The Other Side of Milton Cato- National Hero?

1. PUBLIC ORDER AND SAFETY BILL

Perhaps the most draconian piece of legislation ever passed in this country was the Public Order and Safety Bill. Actually, that was one of two Bills. The other was the Essential Services Bill. Both were considered obnoxious, but my main concern is with the one that was considered most objectionable.

The Bills were introduced into the House on May 7, 1981, and quickly given First Reading. Immediately the peoples’ reaction began with the United Peoples Movement and Trade Unions mounting a picket line outside the House.

The object of the Public Order and Public Safety Bill was to ensure “that public safety and public order is preserved together with the democratic principles enshrined in the Constitution…

The Act will make it an offence ‘to have an intention to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite dissatisfaction against the Constitution or the Government.” (The VINCENTIAN, May 8, 1981)

There were reactions from different individuals. Adrian Saunders’ letter to the VINCENTIAN on May 15, 1981, argues that although both Bills were objectionable the Public Safety and Public Order one was far worse. “To all intents and purposes, it seeks to introduce through the back door measures which one could only countenance during a state of war or a period of public emergency … the truth of the matter is that both these Bills, and in particular the Public Safety and Public Order Bill, revolve around questions of deeply cherished and widely respected human rights. And on questions of such a nature political allegiance ought not properly to form the pivotal focus.

In my view both Bills should be withdrawn. They exhibit a tendency that is dangerous and ought to be reversed – the tendency to entrench wide legislative and judicial powers in the hands of the Executive. If those who profess their love for freedom and democracy sit back idly and neglect to censure assaults on fundamental rights, they would be just as guilty as those who seek to erode those rights”

Parnel Campbell gave a clause-by-clause analysis of the Bill. With reference to one of the clauses he states, “This clause is a local invention. If passed into law, it will represent St. Vincent and the Grenadines’ contribution to legal theory. For apart from certain extremely dictatorial regimes, no government in the civilised world as far as I am aware has ever made it a criminal offense to formulate a thought…

But if the Bill is passed into law as it stands, a letter written to your friend on Mars telling him of your intention to excite dissatisfaction against the Government will render you liable to be convicted of a crime with maximum penalties of 7 years or $20,000 or both…”

Arthur Connell writes, “…Our present legislators ought to bear in mind that the laws which they enact today may tomorrow fall into the hands of people far less virtuous than themselves and may well be used against the very people whom those laws seek to protect. I would hope that after all that has been said and written about this Bill, our legislators would take another good look at it and all its implications before light heartedly giving it the imprimatur.”

Thousands of Vincentians protested against the Bills demanding a complete withdrawal. The NCDD [ National Committee in Defense of Democracy]had organised a number of marches, one of the biggest took place on Tuesday, June 16 when thousands of Civil servants, farmers, community groups, lawyers, politicians, school children and other workers marched from the Peace Memorial Hall to the Market Square. The crowd at the Market Square was estimated at nine thousand clearly the biggest protest held up to that time. The Assembled peoples gave strong support to those involved in the struggle to get rid of the Bills.

After the recognition of the wide support the protests were having, representatives of the NCDD were invited to meet with the Minister of Labour and the Attorney General. At one of those meetings, one held at Cabinet Room upstairs the post office, I was present as a representative of the NCDD. Although the Government representatives agreed to some amendments suggested, they were not, however, prepared to withdraw the Bills. A general meeting of the NCDD agreed to continue to call for the full withdrawal of the Bills and to issue a deadline following which they were prepared to close down the Island. The Prime Minister in an address to the country which came before the June 16 March satisfied no one.

The VINCENTIAN stated that the Prime Minister’s speech “was literally torn apart by the speakers who iterated that their cause was a just one and that the P.M’s speech was an act of betrayal to the people…The crowd’s reaction to each speaker’s address was emphatic and at the end of the rally around eight o’clock the said night it was clear that a people had risen up.” (VINCENTIAN, June 19, 1981).

The pressure continued into July with the NCDD maintaining its demand for the withdrawal of the Bills. Eventually the proroguing of Parliament brought an end to the Bills. To bring them back would have involved starting the process all over again. (To be continued)

• Dr Adrian Fraser is a social commentator and historian