THE EDITOR, Sir:

THE TALK of constitutional reform, in the context of the Government's abject failure to honour the fundamental provisions of the Constitution transports the process of government to 'the theatre of the absurd'.

The English philospher, Jeremy Bentham's commentary on the French revolutionary Declaration of the Rights of Man, wrote: "Look to the letter, you find nonsense ­ look beyond that letter, you find nothing ... Natural rights is simple nonsense: ... rhetorical nonsense ­ nonsense upon stilts." That comment applies with even greater force to the Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, promised to the Jamaican people, by sections 13 to 25 of the Jamaican Constitution.

Of what use was the guarrantee of the protection of the right to life of the over 300 Jamaicans, who have been slaughtered so far this year? What would the hundreds of residents of Tawes Pen, August Town and east Kingston who have had to flee their homes say if they were to be told that the Constitution, enshrines their 'enjoyment of property'.

PEALS OF LAUGHTER

Can you imagine the peals of laughter (or in this theatre, is it tears?) from the residents of all the inner-city communities if it were to be recited to them that they are constitutionally empowered to 'move freely throughout Jamaica' and that they have a right to 'reside in any part of Jamaica'?

Those hundreds of persons who have had their homes taken from them, the bus drivers and taximen who have to pay a daily extortion fee would leave the theatre when the script reveals that it is guarranteed that "no property of any description shall be compulsorily taken." The persons who have been tried and sentenced by community warlords would disavow that they were afforded 'a fair hearing by a court established by law'. Would the pubescent girl who has been summoned to join the community strongman's harem have a sense that her right to security of the person has been impaired?

Some constitutional lawyers might argue that it is the State's intervention against which the citizens' rights are protected, not against one's fellow citizens. To my mind the simple answer to that is, a civilised society presumes that it is only the State that would have sufficient force and authority to breach these guarantees to its citizens. This presumption is based on the primary obligation of the Parliament and the Executive. The Parliament is mandated to make laws for the 'peace, order and good government of Jamaica' and the Cabinet "the principal instrument of policy and shall be charged with the general direction and control of the Government of Jamaica and shall be collectively responsible to Parliament."

It follows therefore that it is only where there is a failure of those two arms of Government to honour their Constitutional obligations that there could be such widespread breaches of the Fundamental Rights of the Jamaican people .

The nonsense (Bentham's words) that is being offered as Constitutional reform is meaningless to persons who have had their rights breached in the ways which are common in this country. The law should recognises monetary compensation for the victims of some forms of criminal activity. Surely, when you are driven from your home because of a failure of your Government you deserve to be compensated. Perhaps, just perhaps, if we were to curb our "exuberant youth "and cause our national executives to account, our resources would not fly away from us to the extent where we cannot compensate those whom the State has failed.

I am, etc.,

PETER CLARKE

lensmithcuscus@yahoo.com