Read more on the proposed South African Charter of Religious Rights and Freedoms in the Daily Maverick.

The Press Freedom Commission “released a call for the SA public to voice its opinion about press freedom and the regulation of print media”. What follows is a submission made by the FSI Chairman (not a consensus statement by the FSI generally).

To whom it may concern,

SUBMISSION WITH REGARD TO PRESS FREEDOM AND THE REGULATION OF PRINT MEDIA

This submission is intended to express support for the model of independent regulation, where a South African Press Council operates independently of both the media and government.

Rationale
Regardless of the actual motives of proponents of measures such as the Media Appeals Tribunal, the Protection of State Information Bill, and the Internet and Cell Phone Pornography Bill, any constraints on free dissemination and access to information could be used for both noble and ignoble ends. It is for this reason that we’re wary of dictatorships, no matter how benign – if the framework for oppression exists, it would be naive to trust that such a framework will always be used to defend our best interests.

In a constitutional democracy, any presumptions made with regard to regulatory frameworks should favour freedom, with any limitations to the freedom of citizens and the press needing special justification. But there are nevertheless plausible circumstances in which some form of control over information could be merited. Even though one might be fully in support of adult access to pornography, restrictions on access by minors would be appropriate. Even though the citizenry should have access to as much information as possible about the workings of the state, it is nevertheless plausible that some information might present threats to national security, if widely broadcast. And while the media is rendered largely pointless if it can’t serve as a watchdog, there are legitimate questions to be asked about accountability and the reputational damage that might occur as a result of a media that thrives on scandal, and which is incentivised to publish news before their competitors do.

Neither the media itself, nor the state, should enjoy special authority with regard to press regulation. Not the media, for two primary reasons:
1. While some South African media attempt to uphold journalistic ethics, and to refrain from disseminating false, misleading or defamatory information, our media is not of equal quality in this regard. Yet, we cannot have different regulations for different media, in that these judgments are both impractical, and have no clear authority in terms of who would make them. The pressure to scoop your competitors can result in a deficit of prudence in this regard, especially for those media that thrive on scandal or controversy. In these cases, self-regulation will tend towards protecting the rights of those media to continue favouring sensation over more balanced coverage.
2. Second, the media is not populated by professionals to the extent that it once was. Pressures from Internet sources such as blogs, where information and analysis is frequently available without cost, have made operating a newspaper more difficult, and have cut profit margins to such an extent that the employment of a class of seasoned journalists, sub-editors and editors is now the exception rather than the rule. This raises an issue of competence, as increasingly junior (and often temporary) staff in newsrooms may lack the experience and wisdom to understand the long-range implications of what they report, even in cases where they don’t publish any actual untruths.

The case against the state having special authority with regard to regulation of the media is clear: A free society needs a fearless press to expose malfeasance or incompetence on the part of the state. The state has a vested interest in suppressing damaging information, or at least disincentivising its publication. We cannot trust that a state-controlled media will allow itself to be subjected to robust criticism, and their authority with regard to press regulation therefore needs to be restrained.

However, both the state and the media itself have legitimate interests in the regulation of print media, which need not be understood as an adversarial one. As any journalist would know, sound relationships with state officials can only contribute to the breadth and depth of coverage, and likewise state officials would know that the prospects of unfavourable coverage could be enhanced if the press media has no reason to regard them as honourable and fair participants in the production of press outputs.

A third party that also has legitimate interests in the regulation of print media is the public itself, many members of which desire fair and accurate reporting, and who might also abhor the sensationalistic tendencies of some of the press, particularly the tabloid media.

These three parties – the state, the press and the public – should therefore be participants in any regulatory process regarding the print media. Seeing as this regulation requires “passing judgement on complicated matters of journalistic reporting”, frequently involving ethical concerns, representation on any Press Council should also include those who have expertise in the area of ethics. Here, I would strongly caution against the frequent assumption – particularly in South Africa – that ethics and religion are easy bedfellows. In other words, it cannot be taken for granted that independent ethical opinion can be provided via the presence of religious leaders on a Press Council (even though they should of course be eligible). Ethics is after all a matter of academic enquiry, and our universities are well stocked with people who have this specialisation (as are various NGO’s).

