ISLAMABAD: A senior Pakistani journalist critical of the government’s handling of opposition protests was taken by unknown people late Wednesday, shortly after Amnesty International urged authorities to investigate reports of unlawful killings and mass detentions during a crackdown on an opposition demonstration in Islamabad.
Matiullah Jan, known for his outspoken reporting, was taken in an unmarked vehicle from the parking lot of the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS) hospital, his family said in a statement on social media.
Jan was covering protests by the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party, and had criticized the authorities’ response to the demonstrations.
“Matiullah Jan has been abducted from the parking of PIMS tonight at around 11 by unmarked abductors in an unmarked vehicle alongside Saqib Bashir (who was let go 5 minutes later),” Jan’s son announced on his father’s social media account. “I demand that my father be let go immediately and his family immediately be informed of his whereabouts.”
The journalist’s abduction adds to growing concerns over press freedom and rights violations in Pakistan, especially in the wake of a crackdown on PTI supporters who had gathered to demand the release of former Prime Minister Imran Khan who has been behind bars for over a year.
In a statement earlier on Wednesday, Amnesty International condemned the use of force against protesters in the federal capital, where PTI claimed multiple deaths. The Pakistani authorities also confirmed the arrest of over 900 demonstrators in a span of three days.
“Yet again, protesters in Pakistan have faced a brutal and lethal crackdown shrouded in a callous opacity by the authorities,” Babu Ram Pant, Amnesty’s Deputy Regional Director for South Asia, said in a statement. “The escalation of violence, shutdown of mobile Internet services, mass detentions, and alarming rhetoric against PTI protesters by the authorities speaks of a pattern of intolerance for the right to freedom of peaceful assembly.”
Amnesty highlighted reports of the use of lethal ammunition and restrictions on media coverage.
The rights body also called for a “prompt, thorough, impartial, effective, and transparent investigation into the deaths and injuries of protesters as well as the unlawful use of force by security personnel.”
Amnesty also demanded the release of all protesters, saying they were detained solely for exercising their right to peaceful assembly.
The government has yet not issued a statement about Jan’s disappearance, though Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif blamed PTI leaders and workers of trying to subvert the country’s economy, promising to “break the hand that wants to sacrifice Pakistan.”
The government has labeled the PTI protest as “unlawful,” citing a Pakistani court ruling that barred disruptions in the federal capital during the three-day visit of a Belarusian delegation, which coincided with the opposition’s demonstration.
 

MELBOURNE: The Australian Senate was debating a ban on children younger than 16 years old from social media Thursday after the House of Representatives overwhelmingly supported the age restriction.
The bill that would make platforms including TikTok, Facebook, Snapchat, Reddit, X and Instagram liable for fines of up to 50 million Australian dollars ($33 million) for systemic failures to prevent young children from holding accounts.
It is likely to be passed by the Senate on Thursday, the Parliament’s final session for the year and potentially the last before elections, which are due within months.
The major parties’ support for the ban all but guarantees the legislation will become law. But many child welfare and mental health advocates are concerned about unintended consequences.
Unaligned Sen. Jacqui Lambie complained about the limited amount of time the government gave the Senate to debate the age restriction, which she described as “undercooked.”
“I thought this was a good idea. A lot of people out there thought it was a good idea until we looked at the detail and, let’s be honest, there’s no detail,” Lambie told the Senate.
Opposition Sen. Maria Kovacic said the bill was not radical but necessary.
“The core focus of this legislation is simple: It demands that social media companies take reasonable steps to identify and remove underage users from their platforms,” Kovacic told the Senate.
“This is a responsibility these companies should have been fulfilling long ago, but for too long they have shirked these responsibilities in favor of profit,” she added.
Sen. David Shoebridge, from the minor Greens party, said mental health experts agreed that the ban could dangerously isolate many children who used social media to find support.
“This policy will hurt vulnerable young people the most, especially in regional communities and especially the LGBTQI community, by cutting them off,” Shoebridge told the Senate.
The House of Representatives on Wednesday overwhelmingly carried the bill 102 votes to 13.
Communications Minister Michelle Rowland urged senators to pass the bill which she said reflected the Australian community’s view.
“The ... government is on the side of supporting parents and protecting young people,” Rowland told the House.
Once the legislation becomes law, the platforms would have one year to work out how they could implement the ban before penalties are enforced.
The platforms complained that the law would be unworkable, and urged the Senate to delay the vote until at least June next year when a government-commissioned evaluation of age assurance technologies made its report on how young children could be excluded.
Critics argue the government is attempting to convince parents it is protecting their children ahead of general elections due by May. The government hopes that voters will reward it for responding to parents’ concerns about their children’s addiction to social media. Some argue the legislation could cause more harm than it prevents.
Criticisms include that the legislation was rushed through Parliament without adequate scrutiny, is ineffective, poses privacy risks for all users, and undermines parental authority to make decisions for their children.
Opponents of the bill also argue the ban would isolate children, deprive them of the positive aspects of social media, drive them to the dark web, discourage children too young for social media to report harm and reduce incentives for platforms to improve online safety.