DROWNING OUT THE LOOMING STORM

Journalists, writers and activists in the Caribbean confront a creeping but determined wave of silence as the tide of social and economic instability and decline advances. New-born, almost still-born nations have walked before they have learned to creep in the stark absence of ancient cultural habits that often, though not always, strengthen democratic instincts and systems.

Mexican journalist and writer, Lydia Cacho, was raped in 1999 in an attempt to intimidate her out of writing about the exploitation of women and children in Mexico. She was later arrested and charged following her fictional treatise on the sexual exploitation of children entitled ‘Demons of Eden’.

She now tours the region and the world speaking out on the need for journalists and writers everywhere to hold their ground. Addressing the Global Forum on Freedom of Expression in Oslo on June 3, Cacho recognized that among the obstacles to achieving the ideal of unfettered journalism was unenlightened media ownership and management.

Thoughts then ran to my home in Trinidad and how Newsday had conspired with our cultural predisposition to shut out a voice with which we often disagreed – that of Kevin Baldeosingh. They came for the columnists, I thought, and no one spoke out because it was not they who had been silenced.

As German theologian, Martin Niemoller, who faced imprisonment and the threat of execution during the Nazi regime, declared for eternity: we remained silent on the crimes until it was our time “and there was no one else to speak out for me.”

The Global Forum brought together a diverse and sometimes unlikely variety of people, all prepared to speak out on each other’s and our behalf.

Malalai Joya (once known as “the bravest woman in Afghanistan”) is currently in exile, often in hiding in accommodating countries that are not her own, because she spoke out on behalf of the people of her country as an elected member of parliament. It would have been easy to have been misled by her slight frame and gentle manner, had she not opened the Forum with a stinging assault on countries that preach democracy and openness but who remain silent in the face of massive, murderous treachery and pain.

Ethiopian journalist, Serkalem Fasil, who was apparently denied a European visa and could not attend the Forum, sent a note describing her ordeal as a pregnant prisoner denied proper health care and attention while serving a prison sentence in 2005 for publishing articles critical of her government. She, too, spoke of the international condemnation that followed and how those who spoke out on her behalf, however far away, saved her and her prison baby.

Then there was freed Guantanamo prisoner, al Jazeera journalist, Sami el Haj of Qatar who turned to poetry behind the barbed-wire fences and who now heads the Human Rights Desk of the international news network – a job he holds so he can bring attention to human rights abuses around the world. He spent six years in prison without ever being charged for any crime.

So many of these people could have gone back home and changed jobs and perhaps turned the other way.

Like poet and academic, Jack Mapanje, of Malawi who still isn’t sure why he was sent to jail without charge and without sentencing for three and a half years. Today, he lectures in the United Kingdom on the literature produced by prisoners and speaks out on injustice everywhere.

It took Oslo to remind me of the importance of keeping the struggle going in order to halt the rising tide of silence. I thought of the panic attack of censors in Jamaica, the broadcast legislation in the OECS, the broadcasting code of Trinidad and Tobago and the “exiles” of Caribbean media who now use their blogs and websites to speak freely when newspapers and journals shut them out.

It is true, no one has been shot or detained or killed. But the backlash has been swift and the intention has been to silence. There are those in exile who have gone nowhere. Their souls remain hidden in computer hard-drives and copybook pages and sometimes nowhere else but in their hearts and minds.

It is a lie that our calypso and reggae and dancehall and rum-shop candour express our freedom. They simply drown out the looming storm that awaits us all.

A LITTLE CONFESSION

Confession.

I have lifted this entire entry from the blog produced by Barbados-based writer B.C. Pires (bcraw.com) who cut and paste the entire piece from a column written by novelist/journalist Kevin Baldeosingh but which was not printed by its intended publishers.

These two gentlemen are Trinidadian satirists whose work has, at different times under different circumstances, been clinically excised from the pages of newspapers in Trinidad and Tobago in order that Church and State remain unshaken and at peace. Perhaps B.C. and Kevin are lucky. In some countries, they have you shot or hacked to death in the street or in your car as you park outside your home.

