Global Human Rights Defence

Hoisting digital security to stifle freedom of speech: a tale of an ongoing oppression

Crumpled pages of a book. Source © Michael Dziedzic/Unsplash.com, 2021.

Author: Gianpaolo Mascaro

Introduction

Freedom of speech and expression has long been recognized worldwide (both at the national and international level) as an integral part of the spectrum of fundamental human rights, playing a paramount role in the correct functioning of democratic systems. The founding fathers of Bangladesh, charged with the task to build a democratic country after gaining independence from Pakistan in 1971, were undoubtedly aware of this truism and, as a result, they embodied freedom of thought, conscience and speech in Article 39, Part III, of The Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh of 1972. 

However, to ensure the coexistence of the manifold (at times conflicting) interests within a given society, the extension of the enjoyment of human rights shall be subject to some sort of limitations: no exclusion made for freedom of speech. Mindful of this, paragraph 2 of the aforementioned Article 39 establishes that the right of every citizen to freedom of speech and expression and the principle of freedom of press can be reasonably restricted by law whenever “the interests of the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence” require so. Therefore, the Constitution itself paves the way for law     makers to identify the specific cases in which freedom of speech can be legitimately sacrificed on the altar of more compelling interests of the State or of society as a whole. The Information and Communication Technology Act of 2006 and the Digital Security Act of 2018 posit themselves against this backdrop. Despite          theoretically pursuing Constitution-based principles, both these legal instruments have in concrete terms silenced and set aside the entire framework of guarantees enshrined in them, leading to several human rights violations in Bangladesh, raising the concern of the civil society.

The Information and Communication Technology Act of 2006        

In October 2006, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party enacted the Information and Communication Technology Act (hereinafter ICTA) with the proclaimed intent to fight cyber-criminality, such as hacking and other attacks against computer systems or networks. At first sight commendable, a deeper analysis of Section 57 of the ICTA clarifies how this legal instrument was conceived to stretch its tentacles much further than that. Section 57 criminalised the publication or the transmission of any online material which, according to the specific circumstances, is deemed to be fake, obscene, or to have somehow the effect to deprave and corrupt persons, to undermine law and order, to prejudice the image of the State or person or to collide with religious belief or instigate against any person or organisation. According to the second paragraph of Section 57, the maximum jail term for these offences had initially been set to ten years. However, such a roof was raised to fourteen years in 2013 by the Government headed by the Bangladesh Awami League party. In addition to exacerbating the penalties, the 2013 amendment crossed out the reference to the need of a warrant to make a legitimate arrest under the ICTA, as well as making the aforementioned offences non-bailable. In combination with the nebulous wording of the article, these measures disengaged the law enforcement bodies from most of those legal constraints meant to safeguard individuals against the risk of arbitrary and illegitimate deprivations of personal liberty. This statement is confirmed by the fact that, since the reform of the ICTA, the cases grounded on the violations stipulated in Section 57 tripled, determining a dismaying increase in the number of people being exposed to arrests, prosecutions and sentences.   

Indeed, throughout the years, the ICTA became more and more of a tool in the Government’s hands to shut down any expression of the population’s dissent against the established power. One of the clearest examples showing how digital security discourses have instead served merely anti-democratic purposes is the arrest of Shahidul Alam, a photographer who documented the violent attacks perpetrated by the Bangladeshi police to dismantle the peaceful protests of thousands of students demanding safer streets in summer 2018. In addition to posting pictures portraying police raids, Alam delivered an interview to Al Jazeera on August 5th, in which he explained that the students’ discontent that led to the protests was triggered by several other factors, such as bribery, corruption, and other illegal behaviours within the Government. A few hours after the publication of this interview, police officers arrested Alam, who was charged under Section 57 for abusing the use of electronic platforms to spread false information intended to deteriorate the Government’s image and credibility before the international community, as well as endanger law and order within the country. In the aftermath of the arrest, Alam was tortured by policemen and detained for 107 days. 

In light of the injustices endured by Alam and many other individuals, national and international human rights organisations, activists, advocacy practitioners and opposition political parties directed a barrage of criticisms against the misuse of Section 57, urging for it to be repealed. After months of pressure, on September 19th, 2018, Section 57 was eventually abrogated and replaced by the enactment of the Digital Security Act. Yet, the problematic issues outlined so far in Section 57 are miles away from being sorted out. Indeed, as it will be surveyed in the following paragraph, this legal instrument too can be easily manipulated in order to pursue anti-democratic goals in the name of vaguely-defined overriding national interests, since it does not contain any effective solution to all the flaws and shortcomings which characterised the infamous predecessor. 

