Last Friday, we show you a small portion of our extended interview with Attorney General Magali Marin-Young.
She was discussing some of the important fine-print that makes up the Briceno Government's Defamation Bill that has been tabled in the National Assembly. The local press had a knee-jerk reaction to these proposed changes because as important stakeholders, the major media houses weren't consulted on the bill until AFTER it was tabled in the House of Representatives.
Our newsroom has had an opportunity to peruse the draft legislation, and tonight, we take a deep dive into some of the important protections it will afford the free press:
As Belizeans become more litigious, they're starting to increasingly pursue defamation cases against the press or even Facebook antagonists.
While the lawsuits serve the purposes of keeping journalists within ethical boundaries and vindicating the rights of the aggrieved persons or entities, lawyer letters demanding retractions, apologies, and payment for compensation have an effect on the work of the Fourth Estate. So too do those slap-down judgments where media houses must pay huge awards in damages.
File: February 21, 2022
Renee Trujillo - Former News Director, Love FM
"We report on the news all the time, and we are constantly getting threatened with libel and defamation - what have you."
Marleni Cuellar - C.E.O., Great Belize Television
"There is a level of intimidation that is used very often, citing the defamation law."
In August of last year, the Supreme Court ordered Prime Minister John Briceno and Love FM's parent company, RSV Media, to pay Karen Bevans $90,000 in damages for defamatory remarks that the Prime Minister made on their evening newscast.
File: August 30, 2021
Dean Barrow, SC - Attorney for Karen Bevans
"As far as I know, this is the first time that a sitting Prime Minister has been found liable in defamation to a private citizen or anybody."
3 months earlier, in May, News 5 had to issue a public apology and retraction to the former UDP Parliamentarian, Frank "Papa" Mena, for adverse allegations they published against him.
May 11, 2021
Channel 5 Anchorwoman
"News Five extends its sincere apologies to both former Area Representative Frank 'Papa' Mena and Doctor Peter Allen for the story we broadcast on April fifteenth, 2021... We acknowledge that the story may have damaged both Frank 'Papa' Mena's and Doctor Peter Allen's reputations and caused them humiliation and distress. We, therefore, unreservedly apologize to both of them for this... we retract all the allegations against both Frank Mena and Doctor Allen in full and shall not repeat them."
Channel 7 also got hit with a lawyer letter a few weeks ago for defamatory remarks that this media house neither uttered nor reported on. Opposition Leader Shyne Barrow, who appeared as a guest on Channel 7's UNCUT, was the one who made the comments.
UNCUT: March 30, 2022
Jules Vasquez - Host, UNCUT
"Sir, please. Noh put me eena that... Ay, ay, ay, no sir! No sir, no sir, stop, stop, stop! No sir, no sir, there was, that word was not used... I di back you up offah that, it's not factual..."
But, because Channel 7's broadcast and streaming platforms were used to amplify those remarks, this media house had to issue an apology and retraction:
File: April 4, 2022
7News Anchorwoman
"We sincerely regret that those untrue statements were made on Channel 7 and any hurt and distress it may have caused Prime Minister Briceno and his family. We unreservedly apologize to Prime Minister Briceno and his family, retract those offensive statements in their entirety."
If this new Defamation Bill is passed into law, the press will benefit from important protections of freedom of speech, which directly affects our ability to report on matters of public interest.
Magali Marin-Young - Attorney General
"It is such an old piece of legislation. It was in our 1953 revised edition of Laws and it was only amended once in 1963. Under the new law, there are 3 primary legal defenses. So, the new law simply codifies these defenses and actually expands them. If you could prove that what you publish is true, you have a defense to a claim. But the new law goes a little bit more because it provides a little bit more protection to publishers and media houses. If you could show that there are more than one imputations, and one of them is untrue. The other one is true. If the one that is untrue doesn't create or cause any scandal, if you will, or is not defamatory, you also have a defense. If you could show that from your news article, most of what you said was true. The judge has the discretion to also allow you to be for that to be part of your defense. There's also another defense, which is the defense of fair comment. If your commentary is which are in the form of opinions, can be justified based on the facts, and the conclusions you arrive at in your opinions, or that you can be reasonably justified, that also provides a defense. The other defense that's available is qualified privilege. There are certain reporting of certain public hearings that are considered privileged. So, once you accurately report what these public hearings say, you have an absolute defense."
