Harassment as a legal concept finds its origins in, and is deeply embedded in, the context of the workplace. This is not to say that harassment only takes place in those spaces, but simply because the concept was first articulated legally in the context of workplace discrimination and is thus finds its first formal articulation in the Protection against Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2010. This conception of harassment takes it as a form of sex discrimination. There are other articulations of harassment as well, such as a breach of privacy or an affront of dignity.

Harassment, unfortunately, is a fact of life for many women in spaces other than the place of work. Most public spaces are hostile environments for women. It is for this reason that street harassment is also criminalised under section 509 the PPC in Pakistan. It comes as no surprise that cyber spaces are no different when it comes to the experience of women and minorities. Out of the 3027 cybercrime cases reported to the FIA during August 2014- August 2015, 45% involved electronic violence against women (e-VAW).

 

Given the relative newness of online spaces and platforms, and their ever-evolving nature, cyber harassment as a concept has not been as well defined as its other counterparts in other spaces. Prior to the passing of the cybercrime bill, much of the anti-harassment work was being done by section 36 of the Electronic Transactions Ordinance, 2002 (ETO) relating to privacy of information. Privacy is an interesting jurisprudential lens to view anti-harassment legislation through. This currently is the approach taken in US jurisprudence through the developing field of the right to sexual privacy. However in order for cyber harassment to be effectively tackled through this legal paradigm, there needs to be developed jurisprudence around the right to privacy.

Under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2015 (PECA, or the Cybercrime Act), section 21 (offences against modesty of a natural person or minor) and section 24 (cyber stalking) deal with the issue of online harassment. These laws, while a step in the right direction towards talking online violence seriously, are both overboard in their reach and inadequate in effectively tackling harassment in online spaces when taken at face value.

The laws have been widely criticised for the vague, and often careless, language that they contain. The definitions relating of modesty of natural persons are meant to capture non-consensual pornographic content. However over-reliance on concepts such as modesty and the explicit absence of the legal requirement of consent leaves something to be desired. Furthermore, cyberbullying legislation have faced many constitutional challenges in many other jurisdictions around the world—challenges being mounted mainly from a free speech and censorship point of view.[1] It is up to the interpreters of these laws, by cybercrime lawyers and designated judges, to develop jurisprudence that benefits the victims of these crimes without impacting free speech. The broad language of the sections can be reined in by thoughtful interpretation and reasoned discussion on the contours of free speech in a democratic society.

The definition of “cyber stalking” under section 24 of PECA covers a wide range of activity. Since this is a criminal statute, interpretations of the section need to guard against actions which do not rise to the level of criminal reprimand—a threshold that the text of the Act does not lay out itself. Furthermore, judges need to interpret the section with the true spirit of consent jurisprudence. This is particularly important when it comes to section 24(d) where even if the initial photograph or video was made with consent, it is the non-consensual distribution that needs to be criminalised. While non-consensual capturing of images should also be penalised in and of itself, the illegality of non-consensual distribution should operate independent of and decoupled from the capturing of the images.

 

When it comes to online harassment, there is a particular element of urgency given the reputational damage at stake and the possibility of duplication of information. This is where the procedural aspects of the law play a significant role in taking down content in a timely manner. Getting images removed from the internet is the immediate need of many complainants, and the PECA does not speak to this urgency. The aggrieved person can apply to the Pakistan Telecommunications Authority (PTA) to remove images implicated by sections 21 and 24, however there is no mechanism in place to ensure that this happens before the reputational damage is done.

In the United States, removal of images is done through the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 through a notice of copyright infringement. This is an interesting method to tackle online harassment, one not without its demerits. However again, given the dearth of case law and legal work around concepts of property in digital spaces it is unclear if such a mechanism is even feasible in Pakistan.

 

Returning to the concept of harassment in general, it would be useful to see the phenomenon of online harassment from the perspective of the right to equality. Just like harassment at the workplace is a form sex discrimination, it can be argued that given that harassment in cyber spaces mostly effects women and marginalised communities, it is a violation of their right to equal access to and enjoyment of the internet.[2] This conceptualisation is not found within the PECA, which is primarily a criminal statute, but a rights-based approach to digital rights needs to view online harassment as an issue of civil rights.

