Misogyny in the name of religion

What the likes of Sherani completely overlook is that this isn’t just about an anarchic women rights agenda but it is about men too. —INP/File
What the likes of Sherani completely overlook is that this isn’t just about an anarchic women rights agenda but it is about men too. —INP/File

Not very long ago, singer-turned-cleric, Junaid Jamshed riled up a significant number of religious groups after a video of his diatribe was released online.

It was the usual; Jamshed shaming women for existing, speaking of them as strange creatures who need to be ‘controlled’ but who can never be truly understood.

What was different this time was that he channeled his chauvinism towards the Prophet’s (PBUH) wife. Like clockwork, Jamshed was pushed to release a video taking back his words and apologise, before fleeing the country. He said he didn’t mean to be blasphemous or disrespectful; it is believable, because what became evident was that Jamshed’s chauvinism knows no bounds.

We should know better than anyone else that religion can be a trenchant tool for complete control. Very often, the control begins with establishing a patriarchal culture. Not your usual ‘it’s a man’s world’ patriarchy, but the kind where women aren’t the lesser ones, they simply do not exist.

Consent is all but absent; in fact, having consent at all is seen as a grave threat.

The most recent poster child for this misogyny is Maulana Sherani, of the good old Council of Islamic Ideology. He’s back with yet another statement on marriage, divorce and all things women.

Also read: CII: Pushing Pakistan back to the caves

This time, Sherani has stated that not only are men ‘allowed’ to remarry without their wives’ permission but even the idea of a wife consenting to polygamy is anarchism.

This anarchism, according to Sherani, is furthered under the garb of women rights. Because of course, the rights of women do not exist unless they are dictated by men.

The rights that do exist are in reality convoluted ideologies that teach women that being a subordinate is a norm, because they were born this way.

That women were born for a purpose which is to satisfy a man’s sexual desires, be a homemaker and a procreator.

Unfortunately, this kind of class misogyny is not limited to Sherani. He is a reflection of the deeply entrenched myths within our culture.

The kind that completely overlook women’s role in our history, both religious and national, and entirely deny women equality and respect.

Also read: Five ways Pakistan degraded women

On the face of it, you are free; you can get educated and even have a job but all along you must never forget your true purpose; to get married and raise a family.

The obsession with the ‘need to get married’ is exactly what pushes men like Sherani to release statements about how unnecessary it is for a partner to consent — if such willingness even exists — to polygamy.

For Sherani and many others, marriage is a man’s need, to lay it bare ‘sex’ is a man’s need and so he should be allowed to have multiple partners at the same time.

What the likes of Sherani completely overlook is that this isn’t just about an anarchic women rights agenda but that this is about men too.

This kind of mindset degrades men before all else, by minimising them into sex crazed, emotionless masters that need to be satisfied endlessly.

Men, then become the kind of individuals, who can never feel empathy, hold any kind of emotions other than the ones associated with masculinity and can’t under any circumstances, be vulnerable. In fact, their only vulnerability remains their sexual desires.

Also read: ‘Rape the girl, blame the girl’

Sherani’s statement go beyond polygamy, they speak of the invisibility of consent.

This is then extends to everything concerning men and women, rape, domestic violence, birth control, the list is endless.

Unfortunately, for Sherani, our homes and streets are full of anarchic women ready to strike back each time an attempt is made to silence them.

YouTube ban: Running out of excuses

Dawn File Photo

The post originally appeared on the Dawn Blog 

One fine evening in September 2012, a law abiding, zealous and concerned countryman made a phone call to the Prime Minister’s office “Raja sahab, have you read the news? The Libyans have killed the US ambassador and the situation is out of control. I can not believe it, it’s incomprehensible. We must fix this at once, it’s important that we do so now”.

Shortly after, then Prime Minister Raja Pervez Ashraf did what duty demanded of him, he passed an executive order to ban access to YouTube. It made absolute sense, but that wasn’t enough, duty demanded that the state go one step ahead – not to be competitive with Libya or Egypt – and sanction a day for “showing love to the Prophet”. And so, passionate lovers thronged the streets of Karachi, Lahore, and Islamabad and showered their affection by pelting stones, setting ablaze a few buildings and a bunch of cars; yes, passion can be ruthless.

After the ban in Pakistan was imposed, Afghanistan and Bangladesh followed lead. Both have since revoked the ban, to be clear Pakistan remains the only country in the world where YouTube is still blocked in reaction to the infamous video.

Although, there was a moment of clarity in December 2012 when the ban was revoked, but that quite literally lasted for two hours only. Letters, features, reports, articles and even court summons have gone unnoticed by the now Minister of State for Information Technology, Anusha Rehman Khan. Where Pakistan People’s Party that takes great pride in it’s liberal and democratic values initiated the ban, the Pakistan Muslim League (N) despite it’s love for economy, has paid no heed to the plight of artists, entrepreneurs, academics and businesses.

