HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 215216,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/215216/?format=api",
"text_counter": 147,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Mr. Raila",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": {
"id": 195,
"legal_name": "Raila Amolo Odinga",
"slug": "raila-odinga"
},
"content": "and the next day, it will the Kenya Times, or the Royal Media House! All right- thinking hon. Members of Parliament should not allow this to happen. We know the consequences of allowing an over-zealous Government such far-reaching powers. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, the modern way of dealing with the media is to allow July 5, 2007 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 2313 for self-regulation. That is how established democracies operate all over the world. How does it hurt this Government? Somebody said that journalists behave irresponsibly. There are laws to deal with journalists who behave irresponsibly! If somebody is scandalised, there is the law of libel which is available. It is not as if there is no legal redress open to people who are aggrieved. So many media houses have been taken to court. There are people who have been scandalised. Why is it necessary for us to introduce another set of laws to deal with the same things? Defamation is actually actionable in court. There are laws to deal with defamation. Why do they want to define who a journalist is? That should be left to the media industry itself. It should recognise who is a journalist and who is not a journalist. Why should the Government take it upon itself today and try to define who a journalist is? It has even written a code of conduct for journalists and yet, we expect that there should be freedom of expression. Regarding the code of conduct for journalists, there should be accuracy and fairness in the practice of journalism. The fundamental objective of a journalist is to write a fair, accurate and an advanced story on matters of public interest. All sides of the story shall be reported whenever possible. Comments should be obtained from anyone who is mentioned in an unfavourable context. This is trying to tell the journalists how to write a story. Why should the Government want to tell journalists how to write their stories? What should be the content of a story? Before you write it, you must also go and ask somebody who is unfavourably mentioned in the story, so that he is aware! Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, if this law is allowed to pass, we will never be able to get to the root of the Goldenberg scandal. That would mean that Sarah Elderkin, before she wrote that story, would have had to go and ask Mr. Pattni if he agrees that the story should be written. She would have contacted all the other people who are mentioned adversely in that story. That is completely unreasonable! The Bill says that whenever a story that is inaccurate, misleading or distorted has been published or broadcast, it should be corrected promptly \"Correction should present the correct information and should not re-state the error except when clarity demands\". So, if you are correcting a story, you are even being told how it should corrected. Why? So long as the correction satisfies the aggrieved party, why should it be the business of the Government to tell the media house how to do the correction? It is none of the business of the Government! Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Government is becoming petty. There are so many important Bills that this Government should bring to this House. This is not one of them. Why should we waste the time of this august House discussing issues which are so trivial, when there are so many important Bills desiring to be discussed and approved by this House?. Let me quote the Bill:- \"An apology shall be published or broadcast whenever appropriate in such manner as the Council may specify\". It is now the Council which will now want to specify to the media houses how to broadcast an apology. How ridiculous can we be? There is so much intolerance exhibited in this particular Bill. If we were to publish this Bill in any other country that practises proper media freedom, people will just laugh at you. One time, I remember there was a problem between the former President and three American journalists. Those three American journalists had written an adverse story about the then ethnic clashes. The story was in the Washington Post . The other one was in the New York Times and the Newsweek Magazine . Those journalists were deported from the country. It took the intervention of the former American President, Jimmy Carter, who came here and talked to the then President. The President, of course, complained to him how the Government had been slandered in those articles that had been written. He complained about how the Government had 2314 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES July 5, 2007 been cast in a very bad light. Former President Jimmy Carter offered free advice. He said:- \"When I was the President, the American Press used to write very adverse stories. It is actually the purpose of the media to write very adverse stories about the leadership. What we do in my country is that you hope that, one day, they will write a positive story about you\". So, I would like to invite this Government to learn a lesson from Jimmy Carter's experience. As I speak here, my relationship with the media is that of \"love-hate\". Today, they will write a good story about you. Tomorrow, they will write adversely about you. That is what we must learn to live with. It should not be that because somebody has written a story I do not like, we must go and make a full law because of that! Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, Clause 40, on page 750, says:- \"The Minister may, after consultation with the Council, make regulations generally for the better carrying into effect the provisions of this Act\". What does that mean? We are giving the Minister the discretion to go and write some other regulations by saying:- \"---for the better carrying into effect the provisions of this Act\". He will make regulations! But we do not know what kind of regulations he will come up with. This kind of blanket permission gives the Minister too much discretionary powers to go and write other laws. That is very dangerous, indeed! I would really like to urge my colleagues that, if they want to protect the freedom of the Press, which a free and democratic society requires, it is incumbent upon Members of this House to reject this Bill. This Bill must be rejected because we cast ourselves as people who are so intolerant and people who want to sanction impunity, where my wife will be allowed to go and raid the Nation Media House at midnight, hold the staff there at ransom and, when the reporters come to take a photograph, she slaps them knowing very well that nothing will happen! The victim has no redress! That is because when the victim goes to court, the Government takes over the case and enters a nolle prosequi . Is that the kind of society we want to develop? Some Members may not know the kind of pain that many people went through, in order to fight for the democratisation of this country. Therefore, they can so casually take it--- I mean they can come here and talk the way they are talking, to try to reverse those gains. It is so important to some of us to protect the right of Kenyans and continue to open up the democratic space in this country. That is the reason why I would like to appeal to hon. Members of this House--- The time has come to tell the Government here that the Government does not own Kenyans! The Government of the day is there today and tomorrow, it may not be there. Those who sitting on the other side may be sitting on this other side tomorrow. It is, therefore, important that we all act together as patriotic Kenyans to protect the interests of our people. With those few remarks, I beg to strongly oppose this Bill."
}