Jamaica Observer

Dear Editor,

The pique in interest in the issue of homosexuality also witnessed the resurgence of accusations of the Church 'singling out' gays when speaking of sexual sin, or even sin in general.

In fact, which other activity labelled as sexual sin in the Bible, or sin in general, has brought together open forums of practitioners and allies to rally significant political clout and campaign internationally for the sake of advancing not only the practice of said sin, but also its universal endorsement?

I offer a two-fold explanation of the seeming 'singling out' of gays by the Church. On one hand, the vast majority of Jamaicans agree with the Church on a number of moral issues, sexual and otherwise. Persons adhering to other religions, or even no religion at all, still, unknowingly, abide by a Biblical moral code. Indeed, even persons who engage in activities that the Bible says are wrong will still refer to the same as a moral compass.

I offer a two-fold explanation of the seeming 'singling out' of gays by the Church. On one hand, the vast majority of Jamaicans agree with the Church on a number of moral issues, sexual and otherwise. Persons adhering to other religions, or even no religion at all, still, unknowingly, abide by a Biblical moral code. Indeed, even persons who engage in activities that the Bible says are wrong will still refer to the same as a moral compass.

For instance, would the average pimp or 'gyalis' condemn monogamous, faithful marriage as being less moral or less honourable than their current lifestyle? Unsurprisingly, other sexual sins do not attract heated debate, because there is nothing to debate as far as Jamaicans are concerned

On the other hand, the LGBT community has marched, protested, picketed, published, and campaigned themselves into the forefront of every discussion on human rights, at the local and international level. Complaining about the disproportionate attention they are now receiving from the Church is unjustified, and serves as evidence of superficial consideration of the wider context in which this debate is conducted, and more significantly, their very active role in garnering this attention. Furthermore, the community is guilty of reframing this disproportionate attention to make the Church seem ungrounded, even irrational and reckless in its condemnation of their behaviour.

At best, it is a misinterpretation of the Church prioritising problems by what is most pertinent to society today, as opposed to what the Church deems as most sinful. At worst, it is an attempt of the LGBT community to subtly shift from being bullied to being the bully, breaking the boundaries of free speech, liberalism and mutually respectful debate to literally demonising anyone who disagrees with them. In short, one must admit that homosexuality has been singled out recently. But the question is, by whom? Could it be that the gays have singled themselves out?

Onyka Thompson

onyka.thompson@gmail.com

Gays have become the bullies

-->

Dear Editor,

With Jamaica's World Cup football qualifying campaign teetering on the brink of dismal failure, the paucity of goals coming from the boots of the Regga Boyz is cause for real concern.

Earlier this week scores of supporters of the Waterhouse Football Club took to the streets to air their grouse about the non-inclusion of the local premier league's leading goalscorer Jermaine 'Tuffy' Anderson. The protestors argued that, despite leading the league in goalscoring for the past three seasons, Anderson has not been given a fair shake to show his mettle at the highest level.

Do they have a point?

After all, the imported players, brought on board by the Jamaica Football Federation to boost the team's chances to qualify for Brazil next year, have not returned on the faith put in them. In short, they have failed to hit the back of the net, especially the frontmen whose job it is to do so.

Anderson, while not being an overseas-based player, has shown, at least at the local level that he knows how to score.

Maybe, just maybe, the coaching staff could give him another look simply because he can do no worse than the forwards we have called up.

Anderson's case brings into the spotlight another burning issue which JFF head, Horace Burrell, has tried to rubbish by pointing to Jamaica's dismal performance in last year's Caribbean Cup, where the team, made up of local-based players, failed to advance from the first round.

While the value of the overseas players cannot be downplayed, the question must be asked if there are no local players good enough to consistently play in the Reggae Boyz team.

Jermaine Hue's masterly performance on Tuesday night is testimony that local-based players can stand up to the best. And the report cards for Alvas Powell and O'brian Woodbine do not showing failing grades.

When Jamaica qualified for France in 1998, the team did so with a mixture of local and foreign-based players.

Out of that came the rise of Ricardo "Bibi" Gardner, who performed admirably in the English Premeirship; Ian 'Pepe' Goodison; Walter Boyd; and Onandi Lowe, who also secured contracts to play overseas.

Reggae Boyz head coach, Theodore "Tappa" Whitmore, was also among the local-based players who represented well on football's greatest stage.

Is the coaching staff clutching at straws?

Whatever team takes the pitch tonight, we as Jamaicans will nevertheless be rooting for nothing less than a victory to restore our faith in the campaign.

