South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

November 23, 2017, 13:27:05 PM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Go to mobile page.
News: Please read the posting guidelines before posting.
   
   Skeptic Forum Board Index   Help Forum Rules Search GoogleTagged Login Register Chat Blogroll  
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic:

Protection of Information Bil

 (Read 27934 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
GCG
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +8/-4
Offline Offline

Posts: 1829


skeptical mantis is skeptical


adele horn
WWW
« on: August 13, 2010, 13:46:27 PM »

Is this the gag-order on free speech?

http://www.info.gov.za/view/DownloadFileAction?id=118894

Objects of Act
2. The objects of this Act are to—
(a) regulate the manner in which State information may be protected;
(b) promote transparency and accountability in governance while recognising that State information may be protected from disclosure in order to safeguard the national interest of the Republic;
(c) establish general principles in terms of which State information may be handled and protected in a constitutional democracy;
(d) provide for a thorough and methodical approach to the determination of which State information may be protected;
(e) provide a regulatory framework in terms of which protected information is safeguarded in terms of this Act;
(f) define the nature and categories of information that may be protected from
destruction, loss or unlawful disclosure;
(g) provide for the classification and declassification of classified information;
(h) create a system for the review of the status of classified information by way of regular reviews and requests for review;
(i) regulate the accessibility of declassified information to the public;
(j) harmonise the implementation of this Act with the Promotion of Access to Information Act and the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa Act, 1996 (Act No. 43 of 1996);
(k) establish a National Declassification Database of declassified information that will be made accessible to members of the public;
(l) criminalise espionage and activities hostile to the Republic and provide for certain other offences and penalties; and
(m) repeal the Protection of Information Act, 1982 (Act No. 84 of 1982).

A bill (a draft law) can only be introduced in Parliament by a minister, a deputy minister, a parliamentary committee, or an individual MP.
Most bills are drawn up by a government department under the direction of the relevant minister or deputy minister. This kind of bill must be approved by the Cabinet before being submitted to Parliament. Bills introduced by individual MPs are called private members’ bills.
Before it can become a law, a bill must be considered by both houses of Parliament. Certain bills which affect provinces may first be introduced in the NCOP. All other bills are first introduced in the National Assembly. Once it is introduced, the bill is referred to the relevant committee. The bill is published in the Government Gazette for public comment unless it is very urgent. It is debated in the committee and amended if necessary. If there is great public interest in a bill, the committee may organise public hearings. Once it has decided on its version of the bill, the committee submits it to a sitting of the house for further debate and a vote. A bill could be referred back to a committee for more work before a vote is taken. The bill is then referred to the other house for its consideration. If the bill pass through both the National Assembly and the NCOP, it goes to the President for assent. Once it has been signed by the President, it becomes an Act of Parliament – a law of the
land.

Logged
Brian
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +8/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1357


I think therefor I am, I think


« Reply #1 on: August 13, 2010, 14:12:16 PM »

The way I see it YES! As soon as the politicos start talking of "national interest' head for the hills... it means that individual freedoms are subject to the common good which nobody ever defines and the ultimate question they never address is "At whose cost?"
In any case, we've enough legislation that provides for each of the points contained in this new bill. Some say it'll never fly and get past the Constitutional Court.
Logged
GCG
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +8/-4
Offline Offline

Posts: 1829


skeptical mantis is skeptical


adele horn
WWW
« Reply #2 on: August 13, 2010, 14:21:08 PM »

As far as I've read and understood the roots of our constitution, our basic human rights says two things, which can basically contradict each other.
You have the right to free speach, and the right to privacy.
Now if your right to free speach means delving into the privacy of someone's sordid dealings, then it kinda gets murky.
but what i've allso learned from our laws, is that a lot of stuff contradicts each other, and there are more holes than a swiss cheese with a rodent infestation.
Logged
Hermes
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +18/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 1137



« Reply #3 on: August 13, 2010, 14:40:44 PM »

The bill contains some very vague terminology such as "prejudice the State".   Exposing the arms scandal could easily be described by government in those terms.   It has another clause banning "harbouring or concealing persons" (read sources) which makes investigative journalism nearly impossible.

