THE GLEANER, SATURDAY, MARCH 5, 2022 | www.jamaica-gleaner.com A6 [LETTER OF THE DAY] The Gleaner [EDITORIAL] OPINION #GLNROPED The opinions on this page, except for The Editorial, do not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Gleaner. The Gleaner welcomes your views on any issue. Preference will be given to letters of 300 words or less. They must bear the writer’s name, address and telephone contact. If using a pen name, you must state your full name. Your name and address will be withheld on request. EMAIL US: letters@gleanerjm.com or WRITE US: Editor, The Gleaner Company (Media) Ltd, 7 North Street, PO Box 40, Kingston, or fax: (876)922-6223 WHAT’S YOUR VIEW? The shocking events in Ukraine have been a wake-up call to the world. Both the United Kingdom and Jamaica were quick to respond, and there was no equivocation in either the words of my Prime Minister Boris Johnson or Jamaican PM Andrew Holness’s statement of February 25, condemning what he rightly termed the “invasion” of Ukraine. These events have already had a terrible human cost. CARICOMglass half full Trial by jury critical to protect our democracy THE EDITOR, Madam: I’VE ENJOYED the spectacle of State of the Union speeches from different US presidents over several decades, as the audience keeps jumping up and down and clapping in a way that reminds me of childhood visits to the circus. There’s always a host of political clowns present, but I seldom watch the entire speech as the extreme partisan reactions and self-indulgence usually has a derogatory effect on my gastrointestinal system. This year’s circus inWashington was held onMarch 1 with President Joe Biden as the ringmaster; seated directly behind him was Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the House of Representatives. As nobody wore masks it was hard to keepmy eyes off her facial expressions and antics; she was in a most gleeful mood, and every time she jumped to her feet to lead the applause she was grinning from ear to ear. Shewas the total embodiment of that old Frank Sinatra song, Nancy with the laughing face; in fact, it may well have been written just for her. Watching from his vantage point on my right shoulder, my politically incorrect parrot, Chico, made the observation that the mask mandate is a good thing for some people. He figures masks improves their looks, especially politicians. The retiring Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer added to the frivolity by performing an impression of a shy schoolgirl’s curtsy when he received unexpected praise and a fond farewell from the President. UNITY IN THE CHAMBER A large part of the speech was devoted to the situation in Ukraine, and for once there was unity in the chamber with both political parties applauding the President’s strong condemnation of Russian aggression, but of course there’s always three sides to every story, your side, my side and the truth. Not forgetting what Greek dramatist Aeschylus said about 2500 years ago : “In war, truth is the first casualty”. The aggressive actions taken by Russia against its neighbour must never be condoned, but just maybe some truth about what’s happening now can be traced back to how NATO may have been a tad too eager in expanding their membership eastwards 30 years ago after the break-up of the USSR. NATO members knew that the presence of their troops and weaponry in the former Warsaw Pact countries on its borders would always be a festering sore in the side of Russia. Surely senior politicians in Washington, DC, would remember how the US felt when the Soviets had plans to install nuclear weapons in Cuba in the 1960s, just 90 miles away from the US. I remember those times very well, having worked on cargo vessels traversing the north coast of Cuba bound for US ports from the Caribbean, and getting buzzed by MiG fighter jets flying out of Cuban airbases. Of course, not a single word of those historical matters was mentioned by President Biden at the State of the Union address. BERNIE SMITH Parksville, BC Canada State of the Union, a recurring political circus THE EDITOR, Madam: I AM moved to write this in the face of the recent discussions around Nzinga King’s case. I wish to serve a reminder of the history of inmates under the English common law traditions. I garnered little knowledge about the historical journey of prison while at Pace Law School in NewYork. One of my lecturers, Michael Mushlin, a leading prison right lawyers in New York, said that in the heights of the English colonial era, a prisoner was considered civilly dead and even incompetent to testify in court. Thiswas a featureof the formative years of the English common law system, under which a prisoner was prohibited from testifying in court because he was considered self-interested and biased. In the colonial