In countries where a local version of YouTube existed – an official legal presence of the company – the option to remove the video from their jurisdiction seemed an easy option to satisfy rioters and angry citizens. The method is simple, in areas where YouTube has a local presence a request can be sent by authorities to take down certain content citing a law and/or a court order. However, a quick look at theGoogle Transparency Report reveals that only a small portion of such takedown requests are complied with. In Pakistan’s case, however, Google does not have a local presence and therefore doesn’t abide by the local laws. [See Google’s response to localisation and content removal in Pakistan’s case].

In countries like Bangladesh, that faced a similar situation like Pakistan, there is an option of placing an ‘interstitial’ – a warning screen – before the content, because on the internet, unlike television, access to content is mostly voluntary. Unless a user switches on their computer, connects it to the internet and proactively looks for the content, there’s a very slim chance they would be able to stumble upon it. So a warning screen before an offensive video seemed a sensible option.

But of course, we didn’t buy that, we want the video to be removed in its entirety, which begs the question even if it is removed from access in Pakistan, does it change the fact that it will still be accessible? If its still accessible elsewhere, how does that change anything? And even if it is removed from around the world, how does it prevent others from pulling off similar stunts? If there was ever a way to demonstrate a quick fire way to deprive a country of 180 million from access to information, we made it pretty darn easy.

This now brings me to the recent hoopla, a district court in San Francisco hasdirected Google to remove the ‘Innocence of Muslims’ video on copyright grounds based on a plea made by actress Cindy Lee Garcia. The claims are similar to the ones that were reported when the video was released, that the actress was ‘duped’ into appearing in the video, was unaware of the content, had not signed release orders, and received threats after it was uploaded.

Following the order, the video has been removed from YouTube (for now), a quick search reveals trailers that show a “copyright takedown screen”. Its important to remember the court order is in light of the copyright violation and not the nature of the content of the video, similarly Google’s reaction to the court order is on the use of the copyright law for content takedown and not the nature of the content in question.

The government that was quick to keep access to the site blocked has been exceptionally slow with their response. Surprise, surprise! The ban was never based on the video but a good-looking public excuse to allow filters to be installed that can make room for blanket surveillance and censorship. National security, blasphemy and immorality have made for great excuses to censor information.

From the anatomy of the breast to breast cancer, we’ve got all our national security threats sorted and successfully blocked. There might be a phone call in the offing to tell Minister sahiba and brief PM sahab on how the video may reappear once again, never mind other petty issues such as the Taliban offensive and the education emergency that demand our immediate attention, and the ministry will have yet another public excuse to keep the ban going.

In the past six months, we have heard it all, from buying filters to blocking access to the specific video, to renting filters from PTCL, to forcing Google to localise, to banning all of Google if it doesn’t comply, to now, finding a new excuse to keep the site blocked, there is no method to this madness, neither an end.

It took well over a year for the court in San Francisco to make its decision, Google will be challenging the decision based on the use of the copyright law, which in case of a content sharing website could be lethal, but that might take a while.

The state has in its hands a unique opportunity to mend its ways, we can either choose to dig our heads out of the sand or keep shooting ourselves in the foot; I’ll keep the Band-Aids handy.

Pakistan Elections: The Missing Voters

Originally published by Index On Censorship 

Pakistan’s historic election is history. Historic because it is the first time a government has completed its term without being ruthlessly axed, toppled by military dictatorship or unelected politicians.

It was also one of the bloodiest elections in the country’s history. At the end of three weeks of campaigning, at least 117 people including election candidates have been killed. Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif began talks on Sunday to form a new government, The New York Times reported.

As the campaigns proceeded, the rift became clearer: the Taliban threatened and attacked specific political parties namely, Awami National Party, Pakistan People’s Party and Muttahida Qaumi Movement, derailing their campaigns to the point where the parties had to shut down their election offices. Even that didn’t stop the terror attacks, as locked and empty political party offices continued to be targeted. The Taliban claimed that the political parties being targeted were secular and worked against the ideology of Islam. Although the Taliban were the biggest perpetrators, they weren’t the only ones: political rivalries and attacks continued throughout the country during campaign time. Only Punjab, one of the country’s largest provinces, remained relatively terror free.

pakistan-flagMoreover, the political parties that were not on the Taliban hit list shied away from calling out the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan over the attacks, despite condemning the attacks vocally. Eventually, as a gesture of solidarity, Pakistan Tehreek – e – Insaaf, party led by Imran Khan, announced to it would withdraw all its scheduled events for election campaigning in Karachi.

Violence, Moral Policing and the Constitution

Violent attacks by far have been the biggest deterrent to political campaigning this election, sustaining attacks because of their secular ideology shunned political workers from expressing their views, further bifurcating the already polarised political and social discourse.

