Polls, politics & security
Published:Sunday | August 1, 2010 | 12:00 AM
The human-rights lobby and allies in the media have also been parroting the argument that the Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF) Act has provisions for cordons and curfews and, therefore, an extension of the state of emergency was not necessary. The prime minister has effectively answered that argument by pointing out that while the act does have those powers, the security forces are handicapped by the fact that they can't enter individual homes during those operations unless they have specific warrants. Under emergency powers they don't have to have a particular warrant to search any home.
Another important fact Holness points to in his release is that under a state of emergency, soldiers can conduct operations independent of the JCF and have greater flexibility of operations. This makes a significant difference. And it was known from I was a boy growing up that dog-heart criminals fear soldiers while they will easily 'buss shot' at police. Real bad man might not be afraid of police but them cower when dem hear soldier ah come. That psychological terror factor was important during the state of emergency. Youth and youth on the corners understand that, although not middle-class idealists.
Importantly also, a state of emergency gives "greater powers of detention to allow for the removal of criminal elements from communities, thereby creating a breathing space for citizens to cooperate with the police". This is a very important point. Some people against whom the police do not yet have actionable intelligence must be swept off the streets (though not indefinitely) and put in detention until that evidence is gathered, despite what their highly paid lawyers say or how much they squeal in the media.
Fatal flaw
But there is a fatal flaw in the way some of the defenders of the state of emergency argue: They argue as though they are making the case for a permanent state of emergency. They argue as though crime cannot be fought without one. We have to freely acknowledge that the human-rights lobby has a very valid point that we must be careful that our argument doesn't prove too much; for if we are extolling emergency powers as effective tools for fighting crime, then we are really advocating a military solution and a police state.
Holness himself blunders when he says that, "The state of emergency (is) the most effective tool in the toolbox against crime". It should not be seen as part of the toolbox. It is an extraordinary measure and, constitutionally, should only be employed in particular contexts. The way many people who were for the extension for the emergency have been arguing is that this is a normal crime-fighting weapon and the PNP has colted the game. The human-rights lobby is right to point out the dangerous flaw in this argument.
So why did I strongly support the Government in moving a resolution for its extension? Here's my reasoning. The heads of the security forces - who are men of integrity and credibility as PNP and human-rights activists acknowledge - determined through their intelligence that another 30 days was needed. (Though the fact that they wanted three months from the start would lead you to question whether it was empirical evidence and hard information which resulted in their request or a preconceived timetable.) But let us give them the benefit of the doubt considering their unquestioned integrity and credibility.
Vicious criminal
If they needed another month to move into some other garrisons and other areas - including uptown - I believe we should have given them. The extension, even if it led to one more vicious criminal being put away and more lives saved, would be worth it. How much is a life worth? Not the inconvenience of some liberties taken away temporarily?
Is anyone prepared to argue that publicly? Now I understand that that argument extended could lead to one's asking, why not a permanent state of emergency to save even more lives? But my point is, the heads of the security forces - not Golding and other politicians - asked for this. What are we saying about their judgement and integrity?
I am very concerned about the fact that of the more than 4,000 people taken off the streets, so few have been charged. I am not convinced that the police have done as effective a job as they could have even with the two months of emergency powers that they had. I am not very impressed generally with their efficiency, competence and passion for their work. I wanted to see some more notorious criminals brought in. I was prepared to give them another month to have them mop up operations.
Critiquing the PNP
Hardened criminals and vicious criminals were on the run during the state of emergency. They feared the fire power and daring of the security forces. These thugs (generally) only understand force, not beatitudes as the idealists think. Holness' most devastating point in critiquing the PNP for not voting for the extension is that their offer of compromise strips them of any claim to a principled position on the matter.
For, as Holness argues flawlessly, if the conditions did not objectively exist for an extension; if there were intolerable levels of security forces abuse of citizens and they did not have enough information which to vote, etc, then "by offering seven days and then 15 days, the PNP violated their own basis for opposing the extension. If the PNP truly believed as a principle that the conditions to justify the extension did not exist, then any offer to extend on their part violates their stated principle on which they based their Opposition in the first place".
