One of the most common feature of the daily newspapers in Bangladesh is that most of the leading news will be either bad or sad or both for the citizen of the country. Extra judicial killing is one of the commonest and horrible news for all readers since last 10 years when a new law enforcing authority named Rapid action battalion (RAB) was deployed in order to reduce the terrorism in the country. It was formed on 26 March 2004 and started its operations from 14 April 2004. Additional Inspector General of Police Anwarul Iqbal is the founding Director General of this elite unit. Although the RAB has been successful in apprehending several high-profile terrorists, Amnesty International has criticised the RAB's lack of accountability as it has been responsible for several deaths which have been attributed to crossfire. There have also been many reports of torture.
(more information on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_Action_Battalion )
Before the national election of 2008 the political party named Awami league (which is now in government) highly criticised the party was in power then (bangladesh national party) for forming a law enforcing source as RAB and their activities like extra judicial killings and torture. Awami league also put this issue in their election manifesto and promised to end extrajudicial killings. However, recently the State Minister for Home Affairs and the Prime Minister of Bangladesh had openly supported the extrajudicial killings, despite the fact that Bangladesh signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention Against Torture. An eminent human rights activist Sultana Kamal, executive director of Ain o Salish Kendra (ASK), a leading human rights organisation in Bangladesh said that "Unfortunately, we don’t see any visible move to end extrajudicial killings,". Instead, government ministers are even trying to justify the killings, she added. "The government could easily stop such deaths if it had the will". Another well-reputed human rights organisation in Bangladesh, Odhikar, along with ASK and some international groups, has repeatedly asked the government to stop the extrajudicial killings.According to Odhikar, as of November 2009, there have been a total of 1,462 cases of extrajudicial killings in Bangladesh since June 24, 2004, when the first such case was reported. At least 141 extrajudicial killings were perpetrated from January to November 2009, of which 120 were called "crossfire" killings, said Odhikar. Some 17 people were tortured to death in custody and four others were shot dead during violent clashes such as factory unrests.At a recent press conference at the RAB headquarters in Dhaka, the battalion’s director general, Hasan Mahmud Khandaker, defended the killings, which he said were "lawful" and that the battalion members were compelled to open fire in self-defence. However, this justification is not enough to justify these killings as all the killings occurs with the same plot of story of gunfight and the terrorist killed in thr crossfire.
(more information on: http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=50053)
The government of Bangladesh has been violating the constitution and Universal Declaration of Human Rights since 2004. According to Art. 35(5) of the constitution of Bangladesh and Art. 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” And according to Art. 3 of the constitution of Bangladesh, “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.” But, in practice, Bangladesh does not ensure the right to life and has not complied with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the constitution of Bangladesh.It also appears that state institutions such as the judiciary, the rule of law, regulations, the constitution and the national assembly have been disabled. The media’s role regarding extrajudicial killings is not sufficient because it had a duty to motivate people againgst these sort of killings. The media has only been publishing the normal reports about these encounters filed by the RAB or the police themselves which is disappointing.
(more information on: http://www.extrajudicialkilling.info/2010/02/rab-is-another-black-chapter-for.html)
At a recent discussion forum in Dhaka, Supreme Court Justice Nozrul Islam said the extrajudicial killings remained a deep concern for the judiciary and that it was "suicidal" for society and the country as a whole to let the law enforcement agencies decide who should be killed on criminal charges. Moreover, the New York-based Human Rights Watch said the Bangladesh government should take urgent action to end impunity for the perpetrators of the human rights abuses in the country and to uphold the rule of law. "As a party to the U.N. (United Nations) human rights conventions, Bangladesh is obliged to ensure that all violations are investigated, and that those responsible are brought to justice," said Brad Adams, executive director of Human Rights Watch's Asia Division, in a statement.
( more information on: http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=50053 )
Finally, as a legal persons we should ask ourselves that is it justifiable at all to punish anybody without any proof by the court of law? Otherwise, it will be an insult for the rule of law if the extra judicial killings continue in a same manner.
Tuesday 16 November 2010
Friday 5 November 2010
How far should we exercise our freedom of expression and does it conflict with the right to privacy??
