Freedom vs hate

A landmark judgement has been delivered in a landmark case. Geo and Jang Group Editor-in-Chief Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman’s courtroom victory over ARY in London is extremely significant – not just for the group itself but for anyone worried about the dangerous turn some aspects of the electronic media in Pakistan are taking. We see little regard for the truth and even less for the personal safety of those who are targeted with lies and slander. The historic judgement passed by the London High Court in a three million pound libel case showed, beyond any doubt, that ARY had been maliciously victimising Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman and Geo. He was portrayed as an Indian intelligence agent, an Israeli agent and a US agent, and as someone guilty of blasphemy and other offences against religion. In the UK alone 11,000 story tickers and 113 programmes were broadcast in which he was labeled a traitor 220 times, and a blasphemer 1880 times. ARY declared bankruptcy and Ofcom – the UK’s independent media regulator – revoked its licences in the UK and shut down its channels. Throughout the affair, ARY was far from any notion of decency and dignity. When it eventually admitted its guilt, it did not do so out of remorse but because it really had no way out of the problem it faced. The London High Court’s handling of the case was thorough, and all the aspects were impeccably dealt with. The proceedings and the judgement should be taken up as a case study in media ethics, especially in Pakistan where we have spent little time considering the connection between strong libel laws and media freedom. Such an effort might lead to a much needed understanding of when the line between opinion and slander and libel is crossed. Our lawmakers should use the case as an example of how libel laws should work and how to regulate the media without restricting its freedom.

Most importantly, the case is an example for how our judiciary should deal with such matters. We must respectfully note that cases of incitement to murder with falsehood take years to be resolved. Hundreds of such cases can be filed against one person to target and torment him but none of them reach a conclusion. Those responsible are too often able to engineer their way out of any legal problems. Even when the judiciary is approached regarding false allegations levelled in the media, those making the allegations end up getting stay orders and so the cases drag on for years. None of the many cases filed here by our media group against such slander has been decided yet. As a result, we have a situation where those threatened do not speak out. There is the unfortunate impression that the legal system only looks after its own and trying to go through the courts is nothing but a waste of money and time; cases remain stuck in purgatory and innocent people continue to be maligned. That such a case was decided against the provocateur in the UK, a country where – we are told – freedom of expression is unrestrained and protected, shows us the right way to set limits on what can and cannot be said through the media. A few ‘media men’ cannot be given the right to declare someone anti-state or a traitor or blasphemer. The media can neither accommodate nor indulge in hate speech against individuals and communities. Freedom of expression is not a vehicle for false accusations, provocations of violence and deliberate calls for murder. We must find a way to check the Goebbels-ism that appears to have become a livelihood for quite a few. Much can also be learned from the speedy action taken by Ofcom. At home, Pemra has slowly and haltingly improved its regulation of the media, but right now even the best of intentions are not enough on their own to take action against rotten apples. Any effective regulatory body needs independence, the strength of other institutions and an empowered judicial system behind it. Until such time as we have that in Pakistan, it is the media itself which needs to do a lot of soul-searching.

This is a moment for all media groups to take a step back and decide what future they want for themselves and their society. There are many sane voices within the media who see the current pitiable state but they are drowned out by the screams and screeches of a few. Now is the time for these voices to come to the fore and push for change. One way to guard against campaigns of hate is to show that there are consequences for such deeds. What is happening right now shows that there are others ready to rouse the savage in us with their insane hate and lust for ratings. Religion and patriotism have been and are being used as weapons to target perceived rivals and opponents. Patriotism becomes the last refuge of scoundrels who are permitted to appear on media platforms. If this is not enough, they are happy to throw religion into the mix. Without logic or evidence, they manufacture and sell emotions, and they question their own fellow citizens’ religion and patriotism. But it is their insane greed and shameless falsehood that defile both patriotism and Islam. Throughout the long history of the country, who has not been targeted by such accusations? The best scientists, lawyers, writers, poets, politicians and journalists that this country has produced have all been targeted on religious and ‘patriotic’ grounds. This is how debate and critical thinking was stifled and reform and development became pipedreams. Obscurantism and opportunism do not want new ideas to flourish or for tolerance to spread because in them they see their end. They will do everything to ensure that this does not happen, not sparing even God and country from exploitation. This is what ARY did against Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman and the Jang-Geo Group. The difference this time was that the victim fought back and cleared his name. That took courage because it was done knowing that this would lead to more accusations and more mental torture and greater peril; and that it would be incredibly expensive. Now the world can see that in a fair court of law, truth and decency have won over unfettered hate and filth. No words can capture the agony we went through. But we must note that there are others in this country who suffer similar agony. Very few of them have the ability to defend themselves through the legal system. It requires patience and resources which most of our people do not have. This is something our civil society, judiciary and lawmakers need to think about. The only recourse for the Pakistani people is our own legal system, and it is here that they remain most vulnerable. All of us, who think and are not willing to deal in hate and murder, need to take up the baton. The example has been set and it is up to us to show we will not cower in fear and that we will try and raise society from the depths to which it is being made to sink.