Journalist harassment is nothing new in Bangladesh. With the same breath, I can also say that not all Bangladeshi journalists are true journalists as we can see that too many politically inclined people have been adopting the profession as an effective shield to express their political venom against the ruling party. Should Hasina government ignore these journalists and cater whatever they want from her? That kind of mentality and tradition is still far away in Bangladesh, my friend. Just wait until BNP/Jamat gang comes back with their grenade throwing tradition.
-SD
"All great truths begin as blasphemies." GBS
From: Habieb Akhter <habiebakhter@gmail.com>
To:
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 4:15 PM
Subject: HRW & Huffington Post reports on Bangladesh's violation of human rights (re war crimes trial) and press freedom
Bangladesh: Investigate Alleged Abduction of War Crimes Witness
"An allegation as serious as the abduction of a witness deserves prompt action, and a thorough and impartial investigation," said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. "Instead of ordering an independent investigation, the court asked a party in the case to investigate, and then blithely accepted its answer. This is an unacceptable way to respond to an allegation of an abduction. Where is Shukho Ranjon Bali?"
The case against Sayedee had been officially closed on October 21, when the court refused to allow the defense more time to call witnesses. On October 31, the defense filed a petition to re-open the case to allow evidence from Bali and three other prosecution witnesses to be heard as defense witnesses. Defense applications alleged that some of these witnesses were prepared to testify that they were forced to give false testimony to support the prosecution. The hearing on that petition was scheduled to be heard on November 5.
According to the defense team Bali met the defense team at their offices on the morning of November 5, and they drove together to the court. At the gate, Bali and the lawyers were ordered out of the car and told to identify themselves. When Bali was identified by name by a senior defense counsel, the police detectives insisted that Bali come with them. Bali and the defense counsel both argued that Bali was a witness due to appear before the court later that day.
A white van marked "Police" then drove up from inside the tribunal premises. Several defense lawyers who were there said that 10 to 12 uniformed regular police were at the gates of the tribunal at that time. The defense team alleges that officers slapped Bali several times around the face and head and forced him into the van. The van then drove off. Bali has not been seen or heard from since.
The defense team immediately complained to the tribunal's registrar and then the trial chamber. After hearing the allegation, the presiding judge asked the chief prosecutor and the senior investigative officer for the prosecution to look into the matter. After some time, the prosecution team reported that the abduction never happened and that the defense teams had concocted the story. The trial chamber then moved on to other matters and refused to take further action on the complaint.
The defense team later tried to file a complaint with the relevant police station under the Bangladeshi penal code. The police refused to receive the complaint, stating, contrary to the law, that they needed the permission of the trial chamber to register the case.
"Finding out what happened in this case is essential to the credibility of the court and the entire war crimes trial process," Adams said. "If the defense was involved in a hoax it should face penalties. If Bali was abducted then his life may be in danger, and the court and government, by failing to investigate, are responsible for his fate."
Judges' Refusal to Order Inquiry Suggests Bias
November 13, 2012
| (New York) – The Bangladeshi authorities should urgently investigate the alleged abduction on November 5, 2012, of a witness at the gates of the war crimes court in Dhaka. Shukho Ranjon Bali, originally a prosecution witness, had allegedly agreed to testify for the defense in the case of Delwar Hossain Sayedee at the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT). | | An allegation as serious as the abduction of a witness deserves prompt action, and a thorough and impartial investigation. Instead of ordering an independent investigation, the court asked a party in the case to investigate, and then blithely accepted its answer. This is an unacceptable way to respond to an allegation of an abduction. Where is Shukho Ranjon Bali? - Brad Adams, Asia director |
Defense lawyers told the tribunal that Bali was forcibly taken away around 10:30 a.m. by plain-clothes officers who identified themselves as members of the police Detective Branch as he entered the court premises with members of the defense team. Instead of using their powers under Bangladeshi law and the tribunal's rules of procedure to order an impartial investigation, the court asked the prosecution to look into the allegations and later accepted its statement that the entire story was fabricated. On November 11 the attorney general testified before the High Court on a writ of habeas corpus that the abduction claim had been fabricated by the defense to bring the tribunal into disrepute.
"An allegation as serious as the abduction of a witness deserves prompt action, and a thorough and impartial investigation," said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. "Instead of ordering an independent investigation, the court asked a party in the case to investigate, and then blithely accepted its answer. This is an unacceptable way to respond to an allegation of an abduction. Where is Shukho Ranjon Bali?"
The case against Sayedee had been officially closed on October 21, when the court refused to allow the defense more time to call witnesses. On October 31, the defense filed a petition to re-open the case to allow evidence from Bali and three other prosecution witnesses to be heard as defense witnesses. Defense applications alleged that some of these witnesses were prepared to testify that they were forced to give false testimony to support the prosecution. The hearing on that petition was scheduled to be heard on November 5.
According to the defense team Bali met the defense team at their offices on the morning of November 5, and they drove together to the court. At the gate, Bali and the lawyers were ordered out of the car and told to identify themselves. When Bali was identified by name by a senior defense counsel, the police detectives insisted that Bali come with them. Bali and the defense counsel both argued that Bali was a witness due to appear before the court later that day.
A white van marked "Police" then drove up from inside the tribunal premises. Several defense lawyers who were there said that 10 to 12 uniformed regular police were at the gates of the tribunal at that time. The defense team alleges that officers slapped Bali several times around the face and head and forced him into the van. The van then drove off. Bali has not been seen or heard from since.
