MARCH 7, 2013
We object My Lord!
TASNOOVA ZAKI
On February 5, when most Bangladeshis were left stunned by the sentence of life imprisonment given to Quader Mollah after he was found guilty of war crimes by the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT), many would have been surprised to hear that the Tribunal was being criticised by a few, not for the lenient punishment but for trying Mollah at all.
An example of this would be an article by Michael Cross the news editor of The Law Society Gazette in London1 . Mr Cross refers to the “opponents” (whose opponents, the Tribunal’s or the government’s or Bangladesh’s?) who have labelled the ICT as a witch hunt against Jamaat-e-Islami. The reader is however left to wonder why. There is neither any explanation offered nor any nuanced discussion undertaken as to the reason why these “opponents” call it a witch hunt against Jamaat-e-Islami, especially when not all the accused are members of Jamaat-e-Islami.
He mentions ICT Chairman Mohammed Nizamul Huq’s resignation from the Tribunal but summarises it as “a dossier of emails and telephone conversations came to light suggesting collusion between the government, prosecution counsel and judges.” Anyone who is aware of the incident will know that the emails and Skype conversations were between Nizamul Huq and a Bangladeshi legal expert on international law Mr. Ahmed Ziauddin, who is based in Belgium.
If the conversations do suggest collusion then perhaps they should be published; however, is it not a kind of witch hunt too to make these sweeping statements without substantiating them — especially when Nizamul Huq tendered his resignation despite the government insisting that he had not acted improperly.
He then goes on to talk of counsel from the defence’s team who apparently said (we can’t be sure as there are no quotes) that “the government of Bangladesh has proven it has neither the will nor the ability to run these trials independently or impartially.” The statement was made by the counsel for the defence team!
If the prosecution advocate was interviewed I am certain he would have said something entirely different. It is this one-sidedness that is disturbing in an article which talks of fairness. The rest of the article is entirely useless, with the usual patronising drivel that is so common among some who decide to make a commentary on anything elsewhere in the world.
Why have I taken the time to write a response to this article? Why does it matter? It matters because countries like Bangladesh get lectured in these articles, (Mr. Cross’s is just an example) by the very same people who will introduce such things as Control Orders to severely impair the liberty of individuals “suspected” of terrorism — the evidence against them will be heard to the civil standard of proof because there isn’t enough to stand up to proof at a criminal trial! Is that the “international” standard that the ICT is supposed to live up to? Or is it the standard by which those in Guantanamo Bay are being tried? Or perhaps it should be similar to the standards of the heavily criticised Special Court in Sierra Leone? Or perhaps it should be the standard of the flawed ICC? Our masters tell us which standard it should be so that you may be pleased!
I am not aware of a single human rights lawyer/activist or international law expert who has offered his/her services to the government of Bangladesh in bringing the cases against those accused. Please do so if you are genuinely concerned. Please also remember we are a poor country and may not be able to pay you as handsomely as some of the defendants can.
Would you work for free, our intellectual international law experts, renowned professors, diplomats and human rights protectors, to bring justice to the hundreds of women and female children who were abducted and raped in 1971 by the then West Pakistan soldiers with help from the war collaborators? Or would you just rather in your spare time and write some article or a blog or do an interview in some newspaper, allowing your voice to ever only wake up to utter and your pen to only ever write the words “Quader Mollah deserves a fair trial.”
Millions of Bangladeshis know and believe that a fair trial is necessary. If that was not the case Mollah and the others would not have been charged at all. If it wasn’t for a belief in a fair trial process millions of Bangladeshis would not have waited for more than forty years, sometimes with patience, sometimes with frustration, sometimes with hope, sometimes with fury, sometimes in our forgetfulness, sometimes in memory that torments too much, and sometimes in utter indifference that only those who have suffered for too long will know — Bangladeshis wouldn’t have waited so long if they did not believe in a fair process.
If there was no belief in a fair process the hundreds of thousands who stand together at Shahbagh Projonmo Chottor today would not have demanded a higher sentence in peaceful protest. And those who call the ICT a “Kangaroo Court” (interesting terminology, do poor kangaroos wonder what they ever did?) or a witch hunt — look how they are protesting.
They have called for national strikes to halt the economic activities of the nation; they have openly perpetrated violence, arson and criminal damage and even murder. Are the international human rights activists and experts all over the world (aka our masters) really telling us that WE, the millions of Bangladeshis who have waited for so long, have brought formal charge, have opened our trial process to international scrutiny and protest in peace, WE need to learn a lesson in peace and fairness from these “opponents”? With all due respect — I don’t think so.
