The Editor, Amandala
Sir,
I am a firm believer/supporter of the God given right to du weh wi want…free will…as long as, of course, our right does not unduly encroach on, harm the turf of others. It is impossible to do anything in this world without some “effect”. Laugh and somebody wahn seh yu di laugh aat a dehn; cry and somebody wahn seh yu di try bring down the world.
Medical science has proven that second hand smoke is very harmful. Thus we have seen turf protection severely curtail the rights of cigarette smokers…stop dehn frahn smoke weh dehn want. The case for people smoking cigarettes, wherever, doesn’t have a strong leg, but as a lover of second hand smoke it will become my cause to defend when the move for a complete ban reaches the sports arena, and the club.
Yes, the argument can become near frivolous. If a lady turns up a superior pot of steaming stew, an entire neighborhood could argue that she caused them to eat more than usual, which could lead to pain a belly, and inability to “properly button pants”, or caused them stress because they did not have anything near as nice to eat in their house. Not to sweat too much because we can rely on the collective wisdom, swayed sometimes by the loudest mouths, yes, or special interests, yes, eventually to render sober pronouncements on acceptable behavior.
Now to the specific purpose of this piece on pre-empting domestic violence. We all know that there are many reasons, numerous, numerous, why people, mostly men, do craziness…commit aggressive acts. Well, let the wildly imaginative psychiatrists do their work. There is a little turf where we can do “ours.”
There are some obvious behaviors that lead directly to the crazy behavior we term, violence, for prime example, imbibing alcohol. In the name of collective wisdom we have declared alcohol drinking for men and women above the age of eighteen, an acceptable behavior. Unfortunately there are those who can’t handle alcohol… men who drink “fighting rum.” Two good slugs and they lose it. The question I pose is, should not there be a law passed declaring that men who habitually cannot control their liquor, family menaces, be incarcerated for the good of society when they are observed swigging from a bottle? I know soh!
Like most people, I am a firm believer in pre-emption. If a man shows this weakness, he should not be allowed to go on and on with his madness. And especially when he is about beating up on his woman. A woman at home, knowing that her man is at the club, knowing that when he comes home she and her children are going to get thrashed, should be able to pick up the phone, anonymously, call the police, and have her man arrested. Indeed, anyone who has knowledge that a guy is a wife/family beater should, in the interest of society, be allowed to pick up a phone and dial in for a healthy ounce of pre-emption.
From there it is a simple matter, to be brought up before the Ombudsman, or a retired judge. In the worst case scenario, an innocent party drinking at a club will be picked up (we can handle piss house [if dehn noh fix up yet] when wi drunk), and denied his promising evening. Ouch, but worth it for the family good! The penalty for a first arrest (for drinking when yu know yu drink “fighting rum”) could be “allowed to sleep it off”; the second arrest, a full day’s incarceration; the third arrest, two days as a guest at the special holding pen, and so on.
There is another matter on my mind. In the absence of scientific proof (I suspect there is, but no scientist wants to be debarred, or debunked for taking a stance against politically correctness) we have to rely on honest observation. I say, many might have some difficulties with marijuana, but only a truly bogus person would say one of its negatives is violent behavior. Weed smokers, as a group, are known to be the least violent drug users in the population.
So, if the Rasta gentleman who it is said killed his wife, is indeed the murderer, we have to ask if weed was his only indulgence. Or was this crime an inner act of craziness. Or… if I worked at the Women’s Department, or I had the opportunity, I would ask the young lady who survived the violent attack by that gentleman, if to her knowledge, that particular Rasta used crack cocaine. I have heard that this drug causes crazy behavior. If we gather enough data that says so, something should be done beyond “illegality” to protect those whose rights are infringed on, by users of this drug.
There are men who drink “fighting rum”; we know that for a fact. We should act on our information and prevent violence on women and children. I recognize the slippery slope of “proving innocence.” In writing the pre-emption law, to pre-empt lawyers looking for loopholes to subvert the people, we would have to present it as “old case”…yes, hold a Damocles’ battle axe over the head of the drunkard… for craziness done before. I bet they (I could point finger because I noh drinking fighting rum) will gladly take their day or two in the pen, instead of five or six years for beating up on their family.
(Signed) Colin