Anything less will be equal to disaster.

Patrick Junior

Spanish Town, St Catherine

Do the Waterhouse supporters have a point?

-->

Dear Editor,

With respect to the Government's declared intentions to amend the Contractor General's Act regarding the monitoring of pre-contractual phases of strategic investments, among other things, and the leader of the Opposition's response with words to the effect that '... before he agrees with the AG's proposal, he would have to see the details and how it will work, without defeating the purpose for which the law was intended'. What is wrong with that response?

Some people are saying that it was Mr Holness's suggestion the Attorney General was acting on, so he should have agreed with the AG, no questions asked.

I would like to ask a few questions regarding this and the Doran Dixon matter.

1. Since when has the PNP Government started to accept and act on the Opposition's recommendations?

2. Isn't Mr Holness free to change his mind on something he had previously said, after having given it some more thought, or having further extensively discussed the matter with his colleagues?

3. Mr Doran Dixon has been extensively criticised by your newspaper and others. Why have you been so harsh on the gentleman?

4. What laws of the land has he broken?

5. Since when does the criticising of a Government or a government minister become a reason for dismissal from one's job in Jamaica?

Mico University College and its president seem to have lost their way. I just don't understand Mr Packer's utterances. Mr Packer, what about freedom of speech?

Since when should one apologise for speaking one's mind as long as one remains within the precincts of the law?

I think the media, Mr Packer and the JTA have all got it wrong. You all need to apologise to Mr Doran Dixon for wanting to curtail his right to free speech.

Roy Wilson

St Andrew

It's Doran Dixon who deserves the apology

-->

Dear Editor,

Child month has just passed we can see Jamaica's disregard and abandonment of youth coming to the fore. As the bodies pile up, as children become the cannon fodder of the battles we fight and the victims of the bitter society we have created. As a country living with no war or civil war, we pile up the bodies equivalent to a state that is at war. It's not natural or healthy for children to live in fear, with death's constant presence, murder and violence. Yet this is the fate of so many children in Jamaica. It should not be the norm to raise your children on bag juice and cheese trix, to leave them to fend for themselves while we party. Just like in war-torn states we build child soldiers; as young as 9-10 years of age children begin imbibing the romanticism of guns and infected with the disease of badmanism, and spurred on by the images on cable TV.

I have lived to witness mothers peddling daughters for dollars; mothers entertaining men who come to their 12-year-old daughters. I watch as some parents struggle, to no avail, against the libido of lustful taxi drivers and all kinds of community monsters that rear their heads, the characters who will try to employ their sons as "gun bags".

Why are children in adult lock-ups? Why the constant Armadales and shootings of a little girl in a car by police? Why did a young girl have to kill herself in a male adult lock-up?

All this while the media doesn't appear to be doing enough to combat the problem; not just highlight it, not just sensationalise and profit from it, but, as journalism is a pillar of democracy, then the media ought be an agitator for better. I remember a few months back Irie FM and social media made the most compelling effort to get back a child kidnapped in St Ann. I think she was returned in a day after Irie FM took up the campaign. And I thought, now imagine if the media steered the country's collective consciousness in such a positive direction at all times, or made more effort to do it more often, where would we be now? But in less than a week, the criminals of this country have murdered over five children. I am still waiting to hear the voice of even one institution, such as Jamaicans for Justice. What kind of country have we become when there is no justice for the children?

Yannick Nesta Pessoa

http://yahnyk.blogspot.com

SOK: Save our kids

-->

Dear Editor,

Despite the fact that we ought to think positive and be optimistic about the future, we should always remember this common saying: "Prevention is better than cure."

The IAAF and the JAAA are still holding on very tightly to their decision not to change the new false-start rule -- neglecting the danger, pain and setbacks it can cause to athletes.

Maybe the IAAF is the one we ought to target on this matter instead of the JAAA.

Even sports analysts seemingly do not want the rule to change. They want it to remain as it is. Can you imagine? The only times I heard people hit out against the new false-start rule is when a champion or a great defender, like Usain Bolt, false-starts.

The World Championships is just around the corner, so we need to reverse this troublesome barrier and replace it with the old rule, in giving athletes a second or third chance whenever they jump the gun. And as I said some time ago, a false start will always occur, at any time, because as long as we are imperfect human beings, it will be unavoidable.

Athletes have to go through months of hard training in preparation for big events, and in the final analysis, when they are looking forward to achieve success, a false start on the first go and they are out seems Draconian. It's a spiteful imposition.

