Bangladesh is secular, not moderate Muslim country: FM

[wtf]

I don't understand how any court, even the Supreme Court, claim it has the right to judge which constitutional ammendmeent is legal, and which not.

By the nature of a constitution and its ammendments, everything contained therein is the basis for the legality of everything else.

The court has the duty to interpret the constitution, and may consider any laws to be legal or not, according the the constitution.

But as far as I am aware, only Parliament (Upper and Lower houses) has the power to ammend the constitution, (In Pakistan, this is with a two-thirds majority in both houses). So when an ammendment is passed, courts have no option but to submit to it, and have no right to hear a petition contesting th eir legality.

If there is something wrong with the constitution, it is the duty of the party in power to legislate, and ammend the constitution, if it has enough backing in Parliament.

That depends on the country and the courts.
The court could rule that the government that passed the rule was illegitimate or find faults with the process in most countries.

In countries with common law the court can interpret things with a lot of freedom. In India the courts ruled that the right to equality meant that the reservations up to 50% was OK, but no further. (The number 50% came from courts interpretation, not from anything in the constitution). In US courts first thought that right to equality and slavery were both OK together. Then they said all men are equal but must be separated (segregation), then courts said segregation is against right to equality. It could also say that the constitution is internally inconsistent and strike out whatever provisions it thought was wrong.

 

[zombie]

Yes there is big difference. In 1972 constitution didn't have following important sections thus Bd constitution isn't secular.

(1) The principles of absolute trust and faith in the Almighty Allah
(1A). Absolute trust and faith in the Almighty Allah shall be the basis of all actions.(Bismillah ir rahman ir rahim)
(3)The state religion of the Republic is Islam, but other religions may be practiced in peace and harmony in the Republic

Its clear that by constitution Bangladesh is no more a secular country. Doesnt matter whatever the Awami minister rants. Either make the changes in the constitution to make it as such or accept it.

 

[BanglaBhoot]

No no no... You are very wrong. Parliament can not pass any law or change constitution which will curtail any fundamental inherent rights of human being. Parliament can only ammend the constitution by the provision which is given by the constitution itself. These are very complex matter, but there are balance between Executive, legislature and Judiciary. Everybody has to work according to the law, and there are few provisions in constitution which can not be ammended.
Give you an example, no matter how much majority the parliament have, they can not change the citizenship law in a way so that a person by birth will be denied citizenship of this country.

Ohh another nice example. This week parliament just passed a local govt law where MP's were given supervisory provision on those local bodies. This law is going to get challenged in the court and will be nullified for sure, as fundamentals of the constitution said, there must be independent local body in every level of govt. So when govt itself put somebody on top of those body then the very constitution is denied.

The Supreme Court has struck down several constitutional amendments in the past the most famous being the 8th amendment made by President Ershad. Where the amendment interferes in the basic unitary structure of the state or changes the fundamental framework of the constitution the Supreme Court has intervened and nullified an amendment. In the 8th amendment case it was on quite dishonest grounds that the Supreme Court did this. The amendment would have allowed regional High Courts to be established but the supreme court overturned the amendment merely to protect the lawyer community who practiced in Dhaka but it would have helped the ordinary citizens of the country and made access to justice easier. Anyone who has read the judgment knows it makes no sense. Other unitary systems have adopted similar provisions as the 8th amendment without any problem. If the Supreme Court overrules the 5th amendment the consequences will be severe for the country. The 5th amendment not only legitimized the changes introduced by President Ziaur Rahman but also abolished the BAKSAL system. This challenge to the 5th amendment is an attempt to reintroduce BAKSAL through the back door.

 

[Al-zakir]

Its clear that by constitution Bangladesh is no more a secular country. Doesnt matter whatever the Awami minister rants. Either make the changes in the constitution to make it as such or accept it.

Thank you for acknowledge this important fact about BD which is very obvious yet Awami and like minded ignorant lunatic refused to accept the reality of Present Bd and it's Islam based constitution. Apparently their confined mindset stuck in 1972. What a screw up job!!!

 

[TopCat]

The Supreme Court has struck down several constitutional amendments in the past the most famous being the 8th amendment made by President Ershad. Where the amendment interferes in the basic unitary structure of the state or changes the fundamental framework of the constitution the Supreme Court has intervened and nullified an amendment. In the 8th amendment case it was on quite dishonest grounds that the Supreme Court did this. The amendment would have allowed regional High Courts to be established but the supreme court overturned the amendment merely to protect the lawyer community who practiced in Dhaka but it would have helped the ordinary citizens of the country and made access to justice easier. Anyone who has read the judgment knows it makes no sense. Other unitary systems have adopted similar provisions as the 8th amendment without any problem. If the Supreme Court overrules the 5th amendment the consequences will be severe for the country. The 5th amendment not only legitimized the changes introduced by President Ziaur Rahman but also abolished the BAKSAL system. This challenge to the 5th amendment is an attempt to reintroduce BAKSAL through the back door.

I had reservation of repealing 8th ammendment as it was repealed in the name of not following the due procedures. Ershad should had taken the initiative and finished the job. Verdict said some sort of referendum needed for that to be implemented.
Regarding 5th ammendment, I dont want to go back to BAKSAL neither AL would want that. Also the verdict came out at the time when BNP was in power. So the backdoor concept should not be applied here. I really love to see a liberal secular democracy in Bangladesh where all the political party can contribute to the democracy.

 

[TopCat]

Its clear that by constitution Bangladesh is no more a secular country. Doesnt matter whatever the Awami minister rants. Either make the changes in the constitution to make it as such or accept it.

