Sometime this afternoon the Parliament will debate a Bill that the Government says is urgently needed in its fight against the criminal elements in the society. The nub or centre of this piece of legislation is the proposal by our political masters that if a person is charged with possession of an illegal (unlicensed) firearm that he will not be eligible for bail for at least 120 days. The arguments for this legislation are that it is desperately needed because the criminal elements in the society are running amok and the time (120 days) is needed to organize the protection of witnesses and to get the evidence together in order to secure a conviction.
Now, bail is a common law right. In other words, it is sacrosanct that a person's freedom will not be taken away without a conviction by a Court of competent jurisdiction. Put another way, your freedom cannot be taken away without a trial. Now, there are certain exceptions to this right, most of which (if not all) relate to offences such as murder and treason which carry the death penalty. But for almost every other crime your right to freedom trumps everything else.
So? Why should we (because the Parliament is us ... represents all of us) want to take away our basic right to freedom before a conviction? Is this a good idea? Tell me: is there anybody out there who believes that there is no corruption in the police service? Is there anybody who believes that nobody has ever been wrongly or unfairly charged by the police? Is there anybody who believes that there are no corrupt politicians? And if there is nobody who believes this, is there anybody who believes that a corrupt politician/public official has never used his position to get a corrupt police officer to maliciously and falsely charge somebody?
And that is the whole point about the objections to the Bail Bill. The Government is putting out the propaganda that this legislation is needed to curb the violent crime that is gripping the nation. But is this really true? Couldn't the violent crime be curbed by better detection AND rapid convictions? At the moment the conviction rate is nothing short of pathetic. And please don't talk about how long it takes trials to happen! Just the other day two men were freed of a murder charge after ten years in the Remand Yard! TEN years!! Can you imagine being locked up for that length of time and then being found not guilty?!? How would you feel? And can you imagine how you would feel if (for example) you were 'interfering' with somebody's wife or husband and the offended spouse used his/her connections to have you falsely charged and locked up for 120 days (that's 4 months, by the way) and not able to get bail!?
Our system of law is based on the premise that it is better for ten guilty men to go free than one innocent man to hang. It is a rule that I subscribe to. I recognize absolutely the terrible state of our nation. I recognize that most of us are living in self created "jails" while the criminals roam free. And, like most other people, I really have no sympathy for them. But there is a grave danger that we are 'throwing the baby out with the bath water' with this proposed law. It is not a panacea to the problems that confront us and will only create other problems that we don't need. Heck! Don't you remember how we were told that the Anti Gang legislation was so very badly needed? And now, after what feels like a thousand years later not one person has even been charged under that law! So?
No. This Bail Bill will not solve our problems. The best way to solve our problems is to have better policing, more convictions and an efficient judicial system. But that's another story again!!
Wednesday, July 31, 2019
Thursday, July 18, 2019
EMAILGATE ... THE AFTERMATH
So the Emailgate saga seems to be finally over with the authorities saying that there is absolutely no justiciable evidence to show that former Prime Minister Persad Bissessar conspired with her Attorney General, her National Security Adviser and a senior Cabinet Minister to murder a female journalist.
Apart from the absolutely scandalous nature of these allegations we ought to look at them very carefully and try and figure out from the available evidence who is this "anonymous" author. (For the record, I'm going to refer to the author in this post as "he" but I do acknowledge that it could easily be a "she". I simply don't know who wrote these scandalous allegations.)
So, let's start from the beginning: obviously the prime suspect would be Dr. Rowley himself. After all, he had a fairly obvious motive and we have only his word that he "found" them in his mailbox. (If you believe that, by the way, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I'd like to sell you.) But this is most unlikely. Dr. Rowley has been in Parliament since January 1987. He knows full well that you just don't stand up in Parliament and make some scandalous allegations on the basis of an anonymous report. No. Either he made up the emails himself or he knew the person who gave it to him and believed that person to be credible.
