The PLP will die! [Archive] - Bahamas Issues Bahamian Web Community

casualobserver

08-16-07, - 08:48 PM

I think FreddieUncensored has overstepped its bounds.

http://freeport.nassauguardian.net/national_local/311364638105004.php

GB residents comment on website threats against PM
By K. NANCOO-RUSSELL

Freeport News Reporter

Public outrage continues to swell over information published on a website that contained threats to harm Prime Minster Hubert Ingraham.

The controversial website bahamasuncensored.com posted a letter addressed to the Prime Minister and the contents included a warning to Ingraham that if he repeated his "crude and boorish behaviour" he would find his "back teeth floating" and that "all hell would break loose."

A message on the site notes that it is compiled and edited in The Bahamas by Russell Dames with writer Claire Booth and a disclaimer adds that the site "does not represent the views of Fred Mitchell, the Government of The Bahamas, the PLP or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs."

This posting was seen as highly offensive to some persons who referred to it as "criminal" and caused some to call for Internet legislation to be introduced to regulate websites that may carry threats against or otherwise slanderous material about persons.

In a letter published in The Freeport News, S. Andre Rollins called for former Cabinet minister Fred Mitchell to publicly denounce the writings if he was not the author.

"If Mr. Mitchell did not pen those despicable threats of violence against the Prime Minster, then let his voice be the loudest in condemning them... If he insists on remaining mute on this matter, one can only conclude that his silence is consent," Rollins writes.

Rollins went on to admonish the leadership of the Progressive Liberal Party and Mitchell to "swiftly rebuke the writings, making it unequivocally clear that this is neither the Bahamian way nor the PLP way."

Reporters yesterday took to the streets to find out from the public what they thought of the posting and whether they believed it constituted an expression of free speech or possibly criminal threat of violence.

One opinion, though sounded by different voices, read the same: that the comments posted on the website pushed the limit of the concept of free speech, and bordered on being threatening.

According to Derek Sands, the concern surrounding the posting was made all the more valid considering the political tension present in the country following the last general election.

"Under normal circumstances if statements like that were to be made we would pay very little or no attention to it. But because of the political tension in the country and because of the attitude of the opposition so far as the results of the election are concerned, we have no recourse and I believe that the government should do its utmost best to find out the origin of the documents and who is responsible for placing it on the website," he said.

Describing the comments as "unbecoming," Sands said that someone should be brought to trial with regards to the statement.

"If this goes unnoticed and untouched then we're going to find a lot more of this. We need to draw the line with the proper authorities, be it the government of the country or the opposition. We need to bar violence, violence is not the way, we don't know it and we don't need to learn it."

Steve Dillet was also of the opinion that the comments were irresponsible and breached the barrier of what is acceptable under the idea of free speech.

"It was my interpretation of the law that free speech is only free speech when it is not offensive and when it does not excite a reaction in people to do something and I think it does that. This goes beyond the limitations of freedom of speech. I think you have to control that because if you don't then things can get out of hand," he said.

Dillet said that he felt the comments on the website went beyond freedom of speech because "they are suggesting that somebody will be harmed if they do not change the way they speak."

That, he said, can be interpreted differently depending on the person reading the comment and their interpretation of it.

Supporting freedom of speech, another resident Latoya McKenzie said it is the abuse of that right that can sometimes get persons into trouble.

"Persons are entitled to their freedom of speech but you have to be careful of how you word stuff because I feel like that's a threat. I think that is crossing the line. There's a line to how far you go when you're voicing your opinion because that can be seen as criminal," he said.

Taking exception to the fact that the comments were directed to the nation's leader was Verona Martin, who felt that it displayed a lack of respect to the office of the Prime Minister and to the laws of The Bahamas.

"There should be free speech but where that is concerned I think they went beyond because I don't think anyone in their right mind should post something like that on their website, especially about the Prime Minister. I definitely consider it a threat, especially the part where it says 'if you do not hear you will feel.' That's a threat," declared Martin.

Brill Carey said he found the comments to be "a little bit overboard" and that the persons who are responsible for it should be punished. Carey said he believes that if the comments are left unchecked, they could encourage lawlessness.

Brian Collie agreed that expressing threats of harm to an individual should not go unpunished.

"It is one thing to express oneself on a certain issue or topic, under freedom of speech but when you go into saying what's going to happen to an individual then you are treading on the grounds of a criminal act, as intent because that's really what it is. It's threats of harm to an individual and I would hope that all the parties condemn this kind of action because as of late there's been lots of violence and threats to human life going around the community and it's not conducive to the environment," he said.