Bill Seeking Stricter Penalties for Threats Against Public Servants, Faces Opposition from UDP Representative

Today, a Bill for an act to amend the Criminal Code Act and the Summary Jurisdiction Act went through its second reading. The piece of legislation seeks to provide greater protection for prosecutors, judicial officers, public officers, members of the media, teachers, elected officials, and security-related personnel. The revision will upgrade the use of the charges for threatening words or behavior from a petty offense to a serious one and increase the penalty to up to five years imprisonment. Rising today to oppose the Bill was UDP Collet Area Representative, Patrick Faber. He says that the move may lead to more problems than solutions when it comes to protecting people in public service.

Patrick Faber, Area Representative, Collet: “While I understand the general intention of the government this could lead to a lot of problems. The bill attempts to of course make an offense, certain things which were not offenses before you are in a heated situation at the lands department or you’re in a heated situation at the immigration that we know how frustrating these processes can be and you utter a word and then all of a sudden, according to the bill being proposed Madam Speaker you don’t even have to utter directly to the public servant and the public servant is only one of the persons who you would be able to run afoul of in this situation. From what I’ve read it says even if it is said and it is in the earshot of the person they can make a complaint against you and you will be arrested and you will go to court and if they find you guilty they will lock you up. There is no option from what I gather and if there is I’m hoping my Honorable friend from Freetown will help us along but there is no option, you will go to jail for three years or up to three years. There’s no fine or other penalties. The judge will have no choice or the magistrate will have no choice but to put you in jail. Now this has great potential for misuse. I believe you will have to agree with me.” 

UDP Albert Area Representative Tracy Panton also weighed in on the amendment and says it may be one-sided. She also questioned whether the stiff penalties may be used to persecute or silence people.

Tracy Panton, Area Representative, Albert: “Madam Speaker it has been my experience that it’s very difficult to legislate behavior. People normally emulate behavior and even in this honorable house Madam Speaker the kinds of insults that are hurled is what our people see and what our people emulate. Madam Speaker I don’t know if you have been subject to any abuse from these same categories of individuals that have been listed here but I can tell you Madam Speaker there has been instances where the police have been very rude to citizens. I have heard it myself, I’ve seen it myself. And so my concern with this bill Madam Speaker is that it’s one-sided. What happens when the public officer issues threatening comments to the citizenry of this country ? There is story after story after story Madam Speaker and we can’t have two sets of citizens. What is good for the goose must be good for the gander. And so in my opinion Madam Speaker while I agree that there must be protection for the list of public officers that are on this list likewise Madam Speaker these public officers should show the same level of respect to the citizens of Belize.”

While the opposition raised several concerns, the Minister of Home Affairs Kareem Musa says they were not valid. He says that the Bill is nothing of the ordinary and is important to ensure there is greater citizen security.

Kareem Musa, Minister of Home Affairs: “This is how all our laws are written and so if you would know the court system these laws and these penalties are not mandatorily enforced this is the ceiling and so while it says five years it does not mean that the magistrate will in her discretion, in this case I think it’s three year I think in the other offense it is five, but in both cases because I’m sure it can be raised on the next bill as well. In both cases that is the ceiling, that does not mean that the magistrate in her or his discretion will automatically deliver that kind of penalty to a defendant or an accused if they are charged under this legislation, they can even be fined. So what this is is the increase of the penalty and to address the issue raised by the member for Albert there are laws within our criminal code for assault, there are laws in our criminal court for obscene language, there are laws in our criminal code or threatening words. So all of these laws are currently in existence and so there will not be an increase in the number of reports or the number of case because this legislation is now elevating public officers and the media who are more prone to the level of aggravated assault. Right now that protection is only offered, as the member mentioned, to police officers but now all public officers are going to attract this kind of attention because like both of you rightly mentioned they are more prone, they are more subjected at the lands department to these sorts of attacks by members of the public and we’ve seen cases where media personalities caught on camera individuals coming out of the court room are assaulting members of the media and in addition to that in this very house on both sides currently there are instances of reports of threats made against members of this honorable house and so that is the reason for the amendment in the legislation that we are proposing.”

The Bill was introduced in October.