Question about State of Emergency.

[Lazie]

Okay, we don't issue sandbags, but we provide buses. While providing buses for people to evacuate, some miscreants among us use that opportunity to loot the evacuated communities and even the shelters. Does Texas have the level of violence we do? Perhaps they are the ones who are overreacting.

Okay, so remind me again why we shouldn't have our version of a SoE?

Mosiah, again ..... wasn't there a curfew in place? Isn't that adequate to deal with looting? Yuh a waste mi time, because an Asst. Commissioner of Police mek it clear they weren't operating under any SoE. Suh why is it in place then?

Contact a constitutional lawyer and stop mek a mockery of yuhself.

[Mosiah]

We cannot help but associate SoEs with the 1976 one. But a precedent was set during Ivan when one was called to deal with public mischief, to put it lightly. That one generated some debate, but I believe it was generally felt that it was necessary.

In my view, the PM cannot worry about perception when she has a country to safeguard. Tourists with brains would realise that the SoE was called because of the passage of Hurricane Dean, not just ordinary election violence. In fact, since, as you say, the perception of a SoE is different for Americans, then what's there to worry about?!? They are thinking we are handing out sandbags and relief supplies!

[Westman]

You keep trying to argue around the real thing. Foreigners, specifically tourism industry folks, know what can go wrong in ja when a State of Emergency is called near an election! If the prime Minister, to whom the world is listening, goes on tv and radio and tells Ja and the world that tourist areas are open for business but that there are isolated problem areas, in which curfews have been imposed, and the full weight of the law will be brought to bear on anyone who breaks the law or undermines public order in those areas, that whould be significant. Many, including PNP supporters and the two newspapers, agree with this.

[Mosiah]

Westman...okay, I agree. It's is clear that we are too divided a nation to not take more care with our language and the legal terms we use.

Would you have a problem if our security forces had the same sweeping powers but it was not called a SoE?

[Seuss]

I am curious , does the SoE give the PM any other capabilities such as to disburse funds more expediently, or deploy government agencies in non-traditional roles, say the police or army in road repair. Does she get any special ability to commandeer private hospitals. We are a generation away from '76 literally and figuratively.

Try really hard to remember the run up to the '76 election and you will find a huge difference in the vast majority of the poeple attitudes. And that is a good thing.


I also get the impression that we have come along way since then in our ability to respond to disasters of this sort. I cannot remember any type of shelters - at least not 1000 - or use of public transportation to evacuate ... at least not on this scale. Am I being selective in my memory, whats left of it, or have my country made a positive step forward.

[Karl]

OK,

Tell me again why we need suppression of rights to deal with a natural disaster affecting half the island? Couldn's localized measures like curfews, etc deal with the matter? Emergency powers are vast, broad and extraordinary.

I am asking genereal questions that will help to set out in my mind how these things should be handled going forward.

...and, beside localised action and or making the curfew islandwide what is so differnt for honest, law-abiding citizens?

What if the Govt proposs to carry out elections while under a State of PUBLIC Emergency, would you have a problem with that?

There should, in our type of democracy any reason for such to occur. That would be troubling...Yes, I would have a problem with that as it would be open to political manipulation and persons and or parties with unsavory intents rising tensions...creating chaos nad mayhem.

Let me add the current suitation is a 'million miles from' what you now ask me to think on.

[Gamma]

persons and parties???!!!....the PIP has a decided advantage in such a scenario.

[Peter R]

The "problem" of the SoE is that it gives authorities sweeping powers of arrest, for example, without due process... so any card can play, whether it was 30 years ago or today.

pr

[Seuss]

So we have to have a little faith in our leader that she will not abuse that power.

[Gamma]

yes nicky thomas!!!

[Assasin]

The question is you as an advocate of non police brutality, how long you want to give them that power to pretty much do as they please?

[Peter R]

True... it's just that the timing is bad. I suspect if there were no elections imminent that the SoE would be more easily accepted. The faster Sista P moves to implementing curfews or other measures and lifting the SoE the better; don't give the opposition more to criticise than necesary.

pr

[Willi]

Exactly,

Consideration need to be given to circumstances. I already said that Sista P has not abused anything, but close to elections, temptation is a slippey slope and everyone should feel at ease in such a situation.

[Mosiah]

States of Emergency do not give the police or anyone else the right to commit human rights abuses.

[Westman]

You are exactly right. Let me throw a scenario at you. A partisan law enforcement person sees a candidate who he does not particularly care for. an exchange of words occurs. an altercation occurs. Like minded law enforcers detain the candidate. Legal representation is denied for a while. A mini crisis with reprisals occurs before the PM can intervene and calm it. A govt minister who is know to spew rhetoric also starts spewing before the PM can intervene. We then have a full blown crisis. It can be that simple. It is all about granting authority to take action and suspend certain civil liberties. The PM herself could be embarassed for something she did not condone.