The ambit of democracy (Gleaner letter 29.10.09)

The Editor, Sir:

With respect to the letter of Everal Edwards, published October 28, under the title, 'Clearly Ridiculous', I feel compelled to point out the danger inherent in the sentiment he expresses.

The moment a society begins to cater solely to the views of the majority to the clear exclusion of a specific, or all minority groups, then that society is no longer operating within the ambit of democracy.

These undemocratic societies are then perpetually in pursuit of the dynamic status quo as they pander to the common denominator, sacrificing the essence of harmonious inclusion and space for amicable disagreement that defines democracy.

The purpose of law and government is to create a system of harmony all the time protecting the weak from the strong, advancing the welfare of all. Once that philosophy has been compromised, the resulting dysfunctional society must assess itself and try and correct its mistakes or injustice will persist.

Vitriolic rhetoric

The fact that such vitriolic rhetoric is coming from Jamaica, a society built on slavery (including mental slavery) is not entirely surprising but certainly not excusable. In fact, like South Africa, Jamaica should rise and be a beacon of hope for the oppressed in an increasingly hostile world, pointing to the right direction for the future of mankind.

I am, etc.,

BRIAN-PAUL WELSH

brianpaul.welsh@gmail.com

Kingston
ENDS


Here is the original letter Mr. Welsh responded to above:

Clearly ridiculous!

Published: Wednesday | October 28, 2009

THE EDITOR, Sir:

WITH RESPECT to Monday's editorial, 'Golding and Simpson Miller failed to lead', I find your conclusion a wholly ridiculous and disingenuous position to take.

The Charter of Rights, and any other law, must reflect the common or most common position of the people in whose interest it is being enacted. There is nothing in the charter that gives anyone the right to abuse or discriminate against someone because of their sexual orientation.

What does the writer of the editorial expect? That the norms and values of the majority should take second place to those of a minority because the latter have access to media, influence and the proverbial 'commanding heights of the economy'?

I am, etc.,

Everal Edwards

everal.edwards@gmail.com