Let me say that I don't believe that Dr. Rowley made up the purported emails. I acknowledge that this might be quite possible and I certainly wouldn't put my head on a block for this, but I really don't believe that he was the author. No. I believe that it is far more likely that somebody gave them to him on condition of anonymity. And Dr. Rowley would have trusted that person because of who he was/is and therefore reasonably believed that he (the person who gave him the emails) would have been in a position to confirm the contents of the fake documents. Of course, in these circumstances Dr. Rowley would have believed the author and would have taken the forgeries at face value having been thoroughly duped by the perpetrator. Now, Dr. Rowley would also know that if he promised that anonymous person that he would not disclose his identity then if he broke that promise he would never get any information again ... and politicians need information from various sources who need to keep their identities secret for all sorts of reasons. If it was feared that Dr. Rowley would "sell out" a source nobody would ever trust him again. So he needed to use the euphemism that he "found" it in his mailbox.
So? Who would have the motive to do such a dastardly act? It would have to be somebody who felt that Mrs. Persad Bissessar had treated him unfairly and had some kind of grudge against the former Prime Minister and her colleagues. So? Who could that be?
Let's do a little forensic thinking: We know that Dr. Rowley made his "disclosures" in May 2013. What was happening then? Were there any scandals that had occurred then or before then but after the UNC came to power in 2010? It is not unreasonable to presume that the "whistleblower" was either a disgruntled politician or a disgruntled former chairman of some State enterprise who had been fired. So? What politicians or former chairmen around that time were there who might have felt that they had been treated unfairly. Was there anybody who had been fired for something that he claimed was not his fault or who had been made to take the blame for something? If so, what and who?
In Mrs. Persad Bissessar's time there were a number of dismissals of senior politicians but most of these took place AFTER May 2013. Though I can't remember any chairmen being fired in the period in question that doesn't mean that it didn't happen ... it's just that I don't remember. What took place before? That's where we have to look.
Finally, to produce something looking like a genuine email but which is in fact a fake takes a certain skill ... a certain "computer savvy". I decided to try and produce a fake email just to see if it could be done easily. I failed miserably in my attempts. Then I went to the "experts" in my family ... my two sons (ages 17 and 20) but they told me that to produce a credible forgery you would have to have certain skills on the computer that they simply didn't possess. So, whoever we are looking for as the author of these fake emails would have to be somebody who either possessed the requisite computer skills or ( more probably) have access to somebody whom he could trust who had the requisite computer skills. Because, a conspiracy like this would require that the author would have to trust the creator of the fake emails absolutely. So? Now we have a profile, the question is who fits it?
P.S. The question as to who fits the profile is largely rhetorical. I strongly advise that nobody answers that question by saying something like "X" did it. Unless you have good evidence that "Mr.X" is the author I strongly advise that you keep his name to yourself. The purpose of this post is to try and make you think and to ask the questions that the police don't seem to want to know the answers to. Because, if they did, it wouldn't have taken them 6 years to close this case!
Apart from the absolutely scandalous nature of these allegations we ought to look at them very carefully and try and figure out from the available evidence who is this "anonymous" author. (For the record, I'm going to refer to the author in this post as "he" but I do acknowledge that it could easily be a "she". I simply don't know who wrote these scandalous allegations.)
So, let's start from the beginning: obviously the prime suspect would be Dr. Rowley himself. After all, he had a fairly obvious motive and we have only his word that he "found" them in his mailbox. (If you believe that, by the way, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I'd like to sell you.) But this is most unlikely. Dr. Rowley has been in Parliament since January 1987. He knows full well that you just don't stand up in Parliament and make some scandalous allegations on the basis of an anonymous report. No. Either he made up the emails himself or he knew the person who gave it to him and believed that person to be credible.
