Going back now to today's house meeting...
There was heated debate happened during the introduction of the Defense Amendment Bill of 2020.
According to the National Assembly's notes on the draft legislation, the purpose of the amendment is to update the provisions of the Defense Act and bring it in line with the Belize Constitution and other laws.
We understand from informed persons that the changes in the amendment were mostly house-keeping. But, there were a few proposed changes that some of the parliamentarians disagreed with. Here's the PUP's Kareem Musa's contribution to the debate about the bill.
Hon. Kareem Musa, PUP Caribbean Shores
"As the prime minister just pointed out there were some sections that had been proposed and while I can appreciate the spirit and intent of the section because in actually and in reality abuse exist in our military and in our police department and we are talking of a sexual nature and while it was that the intent was to include matter like rape and sexual assaults as matters like disgraceful conduct I think we would have run afoul of the criminal code Madam Speaker because the criminal code has a penalty of up to life for rape. And so my main position and proposition within the committee was that we need to have more enforcement. The police department needs to be able to go into the military if there is an accusation against of a particular officer of rape or sexual assault and investigate. It cannot be that the defence and the military is immune to this type of investigation. And so we in this honorable House have to send the strongest of messages, strongest of signals that it will not be tolerated any longer."
Hon. Patrick Faber, Minister of Education
"What section 62 of the principal act deals with is disgraceful conduct of a soldier and a punishment for that. He is correct in that it was the intention of those who are proposing the bill to increase and more clearly define what would be considered as disgraceful conduct and that was why things like rape and secual assault was included in the definition in the amendment bill and those thing as we are proposing now coming from the committee that this entire section of defining those acts, especially where rape and sexual assault is included is what we are withdrawing and we are doing so for the very same reason that he has pointed out that we want to ensure that these very heinous acts: rape, sexual assault and other things that are criminal offences cannot be overlooked and over-shadowed by regulation like this that is handled within the military alone and is given a mere penalty of just something not exceeding 2 years as it is stated now in the principal act. So it is because we value our women in the security forces and believe that they ought to get justice in the most stern way for those offenders that we have decided to withdraw amendment 36 from the amendment bill and then revert back to what is originally in the principal act that section 62, so that what is consider disgraceful conduct goes back to whatever definition was there and those acts of rape and sexual offence and whatever else was listed here, wrongful distribution of intimate visual images which will be covered by the cybercrime regulation and will now be a criminal offence - all of these things will not escape the police."
Later on in the debate over the amendment, several of the parliamentarians took a different view of the bill. They chose to focus, instead, on the fact that the state has no sort of social protection for retired soldiers, to transition them out of the military, and back into private life:
At the end of the House Meeting, this bill was also passed by the House.
