The Editor, Sir:

Senator A.J. Nicholson, while being an undoubtedly successful lawyer, has fallen into the trap of using a principle in defence of his first position - the declaration of a public holiday after our qualification for the football World Cup - as that of the "tenets of the social school of jurisprudence", whilst completely ignoring it in his subsequent position within the same article - that of the resolution of those members of Parliament that may or may not be citizens with loyalty to a foreign power. (Sunday Gleaner, June 21)

I would like the senator to state clearly whether, under the then laws of Jamaica, the act of the then prime minister of Jamaica (P.J. Patterson) in declaring a public holiday for a date less than seven days after the announcement of such a public holiday was legal or illegal.

I can understand that the senator is upset that the words of the then prime minister, "The law is not a shackle to enslave; it is a tool of social engineering" have been truncated in the common lexicon. Maybe he believes that the latter part is excuse for the former.

Horrendous atrocities

The problem is that history is replete with examples of this sort of thinking in defence of the most horrendous atrocities that mankind has been able to devise and, in his innocence, maybe Senator Nicholson does not understand the fear that the first part of the statement (or for that matter the second part!) instils in the hearts of many. When it comes to the second part, there is little comfort for the majority of people if the social engineering that is spoken of is not compatible with the interests of the very people that the law, unshackled, is used against.

The fact of the matter, that the senator surely knows, if he can't admit, is that the granting of a national day of celebration less than seven days after the idea popped into the collective heads of the Government was not a matter of social engineering or even of national importance - it was sheer political expediency.

Peculiarly, however, although it is a matter of importance that we adhere to the "sociological school of jurisprudence" which is "less concerned with the nature and origin of law than with its actual functions, utility and end results", the noble senator is more concerned with the strict application of the law when it comes to the method, means and motive of the current Government's proposed route to the resolution of the problem of members of parliament who may be, for one reason or another, ineligible to be sitting in the Parliament.

Adequate provisions

In this case, the noble senator seems to be suggesting that the law should be a shackle; there are adequate provisions for doing what needs to be done and that the present Government should be following these provisions (Oops. it's too late to do so and the law is, of course, a shackle!).

I am not a lawyer, but the idea that "the integrity and composition of Parliament are ... matters to be resolved by Parliament itself" is frankly disgusting. The integrity and composition of the Parliament of this land are the sole prerogative of the people - no one else! The people are entitled to challenge that composition via the courts, the arbiters of the law. The law should be a shackle - a shackle on the Parliament and the shacklers are the members of the judiciary.

Let us have no more rubbish about how "the law is not a shackle to enslave; it is a tool of social engineering." The Government has no right or mandate to "socially engineer" anything without the authority of the people by whom they have been elected.

I am, etc.,

DAVID FARQUHARSON

david@nfevents.com

Hampden

Trelawny