Bill to criminalise harassment and threats sparks outrage

By Delana Isles

A NEW BILL to protect residents from verbal and physical harassment, abuse, threatening telephone calls and false information, is set to be presented to the House of Assembly next week.

But days before the debate, the bill, which has been made public, has sparked outrage, consternation and criticism from a cross section of the population.

On Monday (June 22), a bill titled the Public Order and Criminal Justice Ordinance 2020 will be presented to members for their perusal, debate and possible passage.

Under the proposed law the following acts will be criminalised: affray (fighting in public), fear or provocation of violence, intentional harassment, alarm or distress, harassment, alarm o distress, and mental element.

Also included are sending letters with intent to cause distress or anxiety, improper use of public telecommunication systems, and intimidation and harm of witnesses, jurors and judicial officers.

Leader of the Progressive National Party, Washington Misick, said in a statement on Friday that he will not be supporting the bill come Monday.

“We cannot and will not give our consent to legislation that is ill-conceived and carry the risk of suppressing criticism. This is a clear consequence of this bill intended or not,” he stated.

The Opposition leader called the bill “ambiguous” adding that it has “broad and unjustified risks for abusive application”.

Former PDM leader Oswald Skippings said the proposed legislation is “a devious and blatant case of masked totalitarianism”

The only part that he is supporting, he said, is the part aimed at protecting witnesses and judicial personnel from intimidation and harm which should be set out in a standalone bill.

“The Opposition view is that the case has not been made for the justification of the risk to the freedom of expression that could result from passage of the current bill.”

He said this is critical even where the language or action may be insensitive or aggressive.

“We say that against the TCI cultural background of passionate superlatives, hyperbole and bravado that someone from a different cultural orientation is likely to bring their own cultural bias to our expressions.

“The risk of this is real considering the predominance of the law enforcement community by persons from diverse cultures, but generally different from ours.

“We are convinced that the enactment of such a bill at this time, and in this form, is misguided.”

Former leader of the People’s Democratic Movement, Oswald Skippings, said the proposed legislation is “a devious and blatant case of masked totalitarianism”.

“This repressive legislation does not only highlight this Government’s fear of being objectively criticised and held into account, but it clearly demonstrates the Government’s desire to continue to muffle its citizenry both vocally and through media outlets while it continues to exploit, oppress, disadvantage and disempower its people,” Skippings added.

The politician questioned whether the church will now be censored if it is in Opposition to, or condemns government policy. He is calling on pastors to speak out about the proposed law.

“Will the church, who are supposed to be the ‘watchmen on the wall’, rise to the occasion and speak out about it, since a preacher may in the future be easily not only be accused of and arrested, but fined or imprisoned or both for merely addressing any issue from a prophetic or biblical standpoint or simply from a natural, layman, communal standpoint.”

Meanwhile, attorney Mark Fulford called the ordinance a “shut ya mouth” law which would permanently restrict freedoms such as the freedom of speech.

“Despite, the likely intention of the bill, it is understandable why we as Turks Islanders would be naturally sceptical of its timing and why we would be inclined to ask ourselves, who is behind this bill? Is it the premier or is it the British?”

He continued: “Other questions that leave persons with a profound sense of mistrust, are the questions as to how the bill will be enforced? Is this a tool to create a police state?

“Will parliamentarians use the auspices of the bill to make complaints to the police whenever a concerned citizen speaks out against them forcefully?

“Is that why we have not heard from any parliamentarian on this bill? If that is the case, the bill would be an entrapment and should be rejected in its current form.”

He stressed that the bill is ambiguous, leaves a lot to interpretation and greater clarity is needed.

The bill explains the following:

Affray A person is guilty of afray if he uses or threatens unlawful violence towards another and his conduct, causing the other person to fear for their safety.

This threat cannot be made by the use of words alone, and can be committed in private as well as public places.

A person guilty of affray is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for no more than six months, or to a fine of $10,000 or to both.

On conviction on indictment, the guilty party will be imprisoned for a term not exceeding three years.

Fear or provocation of violence A person is guilty of an offence if they use, towards another person, threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or if they distribute or display any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him or someone else.

This section applies to both private and public spaces.

Anyone convicted of this crime will also face a six-month prison sentence, a fine of $10,000 or both.

Intentional harassment, alarm or distress Anyone who intentionally harasses, alarms or distress another by using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or displays any writing, sign will be guilty of an offence.

The guilty party will also face six-months imprisonment, a $10,000 fine or both.

Harassment, alarm or distress If the harassment, as described above, is not intentional, and the accused cannot prove that they did not mean to harass, they can still be charged and convicted.

On conviction, this individual will be required to pay a fine of up to $2,500.

Mental element: Miscellaneous If an accused is not mentally competent at the time of any of the aforementioned ats, by way of intoxication (alcohol, drugs or a combination of both), they need to prove that the illegal act was committed as a result of their intoxication due to medical reasons, or that it was not self-induced.

Offensive messages and telephone calls Any person who sends to another person a letter, electronic communication or article of any description which conveys a message which is indecent or grossly offensive, a threat or known false information will be guilty of an offence if their purpose causes distress or anxiety to the recipient or anyone else to whom it is communicated.

If the sender can show that the threat was used to reinforce a demand made by him on reasonable grounds they will not be prosecuted.

Electronic communication refers to any oral or other communication by means of an electronic communications network.

If found to be guilty on summary conviction, the sender can be imprisoned for up to six months, fined $10,000 or both.

On conviction on indictment, the guilty party can serve up to two years in prison.

Improper use of public telecommunication system Anyone who sends, by means of a public telecommunication system, a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or of menacing character shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to a fine of $10,000 or to both.

This clause in the bill refers to messages conveyed on television programme services, radio programme service or any other service using an electronic communication.

Intimidation of witnesses, jurors and judicial officers Finally, a person is guilty if they intimidate or intend to intimidate another person who is assisting in the investigation of an offence, a witness or potential witness, a juror or potential juror, or a judicial officer.

This person will, on summary conviction, serve a prison term not exceeding six months, or to a fine of $10,000 or to both.

If convicted on indictment, they can serve up to five years in prison.

The same goes for harming witnesses, jurors and judicial officers involved in proceedings for an offence, and if the act is done to pervert the course of justice.