Domestic Terrorism Legislation not necessary, says attorneys-at-law

Two attorneys have suggested that rather than pursuing domestic terrorism legislation, priority should be placed on addressing the social and economic problems fuelling poverty and gang activity on the island. 

 

Following a recent shooting incident after a cruise which left 10 people injured, Prime Minister Mia Mottley told the country there was a need for stronger legal tools to deal with violence intended to terrorise communities.

 

“It is one thing for a person to be charged with murder; it is another thing for a person to create panic and to cause people to be the subject of terrorism and terror,” Mottley stated during a press conference at that time, saying that the island would move to implement domestic terrorism legislation.

 

However, in an interview with Barbados TODAY, defence attorneys Sian Lange and Simon Clarke maintained that such a law is unnecessary.

 

“I am wary of anti-terrorism laws and attempts to codify terror, because terror is a feeling. For example, some people say they feel safer because the US army is bombing boats in the Caribbean, and some people say they feel terrified because of it. Whose feelings do we use to decide if it is a terrorist act?” Lange questioned.

 

Pointing to the existing legislation, she stated that Section Three of the Anti-Terrorism Act 2002 had already achieved the purpose of categorising the violence outlined by the PM as terrorism. 

 

Section Three outlines that an individual commits the offence of terrorism if, within or outside Barbados, they carry out an act, which by its nature or context, is intended to intimidate the public, or to compel a government or international organisation to act or refrain from acting, and is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm, serious risk to public health or safety, substantial property damage and/or serious disruption of essential services.

 

Lange insisted that it was time to address the issues which can lead to the creation of gangs and resulting conflicts.

 

“The violence which occurred was regrettable, but I think it is essential for us to remember that often the persons who commit these types of crimes are operating within a social and economic system which our society created, and that system will exist until we as a society decide to deal with the system from its highest participants coming down. 

 

“The real terrorists, if we must give someone the label, are the persons who exploit the socio-economically disenfranchised youth to gain power and wealth – and those who turn a blind eye to that truth,” Lange stressed.

 

Asking the question as to whether the island had criminal gangs or terrorist groups, Clarke said domestic terrorism is a serious threat and should be “reserved for instances involving politically or ideologically motivated violence aimed at creating fear and instability on a national scale.

 

“Criminal gangs are primarily engaged in criminal acts for profit; however, labelling them as terrorists could be an overreach and might unnecessarily infringe upon civil liberties. When addressing gang-related issues within a country, it is important to choose targeted, proportional measures that directly address the problem without overreaching or infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens.

 

“Therefore, I suggest that an Anti-Gang Legislation is better suited, and can complement programs that focus on prevention, education and rehabilitation, addressing the root causes of gang violence such as poverty, lack of opportunity, and disenfranchisement,” he stated.

 

Clarke said the island’s main focus should be on preventing violence and dismantling criminal enterprises without undermining citizens’ rights or overextending state powers.

 

“However, if gangs evolve and begin to use terror tactics, then the Domestic Terrorism Legislation could become a necessary tool,” he contended.

(JB)