More important than elections

by Gordon Robinson

There's bad news for readers. I won't be commenting on the impending election or getting involved in whose campaign is better or worse. By now, everybody knows my opinion of our abysmally inequitable system of governance which ensures it makes no difference who wins any election. The winner's MPs can't be formally monitored, controlled or recalled. Worse, MPs routinely join the executive to the detriment of their constituents' interests.

Until this foolish, arrogant, oppressive system is fundamentally changed, I won't support it at any level. However, as an incorrigible punter, I've already explained how and why I'm expecting the majority of those unable to resist casting useless votes to choose. After the worthless extravagance is over, I'll write an 'I told you so' piece. Nonetheless, I assure readers that, when the next government is chosen, I'll be turning the spotlight on it as relentlessly as I did on this current administration and any attempt to treat the nation unfairly will be exposed.

Until then, I'll leave political punditry to the proliferation of proficient 'political analysts' whose practised persistence seems as limitless as it's one-dimensional. I'll examine other more spiritual imperatives. For example, Peter Roebuck's recent death brings many issues of humanity into special focus. For those whose ignorance might be excused by over-reliance on the new colonisers, American cable TV or the iPhone, Roebuck, a former Somerset cricket captain, was a doyen of modern cricket writers. A naturalised Australian citizen, he wrote an exceptional cricket column for the Sydney Morning Herald.

But Peter Roebuck's life was complicated. A trained lawyer-turned-cricketer, he often postulated, "He knows nothing who knows nothing but cricket." He was never one-dimensional. Somerset cricket writer, Stephen Chalke, recently said about Roebuck: "Peter could have been anything, a professor of literature or a High Court judge or a political leader."

He was often in South Africa where, in 2001, he was disgraced after punishing, by caning, three young cricketers he was coaching. He pleaded guilty to common assault and received a suspended sentence. The circumstances of his death, apparently jumping from a Cape Town hotel window shortly after being questioned by policemen about an alleged sexual assault, raised more eyebrows.

Rights for all

Peter Roebuck was a brilliant writer but society considered his lifestyle offensive. Would societal tolerance have made his life easier or caused him to make better choices? Had society allowed him to publicly be who he really was, would we now be reading his obituaries or enjoying his superb cricket commentaries for many years to come?

I have a dream that, one day, we'll understand 'human rights' as available to all 'humans'. I dream that, one day, we'll be entitled to 'be' who we really are without archaic religious judgement from fellow flawed mortals. Recently, I read an excruciatingly inane piece supporting the buggery laws on the basis of health-care concerns. Seriously? In that case, let's criminalise drinking alcohol, smoking tobacco and poor personal hygiene. If health is the concern, try focusing on educating everybody about preventing the spread of disease instead of demonising homosexuality which, with other factors, could be one possible source of infection by a virus unknown to mankind for several millennia, while homosexuality has been with us since the dawn of time. At least the extremely pious lady I call Saint Shirley is consistent in her condemnation, using straightforward religious 'reasoning'. Biblical dogma says it's an abomination. Ergo sum.

We're still abusing Justice Fraser for alleged leniency to an admitted rapist. We're muted on Pastor Paul's questionable acquittal. We celebrate Jah Cure's early release after being convicted of brutally abducting and raping 25-year-old Suzanne Ferguson on a dirt road in Montego Bay. Jah Cure pleaded not guilty; was convicted after a full trial; and sentenced to only 13 years! WE are truly amazing.

Now, we're renewing calls for prosecutorial appeals. Prosecutorial appeals are unconstitutional and wrong. We're all innocent until proven guilty. Every law student knows nothing is proven in the appeal court which only looks at alleged judicial errors.

Accordingly, it's a legal absurdity (and unconstitutional) to allow a prosecutor to appeal his failure to prove guilt. There's also a constitutional guarantee against being tried twice for the same offence. Since, by rule, an appeal is a rehearing, any prosecutorial appeals would be back-door methods of trying citizens twice for the same offence. It's time we fully committed to a fundamental principle: it's better for 1,000 guilty men to go free than one innocent man convicted.

Peace and love.

Gordon Robinson is an attorney-at-law. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.