Will the COP Survive itself? (Mayday, Mayday...)

A friend of mine who tends to be a bit flamboyantly melodramatic if not sycophantic in his party's support was so overjoyed at the announcements made by the leadership of the Congress of the People after Sunday's National Council members meeting that he allowed his exuberance free run and referred to the party gleamingly as now being 'a ship back on the high seas.'

Funny thing is, from the moment Joseph Toney made his ill advised pronouncement on the morning of the genesis of all this, that the Mayor of San Fernando and political grasshopper extraordinaire Marlene Coudray had not only joined the UNC but was contesting a significant post in that Party's internal election (and one, by all accounts, sanctioned and endorsed by that party's leadership) I too started to think of the COP in terms of a ship. And from the tone of the UNC in response to Toney's statement I began ringing alarm bells to warn that this issue, like the proverbial iceberg it had the tendency to become, was showing only a small part of its potential for massive, unrecoverable destruction.

And, if one is to believe the unscripted nonsense that has taken place since that announcement, like the ill fated Titanic this analogy brings to mind, the leadership of the party all appeared unaware of the impending disaster and seemed to be steering towards it. Now one must be abundantly cautious that one does not appear inconsistent when one speaks politically, especially if one is in political leadership. For all their sound and fury over an issue that no one else outside the cloistered inner circle of umbrage are concerned about in the slightest, the leadership of the Congress of the People are relying on and quoting principles that they themselves freely abandoned without hesitation since elevation post May 24th 2010. To the public and the electorate there were many, many more pressing and urgent issuers of national importance to which this much significance should have been  attached, and abandoning the nation on the pension issue, the Reshmi issue, the SOE and assassination plot issue, and then making the loss of a minor political position one of urgent national importance is as hypocritical and disingenuous as one could possible be.

And, if anything, this (last) weekend's national council meeting's announcements made the whole sordid mess even worse if such a thing were possible to contemplate mere days ago, because now the political leader appears to be dragging real national issues into the fray and is attempting to publicly disagree with a Prime Minister who appears uninterested in any of it, making one wonder, how long before Prakash & Co. are told 'if yuh doh like it leave?'

Seriously? Over a Mayorship? Somebody has to be spiking obeah tonic in the water being served up at COP headquarters, because nothing that I can fathom comes close to explaining the mass insanity that could have led them this close to tearing their own party apart over something that should have been handled in a strongly worded letter between leaders. Instead we find ourselves looking on at an unmanageable, practically irrecoverable situation with finite options put in place by people who mere weeks ago were trumpeting that the partnership was stronger than ever. At that time I (and others) were also warning  the leadership that they were blurring the lines of the coalition by speaking on the UNC's behalf on the platform erected in the PM's defense during the 'vote of no confidence' campaign, but it seems some people need to feel to learn. Funny thing about history though, it almost tries to write itself. We all know that coalitions are notoriously unstable devices as more than anything else they require a harnessing of egos to survive, but surely the people making the decisions in this comedy of errors must realize by now that they have little or no public support in this matter. If we are to end as we began (with the same analogy), then launch the lifeboats, ring the alarm bells and get the women and children off first. Yes I will admit there is a microscopic, minuscule chance that they will succeed in this enterprise as stranger things have happened politically, but if I were to wager as to the outcome of this latest round of eye gouging and hair pulling, the writing is (tragically) already on the wall.

Moving Forward: Chapter 1 (Dog, Environment, Prisons).

Legislation that needs to be lobbied for in TnT.Note: This is not intended to be ‘draft legislation’ but rather points that should be addressed.My outlined suggestions as they stand, a(n);

 1. Dog Regulation Act: 

(i)To require dog owners to have a licence to own and to breed dogs (for the purpose of sale especially). Renewal on a yearly basis.

(ii) Dog owners being made accountable for the actions of their dogs i.e. criminal liability if they maul someone or destroy property or worse due to negligence of the owner. This includes not following leash/mussel laws and having proper fencing in the yard the dog is being kept. 

(iii) Protection of the dogs themselves as a standard of living will be required for them and inspected regularly (on renewal of the licence especially) to ensure that the space, food, and general conditions are acceptable and consistent with keeping a healthy dog.

