Criminal defamation...

A MOVEMENT for gender justice in Pakistan is under attack because of laws that enable perpetrators to
silence women who have faced harassment and abuse. A wave of defamation proceedings has recently
been initiated against women and their supporters, seeking to muzzle a belated discussion on a matter
of grave public concern.

A handy legal tool available to those seeking to suppress voices is in the form of criminal defamation
laws. Defamation is a criminal offence in Pakistan subject to harsh penalties. Under the Pakistan Penal
Code, any person who makes a statement knowing or having reason to believe that it would “harm the
reputation” of a person is guilty of an offence subject to imprisonment of up to five years. The law
provides for few exceptions, including true statements about a person that are also for the public good.

Online defamation is subject to a specific law that deals with cybercrimes. Under the Prevention of
Electronic Crimes Act of 2016, an individual who makes an online statement that she knows is false and
is likely to harm the reputation of a person is guilty of an offence that is subject to up to three years’
imprisonment.

We are witnessing criminal defamation laws being used against voices that broke the silence on sexual
harassment.

So, what’s wrong with criminal laws that are meant to prevent vindictive or irresponsible people from
tarnishing one’s reputation? Quite a lot actually, and more and more countries around the world are
decriminalising defamation in recognition of the chilling effect of these laws on the right to freedom of
speech, a right guaranteed under Pakistan’s Constitution.

ARTICLE CONTINUES AFTER AD

Such laws are likely to be used in retaliation for raising issues of public concern, and the threat of
prosecution under these laws deters open debate and expression. In spite of the fact that the laws make
an exception for true statements that are in the public interest, the fact that they enable criminal
proceedings to be initiated against a person is sufficient to stifle free expression.

Today, we are witnessing criminal defamation laws being used to this effect against voices that broke
the silence on widespread sexual harassment, encouraged by the global #MeToo movement. Women
and their supporters who took men to task for abusing their positions of power are facing the prospect
of being dragged to court and prison. In response to this emerging trend, a leading organisation
defending the rights of women, the Women’s Action Forum, has called for a repeal of criminal
defamation laws.

While the mere existence of criminal defamation laws stifles free speech and expression, their harshness
is heightened by the arbitrariness of the law enforcement authorities that investigate and prosecute
these laws.

In response to complaints filed against them, some people report receiving summons to appear at the
authority’s office in a different city altogether within a day’s notice. A typical summons contains no
information regarding the nature of the complaint filed and in some cases demands that a person
appear before the authority with relevant documents without specifying the nature of the information
required.

A person on the receiving end of such summons is denied the opportunity to defend herself adequately
and also faces the burden of participating in an obscure and non-transparent investigation. This kind of
backlash backed by the coercive power of the state is likely to deter anyone from speaking out for fear
of facing retaliation.

Recognising their suffocating effect on free speech, leading international authorities have called for the
repeal of criminal defamation laws. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and
Protection of the Right to Free Speech has declared that criminal defamation laws are an unjustifiable
restriction on the freedom of expression and must be abolished and penal sanctions for defamation
must never be applied.

The Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the world’s largest regional security
organisation, has also condemned criminal defamation laws. The OSCE representative on the freedom of
media has noted that the mere existence of these laws poses a threat to press freedom and therefore
violates the right to free expression even where they are rarely used. The European Court of Human
Rights has asserted on numerous occasions that states may not impose prison sentences for defamation
on matters of public or political concern.
Since 2000, more than 30 states have either decriminalised defamation or taken significant steps in that
direction. In the South Asia region, Sri Lanka and Maldives decriminalised defamation in 2002 and 2009
respectively in recognition of the fact that these laws are inconsistent with the state’s responsibility to
respect and promote the rights to free expression and speech.

Repeal of Pakistan’s criminal defamation laws will not eliminate protection against false and malicious
attacks on people’s reputations. The Defamation Ordinance 2002, a civil statute that holds a person
liable to pay damages for defamatory statements may still be invoked by those seeking redress against
slander or libel directed towards them. Being a civil law, the defamation ordinance does not expose
persons to the harsh sanctions of criminal penalties such as imprisonment or the arbitrariness of
criminal law enforcement authorities. A civil defamation law that includes adequate exceptions for good
faith statements involving matters of public concern and is applied reasonably constitutes a more
proportional protection against damage to a person’s reputation.

