Headlines, Human Rights, Latin America & the Caribbean

CARIBBEAN: Media See Growing Threat to Free Expression

Peter Richards

CASTRIES, Dec 2 2003 (IPS) - There was hardly any debate on the contentious clause, even though it was contained in the new criminal code passed by the St. Lucia Parliament last week.

The government said the new legislation of more than 600 pages and 1,200 sections had been put out for public discussions months ago.

But the marathon 12-hour parliamentary debate that followed last Thursday centred exclusively on an abortion provision, so that most St. Lucians were unaware of clause 361 on "spreading false news".

"Every person who wilfully publishes a statement, tale or news that he or she knows is false, that causes or is likely to cause injury or mischief to a public interest, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years," the clause states.

"As far as we are concerned, this section has implications, by extension, not only for those who publish statements, tales or news but for the entire population of St. Lucia, because it appears to us that its purpose is to intimidate and deny the right of free expression," veteran St. Lucian journalist Guy Ellis told IPS.

Publisher Rick Wayne in his ‘Star’ newspaper column last weekend termed the new legislation a "weapon for media destruction (WMD)", a play of words on "weapons of mass destruction".

"Should a government as notoriously litigious, as demonstrably burdened with a persecution complex and resentful of public criticism be trusted with the WMD that is section 361?" he asked.

The ‘Mirror’ newspaper also questioned the need for the new legislation, arguing there is "adequate provision for redress by persons who believe that they have been defamed or have had their names and reputation tarnished in the media".

"In fact, it is well known that our laws of defamation are archaic, and have been for several decades. They are also weighted heavily in favour of the one seeking redress. So why do we need this new piece of repression?" it asked.

President of the Association of Caribbean Media Workers (ACM), Wesley Gibbings, complained that the governments of St. Lucia, as well as Guyana, Dominica and Grenada, had in recent months increased regulations on the media.

Meeting here for the ACM’s second biennial general meeting last weekend, Gibbings said his group was concerned that the St. Lucian law "embraces the belief that some undefined notion of the public interest can be injured or subjected to mischief to the extent that the proposed penalty leaves the presiding judicial officer with no prerogative beyond a mandatory two-year jail sentence".

Ironically, the plethora of radio and television talk shows in most of the Caribbean islands seem to be at the centre of new efforts by the region’s governments to regulate the media.

Leaders have complained that most of the talk shows provide avenues for public bashing of government officers and ministers.

St. Lucia Prime Minister Kenny Anthony was forced to issue a public apology after he described some talk show hosts and other journalists as ”terrorists”.

Anthony had also warned of "the calumny and the hatred that we are spreading on our radio stations and television screens", adding that "when politicians are vilified and abused" their only recourse is to the court of law.

But the Mirror argued that no reason had been given for introducing clause 361, adding "it appears to us, judging from its wording, that the aim is to insulate members of the government from criticism and deny a vocal section of our society the right to freely express itself".

In Guyana, authorities have been incensed over various statements made on television talk shows, and in recent months have stepped in to halt their broadcast.

But Gibbings said there had been no broad support after the Guyana Press Association (GPA) expressed concerns about the country’s pending Broadcast Bill, which was introduced for public comment last July.

"The proposed legislation could have the impact of effectively installing an additional editor in our newsrooms," he said.

If passed, the law will create a broadcasting authority responsible for "the regulation, supervision and development of the national broadcasting system".

The authority would also be responsible for granting licences and encouraging radio and television programmes of "relevance generally to life and culture of the people".

The GPA said the proposal threatens freedom of expression. "The bill in its present form is not a positive step likely to leave an impact on the sands of time. Rather, it is an uncertain tremble in the right direction," it added in a statement.

The Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA) has also raised concerns, particularly about the power of the broadcast authority to investigate complaints.

The draft law, it says, does not set out a process or explain the principles behind it, and its proposed penalties "are very badly drafted".

"Secondly, any criteria for unacceptable material (e.g. hate speech) must be narrowly and clearly drawn to avoid restriction on other kinds of speech, and must be published and readily available to the public," it added.

The GHRA described as ”excessive and dangerous” the jail terms to be imposed on anyone operating without a licence and censorship powers that allow the minister at his/her discretion to order license holders to stop broadcasting material or forcing them to broadcast notices.

Gibbings told the meeting that signs elsewhere in the region are not encouraging.

"There is every indication that the government of Dominica will, sooner rather than later, propose its own responses to perceived excesses in the broadcast media."

"In Grenada, it is still possible to hold that the state has been defamed and to pursue criminal action against people contravening such a provision in the country’s laws," he added.

"On this, we have not been suitably vigilant. We must find a way to raise the resources to scrutinise and respond far more forcefully on these issues," Gibbings said.

But he warned that while journalists call for more freedom, "some of us seem intent on reinforcing the case for more official intrusiveness to address basic issues of fairness and balance and good taste".

"But nobody said the free press comes without a hefty price tag and that the net effect of more rather than less freedom would be positive and not negative," he said.