An open letter to the chairman of the Select/Cyber Crime Bill Review Committee (19/8/2016)

I respectfully write to you as a patriotic Vincentian as it relates to the Cyber Crime Bill 2016 that was tabled in the house of Parliament a few weeks ago. I have access that piece of legislation and from my layman’s review of the aforementioned piece of legislation, I have some grave concerns, which is the basis of this document. I will be doing three things in this document and they are as follow:

1. I will highlight my concerns with the piece of legislation.

2. I will explain my concerns.

3. I will offer an alternative where it is necessary and

4. I will justify the grounds for any such alternative I make. 

I must admit that this piece of legislation has the potential to realistically and without bias police the behavior of the citizen of St Vincent and the Grenadines and hold offenders responsible, accountable and liable for their deeds and misdeeds in cyberspace. However, the piece of law as it currently stands has two major flaws. Flaws which can be abused by policing, prosecuting authority and politicians within St Vincent and the Grenadines. I will take some time to address these major flaws at length and I will deal with the minor of the two flaws first. 

I notice that the bill has embedded within the penalty phase of the legislation, some exorbitant lengthy maximum penalties (fines and incarceration) to be imposed upon persons who are found guilty of any of the listed offences. Although a penalty is designed to be a deterrent to people who would otherwise want to break the law. It must not be a permanent financial setback on any such person. Unfortunately this is what the current fine schedule is seeking to do.

From my analysis, if a senior civil servant, public servant or a small business person is charged a reasonable fraction of this fine listed in the penalty schedule, it may force them to liquidate their assets (house, land, etc) to pay the fine. And they will be forced to work for the remainder of their life even well into their retirement in order to survive. It that is how such fines are going to impact those who are numbered among the highest paid in the land, there is not telling how such is going to impact the lives of the poor, those who are unemployed, under employed, those who are just making minimum wages and or just above minimum wage. 

I have also calculated that 90% of those who are fine, a small fraction of the minimum wage will default on their payment and may end up in prison. Especially if they were sentenced to a fine and imprisonment, they may very well have to do two prison terms because of their virtue of their lack of finances. This will result in the mass incarceration of the citizen of St Vincent and the Grenadines, that will be tantamount to, and may even transcend the sinister act that saw the incorporation of the USA prison system, turning such into a for profit business; and the conspiracy to use the community that is commonly referred to as people of African descent (African American) to fill the prison. I trust that you will use good judgement and common sense in addressing this grave problem that is the penalty aspect of this bill. 

My next concern relates to section or clause 16 of the Cyber Crime Bill. Contrary to popular consensus, I am of the humble that subsection (2) of section 16 which deals with knowingly using information, statements and images that are known to be false to damage a person’s character. Should be made to pay for the damages they inflict as it relates to the law and automatically be forced to make restitution as it relates to the victim for damages sustained. 

However I have a humongous problem with subsection 3 of section or clause 16 of the document as it stands and as outlined below.

If a person who recklessly and intentionally:

a) Uses a computer to disseminate any information, statement or image and

b) Exposed the private affairs of another, therefore subjecting that person to any public ridicule, contempt, hatred or embarrassment commits an offence. 

This section of the body of law can and will not have any useful benefits to anyone, to democracy, our constitutional rights integrity, etc. for this law seeks to criminalized speaking the truth. This is so because this section seeks to do the following things:

1. Criminalize the courageous

2. Criminalize the honest

3. Criminalize the patriotic.

4. Criminalize anyone who wants to practice freedom of speech.

5. Inhibits the power of the supreme law the constitution.

I should remind you that no body of law should be made that take away any rights and privileges that were granted by the constitution and any time there is any such law, that law, the constitution will prevail and that law becomes illegal. I must also make it clear here, that no actions, for which a plaintiff cannot obtained damages in the civil court, should and could never meet the litmus test to be transformed into a criminal act. 

Now that I have made that point clear. It is therefore no secret that the vulnerable within the society who may be prone to self-inflicted injuries or even death as of a result of cyberbullying; therefore, these people must be protected from such bullying. It is my less than humble recommendation that the said body of law, be changed to read as follows:

Section 16 (3)

If a person after being warned, persist too maliciously, intentionally and menacingly:

a) Uses a computer to repeatedly disseminated the same information, statement or image and

b) Becomes a nuisance, by repeatedly exposing a particular private affair of that/those person, therefore, subjecting that person to unwarranted stresses. Is guilty of an offence.

This piece of legislation should be so worded to prevent habitual offenders from escaping from having their crime, anti-social, unethical immoral and other negative behavior from being made public in cyberspace and thus allowing the perpetrator to continue to create more victims. However such information should not be used as a whipping stick aimed at shaming the offender day in day out several times a day. 

The pre-warning of the offender, will give the offender the opportunity to become aware that their actions are actually harming the person who was target and they must be warned to stop thus giving that person the opportunity to amend their behaviors. However, if the offender show disregard for the official warning then the matter should be investigating to see if an offence was indeed committed that is worthy to be taken before the court. 

Let me reiterate here, these two points, It should not be the intent of the state be it a sovereign or a conjoined state, to criminalize and punish courage, honesty, patriotism, and the constitutional rights of freedom of speech. And time a piece of law or a body of law seeks to takes away any rights and or privileges that is given and is protected by the constitution the piece or the body of law becomes illegal. 

I hope that you see the value and the need to adopt these suggestions that is outline in this document and make them a part of this body of law for the two simple facts and they are: 

a) I am the wisest man I know

b) I am the most intelligent man I know

And this document is a testimony of my wisdom and the level of my intellect.