The Tribune

By EARYEL BOWLEG

Tribune Staff Reporter

ebowleg@tribunemedia.net

ATTORNEYS are raising fresh questions about the value of the obscene language offence, with some arguing it is overused and unnecessary, while others say it remains a tool for maintaining public order.

The offence, broadly defined in law, gives police wide discretion in deciding when language crosses the line into criminal conduct.

Defence attorney David Cash said the offence should be removed altogether, arguing that existing laws already cover situations where language escalates into more serious conduct.

“There's already sufficient criminal offences on the books that would cover offences if something escalates from just language, because if you're living in a free country, then people ought to have freedom of speech,” Mr Cash said.

He said profanity is commonly used by both civilians and police officers, particularly in moments of frustration, and does not in itself cause harm.

Attorney Bryan Bastian said the issue depends on context, noting that the charge is often paired with offences such as resisting arrest or disorderly behaviour.

Attorneys said the charge is often used alongside other offences, raising concerns that it can function as an add-on count rather than a standalone public order measure.

“What is the end goal?” he said. “You charge someone with using obscene language, you know, wasting judicial time. Nine times out of ten, they’ll probably be admonished or pay some minimal fine or something.”

Some attorneys also questioned how the offence is applied in practice, particularly in cases where officers themselves use similar language during confrontations.

Indeed, Mr Bastian questioned the fairness of officers charging individuals for obscene language while engaging in similar conduct.

“What example are they setting?” he said. “Their whole position is to uphold the law. But if they're using profanity and then turn around and charge someone with using obscene language, what’s the sense?”

Attorney K Brian Hanna said many Bahamians use profanity without intending harm and that the charge can be unreasonable depending on the circumstances.

He said police may bring the charge out of annoyance, particularly when individuals fail to comply with instructions, and suggested such matters are often better resolved on the spot.

One attorney, Ian Cargill, defended the offence as a necessary tool for maintaining order in public spaces, though he said it should not apply in private settings.

“It's a tough one because Bahamians are so disrespectful when they're ready,” he said. “I think there needs to be some order, and so I have no difficulty with the charge. If it's once you are warned and you continue, I think you should be charged.”

“You could imagine Bahamians, you downtown and they cussing each other in front of the tourist or by the hotel, or like Jet Ski operators or boaters?”