Why are non-militant Islamists being criminalized under the Cybercrime Bill 2016?

This article has been published at
http://nation.com.pk/blogs/08-Sep-2016/why-are-non-militant-islamists-being-criminalized-by-the-cybercrime-bill-2016

After reading the 21 page, recently approved, Cybercrime Bill, and keeping in mind the changing dynamics of social media and the internet, one can clearly ascertain that several crimes related to unauthorized use of identity or access of information, offence against dignity and modesty of a person, child pornography, glorification of an offence, cyberterrorism and the likes, required a necessary and much needed legislation.

However, what is equally important is the way this legislation is worded and if it does not consider the human and social aspects in the proper context, the sole purpose of this legislation might be counterproductive.

For instance, Farieha Aziz, Director of Bolo Bhi which is an advocacy forum for digital rights, criticized Section 34 of the recently passed bill and said:

“In an environment where there is zero tolerance for anything that is a departure from the official narrative, how else is Section 34 going to be used if not to stifle already dying freedoms and the space to voice a dissenting view? Raise questions about the ongoing military operations, and you’re running down the army as an institution; talk about judicial over­reach and it becomes a matter of the judi­ciary’s reputa­tion; take a politician or political party to task and it becomes an attack on demo­cracy itself; critique of indivi­duals has be­come synonymous with critique of an institution and cons­tructive criticism poi­n­ting towards much-needed reforms within our institutions is now equivalent to defamation.”

Several other writers have also criticized certain draconian aspects of the bill, and termed the whole exercise as an attempt to amplify the state’s thirst for absolute power over anything that exposes its wrongdoing or calls for accountability and transparency into the workings of state institutions.

On the other hand, Section 10 of the bill, which discusses cyberterrorism, has been generally accepted and its loopholes not actively criticized by the civil society. The points in this section regarding hate speech, sense of fear, planning and funding terrorism are commendable but Section 10(c) can be extremely exploitative especially against non-militant Islamists because of its vague language. It criminalizes those who “advance the objectives of organizations or individuals or groups proscribed under the law.” Now this fancy statement has some serious repercussions.

The internationally accepted definition of terrorism is “Islamist motivated militancy by non-state actors” and the groups proscribed under the law on charges of terrorism include TTP, ISIS, Al-Qaida, SSP etc. Ironically, since such groups are Islamist motivated therefore their objectives contain ideas, which can arguably be traced back to the teachings of Islam.

For instance, ideas like the establishment of a caliphate, liberation of Muslim lands, jihad, establishment of Islamic judiciary, anti-democracy, anti-capitalism, anti-interest based banking system, anti-American dictation, etc. These objectives and the likes are carried and propagated by several Islamist groups. For instance, all political Islamists like JI, JUI, JUP, TI, etc and all religious Islamists like Tableeghi Jamat, Al-Huda, Madariss, Dawat-e-Islami etc. who are neither proscribed nor militant, but do share the beliefs of establishing an Islamic form of governance, economics, judiciary etc. can be penalized under this section.

This means that if I consider the governance model of the rightly guided caliphs and the caliphate to be the political solution for Pakistan, I consider Islamic judicial model as the best model, I consider interest based banking and capitalist economic model a menace to our society, I consider zakat and jizya to be a prudent taxation policy and do not consider American dictation vital for us, then I am “advancing the objectives of a group proscribed under the law”.

Since the proscribed organizations hold these very beliefs, I cannot express my own similar beliefs and if I do so, I can be jailed for “advancing an objective of a proscribed organization” even though I could be condemning their brutal acts in the severest of words, and propose a peaceful non-violent course for the attainment of Islamist objectives.

This section of the Cybercrime Bill comes with dangerous consequences because Pakistan is a predominantly Muslim society and these non-militant Islamists are an active component of our society. Amongst them are those who are democratic, political, intellectual, revolutionary and preachers of non-militant thought. Doctors, engineers, scientists, educationalists, businessmen etc. all can be individuals with belief systems that lean towards Islamism. This section would give the state and security agencies unprecedented access to criminalize anyone and everyone who intends to propagate the political, social, judicial or economic systems of Islam.

Suppose for a moment, that a democratic party turns violent and gets proscribed by the law, will the proponents of democracy and secularism be criminalized because a proscribed organization also believes in those ideals?

The views held by believers of political Islam can overlap with thoughts of militant proscribed organizations like TTP or the likes. Criminalizing them seems to be a deliberate effort to marginalize the Islamist ideology residing in our society.  

 To sum it up, the Cybercrime Bill had some much needed legislative rules mixed with some highly inappropriate ones so as to give it a neutral cover and get it through the NA and the Senate. The criticism had been directed on the vague sections of the bill, which were blatantly ignored by the legislators. This clearly highlights that the core intention of this legislation was to create a sinister atmosphere and trigger a feeling of oppressive malevolence in the general masses.