It is not possible for the Government to force anyone to use a merely optional tool like the Internet. Whether the entity is an individual, company, corporate body, etc, it is the same.

No one is obliged to own a computer or smartphone, and no-one is obliged to use the Internet.

The Government cannot oblige anyone to hire an agent so as to have to go online through the agent, or so as to go via any method.

Not being online is not a crime, nor something for which one can be penalised. The Government cannot jail anyone or fine anyone for not being online. The Government cannot refuse service or benefits to anyone for not being online.

The Government cannot exclude direct contact with the Government. The Government can permit various types of filing, but cannot arbitrarily limit it to an optional form—and must respect and provide diversity to the voluntary choice of the person for his access to services and benefits, irrespective of types.

The Internet allows collective scrutiny of information that is impossible to manage or authorise. The Internet is not a stable and secure construct, that is also breachable and insecure, including breachable by foreign.

The Internet is not under the strict control of the Government. The Internet is a foreign-source platform and the Government cannot share or co-opt the citizenry to that without consent. The Government can not oblige anyone to deal with the Government through a foreign source.

The Government itself can store its information digitally, for which it is responsible, but it cannot delegate that responsibility through any second or third party, etc.

Centralising information to make it all accessible all at once to every Government department is not the role or the format of Government, nor the duty of persons to satisfy, nor the way of relations between the two.

E Galy

Port of Spain


No-one could disagree with the Prime Minister’s assertion that the dysfunction within the criminal justice system is the result of a “deep failing across the board”. To that we would add, over many political and judicial administrations.

I’ll say from the outset that this column is not a diatribe against religion. Still, at some point, a line must be drawn to separate faith and action. My various articles in the past years that focus on LGBTQ equality as a human rights issue have usually touched on the all-too-frequent counter-argument against this human rights issue, that “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve”, and “That is why God burned down Sodom and Gomorrah”.

“If this country cannot call to order its prime minister, its cabinet and its political party, to say we are not accepting that, God help us. The people we hire ought not to get bigger than those who hire them. The Govern­ment is hired by the people” (fired housing minister Dr Keith Rowley, Hansard, Page 249, October 19, 2009).

Although the arrest warrant issued on Russian President Vladimir Putin by the International Criminal Court last week was welcome, there was a certain puzzlement about the actual crime he is being charged with.

This is a man who launched an unprovoked invasion of a neighbouring country, Ukraine. He declares that the country should not even exist, and denies that there is a valid Ukrainian identity. Those Ukrainians who believe they are not Russians are “Nazis” who must be “re-educated” or destroyed. That alone qualifies Putin for a charge of genocide.

Let us consider the principal’s 20 per cent selection. Is it free and fair? Should a pupil enter a secon­dary school based on their religion alone? Should pupils enter secondary school based on one person’s choice?

The ongoing controversy surrounding the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) is a matter of great concern for the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago, and it demands urgent attention and resolution. At the heart of this issue is the need for the country to have a strong and independent legal system where justice is administered fairly and without fear or favour.