Jeff_column

The Jeff Cumberbatch Column – Limitations on Freedoms

Jeff Cumberbatch - New Chairman of the FTC

Jeff Cumberbatch – New Chairman of the FTC

It should be notorious by now that no freedom is absolute, but that these may be constrained by, inter alia, the extent to which they may impinge on the recognized freedoms of others; by sundry public interests such as health, order, safety, defence or morality, among others; or, of course, to the extent that their exercise is already proscribed by law. Even so, the law requires a balancing of interests in this context, so that except for the last instance, the abridgement of a freedom is subject to the doctrine of proportionality- that such abridgement is “reasonably required” or, as some have put it, “reasonably and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”.

In this regard, first, the measure must be rationally connected to the objective sought to be achieved by it, in that it must not be merely arbitrary or based on irrelevant considerations. Second, the means employed to impair the freedom should do so to the minimum extent possible and, third, there must be a justifiable and proportionate relation between the effects of the measure and the achievement of the objective.

In recent days, there has been a plurality of claims, whether wittingly or unwittingly, made by some people that there has been, is, or is likely to be, an unjustifiable curtailment of some freedom to which they are entitled, either by statements made in the public domain or by proposed policy measures. Our present inquiry relates to whether these claims of purported infringement are indeed justifiable or whether they amount simply to illegitimate assertions of licence to do as the claimant pleases, without any let or hindrance whatsoever.

One of these claims that has been asserted relates indirectly to the rather tragic circumstance of the murder in Trinidad & Tobago of a young Japanese visitor to the recent Carnival festivities. Even before a motive for her killing or the exact cause of her death had been determined, the then Mayor of Port-of –Spain, Mr Raymond Tim Kee, opined, in a rather ill-chosen moment, that women specifically had a duty to ensure that they were not abused and proceeded to admonish them generally for their wanton vulgarity and lewdness exhibited during the festival.

It might have been bad enough had he stopped at this general level, even though the connection with the lady’s death was clear, but his Lordship proceeded to pinpoint the subject matter of his soliloquy –“…was there any evidence of resistance? Was it alcohol-controlled and therefore involuntary actions engaged in? It is not that she was hit by a truck, it is a matter that she was jumping up in a costume…”

The popular antipathy to these unfortunate comments eventually led to the Mayor’s resignation last week, a phenomenon that is itself worthy of further analysis in the larger context of limited freedoms being explored here. The more immediate issue, however, is that the Mayor directly challenged the Trinidadian woman’s traditional right to freedom of expression –her right to “play herself” at Carnival.

Given both the geographical and circumstantial context in which Mayor Tim Kee sought to proffer his controversial view, it may be argued in hindsight that he unwisely picked a battle he had to lose. And while it would be witless to contend that the near-nudity of some of the costumes “worn” by females during the festival should unfailingly provoke any man into an act of sexual violence, the more fundamental issue of whether there should be any restriction, other than the law of indecent exposure, on the freedom of the individual female to “play herself’” at carnival time, or whether there should be unlimited licence in this regard, was regrettably lost in the brouhaha.

It is an issue that we ourselves will eventually have to face locally, given the cultural penchant for mimicry. I fear, however, that with our intrinsic reluctance to confront thorny problems, it is one that may survive unresolved for some time yet, never mind those voices occasionally raised in obligatory protest.

Fingerprinting, sensitive personal information, and constitutional freedom

The announcement last week by the Chief Immigration Officer that from April1 there will be the fingerprinting of every person entering and leaving the island, has naturally raised the hackles of those who consider this to be an infringement of liberty, at least in respect of Barbadian citizens, even though none of the objectors I have heard so far has been careful to indicate precisely which freedom might be implicated by this measure of data collection.

Lay opinion might trend towards it being an unjustifiable invasion of privacy, but it should be noted that the express constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy in section 17 of the supreme law is itself substantially limited, both as to content and in the breadth of permitted restrictions.

Of course, there are those who see nothing wrong with the measure. Assistant Commissioner of Police Erwin Boyce sees it as a positive move and “important in responding to criminal threats”. So too do some tourism officials who regard it as an aspect of a changing world and, “given the rise of ISIS and other terrorist groups”, that a jurisdiction should put all measures in place to make sure that it is as safe a destination as possible, although some reservation was expressed as to its potential for further delays of travellers in immigration and customs especially at peak times.

For those who so often bemoan the absence of my personal view, I must state that while the proposal does not immediately offend the constitutional text, there is, nevertheless, the risk of this measure, if not carefully policed (no pun), infringing one or more of the eight fundamental principles of data protection that are held to govern the collection of personal data from individuals.

