Cyber Crime Bill 2

It is said that the love of power is the beginning or the root of all evil; from world history we can all conclude that this is true. For history has given rise to many men who have loved power so much that they exploited and murdered their own people and, in some cases, they legislated their people into inactivity cowardice and submission. People like Adolph Hitler, Idi Amin, even as close to home as the Duvalier father and son team of Haiti and Eric Gairy of Grenada. 

We have seen how these men, in their quest for total power, became so corrupt that they murdered many innocent citizens. They gave their military the power to arrest law abiding citizens on demand for nothing less than looking suspicious, while all their suspicions entailed them being themselves. 

Ralph E Gonsalves is one such person. In the same manner, he tried to do with the failed proposed new constitution of St Vincent and the Grenadines, which died the people’s death in a referendum. In that proposed constitution Ralph E. Gonsalves snuck a clause into that document, which if passed would have given him an unending rule of St Vincent and the Grenadines. 

He also attempted to sneak into the new cyber bill that which appears to be simple rights to all citizens, but the truth is these rights can be abused by any sitting government but was placed there to be abused by Ralph E. Gonsalves. 

And the objective is to ensure that the politicians who make up his administration become above correction and criticism and it matters not whether the positive correction or the criticism is constructive or falls within the perimeter of the truth or not. Such person could find themselves in contravention of the law and will be subject to a lengthy prison sentence and hefty fines. The ultimate scare tactics. 

I have listened to some legal professionals speak about this Cyber Crime bill. But they have not seemed to get the gravity or the level of harm that this bill can bring to Vincentian democracy and the constitutional freedoms that the constitution of St Vincent and the Grenadines has allowed us to enjoy thus far. I will now take some time to go into a critical portion of this bill. 

Ralph Gon-salt and his blind men cunningly slipped into the bill under the guise of cyber bullying, which is covered under section 16 of the act, actions that will criminalize everyone who do not fall within the ambit of their favour, and subject these people to hefty fines and lengthy prison sentences or both. You can tell that some reckless intent was meant to this section of the bill, for the mere fact that the only poorly worded section in this bill is this section. 

First let us take a look at the wording of section 16 of this bill; this is how this section is worded: “Any person who uses a computer to cyber bully, intentionally and recklessly, another person commits an offence.” This statement is totally useless where the English language is concerned. I am sure Ms Velma Jackson, the noted primary school teacher; God bless her soul, will be turning over in her grave in educational anguish, to think that such pea brained people are running St Vincent and the Grenadines. 

This is how this should be worded: Any person who intentionally and recklessly uses a computer to cyber bully another person commits an offence. This was the first giveaway that there was something to be aware of in this section. The wording here leaves me to ask who is writing these laws. 

The section of the law we must pay attention to is sub section (3) (a) and (b) of section 16 of the Cyber Crime Bill. Which read as follows: 

(3) A person who, intentionally or recklessly — 

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

(b) Exposes the private affairs of another person, thereby subjecting that other person to public ridicule, contempt, hatred or embarrassment.

What does this means? Any person who uses a computer to send a message from their private email to bring to light any act of dishonesty, criminality, unethical, antisocial, or just downright nasty and worthless behaviour of any other person especially Ralph Gonsalves has commited an offence and he was ridiculed (called out in public for his acts or lack thereof), he feels embarrassed, or the people show contempt or hate for him. Then I become in violation of that law, for that piece of private email that exposes what can be consider his private business. And it they received information that the said information comes from me or you and such information was sent via the computer, then you or I will be arrested, charged, tried and convicted because according to the law we were in violation. 

Let me put it this way and use the Hon. Mr Arnhem Eustace as the fictitious subject. Let us say Arnhem Eustace is the prime minister and he got angry with his lovely wife Jennifer Eustace and he give her a good slapping up in the privacy of their home. We know that Mr Eustace “fictitious actions” would have broken the laws and may have ranged from common assault to assault causing actual bodily harm. And let us say when Jennifer goes to the hospital, and in the same manner Veron Primus did to Mewana Hadaway, Arnhem told Jennifer, if asked, to tell the hospital authorities that she fell down or when you return home he will deal with her even worse than I did a while ago. 

I get reliable information that PM Eustace has committed a crime against his wife, in the privacy of their home and I post it on the commissioner of police Facebook page and as a result of exposing the truth of what PM Eustace did, actions which could be considered a private affair that took place in their private home, and the public began to bring pressure on Mr Eustace and he becomes embarrassed because of all of the negative attention and ridicule. He can have me arrested for my actions, which is what any law abiding citizen should have done. 

Let us also say Ken Dyer, the cartoon journalist, did one of his cartoons depicting Mr Eustace as a wife beater and post it on Facebook for the humour of his friends, and Mr Eustace becomes upset and he reports such occurrence. That means that Ken Dyer can and will be arrested, charged, taken to court and convicted. In fact and the reality is Ken Dyer and I would have been in contravention of this section of the Cyber Crime Act as it stands today.

This means public shaming to bring about personal and positive change in people will be totally out of the question. With this section of law, Facebook, My Space, Twitter and other social platforms are going to be a tool of criminalizing common citizens for exercising their democratic rights and for being eternally vigilante. 

The persons who are drafting the law will argue that this is and was never the intent of the law, and I am taking the section out of context. I will say this: every law must be specific to the crime they are trying to deal with. Ambiguity within the law leaves open the misuse and abuse of such law, and the presiding jurist has to judge the cases based on the law as stated not the law as presumed and the evidence that is presented and it matters not how foolish the law is. 

So the question we must all ask is was this section a mistake or was it placed there by the drafters at the instruction of feminized Prime Minister Ralph “Pinky” Gonsalt, St Vincent and the Grenadines most dishonest person and biggest baby. I have no doubt that sub-section 3 (a) (b) of section 16, was placed there by Gon-salt as another failed master stroke design to “bitcherized” Vincentians.