Home | Back Issues | Contact Us | News Home
 
 
“All Citizens are Equal before Law and are Entitled to Equal Protection of Law”-Article 27 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh



Issue No: 226
February 18, 2006

This week's issue:
Human Rights Advocacy
Star Law Analysis
Rights Monitor
Fact File
Law News
Law Week


Back Issues

Law Home

News Home


 

Fact File

Freedom of speech carries responsibilities for all

Events of recent weeks have highlighted the difficult question of what should be the legitimate scope of freedom of expression in culturally diverse societies. While different societies have drawn the boundaries of free speech in different ways, the cartoon controversy shows how, in today's increasingly global media space, the impact of actions in one country can be felt way beyond its borders. Today, more than ever, societies are faced with the challenge of asserting universal human rights principles in an area where there has traditionally been a tendency to defer to the domestic laws of a particular state and the values they enshrine.

Set against the backdrop of the rising climate of intolerance and suspicion between religious and other communities in many parts of the world, including in Europe, two conflicting sets of principles are being advanced in this controversy. Newspaper editors have justified the publication of cartoons that many Muslims have regarded as insulting, arguing that freedom of artistic expression and critique of opinions and beliefs are essential in a pluralist and democratic society. On the other hand, Muslims in numerous countries have found the cartoons to be deeply offensive to their religious beliefs and an abuse of freedom of speech. In a number of cases, protests against the cartoons have degenerated into acts of physical violence, while public statements by some protestors and community leaders have been seen as fanning the flames of hostility and violence.

The right to freedom of opinion and expression should be one of the cornerstones of any society. This right includes "the freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media, regardless of frontiers" (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19). For more than forty years, Amnesty International (AI) has defended this right against attempts by governments across the globe to stifle religious dissent, political opposition and artistic creativity.

However, the right to freedom of expression is not absolute -- neither for the creators of material nor their critics. It carries responsibilities and it may, therefore, be subject to restrictions in the name of safeguarding the rights of others. In particular, any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence cannot be considered legitimate exercise of freedom of expression. Under international standards, such "hate speech" should be prohibited by law.

AI calls on the government officials and those responsible for law enforcement and the administration of justice to be guided by these human rights principles in their handling of the current situation. It also calls on those working in the media to act with sensitivity and responsibility so as not to exacerbate the current situation. This incident highlights the power and reach of the media and AI calls on those in the media to apply greater political judgement, taking into account the potential impact of their output and the range of often competing human rights considerations involved. While AI recognises the right of anyone to peacefully express their opinion, including through peaceful protests, the use and threat of violence is unacceptable. Community leaders must do everything in their power to defuse the current atmosphere of hostility and violence. Culture and religion are of central importance to many people's lives, but they cannot be used as an excuse to abuse human rights.

 

Myanmar
Human rights violations continue

Amnesty International deplores the decision by the Myanmar authorities to prolong the detention without charge or trial of three senior opposition political leaders. The organization renews calls for the immediate and unconditional release of these prisoners of conscience, whose detention has been extended by the maximum period provided for by security legislation. AI remains concerned that the Myanmar authorities continue, in the name of national security, to deny people their fundamental rights solely on the basis of their peaceful political activities.

The Myanmar authorities today extended the house arrest of U Tin Oo, 78, Deputy Chairperson of the National League for Democracy (NLD) by a further year. Senior opposition figures and NLD MPs elect Dr. Than Nyein, 68, and Daw May Win Myint, 56, both imprisoned since 1997, also face a further year in prison without charge or trial, following the authorities' extension of their detention orders in mid January and early February 2006 respectively. These three senior NLD leaders, who are aged or in poor states of health, should never have been deprived of their liberty. U Tin Oo has been detained since a violent attack on NLD members in late May 2003. Medical doctors Dr. Than Nyein, deputy chair of the NLD's Yangon Organisational Committee, and Daw May Win Myint, head of the NLD Women's division, are suffering from ill health. They have already served sentences of seven years imprisonment for trying to arrange a meeting with NLD General Secretary Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, who is currently detained under house arrest without charge or trial under the 1975 State Protection Law. Since the expiry of their prison sentences the authorities have repeatedly imposed further detention orders on them under the 1975 State Protection Law.

AI is concerned that the 1975 State Protection Law used to detain them denies fundamental rights, including the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial. It permits the authorities to bypass the legal system, arbitrarily classify anybody a danger to state security and hold them under house arrest or in prison without charge, trial or the right to appeal their detention order. Under the law, the government may impose detention orders of up to one year, renewable for up to five years. It has been used for the prolonged unlawful and arbitrary detention of persons solely on the basis of their peaceful political opinions. It has repeatedly called for an end to the use of state security legislation, including the 1975 State Protection Law, to penalise and imprison peaceful political activities in Myanmar, where more than 1,150 political prisoners are imprisoned.

Source: Amnesty International.

Nepal:Tenth anniversary of civil war

 
 
 


© All Rights Reserved
thedailystar.net