|
Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!
|
| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| kobo |
Posted - 17 May 2014 : 22:02:46
MAAFANTA WITH PDOIS’ POSITION ON WORLD FREEDOM DAY 2014
Halifa Sallah
Secretary General
World Press Freedom day is a day to remind ourselves of the centuries of stultification and gagging of the human mind and its shackling by the chains of mental slavery as well as to recall covenants which have emerged to provide standards of best practice in guaranteeing mental liberation characterised by freedom of thought, freedom of speech and freedom of expression and freedom of the media. It is also a day to remember people like Dayda who are martyred in the course of duty.
The media is an instrument for the amplification or transmission of the expressed thoughts of the people, in different forms. The organic link between freedom of thought and freedom of speech, expression and the tools utilised to exercise them such as the Press and the other media, is recognised and enshrined in all Republican constitutions.
Section 25 of the Constitution of the Gambia states:
“Every person shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression which shall include freedom of press and other media “
Those who do not understand the essence of rights are quick to assert the common sense notion that they are not absolute. Hence they consider it wise, right and proper to restrict rights without using any standard as a gauge. Human rights defenders who oppose those restrictions on the basis of established standards are considered as agents and proxies who owe allegiance, obedience or adherence to foreign powers or states and are bent on subverting constituted authority.
It is therefore important for all of state and non state stakeholders to have a clear perspective of the nature of the laws that should circumscribe the exercise of rights. Modern constitutions are rooted in the principle of a social contract between state and people and people and people. This contract is defined by laws which should guide the conduct of all. This in essence connotes the rule of law......Full Press Release Report
|
| 5 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| kobo |
Posted - 19 May 2014 : 05:15:40
[quote]Originally posted by Nyarikangbanna
Rene, Halifa effective said those who assert the notion that the right to freedom of speech don't understand the essence of rights. This is absolutely preposterous for I don't know how somebody who don't understand the essence of rights is able to assert a common sense notion that they are not absolute. Surely that can only happen by accident or fluke.
What worries me most is that Halifa sounds like he is dismissing those who claim that the right to freedom of speech is not absolute as wrong. That to me is utter naivety at best or interllectual dishonesty at worst.
That statement enlarged above is not in press release and whatever form you want us to believe; (misleading in your own context, comprehension, interpretation and translation). It is your own words or construction; DISTORTION AND NOT WHAT IS CONSTRUED IN THESE STATEMENTS QUOTED BELOW!
- "Those who do not understand the essence of rights (i.e. pertaining to unfettered civic rights of every citizen and civil liberties; such a right as guaranteed by the laws of the country or as enshrined in the Constitution) are quick to assert the common sense notion that they (i.e. "right to freedom of speech and expression which shall include freedom of press and other media ") are not absolute. Hence they consider it wise, right and proper to restrict rights without using any standard as a gauge. Human rights defenders who oppose those restrictions on the basis of established standards are considered as agents and proxies who owe allegiance, obedience or adherence to foreign powers or states and are bent on subverting constituted authority.
It is therefore important for all of state and non state stakeholders to have a clear perspective of the nature of the laws that should circumscribe the exercise of rights. Modern constitutions are rooted in the principle of a social contract between state and people and people and people. This contract is defined by laws which should guide the conduct of all. This in essence connotes the rule of law.
If we want to know whether there are restrictions to rights we must find out what the contract states .In the Gambia Section 25 subsection 4 states among other things that “the freedom referred to in subsection 1 …”which includes freedom of expression “…shall be exercised subjected to the law of the Gambia in so far as the law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the rights and freedoms, thereby conferred, which are necessary in a democratic society..”
Hence no law should be enacted to circumscribe the exercise of freedom of expression and freedom of the Media which is unreasonable and unjustifiable in a democratic society.
In our view, freedom of expression and freedom of the media could only be guaranteed in a society where law makers would only make laws which are reasonably justifiable in a democratic society; a society where judicial authorities would only enforce laws that are reasonably justifiable in a democratic society and where the people would express thoughts that are reasonably justifiable in a democratic society."
Thanks |
| Nyarikangbanna |
Posted - 19 May 2014 : 04:43:56
Rene, Halifa effective said those who assert the notion that the right to freedom of speech don't understand the essence of rights. This is absolutely preposterous for I don't know how somebody who don't understand the essence of rights is able to assert a common sense notion that they are not absolute. Surely that can only happen by accident or fluke.
What worries me most is that Halifa sounds like he is dismissing those who claim that the right to freedom of speech is not absolute as wrong. That to me is utter naivety at best or interllectual dishonesty at worst.
Your Ayatollah is muddled up Mann!
Thanks |
| kobo |
Posted - 19 May 2014 : 04:22:49
VERY SERIOUS DISTORTION AGAIN 
[quote]Originally posted by Nyarikangbanna
"Those who do not understand the essence of rights are quick to assert the common sense notion that they are not absolute." Halifa
I find this one very funny. They don't understand freedom of speak but yet able to assert a common sense notion?? How can you assert a common sense notion when you don't even understand the subject you are talking about?? It must be by accident or fluke.
1. "THE ESSENCE OF RIGHTS" IS NOT "FREEDOM TO SPEAK"! "Rights" is stated in that sentence and you chose to consider or change that word as "freedom to speak" = DECEPTIVE!
On a serious note, the fact that restrictions have to be reasonable and necessary in a democratic society does not mean that freedom of speech is absolute.
2. Where is it stated in press release as construed by you? WHICH PARAGRAPH, LINE OR SENTENCE
There are limitations to freedom of speech, and not acknowledging that either speaks of naivety or the intellectual dishonesty of the author.
3. NOTE PLEASE WHAT IS STATED AS QUOTED FROM PRESS RELEASE;
- "If we want to know whether there are restrictions to rights we must find out what the contract states .In the Gambia Section 25 subsection 4 states among other things that “the freedom referred to in subsection 1 …”which includes freedom of expression “…shall be exercised subjected to the law of the Gambia in so far as the law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the rights and freedoms, thereby conferred, which are necessary in a democratic society..”
Hence no law should be enacted to circumscribe the exercise of freedom of expression and freedom of the Media which is unreasonable and unjustifiable in a democratic society."
Thanks |
| sankalanka |
Posted - 19 May 2014 : 03:57:20
"Those who do not understand the essence of rights are quick to assert the common sense notion that they are not absolute."
There is a common sense notion that rights are not absolute. And indeed they are not. Within the context of the statement above, Halifa is affirming the common sense notion that rights are not absolute. However, it is necessary to understand the essence of rights (their juridical and constitutional stipulations) to determine the extend of their limitations. I believe this is the main point in the statement.
|
| Nyarikangbanna |
Posted - 19 May 2014 : 03:01:33
"Those who do not understand the essence of rights are quick to assert the common sense notion that they are not absolute." Halifa
I find this one very funny. They don't understand freedom of speak but yet able to assert a common sense notion?? How can you assert a common sense notion when you don't even understand the subject you are talking about?? It must be by accident or fluke.
On a serious note, the fact that restrictions have to be reasonable and necessary in a democratic society does not mean that freedom of speech is absolute.There are limitations to freedom of speech, and not acknowledging that either speaks of naivety or the intellectual dishonesty of the author.
Thanks |
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
 |
|
|
