& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

David Bergman's contempt of court verdict Oct 13

Staff Correspondent
The International Crimes Tribunal-2 yesterday fixed October 13 for passing an order on the contempt of court proceedings against David Bergman, a Dhaka-based British journalist, who is accused of demeaning the tribunal through his blogposts.
The three-member tribunal led by Justice Obaidul Hassan fixed the date as it completed hearing arguments of lawyers of both the petitioner and the defendant.
If found guilty, Bergman, the editor (special reports) of the English daily New Age, may face highest one year's imprisonment or up to Tk 5,000 in fine or both.
The tribunal started the proceedings on April 17 after it found "prima facie elements of contempt” in his three write-ups posted in his personal blog in November 2011 and January 2013, in which he allegedly questioned the figure of the liberation war martyrs.
Supreme Court lawyer Abul Kalam Azad filed the contempt petition on February 18, saying Bergman made "relentless efforts to justify that the tribunal was absolutely
wrong in mentioning three million deaths and the number of200,000 women raped in 1971”
In his submission on August 25 and yesterday, Bergman's counsel Mustafizur Rahman Khan, however, said the write-ups were "definitely critical" but fell under the parameters of permissible fair criticism and had been made "bona fide and in good faith".
But, petitioner's lawyer Mizan Syeed yesterday said Bergman was a "habitual contemptner" as he wrote the "contemptuous articles" even after being cautioned seriously by a tribunal earlier for his other writings.
Bergman's blogposts cannot be considered “fair criticism", as those had a "tendency" to malign the dignity of the tribunal and "tended it and its members into public hatred", he added.
In his earlier submission, the defence lawyer said his client, upon receiving a notice from the tribunal, deleted two words from his write-ups expressing regrets. However, replying to a court's inquiry, he said Bergman did not mention in his blog why he had deleted the words.
But, the petitioner's counsel said Bergman deleted the words because he understood that it was "contemptuous” and "this is one sort of admission." Besides, the words were a very “little part of his contemptuous articles" and deletion was done lately, he said.
Mizan also refuted the defence's claim that the petitioner did not specify the parts of the articles, which amounted to contempt. “We specified the allegations, and even quoted from the articles of the contemptner in the ninth to 15th paragraph and the 25th paragraph of our petition, "he said.
Meanwhile, the tribunal recorded the testimony of Azabuddin Miah, the 27th prosecution witness in the case against Jamaat-e-Islami leader Abdus Subhan.
Azaduddin, an assistant librarian of Bangla Academy, exhibited two newspapers reports—one of The Pakistan Observer and the other of the Dainik Azad.
The report of The Pakistan Observer, published December 9, 1970, testified that Subhan contested the 1970's election, while the Dainik Azad on September 7, 1971 published a statement of Subhan, said prosecutor Sultan Mahmud Simon.
The proceeding was adjourned till Sunday after the defence declined to cross-examine Azabuddin.