CLIMATE CHANGE: THE CLIMATE MIGRANTS

Umar Bacha 

DAWN

Published May 19, 2024

Aerial view of a village in the Dubair Valley after the floods in April this year | Photos by the writer

For 22-year-old Barkat Ali, the floods of 2022 might have washed away his home, but not his dreams of a better future.

The eldest of five siblings, Barkat was among the at least seven million Pakistanis who were displaced in the ‘biblical’ floods of two years ago. An October 2023 report of the International Office of Migration (IOM) said that over a million of those displaced were yet to be resettled.

Barkat’s family, which hails from Lower Kohistan in the country’s northern Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) province, is among those unfortunate ones. They had to leave their homes in Baneel — a small village surrounded mostly by pine trees in the Dubair Valley — with “only the clothes on their back,” he tells Eos.

Before moving to the town of Oghi in nearby Mansehra, Barkat and his family spent over a year in a relative’s field nearby, sleeping under the open sky.

During this time, continues Barkat, the family was hopeful of returning to their land and rebuilding their house. “While we had lost our home and cattle, we still had land,” he says, adding that they grew enough wheat and maize as well as fruits and vegetables to not have to worry about food.

While the 2022 floods caused mayhem nationwide, such climate-induced calamities are happening more frequently in Pakistan’s mountainous north. In a once prosperous and scenic valley in Kohistan, forced migrations are turning into an exodus

But the slow pace of reconstruction — the public health facilities in Dubair that were damaged during the flood have not yet been reconstructed, while the hydroelectric power station on the Dubair River in Ranolia also remains offline — compelled them to seek refuge elsewhere.

“Everything is gone,” he continues wistfully, as he takes a break from his work as a daily-wage labourer in Oghi, Mansehra. “It was not easy to leave our home,” says Barkat. “Everyone cried a lot. My father was constantly turning back to have another look at his village, not knowing whether he would ever be able to return.”

Barkat’s 65-year-old father, like his son, works as a daily-wage labourer to help the family in their struggle for survival and to help his son continue his dream of getting an education.

Barkat is enrolled in a distance learning programme at an Islamabad university, studying digital media marketing and broadcasting, using only his smartphone.

With paths and pavements washed away in the floods, villagers use rope to cross Ranolia and reach their homes in Dubair


COMPOUNDING PROBLEMS

Maulana Fazal Wahab, the chairman of Ranolia tehsil, says more than 60 percent of the roughly 100,000 people of the area have migrated to other areas since 2010.

The migrations took place in the wake of floods in 2010, 2016, 2019, 2022 and, most recently, in April this year, following heavy rainfall and flooding that, according to the Provincial Disaster Management Authority (PDMA) KP, claimed 63 lives in the province.

It is not just torrential rains that disrupt and imperil life in these areas. Landslides are known to cause fatal accidents and, in the wake of rising global temperatures, the threat of glacial lake outburst floods (GLOF) has also emerged in KP and Gilgit Baltistan (GB).

The ministry of climate change says glaciers in the country’s northern mountain ranges (the Hindu Kush, Himalayas and Karakorum) are melting rapidly. A total of 3,044 glacial lakes have developed in GB and KP. While glacial lakes may have been forming over geological timescales, their rapid proliferation and expansion in Pakistan are more closely associated with the past century or so, particularly as global temperatures have risen.

“Of these, 33 glacial lakes have been assessed to be prone to hazardous GLOF,” the ministry writes on its website. It claims more than seven million people, in the two regions, are vulnerable to the dangers posed by GLOF.

This compounds the concerns of the locals, including in various areas of Lower Kohistan — such as Ranolia, Dubair Bala and Dubair Khas — where flash floods have become more frequent. The flooding also damages bridges and river crossings, disconnecting the valley from the Karakoram Highway and greatly limiting access and the mobility of the local population.

Wahab, the tehsil chairman, says a 37-kilometre stretch of the Ranolia-Dubair main road and the roads in the Ranolia valley have been completely washed away by the floods several times. “People have no choice but to leave the area, because life comes to a complete standstill [in the wake of such disasters],” he tells Eos.

Barkat says that, during such situations, the locals are often left with no choice but to reconstruct and repair the roads and bridges on a self-help basis.

“However, it is unfair to expect from people — who have lost everything including their home, land and livelihood — to contribute to road repair under such circumstances,” he says.

Villagers carry food items, other essentials on their shoulders while walking to their village in the Dubair Valley

UPENDED LIVES

Muhammad Riaz, a teacher, lived a happy life with his wife and eight children. He had a 12-room house on a terraced mountain along the Dubair River. During the floods in April, the torrential rains triggered landslides and his house caved in in a matter of minutes.

“My world has completely collapsed,” he tells Eos. “It wasn’t just a house for me. It was the centre of my dreams.” He says his family has no option but to leave.

But with exits from the village, including pedestrian paths, yet to be repaired, he has chosen to stay in the area for the time being and not risk “the treacherous terrain” with his young family.

Riaz says that, in order to buy essentials, he has to walk for seven hours to the market in Ranolia — with the journey including parts that require a steep upward climb.

He says the situation is desperate, with food and water shortage rampant. He is also worried about his children and the uncertain future facing them. “They want to go to school, but there is no means of getting there,” he says. “Every day I tell them that everything is going to be okay. But deep down, I know that we are all on a long and hard road, and that this road has no end in sight.”

Healthcare is the other major casualty, particularly during calamities in far-flung and smaller areas. The public health centres, including the rural health centre and basic health units, were damaged last month and are out of commission.

Patients from across the valley have to be carried — mostly on makeshift wooden stretchers locally known as dangai — to the sole privately operated hospital in the main town of Dubair. At a large number of points, the path is narrow and zigzags a lot. Sometimes, it can take hours to get the patient, in need of timely medical care, to the hospital.

Yar Gul, from a nearby village, had brought a patient to the hospital. He says it took him and nearly 20 other relatives around 12 hours to get to the hospital.

A teenage boy, who was hit in the head by a stone, wasn’t so lucky, says Gul. “He died during the trip and the family had to return midway.”

NOT UNUSUAL APATHY

The assistant commissioner (AC) of Ranolia, Iqbal Hussain Khattak, says the biggest challenge for people, particularly in villages in the Dubair Valley, is the loss of their crops and the inundation of their agricultural lands.

While crediting his employers, the state, for doing “its part” for the rehabilitation work in Dubair, the bureaucrat acknowledges that more resources and funds are needed, as well as alternative settlements and funds for a road that is constructed at a distance from the river.

The AC says the administration had shifted vulnerable families to government buildings in 2022 and claimed that some of those families were still living there.

“But the majority have migrated to bigger cities and towns in search of a better life, and to create a distance between them and the areas susceptible to climate-induced disasters.”g

The writer is Dawn’s correspondent in Shangla, KP.
X: @umar_shangla

Published in Dawn, EOS, May 19th, 2024

EU staff sign letter expressing concerns over its handling of Gaza crisis

Exclusive: More than 200 signatories cite union’s ‘continued apathy’ to plight of Palestinians and seek official call for ceasefire


Ashifa Kassam 

European Community affairs correspondent

THE GUARDIAN

Fri 24 May 2024 

More than 200 staff members of EU institutions and agencies have signed a letter expressing “growing concern” over the union’s response to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, arguing that it runs contrary to its core values and aim of promoting peace.

