Protest against political persecution of Prof Muhammad Yunus, and more general threats to democracy in Bangladesh

 The Bangladesh Daily Star publishes an open letter, and the NY Times provides some general background.

Here's the  open letter to Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina:

‘Judicial harassment of Yunus’: 104 Nobel laureates, 79 global figures voice concern

"A total of 104 Nobel Laureates and 79 other global figures in an open letter to Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina yesterday expressed concern about the safety and freedom of Nobel Laureate Prof Muhammad Yunus.

...

"As you know, Prof Yunus' work, which has been inspirational to all of us, focuses on how social business can be a force for international progress resulting in zero poverty, zero unemployment, and zero net carbon emissions. He is a leading example of how Bangladesh and Bangladeshis have contributed to global progress in recent decades. We sincerely wish that he be able to continue his path-breaking work free of persecution or harassment.

...

"According to the case documents, officials of the Inspection for Factories and Establishments Department on August 16, 2021, inspected the office of Grameen Telecom in the capital's Mirpur and found several violations of labour laws.

"On June 6 this year, the court framed charges against the accused -- including Prof Yunus -- in the case. The trial began on August 22.

...

"In its review, the law firm said, "Professor Yunus is facing six months in prison for a crime that he not only did not commit, but that legally does not exist….Events are moving quickly in Bangladesh driven by a forthcoming election and a presumed desire to imprison Prof Yunus prior to that election….Not only are the allegations entirely without merit, but the legal process is wrong in law….A miscarriage of justice is happening in Bangladesh and the state must not be allowed to carry it to its conclusion."

"Following are the Nobel Laureates who are the signatories of the letter:

PEACE: Barack H. Obama, 2009; José Ramos-Horta, 1996; Mairead Corrigan-Maguire, 1976; Shirin Ebadi, 2003; Leymah Roberta Gbowee, 2011; Albert Arnold Gore Jr., 2007; Tawakkol Karman, 2011; Denis Mukwege, 2018; Nadia Murad, 2018; Maria Ressa, 2021; Oscar Arias Sanchez, 1987; Juan Manuel Santos, 2016; Rigoberta Menchu Tum, 1992; and Jody Williams, 1997.

CHEMISTRY: Peter Agre, 2003; Thomas R. Cech, 1989; Martin Chalfie, 2008; Emmanuelle Charpentier, 2020; Aaron Ciechanover, 2004; Johann Deisenhofer, 1988; Jacques Dubochet, 2017; Joachim Frank, 2017; Walter Gilbert, 1980; Alan Heeger, 2000; Richard Henderson, 2017; Dudley R. Herschbach, 1986; Avram Hershko, 2004; Roald Hoffmann, 1981; Robert Huber, 1988; Martin Karplus, 2013; Brian K. Kobilka, 2012; Yuan T. Lee, 1986; Robert J. Lefkowitz, 2012; Jean-Marie Lehn, 1987; Michael Levitt, 2013; Tomas Lindahl, 2015; Paul L. Modrich, 2015; John C. Polanyi, 1986; Jean-Pierre Sauvage, 2016; Sir John E. Walker, 1997; Arieh Warshel, 2013; and Sir Gregory P. Winter, 2018.

ECONOMICS: Oliver Hart, 2016; Finn E. Kydland, 2004; Paul R. Milgrom, 2020; Edmund Phelps, 2006; Alvin E. Roth, 2012; Vernon L. Smith, 2002; and Joseph E. Stiglitz, 2001.

LITERATURE: J. M. Coetzee, 2003; Herta Muller, 2009; Orhan Pamuk, 2006; and Wole Soyinka, 1986.

MEDICINE: Harvey J. Alter, 2020; David Baltimore, 1975; Françoise Barré-Sinoussi, 2008; J. Michael Bishop, 1989; Elizabeth H. Blackburn, 2009; William C. Campbell, 2015; Peter C. Doherty, 1996; Jeffrey Connor Hall, 2017; Leland H. Hartwell, 2001; Jules A. Hoffmann, 2011; Tasuku Honjo, 2018; H. Robert Horvitz, 2002; Sir Michael Houghton, 2020; Craig C. Mello, 2006; Edvard Moser, 2014; May-Britt Moser, 2014; Sir Paul M. Nurse, 2001; Ardem Patapoutian, 2021; Sir Peter J. Ratcliffe, 2019; Charles M. Rice, 2020; Sir Richard J. Roberts, 1993; Michael Rosbash, 2017; Gregg L. Semenza, 2019; Hamilton O. Smith, 1978; Jack W. Szostak, 2009; Harold E. Varmus, 1989; Eric F. Wieschaus, 1995; Torsten N. Wiesel, 1981; and Michael W. Young, 2017.