Among these are Notification of purpose (2) –that the data should be obtained for a specific purpose and should be used for no other purpose; No prolonged retention (5) – that the data must not be kept for no longer than is justifiably necessary; and Portability (8) –that the data subject’s personal information should not be transferred to any country outside of Barbados unless that jurisdiction provides a comparable level of protection for the rights of data subjects in the processing of personal data as obtains locally.

There is one hitch, however. Barbados has no data protection legislation in place, though a cognate Bill was in circulation about ten years ago. This leaves the citizen with little statutory support for objection to the measure currently. Any objection must therefore be based on what is considered to be fair and just.

We are therefore called upon once more to trust to the bona fides and goodwill of the authorities to safeguard what, in nations that “punch above their weight” and are among the freest of their kind, is a basic civic right. I do not get the distinct impression that this trust is in abundant supply.

Tags: , , ,

51 Comments on “The Jeff Cumberbatch Column – Limitations on Freedoms”

  1. Caswell Franklyn February 21, 2016 at 8:11 AM #

    I am one of those who oppose this measure simply because I do not trust our Government and its institutions with anything that can be used against me. I am a citizen of this country and traditionally, I have been able to enter at any port of entry without let or hindrance.

    When I trained as an immigration officer, we were told that a Barbadian did not require a passport to enter this country as long as he had adequate proof to show that he was a Barbadian, he must be allowed entry. Why now must my entry be conditional upon the taking of my fingerprints? Could it be that the Immigration Department can no longer guarantee that the persons who carry Barbados passports are entitled to do so? Taking my fingerprints would not solve that problem.

    Just Monday last week I went to the Electoral Office to apply for a minor’s ID for my daughter. At the end of the application process I was given a receipt complete with my signature. I did not sign anything. My signature was lifted from a document that was already in their possession. Could my fingerprints be treated similarly. (You have not heard the last of that)

    The police take fingerprints of persons who were arrested. If that person is exonerated, the police are not entitled to retain those fingerprints. Why must the fingerprints of this non criminal be retained by anyone else?

    Like

  2. Jeff Cumberbatch February 21, 2016 at 8:32 AM #

    @Caswell,

    The encounter at the Electoral Office that you relate is chilling…and probably illegal, since one cannot agree to something that he or she is unaware of.

    I agree with you that the success of the fingerprinting initiative will depend on the degree of trust that the citizen has for the State to deal with his or her personal information…your story does not at all inspire confidence in this regard.

    PS The refusal to permit oneself to be fingerprinted cannot be a reason for not permitting entry…it will probably be made into a criminal offense. It might be used to prevent people from leaving, however.

    Like

  3. David February 21, 2016 at 8:41 AM #

    @Jeff

    Are there any international agreements Barbados is obligated to adhere to if it wants to be compliant with international requirements? For example Cat 1 destination as a jurisdiction etc.

    Like

  4. Caswell Franklyn February 21, 2016 at 8:53 AM #

    The Immigration Department has lost the ability to guarantee that passports in the hands of persons purporting to be Barbadians have been issued to persons who are in fact Barbadians. Have you ever questioned why Immigration does not accept passports issued by them as proof of identification when applying for a new passport.

    Immigration is compromised. We have at least one immigration officer, with family connections, that has been allowed to escape with all manner of criminality, even selling passports and visas, and he remains in place untouchable. Now they want my fingerprints to undo his criminal acts.

    Sent from my iPad

    >

    Like

  5. David February 21, 2016 at 9:01 AM #

    @Jeff

    A related issue that makes the issue of identifying nationals a murky affair?

    Caricom unanimously decided that marketing of passports and residency in Trinidad and Tobago will desist, says Prime Minister Dr Keith Rowley.
    Rowley said there was the issue of some Caricom colleagues marketing their passport to the world for a fee and in so doing offering, as part of the inducements, the ability to live in Trinidad and Tobago.
    The matter, he said, was discussed in Belize by the Caricom heads who agreed that this should stop.
    “This matter was subject to a lively discussion and in the end we got unanimous agreement that such an offering should desist and more than that, we got the Caricom to agree that States that are involved in this business of selling passports to economic miners to become citizens of the region, that they must carry out certain due diligence and subject their list of applicants considered to the regional security vetting of some sort so as to satisfy and comfort the rest of us that we are not exposing ourselves to the worst of that kind of development,” said Rowley.

    http://www.trinidadexpress.com/20160219/news/caricom-to-end-sale-of-tt-citizenship

    Like

  6. Jeff Cumberbatch February 21, 2016 at 9:03 AM #

    David, I am not aware of any. I suspect that the present move originates out of the RSS, although I would not discount the “invisible” hand of others in its creation. It is certainly not CARICOM inspired.

