Media freedom, and WILD ASS FREEDOM
Lakshman I.Keerthisinghe LLB, LLM.MPhil,
Attorney-at-Law
‘If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person
were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in
silencing that one person, than he, if he had power, would be justified
in silencing mankind.’
- John Stuart Mill in his essay ‘On Liberty’ (1859)
It was recently reported in the media that at a workshop for media in
Sri Lanka which was held by the government to mark World Press Freedom
Day, under the title “Patriotism and the role of media”, Minister of
Mass Media and Information Keheliya Rambukwella said that Sri Lanka’s
media has to act responsibly and with self-constraint.
|
Mass Media
and Information Minister
Keheliya Rambukwella |
The Minister said that “The media which is a trustworthy and powerful
tool in moulding people’s opinion and understanding is playing an
important and powerful assignment similar to the Legislature, the
executive and the judiciary. If the people get true information about
things happening in the country at all times they will come to right
conclusions. The trust of the people will not get slackened. But
distorting of information, misleading the people’s opinion, and
destabilizing the society by using the media are also taking place. In
this regard that it is important that the professional journalists
should act with the right understanding.”
International human rights law
The Minister’s statement reminds one of the statement made by the
Director General of UNESCO, Irina Bokova, where it was said that ‘The
freedom to speak and the freedom to write are essential preconditions
for the transition towards democracy and good governance,’. Early human
rights documents incorporated the Freedom of Speech. In England, the
Bill of Rights 1689 granted freedom of speech by Article 3.
The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen adopted
during the French Revolution in 1789, asserted that the freedom of
speech is an inalienable right. Article 11 of the said Declaration
stated that, ‘The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the
most precious rights of man. Every citizen may accordingly speak, write
and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this
freedom as shall be defined by law.’ Article 19 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights(UDHR) adopted in 1948 states that, ‘Everyone
has the right to freedom of opinion and expression, this right includes
freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and
impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of
frontiers.’
Today the right is recognized in international human rights law. The
right is enshrined in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights (ICCPR), Article 10 of the European Convention on
Human Rights (ECHR), Article 13 of the American Convention on Human
Rights (ACHR) and Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’
Rights (ACHPR).
John Milton argued that in addition to the right to express and
disseminate information and ideas, it also encompassed the right to
seek, receive and impart information and ideas. History reveals that in
Ancient Athens during the 5th and 6th Centuries BC, the democratic
ideology of free speech evolved. Freedom of religion and speech were
cherished ideals in the Roman Republic. In the 7th Century AD, Caliph
Umar in the Rashidun Period, first declared freedom of speech in Islamic
ethics.
Privacy of individuals
Article 14(1) (a) of the present (1978) Constitution of Sri Lanka
provides that: ‘Every citizen is entitled to the freedom of speech
including expression and publication.’ Article 3 asserts that ‘In the
Republic of Sri Lanka sovereignty is in the People and is inalienable.’
Sovereignty includes the powers of government, fundamental rights and
the franchise.’
Article 4(d) ensures that ‘the fundamental rights which are by the
Constitution declared and recognized shall be respected secured and
advanced by all the organs of government, and shall not be abridged,
restricted or denied save in the manner hereinafter provided.’ Article
15 in 8 sub-articles sets out the restrictions on the aforementioned
provisions in detail. Restrictions on fundamental rights, including
those described above, may be placed in the interests of national
security, public order, protection of public health or morality, racial
and religious harmony or in relation to parliamentary privilege,
contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence, national
economy or for securing due recognition and respect for the rights and
freedoms of others or meeting the general welfare of a democratic
society. Thus it is seen that the fundamental rights of a citizen are
not absolute but restricted.
In the case of Sinha Ratnatunga v.The State (2001)2Sri LR 172, The
Court of Appeal held as follows: ‘What the Press must do is to make us
wiser, fuller, surer and sweeter than we are. The Press should not think
that they are free to invade the privacy of individuals in the exercise
of the constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression merely
because the right to privacy is not declared a fundamental right of the
individual.’ It was further held that: ‘The law of defamation both civil
and criminal is also geared to uphold the human beings’ rights to human
dignity by placing controls on the freedom of speech and expression.
