Dear Editor,
By now most of Jamaica and a significant portion of the world are aware of what took place at UTech, last Thursday, November 1. First, let me be abundantly clear in stating that the security guards overstepped their bounds and were totally wrong in beating the young man allegedly seen in a compromising position. For that there should therefore be a penalty and the guards must be prepared to pay for it. However, at the risk of public derision I would like to offer a defence of sorts in the ongoing public trial of the guards.
Almost everyone living in Jamaica knows that we continue to take the law into our own hands and that we routinely mete out punishment as we see fit. Therefore the guards' behaviour is but a reflection of one of our society's ills. They therefore will be asked to pay for what is simply commonplace in Jamaica. We may even try to make an example of them.
The senior director of advancement at the university is clear in stating that while the mob was chasing the individual, the understanding was that they were chasing a thief. Whether alleged thief or alleged homosexual, if the mob had caught up with their prey, the story would have had a more tragic ending.
For sure, the guards' action must be condemned, but if we are to be fair, we must be able to see that the guards did not hand over the individual to the angry mob as they demanded. That is worth something. In fact, it is worth plenty.
In considering the guards' case, therefore, let us temper justice with mercy and not continue to label the incident homophobia. That evidence is still unproven and the backlash from the gay community and others is too swift and too weighty.
J Burnett
jburnett@flowja.com
Temper justice with mercy
-->
By now most of Jamaica and a significant portion of the world are aware of what took place at UTech, last Thursday, November 1. First, let me be abundantly clear in stating that the security guards overstepped their bounds and were totally wrong in beating the young man allegedly seen in a compromising position. For that there should therefore be a penalty and the guards must be prepared to pay for it. However, at the risk of public derision I would like to offer a defence of sorts in the ongoing public trial of the guards.
Almost everyone living in Jamaica knows that we continue to take the law into our own hands and that we routinely mete out punishment as we see fit. Therefore the guards' behaviour is but a reflection of one of our society's ills. They therefore will be asked to pay for what is simply commonplace in Jamaica. We may even try to make an example of them.
The senior director of advancement at the university is clear in stating that while the mob was chasing the individual, the understanding was that they were chasing a thief. Whether alleged thief or alleged homosexual, if the mob had caught up with their prey, the story would have had a more tragic ending.
For sure, the guards' action must be condemned, but if we are to be fair, we must be able to see that the guards did not hand over the individual to the angry mob as they demanded. That is worth something. In fact, it is worth plenty.
In considering the guards' case, therefore, let us temper justice with mercy and not continue to label the incident homophobia. That evidence is still unproven and the backlash from the gay community and others is too swift and too weighty.
J Burnett
jburnett@flowja.com
Temper justice with mercy
-->