This new false-start rule will continue to be a big mistake. Therefore, in the name of justice let me ask the IAAF and the JAAA this relevant question: When will you remove this big robber of chances, advancement and success from track and field?

Donald J Mckoy

donaldmckoy2010@hotmail.com

Remove the robber of chances

-->

Dear Editor,

Our nation continues to experience a grave and deepening social and economic crisis rooted in the erosion of moral and spiritual values. As Christian leaders with the contingent of believers that we serve directly numbering over 500,000 (not including all denominations), and the general sentiment of the majority of the rest of the citizens of our nation, we register our full support of the position taken by the media houses, TVJ and CVM, and others, not to have carried the advertisement being proposed by Mr Maurice Tomlinson.

It was indicated to the stations by some of us that, had those advertisements been carried, we would have registered our strongest objections. We had registered our objections then and remain resolute to uphold the fundamental values and moral principles of our faith and that of the founding fathers of our nation.

We declare that we will mobilise and resist any attempt to tamper with the constitution as it relates to the buggery law. Our present Charter of Rights sufficiently covers and protects the rights of all citizens.

We will not support any politician or political party that seeks to promote and foist on our nation, in any shape or form, the gay rights agenda which is alien to our culture.

We respect the right of privacy and freedom of personal choices. We believe and demand that Government and the Courts bear in mind and uphold the constitution of our nation and the will of the majority of our citizens.

We will not sit by and allow the thinking of less than 1% or any weak-willed Government to lead us into simply following other nations along a path that is not in our best interest.

We are a nation with a proud history of leading on points of principle and values, upholding our pledge to lead in advancing the best welfare of the whole human race. We want all to be aware that, on this issue, and the deteriorating conditions of the poor and justice, the majority of us, church leaders, stand united.

Al Miller

Pastor, Fellowship Tabernacle

pastormilleroffice@gmail.com

Don't tamper with the constitution for gay ad

-->

Dear Editor,

It is most heartening and refreshing to read the article written by no less a person than Jamaica's commissioner of police. In this article, Mr Ellington debunks the belief that being close to a problem precludes one from having an objective view thereof.

Bravo, Mr Commish, you have highlighted most of the relevant weaknesses that exist in the crime-prevention strategies now operating in Jamaica, including causes and effects. However, you prudently omitted the prevailing lack of trust in some members of the Force you lead.

Jamaica is unquestionably an "Out of many one people" society. As my son so often reminds me, Singapore is a monolithic society, and as such the trust factor has less elements of suspicion therein, because congruency is, in most cases, a product of the "birds of a feather" reality. This turn-them-back mindset, that entered the political discourse in the early 1970s, recreated and continues to widen the permanent gulf of division in our society, in which the logical and prudent course for us as one people to get together and move forward is selfishly and viciously undermined to create room for this divisiveness to rule within the realm of autocracy. This has opened side doors to the parasitic criminal element now cannibalising normal Jamaicans with rape, armed robbery, and murder, to make up for the diminishing drug trade and gunrunning crime bank.

Within a democracy we all need to be a part of the solution and not part of a prevailing problem. It is incumbent on all well-thinking Jamaicans to summon the fierce urgency of now to get our house in order under the roof of togetherness aided by the genuine will and deed to allow and encourage natural and genuine participatory interdependency. Our ethnic diversity served us well in the past, and in the world stage we excel and stand out in various areas of the arts, sports, academia, and many creative endeavours, unlike Singapore and other financially stable countries.

There was an overrated talk show host who mostly compared Jamaica with Singapore. I pointed out to him that his divisive programme would not be acceptable in Singapore. He said he would find something else to do. Unfortunately, two ladies are trying to follow his footprints in the most extreme and politically bias format. The crocodile-passion for the suffering class will not have any stoical resonance with adults. So, to dignify our civil commitment for a better Jamaica, we should work selflessly together with fixity of purpose to achieve excellence through the natural civility of interdependence pushing in the same direction.

We, the good people, outnumber the criminals who wreck the economy because they do not work but live off taxpayers, putting burden on the hospitals, the prisons, and other social institutions, while we are tearing down each other in the name of politics.

Life on earth is temporal, so when we are eventually faced with the stock-taking question of 'how did we justify our existence on earth?', I hope that we will be in a position of strength by identifying positive contributions to the society that maintained us, so with one accord we can quote the Rastafarian motto: "Forward ever, backward never."

Fitz Anderson

fitzanderson@yahoo.com

Lead, Mr Commish, lead

-->

Dear Editor,

I recently read an article titled, "We are a nation of copycats". The author was concerned primarily with the spate of beheadings taking place across the island. He suggested that most of these crimes were the work of copycats.

