Tweet
(Note: I have deleted the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th paragraphs of the first section of Wignall's two-topic column.)
Some realities of the JLP's small majorityMARK WIGNALL
Thursday, August 07, 2008
Some weeks ago when the nation was expressing another bout of impatience over violent criminality and the prime minister announced measures seemingly designed to deal with those so involved, I saw the moves as "not enough" and accused the prime minister of being too incrementalist in his approach.
Many in the society wanted blood for blood and fire for fire. The man and woman on the street were fed up to the hilt with reports of murder piled on top of murder, especially where it involved minors and women.
We who had placed elected policymakers in power wanted them to be tougher on our behalf, even if it meant a lessening of our own rights. In this rush to see the floodgates open up on hanging convicted murderers on death row and in locking down repeat offenders at lesser levels of criminality, some of us may have allowed our own zeal to cloud the reality of the parliamentary procedures which had to be hurdled before any public announcement could be made.
(4th, 5th, 6th and 7th paragraphs deleted here)
When I classified Prime Minister Golding as "incrementalist", I was in effect saying to him that the times demanded more stringent approaches. But I did it without taking into consideration the reality of our parliamentary democracy and the dangerously small majority of seats held by the ruling JLP.
An examination reveals that several of the anti-crime measures contemplated can only succeed in Parliament if they have the support of the Opposition. Section 50 of the constitution requires that where any law passed by Parliament infringes any of the fundamental rights set out in Chapter 3, it can only be done by a Special Act of Parliament which must be passed by a two-thirds majority.
Anything that affects, say, the right to liberty and protection from arbitrary arrest like, for example, detention without charge or withholding bail or the right to privacy (phone tapping) can only be done by one of these special acts.
Sources told me that the government had to coax its way through the discussions with the Opposition. When some of us were criticising Golding, we were either unaware of the back-room horse-trading which took place, or we were much too impatient and simply ignored the reality of the parliamentary procedures.
My information is that, at the subcommittee level, Peter Phillips was encouraging and supportive, but AJ Nicholson was much less so. I take this to mean that Nicholson saw "politics" in so important a matter and did not want to side with Phillips. I also gather that when the matters left sub-committee level and returned to the full Vale Royal talks, Phillips was less strident. This, too, was probably a little political ploy on his part by not wanting the Opposition leader's sham "defence of human rights" to become an issue of separation between them in the run-up to September.
Sources told me that what was finally presented was what could be considered the best compromise that was necessary in order to ensure the support of the Opposition when the bills are brought to Parliament in August/September.
Said one source to me, "It would have been foolhardy to press ahead in the hope of a split in the ranks and that Phillips and others would support the measures in Parliament. Think of it. The JLP would need a minimum of nine Opposition votes. This has to be placed in context with Peter Phillips "softening" en route from subcommittee level to full Vale Royal Talks."
We understand the complexities now, prime minister, and I may have come down too hard on you in the specific instance.
Some realities of the JLP's small majorityMARK WIGNALL
Thursday, August 07, 2008
Some weeks ago when the nation was expressing another bout of impatience over violent criminality and the prime minister announced measures seemingly designed to deal with those so involved, I saw the moves as "not enough" and accused the prime minister of being too incrementalist in his approach.
Many in the society wanted blood for blood and fire for fire. The man and woman on the street were fed up to the hilt with reports of murder piled on top of murder, especially where it involved minors and women.
We who had placed elected policymakers in power wanted them to be tougher on our behalf, even if it meant a lessening of our own rights. In this rush to see the floodgates open up on hanging convicted murderers on death row and in locking down repeat offenders at lesser levels of criminality, some of us may have allowed our own zeal to cloud the reality of the parliamentary procedures which had to be hurdled before any public announcement could be made.
(4th, 5th, 6th and 7th paragraphs deleted here)
When I classified Prime Minister Golding as "incrementalist", I was in effect saying to him that the times demanded more stringent approaches. But I did it without taking into consideration the reality of our parliamentary democracy and the dangerously small majority of seats held by the ruling JLP.
An examination reveals that several of the anti-crime measures contemplated can only succeed in Parliament if they have the support of the Opposition. Section 50 of the constitution requires that where any law passed by Parliament infringes any of the fundamental rights set out in Chapter 3, it can only be done by a Special Act of Parliament which must be passed by a two-thirds majority.
Anything that affects, say, the right to liberty and protection from arbitrary arrest like, for example, detention without charge or withholding bail or the right to privacy (phone tapping) can only be done by one of these special acts.
Sources told me that the government had to coax its way through the discussions with the Opposition. When some of us were criticising Golding, we were either unaware of the back-room horse-trading which took place, or we were much too impatient and simply ignored the reality of the parliamentary procedures.
My information is that, at the subcommittee level, Peter Phillips was encouraging and supportive, but AJ Nicholson was much less so. I take this to mean that Nicholson saw "politics" in so important a matter and did not want to side with Phillips. I also gather that when the matters left sub-committee level and returned to the full Vale Royal talks, Phillips was less strident. This, too, was probably a little political ploy on his part by not wanting the Opposition leader's sham "defence of human rights" to become an issue of separation between them in the run-up to September.
Sources told me that what was finally presented was what could be considered the best compromise that was necessary in order to ensure the support of the Opposition when the bills are brought to Parliament in August/September.
Said one source to me, "It would have been foolhardy to press ahead in the hope of a split in the ranks and that Phillips and others would support the measures in Parliament. Think of it. The JLP would need a minimum of nine Opposition votes. This has to be placed in context with Peter Phillips "softening" en route from subcommittee level to full Vale Royal Talks."
We understand the complexities now, prime minister, and I may have come down too hard on you in the specific instance.
Comment