Dear Editor,

Many Jamaicans have been expressing anger at the decision to retroactively strip the 2008 Olympic medal champion, Nester Carter, and his relay team, of their gold medals that they won, on account of a banned substance that was found in Mr Carter’s system.

The reason for the anger of many Jamaicans is the fact that the substance for which Carter was sanctioned for was not banned in 2008, but in 2011, years later.

This episode with our relay team has many similarities with another burning issue that is on the minds of many — and it shows up clearly, just how hypocritical many of us truly are.  

This other issue is reparations for slavery. 

Of course, I do find the act of stripping our relay team of that gold medal ridiculous.

How can Mr Carter and the rest of his team be sanctioned for an offence that they did not commit at the time. 

This is what many Jamaicans, and others are asking — and rightly so.  However, the hypocrisy of many of us is being laid bare for the whole world to see.  

For, while we don’t want any of our athletes to be retroactively sanctioned for anything, we do want many Europeans to be retroactively sanctioned for their alleged role in slavery, many decades ago.

Like me, many other sensible people have been saying that this concept of retroactive justice is, for the most part, complete nonsense.

Even if Mr Carter knew that he was taking that substance in 2008, (and we don’t know if he did), the fact still remains that it was not illegal to do so in 2008.  So, as far as I can see, he did nothing wrong.

Similarly, even if the European traders who were buying slaves from the African sellers knew that some of the slaves may end up being worked to death, which, arguably, many did not know or even care about, they (the Europeans) were doing something that was seen as normal and right by most, at the time.

So, as far as I can see, they too did not do anything wrong.

Our athletes of today (2017) must probably be wondering what legal substances they are now putting into their bodies that will cause them, in the future, to be stripped of any medal that they win.  

In fact, extending this to other aspects of our lives today, many of us are no doubt wondering what actions we are doing today that we take for granted, which may cause future generations to see us as a bunch of savages – or worse.  

This is nonsense — it is ridiculous now, as it was for Mr Carter in 2008, and as it was for those European slavers in centuries past.

Of course, those who stripped our athletes of their gold medals are claiming that they took the action in the name of justice, albeit, retroactive justice, as our athletes, on account of Mr Carter taking that now banned substance, had an unfair advantage.  

Those calling for reparations for slavery are saying very much the same thing: that Europe got an unfair advantage over us blacks, on account of the supposed sin that they committed against us, during slavery.

Both arguments are nonsense, as no wrong was being done in either case at their respective times.

The sad case of Mr Carter and his fellow athletes, while unfortunate, can therefore be viewed in at least one positive light — the complete nonsense in this concept for retroactive justice.  

Now, those of us who rightfully say that reparations for slavery is a bucket of hogwash can happily point to Mr Carter’s silly case as something that more of us can directly relate to, to argue the case against reparations.  

Mr Carter has unwittingly given us a very good lesson in the nonsense of the concept of retroactive justice. 

Thanks, Mr Carter, for the good lesson.

Michael A Dingwall