Emergency awards

Gordon Robinson, Contributor

People repeatedly ask me why won't I participate in public-affairs talk shows.

First, none of them wants me. If they did, they'd be disappointed. The overriding reason for shying away is my congenitally reclusive nature. Also, as a confirmed hypochondriac, I'm afraid of catching AWARDS, the talk-show virus. This virus was named by a team of researchers after years of study of the effect of publicity on the average expert.

The acronym simplifies the virus' original scientific title (Absence of Wisdom, Analysis, Rationale, Deduction and Sanity). Apparently, the virus attacks anyone introduced by media as an 'expert', swiftly attaches itself to unprotected brain cells and reduces its host to a babbling idiot looking for new fences to straddle. This deadly strain, therefore, changes 'expert' to 'ex-perch'.

An irrational fear of AWARDS has restricted my involvement in public speaking to radio shows on horse racing where nobody takes himself or his subject too seriously, and I'm introduced as a 'Terrible Tout' - ample warning that gibberish is coming. Even by its own pernicious standards, AWARDS has been particularly virulent recently, especially regarding media discourse of the recent so-called state of emergency.

Once again, misconception drives public discussion, so I feel obliged to record for posterity exactly what a "state of emergency" is supposed to be.

Let's begin with what it's not. Trivial twaddle currently circulated in worship of the sound-bite includes:

"The state of emergency has been successful in reducing crime." Really? Proponents of the above catchphrase conveniently ignore the contribution to the murder stats of the 73 recently slaughtered in west Kingston (by whomever) during the security farces' "operations". Also, are we saying that "crime" means "murder"? Other crimes continue apace.

But, semantics aside, we need reminding that crime reduction isn't the purpose of states of emergency. Furthermore, the hyped "reduction" is illusory as neither extrajudicial capital punishment nor civil-rights abuse can sustain crime reduction which, like the hydra, is impervious to violence.

"People on the ground are feeling safer." Where is this "ground"? I'm fairly sure no one living in Keith Clarke's home feels safer. The 73 killed in Tivoli are dead certain they're not safe. For how long will we hide our police's glaring deficiencies behind extreme powers, including restriction of persons' movement?

As a stubborn 'over-privileged' simpleton from that despicable, unnecessary, inconvenient enclave called 'uptown', I remain unrepentantly insistent on my equal right to freedom of expression as any member of any underprivileged, undereducated underclass deliberately so imprisoned by decades of government policy.

I won't be cowed by reverse snobbery from expressing my opinion that we can't "fight crime" by banning "Sandie" from Tivoli Gardens or anywhere else. To whom does Tivoli belong? The police? The Government? Or Sandie? If she's a criminal then let the police prove it. The banning order, reminiscent as it is of South Africa in the deepest, darkest times of apartheid, is an embarrassing admission of police ineptitude that we must not celebrate for self-promotion "on the ground", but condemn unambiguously.

"The police say that the state of emergency gives them the tools they need to reduce crime." The police say lots of things. "The police say ..." is not the basis of independent thought, and the constant repetition of this mantra is like the parrot repeating, "Polly wants a cracker" when what Polly really wants is some birdfeed.

The Constitution doesn't use the phrase "state of emergency", but permits the Government to abrogate fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens during exceptional circumstances specifically referred to as a "period of PUBLIC emergency" or a "State of PUBLIC emergency". "State of emergency" has been bastardised from the Constitution to misdirect our thoughts.

If we carefully examine the meaning of the words with the spirit and intent of the provisions, it's clear that this Constitutional "emergency" must be one being experienced by the public, not the State. Fundamentally, a constitution is a supreme law that governs the State, limits its powers, and protects the citizens AGAINST the State. It's not for the State's convenience. Politicians are amateur psychologists who, by repeating "state of emergency", transmit a sly innuendo to a deliberately undereducated population that this emergency thing is to cure a "State" deficiency (e.g. an inability to properly police a high "crime" rate which may prove embarrassing at the next election), rather than the inconvenient truth.

So, the hype of a high murder rate is available to justify the use of extreme emergency powers to try to improve our policing and we are deliberately misguided by 'ex-perches' into confusing the two (high murder rate and poor policing). But, not even the hyped-up ex post facto justification (high crime rate) was ever sincere. This state of emergency was NOT promulgated to deal with any high crime rate (more anon) but only used in this regard by spin doctors looking at rear-view mirrors.

