The history of ganja and the Jamaican society is interesting and instructive

The ganja law of 1913: 100 years of oppressive injustice

By Louis MOYSTON
 

THIS year marks the 100th anniversary of the Ganja Law of 1913. This law was rooted in fear and also in a tradition of law-making that discriminated against lower class black people. It is a racist law that epitomises the oppressive injustice of slavery and the colonial/planter system. This racist law was the idea of the Council of Evangelical Churches in Jamaica. The Law gave the police special powers which members of the force used, in a brutal and repressive manner, against the people in general and the Rastafarians in particular. The Ganja Law of 1913 must be abolished and replaced by a new regime. The earliest debates on ganja were informed by elite white perception and anecdotal evidence. They lacked the philosophical, logical and scientific perspectives.

The history of ganja and the Jamaican society is interesting and instructive. It is interesting because of the major characters and setting associated with the Law of 1913 and its subsequent amendments. It is instructive because it illustrates the brutal nature of law-making process in post-slavery society, and its oppressive application against the masses, lower class black people. The emergence of the campaign and preparation of this oppressive instrument, the 1913 Law and its Amendment in the 1920's, was led by the Church and white elites. During the 1930's and 1940s the newspaper in combination with elite perception, the police and the Resident Magistrate were the major characters in the amendments in that period. In the pre-and post- Independence period the government through the Ministries of Home Affairs and later the Minister of Health led the ganja debate of the 1960s and 1970s. Today it is the Minister of Justice who plays the lead role for the government in the current ganja debate. The planter-controlled society meted out severe punishment to black labourers in the form of extremely high fines for penalties from court cases in the post-emancipation period. The fine for ganja, "a victimless crime", was exorbitant for people who had little or no money. When the fines were not effective as deterrent, they were combined with mandatory imprisonment. It was this law that introduced "mandatory imprisonment" in the jurisprudence landscape of Jamaica. This measure did not curb the use of ganja.

At the end of the 19th century into the early 20th century, the church in Jamaica saw its power declining. There were the emergence of the revivalist movements and also an increasing of vices — use of opium, ganja and alcohol. It felt that it had the moral obligation to curb, if not destroy these vices. Many newspaper reports have illustrated the issues of the church regarding ganja smoking among the "natives"; and also its association of ganja to insanity. In 1912 there was an Opium Convention at The Hague. There were also increasing concerns in Jamaica on ganja smoking among the "natives". According to one study, the Council of Evangelical Churches prepared the Law and sent it to the Legislative Council in 1912. It was not acted upon. In the same period the newspaper published that out of 283 people admitted admitted to using ganja. About the same period there was another article on the "Dangers of ganja smoking among the natives of this colony" illustrating the dangers of ganja smoking now that there is increasing evidence of ganja smoking among black people. The white elites associated violence with ganja smoking; and since they perceive black people as 'brutes' they developed narratives of the 'evils of ganja smoking' among lower class blacks. During the colonial/planter rule racism was the order of the day; and high fines as oppressive penalties were meted out against lower class black people for the simplest of crimes. The matter of race emerged again in the mid-1960s was raised by government Senator Ronald Irvine in the ganja debate with Opposition Senator Ken McNeil.

The Ganja Law of 1913 was employed against the "cultivation and importation" of ganja, punishable by a fine of one hundred pounds or up to 12 months imprisonment. The same Council of Evangelical Movement observed that the Law of 1913 was "practically useless". According to reports the Church called for amendments for smoking selling and entering premises upon which ganja is grown by the police. There was no regard for the rights of man on how he used his private property. This reflection on the second amendment took at the time of the 1924 UN Opium conference in Geneva. The 1924 Amendment, inspired by the Church called for drastic increased of fines and imprisonment on first conviction. It was renamed "Dangerous Drug Law of 1924". The 1930 and 1940's was marked with the rise of the early Rastafari movement and the role of lower class black people resisting oppression. The leading newspaper and the white elites began a national campaign against ganja against their fears about the plant. The police and the Resident Magistrates of the parishes were the leading characters in the amendment of the 1924 Law. There was concern that ganja smoking may have been associated with the uprisings among the masses in 1938. The 1937 Marijuana Tax Act may have provided propaganda during the period.

The 1940s amendment was, in part, a response to the emergence of Leonard P. Howell and the early Rastafari movement. The development of the Ganja amendments in the 1960's was also associated with radical activism by Rasta and also violence associated with the Henry back-to-Africa movement. It was the period of the "Coral Gardens Affairs" that the amendments of the 1960s took place. New developments in Jamaican politics in the 1970s and influence from scientific developments about ganja smoking, smashed the anecdotal allegations of the past. This led to profound change of the ganja law in the 1970s by removing the list of criminal activities associated with the law and its mandatory imprisonment characteristic. A study of Ganja Smoking in Jamaica completed by Rubin and Comitas in 1972 may have also had influence on the ganja debates of the 1970s. Changes in the USA during the 1990s and 2000s, have influenced levels of ganja lobbying in Jamaica that led to the Chevannes Commission in 2000 and the current initiative led by the Minister of Justice, Minister Mark Golding, respectively. The time has come for a new regime for ganja, similar to the license and regulation of alcohol. According to Fraser (1974) in his study on the ganja laws in the region, the eradication of ganja is impossible and the time has come for a new legal regime.

