Law of Defamation

The freedom to express one’s opinions and views, and to engage in discussions and to debate issues are one of the most important tenets of democracy.  However, one’s rights to express one’s opinions don’t mean one has the right to transgress other people’s rights.  Any statements that advocate for violence to resolve national or any other issues and any false statements intentionally made to defame individuals and organizations violate all the acceptable behaviors in peaceful societies.

I believe that in Eritrean politics where the players have very fragile egos, it is critical that everyone understand the generally accepted definitions and practices relating to defamation.  Especially those who pursue public life must understand defamation laws as applied to them both as individuals and as public officials.

One reporter asked President Bush a day after the November 2006 Congressional elections if he could work with Mrs. Nancy Pelosi who had called President Bush “a liar” during the campaigns.  President Bush replied, “Campaigning ended yesterday, the job of governing a nation begins today.”  Of course, President Bush won’t forget or forgive that stinging insult, but still his reply shows respect to the public when he makes that reconciliatory statement.

According to www.dictionary.law.com

Defamation
n. the act of making untrue statements about another which damages his/her reputation

Ø       There are two types of defamations,

o        Libel:  defamatory statement is printed or broadcast over the media,

o        Slander:  defamatory statement is only made orally 

The major debate over defamation laws is whether public officials should receive the same rights as private individuals within the criminal code.  The following link is a very good reading that highlights the main issues,

http://www.article19.org/pdfs/analysis/armenia-criminal-defamation.pdf

The main concern over criminalizing defamation is that public officials may abuse their legislative and other powers to stifle public debates by threatening to persecute private media and individual for expressing their views under harsh defamation laws.  Decriminalizing defamation doesn’t mean that public officals won’t have any recourse to protect their private rights, but will have the right to redress any transgressions through civil suit. 

In properly functioning court of law, one is presumed innocent until proven guilty.  The onus is on the plaintiff to prove his/her case.  In defamation cases, the onus is reversed – the defendant/accused must prove that his/her statements are true.

The challenges in Diaspora politics engaging in communications over the internet, the enforcement mechanisms are very weak.  Those who take advantage of the lack of enforcement mechanisms can only be irresponsible individuals.  Instead, responsible individuals and websites must function as if they are subject to defamation laws.

Posting guidelines only without enforcing them doesn’t absolve websites from their legal responsibilities. All websites and any other form of public media must have full understanding of what constitutes libelous and slanderous statements posted on their websites.  I encourage all individuals who have been subject of such defamation to maintain accurate records of these uncivil acts.  In due time, in post-PFDJ Eritrea that will come soon, these aggrieved parties can file criminal and/or civil suits against any public media.  Any individuals, group of individuals, sponsors, promoters of any website which purposely and intentionally promotes any libelous acts or any other public medium which is engaged in persistent defamation campaigns should be made to account for their acts.  For instance, at the very least, we can campaign by questioning the integrity of those aspiring politicians who strive to participate in amending the Eritrean Constitution or in promulgating new laws when they themselves don’t even adhere to certain basic laws today.

The rule-of-law must supercede all politics.  Allowing even one case of breach of law brings our credibility into question.  It creates dangerous precedence, which in turn creates all the organizational and political challenges we continually face.  The days of hush-hush politics of liberation movement is over.  Today’s political campaign requires us to unlearn everything we did the last half-century, and instead to introduce new ways of “doing things” that is compatible with the new democratic Eritrea we aspiring to create. 

Dictatorship is possibly the easiest form of government that can maintain a “semblance” of stability over “short period”.  It achieves stability through the ‘power of stick’.  Democracy requires equally challenging means to achieve stability, but instead of resorting to arbitrary punitive measures, it pursues legal means to achieve societal stabilities.  If those politicians tasked with formulating and enforcing laws pursue politics first and rule-of-law second, Eritrean democracy will crash and burn at its launching pad.

The promulgation of prudent laws, their unequivocal enforcement and transparency in their enforcement is critical if we are to build our democratic Eritrea.  The rule-of-law doesn’t just apply to criminal and civil laws, but rather the same principles of rule-of-law apply at any organizational level. 