The letter, signed by 211 people in their personal capacity as citizens and addressed to the EU’s top three officials, begins by condemning the 7 October attacks “in the strongest terms”.

Citing the January ruling by the international court of justice that suggested a credible risk to Palestinians under the genocide convention, the letter warns that the EU’s “continued apathy to the plight of Palestinians” risks normalising a world order where the sheer use of force, rather than a rule-based system, determines state security, territorial integrity and political independence.

“It was precisely to avert such a grim world order that our grandparents, witnesses of the horrors of World War II, created Europe,” the letter reads. “To stand idly by in the face of such an erosion of the international rule of law would mean failing the European project as envisaged by them. This cannot happen in our name.”

The letter, shared exclusively with the Guardian, was written by a small group of staffers, said Zeno Benetti, one of the organisers.

“We couldn’t believe that our leaders who were so vocal about human rights and who described Europe as the beacon of human rights were suddenly so silent about the crisis unfolding in Gaza,” he said. “It’s like suddenly we were asked to turn a blind eye on our values and on the values that we were allegedly working for. And for us, this was not acceptable.”

Organisers had hoped to reach 100 signatures – a figure that was swiftly surpassed as word of the letter spread. A version of the letter made public on Friday does not include the names of those who signed as they were promised confidentiality by the organisers.

The letter highlights the many NGOs that have repeatedly called for a ceasefire, adding: “The EU’s inability to respond to these increasingly desperate calls is in clear contradiction with the values that the EU stands for and that we stand for.”

It urges the EU to officially call for an immediate and permanent ceasefire, adding this to a list of requests that include officially calling for the release of all hostages and to ensure that member states halt direct and indirect arms exports to Israel.

Benetti emphasised that the initiative was not meant to be pro-Palestinian, nor was it aimed at taking a partisan stance on the conflict. “Rather, we signed because we think that what’s happening is jeopardising principles of international law that we deem important and that we take for granted,” he said.

The letter is expected to be delivered on Friday to Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, as well as Roberta Metsola, the president of the European parliament, and Charles Michel, who heads the European Council.

It comes weeks after more than 100 EU staffers marched through Brussels to protest against Israel’s war in Gaza. “We’re coming together in a peaceful assembly, to stand up for those rights, principles and values that the European institutions are built on,” the European Commission staff member Manus Carlisle told Reuters at the time.

WHY THE STUDENT PROTESTS MATTER

Do these protests across US and Europe signal a change in Western grassroots sentiment about Palestine and can they make a difference?

Kamran Asdar Ali | Shafaq Sohail 

DAWN

Published May 19, 2024

“Free, Free, Palestine”, “From the River to the Sea, Palestine Will be Free”, and other slogans against the continuing Israeli war in Gaza have echoed through more than 150 campuses in the United States for the last three weeks. It may be one of the largest protests since the anti-war and civil rights movements of the 1960s, which were led mostly by students at US universities.

This protest movement, which has incorporated students, faculty, staff and other supporters, has been germinating since Israel invaded the Gaza strip in October of last year. The nationwide simmering anger in cities and universities against the genocidal violence has, over the months, led to many teach-ins, rallies and civic actions by groups such as Peace and Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace.

At universities across the US, the administrations have reacted with hyper surveillance of student groups and faculty members. Pro-Palestinian student groups were suspended in places such as Harvard University, Columbia University, the University of Pennsylvania and other colleges. In the first few weeks of the war, all criticism of Israeli actions in Gaza was deemed ‘anti-Semitic’ and, in some cases, disciplinary actions were brought against faculty in various universities, including the University of Virginia, Muhlenberg College, the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Arizona.

PROTEST ORIGINS AND REPERCUSSIONS

The current series of protests that spread like wildfire across the country started when students set up an encampment at Columbia University’s south lawn the same day — April 17 — the university’s president, Minouche Shafik, testified to the US Congress.

Shafik was attacked by Republican legislators, who accused her of tolerating ‘anti-Semitism’ on Columbia’s campus by not doing enough to counter those opposing Israel’s war on Gaza. Her testimony came four months after a similar combative congressional hearing that led to the resignations of the presidents of Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania. Perhaps learning her lesson from her colleagues, who had tried to defend freedom of speech on their campuses, Shafiq denounced anti-Semitism, saying it “has no place on our campus.”

The last few weeks have seen tumult across a large number of universities in the United States and also Europe, as students protest Israel’s genocidal actions in Gaza and demand their educational institutions divest from companies funding Israel’s apartheid against Palestinians. Do these protests signal a change in Western grassroots sentiment about Palestine and can they make a difference?

The encampments started to be put up on the lawns of Columbia University that very day. These encampments are temporary communities, consisting of tents and shelters and occupy a particular area as a form of political resistance. They are like the tents (called shanties) put up during the movement for divestment from South Africa in the 1980s (see companion piece by Hasan Zaidi).

In solidarity with the tents at Columbia, and despite being constantly threatened by university administrations with disciplinary action, the protests have now spread throughout the country. Protestors have erected and maintained camps to disrupt ‘business as usual,’ accusing their administrations of complicity in financing the continuing genocide in Gaza by Israel. In setting up “liberation libraries” and medical clinics, supplying free food, and encouraging exchange of cross-cultural resistance histories and art, they also envision and enact solidarities crucial in the pursuit of a more egalitarian future.

At Columbia, armed police were used to rout protesting students out of an occupied campus building on May 1 (Hamilton Hall, that was also occupied in 1968 and has, ironically, become part of the university’s lore that celebrates its history in the civil rights movement), and to dismantle the camps. There were more than 100 arrests on that day.

Similar tactics were used at numerous universities across the US. For example, on the night of April 30, a pro-Israeli mob of more than 100 attacked the pro-Palestine encampment at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) with rods, fireworks and pepper sprays. Faculty and students in the camp reported that the police arrived after much delay and then did not intervene to stop the mob of attackers for a couple of hours, nor did they provide protection to those barricaded in the tents. Many were seriously injured.

These various confrontations with the police at universities have led to more than 2,500 arrests (mostly on misdemeanour charges) across the country, and the repercussions against the students may continue over the long term — suspension, denial of diplomas and degrees, and more serious charges.

These actions have been largely condemned as the curtailment of free speech (an American constitutionally guaranteed right against any government action that may restrict speech) and the principle of academic freedom, which has been strongly defended during the past few months by the American Association of University Professors.

SHIFTING THE MEDIA FOCUS?

This said, there is also a palpable risk. The legitimate concerns over violence universities and states are unleashing upon their students and citizens may divert focus from the demands of the student protestors themselves

In this charged atmosphere, the US media has pushed discussions on whether calling for an end to Israel’s aggression can be construed as anti-Semitic, while also discussing the legalities of First Amendment rights and free speech concerns. These debates, although well meaning, ironically continue to centre the US as the site of political debate and change and, at times, deflect attention from the major catastrophe unfolding in Gaza.

