Tuis » Algemeen » Koeitjies & kalfies » M&G
| M&G [boodskap #103616] |
So, 05 Junie 2005 08:06  |
DD
Boodskappe: 1166
Geregistreer: Junie 2003
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
hierdie het ook in die Engelse groep verskyn
waar daar ook skok uitgespreek is daaroor:
> http://www.mg.co.za/articledirect.aspx?articleid=241897
Media freedom has 'suffered major blow'
Riaan Wolmarans and Sapa | Johannesburg, South Africa
5/27/2005 5:27:00 PM
Media watchdogs have reacted with shock to the gagging order placed on
the Mail & Guardian newspaper by the Johannesburg High Court on
Thursday night.
"We are deeply shocked by the judgement," said the South African
chapter of the Media Institute of Southern Africa and the Media
Monitoring Project in a joint statement on Friday.
"This issue is of great public interest because of the improper use of
taxpayers' money and the judgment which has enabled legal censorship
to be imposed on the newspaper."
The watchdogs said the judgement is constitutionally questionable
because it elevated a primary constitutional right, the right to
privacy, above that of another primary constitutional right, that of
press freedom.
"Both rights enjoy equal value under the Constitution, but the judge
has chosen to afford a greater value to privacy," they said. "The
right to privacy in this instance is questionable. Courts have ruled
that public figures, given their roles, responsibilities and public
accountability, have less claim to privacy than private individuals."
According to the organisations, the Press Code states that "in both
news and comment, the press shall exercise exceptional care and
consideration in matters involving the private lives of individuals,
bearing in mind that any right to privacy may be overridden by a
legitimate public interest".
The organisations said: "The judge's strictures on the M&G because of
its refusal to reveal its confidential sources take no account of the
key journalistic ethic of maintaining the confidentiality of sources.
"It is well-known that journalists are prepared to go to jail for
refusing to reveal confidential sources," they said.
Others who responded critically to the judgement included the
Democratic Alliance, the Freedom of Expression Institute, the South
African National Editors' Forum, the Inkatha Freedom Party Youth
Brigade and the M&G's founding editor, Anton Harber.
'Major blow'
Freedom of the media has suffered a major blow with the M&G being
banned from printing their story, Harber and the DA's Helen Zille said
on Friday.
Harber said: "The pre-publication censorship takes us back 15 years
and is a very serious setback for media freedom.
"One understands people are entitled to their rights of privacy, but
the story seems so important that I find it extraordinary that the
courts should stop it coming out," he said.
Zille agreed, and said that the public have a right to know how their
taxes are being spent.
She said most revelations in the public interest come to light because
of leaks and whistle-blowing, and not through official sources.
"It is crucial to the freedom of the press and the public's access to
information that revelations of alleged fraud and theft of taxpayers'
money are exposed."
The DA does not agree that a company's "right to privacy" overrides
this imperative.
"If the allegations are false, Imvume should take appropriate action
against the M&G to protect its good name; if they are true, the
public's right to know is, in our view, overriding," she said.
In most democratic countries, an allegation of this magnitude, if
proved to be true, would bring down the government, Zille said.
'Gagged'
On Friday, the M&G hit the streets with the word "Gagged" in large red
letters across its front page. Its latest revelations on the "Oilgate"
scandal -- printed on page two -- were totally blacked out.
The story the M&G planned to publish was a sequel to last week's
ÂOilgate exposé, which revealed that Imvume Management, an oil
company closely linked to the African National Congress, siphoned
money from the parastatal PetroSA to the ANC before last year's
election. The upshot was that PetroSA eventually used public money to
duplicate payment, this time to Swiss-based oil supplier Glencore.
The story has already had major fallout, with opposition parties
calling for a commission of inquiry and referring our disclosures to
Parliament's minerals and energy committee for investigation.
This week's story would have provided further information about
high-profile individuals who benefited from the Imvume deal, which we
believe is unequivocally in the public interest.
The gag order is the first time since the late 1980s that it has been
muzzled.
On Thursday night, the Johannesburg High Court granted an interdict to
stop the paper from running the report.
The newspaper's entire print run of 45 000 had to be recalled and the
costs associated with this are still being calculated.
Judge Vas Soni found Imvume's constitutional right to privacy and the
dignity of the company would be irreversibly damaged, and that the
newspaper should have given Imvume more time to respond to the
contents of the article.
The article was not of overwhelming public interest and was
potentially defamatory, the judge said.
"The media cannot elevate itself to be above the law. I'm not
satisfied that the respondents [the M&G] acted as responsibly as the
Constitution requires them to. Their conduct should be condemned."
