This is an unedited letter to the editor.
I've had over the years a very decidedly mixed view of your newspaper, especially under your stewardship. Hard-nosed investigations are the main pluses but the minuses have got to be these inane editorials you guys are producing.
I've refrained generally from criticising you guys too much, even when you allowed that unfortunate story about my father to run, but hey, to each his own.
Now to the matter at hand, namely today's editorial (June 18). Let me show you how lacking in smarts it is:
1. You start off by making the statement 'no one can accuse you of being anti-gay'. Surely they can, but what it belies is a clear psychological attempt to pre-empt the argument to come, as most racists do when they say 'I'm not racist, see here is my black friend'. That would be fine if you could show, concretely that you aren't anti-gay.
For instance, you have staff members who are gay and indeed part of your newspaper readership is sustained by gays and, if I am correct, Sandals does offer packages to gay couples. Indeed there was an excellent article in the New York Times which highlighted same and was very biting towards the treatment meted out to gay tourists. So the stance your taking could have the effect of harming your boss's business.
But be that as it may, the rest of the editorial is surely anti-gay or, to put it more accurately, homophobic. The low level of effort you give to yourselves for not being 'anti-gay' (hey, we don'e beat them or encourage people to beat them) you make the statement that tolerance is growing in Jamaica. I'm not sure what metric your using other than 'in your view' but let me suggest here that probably is not a credible place to being your argument about something that is quantitative in nature.
Maybe if you supplied us with some statistics I could believe you but from my own view we are as backward as we were when I was child. Or maybe you've missed the news items where whole communities of people descend on a house because they 'suspect' that gay people are there.
2. 'Demanding to be recognised as equals to heterosexuals' - Maybe if you viewed gay people as people instead of as some sort of ephemeral other you would recognise that your editorial has no distinction from Radio Television Libre des Mille Collines. So by implication your argument is that they aren't equal to a heterosexual? Really? And you allowed that to be published under your pen and/or watch?
And to say that the music from some artistes, which have such colourful phrases like 'mek we shoot di battybwoy come mek we shot dem dead' isn't hateful, then clearly you have blinkers or, as your unnamed accusers, you are being deliberately misleading in order to incite your readership.
3. Anti-Americanism riddling the editorial- I found this remarkable given the hero worship you guys have for Vasciannie (don't worry I rate him big time too) and especially given that the money that sustains your newspaper is largely earned by a business that caters to these very same Americans.
Is it that the Americans have threatened to cancel your visas or something? I'm sure you love that American technology and dollars, but you have a problem dealing with their views on tolerance? The schizophrenia in your editorials seems to be reaching an apex, and that is not good.
4. What outright lies about the Jamaican people? So your saying when those young men in Bull Bay gang raped and killed those young girls in Bull Bay that it was a 'gay on gay' (http://www.hrw.org/news/2006/07/26/jamaica-investigate-murder-alleged-lesbians). Or maybe closing your eyes to the violence is enough to wish it away? Lies? I call it truth, unvarnished. Your objective readers, fast vanishing, would too.
5. The continued practice of not naming sources or indeed of making up stories. Pray tell, who are this 'gay leadership' that you speak of and what are the names of these unnamed 'organisations'? Its almost as bad as Wignall's practice of making up some false conversations to intimate whatever narrative he's been paid to carry for the week.
Maybe crony journalism is practiced at the Observer, but some of the advertorial columns you guys are paying for calling themselves columnists reek of payola. But I digress.
6. HIV/AIDS Afflicting homosexuals in particular -- Maybe your maths different from mine, but the worldwide statistics show that it is firmly a heterosexual. You might appreciate that the vast majority of the persons in not only Jamaica, but also Africa, who have contracted the disease aren't homosexual. It must be particularly galling for Wignall to see that as I'm sure his sister Rosemarie Stone wasn't gay. Maybe you have more information on the late great KC Old Boy Carl Stone than I do, but if he was gay then the entire country is gay. So stop this very dangerous argument which will only aid in the spread of the disease.
7. Sexual grooming- you guys are really treading on thin ice here and if I was advising JFJ I would advise them to sue you for defamation. Unless it is that you can prove that the persons administering the programme are pedophiles its pretty clear that you have gone too far with this statement. Unless you are making a potentially more invidious argument that sex education on a whole constitutes 'sexual grooming'.
Maybe that's why the kids these days are taking there cues from each other or from television because if regular sex education is considered 'sexual grooming' then one has to wonder what the readers of your papers think about your publications, like today, of scantily clad women in bikinis?
I wish you all the best and hopefully the editorials will improve.
Robert C St C Collie, an attorney-at-law and justice of the peace, is the son of university lecturer, medical practitioner and political candidate, Dr Charlton Collie. He may be contacted at robertcollie@gmail.com
Your editorial was lacking in substance, Observer
-->
I've had over the years a very decidedly mixed view of your newspaper, especially under your stewardship. Hard-nosed investigations are the main pluses but the minuses have got to be these inane editorials you guys are producing.
