Guns fight in the Upper House

Delivering her maiden speech in the Upper House last Tuesday, the hijabed Ahmed started off by saying some words in Arabic. “This means that whatever is in the heavens and the earth will declare the praises of God,” she explained. She then declared that she was grateful to have a Constitution that recognised the supremacy of God “and I’m also grateful that in this honourable House, the grace of God is invoked at the commencement of every sitting.” Given this, Ahmed admitted that she was a little confused why “in certain places we claim to be a secular state.”

This was her first barb against the PNM administration, although since the Prime Minister had made his statement in the context of the removal of the Trinity Cross as a symbol that discriminated against non-Christians, Ahmed’s criticism seemed somewhat contradictory. And, after establishing her identity as a religious believer, she then thanked the Independent Senators for their warm welcome and the women on the PNM side. “And I want to be grateful too for the vacant, almost morbid stares of the men,” she added. Ahmed was said she felt “privileged” to be sitting on the UNC side when “the very democracy of the country is being threatened.”

Normally, such a statement would have been normal Opposition rhetoric: but at the start of the session Senate president Linda Baboolal had turned down a motion by UNC Senator Wade Mark to move the adjournment of the House on a definite matter of urgent public importance. That in itself is normal — what was not normal was that Baboolal did not even allow Mark to read out his motion to be turned down — and that motion had to do with the Chief Justice impasse.

Ahmed, after her self-introduction, then started talking about the Bill, which had been laid by Minister in the Ministry of Finance Finance Minister Conrad Enill. Except that Ahmed in the midst of making her main point — that the Bill would allow a “roll in roll out” trade in guns - Ahmed kept insisting that she was not a terrorist. Since 9/11, she said, people who looked like her had been subject to “malicious house and body searches” and “illegal detentions” and so on.

In Ahmed’s world, it seemed, this had been the main consequence of the 9/11 attacks. It was “cultural imperialism”, she said, which had “broad-brushed the majority of Muslims” as terrorists. And yet, in the midst of warning that the Bill might allow “neo-terrorists” to acquire guns more easily and insisting that she was no terrorist, Ahmed managed to avoid actually condemning the acts of Islamic terrorists. But perhaps this was not surprising given the ideological biases: she even criticised the blimps on the basis that one of them had what looked like a mark from Israel, a country that was guilty of “unwarranted aggression against Arab states.”

Independent Senator spoke after Ahmed, and for only half the time. She argued that the Government should have pointed out if that the clause the amendment sought to delete, which only allowed Customs officers to be armed while at sea, had caused any difficulty and if that was the reason for bringing the legislation. “It would probably forestall an argument that there is some nefarious motive behind the bringing of this legislation, which seems to me fairly simple,” she said, succinctly dismissing Ahmed’s rambling and vague arguments.

After her, Dr Shastri Moonan, forever stamped “The Sleeping Senator,” made his maiden contribution. He spoke for six minutes, but made a pertinent point about the legal use of the term “territorial waters,” noting that this might become an issue in cases brought by customs officers. It was a pity that, for the entire time he spoke, he held on continuously to his trusty magnifying glass. Dr Tim Gopeesingh spoke after, wanting to know why customs officers were being given the same powers as the police.

“It poses a dangerous situation in Trinidad and Tobago,” he asserted, arguing that the amendment contravened the Constitution. Mark continued with the alarmist rhetoric, saying that while the Bill “at first blush looked innocuous, but upon further analysis, we would like to express our concern.” Mark did the latter but not the former in his 15 minutes.

He said the Opposition was trying to “unravel the mystery of this legislation,” expressed surprise that the National Security Minister hadn’t made a contribution, and said that people’s rights were being trampled on. But, when he referred to the CJ matter, Baboolal immediately told him to get back on track. No one spoke for very long that afternoon, no doubt because it was the final session before the August break.

Enill spoke last, making sure to apologise to Ahmed on behalf of his colleagues for looking morbid and assuring her that the PNM men wished her the best.