Gail Alexan­der

Se­nior Po­lit­i­cal Re­porter

An Op­po­si­tion MP has ac­cused the Kam­la Per­sad-Bisses­sar Gov­ern­ment of be­ing an­ti-re­li­gion, an­ti-Catholic Church and an­ti-Rasta­far­i­an, ar­gu­ing that pro­posed changes to cannabis laws would in­fringe on re­li­gious free­dom and pri­va­cy.

Colm Im­bert raised the con­cerns in the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives yes­ter­day dur­ing de­bate on two amend­ments to the Mis­cel­la­neous Pro­vi­sions Bill, which were brought from the Sen­ate. The pro­posed leg­is­la­tion seeks to raise the age lim­it for con­sum­ing al­co­hol and us­ing to­bac­co and va­p­ing prod­ucts from 18 to 21, and for cannabis use and gam­bling from 18 to 25.

Im­bert, who al­so took up the cause of the 12 Tribes Rasta­far­i­an group in his Diego Mar­tin North East con­stituen­cy, said At­tor­ney Gen­er­al John Je­re­mie, who briefly in­tro­duced the amend­ments, had not ful­ly ex­plained their mean­ing and ef­fect.

He said one amend­ment, in its pre­vi­ous form, did not re­quire iden­ti­fi­ca­tion to be pro­duced by some­one cul­ti­vat­ing cannabis. Un­der the cur­rent law, be­fore the new leg­is­la­tion takes ef­fect, peo­ple cul­ti­vat­ing up to four cannabis plants are ex­empt from pros­e­cu­tion.

Im­bert said, “But this bill al­ready crim­i­nalis­es pos­ses­sion of cannabis by peo­ple un­der 25, and now this amend­ment makes it a re­quire­ment for the pro­duc­tion of ID by some­one found tend­ing/cul­ti­vat­ing cannabis any­where. In fact, it gets in­to the home, be­cause the main lo­ca­tion where the cul­ti­va­tion of per­mis­si­ble cannabis takes place - the four plants - is the home.”

“This now al­lows po­lice of­fi­cers to en­ter some­one’s home and de­mand ID to prove the per­son is of age if they think the per­son tend­ing/cul­ti­vat­ing the plant isn’t. We don’t agree to this, which is an in­va­sion of pri­va­cy and a breach of the right to prop­er­ty,” he added.

Im­bert said the sec­ond amend­ment is ex­treme­ly op­pres­sive, and he be­lieves it breach­es re­li­gious free­doms and the right to prac­tice a re­li­gion.

“When the orig­i­nal law was passed years ago, al­low­ing the dis­pen­sa­tion of sacra­men­tal cannabis/mar­i­jua­na by Rasta­far­i­an priests in their places of wor­ship, the age at which that was set was 18,” he not­ed.

He said the iden­ti­fi­ca­tion re­quire­ment was unique in the Caribbean, adding that he had ex­am­ined leg­is­la­tion in sev­er­al coun­tries that al­lowed cannabis use and found none re­quired peo­ple to pro­duce iden­ti­fi­ca­tion be­fore re­ceiv­ing sacra­men­tal cannabis.

Im­bert list­ed Bar­ba­dos, Ja­maica, An­tigua, St Vin­cent and St Kitts, as well as the Ba­hamas, which is now draft­ing leg­is­la­tion, as ex­am­ples.

“As far as I’m con­cerned, this amend­ment, which is now telling a Rasta­far­i­an priest and telling ad­her­ents of the Rasta­far­i­an faith that they have to pro­duce ID oth­er­wise they have a big prob­lem, is an­ti -re­li­gious and an­ti-the Rasta­far­i­an faith!,” Im­bert de­clared.

He al­so linked the pro­posed changes to sacra­men­tal cannabis with re­stric­tions on sacra­men­tal wine dur­ing Chris­t­ian com­mu­nion.

“You are an­ti-re­li­gion! You are an­ti the Catholic church, and you are an­ti the Rasta­far­i­an move­ment!”

Je­re­mie re­ject­ed Im­bert’s in­ter­pre­ta­tion, say­ing the iden­ti­fi­ca­tion re­quire­ment had noth­ing to do with search­es or en­try in­to premis­es.

He de­scribed the oth­er claims as “in­flam­ma­to­ry and de­void of mer­it”.

The amend­ments were passed.