Labour Day celebrations turned political

[00:00:00] Speaker A: You're tuned into the all new freedom 106.5. 106.5. [00:00:06] Speaker B: Michael, good morning to you again. Thank you for joining us. You are in the papers this morning. Good sir, the legal luminaries you have engaged as you seek to get some redress on this, what you guys, based on my knowledge of the papers perceive to be unlawful. Let's get your thoughts this morning on that. [00:00:25] Speaker A: Okay. Let me first make it publicly clear that when we apply for permission, there are meetings with the police commission with the police team in Faizabad. And one must understand the role of the police is to protect it for traffic management, for security and measures of this nature. If you look at our invitation, we invite not only the labor movement, but activists, social groups and other groups to participate in the Labor Day celebrations. It is not confined to the labor movement and people have a short, short memory. The Miharo group would have participated once. Even the family and a group of people with the diverse who would have died there wasn't. They didn't get hold of you. Even Farouk Bakker Herstic he participated last year. There was an issue and one has to put on their thinking. Kiapa, is it that the police is saying that they determine which group is to participate? And if the police is saying that the one of the officers would have said they weren't invited. We challenged the police to protruse that officer name because none of the executive officers from Natuk or Chatham would have confirmed any such communication with the police. But the important thing is which the police says to deviating for I witnessed the incident. I attempted to intervene as the general secretary of Natukani President Workers Trade Union. And I did articulate to the senior officer who was there and the other police officer. That group was invited by me. [00:02:34] Speaker C: Wow. [00:02:35] Speaker A: To be part of the demonstration. As a matter of fact, I have pictures here that I can share with you. Where they hugged me up, where they was marching with me. Where they was marching with me as the leader because I was in the front and they were marching with me. All right. So then one has to ask yourself the question if we are reasonable people. And even though if you interpret what you say, which I disagree with and you are advised in a civil way. Officers, the young lady was invited by me. Okay? What is irrational for arresting the young lady and her mother, but more importantly my daughter, teenage daughter, who was there alongside the police push her aside like a piece of rag or something in the exercise of their duty, which was an abuse of authority because the tape is There. No, the Lord works in mysterious way. The tape is there and you will see. The tape will show that I was engaging the police and the senior officer and saying, listen, I invited. They are doing nothing wrong. They invited by the union to be part of this. And this march is not specific for the labor movement only. But what is for workers, unemployed, under employed, the depressed in our society? That is how we march. And the question is, there were politicians who are march. Did they have an invitation? Why were you so selective in addressing the young lady and her mother? [00:04:25] Speaker B: They say disorderly behavior and resisting arrest. I saw the video. I don't think Alyssa resisted. There was no resistance by Alyssa and her mother based on the videos I saw. [00:04:40] Speaker A: Yeah, listen, I was there. I participated. [00:04:43] Speaker B: Did she have any placards? [00:04:45] Speaker A: No, she had no placards. When she was invited to partake, there was no placard. I can show you the video. She came and the parents and they hugged me up. And it had about two or three activists with her. It was more than five people. They had no plaque cards. And then, even though if she has a placard, what is wrong with that? Because other members within the various unions that participated had placards, because that is the purpose of Labor Day. So then what is the issue with the placard? And then you have to tell me if she had a placard, which she did not have when I invited her. Okay. Was it offensive? What did the placards say that made it offensive? [00:05:34] Speaker B: Then here's my question. This invitation you extended, was this a written invitation via email or phone call? [00:05:44] Speaker A: No. [00:05:44] Speaker B: Something said publicly? Gil, Press conference? [00:05:48] Speaker A: No. Listen, I want the public to understand something. And, you know, we have to start to think for ourselves and digest things. This young lady spoke at the opening. You know, the young lady was allowed to speak at the opening. [00:06:09] Speaker B: Really? [00:06:09] Speaker A: Yeah. The fact that you are allowed to speak at the opening suggests that you recognize her as part of the process, because all unions and other activists were allowed to address. To address the marches before we rematch. And the police commissioner shake her hand, too. [00:06:38] Speaker B: I saw that. [00:06:39] Speaker A: No, no, no, no. [00:06:39] Speaker B: I saw the police commissioner shook her hand. [00:06:42] Speaker A: No, but. But I'm asking the public, I want you all to think and do not be, you know, diverted by the release by the police. And I asked the question yesterday, and I'll ask it today. It's the first time that the police make an arrest and do such a statement and issue such a press release to justify what they do, because they knew what they did was wrong and they cannot deny that she was allowed to address the gathering before the march start. And if you allow that, what does that mean in law? What does that mean? Well, because if she's not