Twenty years ago, the access of local audiences to their work would have been virtually severed. Today, their readership need not disappear at all.

Hopefully, the thousands and thousands and thousands of you who read this blog will now help grow Kevin’s readership in ways the Trinidad Newsday could not achieve.

One more confession. I have not asked Kevin whether I can reproduce his column in this space, so read it quickly before this post suddenly disappears.

God and Constitution

By Kevin Baldeosingh

First, let me apologise to readers for the non-appearance of my column over the past two Fridays. I don’t know if it was technical glitches, but some people might well believe God was punishing me for exposing a plagiarist priest. Of course, anyone who believes that also believes in a God who does not favour truth and transparency. Which brings me to the preamble of our Constitution.



“Whereas the People of Trinidad and Tobago (a) have affirmed that the Nation of Trinidad and Tobago is founded upon principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God,” it begins: which instantly exiles people like me, who acknowledge no such thing. Indeed, this phrase formed no part of the original Independence Constitution but was inserted, as Dr Eric Williams said in an address to Parliament on May 11, 1962, because of the urging by religious organisations that there “should be in some appropriate place a preamble in the Constitution which would include a suitable reference to Almighty God.”



Now mentioning God is one thing, but it escapes me how asserting that all the people of T&T believe in a Supreme Being can constitute a “suitable reference”. After all, even in 1960, over 4,000 persons (or just 0.5 percent of the populace) said they followed no religion or did not state their religion in the national census. The 2000 census has just over one percent of the populace not stating a religion. That’s at least 15,000 persons who are not acknowledged by the Constitution (although a 1993 survey by Patrick Johnstone puts the percentage of non-religious persons in T&T at nine percent, which is over 100,000 persons). So, if some religious fundamentalist claimed that atheists have no rights under the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago, he would have an arguable case. These rights, remember, include equality before the law, privacy, and freedom of thought. And since all these are transgressed even for believing citizens, it would theoretically
 be easy for the State to oppress non-religious persons.



Now, admittedly, this is unlikely to occur in any formal fashion. But the Constitution’s preamble, which is reproduced in the Draft Constitution, goes to the heart of the question of what principles should inform such a foundational document. On the one hand, since the vast majority of citizens would not disagree that they acknowledge the “supremacy of God” (in word, if not always in deed), it can be argued that the Constitution rightly reflects the prevailing norms of the society, as insisted by the nine organisations which got this phrase inserted into the preamble 47 years ago. On the other hand, the protection of minorities is generally considered a crucial guarantee in modern constitutions, and the preamble contradicts, even if it does not actually undermine, the rights enshrined in Clause 4 (h) and (i) – freedom of conscience, and freedom of thought and expression. (The legal question, if it ever arose, would hinge on whether the rights
take precedence over the preamble or vice-versa.)



America’s founding fathers faced this very issue when drawing up their constitution, with Thomas Jefferson being the most insistent that there should be “a wall of separation between Church and State.” In holding fast to this position, Jefferson and his colleagues were not necessarily reflecting common opinion. Indeed, his political opponents utilised accusations of atheism in order to demonise him, indicating that such an attack had a constituency. Nonetheless, the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution bans Congress from passing any law “respecting an establishment of religion”, or any which would “prohibit the free exercise” of religion. And, perhaps even more significantly, the U.S. Constitution states that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public Trust.” It must be noted, however, that in respect to this issue the founding fathers essentially failed: America has the highest proportion
of believers of all developed nations, and atheists are considered by most Americans to be more unfit for public office than Muslims or homosexuals. But, in another sense, this proves Jefferson’s wisdom, for perhaps the constitutional guarantees have prevented religious conflicts that would have sundered the fledgling federation.



The inclusion of the supremacy of God phrase in our own Constitution creates a conflict for strictly ethical non-believers, for if such an individual is appointed to the Parliament they must swear to uphold the Constitution. Yet the oath itself acknowledges non-belief, since it allows the phrase “I affirm” rather than swearing on a holy book. Still, why should our Constitution create any conflict at all, especially when non-believers are likely to be more educated and ethical than born-again politicians?

