Anti-gang Bill 2017: Another Episode of Political Grandstanding that’s Not in the Interest of the People

Anti-gang Bill 2017:
Another Episode of Political Grandstanding that’s
Not in the Interest of the People
The Parliament went into a not-so-usually-long session last night to debate the anti-gang Bill 2017.
At the end of it all, the Bill was defeated with a vote of 21 for, 12 against, 1 abstention.
Not unexpected, after the marathon session and vote in the dead of night, the politicians worked the media all day today, each side blaming the other for the outcome.
The PM and his AG/PRO claimed surprise and shock at the UNC’s NO vote.
The UNC, for its part took to the media waves to explain, justify why they could not vote for this piece of “bad legislation” that was “not in the interest of the people.
Unable to follow that episode of endless talk for the sake of my health, I have had to follow the media offerings from our Parliamentary representatives today.
WHO TO BLAME
Not to “disappoint”, they got into the usual blame game with the now-usual dramatic flair by the 2 most senior members of the Cabinet.
The AG who only mere days ago was trumpeting that the Opposition “had no excuse for rejecting” the Bill days before the debate even began in Parliament.
The Bill “largely repeats clauses in the Anti-Gang Act 2011 passed by the UNC, then in Government.
In his now-usual style, he quoted figures – 92 gangs with 1,500 members in 2014 had now ground to 211 gangs with 2,458 members today. Such precision, he suggests being the result of improved intelligence since the return of his party to government.
Again, he demanded that the Opposition must support the Bill.
But, he was a bit economical with the truth when he suggested that the 2017 Bill was almost identical to the 2011 Act. There were changes – principally No sunset clause, the inclusion of offences under the Sedition Act in Schedule One offences which could be gang-related crimes.
He also claimed that there were 998 gang-related murders, but, gave no statistics of detection or conviction rates (which are entirely possible under criminal law in the absence of anti-gang legislation).
DON’T BLAME US; WE DID IT IN THE PEOPLE’S INTEREST
Not to be outdone, the latest UNC spokesmen took to the media circuit to say is not we, is dem.
They claimed that they could not vote for the Bill at 2:00 a.m. because they want ‘good law’, law ‘in the best interest of the country’.
So what was bad law in the Bill that wasn’t in their 2011 Act?
The Opposition Leader suggested they couldn’t support the Bill if there was no sunset clause an with the inclusion of sedition offences in Schedule One.
Well, in the course of the marathon debate, a sunset clause was included; the only difference was the PNM wanted the same 5 years as in the 2011 Act and the UNC wanted 2 years (to coincide with the next election cycle perhaps).
According to new UNC Deputy Political Leader and Whip we could not support the Bill because of the giving of police powers to other agencies to enter premises without a warrant. .
Well, he, too, was being economical with the truth. The relevant clauses in the 2011 Act and the 2017 Bill are indeed identical The same powers they now claim to oppose, they gave in 2011.
Another UNC voice claimed the inclusion of sedition meant they could lock up people just for being opponents of the government.
Well, big news, governments have been jailing people under the Sedition Act since the early 1900’s and can do that any day, WITHOUT any anti-gang legislation.
In any case, the government agreed to remove that sedition offence clause during the debate.
So, exactly what about this Bill, different from the 2011 Act that is NOT in the best interest of the country?
PEOPLE’S INTEREST NO PART OF POLITICAL GAMES
What we are left with, according to the UNC Whip, we couldn’t accept a sunset clause of 4 years and police search and arrest without warrant.
Are they serious? A sunset clause of 1 year less than was in the 2011 Act and search and arrest provisions exactly as existed in the 2011 Act were their reason for voting NO!!
And we are supposed to believe that their position was in the best interest of the people and country!!
Another argument offered in the debate was that the DPP’s views were critical.
Well, 2 points on that – in 2011 were the DPP’s views or lack of them a hindrance to passing the Act and the purpose of the sunset clause was to evaluate the effectiveness of the Act, was that done during or since the effective period.
How ever this is spun, diced or sliced, the failure to pass this Bill will now give the PNM the excuse of pointing fingers and continuing the blame game for the vicious slaughter of citizens in a spiraling orgy of brutal murder.
What voting NO or ABSTAIN has done is let the government off the hook of responsibility for dealing with the scourge of gang violence and crime.
It also allows, their chorus to keep singing that the arrests of the same gang members that the AG claims to have name, address and contact info on was ‘racist’.
Once again, the entire Parliament has proven that their political games to advance their narrow electoral and political agendas, NOT, the Right of the citizens to Safety and Security or any other Right is what passes as ‘representative’ democracy.