Dear Editor,
The latest upsurge of crime in Jamaica has fanned the raging debate on what measures should be introduced to stem it. Understandably, some believe in the quick- fix, no-holds-barred approach, advocating the loss of certain liberties as a worthy sacrifice for bringing things under control. This somewhat warlike approach of storming the enclaves of criminality and disposing of all those within without any regard for due process has a dangerous precedent in the 2010 Tivoli operation in which over 70 Jamaicans were killed.
This attitude of showing no restraint, no retreat, and no surrender may appear to have solved the crime problem or certainly brought it under control at the time. But it certainly did not. We have the same problem with us again, don't we? Is it therefore fair to deduce that desperate, short-term measures don't work unless they are accompanied with mid-and long-term measures?
Interestingly, in the current discourse over the crime problem it seems those who oppose any threat to individual liberty or who advocate intelligence-driven operations are often dismissed or branded as "bleeding heart liberals", a derogatory term aimed to insult and offend. But isn't "bleeding heart liberal" not a compliment paid to those so labelled because, liberal or not, they care for the welfare of their community and fellowmen?
The dictionary defines the word "liberal" as "someone who is progressive in political or religious matters, free from prejudice or bigotry, open-minded or tolerant". So, to be a liberal doesn't appear to be a person who is evil, but a person with some admirable values. And what about "bleeding heart"? We are told that such a person "displays great empathy for others and is also sympathetic to the poor, minority groups and less privileged". This interpretation is tied to the phrase's origin, which is associated with the Order of the Bleeding Heart, honouring our Lord's mother, Mary. Therefore, it seems those who are described as 'bleeding heart liberals' need not feel offended in terms of the dictionary definition of the phrase. In fact, such people likely possess some enviable qualities and are in good company with the likes of other bleeding-heart liberals such as India's Mahatma Gandhi, the great US civil rights leader, Dr Martin Luther King, slave abolitionist William Wilberforce of England, Nobel Peace Prize winner, the Dalai Lama, and one of our own national heroes, George William Gordon, to name a few.
Could not some of our politicians past and present, such as Michael Manley, Edward Seaga, and Portia Simpson Miller, not also be aptly described as bleeding heart liberals? Isn't it ironic, too, that those using the phrase to dismiss or denounce others would have others see them as politically progressive and devout Christians espousing the values of Christianity. Are they not being hypocritical?
Colonel Allan Douglas
Kingston 10
alldouglas@aol.com
Bleeding hearts and crime
-->
The latest upsurge of crime in Jamaica has fanned the raging debate on what measures should be introduced to stem it. Understandably, some believe in the quick- fix, no-holds-barred approach, advocating the loss of certain liberties as a worthy sacrifice for bringing things under control. This somewhat warlike approach of storming the enclaves of criminality and disposing of all those within without any regard for due process has a dangerous precedent in the 2010 Tivoli operation in which over 70 Jamaicans were killed.
This attitude of showing no restraint, no retreat, and no surrender may appear to have solved the crime problem or certainly brought it under control at the time. But it certainly did not. We have the same problem with us again, don't we? Is it therefore fair to deduce that desperate, short-term measures don't work unless they are accompanied with mid-and long-term measures?
Interestingly, in the current discourse over the crime problem it seems those who oppose any threat to individual liberty or who advocate intelligence-driven operations are often dismissed or branded as "bleeding heart liberals", a derogatory term aimed to insult and offend. But isn't "bleeding heart liberal" not a compliment paid to those so labelled because, liberal or not, they care for the welfare of their community and fellowmen?
The dictionary defines the word "liberal" as "someone who is progressive in political or religious matters, free from prejudice or bigotry, open-minded or tolerant". So, to be a liberal doesn't appear to be a person who is evil, but a person with some admirable values. And what about "bleeding heart"? We are told that such a person "displays great empathy for others and is also sympathetic to the poor, minority groups and less privileged". This interpretation is tied to the phrase's origin, which is associated with the Order of the Bleeding Heart, honouring our Lord's mother, Mary. Therefore, it seems those who are described as 'bleeding heart liberals' need not feel offended in terms of the dictionary definition of the phrase. In fact, such people likely possess some enviable qualities and are in good company with the likes of other bleeding-heart liberals such as India's Mahatma Gandhi, the great US civil rights leader, Dr Martin Luther King, slave abolitionist William Wilberforce of England, Nobel Peace Prize winner, the Dalai Lama, and one of our own national heroes, George William Gordon, to name a few.
Could not some of our politicians past and present, such as Michael Manley, Edward Seaga, and Portia Simpson Miller, not also be aptly described as bleeding heart liberals? Isn't it ironic, too, that those using the phrase to dismiss or denounce others would have others see them as politically progressive and devout Christians espousing the values of Christianity. Are they not being hypocritical?
Colonel Allan Douglas
Kingston 10
alldouglas@aol.com
Bleeding hearts and crime
-->