Dear Editor,
Good sense must prevail in handling the burial of those who perished by fire during the recent Camp Street prison events. It doesn’t matter that some of these men were allegedly on the wrong side of the law, their rights and dignity are protected under United Nations Declarations and this is what ought to govern actions and thinking by the state in dealing with this matter. These persons were under the protection of the state. The state incarcerated them and implicit in this is that their safety and security is assured in keeping with conventions, laws and human rights. Any failure or breach in terms of safety is the responsibility of the state, because the state is in control of it.
Out of care and compassion the government should see to the burial of these persons at a reasonable cost. Funeral parlours can be commissioned at reasonable cost to offset burial expenses. This is not a matter of whether persons are guilty or innocent but how we treat with issues. In a civilised society one expects that the behaviour of the state will not mirror that of criminals, whether their offences are alleged or proven. In a prison system the law vests responsibility in the state to ensure the wellbeing of the inmates. In this instance where deaths have occurred as a consequence of events which occurred within the prison, the custodian of the prisoners is liable.
The government is called on to rethink the position of designating $100,000 per person to defray funeral expenses. After these people were failed by successive regimes, any humanitarian government and caring administration, supportive of human rights and dignity, should take responsibility and honour its obligation forthwith, without feeling it is an indictment of the political parties that form the government. It is not about trying these persons, and even if persons feel the fire was the prisoners’ doing, they have no authority to sentence them to a fiery death.
There is no call for a grand funeral, but something decent. And this can happen by commissioning a parlour of the people’s choice at an agreed cost. This is an appeal to the humanitarian nature of all of us. It could have been anybody’s child in the prison and for any reason. Let us view this matter impartially through a reasonable and humanitarian lens. We have had persons from all socio-economic and political backgrounds who have been incarcerated, rightfully and wrongfully.
Yours truly, Mark Benschop, Norris Witter, Freddie Kissoon, Cheddie and Janet Jagan, were numbered among the prison population at one time or another. When it is a loved one, and persons have been advocating some consideration, such ought to be considered. This matter is best handled when we divorce ourselves from the whom and deal with the what.
Yours faithfully,
Lincoln Lewis