(iv) Provisions for the keeping and handling of a dog being clarified, events occurring when specifications are meet would not carry criminal liability. (End of the debate on what happens by law when a bandit jumps in your yard).

2. Environmental Protection Act:(i) Restriction of building of large properties on what is classified as "grade 1" (the most fertile) soil. People are buying land and building (some of the purposely) on soil that is valuable agricultural ground.

(ii) Strict monitoring of fishing areas and possibly an end to the completely "open season" on fishing. Some bays have been completely fished out already and the problem is only getting worse as over fishing needs to be curtailed. 

(iii) Stricter penalties for those found hunting outside of hunting seasons.

(iv) Wildlife conservation centers/zoos. 

3. Prison Reform Act:(i) Self-sustaining prison program. Have the prisoners trained and made responsible for the daily running of the prisons. This will seek to teach prisoners to be more disciplined, as well as lowering the cost of running prisons. 

(ii) Chain gangs being established for petty offenders. To reduce the burden of the state on programs such as CEPEP by having the prisoners who are not violent offenders organized into chain gangs under guard who can fulfill the duties such as cleaning the roads.

(iii) A prison education program. Offering education from primary to tertiary level (including trade skills), with the chance of a reduced sentence based on behaviour and educational qualifications earned. (credit to Phillip Alexander for the last point of prison reform. Having a discussion with him about the issue he was able to convince me of the merits of and importance of this).

Paul-Daniel Nahous

Understanding the Problem... (Fixing We)

As the electorate gets more and more vote savvy we are seeing more negotiations in exchange for support taking place, leading us to a situation where political parties sell their soul to competing interests for power and end up unable to please anyone completely, fueling protests and bringing real development to a halt. Henry Ford, the man who is almost single handedly responsible for making the automobile the ubiquitous mode of transportation it is today is noted to have said: - “If I had asked the people what they needed they would have told me a faster horse.” By its very nature real leadership does not necessarily take people where they want to go but where they need to be. It is this that the electorate should be most enamored with, the demonstrated vision to see beyond the horizon and a willingness to stand against the tide in pursuit of it. Instead, and like most things else in this teacup sized republic, corruption and access replaces common sense and social responsibility to the frustration of any real development. Our laws are archaic but cannot be changed due to these competing interests. Our social breakdown is a function of our inability to confront and resolve issues that have been pressing against each other even before independence but, instead of working towards resolution, successive governments through pandering and promising have made the situation worse.

Now our one size fits all education system fits very few, and besides the ones who go on to success in spite of that failing system, the rest are left to live lives of quiet desperation. Our health care system provides very little health and even less care, and our social development remains mired in the hand out mode of exchange of state patrimony for party support.

Watching the Mayor of Port of Spain Louis Lee Sing (who appears to have long moved away from  pandering to the masses) engaged in a continuous struggle to rightsize a capsized city frustrated and torn apart by special interests all focused on their own selfish agenda is an exercise in all the right moves in a place only interested in what's in it for me. The vendors' fight for their right to obstruct the sidewalks and pedestrians in order to ply their trade is overshadowed only by the merchant association's unbelievable insisting that no new traffic regulations can be enforced if it comes at the expense of their present sales. This is what special interest politics looks like up close. The residents of Woodbrook and environs are being squeezed out by a 'monetizing' of the community and their turn to his office for help is being frustrated by central government for cheap politics. Opportunistic bar owners and illegal food vendors are taking advantage of this confusion between local and central government and making the matter overwhelmingly worse. The Attorney General's decision to have the Dangerous Dog Law (finally) proclaimed is being met by an uproar from the breeders who make a killing (no pun intended) on the specified breed's notorious reputation, and they seem to be willing to throw anyone and everyone under the bus to get their way. I hope for the nation's sake that he (the AG) has the line and length for this battle as it could well be a high point of his Ministerial career. The Commissioner of Police has made great strides in changing the way policing appears and is carried out in T&T but is himself embattled and under siege from without and within in a place notoriously resistant to change. Were it not for his equally foreign Deputy Commissioner who appears to at least be willing to stand up for himself, he may well have packed up and left us to our own devices a long time ago.

There are other examples I know, but the point is made as diversely as I can. The fact remains that we are in a mess of our own making and we need to grow up and get beyond our selfish, destructive ways if things are ever going to improve. Throwing our support behind people who are willing to enable our bad ways should be a clue as to how off course we are, but introspection seems not to be the forte of a people heading further and further into the realm of odour over substance.

