Five years jail, $15,000 fine

Hinds explained that the legislation provided for the jailing and fining of a person who harassed another person persistently, by watching, loitering, hindering their free access in any way and communicating with them by telephone, computer or any other means.

The key to defining the harassment was that it had to be unwanted and so persistent and relentless as to cause fear of violence, distress or anger, he said. He added that this negative conduct must occur on at least two occasions.

Hinds pointed out, however, that the legislation did not deal with sexual harassment, but rather with stalking. Citing his experience both as a lawyer in private practice as well as a minister, he said he knew that for the female population, particularly single women, stalking was increasingly becoming a real danger.

However, Opposition MP Subhas Panday argued that the legislation was not relevant to Trinidad and Tobago’s culture. Saying that there was "very little stalking" in this country, Panday said: "If someone wants to do something, they just do it."

He said people who stalked were not criminals, but were persons who were emotionally hurt and disturbed. Panday was particularly critical of the fact that sexual harassment, "which was part of Trinidad and Tobago culture," was not covered by the bill.

Saying that the legislation would have protected a much larger number of women had it included sexual harassment, Panday said sexual harassment was rampant in the URP, CEPEP and the Civilian Conservation Corps.

He also referred to sexual harassment at the Estate Management and Business Develop-ment Company where a "sexual predator" was telling women at the company things like "I like how your breast looking."

Panday stated that the problem in TT was not harassment by stalking, but harassment per se, which included sexual harassment and the harassment of public officials in a manner designed to cause pain and hardship.

Noting that the bill defined the act of harassment and stalking as, among other things, watching someone in such a manner as to cause alarm or distress, Panday wondered aloud whether someone who was watching a person while he was going to collect "sweetbread" from Smokey and Bunty, could be charged under the legislation.

He said the bill was a "stunt" by an incompetent Government which was only reacting to the outcry against crime.

He said it was the same incompetence that led Government to read the death warrant to a Lester Pitman, even though he had not exhausted all his remedies, "just to mamaguy the population." Panday said Government should get the more serious crimes, like kidnapping, under control before it exercised the "luxury" of bringing a stalking bill.