Louis EA Moyston

thearchives01@yahoo.com

December 02, 2013

Jamaica Observer

Bahamas Blog International

Jamaica: Redefining governance post-Bruce Golding

Redefining governance post-Golding

By LLOYD B SMITH



Even as Jamaicans breathe a sigh of relief in the wake of the departure of Bruce Golding as JLP leader and prime minister in what was a seamless transition, a dispassionate post-mortem needs to be done and a new job description arrived at for our head of government, the so-called first among equals.

Of course, one of the recurring challenges that beset any such attempt at meaningful discussion is the rabid tribalism that plagues the Jamaican society. So much so that even when a perceived "independent" political analyst seeks to cut through the putrid fat of partisan fatuousness in order to get to the bone of the matter, he or she is likely to be pilloried, if the views expressed are not in sync with a particular party and its motley assortment of hacks and spin doctors.

In this vein, political discourse in many instances becomes a desperate attempt at playing to the gallery or is so overly "balanced" that it becomes lukewarm — neither hot nor cold — which leaves many readers and listeners in a stupor, not knowing whether to swallow or spit it out.

One of the unfortunate traits of many Jamaicans is a seeming inability to argue a point without "tracing" (verbal assault which often leads to one denigrating one's opponent). This has become a regular feature in the political arena which also sees some talk show hosts and columnists joining in this kind of vacuous verbal diarrhoea leading to character assassination, especially when their victim speaks or writes the truth. Yes, the truth hurts, and can be very offensive.

Against this background of intellectual dishonesty, if governance in Jamaica is to take on a meaningful trend, then the role of the media needs to be redefined in this burgeoning information age. In the United States, for example, which is regarded as one of the bastions of democratic governance in the world, a journalist or newspaper can openly, or in any other acceptable way, endorse a political candidate or party. Even newspapers, radio and television stations are known to co-exist peacefully and without threat of extinction, notwithstanding their particular ideological or partisan stance.

In Jamaica, because of the divisive, intimidatory and vindictive nature of our political culture, most media practitioners are forced to walk a tightrope, and so in many instances a latent form of hypocrisy laced with sycophancy and doublespeak becomes the order of the day. "O judgement thou art fled to brutish beasts and men have lost their reason!" (Shakespeare - Julius Caesar)

I therefore posit that if good governance is to come to the fore and is sustainable, then the media in Jamaica must be truly liberated, not shackled by an archaic set of libel laws. As the people's watchdog, it must be allowed to have more bite than bark which means that the politics of the day must become more enlightened, tolerant and accountable.

For this to happen, then those at the top must raise the bar of discourse within the context of contending opinions which too frequently become the news of the day via soundbytes and "select" headlines. Newly installed Prime Minister Andrew Holness and Opposition Leader Portia Simpson Miller must declare their hands during the coming general election campaign because it cannot be business as usual.

At the outset of what was to be Golding's ill-fated "governorship", he set out to define his style of governance by dubbing himself the chief servant, a sobriquet fraught with good intention and a sincerity of purpose. But very soon, the man who was also called "driva" found himself in a pickle and had to opt, in the final analysis, to put the interest of the party over patriotism.

Golding, in essence, became victim of a political system which he once abhorred but had to ultimately embrace in his quest for power. Looking back, one may well ask if Golding had stuck with the National Democratic Movement through thick and thin, would his legacy have remained untarnished and would that fledgling party have gained enough social capital to take on successfully the status quo?

Interestingly and most intriguingly, Prime Minister Andrew Holness has attributed much of his political acumen to the mentorship of Edward Seaga and Bruce Golding. He has, in one fell swoop, defined his political persona, and what remains to be seen is whether he will emulate the good qualities of his mentors or embrace their bad characteristics.

Picture a typical cartoon character with an angel on either shoulder (usually one is a good influence and the other bad). We have been told that "Prince Andrew" is his own man; let's now see if he will be able to prove that he is not a chip off the old block, or worse, a clone.

From all indications, he has the acumen to rise to the occasion, but his most serious challenge will remain how he manages the JLP while steering the ship of state. For this to happen, he will need all hands on deck, so I am very pleased that so far one commentator has described him as a consensus builder, because in redefining governance in Jamaica, the nation's leaders need to coalesce around certain objectives, and whoever is prime minister must lead that charge.

At the same time, prime minister and JLP leader Andrew Holness, now that he is fully in the saddle, must rein in those unrepentant "tribalists" who see as their only role that of tarring and feathering as well as running out of town anyone who dares to criticise him, the party or the Government of the day.

If Jamaica is to be governed effectively with equal rights and justice for all, then there must be room for dissent. We cannot all see things through one set of spectacles. Let the wheat and the tares grow together until the day of harvest.

Outside of the media and political leadership, the church and civil society need to play a more aggressive as well as assertive role in the redefining of governance in Jamaica. The power and influence of civil society and the media were in full force during the Manatt/Dudus affair and we have seen the result of that debacle.

