By Ben Roberts:
Methinks the British, and by the British I really mean the Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO), and to a lesser extent other leading authorities, are quite stunned about the lowly Turks & Caicos and its current trials and tribulations, and how this issue has grabbed their body politic by the throat and not let go.
They probably thought this would be the usual dog and pony show as in other corruption probes in the Territories, where they would come in, conduct a half-hearted Inquiry, declare the natives in power to be suspect and marinated in corruption, rap a few fingers for bad behaviour, deny a few privileges for the political elite such as disbarment from running for political office, return across the Atlantic to have scribes write a voluminous dust-collecting report on the matter, and pin the expense of the whole exercise on the natives. Case closed.
Not so. This matter of the lowly and, in some cases, hardly known T&C, is sending seismic shock waves through the Mother of all Parliaments, as the British system of government is at times referred to. In other words, they are experiencing their own earthquake that is shaking up and unearthing a system not usually known for drastic changes of direction. This is especially evident for the FCO and its antiquated way of doing business. But even the British Parliament is being affected by these developments in T&C. And why should T&C not have such effect, as far as Overseas Territories go? They always did. Here’s some past history:
Archival material on T&C revealed that, during the American War of Independence, these Islands were involved in something that had huge consequences for the world as we know it today. It was a crucial point in the war. America was experiencing one of its worst winters. Its Continental Army was hungry, demoralized, and in tatters. Without food the troops were dying in significant numbers.
They had no food because they had no salt to cure their meat to ensure their soldiers’ bellies were full, affording them the strength to fight (Remember, a famous military quote that ‘an army travels on its stomach.’ Also remember that in this time there was no refrigeration, so curing meats with salt was the way to preserve food).
This is where T&C comes in. During that time, this British colony was a major salt producer. Through some subterfuge and strange shenanigans, General George Washington, the commander of American troops, was able to request and secure salt from T&C. This changed the dynamics immensely. The British Redcoats, well-fed and licking their chops, were thinking it was only a matter of time once the elements let up for them to launch their offensive, before the enemy would fall to them, thereby quashing the Revolution.
To their surprise the Americans were able to beat them back, and inevitably go on to defeat them and gain independence. Chalk up one huge loss for the British. And it was none but the lowly and seeming insignificant Turks & Caicos that had a part to play in this reversal of fortune, and earth-shattering change and advance for the world.
In a newspaper article from some time ago, a British writer described Turks & Caicos as ‘insignificant ink-dots in the ocean.’ Really! T&C has been, throughout its history, a valuable asset to the British. Just look at their geography. The most north-easterly of Caribbean Islands and the jump-off point with the closest distance to Europe. Having this small territory as a possession translated into a strategic gold-mine for any colonial power.
From here there was the quickest access to Europe and the halfway point going to and from the valuable colony of America. It also guarded the important approaches to and from the Caribbean and South America. It was key for Britain and its wealth because from here they would routinely lie in wait for the gold-laden Spanish galleons coming from South America and making their pit-stop into the ports of Santo Domingo and Puerta Plata in what is now the Dominican Republic. T&C is just ninety miles away from this island.
Also in their quest to wrest Haiti, the prize of the Caribbean, away from France, the British without question maximized the use of this asset just ninety miles away. What stories Sir Francis Drake, Sir Walter Raleigh, Sir Henry Morgan, Black Bart, and General Maitland would have about T&C, were we able to call them back to our time.
So you see, despite its small size and seeming insignificance, Turks & Caicos has always had a telling impact on Britain. Today is no different. Its current state of affairs is shaking the British system in more ways than one. We have British lords and moneyed interests that have clearly contributed to this Territory’s current crisis. We have political high and mighties suffering setbacks in being relegated to the back bench and handed assignments that amount to exile in remote missions.
We have seen a significant arm of the British Government, the FCO pilloried and on the defensive from its own government and T&C citizens for its negligence and archaic behaviour in addressing the current situation. We even have important Committees in the British Parliament engaged in substantial debate on Turks & Caicos. In that debate, we even have politicians on watch during the demise of T&C conveniently running for cover trying to distance themselves from the scene.
Yes. It was stunning to hear former Permanent Undersecretary Meg Munn, the one responsible for matters relating to T&C during the time of the debacle, say in the debate: “As the minister rightly says, I was the minister responsible for Overseas Territories for a while, including when the Inquiry was set in place, although I, too, have never visited the Turks & Caicos.”
Can this be true? How can it be when various T&C citizens, including a prominent media representative, confirm that Meg Munn was in T&C at the eleventh hour, attempting damage control and trying to give a positive spin on the dismal state of affairs.
Hence despite its size, which one might easily and foolishly equate with insignificance, Turks & Caicos, more than most colonies in the faded British realm, has throughout history had a profound effect on the politics, financial fortunes, and global reach of the British. Today is no different. The current intervention and players of an Interim Government, the FCO which administers this entity, and the British Parliament and its Foreign Affairs Committee which oversees the FCO, should do well to remember this.
Ben Roberts is a Turks & Caicos Islander. He is a newsletter editor, freelance writer, and published author. He is the author of numerous articles that have been carried by a variety of Internet websites and read worldwide. He is often published in Turks & Caicos news media, and in the local newspapers where he resides. His action adventure novel, Jackals of Samarra, can be found at Amazon.com, and most of the major Internet book outlet sites.
April 12, 2010
caribbeannetnews
An International Caribbean Online Log about the news and opinions in the Americas and World. This Caribbean Blog of global reach and appeal is maintained by Bahamian Blogger - Dennis Dames with all readers and subscribers in mind.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Jamaica: When a married women is raped
Se-Shauna Wheatle, Contributor:
More than 10 years after the commencement of discussions on the reform of Jamaica's sexual offence laws, a new law is finally on the books. But what has emerged from the decade of deliberations and delay?
Significant strides have undoub-tedly been made in the areas of carnal abuse and rules relating to the conduct of trials of alleged sexual offences. Yet, the law does not go far enough to reform offensive legislation that prevents successful prosecution of offenders and fails to offer adequate protection to victims of sexual violence. In particular, the current provision on marital rape is inconsistent with national and international developments towards gender/sex equality and with the autonomy of women.
Law Before the Sexual Offences Act
In 1736, Sir Matthew Hale wrote: "The husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given herself up in this kind unto her husband ... ."
Based on this declaration, the law has for centuries recognised a 'marital exem-ption' according to which a husband could not be convicted of raping his wife. This law represented an archaic and dangerous view that when a woman marries, her separate identity ceases to exist and she becomes part of the entity of her husband, or, as Sir William Blackstone put it, when marriage occurs, the man and woman become one flesh and that flesh is male.
