Iran: Saberi is no spy
The imprisonment of Roxana Saberi for ‘espionage’ is the act of a government obsessed with controlling the media, says Omid Memarian
(more…)
The imprisonment of Roxana Saberi for ‘espionage’ is the act of a government obsessed with controlling the media, says Omid Memarian
(more…)

Zubeida Mustafa examines the Pakistani media’s response to the arrests of eleven Pakistani students now facing deportation from the UK
At a time when the media in Pakistan has its hands full with a heated controversy raging on the government’s peace deal with the Taliban in Swat, it is unsurprising that the arrest of eleven Pakistani students in the UK has not received as much publicity in the media as it would have in normal times. The story was splashed on the front pages of the newspapers and reported widely on television when the young men were taken into custody on 8 April. But only sporadic reports have since appeared on developments.
Has the media lost interest because, a week after the arrests, the British police have failed to find any incriminating evidence? Until some substantive progress is made, it would be difficult to get the newspapers and television channels to take it up in a big way. They feel there are so many other grave issues of life and death to address on a priority basis that the fate of the suspected students is not a matter to create an uproar. Besides, journalists who are by and large mindful of the wave of anti-American popular sentiments in Pakistan –– thanks to Guantanamo and Iraq –– are more objective in their reporting on terrorism where Britain is concerned.
In the sparse coverage blame was equally apportioned on the two sides. There is acute public awareness in Pakistan of the dangers terrorists pose to human life. With suicide attacks taking place in the country practically on a daily basis and people being killed by the dozen it is also natural that terrorists do not have the sympathy of Pakistanis. Therefore the news of the arrest of the students in the UK was not something earthshaking. Globalisation has blurred boundaries, as is becoming increasingly clear after 9/11.
Media coverage also brought up the element of doubt that inevitably dogs such situations, especially now that there is talk of deporting the students because the police feel they may not be able to make a convincing case before a court of law. Why was consular access to the detained people denied to the Pakistan High Commission in London? Why was the Pakistan government’s previous offer of assistance with the background checks required in the visa process not accepted? Some reports of families proclaiming the innocence of their sons also made people think. But they were too few to stir anyone.
In the English language media, which addresses such issues seriously and has a better tradition of in-depth background investigation, there was absolutely no surprise. With the US having clamped down on student visas after 9/11, Britain has become a popular destination for students in pursuit of higher studies. But the regrettable part is that all those applying are not genuine students. Many are youth insearch of greener pastures who do not see much of a future for themselves in Pakistan. They spend nearly £20,000 on admission and first term fees, air tickets and initial boarding and lodging, then find a job and drop out of college. Some use devious ways to remain on student visas.
Last year the UK issued 9,300 student visas to Pakistanis out of a total of 400,000 — quite an unbelievable figure given the state of education in Pakistan. One journalist who has been following the turn of events attributed this to the ‘crass commercialisation of education in UK and lax monitoring of dubious paper colleges and non-existent universities whose only concern is the money they charge as fees’.
Although there have been complaints about these fake institutions for long, it is only now that the British government has acted. When asked to register with the Border Agency for licenses to admit foreign students, the applications of 460 of 2100 institutions were turned down last month.
These bogus colleges have become a part of the immigration scam. So far the government had turned a blind eye to it as foreign students were injecting billions of pounds into the British economy every year. The flip side of a liberal student visa policy has now dawned on the British government. The alarm may prove to be a false one and a case of over-reaction by the police and the intelligence but the days of easy admission to British universities and easy visa processing are long past.
There might be embarrassment in store for the government after failing to find evidence or bring charges against those involved. But it seems the arrested students will be deported anyway. All this means is that it is becoming increasingly difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff.
This is a guest post by Martin Bright
The sacking of Christopher Galley, the Home Office civil servant who leaked documents to the Conservative Party, demonstrates the golden rule in such cases: the whistleblower always suffers. As a serial recipient of leaks, I know this is defeatist talk, but journalists and their publications should recognise this as a fact.
The criminal case against Galley and his Tory ‘handler’ Damian Green MP collapsed this week. But Galley was still dismissed for gross professional misconduct. In times like these, depriving someone of their job is a serious matter, especially when it leaves a disciplinary charge on the CV.
This is a particularly vindictive way to approach a whistleblower, especially cruel when the information he leaked should have been in the public domain anyway. I don’t believe there isn’t somewhere in the vast Home Office bureaucracy that Galley could have been found a job (well away from confidential documents if necessary).
The same is true of Derek Pasquill, the Foreign Office whistleblower who leaked details of the government’s relationship with radical Islam to me. Derek was also dismissed, despite the immense service he did to the country and the government (its policy changed as a direct result of his disclosures).
I believe there is a duty of care on the part of those who directly benefit from the work of whistleblowers towards those who have taken risks on their behalf. Derek Pasquill is fighting his dismissal, and I believe the New Statesman, the Observer and the think tank Policy Exchange (the publishers of his allegations), should help him with his legal costs.
The same is true for the Conservative Party in this case, which should help Christopher Galley back into employment immediately.