A step back for freedom of speech

The date 19 September will remain etched as a black day in the history of this country, the day that freedom of speech was snatched away. This is the day that the controversial Digital Security Act was passed, an act to silence conscious citizens, journalists in particular. The immediate reaction to the passage of this bill has been overwhelming dismay. It is evident that there is ample chance of this law being misused to invoke fear amongst the people. A section of the law enforcement agencies will become all the more wayward.

The minister for information technology has assured that this law will not be used against journalists. He even said in parliament that the law would actually ensure freedom of speech.  Unfortunately, there is no reason to believe his words. His words are nothing but a farce. It could not be imagined that the controversial Section 57 would be included and spread throughout this new law. Yet that is exactly what has been done.

In 2006, the BNP-Jamaat government introduced Section 57 in the IT act, as a political ploy to extend their stay in power. When a similar provision was included in Indian law, it was immediately challenged in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dubbed it was unconstitutional and abolished the provision. The ruling party accepted the verdict with no protest. It is most ironic that the law minister himself had given his assurance in several seminars and programmes that Section 57 would be scrapped or amended.

We must also take into consideration that the government has not implemented many of the black laws that do exist in the country. In recent times we have not seen the application of the official secrets act introduced in 1923 during the colonial rule. But when, after so long, the party that lead the country’s struggle for independence introduced that element of ‘espionage’ as enunciated in the 1923 law, its motives are certainly questionable. The mention of ‘espionage’ in that law was to stifle those who were fighting for democracy and independence.

This law is in serious contradiction to the 1972 constitution and subsequent verdicts of the Supreme Court as well as fundamental human rights. We believe in digital security, responsible journalism and constructive criticism. But the new law introduces serious risks. This cannot be so.

When there are serious doubts as to whether the upcoming general election will be free and fair, the question is whether this law has been hurriedly passed with the election in view. If freedom of the press is to be ensured, there is no alternative but to amend this law.