| | S’indigner ? Ici ? | | | | Modifier la taille du texte: | A | | | A | | |
|
| | Par:- Iqbal Kalla
On 17/06/2011 |
Les vieux routiers dans le journalisme savent bien que tout peut se dire. Malgré les lois sur la diffamation — quand il n’y a pas de preuves formelles. Ou sur la sédition — quand ceux en position d’autorité se sentent menacés.
Ainsi, par exemple, très récemment, dans Le Grand Journal sur Canal Plus, l’ex-ministre Luc Ferry a lancé des allégations de pédophilie au sujet d’un autre homme politique, sans le nommer. Le journaliste Alain Duhamel, présent sur le plateau, lui a lancé qu’il était « Mauvaise Langue ». Evitant ostensiblement de prononcer la combinaison des deux voyelles finales
Ces derniers jours, The Guardian fait état d’un cas intéressant en Angleterre (http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/jun/15/can-bahrain-government-sue-independent). Le gouvernement de Bahreïn compte engager des poursuites contre le titre de presse Independent. Le gouvernement de ce pays reproche au journal ses articles et commentaires après la répression en mars de protestations hostiles au régime.
Selon ce gouvernement, « The Independent, par des chroniques et commentaires irréalistes et provocateurs, notamment par son journaliste Robert Fisk, a délibérément pris pour cible Bahreïn et le royaume saoudien en falsifiant la vérité ».
Or, en Angleterre, il est un fait établi qu’un gouvernement ne peut poursuivre quiconque pour diffamation, depuis l’affaire « Derbyshire county council v Times newspapers », survenue en 1993. Seul hic : c’est que les cours de justice britanniques estiment que cela concerne seulement les gouvernements démocratiquement élus.
In any case, en Grande-Bretagne il est convenu, pour certains, que « an authority, a body, a force cannot be libelled ». En l’occurrence, la force policière, le corps médical du service public, l’ensemble des hommes de loi ou encore le corps journalistique n’ont aucun locus standi pour engager des poursuites pour diffamation.
Cela ne semble pas s’appliquer à Maurice.
Cependant à Maurice, mais aussi en Angleterre existe le délit de sédition, qui relève d’une instigation à l’émeute ou au soulèvement contre le pouvoir.
Ce qui explique que de très nombreuses réactions exaspérées de nos lecteurs ont dû être rejetées hier, pour éviter que nous soyons traduits en justice pour diffamation et sédition, après la publication de l’article sur le discours de Navin Ramgoolam au Investment Forum (http://www.lexpress.mu/story/25485-ramgoolam-au-investment-forum-nulle-excuse-pour-ceux-qui-ne-produisent-pas-de-resultat.html).
Ce qui précède ne constitue nullement un encouragement à envoyer des commentaires indignés…
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Emiliano Z | | | Korek Lelio, thanks for sharing your thoughts. That beer is too tame though, next time we'll have to up the ante with a bit of hard liquor. lol | | | Honky Tonk | | | Who the hell does Lelio Wong think he is by saying so?Megalomania is a mental illness characterized by delusions of grandeur, power wealth etc.The megalomaniac differs from the narcissist by the fact that he wishes to be powerful rather chraming, and seeks to be feared rather loved.To this type belong many lunatics and most of the great men in history. | | | Lélio Wong | | | @ arvindra. You' ve assimilated the wrong part of my ambiguity " la liberté et le culot de critiquer" to prove who is the real megalomaniac. Psychologists can also have mental disturbances. Cheers ! | | | Lélio Wong | | | @ Emiliano Z. Emiliano my friend, of course an anarchist menace can be a sign of non resignation against dictatorship. The ruling gvt as well as the opposition are composed of allied parties and have as their respective Team Leaders Navin and Paul of totally different philosophies but one thing they must have in common. Both are authoritative which can be easily interpreted as dictatorship. Two shrews to be tamed. Who is the founding father to do this job ? Or just imagine what would you expect if these shrews get allied. I would better sit down, " manze pistasse get cinéma " as I still w'ont have a muzzle. It's only an abuse of authority which everybody can fight against, without being subversive. Happy people are ordinary people living in an ordinary world. Our only poison is ambition, the world enemy Nr. 1. | | | arvindra | | | Ton Lelio,, dire dimoune qui critik so lanalyse ena culot,,,,,,
mo bien chagrin enan cas psychiatrik,,,,, pas encore enan remede ....