I had watched an interview on local television, some time in 2011, in which a popular female gospel artiste was asked to explain some of the things that she was involved in before conversion to Christianity. She admitted to have done things she considered to be sinful; however, she went on to say that whatever she did was not strange, because as a sinner she sinned. "Sinners sin," she remarked.

So, whether or not we receive a statement from the prime minister, the minister of security, or the minister of youth and culture condemning crime and violence in general, or murder in particular, that will not stop sinners from sinning. Why? Sinners sin.

The people carrying out acts of violence and crime against children, women, the elderly, and the rest of us are sinners, as described by our Creator. And, as sinners, they sin.

To sin, by the way, is to miss the mark. So, when one person commits a gruesome act of beheading another person for whatever reason, he/she has missed the mark of standing against murder, manslaughter, violence, and brutality in every shape or form. Romans 7 describes for us the debacle in which mankind has been trapped since the beginning of time: "... it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me... For I have a desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do — this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it" (NIV).

C Aloysius Johnson

caj_hellshire@yahoo.com

Sin on the loose

-->

Dear Editor,

It has been said in some quarters that Jamaica has become not merely competent, but quite proficient in matters to do with crime, corruption and consistently making its people poorer. There is another attribute that needs to be added to that growing list however, and that is talking a good talk with little or no action whatsoever behind it. We need to coin a word for that, something like "jamaicious".

How many times have we heard flowery utterances from lofty perches only to see nothing come of them? A glaring example is of our beloved prime minister who, upon assuming office, caused her colleagues to rabidly thump their desks when she spoke emotionally about transparency, accountability and the buggery law. The subsequent Richard Azan affair, and deafening silence in the face of questions from the gay lobby tell a different tale though.

Still, the PM cannot be judged too harshly, as she has seen from one of her predecessors what talking, talking, talking can do. The people in the inner cities, too, will tell you that word is indeed wind, as things that the commissioner of police is alleged to have said about human rights and the rights of citizens usually bear no resemblance to what they experience at the hands of his charges on the ground.

Another glaring example of the talk phenomenon comes in the form of the popular sound bite, "Buy Jamaican". Now, which rationally thinking person is going to choose to spend his hard-earned money on more expensive goods, coupled with consistently poor service and inconsistency in quality, simply because it is Jamaica? Not even Captain Horace Burrell or Theodore "Tappa" Whitmore subscribe to that concept and have opted for mostly overseas-based players to represent Jamaica in the World Cup Qualifiers. Interestingly, we don't hear the voices of the "big" people bemoaning this, and it seems only when their money is involved that the buy Jamaican -- sound bite is still applicable. The fans and family of Jermaine "Tuffy"Anderson are asking pertinent questions, though, and a large segment of the populace has been alienated. How could it be that the top goalscorer in the national league for the past two seasons has not even made the bench?

Personally, I prefer action as against lip service. With this in mind, I am hopeful that one of these days some enterprising university student will provide us with a study showing the effects of us replacing corporal punishment with talking. Still, digressions aside, all this talk is not without some benefit. I suspect that if the figures were made available, we would see that talk shows make big bucks for radio stations. Who said talk is cheap? Incidentally, has anyone noticed how many of our politicians have ventured into the talk show business?

Robert Mitchell

Christiana PO

Manchester

mitcib@yahoo.ca

We talk a good talk, but...

-->

Dear Editor,

Jamaica desperately needs another JTA, not the 'lion-hearted cat' but rather a roaring, hungry lion.

By JTA I mean Jamaica Taxpayers' Association. There does not seem to be anyone looking out for the interest of the Jamaican taxpayer, the majority of whom are struggling to keep a roof over their heads and food on their tables. Everyone in and out of Government looks to the taxpayer for more when there is barely enough to go around.

The new JTA would promote the interest of the Jamaican taxpayer; ensuring that taxpayers' money is spent effectively and efficiently, ensuring probity in public affairs by insisting on transparency and promoting the just and equitable use of government assets and natural resources.

Based on the attitude and behaviour of some ministers, one would imagine that Jamaica is a rich country. Their offices have to be in the high-rental district and they spend millions on renovation and decor. They drive high-end SUVs and enjoy air-conditioned comfort at the expense of taxpayers. All while the harsh reality for a lot of taxpayers is the constant struggle just to make it through another day.

