Pants On Fire

I was intrigued to read today's Nation report that the Attorney General (AG) is concerned that new applicants to the Royal Barbados Police Force are balking at taking a lie detector test (see report). I'm not sure if the AG has really thought through his concerns and the reporter does not appear to have asked any questions about that concern. But, applicants could have a lot of reasons for objection, including hiding a prior criminal history. Not least, is the test for those interested in joining also being applied to those already in the force? Lying is not a crime, and it's clear that people lie for a range of reasons, feeling that this offers better protection than telling the truth. But, if such a step is being taken are we to see it as the norm for job applications into the public service? Should political candidates be subjected to the same? Don't laugh.

Given that lie detector evidence is not admissible as evidence in many courts of law, why would one want to base an employment policy on it? You'd deny someone, accused of nothing, a job based on it, but would not use it to help establish the innocence or guilt of an accused? It is not clear to me that being asked to take a lie detector test for a job application is a 'reasonable request'. Why not an HIV/AIDS test, given the contact with public and risks of being able to transmit a disease? Does the force also have a test for drug use? I would have thought that the country's top lawyer and the police commissioner would want to pursue the logic of this polygraph policy as far as employment criteria are concerned a bit further.

An Extraordinary Week: Let's Play Pass The Parcel

It has been an extraordinary week in Barbados, culminating with a press conference held by PM David Thompson yesterday afternoon (see Advocate report). He gave what seems like the final word on whether a proposed concert and 'youth forum' featuring Jamaican dance hall artistes, Vybz Karkel (Adijah Palmer) and Mavado (David Brooks) would take place. It's now officially cancelled, after he met with the event promoters, just as the artistes were putting their toiletries together for the flight. Much public concern here had been raging about the spreading of the clear and sometimes violent rift between these two artistes and their fans, which has developed into what has been know as the 'Gaza' [Kartel] and 'Gully' [Mavado] feud. In Jamaica, it had several months ago gotten the attention of government, who wanted to see some easing in tensions between the factions with the government stating that it had reached a 'resolution' to the rift between the artistes (see link). Whatever merits the organizers claimed in their idea of bringing the artistes to Barbados for a show and to talk to young people about their new peace was lost on most people, who saw either another piece of public relations-turned marketing for the artistes. In addition, many saw it as another example of how a certain culture of disrespect and violence as portrayed and perpetuated through music was going to be allowed to spread and undermine values, especially amongst impressionable youths. The dispute here has done much for the recognition of the two artistes, whose music is no less accessible now than before and did not need an actual show to spread. But they now have a new, albeit varied and older audience as parents (perhaps for the first time) decided to listen to a kind of music many do not like or understand. The arguments were sometimes clear but also confused, but raised again many issues about freedom of movement, who could and should determine standards, parenting, youth development, decision making, role models, copying trends from abroad, and much more.

But the subplot to whether the show would go on was a show itself, with decisions changing as often as babies need diapers. We had the head of the police force, Commissioner Dottin, standing up and saying he did not approve of the show/concert only for his Deputy Commission Bertie Hinds to give approval for the show, just as Mr. Dottin was on his way to the airport. The Commissioner was not a happy camper and so he told the Nation: "It sends a very bad image and message that the Commissioner of Police has been having discussions on these issues and nobody had the decency to consult him....It reflects very poorly on the administration of the force." It's been an open secret that communication at the top of the police tree had its own special branch that was virtually non-existent, so no wonder the Commissioner was out on a limb. The PM ducked the issue nicely in his press conference when he said that "I will say there have been press reports about less than acceptable communication." Roger that! But with a Commissioner named Darwin should we speculate about who will survive any fight of the fittest?

The other bizarre event (or incident) involves an altercation in Parliament, which reportedly occurred last Friday during and after the Estimates Debate. The Worm cartoon in Monday's Nation was again really on target, with its depiction of an 'alleged incident' in the precincts of Parliament between Cabinet Minister, David Estwick, and Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Dale Marshall. Allegations include the brandishing of a firearm. The PM has decided that a bipartisan committee should look into matters of parliamentary procedures and privileges, and include not just politicians but media, clergy and others who could offer insight and input. But the current matter is for the Speaker of the House of Assembly to deal with. The matter was aired publicly by Mr. Owen and Miss Mottley at a BLP branch meeting at St. Leonard's School last Sunday. Reports suggest that Mr. Marshall has filed a formal complaint with the Speaker about the incident. This whole matter puts the government in a pickle as it deals with certain kinds of threats to society and less than stellar public behaviour and morals on one hand and has to deal with other similar threats in its midst.