World Press Freedom Day 2009

The Association of Caribbean MediaWorkers (ACM) extends its greetings to media colleagues throughout the international community and the Caribbean on the occasion of World Press Freedom Day 2009.

This year’s observances meet our region in a state of crisis in several critical areas of public life. Growing violence and crime, economic instability, environmental threats and a decline in social and political cohesion have left the Caribbean open to questions regarding its continued viability as a region of relative peace and stability.

The search for solutions to the growing threats has led to important interventions at the level of integrating regional resources, negotiating and securing geo-political compacts, and actions at national levels to address issues of social injustice and economic imbalances. These have not been easy tasks to engage and our media have played a role in fostering greater public understanding of the nature of the challenges being confronted.

The ACM has consequently been engaged in collaborative attempts to instill greater awareness among journalists of critical areas of human development. We have collaborated on the development of a handbook on Climate Change for journalists, contributed to regional discussions on the United Nations Millennium Development Goals, human and humanitarian rights and, very soon, we plan to launch an Elections Handbook for Caribbean Journalists written and edited entirely by a team of Caribbean journalists.

The ACM also currently sits on the CARICOM Information, Communication and Technology Steering Committee where we have consistently argued in favour of an information and communication environment characterized by the right of citizens to communicate and to express themselves freely.

It is our view that free expression and greater access to information provide our citizens with important tools to make the critical decisions that shape their lives and the existence of their societies.

This is the philosophy we take to discussion tables throughout the Caribbean. It has informed our approach to proposed broadcasting legislation among countries of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS). It has brought us in conflict with the telecommunications authorities in Trinidad and Tobago where censorship is being viewed as an antidote for social decline. It is a view that has led to the concern that the banning of songs by official censors in Jamaica makes room for other forms of attack on free expression.

It is also this philosophy that guides our opposition to the continued radio broadcasting monopoly by the state in Guyana and has led to visits to several countries over recent years to discuss areas of conflict between journalists and the authorities.

United Nations Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon, has also noted the growing tendency to extend the hand of official sanction to the “new media” available via the Internet. This is an issue we continue to keep a close eye on, especially as regional regulators have left critical windows open for later intrusion into this area.

It is however also true that we have supported calls for the lifting of professional and ethical standards among Caribbean journalists and for the retooling of our newsrooms to guarantee better quality outputs. This provides the greatest assurance that consumers of media are provided with accurate, relevant and reliable news and information to employ in private and public decision-making. Media owners and managers must make the necessary investments to ensure this goal is achievable.

In pursuit of these ends, we have launched a Young Journalists Mentoring Programme which is an attempt to pair the new and young and bright with experienced, trained and competent journalists. This ambitious programme is challenged by territorial distance, a lack of finance and the fact of its own novelty, but during the course of the current year we propose to re-ignite the flame lit in 2008.

Our online and direct training programmes have over recent years spanned several countries and we are thankful for alliances with the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), the United Nations Information Centre for the Caribbean Area, the Knight Center for Journalism in the Americas, the Caribbean Institute for Media and Communication and the International Center for Journalists as these institutions continue to support our initiatives in the area of professional development.

Worldwide, journalists continue to be attacked, injured and killed in the line of duty. We do not routinely face these dangers. But we are always mindful of the growing potential for conflict, out of which can spring greater dangers for the journalists of our region. Our colleagues in Haiti continue to be challenged by such danger and Guyana has experienced its share of it.

On such questions, we continue to collaborate with important partners such as the International News Safety Institute (INSI) and, in 2008, we were admitted as members of the Global Forum for Media Development (GFMD) and as interim members of the International Freedom of Expression Exchange (IFEX).

Hopefully, we will be admitted to full membership of IFEX in June. This will provide us with important access to the resources of this global network, but it also places a greater obligation on us to monitor abuses of free expression and to report on them at the national level.