mais faudrait pas desesperer,,,, si quicaine y compris moi pas accepter detre critiker,,,,,, mari megalomanie ca
bonne annee ,,, lol | | | Emiliano Z | | | "Mr Navin Ramgoolam is a charismatic, learned individual, ambitious and affluent with a sense of destiny but no flexibility." Chitchat, what were you thinking, are you okay! Did you mean a sense of self aggrandizement? You're right about one thing, Ti-ramgoolam enan charisma: Li zour Nita e dir Raj pas bon pou bross so soulier. | | | Emiliano Z | | |
Hey Octopuss, what about parliamentary privilege? Even if the original question put was outside the house and now before the courts, as an MP couldn’t old Paul debate this matter in the house with immunity? Anyway, it’s pretty obvious that the conflict-of-interest stench won’t wash off Medpoint anytime soon, so I guess that’s why Junior is litigating to stop people saying it stinks.
| | | Emiliano Z | | | Lelio old son, let’s have a cold beer and discuss what you think the real definition of anarchy actually means. No, it does not mean lawlessness. Who would advocate a philosophy based on lawlessness? The founding fathers certainly didn’t. The belief that nothing is more important than an individual's sense of right and wrong was so dangerous an idea to their interests that capitalists demonised, distorted and misrepresented it to mean lawlessness. It’s not true of course, never was. In fact, the ideal and final state of anarchy can only ever be achieved in an atmosphere of harmony, cooperation and mutual respect. Lelio, if you believe in laissez faire and the free market, which I’m sure you do, then you are a market anarchist and don’t even know it. So, an anarchist menace may not be as bad as the corrupt monarchical dictatorship we endure today. | | | Lélio Wong | | | À tous ceux qui ne m'ont jamais compris, je demeure un réaliste et un pacifiste sans absolument d'être un fanatique ou un suiveur. J'aime aider à construire pas détruire. Rejouissez vous d'avoir encore la liberté et le culot de me critiquer.Et ca me fait du bien. | | | Starbright | | | Most people are wondering how politicians and their supporters are able to publish assaultive comments: certainly some of them cannot represent the whole truth. But the question then becomes when do such statements rise to the level of actionable defamation?There are 2 types of defamation. The first is libel or written defamation and the second is slander or spoken defamation.Most courts require public officials to prove to that the defamatory statement was made with the person's actual knowledge of it's falsehood or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. The public official is required to prove knowledge or reckless disregard for the truthfulness of the statement. Therfore ,even if the ad is viewed as false statement a fact,the politician would still have to overcome the hurdles on trial. | | | democrate | | | Le droit de s’indigner est une expression démocratique. Ce qu’on appelle le « right to outrage » dans les pays anglo-saxons est bien ancré dans les mœurs démocratiques des peuples qui se sont affranchis de la monarchie absolue, du despotisme, de la dictature militaire ou de l’autocratie des dirigeants élus. A Maurice, lorsque des personnes sensées s’indignent des dérives liberticides du régime, des viols de droits de l’homme par des institutions et du recel de biens publics par les dirigeants, elles sont clouées au pilori par les thuriféraires du pouvoir qui les accusent de tous les pêchés d’Israël. Toute critique valable est rendue suspecte par un procès d’intention quand elle n’est pas mise en sourdine à travers un procès de diffamation. Il y a un abus de procès de diffamation par les puissants du jour pour interdire la parole à leurs contradicteurs. Les commentaires légitimes sur des questions d’intérêt national (fair comment on matters of public interest) sont considérés à tort comme des propos diffamatoires dans le dessein d’empêcher tout débat sérieux. Dans les pays occidentaux, les cours de justice ont soutenu le droit des citoyens de faire des commentaires sur les questions qui les concernent alors que le Freedom of Information Act leur permet de demander des renseignements de l’Etat sur l’utilisation de fonds publics. Certains de ces pays démocratiques ont adopté une loi pour prévenir la menace de procès de diffamation contre ceux qui font une critique rationnelle de la politique de l’Etat