About crossing the line

The issue of freedom of Expression is one that got some attention during the Referendum Campaign when it was seen within the context of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. Clearly like other freedoms, this cannot be absolute and our constitution like other constitutions allows for legislation limiting these freedoms in the interest of things such as public order, protecting the reputations, rights and freedoms of others and for legislation imposing restrictions on public officers “that is reasonably justifiable in the proper performance of their functions.” {{more}}In fact in permitting legislation allowing for exceptions to those freedoms, it is usually prefaced by the words, “that is reasonably required.” Not only is this a sensitive area but there is a vagueness associated with it when we speak about being in the interest of public order and ‘proper performance of their functions’ and things of that nature. The matter of freedom of expression is something that Caribbean people should cling to dearly, especially those who are descendants of African slaves. Slave society had put limitations on freedom of expression. Efforts were made to populate the plantations with slaves from different language areas, making it as difficult as possible for them to communicate. Even when they were able to communicate attempts were made to limit that communication. This is where songs and music generally became important to the slaves. The drums were banned because of fear that the slaves were sending messages by that medium. The double entendre which is a powerful tool of our Calypsonians today grew out of this situation where the slaves were able to communicate hidden messages/meanings under what appeared on the surface to be quite simple and innocent lyrics. Colonial society developed its own means of limiting freedom of expression and some of our laws today had their origins in that society.

Freedom of Expression is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Rights in Article 19 which states, “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” To believe in freedom of expression is to believe in the right of others to express views even those that you do not like. And this is really the essence of a democratic society, the ability to allow ideas to contend. Under the circumstances there is a thin line between attempts to stifle freedom of expression and to give expression to preserving public order and the multiplicity of things that are covered under exceptions to the fundamental right to freedom of expression. We, therefore, always have to be on guard and ensure that unwittingly or not, that cherished right is not crushed.

All of this takes on an even more serious note when it involves public servants in small post-colonial societies where the public service is the major source of employment and an area in which we find the majority of people who have benefitted from the education that is provided by the tax payers of the country. If there is to be meaningful public dialogue how could you exclude this significant portion of the public? But let us first put this in perspective. We will remember that public servants (including teachers) were harassed and prosecuted in the 1960s and early 1970s for getting involved in the conversation being carried on by the Education Forum of the People and other groups.These followed similar undertakings after the 1935 riots and what is referred as the Black Power era. The Public Officers Conditions of Employment Act, 1971 which built on previous legislation has now been repealed. This does not make it a free for all exercise. Public servants joined the Referendum debate which is their right as citizens. It would have been extremely foolish to restrict their involvement in such an exercise that would have impacted on everyone in the country.

How do you define what is permitted in a dialogue of this nature? Anesia participated in the national conversation about the proposed constitution and took an interest at an early stage. Her voice was opposed to that of the state and she was clearly targeted because of the influence she had on the proceedings and for being outspoken on the matter. The detailed charges brought against her showed that the State was prepared to dissect every statement she made to find ammunition for hounding her. Obviously, in participating in such an exercise as she did one can easily cross the line especially in the context of having to defend charges levelled against herself and the organisation she represents. But where is this line drawn, particularly in a situation where so much is vague and even abstract? Who defines the line? What is at stake here? Is it simply an exercise to punish a public servant for bringing the public service into disrepute, whatever that means? What does contravening the duty of loyalty to the country mean? Who determines what are unwarranted and unsubstantiated accusations of impropriety?

Anesia has many defenders and admirers. In a society where few dare to speak out on national issues, Anesia, a young woman, led the way, giving voice to what she believed. She is obviously prepared to face the consequences that might arise for daring to express her views even when they conflicted with and contradicted those of officialdom. Has Anesia done harm to the public service? Has her public expressions affected the performance of her job? The country and in particular, public servants have to carefully monitor what is happening because it is Anesia today, who will it be tomorrow? “In Germany they first came for the Communists and I did not speak up because I wasn’t a communist. Then they came for the Jews and I did not speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me and by that time no one was left to speak up for me.” (Martin Niemoeller)

There is a lot at stake here and we must be prepared to defend our fundamental rights. There were a lot of voices in the 1970s that through NGOs, VSOs and Community organisations, participated in debates about these rights, about the rights of women, on environmental issues and a host of other national concerns. Today, these voices are silent and remind me of the Seven Ages of Man as seen by William Shakespeare. “All the World’s a Stage, And all the men and women merely players, They have their exits and entrances. And one man in his time plays many parts. His acts being seven ages, At first the infant, mewling and puking in the nurse’s arms. Then, the whining schoolboy with his satchel and shining morning face, creeping like snail unwilling to school. Last scene of all that ends this strange eventful history is second childlessness and mere oblivion, sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.” Have they skipped some of the Ages and entered oblivion, ‘sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything’? Where is the line that public servants are not allowed to cross in any national dialogue? Does it change over time and does it bend depending on the nature of the voice and the person behind the voice?

Dr Adrian Fraser is a social commentator and historian.