The proposal here is therefore that a press council should contain representatives from all three sectors, including persons from outside the state and the press itself who have expertise in the field of ethics. The precise composition of such a council in terms of how many representatives it should contain, in what proportions, and questions of voting rights and veto’s is of course a complex matter, which can only be addressed briefly here. A summary of the composition envisaged here would be as follows:

A Council consisting of 10 members with equal voting rights, with
- 5 representatives from SANEF (or their delegated representatives)
- 3 members of the public
- 2 representatives of the state

Jacques Rousseau

Chairman: Free Society Institute

Students enrolled for the B.Ed (Early Childhood Development and Foundation Phase) at the University of Pretoria are prescribed a textbook titled Addressing barriers to learning – a South African perspective, edited by Emmerentia Landsberg and published by Van Schaik (2nd edition, 2011). In the chapter entitled ‘Socio-economic barriers to learning in contemporary society’ by Erna Prinsloo, we read the following (pp. 36-37):

Normative development is initiated and established within the family context. Parents/caregivers are responsible for guiding children towards acceptance of religion and religious principles. Only in a personal relationship with a higher Being do children truly learn that there are lasting consequences for their actions. In the collective and mutual relationships with parents and God, children can be supported to experience love and safety and to accept responsibility for the way in which they live and learn. In the absence of such relationships and religious principles it becomes extremely difficult to teach children the value of discipline, self-discipline and consideration of the self and others. Where parents and caregivers abandon religion and religious principles and live a life of self-gratification with meeting one’s own needs as only principle, children and youth’s development towards a positive value system and eventual self-actualisation will be severely impeded.

Besides the contradiction entailed by “only in a personal relationship with a higher Being” and “in the absence of such … religious principles it becomes extremely difficult“, neither of these claims are true – and both of them present the viewpoint that without religion, your child is basically doomed to psychopathy of one form or another. While most of the University of Pretoria’s policies are hidden on a password-protected Intranet, we can read the following on the section of their website devoted to “Education Principles” (emphasis added):

• Nurturing complexity and critical thinking (deep knowledge): Teaching should promote the use of higher-order thinking skills, e.g. the ability to engage actively and critically with ideas and current debates, synthesize, reflect on learning and apply principles to new problems and situations (the transfer of learning). It should develop analytical problem-solving skills; encourage students to think creatively and holistically; develop intellectual and cultural curiosity; encourage students to challenge assumptions, existing knowledge and beliefs, and to embrace new thinking.
• Respecting diversity: Teaching acknowledges and actively engages diverse values, beliefs, talents, backgrounds, thinking and learning preferences, needs (including special needs), goals and educational experiences.

In accordance with the requirements of the new National Curriculum Policy on Education for religious education to focus on the general phenomenon of religion and not on a specific religion only, the name of the subject Biblical and Religious Studies changed to Religion Studies (code: REL) in 2006. Contents of the course now focus not only on the Bible, but also on various other world religions, without alienating our traditional students from the subject.

This doesn’t go quite far enough, of course, in that Religious Studies should also address worldviews that reject religion, or are free of religion. It would however be understandable if UP’s target market included few who might be interested in those topics, and the Religious Studies Department has at least (apparently) ceased to offer instruction which privileges the Christian religion. The Faculty of Education has no such excuses available to it. Even though the CAPS (Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement) don’t go far enough in eliminating religious bias from primary education (what these UP students are presumably learning towards offering), they at least don’t privilege a monotheistic – probably Christian – “God” as this textbook does.

We can only hope that this is merely an oversight, and that this textbook will either be revised for next year, or not prescribed at all. Anyone who is involved with any public education institution in South Africa should read and pass the Policy on, and hold your institutions to account when they violate its principles. The policy itself makes clear that “the spirit of the policy, which is to embrace the religious diversity of South Africa, must also be applied at other levels of the education system” – even though it’s applied inconsistently in schools, it’s not only for schools but also for universities. Including the University of Pretoria’s Faculty of Education.

P.S. If you have children at a South African school and can read Afrikaans, Hans Pietersen’s book Die Vrese van Ons Vaders deals explicitly, and critically, with religion education in South African (Afrikaans) schools.

SA’s first UFO event to be held
South Africa will experience its first conference on unidentified flying obects (UFOs) in November.
“Millions of people in SA have had their own personal experience with ETs and UFOs – but most have in the past been too nervous to raise the subject, afraid of ridicule,”, conference host Michael Tellinger said yesterday.
The gathering would allow “those in the know” an opportunity to express themselves on issues like extraterrestrial (ET) contact.
He said 13 internationally recognised and published leaders in the fields of UFOlogy, genetics, microbiology and biomimicry would speak at the event in Johannesburg.
Speakers would also address topics including alchemy, ancient wisdom, numeric science and the formation of a money-less society.

In case you haven’t heard of the organiser Michael Tellinger, you can learn more about his work at the website devoted to the ideas expressed in his book ‘Slave species of god“. You’d however have to buy the book itself to learn about topics like:

Were humans created by “god” as SLAVES?
Was Abraham the first human SPY?
Was Jesus an accidental MESSIAH?

I presume that these sorts of issues will be among the topics discussed under the ‘ancient wisdom’ category of the conference. But there’s clearly more on offer, dressed in impressive-sounding descriptions. But ‘numerical science’ doesn’t become more interesting or worth paying attention to than ‘numerology’ via the addition of the word ‘science’, and I’m afraid that the ridicule mentioned in the press release will probably not abate following this conference.

