Let two ministers’ assurance be implemented
We appreciate the government's readiness to re-asses the controversial articles of the digital security bill. We almost forgot that the government could act so democratic in such a sensitive case of public interest. We hope the recent meeting between the law minister, the ICT minister, the parliamentary standing committee on the law ministry and the Editors' Council and media representatives would set an example. The law minister was right to say that no law can be made that may curb the freedom of the press because that will go against the constitution. The founding father of Bangladesh in the 1972 Constitution had ensured the freedom of the press, which has been a historic landmark.
Since proposed the digital security act concerns freedom of speech, the authorities should take into consideration the suggestions and concerns of not only the journalists, but also that of the other stakeholders, including human rights activists and people from other professions, as well. Because, the assessment of journalists may not be an inch-perfect one. We would urge the authorities to take a look at the series of reports published in Prothom Alo on the pros and cons of the bill between 21 and 23 May 2018. If the law enforcement is given the power to judge news items and they may ask the BTRC to block a website right away, it will be a matter of grave concern. It has to be taken out. If they want to show some elements of Article 57 as crimes, they have to be clearly mentioned. The provision of fining someone millions and sentencing people to 10-14 years is also very inappropriate, considering our socio-political culture.
Setting a minimum sentence is like curbing the power of the court. It has to be amended as well. An appellate division bench led by the chief justice in 2015 decided that the main accused and his cohorts cannot be handed the same punishment. But Article 35 of the digital security bill says anyone committing a crime and anyone helping him will be handed the same punishment. It needs to be changed, too.
We want to believe that the main concern of the government is to curb cyber crime, not to gag the media. Cyber crimes and some saboteur acts by cyber militants have already created a big concern. There should have necessary shields in the law so that evil quarters can’t indulge in any unwarranted activities using online news outlets in the name of online journalism. But in the case, the lawmakers should consider the experience they have gathered from different countries including from the neighbouring ones. Because, the digital law is such a specialized law that it would be wise to give an international standard, making it compatible with the international laws.
However, the main challenge for the government is to make sure that
It does not seem that the government has taken another big step towards making a police state in the name of containing and curbing the bad sides and adverse impacts of the cyber world.
As per the decision of the United Nations General Assembly, both online and offline agencies shall enjoy equal rights and that’s why the punishment should be equal in both cases, but the digital security bill does not say so. The main shortcoming of the bill is that it contains no safeguards so that the authorities concerned follow due process while taking actions. The parliamentary standing committee chairman has hinted at the inclusion of the press council in the process. Now, it can be considered if the extent of inclusion can be widened further. We would hope that the draft of amended digital security bill would be made public for public scrutiny.