Government’s free speech hypocrisy

ALARMING is the government’s approach to freedom of expression.

“There has never been – and will never be – any attempt by my government to intimidate, punish, or suppress the voices of civil society,” said the Prime Minister last week after Gary Aboud on November 21 revealed his US visa had been revoked and raised concerns about attempts by foreign and local officials to censor discourse. Mr Aboud, like many others, had criticised the US military’s summary executions at sea.

Ms Persad-Bissessar, who publicly has no qualms about such executions, deemed Mr Aboud’s media release “reckless,” and denied any government role in his travails, saying, “Trinidad and Tobago has absolutely no involvement in the decisions or actions taken by the government of the US or the US Embassy regarding their visa or immigration policies. These matters fall solely within the jurisdiction of the US.”

But mere days later, Roger Alexander, in an interview with this newspaper, sang a different tune, claiming China was a model this country could learn from when it comes to social media controls. Separately, reports emerged suggesting the homeland security minister would be open to collaborating with US bureaucrats to have visas revoked in relation to commentators peddling “misleading” narratives.

Whether Mr Alexander resiles from his profoundly misguided approach – and he should – or is made to do so by party leadership, the damage has been done. The chill effect alone of his trivialisations and the discordance within the Cabinet implied by his words confirm the perception of an administration that either does not truly understand constitutional rights or is loath to uphold them.

Free speech isn’t absolute. Death threats against state officials in recent times should be condemned and should attract the full brunt of the law. But that law is replete with various statutes, common law offences and civil remedies that render the need for communist-style censorship unnecessary. Mr Alexander himself has, in the case of Olive Green-Jack, availed himself of one such tool, controversially issuing a preventative detention order. Months ago, Defence Minister Wayne Sturge used rules to lower Vybz Kartel’s volume.

Authorities might not have enough resources to police all of cyberspace. However, the solution isn’t turning to the Politburo or adopting the heavy-handed approach of the autocratic Trump administration. What the government should be doing is lobbying tech companies to regulate platforms to address extremism and misinformation.

Will the UNC do that?

It’s ironic the government wants citizens to watch their words given the example it is setting. Parliamentary proceedings last week revealed an administration prone to threatening to “cuff down” people and to issuing vulgar calls to “take man.” Free speech isn’t a one-way street. Someone should tell the Cabinet.