There are disturbing developments unfolding in South Africa (SA) – the 13 year old democracy birthed in no small way by dissident journalism. Freedom of speech is under threat from an increasingly arrogant and power-drunk ANC government which is seeking to silence its media critics.

Ethical questions raised about the methods of investigative reporters who exposed the South African Health Minister, Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, as an abusive alcoholic and a "kleptomaniac", are being used to justify a clamp down on free speech under the guise of privacy protection and respect for culture.

Following a five month investigation, leading SA newspaper, the Sunday Times, recently reported that the minister got drunk and abused nursing staff during her hospitalisation in Cape Town in 2005. A week later, the paper revealed that Manto was an alcoholic who bullied medical staff into fast-tracking a liver transplant she underwent earlier this year and covering up the diagnosis that led to it - alcoholic liver cirrhosis. And, they have alleged she's continuing to drink post-surgery. The paper also exposed her as a convicted thief. She was found guilty of stealing from patients when she was a hospital administrator in Botswana in the mid 70’s.

But it’s not Manto the government is accusing of theft and impropriety – it’s the reporters on the story and the paper’s editor who are under police investigation and face possible jail sentences if prosecuted. Confidential hospital records obtained by the Sunday Times were relied upon for substantiation and there’s an inference they may have been stolen (by persons unknown) from a Cape Town private clinic. SA law prohibits the release of personal medical information on privacy grounds and while there are legitimate questions to be asked about the ethics of publishing such material and the manner in which it was obtained, the government's reaction to a story clearly in the public interest is out of all proportion. Again, debate over the ethics of investigative techniques employed by journalists is always warranted as are clearly stated reasons justifying publication when the ethical territory is murky – it’s healthy professional practice and the public has a right to know if spurious methods are used. But the reaction of the ANC government to this story underlines the very tenuous nature of freedom of speech and free media in the ‘new’ South Africa, despite its enshrinement in the country’s vaunted Constitution. (See SA journalism Professor, Guy Berger's, blog posts on this aspect of the story here and here)

In the shadow of this saga, SA president, Thabo Mbeki, and his political apparatchiks have publicly condemned journalists and media outlets critical of the ANC, arguing such coverage is inconsistent with being ‘proudly South African’. And the ANC is considering replacing self-regulation with a Media Tribunal. Their argument is that journalists have a responsibility (or should be forced?) to uphold culture and assist development – an approach that represents a serious threat to independent journalism and freedom of speech. But it’s an approach which has apparently already been adopted by the cowed South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) which sounds increasingly like a state broadcaster, rather than a public one. SABC News Editor, Snuki Zikalala recently told an SA Human Rights Commission seminar on free speech and privacy that the SABC would not have run the story about the Health Minister because it only carries stories that help develop the country. “We are guided by the Constitution not to incite violence or hatred in our reporting. Publishing such a story is disrespectful.” He has a point – racial dignity is invoked in the South African Constitution but there’s also very strong protection for free speech and free media within, and the two goals are not necessarily mutually exclusive. One could argue, for example, that the Minister’s behaviour amounted to self-inflicted indignity worthy of exposure in the public interest. It really is hard to understand the argument that Manto’s rights to privacy and dignity would have outweighed public interest in this story – particularly in light of her apparent abuse of the health system she heads, for her own medical benefit. Indeed, the Freedom of Expression Institute’s, Jane Duncan, told the Mail & Guardian such stories should be published: "There was an abuse of power here so one can't have a reasonable expectation to privacy."

Even more disturbing is a scandal reminiscent of apartheid-era politics and propaganda erupting around the ANC President. It’s been revealed that a company (Koni Media Holdings) owned by Mbeki’s political advisor, the government’s foreign affairs spokesman and the former Chief of State Protocol, was mounting a takeover bid for a newspaper group (Johncom) which happens to own the Sunday Times (the originator of the Manto story) along with other titles regularly critical of the ANC. This sort of state interference in the independent media is reminiscent of the darkest days of apartheid censorship. In 1978 a newspaper critical of the apartheid regime revealed the government had funded another newspaper, which purported to be independent (The Citizen), for propaganda purposes. The parallels to the takeover bid of Johncom by ‘The President’s Men’ are obvious. And, there’s fear being expressed in some quarters that SA's liberators are at risk of becoming the oppressors – a controversial perspective but one which does resonate. One SA media commentator, Ivo Vetger, has blogged about “worrying similarities between the socio-economic policies of this government and the apartheid regime — both practicing a form of national socialism or state corporatism.”

The fact that this ANC clampdown on the media coincides with the 30th anniversary of what’s known as Black Wednesday – the day the apartheid government permanently banned key anti-racist newspapers along with all Black Conciousness organisations – highlights the amnesic danger of the ANC government’s strategy to suppress independent, critical journalism. The fact that so many courageous South African journalists risked so much and suffered so greatly – with Steve Biko and others like him paying the highest price with their lives – just for the right to speak freely and write what was right makes this dangerous political manoeuvre all the more distasteful. (See Guy Berger’s blog post on his own transformation inspired by Black Wednesday).