    Like

  7. Jeff Cumberbatch February 21, 2016 at 9:12 AM #

    @David @ 9:01am

    You wil recall that I wrote about this implication some weeks ago. Those “economic citizens” also became CARICOM nationals…with all the rights in Barbados that Ms Shanique Myrie was adjudged by the CCJ to have had.

    Like

  8. David February 21, 2016 at 9:44 AM #

    @Jeff

    It appears from the reports by Dr. Rowley he has challenged that these artificial citizens are not eligible to all the rights under the RTC.

    http://www.news.gov.tt/content/pm-rowley-signs-protocol-amending-revised-treaty-chaguaramas#.Vsm-SJwrLIU

    Also interesting is the commitment by Rowley to hold a press conference after the HOG conference.

    Like

  9. Sargeant February 21, 2016 at 9:52 AM #

    A politician resigned over idiotic statements in the Caribbean? Can we have more of that.

    Countries can impose any rules on visitors it is up to me to decide if I will put up with those rules or simply not visit. When I enter the USA in my vehicle the inspection is very different from when I fly into that country. Flying into the country required a retinal scan as well as fingerprints, driving only required my passport. In the last few years I have entered Europe through Britain and Germany in none of those instances was I required to have my finger prints taken and I was not required to have them taken when I left any of the countries I visited (including the USA) and certainly finger prints were not required when I returned to my country of residence.

    If countries want to “protect” their borders via the taking of fingerprints from all visitors it is their right however I can’t see where that protection is obtained by taking finger prints of exiting or returning nationals. It strikes me as an overreach by an Immigration Dept. and by extension a Gov’t that thrives on creating controversy where none should exist, why should exiting or returning nationals be subject to fingerprinting? It will also lead to suspicion merited or not that some people will be exempted from those rules I am speaking of those rich folk who park their boats at Port St. Charles etc. will they be subjected to fingerprinting? How about visitors that arrive via cruise ship or are simply intransit to their ship will they have to be fingerprinted?

    Lastly what happens to those fingerprints after they are collected? Are they disposed of routinely after a certain period of time or do they live for eternity in some digital file?
    It’s a brave new world that we are entering.

    Like

  10. David February 21, 2016 at 9:55 AM #

    @Sargeant

    The Immigration Department maybe saying it does not trust the robustness of its passport.

    Like

  11. Well Well & Consequences February 21, 2016 at 10:18 AM #

    The only way the immigration can have issues with their own passports is as Caswell said, some yesrs ago a memeber of an old family on the island wss charged with selling many of those psssports, never heard what happened in that case….of course passports have numbers and are essily red flagged, so finding out who bought that batch of passports should not be a problem.

    Though a step in the right direction for non-Barbadians entering the country, since Adriel Brathwaite AG believes he can take on international terrorists, he should also be able to tell the people why Bajans entering Barbados must be finger printed as well and the explanation should be satisfactory…that would put the matter to rest.

    Like

  12. millertheanunnaki February 21, 2016 at 11:30 AM #

    @ Jeff Cumberbatch February 21, 2016 at 8:32 AM
    “The refusal to permit oneself to be fingerprinted cannot be a reason for not permitting entry…it will probably be made into a criminal offense. It might be used to prevent people from leaving, however.

    What criminal offence would that be? Why the need for a passport, then? Can’t fingerprinting or other forms of electronic recognition be used instead of this paper-based document Barbados currently has? Does the current Barbados passport have a chip with all personal details and travel history embedded in it? If not, why not?

    If fingerprinting is so vital to the security of Barbados why exempt people holding diplomatic passports? Aren’t they also susceptible to committing criminal acts or being bribed by people either out of financial gain or fear of threats to the lives of family members to facilitate criminal activities like drug trading and money laundering?

    Why not go the whole hog and support the collection of DNA samples of ever citizen?
    Not only would that be technologically avant-garde but it would make Bim the ‘freest’ nation in the world where the solving of crime and the fight against terrorism, international money laundering and drug trading a walk in the park .

    Jeff, if only you knew the security checks at Gatwick UK that people visiting Barbados (both resident Bajans and visitors/tourists) have to go through from complete luggage searches to body scans you would not support such a comprehensive application of further time delaying and personally offensive security checks at some two-bit tropical outpost called GAIA.

