The decision by major corporate sponsors to discontinue supporting events involving artistes who incite violence through their lyrics and performances is obviously driven mainly by commercial considerations. But that doesn't make it wrong.

Commercial corporate self-interest aside, the decision presents an opportunity for the key stakeholders in Jamaican music to re-focus the debate over music, morals and money and develop a more rational response to the threats to the industry initiated by the gay rights lobby but which has mushroomed into a much larger cloud.
Two Fridays ago, six of the biggest sponsors of the local entertainment events that artistes need to connect with fans and boost earnings issued a joint statement telling show promoters and artistes they have to clean up their act or get sponsorship money elsewhere.

Beenie Man (above) and Vybz Kartel (below). both apologised for anti-gay lyrics

Red Stripe, Wray and Nephew, Cable and Wireless Jamaica, Courts, Digicel Jamaica and Pepsi-Cola Jamaica Limited said: "As a group of corporate sponsors of the entertainment industry, we are concerned that the continued use of violent lyrics could ultimately lead to the decline of our music industry, as well as a social and economic backlash."
The move comes in the wake of an international campaign by the gay community, led by British-based Outrage!, which has targeted a number of prominent Jamaican dancehall acts noted for the so-called 'homophobic' content of their lyrics and performances.

The campaign has picked up steam from mainstream media and the wider human rights community in Britain and the United States and has shown no signs of abating despite an 'apology' from Beenie Man, inspired by his international record label.
The apology, like the latest corporate initiative, is business inspired and reflects a clear understanding of the nature of the globalised music industry.
Reggae stars who know there's more money to be made abroad than at home realise they are now vulnerable to pressure from companies around the world that get very jittery when they are targeted by rights activists of one kind or another.
Like it or not, today's corporations - having to make more and more money for their shareholders - cannot afford to be distracted by rights campaigners calling attention to misdeeds or associations that attract too much controversy.

It doesn't matter whether it is Nike fending off accusations of profiting from sweat shops in Asia or Shell having to counter accusations of environmental pollution in Nigeria or Atlantic Records seeking to dissociate itself from verbal attacks on gays.
Many of the righteous have dismissed the responses as hypocritical or greedy. And some pillars of cultural rectitude heap scorn on artistes who 'bow'.
After Vybz Kartel, who some people in the know say is dancehall's hottest current star, made an apology in a recent BBC Radio interview, one of our tabloid newspapers, X-News, ran a photo of the artiste in a white coat and top hat next to the headline, "Vybz Kartel BOWS to Gay Pressure".

This kind of approach by the media makes it almost impossible for artistes to honestly confront the issue and may explain Bounty Killer's comments about the role of the media in sorting through what is clearly a dilemma for his industry.
"Look at the press, when the gay rights groups overseas try to come down on the artistes and the artistes might say a few words to quell those people's aggression and to make this business look appropriate in America, them say 'Oh, Beenie Man bow, him mash up", (Jamaica Observer, Saturday, October 8).

Bounty Killer. criticised media and dancehall fans

The same report said Bounty Killer also drew attention to "the hypocrisy and double standards" of dancehall fans.
On the one hand, the fans say the "DJ them could allow up the gay thing". On the other, they came to the stage shows "and bawl forward" for the DJs when they sing the hard-core anti-gay lyrics.
I agree with Bounty Killer that we need to protect and grow the music industry, and I agree that freedom of speech includes the right to be critical of homosexuality.
But the issue confronting those in the society who are deeply concerned about the negative social impact of some music lyrics is not simply a matter of doing some verbal gymnastics to make the "business look appropriate for America".

Freedom of speech is a cherished value in a free society like ours. It includes the right to be critical of homosexuality, which is widely despised in Jamaica on both religious and cultural grounds.
Free speech also includes the right to be critical of police misconduct or injustice, which have, for much too long, been common in our society.
But free expression does not include the right to advocate murder or incite violence against gays, 'informers' or anyone else, for that matter. Some of what passes for lyrics have gone too far and, in my opinion, have moved from free expression into the realm of incitement.
We can have endless debates and parse words or phrases to determine whether some of the lyrics should be taken literally or understood as figures of speech.

We can also remind ourselves that the history of reggae is not as kind and gentle as some dancehall critics like to argue. It is widely acknowledged that there was fierce and sometimes violent competition between rival sound systems and crews, and the conflicts were often echoed in the lyrics - singers routinely promised to "murder" the competition with tunes.
And we can remind ourselves that just as today's heroes boast of their sexual prowess in the most explicit ways, there were stars of yesterday who boasted of the male genitalia as a wrecker to do violence to a woman's anatomy, or vital parts thereof.

But none of this will change the fact that some of what is out there causes great offense to some people and may be one of the contributors to the social problems evident in our homes, schools, communities and work places.
At the same time it would be absolutely wrong to lay all our burdens at the feet of dancehall artistes or to suggest that the music is universally negative.
As entertainment lawyer and former show promoter Lloyd Stanbury commented, the majority of the repertoire of the dancehall artistes being targeted by the gay community consisted of music with lyrics which were not about gay-bashing or the promotion of violence (Sunday Observer October 3).

Like Stanbury, I agree that the move by the corporate sponsors would not be bad for the industry because, among other things, it provides an opportunity for key stakeholders to come together and focus on what is good for Jamaica and the industry.
Now, with the leading Jamaican businesses adding their muscle to the international record labels, and global lifestyle firms like Puma demanding that the artistes clean up their act, the debate has moved beyond the long-running battle between defenders and opponents of 'slackness' and 'vulgarity'.

Sure, there's self-interest. Red Stripe wants to use the music to sell beer, and Digicel and Cable and Wireless are using artistes to sell phones. The artistes want the money so they can bling and hum. And they can be socially involved like Lady Saw and her educational foundation, or Sean Paul's generosity to victims of Ivan.
If those with the most financial interest at stake combine to produce a music that is more tolerant of difference and less coarsening of the sensibility, then we would all be winners.

- Claude Robinson is senior fellow in the Research and Policy Group, Mona School of Business at UWI
kcr@cwjamaica.com

Feeding the multitude

DANGEROUS PETS

Pepper Pot