Wrapping Up... (Farewell to COP)

Taking the issue of where the Congress of the People goes from here now that the luster of the Partnership has been indelibly tarnished and the myth of new politics exposed as nothing more than a campaign slogan, the question has to be asked on behalf of the party and its members, what now? Where does or should the Party go from here if anywhere at all? A quick dose of reality would tell even the most politically uninformed (and those purposely and completely immersed in denial) that at the very least three of the six seats now occupied by the COP are as a direct result of the contempt Patrick Manning had for Penelope Beckles and the spite that he demonstrated for her in the run up to the May 2010 elections. By rejecting her as a candidate not once but twice he (stupidly) invoked the ire of the electorate in those constituencies who vowed to punish him and make him pay for his arrogance. That they succeeded changed the balance of power in the House of Representatives and both Rodger Samuel and Lincoln Douglas (and quite possibly Anil Roberts) have him (Manning) to thank for their current fortunes. Rewrite history however you choose, the fact also remains that Penny is wildly popular in the eastern constituencies, and now that she is 'back' and sure to be screened for one of those seats in the next election again changes that landscape significantly. I would be surprised if any of these three have even the slightest hope of keeping their deposits next time around, and am willing to go on record as saying now that, unless some earth-shaking, unforeseen miracle that changes the political landscape were to occur sometime between now and then, the COP is already dead in those waters. San Fernando West is being decided as we speak, and the line drawn in the sand between Carolyn Seepersad-Bachan and Marlene Coudray and all of the 'waterfront scuffles' currently taking place will be remembered as the first shots fired in anger when the pretense of a partnership was no longer required. Add to that the fact that the COP's leader himself occupies a 'borrowed' seat (courtesy of, and one surely to be reclaimed by the now rampant UNC in any future general elections), one wonders on what does the COP claim its political support? Does its leadership NOT make its plans and estimations on reality as it exists? I only ask these questions because I personally believe that, barring some catastrophic and calamitous collapse on the part of either the PNM or the UNC between now and the next election, the writing is already on the wall as the COP has gone and made itself irrelevant.

Having misread and squandered the little political opportunity to deepen and develop the party into a truly national party, the COP has now become an embarrassment to those who tried to defend her and a liability to those political aspirants who stayed too long. I have said over and over from the moment Fyzabad was contemplated that the problem with joining forces for the sole purpose of unseating one man (in this case Patrick Manning), is that the moment he is in fact removed your reason for existing as a partnership dies. The idea that they would (further) exist as some sort of 'moral pendulum' to keep the 'ethically-challenged' UNC in check has itself been shown to be a flawed concept dead at conception and insufficient to base governance on. We are back to a straight up toe to toe UNC v PNM match up whenever the next election is called, and COP memorabilia, flags, caps and tee shirts need to be properly folded and put away on the shelf next to the NAR, to be brought out at cocktail parties and functions as conversation pieces. The problem with that picture though, is that we DO desperately need to forge a party of the center and we MUST aspire to change the way politics is done in this country, but obviously (and as has been comprehensively demonstrated yet again), coalitions are not the way to go, especially coalitions that are built on lust for office, position and power, over ideology, policy and truly serving the people.  

Doggone It... (Fighting for our Right to be Wrong)

Some things start off idiotic and then go downhill from there. Take for instance the rally planned by the Pit-bull owners to fight the law that has been passed to safeguard the public from these dangerous animals. One look at the group's event advertising and what jumps out is the capitalized 'Do NOT bring your dogs,' which, if you know me at all and BECAUSE it seemed like such a strange and bizarre admonition for a pro-pit-bull rally, I found myself asking why? Why leave out the star of the show in all his foaming, snarling glory? Is it because they know full well that the public associates any image of that animal with death? Or are they afraid of a couple of these cuties taking a turn at each other or worse, innocent onlookers?

I asked (politely) if I could bring the survivors of pit-bull attacks and the families who lost loved ones (when these cute and cuddly monsters 'trip off and go feral') just to show the handiwork of this breed, the one responsible for more than ninety per cent of the killings by canines in this country but I was turned down. I guess there's no room for things like truth and evidence when misdirection is the flavour of the day.