 

Lastly, another aspect of the law that is particularly egregious for victims of online harassment is the lack of anonymity in reporting instances of such activity. The humiliation of reliving the experience that the victim has been through and the indignity of turning in evidence, sometimes involving sexually explicit material, to predominantly male police officers and judges can be a traumatic process. Law enforcement agencies and the subsequent court system needs to be cognizant of these social and psychological aspects when investigating and adjudicating such cases—a consideration that should inform their legal analysis and judgment.

 

This legal note originally appeared in "Three Pillars" law magazine (January, 2017).

 

 

[1] Section 66A of the Indian the Information Technology Act, 2000 was struck down on grounds of violating free speech in the 2015 case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India.

[2] Danielle Citron, “Hate Crimes in Cyberspace”. Harvard University Press (2014).

 

 

A population and territory that already belongs in the fringes of our imagination has receded from our digital spaces without most Pakistanis noticing. It may come as a shock to most of us that internet services in Federally Administrated Tribal Areas (FATA) have been suspended since June 12, 2016.

 

Meet Rahim Shah Shinwari, he tweets about the internet blackout in FATA nearly every day, compensating for the silenced digital voices from FATA. He highlighted the problems that the residents of FATA face in the face of this ban.

 

Digital spaces are increasingly coming under scrutiny and regulation all over Pakistan, however the complete shutdown of internet services in FATA points towards a different and worrisome form of policing and regulation.

 

We spoke to local journalist Rahat Shinwari as well who said that the ban has put “FATA back in the stone age”. He advocates for internet rights and has written about the issue in the Daily Ausaf:

 

The summer without Internet

The internet shutdown began on June 12, 2016 following the closing of the Pak-Afghan border after an incident of firing from the Afghan side on June 11, 2016. The authorities took immediate and disproportionate action by suspending mobile-based internet services in all the agencies of FATA: this includes 3/4G and portable internet devices—which constituted the primary sources of internet access in FATA given its availability and the fact that it was cheap (both in terms of rates and the lack of setting up costs: you only need a basic smartphone to use mobile internet). In wake of this shutdown, the only source of internet is PTCL broadband. According to our research, broadband connections formed less than 5% of the internet access in the area.

DRF has learnt that the process of shutdowns preceded June, 2016 and had begun intermittently as early as March of the same year. The shutdown was first experienced by the citizens of Bajaur and the regions bordering Afghanistan.

 

A short history of the internet

The internet arrived in FATA in 2005, but it proliferated properly after 2014. This is not the first time that the residents of FATA faced an internet shutdown. During the military operations in South Waziristan and other agencies in FATA, internet access was blocked from 2010 to 2012. In fact, during those years, even PTCL services were shutdown. However the sting of the shutdown has been felt more this time around given the explosion of the internet and introduction of 3/4G services by 2016.

 

An overwhelming majority of the users of internet in FATA are the younger generation. Nevertheless, based on interviews, internet usage was widespread in other age groups. Women were also using the internet in huge numbers on their mobile devices.

 

The internet was used to communicate with family members in other countries, such as workers in the Gulf States and students in Europe and the US. Businessmen were also taking advantage of the internet as a means of promotion and sales.

Importantly, the internet was also used for political engagement and awareness campaigns. FATA was not immune to trends all over the world, and the rise of citizen journalism and accessibility to e-newspapers meant that people were starting to question conventional narratives and hold public authorities accountable. The political campaign and mobilization against the Frontier Crimes Regulations (FCR) took on a renewed fervour because of the internet. The political consciousness in digital spaces was such a concern that some political agents threated to take away internet privileges from the population if criticism of corruption by the authorities did not abate.

 

The internet was also the sole source of entertainment for much of the population. Owing to the fact that access to electricity is limited and subject to frequent shutdowns, many households run on solar panels where they do not own television sets and prefer to watch broadcasts on easy to charge mobile devices. Often times, the only way to watch a live cricket match—a national obsession—is through internet streaming services. It is a real tragedy that the residents in FATA are not able to watch live cricket matches in 2017!

 

Silence from the state

Since the shutdown there has been no official explanation for its persistence or any satisfactory justification regarding the denial of internet services to a significant portion of Pakistan’s population. The residents of FATA and youth groups such as the Khyber Youth Forum have raised questions, but their protests have been met with complete silence.