Catharine MacKinnon has correctly characterised this "marital exemption" as resting on "the theory that marriage creates an irrebuttable presumption of consent". Over the years, the courts have chiselled out certain circumstances in which a man could be convicted of raping his wife, and in 1992, there was a significant development in the law as the House of Lords in the United Kingdom condemned marital exemption as "anachronistic and offensive" and effectively abolished it in the case of R v R.
With that decision, the common-law position in the UK, which the Privy Council (Jamaica's final court of appeal) would arguably have recognised as the common-law position in Jamaica, was that there was no distinction between marital rape and other forms of rape.
The Sexual Offences Act, 2009
The Sexual Offences Act presented a golden opportunity for the Jamaican Parliament to crystallise the common-law position in statutory form and, thereby, show greater respect for a woman's dignity and for her concomitant right to equality regardless of marital status. This opportunity was missed, as the legislature confined the circumstances in which there could be a conviction for marital rape to circumstances that existed before the 1992 R v R decision.
Section 5 of the Sexual Offences Act of Jamaica only recognises the offence of marital rape where the spouses have separated and are living separately and apart; where there's a separation agreement between the spouses; where either party has initiated divorce proceedings; where an order has been made against the husband for the protection of his wife; or where the husband knows that he is suffering from a sexually transmitted infection.
When we take stock of the developments in this area of law, it appears that what Parliament has accomplished with respect to marital rape is actually a retrograde step which fails to adopt laws that offer greater protection for the women of this country. The result is that the law still regards a married woman as having signed away some of her rights to her bodily integrity. Her husband can have forced sexual intercourse with her with impunity unless there has been some lasting or formal rupture of marital consortium.
Evidence
It has been argued that it is necessary to restrict the circumstances in which marital rape can occur because of the difficulty in gathering evidence and convincing juries or judges that rape has indeed taken place. Jennifer Temkin has indicated that this argument is unconvincing, as there are other offences that are classified as crimes despite the difficulty of proving the offence.
A case in point is that of date rape, or rape where a couple is cohabiting. In those circumstances, it may be difficult to prove the offence, yet the law rightly regards rape in those circumstances as an offence. Moreover, the circum-stances listed in the act appear to be instances in which one can argue that there is a breakdown in the marriage and that, therefore, a wife ought not be assumed to have consented to sexual intercourse. Accordingly, the circumstances rest on and seem to glorify the archaic premise that a woman gives her consent to each act of sexual intercourse with her husband and that this consent is only deemed to have been revoked in very limited circumstances.
The 'Family Sphere'
Other arguments in favour of limiting the circumstances in which marital rape is recognised as an offence can be found, but space does not permit a response to each. One that I would like to briefly comment on is the argument that criminal law is not the appropriate sphere to address 'family matters', particularly where the intervention of the law may thwart the spouses' reconciliation. It should be recognised by now that this is a spurious objection, in light of the availability of protection under the Domestic Violence Act for wives who become victims of abuse, in light of the consideration that it is dubious that it is in the best interests of a woman and/or her family to remain married to a person who has committed a sexual assault against her, and in light of the fact that a cohabiting spouse may be convicted for rape despite the cohabiting couple having a family.
The rebuttal of these and similar arguments for retaining the marital exemption prompted countries such as the United Kingdom and South Africa to end the distinction between marital rape and other instances of rape.
Absurd Distinctions
The unreasonableness of distinguishing between marital rape and other instances of rape is borne out when we compare the position of 'common-law spouses' and 'traditional' spouses. Under the act, a woman who has been cohabiting with a man for five years or more, and who the law regards in other contexts as the common-law wife of the man in question, will receive greater protection under the act than a woman who has undergone a marriage ceremony.
This anomaly also serves to underscore that the limitation of the circumstances in which prosecution of marital rape can occur is not for purely evidential reasons but, rather, a symbol of the perpetuation of the belief that when a woman marries, she thereby surrenders control over her body and her sexual autonomy.
Harm to Women
In addition to defying logic, the distinction perpetuated by the Sexual Offences Act produces harm to two classes of women. First, it potentially harms married women who are victims of rape at the hands of their husbands but who are not entitled to prove the offence in court and thereby obtain the protection. Second, it potentially harms the general female populace by sending the message that women do not have complete control over their sexual engagement.
The European Court of Human Rights has held that states party to the European Convention on Human Rights have a "positive obligation" to criminalise "all forms of rape" and has referred to the marital exemption as an "unacceptable idea" which was inconsistent with a "civilised concept of marriage" and with "respect for human dignity".
It is conceivable that an argument could be mounted that the Jamaican Constitution or the soon-to-be-enacted Charter of Rights mandates criminalisation of acts of marital rape as rape. This would be consistent with developments towards greater gender/sex equality.
Conclusion
Our nation has made significant strides in the advancement of women's equality, particularly in education and in the workplace, but we must not misconstrue this as an indication that we have achieved equality of the sexes. We must come to terms with the fact that women's equality includes the eradication of violence against women. It is instructive that the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women regards gender-based violence as an act of discrimination.
Until we change the law's treatment of female victims of violence and transform our society's attitudes towards gender-based violence, we still have not achieved full equality for women in Jamaica.
Se-Shauna Wheatle, Jamaica's 2008 Rhodes Scholar and co-president of the Black Association of Rhodes Scholars, is reading for a Master of Philosophy in Law degree at the University of Oxford. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.
April 11, 2010
Saturday, April 10, 2010
If the Conservative Party wins the election in Britain, Belize could be in trouble
By Wellington C Ramos:
Most Belizeans are not aware of the fact that next month there will be a national election held in Great Britain for the 650 seats in the British House of Commons. The main parties that are competing for these seats are the Liberal Democrats, under their leader Nick Clegg; the Conservative Party, with David Cameron; and the Labour Party, which currently controls the reins of government under the leadership of Britain’s current Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
This election could determine what will be the relationship between Great Britain and Belize for the next five years due to the influence of Michael Ashcroft, who financially supported the People’s United Party in Belize and is doing the same for the Conservative Party in Great Britain. He is angry with this current UDP government for taking over BTL from him and may find a way to influence his party to retaliate against the people and government of Belize.
On March 11, 1981, the Conservative Party was in power under the leadership of their then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, known as the “Iron Lady” due to the British war against Argentina over the Falkland Islands. She forced our country of Belize into independence by sending a representative to our country by the name of Nicholas Ridley with a document titled the “Heads of Agreement.” This document was a proposed agreement to settle the dispute with Great Britain and Guatemala over our country.
When Belizeans saw the document they erupted and was ready to burn down the whole country of Belize. The leader of the People’s United Party George Cadle Price was so much in a rush for independence that he allowed Mr Ridley to riddle his way out of the negotiations and our country ended up with independence on September 21, 1981 without any defence treaty with Great Britain.