    We shall soon see how Cuba handles its pending mass migration of visitors away from ‘difficult’ places like Barbados which, so compromised in prostitute-like manner, is now prepared to ‘sell-off’ passports to international criminals pretending to be rich economic refugees looking to ‘invest’ their ill-gotten gains in a fast becoming third world banana republic.
    In a matter of 5 years Bajans will be required to obtain ‘home-issued’ visas before embarking on any visit to the UK, in transit, or otherwise. Now it is then that not only finger printing will be mandatory but also iris scanning and voice recognition.

    George Orwell might have been a few decades off his timeline of predictions but the spectre of Big Brother ruling over everyone on the electronic animal farm is still much on the horizon of reality.

    Like

  13. David February 21, 2016 at 12:02 PM #
    Roland Clarke

    1 hr ·

    Jeff Cumberbatch addresses the issue of the right to freedom under the supreme law (constitution of Barbados?). Kindly read his article below as my comments addresses issues therein.

    My views are as follows:

    1. The [former] Mayor of Port of Spain has a right to freedom of speech even though he may make a fool of himself in doing so. The context here is the recent murder of a Japanese young woman who was "playing herself" at Carnival in T&T. However, in this case the Mayor mad…

    Continue Reading

    The Jeff Cumberbatch Column – Limitations on Freedoms

    Like

  14. Jeff Cumberbatch February 21, 2016 at 1:01 PM #

    @ Miller, I cannot imagine wherefrom you get the idea that I am firmly in support of the fingerprinting of citizens? Indeed, I rue its susceptibility to the negligent processing of personal data without adequate safeguards. My point simply is that there is no current legal recourse for the citizen and no express right is being infringed.

    As for the criminal offense, I imagine that the enabling legislation will create one. That “an unjustified refusal to submit to the process will amount to the commission of an offense and the culprit shall be be liable on summary conviction to a fine of $…or in default a term of imprisonment…”

    Incidentally, I am well aware of the difficulties of negotiating departure from London…both major airports

    Like

  15. Well Well & Consequences February 21, 2016 at 2:47 PM #

    Passengers in both the US and Europe have problems navigating in and out of borders, yet the tourism people in Barbados, BHTA, want to make it easy for criminals from those countries to navigate in and out of Barbados and the Caribbean….where do these people get off trying to make it easier for the islands to be further compromised by big country crooks, posing as tourists.

    Like

  16. millertheanunnaki February 21, 2016 at 2:54 PM #

    @ Jeff Cumberbatch February 21, 2016 at 1:01 PM

    So why can’t you stop sitting on the fence on this stupidly backward idea of fingerprinting people (which clearly does not happen at Gatwick unless it was instituted very recently) and do like Caswell Franklyn by calling it as it is?

    So what is going to happen if Brits (as some would most likely tell the local authorities to pi** off) refuse to do anything to enter the local paradise unlike Jihadists’ entitlement to 7 to 70 heavenly virgins?

    Would the local authorities put them back on the next flight to Gatwick or allow them entry only to be rounded up while asleep in their hotel room or at the Oistins Bay Garden facility to be brought before the magistrate for committing a criminal offence of entering Barbados without being fingerprinted?

    If Barbados can’t even sort out the indiscipline in its transport system as expressed in the ZR culture or get its justice system to operate in a manner efficient enough to satisfy foreign investors now how on earth can a third rate airport think about imposing such unnecessary security measures on people who have already been processed at Gatwick or some other airport in North America?

    Like

  17. Exclaimer February 21, 2016 at 3:22 PM #

    @ Jeff,

    “For those who so often bemoan the absence of my personal view………”

    When men of your calibre shy away from proffering your personal views than our democracy remains the weaker for it.

    Where all I can offer is brawn, muscles and soaring rhetoric as a solution to our ills, you have the capacity to intellectualise and offer credible alternative solutions to arrest the decline of our nation.

    I am not asking you to self-sacrifice your well-being or your safety………… but this country requires a solid base of non-tainted, clever, “youngish” and practical people like yourself to bring change to a system that is failing her people.

    That you have decided to write one column a week in BU is an indication to me that you are fully aware of the importance of social media, the limitation of traditional media and the insularity of academic institutes.

    I hope that you may find the article below of interest and trust that you will not take offence.

    http://www.nation.co.ke/oped/Opinion/Kenyan-writers-fail-when-they-don-t-point-out-ills-in-society/-/440808/3087034/-/q984rf/-/index.html

    Like

  18. Well Well & Consequences February 21, 2016 at 3:38 PM #

    Exclaimer…fantastic post, I remember as a teen resding Franz Fanon’s book, Black Skin, White Masks…quite an eye opener for a 17 yesr old girl, it should be mandatory reading for teens.

