Democratic Republican Party of St.

Vincent & the Grenadines (DRP)

Belair, Kingstown
St. Vincent & the Grenadines
Tel# 1-784-456-6257, 1-784-528-1015
E-mail: democraticrepublicanpartysvg@gmail.com

31st July, 2016

Delphine Halgand
US Director, Reporters Without Borders
1500 K Suite, N.W. Suite 600
Washington, D.C. 20005
USA

Dear Ms. Halgand,

Grace and peace to you and your organization.
Let me begin by thanking you for your expression of concerns on the Cybercrime Bill 2016, in
the interest of the protection of the fundamental human freedom of expression which
encompasses freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of information. After reading
your letter to Saint Vincent and the Grenadines' Prime Minister Ralph Gonsalves (PM) and
Minister of Information Camillo Gonsalves, calling for revision of several clauses that are
extremely damaging to the free flow of news and information and to public debate, and after
having read the Prime Ministers reply to you which has been circulated on Facebook in recent
days, I feel it necessary to reply to his claims and arguments, through this formal letter to you.
As an invitee to sit at Select Committee meetings and with a 100% punctuality rate at said
meetings I am well positioned to shed light on the reality of the Vincentian public regarding this
bill. Please consider the following about the process thus far:
1. Despite the Prime Ministers claim about private and public sectors consultation on the
bill with regional drafters since 2013, please note that this bill was not introduced to the
wider general public for any discussions, study or feedback in the year 2013. The first
real introduction of the general public to this bill was when it was read in the House of
Parliament on 31st May, 2016 and the parliaments sitting is broadcast live on radio
stations here.
1|Page

2. The Select Committee meetings to date were held in June and July, approximately six (6)
times in total (3 in June and 3 in July), and it is important to note that this was during the
height of the traditional Carnival period in St. Vincent and the Grenadines. Note also that
when the bill was published in the print media on Friday 10th June the public was asked
to submit their comments by Monday 13th June, giving a mere two (2) weekend days to
read, study and submit comments on what amounts to a 33 paged bill (8 1/2 x 11 pages).
This was unsatisfactory and I raised the concern at the select committee meeting of 14th
June. Respectfully, since its publishing in the print media, just less than two months have
passed and it was during the national carnival period where many were preoccupied with
the festivities. This is not sufficient time and opportunity for careful study of this bill
which has the potential to impact negatively on God-given and constitutionally
guaranteed freedoms of the people.
3.

I must also indicate that the several written submissions, referred to by PM Gonsalves,
which were circulated to the select committee, were to my knowledge only Four (4) in
number. Three of them were given to me and I am aware of a 4th which came from an
NGO to which I also belong, called the Thusian Institute for Religious Liberty Inc.
(TIRL). Again, it must be highlighted that apart from TIRLs submission, two out of the
other three submissions (one from a journalist and another from a political activist)
registered their concerns about the short time available to the public for submission of
comments on the bill.

4. There is another aspect of the process which I must highlight and it has to do with the
constitution of the select committee meetings. I acknowledge what PM Gonsalves has
said on this subject but please also note certain important facts.
a. Firstly, the only Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) represented on this
committee are: the St. Vincent and the Grenadines Bar Association and the St.
Vincent and the Grenadines Chamber of Industry and Commerce. There is no
representation from any youth related NGO. There is no Media, Journalism or
Publishers representatives (be it print, electronic etc.). There is no representation
from Religious organizations who frequently broadcast programs via internet
radio in SVG. It must be noted that in the case of the Bar Association, its
president is a known supporter of the political party in Government (the ULP),
having served as an elected representative and cabinet minister with the said
government for 10 years. Furthermore the individual is the head of the Unity
labour Partys (ULP) Womens Arm since their May 2015 convention.
b. In addition one who holds the position of General Secretary of the ULP and is a
government appointed Senator and cabinet minister is a member of the committee.
Yet another government appointed Senator is a member of the committee who at
the same time is seen by many as the ULPs political party caretaker for the
constituency whose seat the individual failed to win in the recently concluded
December 2015 general elections. The meeting has also seen attendance, on at
least two occasions from a Crown Counsel in the Attorney Generals office who
holds the position of President of the ULPs Youth Arm since 2015.
2|Page

