August 10, 2016: Letter read before several parliamentarians and shared with then speaker NA, the day PECA was tabled on the floor of the National Assembly for passage. bolobhi.org/wp-content/upl… bolobhi.org/wp-content/upl…
When a portion of this was read out on the floor of the assembly, then IT Minister Anusha Rahman mocked it and said women were committing suicide and such people did not want any law. Opposition members made gallant, well-informed speeches against PECA just a little too late.
Those of you being charged under PECA say thank you to the PML-N, for arrogantly and undemoratically bulldozing this law through because they had a 2/3rd majority. Next, the PPP and opposition, who enjoyed a majority in the Senate but did not resist enough - except some members.
And finally, the PTI, who is taking what PML-N introduced to its 'mantaqi anjaam.' Who opposed then but now speak language PML-N did then and go beyond. Our history - and last few years - is testament to the fact that power of political parties is marginal. You reap what you sow
As citizens we face the brunt of what you usher in. We bear to the consequences of your compromises & interest driven politics. It is also to us you look when you are uncerimoniously ousted or persecuted. We stand with you on principle. Even though you sell us out for your gains.
And to those in the media who harp the tune of more regulation - those who still have jobs and prime time shows - some, not all, did this before you. As the noose tightened, social media became only avenue of expression for them. Don't put yourselves above it. No one should here.
"تم سے پہلے وہ جو اک شخص یہاں تخت نشیں تھا
اس کو بھی اپنے خدا ہونے پہ اتنا ہی یقیں تھا"
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The Prevention of Electronic Crimes (Amendment) Bill 2025 is a classic response to catching out the executive and regulator for their excesses: simply change the language of the law to extend coverage to what was already being done in practice, but was not covered under law.🧵
Addition of this vague definition simply reinstates and duplicates what exists in S.20. Harm to reputation was struck down by IHC from the 2016 law, upheld by LHC, currently pending adjudication before the SC. S.20 already covers false info & there have been FIRs but "fake news"
This is deliberate to extend coverage to third parties such as random individuals or FIA officials who routinely feature as complainants in FIRs, but their standing has been called into question before courts as law does not recognise them as aggrieved leading to quashments.
It is impossible to say anything with certainty because there is little to no information available on it. Why? Because the PTA responds with no comment. The government obfuscates and attributes everything to global disruptions or technical glithces. ISPs/teclos saying nothing.
Firstly, we know what happened with Whatsapp some days ago was NOT a global disruption. Something has been deployed and tested - now news stories quoting officials mention testing has been completed. Of what?
Musharraf introduced PECO in 2007. It lapsed in 2009. The PPP government was going to adopt it as an act of parliament. There was resistance by opposition, industry and civil society. It was called an anti-people law. dawn.com/news/889238/ne…
There were documented instances of misuse under PECO. A consultative process was initiated and a stakeholder draft was made available in 2014. @jehan_ara@WahajSiraj1@rebootdude and others can speak about this process much better than I can as they were part of it.
We remain focused on outcomes - the ones we want - not so much on what is required to get to them. We say the criminal justice system is broken, yet also have high expectations. Rarely is the role of prosecution scrutinised as it should in most VAW cases.
There needs to be accountability for actions. Surprised - tho not really - that many are demanding punishment for everyone should have been the same. The acts were not equal. Deplorable & criminal in degrees, not the same. Besides, what is brought on record & established matters.
With all the attention & resources, Noor's trial took four months to conclude. Compare this to the unrealistic & celebrated 3-month trial period for GBV courts. Lip service is what we do best without recognition of structural challenges & imbalance or any investment to really fix
You are being another Anusha Rahman @fawadchaudhry, hiding behind the guise of "protecting women" and their "reputations" to defend the indefensible, while clear evidence exists civil & criminal defamation laws are being used to suppress their disclosures of harassment.
S.21 is a cognizable, non-bailable offence & yet female complainants of harassment have been unable to obtain relief under the law. So do not make blanket claims & statements. Don't target others with Trumpian phrases like "fake news" while spreading disinformation yourself.
This is nothing but an attempt to dial down public criticism & give false assurances to the courts that the government will review its nefarious schemes, which it won't. No one should fall for this, we are here today due to complacency and expediency.
When PECA was still a bill, there was resistance to S.20 (then S.18). Assurances were given by then IT Minister to media houses that their content would be exempted - a provisio to this effect was put in S.20. They accepted this relief for themselves & said law not as dangerous.
Many within the mainstream media at the time also vocally maintained social media required regulation. It was "baylagaam." The law was necessary. There was much skepticsim about what we said about the dangers of the law. We were told we were exaggerating the dangers. And now look