Home / View Point / Letters to the Editor / Dear Editor: Kamla’s comments on ‘civil unrest’ are ‘breathtakingly irresponsible’

Dear Editor: Kamla’s comments on ‘civil unrest’ are ‘breathtakingly irresponsible’

“[…] In a different state of public feeling, learned senior counsel’s words might be innocent and may not tend to disturb the peace and may be open to just censure. Not in the here and now. There are times when a spark will explode a powder magazine…”

The following letter to the editor on statements by Leader of the Opposition Kamla Persad-Bissessar was submitted to Wired868 by Ula Nathai-Lutchman, an international criminal lawyer:

Photo: Leader of the Opposition Kamla Persad-Bissessar.
(via UNC)

The opposition leader’s warning about the frustration people are facing, stating ‘the seeds of civil unrest are being planted and watered’ and ‘we cannot have a 1990 repeat’ is a breathtakingly irresponsible and foolish comment that could reasonably provoke violence.

Moreso, given that she is a learned senior counsel and former prime minster and ought to know that it is itself a potential statement to provoke volatile divisions in an acutely fragile nation under a state of emergency.

The words in her statement relate to acts akin to an offence of incitement at common law, and is a particular manifestation of the offence of inciting dissatisfaction against the government. I doubt that was or is her intention—to incite the people to violence or to create a public disturbance or disorder.

Considering context and time, social/cultural/racial issues, it is worth remembering that sections 3 and 4 of the Sedition Act remain on the statute books and are couched in terms which are adequate to provide fair notice to individuals of the conduct which is to be regarded as criminal.

In a different state of public feeling, learned senior counsel’s words might be innocent and may not tend to disturb the peace and may be open to just censure. Not in the here and now. There are times when a spark will explode a powder magazine—the effect of language may be very different at one time from what it would be at another. This point is vividly illustrated by the case of Sharky (1949) which rebuts an intention to actually incite anyone:

Photo: The Penal Health Facility was engulfed by persons seeking Covid-19 vaccination shots on 9 June 2021.
(Copyright Ghansham Mohammed/Wired868)

“Intention—which is a matter of inference from words or conduct—is not by any means necessarily  to  be  judged  upon  the  face  value  of  words used. The  earnest  advice  of  a  pretendedly  disinterested  bystander to  an excited  crowd  in  possession  of  a  victim ‘don’t  duck  him  in  the  horse trough!’ can be interpreted, quite reasonably in some circumstances, as an incitement to the action which the speaker professes to discourage.”

Covid has supercharged all of the other risks and vulnerabilities that already existed in the country. It is a government under great strain and failings. Even by those shortcomings, rightly accepted by the prime minister, now is not the time to pander to those whom she considers supporters and indulge in ‘opposition for opposition’s sake’.

The whole world is being ripped apart by the pandemic. Covid-19 has had catastrophic consequences for people’s health, incomes and debt. Surely the former PM ought to be acutely sensitive that the citizens have very little room financially or emotionally to cope with another crisis.

Rather than author a public catastrophe all on her own, use your platform to inspire a useful purpose in getting the government to do its job better. This is what the opposition should do in a crisis. The public expects their elected leaders to work together in the face of ‘this unprecedented pandemic’.

About Letters to the Editor

Letters to the Editor
Want to share your thoughts with Wired868? Email us at editor@wired868.com. Please keep your letter between 300 to 600 words and be sure to read it over first for typos and punctuation. We don't publish anonymously unless there is a good reason, such as an obvious threat of harassment or job loss.

Check Also

Noble to vaccine-hesitants: ‘When did Christians lose their connection with their fellow men and science?’

There is a story about a Samaritan called ‘good’ in the Bible because he did …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

3 comments

  1. Earl Best

    I am willing to wager that you have lived elsewhere for a long time.
    Have you heard it said that “Trinidad is not a real country.” If the answer is yes, you don’t really get it, do you?

    Here’s why I think so:

    (1) “The public expects their elected leaders to work together in the face of ‘this unprecedented pandemic’.” Ha!

    In Trinidad? The public? One united, homogeneous, monolithic entity?

    (2) “This is what the opposition should do in a crisis.” Double ha!

    Depends on your definition of ‘crisis.’ For the UNC, a crisis is being in opposition. And Mr Panday long ago set out how they are supposed to behave then: “It is not the responsibility of the Opposition to make the Government make good.”

    Where and when have you seen the party do anything to suggest that there is less than wholesale agreement therewith?

    (3) “… the former PM ought to be acutely sensitive that the citizens have very little room financially or emotionally to cope with another crisis.” Triple ha!

    The former PM is always acutely aware that there is an election to come, sooner or later. And the former PM’s full attention is thereby consistently consumed.

  2. She’s taking a page from the Trump playbook. Lose elections, attack the chief medical officer, incite unrest, lies a lot and is racist. Of all the people in the world to emulate she chose Trump.