Maybe I’m wrong. After all, the speakers have some impressive pedigrees. Here’s a summary:

• Miceal Ledwith: 17 years as an adviser to the last two Popes
• David Hudson: The man who introduced us to ORMEs – Orbitally Rearranged Mono-atomic Elements. Or as the Bible calls it MANNA from heaven or the white powder of gold – sought by gods and men since the beginning of time.
• Kerry Cassidy: As a founding member of Project Camelot, Kerry has interviewed hundreds of whistle blowers in a wide area of subjects. From secret government projects, to geneticists, ET contactees to architects of off-world bases.
• Laura M Eisenhower: The great granddaughter of Pres. Dwight Eisenhower famous for his Area 51 meeting with an ET delegation. Laura follows in his footsteps by sharing her insider information about life in the universe, the secret bases on Mars and the treaties signed by our governments and ETs.
• Bob Dean: 27 years in the US Army – retired Command Sergeant Major – one of the few holders of first-hand knowledge about government involvement with alien life. Bob Dean tells us that “we are not alone on this planet & we have never been alone” He shares the content of a highly classified document he came across in 1964 while in service, and ETs among us.
• James Gilliland: Author; teacher; energetic healer; spiritual counselor; the founder of the ECETI organization – the Enlightened Contact with Extraterrestrial Intelligence; keeper of the documentation of the appearance of Spiritual Masters and other Off World visitors.

Students Against Secrecy, a coalition of student organizations have put together a week of action to raise awareness about and activism against the Protection of Information Bill. Through a series of discussions, debates and campus displays we seek to provide a platform to engage UCT students in this vital question, which is at the very heart of our continent’s most vibrant democracy.

———

MONDAY 1PM – Business on Secrecy: Why Information is the Lifeblood of the Economy – Viola Manuel (Executive Director of the Cape Chamber of Commerce) – Leslie Social 2B

TUESDAY 1PM: The Secrecy Bill: An Introduction – Nkwame Cedile and Murray Hunter of Right2Know explain why the Protection of Information Bill still fails the freedom test. – Arts 100

TUESDAY 6PM – A Case Study: Uncovering and Reporting on the Arms Deal – Paul Hoffman (Director of the Institute for Accountability in Southern Africa), Christi van der Westhueyzen (award-winning journalist author of White Power & the Rise and Fall of the National Party) and Hennie van Vuuren (head of the Institute for Security Studies) – Beatie 115

WEDNESDAY 1PM – Academics on Freedom – Dr. Max Price (UCT Vice-Chancellor) and Professor David Benatar (Head of the UCT Department of Philosophy) – Leslie Social 2B

THURSDAY 5.30PM – The Great Debate – Chair: Judge Dennis Davis. Panel: Martin Welz (Editor of Noseweek), Fatima Hassan (Co-Director of Ndifuna Ukwazi [Dare to Know]), Dario Milo (Senior Partner at Webber Wentzel) and Dennis Dlomo (Special Adviser to the Minister of State Security) – Jameson Hall. NB: Tickets must be collected from the SRC Office, Level 7, Steve Biko Building from Monday

SATURDAY 10AM – Right2Know March to Parliament from Kaizersgracht Street

It has been a month since the department of education, LeadSA and the National Religious Leaders’ Forum launched their Bill of Responsibilities. Some criticisms of the bill were forthcoming from Ivo Vegter, Khadija Patel and myself (here, here and here). We had concerns regarding various aspects of the Bill, ranging from whether such a bill was necessary at all, to the appropriate role of the state in relation to such a bill.

One of the criticisms levelled at those who expressed opposition to the Bill was that “we need to do something”, with Yusuf Abramjee of LeadSA going so far as to deride “armchair critics” (Facebook link) who (according to his caricature, at least) do little but carp from the sidelines.

This characterisation is untrue, and unfair, as there are various ways of expressing concern regarding the state of South African society, and working towards its betterment. If parts of civil society are of the view that a particular measure – such as the Bill of Responsibilities – is counterproductive for what they imagine to be a healthy South African society, it does little good to attack their motives and character, rather than the substance of the critique.

This is not to say that a bill of responsibilities is necessarily counterproductive to goals such as fostering a healthy society – my concerns addressed one specific Bill, rather than the idea of such a bill in general. And while it is true that many of the salient details such a bill might include are already embedded in the spirit of the South African Constitution, the Bill of Rights is mainly a document of the role of the State in protecting the rights of citizens.

In addition to that – and particularly, now that LeadSA have offered such a document – it could be useful to remind ourselves of what responsibilities we as citizens have, if we are to secure and build on the sacrifices and efforts entailed in our being able to enjoy the privileges of living in a democratic and (mostly) free society.