ANC spokesperson Smuts Ngonyama said the party does not usually pass
any judgement against judges, and "in this case, would prefer not to
comment".
The South African National Editors' Forum said there is no doubt that
a report of taxpayers' money going, even indirectly, to any political
party is in the public interest.
"The granting of pre-publication restrictions constitutes a serious
infringement of freedom of expression and would be justified only on
the basis of compelling grounds being argued," said the forum in a
statement.
The Inkatha Freedom Party Youth Brigade called the interdict "the
greatest assault on freedom since 1994".
'We differ fundamentally'
On Friday, the M&G wrote in editorial comment on the matter: "The M&G
is considering its legal options. We will also go on trying to tell
South Africans what we believe they need, and have a right, to know.
"While the judge ruled that the M&G 'had not acted as responsibly as
the Constitution demands', we differ fundamentally and believe that we
have acted in the interests of a robust free press and within the
Constitution's stated right of freedom of expression.
"To quote Judge Soni: 'In a democracy as young as ours, it is
essential there is vigorous and robust debate about clean
government.'"
In a twist, the reason for the police being present at the Media24
printers, who print the weekly newspaper, as the hearing was held on
Thursday night is unclear.
Andre Smith, printing works manager at the printers in City Deep,
confirmed police presence at the building, but said they were there
because of an accident that took place on a railway metres away.
Malcolm Midgley, spokesperson for the Johannesburg emergency services,
said they have no record of an accident in that area on Thursday
night.
Police spokesperson Superintendent Chris Wilken said the police will
not get involved in the gagging order as it is a government issue and
not one for the police. He said he will investigate further.
|
|
|
|
| Re: M&G [boodskap #103618 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #103616] |
So, 05 Junie 2005 13:36  |
bouer
Boodskappe: 4803
Geregistreer: Desember 2003
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
"DD" skryf
> Media watchdogs have reacted with shock to the gagging order placed on
> the Mail & Guardian newspaper by the Johannesburg High Court on
> Thursday night.
>
> "We are deeply shocked by the judgement," said the South African
> chapter of the Media Institute of Southern Africa and the Media
> Monitoring Project in a joint statement on Friday.
Welkom in die wye wêreld van die geveg tussen
die reg om te weet en die reg op privaatheid. Hier
in Kanada is daar ten alle tye omtrent 'n dosyn
van dié sake in die howe.
Gloudina
|
|
|
|
| Re: M&G [boodskap #103619 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #103618] |
So, 05 Junie 2005 15:12 |
DD
Boodskappe: 1166
Geregistreer: Junie 2003
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
On Sun, 5 Jun 2005 09:36:34 -0400, "@rogers.com" wrote:
>
> "DD" skryf
>
>> Media watchdogs have reacted with shock to the gagging order placed on
>> the Mail & Guardian newspaper by the Johannesburg High Court on
>> Thursday night.
>> "We are deeply shocked by the judgement," said the South African
>> chapter of the Media Institute of Southern Africa and the Media
>> Monitoring Project in a joint statement on Friday.
>
>
> Welkom in die wye wêreld van die geveg tussen
> die reg om te weet en die reg op privaatheid. Hier
> in Kanada is daar ten alle tye omtrent 'n dosyn
> van dié sake in die howe.
>
> Gloudina
>
Jy haal die eerste twee paragrawe aan; indien jy slegs een paragraaf
verder gaan, sien jy waarom dit geen reg op privaatheid verdien nie.
As bv. my belasting bydrae gebruik word om die anc se politieke gewin
tot voordeel te spruit, sou dit blatante diefstal wees. Dit blyk juis
dit te wees. Hoe op aarde kan die 'reg tot privaatheid' 'n rol speel?
|
|
|
|
| Re: M&G [boodskap #103620 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #103619] |
So, 05 Junie 2005 16:49 |
bouer
Boodskappe: 4803
Geregistreer: Desember 2003
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
"DD"
> Jy haal die eerste twee paragrawe aan; indien jy slegs een paragraaf
> verder gaan, sien jy waarom dit geen reg op privaatheid verdien nie.
> As bv. my belasting bydrae gebruik word om die anc se politieke gewin
> tot voordeel te spruit, sou dit blatante diefstal wees. Dit blyk juis
> dit te wees. Hoe op aarde kan die 'reg tot privaatheid' 'n rol speel?
