Comments on: Even Mugabe is entitled to freedom of expression

By: Phillip

Phillip — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 16:12:27 +0000

I adore the important learning you recommend in your post. I will bookmark your blog and have my children check up here frequency. I am quite sure they will get a lots of new stuff here than anybody else!

By: liz linsell

liz linsell — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 06:16:23 +0000

I’ve just read your piece on freedom of expression in Zimbabwe. Of course Mugabe/ZANU PF and any other political party in zimbabwe have the right to print and disemminate election material but whilst the ruling party award themselves this right, the opposition party MDC are harassed by Mugabe’s thugs at every turn and prevented from exercising their right to freedom of expression.
As Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in his message for World Freedom Day on 3 May said “When information flows freely, people are equipped with tools to take control of their lives,when the flow of information is hindered – whether for political or technological reasons – our capacity to function is stunted. A free, secure and independent media is one of the foundations of peace and democracy. Attacks on freedom of the press are attacks against international law, humanity, and freedom itself – everything the UN stands for.”
Does mugabe’s right to freeedom of expression extend to blowing up independent (non government owned) newspapers’ printing presses, hijacking their delivery trucks, persecuting and arresting journalists and imposing a punitive 70% duty on imported ‘opposition’ newspapers which have to be printed outside the country to avoid closure. This duty on The Zimbabwean was imposed before the elections to try and stop the paper from reaching the populace. Today, as I speak, the duty is still in place. Here is a recent comment on the subject from Wilf Mbanga, the exiled Zimbabwean founder and editor of The Zimbabwean paper.
Sent: 24 August 2008 17:59
Subject: Govt taxes stifle press freedom in Zimbabwe
pse pass this on to all your contacts. we have to keep the spotlight on this issue until it is resolved. thanks.
Dear Colleagues – thanks so much for your continued support for press freedom in Zimbabwe. please could you do whatever possible to condemn and continue to protest against the punitive taxes on foreign news coming into Zimbabwe. because of the media legislation we are forced to publish the Zimbabwean outside the country (in south Africa) and since June – just a few weeks after our truck was hijacked and set on fire – we have been forced to pay 70% import duty to get the paper into Zimbabwe. this has resulted in the closure of The Zimbabwean on Sunday and the reduction of the circulation of The Zimbabwean in Zimbabwe from 150,000 a week to 50,000 copies . The Mugabe regime has thus successfully pretty much silenced the largest circulation newspaper in the country – and the most independent one ! and effectively killed the Sunday edition. And the world is silent. we are so frustrated!
Please call or email me if you would like to discuss anything or require additional information.
Whatever you can do to help would be much appreciated.
thank you.
Wilf Mbanga
The Zimbabwean

By: Gustav Bertram

Gustav Bertram — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:52:29 +0000

How do you define freedom of speech? I understood it to mean that individuals should be protected against government censoring.

It has not been made illegal for Mugabe to print his pamphlets. A business has simply refused to deal with him.

To coerce a business to accept a contract that it does not want would be a real violation of freedom.

By: Lyndall Beddy

Lyndall Beddy — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 10:41:52 +0000

Let us have some common sense. Caxton obviously had a good manager, who saw the problem in doing the print run, and kicked the problem upstairs – where it went all the way to the board, who turned it down. Naspers manager was neither as good, or not as experienced. However did Mugabe not choose a branch office and not the main office of the company for just that reason?

By: Graham Willcock

Graham Willcock — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 21:41:40 +0000

Eve – freedom of expression is not the issue here nor is it the argument put forward by Naspers in defence of their actions. A disingenious attempt to distance itself using an illogical argument (ie ignorance)is precisiely what has got Naspers into trouble with their staff, their customers and the public in general.

By: japes

japes — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 13:56:22 +0000

Mr Hitler only asked me to make these nifty little gas nozzles. I didn’t know what they were for, I did nothing wrong.

By: adrian

adrian — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 11:09:02 +0000

The only solution now is for Morgan Tsvangirai to form a Government-in-exile (he did get the majority of votes in the last election) and to start printing a new Zimbabwe currency to replace the worthless one of Mugabe. If he convinced all the Zimbabweans living outside the country to use it, it would deprive the regime of the income it receives from relatives sending money home!

By: S.B.

S.B. — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 14:55:11 +0000

You are right about freedom of speech being absolute but I think you are wrong about what would constitute constraining speech. One does not have the absolute right to be published by a private entity. If ZANU-PF had its own presses there would be no moral argument for constraining distribution of its printed materials. Refusing to accept a printing contract is in no way censorship it is the exercise of free will by a private actor.

Morally I think that Caxton did the right thing in refusing and that those who choose to pull their business from Naspers are exercising their own right to speech.

By: Perry Curling-Hope

Perry Curling-Hope — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 14:42:35 +0000

@ Ivo Vegter,

Yes Ivo, from a strictly legal perspective you are quite correct.
The last thing anyone needs is the “nasty precedent” of more classes of statutory interference in the rights to free expression and dissemination of information.

Naspers can and should remain free to print anything they want without any legal accountability for content. We already have a growing number of interferences with this right by state authorities for things they don’t like (hate speech, forms of pornography, incitement to violence or sedition, violation of ‘the right to dignity’ whatever that means, etc.) which are indeed ‘censorship’

Where I disagree with your comment is that the voluntary moral high ground be taken only for commercial or other gain, “[...] in the hope that its stance wins it plaudits, publicity or new customers, [...]”

Maybe expecting people to act on moral conscience alone is expecting too much.

By: Paul Whelan

Paul Whelan — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:11:08 +0000

To whom it may concern -

If we refuse Mr Mugabe freedoms because he is guilty of refusing the same freedoms to others, have not his values, and not ours, won?