A common perception among taxpayers is that Government is bloated and inefficient and that their bureaucratic red tape is set to maintain their fiefdoms while they strangle the economy. The restructuring, modernisation and consolidation of the public sector is, therefore, long overdue.

The Jamaican debt is fast approaching $2 trillion, racked up over time by ineffective and inefficient governance, under the pretence that they were doing something good for the people.

It is time we borrow only to invest in projects that will generate a return to pay back the loan. The Jamaican taxpayer deserves that their money be used to provide goods and services for all the people and definitely not for the aggrandisement of government ministers.

The Jamaica Taxpayers' Association will work to seek jobs for the Jamaican people and an economy that is growing, with all waste and inefficiency in operations eliminated. The Jamaican taxpayers need relief now!

Should the hungry lion be awakened? What do you think?

Andre Bell

Jahmekya.ja@gmail.com

Wanted: A lion of a JTA

-->

Dear Editor,

I have taken note of an increasing tendency among some commentators, both locally and internationally, to use the human rights argument as the basis for pushing for the amendment of laws to allow wider or easier practice of homosexuality and abortion.

I am concerned about this trend because I believe it is an insidious way for some to push their own views and philosophies under the guise of human rights. This reasoning pattern represents a dangerous precedent.

At present, Jamaican laws prohibit abortion and buggery -- a traditionally homosexual act. As such, the homosexual and pro-abortion lobbyists are essentially advocating for a change in law that will make their lifestyle and preferred options appear less reprehensible, since illegal acts are frowned on in civilised societies. These acts have traditionally been seen as morally abhorrent and as such the law, in its original intent, has sought to discourage what were generally considered wrong actions.

The problem with the approach of overturning laws that prohibit previously considered objectionable behaviour on the strength of advocacy and the savvy of lobby groups is, where do we stop?

What will prevent other lobby groups from requesting a change of laws on the basis of so-called human rights? What if there was the establishment of the Jamaica Association of Paedophiles (JAP) and Jamaicans in Defence of Incest (JDI); on what basis would these groups be opposed? Don't they have rights too?

Consider the fact that the consenting adult argument would not work if the two people in an incestuous relationship have passed the age of eighteen, and the paedophiles could clearly advance their "right" to have sexual relations with children under the age of consent.They could even claim they were born this way. I raise the above scenarios without frivolity or rancour.

I am simply seeking to illustrate that reversing laws that seek to uphold morals maintain the well-being and sustainability of the society cannot be determined purely by the strength of advocacy and the consistency of lobby efforts. It must be based on a general consideration of what is good for the nation and what are the more objective standards of morality. All people must be allowed human rights, but human rights must not be misused in order to gain the acceptance of "human wrongs".

Rohan Ambersley

ambersley@yahoo.com

From the closet to under the carpet

-->

Dear Editor,

Our children are in peril. Data show that 17.8 per cent of 13-15-year-olds currently smoke cigarettes — 21.5 per cent of boys and 14.3 per cent of girls (National Council on Drug Abuse/Global Youth Tobacco Survey 2010).

The compulsion to smoke a cigarette first thing in the morning is a sign of addiction. The survey revealed that 13.4 per cent of students experience the desire to smoke a

cigarette first thing in the morning. This level of addiction represents an increase from 3.8 per cent in 2000 and 5.9 per cent in 2006.

Research has shown the advertising and promotion of tobacco products encourages smoking in the youth. In recognition of this fact, the recent World No Tobacco Day focused on the banning of advertising, promotion and sponsorship of tobacco products. Worldwide, 78 per cent of young people aged 13-15 report regular exposure to some form of tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship. Bans are said to be one of the most effective ways to reduce tobacco consumption, with countries that have introduced bans showing a 7 per cent average reduction in tobacco consumption.

It is against this background that we are very concerned at the recent erection of a billboard in front of the premises of the tobacco company at Twickenham Park, Spanish Town, promoting a brand of cigarette. We note that the company's website states that:

"Carreras has for years been voluntarily observing codes of conduct related to many of the areas that are to be formally addressed by the enactment of the proposed tobacco control regulations. Over the years, Carreras has held the highest standards reflecting a responsible approach to the marketing and distribution of cigarettes in Jamaica. In fact, the company has over the years instituted self-regulatory voluntary marketing standards which have seen us, among other things:

o Voluntarily ceasing advertisement in all media (print, electronic and audio) in December 2002

o Removal of all billboards from the Jamaican market effective December 31, 2005

So we ask, what has happened to this responsible approach? This billboard is in the vicinity of Jose Marti High School (.7km). It is also clearly visible to any child who has to commute through Twickenham Park. In addition, the particular product being promoted includes a particular menthol kick which is intended to mask the harshness of tobacco and thereby making it more palatable to children. Is this the start of a new deadly trend? Will there soon be billboards promoting cigarettes all over the island encouraging our children to smoke?

