MY mother is from Ireland, the south of Ireland to be exact. It’s known as the Republic of Ireland.

In Ireland you are technically crossing from one country to another if you travel from the south to the northern part of the country. Northern Ireland is considered a country separate from Southern Ireland and is a part of the United Kingdom. It has been so since it was partitioned as part of peace negotiations between England and Ireland in 1921.

Many people who live there, and many others, believe that this is simply not right, that a country shouldn’t be divided into two to facilitate foreign interests. This division involved the erection of a border, where people from the south of Ireland were required to show documentation to travel to the northern part of their country because it was considered another country.

This was thought by many Irish people to be untenable, irrespective of what political reason was being given. It was not because you would be denied entry. That rarely happened. It was the principle that you were actually being told that you were required to show documentation to travel within your own country.

I quite agreed with the Irish. British activities in Ireland are a disgrace. The border was removed in 2005 as part of the Good Friday Agreement. This type of movement control is part of a larger mechanism which countries that occupy other countries use, or that totalitarian governments employ to cement oppression and control.

The Pass Laws Act of 1952 required black South Africans over the age of 16 to carry a passbook known as a dompas. You were always expected to have it on you. It’s sort of like NIDS, isn’t it?

Now, it may seem like no big deal to walk with a pass as a means of identifying yourself. However, this was only a requirement for black South Africans. It was, therefore, protested against by many blacks, with public burnings of their books — very reasonable behaviour.

To go from Turkish-controlled North Cyprus to Greek-controlled South Cyprus, you are required to show your passport. This is because North Cyprus (also called the Turkish Republic of Cyprus) is considered by the United Nations to be ‘occupied territory’ — as well as part of Cyprus — but is treated by its Government as a separate country.

Many Cypriots consider the border offensive and don’t recognise Northern Cyprus as a separate country. Even though they will not be denied entry if they present their passport, it is seen as an affront. These are laws that people find offensive, and the protest of same by non-cooperation is reasonable. I understand totally.

I consider the INDECOM Act offensive, as it takes away the right of a police officer to remain silent but doesn’t do the same to a criminal. I also consider the organisation’s existence as an overreach of foreign governments, especially the United Kingdom. Therefore, when I am required by law to give a statement to this body I take it as an insult and my statement expresses this in subliminal and specific ways.

I also give statements to the Inspectorate and Professional Standards Oversight Bureau (IPROB), which is the Jamaica Constabulary Force’s investigative body. My statements there reflect more effort because I believe they are a representation of me.

This is unlike my INDECOM statement that is being submitted by force because my country is bowing to the dictates of a foreign nation and its nationals who are in my country policing our Government and its military and police.

So, I am honest and forthright in my representation of the facts, however the tone and the ‘certification’ express my deep shame that my Government and I are bowing to the demands of foreigners, or local enemies who are collaborating with foreigners, for their own benefit or prejudice.

I say all of the above to make clear that there are and have been laws imposed by foreign governments or even legally elected governments. Citizens are within their right to protest, even break these laws, if necessary — especially if they are specific to a citizen’s race or religion. Taxi drivers resisting arrest on Kingston’s streets is not one of these scenarios. The law says the police can ticket you, or even seize your car, if you are believed to be in violation of the law. If you disagree then there are legal channels you can explore. Fighting the cop off and resisting arrest is not one of them.

The recent fiasco in Miami, Florida, involving a player from the Miami Dolphins, Tyreek Hill, is an example of an unnecessary conflict. Firstly, if the police officer wants you to wind down your window and you are afraid of members of the public seeing you, then being rude and stubborn is neither appropriate nor sensible.

By the same token it is not reasonable, correct, appropriate, or necessary for a police officer or officers to resort to physical force after a one-minute dispute with a citizen whose taxes help to pay their wages. This is not a convicted man. The legal authority is not the same as it is with a prisoner. Where is the de-escalation that is expected in law enforcement versus prisoner interactions?

This is my problem with the American scenario. It’s usually senseless, unnecessary resistance to police action and a robotic response from law enforcement that results in rubbish occurring with incredible consequences.

So, there are laws in this world for which non-compliance is reasonable. There were once many more, but thankfully they have changed. The decision as to when to protest versus when compliance is required is the issue. The law of the land must be followed. That is, unless the law is deemed to be immoral, prejudicial, or illegal.

There is no Jamaican law for which resistance is necessary. None! There is no American law that I believe requires protest by non-compliance. Not in 2024. But definitely in 1964.

However, this is not a licence for the police to go immediately into forceful action. There must be some element of de-escalation utilised. If this fails, you then escalate to whatever is required.

How much force is necessary and reasonable is the question that is eluding police officers in the United States currently. The answer does not lie in policies and protocols. It lies in common sense and morality, with an absence of ego.

Feedback: drjasonamckay@gmail.com