51吃瓜

In Bangladesh and a few other places, your opinion may not only unwelcome but also punishable by law.

On August 5, the Bangladeshi government Shahidul Alam, an award-winning photographer and a contributor at 51吃瓜. Alam was charged under the International Communication and Technology Act, that “deteriorate” law and order, “prejudice the image of the state or person,” or “hurt religious beliefs.”

According to the police, Alam鈥檚 crime appears to be expressing his 鈥渙pinion鈥� in interviews with the media, including , which the authorities are apparently calling propaganda. Police official Moshiur Rahman summed up the nature of the allegations: “He has been brought to our office early this morning [Monday]. We are interrogating him for giving false information to different media and for provocative comments. And he could not give proper answers. He admitted that these are his personal opinion.”

The problem with having an opinion

Al Jazeera lists what many believe are the incriminating 鈥渙pinions鈥� for which Alam had no 鈥減roper answers.鈥� Alam had commented on the ongoing protests in Bangladesh over road safety that, , have 鈥渓eft more than 100 injured as police fired tear gas and rubber bullets, and mobs attacked demonstrators, photographers and even the US ambassador’s car.鈥� According to Al Jazeera, Alam offered the opinion that the 鈥渄emonstrators were driven by 鈥榣arger鈥� factors than road safety alone and highlighted 鈥榯he looting of the banks, the gaggling of the media, the extrajudicial killings, disappearings, bribery and corruption.鈥欌��

Another of Alam鈥檚 unfounded personal opinions was his statement that, “Today [Sunday] the police specifically asked for help from armed goons to combat unarmed students demanding safe roads.” He added, “The government has miscalculated. It thought that fear and repression would be enough but you cannot tame an entire nation in this manner.”

The Bangladeshi government claims that Alam鈥檚 comments were 鈥減rovocative,鈥� which in itself is a dangerous term to use because it is meant to suggest 鈥減rovoking disorder,鈥� which is obviously negative. But provocative can also refer to provoking thought or laughter, usually considered innocent activities, at least in cultures where independent thought is encouraged or at the very least tolerated.

A problem of civilization

Our entire civilization seems to be dealing with the two separate questions concerning public expression. The first has become a leitmotiv in the media and for the media: What is real news? What is fake news? And what is opinion? Is it real, fake or something in between? The second question is more subtle: What forms of expression and what messages are allowed to communicate?

The West has officially enshrined freedom of opinion and the expression of opinion as a basic inalienable right. Even so, in the past, not only has opinion been repressed in many Western democracies, but in times of stress so have certain words that connote 鈥減rovocative鈥� ideas. This is true even in the United States, where the First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees freedom of expression.

During World War I, sauerkraut was renamed 鈥渓iberty cabbage,鈥� just as George W. Bush, after the invasion of Iraq in 2003, insisted on renaming French fries 鈥渇reedom fries,鈥� not because France was the enemy (it wasn鈥檛) but because French President Jacques Chirac chose to opt out of the 鈥渃oalition of the willing.鈥� At the same time, Bush that either 鈥測ou are with us, or you are with the terrorists.鈥�

More seriously, the reign of political correctness has led to social rather than legal punishment of some expressions of opinion. The most recent victims in the news have been American TV actor Roseanne Barr and Disney director . A word in a tweet now has the potential to end some people鈥檚 careers. Their punishment is social and private. It comes from the people and from employers who follow the ratings, not from the government.

Then there is the case of American football quarterback Colin Kaepernick, who was ostracized by the entire class of team owners not for his words but his silent gesture, which US President Donald Trump 鈥減rovocatively鈥� condemned.

The obvious difference with Bangladesh鈥檚 initiative is that in one case it鈥檚 the government and in the others a vague, democratic form of social pressure, though Trump鈥檚 attack on Kaepernick seemed to blur that line. At the same time, it鈥檚 worth noting that South Carolina has just equating criticism of Israel in schools and colleges with anti-Semitism, which actually goes well beyond Bangladesh鈥檚 actions by incriminating the expression of opinion of another nation altogether.

The Labour Party in the UK is undergoing a similar drama largely attributable to individuals 鈥� but not the party itself 鈥� who expressed their feelings about the politics and influence of Israel, which in some cases did take on what could be interpreted as an anti-Semitic tone. Now, the Labour Party has been taken to task for not endorsing the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance鈥檚 of anti-Semitism, which contains ambiguous and, from a historical point of view, highly debatable propositions.

In the coming days, we will learn more about Shahidul Alam鈥檚 fate and the Bangladeshi government鈥檚 handling of a crisis that has continued to degenerate, with or without his expression of opinion.

The views expressed in this article are the author鈥檚 own and do not necessarily reflect 51吃瓜鈥檚 editorial policy.

Photo Credit: /