Forgetting all that for a while, I got to wondering as to how protests usually go, the things you chant (Our Right to Bite is just all right?), or what would their placards read -  'You are infringing our rights to maul' or the ever popular 'dangerous animals have rights too.' Are these people collectively right in their heads?

The fact that the word 'pit-bull' made it onto the top ten words for fear alongside long time heavy hitters like 'shark,' 'snake,' 'fire' and 'rape' took some doing wouldn't you think? And the fact that that fact alone prompted the American Kennel Association to rename (yes, believe it or not) the pit-bull into the Staffordshire Terrier (now does that not sound like a harmless, frisky puppy who likes to help you make cheese?) to get around zoning laws in areas that SPECIFICALLY prohibits the breed and any derivatives of it is again a classic example of misdirection, the go to move by these would be lion tamers.

The best deflection of all is that there are no dangerous dogs, only bad owners. If this is indeed the case then what a remarkable coincidence that ALL the bad owners ended up choosing this one particular breed to mess with. Doesn't that strike you as just a tad strange?

Moving on. The trained deflectors have resorted to an immediate fear campaign to fool the public, and as we're here I would like to take this opportunity to debunk ALL for you in quick time:

1) Thousands of pit-bulls will be 'released' by people who cannot afford them under the new legislation. False. Releasing any animal is first and foremost a cruelty to animals charge, and could also attract a Public Endangerment charge among others for releasing a dangerous animal. Should the worst occur the Ministry of Agriculture (NOT the TSPCA) has the legal responsibility to deal with this and can, so don't be fooled by visions of packs of pit-bulls roaming the streets.

2) Pit-bull owners will switch to another 'dangerous' breed. False. Firstly, while there are other big and ferocious dogs, NONE are as predisposed or purposely bred for these traits as a pit-bull. Secondly, the psyche profile of a pit-bull owner is different to the psyche profile of a dog or a pet owner. These people do not get pit bulls because they want a dog, they get pit bulls because they want PIT BULLS and all the machismo that comes with it. If owning these animals as a fad falls out of favor these people will get their testosterone rush elsewhere.

3) Bandits will overrun the country. Steups. (Pronounced stee-you-oops for the non Trinis reading this)

I for one am very impressed with the testicular fortitude demonstrated by the Attorney General in bringing this legislation and making it law. I always say I will support anyone who is doing right by the people of this country, and this legislation, short of an outright ban on these rediculously ferocious animals is the absolute right thing to do.

Every single pit-bulll owner who was in turn mauled to death by his own dogs must have felt like a right fool and complete moronic idiot at the end when (surprise, surprise) all the BS they were spewing about the cuddliness of the breed came home to haunt them in spades. Everything else they come up with in defense of this trade is pure hogwash and should be ignored. I implore you to keep this one thought in your mind: While a greyhound is bred for speed and a pompek or a chihuahua for size, a pit-bull is SPECIFICALLY bred to fight other ferocious and aggressive animals to the death, and to hold on to whatever it has sunk its teeth into until it stops breathing. Mister Attorney General, on behalf of all those who survived senseless, unprovoked and horrendous attacks (albeit scarred for life) and those who (sadly) did not I say thank you, but more importantly, on behalf of the generations who will grow up in a country of fewer and fewer of these obscenely ferocious animals where the risk of an unexpected, murderous attack will become less and less I say thank you Mister Attorney General, thank you very, very much indeed.

A Real Country... (Understanding the Problem)

Lawyer, writer, historian, and Professor of Universal History, Greek and Roman Antiquities, Alexander Fraser Tyler wrote: - “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the people discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits  with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by dictatorship. From bondage to spiritual faith; spiritual faith to great courage;  courage to abundance; abundance to complacency;  complacency to apathy;  apathy to dependence; and from dependence back into bondage again."



Watching the behavior of our politicians on the news over the last few days one might be tempted to believe that Trinidad & Tobago was a real country, but it isn't.  How could it be a real country when instead of fighting over the twelve people murdered over the Easter weekend, the great grandmother murdered for her pension on her wedding anniversary or the little child almost torn in two in anger, our elected officials are locked in a struggle to the death for political turf?  Surely in a real country the government (especially if brought into office on the promise of fixing runaway crime) would have collapsed on the failure of this Easter weekend. Seeming to be accelerating on the curve, we appear well on our way to bondage again, because nothing that is happening politically, no appointments, no plans, no policies appear national in scope or people centered and one can only assume that political investment for immediate reward continues unabated through all parties regardless of their espoused ideology.

