Is Freedom Of Expression Worsening In Bangladesh?

SALEEM SAMAD

Freedom of expression in Bangladesh has been a constant feature of our nation’s recent political history.

In the recent past, the global media and organisations at the national front, as well as in the international arena are agog on the issue of freedom of expression.

The international bodies including United Nations, foreign embassies, and human rights groups did not hesitate to be outspoken critics of the state of freedom of expression and also the status of press freedom in Bangladesh.

Well, a section of pro-government intellectuals and news organisations promptly blasted the national and international organisations for damaging the image of the country.

The ruling Awami League and the government agencies rebuked the organisations raising the issue of freedom of expression as a conspiracy against the country, which the authorities describe that freedom and democracy are running parallel and media is enjoying wide freedom.

Frankly speaking, they do not have enough information, nor do they understand the parameters of freedom of expression to counter the global outrage over the draconian laws which is shrinking the space for freedom of expression.

When the election is around the corner in January 2024, the government is poised to promulgate yet another law Telecommunication Regulatory Commission Regulation For Digital, Social Media, and OTT Platforms.

Similarly, the government months before the 2018 parliament elections passed the repressive Digital Security Act.

The cyber security law incorporates blasphemy, defamation and secrecy act which contradicts democracy, secularism, and pluralism.

The notorious Digital Security Act (DSA) criminalises the right to freedom of expression, dissent and critiquing the authority in any digital format. The worst victims were journalists, opposition politicians and netizens (social media users).

Politicians and journalists ranked the highest and were neck-to-neck in terms of those accused – at least 287 politicians and 280 journalists.

The draconian law recorded 1,109 cases filed under the DSA, of which around 60 per cent were over Facebook activities. A total of 2,889 individuals were accused, according to a study by the Centre for Governance Studies (CGS).

This study and other activities of CGS invited the state security agencies to haunt Zillur Rahman, executive director of CGS and a volley of criticism by intellectuals and ruling party politicians.

Meanwhile, the members of the global alliance Media Freedom Coalition (MFC) recently participated by envoys of Canada, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Envoys from member countries of the MFC met early this month in the capital Dhaka to launch the MFC’s Diplomatic Network Initiative for their support of press freedom.

The diplomats discussed the current media landscape, including the censoring of online news portals and recent cases of harassment and intimidation of journalists.

The MFC was established in July 2019 at the Global Conference for Media Freedom and now comprises over 50 member states from six continents that have signed the Global Pledge on Media Freedom.

Last week, the United States Ambassador Peter Haas came down heavily at a discussion on “Online Freedom and Business Investment in Bangladesh” which jolted the upper echelons of the Awami League.

He frankly stated the United States government is concerned about the regulations for digital, social media, and over-the-top platforms the Bangladesh Telecommunications Regulatory Commission and the Ministry of Information have introduced, as well as the draft Data Protection Act.

What worries is that the “Data Protection Act, if passed with strict data localisation requirements, may force some US companies currently operating in Bangladesh to leave the market.”

The online platform regulations “will similarly dissuade companies from investing in their businesses here, if they face criminal liability for user content.”

The law threatens over 2,000 startup companies to be put out of business, and services that Bangladeshis use millions of times every day could become inaccessible.

The worst of worst came, the statement of Irene Khan, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression was released on 6 February on Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (draft) regulation for digital, social media, and OTT platforms.

Khan categorically said the proposed Data Protection Act is contradictory to Bangladesh’s obligations to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

Many of the categories of prohibited content in the draft Regulation are vaguely defined. Such broad and vague definitions as “racially or ethnically objectionable”, “offensive, false, or threatening and insulting or humiliating” or “hurts religious values or sentiment” are well beyond the restrictions permitted by international law.

Such clauses will encourage the removal of content by intermediaries as well as self-censorship among users, thereby having a direct chilling effect on freedom of expression, she observed in her report.

She urged the Bangladesh authorities to provide feedback on how the Digital, Social Media, and OTT Platforms Regulation is consistent with the obligations under international human rights law, especially the requirements of the Covenant.

