TopCat
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2008
- Messages
- 15,736
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
The government has virtually banned Amar Desh.
Its acting editor, Mahmudur Rahman, has been arrested. The press has been put under lock and key without any explanation. It tried to bring out the paper from another press. But the attempt failed since it has not got permission to do so.
Officially, both the newspaper and the press had to apply to the government to print from a different press. But the government has so far stalled its republication on the plea that only the paper had applied and not the press.
Let there be no doubt that the journalism practised by Amar Desh leaves much to be desired. It often used fabricated, motivated, maligning and news inciting religious hatred. The role it plays can be reproachable.
But still the governments actions against Amar Desh are a direct hit against freedom of the press.
The government has taken shield behind various laws relating to publication to deny its republication. The technicalities it has mentioned are nothing but trickery to stop a newspaper that was vigorously anti-government and thus attracted the governments ire.
When the press is stymied, democracy becomes at stake. Our constitution in its article 39 has clearly ensured freedom of the press. Even the Awami League in its election manifesto had said freedom of all types of mass media and flow of information will be ensured. It also pledged to stop persecution and intimidation of journalists.
In case of Amar Desh, the reverse is seen in action.
From the charges framed against Amar Desh acting editor Mahmudur Rahman, his biggest crime appears to be publishing the Skype conversations.
But may one ask was it published in public interest? Did it serve to improving the functioning of the tribunal? On both counts the answer is yes.
The conversations were stunningly outrageous. Many intriguing details of the case were revealed in that which showed how the case was being jeopardised by the incomprehensible behaviour of the judge of the tribunal, an action for which he resigned. The Skype conversations revealed all that and made the tribunal further controversial.
The Skypegate actually helped put a big question mark in the minds of domestic and international observers over the neutrality of the much coveted trial of the alleged war criminals.
Amar Desh had done the right thing to run the conversations.
The government took out the judge from the court, but did not initiate any judicial process against him for jeopardising the trial.
And then it sued and arrested Amar Desh acting editor Mahmudur Rahman for violating a court order by the same judge whose Skype conservations crated the ripple barring publication of his exchanges with the Brussels-based individual.
The political motives of the governments actions are clear here.
First, the publication of the conservations served public interest the clear outcome of which is the resignation of the judge (He was sent back to his earlier position in Supreme Court). Actions which serve public interest should not have been seen as criminal acts.
Secondly, the court which had barred the publication did not take any action for violation of its own order. But the government took it on itself to sue and arrest the editor.
Thirdly, if the newspaper had violated any court order, the government could have served notice on the paper and asked it to explain. It could then follow legal actions which necessarily would not entail arresting the editor or virtually closing down the paper. The government could have gone to the press council.
The government could have used its machinery to counter the lies of Amar Desh, but it hardly did anything.
None of these the government followed which all the more bares the governments political intention to muzzle the newspaper.
It appears that as an afterthought the government had filed cases against the newspaper for hurting religious sentiment through publishing false pictures and news, and also for instigating violence.
On both accounts the government could have taken a different route instead of going for arrest and making publication impossible.
These have made the case for freedom of the press weaker.
This piece can be ended by recalling what American president and the author of declaration of US independence Thomas Jefferson said over 200 years ago in 1787. Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. The freedom of the press is one of the great of bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by a despotic government.
Have we gone back in time to forget this?
Its acting editor, Mahmudur Rahman, has been arrested. The press has been put under lock and key without any explanation. It tried to bring out the paper from another press. But the attempt failed since it has not got permission to do so.
Officially, both the newspaper and the press had to apply to the government to print from a different press. But the government has so far stalled its republication on the plea that only the paper had applied and not the press.
Let there be no doubt that the journalism practised by Amar Desh leaves much to be desired. It often used fabricated, motivated, maligning and news inciting religious hatred. The role it plays can be reproachable.
But still the governments actions against Amar Desh are a direct hit against freedom of the press.
The government has taken shield behind various laws relating to publication to deny its republication. The technicalities it has mentioned are nothing but trickery to stop a newspaper that was vigorously anti-government and thus attracted the governments ire.
When the press is stymied, democracy becomes at stake. Our constitution in its article 39 has clearly ensured freedom of the press. Even the Awami League in its election manifesto had said freedom of all types of mass media and flow of information will be ensured. It also pledged to stop persecution and intimidation of journalists.
In case of Amar Desh, the reverse is seen in action.
From the charges framed against Amar Desh acting editor Mahmudur Rahman, his biggest crime appears to be publishing the Skype conversations.
But may one ask was it published in public interest? Did it serve to improving the functioning of the tribunal? On both counts the answer is yes.
The conversations were stunningly outrageous. Many intriguing details of the case were revealed in that which showed how the case was being jeopardised by the incomprehensible behaviour of the judge of the tribunal, an action for which he resigned. The Skype conversations revealed all that and made the tribunal further controversial.
The Skypegate actually helped put a big question mark in the minds of domestic and international observers over the neutrality of the much coveted trial of the alleged war criminals.
Amar Desh had done the right thing to run the conversations.
The government took out the judge from the court, but did not initiate any judicial process against him for jeopardising the trial.
And then it sued and arrested Amar Desh acting editor Mahmudur Rahman for violating a court order by the same judge whose Skype conservations crated the ripple barring publication of his exchanges with the Brussels-based individual.
The political motives of the governments actions are clear here.
First, the publication of the conservations served public interest the clear outcome of which is the resignation of the judge (He was sent back to his earlier position in Supreme Court). Actions which serve public interest should not have been seen as criminal acts.
Secondly, the court which had barred the publication did not take any action for violation of its own order. But the government took it on itself to sue and arrest the editor.
Thirdly, if the newspaper had violated any court order, the government could have served notice on the paper and asked it to explain. It could then follow legal actions which necessarily would not entail arresting the editor or virtually closing down the paper. The government could have gone to the press council.
The government could have used its machinery to counter the lies of Amar Desh, but it hardly did anything.
None of these the government followed which all the more bares the governments political intention to muzzle the newspaper.
It appears that as an afterthought the government had filed cases against the newspaper for hurting religious sentiment through publishing false pictures and news, and also for instigating violence.
On both accounts the government could have taken a different route instead of going for arrest and making publication impossible.
These have made the case for freedom of the press weaker.
This piece can be ended by recalling what American president and the author of declaration of US independence Thomas Jefferson said over 200 years ago in 1787. Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. The freedom of the press is one of the great of bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by a despotic government.
Have we gone back in time to forget this?
HeI has begun their influence into the nightmares of a few. Hopefully they'll all turn else they'll burn 
