On hiring and firing

Daniel Thwaites, Contributor

There was a zero per cent chance that the commissioners of the new enquiry wouldn't excite Opposition. It's just one of those things.

If the Nazarene was invited by the governor general to join the commission, Desmond McKenzie would have remembered (based on reports from an 'informer' named Matthew) that he said: "Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters," meaning that he is obviously a political tribalist.

'I can't recall' being particularly happy about the composition of the Manatt commission. Chairman Emil George was always unlikely to see much beyond his epic eyebrows. But so what? Who remembers or cares what was produced in the official report? It was all there to be seen for oneself.

Dwight Nelson's "I can't recalls" were more illustrative and memorable than any answer he gave. Dorothy Lightbourne's torturous evasion of elementary legal logic was breathtaking. And of course, nothing will ever replace the prime minister on the witness stand, when there was some small vengeance for raping my country's reputation.

In fact, Golding's hop into the witness chair at the Manatt enquiry was probably his finest achievement as PM. Just the visual of a leading public figure - the PM, no less - submitting to a grilling, was more important for public confidence in national institutions than anything else.

Watching K.D. Knight skewer him, I did a gut-check and identified a delicious emotion, schadenfreude, the dark pleasure of enjoying another's misfortune. In this case, it was watching the mighty fall. It is a terrible feeling, so bad they won't even give it a name in English.

Generally, schadenfreude and its engine of resentment should be the object of disgust and disdain, and we should strive to rid ourselves of it. But when monumental bumbling leads directly to the deaths of 70-odd people, I didn't have the strength to keep the door completely shut, and so I confess to having enjoyed K.D.'s felling of the once-mighty Golding oak.

I'm not ashamed to admit that behind all the solemnity, these COE's are also public entertainment. Are the findings likely to feed into any serious policy changes? Not really. But we shouldn't take too dim a view of a public entertainment that reinforces a belief in law and order.

On this one, where a responsible Government would have quickly affixed a signature to a routine extradition warrant instead of informing and protecting a gunrunning drug don, wounding the economy, and inciting an international impasse, the only satisfactory outcome could be hangings in Half-Way Tree square.

I turn now to the present controversy regarding Velma Hylton's appointment. Despite Golding's successor's decision to avoid involvement in the enquiry, and to ignore opportunities to contribute to its terms of reference, he is now struggling to manufacture some outrage about Ms Hylton.

Cut a new path, Andrew

I have already expressed disappointment that Holness decided to take the route of hostility to the enquiry, as I feel he is accepting an inheritance of West Kingston's problems in a way he could avoid.

I want Andrew to cut a new path, and I believe he can. But at this point, who knows how voluntary his choice is, and what gritty calculation he has to make with his lieutenant, Desmond, to keep the troops together? West Kingston was and is HQ.

There's an enjoyably delusional Jamaican mindset where not having anything to do with something, and being completely uninvolved, is compatible with being very involved in it. In fact, I know of situations were gentlemen are completely uninvolved and "dem nuh have nutten wid dat gyal", but miraculously children keep appearing. We can expect the most involved non-involvement in the history of commissions.

My second observation is that Golding was the darling of 'civil society', some parts of which have dutifully signed on to the outrage. Government should ignore them. For now, the only civil society worth mentioning are the churches; the other self-proclaimed entities generally consisting of one or two noisy persons, their two best friends, perhaps a foreign donor, and scores of talk shows chattering to fill airtime.

So what is the offence that supposedly disqualifies Ms Hylton?

"In my respectful submission, if the women and children deliberately put themselves between the law-and-order forces ... to enable those gunmen behind them to fire at the security forces and to fire at civilians, I, for one, do not understand why, in all circumstances, they cannot return the fire."

The first thing to notice is that she apparently spoke this as lawyer, in which role advocates are expected to say things they may not hold as personal convictions. But also, and perhaps more important in this context, there's nothing particularly controversial here. It is unpleasant, no doubt. And it is tragic that there are circumstances in our country where people will choose to deliberately confuse, distract, and impede the security forces so that gunmen can work more effectively.

A lot hangs on the word 'deliberately', as we would prefer to believe that nobody would voluntarily position themselves between gunmen and police. We like to think that they had to be forced. Furthermore, in the case of children, we're accustomed to the legal artifice that minors cannot make certain decisions, and there are very good reasons for maintaining that legal artifice. But we can recognise it for what it is: a convenience of policy. Augustine knew the human heart better than most, and he acknowledged that from about six or seven, we are capable of fully destructive decisions.

But the bottom line is that if you confederate with gunmen lickin' shot at police and soldiers, you will be shot at in return. That's shocking? Please! Spare us the fabricated sentimentality in service of clouding the consequences of the former administration's rank Machiavellianism.

In my own respectful submission, if politicians deliberately put themselves between the law-and-order forces ... to enable those gunmen behind them to fire at the security forces and to fire at civilians, I, for one, do not understand why, in all circumstances, they cannot return the fire. Quote me on that.

Daniel Thwaites is an attorney-at-law. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.