So we encourage the minister of health to double his resolve to pass comprehensive tobacco-control legislation as outlined in the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control to protect our Jamaican youth.

Dr Knox Hagley

Chairman

Jamaica Coalition for Tobacco Control

Our youth going up in smoke

-->

Dear Editor,

Two weeks ago I visited Devon House with some friends. Over the years, I have visited the property and bought ice cream and snacks and had my children pay to use the play area. On this trip, however, when I exited the car and headed for the food court area, a security guard told me I could not carry my camera. I asked when this became a rule and he said to ask at the desk.

I went to the desk and asked about carrying a camera in, as I had done over the years and up to two weeks before. Asked to show the kind of camera I had, I was then told I couldn't shoot pictures there with that type of camera -- a professional Nikon -- unless I paid a fee. I was also informed that if it was a smaller camera I could shoot with it, but that I could take pictures of my friends. However, the security guards said no.

After eating ice cream and relaxing for a little while I realised that people were coming in who were obviously not locals with video cameras and video-taping what they wanted as the guards watched. They also had their professional cameras and were taking pictures. When I inquired about it the security said that "maybe" they paid to do it ; apparently he had not sought confirmation.

After eating ice cream and relaxing for a little while I realised that people were coming in who were obviously not locals with video cameras and video-taping what they wanted as the guards watched. They also had their professional cameras and were taking pictures. When I inquired about it the security said that "maybe" they paid to do it ; apparently he had not sought confirmation.

This is not the first time that I have had this problem with properties owned or managed by the Tourism Product Development Company (TPDCo). The same thing happened in Ocho Rios at the public beach after I paid to go in with some friends. I was told I would have to pay to take pictures on the beach with the type of camera that I had. There was no sign saying this, just as there was none at Devon House. Yet, there were tourists walking all over the beach with similar cameras who did not have to pay. The same thing also happened at Port Royal.

What I would like to know is this: Are we not allowed because this is our country? Why are there no signs saying this? What harm would this cause? To me, it would help to make people more aware of the areas and want to come. This makes no sense, as a lot of the small cameras shoot just as well as the big professional ones. I travel the world and take pictures of historical sites that make ours pale in comparison and have never been told that I cannot carry my camera and take pictures.

Whoever is in charge of TPDCo needs to think about what they are doing and why they are showing preferential treatment to other nations while neglecting our people. This is our country and we should be able to take pictures and share with people worldwide, which in turn will bring more tourists.

Alessandro Ferrari

originaliru@gmail.com

Locals must have same access to our tourism product

-->

Dear Editor,

Portmore residents put their lives in danger every day just to earn a living. Today I 'sailed' in a Coaster bus with some 55 people, most of whom were standing passengers. It was a bus designed to transport only 32 seated passengers.

As the bus hugged the curves of the smooth road I was troubled; in the event of an emergency, how do we exit?

Some may say that citizens should refrain from taking packed buses. But the result would mean one too many warning letters from management about punctuality, eventually putting one's career on the line just to prove a point.

Is it really better to overload the buses, with standing passengers, than to carry the maximum seated capacity?

I understand that the Transport Authority gave the decree to remove the middle seats and install rails to accommodate the standing passengers who would then be required to stretch over other passengers to hold on to

these rails.

Are we going to wait until there is a massive accident with the forfeiture of lives and limbs before we stop this madness? Are we going to take any approach to improving the transportation problem in the Sunshine City? Who will help us, the mayor, Transport Authority?

All of this was early in the morning. I wonder what's going to happen on my way home?

Sanishi Bryson

Portmore Pines

St Catherine

Standing room only

-->

Dear Editor,

Despite his recent meltdown, it is not surprising that pop star Justin Bieber continues to have plenty of "Beliebers" throughout the world.

Very little of what we believe today is based on objective truth but rather on mere sophistries manufactured by the media, lobby groups, Government and advertising. For all intents and purposes, we live in a virtual world of fragmented images and half-truths.

In this virtual world, when we like a person we tend to praise their most insignificant feats as well make excuses for all the wrongs they do. When we don' t like someone we tend to belittle their achievements and even invent bad things about them.

This is evident, I believe, not only in our personal relationships with others, but especially in the world of entertainment, religion and politics.

