A CONTROVERSIAL statement by a human rights group yesterday earned the condemnation of members of a parliamentary committee examining six anti-crime bills now before the House.
In a written submission, the Independent Jamaican Council for Human Rights (IJCHR) raised objections to a number of provisions in the bills.
"The council urges this Parliament for once in the history of Jamaica to vote as your conscience tells you to and even if it means not following your respective party leaders' instructions," the council submitted.
David Batts, vice-chairman of the IJCHR, would uphold that position in his presentation.
He urged committee members not to follow the dictates of party leaders which supported what he called the unjust unconstitutional and oppressive measures proposed in the crime bills.
Last vote on conscience
Batts argued that parliamentarians last voted based on their conscience in the 1970s in relation to the death penalty.
Despite emphasising that his comments were not meant to be a personal insult to committee members, Batts had to backtrack after parliamentarians demanded an apology and a withdrawal of the statement.
"I find it unworthy of your organisation and I invite you to withdraw it," committee member Tom Tavares-Finson declared.
Committee chairperson, Dorothy Lightbourne, suggested that Batts was confusing the issue of party as against policy matters.
Another committee member, K.D. Knight, distanced himself and other colleagues from the claim. "I don't want to sit here and make it appear that I agree with Mr Batts because certainly I am not in that category," he said.
Charles objects
Strong objection also came from Pearnel Charles: "No party leader can dictate my conscience, none has ever, and none will, I will let you know that I feel very embarrassed for you to be casting that on me."
The statement was later struck from the IJCHR's submission after committee members warned that failure to withdraw the offending remarks would result in the committee rejecting the organisation's presentation.
