c





If you are asking me generally who is likely to be the subject of such an order I would say just as
generally criminals and the criminal classes." 
  

If at first you don¶t succeed, re-compost and re-cycle it again ± a manifesto for a brave new
³green world´.

It is not the first time that the Prime Minister has tried with this. On January 21, 2009, 20 long
months ago, while touting his ³5 million dollar city renewal program to offer jobs to gang-
affiliated youth´, Barrow stated ³I have had my own advice on this matter and I believe based on
that advice that we can begin telephone intercepts under the current state of the law. The only
drawback is that I am not sure about the evidence gathered, the material gathered, can help us
to perhaps prevent crimes, I don¶t know if you need to put some of that evidence in court under
the current law we can do that. There might be a need then to do a whole new Bill to provide for
that. But I am determined given all that¶s happening that we should, either under the current
law or under a new law, use this tool of telecommunications intercept to assist our intelligence
gathering.´ ÿemphasis added)

Many wits have long enjoyed the inherent oxymoronic qualities that reside in the phrase
³intelligence gathering´, but in truth, when wielded by the state, we all laugh at those words with
more than a tinge of fear, and lots of ³cole seed´. Tek bad ting mek joke. We Cruffy excel at
that.

On January 22, 2009, Channel 5 News referred to it as ³Big Brother ³planning to tap your phone
line´, invoking George Orwell¶s toe-curling novel, 1984. The resulting backlash led to some
heavy-footed tiptoeing around the issue of wiretapping, phone intercepts, communications
surveillance, electronic monitoring or whatever YOU choose to call it.

No less a heavyweight than the ComPol, Gerald Westby, on March 12, 2009, tried to relieve
fears on a Channel 5 News interview by ³expounding´ on how the ³new option ³ was going to
be used ³without violating people¶s right to privacy´. Perhaps unwittingly, Westby made
matters worse by attempting to assure us that the ³option´ was already available under the
Terrorist and Money Laundering Act - after all, we¶ve now seen how at least one of those
accusations can be used, and against whom. It was also Westby who revealed the law¶s
provenance ± Jamaica and ³other regional legislations´.

But GOB, in the search for ³more comprehensive legislation´ was not satisfied by µjust¶
patterning a new law off an µold¶ 2002 Jamaican Interception of Communications Act. In fact,
expert help had already been called in. The PUC acquired, in January of 2009, a ³clumsy
looking white Toyota Prado´ worth an estimated million dollars. Israeli surveillance experts,
according to News 5, had been in Belize since 2008, and stayed into 2009. To date, no one really
knows what that dome on top of that vehicle really does. It is clear now that tools were being
gathered for the toolbox.

Fast Forward, now, to August 6th, 2010, and fully armed and finally ready, the Prime Minister,
himself, presented the Interception of Communications Act for First Reading in the House. Not
the brand new Attorney General, not the newly-minted Police Minister, but the P.M. personally,
shouldered the heavyweight Bill on his own.

It is important, clearly ± but why should you care? After all, YOU are not a terrorist. You do not
launder money ± except by accident on wash day when you forget to turn out your jeans pocket.
You are not even a ³general´ ÿor common) criminal. So?

First off, this Bill is cutting edge ± it targets all forms of communication crypted and
unencrypted ÿIsraeli expertise pays off) and comprises under section 2 ÿ1) ³u eech, muuic,
uoundu, viuual imageu or data of any deucri tion´. Why is spying on your music, crime fighting
critical - or important for National Security? And what other data? Your private health
information? Your Astrological Sun Sign? Your DNA?

Unlike in Jamaica, an ³authorized Officer´ in Belize is not confined to the ComPol or to officers
in charge of internal security or the National Firearm and Drug Intelligence Centre, Chief of
Staff or head of Military Intelligence. In Belize, this also includes ³a eruon authorized in
writing to act on behalf of the Commiuuioner of Police´, under section 2ÿ1) ÿb).

We¶re still only on page one. Stick with me.

The definition of Interception Device includes Magic Jacks and Skype and includes your Face
Book page and your LimeWire and Bit Torrent connection. Yes.

Under Section 3, any person who ³with intent´ intercepts communication in the course of its
transmission, commits an offence. No word on what happens if there is an ³oopsie´.

³‘ judge in chambers will have to make an order. The DPP as I said will have to make the
application for such an order and will have to satisfy the judge that the order is absolutely
required in the circumstances and absolutely justified´ P.M Barrow

Absolutely? Sounds safe? Not quite. Section 6 ÿ1) says that an interception direction shall be
issued if a Judge is satisfied that there are ³reasonable grounds to believe´ that it is necessary to
obtain the information sought under the interception direction in the interests ÿinter alia) of
³public morality, public health or public order´ and that the information cannot be successfully
gotten otherwise, urgent and in the ³best interest of the administration of justice.´ Lots of scope
for mischief, political and otherwise, there.
An interception direction can also be obtained in respect of a multitude of offences including the
serious felonies, and also things like Tax Evasion, Subversion ÿwhich is practically a teenage
religion), as well as the all purpose offence of ³Threatening and intimidation´. Yes they can, spy
on you, if you ³bad taak´ a politician or look too buff next to wah wingy officer.

Jamaica¶s law allowed for a maximum period of 90 days. Belize¶s proposed Bill goes for double,
and section 8 ÿ5) allows for uix monthu, but, can be renewed, at any time before it expires. That¶s
a whopping 180 days PLUS.

We introduce an ³entry warrant´ under Section 9ÿ1). They can enter your home and bug it so
tight, you won¶t even be able to make a mobile call without feedback or watch a clear cable feed
anymore ± check section 9ÿ5)ÿb). Your very own hi-fi Wi-Fi castle.

And if you are taken to Court, under the terms of section 21 , you are not entitled to ask any
questions of the DPP or ³any authorized officer´ or anybody else ÿincluding the Easter Bunny
and Santa Claus) as to the very issuance of an ³interception direction´, ³warrant´ or order ,
whether it has already happened or ³iu going to occur´. If that does not boil you, you have no
blood.

You are supposed to sleep well after this? This is only the first look. I promise more, and deeper.
This Bill is one YOU better understand and well. It is weighty. It is heavy. It is rife with the
aroma of imagination of the possibilities for abuse and misuse. Take it lightly at your own peril.

Me? I¶m in my kitchen singing one of my favorite UB40 songs.