Orville Taylor | Women smarts in Parliament

Men who grew up close to their mothers and those in long term residential relationships have no problem with female leadership. Last week in Parliament, two women, each of whose name might relate to their personae, touched two issues that are dear to my heart.

Driving on my way to work, with the traffic as tight as my personal budget, the discomfort of sitting in the vehicle, stuck like a piece of used band aid, giving thanks that the car is steptronic and not manual, the pain of wasted time hurt deeply. As Father Williams told us as 10 to 12-year-olds in first form, “never waste a minute of God’s presence oils gift of time.”

No faecal matter from male oxen; one of the worst things to endure is being caught up in gridlock, nowhere and doing so fast.

Even drive-throughs irk me, because the only thing fast about fast food, is that the wait allows the overcurious to pry into your vehicle and point you out. Minister of Efficiency, Innovation and Digital Transformation, Ambassador Audrey, got full Marks for her introduction of the increased range of flexible working arrangements for some public sector workers.

An excellent idea, touted since the International Labour Organization (ILO) commissioned the first study on Flexitime and work arrangements in the developing world, here in Jamaica, we passed the Act in 2014. Introduced in the early 1970s, when I was in primary school, the concept of staggering working hours is not completely new to Jamaica. A few years later, the oil crisis raised the consideration to make travel time more efficient.

Without trampling on the contractual rights enshrined into the terms of employment hard fought by the two ‘labour’ parties in Parliament over the past 80 years, workers can still maintain their regular ‘nine to five’ pattern, if it suits them. However, the new staggered schedules are; 6:30 am to 3 pm; 7:30 am to 4 pm; 8:30 am to 5 pm, 9:30 am to 6 pm, and 10:30 am to 7 pm. Now, doubtless, management has a right to manage, and these options should be exercised with not only the ‘exigencies of the service,’ but with as much consensus of the trade unions and of course, the workers themselves.

Local and international data show that flexitime can reduce carbon emissions, wasted travel time and enhance both productivity and family life. However, the modality of remote work is also another plus. During the COVID-19 pandemic, thankfully, the statue and policies allowed for work to be done from one’s residence. Yet, working from home also raises other issues, such as; where does employer liability begin. But that is a discussion for another time and the workers and unions hammer out the details.

And then there is Zuleika Jess. Never mind her surname either, her contribution in Parliament was no joke. In debating the current manifestation of the Cybercrimes Act of 2015, Jess, opposition spokesperson on justice, argued that for those persons who create images misusing the modern technology to threaten individuals, should not be immune from prosecution,if such persons merely showed the false image to the would be victim. Asking, “Why should it be a defence in circumstances where one of the most critical developments we’ve seen, now are instances where persons suffer such mental distress, mental anguish, after having seeing their images plastered, or perhaps not even shared but simply sent to them; it causes such anxiety?” she not only hit the nail, but countersank it.

In as much as our laws of defamation require that a malicious communication, if untrue be shared with a third person for there to be a basis for legal action, in my considered opinion as a non-lawyer, the very act of attempting to lie or creating a lie and sharing it with the victim, indeed does a lot of psychological harm. This harm can be exacerbated when the assailant with a heart full of malice and evil intention, is in a superordinate relationship with the other or is attempting to exercise a level of dominance or influence, which he knows does nothing more than to intimidate.

After all, just imagine your boss, in attempting to carry out an act of occupational detriment against you, knowing fully well that he unsuccessfully and painfully failed to hurdle barbed wire, based on his improper action, then makes up something and subsequently threatens you with it. Jess is absolutely correct here, and hopefully, somehow as the legislation steps forward, there will be severe penalties for persons who have uncomfortable relationships with the truth to such an extent that they try to reconstruct reality. They should be made to pay the most severe penalties as they attempt to destroy another person’s life.

Certainly, I do not support the suggestion from another erudite female parliamentarian, who without obvious mal-intention, created a hullabaloo, regarding the reinstatement of criminal libel. Nonetheless, in a period when artificial intelligence can be plugged into social media by practitioners, whose tongue wags as if it were at least two, consequences must be faced for knowingly creating false information and communicating this, even to the individual, whom they seek to victimise.

Some connection ought to be made with the Japanese legal framework, where even revealing the truth is not a sufficient defence, unless it is in the public interest to publish sensitive information, with the sole intention of denigrating another person’s honour. Hopefully, on both these pieces of legislation, the conversation will not descend into parochial master debates along political lines, because sheep and goats meet the same fate when it is time to curry.

Orville Taylor is senior lecturer at Department of Sociology at The University of the West Indies, a radio talk-show host, and author of ‘Broken Promises, Hearts and Pockets’. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and tayloronblackline@hotmail.com.