THE EDITOR, Sir:
ONCE AGAIN Melville Cooke has missed the point in his article titled "A matter of size" dated January 10, 2002.
The issue Mr. Cooke is not so much what we should define as art or pornography but whether or not offensive images or symbols should be displayed publicly. This is a hard task for any people or government.
If the vendors at Fern Gully choose to sell carvings of well endowed men or women, they should have the courtesy to display them in their stalls/shops, not on the road side.
Furthermore, when this type of art/pornography is displayed in their shops they should have clear signs outside informing would-be shoppers and their children of the kind of products on display.
Then if, the person enters he/she would have chosen to engage in viewing the object by choice.
Ponder this, if they were selling large red, black and white swastikas and portraits of Adolf Hitler would we be so tolerant of their roadside displays? Everyone is entitled to freedom of expression but not at the expense of others, especially the majority.
The vendors, as far as I know, occupy public space and must therefore in their dealings consider how they affect others that use said space.
Finally, Mr. Cooke seeks to justify his views by saying that prostitution has been an integral part of our tourism sector over many years, therefore the issue of the carved men with large penises is much ado about nothing.
This is equivalent to saying that violence and corruption has long been a part of our political system, therefore the lesser evil of voter intimidation should be left alone.
I am etc.,
RICK STERO
r_stero@yahoo.com
Via Go-Jamaica
