“The people of Guyana own these airwaves” – Pt II

Aug 20, 2017 AFC Column, Features / Columnists

---

Last week we published the first part of the address to Parliamentary by Minister of Public Telecommunications, Cathy Hughes, on the hot-button topic of the merits of the Amendments to the existing Broadcast Law. This is the second part (abridged) of that address.

In Guyana as in most countries of the world, there is no constitutional right to hate speech, racial incitement and terror threats. No one in the private media should wish to broadcast hate speech or incite further racial division.

I take this opportunity to remind members of the opposition that the mandatory functions of the Guyana National Broadcasting Authority (GNBA) specifies in Section 18 (1) b that the Authority shall “issue licences for such terms not exceeding ten years and subject to such conditions related to the circumstances of the licensee as the authority deems appropriate for the implementation of the broadcasting policy set out in section 19”.
Section 19, Sub-section (d) states that the broadcasting policy of Guyana is one that “contributes to the strengthening of a shared Guyanese consciousness and identity, fostering national unity and building a harmonious society.” Hate speech, racial incitement and terror threats were specifically prohibited in the declared policy contained in the Broadcasting Act 2011.
The amended bill seeks to make it absolutely clear that these will not be allowed in our country, and that anyone who is so bent will be punished. Guyana has to move forward to a place where all Guyanese could enjoy civilized discourse and debate. This amendment is just one more step in that direction.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to reference a statement ostensibly made by the Hon. Leader of the Opposition and published in a newspaper on Saturday July 29, 2017: “If we allow this Bill to succeed, it would be the end of press freedom in Guyana…”
PPP ABUSED THE PRESS
I would like to ask the people of Guyana to remember just how this leader treated Press Freedom while he was President. For easy recall, I hereby list a few of the numerous abuses that Jagdeo visited on the local press:-
(1) He actively prevented privately-owned TV stations from expanding their areas of coverage with the exception of NCN which we all know was extensively manipulated and abused. As such, only the PPP’s messages reached people in rural and interior regions. Many in the established media were denied their right to expand despite numerous proposals but this unhealthy situation has ended. This government wants the media to expand into the interior to ensure that every single citizen has equal access to information.
(2) The PPP withdrew advertising from the Stabroek News and Kaieteur News, and when Guyana Times came along, most of government’s ads were published there. The PPP’s ban on SN lasted for 17 months and only ended when international and internal pressure forced them to rescind that decision.
(3) Jagdeo later doled out radio and television licenses to his family, friends and party. A few other licensees were restricted to their host communities. It is apt to note that Guyana Times, established in 2008 by Jagdeo’s friend Bobby Ramroop, also received several licenses while the Stabroek News, first published in 1986, was refused. SN had applied for a radio license in the 1990’s.
(4) The University of Guyana, founded by the founder of the PPP, Dr. Jagan, was also refused a license in 2011, along with many other functioning media operatives and entrepreneurs, even the Guyanese founder of the Caribbean News Agency (CANA) and the Caribbean Broadcasting Union (CBU), a man with over 25 years experience as a broadcaster in and outside of Guyana.
(5) Jagdeo banned a sitting president of the Guyana Press Association from entering State House and the Office of the President because he did not like the questions he was asked nor the coverage of his comments at a diaspora Town Hall meeting in Antigua.
(6) His coup de grace was closing down CN Sharma’s TV station on more than 2 occasions (2005 and 2011 for 4 months each time). He even seized the station’s equipment. The reported accusations against Mr. Sharma were: 1] the station broadcast footage showing Jagdeo dancing at a party while commenting that he was “celebrating while much of the city and the coast were flooded” (in 2005), and 2] airing “a slanderous comment about a close presidential associate”.
(7) That was not all. Jagdeo ordered that CNS be moved from Channel 12 to Channel 6 to limit their transmission range and to make the spectrum available to NCN. The besieged broadcaster had to bear all associated costs including a new transmitter and equipment while he endured massive disruptions.
There were numerous such incidents and many people were hurt, discomfited and frustrated by the PPP’s conscience-less actions that stomped on our rights. Among them were:-
(a) HBTV Channel 9 that was suspended in 2001
(b) The twice weekly lottery draws and the TBN religious programme were bullied away from VCT Channel 28 when it was owned by the outspoken Tony Vieira and given to NCN
(c) Then there was Vidya Narayan Lewis of the Community Broadcasting Network who Jadgeo had ordered off the air. This religious broadcaster had to go to court for redress and the ruling came in her favour.

---

---