When objective truth and morality die we are left to our own devices, and the sad result is a world of selfishness and false compassion, a world without love. The darker side of this spectrum is the harsh infestation of abortion, contraception, same-sex marriage, easy divorce, genetic manipulation, and euthanasia on our world.

Paul Kokoski

Ontario, Canada

pkokoski@shaw.ca

Society's moral decay

-->

Dear Editor,

With all the talk about eliminating the duplications and inefficiencies within Government, our Parliament seems to have forgotten one very important state organ — itself. Specifically, the upper house, the Senate, seems like an excellent candidate for being made redundant in the public interest.

The Senate, which is supposed to be senior to the lower house, the House of Representatives, is the state organ that helps to keep the lower house in check. While this is so on paper, this is never the case in practice.

Never a chamber that offered any real support to governance, it seems that the Jamaican Senate is nothing more than a proving ground for aspiring politicians who want to be "promoted" to the lower house. It also seems to be a retirement chamber for political has-beens, who seemingly have little else to do.

Never mind the pretend debates that take place in the Senate, laws that are passed in the lower house are never truly scrutinised in the objective way that we would want. For a long time, the Senate has been nothing more that a rubber stamp for the lower house; automatically approving — along party lines — whatever the lower house sends to it.

Many of these politicians, in both houses, constantly talk about the need to cut the red tape in Government. Wouldn't it be good if they cut the long red one called the Senate? Let us have one less useless bottleneck in Parliament. Get rid of the Senate.

Michael A. Dingwall

michael_a_dingwall@hotmail.com

Why not abolish the Senate?

-->

Dear Editor,

It is quite unfortunate that Dr Hagley, in his letter published in the Observer Tuesday, June 11, 2013, conveyed some misleading comments in his quest to encourage the Parliament to enact long-promised tobacco control legislation.

The truth is, if the intention, as we believe it is, is to add further pressure on Health Minster Dr Ferguson to end the talk and bring the legislation for debate in Parliament, then surely, there are other credible means of doing so. It is important, however, to advise the public that the company rejects any assertion by Dr Hagley, or any member of the anti-tobacco community, that the billboard situated at our corporate offices in Twickenham Park, or indeed any of our marketing activities, is directed at the country's youth.

The fact is, it is a criminal offence to sell cigarettes to minors, and the company, through its Youth Smoking Prevention Programme, vigorously employs a zero-tolerance approach to all retailers who sell our products. We work continuously with the law-enforcement apparatus in the country to ensure that the law is obeyed. Additionally, we market and distribute our tobacco products to adults who have taken the decision to smoke. And, access to all our zones and promotions are rigorously screened to ensure that all entrants are firstly adults, and that they are also smokers.

The company remains committed to our decision, in 2005, of not having a national billboard presence across the country, as in times past. The billboard of which Dr Hagley speaks is the only one in the country, and is situated at our official corporate residence.

Carreras, as a legitimate and responsible corporate entity, is usually first to state that the consumption of our products can have health consequences. We have never sought to mislead or falsify that fact. We support the view that the product and its consumption need to be regulated, and we are on record as saying so publicly.

Perhaps Dr Hagley can ensure that the legislation of which he speaks has measures within it to prevent the inflow of counterfeit and illicit cigarettes because surely that's where the worldwide statistics show, more than anything else, that our children and youths are vulnerable. The unregulated, illicit trade in cigarettes in Jamaica is valued at some $3 billion annually and moves some 100 million sticks of cigarettes within the country; a matter on which Dr Hagley and his colleagues have remained silent.

Carreras reiterates its support for balanced tobacco-control legislation and, like Dr Hagley, urges Minister Ferguson to table for debate in Parliament a draft bill quickly.

Christopher R Brown

Head of Corporate and Regulatory Affairs

Carreras Limited

Clearing the smokescreen

-->

Dear Editor,

It was with great consternation that I, along with all Jamaicans, witnessed the detention of the Deputy Mayor of Montego Bay Michael Troupe and councillor for the Salt Spring Division Sylvan Reid on July 18, 2012. This, after the Leon Clunis-led Lottery Scam Task Force carried out simultaneous raids in Montego Bay and left with us the indelible image of Troupe in handcuffs, his image besmirched, his character maligned, his political career irreparably damaged, and his very freedom uncertain.

The court of public opinion arrived at a swift verdict. Natural justice was suspended and both men's resignations were demanded.

The result, Troupe has hauled the Government of Jamaica before the courts to seek redress for false and malicious arrest. He is also claiming damages including aggravated, exemplary and constitutional damages for defamation against Superintendent Clunis and Commissioner Ellington.