It has allowed a new day to dawn on the island's political landscape teeming with many possibilities. Increasingly, the church must be the moral compass without taking sides, and civil society must pursue without fear or favour that route that leads to equity in terms of justice and economic opportunities.

Once again, Jamaica is at a crossroads and we must decide where we are going in real terms. Winning an election must not be an end in itself, but the first step in a journey towards economic independence, peace, safety and national unity. Whichever party wins, it will not be an easy road. Governance, not "gangsterism", must define our path. Enough said!

lloydbsmith@hotmail.com

October 25, 2011

jamaicaobserver

Bahamas Blog International

Jamaica: Pastors, pulpits and politics

HEART TO HEART
With Betty Ann Blaine



..."in doctrine showing integrity, reverence, incorruptibility, sound speech that cannot be condemned..." (Titus 2: 7,8)

Dear Reader,

Over the years, I have been a constant public critic of the failures of the Jamaican church. While I have openly recognised and congratulated the church on its history and continued commitment to education and social outreach, I keep reminding those of us who are the body of Christ that the area of greatest weakness is that the church has failed to act as the conscience of the state. To put it another way, the church has been reluctant and afraid to speak truth to power.

The words of the late Rev Dr Martin Luther King, Jr are haunting. In the book, Strength to Love, King asserted: "The church must be reminded that it is not the master nor the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state, and never its tool."

It is clear that some of our Jamaican pastors have forgotten whom they serve, and the most recent case in which the Rev Al Miller, one of the country's most influential pastors, has sided with the government on the extradition of a reputed "drug lord" and community "strongman", is to my mind the most glaring example of pastors allowing themselves to be used as tools of the state.

One of the observations I have made concerning Prime Minister Bruce Golding and Rev Al Miller is how quickly they have both became converted to full-fledged human rights activists. In fact, they have all but eclipsed Jamaicans for Justice and the Independent Jamaica Council on Human Rights in this particular so-called human rights case. Never before have I heard a pastor and a politician achieve such unison of thought and purpose, and speak so eloquently and stridently about the human rights of any Jamaican citizen in a country where violating people's rights is an accepted way of life. Are we to understand from the pastor and the politician that the human rights of some Jamaicans are more important then the human rights of others?

Somebody needs to tell Rev Miller that the debate surrounding the extradition of Coke is best left to lawyers, judges, politicians and to those constituencies where morality is inapplicable and where the law is supreme and self-serving. In biblical terms, it is the divide between the teachings of Jesus Christ and the system of Rome. One examined the soul of man, while the other was sworn to the service of Caesar.

There must be a greater motive unknown to us that would cause a pastor to ignore the brutality associated with "strongmen", and choose instead to focus on the "principle" of the extradition matter. I am reminded of a recent case where the accused rapist of a nine-year-old girl was set free because of a technicality involving DNA evidence. The question for the pastor is, where would you focus - on the horror of the crime or on the technicality of the law? What Rev Miller doesn't seem to realise is that lawyers have no responsibility to debate morality, but as a pastor he is absolutely obligated to doing so.

In fact, it is the moral failings of Jamaican society in general, and our political leaders in particular, which should be the concern of every pastor, let alone one who sits at the right hand of the prime minister. Instead of focusing on an issue that is best left to constitutionalists, lawyers and judges, Rev Miller ought to be speaking about the social ills in the society that have led to the ascendancy of "strongmen" and drug lords. The question that should be exercising the mind of every Jamaican pastor is, how do we build a society in which we can strengthen family life, protect our children and promote a consistent ethic of human life? Rev Miller needs to be reminded that if God is not at the centre of national life, then we can never achieve human rights.

Instead of "selling out" to man's politics, Rev Miller should be steadfastly focusing on perpetuating God's politics, and should make note of the fact that any discourse that is disconnected from moral values quickly degenerates.

Rather than "parroting" the government's position on the extradition, Rev Miller should be calling the leaders to a higher moral standard which dictates that they clean up and dismantle their garrison communities so that the murder and abuse of citizens will end, and that the scourge of strongmen will be cauterised and eventually eliminated.

Rev Miller should be calling for a deeper discourse about vision and values in public life. He should be speaking about how a new vision for the common good could inspire us all to lives of service and to a whole new set of public priorities.

Instead of pandering to politicians, Jamaica's pastors should heed the words of Rev Martin Luther King who warned that "if the church does not recapture its prophetic zeal it will become an irrelevant social club without moral or spiritual authority". In his book, God's Politics, author Jim Wallis asks, "Who will question the self-righteousness of nations and their leaders? Who will not allow God's name to be used to simply justify ourselves, instead of calling us to accountability? And who will love the people enough to challenge their worst habits, coarser entertainments, and selfish neglects?

I would implore Rev Miller to ponder on those things and to keep in mind that politics without a soul is anti-God. He should bear in mind too that pastors and politicians can make strange bedfellows.

With love,

bab2609@yahoo.com

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

jamaicaobserver

Bahamas Blog International