Pakistani education campaigner Malala Yousafzai, who was targeted by the Taliban for fighting for girls’ education, will address the United Nations today.
The speech will be her first public appearance since the attack in October 2012. Malala, who won Index on Censorship and Doughty Street chambers Advocacy award this year, was shot in the head and chest by an unknown assailant while she was on her way home from school. The Pakistani Taliban spokesman took responsibility for the attack, saying that the young girl was “anti-Taliban and secular”.
Watch Malala’s speech live here:
At 11, Malala began blogging anonymously for BBC Urdu about living in Swat, a Taliban-controlled district in Pakistan. She eventually became an outspoken advocate for girls’ education, and brought international attention to the importance of education for children. Since her attack, she has established the Malala Fund, an organisation that demands education for all.
UNESCO has called the right to education a “fundamental human right”, that serves as a foundation for all other rights, including freedom of expression. With 200 million children denied the basic right to an education around the world, Malala’s fight is important now more than ever.
Malala’s father, Ziauddin Yousafzai, accepted the Index award on his daughter’s behalf saying: “I want to give a message to the world. I didn’t do anything special. As a father, I did one thing, I gave her the right of freedom of expression. All fathers and mothers, give your daughters and sons freedom of expression. Freedom of expression is a most important right. The solution of any conflict is to say the right thing, to speak the truth.”
Listen to what Malala’s father had to say at this year’s Index awards:
We express our dismay and condemnation over the presence of a FinFisher Command and Control server on a network operated by the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTLD’s). FinFisher, developed by a UK-based company Gamma International, has been used to target activists in Bahrain. Privacy International is currently engaged in a lawsuit over the export of FinFisher, and has also filed a complaint with the OECD.
In February 2012, alongside an international coalition of civil society groups, we actively campaigned to stop the impending nation-wide firewall and to inform the government and international surveillance companies of the repercussions of the firewall would have on academia, businesses, trade, and civil society. As a result, five major international companies known to sell surveillance, filtering, and blocking systems publicly committed not to apply for the government’s call for proposals last year.
In March 2013 the Ministry of Information Technology made a commitment to shelve their plans for acquiring the technology for URL filtering and blocking. With the Citizen Lab report we have now learnt that servers at PTLD, one of the largest ISPs in the country, are hosting a command and control server for FinSpy. Based on the report, there are two possibilities: (1) elements of the Government of Pakistan are deploying FinFisher trojans or (2) a foreign government is using a server inside Pakistan for a digital espionage campaign. Either one of these possibilities is highly troubling, and the findings warrant immediate investigation. Moreover, given that a Pakistan Telecommunications Authority’s representative has admitted in court that PTCL has acquired a traffic filtering system, we feel that this acquisition and surveillance capability represents a further threat to the free flow of information, user rights, freedom of expression and privacy in Pakistan.
As members of Pakistan’s civil society and organizations committed to ensuring the government upholds democratic principles in Pakistan, and with concerns about restrictions on privacy as well as access to information, we strongly urge PTCL to immediately investigate the existence of FinFisher Command and Control Servers and to publicly disclose their findings. PTCL to should follow the example of the Canadian ISP SoftCom that investigated and then disabled the FinFisher server on its networks that was similarly identified by Citizen Lab in March 2013. By keeping their users in the dark any further PTCL would harm open and secure access in Pakistan. PTCL should under no circumstances allow FinFisher or other remote intrusion or filtering tools within their network, as their presence directly violates user’s rights and privacy, as well as threatening Pakistan’s network security.
If PTCL wants to further support business, innovation, entrepreneurship, trade, international investment, academia and human rights, it should immediately investigate and disable this espionage equipment on its network.
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.
Moreover, 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.
On the eve of Valentines Day, the Pakistani government issued a staunch warning to its media to avoid reporting the “depraving, corrupting and injuring” holiday. It’s not banned in Pakistan, but Pakistan’s Electronic Media Regulatory Authority warned the press that a “large chunk” of its population are against Valentine’s Day celebrations on principal, with some Islamist groups protesting against the festivities. The Malaysian government has offered similar warnings to its Muslim population. In India, activists of the Shiv Sena Hindu right-wing group held protests against St Valentine.
— An anti-Valentine’s Day demonstration held in Amritsar, India
Many Indonesian officials and clerics see Valentine’s Day as nothing more than an excuse for illicit pre-marital relations. The deputy mayor of Depok, Idris Abdul Somad, warned the public off celebrating and dismissed Valentines Day as a public holiday for sex and urged citizens to replace romance with religion by participating in Islamic activities. In Jambi, on Sumatra island, and Solo, in Central Java, hundreds of students held protests against Valentine’s Day on 13 February. In Aceh, the only Indonesian province living under Islamic law, authorities enforced a ban on novelty gifts.
In Iran, Valentine’s Day was banned in 2011 to avoid the spread of western culture. It didn’t stop some citizens from celebrating today though, as shoppers hunted for gifts, despite the regime banning the sale of cards or heart shaped novelties, with florists being threatened with closure should they sell red roses. In Saudi Arabia it’s a similar story; Pre-marital relations are met with staunch punishment. Valentine’s is viewed as a pagan holiday and activities are monitored and curbed by the Commission for Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice.
The censorship of Valentine’s Day isn’t excluded to Islamic countries. In Florida, high-school goers learned the hard way that school is for learning, not for loving after two Orlando schools banned Valentine’s Day, promising to turn away deliveries of gifts that arrive at school to avoid distraction.
Regardless of sanctions, lovers will still exchange the whispers of sweet nothings and secretly bought gifts. This Valentines Day, whether it’s a Mills and Boon novel for one, or a supermarket meal deal for two, remember that it’s not forbidden — yet.
Moreover, 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.