Not only do criminal defamation laws violate fundamental rights, they also stand in the way of open
discussion and debate about matters that are of public and political concern. In recent months, brave
women and their supporters have made sexual harassment, violence and abuse a topic of much-needed
public discussion. Necessary dialogue and activism must not be stifled by unconstitutional and
repressive laws.

The writer is a lawyer based in Karachi...

Closing mind....

THE Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government recently issued and then took back a directive about imposing
abaya/burqa or chaddar on all girls coming to and going from (government) schools in some of its
districts.

From time to time, a number of public- and private-sector universities have issued guidelines and/or
rules for dress codes, usually for women, disallowing jeans, tights, T-shirts, etc on campus. There have
been circulars about segregated seating arrangements in classrooms as well as in public spaces within
university premises. There have been circulars even on the distance that young men and women are
supposed to maintain between themselves even when talking to each other. Some circulars have even
tried to minimise or eliminate male and female interactions and conversations.
A recent example was the circular from a university, doing the rounds on social media, asking concerned
faculty and departments to ensure that classes are scheduled in a way that students should not have
any ‘free’ or unstructured time between classes. It advised that the schedules should also make sure
that even the distances students have to move between classes are minimised. Both of these directives
are not really to ensure ease for students; they are to ensure that students do not have the time and
opportunity to interact with each other outside of class. The circular also instructed faculty to ensure
that the number of assignments given to students are increased to the point that students are kept as
busy as possible and would not have time for socialising.

These attempts at managing dress, interaction, socialisation and other activities do not stem from the
perspective of reducing harassment and/or ensuring a higher quality education — they are actually
attempts to police minds. They are attempts at trying to dictate what students should and can think, and
how they should and can act. But they are also coming from a place of deep distrust in young people:
the youth cannot be trusted to manage their thinking for themselves, they cannot manage their own
social lives and they are not to be trusted with unstructured time. Most importantly, these directives are
ways of ensuring what the youth in society should or should not think. Unlike what is said by many, I do
not think these directives have a lot to do with culture and traditions, or attempts at conserving them.

ARTICLE CONTINUES AFTER AD

Attempts to control every aspect of student life betray a deep distrust of young people.

Universities are approached quite regularly (though mostly informally) by various state agencies to
inquire about certain on-campus activities of the faculty and students. Various agencies keep an eye on
what is taught in universities in general, and sometimes in specific courses as well. Social media, we
know, is already heavily monitored in Pakistan and even managed. The generation of trends on social
media have been studied to show significant interventions and attempts at management. At times,
universities have been told not to hold specific events, seminars and/or conferences. Sometimes
agencies have even gone to the extent of trying to dictate which ‘experts’ should or should not be
invited for talks, and even which authors should not be taught in universities as opposed to others who
are more acceptable.

All of this is definitely not about ensuring student safety, or discouraging harassment, or preserving
culture and traditions. They are definitely not attempts to ensure a better quality of education in our
educational institutions. They are, quite clearly, attempts to control minds and the development of
minds. These are battles to generate and control certain narratives.
Though odious, all this would be without contradiction, but the problem is that we always decry our
students getting a poor quality of education, and say that we are not producing people who have the
ability to think critically, who have the ability to think for themselves, who can be thought of as action
leaders in all fields of endeavour, and who have the ability to raise the quality of our human resource as
a whole.

This is the real bind, and the citizens of the country (and I include all decision-makers in the citizenry)
need to think hard about this problem. Critical thinking, independent thinking and the ability to take
initiative and risk, the ability to work with others, the ability to develop communal approaches — all
skills and capabilities that we want our youth to possess — cannot develop when they do not get the
opportunity to practise them. We cannot even teach these if students do not get to practise them. It is
not a switch that you can turn on and off: now use your critical thinking, now switch it off.

Do we want to develop our youth or not? The Higher Education Commission is trying to add some ‘core’
elements to all four-year undergraduate degrees in the country. The idea behind a core is that it will
introduce the students to a whole breadth of courses in the sciences, humanities, arts and social
sciences, producing professionals who not only know their own area, but have some exposure to other
areas as well, and have the ability to connect things.

Both cannot happen. Either we can produce automatons who cannot think for themselves, or we can try
to produce individuals who take responsibility for their own thinking and actions. But if we do not use
the space/time we have in schools and universities to provide this canvas to students, how will they ever
learn?

