Barbados’ Cybercrime Bill should make those guilty of conventional cybercrimes like child pornography liable for serious penalties. However, the definition of cybercrime was expanded to make anyone who used a computer to cause: annoyance, inconvenience, embarrassment, insult, humiliation, intimidation or anxiety liable to 7 years in prison and $70,000 fines. Every computer user will be caught in that fine net.

After public outcry on this expanded definition, the Bill was sent to a Select Committee of Parliament. The Committee invited many persons to discuss their concerns. Supporters of the Bill claimed that the expanded definition was necessary for the Bill to comply with the Budapest Convention – a Council of Europe treaty agreed in Budapest in 2001 called ‘Convention on Cybercrime’.

If our Cybercrime Bill complies with this European treaty, then the former European enslavers plan to re-enslave us and we should have nothing to do with their treaty. However, this European convention does not include our expanded definition of cybercrime – so we were misled and are harming ourselves.

BUDAPEST CONVENTION.

The criminal offences defined in the Budapest Convention are defined in Articles 2 to 12 and consist of: illegally accessing, intercepting, interfering and misusing computer systems (Articles 2 to 6), computer forgery and fraud (Articles 7 and 8), child pornography (Article 9), infringing intellectual property (Article 10), aiding and abetting (Article 11), and corporate liability (Article 12).

Additional crimes were included in the First Protocol to the convention, namely: (i) racist and xenophobic dissemination, threats and insults, and (ii) denying or justifying genocide or crimes against humanity.

JUSTIFYING THE EXPANSION.

The only crimes in the Budapest Convention that may be assumed to include parts of our expanded definition of cybercrime are ‘misusing computer systems’ and ‘insults’. However, ‘misusing computer systems’ is limited to illegal access, interception and interference, and ‘insults’ is limited to racist and xenophobic material and is an optional part of the Convention.

Article 14 allows Governments to add ‘other criminal offences’ to its definition of cybercrime, but Article 21 specifies that they must not violate Article 15.

SAFEGUARDS FOR CITIZENS.

Knowing that dictators will likely use cybercrime as an excuse to further oppress citizens, the Budapest Convention specified Article 15 to provide safeguards for citizens. Barbados’ Cybercrime Bill violates Article 15 by violating basic human rights.

These violations were important parts of our submission to the Select Committee of Parliament. We repeatedly requested permission to appear before the Committee to discuss them, but were denied. Further, the Committee ignored those parts of our submission in their minuted deliberations.

Surprisingly, the Select Committee recommended changes to the expanded definition. Supporters of the Bill, who claimed that changing the expanded definition of cybercrime would violate the Budapest Convention, have since been silent. However, the recommended changes would still make our Cybercrime Bill violate Article 15 of the Budapest Convention.

UNDER DURESS OR WILLINGLY.

Our Members of Parliament were elected to represent the public. Passing a Cybercrime Bill that would easily make criminals out of all literate Barbadians who used a computer is not in the public’s best interests.

I must assume that our elected representatives passed the Cybercrime Bill under duress, believing that they had no other choice because the expanded definition had to comply with the Budapest Convention – when it not only does not, but violates it. This was either a mistake or intentionally done.

If it was a mistake, then the sections of the Bill that would easily incarcerate Barbadians and which violate the Budapest Convention should be removed. If it was done willingly, then why are we trying to compete with some of the most repressive regimes in harming citizens?

GOVERNMENT’S RIGHTS.

The Government plans to appear before the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights to defend their right to severely punish all literate Barbadians who use a computer. Tragically, this suggests that the Bill was intentionally passed willingly.

The Government has this right to change the Constitution not in the public’s favour, and then pass laws to severely harm the public, because voters democratically gave them that right. In an environment where most people are too busy trying to survive financially to pay attention, and journalists are no longer curious, the public will only know that they have lost their liberty when they lose it.