Will the authority respond to the observation of Special Rapporteur Irene Khan? Bangladesh does not have the culture to respond to queries from international bodies.

First published in The News Times, Dhaka, Bangladesh, February 12, 2023

Saleem Samad, is an award winning independent journalist, media rights defender, recipient of Ashoka Fellowship and Hellman-Hammett Award. He could be reached at <saleemsamad@hotmail.com>; Twitter @saleemsamad

Cybersecurity law to end harassment?

SALEEM SAMAD

The week-long street protests and pro-government intellectuals, academics, rights activists, and defenders of media rights continued to ventilate their anger over the death of writer Mushtaq Ahmed and simultaneously demands to repeal the controversial Digital Security Act (DSA), the government in damage-control mode has hinted to repair the draconian law.

Law Minister Anisul Huq has said that the government is taking measures so that no one can be arrested or sued under the DSA before the investigation, he told BBC Bangla radio.

The DSA came to the forefront after the death of writer Ahmed, who was detained under the draconian law and died in Kashimpur High-Security Jail in Gazipur last week.

The Minister assured that they trying to reach a conclusion where no one can be arrested before investigation.

Admitting the misuse of law, the minister assured that they [government] are taking measures to bring an end to it.

For the first time in the country, there is a repressive cybersecurity law that only protects the government, politicians, and bureaucrats, but not the citizens.

If the controversial DSA could provide security to the citizens, the government must come forward and state who are those citizens benefitted from the draconian law.

The government cannot deny that the law arbitrarily targets critics, netizens, and journalists.

Not surprised that the law has never slammed charges against ‘waz-mongers (Islamic evangelists)’ and seems to have given immunity under the repressive law.

When the Mullah ‘wazi’ makes hate speech against the Ekushey book fair, Ekushey February, elective democracy, gender quality, Independence Day, liberation war sculptures, liberation war, national anthem, national constitution, national flag, Pahela Baishak, pluralism, school textbooks, secularism, Victory Day, women leadership, women’s empowerment, anger the people who suffered and contributed to the liberation.

They dared to challenge the elected government, demand to garbage the state constitution and instead override with Holy Quran and Sunnah as guiding principle of the nation-state, and to declare the nation an Islamic Republic, which was born from a bloody war on the principles of democracy, secularism and pluralism.

Such hate-speech challenges the sacrifice made by the people of Bangladesh – the three million martyrs, more than 400,000 women victims of rape, and 10 million war refugees.

The district administration nor the local police chief monitor the Waz-Mehfils, which gives them an upper hand to deliver hate-speech among tens and thousands of disciples. The audience enlarges when the sermons are uploaded to Youtube and Facebook, which are owned by infidels.

Despite hate-speech by the Mullahs are widely available on social media, but they are never punished. They are not slammed under cybersecurity laws.

Should the government be afraid of the Mullahs? The wazi’s overtly opposed secularism, pluralism, democracy, and are threats to national unity.

The mango-people understand that like the writer Ahmed, who dared to criticise the government’s pandemic management is a soft target for legal harassment.

More than 2,000 people have been booked under the undemocratic law since 2018, including folk singers, children, doctors, netizens, and not the least but the last are the journalists.

The law gives a wide range of authority to a junior police officer to barge into a newspaper or a media office. They can confiscate digital devices, like computers/laptops, WiFi routers, external hard disks, and mobile phones without any warrant.

The accused persons are blamed for tarnishing the image of the nation or have attempted to ‘destabilise’ the state.

Such lambasting accusations against the critics, writers, netizens, and journalists are sweeping statements. At the end of the day, the police investigators do not have any evidence, nor could they list any eyewitness to the alleged cybercrime.

On the other hand, the cybercrime tribunal is ill-equipped and does not have digital equipment, nor any trained personnel to determine what the accused has committed through social media.

The police investigators also do not have the skill and experience to understand what digital offence has been committed.

As the law allows, the detained accused should be kept in prison until a competent court grants bail, or held in custody to stand trial at the cybercrime tribunal.

Meanwhile, civil society and rights groups have reiterated to scrap the controversial cybersecurity law, which shrinks the space for freedom of expression, free speech, press freedom, and right to critique.