c. One cannot also escape the fact that of the government members appointed to
select committee, the chairperson (the Prime Minister who tabled the bill) is
joined by his son (Minister of Information) and his cousin (an appointed Senator
and Government Minister). On at least two occasions his daughter-in law (a legal
drafter) was also present. There is clearly a problem of conflict of interest under
such circumstances. It leaves much to be desired for the guarantee of the
protection of the fundamental freedoms of ALL the people, when the review of
this bill is left up to a select committee constituted primarily of members of the
same political party in government and also of the same family in high positions
of power in the party in government.
5. I still faithfully attended select committee meetings, hoping that there could be serious
and fair discussions on the bill; that we could arrive at the best decisions for the
protection of the freedom of expression of Vincentians, against disproportionate and
therefore unjustifiable limitations thereof. I was instead greatly disappointed by the
following, although these points do not represent an exhaustive commentary:
a. The insistence on keeping criminal libel on our criminal code, despite the fact that
it has fallen into disuse (Article 274 of our criminal code). Additionally, the desire
to revive criminal libel by insisting on keeping a provision in the draft (in clause
16) which amounts to electronic criminal libel/defamation. Criminal defamation
should be repealed. (see my final paragraphs)
b. The desire to keep a definition of cyberbullying (under the harassment using
electronic means of communication offence-clause 16) which I have argued
repeatedly, both inside and outside of select committee meetings, is vague,
subjective, overbroad, lacks legal certainty and opens the way for arbitrary
interpretation and abuse by police, prosecutorial and judicial authorities, who in
an imperfect world, may be influenced against the peoples rights. In December
2015 in Nova Scotia, Canada, the Honourable Justice Glen G. McDougall struck
down their Cyber Safety Act 2013 (which was primarily to deal with
cyberbullying), for reasons including a vague definition of cyberbullying. Like
our bill, they defined cyberbullying in almost the same manner- any electronic
communication through the use of technology that is intended or ought
reasonably to be expected to cause fear, intimidation, humiliation, distress or
other damage or harm to another person's health, emotional well-being, selfesteem or reputation, and includes assisting or encouraging such communication
in any way". Justice McDougall said at paragraph 165, I need to consider all of
the types of expression that may be caught in the net of the Cyber-safety Act and
determine whether the act unnecessarily catches material that has little or
nothing to do with the prevention of cyberbullying; R. v. Sharpe, 2001 SCC2,
[2001] S.C.J. No. 3 at para. 95. In this regard the Cyber-safety Act, and the
definition of cyberbullying in particular is a colossal failure. I have warned
that the wide net of communication which may be caught by such vague language
will encourage the breeding of a thin-skinned society; of frivolous, contentious
complaints being brought before the police and even the rise of vendetta and
3|Page

revenge type complaints. https://www.scribd.com/document/319235126/DRPPress-Statement-on-Clause-16-of-the-Cybercrime-Bill-2016. The draft should be

