Tuesday February 9th, 2010
- Last update:12 hours 57 min ago
Two TV station employees for ‘Privileges’ body
Published: 15 Oct 2009
House Speaker Barendra Sinanan has referred CCN-TV6 and its employees, Sasha Mohammed and Samantha John, to Parliament’s Privileges Committee regarding an alleged false and misleading account of Parliament proceedings. This followed a move by Government at yesterday’s Lower House session to have TV6, Mohammed and John referred to the Privileges Committee for allegedly distorting Sinanan’s rulings and the proceedings of the House.
Ruling on the issue, Sinanan said: “While the Opposition members may feel this is a laughing matter, I do not. It is a very serious matter because it affects the comity between the Parliament and Judiciary.” He added: “I have read this carefully and I am disturbed by what has come out of this and I have no hesitation whatsoever in referring this matter to the Committee of Privileges for its consideration and report.” The issue involved statements made by Sinanan at the House’s October 9 sitting. At that session, Sinanan had struck down efforts by UNC MP Kamla Persad-Bissessar to have Attorney General John Jeremie taken to the Privileges Committee for statements Jeremie had made regarding Justice Rajendra Narine last month.
Persad-Bissessar also sought to have Sinanan recuse himself from the committee —which Sinanan heads—on the issue. Yesterday, delivering Government’s position, Information Minister Neil Parsanlal said he was totally taken aback at TV6’s reporting of the matter in its 7 pm broadcast of October 9. Parsanlal said the House had to register concern on this occasion since the manner of the reporting of the matter and the “grave inaccuracies” contained in the TV6 report could severely damage the comity that always had existed between the legislature and the judiciary and “bring the House and Speaker into odium or ridicule.” Parsanlal said the first inaccuracy or distortion was made by TV6’s John—a news presenter—who had said Sinanan “had ruled that AG Jeremie acted properly when he criticised the judge.” Parsanlal said Mohammed in the report also distorted other statements.
He told Sinana: “It is my submission, based on information before you and this House, that these statements distort your rulings and proceedings of this honourable House. “Neither in your initial ruling nor in your ruling of October 9 did you state that it was right for the member (Jeremie) to criticise the judge.” He said in the 23 months he had been a member of the House, Mohammed, a reporter, “has rarely ever deigned to visit this august Chamber.” Yet, Parsanlal said, Mohammed had incorrectly claimed in her report that several Opposition MPs were referred to the Privileges Committee following complaints by Government members and that Opposition MPs were unsuccessful in referring PNM MPs to the same committee. Parsanlal said the public record shows a different picture to the one Mohammed painted, since only two UNC MPs were referred to the Privileges Committee in recent months and not for the reasons Mohammed stated.
Yippeekaiyay, Mr
Yippeekaiyay, Mr Farley.
Parsanlal said ... the "grave inaccuracies" contained in the TV6 report could severely damage the comity that always had existed between the legislature and the judiciary and "bring the House and Speaker into odium or ridicule." Parsanlal said the first inaccuracy or distortion was made by TV6's John—a news presenter — who had said Sinanan "had ruled that AG Jeremie acted properly when he criticised the judge."
So now you get hauled before the privileges committee if you act properly?
Parsie boy, everybody knows Barry biased. Look how he ent send JJ to the Privileges Committee but he send Mark so farse, you could get whiplash...
Jumbie's Watch
Let's get the facts
Let's get the facts straight:
Firstly, from the report, Mrs. Persad-Bissessar sought to have Mr. Sinanan recuse himself from deciding whether the matter should be referred to the Committee of Privileges, not from chairing the committee itself.
Secondly, from Jumbie's comments, Senator Mark is (obviously) a member of the Senate -- not the House of Representatives -- presided over by Senator Danny Montano. It was Senator Montano who decided that Senator Mark should be referred to the Committee of Privileges, not Mr. Sinanan.
Have a biased opinion if you want, but get the facts right.
