postal Inspector, Secretary of the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice, and all-round intolerant fellow, Anthony Comstock. The Comstock Act banned "obscene, lewd, and/or lascivious" material from being sent via the US postal service. Before his death in 1915, Comstock was reportedly proud that in addition to burning thousands of books, he was also, according to the Economist, “responsible for 4,000 arrests during his career and 15 suicides.”

Comstock’s view of what constituted "obscene, lewd, and/or lascivious" was very broad, and extended to family planning materials and anatomy textbooks required by medical students, as well as left wing activists and the general arts. “Obscene”, it appeared, lived wherever Comstock chose to seek it out and interpret it as he saw fit.

Comstockery lives on in modern institutions such Pakistan’s PTA and PEMRA, as I have written about extensively, with what happened on December 25th being no different. As Deutsche Welle reports, and as laid out in a Twitter thread and press release by the PTA, Google and Wikipedia have been sent notices by the regulatory body “on account of disseminating sacrilegious content through the platforms.” According to the PTA thread,

PTA has been receiving complaints regarding misleading search results associated with “Present Khalifa of Islam” and unauthentic version of Holy Quran uploaded by Ahmadiyya Community on Google Play Store.

The PTA also claimed that,

Complaints were also received regarding hosting of caricatures of Holy Prophet (PBUH*) & dissemination of misleading, wrong, deceptive and deceitful information through articles published on Wikipedia portraying Mirza Masroor Ahmad as a Muslim.

And finally,

After extensive communication on the matter, Wikipedia has been finally served with the notice to remove the sacrilegious content to avoid any legal action. In case the platforms remain non-compliant, PTA shall be constrained to initiate further action under Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016 (#PECA) and Rules 2020.

*Sigh*

First, a bit of (very general) context: the Second Amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan (September 7, 1974), under the Government of Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, declared that adherents of the Ahmadiyya faith or sect are not recognised as Muslims in Pakistan. The 1984 passage of Ordinance XX under the military dictator General Zia-ul-Haq ensured that adherents of the Ahmadiyya faith or sect would not be legally permitted to self-identify as Muslims, with severe legal consequences for doing so, including prison sentences and/or fines. When applying for a Pakistani passport or ID card, the application form in each case requires that the applicant sign an oath that they are not Ahmadis. An ongoing culture of persecution against Ahmadis has lead to many emigrating abroad, or remaining in Pakistan with a very low profile if they are unable to leave.

It is in this context that the PTA has gone after two tech platforms for ostensibly acting against the “glory of Islam”. As has been pointed out by Pakistani digital rights activists**, tech experts** and people involved with Wikipedia, the PTA and complainants have gone actively searching for “sacrilegious content” as if to be offended, and that Google - as well as other search engines - will make suggestions based on one’s search history, using algorithms.

Wikipedia, for all intents and purposes, is a massive, crowd-sourced encyclopedia where everything is in theory fact-checked as much as possible (Scots language Wikipedia scandal not withstanding). World events are recorded as apolitically as possible for historical, research and general interest purposes - an entry on someone or something does not necessarily mean that it meant to be favourable or denigrating. And if one takes a look at the “Talk” tab on most Wikipedia entries, there is also a lot of passionate discussion between “Wikipedians” about accuracy where possible.

The “hosting of caricatures of Holy Prophet (PBUH*)” by Wikipedia does not mean that the website condones or condemns the images. What Wikipedia is doing is merely providing a resource for people curious about the images - why they were published in the first place, the social context, responses, protests, the environment of anti-Muslim sentiment etc. In this context, it is necessary that the caricatures in question are hosted for better understanding as to what happened.

As this Wikipedian notes in regards to the title given to Mirza Masroor Ahmad in his own Wikipedia entry, furthermore, said entry “clearly states that this is an official title within the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. Nowhere does it say on Wikipedia that this title applies to all variants of Islam.”

