feeds from sacw.net
print version[Statements by English PEN, Reporters Without Border and Human Rights Watch. No statements of solidarity have come so far from Journalists unions or from rights organisations based in South Asia.]
Bangladesh: John Ralston Saul on the sentencing of David Bergman
Posted December 2nd, 2014 by English PEN staff & filed under Campaigns.
John Ralston Saul, President of PEN International, condemns the sentencing of British journalist David Bergman on 2 December 2014
Today the Bangladesh International Crimes Tribunal found the journalist David Bergman in contempt of court because he examined the statistics of people killed during the 1971 war. There is an official number of three million. But there are many other projections. No one, including Mr Bergman, suggests that a difference in the number of war dead lessens the reality that war crimes were committed.
Mr. Bergman lives in Bangladesh and is a known friend of the country. With the film War Crimes File he was one of those who revealed the extent to which the 1971 war involved crimes against humanity.
There can be no justification for punishing David Bergman, who has simply engaged in the professional work of journalism and of public debate. No one can be in contempt of court or have committed a crime because he has examined numbers. Such a ruling brings personal hardships to him and his family. But it also damages the reputation of Bangladesh as a progressive democracy.
I have just returned from Bangladesh, where I spoke with a wide variety of writers, journalists, activists and newspaper publishers. I also met with the Prime Minister and other officials. Among writers and publishers there is a growing concern that freedom of expression in Bangladesh is slipping into a difficult period.
There are an increasing number of physical attacks on journalists in which security forces are felt to be involved. There is an Information and Communications Technology Act which makes it a crime to say anything online which ‘harms the image of the nation’ or merely criticises other ‘friendly’ countries.
Bangladesh has struggled since its war of independence with political instability. Part of this struggle has centred on establishing a national narrative which unites the population – a population with a variety of languages and religions, even if Bangla and Islam account for the vast majority. However, you cannot impose a national narrative by narrowly freezing historic interpretations, including statistics. And you certainly cannot impose a fixed narrative by punishing those who are part of a process of developing a public discussion within or about the country.
Bangladesh is a country with a strong and positive culture; an impressive country facing up to major challenges. This ruling can only undermine its standing and its progress.
o o o
Reporters Without Borders - 3 December 2014
Court finds British journalist guilty of contempt
Dhaka’s “International Crimes Tribunal†yesterday found Bangladesh-based British investigative journalist David Bergman guilty of contempt of court for questioning the tribunal’s use of the 1971 independence war’s official death toll in one of its rulings.
The case has reinforced Reporters Without Borders’ concern about the readiness of Bangladesh’s courts to convict journalists of contempt of court.
The tribunal ordered David Bergman to pay a fine of 5,000 taka (50 euros) or go to prison for a week for three articles he posted on his “Bangladesh war crimes†blog on 11 and 12 November 2011 that were entitled “Sayedee indictment - 1971 deaths†, “Sayedee indictment analysis - charges†and “Sayedee indictment analysis - legal†.
In these posts, Bergman referred to the lack of evidence supporting the official toll of 3 million dead and cited independent estimates that were much lower.
“This contempt of court conviction constitutes a direct attack on freedom of the media and information in Bangladesh,†said Benjamin Ismaïl, the head of the Reporters Without Borders Asia-Pacific desk.
“For the past ten years we have been asking the authorities to repeal the contempt law, under which journalists can be jailed just for expressing views different from those of the courts. The entire judicial system is now off-limits for the media. No critical coverage of the justice system and court cases will be possible as long as this threat continues to hang over journalists.â€
His lawyer is considering an appeal but added that the International Crimes (Tribunal) Act of 1973 did not provide a right of appeal and section 47a of the constitution could also limit any attempt to challenge this denial of a right.
Many journalists have been charged with contempt – and often convicted – by high court judges or judges with the International Crimes Tribunal.
In March, a high court judge found Prothom Alo joint editor Mizanur Rahman Khan guilty of contempt in connection with an article he wrote about a series of bail decisions. He was fined 5,000 taka, with the court considering his having stood in court for the previous five days sufficient additional punishment. In December 2012, two journalists with The Economist magazine who live outside Bangladesh were charged with contempt for an article questioning the tribunal’s independence. They were later acquitted.
Mahmudur Rahman, the editor of the opposition daily Amar Desh, was sentenced to seven months in prison on 19 August 2010 on various charges including contempt of court. Two weeks after completing his sentence in March 2011, another warrant was issued for his arrest on a similar contempt charge in connection with a 2010 article criticizing Awami League leaders.
Both the publisher and the editor of the Dainik Manabzamin newspaper were sentenced to a month in prison and a fine on a contempt charge in 2002.