    This excerpt from the Kenyon article caught my eye and can also be applied to the Caribbean.


    These writers should heed the words of Frantz Fanon, who wrote: “The future will have no pity for those men (and women) who, possessing the exceptional privilege of being able to speak words of truth to their oppressors, have taken refuge in an attitude of passivity, of mute indifference, and sometimes of cold complicity.”

    PILLARS OF INTEGRITY

    In a provocative literary column in the Saturday Nation, Dr Evan Mwangi noted that those who claim to be the pillars of integrity in this society are so deeply embedded in corrupt practices that they have lost credibility. He wrote: “Kenyan families remain a sly political social unit. In most cases, the conjugal partner of an anti-corruption crusader works for the corrupt government being criticised.

    The family eats from both opposing sides, giving only lip service to anti-corruption efforts. In the same vein, the most vocal lawyers against corruption also represent obviously corrupt government functionaries.”

    Like

  19. Jeff Cumberbatch February 21, 2016 at 3:50 PM #

    @ Miller, I still do not understand how you come to the conclusion that I am sitting on the fence. I have expressed my view. Caswell is expressing his personal view…I am less interested in doing that however than in pointing out the current futility of challenging this vexatious proposal in the absence of any legal basis for doing so. What more do you need?

    I was not trained to rabble-rouse, but to rather use the forces of reason and logic to seek solutions. What do you want to bet that there will be no local protest…popular or at all?

    Like

  20. David February 21, 2016 at 3:54 PM #

    @Exclaimer

    Correction, Jeff writes for the BarbadosAdvocate. Jeff has kindly consented share and participate for the benefit of the BU family.

    On 21 February 2016 at 19:38, Barbados Underground wrote:

    >

    Like

  21. millertheanunnaki February 21, 2016 at 4:43 PM #

    @ Jeff Cumberbatch February 21, 2016 at 3:50 PM

    I can se you are still there ‘lawyering’ in an academic armchair of moot discussion.
    Maybe you are more influential in making me believe in the pronouncements of a mythical Jesus more so than Zoe and GP could ever do. Here is what he had to say about you lot: “And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them.”

    I am sure you are quite aware of the vital role tourism is currently playing to the economic survival. So why not support openly the upgrade of chip technology in the issuing of Bajan passports? A swipe of the passport would determine the authenticity of the Bajan returning home.

    Can you in your ‘erudite’ wisdom understand how fingerprinting people at GAIA can improve the movement of visitors through GAIA given its current state of long delays even in 2016?

    Do you understand that after an 8-9 hrs flight the average traveler find further delays to his hotel or condo paradise a big turnoff of nightmarish proportion?
    An average above-the-board British traveller returning from visit to Barbados can clear immigration and Customs at Gatwick in less than 20 mins once his or her luggage arrives in an efficient manner.
    I am sure you know what happens at GAIA with less concerns about terrorism? I am sure you know the answer.
    After all, Tourism is the country’s main business and only means of economic survival and you should all play your part.

    Like

  22. Jeff Cumberbatch February 21, 2016 at 5:10 PM #

    Are not our passports already compliant with this technology?

    Like

  23. pieceuhderockyeahright February 21, 2016 at 5:17 PM #

    @ Miller the Anunnaki,

    One day coming soon Mr. Jeff Cumberbatch will be a Justice of the Barbados Courts.

    Both the DLP and the BLP see these characteristics of reason and logic and may (depending on if they wish to put such sound skills to use for good) appoint him to said position.

    It is therefore not wise for Jeff to rabble rouse here and then have to recuse himself because of said unwise pronouncements here on BU or whatever paper he writes in.

    Erine Phillips aided and abetted by her trusty band of Immigration Officers are simpletons.

    It is simply stupid to fingerprint Bajans when they are returning for a number of reasons the first being (a) it will make the lines at the airport congested (the US from whom they have bought the hardware and software does not fingerprint its citizens at Ports of Entry) and (b) an idiot should understand that the process of fingerprinting citizens can be left UNTIL said person is renewing their passport IF IT WERE INITIATED BY THE BARBADOS IMMIGRATION AUTHORITIES.

    You must understand the purpose and the genesis of this process.

    It is not Erine from whom this idea has come but from other countries which, WITHOUT ANY BASELINE DATA to compare their fingerprinting information to when they fingerprint you at their port of entry.

