Strange but true

413 views
285 views

Published on

Saint Lucian Journalist Timothy Poleon Forced To Apologize By Operatives Of the Saint Lucia Labour Party Government

Published in: News & Politics, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
413
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
20
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Strange but true

  1. 1.       Strange  But  True       An apology read out on air in Saint Lucia, which might charitably be described as craven, represents a new low in the ongoing practice of media intimidation by governments in the region generally and in Saint Lucia in particular, and the submission to such intimidation by the media. Of course, the situation may be different in Trinidad, where it seems the media is in bed – literally, as well as figuratively – with politicians. However, be that as it may, three government officials in Saint Lucia apparently forced local broadcaster Timothy Poleon to admit that they were defamed by his reading on air an article published by Caribbean News Now on September 25, 2013, entitled “US action against St Lucia may be connected to visa revocation”. A summary of subsequent threats of legal action against Poleon and why, in our considered and reconsidered opinion, nothing in our article was defamatory in the first place, may be found here.
  2. 2. On Monday, Poleon read the following on Radio Caribbean International: On September 25th 2013 an article appeared on a website entitled US action against Saint Lucia may be connected to visa revocation. This article contained statements which were highly defamatory of certain individuals including the minister of tourism and creative industries, Honourable Lorne Theophilus; the minister of foreign affairs, Honourable Alva Baptiste and the president of the senate, Claudius Francis. Essentially I stated that, in respect of Mr Baptiste, among other things, that present day government officials who were then in opposition supplied the United States government with false information in a successful bid to discredit a then minister of government. I also referred to the unimpeded ability of two government officials to travel to the United States despite their past criminal conduct. I accept that, taking into consideration all the surrounding circumstances, ordinary sensible listeners could and would have come to the conclusion that I was referring to Mr Theophilus and Mr Francis. I unreservedly accept and wish to state that the statements made in respect of these individuals were and are highly defamatory of them and that there is absolutely no factual basis for such statements, which allege and insinuate among other things that these individuals are guilty of an ethical, immoral and professional and criminal misconduct. I was wrong to have published these statements on air or at all. I accept that by publishing this highly defamatory article on air that I made it my own. I was negligent in that regard. I wish to take this opportunity on behalf of Radio Caribbean International and on my own behalf to apologise for the inevitable injury to their reputations by my repetition of these malicious and unfounded allegations. Assuming that the apology was in fact required purely on the strength of Poleon’s reading of our article in question and no other statements were involved that may have been made on air at the time, this must surely be the first case where a journalist has been forced to apologise for something that was never said in the first place. First of all, the minister of foreign affairs, Alva Baptiste, apparently thinks our article stated that, “among other things” (whatever those other things might be), he is one of the present day Saint Lucian government officials
  3. 3. who were then in opposition that supplied the United States government with false information in a successful bid to discredit a then minister of government. The only mention of Baptiste in our original article was in connection with his visit to the US Embassy in Bridgetown, reportedly at the request of the US government, accompanied by Prime Minister Kenny Anthony, national security minister Phillip La Corbiniere; commissioner of police Vernon Francois; and George Deterville (about whom more at a later date). Since when does a stated visit to Barbados become an issue of reputational injury, even if it is untrue? In this case, the fact of the matter is easily proven one way or the other by the relevant embassy logs. And what about the other four individuals named as visiting the embassy? One can only assume that they did not feel as grievously injured as Baptiste clearly does, for reasons apparently best known to himself. By thus voluntarily taking ownership of the alleged provision of false information to the United States government, does Baptiste have something to hide of which we were hitherto unaware? If this is so, thanks for the “heads up”. Next, the other two individuals, Theophilus and Francis, neither of whom were actually named anywhere in our original article, nevertheless claimed that they were therein accused of past criminal conduct. This is also misguided. What we stated was that two unnamed “prominent Saint Lucian government officials … have a known history of violent sexual assault”. Again, Theophilus and Francis took ownership of this assertion. As outlined in our subsequent article, the facts of the matter are that Theophilus and Francis have each been accused and formally charged with rape (more about this later also). However, as previously made clear, criminal conduct is not substantiated by allegations, charges or indictments; it has to be proven in a court of law. Nevertheless, Theophilus and Francis apparently now acknowledge that it was “criminal conduct”, when none was alleged, by us at least, even though such conduct may have been alleged by the respective victims and the director of public prosecutions.
  4. 4. Last but not least, why has no approach whatsoever been made to Caribbean News Now by the individuals allegedly defamed or their attorneys, seeking to correct the information contained in the article in question and requiring an apology and/or retraction from us? One might in fact argue that Poleon has now defamed Caribbean News Now by stating that our article contained statements which were highly defamatory, when in fact they were not, for the reasons outlined.  

×