Hanging Bill Defeated

[Rainman]

Unfortunately

DEFEAT
Absolutely no PNM support for hanging bill
By Ria Taitt Political Editor

Story Created: Feb 28, 2011 at 10:44 PM ECT

Story Updated: Feb 28, 2011 at 10:44 PM ECT

By a vote of 29 for/11 against, the "hanging bill" was guillotined in the House of Representatives yesterday, as it failed to secure the requisite support from the Opposition PNM to become law. The bill required a three-fourths majority, which mathematically works out to exactly 31.5 in the 41-member Parliament or 32 votes.

"The bill has not met that requirement, so as such it is defeated," House Speaker Wade Mark declared yesterday, bringing an end to a debate which was marked by strident criticisms, particularly from the Government side.

A last-minute attempt by Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar to meet with Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley to work out a consensus position was rejected by Rowley. The bill had been brought to amend the Constitution to make special provision with respect to capital offences.

Rowley had earlier asked Attorney General Anand Ramlogan, during his wind up, to say whether he was prepared to draft a separate bill dealing with the petitions to international bodies and not have it as part of the current bill, which is an amendment to the Constitution.

When the Prime Minister attempted to respond, Rowley snapped: "I am not talking to you, I am talking to the Attorney General."

This caused uproar on the Government benches.

Ramlogan, riding on that momentum, declared: "Unlike the split in political personalities on that side, when you speak to the Attorney General, you are speaking to the Honourable Prime Minister."

He added that the PNM had one leader, one want-to-be leader and one leader coming up in the flanks so one did not know who to talk to in that party.

Ramlogan said the PNM had taken this serious debate on hanging and transformed it into a "political gayelle", in which MPs were trying to outdo each other because their internal election campaign was coming.

But by the time the committee stage (final stage of the debate) began, Persad-Bissessar wanted to talk. She indicated that she had tried to meet Rowley before the start of the sitting and was advised that he was in caucus. She was therefore asking that the House be suspended so that they (Government and Opposition) could meet then.

Rowley hit back, however, that "my understanding is that your Attorney General has spoken for you" so there was no need to further discussion.

"Mr Speaker, through you, we see this measure as an important measure and should it be that the honourable leader has taken the words in that regard it is most unfortunate, because at the end of the day it would be innocent people of this land who would suffer," she said.

Earlier, Attorney General Ramlogan said that for every murdered person and every murderer that escapes the hangman's noose, the PNM must be held responsible.

He said he had tried the "diplomatic, friendly route" to give the PNM support, but it had failed to rise to the occasion because its political concern was not to "make the People's Partnership look good".

"It is political hooliganism of the worse kind ... holding an entire country to ransom and standing in the way of a vision ..." Ramlogan said, condemning the PNM "political obstructionism".

The Attorney General, however, during the course of his wind up, made another amendment which the PNM asked for, which was to give a convicted murderer 18 months, as opposed to 12 months, for his petition to the Human Rights Commission to be heard.

Ramlogan cited a number of legal authorities—Martin Daly, Russell Martineau and Fenton Ramsahoye—as well as the very Privy Council, who advised that the best way to pass legislation designed to do what the bill hoped to do, was to amend the Constitution explicitly, rather than pass separate legislation, in the way the PNM was advocating. He noted that such advice was sought and received by PNM while in office and they failed to act on that advice.

"I cry shame on the Opposition!" he said, as his colleagues chorused: "Shame! Shame!"

Ramlogan said he planned to expose the "political deception and hypocrisy". He read out a list of persons, including children and aged persons, who were brutally murdered, as he slammed Colm Imbert for saying that the Government should not rush the bill through. He said the PNM never took a personal interest in the victims of crime. It was only after the Prime Minister visited the home of Daniel Guerra that, "after never having visited a single home of a victim of crime ... all of a sudden they find their high heel shoes ... to reach ... quite down a.. Gasparillo to show that the PNM cares".

Saying that charity begins at home, he said the PNM MPs never visit crime victims in their own constituency.

"Don't cry crocodile tears in Gasparillo now," he thundered. See Page 4

What Government did to try to win PNM support: a) Government removed all the clauses that categorise murder b) Government placed a limit of 18 months for the hearing of petitions to the Human Rights Commission. What PNM wanted and didn't get: a) Enacting the provision which deals with the processing of an application or petition to an international body, as a separate act, without entrenching it in the Constitution. This, the PNM argued, would allow the State to escape the possible giving up of abolitionist challenges at the Privy Council. The PNM said it was prepared to support this separate act, passed with a 3/4 majority.

[TRAE]

well ent is pnm cyah have dey partnas hanging all willie nillie

[zoom rader]

Did I not say that the PNM supports Crime.

[TriniGT]

So at this point who are we to blame then? RASC can we get an insider's scoop and your thoughts as they are most welcomed?