    To the astute observer you will see that the immediacy of the process at our airport suggest that the AG and the Immigration Department signed on to this Big Brother protocol and as a result, the Government of the United States has now have inserted their long hand into the sovereign domains of the banana republic of Barbados, given the cuntry a few thousand dollars and thereby now are securing the data they need.

    Mr Cumberbatch hit the nail on the head albeit indirectly when he made these points.

    “Among these are
    Notification of purpose (2) –that the data should be obtained for a specific purpose and should be used for no other purpose; No prolonged retention_ The United States will keep this information forever. This is the deal for the 30 pieces of Silver paid to Nitwit Brathwaite

    (5) – that the data must not be kept for no longer than is justifiably necessary;(refer to the item above) and

    Portability (8) –that the data subject’s personal information should not be transferred to any country outside of Barbados unless….that is a done deal already look at the equipment that is at the airport and seaport and you see its origins.

    “No man shall buy nor sell without a number…”Revelations.

    Like

  24. pieceuhderockyeahright February 21, 2016 at 5:18 PM #

    Sorry E. Griffith not Philips

    Like

  25. David February 21, 2016 at 5:29 PM #

    @Jeff

    The Barbados passport benefits from machine readable technology.

    Like

  26. millertheanunnaki February 21, 2016 at 5:31 PM #

    @ Jeff Cumberbatch February 21, 2016 at 5:10 PM

    You tell us. If so, why the backward step of finger printing people? How would that enhance security? Why can’t the digital taking of fingerprints be done at the point of applying for a Barbados passport and embedded in a chip? Why not invest the already scarce money in more forward looking forms of security?

    What is of more immediate import is whether the people who come by private jets like K. Simpson and B. Stewart or the rich and famous like Branson, Cowell, Sir Cliff and Rihanna be subjected to these same security measures.

    BTW, what is the objective in all of this fingerprinting, anyway? Why not try out the same ‘proposed’ technology first against the menace of voter fraud that both the PM and AG definitely agree takes place in Bimshire? If it works there in preventing an already criminal offence then by all means try it out on travellers.

    Like

  27. David February 21, 2016 at 5:33 PM #

    Wouldn’t upgrading the Barbados ID Card eliminate this need to fingerprint citizens? It is note worthy Roslyn Smith of the NUPW has no problem with the technology.

    Like

  28. millertheanunnaki February 21, 2016 at 5:37 PM #

    @ pieceuhderockyeahright February 21, 2016 at 5:18 PM

    Oh, most senior of the sages, you had the anunnaki worried for a while.
    Welcome back, Melchizedek!

    Like

  29. pieceuhderockyeahright February 21, 2016 at 5:41 PM #

    @ Mr. Cumberbatch.

    You seem to be better connected than many of us already believe. I just saw your post of Jeff Cumberbatch February 21, 2016 at 9:03 AM # so you know the innards of this action already and it is precisely for this reason that i would tell persons like Exclaimer that you are more man that they would wish to ascribe to you.

    Is there such a facility in Barbados for a class action suit by citizens against the GoB of Barbados? specifically as it relates to the actions of the Department that affixed Caswell Franklyn’s signature without his permission?

    Some years ago Victor Roach was the Port Manager and Barclays Bank sent him a fax where a client of theirs had affixed his signature to a Local Purchase Order falsely to secure a loan from the bank.

    Of course it was not Victor’s signature and the police were called and the man was arrested and charged for that action of falsely affixing Victor’s signature.

    While the action in Mr. Franklyn’s matter was not for such illegal purposes, or is it?, by what right can a government department affix your signature to a document which by its use claimss that you confirm receipt of the underlying items.

    It is like if a government messenger goes to pick up cheques from theTreasury and, as opposed to signing the “Document Receipt Book”, the clerk scans his signature and applies it to said book electronically and claims that the messenger received the cheques.

    I had to do a slight stretch there but you understand the underlying mechanics regarding this electronic signature issue that Mr. Franklyn described, dont you?

    If that enterprising clerk were to go a step further and steal the money/cheques and en-cash them, using a similar electronic signature, we can see the implications of unilaterally applying someone’s signature as they have, can’t we?

    But, back to the question, does Mr. Franklyn and other citizens have any recourse against the GoB, more specifically the particular Electoral Office, for using said signatures, illegally, and potentially putting said citizens, at risk?

    Like

  30. Well Well & Consequences February 21, 2016 at 5:51 PM #

    Piece…ya got Philip Nicholls on your mind, you should read his book and get a real laugh…lol

    Like

  31. Exclaimer February 21, 2016 at 5:56 PM #

    @ Well Well & Consequences February 21, 2016 at 3:38 PM,

    Thank you for your compliment. I’m surprised that you have read Franz Fanon’s, Black Skin, White Masks at the tender age of seventeen! I read it at the age of twenty-eight and found it a tough read.

