Interview

The government must offer some urgent clarifications with regard to the newly promulgated regulations under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) and clearly state the manner in which the regulations would apply to the media, says activist and Convenor, Free Media Movement (FMM), Sunanda Deshapriya.

In an interview with The Sunday Leader, Deshapriya said that many governments have attempted to curb free expression through the introduction of stifling legislation and regulations when there was erosion in statecraft. He said that it was hoped that the government could assure that the same conduct would not be repeated this time around. He also said that the introduction of oppressive regulations indicated that all was not well with a particular state and immediately cast such state as one slack with regard to indicators of good governance.

By Dilrukshi Handunnetti

Q: How do you view the possibility of the newly introduced regulations under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) affecting civil liberties?

A: This is generally what advocators of human rights would term as a retrograde step.

President Mahinda Rajapakse on Wednesday night assured that the PTA provisions would not be used in order to curb human rights or any fundamental freedoms but only to fight terrorism. If the government is able to keep to that promise, well and good. But our past experiences show that emergency regulations were used to suppress fundamental freedoms of the people.

Once these regulations are in force, governments tend to use them against opponents and prevent those who might pose a threat to their political power. From the human rights and democratic rights point of view, wein principle oppose regulations of this nature. Fromwhat I have gathered, they also could have some terrible implications on the media as well.

The government must now clarify how it seeks to definewhat 'material in relation to terrorism' actually means. What is the legal interpretation? These regulations appear broad and ambiguous and as such, the threat is that things could be willfully interpreted when the need arises. Would a journalist receiving information from a banned organisation amount to an act aiding terrorism? The ambiguity needs to be cleared.

Q: In order to do that, there needs to be an identification of such organisations. While there is a definition of terrorism, there is no specific reference to the LTTE. Aren't these regulations a covert move to control LTTE activities?

A: The regulations, in my thinking, have been tailor-made to remain ambiguous. In the height of the1988-1989 insurgency, the government used the PTA to crush the JVP through military means. That was the height of JVP terror and media personnel had a government guarantee that there would be no penalty for publishing any material that would amount to JVP propaganda. We did publish such material.

The worrying aspect in this regard is that a voluntary movement in the south like that, or even a mere protest could be painted with the same brush. What if a journalist interviews an activist of a rebel organisation? These aspects should be clarified urgently. Journalists are only communicators. They play a crucial role particularly during times of conflict when there is always a tendency to receive information from one side.

Whether rebel or otherwise, a journalist should always feel free to interview anyone without fear. It is a unique job that promotes communication and builds bridges. Exchange of information should not merit penal sanctions. This role should be understood by the state.

Q: Does this mean that hidden amongst these regulations we find ingredients for censorship?

A: Yes we do. But it is not necessary as there is a terrible fear psychosis both in the north and the south. The regulations do provide for the appointment of a competent authority. It does not specify with regard to the liberties of the media to report facts without feeling intimidated by the repressive regulations.

President Rajapakse a few months ago was under tremendous pressure to introduce censorship. As an individual who cultivated good relations with the media, he opposed this move. Everything was planned, a competent authority was named and other preparatory work attended to. So censorship has been discussed for some months. Especially with both sides committing themselves to war at least for the time being, this discussion would not die down.

The LTTE Leader in his Mahaveer speech and the President's address to the nation in its aftermath have indicated their wish to resort to military action. This attitude would inevitably lead to more repressive conditions, with or without war.

Q: Do you think the regulations were a compromise formula to appease mounting pressure in the south to ban the LTTE whilst not upsetting the international community?

A: It is to appease the popular sentiments in the south. The LTTE is practically banned in the government-controlled areas. Any LTTE cadre found within government-controlled territory would be dealt with severely. The regulations therefore are for the consumption of the south.

Q: How would the new regulations impact on the CFA? Would it further alienate the two sides?

A: Both sides openly say that the CFA is redundant. What is important is the actual legitimacy carried by any agreement. This the CFA had lost some time back. There is virtually no truce in this country. I feel that a peace process also could not be revived on the basis of this defunct CFA. There needs to be a fresh initiative to resume a dialogue.

Q: There is growing advocacy for the adherence to higher standards of human rights and respect of civil liberties. In this regard, both the PSO and the PTA have been seen as oppressive. When fresh regulations are introduced to give teeth to the above, how would that impact on civil society?

A: Truth being the first casualty in war, this we would witness soon enough. It has already begun to happen with various spins being given to different incidents. As an advocate of democratic rights, I fear for what this could actually do. The media would be extremely controlled whether overtly stated or not.

Tamil journalists are under significant threat. Sri Lanka's recent record of suppression, abduction and killing of journalists does not augur well for a country having to deal with many good governance issues. While in the south the suppression is different, in the north, journalists cannot work freely. In the east, distribution of newspapers is retarded.