Let me say that I don't believe that Dr. Rowley made up the purported emails. I acknowledge that this might be quite possible and I certainly wouldn't put my head on a block for this, but I really don't believe that he was the author. No. I believe that it is far more likely that somebody gave them to him on condition of anonymity. And Dr. Rowley would have trusted that person because of who he was/is and therefore reasonably believed that he (the person who gave him the emails) would have been in a position to confirm the contents of the fake documents. Of course, in these circumstances Dr. Rowley would have believed the author and would have taken the forgeries at face value having been thoroughly duped by the perpetrator. Now, Dr. Rowley would also know that if he promised that anonymous person that he would not disclose his identity then if he broke that promise he would never get any information again ... and politicians need information from various sources who need to keep their identities secret for all sorts of reasons. If it was feared that Dr. Rowley would "sell out" a source nobody would ever trust him again. So he needed to use the euphemism that he "found" it in his mailbox.
So? Who would have the motive to do such a dastardly act? It would have to be somebody who felt that Mrs. Persad Bissessar had treated him unfairly and had some kind of grudge against the former Prime Minister and her colleagues. So? Who could that be?
Let's do a little forensic thinking: We know that Dr. Rowley made his "disclosures" in May 2013. What was happening then? Were there any scandals that had occurred then or before then but after the UNC came to power in 2010? It is not unreasonable to presume that the "whistleblower" was either a disgruntled politician or a disgruntled former chairman of some State enterprise who had been fired. So? What politicians or former chairmen around that time were there who might have felt that they had been treated unfairly. Was there anybody who had been fired for something that he claimed was not his fault or who had been made to take the blame for something? If so, what and who?
In Mrs. Persad Bissessar's time there were a number of dismissals of senior politicians but most of these took place AFTER May 2013. Though I can't remember any chairmen being fired in the period in question that doesn't mean that it didn't happen ... it's just that I don't remember. What took place before? That's where we have to look.
Finally, to produce something looking like a genuine email but which is in fact a fake takes a certain skill ... a certain "computer savvy". I decided to try and produce a fake email just to see if it could be done easily. I failed miserably in my attempts. Then I went to the "experts" in my family ... my two sons (ages 17 and 20) but they told me that to produce a credible forgery you would have to have certain skills on the computer that they simply didn't possess. So, whoever we are looking for as the author of these fake emails would have to be somebody who either possessed the requisite computer skills or ( more probably) have access to somebody whom he could trust who had the requisite computer skills. Because, a conspiracy like this would require that the author would have to trust the creator of the fake emails absolutely. So? Now we have a profile, the question is who fits it?
P.S. The question as to who fits the profile is largely rhetorical. I strongly advise that nobody answers that question by saying something like "X" did it. Unless you have good evidence that "Mr.X" is the author I strongly advise that you keep his name to yourself. The purpose of this post is to try and make you think and to ask the questions that the police don't seem to want to know the answers to. Because, if they did, it wouldn't have taken them 6 years to close this case!
Wednesday, July 17, 2019
WHAT MAKES A PERSON A CITIZEN? RACE?
The obviously racial tweets of the American President which were broadcast around the world got me to thinking about the situation here in our own little corner of the world. Trump told four American Congresswomen of colour basically to go back where they came from first before criticizing him or any "American". Okay, I've paraphrased a little, but that is basically what he said. It didn't matter that three of the women were actually born in the United States or that the fourth, who was born in Somalia, became a citizen of the USA. No. It only mattered that they were obviously not white and therefore didn't belong in America. He might as well have put up a sign "This country reserved for whites only ... and only whites of a certain background ... not all whites accepted!"
I don't want to get into Trump's obviously racial agenda nor to tell the Americans what I think they should do with him. (Clearly, it wouldn't be at all complimentary!) But I do want to discuss what makes a person a citizen of any country. You see, as far as I am concerned you can become a citizen in basically three different ways: first of all, you can acquire citizenship by actually being born in the particular country. Secondly, you can acquire citizenship through either one or both of your parents even if you were actually born elsewhere. And thirdly, you can acquire citizenship by applying for it and getting it once you have fulfilled all of the requirements that have been laid down by that country's laws.