Omdat jy eintlik nie 'n duit van die regstelsel in SA
weet nie, maar op jou verregse manier elke iets
wat lyk of dit die ANC kan beswadder, as 'n
strooihalm aangryp. Hoekom praat jy nie van
die sake wat wel in die howe in SA beland het,
en waaroor daar nou uitsprake gelewer is. Is
die Shaik storie nou een daarvan, waar dinge
geplooi is sodat die beskuldiges vrygespreek
is? En wil jy hê ek moet vir jou weer begin
vertel wat gedurende die apartheidsjare
gebeur het. Sal ek begin?
Intussen verwys ek jou na die Gomery-
ondersoek hier in Kanada, waar miljoene
dollars van belastingbetalers-geld in die
sakke van Liberale operatiewes beland het,
wat dit dan weer as ondersteuning van die
Liberale party behandel het. Gedurende
die Gomery-ondersoek was daar verskeie
"gag-orders."
Gloudina
|
|
|
|
| Re: M&G [boodskap #103622 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #103620] |
So, 05 Junie 2005 19:16 |
DD
Boodskappe: 1166
Geregistreer: Junie 2003
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
On Sun, 5 Jun 2005 12:49:33 -0400, "@rogers.com" wrote:
>
> "DD"
>
>> Jy haal die eerste twee paragrawe aan; indien jy slegs een paragraaf
>> verder gaan, sien jy waarom dit geen reg op privaatheid verdien nie.
>> As bv. my belasting bydrae gebruik word om die anc se politieke gewin
>> tot voordeel te spruit, sou dit blatante diefstal wees. Dit blyk juis
>> dit te wees. Hoe op aarde kan die 'reg tot privaatheid' 'n rol speel?
>
> Omdat jy eintlik nie 'n duit van die regstelsel in SA
> weet nie, maar op jou verregse manier elke iets
> wat lyk of dit die ANC kan beswadder, as 'n
> strooihalm aangryp. Hoekom praat jy nie van
> die sake wat wel in die howe in SA beland het,
> en waaroor daar nou uitsprake gelewer is. Is
> die Shaik storie nou een daarvan, waar dinge
> geplooi is sodat die beskuldiges vrygespreek
> is?
Shaik sê jy? Heel interessante onderwerp
wat heelwaarskynlik 'n lat vir jou eie gat gaan wees.
Want, as jy oor Shaik en kie wil gesels, gaan jou verleentheid
wees wanneer Zuma verhoor (moet) word. Dit kan ons nie
'n onderwerp maak nie - nog nie, ten minste nie tot na die saak
afgehandel is nie. En afgehandel sal dit eers wees na Zuma
bedank het en sy goue handdruk in sy sak gesteek het, of
wat voorspel jy gaan gebeur?
> En wil jy hê ek moet vir jou weer begin
> vertel wat gedurende die apartheidsjare
> gebeur het. Sal ek begin?
YES! YES! Asseblief! Ons het begin dink
jy gaan ons nie meer daarmee vergas nie.
Asseblief...
(dit gee my weer die geleentheid om aan die
gang te vertel hou jy en jou man Afrikaans
verraai het. Hoe julle, met apartheid as verskoning,
julle voorgehou het as engelssprekendes. Gemaak
het of julle engelssprekend is. En die taal van die
nasie wat probeer het om volksmoord op die
Suid Afrikaners te pleeg, as jul huistaal aangeneem het.
Na die konsentrasiekamp geskiedenis. Na die
afbranding van plase en plaashuise, is dit wat
julle dit gedoen het.
Die jare toe die minderwaardiges dit nog as 'n
'statussimbool' beskou het om engels te praat,
is die tyd waarin julle dit gedoen het. Die tyd
waarin julle probeer het om self 'n
engelse aksent te versin.
(as jy nou sien hoe heftig ek op hierdie
keybord tik, sal jy trots wees op my!)
> Intussen verwys ek jou na die Gomery-
> ondersoek hier in Kanada, waar miljoene
> dollars van belastingbetalers-geld in die
> sakke van Liberale operatiewes beland het,
> wat dit dan weer as ondersteuning van die
> Liberale party behandel het. Gedurende
> die Gomery-ondersoek was daar verskeie
> "gag-orders."
>
Was daar darem daar, of ook soos hier,
geen gronde om privaatheid as rede
vir 'sakdoek in die mond' voor te hou?
liefde
Dawie
|
|
|
|
| |
  |
Gaan na forum:
[ XML-voer ] [  ]
Tyd nou: Wo Mei 22 16:52:17 MGT 2024
|
Supertaal
Blog
Soek
Hulp
Lede
Registreer
Teken aan
Tuis
