'Measured response' or 'Shocking, repressive': CA's Press secy, journo David Bergman at odds over anti-terror law amendment

Reactions have poured in following the banning of the Awami League by the government today (12 May) after amending the Anti-Terrorism Act.

In a reaction to the move, noted journalist David Bergman expressed shock, centring the Anti-Terrorism Act amendment which prohibited any form of publicity, including press statements, social media content, or public gatherings in support of any individuals or entities tried in the act, which ends such activities stemming from the Awami League.

Taking to Facebook, he wrote, "This is shocking," adding, "This will have a huge impact on not just the political rights of Awami League supporters - who basically will no longer have them - but also wider rights to freedom of expression and the media within the country.

"Who would have thought that nine months on from the fall of the Hasina government, that a supposedly reformist government would enact such a repressive law."

In response to this, Chief Adviser's Press Secretary Shafiqul Alam said the government move was a measured response.

"David Bergman's outrage over the ban on the activities of the Awami League is misplaced and historically myopic. Any restriction on political activity deviates from an ideal of absolute freedom and must be scrutinised to ensure it is proportionate to the threat it is meant to contain. However, equating this measure by Bangladesh's interim government with blanket authoritarianism ignores both global precedents and the violent context that prompted the action," he wrote on Facebook.

He mentioned that since Hasina – who he called brutal and corrupt – was deposed, she "has continued to wage a campaign of disinformation and incitement from her refuge in India. Party stalwarts, many of them having absconded abroad with looted money, have supported this campaign online and with direct action within Bangladesh."

"The actions of Awami League have clearly been intended to undermine Bangladesh's stability and development and to disrupt judicial proceedings against Awami League members." 

He said two tribunals were now investigating the abuses of the AL government with Hasina and other senior Awami League leaders among the accused.

"Last week's assault on Hasnat Abdullah, a leader of last year's uprising, was the final straw.

"Finally the interim government amended the Anti-Terrorism Act to halt the Awami League's organisational and media activities. This isn't a blanket erasure of political rights; it's a measured response to inarguable evidence that the Awami League continues to orchestrate violence and political subterfuge and extra-legal pressure on judicial proceedings."

He said the ban was intended to protect national security and sovereignty, safeguard leaders and activists of the July Movement, who played a key role in the uprising against the previous government, and ensure the safety of plaintiffs and witnesses involved in the tribunal proceedings.

"Countries with strong democratic credentials and commitment to the rule of law have gone much further to protect their national security against agitation by groups whose ethos is antithetical to not only to public order but to the core humane values that define a country as civilised," he added, citing the case of Germany, where the Nazi party, its symbols and denying the Holocaust are under the laws. 

Germany did not hesitate to outlaw a political force—even retroactively—once it was deemed a threat to democratic stability and social cohesion. No one cries foul when Germany criminalizes praise of Hitler or bans far-right rallies. Why? Because the context—the horrors of Nazi ideology—justifies extraordinary legal limits."

Shafiqul wrote that while Bangladesh's situation was not identical but conceptually similar, "The Awami League, like the Nazi Party, was a ruling party". 

"The ban is not ideological—it's procedural, designed to enable justice and protect public order during a fragile transition. Awami League members and supporters remain free to express their views about all manner of political issues other than expressly supporting a party that has been a vehicle for tyranny and instrument of murder."

He said critics like Bergman overlooked that freedom of expression was not absolute when weighed against immediate threats to democratic accountability and public safety. 

"Measured constraints, grounded in the state's obligation to protect society against the threat of specific violent actions, are defensible – just as Germany's permanent bans are. Let the tribunals proceed without intimidation as one crucial step towards moving beyond a long period of authoritarian rule."