But hindrance to freedom of expression began as early as the election process itself. The election commission sparked a huge debate when the nomination papers of a renowned columnist were rejected by the district returning officer, or RO, “for writing against the ideology of Pakistan” in his columns. But even more concerning was the fact that the objection was raised by invoking the constitution’s Article 62 & 63, introduced during the much-reviled dictatorship of Zia-ul-Haq. To paraphrase, the articles made it mandatory for prospective political candidates to have a clean criminal record; of being of noble and sound character reflecting the Islamic beliefs and of not having ever worked against the security and interest of the nation or having criticized the military or the judiciary, amongst other things.

The account of journalist and politician Ayaz Amir was even more revealing: “I was told that in my column I have endorsed liquor drinking. I really don’t know from where the RO has got this impression, as I have not written anything like this.” As fellow journalist Omar Warraich aptly summed it, it seemed Amir was being disqualified for a thought crime. Amir challenged this in the Lahore High Court, which reversed the RO’s decision, allowing Amir to contest elections. However, that hasn’t stopped the much needed debate around Pakistan’s amended constitution, which successfully cripples freedom of speech, expression and even privacy by subjecting it to ‘reasonable restrictions’ from vague terms like ‘glory of Islam’  to a subjective issue of ‘morality’.

The missing voters

It’s hard not to acknowledge the void left by the missing voters — women, the nearly 1.5 million people of Gilgit Baltistan and the four million Ahmadis. Although their plights may vary, the issue remains the same — a significant segment of the society will watch the elections unfold from a distance and not enough has been done to ensure their participation.

The Ahmadiyya community has boycotted the elections process for at least three decades after a law declared them ‘non-Muslims’. This was exacerbated in 2011 when the election commission created a separate voters list for the Ahmadis. This action marginalised them even further. Even though Pakistan’s Supreme Court took the discrimination complaint under serious consideration, it ruled that the court couldn’t over rule a constitutional command.  The past few years have been tumultuous for the country’s religious minorities, the boycott from the Ahmadiyya community might deter other religious minorities from voting.

A report published last year by Pakistan’s Fair & Free Election Network, approximately 10 million Pakistani women were unaccounted for in the draft electoral rolls released in 2011. With the exception of a few, political parties have remained largely negligent of mobilising the women voters. Despite powerful women in the assembly and strikingly powerful stories of women candidates the issue remains: How many women will turn up to exercise their right to vote? Will the stories of candidate Veeru Kohli, bonded labourer from Hyderabad and  Badam Zari of Bajaur inspire more women voters to practice their rights? Reports suggest otherwise.


Unpacking an Anti-Censorship Campaign

Post written for and appeared in global voices advocacy

When the ICT R&D fund in Pakistan announced a call for proposals earlier this year for a “National URL Filtering and Blocking System” inviting companies, academia and research institutions to bid; my reaction was of shock and disbelief. Not because censorship is a new phenomenon in Pakistan — in fact it has been legitimized and often protected under the constitution camouflaged as an initiative to counter blasphemy, immorality and national security threats — but because of the audacity of making the bid publicly, and also involving institutions that are likely to be censorship’s biggest victims.

It is perhaps the first time that a government has announced its plans for censorship publicly. In the past years, Pakistan’s government has been involved in covertly censoring the Internet, the acquiring of a National URL Filtering and Blocking System would be the last nail in the coffin. In a security state where civil liberties repeatedly succumb to national security measures, it becomes increasingly difficult to fight for Internet freedom. Having been a part of anti-censorship campaigns before, two things were absolutely clear, the state will use its usual ploys — religion, morality and national security– for unquestionable authority; and for an anti-censorship campaign to be successful it must make use of the same tactics. An argument, which the state cannot refute.

Call for proposals for a national URL filtering and blocking system

Call for proposals for national filtering and blocking system

When a state embroils its citizens in an ‘either you are with us or against us’ argument every dissent is at risk of being equated to treason– or in an Islamic country, blasphemy. Therefore the most important key player in anti-censorship strategy is to steer the argument away from contentious issues. That’s not to say that civil rights should be surrendered but the narrative needs to more coherent, logical than it is defensive. The first response was todemand answers from the government, on what had provoked such a decision, if stakeholders were taken on board, if they are aware of the repercussions of such a system and a demand to take all stakeholders on board before any decision is made on the proposal.

Coordinating local and global action

As expected the calls for accountability from civil society were met with silence. Nevertheless, setting up the tone for the campaign; actively resistingthe impending firewall. The call for accountability also made it easier for us to approach political figures in power, who otherwise refrain from engaging with civil society campaigns that target the government proactively as their initial reaction.

The announcement also alarmed the global community to respond to Pakistan’s government. I believe this was and remains one of the most crucial part of the campaign. However, as international pressure was building up it was important to consider that advocacy campaigns do not exist in a vacuum, and take into account the cultural and geopolitical context. For example, countering a ban on blasphemous content with an argument on freedom of expression in a country like Pakistan is not only counterproductive but life threatening. Therefore, it was important to have a coordinated, global and local action.