 

When individuals have approached the government, they have been told that the shutdown is a result of security concerns. This nebulous defence of “security” is a familiar one in Pakistan, particularly to the residents of FATA. Under the blanket rationality of security, internet services have been denied to all the agencies in FATA. Furthermore, the particular incident that led to the shutdown has long been addressed as peace was restored within a month of the shutdown.

It has also been asserted by the authorities that internet services have been banned because the internet was being used as a tool of propaganda by militants and terrorists. This reason employs the warped logic of heavy-handed governance. If the internet is used for propaganda, the solution is not a complete ban on the entire medium of communication and expression. If the government wants to counter extremist narratives, there are other ways to go about it rather than denying speech to an entire population. Furthermore, the internet can be used a propaganda tool in other parts of Pakistan as well, it is peculiar that FATA have to bear the brunt of this misuse. Furthermore, it is worrying that the entire region of FATA being seen as a homogenous with a uniform threat level, which echoes the logic of the FCR and colonial practice of collective punishment.

These reasons given by the government makes sense only when one considers this shutdown in the context of the history of FATA as a periphery region that has been denied equal rights under the Constitution of Pakistan and made subject to a repressive and colonial legal and political system since partition.

 

 

Alternates

In wake of the internet showdown there is a gaping hole in terms of access to information and news. While the local media is working to fill in the gaps, even journalists in the area are seriously hindered in their ability to stay up to date and access sources without proper access to the internet.

 

The “internet café” culture from the 90s and early 2000s is returning to FATA, out of necessity rather than nostalgia. Enterprising dhabas have started to invest in internet broadband infrastructure, where one can use the internet at the rate of Rs. 50 per hour. This hefty amount means that internet access, when rarely available, is too expensive for a majority of the population. Furthermore, given the culture of public spaces and dhabas, these facilities are largely accessible exclusively to men given the cultural and gender norms of the area. Often times people have to travel great distances to simply use the internet; some students have to travel all the way to Peshawar just to fill out a job or university application. The burden of this internet shutdown is falling disproportionately on the young, women and financially disadvantaged.

 

Conclusion

With demands for the repeal of the FCR gaining momentum and the headway made by the FATA Reforms Committee, there is a definite push towards extending fundamental rights under the constitution to FATA. Digital rights need to be included as part of the proposed package of reforms for FATA. It is odd that on one hand that the government seeks to eliminate the oppressive regime of the FCR, and on the other is still denying basic internet services to FATA.

Digital rights activists also need to keep the regions on the periphery in mind when advocating for internet rights. While suspension of internet and mobile services for a single day in urban areas raises outrage, the continued and unjustified denial of services to the people of FATA has largely gone ignored by mainstream discourse.

Author: Hija Kamran

Nearly three months ago, people woke up to the news of Qandeel Baloch's murder by her brother in what was said to be an honour killing. The case caught the attention of the media and sparked debates around honour killings, privacy and women in the public eye. Recently, however, after the reports on her parents’ plight for help, it became apparent that the media attention had not translated into support for those left behind in wake of her murder.

Digital Rights Foundation (DRF), after a crowd funding campaign, went to Multan to meet Qandeel’s parents (who were accompanied by their lawyer), only to find out that her 80 year old father Azeem Khan and mother Anwar Bibi were struggling to live in their house due to non-payment of rent – the same house where Qandeel, their sole support, was murdered. They left Multan soon after their daughter’s tragic death and were living in their village, Shah Sadar Din in Dera Ghazi Khan. The rent of the house and utility bills, however, were immediately paid with the help of the funding DRF raised in only three days with the help of Women’s Action Forum, The Feminist Collective and individual donors.

Qandeel was brutally strangled to death because she chose to lead her life differently. She had always been the victim of lack of journalistic ethics, when media personalities called her on TV for extra TRPs, and when her real identity, including her CNIC and Passport, was revealed to the world. She feared for her safety and sought police protection, which was denied to her.

Her lawyer, Safdar Shah told us about his conversation with Qandeel right before her death, where she raised concerns about her safety after her photos with Mufti Abdul Qavi had emerged. The conversation was later leaked to the media. The media even converged on her village, interviewing locals and disrespecting Qandeel’s wishes not to have her identity made public. This naturally raises the question of where does one draw a line between public curiosity and the right to an individual’s privacy. In a world where anyone can be tracked just by the pattern of their activities on social media, cashing in at the expense of somebody’s privacy meant, in this case, to put them at the mercy of murderers and so-called “flag bearers” of honour. In terms of the stakes that privacy holds, Qandeel’s story is not unique.

