‘Loyal Opposition’ wants IACHR say on law it says threatens freedom of expression

A delegation of Barbadians, led by a group calling itself ‘Loyal Opposition’, is set to present concerns over the government’s proposed Cybercrime Bill to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) in Washington, DC, a key body in the hemispheric human rights system.

The announcement was made by spokesperson for the group, Marcia Weekes, during a press briefing on Tuesday. She explained that the group is pushing for significant amendments to the legislation, which it believes threatens fundamental rights, particularly freedom of expression.

A hearing on the challenge is set to take place on November 11 during the IACHR’s 191st Ordinary Period of Sessions, which runs from November 4 to 15.

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) is an autonomous entity of the Organisation of American States (OAS). Its primary mission is to promote and protect human rights across the Americas.

“In response to public outcry regarding the Cybercrime Bill 2024, the Government of Barbados established a Joint Select Committee tasked with conducting a comprehensive analysis of the bill,” Weekes noted. “One of the committee’s primary tasks was to evaluate whether the bill, as currently drafted, infringes upon citizens’ fundamental rights to freedom of expression while balancing the need to protect the reputation, rights, and freedoms of others, including their private lives.”

Weekes also pointed out that although the committee received 12 oral and 48 written submissions, many concerns remained unresolved. “Issues highlighted included vague and broad definitions, extensive powers, and significant fines and penalties,” she said. She added that both the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and the Barbados Bar Association have raised concerns about the bill’s potential to criminalise defamation, arguing that it could stifle freedom of speech.

Despite the committee’s recommendation to remove terms like “embarrassment” from Sections 19 and 20 of the draft law, Weekes stressed that the core issues persisted.

“Criminal defamation is still included,” she said, also pointing out that the committee increased fines from $70 000 to $100 000 and extended prison terms from seven to ten years.

Weekes highlighted the bill’s provisions, which could still penalise citizens for causing “humiliation”, “intimidation” or “substantial emotional distress” online, with Weekes labelling these terms as “broad and subjective”.

Paul Massiah, another member of the Loyal Opposition group, summarised the Barbados Bar Association’s legal review, which also raised red flags about the bill’s scope and penalties.

“Key concerns raised include the bill’s scope, which goes beyond protecting computer systems to possibly enabling broader surveillance, potentially conflicting with the Data Protection Act and the Constitution of Barbados,” he said.

He further pointed out the significant increase in penalties, comparing the proposed fines to existing legislation.

“For example, criminal libel under Section 34(3) of the Defamation Act carries a maximum fine of $2 000 or a prison term of up to 12 months, compared to fines up to $100 000 or a 10-year sentence under the new Bill,” Massiah explained.

Concerns over freedom of conscience and religion, what the group described as “overly broad powers” in the bill, and the harsh penalties, particularly for youth offenders, were also raised. The group is calling for clearer definitions, proportionate penalties, and better safeguards for privacy and free speech.

When asked about the potential implications of a favourable ruling from the IACHR, group member Don Leacock said: “That would put significant international pressure on the government departments to act.”

He added that although the IACHR ruling would not be legally binding, it could have diplomatic ramifications, potentially leading to international sanctions if the government did not address the concerns raised.

Kemar Stuart, another member of the group, urged more Barbadians to get involved in the cause, stating that if the government did not comply with a favourable ruling by the IAHCR, they would pursue legal action, filing a constitutional motion in the courts for sections of the bill they believe violate the nation’s supreme law.

shannamoore@barbadostoday.bb