Cyber Crime Bill creates criminal offence for emails that cause harm

May 14, 2018 News

…This is an even greater onslaught on freedom of speech – Nandlall

By Abena Rockcliffe-Campbell

“Anything negative or critical about a person will naturally cause them harm; by causing harm alone, Section 17 provides for the creation of an offence,” noted Former Attorney General, Anil Nandlall as he spoke about the ills of the Cyber Crime Bill.

Former Attorney General, Anil Nandlall

Nandlall said that while the conversation on the Cyber Crime Bill is centered on clause 18, which makes sedation on the internet a crime, “clause 17 might be even more egregious. This clause constitutes an even greater onslaught on free speech and freedom of the press.”
Clause 17 says, “A person commits an offence if the person- Intentionally initiates the transmission of multiple electronic mail messages from or through a computer system: or, with intent to deceive or mislead a recipient or service provider as to the origin of the message, uses a computer system to transmit or retransmit multiple electronic mail messages, that causes harm to a person or damage to a computer system.”
Nandlall attached context to the provisions of clause 17. He said, “You are aware that many of the press outfits operating in Guyana disseminate their news by the transmission of multiple emails and various intervals. If any of those emails contain a news story or a statement which harms another person, then the person who intentionally sent those emails out is guilty of an offence.”
The former AG noted that the clause does not define what constitutes harm; neither does it say that the statement that can be justified nor can the truth be defended. Nandlall said this means that if a media house publishes the facts about a government official being engaged in corruption, “you would have committed an offence and evidence cannot be used as defence to that offence.”
Nandlall said that clause 17 is worse than the sedation clause. However, he still expressed his opinion that sedation should be removed from the bill and also removed from the books in general.
Nandlall noted that sedation as an offence was imposed by the British.
He said, “Sedition is an archaic and anachronistic law, a product of colonialism historically introduced in the colonies of Great Britain to quell free speech and resistance. But while most countries seek to get rid of it, APNU+AFC re-introduces it. This is a retrograde step.”
Nandlall said that sedation has no place in a modern democratic society governed by a Constitution which guarantees freedom of the press and free speech as fundamental rights.
Asked why he didn’t push for the removal of sedition when he was AG, Nandlall said that no one called for it at the time. He said, “It was not a live issue, no one called for the removal. And how much could I have done in a minority government while having to object to budget cuts in court.”
He said that the PPP/C opposition could not have saved Guyana even now for this Bill, simply because it has no power in the Select Committee of Parliament.
“Admittedly, the PPP’s presence in the select committee was unfortunately marred by some degree of absenteeism. In any event, if were we present in that committee we would not have been successful in getting that clause removed because we were in a minority.”
Nandlall said he is fortified in his view that efforts would have been futile because the government continues to insist that the clause is necessary “and they have refused thus far to remove it from the bill. That would have been their position in the committee and our objection would have been over ruled.”

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News