Freedom of expression and right to privacy is now regulated under Article 10 and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, now incorporated into domestic law under the Human Rights Act 1998.However, sometimes the right is limited by such legal restrictions as are ‘necessary in democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the rights and freedoms of others’[1]
The perfect balance between Article.10 and Article.8 has always been a complex one and it becomes more complex where the claimant is a public figure but some principles are emerging. Desmond Browne QC Argued that the law on privacy should provide equal protection to both private citizens and celebrities. Neither the right to privacy nor the right to freedom of expression has presumptive pre-eminence over the other. A balance has to be struck, applying the European doctrine of proportionality.[2]
This issue was first raised in the post-Act era by the High Court in the case of A v. B plc and another[3].In this case the court confirmed that the law of confidence could apply to information regarding a sexual relationship outside marriage[4], and granted an injunction prohibiting the press from disclosing details about the extra-martial relationship of a professional footballer, despite the defendant's plea that such disclosure was in the public interest. In Jack J's judgment, the law of confidentiality could apply to facts concerning the existence of a sexual relationship whether within or outside marriage and found that as there was no public interest in the publication of the details, and the information was not already in the public domain, the claimant was likely to succeed at full trial. In particular the Judge made the distinction between information in the public interest, and information that the public would be interested in receiving, the latter interest not being sufficient to justify an interference with what the Judge felt was a substantial interference with the claimant's private life. However, on appeal to the Court of Appeal[5], the decision at first instance was overturned. Lord Woolf CJ held that there was a significant difference between the confidentiality that attached to sexual relations in transient relationships, and that attached to sexual relations within marriage or other stable relationships. His Lordship also considered that it was relevant that the claimant was a public figure: such a person must expect and accept that that his actions would be more closely scrutinized by the media and that even trivial facts could be of great interest to readers and other observers of the media. In such circumstances the public had an understandable and so a legitimate interest (italics added) in being told the information, and the courts should not act as censors or arbiters of taste merely because the publication had given amore lurid account of the details than the court found acceptable.The courts continued this pro-speech approach in Theakston v. MGN Ltd.[6]
Steve Foster in another article[7] had put limelight on some crucial cases regarding this conflicting issue. First, the courts have refused to accept that public figures forgo their right to privacy simply because of their status. In Campbell v MGN Ltd[8], the defendant newspaper had revealed details of Naomi Campbell’s drug habit, including photographs of her leaving the clinic. The House of Lords accepted that she had a legitimate expectation of privacy with respect to her treatment for drugs and protected her from disclosure of unconscionable details of such and by a 3-2 majority, held that on the facts there had been an unjustifiable interference with her right to private life.
However, the decision still recognized that public figures should expect less protection of their privacy than other individuals, and that the public had a genuine interest in the private life of public figures.[9]
This principle was then questioned by the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Von Hannover v Germany[10].At first instance, the German Federal Constitutional Court granted an injunction against further publication of a number of photographs in which she appeared with her children, but the Constitutional Court nevertheless regarded her as a public figure and held that she had to tolerate the publication of photographs of herself in a public place, even though they showed her in scenes from her daily life, rather than engaged in her official duties. However, when it went to European Court, it held that the publication of the various photographs of her in her daily life fell within the scope of her private life as covered by art.8, but that the decisive factor in such a case was the contribution that the published photographs and articles made to a debate of general interest and the court stressed that criteria that had been established by the German courts in distinguishing a figure of contemporary society “par excellence” from a relatively public figure were not sufficient to ensure the effective protection of the applicant's private life and in the circumstances she should have a legitimate expectation that her private life would be respected.[11]Foster also stated that the decision had an instant impact on the domestic courts and in McKennit v. Ash.[12]
Ashley Roughton in her article[13] highlighted that McKennitt was decided by a slightly differently constituted court to Countryside Alliance and although Buxton L.J. was in both constitutions, he gave the leading judgment in McKennitt and contributed to the judgment in Countryside Alliance.
