This article is being written for my column, so chances are you are reading this on Wednesday, the same Wednesday the Parliament of the Republic of Trinidad & Tobago is supposedly set to continue debate of what has come to be known as the Jack Warner Personal Army Bill, being presented in the House as “The Defense (Amendment) Bill, 2013.”
The Bill itself has been unveiled as a masterstroke of genius in the government's 'war' on the runaway violent crime and, to hear them tell it, will solve all manner of problems including cleaning up the ghettos, bringing crime to an end and possibly curing cancer along the way. And for all of that, all that it will cost is your rights, your freedoms and your democracy, because, if this Bill becomes law, would exist in name only. Why? Because nowhere else in the free (read civilized, enlightened, developed) world does a politician get to have this kind of power, power that this Bill would give to the Minister of National Security, the unfettered control of the might of the army, his to unleash on whatsoever or whomsoever he pleases. Now, they would have you believe that that is just boiler plate legislating and that the wording is unimportant to the intent but that is a deliberate lie on a lie that also contradicts a false untruth. The Framers of our Constitution DELIBERATELY kept the forces of law & order out of reach of political interference because of how easy it would be to unleash hell against any opposing voices. Were it not for all of the checks and balances built into the Constitution, do you think we would still have a democracy now? What would be there to protect you from an eager politician or worse, a vengeful one?
They want you to believe that they can be trusted with this type of almost limitless power, but can they? Looking at their record of abuses to date, operating without the benefit of it, do you accept that? This is the same government that used a State of Emergency to rob citizens of their Constitutional rights and for which they have so far refused to explain why it was done, what it was for, and how the country benefited if at all from it. To the people arrested, charged, detained, humiliated, abused and terrorized, what was the message? This is the same government who, for the flimsiest of reasons that they have never proven conclusively, only alleged, attempted to hijack the national intelligence apparatus and turn it to their control. When 'caught' they were in the process of appointing a junior party hack to run it, whose only qualifications seems to be that she could have been considered loyal to the government. What was that? Put simply, the national intelligence agency was being transformed into a political organization run by party loyalists, for whose control and what purposes your guess is as good as mine.
They would further have you believe that this legislation is good legislation, that it is essential legislation, but isn't that what they said when they were piloting Section 34? What was the real intention and eventual outcome of that good and essential law? Surely we need a little more from them this time around other than personal assurances, don't you think?
They tell that the reasons for giving the soldiers powers of arrest is that they cannot trust the police, but why they did not bring police service amendment legislation to weed out rogue officers and rightsize the service? Why not fix what is already operational once and for all, rather than try to duplicate the effort? Your guess is as good as mine.
They say the police need support in the field and that is totally acceptable, but as nothing prevents the soldiers from protecting the police under existing circumstances, what is the real reason for this?
My guess is the reason for this Bill, this legislation and this law is power; Jack wants it, the army provides it and the only thing standing in his way is the constitution. My belief is that this is a thinly disguised end run around those safeguards for purposes that we can only guess at but for which the Framers had the healthiest of respects and the greatest of fears. That they attempted to prevent us becoming victims of politicians with 'strong man' ambitions is clear, to save us from police state and 'junta' nightmares, to level the playing field between state power, police power and the rights and freedoms of the individual. This Bill, this legislation, this law, if passed, will bring an end to all of that and will instead open a Pandora's box of nefarious possibilities we may never recover from.
The business community, the activist community, the national community and the legal fraternity are all against this idea, yet the government is pushing to make it law. Who are they representing or serving that they refuse to listen to the people? Someone remarked that they are intent on one thing only, the consolidation of power, because after the twelve nil whipping in Tobago they have few options left. That may well be so, but creating a scenario where the people trust them even less does nothing to help them come election time, does it? Perhaps there are members of this government who may be laboring under the false impression that they would be allowed to replace our democracy with something else, something different, all in the name of fighting crime, but I would like to be the one to caution them. What is it they say about sowing the wind? These things never ever work out as planned. Things have a way of spinning out of control. This Bill, this legislation, it must never become law.
ReplyDeleteI understand your fears, but even if it were passed, it cannot permanently become law because it does contain a sunset clause.