Them 2 nice girls get into
Them 2 nice girls get into trouble with the PNM? OMG. Who next? I hope that they eh mess with Shelly.
The entire press should
The entire press should stand up against this dictatorship.Bullying the press whats next?
Bullying the press? are you
Bullying the press? are you serious.All your comments have so far been biased.Please get a life.
'Kill one, frighten a
'Kill one, frighten a thousand'. (anonymous).
With total respect and deference to the Hindu community in this season, Should we slaughter our sacred cows? Is the press a sacred cow? Is Parliament a Sacred cow? Is free speech a sacred cow? Will 'we the people' prevail? Et tu, Neil?
Section 4 of the Constitution guarantees 'freedom of the press'. No one is questioning the letter of the law and the Speaker's supremacy in the House, but any peception of an attack on the press is likely to severly damage our democracy and could possibly create bitterness in our fragile society.
Throughout the centuries of the development of Western Civilization, it is the 'Fourth Estate' that has been a bulwark against any form of 'tyranny'. It was the 18th century French Philosopher Baron de Montesquieu who defended free speech by saying that speech was only an idea and only became criminal when it accompanied or followed a criminal act. Has a criminal act been committed, by whom and who's the victim?
With the utmost deference to the Speaker's constitutional right or reason to haul anyone before the Privileges Committee, questions need to be asked: What is the net effect of this action on freedom, democracy, liberty and free speech in our society? Could it serve to muzzle the press? Just some questions.
Surely, we are a long way from being a Cuba, or Zimbabwe or Iran or, within recent times, Guyana and Venezuela where the press has been under 'heavy manners'.
I am absolutely sure that there is no intention to muzzle the press or to 'Kill one, frighten a thousand'?
ajfyzabadbutlertown
The Guardian is the worse
The Guardian is the worse culprit of this nonsense! with "stories" "mass rape of Indian women"
Grave inaccuracies my
Grave inaccuracies my foot...
No one even remembers the story by these 2 young reporters.
All that Parsanlal is trying to do is to wield a big stick at the media so as to intimidate them into submission. The message that "Don't mess with we" has to go out loud and clear to one and all.
http://dsaltsman.blogspot.com/
WAKE UP PEOPLE
WAKE UP PEOPLE CONSTITUTIONAL COUP -
We already have had our 20 year COUP, a Constitutional COUP,
1) UDECOTT and Hart unanswerable to Parliament and the people.
2) The Judiciary under threat.
3) The opposition stymied, Kamla and Ramesh denied motions. Opposition denied their Members Motion Day to speak by manipulation of the proceedings. Questions unanswered for months.
4) PM refusal to answer questions from press.
5) Government control and intimidation of the media.
6) Attempt to foist new constitution on unsuspecting public.
soooo the media can mistrue
soooo the media can mistrue things whichever way they like and the government must just sit and let it go on-- that will give them licence to do it again and again and it'll become a habit and if the UNC was in power then they would be making a big thing about it-- it's all about accountability and professionalism. Further, "so what is this?", so NO one can touch the media without silly people screaming that it is "bullying of the media"-- last time i checked we were in a DEMOCRACY and it's called CRITICISM-- usually people heed the criticism and TRY to improve ;)
There are sufficient
There are sufficient platforms for MPs and members of the government to project their 'correct' perspectives and facts.
Press releases, interviews, press conferences; take your pick.
Taking reporters to a privelege committee seems absurdly heavy-handed and is only meant to intimidate, not correct the alleged misinformation.
I agree with you 100%.
I agree with you 100%.
Maybe the two newsreaders
Maybe the two newsreaders were interpreting or commenting on the news they were reading, but to use a sledge hammer to crack a nut is an overkill.
If you continue to overuse the Privileges Committee, you run the serious risk of devaluing its credibility and effectiveness.
If Parsanal and/or Sinanan felt aggrieved on this particular issue, it might have made more sense to lodge their complaints to the media house, MATT or whoever deals with press complaints.
