yesterday the gun summit wound up - will have more on this later. but at 5pm there were drinks hosted by the provincial gov'nr; met him - weird but pleasant enough (white) man, ex-attorney general (during sandline crises; v interesting), ed-in-chief of the postcourier (national daily; frankly an intimidating man) etc etc. in png the powerful and the political are much easier to meet, it still surprises me how much so. oh yeah, they're generally men (think 98%), and the term 'big men' isn't used loosely: to be a leader here you'll grow a seriously big belly. there was a long row of them at the very front each day at the gun summit. you don't want to mess with them.
*
All attendees were given a Guns Committee Background Report when they registered.* Inside were the terms of reference for the summit & committee, and a draft of the recommendations the committee is to put to Parliament. The afternoon of Day 3 and all of Day 4 were spent debating, editing, supporting or deleting these suggestions. We broke into 7 working groups (of about 20-30 people), each looking at a bunch of themed-recommendations. The groups were:
1. social and community development (lead by Dr. B. Lovai)
2. leadership, democracy and governance (lead by Sir B. Holloway)
3. legislation, rules and operations (lead by a former attorney general, Michael x (apologies; didn’t get his name)
4. borders and trade (lead by J Singirok)
5. reduction of weapons for safer communities (unsure of leader, but involved Dr Haley, ANU)
6. public awareness (lead by O. Philemon, PostC editor)
7. data gathering and performance management (lead by a UNDP rep)
Group one finished lunchtime Thursday; group two went until 1am. Friday the leaders reported the major recommendations on the recommendations. There was a lot to get through, and unfortunately there was little – and usually no – time for questions.
We did have a bit of time after group 5’s presentation. There was a lot of debate – mainly about a ban on guns. Should it be a total ban (revoke all licences, only allow police and defence to have firearms)? Or should it be partial (ie. exceptions made for shooting clubs, security, licensed owners)?
A lot of people argued strongly for a total ban – and got applause. But this isn’t a helpful way to go: you put out a total ban, and you make a lot of law-abiding people criminals. Up in the highlands, for instance, there are business people who have guns – and don’t feel safe enough to give them up. If it becomes illegal for them to have guns, they won’t simply give them up: they’ll just hold them illegally. The point of the summit is to work at creating safer communities where people don’t feel that they need guns for protection. Making all guns illegal doesn’t make a community any safer.
At the moment, the problem isn’t licensed gun owners: it’s illegal guns, homemade guns, stolen guns. What needs to be talked about is: ENFORCEMENT. There’s a lot of talk at the summit about changing legislation, but PNG has good firearms laws. Could have a tweak here and there, but they’re sufficient. The problem is nothing to do with law: it is to do with the enforcement of the law. We know there are illegal firearms around. The police know. The police force needs strengthening and leadership – and they need to go in and start collecting these guns, charging people who have them, and destroying the collected weapons – NOT reselling them back into the community, as has been happening.
A total ban is nice, but a smoke-screen: it doesn’t touch on the real issues.
Unfortunately there was no discussion time after group 3. There needed to be, because some of the proposed changes challenged basic human rights. The following are some of the items proposed; they are NOT the official recommendations, but have been put forward by people at the summit for the gun committee to consider.
Constitutional changes were proposed:
- the presumption of innocence (“innocent until proven guilty”) REMOVED; proof of innocence on the accused
- the right to remain silent removed
ID cards for all people in PNG.
Vagrancy act to be reintroduced to stop urban drift.
Witness and informant protection system introduced.
Improve coronial inquest system to be quicker and more effective. Ie. when police officer kills informant: there is a just outcome.
Tougher penalties for criminal offences involving firearms; this includes: corporeal punishment, life imprisonment; longer term custodial sentence.
Firearms used in tribal fights: min 20 yrs max life.
Introduction of minimum penalties for gun offences (ie. use a firearm in a criminal offence but do not discharge it = life imprisonment. Use a firearm in a criminal offence and discharge it = death penalty (even if your shot harms no one).
Police prosecutors to have LLB.
Total ban on toy guns and toy ammo.
If the gun of a licensed gun owner is stolen or lost, and they do not report it immediately, they could face life imprisonment.
An individual not following legal procedures regarding the procurement of weapons could face a jail sentence of up to 50 years and be barred from office (i.e. a politician who surrenders one firearm but keeps two)
Remember, these are suggestions to the gun committee; they are now to be gone through by the committee and the committee’s lawyers, and may not appear in the final recommendations put to parliament.
In the afternoon, Sir Barry Halloway summarised the major findings of the summit. His contribution to the whole thing has been invaluable: he has a very sharp mind and isn’t afraid to talk straight – particularly to politicians. (He is a 60ish white guy, tho may have been born here. rumour has it he has kids up and down the highlands highway...let alone wives...) He directed a lot towards Kimisopa (Kimisopa and Peter O’Neill came in during the afternoon): i.e. you MUST FIGHT for more funding for the police force. Everyone was pleased.
Both Kimisopa and O’Neill had closing speeches. It’s good to see that it’s a bipartisan approach; it needs to be, otherwise nothing is going to change – and changes are needed before the next elections. Kimisopa: “I have a simple job to do – and that is to implement the recommendations.” “I won’t be sidetracked.” We’ll see.
O’Neill is against a total fire arm ban.
Singirok had the final say, though. He showed photographs taken as the roadshow went around PNG. He was clearly moved at the great beauty of the country, and his love for it was obvious, and catching. He’s an intriguing man: shrewd, strategic, controlled – and yet sentimental, and with a great, almost innocent desire to do good. He’s impressive. I really like him. It’s worth watching what he does in the future – whether it’s chair a permanent gun control council/secretariat if one is established, or go into politics, or whatever.
*Polive review recommendations were also circulated. I don’t know if these have been circulated publicly.
No comments:
Post a Comment