Please share this blog
- Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
- Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
- Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
- Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
- Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
- Share on Threads (Opens in new window) Threads
- Share on X (Opens in new window) X
- More
125 responses to “Government Distributes Freedom of Information Bill For Feedback As Promised”
W listened to several GIS sponsored promos of the legislation on all the radio stations today for sure. The message was quite clear and detailed and unlike the EPA, CSME and other government initiatives Barbadians will only have themselves to blame if they don’t participate.
@No Name
So far we have not heard on moderator mention or discuss, for that matter we have not heard one caller do the same. We can only believe that like the BU household they are still eading the document.
[…] Library ← Government Distributes Freedom of Information Bill For Feedback As Promised […]
Chris, I am still reading certain consequences that might be caused by the language within the FOI act
@Tell me why…
With respect, such as what? Please be *very* specific. As in, please cite the section / subsection / specific language, and your resultant concerns…
The only serious “gottcha” I’ve found so far is 37.1 and 44.3, although all of Part VI (Except Documents) and VII (Review of Decisions) needs to be reviewed *very* carefully…
(As an aside, it is a common trick to giveth in the early part of a document, and taketh away in the later parts…)
(As another aside, I hope we’re all having fun here. Seriously! This is a rare opportunity!)
@All…
This is a cross-post from BFP.
Can anyone tell me at what *time* the Town Hall Meetings are to take place?
@BU Family…
I was trying to find the original language which was used as a basis of this proposed Act, in order to determine issues which arose as a result of same…
While the Belize Freedom of Information Act (CAP 13; 2000) contains many similar sections, I have reason to believe that the language before us is actually derived from another, older body of language. As in, the Belize Act and our proposed Act are sisters of another document.
http://www.governmentofbelize.gov.bz/download/cap013.pdf
I did also come across another document which appears to be of value:
http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/files/26159/12054862803freedom_information_en.pdf/freedom_information_en.pdf
Lots of reading… Lots of Googling…
@David… Please release my post… Thanks…
Chris, I heard it is 7 p.m for all venues.
@Tell me Why… Thank you this…
But, If I May, from whom did you hear this?
And, a related question: when will we *all* be *officially* informed of same?
Thanks. And kindest regard to all…
I just want to know why the government I helped elect on the promise of change, would even entertain the idea of exempt documents.
Exempt documents make up half of the bill.
Are the electorate too dumb to see them, or are our elected representatives too hi-fallutin to consider sharing with the hoi-polloi the information for which we are paying.
98% literacy ain’t enough to allow us to make our own decisions on the contentious issues facing us?
Every document submitted to cabinet is “exempt”?
Load of b** locks.
Does that include every environmental study, every Town Planning Assessment,
every change of use?
Freedom of Information is not a privilege it is an obligation granted by the electorate to be fulfilled by their elected representatives.
Tell us truthfully what you are doing in our name, or resign.
That is the bottom line for which we voted.
You asked for our vote, we gave it, we put you in positions of responsibility.
Do not now treat us as useful idiots, in your rise to power.
Remember before Jan 14th we knew you as you were, we know you now, nothing has changed except we have entrusted our country to you, ordinary men and women, then and now.
Treat all of us with respect, or pay the price of arrogance.
Especially in today’s environment all but the most sensitive government information should be posted on the web for all to consider.
Chris and John,
Once later legislation is passed inconsistent with earlier legislation, then it impliedly repeals that earlier legislation, unless there is a statement to the contrary in the later legislation. In consequence, the FOIA does overrule the OSA to the extent that there is a conflict between the two.
Chris, on VOB
@Tell me Why…
With all due respect, what the f’ is VOB?
When will the official time be given by way of an official channel?
Please forgive me for this, but as far as I know, VOB is *not* same.
Please correct me if I’m wrong…
Juris // October 10, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Chris and John,
Once later legislation is passed inconsistent with earlier legislation, then it impliedly repeals that earlier legislation, unless there is a statement to the contrary in the later legislation. In consequence, the FOIA does overrule the OSA to the extent that there is a conflict between the two.
===========================
John: The FOIA does over rule or in anyway interfer with “The official Secrecy Act of Barbados 1911 and 1920.
The OSA which many a civil servant has invoked on their own in an attempt to deny someone information, has to do with primarily national security, national trade etc. If you concentrate on the “exemptions” section of the propose FOIA you will see that the areas that OSA protects are exempted.
