Terrorism redefined
WHAT constitutes terrorism? The Supreme Court on Wednesday provided much-needed clarity on the answer to what has proved to be a conundrum even for many legal experts in this country.
Read: ‘Terrorism’ too widely defined in Anti Terrorism Act, says SC; recommends Parliament bring changes
In a 59-page judgement authored by Chief Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, the seven-member bench not only held the definition of ‘terrorism’ in the Anti Terrorism Act as being overly broad — something that has repeatedly been pointed out — but also that the courts have not always interpreted the ATA correctly.
In fact, the verdict acknowledges that through the course of the various amendments to the law, parliament has arrived at a definition close to the international perception of terrorism. That is, it is “a species quite distinct from all other usual and private crimes howsoever heinous or gruesomely executed”.
The verdict says that as per the ATA in its present iteration, terrorism is a “crime with the object and purpose of destabilising society or the government with a view to achieving objectives which are political in the extended sense of the word”. Thus the motive, or mens rea, rather than the fallout or potential fallout, is critical to determining whether an act constitutes terrorism.
The verdict directs the courts, including the superior courts in their appellate jurisdiction, to revisit their interpretation in which “the shifting of focus from the effect of the action to the design or purpose behind the action had not been noticed”.
The Supreme Court verdict has also rightly held the preamble to the ATA as being problematic because besides providing for “the prevention of terrorism, sectarian violence” it broadens the scope of legislation to include the “speedy trial of heinous offences”.
A number of crimes — including extortion and kidnapping for ransom — mentioned in the Third Schedule appended to the ATA are listed as falling within the scope of the legislation, without any qualification regarding the motive as arising from a personal desire for profit or vengeance. That has made the ATA inherently self-contradictory and, predictably enough, led to anti-terrorism courts being choked with crimes that have nothing to do with terrorism as defined in the law. Instead of facilitating the prosecution of terrorism, the ATA’s flawed drafting has caused further delays in the disposal of cases that are clearly in furtherance of political and ideological motives.
In a matter of a few weeks, the Supreme Court has given two significant verdicts pertaining to antiterrorism legislation. The first laid down procedural guidelines in trials conducted by the ATCs: among them was that terrorism offences remain non-compoundable even if the aggrieved party pardons the perpetrator for compoundable crimes simultaneously committed during the act of terrorism. Taken together, both judgements have rationalised a critical component of the criminal justice system, and highlighted where work needs to be done.
Now parliament must act on the apex court’s directions to prune the ATA.
Tezgam investigation
THERE are two basic issues when it comes to inquiries into train accidents in Pakistan. One, these probes are carried out by the federal government inspector of the railways, and therefore amount to little more than an internal investigation. Two, hardly any remedial measures follow these exercises. The same fate could befall the inquiry that Pakistan Railways has launched into Thursday’s deadly Tezgam blaze. The difference is that while in earlier instances ‘human error’ by railways staff was routinely cited as the cause of an accident, this time investigators are almost inclined to put the entire blame for the fire that devoured 75 lives on the passengers. They already have it on the authority of the railways bosses that the fire was caused by a group of Tableeghi Jamaat members who were allegedly using a gas cylinder to cook food on the moving train. A preliminary report by the federal inspector hints as much, saying, “there was no evidence of a short circuit as claimed by some witnesses”. A detailed inquiry report is to be submitted by Nov 20, amid promises of action against any official found guilty of negligence.
This could likely be a threat to junior officials since PR doesn’t have a tradition of holding the senior ranks accountable for any accident under their watch. When a senior official was removed from his post in July, many thought that was punishment for a recent train crash involving the Akbar Express in which 25 people were killed. But this view proved erroneous when the officer was immediately appointed to a very important post at the railways headquarters in Lahore, while fingers were pointed at the driver and his assistant. Earlier, in June this year, a driver and his deputy were held responsible for an accident between Hyderabad and Kotri. Both men died in the crash. Many justifiably called the subsequent intra-departmental inquiry an unfair trial of the dead. By habitually pointing out the ‘human errors’ behind these accidents, the worthy investigating inspectors would have us believe that human resource at the railways’ disposal is of a terrible quality. But why then has there been no indication of a scheme to improve the quality of manpower? There is logic to demands for an independent, transparent and fair probe of accidents — without any role for the railways officials. Indeed, the calls for a judicial investigation of PR’s most serious accidents are not misplaced either.
Women in journalism
EVEN in the field of journalism, women are not spared the narrow interpretations of toxic masculinity regarding their behaviour. It has been revealed in a survey conducted by the nonprofit initiative Media Matters for Democracy that online harassment affects the work of 95pc of women journalists in Pakistan. The report, titled Hostile Bytes — A Study of Online Violence against Women Journalists, highlights the fact that women journalists are often subjected to abuse of a personal and sexualised nature on social media sites, even for merely criticising or challenging certain narratives or policies — unlike their male counterparts. The report also stated that 77pc of women journalists resorted to self-censorship to evade online harassment, which affected both their professional and personal life. Moreover, when these women journalists approached law-enforcement agencies to report online harassment, half of them received unsatisfactory responses.
Pakistan is already one of the most dangerous countries in the world for journalists. The current political climate has made it even more difficult for the media to offer fair criticism of government decisions and policies. In this context, the social and personal costs that women journalists have to bear for merely doing their job makes them doubly vulnerable: not only do they have to deal with the professional pressures of journalism — of which there are many in our country — they also have to counter warped societal notions regarding their ‘responsibilities’ as ‘traditional’ women. A ‘good ‘Pakistani woman is one who is always patient and never complains; somehow, as this report reflects, this also applies to women journalists, who are forced to mute their own voices, resulting in their perspectives, especially on issues concerning women, being cast aside. Online harassment has multiplied with the use of social networking sites such as Twitter. It cannot be taken lightly and be dismissed as merely an extension of the existing social fabric of Pakistani society where fragile patriarchal honour is threatened each time a woman dares to demonstrate some degree of intellectual or physical independence. It is a disturbing trend that must end immediately.