MONDAY'S FIASCO involving members of the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) and the police has sparked intense debate across the country.
Did the police use unnecessary force? Were the 'walkers' breaking the law?
A group of about 50 JLP mayors, Members of Parliament and councillors was tear-gassed by the police, forcing Kingston Mayor Desmond McKenzie to seek
medical attention.
The cops used the stipulations under Sections 6 and 21 of the Public Order Act to justify their actions.
Section 6 states that it is unlawful for a public march to take place in daylight, unless a permit has been issued.
If the JLP members wanted such a permit, they would have had to apply for it at least three days before the intended march. The request would have been made to the police commissioner.
The group members, however, maintained that they were not marching, just walking, and so the force used by the police was excessive.
Members of the police force are issued with a set of guidelines which, among other things, provide instruction on how to deal with 'unlawful assemblies':
"It is necessary to ensure that any force used is proportionate to the seriousness of the apparent threat, and appropriate options in this area assist adherence to that principle.
"In the dispersal of violent assemblies, law enforcement officials may use firearms only when less dangerous means are not practicable and only to the minimum extent necessary.
"The use of an appropriate and graduated response to conflict, including disorder and violence, will help to ensure a balanced use of force."
The police explained that they may use 'less lethal options' to disperse a crowd. These include devices and tactics to induce compliance without risk of serious injury and/or death to the subjects to whom they are applied. The use of tear gas falls into this category.
So, was the force used against walking JLP mayors and councillors equal to the threat? Was the group from the JLP breaking the law and, therefore, dealt with appropriately? You decide.
