FIRING LINE: Je suis Charlie!

IF YOU HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING international news, you might recognise that Je suis Charlie is a slogan which arose as a rallying cry for freedom of speech and freedom of the Press after the January 7 massacre in which 12 people were killed at the offices of the French satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo in Paris.

I am, however, using the slogan in my own way today, because I want to signal that it is okay for all of us individually to have a strong opinion, to question and ask for answers and to disagree respectfully. I want to signal that the days when one could arbitrarily impose rules and standards without explanation or justification have long past.  

I have said repeatedly that one of the greatest paradoxes which exist in this society is that we have promoted education as a tool of national advancement but then we do everything in our power to ensure that the full use of the tool is frustrated. We want an educated populace, but then we do not want people to question or say anything that is outside of the normal din. We promote a culture of fear to muzzle critique and protect the status quo.   

Right across this country people are afraid to speak out, to share an opinion, to come across as different or to stand out. Fear of political labelling and victimisation are used as effective weapons. Conforming therefore becomes the modus operandi.  

We keep quiet, move under the radar and try to obey the rules even when they do not make sense. Interestingly, as far as I am aware, all of the events in our history and globally which have had a fundamentally positive impact on society have been because someone or some group of people refused to conform to the status quo and raised their voices to say so.   

This situation is the reason that there is very little constructive debate in this country about key matters. In such a context, every comment becomes political, every critique personal and every question unnecessary and irrational.

My main problem with the pronouncement on students’ hairstyles at Harrison’s College and even the new policies on deportment announced by the police force is the apparent lack of clear justification for the policies and the suggestions that the rules and standards are not open for debate. I am not making a case for a particular hairstyle or a particular rule; I am making a statement of principle about the need for debate and the right of people to demand answers.  

I am sorry, just because I go to school or work in an organisation does not give those in authority the right to introduce standards which impact on my fundamental rights and freedoms without either providing a good justification, demonstrating that there is sufficient critical mass of support for the policy or showing that the policy serves either my or the public good.

More importantly, whether at school or elsewhere, there should be space for people to respectfully ask questions and get answers. If we do not encourage this, we cannot then complain that we do not have critical thinkers.   

Who determines what is defined as appropriate and tidy? Is it each principal’s subjective idea of what they personally do not like or is there an overarching policy on school deportment that has been arrived at, based on consultations with staff, the board and other principals?

How should the policy be communicated and promoted to students and parents? More importantly, what is the process for students and parents to disagree with a policy and seek a change? Or do we naturally assume that there should be no process because no one should question.

Can someone explain to me the justification for saying no to locks but yes to twists? What is it about the nature or the texture and style of hair that formed the basis of the decision? What is the evidence that forms the basis of the decision for one hairstyle over the other? Was a survey carried out among the public to find out which hairstyle or nail polish affected our perception of the effectiveness of police officers? Do those who are affected have the right to contest?  

The reaction in some quarters suggests that students and workers should have no voice and should conform if they want to maintain their position. We wonder why people are so accepting of the current state of governance – well guess what – we are reaping what we sow.

Again, this is perhaps why the current situation involving the Speaker of the House has become so politically polarised. There are no principled voices emerging from the society to call for good judgement and moral standards to prevail.

Well, Je suis Charlie – the Government is wrong. Protecting the Speaker might be politically expedient but sets an unfortunate precedent.

Shantal Munro-Knight is a development specialist and executive coordinator at the Caribbean Policy Development Centre. Email shantalmunro@gmail.com