Tweet
Expect nothing new or different from Golding
Hilaire Sobers
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
If we wish to live in a society that is free from tyranny, that is organised around the rule of law, that jealously protects the rights of its citizens, then we as a society must come to grips with the importance of protecting the human rights of each and every Jamaican.
Policy pronouncements on issues such as crime, policing, homosexuality and justice are significant indicators for us as voters.
For they tell us whether we will be electing someone with the courage and vision to lead the people of Jamaica into a better society. Regrettably, recent pronouncements by the Opposition Leader lead me to wonder whether he is not more interested in populist pandering than in offering us the type of leadership that we need.
Mr Golding has uncritically echoed the sentiments of his spokesman, Derrick Smith, in promoting the death penalty. Mr Golding does so in complete disregard for the well-documented due process problems, the deficiencies in investigation and forensic analysis that we deal with in Jamaica and the other problems associated with this punishment. Like Mr Smith, Mr Golding forgets that the death penalty has never been demonstrated to have a deterrent effect on crime; and that only a small percentage of people convicted of murder in Jamaica are liable to the death penalty. Most unfortunately, Mr Golding has not prioritised the need to tackle the deficiencies in the criminal justice system before endorsing a penalty as irrevocable as death.
Mr Golding proposes a compulsory national registration system incorporating a swipe card with fingerprint data for every Jamaican. For Mr Golding, each Jamaican would be required to be in possession of this card at all times, and to produce it on demand to the police. If a person does not have such a card, the police would be authorised to take the person's fingerprints forcibly for comparison to determine whether they are wanted for criminal offences.
I would challenge Mr Golding to distinguish between the system that he proposes and the systems that existed in apartheid South Africa, Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. These are the types of societies that required citizens to have papers on them at all times, in violation of their right to freedom of movement, among other rights. Under Mr Golding's scheme, Jamaicans would now be liable to be "processed" by the police, thus inverting one of the fundamental presumptions in a democratic society: the presumption of innocence.
It cannot have escaped Mr Golding that conferring this power on a police force that is clearly corrupt puts the Jamaican citizen in greater danger of an assortment of police excesses.
Unfortunately, Mr Golding has not prioritised issues such as reforming the police force and ensuring an independent, adequately resourced complaints authority, in the interest of protecting citizens' rights.
Mr Golding's pronouncements on the laws regarding homosexuality demonstrate a frighteningly backward view on the protection of minority rights, and a complete ignorance of international human rights jurisprudence. In declining to reform any of the laws that criminalise homosexual acts, Mr Golding claims that "individual rights must be seen within the context of a society's culture". Mr Golding acknowledges that his party respects the privacy of people's homes and more particularly their bedrooms, but declares that he is not prepared to provide any "official sanction" to homosexuality.
It seems that Mr Golding, like the Public Defender, is unaware that the law does authorise the state to intrude on the privacy of males who might be engaging in homosexual acts. In 2003, the Supreme Court of the USA found that the state lacked a legitimate interest in regulating the private sexual conduct of consenting adults and found that such prosecutions violated due process and equal protection guarantees.
It seems that prevailing international human rights jurisprudence has no place in Mr Golding's analysis. In 1994, the United Nations Human Rights Committee held that the criminalisation of homosexual acts between consenting males was a violation of the right to privacy and the right to be protected from discrimination. Is Mr Golding aware that Jamaica is a signatory to this international instrument?
Mr Golding should explain why he considers that Jamaica has a legitimate interest in regulating the private sexual conduct of consenting Jamaican adults. He seems not to grasp that decriminalisation of a particular act is not the equivalent of public endorsement. Progressive criminal justice systems focus on criminalising acts that clearly victimise people or otherwise adversely affect the public good, not on private acts that have no discernible ill effects on the public.
What is troubling about Mr Golding's position is its failure to recognise the universality of human rights. Human rights are a function of principle, not culture; culture changes, principle does not. It might interest Mr Golding that "culture" has historically been used to defend slavery, segregation, wife-beating, genital mutilation and marital rape, and to justify their exemption from human rights protections.
After 18 years of PNP government we already know how little they have to offer us when it comes to the protection of human rights. Mr Golding's pronouncements suggest that the JLP has no brighter vision, and we are to expect nothing new or different.