removed.
c. The PM Gonsalves and the Minister of information lead the position of
criminalizing cyberbullying. I have shown that this will potentially criminalize the
truth, the youth and children who may engage in this behaviour (clause 16). I have
proposed instead social intervention to address the behaviour, involving schools
administrations, parents and students in anti-bullying programs, victim-proof
programs, education on tolerance and responsible use of cyberspace and such like.
Further, I have pointed out that civil, not criminal, procedures may be used for
grave wrongs done in cyberbullying, as is the case in some jurisdictions.
Moreover, criminalizing cyberbullying can encourage state punitive measures
against journalists, whistleblowers and government critics, opponents and
dissenters, creating a chilling effect on free speech. All a politician or state
official has to establish is that the publication in question caused distress or
even humiliation to him, even if it were the truth. Imprisoning such persons
will drive fear into others and encourage self-censorship which is undesirable in a
democratic-methods driven society. Please bear in mind that we neither have
legislation to protect Whistleblowers nor do we have an enforced Freedom of
Information Act, although such was passed 13 years ago in 2003 under this
governments reign. http://searchlight.vc/time-for-the-freedom-of-informationact-to-come-into-operation-p38663-84.htm
d. The committee introduced a clause which supposedly addresses threats but which
also suffers from lack of clarity. Rather than heeding my recommendation of
using the current provisions in our criminal code of Threats to murder and
Threat to destroy or damage property (Articles 165 and 268 respectively),
which I believe are offences which justifiably limit freedom of expression in the
interest of the protection of others rights to life and protection of private property,
the committee has chosen a clause which criminalizes the following: The
intentional or reckless use of a computer system to send to another person any
information, statement or image that is (a) obscene, constitutes a threat or is
menacing in character; and (b) thereby causes that person or another person to
feel intimidated, harassed or threatened How is obscene to be defined? And
menacing in character? In an amendment Act of 2014, Grenada repealed section
6 (Sending Offensive Messages through communication services etc.) from their
Electronic Crimes Act 2013, for reasons including unclear terms such as
offensive
and
menacing
in
character
http://www.gov.gd/egov/news/2014/mar14/06_03_14/item_2/electronic_crime_bi
ll.html. In our society, the act of protruding the middle finger to an individual is
seen as obscene and may be done by some, even using a meme on social media.
Will such an image sent to another and claimed to harass the individual qualify as
criminal, for which the individual may pay a reviewed fine of up to EC$25,000 or
1 year in prison or both? Why is this clause different from what we already have
in our criminal code on threat? It seems to me the intention is to capture
4|Page

behaviour that may not truly represent threat to murder or to damage property is
of a lesser kind but which the authorities wish to prosecute nonetheless with
criminal penalty.
e. There are wide powers given to the police in investigations and procedures,
whereby they can apply for ALL types of court order on an Ex parte basis (Part 3Investigations and Procedures). In Trinidad & Tobagos Cybercrimes bill of 2015,
for example, only two orders are applied for on Ex parte basis: the Expedited
Preservation order and the Remote Forensic Tool order. In the Nova Scotian case
which I cited earlier above, Justice McDougall frowned upon the impacts of this
saying at paragraph 155, The Cyber-safety Act does not limit the ability to
proceed on an ex parte basis to emergencies or other extraordinary
circumstances.
f. The bill extends our courts jurisdiction on ALL offences in the bill, to noncitizens acting outside of S.V.G. When one considers the criminalization of
cyberbullying so vaguely defined, one sees how easily this can be used against a
journalist who is not a citizen of SVG but whose publications are known to be
critical of a Vincentian politician, for example, who claims that the said
publications cause him or her distress or humiliation.
Finally, I join with you in your call to decriminalize libel in St. Vincent and the Grenadines.
In a joint declaration by: the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, the
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Representative on Freedom of the
Media and the OAS Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, made after having met with
representatives of NGOs, UNESCO, journalists associations and human rights experts in
London on 9-10 December 2002, under the auspices of ARTICLE 19, Global Campaign for Free
Expression, the following was noted:
Criminal defamation is not a justifiable restriction on freedom of expression; all criminal
defamation laws should be abolished and replaced, where necessary, with appropriate civil
defamation laws.
Also, under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the United
Nations Human Rights Committee 102nd session held in Geneva, 11-29 July 2011, in their
General Comment No. 34 on Article 19 Freedoms of Opinion and Expression the following was
stated, States parties should consider the decriminalization of defamation and, in any case,
the application of the criminal law should only be countenanced in the most serious of cases
and imprisonment is never an appropriate penalty. St. Vincent and the Grenadines has been a
state party to this convention since 1981.
During the International Press Institutes (IPI) 2012 campaign for the decriminalization of libel
in the Caribbean region the following was the result: Grenada decriminalized libel in 2012, then
Jamaica in 2013 and Antigua and Barbuda in 2015 and it was partially abolished in Trinidad and
Tobago in 2014 (although some countries have been challenged with proposed Electronic/Cyber
Crimes legislation seeking to revive it). Most significantly, in 2009 the UK decriminalized this
archaic and draconian rule which countries like ours inherited from her in colonial days. Why in
5|Page