The Digital Security Act of 2018  

The heralded scope of the Digital Security Act (hereinafter DSA) – following the traces of the ICTA – consists of tackling the vast gamut of cyber-criminal activities that have been increasingly challenging security goals in the modern era. However, as promptly flagged up by the fleshed-out examination carried out by scholars Bari and Dey, the ambiguity of the construction of the norms and the harshness of the sanctions imposed severe threats to freedom of speech and expression, turning out to tie hands of both individuals and media outlets. Upon this overarching premise, it appears useful to mention the set of provisions giving rise to the main controversies.

Firstly, Section 8 allows the law enforcement bodies, incarnated specifically in the Director-General of the Digital Security Agency, to subjectively identify and remove all the online content which would endanger the unity of the country, its economic activity, its security, defence, or public order which would otherwise spread racial hatred and hurt religious sentiments. Moreover, Section 25 prescribes three years of imprisonment for whoever uses digital platforms to share offensive, false, or intimidating information which annoys, insults, humiliates or denigrates a person that causes harm to the image of the nation. The wording of these articles reveals that merely listing the overriding national interests to be preserved leaves the subjects bestowed with the power of interpretation and far too much leeway. Consequently, these two sections result in insufficient fulfilment of the indispensable precision and determinacy criteria that should always go hand in hand with any criminal norm.

Secondly, Section 21 criminalises any digital content potentially positing against the liberation war and its spirit, against the “Father of the Nation” Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and, eventually, against the Bangladeshi anthem and the Bangladeshi flag. In the clear attempt to guarantee the honourability of the milestones of the nation, Section 21 is susceptible to abuses, culminating in the censorship of critical analyses of the historical events of Bangladesh carried out by academics, researchers, and journalists.

Furthermore, Sections 28 and 31 aim to maintain the order within the Bangladeshi society, since the former prohibits the employment of web services to hurt religious values and principles, whereas the latter criminalises the utilisation of electronic platforms to disrupt the harmony of the community by spreading content capable of fanning animosity and hostility amongst classes. As for these norms too, the grey zones ensuing from lack of clarity of the drafting technique are too wide and indefinite, leading to potential misuses driven by the only purpose of muzzling dissenting opinions.

Additionally, Section 32 imposes a maximum imprisonment term of fourteen years for people endangering or unveiling state secrets through the use of digital devices and computer networks. This norm is      susceptible to be instrumentalised to stifle investigating journalists, impeding them to uncover hypothetical wrongdoings and misdeeds of the Government, perpetuating therefore the poisonous atmosphere of impunity and lack of accountability. 

Lastly, from a procedural viewpoint, Section 43 of the DSA reiterates the freedom granted by the ICTA to the law enforcement agencies in terms of searching, seizing arresting individuals accused under the aforementioned provisions without the need to obtain warrants from judges. As previously noted concerning to the ICTA, the removal of the necessity of warrants renders the checks and balances system amongst the different branches of law irremediably ineffective, granting, therefore,      the unfettered power of action to the executive bodies, leaving citizens unforgivably defenceless, at the mercy of the Government’s injustices.

The combination of all these provisions stands in stark contrast with the control powers belonging to the civil society vis à vis institutional subjects (the so-called “bottom-up control”), resulting in a double-pronged sword cutting through the democratic functioning of the country. In doing so, not only a category of professionals is deprived of the right to freely investigate and disseminate the results of their work, but also the whole society is denied the right to benefit from media news and informedly shape their own political choices. Against this backdrop, the weakening of the public scrutiny regarding      the State’s behaviour has been confirmed by the fact that despite the countless information flows delivered by international human rights organisations and media outlets about the irregularities committed by the Awami League Party in the context of the general elections of 2018, local media refrained from reporting relevant news. The journalists’ fear of suffering political suppression has been grounded on well-founded reasons – not only as far as the elections are concerned, as the case of Mushtaq Ahmed unfortunately illuminates.

Mushtaq Ahmed was a writer arrested by police and sued in May 2020 for sharing on Facebook some posts criticising the Government’s response to the sanitary crisis caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. Ever since, Ahmed was kept in pre-trial detention in a high-security prison, where he lost his life under unclear circumstances on February 25th, 2021. In the aftermath of his tragic death, thousands of protesters took to the streets demanding justice, exercising pressure on the Government to obtain the release of all the other prisoners charged with violations of the DSA throughout the years and to repeal the act itself. Notwithstanding the riots, the Bangladesh Law Minister, Anisul Haq, reacted quite coldly, stubbornly asserting that the portrayal of the DSA as a weapon to curb citizens’ freedom of speech was absurd. He          added that the abrogation of such a legal instrument was still out of consideration.