Before the global community could be involved a few questions needed to be considered. When the government is using national security as an argument, is involving international community to demand an end to the decision a wise step? Especially, organizations based in the United States? Will a call to uphold democratic values by international organizations be discarded in the usual ‘we do not believe in you version of democracy’ fashion? Will international organizations shouting at the government uphold democracy, or help or make it easy for the state to curtail dissent by deeming them as western ploys?

Nevertheless, a global campaign, if organized and strategic, maximizes impact. The campaign needed to be simple, effective and widespread, giving priority to issues that would most concern the government:

  • Economic: Impact of censorship on businesses, entrepreneurs and innovation.
  • Academic: academic paralysis, with a rigorous filtering system, the Web sphere will be limited, hence it would mean less content accessible for carrying out research (example: UAE where in trying to censor porn, students could no longer access research papers on breast cancer).
  • Democratic culture: In a country where public discourse is limited, shrinking the public sphere will be damaging. With elections nearing, this could greatly impact the government’s claim to advance democracy.

For users:

  • Security & Privacy: It would permit authorities to sniff into your conversations. Blanket surveillance.
  • Social networks will not only be prone to surveillance but could be blocked just because another user has put up content that authorities consider ‘objectionable’.

Public discourse:

  • During the 2007 emergency imposed by Musharraf, the media crackdown resulted in an outpouring of information on social networks. These were actively used to mobilize people, spread information regarding police brutality on journalists and protesters and work as a news portal in the absence of mainstream media. Authorities recognize that this could be crucial in the future, hence complete control would enable them to censor political dissent.
  • A huge number of Baloch websites have already been blocked, and we have no reassurances or reasons to believe that a ‘flip flop’ switch for the Internet will not be used to silence mainstream voices. Imagine mainstream media websites being banned under the same pretext.

While it is important to build pressure on the government it is also crucial topressure international surveillance companies not to sell surveillance technology to authoritarian regimes. Civil society in Pakistan, urged international organizations to call for surveillance companies to not bid for the proposal, five out of eight companies responded with a commitment.

This, I believe has paved way for activists living under Internet crackdown and surveillance to pressure the companies to stop aiding authoritarian regimes. Similar letters were issued to academic institutes to commit not to consider the government’s initiative and inform them of the repercussions it will have on academia.

When international organizations wrote to the government informing them about the impact this could have on economy, academia, trade and democracy — highlighting democracy and freedom of expression only after the economy factor– the authorities had little choice but to respond. The tone had to be set through the mainstream media as well; hence a press kit with simply worded FAQs helped in getting the issue significant coverage in local press. Proactively approaching journalists resulted in the issue being covered even in the Urdu press, again the pertinent point here was informing the media how this could impact them and hence ‘owing the campaign’.

Current status

A few weeks ago, the Secretary of IT, made a verbal commitment to Bushra Gohar, Member National Assembly, that the plans for the filtering system have been shelved. Thus far there has been no official statement. However, the Ministry has made verbal commitments over the week, shifting the blameon the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority. There’s both a positive and negative aspect of the situation at present: the negative being that the authorities are most likely to continue censoring covertly, and that the verbal commitment is a delaying tactic. It’s positive because of the apparent rift between government sectors and the reluctance to take the blame can only work in our favor.

I strongly feel that the campaign was a success because of consistent pressure from organizations globally. Even though we have still only received verbal commitments, I believe that the success lies in how we planned the campaign to focus on issues such as businesses, trade, academia and economy, steering the debate away from the more controversial issues of blasphemy.

Religion and morality are often used for unquestionable authority and have thus far been a successful tool. Rather than reacting to state’s use of these issues and creating an ‘either you are with us or against us situation’ we focused on things that really matter. When international organizations wrote to the government speaking about how it impacts academia, businesses, user privacy and democratic culture, the authorities had little choice but to reconsider the repercussions of such a system. There is no doubt that the success and power lies in coordinated, strategic and consistent efforts enabling us to truly respond as a global community resisting censorship.

Justice after Fakhra?

In April of 2000, 20-year-old Fakhra Younus poured acid all over her face, burning her skin, melting the flesh and bone underneath and mutilating her face and her body. It seeped into her clothes dissolving them, melting her breasts, fusing her lips to her chin and burned her hair off, while her five-year-old son witnessed the ordeal.

That’s the only version of truth about Fakhra that may ever be acceptable. In a society where the victim is ridiculed, moral policed and counter questioned while the accused enjoys the freedom to hurl abuse and sit on high ground; Fakhra’s mere existence is a crime.

After struggling for 12 years and undergoing over 30 corrective surgeries, Fakhra lost hope for justice. The man accused of putting her through this ordeal, Bilal Khar, shared his grief by spending a few hours giving interviews to news channels yesterday.

