Tweet
I will leave you to disagree or to accept some of what the writer says or to accept wholeheartedly his positions...
but...
Delaying tactics over extradition weaken Government capacity
Claude Robinson
Sunday, May 09, 2010
var addthis_pub="jamaicaobserver";
JOURNALIST Ian Boyne's criticism of media colleagues and others for failing to applaud what he regarded as Prime Minister Bruce Golding's "intellectually robust, piercingly logical and commanding" Budget presentation is misdirected.
Admittedly, Mr Golding was his customary eloquent self as he compared the Jamaican economy to "living a lifestyle in which we put on weight but we don't grow" and calling for "national consensus on the type of counteroffensive that must be united against criminal forces".
BOYNE... criticised media colleagues and others for failing to applaud Prime Minister Golding's "intellectually robust, piercingly logical and commanding" Budget presentation
LIGHTBOURNE... has asked the Supreme Court make a declaration that she acted lawfully in refusing the US request to extradite Coke
My input - Not one deggie-deggie person suggested she acted unlawfully....questioned her right to so act under the Constitution? That was never in doubt!
The questions were, about whether or not exercising her legal right to deny extradition of a known "Don" was in the interest of the nation's citizens? ...and, what was the motive for exercising her right to not extradite the known "Don" to answer criminal charges related to allegations of his undermining of US law...
...and since the PM, AG and the DPP have stated that facts as laid out in the US indictment referenced wiretaps recordings with information that showed Jamaica Law was also being undermined, facts the PM, AG and DPP have acknowledged as verifiable, why a refusal to extradite and a refusal to prosecute the "Don"?
Surely if, as the PM, AG and DPP claim the recordings are verifiable evidence of wrong-doing, regardless of actions taken by the US Courts...actions must be taken by the Jamaica Law Enforcement authorities?
SAMUDA... his statement on the Manatt issue does not accord with facts not in dispute
BOYNE... criticised media colleagues and others for failing to applaud Prime Minister Golding's "intellectually robust, piercingly logical and commanding" Budget presentation
1/3 
But these positions are neither new nor disputed. The prime minister made a similar economic case when he explained why the country was heading back to another agreement with the International Monetary Fund. And the crime plan has been outlined in several pieces of draft legislation, tabled in the House some time ago, that would, among other things, give extraordinary powers to the police.
The speech failed to gain traction Ian thought it deserved for two reasons: First, it did not go much beyond a description of what is known. It lacked specific actions the Government will take to lead the country through the twin crisis of crime and economic malaise. Second, the speech completely ignored that 800-pound gorilla in the prime minister's room and the emanating stench that is becoming unbearable.
Mr Golding is correct when he stresses that the Government must live within its means and should not borrow to pay for public services that cannot be sustained by an economy which has hardly grown over the past two decades. And he's right about spreading the tax burden more equitably and achieving greater tax compliance.
But these are big transformational ideas that are not easy to do, given the historical inequities in Jamaican society where the privileged have held sway. There's also the expectation, fostered by political practice especially since Independence, that the State must play the leading role in creating opportunities to even out the inequalities.
Now the country is at a place, in terms of the economy and crime management, where the prime minister seems to be pushing for less government in terms of human development while pressing for more draconian policing. If that's the plan, there will be resistance on both counts. And the prime minister has to step up to the crease and show what he is capable of if he wants buy-in.
But, as Ian acknowledged, the Golding administration has a big problem, namely, the "widening credibility deficit" over its handling of the US request to extradite Christopher Coke and the hiring of US law firm Manatt Phelps & Phillips to lobby Washington not to pursue the request.
He wrote, "The truth is, a lot of people don't want to hear one damn thing from this Government and every day that the 'Dudus' affair lingers, the cynicism and distrust deepen. This has made it extremely difficult to dispassionately discuss anything this Government says or does. We might as well face it," (Sunday Gleaner April 25).
Ian was not clear on who is the "we" that should "face it". For me there is no doubt: It is the prime minister, the Government and the Jamaica Labour Party that must face the issue and make a full and truthful disclosure.
Continued shilly-shallying will make it harder for the administration to speak its truth on the wide range of challenges it is seeking to address. This includes tight economic management and handling the waves of public sector discontent over wages and related matters.
For more than a month Mr Golding and the leadership of the JLP have been hopscotching from one incredible explanation to another as to why they will not sign the request to have Mr Coke answer serious charges of trafficking in guns and drugs between Jamaica and the United States.
Unless you have been under a rock you have heard them and probably made up your mind as to where the truth lies.
So it is not necessary to remind that Karl Samuda's statement that "persons within the JLP" were responsible for lobbying the Barack Obama administration to ease the pressure on Mr Coke doesn't make sense; does not accord with facts not in dispute; and avoids the real questions, including: Who stood behind the US$400,000 deal with Manatt and actually made an initial payment of almost US$50,000? Who wrote the cheque and what is the source of the money?
Nor are we likely to be any wiser when there is a ruling in the action brought by Attorney General Dorothy Lightbourne to have the Supreme Court make a declaration that she acted lawfully in refusing the US request to extradite Coke.