Politicians will always be politicians.  If they feel that laws or rule-of-law must be “stretched to the limit” meaning breaching them in order to “save” their political organizations or “nation”, they will breach them every time for their own political survival.  Ultimately, it is independent political activists who must remain vigilant and cry foul regardless of our political inclinations.  Activist’s job isn’t to justify the rationale for breaching laws but that laws and rule-of-law are respected at all times without any “ifs and buts”.  If we can’t remain objective at all times, we become part of the problem, never part of the solution.

Like many of fellow countrymen, I had hoped that the older generation would impart their wisdoms on the younger generation.  We had hoped that they would be like those wise elders in Weki Zager who tried to bring two movements together.  We had hoped that they would be like the wise elders who tried to mediate between PIA and the dissenters.

In this messy PFDJ vs. opposition politics, it is the younger generation that appears to have an even keel in their temperaments and in addressing issues.  From EMDHR to other young Eritreans in Australia, Europe and Eritrean Youth for Change have begun to quietly blossom.  They are growing without any direction from the Diaspora political elders who believe that mudslinging against each other is more important than trying to instill proper values in our young generation.  There is serious drought in debates over ideas.  Many can’t even debate without ‘labeling’. 

One way of instilling proper political and legal culture is by defending even those we despise if the manner in which political campaigns “opposition groups or individuals” are pursuing transgresses our basic values.  If we say, “I don’t like this person or political party for whatever reason thus I will keep quiet while others transgress against his/her rights, then we are paving the way for more disaster.”  As much as we loath PIA for what he has done, we can’t allow certain transgressions that will bring our beliefs and values into question.  Moreover, we have to put all political players on notice that we won’t get sucked into political drama at the expense of our core beliefs.  The campaign for tomorrow’s democratic Eritrea begins today.  The political culture – transparency, accountability, civil behavior and rule-of-law - should begin today from ourselves because we are engaged in a political campaign.  If we believe in politics first and rule-of-law second, we might as well let PIA stay in power, because those who will come after him will be hundred times worse.

In order to bring some form of civility into our Diaspora politics which seems to go through ebb-and-flow of political incivility, I suggest that some kind of independent “Legal Review Committee”. 

  1. Members of this committee would be,

    1. Not affiliated to any political party,

    2. Between the ages of 27 and 45,

    3. Preferably with law education

    4. Formed by …

  2. Mission of the committee  would be,

    1. Educate politicians and political activists the responsibilities and limits of expressing certain types of views and opinions,

    2. Establish standards of conducts,

    3. Encourage civil behavior which is the most important enabling factor for creating a democratic society,

  3. Purpose of this committee would be,

    1. To provide general advice to websites, politicians and political activists in determining their legal responsibilities pertaining to defamation while engaging in public campaigns,

    2. To review articles, i.e. before posting, that may run afoul of defamation laws,

    3. Allow aggrieved parties to petition for review.  Websites and other public medium will be encouraged to abide by the committee’s decisions.

    4. Educate and inform dissenting politicians and organizations the manner in which they must behave in publicizing their dissent.

  4. The committee will,

    1. Render its opinions and decisions on legal facts only, and won’t provide any subjective analysis,

    2. Not promote any issues, views or opinions other than those which relate to rule-of-law.

The purpose of defamation of laws isn’t to stifle genuine discussions and debates.  The best approach to avoid running afoul of defamation laws is to engage discussions and debates on ideas and issues only.  One has the right to question any politicians or writers’ motives for advocating certain views and opinions, but we have to seek advice and learn where the freedom of speech ends and defamation begins.

As if to underscore my point, today’s headline on meskerem.net is a replica of Hutu politics of 1994 – it is a call for civil war.  The content is disguised under a critique against “opposition” [no indication which one], but is really an underhanded call for civil war.  Meskerem.net may believe that it operates in legal vacuum.  Meskerem.net should be informed of its moral and legal responsibilities in its reckless pursuit of dangerous politics.  Meskerem.net should know that its irresponsible political campaign has been duly recorded and the appropriate laws will be applied in due time.  It is always a wise decision to “never burn the bridges behind you.” 

Horn’s Cold War

Nine years ago today, May 13th 1998, Ethiopia declared war on Eritrea.  It is important that we refresh the lessons learned and unlearned.

