Ubaldus Raymond shot down . . . now what?

Chapter 8.14 of the Computer Misuse Act states: “A person shall not use a computer to send a message, letter, electronic communication or article of
any description that—
(a) is indecent or obscene; (b) constitutes a threat; or (c) is menacing in character, with the intention to cause or being reckless as to whether he or she causes annoyance, inconvenience, distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person to whom he or she intends it or its contents to be communicated.” The consequences of contravening the above: “(2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or both, and in the case of a subsequent conviction to a fine not exceeding $20,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or both.”

The very serious issues of revenge porn and the publicizing of surreptitiously secured audio and video recordings, have been largely ignored even in the wake of the Ubaldus Raymond episodes. The secretly recorded Raymond tapes somehow made their way to the Allen Chastanet government’s best known detractors. They were also disseminated on Facebook and other Internet platforms, especially those that seem to exist solely for the purpose of bringing Chastanet down.

Ubaldus Raymond was turned into a weapon against the government he served as a Cabinet minister. Finally Raymond confirmed on Rick Wayne’s TALK what by then was common knowledge: he had resigned his position in the Chastanet administration. Case closed. No one seemed to care how Raymond was forced out of office and the related implications for every other citizen, from fisherman to politician. Missing from the narrative that centred on Raymond’s morality was that a dangerous precedent had been established, the citizen’s right to privacy be damned!  

It was encouraging to hear the gender relations minister Gale Rigobert say on Monday, in answer to a question about the disgraced senator: “When we consider the ills meted against women and girls, and men as well, we recognise our legislative framework has not been able to keep in step or reflect new and emerging misdemeanours or crimes, especially as it pertains to cyber-based crimes.” She alone knows precisely what her words meant.

It remains to be seen what action will now be taken to protect citizens in their private and professional lives. Already we’ve seen school kids performing sex on the Internet, some in their school uniforms. Also, on daytime TV, what even the most tolerant among us would describe as disturbing. In the campaign against Raymond, images purporting to be the minister masturbating were regular fare, without official comment or police intervention. And instead of taking steps to discourage the abuse of young girls by Internet pervs, more than one administration chose the cover-up route.

On Monday Rigobert stated the obvious: “We, as government, must exert some more effort to ensure that the legislation is reflective of the order of the day, the norms of the day and the emerging bad habits and crimes of the day.” If only she had committed to enacting appropriate legislation truly protective of the citizen’s right to privacy, that might’ve been an encouraging start.

For his part, Dr. Ernest Hilaire told this reporter: “As to whether you should have legislation protecting people’s privacy and people’s personal information and data, that is a possibility. I mean I don’t know what exists in other countries and whether you can legislate or hold people responsible for putting out other people’s private business.”

Pointedly, he added: “I think there’s something fundamentally wrong with people having private conversations and somehow or the other these private exchanges become public information. I have a problem with that. And, like I said, you might be married, you and your wife have a conversation and tomorrow your private conversation is a topic for public discourse. It is wrong, morally and in every other way. People’s private information really ought not to come out into the public domain.”

He paused, then went on to say: “Where the information relates to the business of government, I think that’s a little bit different.”