These media representations, at times, may reduce the politics of protest and encampments to an opportunity to reveal the hypocrisy, degeneration, or criticism of America’s domestic politics. In the process, it undermines the protest organiser’s historical and transnational political orientation. It may shift focus away from their most central demands of ceasefire, decolonisation and divestment. Instead, it entraps the discussion, both by those who are for and against the movement, as a form of US exceptionalism.

For example, in recent weeks, when international media reported on mass graves being discovered in Nasser and Al-Shifa hospitals in Gaza, mainstream American media outlets were saturated by protest coverage. As the beheaded, zip-tied, and decaying bodies of Palestinians were being uncovered in regions repeatedly bombarded using US supplied weapons, the more important question for US primetime television remained whether democratic freedoms and rights that the US prides itself on were under threat, due to either protestors ‘disrupting’ the educational process or by the police responding to them.

Interestingly, it is a privilege America has historically enjoyed; to maintain its illusory freedom from the violence and oppression that it itself in many cases orchestrates in countries across the world. This perceived separation, and its underlying rhetoric of exceptionalism, clearly shifts our focus from US complicity in devastating wars to arguments primarily on US political freedoms ‘at risk.’

However, while the media, politicians and university administrations seek to recreate this narrative of exceptionalism, student protestors have persisted in their efforts to re-centre Palestine as the source of their motivation and subject of their demands.

All distracting questions reporters have posed to protestors in these past weeks are responded to with utmost clarity of political stance and purpose. The students pivot the conversation back to demands of halting the genocide in Gaza.

Pro-Palestine activists protest outside Columbia University in New York City: the series of protests across the country started when students set up an encampment at Columbia University’s south lawn on April 17 | AFP

CALLS FOR DIVESTMENT

Within this context, one major demand by student protestors in all locations is to make transparent all university financial holdings and to divest from those companies that assist Israel in its war effort. This has been succinctly conveyed in the slogan “Disclose, divest: We will not stop! We will not rest!”

The demand is linked to the long-term Boycott, Divest and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel, which has been systematically attacked by US politicians, while anti-BDS Laws have been passed by many state legislatures.

For example, in demanding “divestment from death” by ending contracts with companies supplying the Israel Defence Force’s (IDF) war in Gaza, the student group Palestinian Solidarity Committee at the University of Texas, Austin (a place we know better) has called upon the UT system to sell off its stock in US weapons manufacturers such as the Lockheed Martin Corporation, Raytheon, Northrop Corporation, Boeing, General Dynamics and others that sell arms to the IDF. Further, the State of Texas has its own investments, which include nearly $100 million in Israeli bonds.

While the student protestors at US universities see the issue of divestment as a practical way to pressure Israel from continuing the war, they are also attacked for being ‘anti-Semitic’ because these protestors, according to pro-Israel forces in US politics, do not seek divestment from other countries of the world that are also guilty of human rights abuses. Further, the issue of divestment itself has become complicated due to the very nature of investments in today’s economy.

In the 1980s, at the height of the South Africa campaign, Columbia University, one of the first to respond to student pressure, sold stocks it held in companies such as Coca Cola, Mobil Oil or Ford Motors, for doing business with the apartheid regime. Today, universities in general do not openly disclose their investments and invest through complicated financial mechanisms. Brown University, for example, holds more than 90 percent of their funds through outside asset managers who, in turn, invest in general index funds, private equities and hedge funds.

These new forms of holdings make the challenge for the protestors even greater. Yet they have still succeeded in convincing some universities, such as Brown, to bring the issue to their board to vote on the divestment issue. Similarly, some universities, such as Northwestern University, Johns Hopkins University, Harvard and the University of Minnesota, have negotiated an arrangement that clears the camps (without violence) while obliging the university to consider the request for divestment from Israel. In small but sure ways, the movement is gaining traction.

This move toward divestment to pressurise Israel to commit to a ceasefire is also reflected in a shift in contemporary US popular politics. The strength of the current movement, echoing protests in the US in earlier decades (civil rights, anti-Vietnam War, South African divestment), is also based on coalition building by students who support the Palestinian cause.

Since the 1990s, the broadly connected group Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) has consciously worked with other activists in the environmental movement, with groups against US intervention in Latin America, with those supporting indigenous rights, with critics of the Gulf War, and with civil rights groups defending African American and minority rights. More specifically, in the past few years, SJP developed a strong working coalition with the Black Lives Matter movement.

THE KIDS ARE ALRIGHT

This solidarity work, which is manifested in more than 200 SJP chapters across the US, now has the support of many such groups during the recent protest. It is a form of intersectionality that is described by participants as the coming together of a range of political causes, may it be to protect the climate, anti-racism, to critique capitalism or against settler colonialism (indigenous communities).

Hence, during demonstrations, rallies or encampments, people of different ethnicities, racial heritage, cultures and identity groups have come together to protest the war in Gaza — they are certainly not monochromatic. This is a major success of the movement, as it speaks to young people across race, religion, gender identity and class background, those who want to raise their voices for social justice and provide a critique of global power structures that discriminate against the Palestinian people.

Student action continues through the commencement/graduation ceremonies period, typically organised around this time of the year. Universities such as Columbia and USC have cancelled university-wide ceremonies fearing student protests. Other places have increased security and threatened dire actions against those disrupting events.

ECHOES OF ANOTHER STUDENT MOVEMENT

Hasan Zaidi 

DAWN/EOS

Published May 19, 2024

Anti-apartheid student protestors display a banner atop Dartmouth's Baker Tower 

| Dartmouth Library

When the protests against Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza broke out across US campuses, a friend suggested that they were perhaps similar to the anti-Vietnam War protests of the 1960s. I disagreed, simply because, at the end of the day, US forces are not directly involved in the fighting in Palestine and American kids are not being conscripted to go fight in the war and are not coming back in bodybags, so the emotional investment is entirely different.

But the discussion did take me back to the anti-South African apartheid and pro-divestment protests on American campuses in the 1980s, of which I was also once a part. I suggested that the current protests bore more similarity to that movement which, it should be recalled, did indeed achieve its aims eventually. It would be instructive to look at exactly what happened more than 30 years ago.

I arrived at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire in the fall of 1987 to study for my undergraduate degree. A year and a half earlier, an incident had taken place at the college that had been seared into the collective memory of campus activists.

As the global opposition to the apartheid regime in South Africa had gathered pace, student activists at Dartmouth had constructed ‘shanties’ on the main college lawns (like today’s ‘encampments’), to draw attention to the living conditions of black South Africans under the brutal white regime and to call for the college to divest from all companies doing business in South Africa.

Obviously, these ramshackle shanties with activists camped out in them were an eyesore for those used to looking at the pristine beauty of the campus. But while the college administration threatened to remove them, it dithered on taking action because using force against peaceful protestors would have also created a PR disaster.

Two months after the shanties were established, a group of right-wing students attacked them in the middle of the night — on Martin Luther King Jr’s birthday, no less — with sledgehammers.

The resulting outcry against the vandalism and violence led to the faculty of the college shutting down classes for a day to conduct teach-ins about prejudice and racism, the administrative block being briefly occupied by protestors and to the vandals being expelled or suspended from college.