In a real country the laws of the land would encourage family life instead of conspiring against it, and  fathers would stay home at night and raise their children (especially their sons) to keep them from becoming driven to kill. In a real country the State would never allow business to invade and destroy working communities in the name of profit, communities whose structure and history worked to provide the village it took to raise the nation's children, instead of allowing them to become casino strips and seedy bars complete with prostitutes on every corner. That we do not ever seem to know what we have until we lose it assures me that this is not a real country, because a real country would be run by grown ups with vision and an understanding that keeps these things in check.  In a real country our people would be our most valuable resource; our homes and neighborhoods would be safe havens and our schools and learning institutions would be crucibles of development, constantly churning out men  and women of a continuously higher caliber. In a real country our hospitals and medical services would respect our citizens and treat them with honor and dignity and care for them to the highest possible standards, not ill treat and dehumanize them because we couldn't be bothered to do it any other way.

But this is not a real country. We are a greedy, lawless, self absorbed people who INSIST on our right to do as we damn well please. We might bitch and moan because it's something to do, but never will we see ourselves as the solution to the problem if only we were brave enough to stand against the tide. This make believe country votes people into office only if they promise to do something for us in return, something real, tangible and financially viable. If this were a real country the current government would be ashamed for coming across just as corrupt, just as incompetent, just as arrogant and in some cases worse than the ones that we just fired, and if this were really a real country the ones we just fired would be themselves too shame to open their mouths to comment on issues they failed to address while they had the chance.

For this to ever become a real country the people would have to grow up and take responsibility for themselves, their children and their communities; we would vote with conscience and work with discipline, but as we are not interested in anything like that, don't expect this to become a real country anytime soon.

Where Prakash Went Wrong...

Basdeo Panday was not the first to say it, but he is the one who get's the credit for it here in T&T, that politics has a morality of its own. The system that we have inherited leaves little room for hard and fast positions and much of what is accomplished by governments happens through compromise at every level. For the first time though, we find ourselves minus the 'maximum leader' figure presiding over the party they lead with absolute authority and in its stead we have a coalition of interests and parties that have formed themselves into different group, cliques and tribes existing in harmony for one purpose and one purpose only, and that is the attaining and holding on to power at all costs. As political leader of the COP Prakash Ramadhar knows this as he has had to fight one of the hardest fights of his life to attain the position he now holds. The Prime Minister herself is the leader of a coalition made up of some diverse interests and competing personalities in constant conflict, and one only has to look at Suruj Rambachan, Jack Warner and Roodal Moonilal (much less wild cards like Herbert Volney and Chandresh Sharma) to understand that her party MUST require constant management if not supervision on a daily basis if it is to survive itself. We've been down the roads as to the how and the why of all of this ad nauseum for the past two years, but it is into this that Prakash tried to throw his spanner over what he and others believes to be the unethical behavior of a former member of the COP. Purportedly appointed to the position as part of their share of the spoils, whether this is indeed so or not is no longer the issue but whether it was worth threatening the stability of the government over such a minor internal issue is.

If (and I am being very loose with this assumption) it is true as they say that while there is no written record of any of this but that it was verbally agreed to that the COP would get two Mayors then fine, in the spirit of the same compromise and agreement, why not approach it from within the Partnership? Was there no one around to advise/warn Prakash that giving the Prime Minister an ultimatum was bound to fail when one considers the 'precarious' nature of her own position? And if he (and I assume that he is speaking for his advisors as well) truly believes that this was a political issue, why not handle it politically? There were so many other ways for this to be played, why go the route of a confrontation? And most importantly, if there are no other ways to communicate within the coalition other than by confrontation, why are they even contemplating remaining in it?

