Garth A. RattrayIF THE reports are accurate then I have a serious problem with the mannerisms displayed by Amnesty International. First of all I must lay the foundation by categorically stating that I do not agree with any executions of any kind by anyone at anytime be it judiciary, extra-judiciary or gang-related.
I believe that only God can give life and only God should take life.
Those of us who should not be here (on Earth) would not be here because God makes no mistakes, oversees everything and overlooks nothing. My motto in this regard has always been, "No noose is good noose". We are not perfect beings and that is why we were put here on Earth, it is a school for the soul. We came here to learn and to help each other. The duty of any state must therefore be rehabilitation, not just incarceration and never execution. Executing someone is an admission of failure and has never been proven to deter crime. This practice panders to a base lust for 'blood', reeks of vengeance and is unChristian.
It should be clear that I subscribe to the basic tenets of Amnesty International. The statement below appears on their web site:
"Founded in 1961, Amnesty International is a Nobel Prize winning grassroots activist organisation with over one million members worldwide. It is a worldwide voluntary human rights movement that works impartially for the release of prisoners of conscience, fair trials for political prisoners and an end to torture, 'disappearances', political killings and executions. Amnesty International has a precise mandate, detailed in an international statute. The main focus of its campaigning is to: free all prisoners of conscience. These are people detained anywhere for their beliefs or because of their ethnic origin, sex, colour, language, national or social origin, economic status, birth or other status who have not used or advocated violence; ensure fair and prompt trials for political prisoners; abolish the death penalty, torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of prisoners; end extra-judicial executions and disappearances."
I am however disappointed in the manner that Amnesty International (AI) handled the Braeton affair. AI is guilty of some of the very same practices that they themselves have spent so much effort campaigning against. AI has conducted a unilateral investigation, drawn a conclusion without proper input from or consultation with the 'other party', tried the matter, rushed to judgement, assumed guilt, publicised their unilateral findings worldwide and threatened 'global' consequences, repercussions or some such thing (tantamount to an execution of sorts)!
The AI threat is reminiscent of past catastrophic Biblical dispensations. Whatever happened to the values that AI espoused so vociferously? Whatever happened to due process? Whatever happened to the presumption of innocence? How can any investigation/trial be 'fair and prompt' after such a highly publicised conclusion to an as yet to be fully investigated event? I find that they are not so verbose, condemnatory or threatening when it comes to matters involving the superpowers or so-called 'developed nations'. I see no threat of 'global' consequences/repercussions against the United States of America or China. The death penalty continues to be used extensively in these countries, and in fact the current and immediate past Presidents of the USA are from States which are known for their record number of judicial executions.
Many other countries have a 'darker side' but I don't see the same effort being put into threatening or deriding them. Our Jamaican phrase, 'Duppy know who fi frighten' is certainly apt. In my opinion Amnesty Secretary-General Pierre Sane should have made his findings known only to our duly appointed authorities, discussed the matter and waited for some response before making it public.
After all, the aim is to (and I quote): "Urge the Jamaican government to devise and implement a national human rights plan of action that would protect its people from human rights violations involving all sections of society, including the security forces, human rights groups and civil society, as well as the human rights sections of the United Nations and other international bodies."
Only in the event that there is no proper investigation forthcoming or if such an investigation fails to address the obvious inconsistencies should AI raise such a furore. I disagree with the 'strong-arm' tactics employed by AI, it seems to be aimed at eliciting submissiveness through threats of bad publicity and financial reprisals. At this rate AI may very well become that which they seem to despise the most; an organisation that dictates to others through threats and heavy-handedness. Amnesty International too is becoming the investigator, indictor, judge and jury. They dispense their own brand of 'justice' even if that means destroying the over-all good name of our little nation. I am at a loss to comprehend this mad rush to beat the established system to the punch (so to speak).
Amnesty International has spent a great deal of time and effort berating and chastising Jamaica and although, as I already mentioned, I agree with their principles I find their actions to be biased, lopsided, unbalanced, premature, pre-emptive and extra-judiciary.
Garth A. Rattray is a medical doctor with a family practice.