….Over all i think the propose FOIA is a good package. I did a basic comparison between this proposal and the FOIA of the USA 1966, FOIA of Austrailia 1992, FOIA of the UK 2000, and found it to contain the best practices of these documents.
If this act is pass i will expect that the objectors to it will use it’s exemption clause to continue to deny persons access to public documents as is the case when they invoke the OSA.
I have not seen any propose amendments contain in the FOIA, to the Barbados data protection act 2005 which suggest that nothing in this ACT is superceeded by the FOIA.
That should have been “FOIA” does NOT interfer
I have not started to read the FOIA as yet, but it will be no different from the Belize Act or the Jamaica Act.
Over the past two years or so the NGO “Jamaicans for Justice” has been having some success with the enforcement of their Act. We have some lessons to learn from them.
Without even reading the Act, it is highly unlikely that any part of it will override the OSA but will more deal with information outside the OSA, which is cleverly held by authorities under the cover of the OSA, quite illegitimately, but for convenience of cover and to reinforce authority.
This is one of the reasons why the FOIA is so necessary as it defines the information that falls outside the OSA; hence the number of exempt clauses so as to retain the OSA as well as aspects of both security and sovereignty.
6(2)This Act applies to the exclusion of the provisions of any other law that prohibits or restricts the disclosure of a record by a public authority to the extent that such provision is inconsistent with this Act.
========================
Excluson = Items not covered
Provisions= legal clauses
Layman revision:
This act applies to ITEMS NOT COVERED in the LEGAL CLAUSES of any other law that prohibits or restricts the disclosure of a record by a public authority to the extent that such LEGAL CLAUSES are inconsistent with this act.
If the word EXCLUSION in the context of section 6(2) of the FOIA does not mean “ITEMS NOT COVERED” but means that the Provision itself must be excluded, then i would expect that amendements to The “INCONSISTENT” provisions of particular act to be mentioned in FOIA, and subsequently to have the particular act amended.
Now the FOIA act consist of it’s many “exemptions” and it is there that i believe that the provisions of ” The Barbados secrets act 1911-1921 are contained. Therefore i am contending that since no Amendments to the OSA is mentioned in the propose FOIA and further since, the FOIA exemptions sections contains the provisions of the OSA which i beleve deals with national security, i.e spying, etc, that these acts are not in conflict.
PART VI:Exempt Documents:p.2
Forgive us if we are asking simple question but we are trying to communicate our concerns so that the BU family are able to follow and participate.
A bone of contention over the years has been the reluctance of successive governments to release or not release reports arising out of several public inquiries.
Will this conflict with the act?
Should all public inquiries be made public.
For those public inquiries which maybe thought to generate exempt documents should it be clearly articulated in the brief of the public inquiry commission?
David I think there is a difference between a Public enquiry and Commission of Enquiry. The FOIA speaks specifically to a commission of enquiry. At any rate i cannot find a Barbados Commission of Enquiry act like Jamaica has, which leads me to believe that everytime there has been a Commission of Enquiry it was by parliamentary resolution thereby making it and organ/tool of this body and as we know parliamentary business is exempted in FIOA. The fact that the final report of the various commissions of Enquiry i.e. St.Joseph hospital, Glendairy Prison fire, National commission on law and order, have to be submitted to parliament and i believe specifically to cabinet further suggest to me that Commission of Enquiries reports are concidered parliamentary documents.
Thanks for the confirmation Adrian and this is our concern. Much of the public tension, concern, frustration or however you elect to describe it has been directed at the unwillingness of successive governments to release information arising from Public Inquiries.
We have the recent example of the St. Joseph Hospital Report which was an obvious manipulation motivated by political considerations. What is the purpose of having a FOI bill which can be circumvented by invoking parliamentary action?
A FOIA is absolutely necessary in a democracy but it will never be ahered to fully. Case in point is the US. A lot of things that we know about the Federal government is the result of a FOIA, things like the syphilis experiment on black men and countless FBI reports on an assortment of issues and incidents. Incidently also this act which was created in 1966 has had it’s share of unwilling government agencies not complying. There is a case of a Lawyer i believe having a request held for as long as 16 years.
This is a straight show down between BU and BFP for responses. Caw Bli’ Ya, look who’ gone clear. BFP get dusted… booo
Some authorative, external scrutiny by some august, personage with substantial experience of enabling this kind of legislation before, or living in a country which already has some years exp. of it, would n’t go amiss!!
