I challenge the credibility of Anesia Baptiste's article (8/11/2016)
I read with interest the article by Anesia Baptiste, the leader of the Democratic Republican Party, which was published by your paper on 26 July, 2016, entitled: Clause 16 of the Cybercrime Bill 2016 must be removed. Although I try to follow the young inexperienced politician’s line of reasoning, I was clearly unable to do so.
Let me say here first, to be a leader is an awesome thing, to steer the course of people and or an organization; it is a whole different ball game when one is in a bid to lead a country. Look what happened to St Vincent and the Grenadines over the past 17 years. A political leader must be wise, intelligent and fearless in their approach to nation leading. It is important to note, some leaders are not capable of charting a course of development and positive change.
Anesia Baptiste stated that Clause 16 of the Cyber Crime bill must be removed from the bill. And she went into a lengthy rambling about libel and defamation. Unfortunately for the discussion on the Cyber Crime Bill, lying and deformation has nothing to do with Clause 16 or section 16 or any part of the Cyber Crime Bill in any significant sense. It is deviation from the issues like these that leads to confusion and misunderstanding of issues. It is clear that if you lie you must pay for your lies and the court system has a structure set up to deal with people who lie under oath or commit perjury. I will deal further with lies a little later.
The unfortunate thing that my friend Anesia Baptiste tries to do is to give intentional lying with the intention to destroy a person character a free or an easy pass. We must never change our Christian value system to accommodate anyone or anything but the truth. Lying is still wrong and anyone who willingly lies to hurt and or in an effort to destroy a person’s character should be made to pay for their actions, in a means that is compensatory to the damage they cause.
As I pointed out in previous publications that dealt with the Cyber Crime bill: which were titled: Ralph Gonsalves is a fool and so is his Cyber Crime Bill and Cyber Crime Bill 2, Section 16 or clause 16 of the Cyber Crime Bill could be used spitefully to criminalize citizens for offences that are traditionally deal with by the civil court in particular defamation of character and libel.
However, when you consider the fact that the average Vincentian has a consistent social media or cyberspace following of a few hundred to the maximum, even the so-called popular prime minister of St Vincent and the Grenadines Ralph E. Gonsalves, who is leading a country with a population over 100,000 people, has a public Facebook following of just 11,600 people and an elections video that was posted on his page in the heat of the December 9th 2016 General election, to date, has a mere 26,000 views.
The facts as they relate to the average Vincentian popularity in cyberspace is very small and this fact has a very small chance of changing. So although the potential reach of lies is very great in cyberspace or on the internet, the reality as it relates to Vincentians and our consistent impact in cyberspace is highly insignificant.
I now stand to challenge my sister Anesia Baptiste, or anyone for that matter, who says or supports the removal of Clause 16 or section 16 in its entirety from the Cyber Crime Bill. I am of the opinion that any such person who comes to that conclusion is totally void of basic comprehension skills and is far removed from the reality as it relates to the danger that hides in plain sight in cyberspace.
I say this clearly knowing that many people are of the opinion that section or clause 16 of the Cyber Crime Bill is a hook that was baited especially for me: Allan H. F. Palmer (the writer of this article). However, I, Allan H. F. Palmer, now declare that it is foolish to throw out all of section or clause 16 of the Cyber Crime Bill; for the simple fact that cyber bullying is a real problem, even though cyber-bullying has not truly affected us like it did in many other countries, which is as a result of our tough upbringing we were exposed to as Caribbean people.
A look at Anesia Baptiste’s flawed argument and my solution.
Let us take a hard look at why we must not remove the entire section or clause 16 from the Cyber Crime Bill. We must not discard that fact that bullying is a part of life and each of us at one point or another would have experienced bullying in our life. It is clear that bullying is widespread, and is slowly becoming an acceptable part of our way of life in St Vincent and the Grenadines.
The unfortunate thing is that bullying is being handed down to the population by the current batch of politicians led by Ralph E. Gonsalves. Bullying is a real part of the day to day personal interaction of the people in St Vincent and the Grenadines. Who is able to hold the government of a dictator responsible and accountable? We have the experiences of Bigger Bigs, Ann Joshua, Michelle Andrews, Margaret Parson and even Anesia Baptiste, just to name a few. Like everything else, bullying has carried over into the technological advancement and therefore cyberspace is a new tool of bullies.
Sub-section 2 of the Cyber Crime Bill deals with any person who uses the computer to disseminate information, etc., knowing such information, etc. is false, and as a result damages a person’s character and causes them the stresses that come along with such damage; is guilty of an offence and right fully so. Although this can be classified as libel and is normally dealt with in the civil courts, there have been instances, especially in other countries, where such bullying has driven people to suicide. The victims of suicide were so damaged by the dishonest acts, they were too afraid to speak about their pain and they eventually killed themselves.