Moreover, in the recent case of CC v AB[14], Court of Appeal ruled that any interference with freedom of the press had to be justified, and could not be limited because there was no identifiable public interest in the material being published. The court distinguished between confidentiality which attached to sexual relations within marriage ‘or other stable relationships’ and the confidentiality which attached to transient relationship.[15]
However, if the information relates to a matter of political or constitutional importance, then it is likely to be regarded as of public interest. For example, if a politician's private activities impinge on the performance of his public functions, then the public will have a prima facie right to know, and it should only be deprived of that information if the claimant's privacy claim outweighs freedom of expression and the public's right to be informed. This would apply to other officials whose functions affect the public, and in the recent case of Browne v Associated Newspapers[16], it was accepted that there was a public interest in publishing details of the affair between the chief executive of BP and a young man in so far as they related to claims that he had misused his position and an alleged misuse of the company's facilities.
Robert Stevens in his article[17] pointed on issue of privacy for children and It was stated that in the course of proceedings under Children Act 1989 in the High Court, the Judge may, in the interests of the welfare of the child and in order to protect his privacy under art.8, issue an injunction or make an order prohibiting the identification of the child not simply to the extent set out in s.97(2) of the 1989 Act, but for a period beyond the end of the proceedings (eg, until the age of 18).Re S(A Child)[18] also held that where there was a conflict between the child's art.8 rights to privacy and the art.10 rights of the media neither article took precedence over the other and, where there was a conflict, there had to be “an intense focus on the comparative importance of the specific rights being claimed in the individual cases is necessary.” The justification for interfering with or restricting each right must be taken into account and, finally, the proportionality test must be applied to each.
In conclusion, it could be said that there should not be any strict legal doctrine of precedence and each case should be dealt individually according to it’s fact. In my opinion, Re S(A Child) was decided correctly and Desmond Browne also opined in favour of providing decision in proportionality principle. Another issue I disagree that public figures should expect less right to privacy, this should not be the case because they are not alien and should have an ordinary private life like other individuals. However, freedom of expression can be upheld when the public figures have any bad habit like drug addiction, smoking etc. or commit any criminal offence because people sometimes follow them as role model and therefore they have a legitimate expectation to know about these matters and need to be aware about these bad characteristics. Along with this, I also argue that the protection of their privacy right which deals with their private matters (i.e. random photographs of their private life by paparazzi photographers) should be stopped.
[3] [2001] 1 WLR 2341
[5] [2002] 3 WLR 542
[6] [2002] EMLR 22
[9] Steve Foster (2007) ‘Protecting Privacy from Press Intrusion: Redefining Private Life and the Public Right to Know’, Justice of the Peace
[10] [2005] 40 EHRR 1
[11] Steve Foster (2007) ‘Protecting Privacy from Press Intrusion: Redefining Private Life and the Public Right to Know’, Justice of the Peace).
[12] McKennit v. Ash [2005] EWHC 3003 (QB), and Prince of Wales v. Associated Newspapers [2006] EWHC 522 (Ch), upheld by the Court of Appeal, below: (2006) The Times, December 28. See also Jagger v. Darling [2005] EWHC 683
[14] [2007] EMLR 11
[15] constitutional and administrative law, Hilaire Barnett, 5th edition, ch.21, pg.586
[16] [2007] 3 WLR 289
[17] Robert stevens (2007) ‘To Publish or Not to Publish — That is the Dilemma’, Justice of the Peace
[18] [2004] UKHL 47, [2005] 1 AC 593
Thursday 4 November 2010
Wednesday 3 November 2010
Tuesday 2 November 2010
Achievements of International regulations on Child labour
The enforcement of Laws on child labour has been increased since these regulations came into effect. For example, in UK Fast food giants McDonald’s have been fined £12,400 after admitting 20 offences of illegally employing schoolchildren (The Guardian, 1 August 2001).[1]
Third world country like Bangladesh had also enacted the Labour Act in 2006[2]. This new law prohibits employment of children under 14 years of age, as well as prohibiting hazardous forms of child labour for persons under age 18. However, the law does not provide a strong enforcement mechanism for the child labour provisions. The Ministry of Labour and Employment has recently adopted a National Child Labour Elimination Policy 2010, which provides a framework to eradicate all forms of child labour by 2015. UNICEF was one of many stakeholders to provide feedback on this policy.[3]Moreover, a threat of a consumer boycott of their exported products was one reason why garment manufacturers in Bangladesh decided to put an end to the employment of children under 14 in their 200 factories.[4]
[1]McDonald’s fined over child labour (2010) <http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/search/commentarysubmitForm.do > accessed 26thoctober 2010
[2]Child Labour in Bangladesh (2010) < http://www.unicef.org/bangladesh/Child_labour.pdf> accessed 23rd October 2010
[3] Child Labour in Bangladesh (2010) < http://www.unicef.org/bangladesh/Child_labour.pdf> accessed 23rd October 2010
[4]Child Labour in Bangladesh (2010) <http://www.bdix.net/sdnbd_org/world_env_day/2001/sdnpweb/sdi/international_day/childrens_day/bd&childlabour.htm> accessed 25th October 2010
What are the key international regulations?