At both ends, the government and militant organisations including the LTTE are resorting to all kinds of oppressive tactics. It leads only to one thing, lack of information, misinformation and distortion of facts. In the south, the result has been self-censorship.  Few newspapers are dealing with the real issues affecting our society. Those who do take up good governance issues, suppression of communities, civil liberties and corruption are called unpatriotic orpro-LTTE. That itself is a suppression tactic.

Q: How would the new regulations further segregate the media? Could this result in censorships whenever serious military engagements take place?

A: It could happen. The media might just be at the mercy of the state as they could always appoint a competent authority and then take things from there. Developing situation will compel journalists to choose. As George Bush said, you have to choose whether you are with the state or with the enemy.

President Mahinda Rajapakse's last address to the nation also was on similar lines. So journalistsare being told that they must choose. Theirs is a job that disseminates information. Their job is not to take sides, to support the state or to assist terrorists. This role is vital for civil rights to survive.

We have opposed an attempt to introduce a suppressive broadcasting authority bill, the press council law and criminal defamation. Given all of the above, this issevere backtracking and defeats all positive steps taken before to crate a vibrant media culture.

Q: According to Section 3 (5) of the regulations, certain acts could be viewed as assisting 'terrorist' organisations.  In such an event, dissemination of information that authorities may term as being militarily sensitive could be construed as a violation under the new regulations?

A:This could mean reporting on military purchases or an interview with a LTTE leader could be construed as a possible offence. Then again, there is so much ambiguity. While we are at it, we must remember that there is no universal definition of terrorism.We also must remember that one's terrorist is often another's hero. This is also why the UN has not come up with a definition of terrorism.

I believe that this exclusion of the LTTE as a named terrorist organisation is for international consumption as muchas the other regulations are for southern consumption. This is some cat and mouse game. Both sides are engaged in virtual war. But on the face of things, both sides continue to pay lip service to the CFA and do not call it war. This is why the LTTE is not directly referred to in these regulations.

Q: Under the new provisions, there is no specific reference to the LTTE. Instead, the reference is to terror activities and unlawful assemblies. Lawful demonstrations could be easily suppressed this way?

A: Let me give you two examples. We were to hold a protest campaign against the police assault of The Sunday Leader photographer Asoka Fernando on the day Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapakse came under a suicide attack.

We still want to hold it. It may not get banned but there are possibilities that the protest could be consideredunlawful under the new regulations. If it was about Parameswari's abduction, then there is a greater chance to have the protest banned.

Having said that, I must say that provisions of the PTA have largely not been used against media practitioners. The state of course has other strong-arm tactics to deal with situations. The PTA so far has not been used against journalists. However, by pushing journalists to choose, the state is advocating journaliststo subscribe to one extreme whereas a journalist should always tread the middle ground.

Q: The SLFP and the UNP have signed a MoU to work on identified areas of national concern. This means they would work together and there would be a less active opposition. In this sense, isn't the main opposition also subscribing to reducing dissent by not being the alternative voice in the country?

A: There are so many issues to be taken up, but thereisnobody doing it. Who records legitimate dissent? The parliament is a redundant practice and even outside there is a growing fear psychosis which prevents people from taking a stance. Whatever that is raised is also according to various political agendas.

The main opposition is incapable at this moment to create a discourse or a debate and raise awareness. Their own petty bickering bogs them down. Democracy is aided and protected largely on the strength of an elected opposition. This role is sacred, and it is one that has been so far protected by all opposition parties in parliament.

As a result of the MoU, now both the government and the opposition have gone into a deep slumber where no issue gets raised. The government tooishappy not to offer explanations.

Our earlier experiences show that civil society recorded victories on rights and other fundamental freedoms whenever the opposition played a vital vibrant role. The NGOs can only assist in advocacy and mobilising people. It is the role of a democratic opposition to dredge the issues and demand responses and corrective action from a government.

Q: In the meantime, the government has a terrible human rights record, an aggravating humanitarian crisis in the north east, war conditions islandwide, defunct independent commissions, growing corruption and curtailment of civil liberties in general?

A: The best example is the fate that befell the 17th Amendment. It is now redundant. But here was one chance when the entire country gathered together. All sectors joined forces and demanded positive legislation to strengthen civil society, ensure transparency and democracy.

Take the issue of corruption. It is there from top to bottom but who bothers to investigate and expose? There was a big discourse earlier which is how the 17th Amendment came into being. But the government has now happily swept it under the carpet and the opposition is too lame to raise the issue.

Just look at how this government responds to international organisations such as Human Rights Watch, AmnestyInternational, TransparencyInternational, and the Special Rapporteur on Child Rights. These are signs of a troubled administration.

Then take the equally sad role of the media. A few newspapers take up these issues and are immediately labelled as pro-enemy.  Those who report on these issues are largely the English newspapers. While peace and good governance issues are the concern of the English media, more so the newspapers, the vernacular concentrates on war, sex and scandal. That's the bigger tragedy.