Violent clashes have rocked major cities in Pakistan in recent weeks, with confrontations between police and supporters of Imran Khan, outraged at legal proceedings against the former prime minister and now opposition leader.
Protesters have used sticks and stones to attack police and set fire to police vehicles. Police used excessive force against protestors, firing rubber bullets, using teargas and charging them with batons. Dozens of police officers and Khan’s supporters have been injured.
But what followed these crackdowns is also deeply concerning: authorities detained protesters under sweeping counter-terrorism laws.
Dozens of Pakistanis from Khan’s political party, Tehrik-I-Insaaf, including Khan himself, have been charged with terrorism offenses, criminal intimidation, rioting, and assault on government authorities.
Now, of course, protesters who engaged in unlawful acts of violence should be prosecuted. We all have the right to peacefully protest; no one has a right to throw a rock at a police officer.
But using counter-terrorism laws here is going way too far.
The problem with Pakistan using vague and overly broad anti-terrorism charges is not new. The UN special rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism criticized Pakistan’s legal definitions of terrorism almost ten years ago.
Counter-terrorism laws, the UN expert said, should apply to acts, “committed against members of the general population, or segments of it, with the intention of causing death or serious bodily injury, or the taking of hostages.”
That’s a solid definition of terrorism, and it clearly would not include individual acts of relatively minor aggression against police who are themselves acting abusively in the context of a heated protest gone sour.
In short, authorities need to keep things in proportion. Not every angry or even violent person is a “terrorist.”