The UN published the full range of children’s rights in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted in 1989. Article 32 commits governments to recognising:
“… the right of the child to be protected from economic exploitation and from performing any work that is likely to be hazardous or to interfere with the child’s education, or to be
harmful to the child’s health or physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development.”[1]
harmful to the child’s health or physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development.”[1]
A second part of the same article[2] describes the measures governments must take to implement this right. They must:
(a) Provide for a minimum age or minimum ages for admission to
employment;
(b) Provide for appropriate regulation of the hours and conditions
of employment;
(c) Provide for appropriate penalties or other sanctions to ensure
the effective enforcement of the present article.
In practice, despite the near universal ratification of the Convention, many countries have not fulfilled the obligations in “b” and “c”.[3]
According to Article 19 Governments must take action to protect children against all forms of physical or mental violence, injury, abuse, neglect, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse. Article 28 states that every child has the right to proper education. In Article 34 Governments must protect children from sexual exploitation and abuse. In particular
this means preventing the “exploitative use of children in prostitution” or in baffled pornographic performances and materials.[4]
this means preventing the “exploitative use of children in prostitution” or in baffled pornographic performances and materials.[4]
The EU Guidelines[5] for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of the Child stress the need to implement these rights in EU policy and action. The Council emphasizes that the elimination of child labour is a legal obligation based in international treaties and conventions, in particular the Convention on the Rights of the Child and ILO Conventions[6]138 and 182. The Council invites the Commission, and EU Member States, to encourage partner countries to adopt and implement National Action Plans against Child Labour; Time bound Programmes to end the worst forms of child labour at the latest by 2016.[7]
[1] End Child Exploitation < http://www.unicef.org.uk/publications/pdf/ECECHILD2_A4.pdf> accessed 24thoctober 2010
[2] End Child Exploitation < http://www.unicef.org.uk/publications/pdf/ECECHILD2_A4.pdf> accessed 24thoctober 2010
[3] End Child Exploitation < http://www.unicef.org.uk/publications/pdf/ECECHILD2_A4.pdf> accessed 24thoctober 2010
[4] <End Child Exploitation < http://www.unicef.org.uk/publications/pdf/ECECHILD2_A4.pdf> accessed 24thoctober 2010
[5] Council conclusions on Child Labour (2010) <http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/115180.pdf> accessed 24th October 2010
[6] ILO Convention 138, 1973The International Labour Organization's (ILO) Minimum Age Convention sets a basic minimum age for employment of 15 years, and 14 for countries meeting the ILO's developing country exemptions. It prohibits hazardous work for young workers under the age of 18. ILO Convention 182, 1999
This Convention calls for the Prohibition and Immediate Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour, including forced or bonded labour, and hazardous, unhealthy and unsafe work
[6] New ILO global report on child labour (2010) <http://www.ilo.org/global/About_the_ILO/Media_and_public_information/Press_releases/lang--en/WCMS_126840/index.htm> accessed 25th October 2010
[7] Council conclusions on Child Labour (2010) <http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/115180.pdf> accessed 24th October 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)