Not only did the British not grant our country any defence guarantees but they were thinking about abruptly withdrawing all their forces out of our country after exploiting Belize for a total of three hundred and forty-three years since the arrival of one of their explorers Peter Wallace in 1638.
Luckily for Belize, there was a civil war brewing in El Salvador and the President of the United States at the time, Ronald Reagan, was concerned about the impact it would have on the entire region and persuaded the British to stay. It was even said that the Americans paid for the British to remain in Belize.
The Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher refused to make any commitment to our country and said that the British forces will remain in Belize for an indefinite period of time. The word indefinite will end up being a short period of time.
When the Falklands war started, the British were thinking about doing a major withdrawal of their forces but due to Belize’s strategic location in the region they prepared a phased withdrawal plan. After the war, they ended up withdrawing most of their garrison regiment and left a training center now known as BATSUB.
Belize is now left defenceless and without any defence guarantees from Great Britain or any other major military power in the world. Due to this vulnerable situation that Belize now finds itself in, Guatemala continues to claim Belize and their citizens are crossing our border at will, coming in and out of our country whenever they feel like, as if Belize belongs to them.
Current polls in Britain indicate that the Conservative Party is leading with 39%, the Labour Party at 29% and the Liberal Democrats at 20%. This poll was conducted by the Sunday Times newspaper, which is conservative and is owned by one of their financial supporters Rupert Murdoch. He is another billionaire that finances the Republican Party in the United States and own several newspapers, including the Boston Globe and the New York Post. This poll could be biased but it should not be taken lightly.
Great Britain is going through hard economic times and the British people are angry with the current government over their constant support of the United States in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The Prime Minister Gordon Brown wanted to become prime minister so badly, that he asked his colleagues to replace a very popular and charismatic leader Tony Blair for him. Since he became the prime minister the party has become very unpopular because most British people see him as a bland person, who is unable to rally his people behind him and his party’s agenda.
The way politics is turning in Great Britain, the United States, Belize and other countries in the world, there is an urgent need for stiffer campaign spending laws to restrict the amount of money candidates can spend in an election and the amount big businesses and billionaires can donate to the political parties in order to control them and work in their best interest against the working class and the poor.
Recently New York’s Mayor Michael Bloomberg spent millions of dollars to force himself into office against term limits that was approved in a referendum by the citizens of New York City for a third term. Now that he has been re-elected, New York City residents are sorry because of the amount of problems that have been resurrected after the elections were held. This type of politics is resulting in unintelligent rich people running for office, who do not have the substance to be good leaders and intelligent poor people, who possess the substance but are being controlled by the unintelligent person and his money.
There is a true saying in politics: “He who pays the piper calls the tune.” This phrase is true because very few people are going to give you anything in life without expecting something back in return. The recent experience with Michael Ashcroft in Belize getting those tax breaks at the expense of the Belizean people that were given to him by the People’s United Party for their victories over the years, is why we Belizeans should encourage this UDP administration to pass campaign finance spending laws to avoid our government from being bought over and controlled by the rich.
The British elections will be here soon and the best we can hope for is that the Conservative Party and the Labour Party do not gain a majority of seats to form a government. If this happens, then whoever wins will have to form a coalition government with the Liberal Democrats and arrange a power sharing administration.
The conflict between Argentina and Britain over the Falkland Islands is coming back to life, due to oil deposits on the Falkland Islands and Britain is thinking about commencing drilling. There is oil in Belize and Guatemala but most people are afraid to discuss what impact the oil have on the territorial dispute between these two countries when they know that it does have an impact.
April 10, 2010
caribbeannetnews
Most Belizeans are not aware of the fact that next month there will be a national election held in Great Britain for the 650 seats in the British House of Commons. The main parties that are competing for these seats are the Liberal Democrats, under their leader Nick Clegg; the Conservative Party, with David Cameron; and the Labour Party, which currently controls the reins of government under the leadership of Britain’s current Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
This election could determine what will be the relationship between Great Britain and Belize for the next five years due to the influence of Michael Ashcroft, who financially supported the People’s United Party in Belize and is doing the same for the Conservative Party in Great Britain. He is angry with this current UDP government for taking over BTL from him and may find a way to influence his party to retaliate against the people and government of Belize. On March 11, 1981, the Conservative Party was in power under the leadership of their then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, known as the “Iron Lady” due to the British war against Argentina over the Falkland Islands. She forced our country of Belize into independence by sending a representative to our country by the name of Nicholas Ridley with a document titled the “Heads of Agreement.” This document was a proposed agreement to settle the dispute with Great Britain and Guatemala over our country.
When Belizeans saw the document they erupted and was ready to burn down the whole country of Belize. The leader of the People’s United Party George Cadle Price was so much in a rush for independence that he allowed Mr Ridley to riddle his way out of the negotiations and our country ended up with independence on September 21, 1981 without any defence treaty with Great Britain.
Not only did the British not grant our country any defence guarantees but they were thinking about abruptly withdrawing all their forces out of our country after exploiting Belize for a total of three hundred and forty-three years since the arrival of one of their explorers Peter Wallace in 1638.
Luckily for Belize, there was a civil war brewing in El Salvador and the President of the United States at the time, Ronald Reagan, was concerned about the impact it would have on the entire region and persuaded the British to stay. It was even said that the Americans paid for the British to remain in Belize.
The Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher refused to make any commitment to our country and said that the British forces will remain in Belize for an indefinite period of time. The word indefinite will end up being a short period of time.
When the Falklands war started, the British were thinking about doing a major withdrawal of their forces but due to Belize’s strategic location in the region they prepared a phased withdrawal plan. After the war, they ended up withdrawing most of their garrison regiment and left a training center now known as BATSUB.
Belize is now left defenceless and without any defence guarantees from Great Britain or any other major military power in the world. Due to this vulnerable situation that Belize now finds itself in, Guatemala continues to claim Belize and their citizens are crossing our border at will, coming in and out of our country whenever they feel like, as if Belize belongs to them.
Current polls in Britain indicate that the Conservative Party is leading with 39%, the Labour Party at 29% and the Liberal Democrats at 20%. This poll was conducted by the Sunday Times newspaper, which is conservative and is owned by one of their financial supporters Rupert Murdoch. He is another billionaire that finances the Republican Party in the United States and own several newspapers, including the Boston Globe and the New York Post. This poll could be biased but it should not be taken lightly.