However, just three months down the road most of us have already moved on. But her parents are still in the same state of shock and misery after their own son killed their beloved daughter and the sole breadwinner of the household. As her father, Azeem Khan shared his ordeal with DRF, one could tell by his expressions, the persecution they’ve received from the people who were once dear to them. Azeem, who lost his leg in an accident six months ago, burst into tears as he recalled how Qandeel had planned to get him a prosthetic leg and in fact had plans to take him to the doctor the morning she was found murdered.

Watch as Qandeel's parents talk about the many aspects of Qandeel's life:

A woman who selflessly supported her family, who didn’t care about what others think of her; a woman who stood for her rights to expression and advocated for the rights of women, was often misunderstood to be an attention seeker. She was in fact a one woman army on a bigger mission of her own – to break the stereotypical image of women in a conservative society. Had she not done it, her poverty-stricken family would otherwise be living a miserable life. This very woman was killed by the man who she called her brother, who she’d been feeding and putting a roof over since she had started earning. And the feeble justification of this brutal murder was honour.

5789df560c7d7

Last week, however, the parliament approved anti-honour killing bill which was in fact catalysed after Qandeel’s murder. In a country where legal proceedings are generally slow, where some murders are even celebrated; associate ‘honour’ or ‘religion’ as the motive and you have a criminal glorified as a hero. And once the people are done celebrating a murderer, they start threatening the complainant and the heir of the victim to drop charges in exchange of blood money. However, in Qandeel’s case, after the state became a party in the FIR; if the parents were to withdraw the case, the state would step in and Section 311 of the Pakistan Penal Code (Ta'zir after waiver or compounding of right of qisas in qatl-i-amd) becomes active where the court retains the discretion to punish the defendant under ta’zir (secular punishment) for 10-14 years.

Nonetheless, under the new act of anti-honour killing, even though the life sentence of twelve and a half years is compulsory, the killer can be pardoned by the relatives of the victim. In such cases, there’s only so much laws can do. The strongly established ideologies of the people and the personal beliefs towards the principles they consider larger than life – say, honour and religion – usually affect the efficient applicability of the laws of the land. But all that can be done for now is to make sure that there’s no more violence against women, and that there’s no other Azeem Khan mourning the brutal death of another Qandeel Baloch.

In her own words,

"If you have a strong will power, definitely, nothing can let you go down."
RIP, Qandeel.

If you own an iPhone, please a take a minute to read the following warning:

On Thursday, August 25th 2016, Apple released an urgent security update iOS, the operating system upon which your iPhones, iPads and Apple Watches run. This security update has been designed to fix three huge security gaps which exist on certain Apple devices. The gaps in iOS security can allow hackers to access almost every form of data on your device, without your knowledge, including: text messages, calender entries, emails, your location, your photos and much more. Most disturbingly, the software can remotely activate your device’s camera and microphone, without your knowledge. What Citizen Labs and others are calling “one of the most sophisticated pieces of cyberespionage software we’ve ever seen” has already been used in an attempt to infiltrate the iPhone of an UAE-based human rights activist, and may not have been discovered otherwise.

For your own safety, please update your devices, and ask others to do so as well. If you are uncertain as to how to do so, please do the following:

1. Go to “Settings.”

2. Choose “General.”

3. Click on “Software Update.”

4. Agree to update to iOS 9.3.5.

5. Done.

To read about this software, and what it means, please click below:

https://citizenlab.org/2016/08/million-dollar-dissident-iphone-zero-day-nso-group-uae/

https://motherboard.vice.com/read/government-hackers-iphone-hacking-jailbreak-nso-group

From a security perspective, Apple devices are regarded as being more secure than a majority of Android ones, especially with security measures implemented by Apple in favour of users. It is important, however, that people are not complacent - update security measures on your devices; update the latest patches; download apps only from official vendors i.e. the Apple App Store and Google's Play Store; do not automatically click on links or open attachments in messages from people you do not know, or whose email addresses you do not recognise.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

The Prevention of Electronic Crimes Bill (PECB) has now become a reality. The National Assembly has approved a flawed and highly problematic drafted bill, and making it law.