I found this at BFP addressed to BAFBFP…
BAFBFP
October 11, 2008 at 10:00 am
This is a straight show down between BU and BFP for responses. Caw Bli’ Ya, look who’ gone clear. BFP get dusted… booo
You and your censorship and everything else about you…….. booooooo
***************************
BFP says,
How wrong you are about there being some sort of contest between BU and BFP for comments or anything else. This is all about the future of Barbados. Some folks will discuss it here, some at BU, some at the dinner table and some at the rumshop. The more discussion there is everywhere, the better chance the people have of diverting the narrow interests that are trying to shape the debate and the legislation.
As to censorship here, yes we banned you and a handful of others because you wouldn’t stop posting about that which has just caused Mia Mottley to win a bundle of cash over across the pond and a few other unusual themes.
So if you have found a place at BU that lets you post that, and let’s you post your other causes (like your warped concept that hundreds of Americans in government and the military planned and participated in 9/11) – well, good for you.
But this is our blog – with almost 3 million visitors per year – and we don’t allow anyone to take over just because they are bombastic and post a lot of comments.
Good day, to you sir.
Adrian, there is no Data Protection Act 2oo5 which is law in Barbados and you are wrong concerning the absence of a Commissions of Inquiry Act in Barbados. See Cap 112 of the Laws of Barbados. Finally, you appear to confuse the point about implied repeal. The later Act will override the former, UNLESS it contains some provision that it does not. Absent this, if there is conflict, the later Act prevails.
BFP to BAFBFP:
Juris // October 11, 2008 at 10:47 am
Adrian, there is no Data Protection Act 2oo5 which is law in Barbados and you are wrong concerning the absence of a Commissions of Inquiry Act in Barbados. See Cap 112 of the Laws of Barbados. Finally, you appear to confuse the point about implied repeal. The later Act will override the former, UNLESS it contains some provision that it does not. Absent this, if there is conflict, the later Act prevails.
===========================
Juris thanks for the correction.
There is a Data protection act 2005 BILL that i have and that i erroneously thought had been passed into law.
I did search for the Commission of Enquiry act and came up with Jamaica’s. However i should have been looking for the Commission of Inquiry act and i would have found it. Enquiry vs. Inquiry. 🙂 So Juris what is the process for convening a specific commission of Inquiry?
Implied repeal: I would think that something as entrenched as the OSA would not be subject to change or repeal by a mere implication. However in my layman look at the OSA there is a lot of generalizations as to what it restricts and i think that generalization has led to it been invoke willy nilly. The areas that it specifically speaks to is National security, and that is one area that is exempted in the propose FOIA.
Why don’t we take a look at it as see what it contains? That way we can compare it’s provisions against that of the FOIA and it’s exemptions.
http://www.caricomlaw.org/docs/Appendix%20-%20Official%20Secrets%20Act%201911.pdf
The English have a more update version i think is 1986, would this apply to Barbados?
17.(1) Do we understand section 17 as it applys to documents/information which can be released under the FOI to mean:
For example the ABC Highway procurement process and the relevant documents which supported such would have to be made available after the FOI is proclaimed? The many plans, MOU, drawings, amendment to plans etc would have to be made available? Tell us that this is the case please!
[i]Bimbro // October 10, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Hearty, congratulations to BU and BFP for succeeding in persuading the Bim govt. to begin the process of enacting FOI legislation, in B’dos.[/i]
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
[b]What RUBBISH is that? Government does things now because of two blogs? You need to get your damn head examined. Some of you people have a warped sense of reality and an overrated sense of your own importance.[/b]
Bimbro // October 10, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Hearty, congratulations to BU and BFP for succeeding in persuading the Bim govt. to begin the process of enacting FOI legislation, in B’dos.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What RUBBISH is that? Government does things now because of two blogs? You need to get your damn head examined. Some of you people have a warped sense of reality and an overrated sense of your own importance.
If I remember correctly, you live outside Barbados, right?
My two cents, basic as possible –
Oct 31 is a ridiculous deadline for written submissions and conflicts with last Town Hall of Nov 5 – a full calendar month or two for proper assimilation is way better;
This document allows for a Minister to exempt files from Public Scrutiny, you can object to an Ombudsman that’s not there (Carl Ince retired and Clarke was acting and also pensioned, nobody new);
The same document refers to Govt and Minister/tr(ies) …. What about Private Sector? Are they too not beholden to Freedom of Info?
