Dear Editor,

The recent debate fiasco between Pastor Gino Jennings and Mr Vegas seems to have divided Jamaicans.

While I can appreciate the perspective that removing someone from a space without his consent appears unjust, especially when it is done by a foreigner, I think many people are actually missing a key perspective.

From an economic perspective, I assume that Jennings and his church paid rent for the venue and the public address system for the event. I am also assuming that Jennings would have paid for the promotion of the event, including the posters that advertised the event. Vegas, as the guest, I assume, did not pay a dime to attend the event or to the hosting of the debate. If these assumptions are incorrect, then my analysis would be based on faulty assumptions.

In this case, it seems to me that it is the man who paid to organise and host the event that has the right to tell the other to sit down. So, as much as Mr Vegas and his supporters feel that he was unjustly treated, I respectfully beg to disagree.

To use an analogy, you go to a person’s house for a party and overstay your welcome, they will ask you to leave. You can respectfully leave or have them forcefully throw you out.

So let us not impute sin where there is no real sin. In this case, if there was any wrong, it was wrong on Mr Vegas’s part to resist the request of his host to either be seated or leave.

Mark-Shane Scale

markshane.scale@gmail.com