Three factors in fighting crime

THE EDITOR: Before I get into other issues, I must commend Newsday’s editorial of Sunday June 13, 2004 under the caption “No Superior Rights” for its comments on the judgment delivered by the Privy Council (PC) in the matter arising from Justice Lionel Jones’ banning of the Press from publishing certain preliminary developments in the Dole Chadee murder trial. Newsday had earlier published the entire judgment delivered by the PC, which I must confess left me a bit confused, more so, when I read the opinion of other newspapers on the judgment. Fortunately, I was relieved from my state of confusion when I read Newsday’s editorial that expressed another view showing, as a Trini would say, “the other side of the coin” that was straightforward, objective, unambiguous and edifying. This is what the country needs — clear and present honesty.

In my view, the most telling point in the editorial was this: “while we are as vigilant and fearless as any Press organisation in defending the freedoms we enjoy, we do not believe that ours is a ‘superior’ right which entitles us to infringe upon or override the rights given to others under the constitution, including the right of all citizens to a free and fair trial.” The editorial ended its innings of truth with the following: “Dole Chadee was entitled to a fair trial, a right as inalienable as ours to press freedom. In our view, Justice Jones must be commended for seeking to preserve it.”

Next to the editorial, Suzanne Mills in her column put some icing on the cake under the heading “Who Vex Hush!” in which she brought to the fore, the deep seated tit for tat politics of the PNM and UNC that are destroying this country and their practice of saying one thing when in government and quite the opposite when in opposition. On this issue, both parties opened my mind to the reality that if the Government cannot protect and preserve the right of a member of Parliament to fully speak on behalf of his party and the people he represents, then where does the ordinary citizens stand in the democratic process.

I am changing my gears to get into the Police Reform Bills debate. The noise from the debate between the Opposition and the Government has awakened our civil society that have been asleep for the past two or more years, leaving everything in the hands of Mr Manning and powerless Mr Panday without recognising the vital role and sober input we the citizens can contribute to national issues. Many are still asleep and cannot deal directly with the issue in an objective manner because they had given up their right to political education in exchange for a party T-shirt. If we are to agree with Minister Hinds that the Police Service Commission is a 42-year-old bureaucratic and inefficient piece of machinery and must go, shouldn’t our — ambiguous 18-18 election deadlock — outdated constitution receive equal and urgent treatment as well. We must not allow the hysteria that we ourselves have created to overcome our better judgment when it is most needed. If the Government see the Police Service Commission as standing in the way of its vision 2020, what is there to prevent it from organising a Government-funded campaign to remove the “two thirds majority” provision in our constitution under the pretext of improving Government’s performance?

Looking at the state of the world today, where should we put our trust, is it in human nature or guaranteed constitutional checks and balances? Are we making a civil judgment on crime fighting or political manoeuvring? These are questions we must ask ourselves. It is my view that the argument projected that Mr Panday has in the past supported the police bills and how he does not should be taken out of the debate, because the practice of saying one thing in government and quite the opposite when in opposition is an established norm with both political parties. Neither one is without that political sin, a policy on which they both thrive. Resurrecting the history of the police bills may be very useful but the real issue for the people is whether or not the constitution reform bills will maintain the checks and balances to preserve the independence of the Police Service and its officers from abuse of power. And, on the other hand, whether or not comprehensive constitutional reform will better serve the interest of police reform and the country as a whole. That is what is on the agenda, not tribalism.

I hold the view that we will never be as effective as we would like in the fight against crime unless all of us realise that the base from which we can carry the fight rests on three important factors: (1) genuine national unity (2) a frontal attack on cultural imperialism that has invaded our country and (3) a people friendly police service — at present, the body language and attitude of police officers turn people off, disconnecting the information link between them (the police) and the people which is so vital in the fight against crime.

WYCLIFFE MORRIS
Former Director of Education
NUGFW