There are patterns of behaviours in independent Trinidad and Tobago which are difficult to square with a politically contentious and conscious society able to act in its own self-interest but seemingly incapable of doing so.
One major example of such incapacity to do what is said by several groups to be in the best interest of the society is allowing for the continued existence of what has been described as “the oppressive colonial Sedition Act.”
Nothing is done about the continued existence of the law but when it is acted upon by the police and the Director of Public Prosecutions, who are sworn to uphold the laws of T&T, there is uproar. But there is also the issue of the inconsistency of the implementation of the Sedition Act.
Why for instance, have a religious leader known to be super critical of the government of the day, and who is matched in his vitriol against the government by a trade union leader, been singled out for implementation of the Sedition Act?
Have there been no other transgressors of the Sedition Act?
The law was formulated and implemented by the British colonial government in an era when revolt against oppressive colonial rule was being fomented by the likes of then charismatic trade union leader Uriah Butler. Come the 1970 revolt by civilian and army forces and the government dusted-off and implemented the “old colonial law” ostensibly and by the reckoning of then Prime Minister Dr Eric Williams to save the society.
In the period since then, all of the post-Independence nationalist governments have lived with the existing colonial law of sedition and done nothing to repeal it in part or in whole. So too have “conscious” elements of the present not continuously raised a red flag about the continuing existence on the books of the Sedition law.
Many of those who are now extremely critical of the implementation of the said law were at one point part of “the establishment” which held the power to do something about repealing and or remodelling the act.
Undoubtedly, society has gained a greater level of freedom and liberty of expression since the 1930s and 1970s. Mass media have multiplied in all the modern incarnations; educational levels and consciousness have been raised. So too has the determination of people to have their say on national affairs brought greater liberty to the conduct of public affairs.
On such a basis, therefore, it is logical that there be a discussion around what may be considered an excessive limitation on free speech. The present furore should thus be used to initiate an informed discussion on the need for change to or complete repealing of the Sedition Act.