Headlines, Human Rights, Latin America & the Caribbean, Press Freedom

Q&A: "Freedom of Expression Goes Hand in Hand with Justice"

Interview with Frank La Rue Lewy, UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression

CARTAGENA, Colombia, Sep 15 2008 (IPS) - Social inequality is "the main" problem for freedom of expression in Latin America, said Frank La Rue Lewy, who was named United Nations Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression on Aug. 1.

"There are large media outlets that operate very freely, but there are impoverished sectors in our societies that have no access to any media, nor to any means of self-expression, and cannot even afford to buy a newspaper," he said.

According to La Rue Lewy, a Guatemalan, access to information and communication, especially the Internet and electronic technology, should be "a priority for Latin American governments," so that the present generation of children, and their countries with them, do not grow up "backwards and cut off from the rest of the world."

But at any rate, he said, Latin America is one of the "most advanced regions in terms of freedom of expression." This is "one of the positive consequences of the democratic advances that have occurred on our continent, after the difficult periods, the military regimes," he said in an interview with IPS correspondent Constanza Vieira.

The Special Rapporteur delivered one of the keynote presentations at the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation's (UNESCO) Regional Conference on "Media, Education and Culture in Human Rights," held Sept. 9-10 in the Colombian Caribbean resort city of Cartagena as part of the events marking the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

At the conference, he spoke about "subtle censorship, forms of censorship that are vaguer and less blatant" than the official definition: for instance, "where governments and state offices advertise their announcements, publications and decrees," and what criteria are used in such decisions, "is a matter that is under investigation."

In his position, he can only make comments about a country "when making an official visit at the invitation of the state," he clarified. But in his view the action of military personnel who disguised themselves as journalists during the rescue operation in Colombia that freed former presidential candidate Ingrid Betancourt and 14 other hostages of the guerrillas "was mistaken, and violated international humanitarian law."

La Rue Lewy is a columnist for the Guatemalan newspaper Prensa Libre. For three years, up to November 2007, he directed a radio programme called "El derecho a conocer tus derechos" (Your Right to Know Your Rights), a call-in show that reached nearly 85 percent of Guatemalan territory.

IPS: Are people in Guatemala aware of their rights?

FRANK LA RUE LEWY: No, not at all. That's why we ran an educational programme with an open phone line. We received calls from all over the country. It was really good because we would also hold political debates on human rights.

IPS: What rights were listeners most interested in?

FLRL: Nearly always, citizen participation rights. They were very interested in freedom of expression. The toughest discussions were about public safety and security. People were very critical indeed about that. There is still a debate going on in Guatemala about whether or not the army should be called out on to the streets. We argued they should not, because public security should be a civilian matter.

IPS: Honestly, are people really interested in freedom of expression?

FLRL: I think they are, but it's not a subject that is very well-known. For instance, in Guatemala people are very vociferous about their demands, but the country is very conservative.

If you carried out an opinion poll of the population, everybody would be in agreement with the need for censorship. They would be delighted if there were censorship. It is a mistaken position, but that is the way it is, because as a nation our emotions are, shall we say, very repressed.

IPS: Is the work of journalists protected by international humanitarian law in the same way that medical work is?

FLRL: Journalists are protected, in effect, in conflict zones. And the parties to the conflict are obliged to respect that protection.

According to international humanitarian law, the first priority in a war zone should be medical and rescue missions, and they should be the first to enter. But next in line are war correspondents, and both sides of the conflict must guarantee their safety.

IPS: What are the implications of posing as journalists in military and security operations? Specifically, in the case of security agents disguising themselves as reporters?

FLRL: I do not believe that it is acceptable, under international humanitarian law, to disguise oneself as doctors or ambulances or the Red Cross or journalists.

The idea of international humanitarian law is that the parties in conflict must respect the mission. The mission is not the physical identification worn by individuals (uniforms, badges, etc) but the work these professionals are doing: the rescue, humanitarian aid or medical mission, and media coverage.

IPS: What can be done so that journalists are recognised as neutral observers in an armed conflict?

FLRL: I don't think it matters whether or not a journalist's position is neutral. Any journalist reports from a given position which is linked to his or her newspaper, TV channel or radio station. What is important is that he or she does the work objectively, that is, that he or she is not involved in operational functions that are not those of a reporter.

Reporters' opinions are part of their freedom of expression. What matters is their professionalism. When they are covering a news story, they should be exclusively devoted to that job, and not take an active part on behalf of either side.

IPS: There is a global trend towards decriminalising slander and libel, and making them civil offences.

FLRL: Yes, and with civil penalties too, and also to tone down the definitions of disrespect, or contempt, especially against public officials. There should be no restrictions on freedom of expression, especially when the public administration is involved.

One can criticise the way officials do their job without committing any kind of crime – whether of disrespect, slander or libel. What is important here, and this falls rather into the field of ethics, which is not a sphere the state should control, is for personal relations to be based on the principle of mutual respect.

No one should limit anyone else's opinions, nor those of the media. But the media should exercise ethical self-control when publishing their copy, in the way they address any person, phenomenon or situation.

IPS: Do opinions require proof, in the case of columnists?

FLRL: No. Not in the case of writers of columns. A columnist expresses his or her personal opinion and analysis. In fact, opinion never requires proof. That is the difference between exercising freedom of opinion and pursuing truth at a legal trial. The facts that go on record at a trial must be proven.

The principle of freedom of expression is that there should be no censorship whatsoever. Controls on this freedom should be ethical and personal. Hence the need to raise the level of professionalism of journalists. The state need only guarantee total freedom of expression.

IPS: As a columnist, what self-control do you, personally, exercise?

FLRL: I go to a lot of trouble – and I am speaking in a personal capacity here – to be as objective as possible. And when writing a column one is giving an opinion, so I express it very clearly. In other words, I am not just communicating events or reporting an incident. I look at what has happened during the week and I try to extract conclusions and recommendations.

IPS: The problem for some columnists, particularly in Colombia, is that no proof exists because no legal investigation has been carried out, owing to a long history of impunity. And witnesses, in this country, are too afraid to testify in court.

FLRL: What you are describing is the story of the whole of Latin America. And yes, I believe that freedom of expression goes very much hand in hand with justice, because the stronger the rule of law, the clearer the rules of the game, and the greater the freedom of expression. They are not directly connected, but they are part of the same democratic phenomenon.

I think it is impunity that has created the high levels of corruption in our regimes. I am not referring to any one country in particular, but to the history of Latin America. Eradicating impunity is probably the top priority for our continent.