Ian Boyne One newspaper headline bellowed the word 'Tough' to describe the set of crime-fighting measures which the prime minister announced last Tuesday, but some see them as soft and merely a capitulation to what one columnist termed "the human-rights ecartel".
But the prime minister would have learnt by now that the human-rights activists really cannot be appeased, as they are still talking tough, though they are relieved that the Government did not move to extend the detention-without-charge period to 28 or more days. They are using the 'V' sign for victory - a symbol not unfamiliar to the prime minister's party.
very clear
The Gleaner editorial on Thursday was very clar: 'More robust response to crime needed', it said in its editorial headline. In a sharply worded piece, the editorial writer said Mr Golding should be aware by now that "it is easy to carp and complain when you are not accountable", a thinly veiled reference to the human-rights lobby. The editorial makes a reasoned case for a longer detention period than the 72 hours the prime minister has announced. Jamaica's circumstances demand a particular kind of response, The Gleaner editorial opines, citing statistics to bolster its case.
Says the editorial: "The fact is that more often than not the police have a good handle on who these gang leaders and the proponents of violence are, but lack the hard evidence that may be applicable in a court of law." In the view of The Gleaner, "The idea of the significant longer period of detention is to allow the police more time to build their case against a suspect, and to allow potential witnesses time and space to decide whether to give evidence. This is logical and sensible and is not achievable in 72 hours."
Mark Wignall, who understands the Jamaican streets and 'runnings' more than any other commentator and journalist, is hopping mad. In his column titled 'Not enough, prime minister' in Thursday's Observer, Wignall says, "To me it seems that Golding has pandered to the human-rights cartel (who have a most important role to play in a well-ordered society) who wants the Government to read Beatitudes to every multiple murderer, every killer who is on bail for the tenth time."
The prime minister is in an unenviable position. Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. He can't win either way. If he had come with tougher measures, which many have been calling for, he would have alienated the powerful and highly vocal human-rights lobby, to which he has been a darling over the years. And yet, if he had given them all they wanted he would have been severely criticised in some quarters as being too soft and coming with measures which amount to absolutely nothing.
no room to wiggle through
But the prime minister said an important thing at his post-Cabinet press conference explaining his measures. He pointed out that in crime fighting, "We must not underestimate the value of political consensus and a bipartisan approach. So the criminals out there must understand that there is no room between the Government and the Opposition for them to wiggle through."
Golding is at heart a consensus-seeking leader. In this way he is like P.J. Patterson, and in our kind of tribalised and lethal political environment, a leader with this kind of temperament is very important.
Soldiers on patrol in the Corporate Area. Many people expected the PM to announce greater use of joint police/military patrols in problem areas.- file
Now, some would say that is the positive spin I am putting on it. Their take is the opposite: Golding is really gutless; someone who can't take tough decisions; a vacillator, someone who panders to the various interest groups and who takes the political temperature to determine what position to take.
There are those who say this has always been Golding's fatal weakness. Though I am one of those who feel that the 72 hours detention measure is far from adequate to tackle the magnitude of the problem we face, I admire the prime minister's spirit and approach to leadership which resulted in this compromise.
There is a time for tough, uncompromising leadership and decision making. There is a time to stand alone and to have the courage to be unpopular and to risk fallout with your friends. But one has to calculate the costs. These matters are judgment calls, and I am convinced that the prime minister considered the best interests of the country and paid careful attention to all nuances of the public debate in coming to his decision. We happen to disagree on this one, his concern for the interests and security of the Jamaican people and his keenness in assessing the issues is no less than mine.
unite against crime
The fact is that a polarising leader is not one whom we need at this time. We have to be united to fight the criminals. Clearly, if these measures prove inadequate, the Government would have to take a further look at the issues with a view to re-examining some proposals it might have rejected this time.
The problem with our human-rights lobby is that it is absolutist and fundamentalist. Its adherents are generally characterised by inflexibility and a rigidity that is intellectually stultifying and is not hospitable to robust discourse. They don't see nuances or shades of grey. Everything is black and white to them. Their mentality is essentially fundamentalist. And that constitutes a conversation-stopper.
Hence, as much as the prime minister has conceded to them, much to the consternation of others, they are still not satisfied and are still raising hell over the measures. Context means nothing to them. It's law of the Medes and the Persians for them. They are fundamentalists.
But they are powerful and have very influential friends in the media. They are the rock stars of the talk-show circuit in Jamaica. But their views must not go unchallenged.
excellent proposals
The prime minister made some excellent proposals with regard to amending the Bail Act, sentencing provisions, qualified majority verdict on non-capital murder convictions, as well as new provisions for witness testimony and the use of DNA. The proposals announced are excellent. I am happy that he did not go with the proposal to penalise ordinary motorists who forget their documents at home. This would have angered ordinary citizens whose support we need against the terrorists. Wise omission, prime minister.
I think it was important for the prime minister to have the Opposition on board at this stage and not to alienate the human-rights lobby. (I am not a politician, so I can afford to offend them. He has to think twice about doing so). Politics is the art of the possible.
Golding's consensual style of leadership, his keen attention to feedback and his deep respect for give-and-take are among his outstanding qualities, in my view. No one can reasonably question his own unshakeable commitment to civil liberties. He is genuinely sympathetic to the human-rights lobby, and he himself has spoken out forcefully against the kinds of abuses of human rights which the police inflict on working-class people.
But he himself was forced to say, much to the chagrin of his friends in the human-rights lobby, that, "I listen to some of my friends in the human-rights organisations and I get a sense that what we really ought to do is to go in with some powder puffs, and we really ought to sit down and engage these people to persuade them that they must stop killing off people." The caricature is not way off mark, and some of them do sound that naive in their proposals and objections to certain hard measures and hard policing.
responsibility to nation
Which leads us back to that Gleaner editorial about Mr Golding's responsibility to this nation as a whole in this time of crisis.
And I must point out to my media colleagues that lawyers have their own special interests to protect and defend, and their utterances must not be given the kind of Ahithophel-like status which we accord them. Because of our own naivety in the Jamaican media over issues of objectivity, we fail to recognise that society is made up of contending classes and interest groups which have their particular axe to grind, and that no one occupies any Archimedean point. It is where people sit which determines where they stand.
The lawyers have their interests to protect and to defend. Their interests don't always coincide with the interests of the society as a whole, nor with the media, which are guardians of the people's interests. Their views must be respected in a liberal democratic society, but given no special, privileged or disinterested status.
There is arrogance and hubris associated with some in the legal profession. But when you cut through their obfuscation and circumlocution, which is their stock-in-trade, one sometimes finds pure vacuousness.
Let the lawyers continue to defend their clientele. That's what they are paid to do, and they have been putting up a great defence in the media. We as a society have to defend ourselves against some of those who pay them well. We are paid as journalists to deconstruct their clever and no-so-clever arguments, to unpack them and demythologise them. Let's not cower in that task.
Ian Boyne is a veteran journalist who may be reached at ianboyne1@yahoo.com. Feedback may also be sent to columns@gleanerjm.com.
