Orville Taylor | Delicate balances

Sometimes the lines between competing positions can become so blurred, that one wonders if the ultimate objective can be accomplished. Two persons jumped to the front of the news last week.

Member of parliament and former minister of constitutional affairs, Marlene Malahoo Forte, once more stuck out her neck and suggested that given the wanton abuse of free speech, perhaps we should reinstate the law regarding criminal libel.

Then, maybe not surprisingly, Chief of the Accompong Maroons, Richard Currie, very politely rejected the direct assistance of the Jamaica Defence Force (JDF), in their recovery effort after the devastation caused by Hurricane Melissa.

During a visit by Prime Minister Andrew Holness, to our historic community, he promised to deploy the military to speed up the process. With a view of meeting the deadline for the annual celebrations in the first week of January, Holness stated that he wanted to make sure that this national event was not negatively affected.

The choice of the word national is not whimsical. Make no bones about, I have no compunction about Maroons being Jamaicans, though semi-autonomous. Like the Ashanti in our motherland, they are guardians of our culture. Similarly, my Masai friend is Kenyan too.

What distinguishes the Maroons is that they, by escaping, forming communities in a landscape that looks remarkably like Ghana, even the rivers, and eventually forging the treaty with the British, had the privilege of preserving ‘our’ culture.

Thus, the celebrations are not their parochial property, it is for all of us, who share the same blood. By the way, Maroons are certainly not the only Africans here, who share the mixture of Akan and other West African genes.

Anyway, Currie, neatly said “No!” a strong symbolic statement.

In emergency situations, such as post-disaster recovery and rehabilitation, the military is often put in charge, as long as it has its boots on the ground. Given the quest to consolidate his power and influence, one cannot blame him.

One should also note that, unlike the other heads of Maroon groups across the country, he uses the title, Chief; and not Colonel. Whether intentionally strategic or not; it does not only distinguish him from the other leaders, but importantly, Colonel is a military title, and never one which is accorded to one who heads a military.

Rather, colonels are in charge of brigades and report to Brigadiers. Bearing in mind the fact that the Treaty with the British required the military assistance of the Maroons in times of crisis; there is no question that the title implies an integrated relationship within the British military, which of course Currie would find repugnant.

Nevertheless, as he and others stoke the embers of independence and statehood, based on this noisome treaty, there is a conflict that might not be resolvable. One cannot argue about the binding impact of a treaty without accepting the consequences of one’s obligations and liabilities under such agreement. If the Maroons are insisting that the treaty is binding to the extent that it gives them statehood; then, like the United Kingdom they also owe the non-maroons an apology and reparations for their contractual insidious role.

Yet, I have no issue with Currie wanting to manage his crisis on his own terms and aspire to become the greatest of all time among their leaders. Moreover, it is possible for government to give assistance without it being packaged with the military. Finally, the engineering unit of the JDF comprises only soldiers. Different from the American Corps of Engineers, constituted of 97 per cent civilians, the optics of a militarised space could easily weaken the image that he needs to maintain. And I cannot fault him.

Notwithstanding this, autonomy and independence are not the same and just as Maroons have no right to administer punishment regarding capital offences, there is only one head of the Jamaican Government and one Head of State. Be not mistaken all 11,000 square kilometres of Jamaica are the remit of the government of the day. If necessary, especially if the constitutional standards outlined by the Opposition and supported by the courts, are met, the Chief of Defence Staff can deploy her men and women anywhere.

Now back to the learned counsel, who frequently creates the onomatopoeic hullabaloo. A media practitioner myself, I side with the members of the fraternity, who rejected the suggestion, as being retrograde. Won in 2013, the protection from this liability is nothing to trifle with.

However, in this period, where freedom of expression can be perverted, destroying the lives of others, there ought to be harsher penalties for wilfully spreading falsehoods, with the vested intention of derailing processes, or worse, depriving one of his constitutional rights.

What do you tell an innocent victim when a malicious person spreads a rumour that he is a sex offender, triggering a police investigation or makes him loses access to his child based on the Child Care and Protection Act? And what do you tell the licensed firearm holder when a liar with no good intention, tells others including the police, that someone threatened him or pulled the firearm on him, even though it simply did not occur.

Mark you! There’s a big difference between someone who innocently passes on information, genuinely believed to be true, and the cretin above. Still, with social media the capacity for permanent damage to an individual is greater. But, the direction of criminal libel might not be where we need to go.

The lady has a point, and government, while respecting personal rights and contractual entitlements, has to act to protect the interest of the majority if individual rights trample on the national interest.

These matters need dialogue and consensus.

Orville Taylor is senior lecturer at Department of Sociology at The University of the West Indies, a radio talk-show host, and author of ‘Broken Promises, Hearts and Pockets’. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and tayloronblackline@hotmail.com