Protest Economist Article

অতিথি লেখক's picture
Submitted by guest_writer on Tue, 26/03/2013 - 9:42pm

All we can send the following letter as protest against the article published by Economist.

You can also edit it before sending. Path forward, we can with help of law-years take the matter to the press council of UK and USA.

Let us work to make Economist say Sorry for their article.


Dear Economist editor,

The following article, “Justice in Bangladesh: Another kind of crime” published in Economist on 23rd March cast serious doubts about integrity of this newspaper. Economist is not only misinterpreting the truth rather it is misinterpreting with bad intentions.

I believe this is the view of a writer not economist. I request as a supporter of economist, the senior journalists of Economist should go through the article once again, check the facts and evaluate how the article portrayed Economist. Below I point out some specific examples from the article I believe is not truthful.

As quoted in the article, “IN 1961 Israel kidnapped Adolf Eichmann from Argentina and put him on trial for crimes committed 20 years earlier. Eichmann had been secretary at the Nazis’ Wannsee conference that led to the Holocaust. His trial in Jerusalem was a model of meticulous process. The prosecutor was Israel’s attorney-general; the defence lawyer, a leading German attorney; the proceedings were broadcast. They were everything the Holocaust was not: open, subject to evidence and challenge, and legal.
Now consider the trials under way at the International Crimes Tribunal in Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh. There too, men are being tried for dreadful crimes committed many years ago, in this case in 1971, during Bangladesh’s war of independence from Pakistan. The defendants have been accused of genocide, mass murder, mass rape and attempting to exterminate whole groups of people. But their trials have fallen a long way short of Israel’s model of due process
The government has interfered in the court’s deliberations. Public discussion of the proceedings has been restricted. The number of defence witnesses was curtailed… In one case, the presiding judge resigned and the death sentence was handed down by three men who had not heard all the witnesses

Let me first tell you the comparison between Adolf Eichmann trail and the Bangladeshi trail. Adolf did not have any financial support and political strength whereas the accused persons in International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) equipped with huge financial support and support from religious-fanatics. The article completely disregarded this which is not professional journalism.

Now, I must say no accused was “kidnapped” like Adolf Eichmann in Dhaka ICT, which I believe is not a part of fair trial. So on that comparison, Dhaka ICT is better than Adolf Eichmann trial, is not it?

The article writer again disregards the context when s/he mentioned that Government interfered with court. In third world, where we live, it is a common phenomenon. If we decide zero tolerance on Government Interference in Judicial system, we have to remain without any trial for years. Clearly that not what economist suggest. Presenting facts without context is not good example of Journalism and such is highly unacceptable from Economist.

The article mentioned about, "the crowds that gathered to protest against this leniency were the biggest that had been seen in Dhaka for 20 years". Then how Public discussion be restricted? Fact twisting.

Next is “witness curtail”, another perfect example of fact-twisting. Did the article mention how witness the defense wanted to present? What was the motive behind such huge number of witness (~2000?)? No, article hid that statistic completely. Shame! Shame!

Now I am confused here, in law of court in developed nation, if a judge dies, does the trail start fresh or dose the judges read through the proceeding of the trial and hand down verdict? I believe the latter is path followed in many places. Why the article speaked against this process and portrayed it like a fault of trail. Is there any other intention from the writer?

Moving to the next part of the article where it is claimed, “[i]The ostensible and laudable aim of these trials was to help Bangladesh come to terms with its past by bringing to justice those responsible for the crimes that marred the nation’s birth. By this measure, the trials have been an utter failure[/i]”.

Who handed down that verdict; article writer, common people of the country or foreign delegates?

And the crucial comment in the end of the article was, “Sadly, most Bangladeshis are cheering on the tribunal’s flawed proceedings.”

My oh, my!!! Most Bangladeshi is cheering a tribunal and that’s sad in view of article writer? Sir, should we Bangladeshis need to cheer or be sad according to your views or someone else views?
We can and will cheer to your wish. Justice should not be only established but it also has to be perceived by people. If most of the people are cheering the process, you can can believe, this is justice.

Lastly, although the article claimed, it does not sympathize with Jamat or its backer. But all its flawed logic and fact-twisting is identical to that of Jamat Islami. And the article is highly appreciated by the Jamat minded people.

And the saddening part for us, those who read economist regularly, is a newspaper like Economist published an article that is similar to the views of fundamentalists. Hearsay is Jamat spending millions of dollars for propaganda against the ICT.

I strongly believe Economist motivation is not that fund, but the similarity with Jamat propaganda machines and economist is both alarming and saddening.

Thank you


Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.