Some thirty five newspaper editors have issued a joint statement in which they strongly oppose this bill.

The extraordinary circumstances under which Sunday Times journalist Mzilikazi wa Afrika was arrested at their offices in Rosebank and carted off to Nelspruit last week reads like a horror story.

Media freedom - and by consequence democracy - is under serious threat.
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Online Online

Posts: 3690


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #4 on: August 13, 2010, 15:07:49 PM »

The Protection of Information Bill together with its cousin, the Media Appeals Tribunal, is an ill-conceived and ill-disguised attempt to exercise state control over the media, in particular the print media.  One must remember that a free press is the only effective handbrake on government and business abuses against the people of a country.  Without a truly free press, it is just a short hop to autocracy.

The mooted excuse by supporters for these restrictive measures on the media – i.e., that the media are guilty of irresponsible reporting and that they don’t respect the rights of individuals, especially their right to privacy – is also not exactly watertight.  Mostly, these are public figures who have been implicated in one or other form of misbehaviour, and it is more than a little hypocritical of them to attempt playing the “right to privacy” card as and when it suits them.  As a public figure, it goes with the territory that your actions and words will be held up for public scrutiny.  Where a reporting medium is guilty of misreporting, there are in any case already measures in place for remedial action and restitution.

The ANC has also claimed that, based on feedback on its website, ordinary people support the bill.  This stands in stark contrast to an SMS poll done during last Tuesday’s edition of SABC3’s Interface programme where 90% of respondents voiced against the proposed measures.

The proposed bill flies squarely in the face of constitutional democratic principles and, in my view, will be struck down with little hesitation by the ConCourt.  It has already been rightly condemned by an international body of editors as misguided.

'Luthon64
Logged
GCG
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +8/-4
Offline Offline

Posts: 1829


skeptical mantis is skeptical


adele horn
WWW
« Reply #5 on: August 13, 2010, 15:42:20 PM »

but surely, when one puts yourself out there as a political figure, then i think, to a degree, then your privacy goes out the window.  what you do with your money, your time, your car, your office, etc, is public knowledge.  ESPECIALLY if you are on the government payroll.  every cent that you spend, the taxpayer has the right to know what happens to it.   i think that comes with the territory, and every joe-soap should be able to have access to all expendature.
Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 2839



« Reply #6 on: August 13, 2010, 16:06:25 PM »

The irony reeks: Apartheid government sensored "revolutionary" material that the "struggle" tried to disseminate. We didn't know the truth and the most vocal opponents of the state censorship of the media was the ANC. Now, they themselves are pushing the same agenda.

How quickly people forget.
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Online Online

Posts: 3690


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #7 on: August 13, 2010, 18:35:57 PM »

but surely, when one puts yourself out there as a political figure, then i think, to a degree, then your privacy goes out the window.  what you do with your money, your time, your car, your office, etc, is public knowledge.  ESPECIALLY if you are on the government payroll.  every cent that you spend, the taxpayer has the right to know what happens to it.   i think that comes with the territory, and every joe-soap should be able to have access to all expendature.
Yes, that’s exactly what I was driving at, second half of the second paragraph of my previous post.



The irony reeks: …

How quickly people forget.
Indeed so.  It’s similar to how the ANC encouraged civil disobedience and strike action, and how they used labour unions as political instruments in the 80s to undermine the Apartheid government.  Those same tactics persist to this day and are now a major thorn in the government’s side.  It looks like they can’t exorcise the demons they summoned.

