In the midst of current murder rate (195) heading to beat last year’s record of 605 and rising public fears over “home invasions,” Opposition Leader Kamla Persad-Bissessar, seizing the moment, plugged in a “pro-victim” proposal.
That is, as she described, “stand your ground” legislation. This means giving potential “invader victims” the “absolute right” to defend themselves, to fight back with whatever means to defend themselves and homes against violent attackers – a right which current trespassing and self-defence laws do not provide. However, it is challenging to provide the “self-defence” proportionality and the “reasonableness” required.
From the UNC platform on April 24, the Opposition Leader declared “war against the invaders.”
“Quite soon, I will be presenting a private motion on ‘stand your ground’ and also calling for a 25-year penalty for invaders.” She then pleaded: “Give us support for these proposals…with each passing day, the situation is getting more and more grim.” (loud applause).
Now as Opposition Leader, she does have a big public voice. However, success of her proposal depends on parliament. If the UNC severely criticises the government, naturally, there would likely be political resistance. If on the other hand, the motion is presented as a public interest objective, with logic and balance in its contents and some “home invasion” examples, the wide partnership required would be achieved. More so, such approach could open the doors for bipartisan negotiation on other related legislation. The public may be inspired to see its parliament fulfilling its constitutional mandate.
[caption id="attachment_1013559" align="alignnone" width="1024"] Opposition Leader Kamla Persad-Bissessar. -[/caption]
The UNC motion could be rejected for being “too extreme” ; or adopted with government amendment; or sent to a Joint Select Committee after extensive debate over rights, reasonable force, etc.
Of course, in softer voice, I must admit my interest. I long had serious concerns about these murderous night-and-day home invasions. So last July in an Express interview, among other things I advised: “While many citizens ‘celebrate’ the fatal shooting of two men from a gang of home invasion bandits in Mayaro, it seems necessary now for the Government to review the laws governing self-defence and trespassing to the advantage of business places and home-owners.”
I further advised that under current laws “businessmen, proprietors, farmers and other lawful citizens using guns 'to defend themselves' will likely find themselves as well before the court.”
The very next day widespread support for the proposal was carried both in the newspaper and social media with many blaming government “for doing nothing.”
James Silva uncharitably wrote: “The reasons why these ministers don’t care is because they are all protected by private security, and who pays for it?”
Benet Thomas stated: “Criminals have access to guns as if it were a sweetie parlour. Come on, at least level the playing field or we’ll be at the
