DA: ANC trying to silence media

semiautomatix

semiautomatix

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
11,914
Reaction score
220
Location
4051
Cape Town - The DA on Wednesday said the ANC's "full-scale assault" on eNews to force the channel to identify criminals interviewed on air was an attempt to muzzle the media.

The ruling party has urged e.tv to help the police arrest two masked men who told of plans to commit crimes during the 2010 Fifa World Cup in a programme aired last Friday.
Click to expand...

DA spokesperson Lindiwe Mazibuko said the ANC's call "runs contrary to the constitutional principle of free media in South Africa".

"The story in question might have been in bad taste, but to suggest that these journalists are somehow no different to the criminals they were reporting on, is grossly misleading."

"If the ANC is truly concerned about South Africa's international image ahead of the 2010 World Cup, now is not the time to launch a full-scale assault on South Africa's independent terrestrial television broadcaster."
Click to expand...

http://www.news24.com/Content/South...-01-2010-01-06/DA_ANC_trying_to_silence_media

Section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977

Section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act requires people including journalists to disclose what they know about a suspected crime or to identify the person or people who told them about a suspected crime. The media have managed to erect certain barriers against discriminatory use of this law against journalists, but under the anti-terrorism legislation, there is no protection and they could be very vulnerable.

For years, journalists in South Africa have been fighting Section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act which during the apartheid regime was used to try to obtain the identity of their confidential sources and which police still try to invoke.
Click to expand...

Here

So it seems the ANC is very happy to adopt draconian Apartheid media laws when it suits them.

This same law was used for almost 15 years against the ANC and now they use it themselves. Turns out the ANC are about as good as the Nats were at protecting constitutional rights.

It's good to be king, eh?
 
Come on tim, even you don't believe the stuff you read or from the DA? The ANC are far from behaving saintly, but the media in this country is as free as you get. And this is a very bad case of politicking from your beloved DA even with your rose tinted DA glasses you can see it?...

If they wanted to critic the ANC for silencing the media it should have been when the NIA bugged/harassed the M&G reporters in the run up to the last elections and over the oil saga.
 
this is what I have been saying all along. Good to see that the DA agrees with me.
 
 
JungleBoy said:
Let's protect the criminals in pursuit of press freedom :twisted:
Click to expand...

I hate to break this to you, China... but the ANC government has been protecting the criminals for years. They are very good at it. They even put some of them into public office.
 
The same DA wanted Zuma's lawyer to reveal the source of the spy tapes. Client attorney priviledge doesn't matter in this case.
Talk about flouting the rule of law to suit one's agenda.
 
JungleBoy said:
The same DA wanted Zuma's lawyer to reveal the source of the spy tapes. Client attorney priviledge doesn't matter in this case.
Talk about flouting the rule of law to suit one's agenda.
Click to expand...

no, they wanted to know how tapes that were subject to the national intelligence act ended up in the lawyer's possession. Had nothing to do with attorney client privilege. Very poor example. The law had been broken in that instance long before the lawyer ever got his hands on the tapes.
 
JungleBoy said:
The same DA wanted Zuma's lawyer to reveal the source of the spy tapes. Client attorney priviledge doesn't matter in this case.
Talk about flouting the rule of law to suit one's agenda.
Click to expand...
Lol, people's blind faith in politicians always amuses me. It's as if things would be different if another politician was in charge.

There's a field of sheep. It doesn't matter which type of wolf the sheep charge with protecting them.
 
Garyvdh said:
no, they wanted to know how tapes that were subject to the national intelligence act ended up in the lawyer's possession. Had nothing to do with attorney client privilege. Very poor example. The law had been broken in that instance long before the lawyer ever got his hands on the tapes.
Click to expand...

Well put.
 
R13... said:
Come on tim, even you don't believe the stuff you read or from the DA? The ANC are far from behaving saintly, but the media in this country is as free as you get. And this is a very bad case of politicking from your beloved DA even with your rose tinted DA glasses you can see it?...

