Tweet
Leave libel laws alone
published: Sunday | February 10, 2008
Dawn Ritch, Columnist
The worship of the freedom to slander has begun in earnest with the establishment of the prime minister's committee to review Jamaican libel laws.
All the media worthies sit on it, a former judge, lawyers, and a president of journalists. They want the laws against libel to be reviewed. The one thing I can't bear is a legislative programme of any kind from any government of whatever stripe. To have one for libel is now to scrape the very bottom of the barrel in governance by the State, with the complete complicity of the members of the fourth estate, or press.
Salutations and commendations are, therefore, most in order for Emily Crooks, the talk-show host. Appearing before this committee, she said that a reputation is the only thing a person can take to the grave. They needed to be reminded, though I doubt that they listened.
Things are concealed by the press about the great and the good in this society, but all is revealed about anyone not coming from those ranks. A news report is published on the death of Sonia Jones, which omits the fact that she was once a prisoner. But we get to hear the details about Kern Spencer's baby mother and baby grandmother. Worse yet, he stands accused by anonymous sources in the contractor general's report, known as Driver 'A' and Driver 'B'.
At last, I know why Spencer wept so bitterly in the House of Representatives when the matter came up. He knew how utterly idiotic he would look in the end. When one tries to do what's wrong, one ought at least to try to cover it up. He has every reason to feel ashamed.
No shame
On the other hand, Dr Omar Davies has no shame. This former minister of finance is currently the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) in the House of Representatives now that his party is in Opposition. Those who were in charge of the hen house are now being asked to investigate themselves.
It turns out that the Government owes the National Housing Trust $19 billion in outstanding employer's contributions. This debt was incurred from 1994 to 2006 under the stewardship of Davies as finance minister. As the new chairman of the PAC, the former minister responsible is calling it "the billion-dollar question".
He regretted only that the Government was the single employer who could not set these contributions off against expenses.
Quite apart from the fact that private businesses do not have an assured income like governments, there is not a company which can set off NHT contributions against expenses. It is cold, hard cash that has to be found every month. Nor does the everyday taxpayer have multiple properties that he or she can set in play on a never-never basis to settle those, or any other outstandings.
According to another newspaper, Davies said in the PAC sitting to the staff of his former ministry: "The issue has been aired in various ways and there was consideration for adjustment to the law governing contribution, but I am glad that you are on your way to resolving it." Now, who exactly was in charge all that time? It could only have been he and P.J. Patterson, nobody else.
I marvel at how easily Davies gives the responsibility to those for whom he was responsible, along with any damage to their reputations. His own reputation, it seems, is of no consequence, and certainly has no bearing on the matter as far as he is concerned.
Reputation can't have been of much concern to Edward Seaga either when he accepted the pro-chancellorship of the University of Technology.
Controversial position
This is a post mired in controversy because of the manner of leaving of the previous occupant. This is an institution where the internal audit staff was summarily sent on leave and just as summarily brought back, a place to which once they had returned, the staff refused to take their desks.
It is hardly the kind of place to expect to find a former prime minister and statesman. Indeed, I can't think of a soul to whom I'd recommend the position, nor how it could be accepted by anyone with any delicacy at all.
Bear in mind that the new pro-chancellor is someone who once owned a private business which not only ran heavily into debt, but which failed to ensure that the operation's taxes and statutory deductions were turned over to the Government.
The selection of such a person at a time when the university's own probity is under question cannot be expected to inspire confidence. Seaga ought to have left public life a long time ago. He should have left the moment entities associated with him became financially compromised, regardless of how long it took for the information to become public knowledge.
Contractor General Greg Christie is, therefore, the inevitable outcome of a society which is at the mercy of those who can make or break reputations. I refer, of course, to a press that is reluctant to undertake its own investigations, and still less to publish them. The greatest crime of Jamaican media, therefore, is not libel, but the suppression of information.
Because of our lack of performance, we have an office of the contractor general which reminds me of a United States grand jury. The latter meets in secret to see whom it will pounce upon. Christie, too, has a penchant for delving into matters that don't concern him. Like a grand inquisitor, he piously commands the lives of others. Does he stand above suspicion, and was his own post properly advertised and subject to competitive tender? Was he fit for the job?
This is not a post which, in my own opinion, ought to exist at all. The net result is not less corruption, but more pointless bureaucracy. Soon, even a car-wash stand is going to need a tax compliance certificate, and current annual statements. And all this while the people actually getting government work are still being rewarded on the basis of who they know and who knows them. This is as it always was, and always will be. It seems an awful waste of tax payers' money to try to prove the world is flat.
This is why the role of a fearless press is so important. Were we not so gutless we wouldn't need so much legislation and creatures of statute to give a fig leaf to ongoing corruption and murder.
No law can ever replace the absolute requirement that what is published or aired about an individual, whether he or she is a public or private citizen, should be accurate. It doesn't even matter whether or not it's either fair or balanced, just as long as it's right. As to the matter of good taste, under that false banner the press junks all that it finds ideologically inconvenient or commercially threatening.
published: Sunday | February 10, 2008
Dawn Ritch, Columnist
The worship of the freedom to slander has begun in earnest with the establishment of the prime minister's committee to review Jamaican libel laws.
