Daily Times

In a television interview recently, Anusha Rahman, the minister of state for information technology, exclaimed that the state is “like a mother” and not like “some NGO”. She further declared that people of Pakistan could exercise their choice through parliament, essentially saying that NGOs or civil society did not a have a mandate and therefore needed to shut up. All this she exclaimed while commenting on the draconian cybercrimes law now pending before the National Assembly.
Here is the problem with this statement. NGOs or civil society only want the state to act like a mother. Instead, the state wishes to act like the pharaoh and that is unacceptable to the NGO. I do not have the brief for NGOs but what I can see is that the state is extremely callous towards the fundamental human rights of its citizens. When it comes to cyberspace the issue is even more pronounced because of the fundamental disconnect and knowledge gap between the state’s officialdom and the newest trends in the world. Consider, for example, that at the recently concluded Global Conference on Cyberspace (GCCS) at The Hague, there was no attendance from Pakistan’s ministry of information technology or the Pakistan Telecommunications Authority (PTA). Our delegation was represented ably by our diplomats in that city but our diplomats are not the ones running the business of the internet and cyberspace.
Make no mistake about it, the Cyber Crimes Bill — whatever version you take (and there are several versions) of the said bill — is a draconian piece of legislation. Take this clause for example: “Power to issue directions for removal or blocking of access of any intelligence through any information system: (1) The Authority or any officer authorised by it in this behalf may direct any service provider, to remove any intelligence or block access to such intelligence, 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, or in relation to contempt of court, commission of or incitement to an offence.”
In other words, the bill uses the language of Article 19 of the Constitution of Pakistan to place curbs on the freedom of speech and expression in Pakistan. In doing so the bill itself ultra vires the Constitution. I reproduce here Article 19 of the Constitution of Pakistan: “Every citizen shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression, and there shall be freedom of the press, subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law 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, or in relation to contempt of court, commission of or incitement to an offence.”
The key language, missed by Anusha Rahman and proponents of this bill, is: “subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law”. This envisages legislative action through the elected representatives of the state to determine what those “reasonable restrictions” are supposed to be. The bill instead leaves it to the choice and good will of the “Authority”, meaning the PTA or an official thereof. Therefore — contrary to Anusha Rahman’s claim about the state acting through the democratic will of the people — the bill actually devolves the power to determine what is in the interest of the glory of Islam, security and defence of Pakistan, or friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency, morality and even contempt of court to an official of the authority. In other words, the bill completely slaughters the spirit and meaning of Article 19 of the Constitution of Pakistan.
Once again, let me state that I do not hold the brief for NGOs or civil society but can you disagree with them when they legitimately question the intent behind such blatant denial of freedom of speech and expression through a bill that is supposedly good for them? The argument that the people of Pakistan act through their legislators therefore falls flat when we see legislators like Anusha Rahman willingly bartering away that right of the people of Pakistan by passing laws that are so contrary to human reason and so out of place in the 20th century. Had someone from the ministry attended the GCCS, 2015 they would know that the world is now speaking of “all the internet, for all the people, all the time”. It is this credo that will ultimately triumph; the so-called NGOs are trying to wake Pakistanis up from their deep slumber. Pakistan’s patriotic civil society is first and foremost a part of Pakistan. To think that they should not even protest against the ministry’s heavy-handed tactics is arrogance of the highest order.
It is the duty of every patriotic Pakistani to resist the imposition of an undemocratic, draconian and fascist cyber crime bill, which is like to kill the internet in Pakistan as we know it. The principle at stake is the fundamental rights of Pakistani citizens to freedom, progress and prosperity because that is what the internet in the 21st century means.

The writer is a lawyer based in Lahore and the author of the book Mr Jinnah: Myth and Reality. He can be contacted via twitter @therealylh and through his email address yasser.hamdani@gmail.com