I am not in a position to know for sure but I believe that the frustration of being a junior partner in a partnership government and seeing the fruits of what they believed to be their labor being carted off by others was difficult to come to terms with, and then watching those same fruits being used to woo their members away became too much to bear and they snapped at the top. And if that is the case they have only themselves to blame because they were warned since the construct was announced that the UNC was an unethical beast by nature, trained to be the counterbalance to the PNM, and that parties like those play by an entirely different set of rules. They were warned CONSTANTLY to get their political house in order. Prakash had every opportunity to use the current gains to begin the work of building the COP into a truly national party, but it seems he (like Dookeran before him) mistook a political opportunity for victory, and instead of working to build the COP in the forty one constituencies in time for the next elections, they instead turned their attention to presiding over functions, focusing on side issues and to celebrating or mourning on behalf of the people of T&T. They were warned that the electorate was starting to view the COP as a'fight a cause' organization and not a true political party, but some people just cannot be guided beyond what they already believe. What it is the old people say about those who do not hear?

The Anil Conundrum....

Like him or hate him, Anil Roberts appears to be becoming a modern day version of the people's politician, seemingly willing to challenge anything that stirs his ire regardless of who they are or what position they may hold, and while it might negate any notion that he could ever be considered a 'real' team player, what it does do is demonstrate the type of leader he would be if given the chance, much to the delight of those on the ground to whom bacchanal is an essential part of the politics. Reminiscent of other famous political blowhards from history such as Winston Churchill (who only found favor when the nation's chips were down), Anil's date with destiny may yet be at a time somewhere in the future where all of this 'out of time' bluster may be the right thing for the situation. Again, regardless of your feeling on the man and his market-place, rum-shop style, one would be hard pressed to envision him needing four meetings with any Prime Minister to make his point when one would be more than enough to get the point across, especially if the issue at hand was an ultimatum. Saying it in the style that has become popular of late, one does not simply 'give' the Prime Minister a public 'or else' ultimatum and fail to back it up. To do so is to risk every ounce of your political capital and, if you have Prime Ministerial ambitions yourself, as silly as bringing a plastic knife to a political gunfight. The Prime Minister for her part seems to be measuring the line and length of the men in this partnership government she leads, testing to see whose lines may be drawn in sand and whose in concrete. As she has not yet had to give up any ground to date regardless of the scenario, in most instances up to now she seems to have proven herself to be more man the lot of them.

Again to bring this back on point, one would be hard pressed to envision Anil making such a stupid move, and while he may yet be ejected from the Congress of the People for daring to step on what are appearing to be little egos at the top, the long vision seems to portend that even if he loses this battle he may yet win the war. Members who are tired of the bait and switch politics that has been practiced at their expense since May 24th 2010 may find that their fortunes would bring better results if invested with people who possess the ability to stand by what they say. Fumbling into a stand off with the Prime Minister on moral and ethical grounds after letting all manner of abuses slip by unchallenged fooled no one, and while the media may be giving some face-time to those engaged in these marathon talks to nowhere, the nation is already clear as to the lose/lose position the current leadership of the COP has carved for itself. I would like to suggest to all those who are making suggestions as to where Anil's political future might lie that they turn their attention to their own business instead and contemplate where the future of the COP lies should Prakash and Co. follow through. Breaking up with the UNC will open them up to attacks on a level and with a fury and finality that they may never have contemplated as their former allies turned enemy seek to destroy any future competition for their stomping ground. The UNC is not a little party by any stretch of the imagination and the COP as it exists today is nowhere near ready to go toe to toe; make no mistake, drawing first blood in this skirmish is not going to be where the bragging rights lie, it remains with those who are left standing after all is said and done.  If the COP finds itself once again wandering in the political wilderness in search of a Moses to lead them to the Promised Land, enter into that scenario the personality of an Anil Roberts and tell me again who has the longer play left to play.  

Dog Tired.... (On the Issue of Dangerous Dogs)

As news of yet another innocent child being violently ripped and torn apart by yet another, dangerously-aggressive, unrestrained dog makes the rounds, the people are once again put on notice of just how vulnerable and unprotected they are in the face of these savage beasts, their irresponsible, 'don't-care' owners, and the lack of any laws to protect them or from which to seek any proper redress. And as is the usual case in the subsequent environment of hysteria that always follows one of these attacks, the people are looking to the authorities to do something, anything that would make the occurrence of these unimaginable nightmares a thing of the past, and the government, in whom all  legislative and enforcement authority is vested to make such a request so, are once again failing miserably at the task and coming up woefully, almost indecently short. The 'Dangerous Dog Act' passed under the last administration finds itself in legislative limbo as it is not yet law since it has never been proclaimed despite being 'passed,' and in what could only be a clear case of government for some of the people and not all, this administration, despite sniffing around at the issue everytime some unlucky person is maimed or killed by one or more of these unstoppable beasts, seems unwilling to commit to dealing with this menace for some unfathomable reason.