Bangladesh is ranked 146th out of 180 countries in the 2014 Reporters Without Borders press freedom index.
o o o
Human Rights Watch - Press Release
Bangladesh: Conviction of Journalist Chills Speech
War Crimes Court Uses Broad Contempt Powers to Quell Criticism
December 5, 2014
(New York) – The December 2 conviction of journalist David Bergman on contempt charges by Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) further shrinks the narrowing space for observers to comment on the war crimes proceedings, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the International Commission of Jurists said today.
Bergman was sentenced to a symbolic “simple imprisonment till the rising of the court†and a fine of Taka 5,000 (about US$56) for comments he made in three separate blog postings regarding legal proceedings before the ICT.
The ICT is a specially constituted court set up to bring to account those responsible for grave violations of international law during the country’s 1971 war of independence. Concerns over its statute, rules of procedure, and practices have been raised since its inception, including by international monitors and legal experts.
“Rather than respecting the right to freedom of expression, the ICT has used contempt of court proceedings against some of its critics, and those who are convicted have no right of appeal,†said Richard Bennett, Asia-Pacific director at Amnesty International. “The conviction of Bergman sends a chilling message to journalists and human rights defenders that the ICT will not tolerate fair criticism.â€
Contempt charges have been selectively pursued against others who have offered critical comments on the court’s proceedings. In an apparent attempt to silence criticism, Human Rights Watch, journalists from The Economist, and local journalists have been tried for contempt for publishing material critical of some aspect or issue relating to the ICT.
In its verdict against Bergman, the ICT took particular exception to a blog post in which he questioned the number of dead in the 1971 war. The Bangladeshi government has regularly stated that 3 million were killed, a figure which the ICT has declared as a proven fact. Some observers have estimated that the number could be closer to 300,000, while still others suggest a range between 300,000 and 3 million.
In its judgment the court found that Bergman’s questioning of whether there was an established number of war killed “disgraces and demeans the nation’s wishes and holy emotion†and that it was based on “malicious intent†designed to “scandalize†the court, and ordered him to refrain from writing on “historically settled issues.†The ICT further ruled that there was no legitimate public interest in Bergman’s article on either this matter or on the question of the legality of in absentia trials, the subject of another blog post. Human Rights Watch, the International Commission of Jurists, and Amnesty International take no position on the number of people who were killed during the 1971 war, but believe that this is a matter on which reasonable and fair-minded people may disagree without malicious intent.
“The issues Bergman raised were all well within the purviews of legitimate commentary,†said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “These are the kinds of complex factual and legal issues which war crimes tribunals around the world have to grapple with. Bergman is a longstanding supporter of trials for these heinous crimes, so it is perverse to convict him for raising reasonable questions. If a journalist can be held in contempt for criticizing proceedings and issues before the tribunal, why not bring proceedings against US Ambassador for War Crimes Stephen Rapp, who has raised many similar concerns?â€
The rights groups pointed out that there is language in the judgment that is disturbingly vague and allows the ICT broad scope to continue going after its critics. The judgment also contains poorly defined interpretations of what constitutes a legitimate subject for critical reportage on its proceedings.
As a state party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), all of Bangladesh’s branches of governmental authority, including the judiciary, must respect and protect freedom of expression. Any restrictions on free speech must be necessary and strictly proportionate to protect national security, public order, public health, morals, or the rights of others – none of which were at stake in Bergman’s blogs.
International human rights mechanisms, including the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, have expressed concern about provisions that criminalise the right to freedom of expression. The UN’s Human Rights Committee, the body that is mandated to monitor states’ implementation of the ICCPR, has clarified that laws which criminalise the expression of opinions about historical facts are incompatible with the obligations on states to respect freedom of expression and opinion. It has stated that a two-year sentence for calling a Supreme Court ruling ‘shameful’ was a violation of the right to freedom of expression guaranteed under the ICCPR. The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that issues concerning the functioning of a justice system constitute questions of public interest.
“The ICT is dealing with incredibly complex factual and emotional issues of tremendous interest to people in Bangladesh and across the world, and part of this process is establishing public confidence in the legal system,†said Sam Zarifi, Asia director at the International Commission of Jurists. “Holding a credible and highly regarded journalist in contempt for raising important questions doesn’t end the debate surrounding the ICT’s performance, in fact it undermines confidence in the court’s commitment to justice.â€
Under the International Crimes Tribunal Act, Bergman is not entitled to appeal his contempt of court conviction. Only those convicted under Article 3 of the Act for a number of crimes that include genocide, crimes against humanity, and crimes against peace are entitled to appeal.
o o o
See also relevant reports in the Media:
British journalist found guilty of contempt by Bangladesh court for questioning war death toll
by Lizzie Dearden
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/british-journalist-found-guilty-of-contempt-by-bangladesh-court-for-questioning-war-death-toll-9897430.html
’Forced disappearances’ surge in Bangladesh
Rights groups allege rise in number of opposition leaders being abducted by state agencies amid lack of accountability.
David Bergman (20 Oct 2014)
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2014/10/disappearances-surge-bangladesh-20141019124512338962.html