This is the kind of rational argumentation I want to see politicians engage in. It was apologetics at its best on Holness' part, without the tracing and invective with which G2K seems addicted. (Do the young people really give us any hope that they will be less tribalist that their elders?)
Holness reveals something in this release that I am sure almost no one knew: That when the vote came for the first extension, the Government did not have the required 31 votes (they had only 29), and had to depend on the Opposition to pass the resolution. Yet, the JLP has been so clumsy and inept generally in its public relations that they did not make that point at first, and buried it in this excellent missive by Holness.
Critics of the JLP have been saying Golding set up the thing to fail because he knew he did not have the required votes and yet he came ostensibly depending on Opposition support. The JLP could have simply said: "We never had a problem when our members were away the last time so we did not think it necessary to have all of them here this time".
But the JLP generally needs to ask the PNP about information management and public relations. One thing I can say, if Andrew keeps up what he started with that first-rate release last week, the PNP will be getting some competition in communications, and we will be having a substantial debate on issues.
Ian Boyne is a veteran journalist who may be reached at ianboyne1@yahoo.com or columns@gleanerjm.com.
Ian Boyne, Contributor
The people have spoken - decisively and unequivocally. They wanted an extension to the state of emergency and must be mad as hell that the People's National Party (PNP) blocked it. They have also roundly rejected and rebuffed the arguments and posturing of the human-rights lobby for the ending of the emergency, according to an RJR/TVJ/Ian Boxhill poll.
Some 63 per cent of those polled favoured the extension of the state of emergency, while 73 per cent support the Government's tough anti-crime initiatives, which must be deeply disturbing to Jamaicans for Justice, Families against State Terrorism and the high-profile lawyers who are regurgitated on the talk-show circuit. And, of course, to those whom we would consider influential media practitioners who are ardent human-rights advocates. But I am sure they believe they know better than the people on this matter.
But it was not a complete loss for the human-rights lobby and its allies in the media. For 72 per cent of the people believe that there were human-rights abuses by the security forces during the emergency. So this shows that while the people freely acknowledge that elements in the security forces abused their powers, that itself was not enough, in their view, to warrant the cessation of the state of emergency. In the real world there is no perfect solution, the people know.
The PNP obviously knew that it was going to be sailing in troubled waters, breaking the wind to their great sail over the last 10 months by going against the tide of public opinion on the state of emergency. That is why they clutched at the 15-day straw. But they were not saved as the Golding administration mercilessly did not extend it, leaving them to the sharks.
Disastrous public relations
Two weeks ago, I criticised the Jamaica Labour Party for its disastrous public relations and image management, and last week they answered me decisively - but implicitly - in a finely crafted, masterfully argued and compelling release issued under the signature of Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) Public Relations Committee Chairman, Andrew Holness. In that extensive and apologetically sharp release (thankfully carried in full by the Observer), Holness carefully and systematically unpacks and demolishes the PNP's arguments for the cessation of the state of emergency.
Some of these have been the same arguments used by human-rights activists. With regard to the view that it was the curfews and the mere presence of security forces on the streets which helped to reduce crime, Holness cogently argues that under the PNP there were curfews but no dramatic reduction in crime.
"The PNP must explain why these strategic and tactical crime-fighting tools have
The human-rights lobby and allies in the media have also been parroting the argument that the Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF) Act has provisions for cordons and curfews and, therefore, an extension of the state of emergency was not necessary. The prime minister has effectively answered that argument by pointing out that while the act does have those powers, the security forces are handicapped by the fact that they can't enter individual homes during those operations unless they have specific warrants. Under emergency powers they don't have to have a particular warrant to search any home.
Another important fact Holness points to in his release is that under a state of emergency, soldiers can conduct operations independent of the JCF and have greater flexibility of operations. This makes a significant difference. And it was known from I was a boy growing up that dog-heart criminals fear soldiers while they will easily 'buss shot' at police. Real bad man might not be afraid of police but them cower when dem hear soldier ah come. That psychological terror factor was important during the state of emergency. Youth and youth on the corners understand that, although not middle-class idealists.
