Unacceptable silence
Published:Tuesday | July 13, 2010 | 12:00 AM
The Editor, Sir:
A bemusing chain of events was related in yesterday's lead story in The Gleaner. It read inter alia as follows: "Well-known criminal attorney Bert Samuels agreed, calling it a "totally unacceptable state of affairs for a citizen to be held without reason. 'Where no reason has been put forward, it means there is an absence of justification,' Samuels said. 'It is most irregular and against the constitutional rights of the person, who should only be detained on reasonable suspicion of some offence being committed,' he added. National Security Minister Dwight Nelson offered a terse 'no comment' when contacted by The Gleaner."
More dramatic
Sometimes newspapers piece together stories and it appears more dramatic than is. Not so in this case. It appears that the minister does not care about the rights of Jamaicans. This is the same man who spoke about lives lost during the fight against crime as collateral damage. Against such damning allegations how could the minister offer "no comment"? The minister has displayed a flagrant disregard for the constitutional rights of the citizens of Jamaica.
Abka Fitz-Henley's July 10 letter of the day argues that constitutional rights and the entitlement to a presumption of innocence is fundamental to our legal system and should not be experimented with in any way shape or form, whether it is the detention of an individual for 60 days or wanton scraping up of young men. Spot on. A point also made in the same piece was that these ill-directed harsh measures might boomerang, and result in increased crime.
Mr Fitz-Henley is right. Jamaicans are incensed and it is full-time those who make the policies show more awareness to this fact and not offer an unacceptable "no comment" or choose to bark up the wrong tree.
I am, etc.,
JACQUELINE HOWARD
Washington DC