Scapegoating the Church - again

The strategy flexi-week advocates are using to push their agenda is to make it look as if the only objections to their scheme come from persons the Gleaner editor described last Wednesday as "religious fundamentalists". This is intellectual dishonesty, pure and simple.

The flexi-week proposals recently tabled in Parliament are the latest salvo fired by the Government - and the business interests it represents - in the battle between capital and labour. The Church is being made the scapegoat - again! Holding up progress!

The flexi-week proposals are a naked effort by the rich to take money out of the pockets of the poor. By reducing the wage bill of business enterprises, the plan is to transfer wealth from the workers to the corporations. The number of days of paid vacation leave will be reduced, time-and-a-half and double-time pay on Saturdays and Sundays will be abolished, as will be shift premiums - all to increase corporate profits with no additional benefit to workers.

It is not the Church that will suffer most from flexi-week. Where are the independent trade unions not in the pockets of the political parties? They should be speaking out against these one-sided proposals.

Read thoroughly

I would like my readers to analyse carefully the Gleaner editorial of two days ago as a weather vane of where they wish Jamaica to head. Under the centreline 'Respect investors' rights, too' ('Pass flexi-week law'), the Gleaner editor writes: "While we appreciate the constitutional right of Jamaicans to observe a religion of choice, which clearly implies their day of worship, that right cannot, and must not, impinge on the rights of others, including those people who invest capital and engage in enterprise and, perforce, employ labour."

Just three years ago, Parliament amended the Constitution of Jamaica to add a Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. One of the 19 Fundamental Rights and Freedoms contained therein is "the right to freedom of religion" - which the Gleaner editor admits - but nowhere in the Charter do I see anything resembling "investors' rights"! The Gleaner is joining the line of special-interest groups manufacturing 'rights' to suit themselves. We have seen lobbyists glibly speak of 'gay rights' and 'abortion rights', despite there being no such rights in local or international law; and now we have 'investors' rights'.

The Gleaner editor "appreciates" the constitutional right of Jamaicans "to freedom of religion", but these rights guaranteed by the Constitution must not "impinge" upon the rights of those who "invest capital". According to The Gleaner, the rights of capital trump constitutional rights of Jamaicans "to freedom of religion" every time! I wonder if that will stand up in a court of law?

This sort of language used by The Gleaner supports the claim that we are in the midst of the latest battle in the war between capital and labour.

Also in the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms in the Jamaican Constitution is enshrined "the right to enjoy a healthy and productive environment free from the threat of injury or damage from environmental abuse and degradation of the ecological heritage". The next thing the Gleaner editor is going to claim is that "investors' rights" must trump this constitutional right also! Will the Gleaner support the abuse, damage and degradation of Jamaica's ecological heritage if investors - foreign or local - will benefit?

Days of worship

Reading Wednesday's editorial, I am not so sure the Gleaner editor even "appreciates" the constitutional right of Jamaicans "to freedom of religion". The editor - maybe tongue in cheek - advises the Church to be "creative" and to abandon its fixation on Saturday or Sunday worship. "Worship places can themselves go on flexitime, opening around the clock, seven days a week, for those persons who find it opportune to engage in spiritual pursuits during their new, potentially longer rest periods".

The Gleaner - itself fixated on fundamentalist economics to the exclusion of everything else - cannot appreciate that some religious traditions are very firmly attached to their day of worship, which they believe cannot be whimsically put on flexi-week.

I agree with the Gleaner editor that under the Jamaican Constitution, freedom of religion "clearly implies their day of worship". This day should not be subject to "negotiation" between capital and labour. The powerful must not be allowed, in the name of "enhanced labour productivity", to take away the right of Jamaicans to choose their day of worship.

When the Government and prominent institutions in the country flagrantly disregard the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Constitution, we are truly in a national crisis.

Peter Espeut is a development scientist and Roman Catholic deacon. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.