Great Britain is going through hard economic times and the British people are angry with the current government over their constant support of the United States in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The Prime Minister Gordon Brown wanted to become prime minister so badly, that he asked his colleagues to replace a very popular and charismatic leader Tony Blair for him. Since he became the prime minister the party has become very unpopular because most British people see him as a bland person, who is unable to rally his people behind him and his party’s agenda.
The way politics is turning in Great Britain, the United States, Belize and other countries in the world, there is an urgent need for stiffer campaign spending laws to restrict the amount of money candidates can spend in an election and the amount big businesses and billionaires can donate to the political parties in order to control them and work in their best interest against the working class and the poor.
Recently New York’s Mayor Michael Bloomberg spent millions of dollars to force himself into office against term limits that was approved in a referendum by the citizens of New York City for a third term. Now that he has been re-elected, New York City residents are sorry because of the amount of problems that have been resurrected after the elections were held. This type of politics is resulting in unintelligent rich people running for office, who do not have the substance to be good leaders and intelligent poor people, who possess the substance but are being controlled by the unintelligent person and his money.
There is a true saying in politics: “He who pays the piper calls the tune.” This phrase is true because very few people are going to give you anything in life without expecting something back in return. The recent experience with Michael Ashcroft in Belize getting those tax breaks at the expense of the Belizean people that were given to him by the People’s United Party for their victories over the years, is why we Belizeans should encourage this UDP administration to pass campaign finance spending laws to avoid our government from being bought over and controlled by the rich.
The British elections will be here soon and the best we can hope for is that the Conservative Party and the Labour Party do not gain a majority of seats to form a government. If this happens, then whoever wins will have to form a coalition government with the Liberal Democrats and arrange a power sharing administration.
The conflict between Argentina and Britain over the Falkland Islands is coming back to life, due to oil deposits on the Falkland Islands and Britain is thinking about commencing drilling. There is oil in Belize and Guatemala but most people are afraid to discuss what impact the oil have on the territorial dispute between these two countries when they know that it does have an impact.
April 10, 2010
caribbeannetnews
Friday, April 9, 2010
Support Obama - It's in our interest
By Sir Ronald Sanders:
Barack Obama is earning the Nobel Prize for Peace that he received late last year amid criticism that he had done nothing to deserve it.
The arms treaty that he personally pushed and signed with the Russian leader Dmitry Medvedev on April 8 in Prague is cause for the entire world to breathe a sigh of relief.
For sure, the world is a safer place for the fact, that under this Treaty, the nuclear arsenals of both the United States and Russia will be cut by a third.
Small nations, such as those in the Caribbean, would never have been part of the nuclear arms race, but once these weapons are in the hands of countries which might be tempted to use them, the real risk exists that small countries in their proximity could become innocent victims.
Of course, the risk now goes beyond nations to rogue groups with the financial capacity either to buy or develop nuclear weapons for use against nations they consider enemies. By the nature of its involvement in global affairs, the United States is an obvious target for hostile nations and anti-American organisations.
A nuclear attack on the United States would have dramatic and fatal consequences for the Caribbean in a range of ways that go far beyond the overspill from nuclear explosions.
Against this background, Caribbean countries should applaud the treaty signed by Obama and Medvedev. Similarly, they should welcome the Conference to be held by 47 nations, hosted by the United States on April 12 and 13.
Small states will forever be spectators at such Conferences – not being nuclear nations themselves – but they should be active spectators cheering on the governments that resolve not to develop nuclear weapons as well as the governments that take the bold step to reduce their arsenals. In this regard, governments of small states would act in their own interest and in the interest of all mankind if they sent messages of congratulations to Presidents Obama and Medvedev. These two leaders need to know that people around the world approve of their action.
It would not be amiss too if Caribbean governments also sent messages to the leaders of all 47 states participating in the Summit meeting on nuclear security starting on April 12. Such a message should make it clear that the world expects them to act responsibly and collectively to uphold the fundamental premise of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NTP) which is that while all nations have the right to seek the peaceful use of nuclear energy, they all also have the responsibility to prevent nuclear proliferation, and those that do possess these weapons must work towards disarmament.
Both Medvedev and Obama have already received strong criticism from influential persons and groups within their own countries, making it even more urgent for peace-loving nations to register their vibrant support for their courage in resisting the combatants in their own societies. The ink was not yet dry on the signatures to the Treaty signed on April 8 when conservatives opposed to Obama’s agenda for nuclear non-proliferation attacked him, saying that he will weaken the US nuclear deterrent against possible attack.
Not surprisingly among the nay-sayers was John McCain, the Republican Senator against whom Obama ran for the US Presidency. He was joined by another Republican Senator in saying: “We believe that preventing nuclear terrorism and nuclear proliferation should begin by directly confronting the two leading proliferators and supporters of terrorism, Iran and North Korea. The Obama administration's policies, thus far, have failed to do that and this failure has sent exactly the wrong message to other would-be proliferators and supporters of terrorism”.
Their statement indicates quite clearly what the attitude of the Republicans will be in the US Senate which has to ratify the Obama-Medvedev treaty before it can come into force. They will subject Obama to a verbal bashing, and raise the spectre of American vulnerability as they try to scaremonger the entire nation into rejecting it. The Russian Parliament also has to ratify the treaty, and while the ride there may be easier, it will not be entirely smooth. This is even greater reason for other nations to transmit to these bodies their support for the agreement.
The Summit on Nuclear Security is not expected to discuss particular countries but undoubtedly Iran and North Korea will be discussed in the margins of the meeting. Iran is widely suspected of pursuing nuclear weapons, and North Korea, which withdrew from the NPT in 2003, has twice detonated nuclear devices. Both countries are under UN sanctions, and both are governed by regimes that have demonstrated a dislike and disregard for international rules.
What was particularly significant about the speech made by Medvedev after signing the April 8 treaty is that he was severely critical of Iran saying that the world could not turn a blind eye to Iran, which he said had not responded to "many constructive proposals". He suggested that Russia would be open to further sanctions against Tehran.
Small states, particularly those that are actively seeking economic links to Iran, also need to be careful that the Iranian government does not expect their votes in diplomatic tussles at the United Nations and other international bodies over Iran’s nuclear programme. While all countries should support the desire for nuclear energy, it is not at all clear that Iran’s programme stops there. And rejecting any overtures from Iran for diplomatic support in the nuclear controversy would not be submission to a US-Russia position; it would be an assertion of the vital concern of small nations for a world in which no new nuclear weapons are built and existing arsenals reduced.
On April 7, the Obama government committed the US not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states provided that they are party to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation obligations. Only North Korea and Iran are presently omitted from this undertaking.
