The Broadcast Legislation and You

Aug 07, 2017 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

The Broadcast Bill has serious implications for the ordinary citizen. This is not a matter simply for the broadcasters; it concerns not just everyone working in the media but also it impacts on the rights of citizens.
Mouthpieces of the APNU+AFC have tried to promote division on just who the legislation will impact. They have tried to resurrect the bogey about the issuance of licenses to friends and family of previous administration. It is not an argument without merit but it is an argument of political convenience, since it omits to mention that persons who cannot be considered as friends of the PPPC were also granted licenses. There was an attempt therefore to promote political division on this issue.
There also was an attempt to create class divisions, by making this issue seem as if the resistance was coming from media owners and not the rest of civil society. One person even went as far as suggesting that employees of media owners are victims of exploitation and therefore should not jump on the anti-broadcasting legislation. This was a naked attempt to cause the Guyana Press Association which represents media workers, not to oppose the legislation.
Civil society, including the Guyana Human Rights Association,  the Guyana Bar Association, the Private Sector Commission, the Georgetown Chamber of Commerce and Industry and other organizations have not, as yet, expressed any reservations about the Bill. The forces of division have been keen to exploit the absence of any nationwide condemnation of the Broadcast legislation.
People act in accordance with their interests and once their interests are not affected, they will not be worried or bothered by the criticisms of the legislation. They should be, though, for the following reasons:
First, a government which passes legislation which has the potential to be used to deprive existing broadcasters of their propriety rights can pass legislation to deprive people of their house lots, land leases or to use the tax system to garnish funds from your bank accounts. Actions have already been taken, by the government, which have raised alarm bells about these issues.
Second, if the government can attempt to dictate that broadcasters must air certain government programmes, then they can similarly decide in the future what they want people to see, hear and read.
Guyanese have short memories. There was a time when Bob Marley’s music was not played on the airwaves in Guyana because it was felt it would give a fillip to Rastafarian membership and to opponents of the then PNC government. (Editor’s note: This ban never occurred)
Burnham was so scared of the WPA that he banned a movie called the Wild Geese.  Governments in Guyana, in the past, have tried to decide what people listened to, what they saw and what they read.
The issue about public service announcements goes to the heart of media freedom. If the media are compelled to air certain content, then this is a way of government saying that you must air one hour of what we want you to air.
All Guyanese have a stake in the effects of the broadcast legislation. It is not a matter simply for the media. It has implications for the rights of citizens. It has consequences for freedom of expression and for property rights.
Guyana has been down this road before. Burnham sized property from private citizens after passing a law which gave him the right to pay compensation at 1939 values. Persons were dispossessed of their property through this “ lawful” mechanism.
Burnham denied newsprint to private newspapers. The State media stopped printing private newspapers which were considered opposed to the government.
The media workers then felt, as some are feeling now, that this was matter between the government and the media owners. They soon discovered how wrong they were. The State media became under the full control of the ruling party and professionalism of media workers were the next victims. Many of them, in order to save their jobs, had to report what the government wanted them to report.
All of this happened because Guyanese allowed themselves to be divided on issues concerning human rights. And when the government moved against those who failed to take a stand on the abuses by the government, there was no one to whom they could complain. Many of them ran overseas.
Some of these are now emerging out of their tunnels, attempting to defend the recently passed broadcast legislation.
Guyanese can therefore e delude themselves into believing that the broadcast legislation has nothing to do with them. They are wrong and they should learn from history before it is too late.

---

---