Now, it seems to me that most times if a person is applying for citizenship of a country to which he/she does not have birthright that this type of person is probably anxious to "put down his/her bucket" and contribute to the society. In other words, generally speaking, a person to be welcomed. And, yes, I am aware that there are (unfortunately) exceptions to this statement.
But should a person who is not born in a country but becomes a citizen be regarded differently from one who is born there? In other words, are there ... or should there be ... different classes of citizenship? I personally don't think so, but what do you think?
I am asking this question because here in good old T&T the population is more or less evenly divided between those of African and Indian descent (with mixed, whites and Syrians making up a small percentage of the whole). But if you go into either of the two main communities (if I am allowed to use that word) you will soon find lingering just below the surface a complete distrust of the "other side". As a result, the country remains paralyzed because you can't vote for "them" if you are one of "us". Issues and policies are rarely, if ever, discussed without the looming specter of race colouring every viewpoint. Oh yes! Money comes into play (as it does elsewhere) but nowhere as strongly as the race card which is pulled out again and again whenever one side or the other feels that its support is slipping and needs to be shored up.
So I come back to my question: what makes a person a citizen? His ethnicity? Because, quite frankly, its not only the idiot of an American President who obviously believes that nonsense. And the sooner we as a society genuinely condemns racism in all of its forms the better. Unfortunately, racism is not a disease that affects only one type of ethnicity, but strikes at all! And until we collectively acknowledge that all of us have an equal right not only to be here, but as to how we think the country should be run we'll be spinning the proverbial top in the proverbial mud! In other words, criticize the ideas but not the personalities.
I don't want to get into Trump's obviously racial agenda nor to tell the Americans what I think they should do with him. (Clearly, it wouldn't be at all complimentary!) But I do want to discuss what makes a person a citizen of any country. You see, as far as I am concerned you can become a citizen in basically three different ways: first of all, you can acquire citizenship by actually being born in the particular country. Secondly, you can acquire citizenship through either one or both of your parents even if you were actually born elsewhere. And thirdly, you can acquire citizenship by applying for it and getting it once you have fulfilled all of the requirements that have been laid down by that country's laws.
Now, it seems to me that most times if a person is applying for citizenship of a country to which he/she does not have birthright that this type of person is probably anxious to "put down his/her bucket" and contribute to the society. In other words, generally speaking, a person to be welcomed. And, yes, I am aware that there are (unfortunately) exceptions to this statement.
But should a person who is not born in a country but becomes a citizen be regarded differently from one who is born there? In other words, are there ... or should there be ... different classes of citizenship? I personally don't think so, but what do you think?
I am asking this question because here in good old T&T the population is more or less evenly divided between those of African and Indian descent (with mixed, whites and Syrians making up a small percentage of the whole). But if you go into either of the two main communities (if I am allowed to use that word) you will soon find lingering just below the surface a complete distrust of the "other side". As a result, the country remains paralyzed because you can't vote for "them" if you are one of "us". Issues and policies are rarely, if ever, discussed without the looming specter of race colouring every viewpoint. Oh yes! Money comes into play (as it does elsewhere) but nowhere as strongly as the race card which is pulled out again and again whenever one side or the other feels that its support is slipping and needs to be shored up.
So I come back to my question: what makes a person a citizen? His ethnicity? Because, quite frankly, its not only the idiot of an American President who obviously believes that nonsense. And the sooner we as a society genuinely condemns racism in all of its forms the better. Unfortunately, racism is not a disease that affects only one type of ethnicity, but strikes at all! And until we collectively acknowledge that all of us have an equal right not only to be here, but as to how we think the country should be run we'll be spinning the proverbial top in the proverbial mud! In other words, criticize the ideas but not the personalities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
