On 24 September, Hafez Md Saifuddin, joint secretary of Fatikchhari Upazila Chhatra Dal, filed a complaint in Chattogram against a 52-one year-passe man for making “low feedback” in a Facebook put up about the Quran, Chief Adviser Dr. Muhammad Yunus, Data Adviser Nahid Islam, and others. The case used to be filed below the Cyber Safety Act 2023, citing Clauses 25, 28, 29, and 31.
For the duration of the Awami League regime, conditions had been most continuously filed against dissenting journalists, writers, and social media creators below the Digital Safety Act, which used to be later modified into the Cyber Safety Act (CSA). One among the central demands of the mass uprising against Sheikh Hasina’s rule used to be restoring freedom of speech. Other folks hoped that the CSA would no longer target government critics and journalists.
Nevertheless, contemporary events include sparked issues about the persistence of these restrictive practices. On September 23, Data Adviser Md. Nahid Islam questioned whether or no longer media freedom must allow ‘the promotion of fascists’. On the following day, playwright Rafat Majumdar Rinku used to be arrested for his work on transgender problems, and a case in Chattogram used to be also filed.
These incidents include raised fears that, without reference to the regime trade, freedom of speech may maybe maybe presumably aloof be below threat. In light of these events and the ongoing debate about free speech, The Change Odd reached out to experts to learn solutions as to if or no longer the licensed tricks and mechanisms of administration over public discourse include the truth is modified.
‘Can anybody moral trot into a police place and file a case?’
Dr Iftekharuzzaman
Executive Director, Transparency Global Bangladesh (TIB)
We can not pronounce that this particular incident used to be expected; alternatively, it didn’t map all of the sudden either. We must always do now not put out of your mind that while the authoritarian Awami regime may maybe maybe presumably include fallen, the licensed tricks, guidelines, and institutional infrastructure they established over time aloof live in our system.
If a person shares a video insulting any individual, in this case, Prof Yunus and the students, the affected receive together must file a case against the impart material creator, no longer any individual else on their behalf. Who’s entitled to file a case is no longer clearly mentioned within the act. [According to Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no one can sue for defamation except the aggrieved party. But in the Cyber Security Act, this is not mentioned clearly]
That is why, in some unspecified time in the future of the Awami regime, we saw of us filing conditions on behalf of others.
By methodology of insulting a bellow religion or hurting non secular sentiments, the CSA involves a clause for punishment (Clause 28). So, nowadays, if any individual feels their sentiments had been misery, they are able to file a case against the person in charge, which is one other preventive measure. But how attain we outline “hurting any individual’s sentiments”? The CSA Act does no longer clearly tackle this convey of affairs.
For the duration of the previous government regime, of us’s freedom of speech used to be restricted by exploiting these loopholes, and this modified into a almost institutionalised discover. The framework and guidelines aloof exist, allowing anybody to steal attend of them.
Given the new political landscape, with no doubt one of many first issues I inquire of from the interim government is to reevaluate and reform these licensed tricks. In particular the CSA (which is truly a rebranded version of the DSA) must be abolished. There are assorted problematic licensed tricks, but the DSA, and now the CSA, had been most continuously abused to suppress freedom of speech and the correct to dissent. Beneath the guise of cyber security, this act instilled apprehension among the electorate of this country.
There is one other convey of affairs here: can anybody moral trot into a police place and file a case? There must be a system to define or take a look at whether or no longer a complaint has any merit earlier than it’s popular as a case. We do now not desire one other fascist regime to rise in this country, but to prevent that, we can not employ oppressive instruments that suppress of us’s correct to precise their opinions.
“It’d be repealed and replaced with a brand new, greater-crafted law”
Barrister Sara Hossain
Advocate, Supreme Court docket
On August 12, Nahid Islam said that the CSA clauses threatening freedom of expression may maybe maybe presumably be reconsidered. It has now been one and a half months, and we include but to see any action, which is relating to. To this point, it stays merely a statement. Furthermore, these controversial sections of the law continue to be passe to annoy of us.
The case filed the day before right this moment used to be also surprising. The plaintiff cited non secular sentiment and defamation.
On the sure aspect, no rapid arrests had been made. The courtroom has said there’ll most likely be an investigation, and as soon as the tale is submitted, extra action will discover accordingly. That is a reduction this skill that of we now include viewed conditions within the previous where americans had been arrested within the center of the evening correct after a case used to be filed.
Nevertheless, the larger inquire of stays whether or no longer such conditions must aloof be going down at all. No lower than, this law must be urgently reconsidered and repealed.
Within the sizzling case, it used to be reported that the accused defamed students from the College students In opposition to Discrimination movement, as neatly as allegations that the Chief Adviser and the IT Adviser had been defamed.
There are two key problems here. First, every of these americans are public figures, and by law, public figures are enviornment to criticism. There must be no defamation conditions on this basis.
Secondly, a 3rd receive together can not file a defamation case on behalf of any individual else. Attributable to this truth, there’s no legitimate motive to review this ingredient of the case. The courtroom must account for why it has ordered an investigation and on what moral grounds, as this is an ethical convey of affairs, no longer with no doubt one of accurate investigation. Third-receive together defamation conditions are no longer permissible.
It stays to be viewed whether or no longer the courtroom used to be directed to review every problems or moral the ingredient connected to non secular sentiment. My inquire of is, if the courtroom has also ordered an investigation into the defamation ingredient, why is it allowing this, shimmering that such conditions can’t be filed?
For now, the government can convey of affairs an injunction. Within the previous government’s time, we saw that the IGP as soon as said there may maybe maybe presumably be no rapid arrests even if a case used to be filed. They’ll include in mind issuing a connected directive referring to the CSA. For the reason that government has already mentioned that they’re going to reassess the law, taking rapid action on this is most critical.
We now include viewed earlier than how this law used to be passe to suppress freedom of speech and particular person liberty. Other folks had been arrested and detained for merely making statements. We hope that such misuse of this law would now not continue, but sadly, it’s already going down. Fortunately, no one has been arrested but in this case. This convey of affairs should be urgently addressed to prevent abnormal electorate from being pressured.
Many are calling for the repeal of the law. They are at the identical time stressing the need for cybersecurity. Given how controversial this law is and the a mountainous series of problems surrounding it, it must be repealed and replaced with a brand new, greater-crafted law.
“It is miles exasperating to see even the kids think fancy the passe of us”
Barrister Jyotirmoy Barua
Advocate, Supreme Court docket
We had suspected that the CSA (The Cyber Safety Act, 2023) may maybe maybe presumably be passe within the identical methodology the previous government had passe the DSA. Despite some sections being made non-cognisable, several sections live cognisable and non-bailable. There used to be a pattern of filing conditions below the DSA by combining bailable and non-bailable sections with imprecise allegations. The CSA shares these identical traits and looks at risk of limit freedom of expression and press freedom.
Nahid Islam’s contemporary remarks pronounce that those in energy think equally and goal to suppress dissent. It is miles deeply anxious to see that there used to be no trade in this mindset, and even the kids think fancy the passe of us.
[In a recent discussion meeting, Nahid Islam said, “Of course, we want freedom for the media. But I want to leave a question with you all: to what extent should this freedom be allowed? We know freedom means freedom, and it shouldn’t be controlled. But can we allow the media to use this freedom to promote fascists? Can we allow them to serve the purposes of fascists under the guise of freedom?”]
I inquire of the rapid repeal of this law, adopted by the creation of a brand new one, after correct session with stakeholders, that ensures security rather then turning the law into a instrument that fosters insecurity. Furthermore, the sizzling licensed tricks include failed to tackle the most neatly-liked cyber offences.