Conclusion: the need for a democracy-led reform

The firm indifference shown so far by the Bangladeshi institutions to the outcries of the population is highly concerning. As a reaction to such persistent resistance, it is more important than ever to keep pushing and advocating tirelessly for a sudden and dramatic change of the State’s approach to freedom of expression, in order to finally substantiate and abide by the democratic principles enunciated by the Constitution of Bangladesh, as well as by the main international human rights documents, such as the Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.  

Moreover, today, it is equally essential to adapt this general commitment to the digital era in which we are all plunged, taking further measures to make sure that all these rights are guaranteed in the “behind-the-screen reality” too. Given the unquestionable centrality assumed by the Internet in the last decades, the web is now a natural extension of everyday life. Subsequently, the framework for protecting human rights must be updated accordingly, giving due attention to their online counterparts. The importance of the digital sphere in the correct and swift functioning of democratic systems is a fortiori demonstrated by the so-called “Milk Tea Alliance”, an online activism movement uniting Thai, Taiwanese and Hong Kong individuals raising their voices against the oppressive Chinese government. Social media have the power to establish connections and solidarity flows that are inherently borderless. Thanks to these technologies, everyone with access to Wi-Fi can participate in global movements of political resistance, regardless of their geographic location. 

The DSA, with its countless ambiguities and interstices paving the way to abuses and injustices, needs to be reconstructed, mindful of the all multifaceted nuances at stake when it comes to freedom of expression and use of digital platforms and, ultimately, to their interplay in the realm of democratic participation. In addition to the amendment of the formulation of the norms, what is profoundly needed is the reintroduction of the requirement for a judicial warrant. In line with the principle of separation of powers, it is fundamental to maintain the competence within the judges’ domains to evaluate the reasonableness and appropriateness of the restrictions imposed on the freedom of speech.            

Bibliography

Academic Articles & Books

Bari E. and Dey P., “The Enactment of Digital Security Laws in Bangladesh: No Place for Dissent” (2019) The Geo. Wash. Int’l. Rev. 51 595;

Blair H., The Bangladesh Paradox (2020) Journal of Democracy, 31(4) 138;

Post R., “Participatory Democracy and Free Speech” (2011) Va. L. Rev. 97 477;

Siddik M. A. B. and Rahi S. T., Cybercrime in Social Media and Analysis of Existing Legal Framework: Bangladesh in Context (2020) BildBangladesh 68.

Legal Instruments

Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh (1972), The Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh;

The Bangladesh Gazette Extraordinary, Digital Security Act No. 46 (2018);

The Bangladesh Gazette Extraordinary, Digital Security Act No. 46 (2018);

The Bangladesh Gazette Extraordinary, Information & Communication Technology (Amendment) Act, No. 42 (2013);

UN General Assembly, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 16 December 1966, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 999;

UN General Assembly, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948, 217 A (III).

Websites

“Police Get Seven Days to Grill Shahidul Alam in ICT Case”, (Aug. 6, 2018) BdNews24.com, available at https://bdnews24.com/bangladesh/2018/08/06/police-get-seven-days-togrill-shahidul-alam-in-ict-case;

  1. Islam, “How is Bangladesh’s Digital Security Act muzzling free speech?” (03/03/2021) dw.com, available at https://www.dw.com/en/how-is-bangladeshs-digital-security-act-muzzling-free-speech/a-56762799;
  2. Barth, “Bangladesh Prevents Freedom of Opinion” (Aug. 6, 2018) Fair Observer, available at https://www.fairobserver.com/region/central_south_asia/bangladesh-shahidul-alamarrest-free-press-latest-asian-news-this-week-32380/;
  3. Yamahata, B. Ahmed, “Towards Intersectional Solidarity In The Digital Age: The Milk Tea Alliance” (17/01/2022) Human Rights Pulse, available at https://www.humanrightspulse.com/mastercontentblog/towards-intersectional-solidarity-in-the-digital-age-the-milk-tea-alliance. 

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Human Rights Film Festival The Hague

Register

Human Rights Film Festival The Hague

This will close in 0 seconds

Kenza Mena
Team Coordinator -China

Kenza Mena has expertise in international criminal law since she is currently pursuing a last-year Master’s degree in International Criminal Justice at Paris II Panthéon-Assas and obtained with honors cum laude an LLM in International and Transnational Criminal Law from the University of Amsterdam. She also holds a Bachelor’s degree in French and Anglo-American law. 