By the time I joined the college, the story of the shanties had become part of the lore of student activists but the movement for full divestment from South Africa continued to remain strong. The original Dartmouth Community for Divestment had strengthened alliances with other groups on and off campus — including one titled the Committee on Palestinian Rights — to form the Upper Valley Committee for a Free South Africa. And acts of protest continued off and on.

It all came to a head in November 1989, when the administrative Parkhurst Hall was once again occupied by pro-divestment protestors and a group of us barged in on a trustee meeting. The college trustees, who managed the college endowment and investments, were forced to meet with the protestors and give a hearing to our demands.

After a small group of activists also disrupted another trustee cocktail gathering, the college finally had had enough. A day later, the college president announced a full divestment from all companies doing business with apartheid South Africa.

What’s interesting to note is that, by this time, only two percent of Dartmouth’s investments remained in companies that continued to operate in South Africa. Yet the college found it simpler to divest totally than to deal with the bad press the protests continued to bring to it. Similar protests were happening on many other campuses around the US as well.

A few months later, Nelson Mandela had been freed from jail in South Africa after 27 years in captivity. A year after that, apartheid South Africa was no more.

I recall all this history for two reasons. One, it is important to not underestimate the power of collective action. Obviously, there were plenty of other factors influencing South Africa’s trajectory, especially the resistance movement within, and the apartheid regime stood isolated in most of the world from an ongoing cultural and state boycott.

But every little bit of action — even in privileged US colleges thousands of miles away from the reality of South Africa — helped create the conditions for the final dismantling of apartheid. Eventually, it became just too costly in perceptual terms for multinational companies and states (such as the US) to continue to do business as normal with the apartheid regime.

Two, for young student activists currently involved in the global protests against Israel’s genocidal and apartheid regime, it is important to keep chipping away at it. There will inevitably be setbacks and change may not come immediately, but eventually critical mass will be reached. Despite the pressures (from institutions wielding power), despite the mischaracterisations of the movement (by the media and vested politicians), and despite the reactionary resistance to change (from those who stand to lose), the real power of moral clarity remains with those refusing to accept a genocide.

It’s also instructive to remember that Nelson Mandela — and his African National Congress — was labelled a ‘terrorist’ for the longest time by precisely those complicit Western powers that now refer to him as a saint. And that he never backed down from hitching the liberation of South Africa to the liberation of Palestine. Israel was a big supporter of the white apartheid regime.

Ironically, the thing that Zionists have always hated the most is a comparison between Israel and apartheid South Africa. With their brutality in Gaza and the rest of Palestine, they have now successfully ensured that no one can ignore this comparison without being on the wrong side of history.

The writer is a journalist and filmmaker and Dawn’s Editor Magazines.
X: @hyzaidi

Published in Dawn, EOS, May 19th, 2024

Some commencement speakers have also withdrawn from their commitment in solidarity with the students. There have been some protest in almost all places during the ceremonies by pro-Palestinian students, may it be a walk-out from arenas, the unfurling of a Palestinian flag, the raising of slogans, or by their turning their backs on deans or university presidents when they speak.

Eventually, perhaps, various kinds of social pressure, suppression of speech and overt violence may slow the movement. Furthermore, with summer approaching, many students and faculty may leave campus. There is also a general fear among the students that discriminatory action may be taken against activists when most eyes are diverted in the middle of the summer months.

As the philosopher Judith Butler reminds us in an exchange on political performances, bodies involved in mass demonstrations experience fatigue, exhaustion and weariness while exposing themselves to police brutality (including exposure to tear gas and rubber bullets) and repression (all of this has been experienced by the students).

Yet, surely through these negative experiences, certain solidarities are also being formed by the act of sharing, empathy, resilience, kindness and alliance.

A tent in Rafah in the Gaza Strip sprayed with a message of solidarity with pro-Palestine protests at universities: with protests spreading to the UK and Europe, it is clear that an international movement has been triggered | Reuters


A TRANSFORMATIVE MOMENT

Based on the above, these past few weeks, and months, should be counted as an extraordinary victory for the students and their supporters, as they have shaken the university administrations and society in general in a major way, and exposed the underlying violence that these universities, the paragons of free speech and academic freedoms, can unleash and are capable of against their own students and faculty.

An international movement has been triggered, with protests spreading to the UK and Europe, and the question of Palestine linked to Israel’s genocidal ambitions is now part of mainstream discussion in the US, because it can no longer be hidden or censored to the same extent.

In a recent article in the New York Times, Charles Homans and Neil Vigdor reported that there has been an increase in sympathy toward the Palestinian cause in the last decade, from 12 percent sympathetic in 2013 to 27 percent now. They argue that the shift is reflective of how pro-Palestinian activists have worked to connect the cause to domestic movements in the US, such as Black Lives Matter.

This shift, according to them, is also generational, as those who are 18-29 years old are three times more sympathetic to the Palestinians than those over 65. How this increasing support translates in the 2024 presidential elections is not very clear.

What is clear, however, is that the US is going through a truly transformative moment, which has major international repercussions. The intensity of this moment may subside, but the students have surely made people aware of the continued colonial and genocidal policy being practised by Israel, with the support and backing of the US government.

The only way to address this impasse is not by silencing the students but to agree to an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and, eventually, through a dignified and just solution of the Palestinian cause.

Shafaq Sohail is a graduate student in the department of anthropology at the University of Texas, Austin.
X: @sohail_shafaq

Kamran Asdar Ali teaches anthropology at the University of Texas, Austin. He can be reached at kasdarali@gmail.com

Published in Dawn, EOS, May 19th, 2024

Trial and punishment: What do arrest warrants at the ICC mean for Israel, Hamas

For the first time, an international criminal tribunal is likely to charge a head of state supported by the West.

Ayesha Malik 

DAWN/EOS

Published May 21, 2024

In his opening speech at the Nuremberg tribunal after the Second World War, the American judge, Robert Jackson, famously promised: “The ultimate step in avoiding periodic wars, which are inevitable in a system of international lawlessness, is to make statesmen responsible to law. And let me make clear that while this is first applied against German aggressors, the law includes, and if it is to serve a useful purpose, it must condemn aggression by other nations, including those which sit here now in judgment.”

After 79 years, that promise has been realised. For the first time, an international criminal tribunal is likely to charge a head of state supported by the West.
What are the charges?

On May 20, 2024, the prosecutor for the International Criminal Court, Karim Khan, announced he had applied for arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant as well as Hamas leaders Ismail Haniyeh, Yahya Sinwar, and Mohammed Deif.

The charges against Hamas leaders include hostage-taking, rape and sexual violence against hostages in captivity, torture, cruel treatment, and extermination. The charges against Netanyahu and Gallant include starving civilians as a method of warfare, deliberate targeting of civilians, persecution, cruel treatment, and extermination.

While arrest warrants were expected, they weren’t expected for such a huge range of offences on both sides. When the arrest warrant for President Vladimir Putin was issued after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the only charge was that of the unlawful deportation of children out of Ukraine — a crime to which he had effectively confessed in an interview on state television. It may be that in adopting a broader range of charges, the prosecutor is hoping that more will stick when it comes to confirming these charges or potentially at trial.