permitted to participate, is she permitted to address the gathering? First question. [00:07:30] Speaker B: Well, one can see why that happened. There was checks being made to see if her group. Now you saying it's about five persons she came with? [00:07:40] Speaker A: No, no, no. When? When? When I approached. [00:07:43] Speaker B: When you approached. [00:07:44] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah. [00:07:44] Speaker B: It's being stated that she come. The public is getting the impression it was a. I don't know, it was a match. It was maybe 100 people. I don't know. [00:07:54] Speaker C: Right. [00:07:54] Speaker B: And she was disruptive to the labor movement or the labor. What the Labor Day procession stands for? 1, the 2. They said that her group did not receive the required permission to walk. And it begs the question, what you said, the other persons of society who would have joined the march over the years, and even in this one that happened on June 19, the biggest thing for me, and you have just refuted it, is do you have permission to be here to march? So I wondered, did Alyssa Philip and her mother come with an agenda relating to the Kaya Seeley case? Joshua Samaru, were they noisy and disruptive, protesting for justice for that, or did they came under the invite of the invitation of you, your good self, and just joined the procession as one of the groups of the oppressed and depressed or whatever in society as a worker, [00:08:54] Speaker A: which is their democratic right, so to do so. [00:08:57] Speaker B: What is the police talking about that you all said that. [00:09:00] Speaker A: No, no, no, listen. I challenge the police to say who was the organizer that said so. Right, did. The union is not going to say we didn't fight that group. The group was allowed to participate. The first process in Labor Day celebrations is that we gathered by the junction. This time they gathered by an open field and all the union leaders and activists, they are allowed to speak. And she was allowed to speak. The act of allowing her to speak there is an acceptance of the fact that she's part of the process. You. You could twist it. You could turn it. That's a reality because no one refused her to speak. And she did speak. And she spoke about labor leaders getting together and several things. There was nothing disruptive. There was nothing that was disrespective, that there was nothing that she said that had nothing to do with the Labor Day celebrations. And if you listen to it, you're going to see it. But the point that I'm making, if you allow me to speak and it's the Same organizers, allower with the police who were present. Therefore, she becomes legitimately part of the process. That's a. That. I mean. I mean that you don't have to have common sense to understand that that is so basic. Because what the police is trying to do is to hold on to technicalities by. But not dealing with the real issues. And the real issue is why was she arrested? On what basis was she arrested? Who determined? Is the police determined for the labor movement? Who is to match with the labor movement? No, no, no, no, no. I would have heard too, that there was intelligence that there was some gangs. That was part of the thing. If the police has that intelligence, arrest the young leaders. [00:11:06] Speaker B: I was now getting to that. Why was ordered, reaching out to the minister to say, look, we have gang members here. [00:11:14] Speaker A: Come on, come on. And then, then there. There was the opposition leader and some of her people there. What do you say about that? What do you say about that? And. And then you see, it is a frightening development because why some people say it's 27 officers. It could be more, right. Riot police come to arrest two young ladies. In my society, the woman who is the soul and the earth of my society, we have to be very careful as a citizen. Is that the kind of society that we want? If you have the issues with her and she does anything illegal, I have no issue, you know, but on that day, it was an abuse and a misuse of power and a force that was unnecessary on our Labor Day celebration. That is our day. That is not a day for the police to determine who is to march with the labor movement is. We have to determine that. And then if we take the argument of the police to the logical conclusion, well, then you are saying that every other group other than the labor movement must have a permission to participate or to be part of our march. I think that has not been the historical fact. [00:12:40] Speaker B: I think the challenge for me and for many of the listeners is the. The fact that you have categorically refuted the police's claims that you all did not invite her. She was not part. Because based on what is being put out in the public's domain, especially a release from the Torontobago police service, is that questions were asked by executives of the union movement, the labor movement that was there, whether Alyssa Phillip and her mother and that group was part of your procession. And what is being told is that when they cautioned her, she then moved to the back of the. To join the procession. That's official. And they said, no, you can't join this now and then. Is she part of it? No. Well, look, you're not part of this. You need to go. So it almost come across from the TTPS's standpoint is that she is participating in a movement that she was not invited to participate. And that is the question. Let's take this, this message quickly. Take a listen. [00:13:35] Speaker C: One question to be asked. How come video footage is to be admitted in this, this citizens trial on Alyssa Phillip? How is it only from what people see on our video that they are making the judgment or whatever? Was anybody prior or was anybody really in the, in the heat of the