Threats to free speech
But as we await the ruling by Justice Roy Jones on the request by Opposition Leader Portia Simpson Miller to remove her name as a defendant in the action, many of us in the media are troubled by the realisation that someone can be called upon to be a defendant simply by expressing an opinion on a matter of public interest. To me that seems to be a challenge to the freedom of expression provision in the Jamaican Constitution.
It is not without irony that the case was being heard in camera just as the global journalism fraternity was engaged in the annual observance of World Press Freedom Day, set aside by UNESCO to highlight the role of a free and independent press in democratic society and to call attention to the scores of journalists, around the world who are killed because of what they write or say.
Thankfully, we still have a free press in Jamaica and journalists are not killed or banished from view for doing their jobs.
But it should not escape notice that the Police High Command had to offer special protection to the families of investigators into the huge contraband cigarette/liquor/cash find in Beverley Hills recently after the lawmen received death threats from persons involved in the rackets.
We must also be mindful that in some Latin American countries, especially Mexico and Colombia, journalists who investigate the illegal activities of drug traffickers often pay the ultimate price. Maybe we have been spared such experiences not because we are different but because we have not been following the money. Will that change as the press inevitably dig deeper into current matters?
So Ian, the concern is not whether the prime minister offered "piercing" analysis of the economy or whether he was ready to take on the human rights advocates about policing strategy. Rather, it is that the country needs his assurance, supported by evidence and action, that our constitutional democracy is not in jeopardy, despite the fact that the State has lost effective control over many communities controlled by dons. Without that assurance the applause is unlikely.
kcr@cwjamaica.com
...my point is, Mr. Robinson is alluding to a stance I have taken on what would we rather have, a PM who is eloquent and 'made of straw' or worse, acts against the interest of the people...or one who is not eloquent but better acts in the interest of the people?
I deliberately use "better acts..." as certainly Mrs. Simpson-Miller needs to, in the people's interest, "pull up her socks".
...but back to the matter of what it is we want/what is desirable - Another way of jolting us into making a wise choice could be to comparing the decision-making to something closer home: What would you prefer, a marriage partner who is pretty but unfaithful or one who is not so pretty but loves you cyaan dun and is faithful?
I know - pretty and faithful!
...but I would bet you got the point !
Sistah P, mi seh!
NB: I must admit I have met the gentleman and that his wife's parents (they are deceased ) and mine were close. I must also admit that there is still after 50+ years contact between some of the boys in both families.
Besides I am an advocate for Mrs. Simpson-Miller as leader of the PNP and to be our next PM. ...as far as 'looks'/posturing vs 'good heart'/actions in the nation's interest, I have biases.
but...
Delaying tactics over extradition weaken Government capacity
Claude Robinson
Sunday, May 09, 2010var addthis_pub="jamaicaobserver";
JOURNALIST Ian Boyne's criticism of media colleagues and others for failing to applaud what he regarded as Prime Minister Bruce Golding's "intellectually robust, piercingly logical and commanding" Budget presentation is misdirected.
Admittedly, Mr Golding was his customary eloquent self as he compared the Jamaican economy to "living a lifestyle in which we put on weight but we don't grow" and calling for "national consensus on the type of counteroffensive that must be united against criminal forces".
BOYNE... criticised media colleagues and others for failing to applaud Prime Minister Golding's "intellectually robust, piercingly logical and commanding" Budget presentation
LIGHTBOURNE... has asked the Supreme Court make a declaration that she acted lawfully in refusing the US request to extradite Coke
My input - Not one deggie-deggie person suggested she acted unlawfully....questioned her right to so act under the Constitution? That was never in doubt!
The questions were, about whether or not exercising her legal right to deny extradition of a known "Don" was in the interest of the nation's citizens? ...and, what was the motive for exercising her right to not extradite the known "Don" to answer criminal charges related to allegations of his undermining of US law...
...and since the PM, AG and the DPP have stated that facts as laid out in the US indictment referenced wiretaps recordings with information that showed Jamaica Law was also being undermined, facts the PM, AG and DPP have acknowledged as verifiable, why a refusal to extradite and a refusal to prosecute the "Don"?
Surely if, as the PM, AG and DPP claim the recordings are verifiable evidence of wrong-doing, regardless of actions taken by the US Courts...actions must be taken by the Jamaica Law Enforcement authorities?
SAMUDA... his statement on the Manatt issue does not accord with facts not in dispute
BOYNE... criticised media colleagues and others for failing to applaud Prime Minister Golding's "intellectually robust, piercingly logical and commanding" Budget presentation 1/3 The speech failed to gain traction Ian thought it deserved for two reasons: First, it did not go much beyond a description of what is known. It lacked specific actions the Government will take to lead the country through the twin crisis of crime and economic malaise. Second, the speech completely ignored that 800-pound gorilla in the prime minister's room and the emanating stench that is becoming unbearable.