In his latest interview in as many days with international media (Al-Arabiya), PIA dismissed the opposition as non-existent.  Some may view his latest denial as yet another example of PIA’s arrogance.  But examining PIA’s usual dismissal attitude, it has cost PIA and Eritrea dearly.

What has been the price tag of PIA’s dismissal attitude?

1.      PIA’s dismissal attitude towards international laws cost Eritrea the entire Hanish Archipelago.  Yemen can now fish all the way within stone throw away from Eritrean coastline.  PIA couldn’t maintain Eritrea’s water territorial sovereignty, which had been protected by its former colonizers.

2.      PIA’s dismissal attitude labeled Eritrea as the transgressor in the Eritrean-Ethiopian conflict, leading to handcuffing PIA and Eritrea’s options in pursuing this conflict.  PIA said that ‘he won’t shoot the first bullet’ and ‘won’t cross border to defend our rights’ in order to amend his transgressions, thus becoming a sitting duck to Ethiopia resulting in Eritrean territory being overrun. 

3.      During PIA’s visit to the US, an Eritrean asked PIA during a town meeting what Eritrea was doing to prepare for a possible third round of conflict with Ethiopia, which was heavily purchasing armaments.  PIA replied in his usual dismissal attitude that one doesn’t win a conflict by flipping armament catalogues or hiring toy soldiers.  Ethiopia overruns some one-quarter of Eritrean territory, creating a major population movement in Eritrean history.  It is said “Tahdid, Firqi Haili” but when that turns into “Tahdid, mulu’e Haili”, the result is guaranteed every time.

4.      PIA’s dismissal attitude towards the G-15 and other dissenters has shutdown PIA’s state machinery.  World governments, international organizations, and Eritrean opposition have put a stranglehold on PFDJ.

5.      PIA’s dismissal attitude has escalated the border issue into Horn’s Cold War.  Under PIA’s dismissal attitude, Eritrea has led a relatively peaceful life for seven years (if one overlooks Sudan and Yemen), and has been living through the most destructive period for nine years.   The end may not be in sight. 

Currently under PIA’s dismissal attitude include,

  1. The brave Eritrean people, including Warsai Yikealo

  2. Brave political prisoners, other prisoners of conscious (including Hassan Keckia, Bitweded Abraha, Joshua Who?), and political opposition in general

  3. The Eritrean economy,

  4. The Eritrean constitution,

  5. Peace, Justice, Rule-of-Law, Commonsense, Fairness, etc…

  6. PFDJ’s Central Committee and Congress

  7. Ethiopia, Somalia, Uganda, Kenya, US

  8. African Union, IGAD, UN Security Council

Currently under PIA’s acknowledgement, but will be dismissed in due time,

  1. European Union,

  2. Arab League,

  3. Libya, Sudan

  4. Today’s men in PFDJ

(PIA has no respect for any of the above),

Those that will never be dismissed,

  1. China

  2. PFDJ’s hidden assets in offshore banks

Based on past observations, PIA’s dismissal attitude is an indication of sure victory to the opponents.  Yohana to opposition, your victory is near! Be concerned only if PIA admits the existence of opposition.  For clarity, opposition refers to everyone opposed to the regime.  

There should be an independent activist group referred to something like “Eritrean Opposition Diplomatic Corp”, whose sole function would be to counter PIA’s every diplomatic efforts.  For instance, this group would inform the UAE investors PIA just met during his visit what their moral and legal responsibilities are if they choose to invest in Eritrea.  The effort shouldn’t be to stop international investors from investing in Eritrea [i.e. capital flight is bad and investment is always good regardless of situation], but to inform these investors that they must act in accordance with certain moral and legal obligations, such as refusing to use slave labor.  For instance, if they do use slave labor, the next government will hold them accountable for their illegal acts. 

Especially for some opposition internet writers who try to become Eritrea’s Plato or Aristotle, they could better turn their writing skills into more useful purpose by focusing their efforts at expanding the sphere of our today’s political struggle.  “Don’t bark on the wrong tree!”

An excellent article by Yoel Alem

http://www.eritreadaily.net/News0207/article0507131.htm

Berhan Hagos

May 13, 2007