FREEDOM is a non-negotiable right that should not be infringed upon by any government or institution on the citizenry

Sep 08, 2024 Letters

---

Dear Editor,

I eagerly wait to read the explanatory memorandum and the proposed amendments to the Cybercrime Act which seem imminent in coming to pass. If indeed the speculations of those amendments to the cyber-crime act are true, we all must reject it. But until then I will share some thoughts.

Firstly, the concept of freedom and human desire for it is deeply ingrained in our experiences. It transcends cultures, generations, and geographies.

It was the philosopher John Locke who famously asserted, “All individuals are born free, endowed with certain inalienable rights”. This innate desire for liberty, for human rights and freedom has shaped the course of history, fueling revolts, revolutions, wars, protest, and movements for the abolition of slavery and nations’ independence.

The sacrifices of those who have fought and died for these freedoms have ensured that successive generations to the present, can enjoy the benefits of an open society. We must ensure the freedom we enjoy must never be taken away.

Secondly, it is no secret, for the signs are all over, that the struggle for freedom is far from over.

In this digital age, new forms of tyranny are emerging, often cloaked in the language of security, public order, or societal well-being.

It is important for us to recognise that Governments and institutions, sometimes under the guise of safeguarding the public’s interest, have sought to curtail freedoms, particularly in the realm of protest and digital expression.

Thirdly, the alleged and suspicious proposed amendments to the Cybercrime Act by the Government of Guyana, which is intended to be done, purportedly seek to limit and monitor Guyanese home and abroad freedom of expression on social media platforms.

Especially those who are critical of the government and some high-profile individuals.

This, if done, will be a contemporary example of an insidious, Machiavellian threat to the freedoms we all enjoy. Again, I say we must never allow this government or any other in the future to take our freedom away.

Freedom of expression, both offline and online, is the cornerstone of a democratic society, which this government boasts about being responsible for “bringing back” to Guyana.

Social media platforms, which have become the modern-day public square, provide an unprecedented space for individuals to share ideas, opinions, express dissent, and mobilize for positive change could now be at risk.

It appears obvious, that this freedom has now become a point of contention for many governments including the government of Guyana. They fear the power of unregulated discourse.

Further, the assumed intended amendments to the Cybercrime Act in Guyana exemplify how governments can use legislation to stifle free speech under the guise of combating cybercrime. While the need to address legitimate concerns such as cyberbullying, hacking, and misinformation is undeniable, such regulations must be carefully balanced to ensure they do not become tools of oppression, I repeat, oppression.

This supposed intention by the government, attempting to limit digital freedoms are not limited to our country. Around the world, similar efforts have been met with fierce resistance and rightfully so, from civic-minded individuals, NGOs, political organizations and groups who recognize the dangers of unchecked governmental power.

In 2013, the Indian government attempted to pass the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, which would have required internet platforms to remove content deemed “unlawful” within 36 hours, without the need for a court order. This proposal was widely criticized by free speech advocates, who argued that it would have a chilling effect on online expression, raising concerns about potential censorship.

The government eventually retracted the proposal due to widespread public opposition, which still require platforms to remove certain types of content but with a more nuanced approach to intermediary liability.

Another prominent example is the 2014 Turkish government’s attempts to ban Twitter and YouTube. The bans were imposed after these platforms were used to disseminate information critical of the government, particularly regarding corruption allegations against high-ranking officials. The move was widely condemned both within Turkey and internationally as a blatant attack on free speech. Turkish citizens took to the streets in protest, and many found ways to circumvent the bans using virtual private networks (VPNs) and other tools.

Finally, China is another country which provides perhaps the most extreme example of governmental control over digital freedoms. The Great Firewall of China presents a vast and sophisticated system for internet censorship. It is designed to control the flow of information and suppress dissent. Popular social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are all banned in the country, while their domestic platforms are heavily monitored and censored.

Despite these oppressive measures, the Chinese citizens desire for freedom have continuously found ways to resist the government’s measures, often using coded language and other creative methods.

Guyana should never allow itself to descend to those levels to restrict or deny our citizens their freedoms. We must fight if ever such oppressive measures present themselves.

Yours respectfully,

Hon. Jermaine Figueira MP

---

• Cybercrime Act, Freedom, Government, Hon. Jermaine Figueira MP, institution

---