I've refrained generally from criticising you guys too much, even when you allowed that unfortunate story about my father to run, but hey, to each his own.
Now to the matter at hand, namely today's editorial (June 18). Let me show you how lacking in smarts it is:
1. You start off by making the statement 'no one can accuse you of being anti-gay'. Surely they can, but what it belies is a clear psychological attempt to pre-empt the argument to come, as most racists do when they say 'I'm not racist, see here is my black friend'. That would be fine if you could show, concretely that you aren't anti-gay.
For instance, you have staff members who are gay and indeed part of your newspaper readership is sustained by gays and, if I am correct, Sandals does offer packages to gay couples. Indeed there was an excellent article in the New York Times which highlighted same and was very biting towards the treatment meted out to gay tourists. So the stance your taking could have the effect of harming your boss's business.
But be that as it may, the rest of the editorial is surely anti-gay or, to put it more accurately, homophobic. The low level of effort you give to yourselves for not being 'anti-gay' (hey, we don'e beat them or encourage people to beat them) you make the statement that tolerance is growing in Jamaica. I'm not sure what metric your using other than 'in your view' but let me suggest here that probably is not a credible place to being your argument about something that is quantitative in nature.
Maybe if you supplied us with some statistics I could believe you but from my own view we are as backward as we were when I was child. Or maybe you've missed the news items where whole communities of people descend on a house because they 'suspect' that gay people are there.
2. 'Demanding to be recognised as equals to heterosexuals' - Maybe if you viewed gay people as people instead of as some sort of ephemeral other you would recognise that your editorial has no distinction from Radio Television Libre des Mille Collines. So by implication your argument is that they aren't equal to a heterosexual? Really? And you allowed that to be published under your pen and/or watch?
And to say that the music from some artistes, which have such colourful phrases like 'mek we shoot di battybwoy come mek we shot dem dead' isn't hateful, then clearly you have blinkers or, as your unnamed accusers, you are being deliberately misleading in order to incite your readership.
3. Anti-Americanism riddling the editorial- I found this remarkable given the hero worship you guys have for Vasciannie (don't worry I rate him big time too) and especially given that the money that sustains your newspaper is largely earned by a business that caters to these very same Americans.
Is it that the Americans have threatened to cancel your visas or something? I'm sure you love that American technology and dollars, but you have a problem dealing with their views on tolerance? The schizophrenia in your editorials seems to be reaching an apex, and that is not good.
4. What outright lies about the Jamaican people? So your saying when those young men in Bull Bay gang raped and killed those young girls in Bull Bay that it was a 'gay on gay' (http://www.hrw.org/news/2006/07/26/jamaica-investigate-murder-alleged-lesbians). Or maybe closing your eyes to the violence is enough to wish it away? Lies? I call it truth, unvarnished. Your objective readers, fast vanishing, would too.
5. The continued practice of not naming sources or indeed of making up stories. Pray tell, who are this 'gay leadership' that you speak of and what are the names of these unnamed 'organisations'? Its almost as bad as Wignall's practice of making up some false conversations to intimate whatever narrative he's been paid to carry for the week.
Maybe crony journalism is practiced at the Observer, but some of the advertorial columns you guys are paying for calling themselves columnists reek of payola. But I digress.
6. HIV/AIDS Afflicting homosexuals in particular -- Maybe your maths different from mine, but the worldwide statistics show that it is firmly a heterosexual. You might appreciate that the vast majority of the persons in not only Jamaica, but also Africa, who have contracted the disease aren't homosexual. It must be particularly galling for Wignall to see that as I'm sure his sister Rosemarie Stone wasn't gay. Maybe you have more information on the late great KC Old Boy Carl Stone than I do, but if he was gay then the entire country is gay. So stop this very dangerous argument which will only aid in the spread of the disease.
7. Sexual grooming- you guys are really treading on thin ice here and if I was advising JFJ I would advise them to sue you for defamation. Unless it is that you can prove that the persons administering the programme are pedophiles its pretty clear that you have gone too far with this statement. Unless you are making a potentially more invidious argument that sex education on a whole constitutes 'sexual grooming'.
Maybe that's why the kids these days are taking there cues from each other or from television because if regular sex education is considered 'sexual grooming' then one has to wonder what the readers of your papers think about your publications, like today, of scantily clad women in bikinis?
I wish you all the best and hopefully the editorials will improve.
Robert C St C Collie, an attorney-at-law and justice of the peace, is the son of university lecturer, medical practitioner and political candidate, Dr Charlton Collie. He may be contacted at robertcollie@gmail.com
Your editorial was lacking in substance, Observer
-->