He said he was sorry that she was dead but that he isn’t responsible for her murder. That she was a sex-worker, a woman he had married despite her past but she insisted on returning back to her ‘usual routine’. He isn’t responsible for her murder. She had stayed in his house for four months before she left for Italy. He is innocent. Fakhra used his name to take amnesty in Italy, to make money and it benefited the women who were helping her to ‘cash in’. Because no one would give her amnesty and funds if they had used a Kanjar’s name, it was his name that gave this case a media trial, it was his name that gave her amnesty and it was his name that brought Musrat Misbah four villas in Europe and a yacht. He is innocent. If people are so bothered about justice for Fakhra why don’t they go to Napier Road and ask which ‘kanjar’ had done it? It couldn’t have been him, Bilal Khar, son of influential politician and feudal lord. It wasn’t possible because he is from a respectable family, he is Bilal Khar, and only Kanjar’s from Napier Road could commit such atrocious crimes.

The same Napier Road that Bilal Khar frequented. The same street where he had met, 18-year-old, Fakhra and promised her a life of love and comfort. For Fakhra, who became a dancing girl at the age of 11 to support her heroin addict mother, and a sex worker as soon as she started menstruating, this was a chance to a whole new life.

But little had she known that the ghosts of Napier Road would come back to haunt her even in her death, that the man who once praised her innocence and bought time just to speak to her would toss her right into an abyss so dark that even her mutilated face would not be a sufficient witness to her atrocities.

When people speak of Fakhra they undoubtedly speak of her past, it allows people like Khar to taint her pleas, to shift the blame onto the victim herself, to suggest that the world is only concerned about Fakhra because of his high-profile preference. I don’t know if Bilal Khar will ever be tried for causing grievous harm to Fakhra that inevitably led to her death. He may never be charged with the crime Fakhra accused him of, but we owe it to ourselves to speak out against Bilal Khar and others like him. Others who may not be from influential families, and still walk free.

Bilal Khar, moral policing a victim doesn’t absolve one of their crimes. It only makes your guilt brazenly obvious, your moral high ground conceited and your allegations concocted. How does any sex worker deserve the horrific fate that Fakhra met? If Fakhra’s profession or past makes her a suspect despite her ordeal what does it make you, a frequenter of the same street where Kanjars abide?

For every Fakhra there are over a dozen Bilal Khars that make sure that she continues to be sold from one man to the other, night and day. It isn’t about who she was, it is about who she becomes, it is about her struggle for justice not only for herself but the hundreds of others who suffer the same fate; burned to the bone because they refused a marriage proposal, fought against violence or simply said no.

Many have rightly pointed out that Fakhra was forgotten until her death. Fakhra knew that too. In her death, perhaps, she had hoped that her story would resurface, that hundreds of other women would receive justice. We abandoned her in her life; let’s not abandon her in her death.

Press Kit: National URL Filtering and Blocking System

This is cross posted from Bolo Bhi. We, at Bolo Bhi, have been actively involved in campaigning against Government’s attempt to blanket censor the internet. Below is a press kit designed to help journalists interested in writing about the issues. The FAQs are a resource for others who may want to understand our campaign better.

Download PDF


On Wednesday, the 22nd of February, the ICT R&D Fund under the Ministry of Information Technology (MoIT), announced through newspapers and their website a Request For Proposal (RFP) for national “URL filtering and blocking system”.
[http://ictrdf.org.pk/RFP-%20URL%20Filtering%20&%20Blocking.pdf ]

The RFP requires that: “Each [filtering] box should be able to handle a block list of up to 50 million URLs (concurrent unidirectional filtering capacity) with processing delay of not more than 1 milliseconds.” This will allow the state to subsidise a comprehensive automated censorship regime.

The ICT RnD fund that will be funding this initiative is an arm of the Pakistani Ministry of Information Technology. The fund was created in 2007 by the Ministry to take a certain percentage of revenue from telecommunications companies and allocate it for scholarships in IT education and research and development of information and communication technologies. Therefore, all grant funding for this national censorship project comes from domestic ISPs, mobile carriers, and telephone companies. However, the decision-making process by which it chooses projects and beneficiaries or grants has not been described anywhere on their website, showing a lack of transparency. Owing to the blanket nature of this ban, we issued a press release demanding transparency on the proposal.To elaborate

–       The reason behind the decision

–       If stakeholders were consulted before the proposal

–       If implications, of the ban on various sectors, were taken into account. [http://bolobhi.org/press-release-public-statements/2222012-2/ ]

In Pakistan, only around 20 million out of 187 million people have access to the Internet. Despite limited access the Internet has brought positive benefits to Pakistan through economic growth, education, entrepreneurship and cultural sharing. The ICT R&D Fund was developed to further the use of ICTs and promote research in the field. It has been involved in doing that actively and therefore an announcement that is contrary to the progress and development of ICT’s from the same organization comes as a shock.


What has happened?

The ICT R&D fund, under the ICT Ministry issued a request for proposals for a National Filtering & Blocking System on February 22, 2012.  It asks applicants to submit proposals to the fund by 3pm on March 02, 2012. This was later changed to 16th March, 2012.

Who cares?

