Mcgregor

The recent gag order imposed by the People's National Party (PNP) on the candidates in the presidential race and their campaign team was the subject of heated debates. It is clear that the intention was to ensure that the party's dirty linen did not continue to be washed in public and the apparent cracks and foibles didn't become obvious.

In some circles, it is being lauded as a useful tool to help the party to maintain a public aura of unity, even while the battles rage behind closed doors. Others, even within the party, have argued that the step is retrograde and has only served to erode the jealously guarded freedom of speech.

Quite expectedly, gag orders are not unknown entities. By imposing a gag, a person asserts his view that information should not be disseminated at all or only at a particular time or in a particular manner. The reasons may be selfish or ostensibly for the public good, but in either case, the effect of the gag underscores the point that whether the objective is to protect the public interest or the interests of those involved, the freedom of speech is being impinged.

Gag orders are often made by judges to prevent attorneys or other participants in a lawsuit from disclosing the details of an ongoing hearing to the media. On other occasions, parties in a lawsuit may decide to settle their claim on terms which do not allow either side to disclose the terms of the settlement.

Some employment contracts may also contain gag orders to prevent highly placed employees from disclosing trade secrets or other confidential information, even for many years after the employment has ceased. Even in the recent Olympic Games, the British Olympic Committee contemplated the imposition of a gag order on their athletes to prevent them from making political statements. In this instance, the suggested sanction was expulsion from the team.

Gag petitioners

Based on my research, the first 'gag' was imposed during the slavery debates when the United States Congress of 1835 decided to gag petitioners who wanted to see the crime of slavery ended. It was decreed that no petitions to end slavery would be received, read or voted upon.

In all the instances cited above, the gag served to impose the will or views of one group upon others. One writer asked the rhetorical question, "Isn't that what politics is about?"

In the current world environment which is dominated by democratic societies, the idea that free speech is being curtailed seems anachronistic.

Everyone wants the opportunity to weigh in on a debate and the dissenting voice is often lauded as the voice of reason and logic.

Is it right?

The question is whether anyone should be allowed to wield such a sweeping power of censorship over others in any sphere of activity when our constitution specifically safeguards the freedom of speech.

The fact that it is done with apparent impunity certainly serves to remind us that no freedom is really absolute.

Sherry-Ann McGregor is a partner and mediator with the firm Nunes, Scholefield, DeLeon & Co. Send feedback and questions to: lawsofeve@yahoo.com or Lifestyle@gleanerjm.com.