There's also the uncomfortable situation brewing over the sentencing of the man responsible for the death of a Canadian tourist at Long Beach, after he hit her over the head with a piece of wood in an attempted robbery. The judge gave a sentence of 10 years to Curtis Joel Foster on a charge of manslaughter, well towards the lower end of possible sentences even though mitigating circumstances were slight. A lot of public surprise was expressed at what some would call 'insufficient punishment'. In keeping with that view, the Director of Public Prosecution is referring the matter to the Court of Appeal (see Nation report), arguing that the sentence does not reflect the gravity of the offence. As reported in the paper, citing the document on which the appeal is based:

"It is contended...that the sentence of ten years imprisonment imposed on [Foster] for the offence of manslaughter is unduly lenient in the circumstances.

"It is also contended that the sentence does not reflect the gravity of the offence.

"It is also contended that the sentence does not reflect the public's concern about offences of this nature.

"Moreover, there is an error of principle in the sentencing in the circumstances".

A space to be watched with much interest.

Then there is CLICO, which some say has become a political football. Stung by comments about the size of its statutory deficit, the company took out paid adverts in the papers 'categorically' deny that it was B$300 million. It did accept that the deficit was about this figure in 2008 and is now about B$100 million, but there is an accounting exercise for 2009 to be done by end April, which may move that figure around. Then in today's Advocate (page 7), CLICO's Executive Chairman, Leroy Parris, makes a statement taking to task the former PM, Owen Arthur, and 'responding to scurrilous attacks on my integrity by certain Barbados Labour Party (BLP) member, especially former Prime Minister Owen Arthur'. If it was a political football before, I dread to think what it has become now. A medicine ball?

It would be unoriginal to say that we live in interesting times, but I have to say we live in interesting times.

Barbados Gets New News Media: Barbados Today

Barbados has a new media offering: a true digital newspaper (see image). Barbados Today has just been launched, at the URL www.barbadostoday.bb. The CEO is Roy Morris, veteran journalist at the Nation, who believes there is "demand for a new imaginative approach to news gathering and dissemination in Barbados". He also said a "number of former Nation Publishing Company employees have come together and have been able to attract persons who understand the importance of quality journalism in a developing country like Barbados (see CBC report).

Mr. Morris was previously in the news on an alleged rape charge in 2007: he was the Nation News Associate Managing Editor in July when the alleged rape occurred. He was arrested and charged by police on August 14, 2007. Several local news organizations reported the story at the time, but online versions no longer appear available. For example, the Nation reported:


Journalist On Sex Charge

ROY MORRIS, managing editor of The Nation Publishing Company, appeared before the District “B” Boarded Hall Magistrates’ Court yesterday on a charge of rape.

Morris, of Warrens Park, St Thomas, was not required to plead to having unlawful sexual intercourse with a 16-year-old female.

There was no objection to bail and Magistrate Robert Simmons released him on a surety of $10 000, ordered him to turn in his passport, and to report to the nearest police station thrice weekly – Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays.

The matter was adjourned until November 1.

The current state of this clear is unclear, looking at what is available through online searches, so perhaps it will be a story that is brought up to date on the new digital paper. It will be interesting to see what impression this new publication makes on the regular print media, their online versions, and the local blogs.

Can Jamaica Show How A Phoenix Rises?

For all that is wrong in Jamaica's society and economy, is it possible that the country can show a good lead in dealing with corruption? It is too early to start beating pan and wheel rim, but the latest in the Cuban light bulb scandal suggests that a way is being opened to deal with deceitful and craven politicians (see the Gleaner report and the Observer report). This puts whole new meaning on 'taking it on the Chin'. Rodney Chin yesterday testified that he was a "front" for the politician, Kern Spencer, in setting up businesses, that the prosecution is contending were set up and used to siphon millions of dollars during the Cuban light bulb distribution project.

For a long time, Jamaica has had the odd distinction of a dysfunctional society, filled with wanton murders, especially in certain parts of the capital and Montego Bay, added to which the police force seems riddled with corruption, yet at the same time the judicial system seems to be relatively straight and functioning properly.

The roots of Jamaica's criminality have been well documented, but the scourge is there running through the veins of everyone, even if you have nothing to do with any criminal. The country has been so badly tainted that we all breathed a huge sigh of relief when our greatness came through in the form of Usain Bolt and other athletes, who showed what 'little but tallawah' really meant. But, the inevitable is always there. You cannot have such wanton criminality without it touching politics. It is just not possible. But where are the links and who is prepared to put themselves on the line to expose the 'dealings'? We will have to see how far Rodney is prepared to stick out his Chin.

Logic also says that the tentacles are unlikely to have their body connections in Jamaica. Maybe this case will not be the one that shows where the 'body' really is, but it's in a deep, dark, murky sea that is not in Jamaica.

Court In Disaster

Things I discovered today and questions that I raised to myself.

While a Jamaican man acting as a mule can injest more than 80 packets of a controlled substance (aka ganja) in an effort to avoid detection nature will disclose the evidence within a day. His arguments may run something like, "A man did hask me fi brin' in de drugs and some wun wudda help me wen me reach a Barbados." This can be translated as "I am such a bone head that I cannot realise that if I travel with Air Jamaica I am immediately under suspicion as a possible drug trafficker. Imagine how stupid I must be to actually have drugs on my person for the purpose of trafficking."

