
Disclaimer: The views and experiences expressed in this article are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the views or position of this publication.
The recent decision delivered by Justice Colin Williams in the Durand, Martin and Daisy case, should be of grave concern to all Dominicans. Many may recall that in December of 2018, there were viral videos circulating in Dominica, which showed police officers throwing tear gas canisters into a crowd of peaceful civilians in the city of Roseau. The civilians had gathered to discuss the need for electoral reform to protect democracy. The group included people of all ages- the young and the elderly.
In an attempt to obtain justice, following the attack, the Claimants filed a mixed constitutional and tort claim. During the trial one police officer said that he chose not to control traffic at the meeting site because he believed that the gathering was illegal.
The recklessness of the police in refusing to perform their duty appears even more egregious when one [considers] what transpired earlier that day. The participants were in fact prevented by police barriers from accessing the venue originally planned for the meeting and so decided to meet at a nearby but busier street. It is obvious that the decision of the police to use excessive force against a peaceful assembly on that day was motivated by an erroneous belief that prior permission is needed to hold public meetings.
The right of persons to peacefully assemble without interference from any state or non-state actor, has been internationally recognized in treaties such as the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights. Dominica is a party to the ICCPR. The Human Rights Committee has called on states to allow peaceful assemblies to take place ‘without unwarranted interference’, ‘to facilitate the exercise of the right and to protect the participants’. We submit that the recent high court decision should alarm all Dominicans because:
1. Every single person in Dominica, at one time or another, may want or even need to attend a public meeting. This meeting may be organized to discuss and bring attention to a particular cause; whether it relates to religion, race, gender, age, politics, nationality or some other factor. Our right to meet publicly and to exchange ideas cannot and should not be dependent on whether one (1) man says yes or no. This is in my opinion absolutely unacceptable.
2. Giving one man or woman such excessive and overreaching control is a dangerous threat to democracy. For democracy to survive persons must be free to hold public meetings so as to communicate to and with as many people as
possible. It is not everyone who is able to afford airtime on the radio or television station. Public meetings on street corners have traditionally been used by the poor and oppressed to speak up against injustice. Through public meetings various social groups are able [to] foster solidarity while promoting and disseminating their beliefs. These meetings facilitate the exchange of ideas and workshopping of solutions.
3. I am not casting aspersions on the person who currently holds the office of Commissioner of Police. However, if hypothetically speaking, this office is one day held by an authoritarian biased villain who arbitrarily refuses to grant
assembly permits to groups that he or she personally dislikes, what would our society look like? Is this the kind of Dominica that anyone would want to live in?
We believe that the learned judge made an error when interpreting the Public Order Act. In the recent past, we have seen multiple high profile cases where the decision of the trial judge was overturned by a Court of Appeal or the CCJ. These include the Marriette Warrington decision, the election treating case and the Blaircourt case to name a few.
It is important however that we keep members of the public informed on what is happening as we continue this legal fight through the appellate process. So far, a few members of the public have pledged their support. It is obvious that this case affects the fundamental rights of everyone present in Dominica.
Our ancestors fought long and hard for emancipation from slavery to give us the freedom that we enjoy today. We will continue to do everything within our power to ensure that this fight was not in vain. We will continue to advocate for the protection of constitutional and human rights in the Commonwealth of Dominica and we urge everyone to do the same.
That is why UWP is always losing election.Chapter 1 section 1(a) on page 10 of the constitution,makes it clear,people have rights,but it must be done according to law.The law says to have any public meeting or gathering in any public place permission must be granted by the commissioner of police.People can say what they want,but to insult or tell lies about somebody is libel and slander.We all have rights,but we must exercise our rights according to law.The media whore cost the blue radio station more than $200,000 in lawsuits,because he allowed callers to falsely accuse others.Cara is misleading the public.MEME should donate $100,000 for Cara to appeal.
All institutions in Dominica including the courts and churches are tainted with corruption. How fall our society has fallen. Not long ago, magistrates and judges were considered to be infallible, beyond reproach. Today, the court is no longer considered to be impartial. Some of its decisions are thought of as exceptionally egregious. Confidence in the court to the just and right thing has all but vanished.
The right to peacefully protest is enshrined in the constitution. Dominica is not North Korea. To be brutally attacked and tear-gassed by lawless armed bandits of the state for exercising my constitutional rights is criminal.
Dominica is primeval and most of the population lives in perennial poverty. Bad governance, inept leadership and corruption are the primary causes. Rid the country of Roosevelt and his slavish disciples in order to improve the quality of life.
The use of Political partisan beliefs to interpret The Law playing on the emotions of the populace to carry out a political agenda undermines the rule of Law. Is the right to freely assemble at public meetings threatened by the recent high court decision or is it differences in the interpretation of The Law handed out in the decision based on this particular case causing the uproar. Disagreements with the Court decision are fine, but It does not take away the right to assemble at public meetings regarding this one particular case on the facts presented to the Court.
In Dominica, the right to protest is enshrined in our Constitution. Exercising that right has procedures and guidelines set out in the Constitution, to govern the state’s actions, protect non-protesters and protesters also property. If Cara does not like the decision then appeal, making such public statements is not a place for redress. The right to freely assemble at public meetings in Dominica is not threatened by this court decision.
@Gary
No surprise that you poked your corrupted head out of the bushes Gary, but it’s not over yet. There is a higher court to adjudicate the matter.
Gary, people like you are referred to as tamarind tree lawyers. You are encroaching in deep waters and you can’t swim. You do not have the requisite knowledge to seriously discuss this weighty topic. Leave this discussion for the heavyweights remember you are just an intellectual featherweight.
More BS!
Nothing in that Decision threatens the right t freely assemble. Absolutely nothing! The Decision simply restates what every reasonable-minded citizen knows: The right to “freely” assemble is not absolute. It cannot exist in a vacuum whereby all and sundry simply assemble and infringe upon the rights of others. This is a fundamental tenet of our democracy. I am sure that Cara knows this; well, she ought to.
So why didn’t you mention where donations can be made? This is an extremely serious matter, and i SHALL donate to this cause.
Let a higher court decide.
No alarms here. If they just wanted to gather to discuss the need for electoral reform to protect democracy, they could have gone to a park or conference room. The constitution is clear; prior permission is needed to hold public meetings. Meetings in public spaces inconveniences nonparticipating members of the public and therefore these inconveniences must be mitigated or regulated somehow. You can’t spend all your time constantly accusing Skerrit and his government of violating the constitution and then seek to violate it yourself. Seek permission to have meetings in public spaces! In the digitally transformed age that we live in, I don’t think that public meetings carry the same weight as they once did. Public meetings are not necessary “to communicate to and with as many people as possible.” Teach your boys to create engaging and interactive educational materials, such as videos and infographics, to communicate their ideas. Or maybe they just want to be a nuisance to society.