In a society where privacy has a gendered connotation the ubiquitous mobile phone-cum-video camera has turned the private into public, and there are repercussions particularly for women.
In a society where privacy has a gendered connotation the ubiquitous mobile phone-cum-video camera has turned the private into public, and there are repercussions particularly for women.Thanks to the Internet pictures taken in the privacy of Afghan homes are goingviral. Videos of private family celebrations are being “sold” or circulated on CDs and mobile phones without the permission of the family. Conservatives view the unrestricted use of the new technology,particularly by the younger generation,as “immoral” and the cause of family rifts.
Elyas, a resident of Kabul, thinks the circulation of videos of private wedding ceremonies and dances are “immoral”. “The circulation of CDs and videos is an immoral action. The young are not considering family honour,” he says.
Safiullah Sarmadi, also from Kabul, blames the new trend of taking photos at every occasion whether private or public as reason for more violence within families. “Somebody filmed a woman dancing at a private ceremony without her knowledge, and circulated it in the bazaar (in public). Unfortunately her husband got to see it … The man has separated from his wife,” he says.
There is a market for these so-called family films. A shopkeeper who asks he be called by the pseudonym Rahim says there are “good customers” for “private films”. “When we get a private film we make copies and sell each for 50 Afs mostly to young people,” he says. (The exchange rate is 57 Afs for 1 USD.)
A man hawking CDs on the street says each “private film” CD costs 60 Afs. “We have different types of private films; films of parties in Iran, which we generally get from our friends,” he says refusing to give any details.
New behaviour
A customer who said his name was Abdul Hamid claimed he enjoyed watching such films, and always downloads them on his mobile phone to watch and share with friends. “You won’t find a young Afghan without a private film in his mobile phone,” he boasts.
Divulging private family secrets or images is a punishable offence under Article 446 of the criminal code. Any person who reveals “secrets that relate to family or offspring of individuals through news, images or signboards that damages purposely” can be convicted or made to pay a fine not exceeding 12,000 Afs (roughly 210 USD). However, the police have not prosecuted anyone under the law.
A lawyer who wanted to be identified as Rahima, not her own name, said she has investigated many cases that can be charged under Article 446 but none has been proven in a court of law.
Killid sought to interview officials of family courts through the press office of the high court in Kabul, but permission was not granted.
The Ministry of Interior Affairs admitted the illegal circulation of “private films” was a matter of concern.
Mohammad Daud Amin, former Kabul police chief, and currently provincial police chief of Baghlan, says: “We have sent cases toDetective and Criminal Investigation Departments of Kabul Security to take action following our own investigation.”
Amin pointed out the business in private films was booming with a proliferation of stalls and shops selling downloadable films for mobiles.
“If the police find anyone secretly filming a family event the person would be imprisoned,” he said.
He believes young people are the target of those behind this clandestine business. Young girls and boys are the main victims,” he says. “We have frequently told families not to allow their offspring to be deceived and to be cautious about the friends they keep, but families are not paying enough attention,” he laments.