This project asks for a proposal for technology that can review 50 million website links in less than a second.  Think of this as Pakistan’s very own Big Brother system, it would be a similar technology to what China government uses and is commonly known as the great firewall of China. We as rights advocates care about this initiative, because it will not only affect Internet freedom but also have economic implications. [ to look at the campaign updates so far, scroll down to the Campaign Timeline]

Why does the government of Pakistan need this blocking system? What are their concerns?

The government statement suggests that the URL blocking and filtering system is required to filter out ‘objectionable’ content. The term hasn’t been defined but past statements suggest they wish to block out pornographic, blasphemous content and content that could harm ‘national security’. There’s been no explanation/definition of ‘national security. Due to the vagueness of the issue such a system is prone to rampant abuse.

What does National Level URL Filtering and Blocking System mean for a layman?

It means that content will be blocked on URL level. This is one of the most effective methods of blocking content, making it harder for mirror websites. It means that the government has the authority to block access to certain websites completely. In this particular instance, in the absence of legislation, it means that your website or website you use actively could be blocked without citing reasons, without providing a method to complaint, reverse wrongful block and with no time frame or contact person to approach in case of wrongful block.
This could affect business websites, research, mainstream media websites, and this will also be carried out without informing the site administrator. Violation of fundamental rights.

How can it affect an ordinary internet user?

  • Speed: It would slow down your Internet speed.
  • Security & Privacy: It would permit authorities to sniff into your conversations. Blanket surveillance.
  • Academic:  academic paralysis, with a rigorous filtering system, the web sphere will be limited hence it would mean less content accessible for carrying out research (you could  cite example of UAE where in trying to censor porn, students could no longer access research papers on breast cancer).
  • Social networks will not only be prone to surveillance but could be blocked just because another user has put up content that authorities consider ‘objectionable’.

How does it affect various institutions:

  • Academic Paralysis, limiting the scope of the Internet hence limiting research material. (In UAE while banning porn, authorities also filtered out links containing word ‘breasts’, making students unable to access research papers on breast cancer, etc).
  • Censoring political figures, news or subjects to curtail political dissent would practically remove figures from history. Unfortunately our textbooks are no saviors either.
  • If a college/university website is blocked, it would have major implications for students, who might be unable to apply for admissions e.g: Many university/college websites have student forums, while there are rules for the forum they are most likely to be different than rules set up by our government.


  • Economic loses due to wrongful banning. In the absence of legislation there are no methods or rules to reverse, unspecified duration of ban and there are no legal rights given to individual businesses in case that happens (Eg: P@sha innovation fund grantee who registered a website  hometownshoes.com, learnt that PTA has banned it, Jehan Ara, the President of P@sha, was able to approach the authorities and it took them ten days to reverse it. Apparently all sites containing term ‘shoes’ were banned.]
  • Barrier to the flow of information: Businesses need to be able to communicate on demand, censorship restrictions limits such communication
  • Innovation:  Pakistan entrepreneurs need to have the scope to research and test wide number of ideas, restricting content or monitoring of their activity severely limits the ability of entrepreneurs.

Public discourse:

  • During the 2007 emergency imposed by Musharraf, the media crack down resulted in an outpouring of information on social networks. These were actively used to mobilize people, spread information regarding police brutality on journalists and protesters and work as a news portal in the absence of mainstream media. Authorities recognize that this could be crucial hence a complete control on it would allow them to censor political dissent.
  • A huge number of Baloch websites have already been blocked, and we have no reassurances or reasons to believe that a ‘flip flop’ switch for the internet will not be used to silence mainstream voices. Imagine mainstream media websites being banned under the same pretext.
  • In a country where public discourse is limited, public spheres shrinking this will be damaging.

Could the government invade our email boxes, access social media passwords, and monitor our web activity?

Yes, because this method would enable them to access https sessions and issue their own certificates. Https means secure browsing, which is encrypted and not sniffable. An example to elaborate would be: using http your conversations are like a postcard readable to anyone, using https your message is in a sealed envelope and can only be opened by person it’s addressed to.

Can local IT experts and solution providers meet their requirements?

Essentially, they will need to buy the technology from international companies and then as the RFP suggest build it indigenously.

Will these measures slow down Internet speed too?

Why is there such a strong protest against any such step? Isn’t this step taken in good faith by the government? Why should we condemn and protest against this?

Our protest stems from government’s past record of abusing censorship, take for example the LHC decision to ban Facebook that extended to google, YouTube, blogs & even blackberry services were suspended. This is a democracy not a dictatorship. We vote and pay our taxes why should governments have to spend millions of dollars on filtering system? In the absence of legislation we are right in believing that the system is prone to abuse. The Parliament should legislate not ban.

Do you just want pornography/blasphemy in Pakistan?

It’s not a matter of pornography/blasphemy or not, it’s a matter of blanket censorship in Pakistan under the pretense of banning ‘objectionable content’.

Who will be responsible if people are killed on streets because of such content? Who will defend in the Court not to place a ban on such content and contest religious parties there?

