New Cybercrime Bill Passed by House of Assembly Deemed Threat to Civil Liberties

By Ryan Gilkes

Declaring the new Cybercrime Bill passed by the House of Assembly this week a threat to civil liberties, Democratic Labour Party (DLP) leader Dr Ronnie Yearwood has called for a social media blackout to protest the legislation which now heads to the Senate.

While acknowledging that not every aspect of the Cybercrime Bill is problematic, he emphasised its contentious nature during the DLP’s weekly podcast The People’s House.

“Everything in the Bill is not bad,” the DLP president said while vowing to repeal the law and bring in “experts” to rewrite it if the party was returned to government.

The Cybercrime Bill, which repeals the Computer Misuse Act of 2005, aims to combat cybercrime, protect legitimate interests in the use and development of information technologies, and facilitate cooperation with international authorities on investigating computer-related crimes and related matters.

“Make comments on the Parliament’s website,” Dr Yearwood declared. “We can do what a lot of people in social media spaces do, which is a blackout day. So, all our Facebook profiles should be blacked out to show our disgust. I would encourage all Democratic Labour Party members from now until Monday – because I believe the Bill is supposed to be going to the Senate next week, I would encourage all members, all Barbadians, bloggers, everybody show your disgust. And if you do not understand the ramifications as well, just keep watching because this is an assault on your liberty and your ability to function.”

Dr Yearwood said one of his main concerns was “vague” language in the legislation. He zeroed in on Section 19 which focused on malicious communications, suggesting there was potential misuse of the Bill’s clauses, particularly clauses one and three.

Clause one addresses the intentional or reckless use of computer systems to publish threatening data, while clause three pertains to disseminating images or words, irrespective of truth, likely to cause ridicule, contempt, or embarrassment. Under both sections, offenders on summary conviction face a fine of $70 000, imprisonment for a term of seven years or both.

The DLP leader said these sections could be wielded to stifle free speech and criticism of politicians, adding that it would also impact public dialogue and freedom of expression.

“What’s worrying about this . . . some of these sections are just downright wrong or wicked because these sections can be used to stifle free speech, they can be used to prevent you from criticising us, from criticising politicians and that is a hallmark of democracy – to be able to criticise politicians,” he said.