Uncategorized

The WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) aimed at protecting the present and future generations from the devastating health, social, environmental and economic consequences of tobacco. One of the Convention’s core supply reduction provisions contained in Article 17 mandates the state parties to promote economically viable alternatives for tobacco workers, growers and individual sellers. In relation to the impact of tobacco cultivation on environment, Article 18 stipulates that the parties have to give due regard to the protection of the environment and the health of persons in relation to tobacco cultivation and manufacture within their respective territories. Reading both the provisions together along with the object and purpose of the Convention, it is quite clear that, the WHO FCTC envisions complete elimination of tobacco and thereby generating an alternative for all dependents on tobacco, has becomean imperative. Under the Convention, Parties are, in general, obliged to adopt and implement effective legislative, executive, administrative and/or other measures for preventing and reducing tobacco consumption, nicotine addiction and exposure to tobacco smoke. Most importantly, Article 5.3 stipulates that Parties, while setting and implementing their public health policies with respect to tobacco control, shall act to protect these policies from commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco industry in accordance with national law. Thus, it is clear that there must have corresponding provisions in national law to prevent tobacco industry interference in formulating national tobacco control measures. WHO ranked Bangladesh as the 7th largest tobacco growing and 8th largest tobacco consuming country. In Bangladesh, there is no updated, consistent and comprehensive nation-wide data on tobacco cultivation available in the official sources. On the other hand, the anti-tobacco campaigners and mass media reports are claiming rapid increase in acreage of tobacco cultivation, manufacture and export. Bangladesh as a Party to the WHO FCTC requires implementing domestic law to give legal effect to the convention. In 2005, Bangladesh enacted the Smoking and Using of Tobacco Products (Control) Act with the objective of controlling tobacco products for public health and implementing the WHO FCTC. Section 12 provided for granting loans on easy terms by the Government to encourage the cultivation of alternative cash crops instead of tobacco; and the Government will run such loan facilities for five years then a comprehensive Policy will be formulated to gradually discourage tobacco farming and installation of tobacco industries. The 2013 Amendment of the said Act omitted the provision relating to loan facilities and provided only for framing a Policy to gradually discourage tobacco cultivation.The Rules framed under the law in 2006 and 2015 have no mention on tobacco cultivation and its environmental hazards. Previously, in Prof. Nurul Islam and Others v Government of Bangladesh and Others (2000), the High Court Division directed the government to take stepsto stop tobacco production, giving subsidy for alternative crops and creating alternative jobs for tobacco workers. The decision was subsequently upheld by the Appellate Division. As of now, Bangladesh has not yet framed any Policy to regulate tobacco cultivation. Even there is no specific provision in country’s environmental laws to regulate environmental harms by tobacco. Regrettably, there is no provision in the country’s tobacco control laws to prevent tobacco industry interference in formulating tobacco control measures. In the absence of such provision, tobacco industry has deepened its efforts to derail, dilute and delay the implementation and enforcement of tobacco control measures in Bangladesh. To many, dilution of the provision relating to tobacco cultivation by 2013 Amendment and subsequent delay in framing the Policy are attributable to tobacco industry interference. Now, it is suggested for Bangladesh to frame a comprehensive Policy, as mandated under the law, in consonance with the Government’s goal of making tobacco free Bangladesh by 2040. It is further suggested that, in line with international obligations under the WHO FCTC and related instruments, necessary provisions to incentivise alternative crops and alternative means of livelihoods, taking into account thehealth, social, environmental and economic menaces of tobacco cultivation, have to be inserted in the existing tobacco control laws. The writer is an environmental lawyer and activist.

