In George Orwell’s celebrated 1984, civilization has been severely undermined by war and social hardship. Totalitarian rule is the order of the day with the central leadership figure – Big Brother – enjoying virtual cult status, much of which has been arrived at by careful state cultivation, mixed with unhealthy doses of fear and ignorance by the proles.
The society is marked by repressiveness, extreme surveillance, political infiltration into organisations, societies, workforce and homes. Partisan propaganda is everywhere and criticism of the ruling party is undertaken at one’s peril. Institutions such as the police and other agencies of influence are complicit with the totalitarian dictates of the hierarchy. Why? There is a perpetual war, and government must be omnipresent in everyone’s life as part of its stated or assumed effort of preserving the state – and obviously the people – from the ravages of warfare. That ‘fiction’ was then.
Enter today’s COVID-19 pandemic. Modern civilization is faced with a war against an unseen enemy. There is the likelihood that prevailing circumstances could occasion totalitarian states or personalities. The justification that can be sold is that repression of behavioural freedoms is for the greater good of the state. Big Brothers are likely to emerge across political landscapes, especially where fear, indifference and cronyism prevail.
Therefore, similar to Orwell’s locale, surveillance of citizens not only becomes acceptable, but policies are introduced and some shamelessly advertised that encourage neighbours to spy and inform on each other. In some cases, wiretapping might be thrown into the equation. New laws are introduced that not only subvert rights but do so even when the legitimacy of their existence is debatable. Silence is often coerced by promises, payment or positions offered by the various global Big Brothers. Regrettably, many proles are easily convinced that the denegation of their rights is necessary for the eradication of the enemy – in this instance, COVID-19.
But such political “ingsoc” only works if allowed by the collective proles. Does the global family permit the respective Big Brothers to run roughshod over their rights? Do they allow coaxing entreaties in one breath and acerbic attacks in the other, to cloud the reality that even in times of war against tanks, ships and aircrafts – or even viruses – citizens still have certain inalienable rights that should not be taken away from them?
This brings us to Barbados. How many Winston Smiths are among us, imbued with independent spirit and thought? Is there a visible Big Brother lording over us? Who and where are the influencers? Is life mimicking art? Are our constitutional rights being subjected to convenient rewrite in the Ministry of ‘Truth’? Are the proles in society content to succumb to being numb and dumb? Has there been a complete buy-in to the narrative that it is unpatriotic and insensitive to the dangers of COVID-19, to question the authenticity of any action undertaken by the state? These are questions best answered objectively by each and every Barbadian citizen.
Recently, one akin to Winston Smith among us, trade unionist and Opposition Senator Caswell Franklyn, questioned the constitutionality of the amendments to the Emergency Management Act introduced by Government to deal with the current COVID-19 war. He suggested Government had taken the wrong road in its endeavours and hinted that citizens now being jailed, remanded and fined for breaches of the amended legislation might have legal recourse. Though supportive of the need to control spread of the virus, Franklyn was adamant that measures applied should be grounded in proper law.
Franklyn noted: “Under a state of public emergency government can, and in this case, restrict citizens from enjoying their constitutional rights. The mechanism for doing so in the current emergency is a series of directives issued by the Prime Minister. I make bold to say that the Prime Minister cannot use this mechanism to curtail constitutional rights and freedoms since the enabling legislation did not amend or alter the Constitution of Barbados in anyway. To my mind, since the Emergency Management (Amendment) Act, 2020 did not amend or alter the Constitution; any directives issued by the Prime Minister that curtailed our constitutional rights would be illegal and of no effect.
“The obvious question would therefore be: How can government declare a state of emergency to protect the country from the ravages of this COVID-19 pandemic? The simple answer would be that government should have invoked the provisions of the Emergency Powers Act, 1939-3.”
Following Mr Franklyn’s intervention and the almost predictable wall of silence from legal luminaries on the Hill, in the valleys and elsewhere, a challenge was made this week in the law courts by Michael Lashley QC to a charge brought against a client under the same emergency laws. Several binding legal precedents were cited in support of his action. Lashley argued that the charges against the citizen breached Barbados’ Constitution and should be dismissed for lack of certainty. He noted that where a statute or a piece of legislation creates an offence and is likely to impact on the liberty of the subject, it must be clear, certain and not ambiguous or vague.
The outcome of this action could have far-reaching consequences for those persons currently on remand or on bail pending adjudication of their cases. Those who have already pleaded guilty might have a tougher nut to crack, if it can be cracked at all. Not guilty pleas to all subsequent charges under the current amendment might become the advised order of the day. Whatever happens, it is never a bad thing when we – plebs, patricians and Government for that matter – are reminded that even in times of war and pandemics, no one should be allowed to play loose with the constitutional rights of citizens, be it 1948, 1984, 2020 or today. In this instance, unlike Orwell’s fiction, we anticipate that all Barbadian Smiths will hold fast to their principles.
