Incite? Insight.

With the State of Emergency, there are questions raised as to what freedom of expression remains - something that Judy Raymond touches on in her Trinidad Express article, 'The real state of emergency...' (emphasis mine):

The form of the regulations that the authorities chose to issue really has a wartime ring: they allow for "censorship and the control and suppression of publications, writings, maps, plans, photographs, communications and means of communication."

Citizens may not possess documents that may "cause disaffection or discontent," nor try to "influence public opinion in a manner likely to be prejudicial to public safety and order."

You can be jailed, it seems, for having not only illegal weapons but illegal opinions.

 

That's awkward.

But it's no more awkward than my having a discussion with a well known Trinidad and Tobago personality - name left out because naming the person would detract from the point.  I was trying (and failing) to make the point that an image of the Prime Minister's face superimposed on Rambo, armed with a M60 and shooting, could also be seen as inciteful to a certain part of the public - you know, the part claiming that it is being victimized by politics and race. In fact, it sends a clear signal that there is a segment of society that is quite happy with the discomfiture of geographic parts of society that see the police and soldiers kicking down doors with a different set of lenses. How is that violent image - a violation of copyright and trademark Law, I might add - something that isn't 'inciteful'? But to question the government, too, could also be seen as inciteful.  My words fell on deaf ears, a radio personality so used to broadcasting and trying to score points simply didn't know what to do with that. The point is - equality for all.

Unless I'm mistaken, the State of Emergency has not taken away equality - and if it has, the fears of some - perhaps many - are realized. 

It's not that I say people shouldn't support the State of Emergency, or follow their political leaders with fervor (though I'd rather they be more circumspect I realize I ask too much) - what I am saying is that there are ways to support things without aggravating the situation. Without... inciting. Because inciting, too, is something that can be done while supporting the government.

What do I think? I think Justice, Law... the things the State of Emergency is meant to address with a war on crime - should not see the fears of abuse as incitement but as insight. It demonstrates divisions in society that, as Judy Raymond and others have written and said, exacerbates the issues that have divided the country for as long as I can remember.

And really, if opposition to the State of Emergency is not permitted violent wording, imagery and video - why is it that the supporters are permitted these things?

I do not know. I cannot comment. I can only question, quietly and without malice. I offer no incite. I offer a perspective - some insight.

Image at top used through a Creative Commons License that supersedes the license on KnowTnT.com. Click the image to see the original and licensing information.