At present, Labour Courts in Bangladesh are functioning under the Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006. According to this Act, the Labour Court is a unique and distinct court, constitution of which is based on tripartite representation model. The Court consists of a chairman and two members; one representing the workers and the other representing the employer. There is a panel of members of the Labour Court from which the Chairman appoints two members to constitute the court for the purpose of hearing an industrial dispute or a dispute relating to the service/employment of the workers. The Court while trying offences under the Act or resolving a dispute relating to the payment of wages or of compensation to workers for accidents, consists only of the Chairman. Appeal from the judgments, decisions, or awards of Labour Court lies to the Labour Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal may be constituted with one Chairman alone or with the Chairman and such other members as the Government thinks fit. The Chairman may be appointed from among the persons who are or had been a Judge or Additional Judge of the Supreme Court. Ordinarily the decisions of the Tribunal is final, no appeal lies against the order or judgment of the Tribunal. Keeping the practical aspects aside, the Act itself too can be legally scrutinised for delving deeper into the problem. The Act has not provided for any criteria of judicial knowledge, experience or minimum qualification for members except for that of the Chairman. Though the Labour Court is a specialised judicial body but there is no provision requiring any prior experience (in dealing with labour law matters) or for minimum training for judges before getting them appointed from lower judiciary. As a result, indifference, inefficiency and unprofessionalism of judges and members hinder the proceedings of Labour Courts. Though the Act mandated the Government to establish required number of Labour Courts, as of now, there are only 7 Labour Courts across the country (3 in Dhaka, 2 in Chittagong, and 1 each in Rajshahi and Khulna). There is only one Labour Appellate Tribunal at Dhaka.  Among these, Courts of Dhaka and Chittagong are situated in the divisional headquarters.  As a result a tea garden worker of Sylhet and a rice-mill worker of Brahmanbaria has to go the Labour Court of Chittagong to file cases for their grievance, unpaid wages and compensation. A worker of Syedpur has to go the Labour Court of Rajshahi and a worker of Barisal has to go Khulna for seeking labour justice. Therefore, instead of going courts traveling hundreds of kilometres for their redress many workers have to embrace injustice. Harassing the toiling masses and workers in such a way in the name of delivering justice is contrary to the spirit of our Constitution. The Act mandated the completion of trial in the Labour Courts and Tribunals within 60 days. However, it is found that about 50% cases take time from 1-3 years while around 20% cases take more than 3 years. In most of the cases the reason behind this delay is adjournment of judicial proceedings on the request from the employers’ side. As a result, a worker who is being terminated from one factory fighting for his unpaid wages and other dues and joined in a new factory, by appearing in the Court frequently s/he gets terminated from the new factory also. By analysing court registers, it is found that, till September 2016: in the Labour Courts of Bangladesh, 15128 cases were pending and among these, 11272 cases have been pending for more than six months. It is also found that, case filing rate is higher than case disposal rate causing great sufferings to the working masses. A few number of labour courts are overburdenend with cases resulting in the backlogging and delay in disposal of cases. Disputes between employers and workers are inevitable in industrial relations. Resolving these disputes peacefully while keeping the working environment sound, will result in production, growth, investment, industry and economy of the country. To make the Labour Courts accessible for the workers and to facilitate them to recover their legal rights, at least one Labour Court (constituted with a Joint District Judge) should be established in every district and two in every district having industrial area and at least one Labour Appellate Tribunal(constituted with a District Judge) in every division of Bangladesh. Compulsory court sponsored ADR system should be introduced in the Bangladesh Labour Act 2006 to reduce inordinate delay and backlogging of labour disputes. The writers are students of law,  University of Dhaka.

Germany legalises cannabis, but makes it hard to buy The German parliament has backed a new law to allow the recreational use of cannabis. Under the law, over-18s in Germany will be allowed to possess substantial amounts of cannabis, but strict rules will make it difficult to buy the drug. Smoking cannabis in many public spaces will become legal from 1 April. Possession of up to 25g, equivalent to dozens of strong joints, is to be allowed in public spaces. In private homes the legal limit will be 50g. Already police in some parts of Germany, such as Berlin, often turn a blind eye to smoking in public, although possession of the drug for recreational use is illegal and can be prosecuted. 

Use of the drug among young people has been soaring for years despite the existing law, says Health Minister Karl Lauterbach, who is instigating the reforms. He wants to undermine the black market, protect smokers from contaminated cannabis and cut revenue streams for organised crime gangs. But legal cannabis cafes will not suddenly spring up all over the country. A ferocious debate about decriminalising cannabis has been raging for years in Germany, with doctors’ groups expressing concerns for young people and conservatives saying that liberalisation will fuel drug use. After a stormy session on Friday in the Bundestag, Germany’s parliament, the vote was eventually passed by 407 votes to 226. Simone Borchardt of the opposition conservative CDU told MPs that the government had gone ahead with its “completely unnecessary, confused law” regardless of warnings from doctors, police and psychotherapists. But Mr Lauterbach said the current situation was no longer tenable: “The number of consumers aged between 18 and 25 has doubled in the past 10 years.” After the vote he said the law would “dry out the black market” and fix “a failed drug policy”. As so often in Germany, the law approved by MPs is complicated. Smoking cannabis in some areas, such as near schools and sports grounds, will still be illegal. Crucially, the market will be strictly regulated so buying the drug will not be easy. Original plans to allow licensed shops and pharmacies to sell cannabis have been scrapped over EU concerns that this could lead to a surge in drug exports. Instead, non-commercial members’ clubs, dubbed “cannabis social clubs”, will grow and distribute a limited amount of the drug. Each club will have an upper limit of 500 members, consuming cannabis onsite will not be allowed, and membership will only be available to German residents. Growing your own cannabis will also be permitted, with up to three marijuana plants allowed per household. This means that Germany could be in the paradoxical position of allowing possession of rather large amounts of the drug, while at the same time making it difficult to purchase. Regular smokers would benefit, but occasional users would struggle to buy it legally and tourists would be excluded. Critics say this will simply fuel the black market. Over the next few years, the government wants to assess the impact of the new law, and eventually introduce the licensed sale of cannabis. But given how tortuous the debate has been so far, nothing is certain. Meanwhile, opposition conservatives say that if they get into government next year, they will scrap the law entirely. Germany is unlikely to become Europe’s new Amsterdam anytime soon.