They say history has a way of repeating itself. This is never truer than what we are witnessing today.
Take a walk back in time to 1979, to the day of July 14, it was a Tuesday. A peaceful crowd demonstrating against the government was making its way down Brickdam when they were descended upon by bayonet-wielding thugs publicly known to be allied to the government of the day. At the end of the assault, Senior Jesuit Priest Fr. Bernard Darke of the Catholic Church lay bloodied. He died later that day.
Fast forward to 2012, July 18th, almost 33 years to the day of Fr. Darke’s murder. Substitute Brickdam for Linden. A peaceful crowd of people demonstrating against the government is descended upon by agents of the state. At the end of the assault three men lay dead.
Their autopsies reveal – all three were shot through the heart.
The question we now ask, thirty-three years after the murder of Fr. Darke what has changed?
Back in 1979 the PPP were at the forefront condemning the killing of the Jesuit priest and blaming the government at that time. They were up in arms, calling it murder and demanding justice. Today, they are the government. Where are their cries for justice? We are yet to hear them condemn the killing of Ron Somerset, Ivan Lewis and Shemroy Bouyea. We are yet to hear them call it for what it is – Murder.
In the Mirror newspaper of September 10, 2011, a column by Mohamed Sattaur quoted then Mirror journalist now Minister under the PPP/C Government, Robert Persaud as stating “the Catholic Standard’s photographer Fr. Bernard Darke was murdered in broad daylight by armed thugs of the then PNCR regime.”
When the PPP came in to government in 1992, they hailed their ascension to office as ‘a return to democracy’. For all governments claiming to run a democratic state there are a few binding checkpoints against which they are measured, one of these is the protection of Human Rights.
The UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials that was adopted by the UN in 1990, set up a series of human rights standards regarding the use of force and firearms by law enforcement officials. They function as the global standards for police agencies worldwide.
Article 3 of Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials provides that “law enforcement officials may use force only when strictly necessary and to the extent required for the performance of their duty.”
Can the Minister of Home Affairs state what necessitated the use of deadly force on the evening of July 18th?
In the general provision of the Code of Conduct it is stated that, “Governments and law enforcement agencies should develop a range of means as broad as possible and equip law enforcement officials with various types of weapons and ammunition that would allow for a differentiated use of force and firearms. These should include the development of non-lethal incapacitating weapons for use in appropriate situations, with a view to increasingly restraining the application of means capable of causing death or injury to persons. For the same purpose, it should also be possible for law enforcement officials to be equipped with self-defensive equipment such as shields, helmets, bullet-proof vests and bullet-proof means of transportation, in order to decrease the need to use weapons of any kind.”
Can the Minister of Home Affairs say why the police on duty at Linden that fateful evening were not wearing the protective gear bought with millions of tax dollars for just such an eventuality. Can the Minister also say why, when the Police knew days in advance that there would be a protest, that the water cannon was not sent to Linden to be on stand-by.
The same document states, “Law enforcement officials, in carrying out their duty, shall, as far as possible, apply non-violent means before resorting to the use of force and firearms. They may use force and firearms only if other means remain ineffective or without any promise of achieving the intended result.”
Can the Minister of Home Affairs say why the police resorted to the use of deadly force that evening on July 18, 2012?
The basic principle also states that “when lawful use of force and forearms is unavoidable, law enforcement officials shall minimize damage and injury, and respect and preserve human life”
Can the Minister explain how shooting someone in the heart is intended to minimize injury?
“Law enforcement officers also have the responsibility to ensure that assistance and medical aid are rendered to any injured or affected persons at the earliest possible moment.”
Can the Minister of Home Affairs explain why the police refused to cease fire when a white flag was waved and why they refused to render assistance to the injured when it was brought to their attention that persons were shot?
The basic principles states that, “Governments shall ensure that arbitrary or abusive use of force and firearms by law enforcement officials is punished as a criminal offence under their law.”
Can this government say why it is that up to now they have not condemned these murders as a criminal offence and why up to now they have not insisted that the persons responsible be charged?
It must be noted that internal political stability is not an excuse to justify departure from these basic principles.
We ask, from 1979 to 2012, what has changed? From 1992 to 2012 where is our democracy?
Comments are closed