In the current case, the charges are for war crimes and crimes against humanity but notably not for genocide. This may have a knock-on effect on South Africa’s pursuit of state responsibility for Israel at the International Court of Justice. When the ICJ found that a genocide had been committed in Srebrenica, it had relied on the findings of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia which had found individuals accountable for the crime of genocide. As of yet, the ICJ will have no similar recourse when deciding its case.

The ICC prosecutor seems to have evaded the genocide charge by including that of ‘extermination’ — mass killings in the course of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population resulting from a state or organisational policy. This is perhaps the popular understanding of what genocide is, without the need to meet the high threshold of the actual crime of genocide — that of proving intent to destroy Palestinians as a group.
What will happen now?

The prosecutor will now submit his application to a pre-trial chamber, which will decide whether to confirm the charges and then the charges will proceed to a trial if the accused is submitted to the Court. Trials cannot be conducted at the ICC without the accused present. While the permanent five members of the Security Council (including America) can defer a case before the Court for a year at a time, a deferral would need nine affirmative votes and no veto which might be unlikely.

While Hamas leaders can be handed over to the Court, especially Haniye who is based in Qatar, an important issue when it comes to Netanyahu (as a sitting head of state) would be whether he has immunity. This question also arose when the former president of Sudan Omar Al-Bashir and Putin had arrest warrants by the ICC issued against them.

Because the ICC does not have its own police force, it relies on national jurisdictions to enforce its arrest warrants. The Court has held in the past that all 124 member states to its statute — this doesn’t include Pakistan which does not accept the Court’s jurisdiction — are legally obligated to enforce the Court’s warrants and arrest whoever has a warrant issued against them who travels to their countries.

Most states have ignored such requests. Famously, Al-Bashir traveled to over 22 states, and was not arrested by any of them. Currently, 17 individuals subject to arrest warrants remain at large. I believed that both Bashir and Putin had immunity to criminal jurisdiction and I also believe the same for Netanyahu. He is immune to prosecution owing to his position as a sitting head of state and he should not be arrested.

However, my consistent position may not be met by quite such a consistent one in Western states. US President Joe Biden had said that the arrest warrant against Putin was ‘justified’ but his Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, has denounced the one against Netanyahu as ‘shameful’. The European Union meanwhile chastised African states for not arresting Bashir.

It will be interesting to see how these states react to arrest warrants against Netanyahu now, especially Germany, which had said the arrest warrant against Putin showed that “nobody is above the law” and had supported the arrest warrant against Bashir, urging Sudan to react to it in a “sober way”. A summer holiday in Munich should be off the table then for Netanyahu.
Does criminal justice work?

After World War II, when trying to decide what to do with the defeated Nazis, Stalin suggested they should all be killed. Churchill agreed and said they should all be shot. It was Roosevelt, however, who disagreed and persuaded them that trials should be conducted by an international court. Justice Robert Jackson remarked (quite beautifully) “that four great nations, flushed with victory and stung with injury, stayed the hand of vengeance, and voluntarily submitted their captive enemies to the judgment of the law is one of the most significant tributes that power has ever paid to reason”.

International criminal law, as we now know it, was born with the Nuremberg trials.

But one of the key reasons that led Nuremberg to be considered a success was the notion that the trials had ‘discredited Nazi leaders and helped the German people quickly transition into a Western bulwark’. But we now know that they did no such thing. Opinion polls taken in Germany every year between 1946-1958 asked the Germans two questions: Do you think Hermann Göring and the other Nazis were guilty? Do you think Hermann Göring and the other Nazis got a fair trial? Every year for 10 years, 85-90 per cent of Germans answered no to both questions.

These polls were classified as secret for 50 years, as they showed that the tribunal had not succeeded in its function of educating people as to what had actually happened during the war. Hermann Göring essentially got the better of Chief Prosecutor Robert Jackson; he used the proceedings and the fact that they were broadcast on radio as a way to repropagandise the Nazi story to the Germans. The President of Serbia, Slobodan Milošević, was to later copy Göring and used the criminal proceedings against him at an international court to rehabilitate himself, eventually running for and winning elections from the courtroom. He didn’t even have to campaign.

I am a bit skeptical about whether criminal justice can achieve the lofty aims we put on it; that it will deter and incapacitate criminals, that it should deliver lasting peace, and that it should serve as a moral denunciation for what we find unacceptable. Some argue that indicted leaders are more inclined to cling on to power if they face trial at The Hague and that even the most unpopular ones can turn around their torpedoing ratings because the threat of international censure creates a rally around the flag effect.

But perhaps the real point of this pursuit of justice is not in what we achieve, but as something for the historical record, for future generations to look back on. That we met power with reason. That when atrocities were being committed, we tried to do something.


Ayesha Malik is an international lawyer and is Deputy Director at the Research Society of International Law where she runs the Conflict Law Centre.

Belated recognition

DAWN
Editorial 

Published May 24, 2024 


WITH Wednesday’s announcement by three European states that they intend to recognise Palestine as a state later this month, the Palestinian people have achieved another symbolic, moral victory. Though Norway, Ireland and Spain may have made the move a bit late in the day — Palestine is already recognised by 143 states, the global majority in fact — it is welcome nonetheless, particularly in the midst of the Israeli campaign of extermination in Gaza. It shows that even those states that may have had reservations previously about supporting the Palestinian struggle for recognition and dignity are today clear in their minds that this is what justice demands. Yet there remains a powerful US-led minority in the international community that is doing all it can to prevent Palestinian statehood. But the comity of nations overall has spoken: Palestinians have a right to a sovereign state as per the pre-1967 border status. Of course, it is a matter of debate whether the long-dead two-state solution can still be revived, as Israel has, over the decades, dealt it several mortal blows, with its savage forays inside the occupied territories, and the building of settlements on stolen land. Tel Aviv has feigned great outrage at the fact that three more states have endorsed the idea that Palestine has a right to exist.

The move indicates that there are those in the Western bloc that have broken from the pack, by daring to criticise Israel’s atrocious behaviour. Most of the Global South had accorded recognition to Palestine when Yasser Arafat proclaimed Palestinian statehood in 1988, with the numbers growing over the years. Today, only the US, Canada, Australia, and a few others, have yet to recognise Palestine. It is strange that these states, many of which claim to be champions of fundamental rights, do not believe these rights should be given to the Palestinians. It is hoped that those in the Western bloc that have extended recognition now apply pressure on their allies to ensure that the remaining obstacles standing in the way of universal recognition of Palestinian statehood, and Palestine’s admission to the UN, are permanently removed. The sacrifices of the Palestinian people cannot be allowed to be wasted, while Israel must realise that its attempts to erase the Palestinian people and their centuries-old identity is bound to fail.

Published in Dawn, May 24th, 2024

Democrats recoil at Congress invite for Netanyahu

May 24, 2024

WASHINGTON: A proposal to invite Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address a joint session of the US Congress has raised hackles among Democrats, with some key Democratic leaders urging Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer to abstain from endorsing the invitation.

Democrats hold the Senate majority while Republicans dominate the House of Representatives.

Most liberal Democrats and progressives have already announced they will boycott the session if it’s held. This further complicates the situation for the Biden administration and other Democratic leaders who are trying to balance their support for Israel with criticism of Netanyahu’s military tactics, which have led to over 35,000 civilian deaths in Gaza.

