Holness slams PNP JLP says State of Emergency most effective tool against crime, must be preserved

Tweet

ANDREW Holness, the man responsible for the ruling Jamaica Labour Party's (JLP) public relations machine, has slammed into the Opposition People's National Party (PNP), saying it has cost the nation "a perfect opportunity to... present a united resolve against crime".

Holness, who is also the education minister, said the State of Emergency which was scuttled last week by the abstention vote of the PNP, was "the ultimate and most effective tool in the toolbox against crime" and must be preserved

Holness made his comments to the Observer in a response to arguments raised in the debate about the State of Emergency.

Following is an edited version of the response:

The JLP would like to make our position clear on certain matters relating to the State of Emergency.

False Argument #1: State of Emergency is not responsible for reduction in crime

 

We find the argument being posited by the PNP that the State of Emergency had no effect on reducing crime to be dishonest. Before the State of Emergency was imposed the country averaged five murders per day. During the State of Emergency the country averaged 2.8 murders per day. And since the PNP abstention-vote, daily murder rates are now once again trending up towards five.

False Argument #2: Curfews responsible for crime reduction

The PNP have said that the reduction in crime is due to the use of curfews, cordons and searches. The police, previously and in fact during the last PNP administration, utilised curfews, joint military/police operations, and cordons and searches as significant tactical policing tools. The country will also recall the numerous crime-fighting squads, such as ACID, SACTF (Special Anti Crime Task Force), Operation Intrepid, Operation Kingfish, etc., that were established with enhanced manpower and resources to fight crime. None of these had the desired or comparable effect of reducing murders by 40% during their period of use.

It is dishonest of the PNP to now argue that it is the use of curfews and other regularly used tactical operational tools on their own, that accounted for the rapid reduction in the murder rate. The PNP must explain why these strategic and tactical crime fighting tools have suddenly become so successful. The only thing that has changed in the crime-fighting landscape is the imposition of a State of Emergency.

The State of Emergency was successful because it operated on three planes:

1. Special, greater and swifter powers of operations:

Under a State of Emergency, the Jamaica Defence Force could conduct advanced and independent operations. This allowed for areas that were controlled by criminal elements to be taken and cleared by appropriate force and returned to the police.

It allowed for greater security presence outside of the police by having the military cover additional areas.

It gave greater and swiftly deployed powers of curfew, cordon, and searches which allow the police and military to detect and seize contraband and weapons, and restrict, intercept, and direct movement of individuals.

It gave greater powers and allowed for longer periods of detention. The police had a longer period for intelligence gathering, investigations, and case building.

The greater powers of detention allowed for the removal of criminal elements from communities, thereby creating breathing space for citizens to cooperate with the police and for institutions of the State to function normally.

2. The psychological effect of demonstrated targeted and superior force

The greatest effect of the State of Emergency is that it presented a credible threat to the operations of criminals and their enterprise. In the mind of the criminal there was a real fear that the police could reach them, even if the police were not physically present.

For the first time, there was a national feeling that criminals were on the retreat and crime was on the decline. The overall conduct of the security forces engendered a new confidence in and support for the security forces. This embolden citizens to take a stance against crime.

3. United national front against crime

The State of Emergency had unanimous support from all quarters of Jamaican society in its initial imposition and extension. The effect of a united national front, including the support of the Opposition, is critical in maintaining a long term policy stance against crime. This created a stable political environment where the security forces can plan with certainty. With a united front, the general security environment would become unfavourable to entrenched criminal elements that may have the capacity to influence the state. These high level criminals would now be isolated and have to face a national resolve against them. With a united national front, securing the necessary resources for the fight against crime would be prioritised.

The State of Emergency was the necessary factor that created the environment for the tools of regular law enforcement to work. Without it curfews, increased manpower presence, and special squads would not be effective.

False Argument #3: Government did not want to extend the State of Emergency

 

The PNP has said that the Government did not want to extend the State of Emergency, otherwise we would have had all our members present in Parliament. Unlike the 1976 State of Emergency, the Golding government acted on the advice and request of the security forces to extend the State of Emergency. When the security forces first came to the Government they asked for three months.

Members of the Cabinet in coming to a decision, were very mindful and concerned about possible abuses that could arise out of the suspension of constitutional rights. The history of the PNP-imposed State of Emergency in 1976, raised concerns about the negative long-term effect such extraordinary policing powers could have on law enforcement. It was decided to institute a geographically and legislatively limited State of Emergency for 30 days in the first instance and then extend as necessary. This would ensure that the security forces prioritise and focus their resources on critical areas and minimise abuse of the general citizenry in targeted areas. It would also give the Parliament an opportunity to review the operations of the State of Emergency at the expiration of every 30-day period.

For Parliament to approve the extension of the State of Emergency, a majority of the whole House must vote. That means 31 Members, either JLP or PNP. When it was extended the first time, the Government had 29 members present. The State of Emergency was extended at that time because the PNP Members voted unanimously with the Government.

When the heads of security forces requested the second extension we knew that we did not have the 31 votes required since several of our members were previously approved to be away on parliamentary or government business. Considering that the PNP unanimously supported the first extension and had publicly lauded the security forces for their good conduct, and several members of the PNP even called for the expansion of the State of Emergency into St Catherine, we decided to lay the request for an extension on the table of Parliament for members to consider.

When it became obvious that the Opposition had backed themselves into a corner by signalling that they would not support an extension of a successful and necessary state of emergency, the Leader of the Opposition offered a seven-day extension which would expire on the July 31, 2010, for the symbolism of Emancipation which would be celebrated the following day. During recess, a further offer of 15 days was made. It became clear to us that there was no point of principle on which the PNP non-support stood. They laid their opposition to the extension on the premise that:

1. The conditions to justify the extension no longer existed.

2. There were reports of abuses.

3. The special powers of the State of Emergency could become entrenched as police grew dependent on them.

4. They did not have enough information to appropriately analyse the success of the State of Emergency.

By offering seven days and then 15 days, the PNP violated their own basis for opposing the extension. If the PNP truly believed as a principle that the conditions to justify the extension did not exist, then any offer to extend on their part violates their stated principle on which they based their opposition in the first place. To say the conditions did not exist for extensions but yet offer to extend is inconsistent.

The PNP had no firm principle on which not to support the extension other than pure political one-up manship. And if they have violated their own principle in making the offer, then offering anything less than 30 days is an attempt on their part to save political face at the expense of a national issue. In any event, the Government was guided by the 30-day request of the security forces, 15 days would not be sufficient.

The nation has lost a perfect opportunity to carry the psychological advantage of the State of Emergency and to presen't a united resolve against crime. The moment this united front and resolve is broken by the debate and divide in Parliament, the effectiveness of the State of Emergency is threatened. The State of Emergency is the ultimate and most effective tool in the toolbox against crime and must be preserved. Carrying on a State of Emergency in conditions of a political divide could lessen the effectiveness of the tool.

The JLP is now questioning the loyalty of the Opposition to the best interest of the people of Jamaica. We now cannot take their calls and pronouncements regarding crime with any credibility or seriousness. We are disappointed that the PNP will not support the security forces and the national effort in fighting crime, especially since the PNP has political control over the large majority of garrison communities.