Those stupid cowards who resort to guns

What is the rationale of entering a church, sitting behind a woman, watching her pray, and then pump bullets into her body, killing her on the spot? Well, that question could best be directed at the jackass who shot Mrs Lowe Garwood dead a week ago in the western Jamaica town of Trelawny.

He kills someone, and now, unless something unforeseen happens, he will go to prison for the rest of his life. Now, does any of that make sense?

Are we to assume that some of these heartless killers do these dastardly acts and believe that they will not be caught, or in this case be forced to give themselves up to the police? These fellows are just plain stupid. There is no other way to describe them. This is the modus operandi of the Jamaican criminal who does these foolish things and then has to suffer the hard, cold consequences.

Now, that fool who pulled the trigger, whether he was acting of his own free will, or persuaded to do so by financial and other incentives, will land in Jamaica’s dismal prison system where, possibly, he will share a dirty cell with other notorious animals; he will know what sanitary inconvenience is all about; he will not have the freedom to eat a nutritious plate of food, and if he is not there yet, he could even be converted to accepting membership in the backward ‘Men Alone Club’ and face the consequences if he does not pay his daily dues.

With all these things in existence, why do some of these guys continue to spread mayhem and bloodshed all over? Even if they have not been to prison before, all of them who handle guns know someone who has been, and unless they lie to them, the stories that they tell about jails and prisons are not nice.

I have long said that our correctional services leaders, or even national security ministers should open up what happens daily in the prisons to the public. For, as one who has done voluntary work in prisons to help rehabilitate inmates, through the Courtney Walsh Foundation, I know that prison life is not pretty.

I maintain that if potential offenders, especially the first-time ones, saw how the conditions were, unless they were insane, they would not want to do anything to end up in those hell houses.

Not a good idea to piss off Juliet Holness

The Member of Parliament for St Andrew East Rural Juliet Holness, who happens to be the wife of the prime minister, is not to be pissed off, judging from what happened at last Tuesday’s sitting of the Public Accounts Committee of Parliament.

Based on what occurred with correspondence between members of the Jamaica Labour Party and the chairman, the lady was left not too happy, and she made no bones about how she felt, even warning PAC Chairman Julian Robinson that if it happens again, hell could bruk out.

Now, pissing off someone can have lasting consequences. It was good, for the sitting of the committee of the House, that only one person was pissed off, for if that had happened to another, or, say three people, then I suggest that the committee could not have met.

So next time Mr Robinson — the member for St Andrew South Eastern, former People’s National Party general secretary, and now spokesman on finance and planning — decides to have dialogue with other members by way of e-mail in particular, he should move with caution, for if you piss off people, that could be laying the foundation for something even more serious, and pungent, to happen next.

How crime reports come across

We have grown so accustomed to the same language being used to describe crime-related activities that they all sound like echoes.

So often we hear of a ‘lone gunman’, as if saying ‘a gunman’ would not be enough. Doesn’t the word ‘lone’ also mean single, or solo? So why is there an emphasis if only one man is involved?

We can turn next to men alighting from a car and opening fire on the police or on a group of people. When I hear the verb alight, or alighted, as used in the past tense, I think right away about a box of matches, or a lighter being used, although alighted means descending from a form of transport. But the descriptions can be changed, from time to time, to even say, simply, that men jumped from a car…, and not opened fire, but shot at whomever. It just sounds like if a man opens fire, it’s like he goes for a key, turns it, and then it’s shots all around. Can you close or shut fire?

Still, too, the police continue to report that gunmen opened fire at them, the fire was returned, and when the smoke cleared, so and so was found suffering from gunshot wounds. Now, tell me which policeman is going to allow a man carrying a gun to have the first crack at him? Is it that all gunmen (I suppose that means men who always have unlicensed guns in their possession) are such lousy shots that every time they get the chance to fire at the police first, they miss the target, some end up being cut down when the police ‘returned’ fire.

I still hear too, about ‘guns barking’, to mean, simply, I suppose, shots being fired, perhaps rapidly. Wonder if those guns that have been barking for so long are being cleaned and serviced with dog food?

Perhaps we can make life easier for all by not only using simple language, but for a change, telling it like it is, notwithstanding INDECOM. No policeman, in the line of duty, which should be all the time, should allow any holder of a gun to get the first shot at him. Once you see a guy with a ‘tool’ that in your estimation he should not have in his possession, and it appears that he can endanger your life and the lives of others nearby, then there is only one thing to do.

CAPRI’s madness on abortion for minors

So here we go again. A seeming reputable organisation like the Caribbean Policy Research Institute (CAPRI) has put forward the unthinkable — that underaged girls should be allowed to do abortions without consent from their parents or guardians.

What absolute hogwash!

Instead of suggesting ways in which legislation may be toughened for those who choose to have sex with minors, an organisation which wants to be taken seriously is running off its tongue about opening up a virtual free-for-all for those who should not be engaged in sexual activities in the first place.

When a young woman begins menstruation, from say age 10 or 11, it does not mean that she is ready to enter the kingdom of sexual escapades. From those double-digit ages, up to a day before she turns 16, according to Jamaican law, she is not equipped, mentally, to decide that she is ready to enter the sex zone.

Additionally, some medical studies have shown that her body is usually not sufficiently developed for sex, let alone pregnancy. Some among us are pushing this matter too deep.

CAPRI, too, missed the mark by calling for parliamentarians to vote in secret in respect of whether or not abortion should be legalised. That, too, is rubbish. Most parliamentarians are elected by the people. They should not vote in Parliament on such a fundamental issue as this without the full consent of their constituents because such an issue affects them all.

So if, for example, Juliet Cuthbert-Flynn, who has her fixed position that abortion ought to be legalised, gets a clear directive from her constituents that they, by majority, howsoever that might be determined, are not for legalised abortion, then she dares not go to Parliament and vote otherwise.

Abortion is a serious thing. Some of us should terminate the thought of legalising it from our collective mind.

I have no desire to abort any view on the subject which does not correspond with mine. It’s just that, in my estimation at any rate, some people seem content to simply run off their mouths without carefully considering all the consequences of the actions being contemplated.