House Intelligence Committee member Jim Himes stated, “Netanyahu should be focused on freeing hostages, not on charming legislators.” Rep. Dan Kildee, a member of Democratic leadership, told Axios, “I don’t think it’s a good time … let’s not complicate an already complicated situation.”

Former House speaker Nancy Pelosi simply said “no” to the idea. House Speaker Mike Johnson, however, has cornered Schumer by turning his invitation to Netanyahu into a public debate so close to the November 2024 elections. He knows that refusing to endorse the invitation will alienate pro-Israeli voters, while endorsing it will annoy liberal and progressive Democrats.

Republicans also know that it will be difficult for Schumer to boycott the session if Netanyahu speaks. Schumer is the first Jewish Senate Majority Leader in American history.

Two-time presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders, who earlier this week said the ICC would be “right” to seek arrest warrants for Netanyahu, responded with a resounding “no” when asked if Schumer should join the invitation.

Published in Dawn, May 24th, 2024

In a first, Ontario varsity reaches divestment deal with protesters

DAWB Published May 23, 2024 

TORONTO: A university in Ontario has become the first major Canadian educational institution to reach an agreement with on-campus pro-Palestine protesters, pledging not to invest in companies benefitting from the war in Gaza.

Administrators and protest organisers at the Ontario Tech University in Oshawa say they have reached an agreement, bringing campus encampments and demonstrations against investments connected to Israel’s military to an end.

A copy of the agreement circulated to students shows it was signed on Monday and includes a number of commitments from the university if the encampment was taken down within 24 hours.

Among the commitments listed in the agreement is the university’s affirmation that it is engaged in “responsible investment practices”, adding that it is not “aware of investments in any companies that are benefitting from the current Palestinian Humanitarian Crisis”.

Under the agreement, the university will establish ‘a responsible investment working group that will review best practices and make recommendations’ in its investments

Additionally, university administrations have said that they will publicly post a report this fall outlining all of the varsity’s investments and financial holdings.

Under the agreement, the university will establish “a responsible investment working group that will review best practices and make recommendations” as to how the varsity approaches environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors in its investments, “with particular attention to companies involved in arms manufacturing and delivery and/or benefitting from military action in Palestine or elsewhere”.

Also under the agreement, the university has said it will implement “an admissions process from an inclusive lens to ensure Palestinian or other similarly displaced students can equally access education”.

The university has committed to fund three undergraduate scholarships for Palestinians displaced by the war, beginning in the fall semester.

Meanwhile, administrators have also promised that students and faculty who partook in the encampment will be protected from “academic and/or employment-based retaliation”.

The agreement between protesters and the Ontario Tech University comes weeks into the encampments that have sprung up on varsity campuses across Canada in response to the Israeli bombardment in Gaza.

Student protesters across the country are calling on their universities to divest from companies supplying weapons or benefitting from the war in Gaza. At the University of Toronto, dozens of students remain camped out, as several rounds of negotiations between protesters and the varsity have not yet led to an agreement.

Published in Dawn, May 23rd, 2024

Canada warns another prominent Sikh of possible murder plot

Published May 24, 2024 

TORONTO: The son of Ripudaman Singh Malik, one of the men accused of having a role in the 1985 Air India bombing, has been officially warned by the national police service of Canada that his life could be under threat, CBC News reported.

Hardeep Malik, a businessman in Surrey, British Col­umbia, is the son of Ripudaman, who was acquitted in 2005 of mass murder and conspiracy charges related to a pair of bombings in 1985 that killed 331 people. He was gunned down outside his office in Surrey on July 14, 2022. Two men have since been charged with his murder.

The warning to the slain Sikh leader’s son Hardeep came as investigators probed possible Indian government links to Ripudaman Singh Malik’s 2022 killing.

CBC News reported that investigators from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) — are currently looking into the possibility that the government of India was behind the killing of the wealthy and controversial businessman.

The widow of the assassinated man and several of his family members were travelling in France last week when the RCMP delivered a letter to Hardeep, warning him that his life could be in danger.

The RCMP issues ‘Duty to Warn’ letters under a Bri­tish Columbia law that directs authorities to notify people when they become aware of a threat to their safety.

Several people associated with the Sikh separatist movement in British Columbia have received such notices. Sikh separatist leader Hardeep Singh Nijjar had also received a similar warning letter before he was killed in June 2023.

Meanwhile, a Czech court has rejected Nikhil Gupta’s petition against his extradition to the US over an alleged plot to assassinate an American citizen in New York.

Published in Dawn, May 24th, 2024

Pakistan Journalist Unions Slam ‘Draconian’ Defamation Law

Abdul Rahman | 22 May 2024 | NEWSCLICK INDIA

The Punjab Defamation Bill 2024 provides for a preliminary fine of up to 3 million Pakistani rupees (around USD 10,000) against person(s) accused of spreading “fake news” even before the beginning of the trial.

Journalists, human rights activists and opposition political parties in Pakistan voiced concerns over the negative impact on press freedom and freedom of expression in general in the country due to the adoption of a Defamation Law by the Punjab provisional assembly on Monday, May 20. They called the law “draconian” and demanded its withdrawal in its present form.

Journalist organizations in the country accused the newly elected coalition provincial government of bypassing an agreement with them to delay the passing of the bill in order to incorporate the concerns of journalists, and instead rushed to pass the bill in the assembly in the middle of the night amid protests by the opposition.

The legislative assembly of Punjab, Pakistan’s largest province, adopted the Defamation Bill 2024 with a voice vote after rejecting all the amendments proposed by the opposition Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI, who sit in the assembly as members of the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC)). The government’s move led to a spontaneous boycott of the proceedings by the journalists sitting in the press gallery of the assembly.

The journalist unions claimed that the government led by chief minister Maryam Nawaz of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) refused to send the bill to a select committee for wider consultation as demanded by them. They claim that it was agreed during a meeting between them and the ministry of information Azma Bukhari a few days ago.

The proposed legislation defines defamation as drafting and dissemination of “fake news” on media platforms including on the social media sites about individuals, entities or persons holding the constitutional posts and provides for a fine of up to 3 million Pakistani Rupee by a tribunal appointed by the government upon the receiving of a complaint. The tribunal is expected to decide the matter within six months.

An assault on media freedom 

The main opposition party, the PTI, held a press conference on Tuesday calling the bill an attempt to silence independent voices in the country. It expressed its support to all the actions announced by the journalist unions in the country to oppose the bill.

The Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ) termed the bill as “fascist” claiming it would  make it impossible for the journalists to carry out their work and expose wrongdoings in the government.

“The bill features a dangerously loose definition of defamation and imposes much higher penalties and blanket restrictions on commenting on ongoing cases. The sole purpose of this bill is to strike fear in anyone who may be contemplating criticizing or expressing their frustrations with those in power,” the PFUJ said in a statement on May 18.

Journalists have linked the bill with the ongoing attempts by the newly elected government to curb media freedom in various ways. Pakistan’s federal government has already issued a warning in February that it will take strict action against persons involved in circulating files marked as “secret.” Pakistan’s defense minister Khawaja Asif was reported saying that any such person found doing so would be liable to a prison term of a minimum two years.