Finally, we are happy to report that the ACM has now established a permanent secretariat in Trinidad and Tobago. This has been a longstanding ambition of our organisation. It is our hope that this facility will assist us greatly as we move toward the professionalizing our work as a press freedom and media development institution in this part of the world.

Our national affiliates and focal points throughout the Caribbean have their work cut out for them this year and we offer them our unreserved support.

Wesley Gibbings
President
Association of Caribbean MediaWorkers (ACM)

May 3, 2009

Coping Through Censorship?

I was invited by the Media Workers Association of Dominica (MWAD) to address journalists there on the issue of proposed broadcasting legislation on March 9.

The draft law has been in circulation for some time now, but the Government of Dominica has accelerated the process of taking it to parliament by signaling an intention to produce a White Paper for discussion and also to convene public consultations.

There is serious concern by some media workers and others in civil society that the proposed law is an attempt to muzzle political opposition. Here was my contribution to the debate:

I wish to commend MWAD for taking the initiative to organise this consultation on the Broadcasting Authority Bill ahead of further consultations to take place at the behest of the Government of Dominica.

It is important that consultations, both officially convened and organised by non-state actors, are becoming regular features of national law-making processes throughout the English-speaking Caribbean. This has not always been the case. Official edict has traditionally been viewed as a defining characteristic of governance in these former colonies. In some instances, that bad habit has been hard to kick.

It is therefore encouraging to learn that your government has chosen to initiate wide-ranging public discussion and debate on the scope and intent of this draft legislation. That a civic organisation has led off the process on its own, without official or other prompting, is an important sign that some fundamental tenets of the democratic process are features of public life in this country and that civil society is recognising a leadership role in the pursuit of development.

No one remotely interested in Dominican public affairs over the years can pretend to be surprised. Civic intervention has been a hallmark of your history and has, in the view of some, been among the fundamental pillars of the process of adaptation to new and more challenging times.

The ACM also views the formulation of the Bill at the sub-regional level as a triumph of the integration process (this is an OECS-initiated Bill) and the result of genuine concern that change requires a level of civic and official management to ensure it redounds to the benefit of all.

The Bill however comes at a time of acute challenges to the foundations of modern Caribbean society. Our societies are now more violent, less well, more vulnerable, characterised by an absence of social justice, more polarised and virtual sitting ducks in the face of international social and economic crises.

It has not been easy for some of us. In my country, Trinidad and Tobago, more than 90 young men have already been killed for the year. There are criminal gangs in our secondary schools and teenage pregnancies and STD infections are growing, not declining.

Our internal responses clearly require interventions that are as clinical as they are fervent. It is clear we need, as a region, to reconcile the practices of the past with the requirements of the future. By and large, our political and civic leadership appear to understand this well.

It is however necessary, in the view of my organisation, to ensure that that the greatest enabling factor, freedom, is preserved both as a developmental objective and as a pre-condition to the achievement of targets we set ourselves as we forge ahead.

This is the context I would wish to register as a starting point to the debate. When viewed this way, laws and rules and regulations are enabling and empowering interventions and not obstacles and shackles.

The Broadcasting Authority Bill should therefore seek to inject greater orderliness in the conduct of broadcasting enterprises in order that the goal of greater freedom and independence is achieved. This would be the yardstick I would use in measuring the potential impact of the proposed legislation.

Would the people of Dominica experience conditions more conducive to the exercise of free speech when the law is passed or would they experience a diminution of their freedoms?

In the midst of urgent interventions to counter social decline and chaos, is more information and greater exposure to competing views more or less helpful to the process?

It is significant that the Preamble to the Code of Conduct for Broadcasting Services in the Bill stipulates the founding principle of “the right to be informed and to freely receive and disseminate information.” This is important because it acknowledges the value of the free flow of information in both directions. It also implicitly promotes the view that freer conditions are superior to restrictive conditions.