PHYSICS: Barry Clark Barish, 2017; Steven Chu, 1997; Andre Geim, 2010; Sheldon Glashow, 1979; David J. Gross, 2004; John L. Hall, 2005; Takaaki Kajita, 2015; Anthony J. Leggett, 2003; John C. Mather, 2006; Michel Mayor, 2019; Arthur B. McDonald, 2015; Konstantin Novoselov, 2010; Giorgio Parisi, 2021; James Peebles, 2019; Roger Penrose, 2020; William D. Phillips, 1997; H. David Politzer, 2004; Brian P. Schmidt, 2011; Horst L. Stormer, 1998; Daniel C. Tsui, 1998; Carl E. Wieman, 2001; and David J. Wineland, 2012."

********

The letter also appeared as an ad in the International edition of the New York Times:

*************

And here's the NY Times story: 

Quietly Crushing a Democracy: Millions on Trial in Bangladesh

The most active rivals to the country’s ruling party face dozens, even hundreds, of court cases each, paralyzing the opposition as a crucial election approaches. By Mujib Mashal 

"Bangladesh’s multiparty democracy is being methodically strangled in crowded courtrooms across this country of 170 million people.

"Nearly every day, thousands of leaders, members and supporters of opposition parties stand before a judge. Charges are usually vague, and evidence is shoddy, at best. But just months before a pivotal election pitting them against the ruling Awami League, the immobilizing effect is clear.

"About half of the five million members of the main opposition party, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, are embroiled in politically motivated court cases, the group estimates. The most active leaders and organizers face dozens, even hundreds, of cases."

The market for alcoholic drinks in Bangladesh

Doctors can prescribe alcohol in Bangladesh.

The Economist has the story:

Bangladesh loosens its booze laws

"Consumption of alcohol has long been outlawed for Muslims, who today make up 90% of the population. Other religions are exempt but need a permit issued by the government. A loophole for Muslims was introduced in 1950, but it includes a requirement for a doctor’s certificate. The permit declares that the holder “requires liquor on medical grounds” and is “hereby permitted to possess and consume foreign liquor”. Few bother. Most drinking is illicit and feeds a lucrative black market for imported liquor. Cases of people dying after drinking dodgy home-brew are not uncommon. 

"The government has acknowledged the problem. It is overhauling the rules in a simultaneous bid to boost domestic industry and bring boozing within the law. Individuals will still require permits, but the process for restaurants and bars to get liquor licences will be made less ambiguous. The new laws, which were introduced in February, also oblige establishments to buy 60% of their stock from the country’s two licensed producers: Jamuna Group, which makes Hunter, Bangladesh’s only home-grown beer, and Carew & Co, a state-run distiller of such fine tipples as Gold Riband Gin, Old Rum and Imperial Whisky."

HT: Alex Chan

Bangladesh loosens its restrictions on kidney donations

This story appears in New Age: henceforth Authentication Boards may allow a kidney to be donated by someone who is not a near relative, in exceptional circumstances.

High Court sets out guidelines for kidney transplantation

"The verdict said that the Transplantation of Human Organs Act 1999 provided a very narrow definition of donor, ‘that is to say, “near relative”’.

‘The already large gap between demand and supply of kidneys is further increased by this narrow definition of donors leading to kidney patients dying without any transplant,’ the verdict said adding ‘The large gap particularly affects the poor by creating a black market for kidneys where abuses are rampant.’

The verdict said that if the definition of a pool of donors (near relative) was expanded without any restriction whatsoever, ‘that will definitely spur the illegal kidney trade in Bangladesh to an unimaginable extent. So any wholesale expansion of the definition of pool of donors (near relative) cannot be countenanced.’

The verdict said that to determine and verify the authenticity of emotional kidney donation, there should be an inquiry in the light of the guidelines mentioned below.

The verdict said that the exceptional circumstances as in the case of the present petitioner might be determined by the Authentication Board in Bangladesh like the Authorization Committee in India.

The court said that the board must ensure that the near relative or if near relative was not available, any adult person related to the donor by blood or marriage to donate an organ or tissue.

And that case, the authenticity of the link between the donor and the recipient, and the reasons for donation, and any strong views or disagreement or objection of such kin should also be recorded and taken note of, said the verdict.

The board needs to evaluate that there would be no commercial transaction between the recipient and the donor and that no payment has been made to the donor or promised to be made to the donor or any other person.

The board also needs to prepare an explanation of the link between donors and recipients and the circumstances which led to the offer being made."