Unfortunately, some victims of suicide were taunted by the truth about some behaviour and not lies. The embarrassing truth spoken about another person is not an offence and anyone who makes an effort to stop any person or impedes on a person rights to express themselves freely. This is bordering on subsection 3 of Clause and section 16. However, when the truth is used as a menacing tool, to publicly humiliate and embarrass, then the person who is so doing is now becoming a nuisance. In the USA and other countries, the authorities are unable to prosecute a person for such menacing behaviour unless such menacing use of the truth pushes that person to inflict harm to themselves.
The use of the cyberspace to transmit character destroying lies is different than transmitting such lies to people personally by word-a-mouth, even broadcasting such on television and or radio, because of the easy access and retrieval that cyberspace has. We must not fool ourselves, Cyberspace have more arms than an octopus, those arms stretch longer than a rubber band, they move a pace slower than the speed of light and they stay alive forever. Therefore the impact has the potential to be far reaching. Thus, the impact and the devastation can have far reaching and may have long-lasting and serious personal, social, psychological and other impacts. Thus cyber-bullying should be covered under the Cyber Crime Bill. And subsection 1 and 2 of clause or section 16 is in good standing.
The part of the Cyber Crime Bill that should be of concern to every Vincentian is sub section 3 of section or clause 16 of the Cyber Crime Bill. This is the section that has a potential to be abused and misused and can become an instrument against freedom of speech, by people in authority, especially politicians. Therefore they have slipped this section in with the intent of becoming prosecutors of the people. The only differences is a politician or political system that bullies its people is called a persecutor; the same actions but it is distinguished by the stoical role the abuser plays.
Now let us look at subsection 3 of section or clause 16, which states: If a person who recklessly and intentionally:
a) Uses a computer to disseminate any information, statement or image and
b) Exposes the private affairs of another, therefore subjecting that person to any public ridicule, contempt, hatred or embarrassment commits an offence.
You may ask what is private business? From my interpretation private business here means any truth about a personal carrying on a person may have. And such may be criminal, unethical, dishonest, immoral, or silly behaviour, etc.
This section in itself puts a block on anyone’s right to be honest and courageous. So here we have a case where Ralph Gonsalves is trying to criminalize honesty, patriotism, champion of transparency and courage. However, I will say this; because of the potential of vulnerable people being moved to suicide as have been happening in other parts of the world, there should be a buffer to protect such people, while not criminalizing honesty, patriotism, champion of transparency and courage.
Subsection 3 of clause or section 16 should state as follows: If a person after being warned, persists maliciously, intentionally and menacingly to:
a) Use a computer to repeatedly disseminate the same information, statement or image and
b) Become 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.
Sub-section 3 of section or clause 16 of the Cyber Crime Bill as reworded above will protect the vulnerable in our society without criminalizing honesty, patriotism, champion of transparency and courage.
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 behaviour 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 targeted and they must be warned to stop thus giving that person the opportunity to amend their behaviours. However, if the offender shows disregard for the official warning then the matter should be investigated to see if an offence was indeed committed that is worthy to be taken before the court.
I have also written to the Cyber Crime Bill review committee and I have offered my detailed suggestions.
Anesia Baptiste stated that Clause 16 of the Cyber Crime bill must be removed from the bill. And she went into a lengthy rambling about libel and defamation. Unfortunately for the discussion on the Cyber Crime Bill, lying and deformation has nothing to do with Clause 16 or section 16 or any part of the Cyber Crime Bill in any significant sense. It is deviation from the issues like these that leads to confusion and misunderstanding of issues. It is clear that if you lie you must pay for your lies and the court system has a structure set up to deal with people who lie under oath or commit perjury. I will deal further with lies a little later.
The unfortunate thing that my friend Anesia Baptiste tries to do is to give intentional lying with the intention to destroy a person character a free or an easy pass. We must never change our Christian value system to accommodate anyone or anything but the truth. Lying is still wrong and anyone who willingly lies to hurt and or in an effort to destroy a person’s character should be made to pay for their actions, in a means that is compensatory to the damage they cause.
As I pointed out in previous publications that dealt with the Cyber Crime bill: which were titled: Ralph Gonsalves is a fool and so is his Cyber Crime Bill and Cyber Crime Bill 2, Section 16 or clause 16 of the Cyber Crime Bill could be used spitefully to criminalize citizens for offences that are traditionally deal with by the civil court in particular defamation of character and libel.
However, when you consider the fact that the average Vincentian has a consistent social media or cyberspace following of a few hundred to the maximum, even the so-called popular prime minister of St Vincent and the Grenadines Ralph E. Gonsalves, who is leading a country with a population over 100,000 people, has a public Facebook following of just 11,600 people and an elections video that was posted on his page in the heat of the December 9th 2016 General election, to date, has a mere 26,000 views.
The facts as they relate to the average Vincentian popularity in cyberspace is very small and this fact has a very small chance of changing. So although the potential reach of lies is very great in cyberspace or on the internet, the reality as it relates to Vincentians and our consistent impact in cyberspace is highly insignificant.
I now stand to challenge my sister Anesia Baptiste, or anyone for that matter, who says or supports the removal of Clause 16 or section 16 in its entirety from the Cyber Crime Bill. I am of the opinion that any such person who comes to that conclusion is totally void of basic comprehension skills and is far removed from the reality as it relates to the danger that hides in plain sight in cyberspace.