In an ideal environment, the Code could have stopped right there – the rest left to professional prerogative and judgment. In fact, it can be said that much of what is expressed as broadcasting standards are basic tenets of good media practice.

(a) the observance of good taste and decency;
(b) the maintenance of law and order;
(c) the privacy of the individual;
(d) the principle that when controversial issues of public importance are discussed, reasonable efforts are made, or reasonable opportunities are given, to present significant points of view, either in the same programme or in other programmes within the period of current interest.

It must however be noted that issues of good taste and decency; law and order; privacy and balance are subject to levels of interpretation that can challenge the acceptable practice of free expression. These, indeed, are areas of concern that are not easy to legislate and I would thread very carefully when it comes to these issues. The concept of privacy, for example, can be used as a check on legitimate attempts to monitor the behaviour of public officials.

Additionally, the issue of balance in the reporting of public issues becomes problematic in the face of official silence. What, in the face of this, do we add to the other side of the scale to represent the other view when issues arise? Is there the suggestion here that silence on one side of the scale can only be balanced against silence on the other?

Quite sensibly, the Bill proposes that fairness is achieved only by judging each case on its merits and not through application of a blanket formula. In my view, much of this ought to be the function of a regime of self-regulation administered by the media industry as a whole.

It is important in this respect that media owners and managers forge alliances to ensure that some of this resides in their own hands and are not the exclusive preserve of a state-sponsored entity.

There ought also to be alliances of consumers of media content to address issues not already actionable by choice – the right to change the channel or to turn the television or radio off.

So far, the representative organisation for media workers has led the way in promoting greater awareness of what is being offered, but there is a great need for the industry and its consumer base to become actively involved. But such involvement must be informed by sound information on the actual impacts of media on human behaviour (an area of social research we have studiously avoided) and a belief that more information, more opinions and a greater variety of sources is superior to the old monolithic models of information control.

We must also avoid the pitfall of seeking cure-all responses to challenges that are far more complex than the fabled linear contribution of media content to behaviour change; far more discomforting than the morning sermons of talk show hosts but far more entrenched in the way we have conducted our public and private lives in the Caribbean.

Could not the criminal violence be more effectively addressed by reversing the trend of social exclusion and more effective policing and prosecutions against those who need to feel when they do not wish to listen? Could it not be that what is viewed and heard in the home and in the communities between parents and adults plays a far more important role in shaping behaviour among children than what is seen on the television or listened to on the radio?

This is part of the humanscape to which this draft legislation belongs. We are witnessing the unfolding of a world of collapsing borders but in which new parameters are being defined that have the potential to reconfigure old boundaries.

How we set rules for ourselves will in large measure determine the terms of our engagement with the rest of the world.

More Carnival Trash

It was the usual garbage for Trinidad and Tobago Carnival 2009. Fun garbage, creative garbage, artistic garbage, music garbage. But garbage all the same.

Don’t get me wrong. Carnival is essentially about having fun and people appeared to have had a good, safe time in 2009. Women took over, as usual, and for a change felt safe and had fun on the country’s streets. There is no such thing as being “too fat” or “too ugly” to have fun. I am not among those who feign outrage at the sight of chunky, scantily clad women having fun and being proud of themselves.

What irks me most about Carnival is the pretence that its outputs are something of creative value that must be in some way, by official edict, honoured. Hence the call for broadcast content quotas to force the playing on radio of the tonnes of garbage heaped on listeners by untalented calypsonians and soca singers.

It is true that about 5% of what is produced has some creative value, but the vast majority of it is forgettable nonsense, in my view. I will continue to rail against efforts to shove garbage down our throats through content quota regulations.

Most of what was presented by way of soca and calypso will not be remembered a year from now. The Mighty Chalkdust won the Calypso King competition with what passes for satire in calypso these days. An infantile play on the word (Calder) “Hart” along the lines we once heard only at intra-mural college competitions somehow convinced the judges and the crowd that this was something worthy of a substantial financial prize.

Then there was the so-called Road March which was won by Faye-Ann Lyons singing (?) a song that repeated the line “hands inna de air” no fewer than 100 times. More rubbish substantially rewarded is difficult to imagine.

