Cat Island, Rum Cay and San Salvador MP Philip Davis said the Bill had “far-reaching consequences” and its provisions were “troubling (and) very scary”.
Pierre Dupuch, the Independent MP for St Margaret’s, said the proposed law “strikes at the heart of our civil liberties…the foundations of our democratic system. And I will vote against it unless it is changed.”
Tennyson Wells, the Independent MP for Bamboo Town, called the Bill “a very serious piece of legislation” and said parliamentarians should think twice about how it would be implemented.
The Bill is the result of initiatives taken by the United Nations following the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks on the United States. Shortly after the attacks, the Security Council issued Resolution 1373 which set up a special counter-terrorism committee and called on all states to combat terrorism.
The UN General Assembly then set about drafting a comprehensive anti-terrorism convention aimed at filling the gaps left by 12 existing sectoral treaties dealing with terrorism.
The comprehensive treaty seeks to define terrorism, to urge countries to enact appropriate legislation, and to ensure that states do not grant asylum to terrorists.
The intent of the Bahamian Bill is similar to the patriot Act in the United States or Britain’s Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act, which provide for emergency powers and seek to implement United Nations treaty provisions against terrorism.
But several parliamentarians have urged that the Bill be set aside and re-drafted because of the serious implications it has for civil liberties like freedom of speech and freedom from arbitrary arrest.
“I don’t think we should curtail our liberties in this country to the extent that we cut off our noses to spite our faces and go down that road without having a real national debate on this issue,” Tennyson Wells said.
“I invite government to set it aside and go to the streets and educate the people and find out what they think. I don’t even understand all the implications of it. There are serious concerns and reservations about this Bill. We should not rush to judgement on this like we did the financial
legislation.”
St Margaret’s MP Pierre Dupuch agreed: “Listening to this debate, everybody was a terrorist. This is the most fundamental law we have had in this parliament and they made light of the subject, calling everyone a terrorist.
Mr Dupuch was referring to Works & utilities Minister Bradley Roberts, whose earlier contribution to the debate featured a diatribe against Tribune publisher/editor Eileen Dupuch Carron. In a fit of hyperbole, Mr Roberts branded Mrs Carron a “terrorist” for her newspaper editorials.
“When I hear ministers speak I expect them to give the parameters of the law. When we pass these laws we have to understand that tomorrow some half crazy person may be administering this law,” he said.
“This bill says you can go to the attorney-general and say Dupuch is a terrorist and the attorney-general can lock me up for 90 days… I am a terrorist because my mouth can be a weapon of mass destruction. That is according to the definition of terrorism I heard round here. Is that what this house wants?”
He said the Bill should be reviewed to ensure that the political rights of citizens are not abridged: “I am prepared to give a little bit of my freedom to protect my fellow man but the way this is, I am one man who will vote against it unless its changed.”
PLP MP Philip ‘Brave’ Davis ﾗ the prime minister’s former law partner and a potential attorney-general ﾗ said parliament must protect citizens against “a besotted government using this Act to stifle opposition.
“If the teachers union marches to compel the government to pay the salaries now and someone gets upset and breaks up someone’s car ﾗ that is not a terrorist act. But as this law is presently drafted that could be classified as a terrorist act.
He said parliament must consider how the Bill accords with the country’s legal principles: “Mr Dupuch is correct that this Bill has far-reaching consequences to our civil liberties and human rights. This is troubling…and very scary to me.
“The definition of a terrorist act is ultimately what determines the scope and application of the special powers contained in the act.
“This requires that we be careful to ensure that the definition does not embrace activities that – whilst unlawful – are not terrorist acts…and to ensure that we protect the lawful activities of legitimate political groups.
Mr Davis said the definition of terrorism should be linked to democracy, and that serious violence designed to undermine the democratic process should be the dominant element of a terrorist act as defined by law.
By Larry Smith, The Nassau Guardian
