Lawmakers need to be careful about how they legislate about people's private behaviour lest they unleash the voyeurs, zealots and moral Gestapo, who, quite often, are one and the same.

For when we allow them free rein, not only are they likely to leave grim stains of prurience on people's lives, but it usually leads to a loss of freedoms and, ultimately, to the atrophying of society.

Of course, Jamaica is not in imminent danger of being overrun by puritanical enforcers of concepts of decency and morality, but it is important to be forewarned and to be alert to the possibilities. Moreover, events in Parliament last week provided the first tinkle of what, in the longer run, could be alarm bells.

We refer, of course, to the testimony by the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship group before a parliamentary committee reviewing the incest laws, as well as an intervention by a member of that committee, Senator Norman Grant, suggesting that marriage between cousins should be made illegal. There have also been other astounding postures by 'experts' and legislators, which sound more like echoes from the Middle Ages rather than statements of 21st century enlightenment.

This newspaper, of course, believes in and supports all reasonable efforts and laws against the exploitation and abuse of all persons, but especially of children and others who are particularly vulnerable. Such cases of abuse have been on the increase in recent years, or at least we are now more aware of them, perhaps because of better reporting. It is important that the state responds to protect the weak.

However, Salem-style puritanism is not the answer. Which is why we would suggest to legislators, in crafting any law, they should be careful not to make illegal, or do things which will constrain legitimate demonstration of affection between family members in the home. The possibility for this lies in the proposal by the lawyers group that offences under the incest law be widened to include "fondling, kissing or other inappropriate forms of touching". Nothing is, on the face of it, wrong with this. But it is fraught with potential danger should a display of platonic affection be misinterpreted or misconstrued by mischievous busybodies.

Of concern, too, are the suggestions that the definition of sex should be maintained to mean only vaginal penetration and to continue to make homosexual relationships illegal. We do not advocate such relationships nor that lifestyle. But what consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes, is not, and ought not to be the business of legislators.

Neither should it be the business of legislators whether adult cousins should want to marry or have relations because of some moral and perceived health grounds. Maybe we should make it illegal for short people to marry; or tall people, for that matter.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.