The defense team immediately complained to the tribunal's registrar and then the trial chamber. After hearing the allegation, the presiding judge asked the chief prosecutor and the senior investigative officer for the prosecution to look into the matter. After some time, the prosecution team reported that the abduction never happened and that the defense teams had concocted the story. The trial chamber then moved on to other matters and refused to take further action on the complaint.
The defense team later tried to file a complaint with the relevant police station under the Bangladeshi penal code. The police refused to receive the complaint, stating, contrary to the law, that they needed the permission of the trial chamber to register the case.
"Finding out what happened in this case is essential to the credibility of the court and the entire war crimes trial process," Adams said. "If the defense was involved in a hoax it should face penalties. If Bali was abducted then his life may be in danger, and the court and government, by failing to investigate, are responsible for his fate."
Bangladesh Journalists Denied Press Freedoms That We Take for Granted
Co-writer and performer of The Revolution Will Be Televised on BBC3.
Not so long ago I found myself on a cold rainy night ringing on the intercom at the 20-foot high security gate at the front of Mi6 in central London, dressed head-to- toe in PVC. My comedy partner in crime, Heydon Prowse, started to climb over the front gates of the building after asking through the intercom if he could perhaps trouble them for a tiny-weenie bit of a waterboarding? "Why just the Muslims," he cried out, "why not me?"
When you are asking police officers whether they are "part of the hired entertainment", and watching a crowd of people dressed as gimps singing "we want torture, let us in," it's easy to forget that just under the comedy of the situation lies a very serious fact. The British intelligence services had been complicit in the practice of extraordinary rendition and we intended to highlight it.
In the first series of our BBC3 show, The Revolution Will Be Televised, we targeted government, the banks and corporations who needed a metaphorical slap in the face. Our attacks, although good-humoured, were designed with the specific intention of highlighting injustice.
During this process I began to realise that I am extremely lucky. A point that may have been missed whilst confronting George Osborne with a GCSE maths textbook, or when placing a 'kick me' sticker on Ed Miliband's back, is that we were, within reason, free to do so. We undertook our satirical tomfoolery knowing that we could walk away with, at worst, no more than a slap on the wrist.
Ongoing events in Russia, where two members of the punk girl band Pussy Riot are still behind bars, are well documented in the UK, but recent events in Bangladesh provide an even starker contrast to our own experience and receive far too little press attention in Britain.
For Bangladeshi journalists, reporting the truth has resulted in arrest, severe beatings and even death. The past year has witnessed a systematic attack on press freedom by the current prime minister, Sheikh Hasina and her Awami League government.
In the past year, there have been over 100 documented attacks on journalists in Bangladesh. In the majority of these cases, it has been a criticism or exposure of the ruling Awami League party that has drawn the fire of the government. In one startling case, Awami League members ordered nineteen journalists to leave the city or they would be 'chopped to pieces and buried.'
Recent cases are too numerous to mention here, but they include a machete attack in a newsroom, the public beating of three photojournalists after covering a student demonstration and the assault of three journalists by police because they had accused inspectors of abusing a 15-year-old girl. Privately owned television stations were even temporarily shut down to prevent them from covering a major rally of the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP).
The International Federation of Journalists has reported that there is a continuous threat and harassment against the press in Bangladesh. The World Development Indicators between 1992 and 2011 ranked Bangladesh as 11th in the Impunity Index Rating with regard to unsolved murders of journalists. 75% of journalists who have been killed so far in Bangladesh were targeted for reporting corruption, political scandals, and violations of human rights.
All of this is made even more deplorable by the reaction of the British government. Sheikh Hasina was given the red carpet treatment during the London Olympics. The prime minister, foreign secretary and leader of the opposition lined up to greet her with not a murmur of criticism. And while her henchmen did her dirty work back at home, she gave a speech at Number 10. This tacit approval of a regime that is brutalising journalists leaves me utterly repulsed.
As Bangladesh's largest financial backers - Britain contributes £250 million of aid each year - our government must use this leverage to demand a stop to this flagrant repression. Ministers at the Department of International Development and the Foreign Office must publicly challenge Sheikh Hasina to conform to basic standards of press freedom. Closed-door meetings or seeking 'assurances' is not enough when the beatings, disappearances and arrests show no sign of abating.
Where should the UK government start? Perhaps with an insistence that the case of Ilyas Ali is thoroughly investigated. A secretary in the opposition Bangladesh National Party, he disappeared along with his driver. Witnesses stated that the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) a government police force, who Hasina once described herself as a "death squad", took him from his car. Or they can demand the release of Mutafizur Rahman Sumon, who was reportedly beaten after heading a campaign against impunity for attacks on the media. He remains behind bars.
And in perhaps the most high-profile case, they should call for the release of Mir Quasem Ali, the head of the Diganta Media Corporation, which reaches millions of Bangladeshi through its TV and newspaper arms. Ali remains in prison after criticising the government-influenced War Crimes Tribunal. It is hard to believe that there are even some who call for Hasina to be put forward for the Nobel Peace Prize.
With elections next year, Bangladesh is entering an unsettling period in its short history, as it drifts towards becoming a one-party state. If an opposition remains, which I remain hopeful it will, Bangladeshis must be given a fair and balanced view on the political choice that awaits them. While our politicians remain shamefully silent, we must defend those who are brave enough to speak out in Bangladesh. And whilst I go round taking the piss out of the not-so-great and the not-so-good in the coming months, I shall be thinking more than once how lucky I am to be able to do so.
__._,_.___
