Editorial: Toxic gruel

The following artcle was published online by Cape Times

Last week protracted deliberations around the Protection of Information Bill continued in what has become a characteristic stop-start routine. The talks apparently ended abruptly on Friday, because “people hadn’t done their homework”.

Some good work has come of the intense debates before the ad hoc parliamentary committee – notably the ANC’s concession that the concept of national interest would be dropped and the bill would be directed at national security issues only.

However, the ANC is sending out confusing signals. Last week it dropped the bombshell that in fact there was perhaps no need to define national security in the legislation, thus leaving the door wide open for abuse by state officials. Once again, civil society and the opposition rolled into action, calling for a definition that was as narrow as possible.

Only die-hard anarchists would argue that there is no need for a country to have some form of national security legislation. However, any law that is set up to protect its citizens needs to be extremely narrowly defined and within the confines of a culture of openness and democratic principle as enshrined in the constitution.

In spite of some key concessions, the latest version of the bill undermines these fundamental values.

The voices of dissent are growing stronger as the goalposts keep shifting. Former Intelligence Minister Ronnie Kasrils points out that the bill – which has been rewritten many times – is now looking “more dangerous than ever”.

Murray Hunter from the Right2Know Campaign, which was initiated with the sole aim of fighting clauses within the Secrecy Bill – is now saying that “no amount of air-brushing” can hide its underlying flaws. “There’s only one thing that can save the process – scrap this draft, re-open it for public consultation and rewrite from scratch,” he said.
Kasrils warns that the bill is turning into a “Frankenstinian monster”. “What we have now is a dog’s breakfast of toxic gruel that needs to be rejected in the public interest,” he said. As somebody who first introduced the original version of the bill three years ago, we should take heed.

It seems futile to keep on chipping away relentlessly at a blemished piece of legislation. It should be scrapped.

Source Cape Times