This is a complex and disturbing story about the right to tell stories in a country with one of the most heart-breaking tales in history. And it’s one we need to watch. But we also need to be cogniscant of the diminishing rights to free speech here, in Australia. A study released this week by the Right to Know Coalition, “should ring alarm bells for those who value free speech” according to the chief investigator, former NSW ombudsman, Irene Moss. Moss admitted she was initially sceptical about the concerns being expressed by journalists over oppressive Freedom of Information (FoI) regulations but the report found “free speech and media freedom are being whittled away” in Australia. It lists more than 500 separate legal provisions in 335 different state and federal acts of Parliament as evidence that freedom of speech is being eroded. Secrecy provisions in a range of acts are being blamed for suppressing information which should be in the public domain. The study also confirms the FoI laws are a significant impediment to journalists attempting to report on government and identifies more than 1000 suppression orders issued by Australian courts.

Among examples of the curtailment of information availability cited by the report are opinion poll results on the first round of advertisements for the Federal Government’s controversial 'Workchoices' legislation and state government statistics on poker machine revenues. Calling for greater accountability and transparency upon the release of the report, media outlets said they would continue to campaign for reform to FoI and suppression laws while lobbying for the protection of whistleblowers. "We are not living in a dictatorship, but we are not living in a gold standard democracy. We are paying lip service to the principle of open government," Fairfax Media Chief Executive, David Kirk, said.

Journalists, and journalism academics have a responsibility to do more than pay lip service to the concerns raised here: on both sides of the Indian Ocean.

Update: The SA parliament is also considering a bill which could, in effect, act as a form of pre-publication censorship for the print media. Read about this 8/11/07 Mail & Guardian article by Guy Berger about what's at stake    [read more]

No, I’m not talking about the Melbourne Cup, I’m alluding to the rising tide of Islamophobia in Australia.

The latest targets of xenophobes and racists are Muslim school children in Sydney’s far South West.

Plans by the Qu’ranic Society to construct an Islamic primary and secondary college in the town of Camden have sparked a vicious community backlash based on ignorance and fear. The school, designed to accommodate 600 students, is awaiting approval from Camden Council but it’s facing furious opposition from many locals.

A public meeting held in Camden last night to discuss the proposal revealed the ugly side of Australian culture: intolerance. In a town of just over 3000, more than 2000 people attended the meeting and only a few hands were raised in support of the school. The views held by its opponents have been echoed on the local newspaper’s blogspot (Camden Advertiser) which has carried comments like this: "The thought of our beautiful Camden accommodating to this religion is a disgrace ... This Islamic school will change the town forever.” Another contributor argued that the council risked bringing crime and corruption to Camden if they approved the school which would turn it into a “dirty looking town like Lakemba.” And ‘Hadenough’ began, predictably, with “I’m not a racist…” and then proceeded to rail against Islam thus: “How will Camden benefit from a school that teaches its pupils how to be devote (sic) Muslims, not how to assimilate into the Australian society or show others respect? This is a religion that promotes violence against anyone who is not Muslim, I personally have had enough, let the Muslim religion return to the countries they fled.” S/he may escape the racist tag by strict definition but s/he’s clearly an ill-informed bigot and xenophobe. ‘Worried’ also complained about being labeled racist, arguing, incongruously, “I just would like to know, if Islam is so good, why are they here and why not go back?”

What these comments reveal is the extreme ignorance that’s fuelling racial vilification and religious bigotry against Middle Eastern and Muslim Australians in the post September 11th world we inhabit. This sort of emotive, fear-driven opposition is scarily reminiscent of the prejudices used to justify anti-Semitic policies in Nazi Germany, Apartheid South Africa and – closer to home – the White Australia policy. Claims that Islam is a religion that disrespects others and promotes violence are no more justifiable than the suggestion that all Christians agreed with the Crusades or the methods of the Spanish Inquisitors. Similar arguments can be mounted in reference to Judaism, Hinduism and so on. All religions have extremists among their adherents. That’s what Islamic fundamentalism is: a movement of extremists motivated by hatred which, ironically, is fanned by Western imperialism and the sort of racism and bigotry I’m highlighting here. Islam is a religion of peace, tolerance and respect at its core and the vast majority of Muslims in this country are law abiding, harmonious citizens.

Fear – fear of difference, fear of the ‘other’, fear of the unknown and fear of terrorism – is the real driver behind this campaign of opposition to an Islamic school in Camden. Would plans for a Catholic school (overseen by nuns who cover their heads) or a private fundamentalist Christian School be so opposed? I doubt it. There is, undeniably, a strain of religious bigotry, racism and xenophobia underpinning this fear.

This story is a microcosm of the greater battle in this land for hearts and minds. It is a fierce battle: a battle between tolerance and intolerance; a battle between education and ignorance; a battle between fairness and prejudice. And, it’s a battle that’s re-entered national politics in the person of that infamous xenophobe Pauline Hanson. The wannabe Senator has this week reiterated her call for a ban on Muslim immigration to Australia and the right wing fundamentalist Christian party ‘Family First’ has done a deal with Hanson to preference her ahead of Labor and the Green’s on the ballot, increasing her chances of being elected.

Meantime, the Camden opponents of the Islamic school have embarked on a text message campaign in an effort to pressure the council to disapprove the development application. There are some moderate voices in that community debate, though, and I think I’ll end this post with the thought-provoking voice of one of the Camden Advertiser’s blog contributors calling himself ‘anti-bigot’: “Who's to say that the children of these Muslim people are to be any worse than us, the grandchildren/great grandchildren of criminals and low-lives?”    [read more]