First published in the Dhaka Courier, 5 March 2021

Saleem Samad, is an independent journalist, media rights defender, recipient of Ashoka Fellowship and Hellman-Hammett Award. He could be reached at <saleemsamad@hotmail.com>; Twitter @saleemsamad

For whom the bell tolls

What purpose does the Digital Security Act truly serve?

SALEEM SAMAD

Most loyal citizens should agree with Bangladesh Information Minister Hasan Mahmud that the Digital Security Act (DSA) provides security to the people from digital harassment.

He scoffed off critics that the DSA has been misused. His comments came against the backdrop of nationwide street protests which turned violent, demanding repeal of the repressive DSA.

The protests sparked from the death of a progressive writer Mushtaq Ahmed, who died in prison due to alleged negligence by jail authorities. He was languishing in prison for nine months and denied bail six times.

Hours after the death of the writer Ahmed, who was incarcerated in a case filed under the cybersecurity law, activist Ruhul Amin was sued under the controversial law after his angry statement was posted on Facebook.

“If such writings sent Mushtaq to jail and then to death, depriving him of bail six times, then arrest me too,” read the loud Facebook post.

Plainclothes detectives picked him up from Khulna city. A senior official of the Detective Branch at Khulna Metropolitan Police said Ruhul was sued under the DSA for his threats to “destabilize” the state, creating social unrest, and over other reasons.

An appropriate statement by a responsible police officer, that a youth leader Ruhul has somehow acquired the capacity to “destabilize” the government and country alone or with a handful of youths. 

Sounds like a sequence from a Bollywood movie.

In the first place, the police officer should be reprimanded for undermining the stability of the present government of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. Her state stands on the pillars of democracy, pluralism, and of course, strengthened by a strong political party, the Awami League.

Although the country’s constitution promised to protect freedom of expression and freedom of the press, unfortunately, a repressive cybersecurity law was appended in the parliament as legislation at the end of 2018.

Nearly 2000 cases have been filed under the DSA since its enactment on October 8, 2018, according to data from the Bangladesh government’s Cyber Crime Tribunal.

More than 800 cases were filed in the first nine months of 2020 alone, with many of the country’s most prominent editors and senior journalists being increasingly targeted.

At least 247 journalists have been targeted in 2020 by law enforcement agencies, non-state actors, and of course, individuals acting on behalf of the government.

Last year, during the lockdown, the authorities randomly misused DSA to silence critics, doctors, netizens, and journalists who were critiquing the government’s management of the pandemic.

The use of the DSA has been so outlandish that even folk singers, minors, writers, and cartoonists were not spared from being detained.

Mysteriously, the law has not cast shadows upon Islamist groups -- one of the key groups that have been spreading disinformation on Covid-19 and also spewing hate speech.

The waz-mongers (Islamic evangelists) in waz-mahfils have dared to speak against Ekushey book fair, Ekushey February, elective democracy, gender equality, the Liberation War, the national anthem, national flag, Pahela Baishakh, pluralism, secularism, women leadership, women’s empowerment, and the list goes on and on.

Dr Syeda Aireen Jaman, secretary-general of PEN International Bangladesh said that the law has been discriminately used against critics and journalists, while the mullahs who are a threat to secularism and pluralism are deliberately left out.

Several eminent citizens, intellectuals, and civil society leaders stated that there is no doubt that the anti-democratic DSA has been born outside the elective democracy and politics to inject a “culture of fear” among the citizens.

Dr Mizanur Rahman, of Dhaka University, stated that the responsibility of the death of Ahmed rests upon the state, as he died in judicial custody, pending trial of the DSA.

He also said that the draconian law impedes freedom of expression and encourages self-censorship and contradicts the principles of democracy, pluralism, and press freedom.

First published in the Dhaka Tribune, 2 March 2021

Saleem Samad is an independent journalist, media rights defender, recipient of Ashoka Fellowship and Hellman-Hammett Award. He can be reached at saleemsamad@hotmail.com; Twitter @saleemsamad