Many say that the Act in question is in nobody's best interest as it is fraught with loopholes for the guilty to escape being brought to justice, especially because trying to identify what is a 'dangerous dog' in each situation may be a frustrating exercise and one done in futility. They point to the abandonment of Breed Specific Legislation around the world as proof that outlawing specific types of dogs cannot solve the problem where mixed breeds are concerned, so I say if simply proclaiming what already obtains is not the correct step to take at this point then let us repeal it altogether and replace it with a law that works. In my view what became the 'Dangerous Dog Bill' was a clear case of what could only be the best being the enemy of the good, and I think the drafters may have gone too far trying to accomplish too much for absolutely no reason. As breeders and canine activists agree and insist that ALL dogs could be dangerous under the right conditions, I must say not only do I absolutely concur, but I think that right there in that statement is the solution. What we need is a 'Dog Ownership Bill,' one that puts complete responsibility for the actions of the dog (regardless of breed, size, colour or any other differential) on the owner. From the upkeep and well being of the animal to the clean up of any droppings in public spaces, owners must be made to understand that owning a dog comes with significant responsibility and in failing to comply may find themselves liable to unexpected cost and inconvenience. The law should include requirements for proof of ownership such as licenses or micro chip tagging so as to identify errant owners, and should insist that all dogs, once in public, be properly muzzled and on a leash. It should also include such penalties as manslaughter, attempted manslaughter and 'causing grievous bodily harm' for dog attacks, with onerous consequences such as large fines, responsibility for all expenses directly attributed to the attack itself (including loss of earnings) and possible jail time.

Once it is common knowledge that they could be held criminally as well as financially liable for the actions of their dogs I am sure the breeding and placing of large and potentially dangerous dogs into irresponsible hands will be curbed and bring an abrupt end to this fad, which I am sure has contributed in no small way to the huge rise in maulings and killings in the recent past. This move would be in the best interest of responsible dog owners and the public alike and I would like to strongly suggest (again) that this become a front burner issue so as to protect the public at large from what is really a preventable menace and one that ought to be dealt with as a matter of urgency.

Political Stones... (Leadership Crisis COP)

Growing up in Woodbrook there was no shortage of characters and one of them in particular has been brought to my mind by recent events, a real little wanna be 'bad john' we used to call 'Stones.' Stones was notorious for pushing fight with anybody who he disagreed with, but once it looked like a fight was actually about to start he used to run home for his big brother to handle the actual fighting for him. Both Congress of the People political leader Prakash Ramadhar and its Chairman Joseph Toney have reminded me of 'Stones' since this whole Marlene Coudray fiasco began as, despite all their rum talk and bluster about poaching and consequences of action, they keep turning to and trotting out the same Vernon De Lima on the talk show circuit to make sense publicly of what it is they say they are trying to say and do. Coming across as independent, forthright and honest, De Lima is quite possibly the last voice of credibility at the leadership level of the party, while Prakash and Toney appear wishy-washy at best and weak politically. You cannot play man and draw a line in the sand only to turn around and give the onlookers a 'resounding maybe' and a 'probably for sure,' and you cannot call someone out on abuses you accuse them of and then give the population a 'perhaps probably' and a 'definite I don't know.' Those are the acts of the incompetent and surely even the most die-hard supporters can see that.

As a direct consequence of the last two internal elections a purging of personalities within the party took place that concentrated the party's authority into the hands of a politically juvenile few. Stalwarts and action figures like Robert Mayers and Wendy Lee Yeun have been sidelined and silenced, and even firebrand Carolyn Seepersad-Bachan seems to be picking her fights very, very carefully so as not to offend anyone within and without. Now the consequences of such a retrograde development is rearing its ugly head as when the fight is raging all around there is no one to call with any real stones for back up. If strong fences make good neighbours then surely strong parties would make healthy coalitions. The COP needs to decide at a membership level what exactly it wants to be and move in that direction. It is not bound by its MP's as they could ALL walk and the party would still thrive. The lack of real, purposeful leadership and an absence of party machinery is what is hurting the party badly, and it is this that needs to be addressed with some urgency and a professional and seasoned understanding of how these things work.

