Pre-emptive strike not the answer

THE EDITOR, Madam:

I am writing in response to the article, ‘Pre-emptive Strike’, published in The Gleaner on August 14. I strongly object to pondering new laws to tackle domestic ‘terrorists’ (gang warfare).

There are many different strategies that can be used to help tackle domestic gang warfare, instead of “joint forces preemptive strikes”.

Therefore, I highly recommend that every member of Parliament read, Preventing radicalisation and the prevent duty, published by Sunderland City Council, sunderland.gov.uk/article.

The above article will provide some useful information about UK (England) anti-gang strategy. However, I am not implying that the information obtained from the article will end gang and youth violence.

The United Kingdom, United States, and Canada have worse domestic gang warfare problems than Jamaica, but their government do not use “joint forces preemptive strikes” strategy to counter everyday occurrence of domestic gang warfare terrorism.

For example, UK (England) government policy is to use counter-terrorism strategy. The aim is to reduce the risk from terrorism to UK, it’s citizens and interests overseas, so people can live freely and with confidence.

The home secretary leads the UK’s counter-terrorism response and the implementation of counter-terrorism strategy. The Contest Unit, based in the Home Office, produced this strategy, with input and challenge from government departments, devolved administrations, the police, the security and intelligence agencies, frontline practitioners, and victims of terrorism. It employs a holistic approach, from prevention to preparation.

CARGILL KELLY