Gordon Robinson | It’s a matter of respect!

When I was a rookie lawyer the late, great William Arthur Scholefield (pronounced “Skofield”) introduced me to the Supreme Court.

He walked me from his Duke Street offices into the Court building. We entered through the entrance in front of UDC car park without having to show anybody any ID of any kind. Recently new rules of entry were imposed. First a system of segregation was created that prevented clients and lawyers from entering the building together. Lawyers alone could enter through the car park entrance while clients had to walk around to the King Street entrance to face security measures before admission.

Then, about three years ago, I received an e-mail notice that lawyers must present an official General Legal Council (GLC) ID in order to enter through the car park entrance. The next day I received an e-mail circular from GLC that their ID’s cost was increased effective immediately.

Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmmmmm…..

As far as I know Supreme Court trials are, by fundamental rule of common law, open to the public unless ordered in camera for specifically prescribed reasons none of which have to do with the specific identity of possible public spectators. Civil Procedure Rules Part 39 deals with Trials and Rule 39.2 (1) states: “the general rule is that a hearing is to be in public”.

From 1913, UK House of Lords in Scott v Scott confirmed the principle of “open justice”. Earl of Halsbury wrote “I am of opinion that every Court of justice is open to every subject of the King.” In Ambard v A.G. for Trinidad and Tobago (Privy Council; 1936) Lord Atkin wrote “Justice is not a cloistered virtue: she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken comments of ordinary men.”

So, whilst I understand the need for security measures to ensure weapons are excluded I see no reason to segregate or identify entrants. Or to confiscate people’s ID whilst they’re inside. Also of what use is a lawyer alone in court while client and witnesses line up outside?

But I digress. After entering the building “Arthur Sko” as he was fondly called, showed me the wide double stairway directly facing us. “Those stairs are for us” he said. “Turn right and walk a short distance. You’ll see a narrow staircase on your right. That’s reserved for Judges. We can’t use those stairs.”

In those days, because it offered a short-cut, some senior lawyers would often hustle up that narrow staircase hoping not to encounter a Judge heading down. I never tried. I always used the wide stairs.

Many years later Supreme Court was extensively refurbished. Judges were given their own private walkways far from the old staircases. That narrow staircase became available to all.

But, to this day, I cannot walk on it.

I can’t explain why. The esteem for Judges “Sko” ingrained in me can’t be removed. Call me whatever you like, I just feel weird even thinking about walking on those stairs.

It’s a matter of respect.

This is why I can’t understand how any MP would be standing in the aisle while the Speaker is leaving the House after an adjournment. Regarding the Speaker/Angela Brown-Burke incident I make no comment as to who bumped who or whether there was any bump. I don’t care. What I’m saying is, if MPS were to show the Speaker due respect, none would be in the aisle until the Speaker left the Chamber. If that deference was granted nothing like this could ever arise and we wouldn’t be squabbling about who touched whom.

It’s a matter of respect.

And let me be clear. I’m not necessarily targeting Angela Brown-Burke. I’ve noted MPs’ habit of milling about after the adjournment often before the Speaker exits. It should stop. On an adjournment, all should rise and wait for the Speaker to leave.

It’s a matter of respect.

Speaking of respect what did normally level-headed Mikael Phillips think he was doing charging at Desmond; allegedly shoving Opposition Leader out of his way and having to be restrained by colleagues while using at least one expletive to Desmond? Mikael says Desmond said something offensive about his deceased mother.

Desmond was reported on Instagram stating that what he said to Mikael was “Would you like anyone to treat your mother the way you treat the Speaker of the House?” which he doesn’t consider offensive regarding Mikael’s mother.

Details of Desmond’s barb are irrelevant. Desmond probably thought he was being clever and meant no offense but Mikael took offense. In my opinion, Mikael was entitled to take offense. It’s an unwritten rule of interpersonal interaction that you NEVER make mention of another’s mother as material for a contentious remark.

Anybody who has ever watched TV has heard “Don’t talk about my mother!”

In my opinion, Desmond owes Mikael an apology for bringing his mother into any confrontational remark however innocently it might’ve been intended. But Mikael’s reaction was excessive, abusive, crude, unnecessary and improper. Firstly, Mikhail, if he watches any contact sports, should know that the person who retaliates always draws the red card or yellow flag. Secondly, regardless of what Desmond said, it was Mikael’s over-reaction that caused the chaos.

Mikael issued a prompt(ish) apology which included “My reaction was inappropriate, and I regret that I allowed myself to respond in that manner. I sincerely apologize to the Jamaican people.”

Desmond, on the other hand, has doubled down and refused to apologize for his apparent initial incitement of the fracas.

But what happened on November 3 isn’t the problem. It’s a symptom. The fundamental problem is that inflammatory, uncivilized behaviour, including throwing pens and insults across the aisle at opposing MPs, have been the norm rather than the exception in Gordon House. But MPs’ boorish behaviour has worsened since the last election. PNP MPs seem to believe PNP’s increased seat count entitles it to control the House and have pursued that belief with a zeal that often clouds their awareness of proper parliamentary conduct. The chaos that reigned November 3 may have been a reaction to whatever Desmond said but what followed was all PNP instigated and/or permitted. It was a national disgrace.

Even more concerning was the Opposition Leader’s obvious powerlessness (or disinclination?) to control his MPs; the apparent lack of respect shown to him; and his wimpish sounding subsequent statement in which he wouldn’t even acknowledge the push we all saw.

If Mark Golding can’t exert the minimal control over his MPs required to prevent this sort of parliamentary disorder then his leadership skills are clearly inadequate. I make bold to say this couldn’t happen under Norman Manley, Michael Manley, PJ Patterson, Portia Simpson-Miller or Peter Phillips. Mark needs to assert himself or take himself away.

It’s a matter of respect.

Something has gone haywire in PNP. Respect for parliament has been discarded by its anxiety to disrespect the Speaker. But, as a lawyer I can tell you even the most biased of Judges must be respected for their office and authority. If they allow their bias to result in error of judgment there’s a court of appeal. If the Speaker exceeds her jurisdiction there’s Judicial Review. Disrespect of constituted authority is a coward’s refuge. Oppositions’ job is to encourage Parliament to hold Governments accountable not to submit feeble excuses for its members’ disgraceful misconduct. Instead Mark accused Government of using the confrontation as “political distraction”.

For pity’s sake who gave Government the distraction? Time come for PNP to stop being deliberately obtuse; look in the mirror; make a change. If not, the next time an Opposition MP feels offended, who knows how the next imitation rum bar brawl will end?

It’s a matter of respect!

Peace and Love.

Gordon Robinson is an attorney at law. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com