moment see or know what exactly went on? [00:14:03] Speaker B: Well, yes, Mr. Michael, and his head is here. He intervened with the police. He told the, the senior officers in charge there that she was there. David, to balance the discussion, we should get the view from Ansel Roger as well. Was Ansel there? That's one of our texters. Let's hear this comment as well. [00:14:28] Speaker C: Hi, good morning everybody. I'm hearing your guest there and I understand what he is saying. However, I want, I want to know if you have a problem with authority and authority is, well, somebody in authority is speaking to you. Does it give you the right to walk off on them and tell them that you don't want to hear no talk? [00:14:50] Speaker A: Comrade, the issue is not the authority. And let me flip the coin. I'm the General Secretary of the National Trade Union Center. I'm an elder trade unionist. All right. Presently I am also the president of the, the Seamen and Waterfront Workers Trade Union and also the General Secretary of the Caribbean Congress of Labor. And for those who want to know, also the Vice Chair of the American region of the itf. So every police officer knows me and I have the authority. The issue is she was invited to the march. She came and she marched with me. That is where the issue started. You know, it's not the walk away. You know, it is when she was marching with me, the, the police, riot police descended on the march, okay. And surrounded her while she was marching with us. So I want the public to understand that you see the walking away, that wasn't the issue. The issue is, hey. And then I engage the police and I made it clear, officer, what is all this for? This can be handled in a better way, in a more civilized way. All right. This is not necessary. I say I invited the young lady to the march and the group. I say I. And because they were marching with seamen and waterfront workers Trade union and I have the authority to so invite anybody. That is the issue. Was I wrong? Did I break a law? I did not. And then therefore, the police, all right, in the exuberance, right, could have engaged me in a better way and resolved the matter in a more civilized way and in the manner that I was trying to engage them on. This is unnecessary. This is, it is unfair. It is an abuse and a misuse of authority. [00:17:03] Speaker B: All right, let's take a phone call respectively, and quickly, please. [00:17:06] Speaker C: Good morning, Mr. Aniston. Good morning, Davy. What I have observed in relation to this particular matter is that this young lady and her group came there to voice a grievance like everybody else who had a grievance. I kind of want to be concerned when Mr. And he said, keep saying that she was allowed to speak. This is a democracy. This is a free country. And I do not know where this allowed to speak comes in because she come there to be part of everything else. And this exercise was the conduct of labor. Police responsibility is to simply keep the peace. A drunk man fighting this, that, that what they weren't getting themselves involved in labor business for labor leaders did not eject them from there. So at the end of the day, I'm saying that this is a very terrible stain on our democracy. What we have fought for since the days of Butler, Tarek Williams, everyone else, that in a demonstration like this, they would tell you, you cannot demonstrate. Thank you. [00:18:20] Speaker A: All right, just, just, just let me clear up something. You see, I was juxtaposing and using some legal arguments there. If the police was there and they knew Orfran, that she's not part of the procession because she was so. They were so advised, as they say, by some executive member, and we have a procession where people are allowed to speak, and she was allowed to speak. The point that I'm making, the fact that you allow her to speak at that point in time, is an acceptance that she's part of the celebration. And that's the point that I want to make. So then it's not that they allow her to speak. She spoke. All right? And if she spoke, she was part of the procession. And, and if it is, you had the information and the police that she's not part of, of this. You were there. [00:19:20] Speaker B: My thing is this. [00:19:21] Speaker A: You could have said, hey, you can't talk her. [00:19:23] Speaker B: Yeah, because. Right. My, my thing is this. And, and this is where I am confused. You. But you keep saying that she's spoke and she was allowed to speak. Now she's speaking at a movement, a trade, a labor movement celebration where executives are reportedly telling officers she was not part of us. So then if she's not part of you all, if the police real. If the police say they ask a question, didn't the police question that same executive and say but then how was she allowed to speak in the opening ceremony and not be taken off or have security remove her from the. From the stage? And if she behaves disorderly, then she would have breached the public order. How come? Because it just not adding up in my head. Persons are saying all sorts of things, but it's just not making sense. [00:20:17] Speaker A: No, it cannot make sense. [00:20:18] Speaker B: Let me take this call respectfully and quickly. Please be heading to the news. Good morning. [00:20:22] Speaker D: Good morning. Devi. [00:20:23] Speaker B: Good morning. [00:20:24] Speaker D: I'm listening to you all about this situation now. Everything the leader said it's okay, but did you see that video? Where and how this young lady behaves and conduct herself. [00:20:38] Speaker B: Wait, wait, wait. Behave and conduct herself where? At the movement. At the labor movement celebrations or prior. [00:20:46] Speaker D: Before she went in. Before she went in before. When officer was speaking to her. And she keeps arguing with