But what of Sylvan Reid? We are fast approaching the anniversary of his ordeal and it seems he has resigned himself to inaction. Doesn't he know the State must be held accountable? The Government must be made to understand that when it allows its agents to trample on the rights of Jamaicans it is not without consequence. I sincerely hope this has nothing to do with which party currently forms the Government and the party is not unethically imposing its will on Reid. It nuh fi go so.

Reid has the perfect opportunity to make a stand for the average Jamaican. Allow your people to climb on your back and see how a man defends his rights.

I do not know Reid personally, nor do I have a vested interest in his affairs. I am not advocating his innocence, but he has a duty as a Jamaican.

You have a duty to our National Heroes who gave their lives in defence of the very rights of which you were stripped. Mr Reid, you have a duty to your family to restore whatever you can of your good name. Your children's future, our children's future depends on it.

Take my foolish advice: find yourself a good attorney immediately.

C Barrow Williams

cwilliams@masaka.com

Would Sylvan Reid please stand up?

-->

Dear Editor,

If Jamaica is to move away from the socio-economic quagmire it is in, the thinking, particularly that of its leadership, must be beyond the pale.

Unfortunately, though efforts are being made to take some progressive actions, there are still self-imposed constrictions, as evidenced by the recent call by the Jamaica Social Investment Fund (JSIF) and the Ministry of Tourism and Entertainment for proposals for grant funding for "community-based tourism projects". A similar call was also made by JSIF and the Ministry of Agriculture for "agricultural projects".

The restrictions applied in both calls are that they are governed under the Rural Economic Development Initiative (REDI), and as such eliminate city Kingston. In 2010 — when the first such call was put out supported by international funding agencies, namely the World Bank — Sounds & Pressure, an organisation committed to the redevelopment of downtown Kingston as a cultural, heritage tourism destination, applied and created quite some interest within JSIF. However, we were eliminated due to us not being a rural-based entity. We would have hoped that another call, three years later, would try to address developmental initiatives for Kingston and all inner-city communities.

A lot of the socio-economic problems in Kingston and other inner-cities are due to the rural-urban drift, which unloads thousands of the rural poor into the urban areas in search of a better life, but end up mainly with more impoverishment in inner-city communities. It was during a visit to New Orleans several years ago, that i saw first hand how an urban space, quite comparable to Kingston in size, population, and as culturally driven, was able to build a major tourism industry that attracted millions of visitors annually to its music, food and cultural offerings. And this is despite having a crime and violence problem.

According to a recent article in the Huffington Post Internet news service: "Just over nine million tourists and business travellers spent a record US$6 billion in New Orleans last year, and the big draw was the variety of attractions including museums, festivals and parades." In the '50s and '60s Kingston was considered a tourism destination with enormous potential. And not only culturally driven tourism can enhance economic conditions in the urban space of Kingston, but also agriculture, focusing in areas such as aquaculture, horticulture, and vegetable farming.

Growth potential exists all over Jamaica, and the decision-makers should not impose unnecessary restrictions, but promote growth everywhere.

Julian "Jingles" Reynolds

Orange Street

Kingston

sounds_pressure@yahoo.com

JSIF call should include Kingston

-->

Dear Editor,

Based on recent pronouncements of two past presidents of the Jamaica Teachers' Association (JTA), it would appear that the JTA and its members have finally grasped the lesson being taught over the many years by our politicians. That lesson entails the vilification and denigration of one's opponent in the furtherance of one's goals. The only surprise here is that it took so long for people who are by profession teachers to grasp the lesson.

When terms such as pathologically mendacious, water boy, fish, and loader man, to name a few, are used on public platforms to refer to colleagues to score cheap political points it is only a matter of time before the rest of the country takes its cue from its leaders. We now see an uproar because the term mongrel was used to refer to a politician. The teachers themselves will tell you that children learn quickly from examples set, and it is usually the case that people reap what they sow. Our dear departed Miss Lou would probably tell us that "di same knife weh stick sheep stick goat" and that "a fowl teach man fi tie string a dem foot".

We, as a country, need to level the playing field and treat all infractions as just that. No matter who the perpetrator is, hold persons accountable and let whatever sanctions due be applied. Let's cut out the foolishness and start getting it together. The consistent application of the divide-and-rule concept will get us nowhere fast. But then again, there are those who are benefiting from this and are satisfied with the status quo.

Fitzroy Whyte

Mandeville, Manchester

littled_1969@yahoo.com

Same knife that stick sheep...

-->