The Tribune

By KHRISNA RUSSELL

Tribune Chief Reporter

krussell@tribunemedia.net

AS AN “impartial arbiter,” House Speaker Halson Moultrie should not be calling for action or legislation on any matter regardless of his convictions, attorney Wayne Munroe insisted yesterday.

Instead, Mr Munroe said Mr Moultrie should curb his expression and public comments if they are not related to parliamentary affairs and decorum in the lower chamber.

Mr Monroe was contacted for comment after Speaker Moultruie told the House of Assembly on Wednesday that he had reviewed the Penal Code to see if something could be done regarding obscene language in social media videos. He said something needed to be done about the issue as it was “eroding” the country’s moral fabric.

He also expressed regret that National Security Minister Marvin Dames was not present at that point in the House sitting to hear his concerns.

“I don’t know how as the Speaker he comes to be expressing these thoughts,” Mr Munroe told The Tribune.

“His job is to be an impartial arbiter in the legislative body, so he shouldn’t be calling for any legislation about nothing regardless of what he feels. He needs to curb his expression because the post that he holds means that his comments are supposed to be about the decorum of the House and dealing with that, but as Speaker he gives up the rights that other members have and perhaps he needs to read the rules of the House instead of reading the Penal Code.”

He also said: “...The Speaker needs to look at the Police Services Act and the Constitution about who controls policing in the Commonwealth of the Bahamas and it’s not the minister of national security, although their behaviour seems to come down on the side that they are, suggesting that he is when he is not.

“Secondly the Penal Code does have provisions now for using obscene language to the annoyance of other people, but how are you going to say you’re annoyed when you choose to listen to somebody because he is talking about if someone sends you a video and you choose to listen to it.”

Mr Munroe said the hallmark of a democratic society is the freedom of choice.

“Anything that seeks to control what somebody else does can affect free speech, so for instance the Constitution doesn’t give the freedom of expression. It’s not an absolute right. So in there you will find you can control civil servants’ freedom of expression, so that’s specifically the Constitution so they don’t have the right to speak to the press without clearance from their head of department,” Mr Munroe added.

“But the Constitution tells you that if you go around slandering and defaming people, the Constitution tells you that protecting the rights of others is an exception of free speech but the things about public morality and the rest of that are only permitted in so far as they are justified in a democratic society.

“You might be able to say for instance that at the ecumenical service for independence you could criminalise someone coming up cussing and stripping naked on stage because that’s a public event, but nothing to do with choice can be justified by censorship in a democratic society. So if you go to one of these rap concerts where you know the fella will cuss a lot how you going to complain?”

On Wednesday, Mr Moultrie said some social media posts had become “callus and insensitive”.

He said: “…And in some cases is unlawful because I’ve seen some posts on social media and it caused me to examine the Bahamas Penal Code to see if there was some reform to the code with respect to obscenity.

“Persons are able to actually make video posts with their faces in focus and using the most obscene language.

“It’s unfortunate that the minister of national security isn’t here at his time,” he also said. “Something has got to be done. This is eroding the very moral fabric of our society. Something must be done to stop the obscenities in particular to stop the obscenities that are being disseminated by social media.”