The nuclear security Summit could be a first step in a constructive nuclear-use strategy. If the development of nuclear weapons could be universally rejected and a commitment made to the peaceful use of nuclear energy, nuclear power could be used in the fight against climate change and in giving the entire world greater confidence in energy security
Obama has given the world the right lead by his intense desire to end nuclear-proliferation. Yes, the US would be safer if this happens, but so too would the rest of the world particularly those with no nuclear weapons. Obama deserves support.
April 9, 2010
caribbeannetnews
Barack Obama is earning the Nobel Prize for Peace that he received late last year amid criticism that he had done nothing to deserve it.
The arms treaty that he personally pushed and signed with the Russian leader Dmitry Medvedev on April 8 in Prague is cause for the entire world to breathe a sigh of relief.
For sure, the world is a safer place for the fact, that under this Treaty, the nuclear arsenals of both the United States and Russia will be cut by a third. Small nations, such as those in the Caribbean, would never have been part of the nuclear arms race, but once these weapons are in the hands of countries which might be tempted to use them, the real risk exists that small countries in their proximity could become innocent victims.
Of course, the risk now goes beyond nations to rogue groups with the financial capacity either to buy or develop nuclear weapons for use against nations they consider enemies. By the nature of its involvement in global affairs, the United States is an obvious target for hostile nations and anti-American organisations.
A nuclear attack on the United States would have dramatic and fatal consequences for the Caribbean in a range of ways that go far beyond the overspill from nuclear explosions.
Against this background, Caribbean countries should applaud the treaty signed by Obama and Medvedev. Similarly, they should welcome the Conference to be held by 47 nations, hosted by the United States on April 12 and 13.
Small states will forever be spectators at such Conferences – not being nuclear nations themselves – but they should be active spectators cheering on the governments that resolve not to develop nuclear weapons as well as the governments that take the bold step to reduce their arsenals. In this regard, governments of small states would act in their own interest and in the interest of all mankind if they sent messages of congratulations to Presidents Obama and Medvedev. These two leaders need to know that people around the world approve of their action.
It would not be amiss too if Caribbean governments also sent messages to the leaders of all 47 states participating in the Summit meeting on nuclear security starting on April 12. Such a message should make it clear that the world expects them to act responsibly and collectively to uphold the fundamental premise of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NTP) which is that while all nations have the right to seek the peaceful use of nuclear energy, they all also have the responsibility to prevent nuclear proliferation, and those that do possess these weapons must work towards disarmament.
Both Medvedev and Obama have already received strong criticism from influential persons and groups within their own countries, making it even more urgent for peace-loving nations to register their vibrant support for their courage in resisting the combatants in their own societies. The ink was not yet dry on the signatures to the Treaty signed on April 8 when conservatives opposed to Obama’s agenda for nuclear non-proliferation attacked him, saying that he will weaken the US nuclear deterrent against possible attack.
Not surprisingly among the nay-sayers was John McCain, the Republican Senator against whom Obama ran for the US Presidency. He was joined by another Republican Senator in saying: “We believe that preventing nuclear terrorism and nuclear proliferation should begin by directly confronting the two leading proliferators and supporters of terrorism, Iran and North Korea. The Obama administration's policies, thus far, have failed to do that and this failure has sent exactly the wrong message to other would-be proliferators and supporters of terrorism”.
Their statement indicates quite clearly what the attitude of the Republicans will be in the US Senate which has to ratify the Obama-Medvedev treaty before it can come into force. They will subject Obama to a verbal bashing, and raise the spectre of American vulnerability as they try to scaremonger the entire nation into rejecting it. The Russian Parliament also has to ratify the treaty, and while the ride there may be easier, it will not be entirely smooth. This is even greater reason for other nations to transmit to these bodies their support for the agreement.
The Summit on Nuclear Security is not expected to discuss particular countries but undoubtedly Iran and North Korea will be discussed in the margins of the meeting. Iran is widely suspected of pursuing nuclear weapons, and North Korea, which withdrew from the NPT in 2003, has twice detonated nuclear devices. Both countries are under UN sanctions, and both are governed by regimes that have demonstrated a dislike and disregard for international rules.
What was particularly significant about the speech made by Medvedev after signing the April 8 treaty is that he was severely critical of Iran saying that the world could not turn a blind eye to Iran, which he said had not responded to "many constructive proposals". He suggested that Russia would be open to further sanctions against Tehran.
Small states, particularly those that are actively seeking economic links to Iran, also need to be careful that the Iranian government does not expect their votes in diplomatic tussles at the United Nations and other international bodies over Iran’s nuclear programme. While all countries should support the desire for nuclear energy, it is not at all clear that Iran’s programme stops there. And rejecting any overtures from Iran for diplomatic support in the nuclear controversy would not be submission to a US-Russia position; it would be an assertion of the vital concern of small nations for a world in which no new nuclear weapons are built and existing arsenals reduced.
On April 7, the Obama government committed the US not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states provided that they are party to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation obligations. Only North Korea and Iran are presently omitted from this undertaking.
The nuclear security Summit could be a first step in a constructive nuclear-use strategy. If the development of nuclear weapons could be universally rejected and a commitment made to the peaceful use of nuclear energy, nuclear power could be used in the fight against climate change and in giving the entire world greater confidence in energy security
Obama has given the world the right lead by his intense desire to end nuclear-proliferation. Yes, the US would be safer if this happens, but so too would the rest of the world particularly those with no nuclear weapons. Obama deserves support.
April 9, 2010
caribbeannetnews
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Courts -- a nation's sovereignty
Tribune242.com editorial:
MANY BAHAMIANS thought that by ridding themselves of the Privy Council as this country's last court of appeal our judicial system could retain the death penalty. Although the Privy Council is still our final court of appeal, and although a large number of Bahamians still favour its retention, it is quickly losing its attraction for those who want to retain the gallows for convicted murderers.
"Hang 'em high!" is still the angry reaction in this country as Bahamians defend capital punishment as the final solution to the growing murder count.
However, it now seems that the Privy Council is not the only stumbling block to retaining the death penalty.
According to Tuesday's Gleaner of Jamaica, the European Union is starting to show its mighty muscles by threatening to withdraw grant funds if Jamaica does not employ an additional Supreme Court judge.
According to The Gleaner Jamaica's Justice Minister Dorothy Lightbourne explained that she had to "follow the dictate of the powerful bloc of countries in order to benefit from grant funds they have provided."
The conditions, the Justice Minister told Parliament last week during the sitting of the joint select committee, have to do with fighting corruption and to improve the justice system. "They have said we should increase judges and we have brought on one judge."
Drawing attention to the notation in the 2010/2011 Estimates of Expenditure, which read: "One additional judge has already been hired to meet the European Union condition," MP Dr Morais Guy commented:
"I would be happy if I am told that this is just a wrong choice of terminology because I cannot see how they are imposing conditions on the sovereign country of Jamaica."
