Abusing
freedom of speech
Qudsia Farhat
Freedom of speech is considered to be
one of the basic human rights and is included as indisputable in all major
international conventions and national laws. Due to the role they play in
informing the public and creating public opinion, mass media and journalists
are often said to be the ‘fourth pillar’ of society. In this age of
information, media plays a crucial role in informing people and it is
imperative that it enjoys the freedom of expression but it should use this
right judiciously. In Pakistan, media has suffered at the hands of totalitarian
regimes to win its “freedom of expression”. It has sacrificed tremendously to
win its freedom. In the days of a certain military dictator, media
practitioners, found straying from the laid down parameters, were even flogged
publicly and endured long periods of incarceration. Once freedom of speech was
achieved, the founders of the press freedom movement behaved in a mature and
prudent manner, lest they endanger their new found freedom. Unfortunately, a
new breed of media practitioners has evolved, which had not been exposed to the
roughshod treatment meted out to their seniors. Considering the “freedom of
expression” as their birthright, they indulge in the abuse and misuse of the
power of the pen or their audio-visual message on the electronic media.
Proponents of developing peaceful societies advocate tolerance but the media
have increased their capacity in material, technical and personnel agenda, so
that today they can independently, or, in alliance with a broader factor of
political or external power, participate in creating a milieu of intolerance
and violence between certain groups, but also promote tolerance and
anti-discrimination as the basic values of a well-regulated society and
preconditions for the personal development of each individual in that society.
Unfortunately, the retrograde trends of such abuse of their freedom of
expression are a stigma on the institution of journalism. Abuse of freedom of
expression, or rather abuse of media as its derivative, has long-reaching
consequences on human rights. This is especially so in cases when the media
promote war conflicts and violence, or, in other words, in cases of the abuse
of media for the purpose of absolving war conflicts and violence, but also for
the purpose of relativization of evil and inconceivable crimes. Abusing their
freedom of speech, media has been meddling in conflict situations. During the
Lal Masjid episode some media anchors tried to become mediators, disrupting the
process by the government negotiating team. During the siege of Islamabad by
the deranged Sikandar, some media persons became couriers between the siege
taker and the police prolonging the agony of the people and the law enforcing agencies,
bringing shame to the nation.
In the event of the malicious
conferment of the “Friends of Bangladesh Liberation Award” by Bangladesh to
some Pakistani journalists for their surreptitious support to the insurgents in
1971, again a TV anchorperson from Pakistan went to Bangladesh to accept the
award. He echoed the malevolent suggestion of the Awami League regime that
Pakistan Army had engaged in rape and genocide of the Bengalis in 1971. The
anchorperson not only accepted the false charges but also demanded that the
Pakistan Army render an apology to the people of Bangladesh. Even neutral
Bangladeshis have poked holes in the charge and absolved Pakistan Army of the
extent of the crime. The same anchorperson has been badmouthing Pakistan Army
and the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) in his TV shows on trumped up
charges. In 2012, the same individual choreographed a drama, claiming that his
car had been rigged with explosive devices meant to kill him. Although the
Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) claimed responsibility for the failed attempt,
yet the anchorperson continued to blame the ISI. He continued to spew venom
against the army and the ISI and even contributed to the breakdown in the civil
military relations. The ISI became a target of choice. The “missing persons’
case” was blown out of proportion with the blame being leveled against the ISI.
Good sense prevailed in the higher command of the government and the army and
hatchets were buried but a fresh and more macabre plot was hatched to bring the
ISI in the dock. A drama was staged in which the anchorperson was shot in the
leg and as if on cue, the media group of the TV anchor started flashing the mug
shot of the Director General of the ISI with captions of guilty and murderer
and demands for justice being flickered continuously. Nowhere in the civilized
world, a state organization is so blatantly charged without presenting evidence
but here abusing the freedom of speech, the media house became judge, jury and
executioner till the government decided to take administrative and legal action
against the media house. It had assumed that the sympathy of the masses will be
drawn towards the injured anchorperson. However, rationality prevailed among
the viewers as they realized that if the ISI were actually responsible for the
heinous attack, they would have succeeded in eliminating the target rather than
missing the body, head and torso and hitting only the legs. Perhaps the drama
script dictated non fatal and non serious injury. It is a relief that utilizing
their freedom of speech, the remaining media groups saw through the furtive
attempt to deride the ISI and have started demanding that the media house
render an apology to the state institution.
The main protagonists in this heinous
stage show should realize that state institutions take extraordinary efforts to
be established. To prepare, train and organize the ISI, which is the first line
of defence against the ideological frontiers of Pakistan, it took herculean
effort, years of planning, preparation and groundwork to make the institution
operational and a force to reckon with. It is no ordinary matter that CIA,
Mossad and RAW have acknowledged the strength and potency of the ISI. The
attempt to disparage and destroy the institution at the behest of Pakistan’s
enemies under the pretext of freedom of speech is grave crime and should not be
condoned.
المشاركات
0 التعليقات:
إرسال تعليق