Skip to main content

Georgetown,February 16, 2016 Source

 

Speaker of the House Dr. Bartland Scotland this evening remind Members of Parliament that, “all freedoms are subject to limitations,” that must be respected.

 

The Speaker made the declaration after the Minister of Legal Affairs and Attorney General (AG) Basil Williams and Opposition Chief Whip Gail Teixeira could not agree on whether the Speaker had the right to censure a blogger. It was the opinion of the Attorney General that the blogger was seeking to mislead the public by inaccurately reporting what was said in the House during the consideration of the estimates for Budget 2016.

 

The issue arose after Minister Williams rose on a point of order, following the tea break and called on the Speaker to follow, “the precedent of protecting the Members of the House,” and cited Citizen Report blogger Vanessa Narine.

 

The Legal Affairs Minister asked that Narine be sanctioned for incorrectly reporting answers that he had provided earlier in response to questions asked by Nandlall during the consideration of estimates for the Ministry of Legal Affairs.

 

Minister Williams noted that the account given by Narine in the blog was “deliberately libelous and calculated to deceive.” He asked that the Speaker either sanction Narine or have her issue an apology, and issue a correction via the Citizen Report blog.

 

Teixeira taking the floor had a different position. She opined that if the Speaker took such a course of action, it would be a breach of the freedom of the press that must be highly respected.  She argued that while in government, the previous administration at many times felt the sting of the media who reported incorrectly and misled on what was said by them in parliament.

 

She pointed out that never however, did the then government resort to the use of the Parliament to sanction or to embarrass those agencies or the reporters of those agencies that would have incorrectly reported on what was said by their MPs in the House.

 

In seeking to resolve the issue, the Speaker noted that all freedoms are subjected to limitations, including the freedom of the press. He pointed out that press freedom comes with the obligation to be truthful and fair.

 

He urged that the matter be left for another day but when promoted by the Legal Affairs Minister to make a ruling based on the precedent shown to Minister Keith Scott on similar issue, he committed to considering the matter and making a decision, at a later date.

 

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Teixeira has a valid point. Consider the lies spread about the PPP during their time in govt and even now. In fact these lies led to their demise and the ascension of the current breed of crooks in office. Now that they are in power, the afc/apnu want to shut the door on freedom of speech.

Teixeira taking the floor had a different position. She opined that if the Speaker took such a course of action, it would be a breach of the freedom of the press that must be highly respected.  She argued that while in government, the previous administration at many times felt the sting of the media who reported incorrectly and misled on what was said by them in parliament.

 

She pointed out that never however, did the then government resort to the use of the Parliament to sanction or to embarrass those agencies or the reporters of those agencies that would have incorrectly reported on what was said by their MPs in the House.

FM
politikalamity posted:
Django posted:

 

 

 

The Legal Affairs Minister asked that Narine be sanctioned

 

This would be a slippery slope..

Yes. Can't see that what she says outside of parliament is subject to sanction by the speaker. Maybe a rebuke but hardly more.

FM
gogo posted:

can I cuss U mudda and claim "freedom of speech?"

Well then the fetters on freedom of speech will kick in - you can be sued for libel or slander. 

It is hard to see how the parliament can sanction her for what she said/published outside of parliament but the minister or anyone aggrieved by what she published can certainly sue her for defamation - libel or slander. 

FM
susan posted:
gogo posted:

can I cuss U mudda and claim "freedom of speech?"

Well then the fetters on freedom of speech will kick in - you can be sued for libel or slander. 

It is hard to see how theparliament can sanction her for what she said/published outside of parliament but the minister or anyone aggrieved by what she published can certainly sue her for defamation - libel or slander. 

I am in agreement,the Citizens Report is the mouth piece of the opposition,journalist should be fair and balance when reporting statements made by members of parliament during debates,apparently the journalist does have such character.

Django
Django posted:
susan posted:
gogo posted:

can I cuss U mudda and claim "freedom of speech?"

Well then the fetters on freedom of speech will kick in - you can be sued for libel or slander. 

It is hard to see how theparliament can sanction her for what she said/published outside of parliament but the minister or anyone aggrieved by what she published can certainly sue her for defamation - libel or slander. 

I am in agreement,the Citizens Report is the mouth piece of the opposition,journalist should be fair and balance when reporting statements made by members of parliament during debates,apparently the journalist does have such character.

Bai like you head nah bin in de right place when PPP was in pawa? How soon we forget what we write on this BB. You were a staunch believer in SN and treated it as your Bhagwat Gita. Me ah watch you.

FM

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×