THE EDITOR, Sir:
I AM amazed at the one-sided and biased reports handed out by Amnesty International with respect to the Braeton shootings in particular and police excesses in Jamaica in general. I note also Mr. Sane's political comment with respect to telling Jamaicans whom to vote for in the next elections.
I cannot believe an international organisation with the usual good repute that Amnesty enjoys can behave in such an irresponsible manner. I am going to be kind to the organisation and put it down to "caught in the hype presented by local pseudo human rights groups and journalists with a political agenda" steering the usually reliable and impartial organisation down the wrong path.
I am wondering aloud to myself, has Amnesty International gone abroad with the USA's name with its litany of police killings against unarmed black men such as Amadou Diallo in New York, and more recently the shooting of an unarmed black man in Cincinnati, Ohio? Is it that they can only come to poor countries like Jamaica and make assertions of murder, while keeping silent against the rich western countries because in large part they are a source of funding?
Amnesty International should note that autopsy reports and political press conferences cannot convict persons suspected of a crime, only a jury in a court of law. I do not know what obtains in Senegal where Mr. Sane is a native, but in Jamaica a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. The cynics will argue my point by saying: was the same process of presumption of innocence meted out to the Braeton Seven.
My response is "I do not know", and as such the due process starting with the Coroner's Inquest is the route that should be taken to determine culpability.
Reasonable persons presented with the same facts can have different opinions, it is a matter of interpreting the facts and the law and applying both in arriving at a decision.
I am etc.,
WAYNE CUNNINGHAM
E-mail:
cunnyg@hotmail.com
Greater Portmore,
St. Catherine
Via Go-Jamaica