I go back to analysing this jokebird of a paper
W H I T I S H // October 11, 2008 at 11:33 pm
Bimbro // October 10, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Hearty, congratulations to BU and BFP for succeeding in persuading the Bim govt. to begin the process of enacting FOI legislation, in B’dos.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What RUBBISH is that? Government does things now because of two blogs? You need to get your damn head examined. Some of you people have a warped sense of reality and an overrated sense of your own importance.
If I remember correctly, you live outside Barbados, right?
*************************
Well, I think the blogs, themsleves might disagree with you but they can argue their own case!!
It will take a while for the kinks to be ironed out in this document – some years, in fact – and also some time for all the infrastructure to be put in place for it to be effectively administered. As flaws become apparent, there will be amendments by this and later governments. There will be many slip-ups and some abuses – but there were in other countries with similar legislation. There are some points on which I have reservations, but I may be wrong to do so and I will wait and see. ALL THAT ASIDE, it is a start and congratulations are due. I just want to see where it goes now and how it is enforced.
Green Monkey,
Quite interesting, thank you.
The markets are doing such erratic movements, that it is evident that someone or some group is doing something.
Problem is, how to turn it around, as everything is in fact overvalued anyway?
Reality is that the only way to PARTIALLY immunise ourselves is to grow our own food and provide enough water supplies and energy supplies locally as much as possible.
The ONLY way.
By the way, you notice that the US Govenrment is taling of buying shares in banks, effective nationalisation.
This would fit in with the scenarios you describe i.e. control by plan.
Or, at the very least, will be control as a result of recent occurences, regardless of plan.
Whatever happens, the world is about to change forever.
If control remains, that in itself is major change.
Even in a best case scenario, if the ‘control’ was given back to shareholders eventually, the banking and economic sectors will be much smaller and more conservative than many, many years.
Major change, some do not yet realise the situation facing us.
Peace.
BAFBFP to BFP
BAFBFP to BFP
Are you reading me?…
If you are well you have clearly lost your way, assuming of course that you were on one in the first place. You Banned me and people like BIMBRO for expressing opinions that differ to yours, on your so called ‘Free Press’ and yah toss in a choice insult to boot.
What f**k**g hypocrites you are. It amazes me that all the other bloggers do not quickly up on your arrogance.
Dey probably are suffering from a misguided sense of loyalty.
Oct 31 is a ridiculous deadline for written submissions and conflicts with last Town Hall of Nov 5 – a full calendar month or two for proper assimilation is way better;
……………………………………………………..
Remember this final document must be out before November 30, 2008. Just think Kensington Oval.
Hi, Adrian,
No, the English Act would not automatically apply since they cannot pass law for us anymore. I appreciate your point about the OSA though, if it excludes natinal security documents and the FOIA does too, then there is no change from the pre-FOIA position with regard to these documents.
Sir Benwood Dick said:
I strongly agree, but of course that goes against the grain of the all the pro-globalisation talk and spin that we have been subjected to over the years. Unfortunately the potential down side of globalisation does not get nearly the amount of press as its alleged benefits.
However, economies might in some ways be compared to watertight doors on a ship. When a ship is holed below the water line, the watertight doors around that compartment can be sealed preventing the entire ship from flooding and it stays afloat.
If the watertight doors leak or have been disabled to prevent them from being kept closed and sealed, the water floods throughout he ship and it goes to the bottom.
Likewise as the world’s economies become more and more intertwined eventually, it appears, with the ultimate goal of merging all into one de facto world economy bad economic practices or economic failure and troubles in one country is more likely to have its harmful effects spread around to other countries as well.
But you can bet that as it all shakes out we’ll be informed by the same brainiacs that brought us the current mess that the solution is not to slow down the pace of globalisation or to consider alternative economic models, but to give more authority and control of this one world economy to what would potentially (and, I believe, is intended to) become a one world government.
However, going back to my analogy of the watertight doors in a ship but in a slightly different context, if a government in country X or country Y becomes corrupt and an overbearing dictatorship and persecutor of its own people, under the current system there are other countries people can flee to as refugees and can look to for leadership in defending human rights and freedoms.
Now what happens when the one world government becomes corrupt or a dictatorship making it their priority to protect the rights and property of a very wealthy minority against the teeming hoards who are clamoring for a bigger share of the pie. To which country will the one world’s peons and torture victims flee when they are being shot, tortured or thrown into gulags and prison camps?
