The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and its member organisation in Bangladesh, Odhikar, expressed deep concerns Monday over the amendment of anti-terrorism bill 2013, which states that the court will accept videos, still photographs and audio clips used in Facebook, twitter, Skype and other social media as evidence.
The amendment bill passed by parliament on June 11 widens the scope of sanctions provided in the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2009.
Earlier in 2012, the amendment to this act introduced death penalty as the highest penalty for terrorist activities. It also provided scope to prohibit the use of Bangladeshi land for any terrorist activities against other countries and all types of illegal arms.
The rights bodies say the bill was passed despite strong resistance from the opposition and without holding talks with civil society organisations.
Earlier in a joint report in October 2010 FIDH and Odhikar expressed their concerns that the vague definitions of terrorist activities under the act had “opened the legislation to potential abuse.” The act was incompatible with the principle of legality requiring that criminal liability and punishment be limited to clear and precise provisions enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which Bangladesh has ratified, the report had said.
By creating a broadly applicable definition of terrorist activities and reducing terrorism to merely a question of crime punishable by death, the amendment bill makes the act even more vulnerable to the worst kind of abuses, said FIDH and Odhikar.
The widening of the scope of crimes punishable by death thus carries the tremendous risk of irreversible injustice, they said, claiming that the act has already been abused by the government to repress political opponents, journalists and other dissenting voices.
Odhikar secretary Adilur Rahman Khan said: “The amended bill as it stands now will be more repressive and by its very nature most likely will turn into a nightmare of abuse and violence jeopardising social and political stability, instead of strengthening human security. We also raised concerns about the act when it was first promulgated by the military-backed caretaker government.”
“Experiences in several countries shows that the criminalisation of opinions expressed online through social media or blogs is not only a violation of freedom of expression and the right to privacy, it also represents a new pattern of persecution of any voice of dissent, as well as human rights defenders,” said Karim Lahidji, FIDH president.