The Digital Security Act, which replaces the much-criticised Information and Communication Technology Act, retains the most problematic provisions of the ICT law and adds more provisions criminalising peaceful speech, Human Rights Watch said yesterday.

It said the act passed by parliament last week, despite vehement opposition from the country's journalists, "strikes a blow to freedom of speech in the country".

"The new Digital Security Act is a tool ripe for abuse and a clear violation of the country's obligations under international law to protect free speech," Brad Adams, Asia director of HRW, said in a statement.

"With at least five provisions criminalising vaguely defined types of speech, the law is a licence for wide-ranging suppression of critical voices," the statement said, adding, "Several provisions violate international standards on free expression."

On Section 21 which authorises sentences of up to 14 years in prison, the HRW said the UN Human Rights Committee has expressly stated that laws that penalise the expression of opinions about historical facts are incompatible with a country's obligations to respect freedom of opinion and expression.

The committee is an independent expert body that monitors compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) to which Bangladesh is a party.

About Section 25 (a), the global rights watchdog said publishing information that is "aggressive or frightening" is not defined in the law. The vagueness, combined with harsh potential penalty, increases the likelihood of self-censorship.

With no clear definition of what speech would be considered a violation of Section 31, the HRW said the provision leaves wide scope for the government to prosecute speech it does not like. 

The statement also highlights sections 28, 29 and 31 of the new law which grants law enforcement authorities wide-ranging powers to remove or block online information that "harms the unity of the country or any part of it, economic activities, security, defense, religious value or public order or spreads communal hostility and hatred," and to conduct warrantless searches and seizures if a police officer has reason to believe it is possible that "any offense under the Act" has been or is being committed.

Journalists in Bangladesh opposed Section 32 of the law, which authorises up to 14 years for gathering, sending, or preserving classified information of any government using a computer or other digital device, noting that doing so is a means to expose wrongful actions by officials, the HRW said.

The UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression has stressed the need to protect, not to prosecute, those who disclose information in the public interest. The Global Principles on National Security and the Right to Information make clear that journalists should not be prosecuted for receiving, possessing or disclosing even classified information to the public.

"The passage of this law utterly undermines any claim that the government of Bangladesh respects freedom of speech," Adams said. "Unless parliament moves swiftly to repeal the law it just passed, the rights of the country's citizens to speak freely will remain under serious threat."

In Bangladesh, the Editors' Council and various other journalists and reporters' organisations as well as RTI Forum have strongly protested the passage of the act, saying it is "against the freedom of the media and speech guaranteed by the constitution."

Human Rights Watch (HRW) has expressed concern over the recent arrests made by Bangladesh authorities over social media posts.

“Bangladesh authorities made a series of new arrests in their crackdown on the right to free speech. The arrests were based on vague charges such as “hurting religious sentiment” or undermining “law and order”, HRW said in a statement today.

The arrestees include human rights activist Abdul Kaium, renowned poet Henry Sawpon, and lawyer Imtiaz Mahmood. All three were detained and charged under section 57 of the Information Communication and Technology (ICT) Act or its successor, the Digital Security Act 2018.

“Arresting activists, poets, and lawyers for exercising their right to free speech is straight out of the authoritarian playbook,” said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch.

“The Bangladesh government should stop locking up its critics and review the law to ensure it upholds international standards on the right to peaceful expression,” he said in the HRW statement.

Mahmood was arrested at his home in Dhaka on May 15 in a case filed in July 2017 under the ICT Act over a Facebook post about violence in Bangladesh’s Chittagong Hill Tracts titled “Hill Bengali residents and law enforcers.”

Shafiqul Islam, a trader, filed the case against Mahmood under the ICT Act accusing him of spreading rumours with an “ill motive to tarnish the country’s image,” hurting “religious sentiment,” and “deteriorating the law and order”.

The high court granted Mahmood conditional release (anticipatory bail), meaning he was granted bail without arrest, on July 25, 2017. But a Khagrachhari court had issued an arrest warrant against him under the 2017 case on January 21 without any explanation.

Mahmood’s arrest is of particular concern because the ICT Act was revoked in October 2018 and replaced with the Digital Security Act, which the government claimed would end arbitrary arrests.

Instead, the new law tightened the government’s chokehold on free speech, HRW observed.

Under the new law, “propaganda or campaign against the Liberation War, the spirit of the Liberation War, the father of the nation, national anthem, or national flag” is punishable with life in prison, it said.

The Bangladesh’s Editors’ Council, an association of newspaper editors, has said that the law effectively prohibits investigative journalism.

Kaium, an activist with the prominent human rights organisation Odhikar, and editor of news portal Mymensinghlive, was arrested on May 12 and denied bail on May 13. Idris Ali, an influential madrasa teacher, filed the case accusing Kaium of extortion under the penal code and dissemination of “false or fear inducing information/data” (section 25) and defamation (section 29) under the Digital Security Act.

Sawpon was arrested at his home in Barishal on May 14 under the Digital Security Act. He was accused of “hurting religious values or sentiments” (section 28), defamation (section 29), and “causing deterioration of law and order” (section 31).

The case was filed with the police by a priest of a local Catholic church over Sawpon’s Facebook posts criticising a church event the day after Sri Lanka’s Easter Sunday attack. In the post, Sawpon wrote that it was “very unfortunate” that Bishop Lawrence Subrata Howlader had arranged a cultural programme in the wake of the attack and that “Bishop Subrata was playing the flute when Rome was burning”.

Sawpon could face up to 15 years in prison if found guilty in the case. Two others, Alfred Sarkar, 52, and Jewel Sarkar, 40, were also accused in the case just for commenting on the Facebook post.

“This week’s arrests show how small the space has become for civil society in Bangladesh,” Adams said.

“The government should revise the abusive elements of these laws before the space for peaceful expression disappears entirely,” he added.

A group of writers, artists, and journalists staged a protest in Dhaka’s Shahbagh square on May 15, saying they would go on an indefinite strike beginning on May 17 if Sawpon and Mahmood were not released.

Both Sawpon and Mahmood were granted bail on May 16, while Kaium remains in detention.

Overcrowded, hilly and rain-soaked mega camp for Rohingya refugees is precarious for everyone, but especially for people with disabilities, Human Rights Watch said today in a new video.

"Walking through the camps, we found large numbers of Rohingya refugees with disabilities," said Bill Frelick, refugee rights director at Human Rights Watch in the video message published in its website. "Many of the people in the camp had acquired their disabilities from brutal attacks by Myanmar's military."

Despite efforts by the United Nations, humanitarian organisations, and the refugees themselves to build handrails, many walkways are impassable for people who have difficulty walking, the HRW claimed. Hussein Ahmad, whose 17-year-old son was shot in the neck during their escape from Myanmar and is now paralysed from the waist down, said: "I thank the doctor who gave my son a wheelchair, but I can't use it because the roads are very dangerous and keep getting worse. It is time for my son to study, but he can't walk, and his life is being destroyed in front of me."

Work to shore up the hastily and haphazardly built huts and other camp structures has been hindered by the Bangladeshi government's insistence that the refugees are only staying temporarily and will soon return to Myanmar, reads the HRW post. The authorities have resisted developing camp infrastructure that would suggest a longer term stay, the organisation claims. As a result, lighting, accessible toilets, and proper walkways with handrails that are critically important for people with disabilities have been slow to develop.

"With such widespread misery and obvious needs for the Rohingya refugees generally, there is a risk that refugees with disabilities will be overlooked," Frelick said. "But this is precisely the time when the needs of people with disabilities ought to be a priority."