It is interesting how, given time, and allowing some simple logic to seep in, one can change a fundamental view.

From the perspective of having the right to one's opinion and preference, how are Kartel and Mavado different from any church in Jamaica today? Be careful! The response to this question has nothing to do with your opinion of the message each party is giving within the boundaries of the freedom of speech.

Here's another interesting slant to our freedom: We have the right to dislike and campaign against each other; but here, there are rules. I do not know that we can constitutionally achieve dominance by trying legally to bar each other from public fora. We often try to do that, but at best, that approach is immoral and cheeky.

freedom of expression

Sure, there is the question of the ripple effects that certain messages seem to have on the society, and whether the society has a right to protect itself accordingly. A further question must be whether there is empirical evidence that these effects are traceable to the messages. We must also ask whether that is the intent of the message, and whether it is fair to suppress one's freedom of expression because one may be misunderstood.

So I don't know that I can cast any blame on the artistes for what is happening among their fans, and perhaps the wider Jamaican society. This is a war of creativity, and that is what it should continue to be. Anyone who has a problem must provide a creative alternative.

The mission of the Church and all other like-minded moralists is not to shut down the Kartels and Mavados. Rather, it is to convert them if you can, to engage their constituents sufficiently, and to provide the market with a viable option. The question is, are you up to it?

I am, etc.,

CHARLES EVANS

charock01@yahoo.com