era in the United States, prisoners were condemned to the extent where they were denied the right to marry. This again was inherited from the English common law system. Incidentally, the 13th Amendment in the Constitution of the United States prohibits slavery except for a person convicted of a crime. Today we see people being condemned and denied jobs, served increased sentences and other repercussions because they were convicted. Some of the prisons in Jamaica were used to hold slaves. Interestingly, Nzinga’s case unfolded while she was in custody. GAWANWALKER Elisabeth Haub School of Law Pace University NewYork Prison laws embedded in colonial era DR MICHAEL Abrahams, in his column, wrote: “Men have done a lot of damage in this world, there is no doubt about that, andmuch of the trauma we have caused is indefensible. But the stereotypes are unfair.” Here are some readers’ reactions sourced from The Gleaner’s Twitter, Facebook and Instagram pages. But some pride themselves on not speaking about their feelings. Being non-expressive and very macho. Hence why women have some of those thoughts towards men. – Georgette Segre-Dobson I thoroughly enjoyed reading this article. To the good men out there, we as women see you. – Judith Fishley I think women behave that way because they have been hurt by men. Women fail to realise that they have ALSO hurt other men. – Jessica Russell Yes, we do. That’s whymany women take our kindness for weakness and play with our emotions. – Howard Morris From the get-go, mothers need to raise their boys with great selfesteem and empathy that women can’t treat them less than they ought to. As women, if we fail to treat our spouses with respect and love, the wives of your sons will treat them the same. Life is like a circle. A man is someone’s child too. – Vanessa Mckenzie-Lofters The way some men behave will leaveme to think sayman nuh have feelings and heart. In fact, mi think some hate their moms why themact a certain way. – Karen Alexander Lindsay And u knowwhat the worse part of the situation is? Men tend to open up to the wrong set of women just like howwomen tend to open up to the wrong set of men. – Toya Johnson Most of dem jus see us as wallets and doormats. No wonder suicide and domestic crime so high. Man can only bear so much and no more. – @_Dean45 Many parents, in particular mothers, are responsible for how some of us are today. They have scarred them emotionally. Then, when they go out in the wider society, it is no better. We force them to take on this militant role. They are not allowed to cry or be affectionate, else we know what will happen. We can’t even tell another brother we love him. Sowe switch things up and say we rate them. It’s toxic. – @willryanwilson My brothers, don’t waste your time. Stack up the paper and live your lives. If we nuh take care of ourselves, no one will. – @busybignall Compiled by Khanique McDaniel READERS’ REACTIONS THE EDITOR, Madam: I CALL upon the Houses of Parliament to immediately put into place laws to preserve the right of the Jamaican people to trial by their peers. I will cut to the chase in reminding us all that the appointment of the head of the judiciary and the head of the prosecutorial arm of the State is within the purview of the prime minister. Jury trials are, therefore, the only true guarantee to the people of Jamaica of their right to be tried by an impartial and independent tribunal. The law gives an accused, by way of a 2015 amendment (Section 11A of the Criminal Justice (Administration) Act), the right to voluntarily waive his right to trial by jury, if done jointly in writing by the accused and the prosecution. What is now being clamoured for is to take away the right to trial by jury in its entirety. Rather than seeking to deal with the COVID-19created backlog by retrofitting the courtroom to socially distance a seven-member panel of our peers, we are now under the threat of the abolition of trial by jury across the board. I recall that, when the Maurice Bishop revolutionary government came to power in Grenada, it abolished its final court of appeal, the Privy Council. It failed to put in place a replacement court for final appeals. When members of the very cabinet who voted for the abolition of the Privy Council found themselves in the dock as convictedmurderers, they begged their lawyers to challenge the very law they advocated. What if Putin puts a puppet government in place in Ukraine? And that government appoints a chief justice and chief prosecutor? And what if trial by jury is, thereafter, abolished and Putin puts his political opponents on trial? And what if, God forbid, that scenario is repeated in years to come in Jamaica? Trial by jury is, respectfully, the last bastion of democracy to guarantee justice by the people, for the