    Welcome back Piece.

    Like

  32. pieceuhderockyeahright February 21, 2016 at 6:17 PM #

    Thank you all for your kind welcome.

    It is good to be back.

    I was ill, nearer to God than to this IPad keyboard, but a reprieve was allowed, though how long one can NEVER predict that, unless you have an insider view OR are the Persoanl Apostle for and Senator to the King of the Fatted Calf

    Like

  33. NorthernObserver February 21, 2016 at 6:50 PM #

    @WW&C
    I would recommend anybody who has trouble getting to sleep, but that More Binding book. It does wonders for me!!!
    It suggests lawyers do not need ethics courses, they need business courses.

    Like

  34. Hants February 21, 2016 at 6:52 PM #

    @ pieceuhderockyeahright,

    glad you are back.

    Like

  35. NorthernObserver February 21, 2016 at 6:57 PM #

    @PUDYR
    that ghost joke had me howling for weeks.
    Hope your improved health continues.

    Like

  36. NorthernObserver February 21, 2016 at 6:58 PM #

    WW&C
    meant BUY not but,

    Like

  37. Well Well & Consequences February 21, 2016 at 9:12 PM #

    Lol…Northern, ya cannot make that stuff up.

    In the 70s my age group who ran in certain circles were more serious and had better mentors, we saw the need to be serious back then, we had no choice and had to prove ourselves….Fanon, with Black Skin, White Masks and, Eldridge Cleaver with Soul on Ice, those books molded people like myself into being independent thinkers devoid of the status quo’s brainwashing and high school mentality. We did a lot of reading back then and were confident enough to take on the hardcore authors. I was about 14 when i read Lobsang Rampa’s, The Third Eye……Travelling and living in other cultures helped our transition into self-awareness.

    But those authors played a major role in shaping and defining our mindset to reject the nonsense that we were socialized to believe. You will hardly find authors of that calibre to touch your soul anymore.

    Ss someone told me Saturday, one book from Philip Nicholls cannot cover the destruction of the legal profession and the supreme court in Narbados, they said he would have to write more than one. There will however, be some fallout from this one because of the actions of some of the players….he did perform a public service, but it took the destruction of his professional life to force him to do the right thing which could very well affect changin the legal system.

    Piece……glad you are still with us, could be worse.

    Like

  38. Well Well & Consequences February 21, 2016 at 9:23 PM #

    BTW Northern, lawyers are by nature, not business people, they are the last people who should be managing any country unless they have an Obama-like mentality, intelligence and temperament. They definitely cannot manage a law firm.

    They are trained solely to be argumentative contrarians. Just look at the destruction of the economy with lawyers at the helm, they listen to no one. Law firms generally have an office manager who acts as a banler and an accountant who acts as a co., Obviously, the partners mentioned in the book were just baiting their time for the principal partners to die or be pensioned out to make their move…and the rest is history..lol

    Some of them on the island would not know what ethics are, not even if it bit them and that is despite being taught the discipline at university level..

    Liked by 1 person

  39. Well Well & Consequences February 21, 2016 at 9:27 PM #

    Should read:

    Law firms generally have an office manager who acts as a banker and an accountant who acts as a cop.

    Like

  40. Artax February 21, 2016 at 11:23 PM #

    David February 21, 2016 at 8:41 AM #

    “@Jeff: Are there any international agreements Barbados is obligated to adhere to if it wants to be compliant with international requirements? For example Cat 1 destination as a jurisdiction etc.”

    @ David

    According to the Chief Immigration Officer, the security measures of finger printing (and later in the year, facial scanning) of persons entering and leaving Barbados will bring the island in line with international ports of entry and are mandatory under the Immigration (Biometrics) Regulation 2015.

    The following link will provide you and BU with information relative to the Immigration Act, Cap 190: Immigration (Biometrics) regulation 2015, as well as explanations and definitions of biometric data and the purpose of collecting such information.

    What may be of interest to Caswell and those who may have concerns with breaches of security relative to data contamination, Part 3 of the document outlines measures to be taken to ensure the security of biometric data and the related system.

    http://www.barbadosparliament.com/uploads/sittings/attachments/70dbd71864c9473f377ae5ca3414b8ff.pdf

    Like

  41. Artax February 21, 2016 at 11:25 PM #

    @ pieceuhderockyeahright

    Welcome back, PUDRYR……. I missed your contributions. Hope all is well with you.