Importantly also, a state of emergency gives "greater powers of detention to allow for the removal of criminal elements from communities, thereby creating a breathing space for citizens to cooperate with the police". This is a very important point. Some people against whom the police do not yet have actionable intelligence must be swept off the streets (though not indefinitely) and put in detention until that evidence is gathered, despite what their highly paid lawyers say or how much they squeal in the media.
Fatal flaw
But there is a fatal flaw in the way some of the defenders of the state of emergency argue: They argue as though they are making the case for a permanent state of emergency. They argue as though crime cannot be fought without one. We have to freely acknowledge that the human-rights lobby has a very valid point that we must be careful that our argument doesn't prove too much; for if we are extolling emergency powers as effective tools for fighting crime, then we are really advocating a military solution and a police state.
Holness himself blunders when he says that, "The state of emergency (is) the most effective tool in the toolbox against crime". It should not be seen as part of the toolbox. It is an extraordinary measure and, constitutionally, should only be employed in particular contexts. The way many people who were for the extension for the emergency have been arguing is that this is a normal crime-fighting weapon and the PNP has colted the game. The human-rights lobby is right to point out the dangerous flaw in this argument.
So why did I strongly support the Government in moving a resolution for its extension? Here's my reasoning. The heads of the security forces - who are men of integrity and credibility as PNP and human-rights activists acknowledge - determined through their intelligence that another 30 days was needed. (Though the fact that they wanted three months from the start would lead you to question whether it was empirical evidence and hard information which resulted in their request or a preconceived timetable.) But let us give them the benefit of the doubt considering their unquestioned integrity and credibility.
Vicious criminal
If they needed another month to move into some other garrisons and other areas - including uptown - I believe we should have given them. The extension, even if it led to one more vicious criminal being put away and more lives saved, would be worth it. How much is a life worth? Not the inconvenience of some liberties taken away temporarily?
Is anyone prepared to argue that publicly? Now I understand that that argument extended could lead to one's asking, why not a permanent state of emergency to save even more lives? But my point is, the heads of the security forces - not Golding and other politicians - asked for this. What are we saying about their judgement and integrity?
I am very concerned about the fact that of the more than 4,000 people taken off the streets, so few have been charged. I am not convinced that the police have done as effective a job as they could have even with the two months of emergency powers that they had. I am not very impressed generally with their efficiency, competence and passion for their work. I wanted to see some more notorious criminals brought in. I was prepared to give them another month to have them mop up operations.
Critiquing the PNP
Hardened criminals and vicious criminals were on the run during the state of emergency. They feared the fire power and daring of the security forces. These thugs (generally) only understand force, not beatitudes as the idealists think. Holness' most devastating point in critiquing the PNP for not voting for the extension is that their offer of compromise strips them of any claim to a principled position on the matter.
For, as Holness argues flawlessly, if the conditions did not objectively exist for an extension; if there were intolerable levels of security forces abuse of citizens and they did not have enough information which to vote, etc, then "by offering seven days and then 15 days, the PNP violated their own basis for opposing the extension. If the PNP truly believed as a principle that the conditions to justify the extension did not exist, then any offer to extend on their part violates their stated principle on which they based their Opposition in the first place".
This is the kind of rational argumentation I want to see politicians engage in. It was apologetics at its best on Holness' part, without the tracing and invective with which G2K seems addicted. (Do the young people really give us any hope that they will be less tribalist that their elders?)
Holness reveals something in this release that I am sure almost no one knew: That when the vote came for the first extension, the Government did not have the required 31 votes (they had only 29), and had to depend on the Opposition to pass the resolution. Yet, the JLP has been so clumsy and inept generally in its public relations that they did not make that point at first, and buried it in this excellent missive by Holness.
Critics of the JLP have been saying Golding set up the thing to fail because he knew he did not have the required votes and yet he came ostensibly depending on Opposition support. The JLP could have simply said: "We never had a problem when our members were away the last time so we did not think it necessary to have all of them here this time".
But the JLP generally needs to ask the PNP about information management and public relations. One thing I can say, if Andrew keeps up what he started with that first-rate release last week, the PNP will be getting some competition in communications, and we will be having a substantial debate on issues.
Ian Boyne is a veteran journalist who may be reached at ianboyne1@yahoo.com or columns@gleanerjm.com.