We should pay more attention to geopolitical events, than listen to the comments of persons with known agendas.
The G7 met over the weekend to come up with a plan. They also met with Russia to further solidify whatever agreements they would come up with. Rather than reach agreements, The US has decided on a different approach so did the British. As much we would like to believe that we have a globalize world, the response to this global crisis has seen response at the national level. Some are even saying that Nationalism has trump Globalization. I always knew that “Home drums beat first”
@Bourne:
Bourne i agree with you. I had no idea that there is no current Ombudsman. Also since it was drawn to my attention that the Data protection act 2005 Bill was not pass into law, i have a huge problem with the passing of a FOIA without some form of a privatcy act. The right to know with regards to goverment should not include the right to know my personal information that is in the hands of the government. The right to know should not trample on the right to personal privacy. I think they need to revive the Data protection bill, a FOIA should not be pass without it.
If the current US economy was judged by the same imposed standards as was Sandiford’s they would be now in contravention of the IMF strictures and subject to the same sanctions as applied to other non-compliant states.
It has been reported that Bush has already agreed to an IMF examination of the true state of the US economy – but not until 2010.
Not that it would make that much difference, as I believe the IMF, WTO, World Bank and probably the UN itself, are puppets of a more sinister guiding hand.
The gloves will come off after the Nov. elections, and the true appalling state of western economies will be exposed as a problem for Obama, the chosen one, to sink or swim.
I wish him luck, and the foresight to understand the true manipulations of his erstwhile backers.
I attended and only a hand full of people attended the meeting this evening, it may have had more to do with the weather conditions than the purpose of the meeting.
I attended and only a hand full of people attended the meeting this evening, it may have had more to do with the weather conditions than the purpose of the meeting.
……………………………………………………….
You said that to say …what………..,,,,,,,,,,….eriee silence
The truth is we not surprise that there was a handful of people.Adrian H has been saying it for some time. Barbadians have taken for granted the ‘democracy’ which we try to enjoy. Barbadians have not grasped that we have to participate in our democracy every time we get.
But David I didn’t see you dere neither… nor Cliverton nor na body from BFP. … wallas … I ain’t even see Chinee den….
I fully agree with you David that Demoracy is a work in progress.
I know that had the blp had the wisdom or the willingness to create this document I would be the first to attend to see what they were designing to cover up but maybe just maybe the people of Barbados are adjusting to a more open, free, and just society than existed under the Owing / mottley rein and are not as concerned about the likelyhood that their freedom of speech, their freedom of expression or their freedom of association is under treat any longer.
With a new thinking and caring DLP Gov’t in place, led my our PRIME MINISTER THE HON MR DAVID THOMPSON the fears have been relived and lifted.
The blp were going down a slippery sliding path to the removal of our freedoms and our rights and the change of gov’t has corrected this issue.
David
We have not yet recovered from the lack of tolerance for free expression. That will take some time.
In the NGO movement, we are seeing a new mobilisation but still very slow to get off the ground. There is a kind of tip-toeing into the arena. People still looking over their backs but it will take some time to get accustomed to seeing nobody or no threat when they look back.
My concern will be with the administration.
There will be those who will file frivolous requests. Those who will file weekly, or monthly requests. Those who will tie up the beauracracy just for the fun of it. I am thinking of BFP and Keltruth.
What I have done,(many people do not know how to file a good specific request) to get back at a s*** disturber was to send him everything on the particular subject. I mean everything. Even photocopies of pages from our note books where we recorded discussions at meetings. He ended up getting four (4), four-cubic foot cardboard boxes. Nothing was collated, nothing was stapled, nothing was in order, but he got everything we had. Even 5, 6, and seven year old information. Me thinks, he is still sorting to this day.
This was a man, who did some consulting work for us and thought he should be our only consultant on a particular subject. He was caught during a lunch hour snooping and reading documents on a colleague’s desk. He had no business in our office during that time.
Bajans will have to be stringent if not tough.
@Pat… Thank you for your immediate above…
This is one of the heuristical risks of FOIAs…
As always, the rights of the “people” must be balanced with the interests of same. This is a tricky balancing act…
My personal (and, I’m quite sure, *many* others’) concern is, how does one ensure that legitimate requests can be satisfied, without bringing the Government to a standstill for someone’s amusement or vengeance?
And, abstracting one or two layers, is this an intractable problem? I personally think not, but it all comes down to the “code” and the “execution” of same.