THE EDITOR, Sir:
THE LETTER 'OutRage! and hypocrisy in dancehall attack' by S. Escoffery highlighted the steadfast unwillingness of Jamaicans to accept the fatal flaws of our culture. The letter had one major unsupported fact. It was an assumption, in my opinion, led by anger towards factions reaping political and economic benefits from dancehall music. It was the claim that 98 per cent of the crimes against homosexuals in Jamaica are by other homosexuals. When was this statistic taken? When has Jamaica cared enough about our homosexuals that we actually took some time to address the issues affecting them, of which violent discrimination is what they are most afraid?
To my knowledge, and through interaction with affected and guilty persons, the national consensus is that crimes against homosexuals are inherently justified because sodomy is seen as morally
reprehensive. It makes sense that no government, getting constant grants and funding from more evolved nations, is going to openly brag about its civil and human rights violations, and how
they ignore crimes against its
marginalised groups.
The author also felt that the deejays' right to free speech was being encroached on. My
question is where does free speech stop and intimidation start? Free speech is what is legal, not the freedom to frighten people into submission, compliance or acquiescence. Sending threats of severe bodily harm rightfully bears serious legal implications
in most if not all countries. It
constitutes a form of harassment.
S. Escoffery also had some problems with the definition of hate music. Hate can be defined as an object of detestation or intense animosity. Any genre of music that advocates detestation or intense animosity IS hate music.
I am, etc.,
CLYDE PURCELL
clydesthpurcelljr@hotmail.com
Warners Lane,
Port Maria P.O.
St. Mary