This incarnation of the PECB had taken onboard a number of amended provisions that took onboard civil society input, but some of the most frightening and draconian provisions have still not been removed.

Digital Rights Foundation's Executive Director, Nighat Dad, said that "The cyber crime bill is a disaster that is being allowed to envelop the country. Our lawmakers have gone ahead with deeply problematic provisions despite being told time and again what the consequences may be."

This is a bill that has been roundly condemned by respected international and Pakistani human rights organisations and rights experts, including the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, David Kaye. In December 2015, David Kaye wrote that if adopted,

"The Bill would also set penalties that would be disproportionate to the infractions and could serve, in practice, to stifle the right to freedom of expression.”

The law contains provisions that violate freedom of expression, and most people still have no idea as to what the law holds for them, how it will impact their lives. The terms and definitions that populate the bill, such as that for “cyberstalking”, have been defined so loosely, that they can be interpreted extremely broadly, ensnaring anyone. The government and the designers of the bill have not taken steps to make people aware of the bill and its consequences, thereby ensuring that Pakistani citizens are now vulnerable and at risk from a heavily flawed and punitive bill.

The bill has been framed countless times as ostensibly protecting the people of Pakistan from cyberterrorism, hate speech, and other electronic crimes. In reality, however, the manner in which the bill defines each is exasperating in its vagueness, and lack of nuance or understanding of freedom of expression rights of Pakistanis.

One provision, Section 34, gives the Pakistan Telecommunications Authority (PTA) generous powers to remove or block access to information, as it sees fit,

“if it considers it necessary in the interest of the glory of Islam or the integrity, security or defence of Pakistan or any part thereof, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality”

The PTA has thus so far not demonstrated that it is capable of making such a decision, one that has serious ramifications for the democratic right to the freedom of expression in Pakistan, in a manner that takes into account what the consequences can and will be. In the past blanket bans that have been instituted under the garb of “morality”’ have ended up creating more problems than fixing them. For instance, doctors lost access to valuable and vital online content that related to anything having to do with the female anatomy.

This legislation has been framed as protecting the people. The reality is that it can be used to heavily censor the internet that Pakistanis are familiar with, to ensure that democratic discourse in Pakistan loses another safe space. The state will not need to step in and intimidate people to refrain from the “wrong sort” of speech online: the draconian penalties described in the bill will do the government’s work. It ensures that what safe spaces the minorities of Pakistan had found online will cease to exist, or come under heavy fire. People that were afraid of taking to the streets would use the internet and social media to make sure that their voices were heard. When this safe space is taken away by a state that purports to be protecting them, where else can they and others go?

There has been a degree of apathy and exhaustion. The belief that the law will not be implemented anyway, so why all the fuss? The fuss is that it retains the very great potential of being abused by many people, given its overly broad language and heavy penalties. It can be used to curb freedom of expression that would call truth to power, rather than help the people as the bill’s supporters claim. It is that potential for encroaching abuse and overreach of powers that Digital Rights Foundation and others have been fighting against.

The Government of Pakistan has said that this legislation is meant to protect Pakistanis. The reality is that it criminalises the fundamental rights that are enshrined in the Constitution of Pakistan, taking the nation further down the path to total surveillance, and the lost of freedom.

The Prevention of Electronic Crimes Bill 2016, passed on August 11, 2016.

A few days ago, the newly appointed Chief Minister of Sindh, Murad Ali Shah, created a Whatsapp group, with the express purpose of keeping an eye on the daily activities of members of the Sindh Assembly’s cabinet (who have been added to the group) and to stay up to date on their tasks.

At first glance, this is a fairly innocuous and useful decision by the Chief Minister - it appears to save time and money on the part of taxpayers; it is a more efficient and effective means of getting Sindh’s lawmakers to coordinate matters; default end-to-end encryption ensures that their conversations are protected. Pakistan’s government is not known for its adoption of new technology, contrary to oft-repeated announcements to the contrary. In light of that, would this not be a good move?

There are problems however, once we look more closely at the situation.