Mr Golding is correct when he stresses that the Government must live within its means and should not borrow to pay for public services that cannot be sustained by an economy which has hardly grown over the past two decades. And he's right about spreading the tax burden more equitably and achieving greater tax compliance.
But these are big transformational ideas that are not easy to do, given the historical inequities in Jamaican society where the privileged have held sway. There's also the expectation, fostered by political practice especially since Independence, that the State must play the leading role in creating opportunities to even out the inequalities.
Now the country is at a place, in terms of the economy and crime management, where the prime minister seems to be pushing for less government in terms of human development while pressing for more draconian policing. If that's the plan, there will be resistance on both counts. And the prime minister has to step up to the crease and show what he is capable of if he wants buy-in.
But, as Ian acknowledged, the Golding administration has a big problem, namely, the "widening credibility deficit" over its handling of the US request to extradite Christopher Coke and the hiring of US law firm Manatt Phelps & Phillips to lobby Washington not to pursue the request.
He wrote, "The truth is, a lot of people don't want to hear one damn thing from this Government and every day that the 'Dudus' affair lingers, the cynicism and distrust deepen. This has made it extremely difficult to dispassionately discuss anything this Government says or does. We might as well face it," (Sunday Gleaner April 25).
Ian was not clear on who is the "we" that should "face it". For me there is no doubt: It is the prime minister, the Government and the Jamaica Labour Party that must face the issue and make a full and truthful disclosure.
Continued shilly-shallying will make it harder for the administration to speak its truth on the wide range of challenges it is seeking to address. This includes tight economic management and handling the waves of public sector discontent over wages and related matters.
For more than a month Mr Golding and the leadership of the JLP have been hopscotching from one incredible explanation to another as to why they will not sign the request to have Mr Coke answer serious charges of trafficking in guns and drugs between Jamaica and the United States.
Unless you have been under a rock you have heard them and probably made up your mind as to where the truth lies.
So it is not necessary to remind that Karl Samuda's statement that "persons within the JLP" were responsible for lobbying the Barack Obama administration to ease the pressure on Mr Coke doesn't make sense; does not accord with facts not in dispute; and avoids the real questions, including: Who stood behind the US$400,000 deal with Manatt and actually made an initial payment of almost US$50,000? Who wrote the cheque and what is the source of the money?
Nor are we likely to be any wiser when there is a ruling in the action brought by Attorney General Dorothy Lightbourne to have the Supreme Court make a declaration that she acted lawfully in refusing the US request to extradite Coke.
Threats to free speech
But as we await the ruling by Justice Roy Jones on the request by Opposition Leader Portia Simpson Miller to remove her name as a defendant in the action, many of us in the media are troubled by the realisation that someone can be called upon to be a defendant simply by expressing an opinion on a matter of public interest. To me that seems to be a challenge to the freedom of expression provision in the Jamaican Constitution.
It is not without irony that the case was being heard in camera just as the global journalism fraternity was engaged in the annual observance of World Press Freedom Day, set aside by UNESCO to highlight the role of a free and independent press in democratic society and to call attention to the scores of journalists, around the world who are killed because of what they write or say.
Thankfully, we still have a free press in Jamaica and journalists are not killed or banished from view for doing their jobs.
But it should not escape notice that the Police High Command had to offer special protection to the families of investigators into the huge contraband cigarette/liquor/cash find in Beverley Hills recently after the lawmen received death threats from persons involved in the rackets.
We must also be mindful that in some Latin American countries, especially Mexico and Colombia, journalists who investigate the illegal activities of drug traffickers often pay the ultimate price. Maybe we have been spared such experiences not because we are different but because we have not been following the money. Will that change as the press inevitably dig deeper into current matters?
So Ian, the concern is not whether the prime minister offered "piercing" analysis of the economy or whether he was ready to take on the human rights advocates about policing strategy. Rather, it is that the country needs his assurance, supported by evidence and action, that our constitutional democracy is not in jeopardy, despite the fact that the State has lost effective control over many communities controlled by dons. Without that assurance the applause is unlikely.
kcr@cwjamaica.com
...my point is, Mr. Robinson is alluding to a stance I have taken on what would we rather have, a PM who is eloquent and 'made of straw' or worse, acts against the interest of the people...or one who is not eloquent but better acts in the interest of the people?
I deliberately use "better acts..." as certainly Mrs. Simpson-Miller needs to, in the people's interest, "pull up her socks".
...but back to the matter of what it is we want/what is desirable - Another way of jolting us into making a wise choice could be to comparing the decision-making to something closer home: What would you prefer, a marriage partner who is pretty but unfaithful or one who is not so pretty but loves you cyaan dun and is faithful?
I know - pretty and faithful!
...but I would bet you got the point !
Sistah P, mi seh!
NB: I must admit I have met the gentleman and that his wife's parents (they are deceased ) and mine were close. I must also admit that there is still after 50+ years contact between some of the boys in both families.
Besides I am an advocate for Mrs. Simpson-Miller as leader of the PNP and to be our next PM. ...as far as 'looks'/posturing vs 'good heart'/actions in the nation's interest, I have biases.
.
Comment