Anthony Comstock’s realm of censorship ‘only’ covered the United States of America of the 19th century. The PTA, it appears, is more ambitious. It wants to be able to control what can be seen or expressed online outside Pakistan, not just in it. It is not a David against digital Goliaths, but instead a bullying entity that seeks to penalise seeking knowledge, a cornerstone of Islam and a vital part of being a Pakistani citizen.

*Peace Be Upon Him - this is a phrase of veneration and respect that is ascribed to Muhammad and the preceding prophets of Islam.

**I have not mentioned the names of the activists et al in question, for safety reasons (after speaking with others). I have paraphrased their social media comments.

No Internet for Christmas in Kashmir. Again.

In the December 14th newsletter, we looked at the continuing extension of the Indian government’s ban on internet services in Indian-administered Kashmir until the 25th of December 2020. Unsurprisingly, and depressingly, the internet shutdown in Indian-administered Kashmir continues until January 8th 2021.

As before, part of the “justification” for the extension of the ban appears to be the usual suspects (pun unintended): ‘terrorists’, ‘rumour mongering’, ‘provocative videos’ etc. As Digital Rights Kashmir point out in a December 27th tweet, on the day of the “successful” elections that the government order (and Modi) boasts about, the “internet was shut completely with hundreds of armed forces manning the streets.”

It is also important to note that in the aforementioned local election - known as the District Development Council election - in Indian-administered Kashmir, a coalition of political parties gained 112 out of a total of 280 seats, a growing sign of popular rejection of Modi’s policies in Kashmir. As a member of one of those parties told Deutsche Welle, they are “fighting a democratic battle to undo New Delhi's August 5, 2019, measures. The people have now spoken and it's for those who believe in democracy to pay heed to these voices."

In Brief: Unsafe Online in Balochistan

Barring the last few years in world politics, as well as *gestures in the general direction of 2020*, the internet has proven to drastically change the world. Being online has allowed people to access information in minutes, if not seconds, and to open up new avenues of political, cultural and philosophical discourse. Unfortunately, if one is not properly protected, it can also mean that your online presence can be hacked and your personal information stolen and used against you. For women in particular, this can result in blackmail and exhortation, with the threat of personal or manipulated information sent to their families, friends and work colleagues - dangerous in a patriarchal society such as Pakistan, for example. It’s vital, therefore, that people are taught to how protect themselves online - whether it’s just by not sharing passwords, using two-factor authentication, or watching out for possible malware.

Writing for Media Matters for Democracy’s Digital Rights Monitor, Arbaz Shah looks at the state of digital safety in the Pakistani province of Balochistan, which reportedly has the world’s highest female mortality rate, how people are at great risk online, and what is being done to help them protect themselves and reach out to others. In his article, Baloch Citizens Unsafe on the Internet, Shah speaks with young women and men that found themselves locked out of their own social media accounts, and their social media manipulated, as in the case of one video blogger who remains anonymous, which can cause problems:

Since anonymity makes it difficult to visually gauge the content of Sobia’s* video, the message can be easily manipulated. For over a month now, a Facebook page with a similar name has been uploading her videos with a different voice-over. These voiceovers are sexual in nature; a cause of a great concern for a woman coming from a traditional patriarchal set-up.

“In a patriarchal society like ours, it is already difficult for women to step into public spaces for work, to then have someone anonymous defame you like this, makes it even worse,” she says, perturbed, “I was producing such good content, I did not expect this to happen.”

Shah also speaks with digital security experts, and discusses how victims have reached out to the Federal Investigation Agency, or FIA (yes, them) for help where possible, and have had luck in most cases. As Shah writes, however,

Despite FIA’s best efforts, digital insecurity in Balochistan is a great cause for concern. Women are especially vulnerable to online harassment and defamation. And it is the responsibility of the state to provide its citizens safe online spaces.

Check out the article here.

*this is not her actual name, but a name provided to protect her identity.