One issue, for instance, pertains to the backing up of Whatsapp conversations and media. While conversations themselves are encrypted, and assuming that members of the group are indeed aware that their conversations will be backed up, the backup formats used - depending on the device used - lead to their data being exposed. iCloud (for Whatsapp on iPhone) and Google Drive (for Android users) can allow Whatsapp conversations to be accessed in plain text format, as outlined here. Usage of Web Whatsapp - a feature that lets you read and type Whatsapp messages through a desktop or laptop browser - furthermore, ensures that messages shared can be read if the computer itself is available to anyone with access.

Access to information is a key factor here, especially in regards to who should or should have it. People that have shared documents et al in the group and have downloaded them to their devices will still keep them on said devices if they leave the group or indeed the government, whether by choice or by dismissal.

Public access to information is also impacted by total reliance on closed communication solutions like Whatsapp. The minutes of physical meetings held by government departments, can be accessed by the public if post on their respective websites under the proactive disclosure - virtual group meetings cannot be, unless a member of a Whatsapp group decides to provide the information themselves.

The Chief Minister is not the only lawmaker to utilise Whatsapp or other forms of messaging apps; it is more than likely that Whatsapp, Blackberry Messenger, Skype etc are being used, whether for official communications or for personal matters. What must be taken into account, by lawmakers is that if they support legislation like the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Bill - which has the potential to severely impact the privacy and freedom of expression rights of millions of inhabitants of Pakistan - they too run the risk of their privacy being under attack. Decades of harsh military rule have over the years resulted in the imprisonment of activists and politicians in the past, who are now respected members of the government, in part because of their freedom of expression and their right to privacy being violated.

Low-cost smartphones, fairly affordable data and internet packages, and open-source mobile operating systems in the form of Android have ensured that more people in Pakistan and across the globe have access to the internet and digital services than even a decade ago. As of May 2016, there are more than 133 million mobile subscribers in Pakistan. In this context, it is important for lawmakers to embrace newer technologies, in order to not just communicate more effectively with the public, but to also ensure that there is greater transparency of governmental procedure, and greater appreciation for the rights to freedom of expression and privacy.

This post was written by Hamza Irshad & Adnan Ahmad

For Immediate Release:

Islamabad, 28 July 2016: Amendments proposed by Senate’s Standing Committee on IT and Telecommunications have failed to address key concerns regarding human rights violations raised by various civil society stakeholders. Civil Rights organisations that engaged with the senate committee on the matter, express concerns about the draft of Pakistan Electronic Crime Bill,2016, approved by the Senate Standing Committee on IT and Telecommunication.

Civil rights and industry stakeholders have engaged with the legislators since mid 2015, when this bill was first tabled in the National Assembly. Stakeholders have provided detailed inputs and recommendations, highlighting the potential human rights violations and suggesting alternates in line with constitutional provisions and international best practices. However, the Ministry of IT, has repeatedly dismissed these concerns.

The continued engagement with the civil society and other stakeholders has been possible due to the involvement of some parliamentarians, to whom we remain grateful. However, the most recent set of amendments is disheartening, as it continues to ignore the fundamental concerns raised during the consultations. We feel that the engagement and handwork of the stakeholders is being set aside to push through a law that is contradictory to constitutional rights, international best practices and lacks adequate safeguards and oversight to protect the citizens of Pakistan.

On the contrary, newer and harsher amendments have been added in the approved version. We are particularly concerned by the continued inclusion of Section 34, the dilution of real time surveillance processes that contradicts the process defined in Investigation for Fair Trial Act, the subjective description of hate speech and inclusion of an amendment that allows unfettered power to the Federal Investigation Agency, to generate and submit forensic evidence, instead of relying on an independent body as earlier recommended.

We would like to point out that all the meetings outlined by the committee, along with their given deadlines, were honoured by the civil society. We are deeply disturbed and alarmed that despite our best efforts the bill continues to incorporate provisions that pose a threat to our fundamental rights.

If passed in its current form the bill would be detrimental to civil liberties in Pakistan. It will allow unfettered power to law enforcement agencies and an executive authority to crackdown and criminalize free speech online.

As this approved version goes to the Senate for discussion, we urge Senators to stand up for our civil liberties enshrined in the Constitution of Pakistan and take into consider the amendments suggested by the relevant stakeholders, for the sake of continuation of the democratic process.

