In defence of free speech

POLITICIANS like to talk. They make platform speeches. They orate in Parliament. They issue indignant press releases. So, it is a supreme irony that these same people often act in ways inimical to free speech. In recent days, there’s been a rash of such instances.

On March 21, Dr Keith Rowley, five days after stepping down as prime minister, issued a broadside against “a so-called analyst” from UWI who had commented on the legality of appointments.

On the same day, an allegorical but critical newspaper column authored by a doctor appeared. That doctor was sent packing pending a probe; but the suspension was later reversed by Health Minister Terrence Deyalsingh.

Then, on March 23, Gary Griffith accused the media of airing “propaganda disguised as expertise” in its selection of certain experts and analysts for interview.

All of this does not augur well for the general election campaign under way.

Forget policies. Forget manifestos. Who needs such things when you can attack the media and issue ad hominem smears against academics you disagree with? Except, all these attacks, harmless as they might appear, take us down a dark path. They must stop.

The media are no sacred cow. They should always strive to do better.

But have politicians ever considered why there is sometimes a narrow pool of people available to comment?

Historically, those who speak out have often been targeted. The columnist doctor is a case in point. Few, witnessing the antics of our thin-skinned leaders, might wish to comment on even anodyne issues.

This leads to a chill effect, which, disturbingly, may well be the aim.

Silence is a prelude to the defeat of dissent. Democracy is thereby transformed into something else.

It is the job of journalists to highlight a diversity of views, even ones not agreeable.

Mr Griffith’s contention that some commentators’ contributions “expose clear political bias and questionable credentials” proves that, for him and others, the real issue is not who is speaking but what they are saying.

Prime Minister Stuart Young must resist the tone and tenor adopted by all.

He must continue to do as he did on March 20, when, at his first-ever post-Cabinet briefing, he fielded uncomfortable questions.

He should also keep alive the signal sent by his administration’s dropping of the ban on the voicing of opinions deemed contrary to “public order” from the emergency regulations.

Disinformation is, right now, the single greatest threat to governments the world over, according to the World Economic Forum’s 2025 Global Risks Report. Against lies, it is the media that stand as the last line of defence.

No leader can survive if, through reckless attacks, he damages the press.

A politician who fails to understand this plays with fire.