people. We have named our House of Parliament after a man whose call for justice for the people made him the enemy of the then head of state in Jamaica, Governor Edward John Eyre. Eyre declared a court martial and dragged The Honourable George William Gordon before the judges he appointed. The rest is history! To maintain the right of our people to trial by jury is to honour the sacrifices of George William Gordon and Paul Bogle, heroes whose trials were not of the people nor by the people. Parliamentarians, be true representatives of the Jamaican people, and pass the right to trial by jury law now! BERT SAMUELS Attorney-at-law bert.samuels@gmail.com AMONG THE more encouraging developments out of this week’s summit of Caribbean Community (CARICOM) heads of government in Belize was the leaders’ embrace of the principle of a multi-track community, which this newspaper has championed since its formal proposal by the Persaud commission more than a year ago. Our disappointment, however, is the too-high threshold – two-thirds of its members – the community has set for initiatives to proceed without everyone going along. CARICOM is notorious for agreeing to do things then dragging its feet on them forever. Which is what underpinned the recommendation that the group headed by Barbadian economist, Avinash Persaud, euphemistically referred to as“enhanced cooperation” in the community .Their aim, really, was to address what other people, including some leaders, call CARICOM’s implementation deficit. The question now is whether, with a bar this high, the reforms will have the hoped-for effect in breaking the logjam within the community. We have our doubts, but hope, fervently, for the best. It is more than three decades since CARICOM leaders committed to transforming the trade and cooperation agreement to a regional single market and economy. It has been almost 16 years since the signing of formal instruments to do so. But, since that time, the CARICOM Single Market and Economy (CSME) has moved in fits and starts. MULTI-TRACK APPROACH Usually, at conferences, leaders assent to undertakings to deepen the integration of the region’s economies, but, at home, run into domestic, political and economic concerns that cause themdelay, if not, change their minds about the agreements. It is against this backdrop that a commission, chaired by Persaud, in a report for CARICOM on how to sustainably kickstart its economies, proposed a multi-track approach to implementing projects, for which it isn’t critical that all member states begin at the same time. Said the commission in its report: “Getting change going is important in itself. Change begets change. The initiative we would like to propose to break CSME agreements out of gridlock is that of enhanced cooperation. Among those matters that are best done internationally, some need to be done collectively at the same time and some couldwork in a phasedmanner, if a critical number of countries set off first in an advance party. There are initiatives, for instance, that some would join but only if others, more enthusiastically, have shown that it works first. Matters that would be done under enhanced cooperation would still be discussed and debated at CARICOM and marshalled by the CARICOM Secretariat so that all are involved, just not all starting at the same time.” With this arrangement, CARICOM is borrowing a system used by many regional blocs, including the European Union (EU) – except for the ratio that can greenlight projects. In the EU, it requires at least a third of members to commit to a programme for it to be launched. In CARICOM, that would translate to at least five of the 14 members that subscribe to its economic agreements. The leaders, however, agreed that, in CARICOM, two-thirds of the members, or at least 10 rounded up, will have to say yes. “Once we can reach a threshold of two-thirds of the community, we can go ahead without unanimity,” said the Barbados prime minister, Mia Mottley, who has responsibility for the CSME within CARICOM. “That enhanced cooperation is central towards us being able to progress within the community without necessarily requiring everybody to move at the same pace.” Significantly, amendments to the requisite protocols of the RevisedTreaty of Chaguaramas, the accord upon which CARICOM rests and dictates that decisions by heads of government must be unanimous, have been done and open for signature by member states. While it doesn’t entirely compensate for our disappointment over the threshold number, the reform is a bit of a palliative. Something happened, maybe more will. The glass is half full. Men have feelings too Coming Sunday: Judith Slater writes ... United in condemnation of Russia’s “war of choice” in Ukraine
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTUzNTI=