In ancient times wine was stored in containers made from animal skins. New wine released fermenting gasses that put pressure on the skins. Therefore, new wine was put in newer and softer wineskins that could expand under pressure. When the skins became old, they became less flexible and could break under pressure. Therefore, old wineskins were reserved for old wine that no longer fermented.
Jesus suggested that we were either like new wineskins that could stretch under the pressure of discovering new knowledge, or old wineskins that could break under such pressure. Jesus explained that persisting with sharing conflicting information with the old wineskin types could ruin the wineskin and waste the wine.
ANGRY WINESKINS.
If published information was later found to be wrong, a new wineskin author will happily accept correction. However, an old wineskin author will feel offended and angry by it.
If angry wineskins are given power, they may be a danger to themselves and those under their authority. The community under their leadership, whether it be a: school, church or association, cannot progress beyond the rigidity of their leader and will wither intellectually.
FRAGILE WINESKINS.
All new wineskins will become older, but we can delay the onset of our intellectual inflexibility. If truth is our aim, then conflicting information is not offensive but an opportunity to expand the boundaries of knowledge through an evidence-based discussion. Therefore, we should willingly expose our ideas to scrutiny without taking offence.
At the onset of old wineskin fragility, we begin to find conflicting information highly offensive. At that time, we should give up all leadership responsibilities before we are tempted to use our authority to target others for retribution. Old wineskins who are leaders of nations tend to be dictators who write laws to criminalise anyone who dares offend them.
Cybercrime Bill.
Barbados’ Cybercrime Bill was passed by the House of Assembly on 6th February 2024. The Bill criminalised those who used a computer to cause: annoyance, inconvenience, embarrassment, insult, humiliation, intimidation or anxiety. The offender was liable to spend 7 years in prison and be fined up to $70,000 – for insulting members of the Party and others.
After several persons objected, the Bill was sent to a Select Committee of Parliament. The Minister who piloted the Bill through the House acknowledged that annoying old wineskins was not criminal behaviour in Barbados.
APPEAL.
Recently, I was surprised to learn that a set of concerned citizens planned to appeal the Cybercrime Bill to the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights. I thought this was unwise since the Minister agreed to correct deficiencies in the Bill. However, after reading the Select Committee’s report I was appalled at the recommendations.
The Select Committee clearly ignored valid concerns about the Bill, and their recommendations would still easily make criminals out of all literate Barbadians. For example, if an old wineskin felt offended and humiliated or anxious by contrary information, then the offender is liable to 10 years imprisonment and a $100,000 fine.
FOLLOWING ORDERS.
Supporters of this Bill claim that they are simply following orders to comply with the Budapest Convention. However, this Convention contains none of the parts in the Cybercrime Bill to which the public has objected, as should be shown in my next article.
I had several interactions with our elected representatives and do not believe them to be old wineskins – I have not seen angry responses to my opposing opinions. Therefore, they were likely tricked into believing that the Cybercrime Bill complied with the Budapest Convention to get it passed – for the benefit of old wineskins.
Grenville Phillips II is a Doctor of Engineering and a Chartered Structural Engineer. He can be reached at NextParty246@gmail.com
The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.