Letters to the Editor

Letters to the editor

I CLAIM THOSE LEGS!

Sir, Thank you for publishing my bloody legs on the front page of your newspaper of last week. Whoever took the photo I thank them. I also sustained more injuries to my upper body that day.

Yes they do tell a story. The legs belong to me, a 63½ year-old disabled man. Not long ago I underwent a total knee replacement operation and I’m still recovering from it. I have a plastic knee joint and I’m still trying to get used to it. It’s only been a few months since the operation and the surgeon told me it will take 2 years for full recovery.

The other injuries I sustained that day were to my back, shoulder, upper right arm and wrist. Three officers of the SSU did this simply because I couldn’t walk or run any faster like they had ordered me to do. Everybody had run off past me and I was the only one left behind, so I became an obvious target. After hitting me on my back, arm and wrist they were still screaming at me to move away. I told them about my knee problem and that I could not go any faster. I stopped, turned around to show them the scar on my knee. To amazement they hit he me hard on that same knee with the truncheon. They then proceeded to hit me again everywhere around both legs. The end result was as shown in the photo published in your paper.

The injury on my right lower leg was so bad that when the doctor saw it at the hospital, he immediately told me that the leg looked to have been broken and would need surgery. Luckily the X-ray showed no signs of a fracture.

Where is the respect for the elderly? Mr. Michel talks a lot about respect for children and the elderly. Upon his return from Europe last week he told us that he was satisfied with the way his security forces dealt with the incident. He said that he wouldn’t tolerate violence; that is fine and so he shouldn’t.

But, Sir, I am a 63½ year-old disabled man, a person of ‘3eme age’. I have a plastic knee joint, does that make me a candidate to become a violent thug? I was just a local person going about my business in a public place in the middle of town. Do I need to ask for permission to go shopping, to go the library, to go and pay my phone bill or to buy a souvenir? All these places and facilities mentioned are in the vicinity of the area where the commotion took place last week. Does that mean everyone who happened to find himself/herself (including myself) there on that day was a troublemaker?

I am not bitter or angry with anyone of the people who beat me up. My wish is that they go to their respective places of worship and ask for forgiveness for what they did. I could have been the father of anyone of them; I’m old enough to be that. Would they still have had the courage to beat up their disabled elderly father? Pause for thought.

I would like to say thank you to the man who took me to hospital. I don’t know who he was but I’d like to thank him. Also I would like to thank the medical staff who attended to my injuries. Thank you.

G. C. E.

OPEN LETTER FROM F.A. RENE

Sir, This is a letter from F.A. Rene entitled “Open Letter to Mr. Mancham” that appeared in “The People” of Wednesday 27th June 1973 which said: “Dear Mr. Mancham, Your open letter to Mrs. Stevenson-Delhomme has prompted me to write to you and to bring out certain facts regarding you and your party which I feel the public should be made aware of. Well truth is prevailing. The economy is in a mess. The cost of living has been allowed to rise to unbearable level.

The younger generation is more conscious of your deceptive methods- and so you are beginning to feel that the only way you can stay in power is by force. Not so recently you attempted, with your British masters, one of the most odious and malicious coups against the opposition- and you failed.

……your aim is to sack civil servants who do not see eye to eye with you- to imprison those who critise you-to prevent an opposition from using Radio Seychelles in order to express views contrary to yours- to give orders to the police how to act and who to act against- to hang and share the ‘spoils’- and you are despicable.

SPUP believes that an efficient civil service, police and judiciary must be free from political pressure of any nature… SPUP wants to encourage a healthy opposition. We know that there are some individuals stupid enough to listen to your nonsense but justice and truth will prevail in the end”.

One simply has to change the “Dear Mr. Mancham” to “Dear Mr. Michel,” replace SPUP with SNP and sign off as “Wavel Ramkalawan, Leader of the Opposition.” And no one will know or even think that this letter was written 33 years ago. Whereas 33 years ago this was not true today it is very much the case

A.Jumeau

THE RIGHT TO PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY MUST BE PROTECTED

Sir, The recent incident in the country has raised a number of questions amongst members of the community pertaining to their rights. It is thus the opportune time to address one topical issue; the right to assemble. The authorities have been stating that the people who gathered at the National Library to sign a petition did so “illegally”. Let me try and de-layer the theory behind this allegation.

Firstly, in the Republic of Seychelles, the Constitution (1993) is the supreme law. The right to assemble is guaranteed by the constitution of Seychelles and by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This is found in the Constitution of Seychelles (1993), Article 23(1); The Right of Assembly and Association and Article 23(2) states the restrictions that may be applied to 23(1). Seychelles had to have that in the constitution because we signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and it is exactly what Article 20 of that document covers.

