We are losing the battle against our common enemy — the killer


Sunday, November 05, 2017

Print this page Email A Friend!

On June 3, 2017, terrorists struck in London killing seven people with motor vehicles and knives. The police responded by killing all three terrorists.

British Prime Minister Theresa May spoke with members of the press, offering condolences to the victims' families, congratulating the police on their swift action, and made a profound statement that will live on long past her tenure.

She said: “If our human rights laws prevent us from doing it, we will change them so we can do it.”

She was speaking in reference to measures in relation to freedom of movement of suspected terrorists to include border issues.

The impact of that statement cannot be measured because it has so many varied dimensions. To me, the incident, the response by the police, and the statement by the political leader demonstrate a country which is waging a war against a common enemy.

The enemy attacked and the police and the people responded and defended themselves appropriately.

I saw no reports of Muslims blocking the road demanding justice for these cowardly brutal maniacs, I saw no report that INDECOM would be investigating, and most importantly, I saw no political leader making a statement that we would be responding only to the point where we don't offend local or international human rights groups.

What I saw was a united front of England mourning the attack and showing appreciation to the heroes who responded whilst making their intentions to do what is necessary known.

It was a lesson to me as to why we are losing the battle against our common enemy — the Jamaican gangster/killer.

We are not really viewing this individual as a common enemy. We are already divided into three distinct classes and this impacts how we interact or engage with them.

Businessmen pay money to them to operate in certain commercial zones, partially because they are intimidated, but also because the gangsters are effective.

If they viewed them as their enemy they would be less inclined to do it, knowing fully well it is money being used in pursuit of the misery of others. Persons in the inner city often celebrate the death of men from rival communities, but embrace gunmen from theirs.

Human rights groups protect them, misrepresent them as victims, and oftentimes create images of them to further their cause internationally, at the cost of the reputation of their own country.

This is what differentiates us from Britain's stand against terrorism. Our terrorists are far more deadly than three men with knives, but if they were even brandishing AK-47 rifles and were killed by the security forces in the exact scenario in Jamaica that these knifemen were, there would be a push- back from not just human rights groups, but various arms of the Government.

Let's be logical. You really think these three clowns with knives are even a fraction as dangerous as “Duppy Flim”?

Yet when he met his end, whilst in possession of four guns, I read that INDECOM is investigating. This is ridiculous!

What circumstances would have to exist for a police shooting to occur where I don't hear that INDECOM is investigating and rather hear my Prime Minister say the words uttered by Prime Minister Theresa May — “If our human rights laws stop us from doing it we, will change them so we can do it”?

Please don't misunderstand me. I have the greatest respect for how Prime Minster Andrew Holness and former Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller have handled the crisis of Jamaica's international image in relation to human rights abuses and the need to improve this image.

However, I must confess, listening to this lady (May) made me miss being led by men like Michael Manley and Edward Seaga, who projected strength and absolute rejection of running the country based on the standards and directives of other countries.

They did what they needed to do to protect their citizens without worrying about who was going to rap their knuckles for daring not to follow guidelines that even Britain itself won't follow.

Bear in mind that these human rights rules and laws that are desired to be thrown out the window by Prime Minster Theresa May are due to an attack that resulted in less loss of life than we lose on a really bad weekend; this with a population that is 4.4 per cent of England's people.

I wonder what would have been the reaction of that very same British Government had Prime Minister Andrew Holness promised to chuck out our human rights laws after killers here had slaughtered 41 children in 2016 alone. I wonder if we would really be following the dictates of the international community if we were not reliant on their benevolence.

Could this be a factor in us not viewing our killers as our common enemy?

Jason McKay is a criminologist




1. We welcome reader comments on the top stories of the day. Some comments may be republished on the website or in the newspaper � email addresses will not be published.

2. Please understand that comments are moderated and it is not always possible to publish all that have been submitted. We will, however, try to publish comments that are representative of all received.

3. We ask that comments are civil and free of libellous or hateful material. Also please stick to the topic under discussion.

4. Please do not write in block capitals since this makes your comment hard to read.

5. Please don't use the comments to advertise. However, our advertising department can be more than accommodating if emailed:

6. If readers wish to report offensive comments, suggest a correction or share a story then please email:

7. Lastly, read our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy

comments powered by Disqus



Today's Cartoon

Click image to view full size editorial cartoon