He was told that the money granted by the EU was going towards improving Jamaica's justice system. Guidelines were set out as a condition of the grant. An addition of judges was one of the conditions if funds were to be forthcoming.
And so as the EU could threaten to withhold grant funds over a judge, it could also threaten to withdraw much needed funds if the Bahamas insisted on retaining the death penalty in its legal system.
As a matter of fact this threat was seriously discussed in our private office several years ago by a visiting European ambassador paying a courtesy call on his annual tour of duty.
We believe that this discussion took place around 1993 when the hot topic on the street at that time -- and of much concern to Bahamians -- was the Privy Council's decision that two Bahamians could not be hanged because they had been languishing on death row for more than five years. To hang them after five years would amount to inhumane treatment, the Council ruled. This meant that the sentences of all those then on death row for five years or more had their sentences automatically commuted to life imprisonment. It also set out a time frame for the future.
On being asked public opinion on the abolition of the death penalty in the Bahamas, we explained that we believed that Prime Minister Ingraham was an abolitionist, but that most Bahamians were strongly for its retention. However, if capital punishment remained on the statute books, the Prime Minister would uphold the law. It was then that the ambassador threw down the gauntlet.
And what would happen, he asked, if the EU withdrew all grants from the Bahamas unless capital punishment were abolished?
We replied that the Bahamas would then have to face a serious issue. However, we believed it would be considered a bullying tactic by a powerful European bloc against a small, defenceless nation, especially with the mighty US next door, where many states still used the electric chair to get rid of its murderers. We suggested that they flex their muscles with the US first, and then they could come and talk with the Bahamas.
What is now interesting is that England is becoming nervous about the clout that the European Court of Humane Rights is having over the UK courts.
In defending his country's national sovereignty, the Lord Chief Justice -- Lord Judge -- has declared that the English Supreme Court must have the final say in its own jurisdiction, and that common law -- which is common sense built up over more than 800 years, going as far back as legal memory (1189) -- must be defended and preserved.
April 08, 2010
tribune242
MANY BAHAMIANS thought that by ridding themselves of the Privy Council as this country's last court of appeal our judicial system could retain the death penalty. Although the Privy Council is still our final court of appeal, and although a large number of Bahamians still favour its retention, it is quickly losing its attraction for those who want to retain the gallows for convicted murderers.
"Hang 'em high!" is still the angry reaction in this country as Bahamians defend capital punishment as the final solution to the growing murder count.
However, it now seems that the Privy Council is not the only stumbling block to retaining the death penalty.
According to Tuesday's Gleaner of Jamaica, the European Union is starting to show its mighty muscles by threatening to withdraw grant funds if Jamaica does not employ an additional Supreme Court judge.
According to The Gleaner Jamaica's Justice Minister Dorothy Lightbourne explained that she had to "follow the dictate of the powerful bloc of countries in order to benefit from grant funds they have provided."
The conditions, the Justice Minister told Parliament last week during the sitting of the joint select committee, have to do with fighting corruption and to improve the justice system. "They have said we should increase judges and we have brought on one judge."
Drawing attention to the notation in the 2010/2011 Estimates of Expenditure, which read: "One additional judge has already been hired to meet the European Union condition," MP Dr Morais Guy commented:
"I would be happy if I am told that this is just a wrong choice of terminology because I cannot see how they are imposing conditions on the sovereign country of Jamaica."
He was told that the money granted by the EU was going towards improving Jamaica's justice system. Guidelines were set out as a condition of the grant. An addition of judges was one of the conditions if funds were to be forthcoming.
And so as the EU could threaten to withhold grant funds over a judge, it could also threaten to withdraw much needed funds if the Bahamas insisted on retaining the death penalty in its legal system.
As a matter of fact this threat was seriously discussed in our private office several years ago by a visiting European ambassador paying a courtesy call on his annual tour of duty.
We believe that this discussion took place around 1993 when the hot topic on the street at that time -- and of much concern to Bahamians -- was the Privy Council's decision that two Bahamians could not be hanged because they had been languishing on death row for more than five years. To hang them after five years would amount to inhumane treatment, the Council ruled. This meant that the sentences of all those then on death row for five years or more had their sentences automatically commuted to life imprisonment. It also set out a time frame for the future.
On being asked public opinion on the abolition of the death penalty in the Bahamas, we explained that we believed that Prime Minister Ingraham was an abolitionist, but that most Bahamians were strongly for its retention. However, if capital punishment remained on the statute books, the Prime Minister would uphold the law. It was then that the ambassador threw down the gauntlet.
And what would happen, he asked, if the EU withdrew all grants from the Bahamas unless capital punishment were abolished?
We replied that the Bahamas would then have to face a serious issue. However, we believed it would be considered a bullying tactic by a powerful European bloc against a small, defenceless nation, especially with the mighty US next door, where many states still used the electric chair to get rid of its murderers. We suggested that they flex their muscles with the US first, and then they could come and talk with the Bahamas.
What is now interesting is that England is becoming nervous about the clout that the European Court of Humane Rights is having over the UK courts.
In defending his country's national sovereignty, the Lord Chief Justice -- Lord Judge -- has declared that the English Supreme Court must have the final say in its own jurisdiction, and that common law -- which is common sense built up over more than 800 years, going as far back as legal memory (1189) -- must be defended and preserved.
April 08, 2010
tribune242
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Bahamas: 'Operation Ceasefire' worth investigating
Tribune242 Editorial:
IN THIS column yesterday we discussed another approach to crime, one that would tap into a community's social problems and force criminals -- especially those operating in gangs -- to take responsibility, not only individually, but also as a group, for the error of their ways.
A Scottish police woman, impressed by the results that "Operation Ceasefire" was having in subduing Boston's criminals, tried to convince the Strathclyde police department, which included Glasgow, a city plagued by 3,500 gang members, ranging in age from 11 to 23, to explore the possibilities of adapting the programme to the needs of Glasgow.
Her colleagues were sceptical, writes Gavin Knight, in "The Week", a weekly London publication. They believed that Boston gang crime was driven by the control of the drug markets, with guns the enforcers, and gang members mainly African-Americans. They believed that Glasgow's crime was different. Police woman, Karyn McCluskey, disagreed. She was convinced that the "macho street code and group dynamics were the same." McCluskey said when she sat in on Boston gang trials she found that "the majority of the fights and murders were about respect. They weren't about control of the drugs market. Fights over girlfriends. Fights over territory. You've come into my area -- exactly what we have in Glasgow."
