Even the opposition People’s National Movement (PNM), which spied on the media and never had a problem infringing on the rights of the media, fired off its condemnation of the police action and moved swiftly to blame it on the present administration.
For their part, the prime minister, her attorney general and the communications minister reminded the nation of the governing partnership’s commitment to the freedom of the media and to free speech. And they were emphatic that no political directive was given in the matter.
Some commentators have gone so far as to demand that Police Commissioner Dwayne Gibbs and his fellow Canadian, Deputy Commissioner Jack Ewatski, be fired forthwith.
While I could find some merit in going after Gibbs (after all he is the CoP) I wondered why the focus was on Ewatski in this matter. He is one of three deputy commissioners, none of whom had direct responsibility for what happened. Is it because he and Gibbs are the white boys who don’t belong in the Trinidad & Tobago Police service?
That lynch mentality is most unwelcome, especially since those passing judgment may have not considered all the facts.
Contrary to what appears to be the consensus, this is not just about free speech and the media.
This is about media freedom, about police investigations and an apparent breach of the Integrity in Public Life Act by a person or persons connected with the Integrity Commission (IC).
Consider the events:
- Andre Bhagoo wrote a story, which was published in Newsday, about an alleged rift within the IC between its chairman, Ken Gordon, and deputy Chairman, Gladys Gafoor, who incidentally was suspended last week
- Bhagoo’s story was based on his trusted source, whom he did not name for obvious reasons
- The IC asked the police to investigate the leak, calling it a breach of the Integrity act
- Police asked Bhagoo to reveal his source; he refused, as a responsible journalist should
- The police were determined to find the source of the leak, which was and remains critical to their investigation
- A magistrate approved the warrant, which was executed at Newsday’s offices and the home of the reporter
When you look at this chronology it is clear that the newspaper and its reporter did nothing wrong. It is also clear that the police acted legally but in a manner that was unethical given the fact that media freedom is guaranteed as a "fundamental human right" in the Trinidad & Tobago constitution's bill of rights.
That right is also protected by Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, which states:
That right is also protected by Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, which states:
"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."
So there is no issue about whether our media have a right to be protected. It says so in the constitution and in the declaration of human rights, which we have adopted. Our government has also made it clear that it was alarmed at what took place and is seeking an explanation.
But part of our responsibility as journalists is to properly reflect the facts in our reporting. And that means we should be careful with the use of emotive language such as police “storming” the offices of Newsday. In fact Newsday's editorial said they came quietly.
Consider part two of this event. The Integrity Commission is an independent constitutional body set up as part of the Integrity in Public Life Act. It operates with a number of rules, among them an oath of confidentiality. Anyone who breaches that oath is guilty of a crime under the act. So when it became clear that a person or persons might have broken the law in talking with Bhagoo, the IC asked the police to investigate.
And now part three. The police have an obligation to act and deal with complaints, which it did. Bhagoo stood his ground, as he should; and the police choose another means to try to get the information it believed would be revealed by seizing documents and equipment.
The three elements are important parts of this jig-saw and unless we accept that, we are breaching a fundamental and ethical part of the business of journalism, which is to report without fear or favour based on the truth, or at least the truth as we know it at the time.
A senior police officer decided to get aggressive in his investigation and chose a method that was ill-advised and that sent a signal that it is OK for the police to bully and threaten the media. I say ‘sent a signal’ because that is what it was.
What happened last Thursday was unfortunate but it is not a threat to our freedom as some of us have said, neither is it something for which citizens would want to shut down the country, unless of course there is a political intent.
And by the way, that index from the watchdog group Reporters Without Borders that drops our standing 20 points was because the previous Manning PNM administration was spying on journalists and the present prime minister exposed the practice.
The sky is not falling in. Let’s not create a crisis. The constitution protects us and the politicians have stood by us. The media remain free and have that reassurance from the present political leaders. Unlike the United States we in Trinidad & Tobago don't jail journalists for contempt when they fail to reveal their sources.
And now the question that arises is what’s next?
In our blanket condemnation of the police and the commissioner we are eroding the independence of the police to act.
Lawlessness is a cancer in Trinidad & Tobago and when we keep hounding the police and its leadership like school masters dealing with delinquent pupils we do untold damage to credibility of the police and their ability to solve crime. At the same we give comfort to criminals.
This constant demand for the police to account for every action is an unhealthy situation.
There is a police complaints authority that helps citizens get answers when they feel they feel aggrieved and there is a Police Service Commission (PSC), whose role includes an evaluation of the officers who lead the service. They determine whether the police acted properly and they determine whether an officer or even the commissioner should face sanctions.
Freedom of the media may have taken a psychological hit but the key players in the media acted properly to protect their human and constitutional rights. The fact that they could do so without fear is proof that we in the media are not under threat, even if some people behave like schoolyard bullies.
So there is no issue about whether our media have a right to be protected. It says so in the constitution and in the declaration of human rights, which we have adopted. Our government has also made it clear that it was alarmed at what took place and is seeking an explanation.
But part of our responsibility as journalists is to properly reflect the facts in our reporting. And that means we should be careful with the use of emotive language such as police “storming” the offices of Newsday. In fact Newsday's editorial said they came quietly.
Consider part two of this event. The Integrity Commission is an independent constitutional body set up as part of the Integrity in Public Life Act. It operates with a number of rules, among them an oath of confidentiality. Anyone who breaches that oath is guilty of a crime under the act. So when it became clear that a person or persons might have broken the law in talking with Bhagoo, the IC asked the police to investigate.
And now part three. The police have an obligation to act and deal with complaints, which it did. Bhagoo stood his ground, as he should; and the police choose another means to try to get the information it believed would be revealed by seizing documents and equipment.
The three elements are important parts of this jig-saw and unless we accept that, we are breaching a fundamental and ethical part of the business of journalism, which is to report without fear or favour based on the truth, or at least the truth as we know it at the time.
A senior police officer decided to get aggressive in his investigation and chose a method that was ill-advised and that sent a signal that it is OK for the police to bully and threaten the media. I say ‘sent a signal’ because that is what it was.
What happened last Thursday was unfortunate but it is not a threat to our freedom as some of us have said, neither is it something for which citizens would want to shut down the country, unless of course there is a political intent.
And by the way, that index from the watchdog group Reporters Without Borders that drops our standing 20 points was because the previous Manning PNM administration was spying on journalists and the present prime minister exposed the practice.
The sky is not falling in. Let’s not create a crisis. The constitution protects us and the politicians have stood by us. The media remain free and have that reassurance from the present political leaders. Unlike the United States we in Trinidad & Tobago don't jail journalists for contempt when they fail to reveal their sources.
And now the question that arises is what’s next?
In our blanket condemnation of the police and the commissioner we are eroding the independence of the police to act.
Lawlessness is a cancer in Trinidad & Tobago and when we keep hounding the police and its leadership like school masters dealing with delinquent pupils we do untold damage to credibility of the police and their ability to solve crime. At the same we give comfort to criminals.
This constant demand for the police to account for every action is an unhealthy situation.
There is a police complaints authority that helps citizens get answers when they feel they feel aggrieved and there is a Police Service Commission (PSC), whose role includes an evaluation of the officers who lead the service. They determine whether the police acted properly and they determine whether an officer or even the commissioner should face sanctions.
Freedom of the media may have taken a psychological hit but the key players in the media acted properly to protect their human and constitutional rights. The fact that they could do so without fear is proof that we in the media are not under threat, even if some people behave like schoolyard bullies.
Jai Parasram - 12 February 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment