Distressingly amid the national uproar over our women’s ill-treatment and murders, we gravitate to accepting a ‘macho’ solution that wreaks violence upon those who threaten us.
We should reflect on how likely this path would take us to our desired goal of safety for all, particularly our women. Will we be better off as a result?
Crime challenges our moral system causing us to look instinctively to social control agents to channel our outrage. We want them to act to restore order and stability. With the government’s failure to calm our nerves, we have seen the rise of an individual usurping the role of defining and defending our values and establishing our moral norms.
Most of us accept this intervention without deep questioning, since we want the scary things to go away. We want the easy direct answer, even if it is a temporary sop.
We do not want to deal with the core contributing factors that would involve us in things we have sought to remove from our daily lives. We want fun and a peaceful life. If only this person stands up for us, then we will accept the offer. He sounds as though he could do the job. He should be allowed to do whatever it takes to enable us to be in our safe place.
In creating this aura of fighting for what is right, a private Facebook group, numbering more than the Facebook group of the main opposition party, supports him. They would defend and explain why he can do the job best. We should listen. They give him the courage to go on.
Gone are the days when the United National Congress abstained in his parliamentary confirmation process, and he expressed a determination ‘to bring all law-abiding persons together to fight the real enemy—the criminal element’.
Now he seems to suggest that the Opposition leader, who was once his boss, is a ‘monster’ who negotiates with criminal elements and grants them massive state contracts.
Who is the real obstruction to bipartisan support for crime legislation? What is going on that we do not know? Who is pulling strings? Who will fight for us?
Those who do not have our interests at heart attack him. But he is brave and unafraid; he can take care of all comers. Why should we care?
Martin Daly indeed has queried the compatibility of the office with ‘Trump-ish personal attacks’. But what does he know? Why should we not accept that kind of behaviour if he takes care of business for us?
With social cohesion waning, the public seeks a robust response from the authorities. But there has mostly been an expectation that all actions would be subject to the rule of law. What we have witnessed is a willingness to push the proverbial envelope. There is no sense of personal accountability or reflection.
In the case involving The UWI students, video evidence and the Law Faculty intervention were crucial in stemming that reckless attack on individual rights. To get justice took two years and ten court appearances. Why so long?
The Police failed several times to show up for the hearings. Nobody compensated the students for their missed classes and not a word about the mental price paid. In our country, is this the reward you get for speaking up to defend a female counterpart?
Mr Cecil Skeete, a Cocorite resident, was not so fortunate after being interviewed in the presence of ‘men with machine guns’. Despite being described as an ally/informant (or is it because he was so named?), he was murdered. A cold case?
Plausible deniability was in full force in the Express raid. Without his presence, the Police could not get their search warrant right even after two attempts. Justice Lennox Deyalsingh pronounced those actions were ‘plainly irregular’, unlawful, and unconstitutional. This judgment has possibly protected the Express in its most recent expose of practices aimed at securing confessions.
In part, it said that source protection must be treated as an inherent and integral facet of the freedom enjoyed under section 4 (k) of the Constitution.
Intervening in private lives should occur under limited and controlled circumstances. Because of the legal authority to use force and to deprive citizens of their liberty, the potential for abuse is real.
There is a clear pattern. The Transformation Life Ministry has whimpered into nothingness. The collapse of the Alicia House Covid-19 prosecution. The talk of millions at stake in La Horquetta turned into a simple charge of a television being used as loan collateral.
Dead men tell no tales (except through post-mortems), so the slander could continue. Why waste money on foreign investigators?
Many commentators have become silent. The line minister does not appear to appreciate what is moral and right despite his training. Let us wait on the Police Complaints Authority. Do you remember when the order of 1,000 body cameras was placed?
The dominance of this ‘saviour’ is a vexing harmful governance issue. Not a dog dare bark!
Who is this character? He Who Shall Not Be Named! Voldemort is his name.