Signatures:

Digital Rights Foundation

Bolo Bhi

Bytes For all

Media Matters for Democracy

Freedom Network

IRADA

Courting The Law

NexDegree (Private) Ltd

Tahira Abdullah - Activist

Jibran Nasir – Activist

Never Forget Pakistan

Human Rights Commission of Pakistan

On July 15 Qandeel Baloch was murdered by her brother, claiming that it was a matter of family ‘honour’. One of Pakistan’s most famous and outspoken social media stars, Ms. Baloch used social media platforms to express her life, where she would share her thoughts, opinions and visual media. Her posts would at times poked fun at male Pakistani public figures and celebrities, which were often an exposé of the “hypocrisies of a patriarchal society dominated by a narrow-minded, self-righteous moral police”, according to the the blog No Country For Bold Women. This self-righteousness, a part of public media and social media discourse in Pakistan, regards the right to privacy, to anonymity, as mere obstacles to getting the “truth” out, regardless of the very real consequences that it can have. By violating her right to privacy and broadcasting detailed personal information, without any understanding of what that could entail, a woman was killed - and there still no conversation about privacy in Pakistan.

The self-righteousness that killed Qandeel still persists in the wake of her death, however, and thus compels us to question the facilitating factors at play - not only does the murder continue to be remarked upon with heavy victim-blaming sentiments, there are opinions that have voiced support for her murderer, and against her “lifestyle”. These remain, for the most part, unchallenged in the media. These include statements by senior commentators such as Haroon Rashid at Dunya News and Shahid Masood at ARY, among others, both of whose statements appear to blame her for her own murder; politicians such as Fauzia Kasuri of PTI, who had condemned her death but made misogynistic statements about her lifestyle, and that she required ‘psychological counselling’. Fauzia Kasuri and a few others have since deleted their statements on social media platforms, but there exist receipts on blogs such as No Country For Bold Women.

The constant refrain in the wake of Qandeel Baloch’s death has been that while it was her brother killed her, the media and Pakistani society have her blood on their hands - this is not an unfounded opinion. The provocative and often adversarial nature of the media in Pakistan has often blurred the line between what is in the public interest, and what conforms to journalistic ethics, for the sake of greater viewer or readership figures. The public and the media can be fickle in regards to celebrity, regardless of geography, often looking to break down figures that they may have celebrated or reported on in the past, by uncovering and broadcasting personal information that can put them at risk. This isdangerous enough in the wrong circumstances.The socially conservative and patriarchal nature of Pakistani society ensures that anyone that publicly declares themselves to be feminist and progressive, and who point out the hypocrisies of said society, will find themselves fearing for their lives, without protection from the state, even when they have requested said protection. The lack of proper measures for the right to - and the protection of - personal privacy, as well as a basic society-wide lack of understanding of the concept of privacy, played just as much a part in Qandeel Baloch’s death as the flawed and fragile hyper-masculine concept of ‘honour’.

“Qandeel’s Cinderella Story: She is not a Baloch her real name is Fouzia Azeem she is dishonouring Baloch people”. This tweet, which since has been deleted, was by Hamir Mir, an influential veteran journalist with Geo News in Pakistan. This lapse in journalism ethics particularly galling as being a veteran journalist, Mr. Mir has found himself in danger on a number of occasions for his reportage and commentary, and should have understood the necessity of anonymity and safeguarding the privacy of an individual. By revealing her real name, it highlighted a disturbing lapse of journalistic ethics, and opened her up to greater risk of attack.

In the days leading up to her death, a man claiming to be an ex-husband approached the media, revealing details about their marriage and child. Ms. Baloch confirmed the marriage, and went on to explain that it was an abusive situation that she had to leave. Furthermore a politician in Dera Gazi Khan sent her a legal order, “demanding that she apologise for ‘bringing shame’ to the Baloch race, stop using Baloch as her surname and pay him Rs. 50 million [...] otherwise, strict action will be taken against you." This led to death threats that prompted her to seek protection from the government, to no end, caused her to make the decision to leave Pakistan after Eid-ul-Fitr, with her parents.

This cannot and should not be placed solely on the shoulders of one journalist, however, but a wider media culture: on June 23, Daily Pakistan ran a profile on its website (still available at the time of writing), that carried had a scanned image of her Pakistani passport, with her details readily available and easily exploited. Further to this, an Urdu-language piece by Siasat TV extensively exploited Qandeel’s private life for their viewers - as with the Dunya article, this too is still readily available online today.