the officer. She keeps talking back to the officer and not. Not normal talk. Shouting. And in this kind of manner, you know, if it's somebody else, they arrest that person already. Right. [00:21:08] Speaker B: All right. [00:21:08] Speaker D: Shouting down the place, sir. [00:21:10] Speaker B: Okay, let me. I have to take a break. We'll keep Michael here with us. Master Anisette will stay with us a little bit until after 8 as we continue our discussions this morning. Your news to the top is coming up. Stay with us. We'll be back. Have Michael Anisette in the building. We heard his position on the newscast. It seriously refutes for the police officers. Claims are. So I'm allow you at least two calls respectfully and very quickly to the point, please. Good morning. We have limited time. Good morning. [00:21:37] Speaker C: Good morning. The whole thing about it that you feel that they're making UNC look good, if not PNM do not allow it. So it is UNC police. [00:21:46] Speaker B: Oh God, how we make this political. Good morning. [00:21:50] Speaker C: Morning again, Mr. Davey. Princess Song. I would like. Mr. And he said to comment, you know, some. Before an offense is committed, you can't charge somebody or detain somebody on. On premeditated offense to be committed. If you could probably talk to somebody. But if you have to wait until an offense is actually committed before you could say, okay, you have breached so and so and so and so. And as a result of this, I will detain you or charge you or bring you in for question, whatever it is. [00:22:21] Speaker B: All right? [00:22:22] Speaker C: So I think that is what might have that. That no might have influenced the police. [00:22:28] Speaker B: I disagree with you. I disagree with. I disagree with you. Because if you're not part of the movement, if the. You see, the police says they went and they did due diligence, they asked leaders and executives, and the executives said, no, they were not. So if that is the case, then the police challenged, then how did you all not raise an alarm when she unauthorized walked on stage and you all sat back and took in and probably gave a round of applause? I wasn't there. But I'm just assuming your final thoughts. I know it's asking real questions there, but two things. [00:23:02] Speaker A: One, yeah. [00:23:03] Speaker B: The invitation, is it verbal or always verbal or is a letter sent to [00:23:08] Speaker A: our invitation not to her in general? No, our invitation in general is to the wider public social group, citizens of Trinidad and Tobago. That has always been our envy invitation. Even. Even when my union. All right. Is sending out our invitation to our members. We don't put it to the members. We put it to the family, friends, supporters of swtu, etc. That is the general process in which we send out our invitations. So the invitation is not confined only to. To members of these respective trade unions. And that is a misrepresentation. [00:23:55] Speaker B: All right, and finally, the constitutional lawyer. What is that? Well, I know it's. You all haven't gone to court, but what is the plans to get some kind of legal redress on this. These issues? And I do apologize for what happened with your daughter. I think that was very, very uncouth [00:24:11] Speaker A: of the police officers. [00:24:12] Speaker B: I'm sorry for that. [00:24:13] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, I was taken aback. And she was traumatized too, and she didn't commit any wrong and she was allowed. She was there as my daughter marching. But, but, but yet still she faced this unnecessary use of force and power against her. All right, but. But what we are doing now is doing an evaluation of this matter and we are talking to senior counsel to see. See what is open to us legally, because we see the police action as very offensive, very what I want to call an abuse of authority and a misrepresentation of the law in order to justify what they have to do. And I want to say something. There's a difference between enforcing the law and abusing and using legal technicalities in order to have your whims and fancies carried out. And as Trinidadians, an upholder of democracy, the right to dissent, the right to express a contrary view is what democracy is all about. And if we allow a situation like this to be swept under the carpet based on technicalities, and as one guy tried to politicize it. We will be going down the wrong road. This has happened and we as the labour movement have a responsibility to speak out loudly against what we consider to be an abuse and a misuse of the police authority and powers. [00:25:55] Speaker B: I thank you very much, General Secretary Michael Anisetta. I do wish we had more time, but other commitments. We'd probably call you, but I do thank you so much for taking the time and gracing your presence in the studio and not just accepting a zoom meeting with us. But I'm happy that you came in person and again, I hope daughter is okay and all is well. And I think it was very, very unkind and uncouth. I mean, even if the rat gear police are there, you had to understand that you have young ones in the march, you know, teenagers there, persons coming together, persons not disrupting, you know, they're just there peacefully. You know, it should have been handled. [00:26:29] Speaker A: But the issue is to me, because we had witnessed just quickly an unusual presence of police officers. And the issue is what was the reason for riot police to be part of the process when there was no disorder? I agree, and I want the public to digest that. [00:26:51] Speaker B: Guys, I know you try to reach me on the socials, but that's it for now. Thank you very much. The General Secretary does have other commitments. [00:26:56] Speaker A: You're tuned into the all new freedom 106.5. 106.5.