Is Jamaica a Robin Hood state?
THE EDITOR, Sir:
The controversy surrounding the infamous 85 Red Hills Road informal settlement has reached a very troubling climax. Based on my understanding, the Government will be purchasing the land, under some ambiguous 1970s law, dismissing the fact that the legal owners do not wish to sell the land, but to construct a commercial building.
Is Jamaica now a Robin Hood-type state? In my view, this is not a morally legal transaction. I view this no less than a bullying tactic to secure votes and extortion at the highest level.
In contrast, however, I do see the humanitarian side of this whole disputation. I believe Jamaicans should have a portion of their birth land, but legally so. Can we now afford, as a country, the situation where everyone believes he can illegally occupy land that is owned by someone else, and as time transcends, the Government will seize it and pass it over to them?
I'm disappointed in our Government, especially our prime minister, for allowing abuse of power from his Government. Prove me wrong! If it is goodwill, give those people Crown land to settle on. Allowing this purchase, even though declaring the court's ruling as ill researched, after it declared the occupation illegal and rejected an injunction to bar eviction, is a slap in the face of moral and ethical principles.
Is Jamaica now a Robin Hood state?