Analysis of the contempt judgement 5: 'Unholy alliances' and 'mouthpieces'?

This is fifth in a series of articles analyzing the judgement  involving three articles in this blog. The full judgement can be accessed here

To see the index to the series of articles analysing the contempt judgement go here

It should be noted, at para 44 of this judgement, the Tribunal explicitly states that 'We always welcome post-verdict criticism',  and and at para 73, 'We of course do not disagree that even post judgment criticisms is permissible.'  So I make those comments in that context.

This particular post considers para 79 to 89 of the judgement, in which the Tribunal deals with criticism in the 'public interest' (as well as certain quotes contained in the conclusion)

After the Tribunal commented that criticism 'in the public interest' was permitted, the judgement goes onto say the following:

But since the inception of [the Tribunal] functioning, all quarters have been observing, with anguish the initiation of an unholy organised domestic and international attempt to question the judicial process of the Tribunal, a court of law of an independent country terming the Statute of 1973 flawed. Criticism that the contemnor David Bergman has made in his articles, in other words, has simply endorsed such ‘organised’ ill and futile endeavor and not in the ‘interest of public’. Such malicious attempt has not made any debarring situation for the nation to remain distanced from their urge of seeking justice, true. But it however might have intended to create mystification and extreme derogatory impression in the mind of public and the relief seekers. Thus, contemnor’s conduct does not go with the ‘public good’. We consider it an extraordinary situation which warrants
intervention from the court of law, the Tribunal. (para 83)

This is certainly one way at looking at the criticism of the Tribunal - suggesting that there is some kind of conspiracy involving an 'an unholy organised domestic and international attempt to question the judicial process of the Tribunal'. The judgement does not state who is part of that conspiracy, but perhaps the Tribunal is suggesting that it comprises - as well one assume Jamaat-e-Islami - those who have at some point written critical commentary about the Tribunal. This could of course include, Human Rights Watch, the Economist, the New York Times, Amnesty International, International Commission of Journalists, International Centre for Transitional Justice, the UK Bar Council Human Rights Committee, the UN Special Rapporteurs on Summary Execution and on Independence of Judges and Lawyers, and US Ambassador at Large, Stephen Rapp.

The Tribunal of course has every right to consider or believe that such an unholy alliance exists, however it it important to note that the judgement does not provide any evidence to support such a view. Moreover, there is another way of looking at the criticism from these organisations - that is, they are simply voicing some legitimate concerns about the trial process.

The Judgement argues that I have "simply endorsed such ‘organised’ ill and futile endeavor". Much of my writing is supportive and at the very least understanding of the trial process. As we told the tribunal in our arguments, the day after the article on 1971 deaths was written, I wrote an article explaining the history of impunity in Bangladesh in relation to war crimes. This article was not referred to in the judgement. In addition, I have written many articles that clearly indicate support for the accountability process, even if a number of them raise concerns about fair trial matters. Here is one from some time ago, and here are some examples following the establishment of the tribunal

Introduction to the Blog
Defence walk-out, wise heads must prevail
Further bias is no answer
Responding to partisan journalism
The intellectual killings 41 years ago
On victory day, a dilemma about the trials
Bangladesh's civil society establishment
Ten misleading comments by Toby Cadman, Counsel for the Jamaat
Did the Economist get it right?
Mueen Uddin's strategy of Deflection
What was actually said on Al Jazeera

Further in our arguments to the court, we specifically stated (and this was not contested by the other side) that there was nothing written on the blog which was against the process of accountability, and that the blog articles were written entirely independently, without any financial or other benefit from any person or party.

In the conclusion, the Tribunal goes further and states that: 

[Bergman has] substantially endorsed the unholy campaign of some quarters to
malign the judicial process of the Tribunal. (para 129)

and

The contemnor, a foreign national and a journalist by profession, has rather acted as a mere ‘mouthpiece’ of the quarters engaged in the act of organised undesirable campaign, by circulating unfair, unreasonable and scandalising ‘criticism’. (para 134)

As stated above, and should be clear from the articles referred to, there is no evidence anywhere to support the tribunal's conclusion that I am a so called 'mouthpiece' of 'quarters engaged in the act of organised undesirable campaign.'

UN Special Rapporteurs on summary executions, Christof Heyns, and on the independence of judges and lawyers - See more at: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=15260&LangID=E#sthash.JKndIwEy.dpuf

UN Special Rapporteurs on summary executions, Christof Heyns, and on the independence of judges and lawyers - See more at: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=15260&LangID=E#sthash.JKndIwEy.dpuf

UN Special Rapporteurs on summary executions, Christof Heyns, and on the independence of judges and lawyers - See more at: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=15260&LangID=E#sthash.JKndIwEy.dpuf

UN Special Rapporteurs on summary executions, Christof Heyns, and on the independence of judges and lawyers - See more at: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=15260&LangID=E#sthash.JKndIwEy.dpuf