Media Law in Zimbabwe and Australia
MEDIA LAW IN ZIMBABWE AND AUSTRALIA; A COMPARATIVE STUDY
BY LUKE WILLIAMS
MEDIA LAW IN AUSTRALIA AND ZIMBABWE; A COMPARATIVE STUDY
‘Not to clip the wings of our writers so closely, nor to turn into barn-door fowls those who, allowed a start, might become eagles; reasonable liberty permits the mind to soar -slavery makes it creep’ Voltaire, 1793 (Fritz, 2002)
INTRODUCTION
Zimbabwe and Australia’s geographical difference is insubstantial when comparing the cultural, political and legal disparities between the two commonwealth nations. Whilst Australia is concerned with a perceived threat and danger from outside forces, Zimbabwe is rife with large-scale internal problems of security and power distribution. These distinct problems have important implications for the relationship between media and legislation in the respective countries. The media in Zimbabwe have endured a massive setback in free speech and freedom to information rights as a result of legislation many see as intending to curb anti-establishment discourse. One of the major differences in media law between the two countries is most of Australia’s cases involving media law are civil; whereas the majority of Zimbabwe’s media law cases are criminal and are charged by police acting on government orders (unknown2, 2002). This points to the underlying argument of this thesis; Australia’s media laws act to protect the individual and Zimbabwe’s media laws are in place to reinforce the power of an already tyrannical government. I will further argue that despite the differences between the two countries, the same basic dynamic remains. Namely, that media laws in both countries are created for and used by the more powerful to ensure their domination over the less powerful remains intact.
CULTURE, POLITICS AND THE LEGAL SYSTEM IN ZIMBABWE
Zimbabwe is a second world, republican and neo-Marxist sovereign unit. Since its gained independence from Britain in 1980, it has become the locus of
BY LUKE WILLIAMS
MEDIA LAW IN AUSTRALIA AND ZIMBABWE; A COMPARATIVE STUDY
‘Not to clip the wings of our writers so closely, nor to turn into barn-door fowls those who, allowed a start, might become eagles; reasonable liberty permits the mind to soar -slavery makes it creep’ Voltaire, 1793 (Fritz, 2002)
INTRODUCTION
Zimbabwe and Australia’s geographical difference is insubstantial when comparing the cultural, political and legal disparities between the two commonwealth nations. Whilst Australia is concerned with a perceived threat and danger from outside forces, Zimbabwe is rife with large-scale internal problems of security and power distribution. These distinct problems have important implications for the relationship between media and legislation in the respective countries. The media in Zimbabwe have endured a massive setback in free speech and freedom to information rights as a result of legislation many see as intending to curb anti-establishment discourse. One of the major differences in media law between the two countries is most of Australia’s cases involving media law are civil; whereas the majority of Zimbabwe’s media law cases are criminal and are charged by police acting on government orders (unknown2, 2002). This points to the underlying argument of this thesis; Australia’s media laws act to protect the individual and Zimbabwe’s media laws are in place to reinforce the power of an already tyrannical government. I will further argue that despite the differences between the two countries, the same basic dynamic remains. Namely, that media laws in both countries are created for and used by the more powerful to ensure their domination over the less powerful remains intact.
CULTURE, POLITICS AND THE LEGAL SYSTEM IN ZIMBABWE
Zimbabwe is a second world, republican and neo-Marxist sovereign unit. Since its gained independence from Britain in 1980, it has become the locus of
References: Foltoe, Geoffrery, http://fxi.org.za/Medialaw/zim-fina.htm, 2002 Fritz, Johann, http://www.freemedia.at/Protests%202002/Zimbabwe, 2002 Hafkin, David, cpj.org/africanews/3245, 2002. Mudiwa, Lloyd, http://www.ifex.org/alerts/view.html?id=10587, 2002 Tinashe Mundawarara, http://www.lnu.no/pages/artikkel.asp?nr=534, 2002 Munjai, Byron, cpj.org/africanews/3765, 2002. Unknown1, http://www.dailynews.co.zw/daily/2002/June/June20/5073, 2002 Unknown2, http://www.irinnews.org/report.asp?ReportID=20276, 2002 Edwards, Gareth, Zimbabwe: a comparative study, Canberra Aus. Govt. Publication, 1993. Foltoe, Geoffrery, http://fxi.org.za/Medialaw/zim-fina.htm, 2002 Fritz, Johann, http://www.freemedia.at/Protests%202002/Zimbabwe, 2002 Hafkin, David, cpj.org/africanews/3245, 2002. Mudiwa, Lloyd, http://www.ifex.org/alerts/view.html?id=10587, 2002 Tinashe Mundawarara, http://www.lnu.no/pages/artikkel.asp?nr=534, 2002 Munjai, Byron, cpj.org/africanews/3765, 2002. Pearson Mark, The Journalists Guide to Media Law, Allen and Unwin, Sydney, 1999 Unknown1, http://www.dailynews.co.zw/daily/2002/June/June20/5073, 2002 Unknown2, http://www.irinnews.org/report.asp?ReportID=20276, 2002 Various, ABC All-Media Law Handbook: for journalists, presenters, program makers, authors, editors and publishers / Sydney, NSW: ABC Enterprises, 1999.