Javascript Menu by Deluxe-Menu.com

SKNBuzz Radio - Strictly Local Music Toon Center
My Account | Contact Us  

Our Partner For Official online store of the Phoenix Suns Jerseys

 Home  >  Headlines  >  OPINION
Posted: Thursday 20 March, 2014 at 7:32 PM

TERRORISM?

By: G.A. Dwyer Astaphan

    Terrorism  is  the use of threats or violence to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

     

    Section 2(1) (d) of the Anti-Terrorism Act of St. Kitts & Nevis defines a “terrorist act” as an act or threat of action in or outside of the Federation which involves prejudice to national security or public safety, and is deliberately, or by its nature and context, may reasonably be regarded as being:
    (i) intended to intimidate the public or a section of the public;
    (ii) intended to compel a government or an international organization to do, or to refrain from doing, any act; and
    (iii) made for the purpose of advancing a political, ideological, or religious cause.

    Section 2 also defines “terrorist activity” as an action that takes place, whether within or outside of the Federation, which is taken or threatened for political, ideological, or religious purposes, and threatens the public or national security by:
    (i) killing;
    (ii) seriously harming or endangering any person;
    (iii) causing substantial property damage that is likely to seriously harm people; or
    (iv) interfering with or disrupting an essential service, activity or system.

    Of course, persons who instruct other persons to carry out terrorist activity are themselves also criminally liable. And sentences run from ten years to life, depending on the particular offence under the Act.

    Arson is the illegal burning of property. And an act of arson can also be classified as an act of terrorism if it fits into the definition of terrorism.

    There were four fires recently: at the Venezuelan Embassy, at the Office of the Organization of the American States, at a property owned by Lindsay Grant (all three in Basseterre, St. Kitts) and at the Inland Revenue Department in Charlestown, Nevis.

    Were they, or any of them, acts of arson? And if the answer is yes, then were they, or any of them, acts of terrorism?

    To be honest, I was uncomfortable when, in such quick fashion following the fires, the Commissioner of Police made pronouncements on their causes. Prudence would’ve required him to be cautious, and to assure the public that expeditious and thorough investigations would be undertaken.

    Notwithstanding, if  I recall correctly, he  stated that the Venezuelan and the OAS fires were arson, while the Grant and the Nevis Inland Revenue fires were accidents. For me, it all sounded too convenient. But my mind was, and is, open.

    In other matters of serious crime, especially shooting and homicide incidents, he has been very quick to arrest and lock up people, only for their charges to be dropped, and their cases dismissed for want of evidence. In the process, a number of people have found themselves sitting in prison for months, and even more than a year.

    And I’m surprised that none of them have sought compensation for the deprivation of their liberty.

    This, of course, has not helped the image of the Police (as it portrays them as being either incompetent or vindictive, or both) or the anxieties of the community who will worry about shooters and murderers being on the loose.

    So his pronouncement on the fires, put in the context of his track record on those other matters, made me especially uncomfortable.

    That said, I believe that by now, we’re at, or close to, the time when the investigations, or at least some of them, should be completed and the reports submitted. And I believe that the public needs to be appropriately informed.

    But while all the fires are of extreme concern, the Nevis Inland Revenue event is especially disturbing.

    And if indeed it was caused by arson, then I don’t see how the perpetrator(s), whether committing the act or instigating it, can escape a charge of terrorism.

    Because it would be a most pernicious, vicious and vindictive act against the very heart of  the Nevis Island Administration, against the financial and administrative apparatus of Nevis, against the people of Nevis, and  against the people of the entire Federation.

    First the Court House in Basseterre in the early 1980’s, and now this.

    The objective of such an attack would be to shock and intimidate, and to cripple the Nevis Island Administration. What could be more terroristic than that?

    We need to be informed about this fire, and about the other three, in order to ensure that if arsonists and terrorists are in our midst, they’re removed.

    But I wish to expand the discussion beyond the narrow confines of the legal definition of terrorism.

    I believe that there’s a deliberate attempt afoot to embarrass, frustrate, intimidate, disrupt, and even besiege, the present Administration in Charlestown.

    Even before they got in, they faced it; and for their electoral success, they’re facing it.

    The tragedy, though, is that the whole of Nevis, and the whole Federation are victims.

    When the requests of the NIA for loan guarantees for essential projects are ignored and scoffed at; when the PEP program in Nevis is handled, not by the NIA but by other people; when SIDF money, $4 million of which landed in Nevis just before the last election, seems to have now forgotten how to properly navigate the Narrows from Basseterre to Charlestown; when the NIA and the people of Nevis are robbed of the VAT collected in Nevis; when a Prime Minister voices such abject partisanship, hostility and bitterness with regard to Nevis politics and politicians; when he urges Nevisian nurses to defy their Minister of Health who is seeking to act in accordance with, and with respect for, the guidance of the Chief Medical Officer; and when the Federal Government fails to ensure that expeditious step are taken to investigate the Nevis Inland Revenue Fire, then who can blame the NIA and the people of Nevis if they feel that they and their Administration are the victims of terrible intimidation, coercion and disruption?  All because of politics and political personalities.
     

     

     

    *************************
    DISCLAIMER

     

    This article was posted in its entirety as received by SKNVibes.com. This media house does not correct any spelling or grammatical error within press releases and commentaries. The views expressed therein are not necessarily those of SKNVibes.com, its sponsors or advertisers.

     

     

     

     
Copyright © 2024 SKNVibes, Inc. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy   Terms of Service