The Internet by nature is a free space. It provides voluntary access to information and not imposition.  It is a tool and like any other tool is prone to abuse. We don’t believe all content should be freely available online and we seek to assist in limiting the criminal content that’s available, the key is to have a transparent regulatory process, with clear guidelines over what’s happening. Criminal content can only be governed if there is legislation or a law. In countries like Japan government, civil society and industry worked together to set up an organization to review illegal content. This was set up over a year ago and is operating successfully.

Explained below:

Technical Background:

1. The Government already has a tap on the International Fibers from the two peering points (TWA and PTCL), i.e. the two submarine cable operators in Pakistan.

2. All the traffic to/from Pakistan flows through these peering points and the two taps. The two taps go to “Government” where exactly (PTA? Military? Etc.) No one knows and no one wants to talk about it.

3. What happens with these existing taps? You can very well imagine, they can do DPI (Deep Packet Inspection) of all the traffic. What they cannot open right now are encrypted packets, such as packets by Skype, HTTPS sessions and VPN or other encrypted sessions.

4. Under the guise of blocking grey VOIP (voice over IP) traffic, etc. the various agencies (MI, ISI, IB, etc.) have already managed to get the taps and be able to look at the payload traffic (essentially peer into your traffic) be able to “assemble” your packet-stream and reconstruct your Web or Email or FTP session. This is very easy to do with the right tools, provided you have the ability to tap into the link. Currently Government uses Narus to do this. Remember the official story is that it is to curb Grey VOIP traffic that is supposedly causing loss to the national exchequer in the Million (Billions, etc.).

5. The government has been trying for a long time to tap into the VPN and encrypted
circuits. This they did with a legislation / circular by PTA to register ALL VPN circuits in the country. You can look at the current URL for more information (Virtual watchdog: Internet users banned from browsing privately for ‘security reasons’).

6. Now what remains to reign in the control is – blocking of URLs (porn? anti-state propaganda material, anti-Islam material?) All of these clauses are part and parcel of the various Data Communication Licenses that have been given to the various operators. So the way PTA sees it – this is something long overdue.

7. Under the guise of the URL filtering, HTTPS sessions would also be tapped. In order to do this, all HTTPS sessions would be subjected to something called Man In The Middle Attacks (MITM). This basically says, you proxy the original HTTPS certificate/session (say as given by Gmail) and provides the user a locally owned Certificate (lets call this Pakistan URL Filtering Certificate) and with this, you have essentially been able to now

Looking into HTTPS (Secure) traffic:

8. This is a huge issue. With all the dissidents, anti-state activists, persons of interests, political figures, etc. The government will be able to see the HTTPS traffic and be able to identify the sources.

9. With Gmail, it currently establishes an HTTPS session and obfuscates the Source IP of the sender of the email. This is a stone in the government’s shoe, they cannot “identify” where these people are, and with this HTTPS peering ability, they will be able to do this just so easily as they can do with HTTP sessions.


11. Any blanket privacy you had with respect to HTTPS is gone. So Internet banking secures communication, email, etc. all out of the door.

12. They will be able to capture all your User IDs and Password and specific answers to secret questions that you are suppose to provide in order to recover access to your email accounts.

13. Anyone who is a whistle blower can be identified. Anyone who does not agree with the government can be identified. Anyone can be pressured. Think the McCarthyism – this is where we are heading. Big Brother is always watching and collecting information (personal dossiers) on its citizens. Now they can comfortably collect the “digital” information of its citizens.

14. The state should define and elaborate what it considers as anti-sate content. Is human rights violation in Baluchistan anti-state? Is illegal abduction and torture by intelligence agencies?

15. How does one challenge a wrong decision?

16. What are the repercussions of bypassing and viewing such content? Can it land you behind bars?

17. What / Where is the accountability factor in this?

18. How do we ensure privacy rights are not invaded when your conversations are accessible?

19. What about the MISUSE of the information collected? Pressure tactics, blackmail, etc

20. How does one challenge the government’s writ in such an implementation, which is a clear and gross violation of your basic fundamental rights?

21. Who / Where are the definitions of what is anti-state, anti-religious, anti-moral etc? How do you agree on a consensus of what a decision is? How do you challenge it? How do you modify it?

Currently the constitution states that ‘distribution’ of blasphemous and obscene content is illegal. However, such content available on the Internet is not ‘distributed’. The access is voluntary not imposing.

22. What about data-retention and data mining being done on this data collected?

23. What about Court-approved taps (such powers are supposed to be limited and only with a court-approved order are you able to insert taps). Most software vendors who provide such tapping software and reconstructions software for hand-off (technical term used in industry), have appropriate sections for implementing such Court-orders into the software for proper logging.

24. This LI (Lawful Intercept) is no longer lawful nor being monitored by any member of the legislative or court bodies. In fact it is hushed.
25. Such a system will give the government extra muscle to go after “activists” – “liberals” – “troublemakers” – You and I. Anyone who is a hindrance, becomes a target.