Hilaire Sobers is a human rights lawyer writing from Washington, DC.
ohilaire@yahoo.com
Hilaire Sobers
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
If we wish to live in a society that is free from tyranny, that is organised around the rule of law, that jealously protects the rights of its citizens, then we as a society must come to grips with the importance of protecting the human rights of each and every Jamaican.
Policy pronouncements on issues such as crime, policing, homosexuality and justice are significant indicators for us as voters.
For they tell us whether we will be electing someone with the courage and vision to lead the people of Jamaica into a better society. Regrettably, recent pronouncements by the Opposition Leader lead me to wonder whether he is not more interested in populist pandering than in offering us the type of leadership that we need.
Mr Golding has uncritically echoed the sentiments of his spokesman, Derrick Smith, in promoting the death penalty. Mr Golding does so in complete disregard for the well-documented due process problems, the deficiencies in investigation and forensic analysis that we deal with in Jamaica and the other problems associated with this punishment. Like Mr Smith, Mr Golding forgets that the death penalty has never been demonstrated to have a deterrent effect on crime; and that only a small percentage of people convicted of murder in Jamaica are liable to the death penalty. Most unfortunately, Mr Golding has not prioritised the need to tackle the deficiencies in the criminal justice system before endorsing a penalty as irrevocable as death.
Mr Golding proposes a compulsory national registration system incorporating a swipe card with fingerprint data for every Jamaican. For Mr Golding, each Jamaican would be required to be in possession of this card at all times, and to produce it on demand to the police. If a person does not have such a card, the police would be authorised to take the person's fingerprints forcibly for comparison to determine whether they are wanted for criminal offences.
I would challenge Mr Golding to distinguish between the system that he proposes and the systems that existed in apartheid South Africa, Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. These are the types of societies that required citizens to have papers on them at all times, in violation of their right to freedom of movement, among other rights. Under Mr Golding's scheme, Jamaicans would now be liable to be "processed" by the police, thus inverting one of the fundamental presumptions in a democratic society: the presumption of innocence.
It cannot have escaped Mr Golding that conferring this power on a police force that is clearly corrupt puts the Jamaican citizen in greater danger of an assortment of police excesses.
Unfortunately, Mr Golding has not prioritised issues such as reforming the police force and ensuring an independent, adequately resourced complaints authority, in the interest of protecting citizens' rights.
Mr Golding's pronouncements on the laws regarding homosexuality demonstrate a frighteningly backward view on the protection of minority rights, and a complete ignorance of international human rights jurisprudence. In declining to reform any of the laws that criminalise homosexual acts, Mr Golding claims that "individual rights must be seen within the context of a society's culture". Mr Golding acknowledges that his party respects the privacy of people's homes and more particularly their bedrooms, but declares that he is not prepared to provide any "official sanction" to homosexuality.
It seems that Mr Golding, like the Public Defender, is unaware that the law does authorise the state to intrude on the privacy of males who might be engaging in homosexual acts. In 2003, the Supreme Court of the USA found that the state lacked a legitimate interest in regulating the private sexual conduct of consenting adults and found that such prosecutions violated due process and equal protection guarantees.
It seems that prevailing international human rights jurisprudence has no place in Mr Golding's analysis. In 1994, the United Nations Human Rights Committee held that the criminalisation of homosexual acts between consenting males was a violation of the right to privacy and the right to be protected from discrimination. Is Mr Golding aware that Jamaica is a signatory to this international instrument?
Mr Golding should explain why he considers that Jamaica has a legitimate interest in regulating the private sexual conduct of consenting Jamaican adults. He seems not to grasp that decriminalisation of a particular act is not the equivalent of public endorsement. Progressive criminal justice systems focus on criminalising acts that clearly victimise people or otherwise adversely affect the public good, not on private acts that have no discernible ill effects on the public.
What is troubling about Mr Golding's position is its failure to recognise the universality of human rights. Human rights are a function of principle, not culture; culture changes, principle does not. It might interest Mr Golding that "culture" has historically been used to defend slavery, segregation, wife-beating, genital mutilation and marital rape, and to justify their exemption from human rights protections.
After 18 years of PNP government we already know how little they have to offer us when it comes to the protection of human rights. Mr Golding's pronouncements suggest that the JLP has no brighter vision, and we are to expect nothing new or different.
Hilaire Sobers is a human rights lawyer writing from Washington, DC.
ohilaire@yahoo.com
Comment