An example of this would be an article by Michael Cross the news editor of The Law Society Gazette in London1 . Mr Cross refers to the “opponents” (whose opponents, the Tribunal’s or the government’s or Bangladesh’s?) who have labelled the ICT as a witch hunt against Jamaat-e-Islami. The reader is however left to wonder why. There is neither any explanation offered nor any nuanced discussion undertaken as to the reason why these “opponents” call it a witch hunt against Jamaat-e-Islami, especially when not all the accused are members of Jamaat-e-Islami.
He mentions ICT Chairman Mohammed Nizamul Huq’s resignation from the Tribunal but summarises it as “a dossier of emails and telephone conversations came to light suggesting collusion between the government, prosecution counsel and judges.” Anyone who is aware of the incident will know that the emails and Skype conversations were between Nizamul Huq and a Bangladeshi legal expert on international law Mr. Ahmed Ziauddin, who is based in Belgium.
If the conversations do suggest collusion then perhaps they should be published; however, is it not a kind of witch hunt too to make these sweeping statements without substantiating them — especially when Nizamul Huq tendered his resignation despite the government insisting that he had not acted improperly.
He then goes on to talk of counsel from the defence’s team who apparently said (we can’t be sure as there are no quotes) that “the government of Bangladesh has proven it has neither the will nor the ability to run these trials independently or impartially.” The statement was made by the counsel for the defence team!
If the prosecution advocate was interviewed I am certain he would have said something entirely different. It is this one-sidedness that is disturbing in an article which talks of fairness. The rest of the article is entirely useless, with the usual patronising drivel that is so common among some who decide to make a commentary on anything elsewhere in the world.
Why have I taken the time to write a response to this article? Why does it matter? It matters because countries like Bangladesh get lectured in these articles, (Mr. Cross’s is just an example) by the very same people who will introduce such things as Control Orders to severely impair the liberty of individuals “suspected” of terrorism — the evidence against them will be heard to the civil standard of proof because there isn’t enough to stand up to proof at a criminal trial! Is that the “international” standard that the ICT is supposed to live up to? Or is it the standard by which those in Guantanamo Bay are being tried? Or perhaps it should be similar to the standards of the heavily criticised Special Court in Sierra Leone? Or perhaps it should be the standard of the flawed ICC? Our masters tell us which standard it should be so that you may be pleased!
I am not aware of a single human rights lawyer/activist or international law expert who has offered his/her services to the government of Bangladesh in bringing the cases against those accused. Please do so if you are genuinely concerned. Please also remember we are a poor country and may not be able to pay you as handsomely as some of the defendants can.
Would you work for free, our intellectual international law experts, renowned professors, diplomats and human rights protectors, to bring justice to the hundreds of women and female children who were abducted and raped in 1971 by the then West Pakistan soldiers with help from the war collaborators? Or would you just rather in your spare time and write some article or a blog or do an interview in some newspaper, allowing your voice to ever only wake up to utter and your pen to only ever write the words “Quader Mollah deserves a fair trial.”
Millions of Bangladeshis know and believe that a fair trial is necessary. If that was not the case Mollah and the others would not have been charged at all. If it wasn’t for a belief in a fair trial process millions of Bangladeshis would not have waited for more than forty years, sometimes with patience, sometimes with frustration, sometimes with hope, sometimes with fury, sometimes in our forgetfulness, sometimes in memory that torments too much, and sometimes in utter indifference that only those who have suffered for too long will know — Bangladeshis wouldn’t have waited so long if they did not believe in a fair process.
If there was no belief in a fair process the hundreds of thousands who stand together at Shahbagh Projonmo Chottor today would not have demanded a higher sentence in peaceful protest. And those who call the ICT a “Kangaroo Court” (interesting terminology, do poor kangaroos wonder what they ever did?) or a witch hunt — look how they are protesting.
They have called for national strikes to halt the economic activities of the nation; they have openly perpetrated violence, arson and criminal damage and even murder. Are the international human rights activists and experts all over the world (aka our masters) really telling us that WE, the millions of Bangladeshis who have waited for so long, have brought formal charge, have opened our trial process to international scrutiny and protest in peace, WE need to learn a lesson in peace and fairness from these “opponents”? With all due respect — I don’t think so.
Sent from London.
1A flawed international tribunal Tuesday 05 February 2013 by Michael Cross http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/blogs/blogs/news-blogs/a-flawed-international-tribunal
'via Blog this'
No comments:
Post a Comment