THE senate on Friday approved the contentious Terrorism Prevention Act, but not before Opposition members made heavy weather of the bill, which is designed to protect the country from threats of terrorism from local and international sources.

JOHNSON. warned that signs or symbols could be misinterpreted

The bill, which has been passed by the lower House, had in the past come under fire from civic groups, as well as the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP), which have argued that the bill had too wide a scope. They felt that it would present opportunities for the government to abuse its sweeping powers, under a raft of international conventions, to stifle its opponents and undermine freedoms.

The Act outlines Jamaica's international obligations, under United Nations Resolution 1373, to a range of commitments to suppress international terrorism, including its financing and otherwise aiding and abetting such activity. It carries severe criminal sanctions, as well as international financial penalties.

Initially on Friday, things appeared calm when Opposition Senator Dorothy Lightbourne, in her opening remarks, said the bill was "much-improved to the original one". The changes to the previous draft, she added, had stemmed from the interventions of the JLP and civic groups, as well as the drafters of the legislation.

The changes had been necessary to combat the global threat of terrorism, she said.

But things soured after input from Anthony Johnson, the leader of Opposition business in the Senate. He insisted that the term "knowingly or intentionally" be inserted in clause 7 (4) of the bill, in relation to the process of determining whether an accused person contributed to terrorist activities of a group by the use of words or symbols, or by virtue of association with or engaging in activities instructed by a member or members of the group.

Johnson cited, by way of an example, the habit he had of speaking expressively with his hands. This trait had, in the past, resulted in his being misinterpreted by members of Masonic associations who told him they thought he was making certain signs to them, he said.

"At one time they asked me if I was OK, because they said I was making the sign of great distress," added Johnson, who said this was an example of the erroneous interpretation of signs or symbols that could be misinterpreted to be terrorist.

However, Government Senator A J Nicholson, who was piloting the legislation, objected strongly, saying that that conclusion was clear and implied in law and was already stated in the introduction to the legislation. It, therefore, did not bear repeating, he said.

Nicholson also noted that it was not possible, in any event, to introduce provisions to prevent mistakes, as such things could not be guaranteed by any court.

"People have been sent to the gallows in the UK for crimes they did not commit," the Justice Minister said by way of an example.

A call for divide was heard from the Opposition benches and the Senate president called for a vote on the clause.
This led to an angry response from the Opposition's Dorothy Lightbourne, who declared that the wrong process was being used and that what the JLP really wanted was clarity on the particular issue, not a vote.

In the resulting meltdown, the Opposition proceeded to call for a vote on some 15 clauses in the bill, resulting in a lengthy process with the government side repeatedly using its majority to defeat the Opposition call.

The bill was eventually passed with no amendments.
In other matters, the Senate called on the Integrity Commission to apologise to Opposition member Prudence Kidd-Deans for wrongly naming the recently-nominated Senator among a group failing to make income declarations.
Both sides expressed deep regret at the commission's error.

Trousers in Denim

Cream of the 'Crop'

Cheeky's World