If they wanted to critic the ANC for silencing the media it should have been when the NIA bugged/harassed the M&G reporters in the run up to the last elections and over the oil saga.
Click to expand...

Er... they're invoking this Apartheid law on e.tv at the moment. How do you "rose tint" that?
 
JungleBoy said:
Let's protect the criminals in pursuit of press freedom :twisted:
Click to expand...

Tell me JungleBoy, how is it some lesser know reporters on e.tv are more effective at tracking down criminals and the SAPS?

Too many doughnuts? To much corruption? To much inefficiency? Is that what they're scared of e.tv revealing?

EDIT: if they do force e.tv to reveal these criminals none of these TV programmes will be able to do any of the exposes ever again. As such, nobody (especially not the SAPS) will actually know about this underworld.
 
Last edited:
Garyvdh said:
no, they wanted to know how tapes that were subject to the national intelligence act ended up in the lawyer's possession. Had nothing to do with attorney client privilege. Very poor example. The law had been broken in that instance long before the lawyer ever got his hands on the tapes.
Click to expand...


You are talking bullcrap. Why did they lay a charge against the attorney?

Link
The Democratic Alliance's Dianne Kohler-Barnard on Thursday laid criminal charges against ANC president Jacob Zuma's lawyer Michael Hulley and National Intelligence Agency (NIA) deputy head Arthur Fraser.

The charges relate to the possession and distribution of allegedly illegal tape recordings.
Click to expand...
 
timgaul said:
Tell me JungleBoy, how is it some lesser know reporters on e.tv are more effective at tracking down criminals and the SAPS?

Too many doughnuts? To much corruption? To much inefficiency? Is that what they're scared of e.tv revealing?

EDIT: if they do force e.tv to reveal these criminals none of these TV programmes will be able to do any of the exposes ever again. As such, nobody (especially not the SAPS) will actually know about this underworld.
Click to expand...

A crime of intimidation and possibly possession of an illegal weapon were committed on TV, infront of everybody.
Why were the SAPS suppose to arrest the two scums before they committed the crimes?
 
timgaul said:
Which has nothing to do with client-attorney privileged! Thanks for the link proving Garyvdh's point.
Click to expand...

Err...why did they lay a charge against the attorney ?
They don't know what information he had in his possession and they are not entitled to know that as per Client-Attorney privilege provision
 
JungleBoy said:
You are talking bullcrap. Why did they lay a charge against the attorney?

Link
Click to expand...

Because, like I said, they wanted to know how he got his hands on information that was at one time under the protection of the national intelligence agency. can you read? A crime had obviously ALREADY been committed.
 
JungleBoy said:
Client-Attorney privilege provision
Click to expand...

Doesn't apply in cases where theft of evidence has taken place. If it is shown that the evidence was obtained illegally, which in this case it clearly was, then the evidence is inadmissible.
 
timgaul said:
Er... they're invoking this Apartheid law on e.tv at the moment. How do you "rose tint" that?
Click to expand...
Technically there's nothing wrong with the government (not ANC) doing that...
It is outrageous to take this case as indication the ANC is trying to silence the media. You don't see the ANC trying to stop newspapers or other media printing/reporting on crime any other way.

The ANC is over-reacting in this particular incident, and so is everyone else (including you). The DA is taking the opportunity to score some points.

E-TV behaved irresponsibly and whether the ANC can use to technicalities to get is another story. E-TV can of course go to court if they wish, no one is silencing them. If they believe there's nothing technically criminal with their reporting then they should let a court of law decide, what ever the ANc might say.
 
Garyvdh said:
Because, like I said, they wanted to know how he got his hands on information that was at one time under the protection of the national intelligence agency. can you read? A crime had obviously ALREADY been committed.
Click to expand...

The info in the attorney's possession is protected (whether be legally or illegally obtained) - yes or no?
How can you establish the source of illegally obtained info seeing that the attorney is not at liberty to disclose the said source?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X