Since September 2021, she has been the coordinator of Team China at GHRD, a country where violations of human rights, even international crimes, are frequently perpetrated by representatives of the State. Within Team China, awareness is also raised on discrimination that Chinese women and minorities in the country and, more generally, Chinese people around the world are facing.

Kenza believes that the primary key step to tackle atrocities perpetrated around the world is advocacy and promotion of human rights.

Aimilina Sarafi
Pakistan Coordinator

Aimilina Sarafi holds a Bachelor’s degree cum laude in International Relations and Organisations from Leiden University and is currently pursuing a Double Legal Master’s degree (LLM) in Public International Law and International Criminal Law at the University of Amsterdam.
She is an active advocate for the human rights of all peoples in her community and is passionate about creating a better world for future generations. Aimilina is the coordinator for the GHRD team of Pakistan, in which human rights violations of minority communities in Pakistan are investigated and legally evaluated based on international human rights legal standards.
Her team is working on raising awareness on the plight of minority communities such as women, children, religious and ethnic minorities within Pakistan.

Lukas Mitidieri
Coordinator & Head Researcher- Bangladesh

Lucas Mitidieri is currently pursuing his bachelor’s degree in International Relations at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ). As the GHRD Bangladesh Team Coordinator, he advocates for human rights and monitors violations across all minorities and marginalized groups in Bangladesh. Lucas believes that the fight for International Human Rights is the key to a world with better social justice and greater equality.

Nicole Hutchinson
Editorial Team Lead

Nicole has an MSc in International Development Studies with a focus on migration. She is passionate about promoting human rights and fighting poverty through advocacy and empowering human choice. Nicole believes that even the simplest social justice efforts, when properly nurtured, can bring about radical and positive change worldwide.

Gabriela Johannen
Coordinator & Head Researcher – India

Gabriela Johannen is a lawyer admitted to the German bar and holds extensive knowledge in the fields of human rights, refugee law, and international law. After working for various courts and law firms in her home country, she decided to obtain an LL.M. degree from Utrecht University where she studied Public International Law with a special focus on Human Rights. Additionally, while working as a pro-bono legal advisor for refugees, she expanded her knowledge in the fields of refugee law and migration.

Gabriela is the coordinator and head researcher for GHRD India, a country, she has had a personal connection with since childhood. Her primary focus is to raise awareness for the severe human rights violations against minorities and marginalized groups that continue to occur on a daily basis in India. By emphasizing the happenings and educating the general public, she hopes to create a better world for future generations.

João Victor
Coordinator & Head Researcher – International Justice

João Victor is a young Brazilian lawyer who leads our team of International Justice and Human Rights. He holds a Bachelor’s degree in Law from the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil and possesses over 5 years of experience in dealing with Human Rights and International Law issues both in Brazil and internationally, including the protection of refugees’ rights and the strengthening of accountability measures against torture crimes.

João has an extensive research engagement with subjects related to International Justice in general, and more specifically with the study of the jurisprudence of Human Rights Courts regarding the rise of populist and anti-terrorist measures taken by national governments. He is also interested in the different impacts that new technologies may provoke on the maintenance of Human Rights online, and how enforcing the due diligence rules among private technology companies might secure these rights against gross Human Rights violations.

Célinne Bodinger
Environment and Human Rights Coordinator

As the Environment and Human Rights Coordinator, Célinne is passionate about the health of our planet and every life on it.

Angela Roncetti
Team Coordinator and Head Researcher- South America

Angela holds a Bachelor of Laws (LL.B) from Vitória Law School (FDV) in Brazil. Her research combines more than five years of experience conducting debates and studies on the rights of homeless people, the elderly, children, and refugees. Besides that, she also volunteers in a social project called Sou Diferente (I am Different in English), where she coordinates and takes part in actions aimed at the assistance and the emancipation of vulnerable groups in the cities of the metropolitan area of Espírito Santo state (Brazil).

Lina Borchardt
Team Head (Promotions)
(Europe)

She is currently heading the Promotions Team and University Chapter of Global Human Rights Defence. Her background is the one of European and International Law, which I am studying in The Hague. She has previously gained experience at Women´s Rights organizations in Germany, the Netherlands and Turkey over the past years.
She has been working for Global Human Rights Defence in the Netherlands since 2020. Her focus now is concentrated on the Human Rights and Minorities Film Festival and the cooperation of GHRD with students across the country.

