Editorial
Newsday
POOR Sparky. All he wants to do is chew his bone. Instead, it seems the fate of the country’s national security may well lie in his hands. Or rather paws.
Answering a question fielded during a consultation exercise on August 5 at Debe about whether proposed stand-your-ground legislation might cover the actions of dangerous dogs, Homeland Security Minister Roger Alexander urged people to think outside the box.
“The dog is your first line of defence in protection of yourself, your castle, your family,” he suggested. “Once you have that first line of defence and you could handle your stories, then you don’t need to go further.”
Until now, the conversation surrounding this issue has been tied to gun use. But this week’s consultations underline the potentially wide applicability of any principle that permits deadly force. It’s not just guns. Oropouche East MP Dr Roodal Moonilal on Tuesday noted weapons could also include the cutlass, the baton, the bilnah and “whatever you may have.”
In this country, dogs have always been more than just pets. One can make a connection between the rise of crime over the decades and the prevalence of fatal dog attacks by dangerous breeds prior to the introduction of regulatory legislation. The K-9 Unit is famous. Dogs have been shot by murderers. Nonetheless, Mr Alexander’s comments evoke surreal images of these creatures being sicced against intruders the way Mr Burns on The Simpsons despatches his Dobermans, crying, “Release the hounds!”
This week’s discussion provides a vivid snapshot of the sheer breadth and nuance of the issues involved in the stand-your-ground idea. The ongoing consultations have generated a great deal of noise. In contrast, they have not generated as much clarity when it comes to the exact provisions that might enter the law. No green paper was issued by the government ahead of time; constituents have been asked to mouth off.
That is because the UNC would like to listen to all views before finalising a bill. That’s fine. However, what differentiates stand-your-ground as a concept from other principles like self-defence are specifics like where you are located. Thus, this issue needs more than just ministers doing presentations and making off-the-cuff replies.
Having already pledged to introduce legal reform to facilitate the importation of this highly controversial legal concept into TT law, the government’s exercise risks being perceived as a sham with a preordained conclusion. That risk might be minimised if it publicly circulates a draft bill or green paper well ahead of the upcoming parliamentary term. Had it done so already, it might have focused the ongoing talks and brought more clarity to the issues people need to weigh in on.
