Section 18 of the Cybercrime Bill does not restrict criticisms of the government

Apr 30, 2018 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

We are getting ahead of ourselves in the debate over Section 18 of the Cybercrime Bill. It seems that most of those persons who are up in arms (no pun intended) over this Bill have not read Section 18 in its entirety. Had they done so, they would have been informed about the various acts which the Bill specifies as not constituting sedition.
As the learned Attorney General has observed, the offence of sedition remains on the law books of Guyana. Sections 321 and 323 of the Criminal Law (Offences) Act of Guyana creates the offences of “seditious libel” and “engaging in a seditious purpose”.
Former army officer Oliver Hinckson was charged in 2008 with making seditious statements. Former President Desmond Hoyte had described sedition as archaic and used only in England to go after opponents of the Crown.
It is precisely the fear that sedition can be used for political headhunting purposes that is creating all the hysteria in Guyana over the Bill. Facebook users and even the media are concerned that future posts can be deemed seditious. There is fear that they can be targeted under the new legislation.
The former Attorney General of Guyana, Anil Nandlal, has also expressed some concerns, even though his party was represented in the Selected Committee which reviewed the Bill. The general consensus of those making the most noises at this time is that Section 18 violates free expression.
It does not.
The Cybercrime Bill was tabled in the National Assembly in August of 2016 and was sent to a Special Select Committee. It seems that it is only now that many Rip Van Winkles are now awakening to Section 18 of the Bill.
That section is quite straightforward. It creates the cybercrime offence of sedition. In fact, the entirety of Section 18 is closely patterned after the Sedition Act of Trinidad and Tobago.
The abstract of that section, which is causing the greatest concern in Guyana at the moment states that a person commits an offence of sedition if that person intentionally publishes, transmits or circulates by use of a computer system or any other means, a statement or words, either spoken or written, a text, video, image, sign, visible representation, or other thing, that brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in Guyana.
This section is seen as limiting freedom of expression. The fear is that any criticism of the government can be deemed as constituting disaffection towards the government and those making the criticism can be charged with sedition.
This is a far stretch because the very Section 18 provides for exceptions to sedition under the Bill.
The exceptions, that is those acts which do not constitute sedition, include comments which express disapprobation (disapproval) of the government policies and measures with a view to their alternation by lawful means.
What this means is that a person who criticizes the government’s policies and actions and calls for changes to those policies and actions cannot be charged with sedition. Criticism of the government is therefore not curtailed by Section 18.
Saying that the President, Prime Minister or any Minister of the Government or the Government has been misled or mistaken in their measures; and pointing to errors of defects in the government, the Constitution and Parliament does not also create an offence of sedition. John Public would be free to criticize, in cyberspace, personalities within the government and also to be critical of the parliament and the Constitution.
Those persons who are having sleepless nights over Section 18 of the Cybercrime Bill are probably reading only the first half of that Section and not the second half, which creates exclusions from the offence of sedition.
Sedition, of course, is an offence, which needs to be debated because it is archaic and outmoded and should no longer be on the statute books. It has an ugly history in England and elsewhere. It is an offence, which should be struck off the statute books.

Latest News

Section 18 of the Cybercrime Bill does not restrict criticisms of the government

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | November, 20th, 2024

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

West Indies ride on Greaves’ 115 to exert dominance over...

Marian, Potaro, Waramuri and St John the Baptist...

Adams, Ghani smash hundreds in runs-filled ERC...

RHTYSC honours top LCSS Student with Claudette...

IBA President congratulates Steve Ninvalle on his...

Fireworks expected in Mayoral Cycle Road Race in...

Features/Columnists

Jagdeo’s idea of transparency

Rising Gun Crimes in the Caribbean: Urgent Action required by all

Exxon-raw, uncensored, unlike anything before

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]

Section 18 of the Cybercrime Bill does not restrict criticisms of the government

Share this:

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | November, 20th, 2024

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Features/Columnists

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]