It is not often that I find myself in such profound disagree-ment with the editorial position of this news-paper, for which I have been writing these last 18 years. Last Sunday, this newspaper had an editorial suggesting that the Church was "in danger of stepping on fundamental rights" of Jamaicans.

They explain the fundamental rights they have in mind: "The Constitution, however, does guarantee as fundamental rights, with limited circumstance for their abridgement, freedom of association and freedom of expression, such as the right to watch horse racing at Caymanas Park and/or to follow these meets by the electronic media." There are rights, and then there are fundamental rights. I did not know that being able to watch horse racing at Caymanas Park was one of my fundamental rights.

They end the editorial by suggesting "Perhaps it is fit and proper for civic organisations, or any individual, to test in the courts the constitutional merit of the Government's action," that is, to instruct "the board of Caymanas Track Limited neither to open its off-track betting nor allow the broadcast of races from the track".

Does this stretch to cricket too? I always protest when Test matches are not broadcast live on television. I wonder if I should take TVJ and CVM to court for trampling on my fundamental rights when they do not broadcast live Test cricket?

"This newspaper has no problem with the Church speaking with its 'prophetic voice' and seeking to persuade people to adopt moral values founded in Christianity. We, however, are concerned if this leads to the erosion of fundamental freedoms". And so, from accusing the Church of trampling on fundamental rights, The Gleaner moves to accusing the Church of eroding fundamental freedoms.

'Editorialising against me'

Two days later (last Tuesday) The Gleaner wrote another editorial castigating the Church for its opposition to a seven-day flexi-workweek. My last two columns disagreed with the flexi-week law the Government announced it will soon take to Parliament, and so I suppose The Gleaner was editorialising against me. It has happened before.

The editorial states: "The idea is ... to change to a flexi-week in which workers and their employers can agree to structure the workweek over the seven days without payment differentials for work on Saturdays and Sundays. The idea makes sense. It would remove the element of rigidity of the labour market and remove unnecessary wage costs from firms.

"However, there are the whingeing religious fundamentalists - from traditional and other churches - as well as the anti-business complainers who are resistant to any form of change, who in their proselytising shimmy their arguments as to suggest that the existing ways are of great value to the secularists."

And so the Church, when it "claims that the drive for efficiency and economic growth is at the expense of freedoms" is responsible for "persistent under-development". But The Gleaner is free to accuse the Church of trampling on the "fundamental" rights and freedoms of Jamaicans.

There is great misunderstanding here. The Church is not against a seven-day flexi-week. A few years ago, Church representatives went to the Ministry of Labour to discuss the seven-day flexi-week with employers, unions and the International Labour Organisation, and they came to an agreement which is published by the Ministry as National Plan of Action on Flexibility in Working Time in Jamaica. I have a copy before me. It says, inter alia:

"All workers ... should have a right to negotiate the day on which they will take this weekly rest, including with the purpose of ensuring that it coincides with their day of worship, and that right shall be protected by law."

The churches and the employers agreed to this. Each Jamaican worker will have the right protected by law to choose their day of weekly rest.

But that is not what is now proposed. What will go to Parliament is a law that gives the employer the right to decide on which day the worker will rest. That, it seems to me, is a breach of a fundamental right and freedom, in addition to a breach of the agreement.

Peter Espeut is a sociologist and a Roman Catholic deacon. Feedback may be sent to columns@gleanerjm.com.