by Simba The Comic King
Last year our government whipped out a piece of paper with a couple of complicated words scribbled on it and called it the “Cybercrime Bill.” This bill was specifically targeted at pastors who preach both in the pulpit and their Facebook timelines as well as former ZANU PF youthies who went on to start their own parties and make sextapes in between their hectic schedules.
To the pre-school dropout eye, the bill looks pretty normal, nothing amiss, but to the PhD wielding nigga (I mean a real PhD not one you can get from dialing dial-a-PhD) they can see that there are a few things amiss…
The Whole Document Is Copy/Pasted
That’s right. You aren’t high, you read that whole damn sentence the way it should be read. You know how at the end of some movies they say, “Based On Real Life Events”? If our Zimbabwe’s cybercrime bill was a movie it would say, “We didn’t have enough creativity to make a movie so we just filmed the real life events themselves with a sh**ty phone.” The bill is a copy pasted version of Lesotho’s which was drafted in 2011 and was the template used by ICT ministers of that era. Need we mention the changes that have taken place on the ICT landscape since then? We sure as hell didn’t have Facebook Live, the goddamned function that gave birth to the monster known as Olindastein. Not that has anything to do with anything but you can’t just copy and paste a sum’ing from ions ago, even the Bible has a New and Old Testament. It’s the difference between Adam and Jesus.
The Bill Doesn’t Make Its’ Own Purpose Clear
A sentence in the document reads, “a Bill for an Act to criminalise offences against computers and network-related crime.” Which of course doesn’t make sense to anyone who gives even the slightest f**k. Though seemingly insignificant every word in any legal document is of paramount importance as it can be used to legally f**k you in the a** later on.
It F**ks With A Constitutional Right
Believe it or not, privacy is a constitutional right and the cybercrime bill pays no heed to that right whatsoever. It “authorizes interception of data communication without sufficient oversight and checks and balances to prevent abuse.” In layman’s terms this simply means “We can f**k with your privacy whenever and however we feel like it, any other questions?” It is a clause that’s open to molestation cause who’s to stay the cops can’t concoct fake evidence against you? I don’t know, maybe a button stick here and a helmet there?
It Makes It Illegal To Disagree With The Government On Social Media
This still is the most controversial portion of the draft. Freedom of expression is basically null and void as you can get thrown in jail for a tweet or updating your status and your only defense in court will be, “But your honor, Zuckerberg asked me what’s on my mind!” The clause is vague as it is what the government blatantly claims is “abuse of social media.” I have been alive for most of my life and in all that time I have never come across such a f**ktardish claim. If anything was ever invented to be abused, it’s social media. When people tell us about every little detail including the last time they used the toilet that’s abuse right there. So if one for saying s**t, arrest them for s**ting as well gaddhemeti.
Image courtesy of raconteur.net