The Constitution lists three instances as being "a period of public emergency":

1. Jamaica is engaged in any war. Was Jamaica engaged in any war when the state of emergency was initially declared? Of course not.

Despite popular, contrary contention, the security farces are not "Jamaica" and neither killing of policemen nor attacks on police stations (although reprehensible) amount to "war". Jamaica can't be "engaged in ... war", properly so called, against its own citizens.

2. A Resolution has been passed by both Houses of Parliament to the effect that the democratic institutions in Jamaica are threatened by subversion (a.k.a. treason). Can we please dismiss this without discussion? I thought so.

3. The governor general (GG) has declared that a state of public emergency exists. The Constitution is very restrictive on when and how the GG can issue such a proclamation. He MUST be able to identify one of two specific situations, both based on the fundamental truth that they are being experienced by the public, NOT the Government.

They are:

(i) A public emergency (that irritatingly inconvenient phrase again) has arisen as a result of the imminence of a state of war between Jamaica and a foreign state (as opposed to the involvement in war already provided for); or due to hurricane, earthquake, flood, fire, epidemic or other calamity;

Even the most simpering, sycophantic commentators bursting with anxiety to fit their populist views within the constitutional framework must agree that no such "calamity" existed. Just in case of AWARDS, let's recognise a "calamity" as a mishap, misfortune, tragedy, disaster, catastrophe or the like - never "crime". Calamities are unexpected. Crime is intentional.

(ii) Action has been taken or is threatened by a body of persons of such a nature AND ON SO EXTENSIVE A SCALE as to be likely to endanger the public safety or to deprive the community or any substantial portion of the community of supplies or services essential to life.

Here's where three-card tricks have been so cruelly played. The Government had a problem. It was forced, by public outcry, to issue a warrant for Dudus' arrest on an extradition request. In reaction, the Tivoli Gardens community rebelled in support of Dudus. A properly executed arrest attempt was the public's request, not a threat to the public. The Tivoli community invited confrontation with the police. The security farces foolishly and clumsily complied.

Media hype

At the same time, persons either connected or using the situation as cover, murdered two policemen and burnt the Hannah Town police station. These attacks were directed specifically at the police either on behalf of Tivoli or using their bravado as disguise. Neither the general public nor the Tivoli community, apparently feeling safe behind efficiently erected barricades and a perceived cloak of JLP support, were threatened certainly not on any unusually EXTENSIVE SCALE. Regrettably, but factually, policemen have been murdered before and police stations attacked by gunmen; but the stand-off did not deprive any community of any essential service. Media hype (fuelled by JLP desperation to wriggle out from the Dudus-Manatt imbroglios) can't turn a policing quandary into a "period of PUBLIC emergency".

So, where was the "period of PUBLIC emergency"? Between January and April, 2008, we had 121 murders per month; 123 in 2009 and 133 in 2010. Why was there no state of emergency in 2008/2009?

Instead, the Government/'security farces' manipulated the population's natural fear, fuelled by media hype, to unlawfully impose states of emergency, to endanger the lives of all residents of Tivoli on so extensive a scale as never seen before, and to deprive that community of supplies and services essential to life. The result was the actual loss of at least 73 real lives. Consequently, the initial dilemma of the arrest warrant wasn't solved and a massive spin-doctor operation became necessary to explain the unimaginable slaughter carried out in the name of a "state of emergency".

Mythical tales

Now, who will promulgate that a period of public emergency was created in Tivoli on May 23, and who will detain those members of the security farces who created it, and those civilians who ordered it? Will they be banned from entering Tivoli? Or will our intelligence be perpetually insulted with mythical tales of crime-reduction tools?

'Security farces' can always ask for extensions of illusory "emergencies": it's up to Parliament to say yea or nay. On Tuesday, July 20, the Government behaved brainlessly (or maybe not - did they WANT it?) in voting "yea" and the Opposition spinelessly by "abstaining".

It's entirely up to you how much baloney, wrapped in fear and delivered by tricksters, you're willing to swallow.

Peace and love.

Gordon Robinson is an attorney-at-law. Feedback may be sent to columns@gleanerjm.com