Should Sabbath-keeping members of the police protective services protect the Sabbath-keeping governor general on the Sabbath? If not, why not, and who should?

What right does a devout Roman Catholic (as attested to by his clergy on radio), who occupies the high state office of commissioner of police, have to be giving the men and women under his command a worship-or-work ultimatum? Bear in mind the long and sordid history of religious oppression by State churches.

How does the Constitution of this secular democratic state balance the interests of the State with the freedom of conscience and right to worship of the individual?

more than the usual

This year's annual conference of the Police Federation has gone well beyond the usual dominance of salary and conditions issues, to raising fundamental human-rights issues by both the commissioner and the minister for the police. Minister Dwight Nelson, fresh in the killer job, has promised to provide high-powered legal defence for police officers charged with wrongdoing, and emphatically declared that there would be collateral damage as the police pursued their crime-fighting duties.

A furious counterattack by the human-rights lobby has forced his retreat from the collateral-damage statement. So far, the minister doesn't seem to have bowed on the legal-defence position.

Not only must the police protect human rights; they have human rights too. But the police are in the peculiar position of not only being entitled to such constitutional rights and freedoms themselves, but of being the protector of these rights and freedoms for others seven days a week, 24 hours a day, on behalf of the State. The State and its agents, like a commissioner of police, are constitutionally restrained from hindering the enjoyment of fundamental rights and freedoms. But there are, as well, constitutional limitations on the protection of, and the exercise of, rights and freedoms "being limitations designed to ensure that the enjoyment of the said rights and freedoms by any individual does not prejudice the rights and freedoms of others, or the public interest".

Balancing these contending demands requires cool, wise heads and honest hearts. In this regard, the commissioner's outburst was not very encouraging. In a diverse society - and police force - every reasonable effort must be made, certainly by the Government of the State, to accommodate differences. There can be no reasonable reason, for example, for having to schedule a police exam on the Sabbath.

Securing the State and the rights and freedoms of its citizens seems to me to be a different matter. Those who have pledged to do so to have a responsibility, indeed a sacred responsibility, to perform essential services as necessary, as opposed to postponeable routine, to so secure the State and the rights and freedoms of its citizens.

The men and women in the security services are entitled to time off. While bearing in mind that police services can never be shut down or be so com-promised in strength as to be ineffective, there should be no reason that officers' time off should not coincide with their chosen day of worship, be that Tuesday for moon worshippers, Sunday, or some other day for sun worshippers, or the Sabbath. Commissioner Lewin should pause to note that Sunday enjoys in law and culture extraordinary discriminatory special privileges as a holy day.

A useful contribution to the discussion was D. Graham's letter in The Gleaner last Wednesday, "Violation of federal laws", in which the writer reported that the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC] had successfully mounted a lawsuit for a Muslim against his employer, a hospital, which gave him the Hardley Choice of worship or work when he applied for time to make a pilgrimage to Mecca.

The EEOC successfully argued that "demanding that an employee choose between his job and a mandatory tenet of his faith [a very minority faith in the US] is a violation of federal law". The commission recommended that efforts be made to accommodate "flexible scheduling", which is where we thought flexible work arrangements in Jamaica were taking us. Minister of Labour Pearnel Charles should provide some guidance and assurance here.

The newspaper itself, railing against "Tyranny from the pulpit" the day before Graham's letter, should guard against tyranny by the press - something The Gleaner seems to be getting better and better at as it mercilessly lashes with polished prose, those with opposing views. Graham wisely noted that, although it is not always easy to find accommodation, especially in the essential services, a "disposition towards mutual respect and tolerance" must be "part of the process of resolving our differences".

Nelson's biggest folly

And now to the minister at conference: Nelson's biggest folly was not practising the subtle, devious art of political correctness. He will either have to learn fast how to deceive in blahspeak, or to stand up and tek lick. The Gomes/JFJ tearful rant against the minister pledging high-level legal-team support for accused police officers was amazing. Police officers, like ordinary citizens, are apparently not innocent until proven guilty and deserving of the best legal defence (provided by their employer). They are guilty by decree of JFJ, Amnesty International, et al, until proven innocent.

Nelson spoke very carefully and with repetition, not impulsively, about collateral damage in police operations. His apology is, therefore, worth nothing whatsoever. Just in case we have forgotten the nature of policing in Jamaica, letter-writer M. Warner has reminded us in last Tuesday's Gleaner, "Nelson was absolutely correct". And Glenroy Sinclair has done so as well in his story on Wednesday, "Terror and a storm", reminiscing on Superintendent Derrick Knight and his police team battling heavily armed urban guerillas/terrorists during Hurricane Ivan.

collateral damage

The Daily Observer carried a front-page story last week as well about the police having to choose to stand by as two heavily armed gangs conducted a street battle because of the risk of harm to innocents, which police intervention would have heightened.

Police operations cannot be consistently conducted in Jamaica without collateral damage, especially under the conditions of criminals being deeply embedded in and supported by criminalised urban communities. Acknowledging this harsh and deadly reality is not the same as endorsing it, or being happy about it. The trumpeting righteous indignation of human-rights activists cannot change the fact. The minister's political folly was in using his own mouth to speak the painful, unpalatable truth about the matter.

Martin Henry is a communications consultant. Feedback may be sent to medhen@gmail.com or columns@gleanerjm.com.