Clarifying my role in the Fatima Martin case

Feb 23, 2014 Features / Columnists, Freddie Kissoon

---

Dozens of persons have expressed disappointment at my involvement in the Fatima Martin case that saw me participating in protest/picket action and meeting the Chancellor as part of a delegation, all in support of Ms. Martin, who undoubtedly assaulted a baby. The mere mention of someone hitting a baby will instantly revolt you to the core.
I don’t have a pet, but I have claimed my neighbours’ cats and dogs as my pets, and I am so fond of them that if anyone should hit them I would be terribly depressed. If you can feel pain if someone hurts your pet, what would happen to your mind if another person strikes a fellow human? What would happen to your psyche if a mature person hits your own child who happens to be a baby?
Fatima Martin had no right to assault the baby of Magistrate Geeta Chandan and her husband, Joel Edmond. I taught both husband and wife at UG and I know both of them well. They are nice, likeable Guyanese. My deeply-felt belief is that there is no way society should spare Fatima Martin serious punishment for hitting a baby in her face.
Despite her teenage status, Ms. Martin was way out of line in striking the baby and deserved to be treated seriously by the law. And although I am against the draconian treatment of Magistrate Lovell, I do believe that Ms. Martin should see a counselor. You just don’t hit a baby. So why did I participate and encourage others to join us in picketing in support of Ms. Martin and against Ms. Lovell?
Here are my explanations and before I elaborate, I offer my sympathy to Ms. Chandan and Mr. Edmond, but I stand by my action, and if there is a repeat of the harshness of Magistrate Lovell against someone like Ms. Martin, meaning the exact circumstances, I would do it again.
First, I am always concerned at the extent to which many incompetent, soulless, foolish, unlearned magistrates in Guyana destroy completely the future of poor, young people of this country. Some magistrates have sound, legal minds but a majority of these judicial officials in the magistracy are only on the bench because they would never have made it in private practice.
They have survived in law because bright lawyers do not want to sit on the bench so we get the bottom of the barrel or as we say in common parlance when referring to cook up rice, “bun, bun.”
Here is what one of Guyana’s highest legal officials said to me in total frustration and he spoke in the presence of a nationally-known woman activist; “Freddie, you know how much training we provide for these magistrates.”
If any magistrate challenges me on this, I would privately reveal the identity of the woman activist and they could verify the words with her. These training sessions have been complete failures because it was like “throwing water on duck’s back.”
Secondly, I am against the destruction of young persons by putting them in jail for a long period – as Ms. Lovell did to Ms. Martin – when such crazy punishments are not necessary and can be avoided. Magistrates have guidelines in drug sentencing, yet an automatic three years are assigned to babyfaced teenagers caught smoking a joint.
It is a horrible attitude by these incompetent magistrates and a change in the law is exigent. Magistrates put huge bail on poor people for stealing minor things. And I mean huge bail, and it is done with the deliberate intention of keeping these poor souls on remand. Incompetent magistrates are filling up the jails. I would go so far to say that many of our magistrates are out of control
Surely, five years for Ms. Martin was outrageous. Let me be honest with my colleagues who are part of the support effort for Ms. Martin. I probably would not have had any reaction if Martin was sent down for two months or a few months. Hitting a baby is a line that cannot be crossed.
When I heard it was five years of imprisonment, I immediately reacted to the atrocity in the sentencing structure of our magistrates. And I want my readers to know my attitude to the magistracy expressed in the press goes back twenty-five years. I have reported two of them within those twenty-five years to the then serving Chancellors.
Some magistrates have publicly reacted to my criticism and I haven’t had any sleepless night over that and will not.
Let me sum up my position. Ms. Martin was wrong. She must be punished. I do not support her acquittal in any form. On the other hand, I think she was the victim of a brutal, vicious, nasty system where the poor and powerless are mistreated at every level in the judicial system, especially the magistracy. Human rights activists needed to go to the assistance of Ms. Martin. I am glad I went.

---

---