Sorry, I have been busy. But, someone sent me this video I had to share with you.
With some of the stories that I have been hearing about, but lack the resources to research, or to defend myself from the inevitable libel suit if I publish, I am thinking of moving to Iceland.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
OR...... you could post anonymously your suspicions and second hand information on axareality.com whenever you are overseas, that way no one would be able to track your IP address to your home. Just make sure you never reveal who you are so that no one can sue you. Let the public know what you have heard Don.
ReplyDeleteaxareality.com is setting cookies, collecting IP addresses and assuring us of confidentiality. Since all three of these can't be true, what is the APP doing with this information?
ReplyDeleteSeems the best thing would be to get Anguilla to copy the IMMI law. My guess is that journalists would rather be in a tropical island than in Iceland, so we have an edge. Our government is looking for things that could help the economy. This could work.
ReplyDeleteAre you serious? Promoting openness and transparency in Anguilla? This is the same Hubert who banned "Talk Your Mind" from Radio Anguilla and cost us hundreds of thousands in legal costs that the government had to reimburse to John Benjamin and others after they had to take the case all the way to the Privy Council, simply to regain the right of the people to say wht they want on the radio.
ReplyDeletePart 2
ReplyDeleteOne factor this episode does highlight is that, because of the delayed operation of the Bill of Rights contained in our new constitution, the Cayman public still has no fundamental statutory protection from would-be petty dictators.
Yes, section 11(1) of the Bill of Rights, Freedoms and Responsibilities provides that “No person shall be hindered by government in the enjoyment of his or her freedom of expression, which includes freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference,” but this has no legal effect or enforceability for another two years or so.
The corresponding section in the European Convention on Human Rights also has no legal effect in the Cayman Islands, although residents now have the right of individual petition in the event of abuse.
Thus, Mr Bush seems to be within his current power and authority if he were to force legislation through the Legislative Assembly imposing the Draconian measures against the local media outlined in his latest tirade prior to the coming into effect of the Bill of Rights.
Would Britain ever let it get to that point? And, if so, at what point would our colonial masters step in and say, “Enough is enough.”
The hands-off approach taken by Britain in recent years in relation to its Overseas Territories has not served either side of the equation very well – as demonstrated by the debacle in the Turks and Caicos Islands.
Our new Governor, Mr Duncan Taylor and the new minister Mr Jeremy Brown, MP, responsible for Overseas Territories in the Caribbean should therefore take note that ill-considered outbursts of this nature by local politicians serve no one’s best interests – the Cayman public in general, the international reputation of these Islands, or those with ultimate responsibility for good governance.
Cayman Net News
ReplyDeleteEditorial
Is this a coincidence or conspiracy?
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
When reporting the news of the day, as we have done for many years, one quickly learns to question and distrust coincidences.
We wonder, therefore, if the recent threats by Premier McKeeva Bush of $100,000 fees, “hefty fines” and jail time against this newspaper and other local media have anything to do with the fact that his colleague in Bermuda, Premier Ewart Brown, has recently introduced a controversial media bill that, according to the International Press Institute (IPI), a global organisation for a free media, has “more in common with the media legislation of some of the repressive governments in Latin America, than with the First Amendment tradition of one of its close trading partners, the United States.”
Is this really a coincidence or is there a secret agreement between the two Overseas Territories’ leaders of government, neither of whom is noted for his media friendliness, to act in concert to promote the repression of freedom of speech and thus the press?
In either case, the reaction of IPI to the proposed legislation in Bermuda should be instructive for Mr Bush, as well as his opposite number in Bermuda.
Having examined the draft bill, IPI says it is “deeply flawed” and, if enacted, it will have a “detrimental impact on the media environment in Bermuda as well as the reputation of the Bermudan government.”
Mr Bush, in particular, should pay close attention to the observation by IPI of the negative effect on the territory’s reputation, because this is exactly what his own intemperate remarks have done to the reputation of the Cayman Islands, at a time when Mr Bush himself claims to want to attract new professional residents and their families.
IPI points out that the proposed legislation in Bermuda could be abused to prevent the free flow of information and might be used to prevent investigative journalism – something Mr Bush would also no doubt love to achieve here in the Cayman Islands.
Commenting on the Bermuda Media Bill, IPI Director David Dadge said, “It is very unfortunate that Bermuda, with its geographical closeness to the United States and its cultural and political ties to the United Kingdom, has managed to draft a law that would be wholly unacceptable in both countries.”
Equally, Mr Bush’s threats against the media in the Cayman Islands would be wholly unacceptable in both the United States and the United Kingdom. Whether the British government at some level, starting with our own Governor and perhaps ascending through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), will see fit to set Mr Bush straight in this respect, remains to be seen.
Certainly, Mr Bush should prepare himself for an equally vigorous onslaught by the several press freedom watchdogs throughout the region and the world, as Bermuda is now starting to experience.
But… if you play with fire, you can expect to get burned.
This is fine for honest journalism, however, those who are not so honest and who like to gain their fame not by a career of hard work stoop to faster pathways. Some seek to gain fame and recognition by interjecting bias or indeed out-right falsehoods into their stories to make them salacious or intentionally highly controversial. Often times these, practices cannot be exposed because the so-called journalist hides behind his/her “source”. So the news becomes slanted to the writer/editors views such as, over the last 10 yrs, the NY Times has slide into this abyss.
ReplyDeleteI think the editors should be held criminally liable for the content of the articles and for poor journalistic practices, much in the same way corporations are responsible for the failings of its employees. If the infraction is so egregious, then someone at the corporate level must be made to pay a price. Not so in the journalism profession, it is high time it should be.
According to Wikileaks on Twitter a few minutes ago, IMMI has passed. http://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/16292146140
ReplyDelete...and the US Senate has just passed a Libel Tourism Law:
ReplyDeletehttp://cpj.org/blog/2010/07/us-senate-passes-libel-tourism-bill.php