THE EDITOR, Sir:
IN 1998 a CVM-TV cameraman was assaulted by the police while attempting to film a crime scene. He was then taken into police custody and charged.
On Saturday, March 23, 2002 a private citizen was going about his normal business. A TVJ cameraman then started video-taping him against his will. He made it clear to the cameraman that he did not wish to be videotaped. The cameraman however continued to videotape this individual.
In an attempt to safeguard his right to privacy, he pushed away the camera from his face. The police were called in. Instead of properly investigating the incident they began roughing up the very citizen who they swore "to serve and protect" by saying, "Oh! go inna jeep". He complied.
It is my humble opinion that professional police would have said words to the effect, "Sir you are under arrest; we would like you to accompany us to the police station", while informing the individual of the offence for which he was being arrested. Is that too much to ask?
My major point of contention is however the dichotomy between the fundamental rights and freedom of the individual and freedom of the press. While I recognise that rights are not absolute and must be exercised without impinging on the rights of another, I realise that press freedom without limits, when taken to the extreme, would require that individuals surrender a portion of their rights to the press. Individuals have already surrendered a portion of their rights to the state, whose major role is to safeguard those rights. In a civil democratic society the fundamental rights and freedom of the individual must take precedence over civil liberties, including freedom of the press.
An individual should be allowed to go about his/her business in pursuit of his/her happiness, without let or hindrance, free from and independent of the will of others. The freedom accorded to the individual is freedom from; press freedom is freedom to. Whenever individual rights and freedom and freedom of the press are mutually exclusive, the fundamental rights and freedom of the individual must reign supreme.
TVJ erred in videotaping the man against his will. The police added insult to injury by arresting without investigating. That is understandable. Their objective is to protect life and property. What this means is that once an individual is alive, the more property he/she has the more protection he/she is likely to get. When taken to the extreme, it strongly implies that those without property are not likely to be protected and may end up losing their lives.
I am, etc.,
MAURICE DRYSDALE
mdrsdale@uwimona.edu.jm