The Council of Pakistan Newspaper Editors (CPNE) issued a statement on Monday calling the bill “draconian” and announcing it will launch a campaign against it. The CPNE also claimed that all major journalist organizations in the country, Pakistan Broadcasters Association (PBA), All Pakistan Newspapers Society (APNS), Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUL) and Association of Electronic Media Editors and News Directors (AEMEND) oppose the bill in its current form.

These groups issued a joint statement last week alleging that the bill and moves by the federal government “threaten the fundamental right of freedom of expression” and demanded greater consultation with all the stakeholders before bringing any such legislation.

The bill was also criticized by the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP). It claimed that the bill creates a hierarchy in matters of defamation with the persons holding constitutional posts having the privilege of not attending the court proceedings. It claimed that the bill attempts to create a parallel judicial structure which violates fundamental rights. The HRCP also questioned the rationale of providing for a preliminary fine, calling it an attempt to intimidate common people from expressing their views.

Courtesy: Peoples Dispatch

Anti-fake news or anti-free speech? The debate over Punjab’s new defamation law

The passing of another dangerous law, which repackages the criminal defamation laws in civil garbs, is counterproductive at best and nefarious at worst.

Azwar Shakeel

Published May 22, 2024 

On May 20, the Punjab Assembly passed the Defamation Bill, 2024, with the stated aim to provide “protection from false, misleading and defamatory claims via print, electronic and social media against public officials and private citizens”. Critics believe, however, that the law’s real purpose is much more nefarious — that it actually aims to muzzle free speech and inhibit dissenting voices.

As we attempt to pick through the law’s merits and lacunae, let us begin by underscoring this basic principle — strengthening defamation laws must not be a not a tug-of-war between censorship and unfettered free speech. The former should never feature in a democratic society, while the latter can be addressed through appropriate mechanisms.

Unfortunately, in Pakistan, the state often uses the pretext of curbing fake news or online abuse to weaponise defamation laws against critics to intimidate, harass, and silence them. The Punjab defamation law, too, exemplifies this regressive approach.
Hasty regulation

Free speech is not absolute; it operates within a framework of checks and balances. Articles 4(2)(a) and 14(1) of the Constitution of Pakistan protect the reputation and dignity of individuals, while Article 19 guarantees freedom of speech “subject to any reasonable restrictions”.

However, these restrictions must be narrowly construed to avoid undermining the fundamental rights they are supposed to protect. Civil defamation laws in Pakistan often abuse this concept, being drafted in overly expansive terms that make a wide range of statements actionable as defamation.

The hasty manner in which the Punjab defamation bill was steamrolled, and the procedure prescribed in it makes obvious that the intent was never to address the shortcomings of its predecessor law, the Defamation Ordinance 2002, but to provide the government with toothier legislation to target dissent and free speech.

This is evident in the language of the Statement of Object and Reasons of the bill, which states that it protects “public officials” from defamatory claims as they “damage the reputation and image of public figures or the government by defaming, slandering, and libelling them”.

Further, the new law prescribes preferable treatment for holders of “Constitutional Office”, which has been defined in the law as, including other prominent positions, the Prime Minister, Chief Justice of Pakistan, and the Chief of Army Staff. While a defamation tribunal has been given jurisdiction under the new law, cases against the holders of the Constitutional Office are to be filed in the Lahore High Court. This disparity indicates that the grievances of the state and its citizens are not given equal status before the law. The former has been placed above the latter.

The issue of fake news is complex and has stumped political administrations across the world. It defies reason how the Punjab government can claim to address this issue when it drafted the bill and passed it in mere days without consulting any stakeholders. This omission is particularly glaring given that the mainstream and digital journalists’ community, a group that not only has credible insight on the topic, are the ones most likely to be targeted under the new law.

We have seen in the past how the actual perpetrators of fake news and hate-mongering operate unchecked while those committed to telling the truth are targeted under defamation laws. Hence, civil society organisations labelling the new law as “draconian” and a “curb on free media” is completely justified.

More specifically, the new law falls short of bringing specificity to the concept of ‘defamation’. Case law establishes that the following five factors constitute defamation:allegations should be false, baseless, and unfounded;
allegations on the face of it should be defamatory or derogatory in nature;
allegations should have been published in widely circulated newspapers or spoken in a large gathering;
wording used should have been made with malice without reasonable cause and justification; and
the allegations should have been directly attributed to the plaintiff.

All five factors require evidence to be cited. Therefore, summary procedure as prescribed in Section 11(1) of the new law is not desirable, particularly to prove malicious intent. On top of that Section 23 makes the Law of Evidence inapplicable to proceedings under the new law, Section 10(6) requires the defamation tribunal to decide the case in 180 days, and Section 15(1) allows the tribunal to issue a preliminary decree of a minimum of Rs3 million. Combined, these provisions show that the government is looking for expeditious conclusion of cases in a vengeful manner at the expense of undermining the constitutional guarantees of fair trial and due process.
Reminiscent of Peca

Criminalising defamation deters victims of sexual harassment and abuse from speaking out against their perpetrators, intimidates journalists into silence, and penalises political opponents, critics, activists, and citizens for expressing dissent. In this respect, the new Punjab defamation bill is not too different from the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act introduced by the PML-N in 2016. Peca too had the stated aim of curbing harassment and hate speech, but its intended and actual effect was to crush dissent and free speech.

The PML-N government, during its previous tenure in the centre, used Peca to harass the PTI and its party workers. The law was also used against journalists critical of the military at a time when the national media was dominated by the Dawn leaks inquiry report.

The interior minister at that time, Chaudhry Nisar, had warned that “anti-institution propaganda would not be tolerated” and that defamation laws would be used against the perpetrators. Subsequently, the Federal Investigation Agency claimed that several “anti-army campaigners” had been identified. Members of the PTI social media team were arrested, while its party offices were raided, and equipment seized.

The roles were reversed when the PTI came into power in 2018. Workers and supporters of the PML-N were charged under Peca and the Pakistan Penal Code for allegedly running a smear campaign against state institutions such as the judiciary and the military. The PML-N also claimed that its party’s social media activists were being picked up and disappeared. The roles switched once again when the coalition government was formed in 2022, and politicians, and workers associated with the PTI started getting victimised under Peca.

The case of PTI leader Azam Swati is one such example. He was arrested by the FIA under Section 20 of Peca, as well as Sections 131, 500, 501, 505, and 109 of the PPC for making controversial posts about senior military officers, including the former army chief.

Interestingly, sections 10 (cyber-terrorism), 11 (hate speech), and 20 (offences against the dignity of a natural person) of Peca, which are frequently used by the state to charge individuals, do not cover comments or speech pertaining to public officials or institutions. But this has not stopped sitting governments from using them as a weapon against opponents and journalists alike. A first information report under the aforestated sections of Peca is often paired with sections 499 (defamation) and 505 (statements conducing to public mischief) of the PPC.

Previously, the FIA also frequently used to add Section 124A (sedition) of the PPC to the charge sheet, which criminalised criticism of the federal and provincial governments. But this was struck down by the Lahore High Court last year for being inconsistent with the Constitution. This decision came in response to several petitions filed by parties on the grounds that the law was being used by the government against political opponents and had a deleterious effect on free speech and dissent.