We need to have a more open debate on the issues involved. A big question is: who is going to lead and
curate the debate? University faculties might have to begin the process and curate the debate, but the
discussion will have to become larger and more inclusive. We have to find the right vehicles for doing
this.

The writer is a senior research fellow at the Institute of Development and Economic Alternatives, and an
associate professor of economics at Lums, Lahore.
Sectarian divide..

IN our times, there is an impression that the sectarian divide is increasing due to many factors of a
political, religious, economic and ideological nature. I, for one, argue that the sectarian divide is
thankfully shrinking, though not at an ideal pace.

We experience it, as we look around us, among our friends, families, schools, universities, hospitals,
political parties, NGOs, etc. All over the world, Muslims, as well as other faith communities, are slowly
embracing each other in different ways.

Wherever there is freedom, youngsters are simply reaching out to communities to socialise with each
other on the basis of a shared identity. Many of the younger generations not born in Muslim societies,
for example, in the West, do not always carry the baggage of sectarianism or communalism. They feel
proud of being a Canadian or an American and believe this is good enough to live peacefully.

The élan vital of our times is to build bridges and remove walls. This does not mean that sectarianism or
communalism have completely disappeared — not at all. But the point is that today, in many parts of
the world, Muslim — as well as other communities — are working with faith communities, sharing their
resources, and working for the good of all.

ARTICLE CONTINUES AFTER AD

The times of cursing each other on theological grounds are over.

Similarly, our sister religious communities, such as Christians, have also learnt to live together in
sectarian harmony after horrible communal wars, without forsaking their traditional outlooks. Today, we
hardly hear about any protracted wars or communal clashes among different sects, though the
differences still exist. They have learnt now the peaceful way of coexistence and mutual acceptance.

Coming back to the Islamic context, the Quran mystically informs us that the beginning and end of all
humans is like one soul (30:21). It advises us to know each other (49:13), and reflect over the diversity of
creation as God’s “aaya” (30:22). Muslims have a powerful inspiration to come together rather than
move away from each other. In one of his inspirational verses, Maulana Rumi rightly advises, “you have
been commanded to connect with, rather than disconnect from the people”.
In order to further squeeze the separating space, and develop more inclusive societies, we could
consider the following suggestions: first, see each community as a ‘perspective’ or a firqa, or a branch of
a gigantic tree. Branching out is an integral part of all traditions. Loving one’s community does not mean
hating the rest. Each sect has evolved having a different interpretation of the same dimensions of Islam.
Farhad Daftary, a scholar of Islamic studies, rightly calls these the “communities of interpretation”.

The times of cursing each other on theological grounds, thankfully, are over. We should reject historical
prejudices and traditional hate speech about different communities. We should understand
communities the way they understand themselves, not the way their detractors see them. Farid Esack’s
Quran, Liberation and Pluralism: An Islamic Perspective is a worthwhile reference on this subject.

We should now make a difference between the ‘propaganda material’ and ‘knowledge’ about different
sects. Exceptions apart, historically, a lot of distortions have gone into sectarian polemics in a milieu of
mutual distrust, dynastic support or enmity, ethnic prejudices, and judgmental attitudes even within the
same sect.

In these attempts, religion has been treated as private property, and sole propriety rights were claimed
over it, while many with a different interpretation of Islam have been threatened with the contempt of
takfir. The contemptuous argument of the narrow-minded has been ‘accept and practise my
interpretation of your faith, or else…’. This could lead to a similar response — ‘no mine is the absolute
truth’. See the arrogance.

Second, times have changed; people have changed; issues have changed. We live now in a relatively
peaceful environment, sharing our resources, problems and destinies, regardless of who we are. Instead
of boasting too much about the brilliance of one’s own sect (all communities do that), we should focus
on action (amal) as to who is doing the greatest good to others. Abdulaziz Sachedina’s book The Islamic
Roots of Democratic Pluralism argues that the Quran advises us to compete in good deeds rather than
debating difference (5:48; 2:62).

So, in order to further shrink sectarian divisions, let us build our future on the wider premise of
humanity and humanistic values informed by the Islamic faith. What this means is that we should
connect with all human beings as one soul. The dictum ‘milo aur milao’ — connect with and connect the
people — should be the motto of our times so that we can further bridge the sectarian divide.
The writer is an educationist with an interest in the study of religion and philosophy.

Published in Dawn, September 20th, 2019