In my opinion the membership of the COP have little choice but to bring a vote of no confidence in both the Political Leader AND the Party's Chairman and move to fresh elections to broaden and re-open the party to new and forward thinking ideas. The obvious choice to lead the party out of the doldrums it finds itself in is Vernon De Lima and he needs to be allowed to lead at the soonest possible time if the party is to survive. With Prakash Ramadhar demonstrating himself to be politically weak and other leadership hopeful Anil Roberts coming across as more and more of a flake every-time he opens his mouth, I cannot for the life of me understand why the (remaining) members are not beating a path to Mr. De Lima's door to beg him to lead before he too gives up in disgust. Looking back on life's lessons all those years ago I learnt early on that it wasn't enough to say you had stones when pushing fight, but you better have had them when fight really start. If Vernon De Lima is the man with the stones to lead the party then by all means and for the love of God let him, because as is clearly plain for even the blind to see, the other options seems to be licks, licks and more licks to come.

Nobody's Fool... (Take a Breath Prakash)

I find it very strange the amount of support Prakash Ramadhar is getting in his stance against the UNC over the Marlene Coudray matter and I am sure as a former Jurist of some renown and experience he must be noticing it as well.

Looked at more closely patterns and agendas begin to emerge and I would like to suggest to the COP leader that he be very circumspect with whose advice he follows especially where agendas are concerned. The media is loving the suspense and drama of the story as nothing sells newspapers like bacchanal, but he ought not to confuse media enthusiasm with political support. The PNM and its members are so overjoyed over this development that they are almost partying in the streets, but their jubilation is based on the hope that disunity between the COP and the UNC brings to their cause. A combined UNC/COP is a numbers game that they cannot overcome and because of this, all of the cheering and jeering from the sidelines need to be ignored. Another questionable source of support is coming from within the COP itself, where members with political axes to grind are using this opportunity to grind away. Anil Roberts' decision to distance himself from his political leader's position has created a space for the chairman of his constituency to challenge him and come out against him ostensibly in support of the political leader. Having worked on the De Lima campaign against both Anil and Prakash, she finds herself in a position where the enemy of her enemy could become her friend and is using the issue to make political hay so she too needs to be ignored. While I understand him being upset over the defection of Marlene Coudray complete with family inheritance in tow, this should not be the reason that the COP finds its spine or that breaks the partnership. Long after the dust is settled and the noise of the agenda brigade has quieted, history will say that Prakash Ramadhar broke the partnership and destroyed the COP over a tantrum. He needs to be the wisest he has ever been in his life right now, and like King Solomon, he needs to know just where to propose to apply the sword.

To me this line in the sand over Marlene Coudray is equally as foolish as his mounting the platform in support of Kamla during the no confidence campaign. If I were to give him any advice here it would be to be less reactive and more proactive, less 'up close' and more 'big picture' in his leadership. In the solitary meeting that I had with him since his ascension I told him what I believe he already knew, that the COP as it currently exists is barely a name and may already be a dead man walking if he as political leader did nothing to change it. I told him despite the rantings of low level UNC hustlers like Sharma and Rambachan and regardless of who he was in partnership with, his had to be a mandate to grow the COP into a national party or his leadership would be about administering last rites. I told him if he had any real political ambitions that the COP needed to become a national party and to hell with who didn't like it. I also told him that while he should do everything in his power to not be the one to break the people's trust, that he should do everything to establish the COP nationally in time for the next general elections.

Now that he has publicly taken his 'principled' stand over the affair he is in a unique position to back away without much loss of face.. Whether he is granted concessions by the UNC or not is of little consequence to what he takes from this point on, and he should instead use this opportunity to take his show on the road to the people, to build his brand and redevelop the COP. He needs to be very aware as to why they say lonely is the head that wears the crown and ignore all those who are 'chooking' fire. His is the only name that will live with his decision regardless of who may be goading him now, and for that reason alone he must be cautious as to whose advice he takes.