These examples of violations of Qandeel Baloch’s privacy and anonymity have led to the creation of No Country For Bold Women: a blog that has recorded these and other examples of invasion of privacy, of victim blaming, before and after her murder, so that evidence is kept for posterity, even after the originals have been erased. When one understands the the social context in Pakistan, the broadcasting of her personal information by the media - already a violation of journalistic ethics and objectivity, takes on a more horrific tone, as that violation of privacy can and did lead directly to her death at the hands of her brother, toxic masculinity, and the predatory media.

The damage has been done. The question becomes, however: what can and must be done in the wake of Qandeel Baloch’s murder?

The media often regards itself as a valuable part of a nation’s fabric, productively contributing to the social ecosystem. A free press is rightly a vital part of democratic discourse, but a feral press that decides to dictate or echo questionable morality does not aid that discourse. Freedom of the press does not necessarily mean freedom from consequences of the outcome. We are not calling for the muzzling of the media, but there must be accountability. There must be a sea-change in the way that journalistic ethics – or an apparent lack thereof – are adhered to in Pakistan.

PS: The examples of violations of privacy, victim-blaming, and the interviews referred to in the post can be found at the No Country For Bold Women blog.

Its our Saturday – after an exhausting week of work, we deserve a break. A break from the world, a break from the bullshit that surrounds the world we find ourselves in. And to be completely honest it was going all serenely and as planned – the doing nothing that is – till we opened Facebook to find out that Qandeel Baloch has been killed.

And now we’re enraged.

We can’t write enough about how sad, shocked and enraged we are. Our bodies shiver from a mix of these emotions and we can’t physically vocalize them. Why? Because the eternal patriarchy that upholds the Pakistani society is rejoicing in Qandeel’s murder.

And it has so many names and forms: the celebration is happening on cell phones held, through tweets and Facebook posts, in the kitchen where rotis are being made, in darkened rooms littered with tissues and dirty rags, in weekend gatherings of testosterone – its everywhere.

And we as an organization are repulsed. Qandeel Baloch, a girl in her twenties, a survivor of an abusive marriage, a mother of a child – and a woman who was taking charge of sexuality has been murdered. It doesn’t matter who killed her, because let’s be honest – we as a nation killed her.

Yes! Me and you, us – we killed her and many others who die every single day in Pakistan. The approximately one thousand girls who die every year in the name of honor. And now while every news media outlet tries to capitalize on her death, while members of this society raise her son to hate her mother’s memory – we as citizens won’t be held accountable. We killed her.

Never forget. All of us who are happy in her death, who called her names in public but jerked off to her our rooms – we killed her. We killed her slowly but surely. And we aren’t sorry, we won’t be sorry, we will celebrate. This me and you – we have so many forms. We are mullahs who sleazed up to girls and boys whilst stroking our beards. We are the boys and men who police women 24/7, we are the girls and women who call Qandeel a bitch, a slut, a whore. We are the same bunch who say things like “if that girl was killed in the name of honour, she probably deserved it”.

Qandeel Baloch – was, is and now never will be the ‘Pakistani Kim Kardashian’. She did not come from the bourgeois elite, she was not educated in the best schools, she did not have the best paid PR team in the world marketing her, and she most definitely did not have the one of the best security detail surrounding her.

Qandeel was a woman who chose to share her life on social media despite of us, she chose to be in-charge of sexuality and she refused to be ashamed for her being. She was defiant and courageous, she claimed online spaces and offline spaces – she made sure that her presence was felt and that she was heard. And we Pakistani loved her for it! This was why we followed her, debated her, invited her on talk shows, took selfies with her. We loved to hate her and now we’ve done the best we could. We couldn’t all collectively **** her, so we helped kill her.

It’s all good though, our conscience won’t be too burdened by this killing. We’ll resort to the Quran, the Mullahs, our Ghairat to justify her killing and many others to come. We are sure about this, because this is exactly what we’ve done to justify all the other honor killings that take place in this country every year. And we as nation hope to one day reach a place where we will have killed every defiant woman and minority before they have even managed taken their first breathe.

This post was authored by Ushbah Al-Ain