That ARY lost a defamation case in UK in 2016 for accusing Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman of treason is well-known
What is less known is Ofcom also upheld two complaints made by MSR against New Vision (which rebroadcasts ARY) in 2017
Interestingly, both complaints involve PM Imran Khan
The first complaint was about Imran Khan’s interview in Power Play in Nov 2017, where he accused MSR of being “bought” (by Nawaz Sharif) and alleged Geo has the “task to save a corrupt person”
Ofcom found the unsubstantiated, one-sides allegations constituted unfair treatment
The second was about how the channel aired Imran Khan’s speech at a rally, where he once again attacked MSR, Geo
The channel ran captions such as “Media’s godfather is taking money to defend the Sharif family - Imran khan”
Once again, Ofcom found MSR had been treated unfairly
Disturbingly, we still hear Govt representatives making the same allegations against Geo, often as a deliberate strategy to distract from critical questions
Laughingly, the same people also advocate for a stricter regulation to counter defamation and “fake news” in Pakistan
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The recent debate on China’s development is a response to PM Imran Khan’s claim that China’s political model is superior to “western democracy”
And how the CPC achieved rapid growth and poverty reduction due to transparency, meritocracy and holding elites accountable
This is a very problematic claim. Not only does it view development narrowly and excludes human rights/political freedoms from its ambit, it also misses the role of corruption - including institutionalised forms of corruption - as an enabler of rapid economic growth in China
Dr Ang does not deny “access money” (a kind of corruption) is an important part of China’s growth story, but warns such growth is distorted and carries risks (hence her term “steroids of capitalism”)
This is a cautionary tale for countries seeking to emulate China -not a defence
UN human rights mechanisms have repeatedly raised serious concern about the rights of Muslims in France
For example, in 2007, the UN Independent Expert on Minority Issues highlighted “intolerance, suspicion, and misunderstanding of Islam and growing islamophobia” in the country
In 2015, in its assessment of France’s compliance with ICCPR, the UN Human Rights Committee expressed concern about the resurgence of “racist and xenophobic discourse” in public and political spheres, and highlighted upsurge in hate crimes, including against Muslims
In the same year, UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination said France should distance itself from “racist hate speech” and “Islamophobic discourse” emanating from certain political circles, media
It also urged France bring perpetrators of hate crimes to account
Status of domestic violence legislation in Pakistan:
1. Sindh passed a law in 2013
The law defines domestic violence broadly to include physical, psychological, sexual, and economic abuse; covers a range of domestic relationships; and specifically criminalises the practice
2. Balochistan passed a similar law in 2014
While it provides for civil remedies such as protection/residence orders, it doesn’t criminalise domestic violence that isn’t already an offence under PPC
It also defines domestic relationship more broadly to include domestic help
3. Punjab passed a domestic violence law in 2016
Like the Balochistan law, the Punjab law defines domestic violence broadly but doesn’t specifically criminalise the practice
Instead, it provides victims a range of civil remedies such as protection/residence/monetary orders
SC order today gives a fascinating, albeit troubling, insight into the judges’ worldview:
1. Order says if Punjab can open malls, why not Sindh?
This, as well as previous orders in the case that specially target Sindh Govt, says a lot about how judges see provincial autonomy
2. Court warns that closing businesses would scare entrepreneurs, causing them to move to more “safe and profitable” destinations
A very clear indication of where the judges stand on state intervention in private businesses, including for reasons such as public health
3. Court questions why so much money is being spent in responding to #Covid_19, which is apparently “not a pandemic in Pakistan” and Pakistan is not...seriously affected by it”
What does one say to this - shows the most unfortunate combination of populism and ignorance
1. Mir Shakilur Rehman has been in NAB’s custody since 12 March. Like many others detained by NAB, he has been kept in solitary confinement, that too with cameras in his cell to monitor his every move
Under international law, this practice amount to ill-treatment, even torture
2. Prolonged solitary confinement is prohibited by “Mandela Rules”(Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners), which define prolonged solitary confinement as confinement of prisoners for 22 hours+ day without meaningful human contact for more than 15 consecutive days
3. The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and the UN Human Rights Committee have said that when used during pre-trial detention or for indefinite/prolonged periods of time, solitary confinement can amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and even torture
A snapshot into the human rights jurisprudence of Pakistan’s new Chief Justice Gulzar Ahmed:
1. He was one of the judges who legitimised the 21st amendment, and held trial of civilians for terrorism by military courts did not violate right to fair trial or judicial independence
2. In the 18/19 amendment case, he was one of the judges who held Parliament’s powers to amend the constitution was subject to “implied limitations”, and that SC had power to strike down constitutional amendments if they substantively altered the constitution’s “salient features”
3. He was a dissenting judge (along with J. Khosa) in Panama case. He took a very expansive view of SC’s 184(3) powers and disqualified Nawaz Sharif for not being sadiq and ameen because of his failure to “satisfy the court and the nation” about the facts related to London flats