Stephen VasciannieSOCIAL DISCOURSE in organised communities requires attention to moral standards. For the community to work as a community, and not as a self-destructing collection of individuals, there must be reference points as to what the group regards as right and wrong.
The community transmits this sense of right and wrong through its socialisation processes: thus, in our society, we have traditionally relied on institutions such as the home, school and church to transmit community values from one generation to another.
Broadly speaking, the preservation of community values the sense of right and wrong also needs to be enforced by certain penal sanctions. Where an individual violates community values, and does so in a way that can be shown to harm the life, liberty, or property of another individual, the penal sanctions usually invoked are derived from the criminal law. So, the community standard, "thou shalt not steal", is not only a moral rule; theft is also a crime, and thieves are subjected to criminal sanctions.
But community values are also upheld outside the legal system as well. So, for example, if a company persists in transmitting offensive (but legally permissible) advertisements on television, the community may opt to avoid the products so advertised, and thereby punish the offensive advertiser through collective economic strength.
Naturally, there will be instances in which the community values on a particular point are uncertain, and, in some cases, the indiscriminate imposition of perceived community values may amount to the tyranny of the majority. But here, organised communities have methods of expressing different conceptions of particular community values, and of resolving disputes that will inevitably arise over such conceptions.
Certain recent events have called into question the matter of community values in Jamaica. These events suggest not only that traditional community values are being undermined in the country, but also that alternative moral systems have emerged to challenge those values. This development is not new, and indeed, the process of undermining a country's system of values will take years: it is not new, but it is dangerous and insidious.
The Funeral
Example 1: A man is murdered, in broad daylight, execution-style. According to one newspaper, the man is an underworld kingpin; others describe him as a 'don', some imply that he is a kind of community enforcer, still others refer to his 'hot temper', and the fact that he was always surrounded by many others, in the style of a 'don'. Some people also suggest that he was involved in drug trafficking.
But that is not the entire picture. Some persons who know the man point out that most of the criticisms are based on hearsay. They say media commentators have no proof to support the allegations that the man was a 'don'; they call into question the definition of a 'don' (as if this is an afternoon seminar at Oxford); and they accuse the media critics, though not in so many words, of character assassination.
I believe that this episode demonstrates the divergence of community values that is developing in society.
First of all, to address a spikable matter: persons who have been critical of the deceased have not exercised restraint because of the prevailing law concerning libel. Without putting too fine a point on the matter, you cannot defame the dead, in law: "(l)ibel and slander are essentially personal wrongs, and the right of action, therefore, dies with the person defamed" (Gatley on Libel and Slander, 6th ed., 1967, page 11; see also 8th ed., 1981, pages 411 and 648; Carter-Ruck on Libel and Slander, 3rd ed., page 193).
People, then, are not silent as to the evidence because of the libel law. On the contrary, they are reluctant to say what they really believe in this particular instance because of fear. They are afraid that 'different' community values may be applied, and that, in the end, they may end up dead, in the gutter.
But, fairness is also a community value, and so, media commentators should not be anxious to condemn the deceased, notwithstanding the absence of risk concerning libel laws. Consider the situation, however: the man's general reputation is that he was well short of choir boy status, he could distribute funds on a disproportionately generous basis, and some persons still speak of him in whispered secrecy.
Surely, as a matter of judgment, we may reasonably draw inferences from these considerations.
And, in our assessment of community values, are we not able to note the presence of three Cabinet Ministers and a Vicar-General of the Roman Catholic Church at the man's funeral? What guidance will the collective presence of senior members of Church and State give to the youth about the relationship between discipline, hard work, and morality, on the one hand, and success, on the other?
Some say that the deceased had no substantial criminal record, and that he was influential in bringing peace to the community. These are virtues for which we should be grateful, but, we are burying our heads in the sand if we believe that the absence of a criminal record is decisive in these circumstances.
As an organised community, we should also ask why the State, and the Member of Parliament, have to rely on individuals other than the police to bring peace to the community? This suggests a fundamental breakdown of the traditional processes of socialisation (home, school, church), and highlights the fact that there are now sub-communities of values that exist outside the control of legitimate authority.
The Braeton Killings
Example 2: The police kill seven young men in a house in Braeton, claiming that they were acting in self-defence. Some members of the Braeton community call into question the police story, and indicate that at least one of the young men was heard screaming for his life. An independent pathologist, working at the request of Amnesty International, watches the autopsies of the seven men, and indicates, among other things, that six of them were shot in the head, four were shot from behind, and one from extremely close range.
Community values against murder, for justice, for due process should point us towards close scrutiny of the police actions in this case. It should also point us towards an insistence that the law must follow its course with impartiality and expedition.
But, what do we find coming from those who have an agenda contrary to the enforcement of traditional community values? First, there is an attempt to condemn all seven men as scoundrels, as if this would automatically deprive them of the right to life.
Secondly, when the force of the observations of the independent pathologist hits home, diversionary tactics are brought into play. Amnesty International is falsely branded as a type of imperialist bully-boy anxious to condemn Jamaica for narrow partisan reasons. Attempts are made to undermine the observations of the independent pathologist on spurious grounds. Specious arguments are offered about trial by the media. And, vague generalisations about parenthood are brought to the debate, as if the parents of the seven young men pulled the trigger on the morning of the Braeton massacre.
Our community values are under threat. Opinions are divided on most issues of social importance in a way that suggests moral confusion at least among our public commentators. But, in truth, as a society, most of us still know the difference between right and wrong; we should stand up and be counted, for the barbarians are at the gate.
Stephen Vasciannie, an attorney-at-law, teaches at the University of the West Indies.