[RASC]

It marked a great day in our history when an opposition can actively digest a bill and put it through its paces like what Dr. Keith Rowley and the PNM did yesterday.

They took alot of beating from the unknowledgeable proletarian masses who blindly support the PP.

How can you make a bill which effectively makes it harder to execute convicted murders?
How does that even make sense? It makes sense because majority of the people on the gov't bench don't want execution in the first place.

They made a bill that effectively FOOLS the uneducated into thinking "well yes now we have constitutional executions-great pop some necks now" when in reality, whether or not we can hang is at the discretion of an international council that DOES NOT WANT ANY EXECUTIONS ~The International Human Rights Council.

The Bill was severely flawed in that regard.

They had a stipulation that said, the convicted can constitutionally appeal to the International Human Rights Council and if they are not heard back from within 12months or rejected within that time, the state (prosecution) cannot legally execute such criminal.

The PNM said that is madness, take the bill off extremely binding Constitution, and extend the time period to 18 months. If the bill was off the constitution and the council dragged their feet, and allowed the 18 month period to pass-at least we can fight it and win in the Privy council before the 5 year window is up. The gov't said OKAY we will extend 6 more months, but would not take it off the constitution. The Opposition declined to agree and thus the resulting collapse of the bill.

This gov't is trying to single handedly take away our sovereignty as a state and bind our hands at the discretion of the whims of a an extremely liberal organisation-that wants nothing to do with the execution of people.

I'm not even going to delve into the issues of detection, prosecution, and decluttering of the extreme back log of cases in the judiciary. I'm gonna focus solely on the Bill it's self.

This was a great moment in our history and let the record show that Dr. Keith Rowley and the Peoples National Movement stand for something greater than PR campaigns. The PP tried to shove this down the populations throat. It would make it almost impossible for us to execute a person and the only ones laughing would be their defense attorneys and the convicts themselves.



We do not want ANY involvement of the Human Rights Council!
We want increased and improved measures for detection and swift prosecution!

Excellent work- Let us see what comes of this in June!

[RASC]

So at this point who are we to blame then? RASC can we get an insider's scoop and your thoughts as they are most welcomed?

My thoughts are in every major thread concerning the issue.

[SUPAstarr]

If what you say is true then allowin criminal to go to any human rights council would be a backward step, how many here can put aside party support an stop cryin, 'de PNM doh want no hangings' to try to understand what was said here...if not.............

[TRAE]

If the bill was missing details work with the government nah... why rowley and ramlogan like lil chirren so... but if this wasnt the case then PNM blatantly supporting crime- imaging their stronghold is laventille

[RASC]

TRAE

Did you read anything I just posted above

[SUPAstarr]

Ramlogan is a hooligan and thats why this kind of stand off will always occur, an Rowley doin what any Opposition Leader would do

[TriniGT]

RASC thanks for your contribution.

[Aaron 2NR]

Rowley had earlier asked Attorney General Anand Ramlogan, during his wind up, to say whether he was prepared to draft a separate bill dealing with the petitions to international bodies and not have it as part of the current bill, which is an amendment to the Constitution.

When the Prime Minister attempted to respond, Rowley snapped: "I am not talking to you, I am talking to the Attorney General."

This caused uproar on the Government benches.

Ramlogan, riding on that momentum, declared: "Unlike the split in political personalities on that side, when you speak to the Attorney General, you are speaking to the Honourable Prime Minister."

But by the time the committee stage (final stage of the debate) began, Persad-Bissessar wanted to talk. She indicated that she had tried to meet Rowley before the start of the sitting and was advised that he was in caucus. She was therefore asking that the House be suspended so that they (Government and Opposition) could meet then.

Rowley hit back, however, that "my understanding is that your Attorney General has spoken for you" so there was no need to further discussion.

Persad-Bissessar said the Opposition Leader turned down two last-ditch attempts for consultations to secure their support. She said when the permanent secretary in the Office of the Prime Minister called Rowley, she was told he was “in caucus.” The PM said she made a second attempt to meet with Rowley in Parliament “and he refused to speak with us. He said no. He said you have now insulted us so I am not going to speak with you.” She said Rowley’s decision to vote against the bill because of that was “an insult to the people of Trinidad and Tobago.” Persad-Bissessar said the Government attempted to amend the constitution for hangings to resume because it was based on the advice of the Privy Council, Sir Fenton Ramsahoye QC, Russell Martineau SC and Martin Daly SC.

She noted that the Opposition, at the eleventh hour, declined to meet with the Government to negotiate a bill that was satisfactory to both parties. The reason? Emotion.

“They indicated, through the Leader of the Opposition (Dr Keith Rowley) that they would not speak with us to find consensus because he felt insulted,” Persad-Bissessar said.

“I cannot believe...that was important enough for him to take into account,” she said. “It is an insult to the people of Trinidad and Tobago for the Leader of the Opposition and the PNM and his team to vote against hanging because he felt he was insulted. That was the greatest insult to the people of Trinidad and Tobago.”