Pedro Ivo Oliveira
Team Coordinator and Researcher
(Africa)

Pedro holds an extensive background in Human Rights, especially in Global Health, LGBTQ+ issues, and HIV and AIDS. He is currently finishing his Bachelor’s Degree in International Relations and Affairs at the Pontifical Catholic University of Minas Gerais, Brazil. Moreover, he successfully attended the Bilingual Summer School in Human Rights Education promoted by the Federal University of Minas Gerais and the Association of Universities of the Montevideo Group. Besides, Pedro Ivo has a diversified professional background, collecting experiences in many NGOs and projects.

With outstanding leadership abilities, in 2021, Pedro Ivo was the Secretary-General of the 22nd edition of the biggest UN Model in Latin America: the MINIONU. Fluent in Portuguese, English, and Spanish, Pedro Ivo is the Team Coordinator and Head Researcher of the Team Africa at Global Human Rights Defence. Hence, his focus is to empower his team from many parts of the world about the Human Rights Situation in the African continent, meanwhile having a humanized approach.

Alessandro Cosmo
GHRD Youth Ambassador
(European Union)

Alessandro Cosmo obtained his B.A. with Honors from Leiden University College where he studied International Law with a minor in Social and Business Entrepreneurship. He is currently pursuing an LL.M. in Public International Law at Utrecht University with a specialization in Conflict and Security. 
As GHRD’s E.U. Youth Ambassador, Alessandro’s two main focuses are to broaden the Defence’s reach within E.U. institutions and political parties, as well as mediate relations between human rights organizations abroad seeking European funding. 
Alessandro believes that human rights advocacy requires grass-roots initiatives where victims’ voices are amplified and not paraphrased or spoken for. He will therefore act on this agenda when representing Global Human Rights Defence domestically and abroad

Veronica Delgado
Team Coordinator and Researcher- Japan, Sri Lanka & Tibet

Veronica is a Colombian lawyer who leads our team of Japan, Sri Lanka and Tibet. She holds a master’s degree in Public International Law from Utrecht University. She has experience in Colombian law firms. Here she represented clients before constitutional courts. She also outlined legal concepts to state entities such as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ombudsman’s Office on international law issues.

Veronica has an extensive research background with subjects related to public international law. She worked as an assistant researcher for more than two years for the Externado University of Colombia. Here she undertook in-depth research on constitutional, business, and human rights law issues. She was involved with consultancy services with the Colombian Army regarding transitional justice. 

Wiktoria Walczyk
Coordinator & Head Researcher (Nepal & Indonesia)

Wiktoria Walczyk has joined GHRD in June 2020 as a legal intern. She is currently coordinator and head researcher of Team Nepal and Indonesia. She has an extensive legal knowledge concerning international human rights and is passionate about children’s and minorities’ rights. Wiktoria has obtained her LL.B. in International & European Law and she specialised in Public International Law & Human Rights at The Hague University of Applied Sciences in the Netherlands. Moreover, she is pursuing her LL.M. in International & European Law and focusing on Modern Human Rights Law specialisation at the University of Wroclaw in Poland. In order to gain an essential legal experience, Wiktoria has also joined Credit Suisse’s 2021 General Counsel Graduate First Program where she is conducting her legal training and discovering the banking world. She would like to make a significant impact when it comes to the protection of fundamental human rights around the world, especially with regard to child labour. 

Fairuz Sewbaks
Coordinator and Head Researcher
(Africa)​

Fairuz Sewbaks holds extensive legal knowledge regarding international human rights, with a specific focus on human rights dealings taking place in continental Africa. She holds a bachelor’s degree from The Hague University in public international law and international human rights and successfully followed advanced human rights courses at the Centre for Human Rights, University of Pretoria. She furthermore participated in the Istanbul Summer School where she was educated about the role of epidemics and pandemics in light of human rights.

 

Fairuz is the coordinator and head researcher for GHRD Africa. Her primary focus is to establish and coordinate long-term research projects regarding the differentiating human rights dealings of vulnerable and marginalized groups in continental Africa, as well as conducting individual research projects.

Priya Lachmansingh
Coordinator and Head Researcher, Political Advisor
(Asia & America)

Priya Lachmansingh is currently pursuing her bachelor’s degree in International & European
Law at the Hague University of Applied Science.
As GHRD’s Asia & America human rights coordinator and GHRD Political Advisor, Priya’s
prominent focus is to highlight human rights violations targeted against minority and
marginalized groups in Asia and America and to broaden GHRD reach within Dutch political
parties and as well seek domestic funding.

Jasmann Chatwal
Team Coordinator & Head Coordinator: North America

Jasmann is a political science student at Leiden University who joined GHRD in May 2021 as an intern in team Pakistan. Now, she is the team coordinator for North America and is responsible for coordinating the documentation of human rights violations in USA, Canada, and America.