She was determined to try out Harvard-educated David Kennedy's "Operation Ceasefire". Kennedy flew to Strathclyde to convince McCluskey's colleagues. The £5 million needed to fund the project was raised. People were brought together from justice, government, housing, careers, education, social work, health and the community. After 18 months of planning, the Strathclyde police were ready for the first call-in. It was held in the Glasgow sheriff's court on October 24, 2008 and was opened by the sheriff.
Wrote Gavin Knight:
"Through a cordon of four mounted police at the entrance, 120 gang members were escorted into the courtroom by police in riot gear. A police helicopter hovered overhead and constables cruised up and down the Clyde. 'The chief of police stands up first. He gives a hard-edged message,' McCluskey recalled. 'Pictures of the gangs are getting flashed around on the screens. We know who you are, who you associate with, who you fight with. If we wanted, we could have a police officer outside your front door. You could see the looks on their faces. They are shocked.'"
Members of the community then spoke. An elderly man told how frightened he was to walk down the street to collect his pension. An Accident and Emergency consultant explained the difficulty in dealing with knife victims. A mother told of how her 13-year-old son was set upon by a machete-wielding gang. He tried to protect his badly damaged face, resulting in the loss of his fingers. "We had gang members crying because regardless of how good or bad their parents are -- they love their mums," McCluskey said. "That was the most powerful thing in the US, and it was the most powerful thing here too," she noted.
Another speaker had committed murder at 18. He explained the dehumanising and harrowing aspects of prison life. He told of spending his twenties in prison, "someone telling him when he can go to the toilet, when he can eat." He had a "level of remorse that speaks to them," said McCluskey.
It is too early to officially evaluate the results of the Stathclyde programme, but according to anecdotal evidence it appears to be working. It is reported that the Ceasefire model has been the most successful attempt so far to reduce crime in that area, and is being suggested for other British cities.
"Operation Ceasefire" provides a helping hand for anyone who wants to leave gang life and enter the world of worthwhile achievement. Each gang member is given a phone number to call if he wants to leave a gang. The boys are assessed by a social worker, and their needs are noted, whether it be a programme to get them off drugs or get them an education. Health care, career advice and social services are also provided.
We suggest that our Commissioner of Police give Mr David Kennedy a call to explore whether "Operation Ceasefire", or some adaptation of it, might bear fruit in the Bahamas.
Our crime situation has now reached a point where almost anything is worth investigation.
April 07, 2010
tribune242
IN THIS column yesterday we discussed another approach to crime, one that would tap into a community's social problems and force criminals -- especially those operating in gangs -- to take responsibility, not only individually, but also as a group, for the error of their ways.
A Scottish police woman, impressed by the results that "Operation Ceasefire" was having in subduing Boston's criminals, tried to convince the Strathclyde police department, which included Glasgow, a city plagued by 3,500 gang members, ranging in age from 11 to 23, to explore the possibilities of adapting the programme to the needs of Glasgow.
Her colleagues were sceptical, writes Gavin Knight, in "The Week", a weekly London publication. They believed that Boston gang crime was driven by the control of the drug markets, with guns the enforcers, and gang members mainly African-Americans. They believed that Glasgow's crime was different. Police woman, Karyn McCluskey, disagreed. She was convinced that the "macho street code and group dynamics were the same." McCluskey said when she sat in on Boston gang trials she found that "the majority of the fights and murders were about respect. They weren't about control of the drugs market. Fights over girlfriends. Fights over territory. You've come into my area -- exactly what we have in Glasgow."
She was determined to try out Harvard-educated David Kennedy's "Operation Ceasefire". Kennedy flew to Strathclyde to convince McCluskey's colleagues. The £5 million needed to fund the project was raised. People were brought together from justice, government, housing, careers, education, social work, health and the community. After 18 months of planning, the Strathclyde police were ready for the first call-in. It was held in the Glasgow sheriff's court on October 24, 2008 and was opened by the sheriff.
Wrote Gavin Knight:
"Through a cordon of four mounted police at the entrance, 120 gang members were escorted into the courtroom by police in riot gear. A police helicopter hovered overhead and constables cruised up and down the Clyde. 'The chief of police stands up first. He gives a hard-edged message,' McCluskey recalled. 'Pictures of the gangs are getting flashed around on the screens. We know who you are, who you associate with, who you fight with. If we wanted, we could have a police officer outside your front door. You could see the looks on their faces. They are shocked.'"
Members of the community then spoke. An elderly man told how frightened he was to walk down the street to collect his pension. An Accident and Emergency consultant explained the difficulty in dealing with knife victims. A mother told of how her 13-year-old son was set upon by a machete-wielding gang. He tried to protect his badly damaged face, resulting in the loss of his fingers. "We had gang members crying because regardless of how good or bad their parents are -- they love their mums," McCluskey said. "That was the most powerful thing in the US, and it was the most powerful thing here too," she noted.
Another speaker had committed murder at 18. He explained the dehumanising and harrowing aspects of prison life. He told of spending his twenties in prison, "someone telling him when he can go to the toilet, when he can eat." He had a "level of remorse that speaks to them," said McCluskey.
It is too early to officially evaluate the results of the Stathclyde programme, but according to anecdotal evidence it appears to be working. It is reported that the Ceasefire model has been the most successful attempt so far to reduce crime in that area, and is being suggested for other British cities.
"Operation Ceasefire" provides a helping hand for anyone who wants to leave gang life and enter the world of worthwhile achievement. Each gang member is given a phone number to call if he wants to leave a gang. The boys are assessed by a social worker, and their needs are noted, whether it be a programme to get them off drugs or get them an education. Health care, career advice and social services are also provided.
We suggest that our Commissioner of Police give Mr David Kennedy a call to explore whether "Operation Ceasefire", or some adaptation of it, might bear fruit in the Bahamas.
Our crime situation has now reached a point where almost anything is worth investigation.
April 07, 2010
tribune242
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Bahamas: Crime solution needs a new approach
Tribune242 Editorial:
AFTER BEING off the island for the past two weeks we have returned to the same old story -- crime, crime and more crime. The killings, armed robberies and drug offences have been interrupted only by a freak tornado that brought tragedy to several Freeport families, and the signing of the Baha Mar $2.6 billion loan agreement with its Chinese partners for the redevelopment of Cable Beach, which, hopefully will translate into more jobs for unemployed Bahamians. On completion 6,500 direct jobs with 1,500 related industry jobs have been projected.
It isn't as though the police are not doing a good job in tracking down the criminal.
It isn't as though more members of the public are not stepping up to the plate with information to help the police in their investigations. It isn't as though committees are not being formed to try to find a solution to "our crime problem." All this is being done, but crime continues unabated.
A retired member of the police force believes that a successful programme will help if it can probe into the community's anti-social difficulties and find a solution that will embarrass the criminal into becoming a useful part of society.