[RASC]

RASC thanks for your contribution.

Not a problem.

[TriniGT]

So Ramlogan is the problem then hmmmmmkkkayy.

[eyephone]

"Opposition MPs, from left, Ni Leung Hypolite, Donna Cox, Patricia Mc Intosh and Colm Imbert gesticulate at the Government bench after Parliament was suspended. The Government failed to get Opposition support for the hanging bill. Photo: Brian Ng Fatt "



http://guardian.co.tt/news/2011/03/01/trinis-will-hang-pnm



Such lovely smiles don't you think?

[Aaron 2NR]

^ they have security so they fear nothing......lets see those smiles when one of their loved ones die

[nemisis]

Murderer In jail for life or hung don't make a difference if they can't catch the murder to begin with. We put back in hangings so crime will go down, if more criminals were caught, charged and prosecuted crime would also go down but people like miracle fix

[SUPAstarr]

even if Rowley totin feelings over a stupid remark, that his dotish mouth brought on himself, does that mean that you still bring a FLAWED piece of legislation to parliment??? Is the logic ' Rowley gettin on like ah ass, lewwe jus carry de bill jus so" ?????

[nemisis]

Omg the opposition opposing for the sake of opposing who would believe such a thing, after all the past oppositions never did that

[RASC]

Oh Please...Aaron give me a break.
Emotion? You think Rowley Stupid...They asked that the Bill be taken OFF the constituition before and it was rejected. What sense would it make to go back into negotiations at such a late juncture?

You really think Ramlogan and Kamaliar would've changed it?
You REALLY think so?

The Bill is flawed, and they are trying to bully the PNM into supporting a farse.
Why would you want to reenter negotiations where you have a bully Ramlogan sitting next to you.
He has no tact, no remorse and no cover for his mouth.

... and if you think it was rough outside, how you think it would get behind closed doors?
You think Rowley chupid...suppose a physical fight break out? Then what?

Please save it-he did the right thing by declining and refusing to meet.
It would've only have gotten worse.

Re make the Bill and reopen the case in June.

The PNM will not be bullied and the population are NOT as dumb as you guys previously thought.

We don't want any international human rights council stipulation in OUR constitution!

FULL STOP!

[SUPAstarr]

^ they have security so they fear nothing......lets see those smiles when one of their loved ones die

So Aaron do you agree with the option in the bill of criminal having the opportunity to appeal to a council that is against hangings.??

Do you not agree that this would further impede any chances of hanging criminals???

[RASC]

^ they have security so they fear nothing......lets see those smiles when one of their loved ones die

So Aaron do you agree with the option in the bill of criminal having the opportunity to appeal to a council that is against hangings.??

Do you not agree that this would further impede any chances of hanging criminals???

Lemme tell you something...They do NOT want hangings in T&T
That is EXACTLY why they put that stipulation in the Bill.

EXACTLY why!

S T U E P S

[SUPAstarr]

I jus want him to answer the question, or if he disagrees say why. Prove that he is not jus some sheep in a flock. Point out why this bill shud have passed in ts current form.

[RASC]

I jus want him to answer the question, or if he disagrees say why. Prove that he is not jus some sheep in a flock. Point out why this bill shud have passed in ts current form.

He will not answer you.

[SUPAstarr]

every ched i see him in i will ask then, cuz how can you come an defend somthin but not say why yuh defend it...but go on about the opposition this an that

[Greypatch]

Can I get a soft copy of this draft bill ?

[RASC]

every ched i see him in i will ask then, cuz how can you come an defend somthin but not say why yuh defend it...but go on about the opposition this an that

That is how they behave.

It's all an emotional roller coaster for them. They're toying with ppl's emotions in hopes to gain support.
Do not wait on them to tell you what is plainly obvious...they don't want hangings. Thus they put in foolish laws, which PURPOSELY tie the hands of the prosecution.

Since none of us can get a copy of the bill, we would not have known had it not been for the opposition. We need to keep this gov't on their toes.

First it was the foolishness of the Anti-Gang Bill-the LAUGHING stock of the legal fraternity no doubt, now this nonsense. I mean REALLY? Thas what allyuh vote for

[RASC]

"I cannot support the death penalty. Our criminal justice system is not perfect. A criminal trial is based on available evidence and this does not necessarily mean the truth. Bribery of police officers, judicial officers, and the intimidation or execution of key witnesses, are means by which one can manipulate criminal justice. I cannot say that it is impossible for an innocent man to be convicted. (In fact, the advent of DNA testing has led to the freeing of several prisoners in the US because it subsequently proved that the culprit was some other person)."

Anand Ramlogan, Circa 2004

[5onDfloor]

Baaaa Baaaa Baaaa......... give jack his jacket RASC did his research unlike the PP supporters who dealing with emotions

[crazybalhead]

Maybe the PP can focus now on a solution instead of a plaster on a festering sore.