When local lawmakers try to stifle free speech! | THE STAR

On May 3, freedom-loving citizens around the world, especially journalists, celebrated World Press Freedom Day. In Saint Lucia, only one news outlet mentioned the day. Unsurprisingly, no good wishes were expressed by local politicians. The relationship between our elected representatives and the press has never been better. Lately, we have been silent, except for the now-frequent ambushes outside the House of Assembly. Major events inside the House of Assembly have been largely ignored.

It should also be acknowledged that politicians are not the only ones to blame. For too long, local journalists have been missing the forest for the trees. We seem to have forgotten that our ideal relationship with elected governments can best be described as friendly rivalry. Not hatred, given that both of us – government and media – should act in the best interest of the country.

In a democracy, criticism is essential as part of the good governance process and can be counterproductive if journalists and ordinary citizens alike are unable to question government policies without fear of reprisal.

On World Press Freedom Day, let us recall that in 2003 we almost wiped out our constitutional right to free speech. The following is an excerpt from my book, Mistakes and Misfortunes.

The United Workers’ Party was once again embroiled in internal fighting. Marius Wilson resigned to become an independent member of the House of Representatives. Arsene James replaced him as Leader of the Opposition, which left the government effectively without an opponent and free to act. As a result, the media began to question the actions of the government, which its leaders had publicly denounced as having “no legitimacy”. To be fair, the Prime Minister later apologized for his remarks, but not before claiming at a specially called assembly that he had been “the victim of abuse, slander, vilification, name-calling, disrespect and lies”. He specifically mentioned the media’s coverage of the so-called Rorschach incident.

The prime minister said politicians in his position had only one option: taking the media to court. He made no mention of using tax-funded resources, including televised press conferences, to explain issues of public concern.

“I’m not at odds with anyone in the media,” he said, “but I can’t ignore the fact that we’ve been experiencing an unprecedented level of media terrorism over the last few weeks. It’s terrorism. Terrorism.” He expanded on the point when he mentioned the impact of media criticism on his personal life: “I have kids and an ex-wife. They feel deeply about what I say.”

If those present at the press conference saw the prime minister’s apology as a sign of improved relations in the future, the parliamentary session on November 25 gave them good reason to rethink, when Education Minister Mario Michel introduced the Criminal Code Amendment Bill 361. He read from a document: “Any person who intentionally publishes a statement, story or news which he or she knows to be false and which causes or is likely to cause injury or damage to the public interest shall be guilty of an indictable offence and shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.”

He stressed that the provision is intended to punish the deliberate dissemination of information knowing that it is false and could cause harm – “not to individuals, but to the public interest.”

He added: “Anyone who thinks they are entitled to legal protection from prosecution after deliberately publishing false information that harms the public interest should have their head examined.”

For her part, Tourism Minister Menissa Rambally said she had “seen examples of media terrorism in this country,” which she said had “reinforced (her) belief in the fairness, sanity and logic of Section 361. No one has the right to say or publish whatever they want, where they want — especially on matters of vital public interest and private matters, such as matters of reputation.” She did not define “vital public interest.”

Prime Minister Kenny Anthony later insisted in response to my question on the TALK show that “the government has the power to protect the reputation of individuals and matters of public interest.” He said he did not understand why the media thought it was in the public interest to spread “lies and slander.” I pointed out that for thousands of years, we have had laws that protect free speech and the good reputation of citizens. Our libel and defamation laws address the Prime Minister’s concerns. I asked him to elaborate on what he meant by the government’s duty to protect “reputations in matters of public interest.”

He said: “The public interest depends on the circumstances. The state has a duty to protect the public interest arising from protests as a group… The interest of the public as a whole may not compensate for the wrongdoing of an individual. The law may provide for defamation in certain circumstances… but there are some matters that do not allow for such a remedy.”

“Are you referring to the government departments? Are you saying that criticising the government could be punishable under Section 361?” I asked. The prime minister, who is generally considered an expert on constitutional law, chose to be vague, evasive at best. “People must understand that while they have the right to criticise politicians, they also cannot wantonly damage the reputation of politicians. The very nature of democracy and politics and the protection of the public interest requires that politicians also have the right to protect their reputation.”

I went further and asked him to explain the difference between the public interest and the public benefit itself, and why they were not protected under the current law. As a career politician, the Prime Minister demurred and opted for less thorny territory. Enough said that Section 361 had nothing to do with individuals and their reputations. The section was primarily concerned with those who wrote or published false statements in the interest of the government, including stories that could adversely affect the tourism industry.

In November 2006, Prime Minister Anthony revealed in a surprise announcement in the House of Representatives that his government had decided to repeal Section 361. He said the Act had generated a great deal of debate and discussion since its introduction. “Even those who supported Section 361 are now coming to terms with the fact that it will be extremely difficult to successfully prosecute under it. They all acknowledge that the requirements for a successful conviction are quite onerous.”

Why? “The onus is on the prosecutor to satisfy the court that the statement was made intentionally,” the prime minister said. “They must prove that the person who made the statement actually knew that what was being published was false and would harm or damage the public interest.”

Perhaps the silence of MPs on World Press Freedom Day 2023 has something to do with the widespread perception that there has been no press in Saint Lucia for some time. Shortly after the 2021 general elections, key members resigned in droves to take up positions in the government’s public relations department.