Last Updated on February 23, 2023 7:41 am by Editor
While we were under lockdown in 2021, fearing for our very lives from what is now known to be a diabolical plot, the Barbados Labour Party Government led by Mia Mottley took it upon itself to pass several pieces of controversial legislation including the Barbados Identity Management Act 2021 (henceforth BIMA 2021)
With the blessing of the editor, a NationNews report of 25 February spent virtually all of the column regurgitating statements by government senator and Deputy President of the Senate – Sr. Rudolph (Cappy) Greenidge – on the notion that non-nationals will “go to lengths to get a Barbados National Identification card or a Barbados Passport”.
Non-Nationals? The Bill was primarily for non-nationals?
Reporting, Journalism or Fuzz?
If this is an example of what is journalism then there is no wonder that this country’s democracy is in the sordid state in which it finds itself, especially since the electorate, in its myopic wisdom gave the BLP all thirty seats in the Lower House of Parliament in 2018 and again in 2022!
If we even hold to the principle that the media is simply to state the facts and let the consuming public decide what they mean, this verbal discharge which passed the editor’s desk is not even a good report and should receive an “F”. Where are the facts? The Senator’s contribution – at least that which was reported – is 85 percent anecdote about the desire of non-nationals to get a Barbados ID card!
The Bill has 8 different sections spread over 54 pages but the reporter makes reference to one single section (Section III) that deals with matters relevant to the new ID cards! Really, the only “facts” that were reported were (1) that the bill was passed and (2) that this particular Senator spoke.
The busy public which has not the time to read every piece of legislation that passes the through parliament was left none the wiser to the more sinister elements of the bill. You would think that a newspaper worth its salt would take the time to summarize the bill or at least key sections such that would concern Barbadians. No such luck.
Unbelievable but not surprising; a discussion for another time.
For the record, please note that Barbados Uncensored came on stream in July 2021 five months after the passage of this legislation!
Fingerprint Requirement
BIMA 2021 has several interlocking requirements. Under Section 5 entitled Obligation to Register, the Act states at subsection (8):
Furthermore, in section 7(2) page 17, the Act indicates the following:
The expression “may collect” as used in subsection 8 suggests that providing a fingerprint is not mandatory but optional. However, take note of the following caveat in sub-section 5 on page 18.
Why must the individual’s refusal be recorded? So, a fine for non-compliance was actually contemplated? Is it likely to come in a later amendment to the bill?
Not Reliable
Despite the hype about the ability of fingerprints to prove identity, there is no scientific evidence to demonstrate that fingerprinting or DNA tracing for that matter are 100% reliable. That is the summary conclusion of this 2019 Smithsonian Institute article by Clive Thompson. According to the author:
So even as fingerprints were viewed as unmistakable, plenty of people were mistakenly sent to jail.
Encyclopedia Britannica thinks otherwise but that article was written by J. Edgar Hoover of the FBI (although updated 2023!)
Lower House
When BIMA was passed in Lower House on 23 February 2021 the following were absent according to the Minutes of the House:
The Attorney General Dale Marshall led of discussion on the bill. Interestingly he asked that the bill to be read THREE times. Incredibly, on no occasion was there any objection or requested amendments to the bill even though it was discussed in different committees.
Senate
In the senate a similar process was repeated. The leader on the BIMA bill was Senator the Hon. K. S. McConney. Six members of the Senate were absent for the debate.
Like Dale Marshall in the Lower House, Ms. McConney called for a segregation of discussion into committees and also asked for a third reading. There is no record of any objection or suggested amendments to any part of the bill from any of the committees. The bill was passed.
Conclusion
Fifty-one (51) individuals across two houses of parliament saw absolutely nothing “wrong” with asking Barbadians to supply a fingerprint to obtain a digital ID card. That included the then Opposition Leader (See Video Exhibit). Few wanted to know how the privacy and security of the national digital records would be maintained.
Do we have a case of betrayal of the Barbadian people by their elected leaders? Your answer is as good as mine; but something is radically wrong in this country and it has reached a breaking point!
About the Author
