New defamation law

THERE are at least three obvious reasons why the government should not have promulgated the defamation ordinance it did on Tuesday. As we had pointed out earlier in cases where laws affecting the press were promulgated in the form of ordinances, this law, too, could have waited for the general election to be over and for parliament to meet. However, by showing undue haste, the government has given an impression as if it were afraid the National Assembly would not come up with the kind of law the military wanted. Secondly, a law on defamation already exists (section 499 of the Pakistan Penal Code), and a new one was not needed. Besides, the ordinance itself makes it clear that it will not affect any existing law. Thus, when a person culpable of defamation can be prosecuted under section 499 of the PPC, what was the need for a new law? Third, the government had also been told of the reservations which newspaper owners’ and editors’ associations had about the proposed ordinance. It has, thus, bypassed the legislature as well as the All Pakistan Newspapers’ Society and the Council of Pakistan Newspaper Editors. The ordinance is also contrary to the pledge the government had given to the CPNE for delaying its promulgation.

The law includes reporters and writers among those who will face action under it. This goes against the existing practice in Pakistan, as in many other countries, where only the editor, publisher and printer are liable to prosecution in case something defamatory is published. The new law would thus make it extremely difficult for reporters to do their job. A reporter must report without fear or favour, but the ultimate responsibility for the printed matter rests with the editor. However, by including the reporter within the ambit of the new law, the government has dealt a blow to the very basis of the freedom of the press and information. The point about making a statement “orally” also needs explanation. Will it constitute defamation if a reporter merely asks a question about embezzlement or wrong-doing by a leader or government official? The definition of defamation, too, has been widened to include subjecting a person to “unjust criticism or dislike.”

The law, mercifully, considers truth as a valid defence. But the truth must be shown to have been published for the “public good.” What is “public good” is debatable and can render a report based on truth actionable for defamation. Another objectionable feature is the time limit within which a party hurt by a comment can begin litigation. Under section 499, the affected party must initiate action within one year of the publication of a report or comment. Under the new ordinance, however, a party whose reputation has presumably been damaged by a comment or report can act within two months of the impugned publication coming to his notice or knowledge. This means if a person comes to know of a hurtful comment years after it was made, he can still take action under the law. This part of the law is highly objectionable. One redeeming feature is that the publication of an apology or a retraction or agreeing to do so is a valid ground for defence. Under the existing law, a plaintiff can demand both an apology and damages. Notwithstanding this and some other positive points about the ordinance, the law needs modification. One hopes the coming National Assembly will vet the ordinance thoroughly and pass it after removing its objectionable features.

Stuck in the groove

REPORTS of fierce fighting between rival commanders in eastern and northern Afghanistan underline the chronic instability plaguing the war-ravaged country following the ouster of the Taliban. A number of violent skirmishes have taken place this week. In one such showdown, 17 persons were killed in Samangan province during fighting between rival commanders. Days later, nine persons died in a similar clash in Paktia province in eastern Afghanistan. The continuing infighting has cast a shadow over Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s government, whose writ barely extends beyond the capital. Even in Kabul, where there is a 5,000-strong force of international peacekeepers, the situation is far from stable. There have been a series of blasts in the city in recent months, including a deadly car bomb attack earlier last month. On the same day, Karzai survived an attack on his life in his hometown, Kandahar. Beyond the capital, powerful warlords continue to hold sway, refusing to recognize the writ of the Kabul government. At the heart of the current instability is the contradiction between the political and military goals of the US in Afghanistan. Its forces have focused all their energies on hunting down the remnants of the Taliban and Al Qaeda rather than strengthening Karzai’s government and embarking on the task of rebuilding and rehabilitation. The Americans are opposed to bolstering the strength of the UN peacekeeping force and are wary of allowing it to move beyond Kabul.

There is also deep disappointment over the pace of rehabilitation and reconstruction activities. Only a small fraction of the nearly 1.9 million dollars pledged by donors for such work this year has so far reached Afghanistan. A bigger inflow of aid could strengthen the Karzai government’s position considerably by boosting the shattered economy and creating jobs. Already, the Pushtoons are bitter at being marginalized by other ethnic groups following the defeat of the Taliban. The West could ill-afford to allow Pushtoon resentment to reach a higher level, as it could provide an impetus to the Taliban as well as ambitious Pushtoon warlords like Gulbadin Hekmatyar. With US attention increasingly focused on Iraq, Afghans fear that an attack on that country could push Afghanistan further down the list of priorities.

Exploited and abused

DOMESTIC servants are among the most exploited sections of the workforce in the country. Most household servants receive very low wages, have absolutely no job security, and are forced to work long hours. They are often abused, both physically and verbally, and have to put up with such harsh treatment because of shrinking employment opportunities. While some domestics get a fair wage for their work and are treated well, they form a relatively small and privileged minority. The vast majority of servants, however, are ruthlessly exploited and mistreated as a matter of course. Women servants are particularly vulnerable. Their wages are generally far lower than that of men, and many have to work long hours for a pittance. Because of unemployment and the high incidence of drug addiction among men, these women are often the sole breadwinners of their families. Their children have to forego schooling to help out their mothers at work, for which they are rarely paid.

Some homes employ very young children as help and only provide them with meals in lieu of wages. It is also common for girls and younger women to be sexually exploited by their employers. Justice for this vulnerable group can only come about if there is a radical change in attitudes within society about the treatment of fellow human beings, the dignity of labour and respect for workers’ rights. Perhaps social welfare organizations could target domestic servants, especially women, and help look after the educational needs of their children so that they can ultimately break free of the vicious cycle of poverty and exploitation.