In response to the many detractors, who pose questions as to the validity of the state of emergency, as it refers to the suspension of basic human rights, I beg to disagree. A few years before the SoE, the people of T&T implicitly lost quite a few of their rights simply because of the rising crime situation. Citizens were not able to come out of their homes after dark, no late family gatherings, no late church services, in fact, churches had to be closed. Actually, it went so far that people were robbed at weddings and poojas.
Rights that have been violated before the SoE are as follows:
(1) the right of the individual to life, liberty and security of the person. (over 3000 citizens have been murdered),
(2) the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law. (no police vehicles are ever available)
(3) the right of the individual to respect for his private and family life (rape and kidnappings)
(4) freedom of movement (self imposed curfew)
(5) freedom of association and assembly (liming and recreational activities)
It is universally accepted that Constitutions do not grant rights, they recognise them. The previous regime did just that, and T&T degenerated to it's present situation. In it's present incarnation the People's Partnership, in it's quest for good governance, has seen the value of instating the SoE ,and eventually captured the hearts of the people. This is so because citizens have now breathed a sigh of relief, as they have now regained their lost fundamental rights and not as some degenerates (The Dirty Dozen) are preaching that the SoE has infringed our basic rights. The SoE has been rightly imposed because of the unholy rise in crime.
Most surveys have pasted a 90 per cent concurrence with the SoE. Therefore, it must be understood that everyone must sacrifice something so as to lower the spiralling crime rate. This also means that people must also STOP COMPLAINING about the small inconveniences that they have to endure. Further to this the Ministry of National Security can and should impose a Ministerial Order to ban Curfew Parties.
Finally, the Prime Minister must adopt a pragmatic approach (trial and error) to this dilemma ant look seriously at the curfew hours and realise that workers and businessmen have been granted two extra hours to conduct their legitimate business, but this in effect means that you have also granted the criminal an extra two hours to conduct his illegal activities and this answers the question as to why the crime rate has begun to rise again. Therefore, it is only obvious and intelligent that the hours revert to its original format Either the Government must have the capacity to educate and reform the people or the people must have the capacity to educate the Government.
Doodnath Maharaj
Arima
