Protection of Information Bill and the Media Tribunal; much ado about everything

As far as information goes the media in South Africa does not seem to be the best source. I decided to look for information on the Protection of Information Bill, which has caused much ado about everything in the last few days. I also searched around for information on the Media Tribunal which I am led to believe will be introduced in the near future if the ANC has its way. Well, that is a small if.

First the Protection of Information Bill. There is very little in the media that provides information on the Bill but there is a lot that informs one about the dreadful things the Bill, once it becomes law, will do to media freedom. Similarly, reports on the impending Media Tribunal are more about the ugly stuff the tribunal will do to our beloved press and less about what this ghastly thing is or intended to be.

Back to the Protection of Information Bill. During a short and rushed interview conducted by one Chris Gibbons on 702 Talk Radio, the chief state law advisor, one Enver Daniels was called to defend the Bill. Defend it he did, eloquently too, if my opinion in that regard counts for anything.

Armed with a laptop and some bandwidth, I decided to give up on the media and to ask Google for help. Google gave me a copy of the Bill. The Bill tells me that [it intends] To provide for the protection of certain information from destruction, loss or unlawful disclosure; to regulate the manner in which information may be protected; to repeal Protection of Information Act, 1982; and to provide for matters connected therewith.

I have no reason to doubt the Bill when it tells me that. Mr Daniels also told Mr Gibbons that in the view of the state law advisers, the Bill does not in any way infringe upon any of the rights set out in the Bill of Rights. About that I am not sure but I am sure that if there is doubt, those clever lawyers who wear long green dresses will set the record straight.

So I decide to spend some more time with the Bill. It tells me that:

• Unless restricted by law or by justifiable public or private considerations, State information should be available and accessible to all persons;

This and other statements of principle will form the basis on which the Bill, when it becomes an Act, will be interpreted and applied. So I decided there isn't much to worry about at this stage but to wait and see what the powers that be does with this Bill. At this point I did not see any of the claims that the Bill signals the end of press freedom. Satisfied that I will for a time being continue to happily blog without the threat of prison or harm, I moved on to the Media Tribunal question.

Let us not lose sight of the reality that as we speak (or is that read or write?) there is a thing called the Media Ombudsman. I have little information on what it does but I am told that it is there to protect the public against the excesses of the media. With that, bear in mind the cringe-worthy reports about individuals and organisation that the media published only to retract later, if that.

I am not sure what form the Tribunal will take - very little information available except from the ANC who are the proponents of the Tribunal. What I know is that other than the Ombud, the only recourse I have when the details of my messy divorce are liberally reported in the press, will be to go to court and by then the damage will have been done already. Mind you, I don't really care much about my sordid shenanigans being published, it is just that my children now have to bear the brunt of the untruths. As I said, that is too late now. There is a small matter of protection of minor children but I guess that was lost on the journalist reporting on the story of young boys who are said to be used for the pleasure of paedophile tourists. So, once again I decide to wait and see what the Tribunal will look like and the powers it will be given to protect the citizens or to bludgeon freedom of the press.

The press must be free to do its civic duty and no government, however popular should be allowed to mess with that. I also believe that my right to privacy especially the privacy of the more vulnerable members of our society is even more important. The press must continue to unearth information for the benefit of our society without fear, favour or prejudice. Where they mess with the wrong guy they will be sued or like in the case of Mr Bullard, be fired. What about where they mess with the vulnerable? Would there still be objection if special courts were established for the single purpose of hearing media excesses claims - for free maybe?

Of course governments and liberation movements are not to be trusted - for the simple reason that they have people in them. On the other hand, if all journalists had the common sense of Anton Harber or the humility of Ryland Fisher we probably would not need a media tribunal; or would we?

As I said, it is much ado about everything and I suspect it will be fun yet.

Just a thought . . .

Why is it that when you trick someone (illiterate) to sign over their asset (which they did not think of as an asset) over to you, it is not regarded as theft? I'm fondly reminded of my forebears who signed over land because they thought they were signing an alliance or for a bag of tobacco.

I guess the law is the law.