There are four primary groups that are likely to interact with the press in relation to a discussion on police actions against gangs. This is apart from the police themselves.

These groups are the Ministry of National Security, the Opposition spokesperson on national security, the Independent Commission of Investigations (INDECOM), and the human rights community.

The Government will, from time to time, outline its efforts and demonstrate how effective it has been or explain why, despite its greatest efforts, it has been ineffective.

The Opposition will outline all that the Government and, by extension, the armed forces have done then criticise it, irrespective of the results.

INDECOM will focus its efforts on outlining the police shootings or assaults.

If there is a reduction it will be seen as a result of their input and if there is an escalation it will be said that the police administration is weak and the cops are homicidal.

The human rights groups will treat every shooting as avoidable and a calculated policy of extrajudicial conduct.

The four groups present to the public and, more importantly, the gangs as deeply divided. This needs to change.

The debate among the groups needs to take place behind closed doors. Behind these doors they can debate and quarrel and, if they like, I can supply an assortment of martial arts equipment if they desire to punch it out.

However, when these groups come in front of the public they must be united as one group behind one table with one statement for Jamaicans. The reason for this is that the gangs cannot feel that they have a friend in their corner.

Although the Opposition won’t necessarily treat the gangs as an ally, they don’t come across as being part of the weapon against them. This is normal. Their job is to oppose. That is except when we are in a virtual war with an enemy that is strengthening to a point where they can soon, once again, challenge the armed forces as they did in 2010.

INDECOM has a defined purpose to reduce or eliminate police shootings. This is noble. But even if this is achieved at the expense of the total capitulation of the armed forces, it doesn’t matter. Their job is defined by reduction.

This can’t be an approach, nor can it be acceptable in a case where the enemy is at the gate. But it’s not their fault, really. It’s just their job description.

The human rights groups, by definition, are there to defend the rights of citizens. This should not be limited to State abuses but it certainly should include them. The issue, though, is that the gangs
— the same ones that are at the proverbial gate
— may take their actions as support.

So the issue is the enemy. They need to see a united front standing against them. Does it appear to you that we are presenting that?

Then there is that little thing they call a motivated workforce. The armed forces are not that different from any other group. They require motivation to function effectively.

You are asking them to risk losing their lives, endangering their families, exposing themselves to legal issues, including possible incarceration.

Then there is the stress of court, the boredom of occupation and peacekeeping and lest I forget, the possibility of the loss of United States, Canadian, and United Kingdom visas.

So with all this on the line, are you sure you want to add a division in the bodies of judgement throwing water on police efforts?

The coalition I propose would operate behind closed doors and would still do their jobs. The Opposition would still lobby for what they want to be done; INDECOM would still investigate the incidents and would still report to their bosses overseas and the Parliament; the human rights groups would be free to continue negotiating for the improved rights of citizens, but within the confines of the coalition. This would not stop them from continuing to the point of treason to report to foreign bodies so their funding would continue.

What I am trying to achieve is one voice speaking as a united force to the public, and more importantly, to the gangs that they have no friends in authority to help them.

Why does crime differ from other social issues like education and health? Because crime has an opposing force we call gangs.

When we criticise and attack each other our impact against this enemy is reduced. In fact, the gangs become strengthened.

Every criminal sees INDECOM and the human rights community as their ally. This is a fact. It’s okay in a country where murders are not a staple of our everyday life. Our situation cannot afford this luxury.

Let me put this into perspective. The biggest mass rape in modern human history was carried out by the Russian army after the defeat of Germany in 1945. It stands as the biggest disgrace in Russia’s military history. It has not been adequately propagated in history because it would highlight the German people as a victim of at least one atrocity. They were, in fact, a victim of many.

In the build-up to Russia’s march into Berlin everyone knew what was coming and suicides were at mass levels. I see nothing in history of anyone in Germany worrying about the treatment of the approaching army or even the strategy to repel them.

The order of the day was just run because they are coming to rape and murder.

The group at our gate is far worse than those depraved Russians who participated in the rape of Berlin. There were just more Russians.

In spirit and in conduct the gangs of Jamaica are sheer evil and if they eventually overthrow our Government they will do far worse. This may or may not happen in our future and I hope it doesn’t.

What I know for sure though, is that the division among good men that I am seeing is not helping us to prevent it.

Feedback: drjasonamckay@gmail.com