ou d’une organisation quelconque. Il s’agit d’une loi contre le SLAPC (Strategic Litigation Against Public Comment). Cette loi est entrée dans l’arsenal juridique de ces pays après qu’on eut constaté que certaines sociétés de pétrole qui polluaient l’environnement par leurs pratiques d’exploitation voulaient réduire au silence les environnementalistes par des procès de diffamation. Il est inimaginable que Maurice adopte une telle loi car les fils à papa qui nous gouvernent ne sauraient alors faire comme bon leur semble. Ils ont fait de notre pays une nation de flatteurs, de flagorneurs, de cireurs de pompes et de lèche-bottes, à l’exception de quelques âmes irréductibles qui n’ont pas encore rendu les armes. | | | Elvis | | | Lelio Wong has always sounded as pro Ramgoolam and anti-Berenger (...) | | | arjun | | | Quand mo pe lire certains commentaires lors ou larticle, ca fine renforce mo conviction Mauriciens ene race hyper debile,,, et zotte merite dirigeants qui zotte enan... Banne dirigeants meritent population qui fine elire zotte ,,,,,
dans roche ,, pas capave tire dilo,,,,,, meme bon dieu pas pou capave faire mciens vine in le pep honnete et intelligent ,,,,,, cest ene tache impossible | | | Paultheoctopus | | | I am really astounded at some of the comments here, especially this ludicrous assumption that politicians are best placed to 'sauver la democratie'. To save it from what precisely? the denouncing of corruption? the dilapidation of our national assets? the evils of nepotism which results in the most grotesque individuals being put in charge of our essential services? If anyone is in any doubt about freedom of expression being an essential concomitant of a true democracy and that active, malignant censorship serves nothing but to protect the interests of the rich and powerful, please read this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/17/mubarak-associate-arrested-spain
None of this would have come out when Mubarak was busy 'sauver la democratie' in Egypt by 'repliquer avec des sanctions' which saved his skin and allowed him to loot and plunder his country at will.
| | | Ashley | | | JCC and Lelio Wong. Faire chagrin pou lire bann commentaires aussi pitoyables. C'est comme ça que ceux qui sont au pouvoir s'amusent à nos dépens | | | Pratima | | | I wonder what RAJ has to say about this. He used to be soooooo critical about our society | | | Che | | | @LelioWong. Saki ou pe demann nou, dan manyer ou koz lor lagazet, se ferm nou labous ek les bann ki pe kontrol nou, kontrol tou? Savedir, nou nek res la atann ki zot anpes nou bouze ek kritike.... Jolie mentalité... | | | chitchat | | | @JCC, Your short comment speaks volume about yourself, Gyaneev has responded in a very civil manner. Your HERO, Mr Navin Ramgoolam is a charismatic, learned individual, ambitious and affluent with a sense of destiny but no flexibility. His cabinet consists of some mimisters of monumental incompetence, together they've done nothing to boast about but to deprive the media the right, even the duty to raise queries and exposing the corruption and other wrong doings in society, they've limited the journalists of their freedom of expression with threats of prosecutions or having to pay heavy fines. They're aware of The dogs barking and the.......... | | | Lélio Wong | | | Certains médias unilatéral ont souvent tendance à inciter le public à exercer des idées subversives. Une menace anarchiste. Ceux au pouvoir ont la responsabilité de repliquer avec des sanctions pour sauver la démocratie. On peut avoir des opinions différente mais la compréhension et le respect pour l'autre demeure primordial. La force fait la loi, mais la guerre détruit. Apprenons " la lecon arabe " ! | | | Jolss75 | | | @JCC : Il a fait quoi de bien NR ces cinq dernières années (sans parler des scandales du moment) et surtout quoi de concret. | | | Gyaneev | | | To JCC: Isn't it about time that you remove those blindfolds that allow you to only see the halo that you have placed around your hero's head? Read my comments in its entirety next time before you again profess your undying love for our wonderful Prime Minister. | | | Paultheoctopus | | | The price of living in a free society is that we are sometimes confronted with views we find offensive and insulting. Faced with bigoted, intolerant opinions, the most effective way to challenge them is by calm, reasoned debate to dispel ignorance and