It would be proper to start the analysis with these thoughts. In order to hold an assembly (by a big mass}, there ought to be a space. In most cases the spaces used are public spaces. If the spaces are public, whose permission should you obtain and why? Are some areas more sustainable than others? If so why?

The freedom of peaceful assembly protects the right of groups to meet together in order to exchange ideas and information, to hold a peaceful protest, to strike and to publicly express their views. This freedom is thus closely related to the freedom of expression. In this case however, ideas are collectively expressed. Participating in non-violent demonstrations supporting or opposing public policies and practices constitutes an important form of direct citizen action.

Let me share this quote with you from one of my research documents which illustrate the idea of peaceful assembly: Peaceful assembly has been referred to as “speech in action.” It is the physical act of meeting so as to communicate and share thoughts, emotions, and friendship. (Watkinson, Alisa. Education, Student Rights and the Charter. Saskatoon: Purich, 1999, p.75.) In political studies, this is considered as a case of civil liberty. The noun civil liberty has 2 meanings:

Meaning #1: one’s freedom to exercise one’s rights as guaranteed under the laws of the country. (Synonym: political liberty)

Meaning #2: fundamental individual right protected by law and expressed as immunity from unwarranted governmental interference

Civil liberty is the name given to freedoms that protect the individual from government. Civil liberties set limits for government so that it would not abuse its power and interfere with the lives of its citizens. Basic civil liberties include freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech. There are also the rights to due process, to a fair trial, to privacy, and to self defense. Many of the world’s democracies, most especially the United States and Europe, have constitutions, that guarantee civil liberties, and democratic states have assumed responsibility for the protection of such civil liberties, unlike authoritarian states. There are also disputes in certain issues, whether they should be considered civil liberties at all, and, if so, whether they should be protected. There are controversial issues like reproductive rights but I will not address this here.

Redirecting our focus on the Freedom of assembly, in international politics, freedom to assemble is about the right to hold public meetings and form associations without interference by the government.

In legal or political systems where rights tend to be ranked in a hierarchy, or “tiered”, such that some rights are considered more worthy of protection by the state than others, freedom of assembly is generally located on the top tier. However, the very concept of assigning relative value to rights by way of tiers tends to be controversial.

Those who consider the right of assembly to exist on the “top” tier will sometimes concede that the state may legitimately ban groups.

The freedom of assembly in order to protest sometimes conflicts with laws intended to protect public safety, even in democratic countries: the police are authorized by law to disperse any crowd (including a crowd of political protesters) which threatens public safety, or which the police cannot control. The idea is to prevent rioting. Often local law requires that a permit must be obtained in advance by protest organizers if a protest march is anticipated; the permit application can be denied. Sometimes this bureaucratic power is abused by lawmakers if the protest is not a popular one in the community or with the local government.

Last Tuesday, this is what happened in Victoria. A group of people assembled to sign a petition that is said to call on the President not to sign an amendment into law if it was voted through. Judging by the obvious, the Special Force anticipated a riot and used excessive force to disperse a crowd that was armed with words and pens (that’s if everybody had their own pen on that day). The fact that there was no tire burning, no picket fences and no weapons visible would force a person in their right mind to term the assembly as a peaceful one. The world saw how it ended up.

Now we want the decision makers to tell the people exactly as to why they attacked unarmed people who came for a peaceful assembly. It is understandable that the Special Police Unit just underwent training on how to control riots but did the French Gendarme ask them to use unnecessary force on unarmed people? Our police force is known to use excessive force and is never made accountable for them. In this era of reviewing standards of operations this needs to be looked at and addressed urgently. The law enforcement agencies in no way acted with due diligence and the result ended in bloodshed. There needs to be a better understanding amongst us. Note that I said understanding and not tolerance because this new political terminology with its empathetic antithesis to discrimination does not sit well will social justice advocates. “Tolerance” has thus become the social term of choice to define the practical rationale of permitting uncommon social practice and diversity. One only tolerates people who are disliked for their differences. This was not a case of tolerance but a case of rights.

At this point I make the following recommendations:

That the constitution be revised to include the right to peaceful assembly because in a democratic society where other people’s voices ought to be heard the law enforcement authorities can be present but does not have to prevent the people from voicing their opinions unless the assembly diverts from peaceful manifestation.

There is an urgent need for the forces to undergo conflict resolution in stressful condition type of training.

There needs to be a civil rights and enquiry commission, established independently that will look into such matters.

The people of Seychelles need educational programs on knowing their constitutional rights just as much as NCC is teaching Children on their rights.

A Civil Rights Advocate