Dear Editor
DAILY, we are witnessing the great hypocrisy and dangerous contradictions that highlight a society that is filled with political self-seekers. Their only reason for living is to continue in their frantic attempts to drag this country down to the abyss, to continue on the old decrepit road of whipping up bogeys — a political un-enlightenment that can only continue the division of the country.

Editor, I write with reference to the Cyber Crime Bill and the controversy surrounding same; and this is more about the principles and steps that led up to the Bill, than the inherent issues on whether it is outdated, and constitutes a threat to freedom of expression and democracy in the process. The latter is another opinion for another letter.
First of all, I must commend the government for seeking to craft a bill from a variety of other examples, with a team even visiting the United States for attending a cyber-crime conference. Further, given the seriousness of such a bill, the government made it available on its website for public input. This was followed by adjustments, taking the public views into consideration. It was then “reposted’’. There was also a public consultation at the Pegasus Hotel before moving on to the National Assembly, then to a Parliamentary Select Committee, where there was an equal number of government and opposition party MPs, for further scrutiny, and I believe, fine-tuning of the Bill.

Editor, I submit that this was a Bill that solicited public views by way of invited comments, coupled with an open public forum. This was a democratic process that was initiated by the government, and responded to by the public, and not a take- it- or- leave-it, high-handed attitude.

Thus, we now have to examine as from which direction the objecting choruses now emanate, for it boggles the mind that there are objections from the same quarters, who would have had the opportunity to make their positions known.
If the current noises/objections in whatever form, are from sections of those who had subscribed to invited comments, then it meant that they were either dishonest in their contributions, or did not deliberate properly before their posted comments. As to the Pegasus meeting – there were ghosts in attendance! I am certain, that neither has not been the case.

It boggles the mind, too, that the PPP contingent had sat at such a seminal stage and not object to those parts of the Bill, that they now so do. Thus, for Jagdeo to claim his parliamentarians “lapsed’’, in not objecting to the Bill is a bird that cannot fly. In fact, such a statement is as asinine in its entirety as it is fraudulent. But this is the PPP/C’s understanding of representing its constituents.

How can Anil Nandlall, the PPP/C’s legal spokesperson, ever claim that his professional duties clashed with attending the committee’s deliberations? Is this man for real? Does he understand that as a member of parliament he is a sworn representative of the people? I am certain he does; however, his answer does convey where his true loyalty lies!
His claim, also, that Sedition as an offence has been outdated for some 130 years, meaning that it had not been used for prosecution, is a filthy, big lie that ought to be confined to Freedom House. At least, I have not forgotten that it was the PPP/C administration that issued such a charge against Benschop, Oliver Hinckson, and Waddell. But Nandlall is among the many PPP/C spokespersons who continue to take advantage of the apparent memory lapses, or convenient memories of their constituents, riding rough shod over their supporters’ failure to ask the hard questions of their party. It is a tragedy that continues to benefit the wicked lies, vile propaganda, and immoral political behaviour of the PPP/C.

This is a continuation of the rightwing movement, in conjunction with the PPP/C opposition against the coalition government. These media are becoming a pathetic voice, for rather than serving the truth – they continue to slavishly genuflect to dangerous interests that serve their agenda. I do not ever recall, reading or listening to any rebuttal of Nandlall’s claim.

Regards
Earl Hamilton