“…The first responsibility that devolves upon you is the protection and promotion of your democracy. Democracy means more, much more, than the right to vote and one vote for every man and eve…
Source: Telling Truths
Telling Truths
“…The first responsibility that devolves upon you is the protection and promotion of your democracy. Democracy means more, much more, than the right to vote and one vote for every man and eve… Source: Telling Truths
11 responses to “Telling Truths”
-
Amazing how the same issues plague our little islands five decades after Independence.
-
The issues will continue as long as there is just a handful of those wanting to make a difference – a difference that is not so hard to achieve mind you. Problem is Barbadians are all fuss and talk talk talk particular with a rum in hand and a handful of listeners, but when it comes to showing physical strength in numbers…well everyone suddenly goes into hibernation till the next issue comes up.
We are the people who put governments in and we should be able to say enough is enough when they are not doing the job the people put them there to do. Now if togetherness for a common cause is not in the DNA of our people, well then shut up and take what is dished out until the next election when the other party can then turn around knowing that we are a bunch of sheep, and do a similar thing. As you say David, all these years and nothing much has changed…perhaps I have hit the nail on the proverbial head? Would like to think not, but nothing else shows any hope of being close to the truth.
-
@REAL TING
Cant fault your position, REAL CHANGE will require ‘boots on the ground’.
-
“It is interesting to note that in the USA, the society to which so many of us aspire, public officials are effectively unable to sue for libel and slander, so strongly defended is the right to freedom of expression. Witness the many bizarre and insulting media attacks on President Obama and his family without any lawsuit.”
Public officials should never be able to sue for libel or slander, they make a religion of this in the Caribbean to hide their wrong doings and crimes against the people. If politicians do not want to be scrutinized and criticized they need to stay out of public life.
-
@WW&C, It’s not that they are NOT allowed to sue…they must prove that the publisher had malice when the publication was made. That is, he, she or it knew either that the imputation was untrue or was reckless as to whether it was true or not.
We have a similar, but not identical, principle here, but the media seem unwilling to test it.
-
@Jeff, I was of the view that what you just explained were the facts pertaining to libel/scandal since the first time I sought clarification as a teenager…except I believed it was basically identical to the US statute. Yet, I am surprised it is being misidentified as above.
Thanks for the further clarification.
Incidentally, there is a case on the US Supreme Court docket (re former Gov McDonnell) which I hope you may give some commentary about vis-a-vis our local corruption. Absolute clear cut case of ‘corruption’ on the basic facts but it seems he may have his conviction overturned based on reports pending the court’s written decision.
The smoke and mirrors of the law one can say but also the often tenuous links of everyday political life and holding these fellows to account…and too a court that has stripped away layer after layer of prosecutorial legal tools related to political and corporate malfeasance.
These things do have persuasive impact on the jurists of our little jurisdiction.
-
Jeff…it was tested in one of the other islands, though it was against a social media comment, Caswell gave the example some time back., suffice it to say, the politician lost the case, since different jurisdictional laws apply to social media, as opposed to……..
Politicians should not be allowed to sue for libel, slander etc and win, when it’s the truth. The onus is now on the newspapers, not only to test, but set a precedent.
-
@WW&C.
Truth is an absolute defence…but you must be able to prove it!
@DPD
Do you have a reference for the McDonell case?
-
http://www.supremecourt.gov/….Wednesday, April 27; 15-474 McDonnell v. United States
I am getting ahead a bit as this case is really not yet decided by the Supremes. In orals. It just caught my attention and based on your overview of these legal matters as they relate directly and indirectly to our local landscape I mentioned it.
The discussion seemed to center around some interesting concepts because the Governor definitely received many gifts but he is appealing that in fact he did not influence others to the gift giver’s advantage. That based on the fact that although he did send letters and used other communications on their behalf they did not ‘win the award’ so to speak.
Still guilty I thought. In fact I saw direct parallels to our local situations.
The US defense arguments are that there is always that type of influence peddling in political life and to criminalize would be chilling,
Fair assessment in one sense really but still some quids are too obviously pro!
Anyhow, if you find it interesting I look forward to your expert views as they apply locally.
-
Jeff…should not be hard to prove in this day and age with many digital cameras, recordings etc so easily available, they just need to be used more effectively and for the right reasons.
-
They provoked him enough and deserve what they get.
The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.