Then there was ‘the mas’. There was no improvement here over recent years. Brian Mac Farlane won with something that vaguely resembles mas’ I saw 40 years ago at small-time Carnival in Tunapuna. It was, admittedly, a different story for the King and Queen of Carnival prizes which he won with genuinely creative work. The rest was recycled, obscure, geographically inauthentic garbage.

As usual, the only thing worthy of any lasting memory were the performances of steelbands at the Panorama competitions. Because of my son, Mikhail, I followed the Junior Panorama competition this year. There is hope that pan – the best thing we do as Trinidadians and Tobagonians – will continue to play a role as music, as community consolidator and as a valuable asset to the country.

The Bishop Anstey/Trinity College East Under 13 band came second while the Under 16 slipped to third after winning the competition last year. There was such joy in the presentations that I promised to continue following the competition in the coming years.

Then there were the competitions in the single-pan, small, medium and large categories. This year, I followed the prospects of Curepe Polyphonics in the single pan category. They placed low down. Sforzata in the medium size bands. They won. And, of course Exodus in the large band category.

There is no doubt that the Port of Spain oriented judges and crowds possess an inherent prejudice against Exodus. I sat in the stands and listened to drunk and well-fed Pan Trinbago ushers and other paid assistants talk about Exodus as if they were complete outsiders. Of course, these folks ought to have been working, but they chose instead to talk right through selected performances at the top of their drunken voices.

Pan Trinbago has proven, once again, by their complete disregard for patrons, to be the worst thing for pan!

The Panorama faithful are also being cheated by the absence of a proper facility to host the annual competition. It should also be the place to go anytime of the year to listen to good pan.

I am impressed by the work of the new and upcoming steelpan arrangers and look forward to their emergence over the old and tired veterans in the coming years. Silver Stars, this year’s Panorama winners deserved the trophy and $1 million prize. Well done!

The ACM on the Move

One of the more painful things for me within recent years has been the denial by some that the modest organisation launched by a handful of us in Barbados in 2001 has blossomed into an authoritative, credible and responsible organisation of Caribbean journalists.

We have at various times been described as "an email organisation", "irresponsible" and a "paper organisation." by colleagues who continue to nurse the wounds of a previous experiment that died when international largesse and freeness dried up.

To our credit, all the eggs of the Association of Caribbean MediaWorkers have not resided in the same basket and we have been able to distribute the risks associated with running an organisation such as this evenly throughout the global media development community.

We are already responsible for two major journalistic publications: "The Looming Storm - State of the Caribbean Media Report 2005" and the "Climate Change Handbook for Caribbean Journalists." Soon, we will launch our "Handbook for Election Coverage".

We have initiated and hosted courses, workshops and a pilot mentoring programme and intervened effectively in free press issues throughout the Caribbean.

Here is a little update on my own activities as President of the ACM.

St Vincent and the Grenadines

On the invitation of the ACM’s Focal Point in St Vincent and the Grenadines, Theresa Daniel, I visited St Vincent on January 24 against the backdrop of the police detention of Jeff Trotman of The Vincentian newspaper on December 21, 2008 and talk of the formation of a new national association of journalists.

I was able to secure a meeting with Prime Minister Ralph Gonsalves on the morning of January 24 and we discussed both the Trotman incident and government relations with the media in St Vincent and the Grenadines.

At the end of the meeting, I was satisfied that a serious effort was made to investigate the circumstances surrounding Trotman’s detention and that an appropriate expression of “regret” in writing had been prepared and financial compensation offered. Up to that time, the response of the Attorney General to Mr Trotman via his attorney was still being considered.

Other issues discussed included the role and modus of radio talk programmes, the existence of criminal libel and levels of professionalism in the national media.

I later addressed a meeting of senior journalists in Kingstown. It was a very impressive turnout of print and broadcast journalists. I explained the role of the ACM in relation to national associations and urged them to move expeditiously to establish their own organisation.

