PARLIAMENT on Wednesday passed “The Foreign Donations (Voluntary Activities) Regulation Bill 2016” empowering the government to cancel registration of NGOs for making derogatory and livid comments on the Constitution and constitutional institutions. It appears that the new Bill when it will become effective as a law will authorize the government to punish NGOs for making any critical comments which the government may take as derogatory and infamy on the Constitution and constitutional bodies and as criminal offence.
It appears that the Bill aims at restraining NGOs, mainly Human Rights Groups, which are locally independent organizations or affiliates of International Human Rights bodies from criticizing the government. It is clear in the Bill that no individual will be spared if he or she does the same ‘crime’. So we are compelled to say that the Bill is absolutely contradictory to freedom of expression described in Section 39 of the Constitution.
Many fear that the government may use the new law to book critics such as civil society leaders or NGOs that work as watchdog of people’s basic constitutional rights and protest against violations of such rights. We have heard government leaders voicing sharp reaction to reports by Transparency International, Bangladesh (TIB) or Ain O Shalish Kendra as and when they produced reports on corruption at high places of the government or on police crossfire and such other excesses without giving a suspect the opportunity to get a fair trial. On many occasions, the government leaders vented anger and wanted to know the source of funding of NGOs which criticize the government. They also wanted to know where the civil society leaders get money from?
Some environmental groups are also highly critical of the government activities in some cases and some of its institutions, but why all these criticism should be treated as derogatory to the Constitution and livid to government institutions. It is not understood why criticism of the constitutional bodies should be treated as crime because people have the right to make constructive criticism and make their view known until they challenge the existence of the Constitution and the constitutional bodies. Even the Supreme Court allows constructive criticism of judgment without prejudice and in our view the new Bill appears to be conflicting with people’s constitutional rights
We must say intolerance to critical opinions is not conducive to democracy and democratic rights of the people. If making a comment becomes a criminal offence, existence of democracy will be at stake. In a democracy Constitution means people’s Constitution. At the same time constitutional bodies are peoples’ assets. So in our view people have every right to make critical evaluation of issues and here the case of defamation to the Constitution does not arise. It appears that the new Bill itself is derogatory to democracy and people’s constitutional rights.
It appears that the Bill aims at restraining NGOs, mainly Human Rights Groups, which are locally independent organizations or affiliates of International Human Rights bodies from criticizing the government. It is clear in the Bill that no individual will be spared if he or she does the same ‘crime’. So we are compelled to say that the Bill is absolutely contradictory to freedom of expression described in Section 39 of the Constitution.
Many fear that the government may use the new law to book critics such as civil society leaders or NGOs that work as watchdog of people’s basic constitutional rights and protest against violations of such rights. We have heard government leaders voicing sharp reaction to reports by Transparency International, Bangladesh (TIB) or Ain O Shalish Kendra as and when they produced reports on corruption at high places of the government or on police crossfire and such other excesses without giving a suspect the opportunity to get a fair trial. On many occasions, the government leaders vented anger and wanted to know the source of funding of NGOs which criticize the government. They also wanted to know where the civil society leaders get money from?
Some environmental groups are also highly critical of the government activities in some cases and some of its institutions, but why all these criticism should be treated as derogatory to the Constitution and livid to government institutions. It is not understood why criticism of the constitutional bodies should be treated as crime because people have the right to make constructive criticism and make their view known until they challenge the existence of the Constitution and the constitutional bodies. Even the Supreme Court allows constructive criticism of judgment without prejudice and in our view the new Bill appears to be conflicting with people’s constitutional rights
We must say intolerance to critical opinions is not conducive to democracy and democratic rights of the people. If making a comment becomes a criminal offence, existence of democracy will be at stake. In a democracy Constitution means people’s Constitution. At the same time constitutional bodies are peoples’ assets. So in our view people have every right to make critical evaluation of issues and here the case of defamation to the Constitution does not arise. It appears that the new Bill itself is derogatory to democracy and people’s constitutional rights.
