http://www.trinidadexpress.com/commentaries/Don_t_extend_it__end_it-128972543.htmlTOOLS
EMAIL THIS ARTICLE
SHARE
PRINT THIS ARTICLE
Don't extend it, end it
Story Created: Sep 1, 2011 at 11:35 PM ECT
Story Updated: Sep 1, 2011 at 11:35 PM ECT
Over two decades ago, when journalism still demonstrated reasonably strong elements of intelligence, skill and coherence, and when the word "veteran" had meaning and synonyms, regional journalist Rickey Singh observed how the cover of "national security" was used frequently by governments across the region to justify a lack of transparency. This, he said, should be interrogated by media professionals rather than being passively accepted.
More than two decades later, this country's Attorney General has reverted to that carte blanche term to stonewall legitimate queries about Government's motivation for and objectives in the current State of Emergency. With circular reasoning, we are told, latterly, that the State of Emergency was declared in order to avert a plot that would have resulted in mass killings.
That plot has been averted, but the public cannot be told what the plot was or how it has been averted because of "national security". In terms of this objective, the State of Emergency is already successful, rationalises AG Anand Ramlogan, but because of "national security" the public is unable to assess for ourselves the success or failure of this drastic move that has suspended our constitutional rights.
To my mind, this qualifies as the use of "national security" by the Government to justify a lack of transparency in circumstances that affect all citizens and their fundamental rights in a democratic system. Even if it comes after the State of Emergency has been lifted, this "national security" cover should be subjected to sustained, intelligent scrutiny by citizens and media, and neither citizens nor media should allow their attention to be deflected by this and that scandal that may conveniently arise when we are free again to enjoy our full rights as stated in the Constitution.
This is among the important issues arising in the conduct of the State of Emergency. Almost two weeks in, there is opportunity to observe several important aspects of this country's evolution and we all would be well advised to pay close attention to and influence the direction of that evolution.
The either/or fallacy in the reasoning of those who wholeheartedly support the State of Emergency ought to be interrogated too. This line of thinking was persistent under the Patrick Manning administration—if you are not for us then you are against us—and we saw it in play in the death penalty debate. In this instance, those who criticise the State of Emergency are in favour of criminal activity. This is not acceptable reasoning and the public, again, would do well to pay close attention to how this fallacy is being deployed.
Similarly, complaints about the multiple ways in which the curfew affects daily life are minimised with two responses: first, if you complain, it must be because you prefer to party rather than spend time at home with your family, and second, you were living under a self-imposed curfew anyway.
The first response is narrow and trading in stereotypes; time spent with family is a matter for families to determine, not for the AG and/or the Minister of National Security to forcibly engineer. In this regard, I have noticed the tendency of both to integrate family morality into their midday State of Emergency commentaries. This is post hoc justification. Both are overstepping their portfolios in so doing, and stepping outside the motivation for the State of Emergency.
The State of Emergency was not declared to finagle nuclear family values by forcing families to eat together across an imaginary dinner table; it was declared to capture criminals and seize firearms. The Government ought not to assume that we do not recognise its efforts to pronounce on families during this State of Emergency.
In the second instance, a self-imposed curfew, by definition, is imposed by the self; it is voluntary. Those who choose to stay indoors at night choose to so do rather than having to do so for fear of arrest and detention. There is an urgent corollary to this point. Thus far, attention has been paid primarily to the economic impact of the curfew. Economics will be cited today in the Parliament as the primary reason for whatever adjustment is made to the curfew hours. This is undoubtedly an important consideration but I argue that it is not the main consideration.
At the time of writing, I have not heard any mention of the more fundamental effects of 'unfreedom' on the psychology of the population. Bluntly stated, human beings do not adapt to confinement. If there is one unequivocal lesson from human history, it is that people will never surrender their freedom, no matter what the reason.
In the first week of the curfew, people bit by bit adjusted to the truncated hours of free movement, and found themselves running about like headless chickens to complete their activities and be indoors by 9 p.m. By the first weekend, the real impact on our lives became clearer. By this week, many people have had enough. To extend this tense, eerie period for a further three months is dangerous to consider, much less do.
While ordinary citizens suffer 'unfreedom', law enforcement enjoys expanded privileges. This State of Emergency should be lifted before our intemperate AG, our military Minister of National Security, our police, sailors and soldiers get accustomed to the power they wield under emergency regulations. Security forces adapting to extended privileges and a population unable to adapt to unfreedom will create another too serious problem.
This State of Emergency should be lifted before the Government, in seeking to solve one problem, creates a far bigger one.
Poll