This approach coming just after the discourteous behaviour of Swarathsingh towards the media could easily be viewed as a sinister attempt at bullying the media into line.
We all remember not that long ago the how Manning rushed out of his barber shop down south to POS with all his forces in tow to manners two of Lee Sing's newsreaders who could not control themselves over some gaffe of the PM. This behaviour attracted quite some controversy.
Some years ago then PM Panday launched a blistering attack on Jones Madeira when photos of Panday regularly appeared with him with a glass in hand. I remember one of the PM's men applauding Panday's behaviour. I turned to him and said in my view, if the PM had a problem, maybe a quiet and discreet word from someone might have been a better approach. It's called quiet diplomacy. These politicians must learn to deal with these press issues. They come with the territority.
The Prince, who will be
The Prince, who will be next?
Got any ideas?
We better get our publicists ready and waiting. Plus get our legal team on the speed dial.
'Freedom of the Press' etc. 'hammer and the nut' they must have a lot of Brazil Nut trees planted on the grounds of our Parliament.
Instead of 'wasting' time and resources in an attempt to muzzle the media, why are they not fighting the crime that is 'disrespecting' the people of this nation.
Ps: In the past few days the Obama team was critical of Fox media, for their criticisms, and on CNN they kept using this quote "Never pick a fight with someone who buys their ink by the barrel." I guess it would be pertinent in the newspaper industry, but could be transferred to the visual TV and our internet. The keyboard is our 'barrel of ink'
Gardenia
Gardenia, from the time I
Gardenia, from the time I joined in with you bloggers I started to wonder whether the evil forces of government and the long arms of Manning's secret agents were "macoing" what we were saying online. I won't be surprised. Apparently they bought some very high-tech eavesdropping equipment from the Israelis. But who gives a damn? Anyhow, better check your flower pots in case they have any bugs, and I'm not referring to flying pests. Next thing you disappear in the Caroni or the Godineau or you pushing up daisies in Tarouba or sent to join some gulag camp in the Gobi desert to keep company with those protesting Chinese slave workers. There used to be a blogger called Ryan4Party or something like that who has been silent for some time now. Wonder if he's feeding fish these days?
But not to worry. If Jesus could be crucified on a cross and lesser mortals like Gandhi and Mandela could make jail and come out famous celebrities, who is we? And there have been female martyrs as well; remember Joan of Arc? Burnt to death at the stake like a burnt steak!
The Prince, follower of the Prince of Peace, not Machiavelli's Il Principe.
The Prince, is there a
The Prince, is there a message somewhere in there?
You have made my day.
But I won's be pushing daisies in Tarouba, at least not yet ....
I will leave that for the Springtime - whenever that is ...
I will be planting gardenias and sending white roses to my friends in the meantime.
I got to believe that SOMEONE out there is looking out for me!
Here's to you:-
"Every oak tree started out as a couple of nuts who stood their grounds." -- (Anonymous)
Till tomorrow .. my friend.
Gardenia
Are there no objective
Are there no objective people commenting here? the press do that all the time and get away with it/ do you know the role of the press? it's to report the news. just the facts. no turn the story into some kind of political tool. we ecxpect to get the truth and only the truth. that the role of the press to report the news. you people act as if this is ok what they did. just say what the man said and did. dont ad anything to it. we all know the press like to inflate a story it's all about ratings. lots of people complain here on this forum all the time, that sometimes when we read a article yu cannot make head of tail of the real story on top of that they cannot spell nor articulate their point. is this reporting? nobody is bullying nobody here. all the man saying is that they said he did something which he did not do nor say. if someone accuse you of doing something you have the right to defend yourself. that's his right and he is exercising his right. thats all. it reminds me of fox news. if Obama say run, fox news will report that obama said dont move. why cant they just give us the facts.
"Pink moment alert!"
"Pink moment alert!"
What is the difference in sanctions or the nature of the 'investigation', if the reporters were referred to MATT instead of Parliament’s Privileges Committee or vice versa?
La Diva