Constitution is not just few words rather the laws and rights which is given to the citizen of the country. Even though few words were changed only to disguise the ordinary people with ill motives but the whole constitution still remained as secular. Also this is "Peoples Republic of Bangladesh" not "Islamic Republic of Bangladesh".

 

[idune]

Reflecting aspiration of majority population is no way "ill motivated" but JUST. One has to consider history of how, who written and who influenced initial Bangladesh constitution before understanding how so called "secularism" got into Bangladesh constitution. Not the Awami version of the story.

What would "secularism" in constitution achive, that current constitution did not provided for 30 some years? Besides, offcourse toe indian command line.

Besides that just having a secular constitution does not make a country and society secular. We have prime example in next door india where society and country remains deeply communal. Every few years indian minorites suffers genocide.

In stark contrast, in Bangladesh as Muslim country "communalism" is a foreign phenomenon.

 

[BanglaBhoot]

I had reservation of repealing 8th ammendment as it was repealed in the name of not following the due procedures. Ershad should had taken the initiative and finished the job. Verdict said some sort of referendum needed for that to be implemented.
Regarding 5th ammendment, I dont want to go back to BAKSAL neither AL would want that. Also the verdict came out at the time when BNP was in power. So the backdoor concept should not be applied here. I really love to see a liberal secular democracy in Bangladesh where all the political party can contribute to the democracy.

The 5th amendment case although introduced during the BNP regime the High Court only gave a ruling during the caretaker government. The senior judge, Justice Kharul Haq, is a notorious AL sympathizer gave a bizarre judgment that had nothing to do with the merits of the case and he decided unilaterally that the 5th amendment was null and void. He thought this might please the AL leadership but had nothing to do with law or the merits of the case.

 

[idune]

The 5th amendment case although introduced during the BNP regime the High Court only gave a ruling during the caretaker government. The senior judge, Justice Kharul Haq, is a notorious AL sympathizer gave a bizarre judgment that had nothing to do with the merits of the case and he decided unilaterally that the 5th amendment was null and void. He thought this might please the AL leadership but had nothing to do with law or the merits of the case.

You are absolutely correct. If I remember correctly original case was about some sort of govt (then) claim over Rajmoni cinema hall and nothing to do with constitution what so ever. But overzealous judge USED the case to implement Awami league agenda.

 

[Always Neutral]

A total BS by BS FM. A true dalal of India. It's nothing but a joke comment to make her masters happy. It's evident that Awami's lost their mind. I think they are heavily dosed with pro-India virus. Fact of the matter is Mujib tried and than died for it. Bangladesh is not secular since 1975 even though what ever this "Dipu" whatever "Moni" bubbling her garbage. Bd constitution was secular from 1972-1975 but General Zia changed it to Islamic constitution. He amend it with inclusion of Bismillah and Allah as the supreme powerful. Every state activity must start with versus from Qur'aan and there can not any law that goes against Islam. General Ershad amend it even further with Islam as state language. There as no way bd is secular as long as Islam is the state religion with constitution that start with bismillah ir rahman ir rahim. I suggest Awami losers and this "dipu" whatever "moni" should shut the hell up and read the current constitution and not the one from 1972 before making another worthless comment.

Awami losers need to read these following important inclusion after 1975 before making any worthless comments......

The only loosers I can see here are people like you and gang since AL won a landslide victory at the elections.

Regards

 

[Al-zakir]

Constitution is not just few words rather the laws and rights which is given to the citizen of the country. Even though few words were changed only to disguise the ordinary people with ill motives but the whole constitution still remained as secular. Also this is "Peoples Republic of Bangladesh" not "Islamic Republic of Bangladesh".

(1) The principles of absolute trust and faith in the Almighty Allah
(1A). Absolute trust and faith in the Almighty Allah shall be the basis of all actions.(Bismillah ir rahman ir rahim)
(3)The state religion of the Republic is Islam, but other religions may be practiced in peace and harmony in the Republic

These are just few words for you. You just going to reject them as they are nonsense. There is a limit of "baygarati" man. Drew your line at least when comes to Allah's supremacy. This is minimal requirement of being a Muslim. How could you disrespect Allah's toheed in this manner being a Muslim. You are so blinded by your Bengali nationalistic ideal that you questioned supremacy of Almighty Allah. Astaghfirullahal'azim.

There isn't Much different between "people republic" and "Islamic republic". Bangladesh is majority Muslim nation so therefore its people represent Islamic republic and it's constitution further enforced it.

 

[Al-zakir]

The only loosers I can see here are people like you and gang since AL won a landslide victory at the elections.

Regards

Yes I am a loser. Thank you for stopping by. Now be lost

 

[Always Neutral]

Yes I am a loser. Thank you for stopping by. Now be lost

Sorry its you who now needs to get lost since the majority of your people voted AL to victory and consigned your kind of thoughts and politics to the dustbin.

 

[Jako]

Sorry al-zakir but iajdani is actually correct.........one has to be a bangladeshi first then belong to any religion.....only if you could understand.........what if some muslim wants something terrible for bd,will you support him?? Thats when your nationalistic mentality comes into play..........and PLEASE STOP RANTING AT PEOPLE WHEN THEY POINT OUT THE TRUTH,I UNDERSTAND YOUR FRUSTATION,BUT KEEP THAT UPTO YOURSELF IN YOUR DIRTY MIND........ If you dont want an healthy debate no body will mind you getting lost.......

 

[DarkStar]

Everybody, stop antagonising each other. Any more telling other people where to go, and Infractions and Bannings may follow. Let's stick to the topoic.