I was watching a demonstration recently in Louisiana, United States of America (USA). It involved the Black Lives Matter movement, some black militia and, of course, some white supremacist groups. Two out of the three abovementioned where armed like seal teams.

They were all interviewed by members of the press and I heard the Black Lives Matter group make some points I agreed with. The black militia also had some salient points, but I cannot say I would support them acting on all they spoke of.

The white supremacists spoke of their concerns and motives for being there looking like ‘Rambo’ had got loose in a tactical gear store. However, try as I may, I cannot see their point. They come across as lost in a time warp – back to a period when people feared vaccines or disabled children.

However, listening to all three I noticed nobody was advocating cooperation between law enforcement and the victimised group. Now, I agree, American law enforcement has major issues with racial hate, racial stereotyping and a significantly imbalanced racial tolerance level with respect to people of colour vs white citizens.

However, I think that if the concern is saving lives, why is none of these groups encouraging citizens to stop the unnecessary resistance to police officers.

There has to a better way to bring about change than to support conduct that is getting young people killed. So it begs the question, is it about saving lives or is it about furthering a particular political agenda?

The police force also needs to look into what they are trying to accomplish. I hear them justifying their conduct according to law and they are often within the law, but that is not contributing to ending the crisis. I have yet to see a genuine effort at launching a marketing programme that promotes ‘cooperation’. So again, is the motive ending the conflict or promoting one’s own agenda. Which is what exactly?

So locally, Jamaica has come under criticism for its buggery law. This issue has resulted in former Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller being heckled in England. I have heard local leaders defending it on religious, cultural and even historic grounds. I have never once heard them argue it on health grounds.

This is odd because there is a plethora of information that could be used. But this way it does not further the message that they desire to purport; that being their religious and cultural beliefs, despite the fact that it is one of the most difficult to justify in a modern world.

So is it about winning the debate or is it about religion?

Then there is the bleaching epidemic. I have heard some really sound arguments on love of oneself and colour. These points are important and positive. But is it working?

It is not?

So what about using the impotence angle. Bleaching cream contains steroids. Steroids can harm your pancreas; and that leads to diabetes. A likely consequence of diabetes is impotence. So say it over and over again to them. Trust me, sexual prowess is really important to Jamaican males. But no one is telling them they are going to kill their ‘willy’. Why? Maybe it’s not the intention to end the practice.

The parochial state of emergency has recently been the favourite ‘beating stick’ of Opposition politics, human rights activists and the legal community. But all three have refrained from addressing the significant saving of lives that occurred because of its use

In Montego Bay alone it reduced the parish homicide rate of St James from 341 in 2017 to 103 in 2018. Even though 2019 was not as good, it was still at 153, which is still less than half of the 341 dead in 2017. If it had continued at the 2017 levels then more than 300 people more would have been killed in the parish.

Why is it that this analysis is not front and centre in the debate? Because it does not help to further their chosen agenda.

The same could be said for NIDS. Why would anyone oppose a national identification programme? Or anything for that matter that could enhance national security. Because it is never about greater good, it is about opposing the existing government irrespective of the ruling party. This is not just local, but also international.

Michael Jackson said it best in the chorus of one of his songs – ‘They don’t really care about us’.

Almost every group out there, not just politicians, are first furthering their own agenda and spreading their own politics. Yes! They desire a greater world, but that is secondary to expounding their own beliefs.

So leaders, whatever kind of organisation you lead, be solution-driven in your approach to any crisis.

This applies whether you are trying to reduce murders in Montego Bay or police brutality in Memphis. Save lives by any means necessary, rather than getting out your message by any means necessary.

Feedback: drjasonamckay@gmail.com