the name of progress would we keep such a backward provision, let alone incorporate it into
cybercrimes legislation? In 2013, I too expressed my support for this position while in interview
with the IPI on the Grenada situation with their Electronic Crimes Act 2013.
In a training manual for journalists on Freedom of Expression the IPI said, The danger with
criminal defamation and one of the many reasons why defamation should be a purely civil
matter is that the involvement of the state in prosecuting alleged defamers shifts the matter
very quickly into the punishment of dissent. At the least it gives additional and excessive
protection to officials and government. And of the impact of criminal libel on journalism we
hear that, Every case of imprisonment of a media professional is an unacceptable hindrance to
freedom of expression and entails that, despite the fact that their work is in the public interest,
journalists have a sword of Damocles hanging over them. The whole of society suffers the
consequences when journalists are gagged by pressure of this kindThe Assembly consequently
takes the view that prison sentences for defamation should be abolished without further delay. In
particular it exhorts states whose laws still provide for prison sentences although prison
sentences are not actually imposed to abolish them without delay so as not to give any excuse,
however unjustified, to those countries which continue to impose them, thus provoking a
corrosion of fundamental freedoms. Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe,
Resolution 1577 (2007), Towards decriminalization of defamation.

Despite these facts, PM Gonsalves argues that criminal libel laws are necessary in our society
because it aids, peace, safety and non-violent responses by victims of defamation, who may
not be able to recover damages from men and women of straw who deliberately and repeatedly
defame them. I would hate to think that any Vincentian leader would give the impression that it
is understandable or acceptable for persons to violently respond if they cannot secure an
imprisonment sentence against their defamer. Furthermore, people have engaged in violent
responses without being first defamed; in disagreements, out of extreme covetousness and greed
(robbery, theft etc.) Violence is never justified, defamed or not, and this is not my message as a
political leader to my people. I encourage tolerance, maturity, forgiveness and at best the use of
the civil court for defamatory speech. Besides, since our criminal libel provision on our books
has fallen into disuse, how do we really know that it has aided peace, safety and non-violent
responses by victims of defamation.? How do we know this when nobody uses it?
People who are defamed prefer to use the civil court, answer the defamation publicly or ignore
the published lies. If the truth be told, one can easily argue that claims for defamation in our
society have been made popular by our head of government more than any other citizen in recent
years. The man of straw argument is weak at best and its problem is not without solution. In the
case of a man or woman of straw, we may empower the court (through our Civil defamation law)
to order the wrong party to publish an apology (of certain length, on the same platform the libel
was published etc.), in order to correct the damage he has created. The court may even order
other measures (a type of civil community service etc.). These are sufficient to address the tort of
libel from such a person. If one argues that the defamed suffered tangible loss, remember
sending the defamer to prison will not recover the loss either. Also, if the man of straw repeats
his libel deliberately, a repeated order to publish an apology and do community service, will
soon enough earn him the reputation of the defamer that he is and cast his defamation and any of
its effects into oblivion. No one would take his pronouncements seriously. While we are desirous
6|Page

of punishing wrong speech we must be mindful of what Politician Charles Bradlaugh is reported
as saying, Without free speech no search for truth is possible; without free speech progress is
checked and the nations no longer march forward toward the nobler life which the future holds
for man. Better a thousand fold abuse of free speech than denial of free speech. The abuse dies in
a day, but the denial slays the life of the people, and entombs the hope of the race.
May our government do what is right for the protection of our peoples section 10 constitutional
protection of freedom of expression. It is a subject of eternal truth that, all men are created
equal and that they are endowed with certain unalienable rights-U.S. Declaration of
Independence 1776. This requires that legislatures shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
government for a redress of grievances.-1st Amendment, Bill of Rights, U.S. Constitution.
Thank you for your attention to our concerns.

Yours Sincerely,

Anesia Baptiste..
Anesia O. Baptiste (Mrs.)
Political Leader
Democratic Republican Party (DRP)

7|Page