A steering committee, on which Theresa Daniel would serve as advisor, was nominated and timelines for follow-up discussions and activities were determined. I offered ACM assistance in this process.

I also offered to consult with our international partners to see whether some kind of professional development activity can be convened in St Vincent. We agreed that an activity linked to journalistic safety and reporting under difficult circumstances should be arranged.

Since that meeting, I have consulted with Luisa Rangel, a media trainer associated with the International News Safety Institute (who is also a member of this listserv and a longstanding friend of the ACM). She has indicated that there is a very real possibility of hosting such an activity in St Vincent and she has started looking into the matter.

I think our colleagues in St Vincent and the Grenadines need our collective support as they make the bold move to establish a strong and vibrant representative organisation for journalists and media workers in the country.

Barbados

On the invitation of the Interim Committee of the Barbados Association of Journalists and the ACM’s Focal Point, Julius Gittens, I visited Barbados on January 25-26.

On January 25, I attended a general meeting of the BAJ. It was very well attended and attention was generally paid to two main issues: (i) regularising the affairs of the organisation and (ii) the proposed increase in state registration fees for freelance journalists.

On the first point, I am confident that Amanda Lynch-Foster (interim President) and Julius Gittens (interim Vice President) and their team will do what is necessary to re-build the BAJ and to take it to a level of strength it did not have before.

On the point of registration fees, it is my view that this provision runs counter to the freedom of expression guarantees of the constitution and the American Convention on Human Rights. I have forwarded some of the articles on this subject to the folks at IFEX for interpretation.

The Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression has also appointed someone to pay attention specifically to Caribbean issues. He will also be brought into the picture soon.

Thank you, Amanda and Julius, for your hospitality. On the morning of January 26, Julius and I also appeared on the CBC morning television programme to discuss the registration issue.

Trinidad and Tobago

The Media Association of Trinidad and Tobago convened a meeting of senior journalists and editors on January 21 in an attempt to assess the training needs of journalists. The discussions were very useful.

I am concerned though that the current focus on journalistic standards in TT stems directly from the recent incident involving the Prime Minister’s inappropriate visit to a radio station to complain about the behaviour of two broadcasters.

However, the issue of raising professional standards has been a longstanding concern of the Media Association and those present shared the view that training was one way of addressing the shortcomings.

The meeting was also called on the prompting of the Trinidad and Tobago Publishers and Broadcasters Association (TTPBA) which comprises media owners and managers, and which has sought guidance from MATT on the precise training needs of journalists.

Dominica

Draft broadcasting legislation is again on the table in Dominica and the ACM has been approached by the Media Workers Association of Dominica (MWAD) to assist in analysing and shaping a response to the proposed law.

We have been successful in getting IFEX support for this exercise and Article 19 has also expressed an interest in participating in an activity in Dominica to carefully examine the legislation in the context of a free expression guarantee in the country’s constitution and via international covenants.

We are currently making arrangements for such a workshop and a date is expected to be finalised soon.

Render your verdict on the ACM now.

Even More Stupidity in the T&T Parliament

Parliament is not a favourite news location for many Trinidad and Tobago journalists. Hours and hours of talk and talk and talk need to be translated into less garbled language. Parliamentarians phone and write editors complaining about absent concepts, ideas and sound bites. The Press Gallery is small and cramped. The narrow staircase leading to the Press Gallery has claimed several journalistic ankles and the absence of nearby telephones and a proper working press area has tempted reporters to break the rule regarding the use of mobile phones in the parliament chamber.

Some years ago, the United National Congress dominated parliament, under the late House Speaker Hector McLean, banned the use of recording equipment by the print media. Some of us tried to lead an argument against this unenlightened, idiotic instruction and resorted to ignoring it with impunity later on. I think, over time, parliamentary officials have resigned themselves to the fact that a foolish rule is a foolish rule and almost everyone now uses electronic recording devices in the chamber without much of a fuss. So I hope, at least.

