September 23, 2000
JAMAICANS UNITED AGAINST POLICE BRUTALITY Dear Friends, Below are responses to Donna P. Hope's comments on the question posed by us, Jamaicans United Against Police Brutality, as to whether the tourist industry should be boycotted as a means of putting pressure on the government to end state and government sanctioned police practice of executing innocent young Jamaican men. In response to the message recently delivered by Baroness Scotland representing the British government that they are still not prepared to authorize shipment of guns to the Jamaican police baring improvement in the homicide record of the Jamaican police, Prime Minister Patterson is reported to have said that the weapons will be got elsewhere. The government has given no indication that it intends to seriously deal with the endemic practice of police brutality and police killings. Perhaps it is impossible for the government to do anything about it because like the police who know only one method of operating, and that is with brute force, it appears that no present or immediately contending future government of Jamaica can conceive of operating without the use of police terror. In other words, they have no answers to the problems of poverty and underdevelopment -- and crime, which is used as a pretext and a cover for police brutality. Citizens of Jamaica have been saying for some time now through demonstrations in the streets, letters to the newspapers, calls to the radio stations, etc. that enough is enough. We are saying the same thing. And now is the time for those of us with access to this medium, not available in the printed and electronic media, to discuss solutions to the problem in a far more frank and perhaps less formal way. If the government is serious, then every time a police man kills someone, he or she should be automatically brought before a Coroner's Court to give an explanation and a determination made by a jury of fellow citizens as to whether or not that policeman should answer to criminal charges. The police must no longer investigate crimes that they are alleged to have committed and an independent investigative body must be set up to investigate the police. In the case of murders that investigative body will send its findings directly to the Coroner's Court bypassing the Director of Public Prosecutions, whose office has failed miserably in holding the police accountable. These are not revolutionary demands. These are mere reforms which, without a sincere commitment from the government and the police, will at best result in more policemen being put on trial. If, as a minimum, government is not prepared to enact these reforms then clearly it is incumbent on citizens to consider other alternatives or other methods of applying pressure. One possible method is to call for a tourism boycott. It is up to the government to prevent this from happening as we now understand that they are upset with this question we are posing. The ball is in their court.
Reply to Sister Donna, Good letter, your argument is convincing and insightful. But, remember, just like you have big fish and small fish at the national level, the same holds true for the international level. Who are the global interests that will benefit from a boycott of Jamaica? On another point, the sale of small weapons and ammunition is now finally getting some of the attention it deserves thanks to research that has shown that in areas of civil war and ethnic conflict it is this level of armaments and not the big weapons and missile systems that are fueling persistent strife. Rwanda, Afghanistan, Liberia and Sierra Leone are testaments to this fact. Again, whilst I realize that we are naturally focused on Jamaica, it is equally important that we link with all those who share an interest in this matter across the world, so as to ensure consistency and transparency in the way the relevant governments are dealing with this matter across the board and not just in isolated instances. Alison
Hi Donna this is Claudine.......impressive political analysis.......and i agree....i think it was just to score political points.......basically he sought to capitalise on the mentality of most Jamaicans as regards homosexuality. Best of luck in your work
HUMAN RIGHTS, GAY RIGHTS AND POLICE BRUTALITY A Report A couple of Jamaica-Federation of Lesbian And Gay (J-FLAG) members made it to the human rights meeting. I was proud of XY who spoke from a gay perspective to a group representing views from "batty-man-fi-dead" to "let's-keep-our-distance-and-hope-they-go-away". XY expressed himself without apology or defensiveness, and the message from his body language and tone was, "I don't have a problem with me. If you have a problem with me, you go solve it." He identified himself as coming from J-FLAG and being gay. He challenged human rights activists to look at principles of justice rather than at issues like who is gay and who isn't. He spoke of the need to identify the principles around which we can develop common action. For example, he felt that people who take up positions for or against capital punishment are losing sight of underlying principles that can bring unity with respect/acknowledgement for diversity. Middle-class hypocrisy kept anyone from articulating the anti-gay statements of two weeks previously. On the contrary, XY was applauded when he spoke. Unfortunately he is leaving Jamaica next week. I think gays and lesbians may need to be more active in confronting human rights groups on principles of justice. Do activists observe unspoken boundaries marked, for example, by class or status or shade or sexual orientation? Are some lives more valuable than others? Can some human rights infringements be ignored? Are police permitted open season on some but not others? Yvonne Click here to return to Jamaicans United Against Police Brutality homepage. |