Somehow the wayward have to be made to understand the damage they are doing to their country --the economy is now in a tailspin with crime threatening to shut off its very lifeblood, tourism.
It is true that there are hardened criminals who cannot be reached with such an argument.
We recall many years ago one of our Psychology professors likening this type of criminal to a product that arrives from the factory with an intrinsic flaw, the only remedy being to return it to the factory for remoulding.
In other words, these criminals are hopeless cases, who have to be institutionalised for society's protection. However, there are those for whom there is hope, and these are the ones for whom programmes have to be found to divert them from their evil ways.
The Bahamian police officer believes that many of today's programmes are ineffective. Firstly, it has to be decided what Bahamians are looking for and what they hope to achieve. They then have to discover whether their plan of attack is workable. If so, the plan has to be implemented with enthusiasm and determination -- not the half-measures given to most programmes today. In other words society has to be involved and understand that its members have to be serious about dealing with its social ills.
This line of thought recalled an article sent to us in January by a Tribune reader who believed we might "find it interesting and perhaps relevant to the current crime situation in the Bahamas." The article referred to was published in "The Week," a British publication.
The programme is very relevant and was along the lines that the Bahamian officer was suggesting. It is certainly worthy of investigation.
A Strathclyde police woman heard of the programme when police were faced with 71 murders in that region of Scotland. Most of the murders were committed in Glasgow, "making it the most violent city in Europe," said the magazine's article. Most of the deaths were committed by one-on-one battles among rival gangs. It was discovered that Glasgow has 170 gangs with 3,500 members, ranging in age from 11 to 23.
The police woman had heard of Operation Ceasefire, spearheaded by David Kennedy, a Harvard academic, in Boston, who "seeing crack-ravaged Boston housing projects in the 1980s, dedicated himself to researching new ideas in community-based policing. Boston's gang-related youth murders rose by 23 per cent, "The Week" reported.
Gavin Knight of "The Week" wrote:
"Under Kennedy's guidance, police, youth workers and other members of the project meticulously researched the violence. Who was attacking whom? Which gang members were in prison? The research took a year to complete. Once it was over, Kennedy's next move was to turn the gangs' group dynamics against them. He summoned gang members to face-to-face forums - 'call ins' -- which they could be compelled to attend as a condition of parole. The first was in Boston in May 1996, with a second in September that year. In the call-ins, gang members were not treated like psychopaths but like rational adults. It was businesslike and civil. The object was explicit moral engagement.
"They were told that what they were doing was causing huge damage to their families and communities and that the violence most stop. The police said that any further violence would result in the whole group being punished. In emotional appeals, members of the community, victims' relatives and ex-offenders spoke about the consequences of gang violence. And youth workers said that if they wanted out of the gang life they would be given help with jobs, housing, training and addiction problems."
The programme worked for Boston, but doubting Scotsmen questioned whether it could cross the Atlantic with any success for them.
April 06, 2010
tribune242
AFTER BEING off the island for the past two weeks we have returned to the same old story -- crime, crime and more crime. The killings, armed robberies and drug offences have been interrupted only by a freak tornado that brought tragedy to several Freeport families, and the signing of the Baha Mar $2.6 billion loan agreement with its Chinese partners for the redevelopment of Cable Beach, which, hopefully will translate into more jobs for unemployed Bahamians. On completion 6,500 direct jobs with 1,500 related industry jobs have been projected.
It isn't as though the police are not doing a good job in tracking down the criminal.
It isn't as though more members of the public are not stepping up to the plate with information to help the police in their investigations. It isn't as though committees are not being formed to try to find a solution to "our crime problem." All this is being done, but crime continues unabated.
A retired member of the police force believes that a successful programme will help if it can probe into the community's anti-social difficulties and find a solution that will embarrass the criminal into becoming a useful part of society.
Somehow the wayward have to be made to understand the damage they are doing to their country --the economy is now in a tailspin with crime threatening to shut off its very lifeblood, tourism.
It is true that there are hardened criminals who cannot be reached with such an argument.
We recall many years ago one of our Psychology professors likening this type of criminal to a product that arrives from the factory with an intrinsic flaw, the only remedy being to return it to the factory for remoulding.
In other words, these criminals are hopeless cases, who have to be institutionalised for society's protection. However, there are those for whom there is hope, and these are the ones for whom programmes have to be found to divert them from their evil ways.
The Bahamian police officer believes that many of today's programmes are ineffective. Firstly, it has to be decided what Bahamians are looking for and what they hope to achieve. They then have to discover whether their plan of attack is workable. If so, the plan has to be implemented with enthusiasm and determination -- not the half-measures given to most programmes today. In other words society has to be involved and understand that its members have to be serious about dealing with its social ills.
This line of thought recalled an article sent to us in January by a Tribune reader who believed we might "find it interesting and perhaps relevant to the current crime situation in the Bahamas." The article referred to was published in "The Week," a British publication.
The programme is very relevant and was along the lines that the Bahamian officer was suggesting. It is certainly worthy of investigation.
A Strathclyde police woman heard of the programme when police were faced with 71 murders in that region of Scotland. Most of the murders were committed in Glasgow, "making it the most violent city in Europe," said the magazine's article. Most of the deaths were committed by one-on-one battles among rival gangs. It was discovered that Glasgow has 170 gangs with 3,500 members, ranging in age from 11 to 23.
The police woman had heard of Operation Ceasefire, spearheaded by David Kennedy, a Harvard academic, in Boston, who "seeing crack-ravaged Boston housing projects in the 1980s, dedicated himself to researching new ideas in community-based policing. Boston's gang-related youth murders rose by 23 per cent, "The Week" reported.
Gavin Knight of "The Week" wrote:
"Under Kennedy's guidance, police, youth workers and other members of the project meticulously researched the violence. Who was attacking whom? Which gang members were in prison? The research took a year to complete. Once it was over, Kennedy's next move was to turn the gangs' group dynamics against them. He summoned gang members to face-to-face forums - 'call ins' -- which they could be compelled to attend as a condition of parole. The first was in Boston in May 1996, with a second in September that year. In the call-ins, gang members were not treated like psychopaths but like rational adults. It was businesslike and civil. The object was explicit moral engagement.
"They were told that what they were doing was causing huge damage to their families and communities and that the violence most stop. The police said that any further violence would result in the whole group being punished. In emotional appeals, members of the community, victims' relatives and ex-offenders spoke about the consequences of gang violence. And youth workers said that if they wanted out of the gang life they would be given help with jobs, housing, training and addiction problems."
The programme worked for Boston, but doubting Scotsmen questioned whether it could cross the Atlantic with any success for them.
April 06, 2010
tribune242
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)