The press should not seek under the cover of exercising its freedom
of speech and expression, make unwarranted incursions into the private
domain of individuals and thereby destroy his right to privacy.
Public figures are not exceptions. Even a public figure is entitled
to a reasonable measure of privacy.’ It is also important to note that
the Court held: ‘The press is all about finding the truth and telling it
to the people. In pursuit of that, it is necessary that the press should
have the broadest possible freedom of the press. In other words there
should be very limited control over the newspapers. Otherwise wrong
doing would not be disclosed. Charlatans would not be exposed.
Unfairness would go unremedied.
Misdeeds in the corridors of power in government and private
institutions will never be known. However, with that great gift of
freedom of the press, comes great responsibility. In other words the
more powerful the press is, it should also be a responsible press which
will not abuse the enormous power it has.’
Dr. Wickrema Weerasooriya in his speech titled ‘Self Regulation of
the Media: Some Thoughts from Experience’at the Sri Lanka Press
Institute on September 6, 2011 quoted Lord Buddha as follows: ‘You,
yourselves should strive towards perfection.
The Buddha can only show the way’. ‘Similarly’ he said ‘my humble
request to Editors, Journalists and others associated with the media is,
you, yourselves should strive towards ensuring a free and socially
responsible media. The Code of Professional Conduct and the Press
Complaints Commission and all what it is doing can only show the way.’
Chapter XIX of the Penal Code containing Sections 479 and 480 dealing
with defamation has been abolished by the Penal Code (Amendment) Act
No.12 of 2002. In 1998, the Colombo Declaration on Press Freedom and
Social Responsibility was made. A revision was made in 2002, the year in
which the Penal Code was amended to exclude the offence of criminal
defamation.
Lord Black of Brentwood, Executive Director British Telegraph Media
Group and Former Director of the UK Press Complaints Commission in his
foreword to the book titled ‘Other War – Sri Lanka’s recent struggle for
media freedom’ by Raja Weerasundera states, “It took many years, much
sweat, toil and commitment, but in 2002, the government announced that
criminal defamation would be abolished and the country’s media
associations reciprocated by announcing that a self regulatory body, the
Sri Lanka Press Complaints Commission would be formed.
It has been seen in recent times with the relentless anti government
propaganda spread in both local and foreign print and electronic media,
at the behest of the TGTE, its allied front organizations and the
diaspora, hell bent to establish a State of Eelaam in the North and East
of Sri Lanka, to name any journalist or writer who appreciates the
service rendered to our motherland by the Sri Lankan Security Forces
under the able leadership of the President in freeing our motherland
from the maniacal butchering of Sri Lankans by the barbaric LTTE for
three decades, as a racist or a lackey of the present regime. Such
journalists are also insulted as those washing the dirty linen of the
government.
Social and moral ethics
The journalists engaged by the TGTE and its allies washing the
dirtiest blood soaked linen of Prabhakaran and the LTTE are heroes or
freedom fighters in the eyes of these persons.
As Minister Rambukwella very correctly stated at the workshop “As it
has been emphasized in the Mahinda Chinthana it is my belief that
instead of using the media for mere political animosity, it should be
used with self restraints for achieving country’s social, cultural
economic development objectives and to raise the glorious name of the
country without damaging social and moral ethics”.
The journalists or the writers with separatist agendas seek to
destabilize the present regime and replace it with a puppet regime in
order to achieve their sinister objectives.
While constructive criticism suggesting solutions to the problems
that led to such criticism would be appreciated and respected by any
right thinking person, destructive vindictive criticism would be harmful
and should be rejected and despised at all times. Here the five ‘C’s in
journalism become relevant. The reporting should be clear, correct,
concise, complete and consistent. Of course correctness in reporting
encompasses that the truth must be stated without fear or favour. There
is no doubt whatsoever that although the truth can be suppressed for
sometime, it will finally prevail as stated in the Bhagavad Gita
'Sathyam Mevathu Jayathu'
In conclusion let me say with Thomas Carlyle in Heroes and Hero
Worship, ‘Burke said there were Three Estates in Parliament; but in the
Reporters’ Gallery yonder, there sat a Fourth Estate more important than
all.’
|