All the media worthies sit on it, a former judge, lawyers, and a president of journalists. They want the laws against libel to be reviewed. The one thing I can't bear is a legislative programme of any kind from any government of whatever stripe. To have one for libel is now to scrape the very bottom of the barrel in governance by the State, with the complete complicity of the members of the fourth estate, or press.
Salutations and commendations are, therefore, most in order for Emily Crooks, the talk-show host. Appearing before this committee, she said that a reputation is the only thing a person can take to the grave. They needed to be reminded, though I doubt that they listened.
Things are concealed by the press about the great and the good in this society, but all is revealed about anyone not coming from those ranks. A news report is published on the death of Sonia Jones, which omits the fact that she was once a prisoner. But we get to hear the details about Kern Spencer's baby mother and baby grandmother. Worse yet, he stands accused by anonymous sources in the contractor general's report, known as Driver 'A' and Driver 'B'.
At last, I know why Spencer wept so bitterly in the House of Representatives when the matter came up. He knew how utterly idiotic he would look in the end. When one tries to do what's wrong, one ought at least to try to cover it up. He has every reason to feel ashamed.
No shame
On the other hand, Dr Omar Davies has no shame. This former minister of finance is currently the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) in the House of Representatives now that his party is in Opposition. Those who were in charge of the hen house are now being asked to investigate themselves.
It turns out that the Government owes the National Housing Trust $19 billion in outstanding employer's contributions. This debt was incurred from 1994 to 2006 under the stewardship of Davies as finance minister. As the new chairman of the PAC, the former minister responsible is calling it "the billion-dollar question".
He regretted only that the Government was the single employer who could not set these contributions off against expenses.
Quite apart from the fact that private businesses do not have an assured income like governments, there is not a company which can set off NHT contributions against expenses. It is cold, hard cash that has to be found every month. Nor does the everyday taxpayer have multiple properties that he or she can set in play on a never-never basis to settle those, or any other outstandings.
According to another newspaper, Davies said in the PAC sitting to the staff of his former ministry: "The issue has been aired in various ways and there was consideration for adjustment to the law governing contribution, but I am glad that you are on your way to resolving it." Now, who exactly was in charge all that time? It could only have been he and P.J. Patterson, nobody else.
I marvel at how easily Davies gives the responsibility to those for whom he was responsible, along with any damage to their reputations. His own reputation, it seems, is of no consequence, and certainly has no bearing on the matter as far as he is concerned.
Reputation can't have been of much concern to Edward Seaga either when he accepted the pro-chancellorship of the University of Technology.
Controversial position
This is a post mired in controversy because of the manner of leaving of the previous occupant. This is an institution where the internal audit staff was summarily sent on leave and just as summarily brought back, a place to which once they had returned, the staff refused to take their desks.
It is hardly the kind of place to expect to find a former prime minister and statesman. Indeed, I can't think of a soul to whom I'd recommend the position, nor how it could be accepted by anyone with any delicacy at all.
Bear in mind that the new pro-chancellor is someone who once owned a private business which not only ran heavily into debt, but which failed to ensure that the operation's taxes and statutory deductions were turned over to the Government.
The selection of such a person at a time when the university's own probity is under question cannot be expected to inspire confidence. Seaga ought to have left public life a long time ago. He should have left the moment entities associated with him became financially compromised, regardless of how long it took for the information to become public knowledge.
Contractor General Greg Christie is, therefore, the inevitable outcome of a society which is at the mercy of those who can make or break reputations. I refer, of course, to a press that is reluctant to undertake its own investigations, and still less to publish them. The greatest crime of Jamaican media, therefore, is not libel, but the suppression of information.
Because of our lack of performance, we have an office of the contractor general which reminds me of a United States grand jury. The latter meets in secret to see whom it will pounce upon. Christie, too, has a penchant for delving into matters that don't concern him. Like a grand inquisitor, he piously commands the lives of others. Does he stand above suspicion, and was his own post properly advertised and subject to competitive tender? Was he fit for the job?
This is not a post which, in my own opinion, ought to exist at all. The net result is not less corruption, but more pointless bureaucracy. Soon, even a car-wash stand is going to need a tax compliance certificate, and current annual statements. And all this while the people actually getting government work are still being rewarded on the basis of who they know and who knows them. This is as it always was, and always will be. It seems an awful waste of tax payers' money to try to prove the world is flat.
This is why the role of a fearless press is so important. Were we not so gutless we wouldn't need so much legislation and creatures of statute to give a fig leaf to ongoing corruption and murder.
No law can ever replace the absolute requirement that what is published or aired about an individual, whether he or she is a public or private citizen, should be accurate. It doesn't even matter whether or not it's either fair or balanced, just as long as it's right. As to the matter of good taste, under that false banner the press junks all that it finds ideologically inconvenient or commercially threatening.
Comment