It also seeks to provide guidelines to the court about what is adequate compensation to any litigant who suffered defamation of character.
Magali Marin-Young
"So it was primarily precedent-based, on what was awarded by the court below. And it was also dependent on how egregious the statement you made. What the new bill does is it expressly states, for the court's benefit, that any award of damages has to be commensurate. Or there has to be some rational connection between that award and the harm suffered by the victim of that defamatory statement. So, it gives the court wider discretion, instead of just going on what the previous court awarded. It gives the court a wider discretion to, if no harm was suffered, well, I will give you a sum, but really no significant harm. Also, the possibility is if it's very serious, no offers were made to make amends, the court could say, 'My gosh, you were totally off.' The court could go as wide in its award as it feels is fair, and rational to the harm that the victim suffered."
The only thing wrong with this bill is that the most important party - the press - wasn't consulted during its crafting phase.
Magali Marin-Young
"Yes, that was an oversight. But I can tell you that we shared the bill with the members of the Bar Association, and we shared the bill with the Judiciary. But there was absolutely nothing sinister. We were trying to spare, including members of the Bar who are very experienced and exposed to this area, and we included the judiciary. So there was nothing amiss."
That oversight has since been corrected at the House's Constitutional & Foreign Affairs Committee, which has listened to the views of practicing journalists.
If and when this bill is passed, media houses need only to stay close to the principles of the 3 main defenses against defamation. That will allow for responsible use of freedom of speech and expression. Using that constitutional right, journalists will be able to continue asking tough questions that lead to telling interactions like these:
File: August 24, 2016
Dean Barrow - Former 3-Term Prime Minister
"If there is one thing that can and would bring down this government, it is hustling in immigration. I have heard that ministers are procuring visas for people. I've said pretty much in every second Cabinet if you are doing so (I have no proof) for God's sake, stop it! Stop it! That is what would cause the government to fall... If you hang out with Alibaba you must be one of the 40 thieves."
File: February 10, 2021
Daniel Ortiz
"The word 'Nepotism' is being thrown out there, sir."
Hon. John Briceno - Prime Minister
"Belize is a small society. We have limited talent. And so, we have to use what we best have."
Daniel Ortiz
"Sir, but, at the end of the day, you are appointing individuals who are family members."
Hon. John Briceno - Prime Minister
"And..?"
FILE: March 25, 2015 & January 14, 2016
Jules Vasquez
"What appeasement or appointments or arrangements have been offered to Mr. Willoughby and Mr. Longsworth in exchange for really, giving up what each of them thinks was a sure thing?"
Dean Barrow
"Moving right along here in the same vein. You know the famous movie, cheap novel line. I could you tell you, but I'll have to kill you."
Jules Vasquez
"I understand that you treat it humorously but at the same time, if they are public chips being traded for party favors, then it becomes a matter for public scrutiny."
File: April 25, 2022
Daniel Ortiz
"The suggestion is that pressures came specifically from you that they discontinue that enforcement mission to allow the importer, Miss Diani Chan, to go about her business."
Hon. John Briceno
"I called. Yes, I called. That person was very rude and set down the phone on me. I am certain he would not dare do that to Dean Barrow back then."
File: February 4, 2022
Hon. John Briceno
"For every 10 cents that we take off out of the tax, we lose 3 million dollars. So, if I go to the Belizean people and say okay, we will take off 10 cents..."
Alindy Marisol Amaya - News Director, Krem News
"We've heard this and that the economy is improving. You need to tell us something new, Mr. PM."
This bill is still before the House's Constitution and Foreign Affairs Committee. As soon as it is brought back and passed, we'll tell you about that.