'Luthon64
Logged
Peter Grant
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +5/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 845


a fully caused agent


AtheistStoned AtheistStoned
WWW
« Reply #8 on: August 13, 2010, 20:20:20 PM »

Does this mean no more Julius Malema cartoons? Sad
Logged
Tweefo
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +9/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 1474



WWW
« Reply #9 on: August 14, 2010, 08:56:17 AM »

Quote
Indeed so.  It’s similar to how the ANC encouraged civil disobedience and strike action, and how they used labour unions as political instruments in the 80s to undermine the Apartheid government.  Those same tactics persist to this day and are now a major thorn in the government’s side.  It looks like they can’t exorcise the demons they summoned.

Once the genie is out of the bottle....
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Online Online

Posts: 3690


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #10 on: August 16, 2010, 14:19:04 PM »

We, the undersigned editorial cartoonists of South Africa, condemn all politically and religiously motivated threats against the media.



We reject the proposed ‘Protection of Information Bill’ and Media Tribunal…




Reporters who wrote the story about businessman Saki Macozoma being tailed by intelligence agents would have faced at least five years in prison had the new information bill been law at the time.

Tony Yengeni, Jackie Selebi and dozens of other corrupt officials would probably never have faced prosecution, and dozens more infants may have died at an Eastern Cape hospital.

These are some of the stories that would not have seen the light of day, in the view of leading legal experts and academics. This week they slammed the government’s Protection of Information Bill as “draconian”, “unconstitutional”, and something that would effectively criminalise investigative journalism.



South Africa’s press has been demoted from “free” to “partly free” in the new 2010 Freedom of the Press survey by UK-based watchdog Freedom House.

It is now in 70th place in the world, falling below countries such as South Korea, Guyana and Papua New Guinea, due to 10 existing repressive laws, and the threat of a raft of new ones.



'Luthon64
Logged
GCG
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +8/-4
Offline Offline

Posts: 1829


skeptical mantis is skeptical


adele horn
WWW
« Reply #11 on: August 16, 2010, 14:24:43 PM »


South Africa’s press has been demoted from “free” to “partly free” in the new 2010 Freedom of the Press survey by UK-based watchdog Freedom House.

It is now in 70th place in the world, falling below countries such as South Korea, Guyana and Papua New Guinea, due to 10 existing repressive laws, and the threat of a raft of new ones.[/size]
[/quote]

flip.  that is very disturbing.
Logged
Peter Grant
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +5/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 845


a fully caused agent


AtheistStoned AtheistStoned
WWW
« Reply #12 on: August 16, 2010, 18:20:35 PM »

Thanks for the link Mefi, I feel a bit better now:



I'm so proud of these guys! Grin
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Online Online

Posts: 3690


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #13 on: August 16, 2010, 18:59:09 PM »

Countries with largest downgrades [in their media freedom index] included South Africa, Iran, Mexico, the Philippines, Senegal, and Guinea.



Official rhetoric against independent or critical voices has also increased in South Africa in recent years, as have legal threats to the print media and a lack of independence at the dominant state-run broadcaster, pushing the country into the Partly Free category.



Namibia and South Africa both moved to Partly Free, leaving no Free countries in southern Africa for the first time since 1990. … In South Africa, press freedom has faced a growing threat from hostile rhetoric by top government officials, as well as official encroachments on the editorial independence of the South African Broadcasting Corporation, which dominates the national broadcast sector. Also in 2009, the country’s legislature passed the Film and Publications Act, which legitimizes some forms of prepublication censorship and creates a legal dichotomy between government-recognized publications and others.


'Luthon64
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Online Online

Posts: 3690


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #14 on: August 17, 2010, 15:29:45 PM »

Now a US-based interest group weighs in on the issue via a letter sent to Zuma:
“We call on you as the head of state and leader of the ruling African National Congress (ANC) to ensure that such proposals are either amended in line with constitutional safeguards for freedom of the press and access to information, or withdrawn altogether in the interest of preserving the transparency, accountability, and democracy gained after apartheid.”

'Luthon64
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6   Go Up
  Print  


 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 0.441 seconds with 23 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page October 02, 2017, 09:33:01 AM
Privacy Policy