I say this clearly knowing that many people are of the opinion that section or clause 16 of the Cyber Crime Bill is a hook that was baited especially for me: Allan H. F. Palmer (the writer of this article). However, I, Allan H. F. Palmer, now declare that it is foolish to throw out all of section or clause 16 of the Cyber Crime Bill; for the simple fact that cyber bullying is a real problem, even though cyber-bullying has not truly affected us like it did in many other countries, which is as a result of our tough upbringing we were exposed to as Caribbean people.
A look at Anesia Baptiste’s flawed argument and my solution.
Let us take a hard look at why we must not remove the entire section or clause 16 from the Cyber Crime Bill. We must not discard that fact that bullying is a part of life and each of us at one point or another would have experienced bullying in our life. It is clear that bullying is widespread, and is slowly becoming an acceptable part of our way of life in St Vincent and the Grenadines.
The unfortunate thing is that bullying is being handed down to the population by the current batch of politicians led by Ralph E. Gonsalves. Bullying is a real part of the day to day personal interaction of the people in St Vincent and the Grenadines. Who is able to hold the government of a dictator responsible and accountable? We have the experiences of Bigger Bigs, Ann Joshua, Michelle Andrews, Margaret Parson and even Anesia Baptiste, just to name a few. Like everything else, bullying has carried over into the technological advancement and therefore cyberspace is a new tool of bullies.
Sub-section 2 of the Cyber Crime Bill deals with any person who uses the computer to disseminate information, etc., knowing such information, etc. is false, and as a result damages a person’s character and causes them the stresses that come along with such damage; is guilty of an offence and right fully so. Although this can be classified as libel and is normally dealt with in the civil courts, there have been instances, especially in other countries, where such bullying has driven people to suicide. The victims of suicide were so damaged by the dishonest acts, they were too afraid to speak about their pain and they eventually killed themselves.
Unfortunately, some victims of suicide were taunted by the truth about some behaviour and not lies. The embarrassing truth spoken about another person is not an offence and anyone who makes an effort to stop any person or impedes on a person rights to express themselves freely. This is bordering on subsection 3 of Clause and section 16. However, when the truth is used as a menacing tool, to publicly humiliate and embarrass, then the person who is so doing is now becoming a nuisance. In the USA and other countries, the authorities are unable to prosecute a person for such menacing behaviour unless such menacing use of the truth pushes that person to inflict harm to themselves.
The use of the cyberspace to transmit character destroying lies is different than transmitting such lies to people personally by word-a-mouth, even broadcasting such on television and or radio, because of the easy access and retrieval that cyberspace has. We must not fool ourselves, Cyberspace have more arms than an octopus, those arms stretch longer than a rubber band, they move a pace slower than the speed of light and they stay alive forever. Therefore the impact has the potential to be far reaching. Thus, the impact and the devastation can have far reaching and may have long-lasting and serious personal, social, psychological and other impacts. Thus cyber-bullying should be covered under the Cyber Crime Bill. And subsection 1 and 2 of clause or section 16 is in good standing.
The part of the Cyber Crime Bill that should be of concern to every Vincentian is sub section 3 of section or clause 16 of the Cyber Crime Bill. This is the section that has a potential to be abused and misused and can become an instrument against freedom of speech, by people in authority, especially politicians. Therefore they have slipped this section in with the intent of becoming prosecutors of the people. The only differences is a politician or political system that bullies its people is called a persecutor; the same actions but it is distinguished by the stoical role the abuser plays.
Now let us look at subsection 3 of section or clause 16, which states: If a person who recklessly and intentionally:
a) Uses a computer to disseminate any information, statement or image and
b) Exposes the private affairs of another, therefore subjecting that person to any public ridicule, contempt, hatred or embarrassment commits an offence.
You may ask what is private business? From my interpretation private business here means any truth about a personal carrying on a person may have. And such may be criminal, unethical, dishonest, immoral, or silly behaviour, etc.
This section in itself puts a block on anyone’s right to be honest and courageous. So here we have a case where Ralph Gonsalves is trying to criminalize honesty, patriotism, champion of transparency and courage. However, I will say this; because of the potential of vulnerable people being moved to suicide as have been happening in other parts of the world, there should be a buffer to protect such people, while not criminalizing honesty, patriotism, champion of transparency and courage.
Subsection 3 of clause or section 16 should state as follows: If a person after being warned, persists maliciously, intentionally and menacingly to:
a) Use a computer to repeatedly disseminate the same information, statement or image and
b) Become 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.
Sub-section 3 of section or clause 16 of the Cyber Crime Bill as reworded above will protect the vulnerable in our society without criminalizing honesty, patriotism, champion of transparency and courage.
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 behaviour 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 targeted and they must be warned to stop thus giving that person the opportunity to amend their behaviours. However, if the offender shows disregard for the official warning then the matter should be investigated to see if an offence was indeed committed that is worthy to be taken before the court.
I have also written to the Cyber Crime Bill review committee and I have offered my detailed suggestions.
Comments
Post a Comment