prejudice - not by bans and censorship. Free speech is one of the litmus tests of a free and democratic society. Alas, not everyone shares a commitment to democracy. To maintain their power, political and religious tyrants have always censored ideas and opinions. Here in Mauritius, our politicians seem to have only one answer to any legitimate investigation in the abuse of their privilege as our representative, and into any case that shows at the very least an element of corruption in the way decisions that are fiscally very advantageous are made in their favour. One glaring example recently is the Minister of finance suing the leader of the opposition for tens of millions of rupees for simply asking questions about a cheque for Rs 145 millions which the minister signed for the benefit of his sister and brother in law, (and himself too as he owns some shares in Medpoint, and would therefore benefit from this incredible largesse of our government). Of course, people realise that recourse to a libel action in this case means that the defendant(the leader of the opposition)can no longer talk about Medpoint and the minister. This case is a perfect example of the abuse of the libel laws in Mauritius: it is a powerful tool for the rich and the powerful to stifle debate and to ensure that the file remains closed for many years before the matter is either eventually called to court or quietly dropped. If Pravin Jugnauth was really concerned that his reputation had been defamed, then he should have taken up Harish Boodhoo's offer of quick resolution (and quick retribution if the court finds in his favour) by suing him for a nominal sum so that the case can be immediately dealt with. After all, Boodhoo has made far more serious allegations against not just Pravin but also against his parents too. I leave it to the readers to decide why someone's reputation, if indeed it has been traduced, is better defended in five years' time than immediately...It is quite clear that reputation or damages for its tarnishing has nothing to do with the libel laws in Mauritius: it is simply an all embracing weapon by the rich, the corrupt, and the powerful( with the exception of Pravin Jugnauth of course...) in Mauritius to stop anyone from talking about the numerous occasions when they are caught with their grubby hands in our national coffers. | | | JCC | | | @Gyaneev. Aretter de tjours parler de l'Angleterre. Maurice est libre et independent. Respecter Nuvin Ramgoolam pour ce qu'il essaiye de fair pou Maurice. | | | Gyaneev | | | In March 2006, a Freedom of Expression rally was held in London to defend this statement of principle: "The strength and survival of free society and the advance of human knowledge depend on the free exchange of ideas. All ideas are capable of giving offence, and some of the most powerful ideas in human history, such as those of Galileo and Darwin, have given profound religious offence in their time. The free exchange of ideas depends on freedom of expression and this includes the right to criticise and mock. We assert and uphold the right of freedom of expression and call on our elected representatives to do the same. We abhor the fact that people throughout the world live under mortal threat simply for expressing ideas and we call on our elected representatives to protect them from attack and not to give comfort to the forces of intolerance that besiege them." Can any progressive, objective person seriously disagree with the values embodied in this statement? Unfortunately, in Mauritius, our elected representatives are first in the queue to use the libel laws to stifle this basic human right, and any investigation into their highly questionable behaviour is more often than not met with a writ for libel asking for tens of millions of rupees as 'compensation'. | | | RajD. | | | Iqbal, même si tu devais tout publier... Pour que quelqu'un puisse s'indigner, il faudrait que le mot Amour Propre ait encore une certaine signification. Regarde un peu autour et dis-moi ce que tu vois. Tu pourrais résumer par Les Chiens continuent d'aboyer et ...
Bottomline, mo frère, azordi jour dans Honter meme nepli ena La Honte. | | | jincy d"olo | | | Freedom of the press cannot be the freedom to contravene the law, to libel with impunity and to mislead your readers by presenting fiction as facts.( Note Am not accusing any media.) | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|