What happens in between?
Saturday, 6 June 2009
Mahmudur Rahman
Spot polls are a little difficult to administer in Bangladesh, otherwise it would be interesting to know what the general public actually thought of Amnesty International's (AL) clamour over "extra-judicial killings" in Bangladesh. Likewise, it would nice to know the vox populi view of the International Labour Organisation's (ILO) concern over child labour.
Do rapists, acid-throwers, extortionists and muggers, who have little compunction in maiming, injuring, wounding, disfiguring and even killing their victims have an aorta of conscience when they go about their dastardly activities? If so can they be described as "humans" actually having "rights"?
By the time philosophical debate about such "rights" and action plans to "look at the root cause of their delinquency" takes place, these criminals will probably have made merry carrying out the activities they appear to relish in their perverted mentality. In the meantime an innocent young girl somewhere will be badly disfigured by an acid attack because she spurns an offer of flirtation; an office go-err will be mugged, even knifed for trying to resist his assailants; and a hapless businessman gunned down because he did not give in to extortionist demands. Nine out of ten, the perpetrators will not be apprehended, the family will fume, grieve and facing no other option, simply get on with their lives.
A senior police official frankly admitted that such incidents in a population of 150 million people will happen and the hopelessly resource starved, politically bound and ill-paid law enforcing agencies can only clutch at thin air.
In a democratic system, black laws that restrict basic rights are pooh-pooh-ed. Then how is it that in the bastion of democracy, the United States there are two laws that are totally opposite to the principles of democracy. One allows the government to release false information. The other, the famous Patriot Act, allows security agencies to arrest, hold and interrogate individuals without assigning any reason whatsoever. Even if the person is to "disappear" there can be no challenge in any court. Now how "pro-judicial" is that?
Amnesty International might just want to comment.
Civilian casualties in war are put down to a term called "collateral damage". For the bereaved family there is no further redress. It ends there. That's where human rights groups fall silent. Because war itself is a crime against humanity, human rights activists have no legal platform to work from. War is where the egos of politicians or leaders have to be satiated at the cost of innocent lives. Little does it matter that they may or may not have had any part in the egotistical battle ground.
Economists often use the term "economic good" in getting across the point of view that an activity, no matter how profitable, should not be encouraged if it doesn't contribute to the overall and long-term economic good of the nation. When it comes to the recent uproar over extra judicial killings by the security agencies, a similar concept appears to have surfaced that of "judicial good". In essence the argument is that such killings, no matter whether society is benefited or not cannot be acceptable.
In the economics debate, questions of freedom of choice and rights come up. In the judicial debate the questions are probably more extensive. In order to ensure the rights of both defendant and plaintiff, the country's legal system devised eons ago, takes a protracted journey. The pressure on courts in terms of volume is immense and subsequently justice is at times delayed.
The general public is unconcerned with the legal process; they want immediate action to protect theirs and their near ones' safety. Eid shopping is much safer with the black bandanas in evidence. The common people do not have any fear of RAB. Let accountability be ensured, but let not the action discontinue. The world is better off without rapists, acid throwers and muggers who maim and kill. (The writer is a former head of corporate and regulatory affairs, British American Tobacco, Bangladesh and former CEO of Bangladesh Cricket Board. He can be reached at e-mail: mahmudrahman@gmail.com)
Spot polls are a little difficult to administer in Bangladesh, otherwise it would be interesting to know what the general public actually thought of Amnesty International's (AL) clamour over "extra-judicial killings" in Bangladesh. Likewise, it would nice to know the vox populi view of the International Labour Organisation's (ILO) concern over child labour.
Do rapists, acid-throwers, extortionists and muggers, who have little compunction in maiming, injuring, wounding, disfiguring and even killing their victims have an aorta of conscience when they go about their dastardly activities? If so can they be described as "humans" actually having "rights"?
By the time philosophical debate about such "rights" and action plans to "look at the root cause of their delinquency" takes place, these criminals will probably have made merry carrying out the activities they appear to relish in their perverted mentality. In the meantime an innocent young girl somewhere will be badly disfigured by an acid attack because she spurns an offer of flirtation; an office go-err will be mugged, even knifed for trying to resist his assailants; and a hapless businessman gunned down because he did not give in to extortionist demands. Nine out of ten, the perpetrators will not be apprehended, the family will fume, grieve and facing no other option, simply get on with their lives.
A senior police official frankly admitted that such incidents in a population of 150 million people will happen and the hopelessly resource starved, politically bound and ill-paid law enforcing agencies can only clutch at thin air.
In a democratic system, black laws that restrict basic rights are pooh-pooh-ed. Then how is it that in the bastion of democracy, the United States there are two laws that are totally opposite to the principles of democracy. One allows the government to release false information. The other, the famous Patriot Act, allows security agencies to arrest, hold and interrogate individuals without assigning any reason whatsoever. Even if the person is to "disappear" there can be no challenge in any court. Now how "pro-judicial" is that?
Amnesty International might just want to comment.
Civilian casualties in war are put down to a term called "collateral damage". For the bereaved family there is no further redress. It ends there. That's where human rights groups fall silent. Because war itself is a crime against humanity, human rights activists have no legal platform to work from. War is where the egos of politicians or leaders have to be satiated at the cost of innocent lives. Little does it matter that they may or may not have had any part in the egotistical battle ground.
Economists often use the term "economic good" in getting across the point of view that an activity, no matter how profitable, should not be encouraged if it doesn't contribute to the overall and long-term economic good of the nation. When it comes to the recent uproar over extra judicial killings by the security agencies, a similar concept appears to have surfaced that of "judicial good". In essence the argument is that such killings, no matter whether society is benefited or not cannot be acceptable.
In the economics debate, questions of freedom of choice and rights come up. In the judicial debate the questions are probably more extensive. In order to ensure the rights of both defendant and plaintiff, the country's legal system devised eons ago, takes a protracted journey. The pressure on courts in terms of volume is immense and subsequently justice is at times delayed.
The general public is unconcerned with the legal process; they want immediate action to protect theirs and their near ones' safety. Eid shopping is much safer with the black bandanas in evidence. The common people do not have any fear of RAB. Let accountability be ensured, but let not the action discontinue. The world is better off without rapists, acid throwers and muggers who maim and kill. (The writer is a former head of corporate and regulatory affairs, British American Tobacco, Bangladesh and former CEO of Bangladesh Cricket Board. He can be reached at e-mail: mahmudrahman@gmail.com)