Dissenting voices being stifled

The Bangladesh government has not only failed to protect dissenting voices or hold accountable the armed groups that threaten them, it has also stifled freedom of expression through a slew of repressive tactics and new laws, said an Amnesty International report yesterday.

The report styled “Caught between fear and repression: Attacks on freedom of expression in Bangladesh” documents how armed groups have thrived in a climate of impunity, carrying out high-profile spate of killings of secular bloggers with few consequences.

The UK-based rights organisation released the report in London.

Also launched through a press conference at the National Press Club, New Delhi, the report said only a single case has resulted in convictions in four years.

“Since the Awami League government was re-elected in 2014, only one case resulted in convictions -- eight alleged members of Ansar al-Islam were found guilty in December 2015 for their role in an attack.” 

The report said some activists have received death threats, forcing some of them to leave the country for their own safety, while the authorities have refused to offer them protection.

Over the last year, the Bangladeshi government has also intensified its crackdown on public debate and criticism, harassing media workers, interfering with their work, and bringing criminal charges against them under draconian laws, it read.

REGIONAL NATURE OF THREATS

Asked why Amnesty chose New Delhi instead of Dhaka to hold the press conference, its Bangladesh researcher Olof Blomqvist wrote to The Daily Star through e-mail, "We decided to launch this report in Delhi with the help of Amnesty International India because we wanted to highlight the regional nature of threats to freedom of expression."

“We have documented many of the same issues and restrictions on countries like India, Pakistan and Maldives. We have also organised a press conference in London for the Bangladeshi correspondents based there."

About the report, Olof Blomqvist said, "Between the violence of armed groups and state repression of the state, secular voices in Bangladesh are being consistently silenced. Not only is the government failing to protect people's freedom of expression, it has been blaming them for the threats they face and criminalising the work of bloggers and journalists through a slew of repressive laws."

The researcher added, “The crackdown on dissent and secular thought in Bangladesh must end. The very first steps must include providing protection to those who are threatened for raising their voices, and to repeal or reform the draconian laws that are used to punish anyone voicing inconvenient opinions.”

BLAMING THE VICTIMS

Mentioning the killing of online activist Nazimuddin Samad in April 2016, the report said the government sought to blame the tragedy on him.

It also mentioned that Home Minister Asaduzzaman Khan Kamal said the police would scrutinise Samad's writings for “objectionable” content.

“In several other cases, activists told Amnesty International the police refused to register their complaints about threats they received. In other instances, the police suggested the victims should leave the country, or even began harassing them for writing on 'secular topics'.”

One secular blogger, who received more than a dozen death threats by phone and on social media, told the London-based organisation: “I made several attempts to get some help, but [to] my face they refused to help me.”

Speaking to Amnesty, journalists described the repression as the worst they've endured since Bangladesh returned to civilian rule in 1991. There are now “red lines” that journalists are careful not to cross. Few dare publish reports that may be deemed critical of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina.

“This has brought a climate of fear in Bangladesh's once-vibrant civil society, who now resorts to self-censorship.”

'DRACONIAN LAW'

The report said the 2006 Information and Communications Technology (ICT) Act, which carries a minimum sentence of seven years, is seen as the principal instrument to muzzle critical voices in the country.

Its vaguely worded clauses empower the authorities to prosecute people “in the interest of sovereignty, integrity or security of Bangladesh” or if they are deemed to “prejudice the image of the State” or “hurt religious belief”, it read.

The report said the government has used the “draconian law” to silence criticism in the media by bringing criminal charges against journalists for simply doing their work.

“In December 2016, Nazmul Huda, a print and television journalist, was arrested, viciously beaten in custody and then charged under the ICT Act for covering protests by garment workers outside Dhaka.”

The report said in 2013, the government also used the ICT Act to bring criminal charges against four secular bloggers for allegedly “hurting religious sentiments”.

“Since 2013, several high-profile journalists and editors have been subjected to politically-motivated criminal charges. Most of them have been associated with media outlets that are critical of the government or supportive of the political opposition.”

The report said that one journalist told Amnesty International: “The government has picked a few individuals to make examples out of. This has been to instil fear in other media, to show what happens when you cross the line.”

In one instance, Awami League supporters filed a flurry of 83 politically motivated cases against Mahfuz Anam, editor and publisher of The Daily Star, it mentioned.

It also said Shafik Rehman, an elderly opposition supporter and the editor of the weekly Mouchake Dhil magazine, was held in solitary confinement for over three weeks on a trumped-up charge of “conspiring to abduct and assassinate” ruling party politician Sajeeb Wazed Joy.

“Bangladesh's authorities have frequently invoked archaic, colonial-era criminal defamation and sedition laws against critical journalists.”

It said the authorities are also now proposing new laws, such as a Digital Security Act and Liberation War Denial Crimes Act. If enacted, these laws would impose further restrictions on freedom of expression by creating new criminal offences, sometimes using national security as a cover.