GHRA says Broadcasting Bill unacceptably restrictive

Sep 03, 2011 News

---

 

The Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA) has said that the recently passed Broadcasting Bill is a defensive and ill-considered piece of legislation, “impelled by control and insularity.”
The GHRA said that the Bill was concocted by the ruling PPP/C as it is now unable to continue to deny licences to independent operators.
“The Broadcasting Bill, by conforming to the flawed Constitution rather than international human rights law, is unacceptably restrictive, reinforcing the conclusion that the human rights of Guyanese citizens will continue to suffer until the present Constitution of Guyana is thoroughly reformed,” the GHRA stated.
The human rights body said the Bill projects a sense of antagonism and suspicion towards prospective licence holders, which is out of place in modern democratic legislation.
For example, the structure of the proposed Broadcasting Authority, in which the Executive President appoints all except one member, is offensive in a democratic society, the GHRA said.
The Broadcasting Bill was passed in the National Assembly on July 28 and has to be assented to by the President before it becomes law. The Bill proposes the setting-up of a National Broadcasting Authority, which will be governed by a board of seven persons.
The GHRA believes that not only should the Authority be independent of the President, but it should be appointed by Parliament, “reflect the interests of all sections of society and be independent of governmental control entirely.”
The GHRA observed that it is the task of such an independent Commission to set media standards, regulate and monitor compliance with those standards.
The Association noted that the Bill goes on to  grant  the Minister excessive powers to interfere and direct the Authority on all manner of issues, such as a requirement for him to be consulted on  rules governing advertising and censor programmes by “requiring the Authority to refrain from including any matter or classes of matter specified in the Notice Authority.”
The GHRA said that its original intentional was to submit its commentary to the Special Select Committee appointed to review the Bill.
“However, the unseemly haste adopted by the Government both prevented submissions and devalued the parliamentary process,” the Association stated.
The GHRA observed that Lord Lester pointed out in his critique of an earlier version of the Broadcasting Law, our Constitutional provision 146 is far more restrictive than Article 19 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICPPR).
“As far back as 1982 the UN Human Rights Committee pointed out that Guyana’s constitutional provisions fell significantly short of the international obligations incurred by Guyana’s ratification of the ICCPR
“This opinion was reinforced by Lord Lester who stated that the draft law on Broadcasting is inadequate with respect to guaranteeing or protecting the right to freedom of expression,” the GHRA stated.
The GHRA argued that the essential role of the State in licencing is not whether ‘to grant or not to grant’, it is to protect the citizen’s freedom of expression from a monopoly on the information citizens receive.
“Unfortunately the structure, tone and thrust of the Broadcasting Bill conveys an impression of a government reluctant to share what it appears to believe is its legitimate monopoly of control over broadcasting,” the GHRA stated.
Touching on the Policy set out in Section 19, the GHRA said that it is obsessed with a narrow nationalistic view of the world, without any reference to universal values.
The Association noted that ownership of broadcasting services is restricted to Guyanese nationals and “CARICOM nationals” but pointed out that since “CARICOM” permits non-CARICOM entities to operate within CARICOM it is unclear how this restriction will be enforced.
The GHRA also noted that the sweeping nature of Section 23(2), namely that the Authority shall in its deliberations to grant broadcast licences, “be guided by considerations of national security, public safety and order” is unacceptable.
The Association said that the specific regulations operationalizing such clauses should be available  in order to understand how they will be interpreted.
The “Guidelines for issue of licences as relates to content of programmes is verbose, repetitive and particularly obsessive, about ‘fair and balanced” treatment, all of which provides ample ammunition to the Minister or the Authority to find fault with media owners when granting and reviewing licences and setting of conditions, the GHRA noted.
Further, the body noted that the General Provision relating to the treatment of religious broadcasting is clumsy, while the requirement that “due balance and fairness is preserved on the part of the licencee providing the service on matters of national political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy” is simply absurd.
The GHRA said the Section dealing with offences and penalties is oppressive and offensive.
The Association said that with respect to offensive broadcasts, the broadcaster rather than the media owner ought to be held primarily liable, and that moreover, the criteria for “hate speech” should be more narrowly drawn.

---

---