As I sit here clearing my browser history, the Attorney General and others now seek leave to educate the people about the proposed “Interception of Communications Bill – 2017” claiming that persons have been misled as to the contents of the bill but I take this opportunity to advise her that no one has mislead anyone about the bill as the contents of the bill are quite clear.  The real concern is the integrity of those presenting the bill, as we have already seen that they would have the propensity to interpret or misinterpret the bill in their best interest. 

There is nothing better than past behavior to predict future behavior.

“Spy Bill’ delayed” – The Nassau Guardian

Excerpt from this article; “Amid widespread criticism and ‘partisan’ uproar over the recently tabled Interception of Communication Bill, Attorney General Allyson Maynard-Gibson yesterday said there will be a period of public consultation to better inform Bahamians about the contents of the tabled bill before moving forward with the legislation.

In a statement released said, ‘Unfortunately, in this political season, most of the public discussion about the legislation has become completely partisan.

“Overheated and irresponsible accusations or alternative facts do nothing to further public education or engagement.”

Indeed, Madame Attorney General, “Overheated and irresponsible accusation or alternative facts do nothing to further public education or engagement”, other than to prevent the government from forcing something forward that the people do not fully understand and do not trust or do not even feel is in their best interest but now prompts this government go out and seek to inform the public as to what is really being proposed and get their feedback; as to getting their feedback, it would seem that it is just an exercise in futility, to appease the masses as the language used would suggest as much, “…there will be a period of public consultation to better inform Bahamians about the contents of the tabled bill before moving forward with the legislation”.  Will person’s recommendations even be taken into consideration or will this be like the Gaming Referendum, even with the people saying no when consulted about it, it will be imposed upon them anyway?

I must also point out that the Attorney Generals comments beg the question of how can there be alternative facts in the complete absences of facts, thus the need for a period of education and consultation,  as the bill leaves so much up to interpretation especially to the Attorney General who has shown that she is totally unable of being impartial but yet would  speak to the partisan discussion of the public; which I once thought was indeed free speech but only now shows just how out of touch the Attorney General is when it comes to the realities that face the nation.

Section 4 of the this bill is where I will begin to address my concerns;

4. Application for inception warrant and unauthorized disclosure of application
5. An authorized officer who wishes to obtain an inception warrant under the provisions of this Act shall request the Attorney-General to make an application ex parte to a judge in chambers on his behalf.

Does this mean that each inception warrant desired by the police or ‘authorized officer’ has to cross the desk or pass through the office of the Attorney General?

There is lies a major problem because how can a person that has already shown a blind allegiance to her party over country, be expected to be impartial in making such decisions on whether to violate “in the best interest of the national security”, the privacy of one of the citizens of the Bahamas?

The best interest of national security being defined as “….included, but not limited to, the protection of The Bahamas from threats of sabotage, espionage, terrorists acts, terrorism or subversion.

Wasn’t the environmental group Save The Bays group seeking to destabilize this government; an act of subversion, how was this determined and how will it be determined going forward and by whom, because it appears that anyone that questions this present Progressive Liberal Party government is seen as a suspect.

There are proponents of the bill that now say that what is being proposed is already in place, as the Commissioner of Police already has leave to do what is proposed in the bill,  would it now be required of him to consult with the Attorney General’s office first and if so, is the vetting by the Attorney General’s office the added measure that is supposed to bring a measure of protection to the average citizen because I have not seen too many instances of the police making private emails public to make a case that persons are trying to destabilize the government, exactly how is that determined anway?

This then brings us back to the integrity or lack thereof of the Attorney General and her office.

And then another question is protection from whom, as the people have already stated a great distrust of the present government; is the bill proposed by the government to protect the people from the government?

The Progressive Liberal Party fails for one reason, it is their nature.

END