26. The proper way is to bring this out to the National Assembly, have it challenged and formulated with limited power, oversight committees, a quasi civilian (rotating) watchdog and with very restricted perimeters.

Campaign Timeline:
[If you are interested in learning more about the Government’s history of E-regulation and censorship attempts, please check timeline here http://bolobhi.org/resources/state-of-internet-in-pakistan-e-regulations-timeline/ ]

The timeline below enlists statement and media coverage the issue has received thus far.
Day one press release:
Day two press release:

Media Coverage:

Our company mission and history
Established in 2012,even though we have been working on Internet freedom issues individually for over five years now, Bolo Bhi means ‘Speak up’, we are an organization with Focus on advocacy, policy and research. We are a team of individuals with diverse backgrounds who are passionate about the same causes. We believe it is crucial to bridge the gap between rights advocates, policy makers,  media and average citizens.  Bridging the gap enables collective strength and concentrated focus on the areas that require attention.

Biographies and credentials of key personnel

1. Chief Executive Officer & Spokesperson – Sana Saleem

Sana Saleem is an activist working on minority rights and internet freedom. She blogs at Global Voices,  Asian Correspondent, The Guardian, Dawn and her personal blog Mystified Justice. She recently won the Best Activist Blogger award by CIO & Google at the Pakistan Blogger Awards. She can be found on Facebook and Tweets at: @sanasaleem. She can be contacted via email: sanabolobhiorg

2. Chief Operating Officer – Farieha Aziz

Farieha Aziz is a Karachi-based, APNS-awardwinning journalist. She has a masters in English literature from the University of Karachi. She worked with Newsline from July 2007-January 2012 and is currently teaching literature to grades 9-12. Her articles can be viewed here. She can be found on Twitter:@FariehaAziz and contacted via email: farieha<at>bolobhi<dot>org

3. Jehan Ara, Advisory Board

Jehan Ara is the President of the Pakistan Software Houses Association for IT & ITES (P@SHA). She is a motivator, an entrepreneur, a social activist and a strong propagator of extending the power and use of Information and communication technologies beyond pure traditional business, to empower and enable communities. Her blog can be viewed here: In the line of Wire. She can be found on Twitter: @jehan_ara and contacted via email: jehan<at>bolobhi<dot>org

The silent majority

English: Salmaan Taseer, cropped/denoised from...
Image via Wikipedia


It was on this day last year, when a 26-year-old Mumtaz Qadri killed the very man he was meant to protect. Twenty seven bullets to silence Salman Taseer and to make sure that the debate on misuse of blasphemy laws is shunned for good. It was this day last year that I realised that this might be the end of it all, the end of hope, the end for tolerance, the end of any show of courage, bravery or rational debate on the blasphemy laws or anything for that matter.

Some of us had already witnessed the vengeance before, the ‘either you are with us or against us’ mentality.  It was made to look like it was our word against God’s. We had witnessed people jubilant over murder too and witnessed the transition of a murderer to a martyr. The reactions that followed the attack on Ahmadi’s in Lahore were the first signs that humanity had stooped down and been reduced to convoluted assumptions of faith and piety.

In the past year, minority minister Shahbaz Bhatti was also gunned down outside his mother’s residence, silenced so he may never speak out against the injustices suffered by minorities again. While clerics, television anchors, columnists and even politicians sought to persuade us that Taseer had brought it upon himself, that anyone who dared to speak out against the blasphemy laws would suffer the same fate and that if they had the opportunity they would do the same.

Spectators that either choose to agree with the jubilant or nod their heads condemning the murder but justifying the reaction to ‘such sensitive matters’, all the same. Something had broken irreparably.

The few of us that were horrified and enraged took to the streets and protested. Knowing well that for every chant, every word, every argument we make there could be a Qadri waiting to gun us down, lynch us so we may never be able to question again. Not much has changed. But should that stop us?

Salmaan Taseer stood for tolerance and he was killed at the hands of extremism. Nothing justifies his murder, and anyone who does has blood on their hands. I do not expect things to change overnight; they will not go away anytime soon. But I choose not to give up hope, not to remain silent and to keep fighting back, even if it’s our words against their bullets.

I, like many others, take my courage from the Taseer’s. Shehrbano Taseer, who despite losing her Abba so suddenly and violently, stood defiant, courageous and composed. At a time when people should have showered her with words of comfort, she was battling with questions, the likes of which could pierce through the most strongest of souls: “How did you feel when your father’s murderer was showered with flowers? People refused to read his funeral prayers? His murderer is being turned in to a hero of sorts.

She chose to reason, to educate the world that the hatred that killed her father hurts all of Pakistan.

As these walls keep closing in on us, like Shehrbano Taseer, we have no other choice but to resist. We live in an irreparably broken society, and I don’t wish to deny the reality, but despite that we must continue to hope, because hope gives us what we otherwise would not have: a chance.

While the courageous amongst us are ridiculed, threatened and attacked we must continue to support and reason. Silence is not an option, it never was.