It is also time to repeal the criminal defamation laws under both PPC and Peca for being obsolete. This issue requires the immediate attention of the government. The passing of another dangerous law, which repackages the criminal defamation laws in civil garbs, is counterproductive at best and nefarious at worst.
How to actually address fake news

If the government is genuinely serious about addressing the menace of fake news, additional legislation is not the solution. Instead, a whole-of-society approach is needed to address the declining trust in mainstream media and the over-reliance on social media.

Fake news activities are not disorganised or sporadic. Rather, they are highly organised and systemic. So, it makes no sense for our approach to addressing them to be haphazard, untargeted, or ill-informed.

A whole-of-society approach requires the government, technology companies, news and media industry, educational institutions, and individuals to work in tandem and adopt a series of standard operating procedures. Such a multilateral approach is unlike the unilateral approach of the Punjab government in passing the new law.

The government must encourage independent and professional journalism. The world is complex and rapidly changing which creates anger and anxiety amongst people, who have to try and make sense of it. A healthy network of journalists free from external interference serves to alleviate such concerns and establish trust in society.

This also requires the government not to crack down on journalists, or impose censorship, which not only makes it harder for journalists to do their job but also creates space for misinformation to spread unchecked.

Educational institutions must prioritise coaching students in news literacy, which includes the ability to analyse information and be sceptical about what they read and watch. Individuals must ensure they consume their news from a variety of sources.

Technology companies also have a huge role to play. They must identify fake news through algorithms and crowdsourcing, reduce incentives for those who profit from disinformation, and improve online accountability by ensuring bots are eradicated and all users operate under their own name. The news industry must also focus on high-quality investigative journalism and call out fake news and disinformation as an industry practice.

The political leadership must stop fooling the public by using the term ‘fake news’ as a catchphrase to introduce self-serving and anti-free speech legislation. The Punjab government would do well to pay heed to the widespread criticism it has faced over this matter.


The writer is a lawyer based in Lahore with an active interest in climate justice. He is also the Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim fellow at the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan.

Over 80 civil society bodies, journalists reject ‘draconian and regressive’ Punjab Defamation Bill

Amid protests, Punjab Assembly passes defamation law

Dangerous law

The rightwing media aim to save Britain from Labour. They’re also desperate to save themselves

None of them are enthusiastic about Starmer or Sunak. And all are anxious about what comes next

OPINION 
Jane Martinson

Fri 24 May 2024 

At first glance, it seemed same old, same old. Britain’s print media backed their usual teams when Rishi Sunak announced an election this week. Yet, behind the scenes, much has changed, not least the fact that the party’s traditional supporters on the right are distracted by another battle: one for the soul of the Conservative party and also their own futures.

Britain’s newspapers face an unusual terrain of shifting ownerships and loyalties, making this election one of the most fascinating for years. The battle is no longer just about Labour versus Conservative, but different factions of the Conservative party itself. And it’s a fight that will be televised for the first time by GB News, the opinionated upstart TV channel facing regulatory sanctions over its lack of impartiality.


The best example of a newspaper in a state of flux both internally and externally is one that matters more than most to the party in power. While the Daily Telegraph’s news coverage yesterday offered the sort of in-depth reporting it was once known for, a slew of opinion columns went on the attack. Under the headline, “There are just 1,000 hours to save Britain”, Allister Heath went after Labour’s “socialist agenda” and the “tyranny of the out of touch pro-Labour elite”. He urged Sunak to take on “human rights lawyers” and not just the one leading a rival party.

All newspapers tend to reflect the views of their owners as much as their readers, which makes the position of the Telegraph all the more unusual. The paper faces this election effectively ownerless after being offered as collateral for the enormous debts run up by its erstwhile owners, the Barclay family. RedBird IMI, which took on the debt, was blocked by the government from taking it over but has not had time to sell it. With just six weeks to go before the election, any government decision on the new ownership is expected to be made by a Labour government – if the polls are proved right. Alice Enders, head of research at Enders Analysis, said the situation had turned the paper into a “ghost ship”.

Both the Conservative party and the paper that has supported it throughout are in limbo. An election is expected to herald not just a new government but a Tory leadership election challenge, focusing on the enduring fight between rightwing populism and what remains of centrist, one-nation Toryism. At the same time, a new owner of the Telegraph is expected to bring about changes within the editorial team as well.


The fight for the future of the Conservative party is perhaps more marked within the Telegraph for this reason – important given its long and storied history as the true blue paper. It is the only broadsheet never to have backed another party in an election. In recent years, it has offered loud support for the anti-immigration and low-tax policies of the populist right wing. Another column, this time from former minister David Frost, called a coming Labour administration a “catastrophe” on Thursday.

The Telegraph’s sympathetic coverage of these issues, as well its sympathetic coverage of GB News, is particularly interesting given that Sir Paul Marshall, co-owner of the upstart channel and owner of the website UnHerd, is now the favourite to take over the Telegraph.

If any piece highlighted this confluence of influence it was one launched just a few hours after the election announcement by Robin Aitken, a former BBC journalist turned critic and UnHerd writer. Headlined “GB News is going from strength to strength – and the media elite is terrified”, the article attacked the “old, stale media consensus that censors proper debate about important topics” such as “climate change”. With the channel facing sanctions from Ofcom, Aitken argued that it had only offended “elite opinion”, as media impartiality is “a Big Lie”.


‘Drowning Street’: what the papers say as Rishi Sunak makes his election announcement

Marshall is unlikely to face a competition review if he manages to buy the Telegraph because he doesn’t own other print papers – unlike Lord Rothermere, owner of the Daily Mail. That paper has so far kept much of its powder relatively dry on Starmer (though not on his deputy, Angela Rayner). After trying as hard as it could to make a drenched Sunak look prime ministerial with its headline, “Now is the moment for Britain to choose its future”, the Mail’s own future includes defending allegations of phone hacking by Dame Doreen Lawrence, among others. Labour has so far made few announcements about the issue, which has cost Rupert Murdoch’s News Group Newspapers £1bn and counting.

If there is one thing previous elections have proved since he bought his first British newspaper, it’s that Rupert Murdoch is a press proprietor who likes to back winners, from Tony Blair to Donald Trump. So it is interesting that his papers have so far remained even more fence-sitting than usual. The normally tribal Sun greeted the news of a poll on 4 July with disappointment about a spoilt summer, alongside pictures of Taylor Swift and Harry Kane. The Times also played a straight bat. Its main leader praised Sunak for the way he has dealt with a “dreadful hand” while suggesting that both leaders “will be tested severely in the heat of battle”.

The supposed influence of rightwing newspapers has long been tested by their declining readership and profits – so many voters find their news and information from online-only sources and, of course, broadcast media. Media regulator Ofcom may have taken ages to act but its recent threat of sanctions against GB News after regular appearances by sitting politicians now looks timely. It will at least have put the channel on notice when covering its first general election.

In announcing the first July election since 1945, Rishi Sunak ramped up the war metaphors – vowing not to “leave the people of this country to face the darkest of days alone”. The Conservative party’s friends in the media are unlikely to forsake it completely, but there are early signs that Rishi Sunak could be a lot lonelier than many of his predecessors.

Jane Martinson is a Guardian columnist