I have been off the parliament beat for years now. My last assignments in parliament were in the late 90s when I freelanced in parliament mainly for the Trinidad Guardian and, a little later, covered a few assignments for one or two radio stations.

But a large part of my journalistic heart resides in that old parliament facility in the Red House. I was among the journalists caught in the cross-fire of July 27, 1990 when a murderous band of hooligans attempted to take over the country (and held parliamentarians, journalists and a few innocent bystanders hostage for five days both in parliament and at the state television station).

Fortunately, I was able to escape to safety, leaving behind an old Marantz recorder owned by my then employers, NBS Radio 610.

Since then, I have kept tabs on parliament and its goings-on. I have observed opposition MPs suddenly become government front-benchers. I have seen some folks become comfortable in jackets and ties. I have observed changes in speaking style. How some MPs have matured. How others have regressed. How some remain hopeless as representatives of people at the highest level.

Now comes the latest round of idiocy in the form of a regulation on the use of laptop computers in the parliament chamber. The new rule dictates that only two persons at a time are permitted to have their laptops open – the person on his or her legs and the person next in line to speak.

This absurd and contentious ruling stems from last year’s suspension of Opposition Leader, Basdeo Panday, for contemptuous and disrespectful behaviour against the Speaker of the House, Barendra Sinanan. This was the culmination of an exchange over Panday’s use of a laptop during parliamentary proceedings. The suspension, it is my understanding, was not because of the laptop use but because of Panday’s outburst in response to the Speaker’s instructions about the use of his laptop. But that is another story I am not prepared to deal with.

The Speaker was later quoted as saying in response to questions about the laptop rule: “What would prevent 41 members from using laptops during the sitting? One doesn’t know if they are looking at pornography or chatting on-line.”

Has anyone, reading this blog, heard more rubbish in their lives?

Well, it seems that a parliamentary committee (no one has cared to release the names of the members) agree with the Speaker that the little boys and girls of the House of Representatives and Senate will not be able to resist the temptation to log on to their favourite porn sites if they are allowed to use their laptops in parliament.

Maybe, they are afraid that members will be busy having cyber-sex on MSN Live or Yahoo Messenger while the Prime Minister is pronouncing on serious matters.

The fact that other parliaments around the world, including, (at one time) the US House and the Australian parliament, have had similar restrictions are no reason why we should follow suit on the grounds declared by the Speaker.

Did members of the parliamentary committee consider an eminently sensible paper written by Australian Senator Kate Lundy entitled: “Cyberdemocracy and the Future of the Australian Senate” in which she questioned the absolutely foolish restriction on the use of new technology in the Australian Senate?

On the question of the possibly disruptive nature of laptops and other devices in parliament, Lundy wrote: “The possibility that online services would cause disruption and diversion was a factor in the US Congress’ decision to prohibit the use of such services on the floor. It was argued that it would be `discourteous' to a politician making a speech if other members were glued to their computer monitors, answering emails or researching legislation.

“According to the US Subcommittee on Rules and Organization of the House (21 November 1997), ‘If electronic devices are permitted in the chamber, lawmakers may be so engrossed in their “electronic office” that they are unlikely either to be “hearing” or “studying” the viewpoints of their colleagues.’

“On the other hand, there is nothing to prevent similar ‘distractions’ of members and senators conducting their own work while in the chamber. Noise is not a valid argument for banning computers from parliament.

“Anyone familiar with the level of ‘activity’ in either the House of Representatives or the Senate would be hard-pressed to argue that either computers or electronic voting devices would disrupt proceedings any more than is the current situation. In some respects, electronic technology might result in a ‘quietening down’ of parliament, as members would be able to work during normally inactive periods.”

I second the motion.

In fact, a little cyber-sex on the side might work well to lower the political temperature on the Floor and present us with more smiling faces in the House of Representatives and the Senate.

But seriously, how long again before this absurd rule is changed? How long again before the Speaker realises that the twiddling of thumbs in the House are Blackberry busy fingers reaching the world?

How long again before we have a real parliament?