In what I can only describe as 'typical' in the locality, where 'that's how it is' is how it is, there is no notice of the dress code sent with a summons to appear in court. Imagine how hard that would be to do, and how it could possibly avoid telling people as they are being registered for their star appearances the elements of standard island wear that are not accepted in the court room. I mean, what can you do at the entrance to the court, conjour up a new outfit?

A man wearing an earring cannot expect to get a hearing in local courts, nor can he present a good case. I cannot figure out how it is that a woman wearing earrings gets a fair hearing or can make a good case; women's ears have clearly developed differently in Barbados. There is a part of me that asks about nose rings (either gender), navel rings (covered, of course; either gender), and tongue rings (either gender). Toe rings (females only) seemed to not derail the course of justice.

Also, in the unfair way that ignorance is no defence in the eyes of the law, the dress code posted outside the court is not the full or only thing, as another slightly different code appears on the notice inside the court--it includes 'no slits'. I dared not ask the female police officer what that meant. But, it did not seem to cover the pseudo-Chinese sarong that one offensive female trafficker was wearing. Oh, Barbados!

I am totally at a loss regarding the definition of a tidy hairstyle given what I have witnessed. For a lawyer or court officer or police officer (either gender), short hair, loose or braided. For a real bandito (only males), dreadlocks or braids, loose or tied. For traffic offenders (either gender), shaved head through bushy hair, no braids. For witnesses or those posting bail the rules appear to have not been applied, and the courts seem at a loss regarding how to treat Rasta women, other than with contempt. Why else would the magistrate ask only her amongst a slew of bail providers if her home was a chattel house, and with that sardonic grin on his face? Of course, a magistrate's contemptible behaviour cannot be contempt of (his) court. But that is not courting favours in the eyes and minds of those who witness it, I humbly submit, your Worship.

Court officials tell attendants to speak up and speak clearly then proceed to mumble all the time themselves, such that those trying to hear are constantly asking for repetition. Add to that the beautiful wooden floor, on which persons walk constantly in heavy shoes, and much of the proceedings are inaudible. If it were being recorded most of what would be heard would be 'thud, thud, your worship, thud, thud, guilty, thud, thud, objection...'

Why are the islands potentially guilty banditos given face time ahead of the equally potentially guilty traffic offenders? Traffic offences are not complex and involve no one standing in leg irons or handcuffs. They can be disposed of fairly quickly and so the economy would benefit if the apparently economically active would be allowed to get back to their work rather than having to sit through a few hours of motions denied, objections, requests for bail, presentation of sureties, etc. With an island that has record road density and traffic ownership the idea of special traffic courts (not for drug offences) would seem apt. Why should traffic offenders have to listen to police prosecutors speak like those who failed auditions for 'Perry Mason', with empty lines such as "the weight of the evidence is so strong..."? What little law I know suggests that the court decides if the evidence is strong, not the police, but if you say it with a serious enough face and jab your finger at someone it may seem true.

Why are cases of a 'certain vintage', let's say 5 years, being brought to courts and police not providing pre-trial disclosures all of that time and telling a magistrate that they do not have the file to proceed today?

One thing that was very clear was that most traffic offenders were guilty and prepared to plead that way. They most they hoped for was some leniency. No, not B$300 for not stopping at a stop sign. Or, the dog ate my driving permit, and with eleven children to feed, your Worship, do charge me B$250. So, in the time it took to figure out that only one of five alleged assailants had no lawyer, about 10 traffic cases could have been dealt with. The courts could have been there for the pleasure of those already enjoying Her Majesty's pleasure.

I also saw that traffic offenders invariably dress quite well, at least for court. Real violent bandits (machete wielders and fist bashers) do look like they have come from a fight, with their low slung pants, hair whose untidiness should have excluded them from appearances, and heads, faces and hands that bear 'signs of a struggle' not with life in general but with at least one other person. Drug trafficking bandits were dressed similarly but appeared to have escaped facial or manual injuries--aside from bruising by handcuffs.

But the law is powerful. When the magistrate said, "Keep away from each other" to two reported adversaries who had been violent with each other I imagine that he felt that would really work. Which makes me wonder why bother with the rest of the proceedings, when you could just make such utterances and let the world turn properly.

The traffic offenders were all glad that they were not due to spend any time at Her Majesty's pleasure in the pokey--and I use that term carefully when referring to places like Dodds, of which one has heard some unpleasant stories of unwanted attention. They were glad to get back to teaching other people's children, or being able to deal with their own children, or getting back to their offices or businesses. The pain of a visit to the cash machine was bearable for most.

I like the US system of assessing a fine for a minor traffic infraction or giving someone the option of appearing in court. The Americans have realised that most sensible and generally law-abiding people do not want to bother with seeing the justice system trying to work and will pay up without question rather than waste tax payers money and their own time. I wonder, just a little wonder, if such a radical notion could take hold here. I wonder....