AS A SOCIETY MATURES, matters such as freedom of speech take on greater significance for members, and understandably so. But there are times when the advance of technology can cause serious complications with previously simple matters that were taken as nothing more than par for the course.
Over the past few weeks in Barbados a more than reasonable amount of the time of critical state agencies and operatives was taken up responding to a supposed threat by persons unknown to disrupt this year’s Foreday Morning Jam with gun violence.
While the inclination of many must have been to dismiss it as prattle, that would not have been a prudent reaction by the leadership of the Royal Barbados Police Force and others responsible for national security.
The consequence of officials doing what was their duty, however, served to add more fuel to the fire, in essence elevating it from a mere Facebook post to a matter of national significance.
We are not saying this to be critical of the Commissioner of Police, Attorney General, Minister of Culture or anyone else who thought it necessary to reassure the country that they were on top of the situation, just stating a fact that the response served in a sense to legitimise the post.
And this brings us back to the issue of freedom of expression. We have seen enough in recent years to conclude that there is a growing number of citizens, living within and outside our shores, who clearly believe that they have a right to say anything they want about anything or anyone, and because they are not doing it face-to-face or from a platform in the middle of Broad Street they should be free speak at will.
And unfortunately, our system of laws is lagging so far behind vis-à-vis new telecommunications technologies that individuals are subjecting others and, in this case the entire nation, to harm with their recklessness.
For all we know, the person who posted the original “threat” might have intended nothing more than a sick prank, but the negative impact is really no different from if it had been issued by someone truly intending harm. And just as there is no distinction in the harm to the country there should be no distinction with the punishment regime that should be available if the perpetrator is ever identified and apprehended.
We hold the view, like Minister of Culture Stephen Lashley, that the issuing of a “security message” by the United States Embassy to Americans here, apparently based largely on this supposed Foreday Morning threat, was nothing short of premature. However, we do understand that embassy officials have an overwhelming duty to protect their country’s citizens.
And the response of the United States Embassy might just be the tip of the iceberg, the immensity of which we have not yet seen. We may never really know how many people saw the post, or the discussion of it, and decided they will not be moved by probability – as long as there is a possibility it could be credible they will stay away from the Crop Over Festival and the island.
When an individual with today’s technology has the potential to do such harm to the welfare of the country and the livelihood of its citizens, we have to ensure that there are laws in place and the wherewithal to properly investigate, track down and bring to justice the perpetrators.
Freedom to speak, freedom to assemble and all the others we so cherish can never be absolute and when individuals fail to act in a manner that suggests clearly they understand and appreciate that their individual freedoms cannot abridge those of the whole they have to be held accountable. And that accountability can’t just be words.
