THE EDITOR, Sir:
ALL OF us who wish to continue to live in this country share the concern about the out-of-control crime situation, but imposing a state of emergency is definitely not the answer.
The last time that this particular expedient was used, ostensibly to control crime, it was abused in a shameless fashion to detain without trial, persons who were politically opposed to the then Government. A state of emergency, by definition, requires that the rights of individuals are withdrawn and freedom of expression, including the freedom of the media, is curtailed. We went down that road in 1976 and I would challenge anyone to identify even one positive thing that came out of that experience other than a powerful awareness among some of us that it cannot be allowed to happen again.
The nexus between a declining economy and an escalation in criminal activity has been well established in this country. It happened in the 1970s and is happening now again. This time around the situation is compounded by a breakdown in systems and an alarming increase in corruption, which has brought the country to the brink of anarchy. If that were not enough, those who claim to know say that narco-trafficking and money laundering are now the principal economic activities.
We have a ruined economy and any meaningful change in the country will have to begin with that recognition and the concomitant efforts to correct that.
A state of emergency is not the answer to our problems and if the Government was to introduce one then 20,000 of us should take to the streets on a daily basis to register our protest. They cannot shoot or lock up all of us.
I am, etc.,
NEVILLE G. JAMES
Kingston 8