I’ve therefore been giving some thought to what such a document should look like, bearing in mind the criticisms of the existing document made by myself and others. What you see below, then, is an alternate Bill of Responsibilities, intended for freedom-loving South Africans who also desire a healthy future for this country, but who think that this can be achieved without an excess of paternalism, and without intruding on the liberties secured in our Constitution.

Comments and suggestions for revision are welcome, although it should be born in mind that moral prescriptivism and other forms of paternalism run contrary to the spirit of this suggested bill, and will thus not only be difficult to accommodate, but will also be unlikely to meet with any sympathy. An underlying premise running through the document is that of a commitment to individual liberty, which means that if you are of the view that other values are more foundational, we’re unlikely to agree on much.

Also, while LeadSA’s bill was explicitly aimed at the youth of South Africa, the bill presented below is written for adults. Once the document is revised (and potential feedback incorporated), I hope to draft a simplified version that is more suited to South Africa’s youth.

A Bill of Responsibilities for the citizens of South Africa

Preamble:

I accept that the rights and freedoms enjoyed by South Africans will sometimes come under threat, and that they require constant and vigilant protection if we are to ensure their survival. Furthermore, I accept that if I care to protect these rights and freedoms, I should be conscious of the role I might play in reinforcing or undermining them.

I accept that the rights enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa lay a strong foundation for a country that is free, and in which all of its people are equal. I also accept that the Bill of Rights lays out unconditional rights for the all citizens of South Africa, and that the primary responsibility for the protection of those rights rests with the state.

I accept that while any legal responsibilities I have to my fellow citizens are codified in statutory law, I can nevertheless impact on those around me in positive and negative ways, regardless of the legal status of my actions.

On enlightened self-interest

1. To recognise that actions have consequences, and that other people are often as committed to their interests, and as convinced of their point(s) of view, as you are to yours.
2. To recognise that no citizen is by nature better than any other, and that any preferential treatment for one citizen, or a group of citizens, over others requires impartial justification.
3. To recognise that choices are made inside a legal framework, where what you do might result in repercussions if that action illegitimately defeats the interests of others.
4. To recognise that you live inside a social framework where you define yourself, and therefore people’s expectations of you, based on your words and actions. Our reputations, and the amount of trust others place in us, are informed by the information we have provided about ourselves.
5. To recognise that our behaviour is not guided and limited by the law alone. We make promises and develop relationships, both of which result in other people having legitimate expectations as to our behaviour.

On law, social interaction and public policy

6. To recognise that even where actions might not be illegal, they can nevertheless cause others to lose respect for you. Your failure to look after the interests or possessions of others could result in decreasing their desires to contribute to your needs or defend your interests.
7. To recognise that when you abuse any power you might hold over others, you assume that your interests are more important than theirs. People who are abused in this fashion are justified in being angry and resentful at this treatment, and could be expected to lose respect for you.
8. To recognise that when we find ourselves in positions which involve representing the interests of others, if we fail to take those interests into account, we are betraying their trust, and breaking a promise.
9. To hold Government to account for meeting the legitimate expectations of citizens, through measures such as voting, legal protest action, and persuading fellow citizens of their role in contributing to holding Government accountable.
10. To recognise that that your choices can impact on the welfare of others, and that altruism from others cannot be assumed. However, showing kindness and respect for others is usually rewarded by them treating you in the same way. If you don’t contribute to the welfare of your fellow citizens, you have no reasonable expectation that they contribute to yours.

On thought and speech

11. To recognise that your knowledge is certainly incomplete, and that a dogmatic insistence on the superiority of your viewpoint is rarely justified.
12. To acknowledge that because of this, you should try to seek out as much information as you can, and assess that information as impartially as you can, before thinking that you know the answer to a question.
13. And furthermore, that because we may have access to different information, and assess that information in different ways, that others have the right to criticise your point of view.
14. To recognise that if your primary commitment is to reaching justified points of view, you should welcome serious critical interrogation of your arguments even when it might be uncomfortable to have your views challenged.
15. To understand that fair criticism should be understood as relating to the arguments you have presented, rather than as an attack on your personal value as a citizen.
16. To recognise that if your primary commitments do not include reaching justified points of view, others have no responsibility to take your point of view seriously.

On patriotism and the future of South Africa

17. South Africa’s Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights, charts a future in which all citizens are free to determine and express their own values, except where those values conflict with the limitations defined in the Constitution. Citizens should expect the state to ‘respect, protect, promote and fulfil the rights in the Bill of Rights’. SA Constitution, 7(2).
18. Supporting your country entails obeying all demands of law, and the instructions of those who are delegated to enforce it.
19. However, we should remember that laws can be unjust or unreasonable, and that citizens are entitled to question or challenge applicable laws through any legal means available to them.
20. In challenging the decisions or actions of the state, or any entity associated with the state, citizens should remember that any pressure exerted in an attempt to silence such challenges is a violation of their rights to freedom of thought and expression.