Salman refused to stay silent. His brother paid the price

Salman Shabbir says several men arrived at his brother’s home in Pakistan on 15 March 2024. One allegedly belonged to local police, while others wore commando-style clothing and carried large guns. His sister-in-law called Shabbir in Sydney as the men took his brother away.

The callers then used the brother as leverage. They asked Shabbir to confirm his identity, reveal his Australian location and say whether he held an Australian passport. They demanded his X username and password. When he refused, they threatened to keep holding his brother.

The demands changed during later calls. The men first told Shabbir to stop posting about Pakistan’s politics for three months, then reduced it to one month and five days. Shabbir also alleges they tortured his brother during one call so he could hear the screams.

Transnational repression describes efforts by governments or their alleged proxies to intimidate, threaten or silence critics outside the government’s territory. It can target people who live abroad, as well as relatives who remain in the country of origin. The article presents it as a challenge to free expression and the safety of diaspora communities.

Shabbir’s case illustrates the method. He was in Sydney, but callers in Pakistan allegedly took his brother and demanded that Shabbir stop posting about Pakistan’s politics. They also sought his X username and password. The alleged pressure crossed borders by turning a family member into leverage against an overseas critic.

The article lists other reported allegations involving Cambodia, China, Iran, India, Myanmar, Rwanda, South Sudan and Vietnam. Australia’s Senate launched an inquiry in September into the nature, scale and methods of transnational repression, including its effects on diaspora communities and democracy.

The article suggests that targeting relatives can create pressure on a critic who lives abroad. Shabbir was in Sydney, while his family remained in Pakistan. The alleged perpetrators could therefore reach his brother directly and use his safety to influence Shabbir’s speech. This is a central feature of transnational repression.

In Shabbir’s account, men allegedly took his brother and then called Shabbir. They asked for his identity, location, passport status and X credentials. They threatened to continue holding his brother unless he complied. The callers also demanded that he stop discussing Pakistan’s politics online.

The article does not establish the callers’ identities or definitively prove their connection to Pakistan’s military. Shabbir alleges they were sent by the military, and SBS News reported that Pakistan’s High Commission did not reply by the deadline. The case shows how family ties can be exploited across borders.

The article presents transnational repression in Australia as a recurring, multinational problem rather than a single incident. Reported allegations have involved people connected to Cambodia, China and Iran. Other reports named India, Myanmar, Rwanda, South Sudan and Vietnam. The examples affect diaspora communities, critics and people whose relatives remain overseas.

The reported methods vary. They include death threats allegedly linked to Cambodia, a request to spy on a neighbour allegedly made for China, and stalking orders attributed to Iran. Shabbir’s case involved the alleged detention and abuse of his brother in Pakistan to pressure Shabbir in Sydney.

Australians have also reportedly been targeted outside Australia. Melbourne-based Tran Hiep is detained in Vietnam, while an Australian journalist was arrested in Thailand at Malaysia’s request. In September, a Senate inquiry began examining the issue’s nature, scale and methods. The article does not provide a total number of cases.

When governments or alleged proxies punish people for political speech abroad, critics may stop posting, organising or speaking publicly. The pressure can spread beyond the individual. Families, friends and diaspora communities may fear surveillance, threats, detention or harm to relatives in another country. That weakens open political discussion and participation.

Shabbir says callers demanded that he stop posting about Pakistan’s politics and surrender his X credentials. They allegedly held his brother and threatened to continue doing so. He also alleges that his brother was tortured during a call. Whether or not every allegation is ultimately proven, the reported mechanism is clear: family safety becomes leverage over speech.

The article lists similar allegations involving multiple countries and says a Senate inquiry is examining impacts on diaspora communities and democracy. Continued scrutiny may help clarify the scale and methods involved. The article does not state the inquiry’s findings or describe a final outcome.

Australia can use domestic law enforcement, security reporting and diplomatic action when people in Australia face overseas intimidation. A threatened person can contact police or the Australian Federal Police, while the National Security Hotline can receive national-security concerns. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade can raise the matter with the foreign government and seek consular or diplomatic responses.

Shabbir says he contacted DFAT, the National Security Hotline and the AFP after his brother was taken. He also contacted Pakistan’s then-high commissioner to Australia and a media outlet. These channels can document allegations, assess risks and coordinate an official response. Specific legal steps depend on evidence, jurisdiction and the conduct involved.

Australia may also consider protective measures, criminal investigations, court orders or targeted sanctions where legal thresholds are met. Those tools are not detailed in the article, so their availability in any case cannot be assumed. The article confirms that the Senate inquiry is examining the wider problem.

National sovereignty means a government normally exercises public authority within its own country rather than freely policing people in another country. That principle limits a state’s lawful power over critics living abroad. It protects the independence of other states and helps define which authorities can investigate, arrest or prosecute conduct.

Cross-border intimidation can still be difficult to stop because pressure may be indirect. In Shabbir’s case, he was in Australia while his brother was allegedly taken in Pakistan. Callers then demanded that Shabbir stop posting about Pakistan’s politics. The alleged actors operated across jurisdictions, and Shabbir says some wore uniforms while others appeared to be commandos.

The article also reports alleged threats, spying requests and stalking linked to several governments. Proving who directed an act, gathering evidence overseas and protecting relatives can be difficult. Australia’s Senate inquiry may help examine these methods, but the article does not report its findings.