    Like

  42. de Ingrunt Word February 21, 2016 at 11:28 PM #

    @David at 5:33 PM…Why necessarily would “upgrading the Barbados ID Card eliminate this need to fingerprint citizens” as you asked. The ID card would need to have key biometric identifiers embedded on either a chip as Miller mentioned, the outdated mag stripe or some other technology like a laser card.

    As several have alluded to above the key question is to what avail is the fingerprint being captured? Is it to be matched against a database to validate that the person is in fact who they say they are or is it captured to populate a new dbase?

    In either case then the next question is why is that necessary for citizens?

    But back to the Nat ID card upgrade. If there is a biometric stored there then there must be a way to compare that with something captured from the individual at point of entry. The passport doc itself is not a ‘part’ of the person so that cannot be used to compare a biometric there against one on the ID card, for example.

    Thus if we want to precisely validate identity then either the fprint algorithm, an iris scan or a facial recognition algorithm would have to used …ipso facto it would have to be captured directly from the citizen.

    So closing the circle…WHY is the biometric being captured? As others asked, how, when and for what security control is it being used?

    Until the GOB answers that clearly then every citizen should be protesting…and saying NO.

    Like

  43. de Ingrunt Word February 21, 2016 at 11:45 PM #

    @Artax at 11:23 PM …you de man with the details…Great and thanks.

    David’s namesake can come online and give us chapter and verse on the many years this process has going been around and around re the capture of biometrics for more secure identification documents.

    No doubt there are international security regs to meet but the serious concerns mentioned by Caswell and Jeff as it relates to proper maintenance of these details still gives reason for pause.

    When push comes to the proverbial shove there should really be no personal long term concerns related to the capture/storage of any citizen’s biometric by the GOB but with confidence in their operations so diminished the level of distrust is absolutely understood.

    Like

  44. David February 22, 2016 at 12:21 AM #

    Interesting document, especially the part that refers to the consideration the chief immigration officer will used to transfer/share information.

    Like

  45. Simple Simon February 22, 2016 at 12:31 AM #

    @Jeff Cumberbatch “the then Mayor of Port-of –Spain, Mr Raymond Tim Kee, opined, in a rather ill-chosen moment, that women specifically had a duty to ensure that they were not abused and proceeded to admonish them generally for their wanton vulgarity and lewdness exhibited during the festival…was there any evidence of resistance? Was it alcohol-controlled and therefore involuntary actions engaged in?”

    I wondered what the mayor would have women wear to carnival..nun’s habits perhaps? Stupssseee!!! And shall the men wear monk’s robes?

    Isn’t wanton vulgarity and lewdness part and parcel of Carnival?

    So what if the woman resisted or did not resist. Her resistance if any was clearly overcome. I doubt very much that she consented to her own murder.

    So are we to let off murderers because “the alcohol made me do it?”

    Does not the state of Trinidad, and the Mayor of Port of Spain have a duty to provide adequate protection to their to their own citizens, and the citizens of other countries who have been invited to participate in carnival?

    It is a good thing that the Mayor of Port of Spain was made to take a hike.

    Like

  46. Simple Simon February 22, 2016 at 12:33 AM #

    Dear Jeff:

    If a citizen of Barbados refuses to be finger printed on returning to Barbados what happens next?

    Will he or she be denied entry?

    Arrested?

    Fined?

    Imprisoned?

    And if so for how long?

    Like

  47. Jeff Cumberbatch February 22, 2016 at 6:47 AM #

    @Artax, thanks for the supply of the document. It seeks to capture the best practice in the processing of personal data although as I noted, we do not currently have a Data Protection law.

    @SS, that will depend on the provisions of the law as I stated earlier. I doubt that “denial of entry” would be legal though.

    Like

  48. Colonel Buggy February 22, 2016 at 2:30 PM #

    Simple Simon February 22, 2016 at 12:33 AM #
    Dear Jeff:

    If a citizen of Barbados refuses to be finger printed on returning to Barbados what happens next?

    Ask Miss Myrie!

    Like

  49. Artax February 22, 2016 at 2:30 PM #

    @ De Word and Jeff

    You are both welcomed.

    Like

  50. David February 23, 2016 at 6:13 AM #

    The freedom to believe …

    Like

  51. Well Well & Consequences February 23, 2016 at 10:07 AM #

    Yeah….that was so cool, just what she lived to see over the span of 106 years is amazing.

    Like

Join in the discussion, you never know how expressing your view may make a difference.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: