Of Preachers on Buses and Censorship

Image from from laudyms.wordpress.com

For some reason I have agonized for over two weeks about whether to publish this.  Yet, here goes…

Same knife weh juk sheep juk goat.

I am extremely uncomfortable with the recent JUTC ban of preachers on buses.  Sometimes it verges on dislike.  My discomfort is nothing to do with Jamaica (supposedly) being a “Christian nation” or because Jamaica holds the record for the most churches per square mile (keeping in mind that most of the preachers on buses were Christian).  It’s nothing to do with any tarnishing of that reputation, especially because the last I checked Jamaica is a democracy not a theocracy…so the majority religion should not hold sway over policy making anyway.  And it’s not because I haven’t found bellowing bus preachers annoying…or because preaching can have a disruptive effect on the listener…or because I don’t think one is entitled to a quiet and safe (yes, safe) bus ride.  I also don’t think that this is symbolic of the nation turning its back on God, or that banning bus preachers invites the devil to take over.  I am uncomfortable because of the alarm bells clanging in my mind are signalling that something is not quite right whenever a particular group is singled out for attention that amounts to censorship.  Not fond of either it or discrimination (except in very very narrow circumstances, like affirmative action…and even then I’m queasy).  With this ban on bus preachers the limit on free speech is clear and that should make you uneasy too.  

In this instance preachers have been singled out.  The ban is broad – not just Christian preachers – but still it is a specific group of people who have been singled out for this “special attention.”  To me it’s not much different from the selective enforcement of the Noise Abatement Act against secular events while many crusades and tent churches go until the wee hours untouched.  Or has that changed?

A bus preacher on a JUTC bus (Image from prismmarketing.blogspot.com)

A bus preacher on a JUTC bus (Image from prismmarketing.blogspot.com)

I’ve noticed that much has been written, tweeted, debated, and said in the days since the JUTC issued the ban. The debate seems to center around (1) recent census data indicating that a significant number of Jamaicans is atheist and this fact being acknowledged, analyzed, and accepted; and (2) that even if not atheist, one should be free from hearing the “Word” during one’s daily commute.  To a lesser degree I’ve seen the discussion framed in terms of “minority” versus “majority” and the twists of having the latter make the rules that govern the former.  All of these analytic lenses are important I think.  But none of that lessens my unease at preachers being singled out because it seems as if a fundamental point is being ignored: why isn’t the ban addressed ANYONE who is disruptive on public transportation?  For that matter why is it a “ban” and not a rule governing the conduct of passengers and operators of vehicles that transport the public?

Why wasn’t there a less reactionary, broadly framed and constructed rule that, perhaps, is aimed at public safety instead of singling out any one group?  Because I think that there is a clear public safety issue here: bus preachers or any other continuous loud disturbance on a bus or other public carrier presents a hazard to the operators of the bus, and potentially affects passenger safety.  That would encompass, at least, bus preachers, bus drivers, bus conductors, and bus passengers who insist on blasting their music from cell phones (or headsets).  OK not a public safety issue? Then it could simply be framed as a reasonable condition of using the public transport.  ALL would have to abide by the rule established by the licensing authority, which includes rules meant to address the comfort (and marketability? attractiveness as a means of transportation?) of the means of transport.  As it stands with this ban what’s to prevent say the Gaza faithful or the Brethren of Tommy Lee from boarding buses and sharing why they love that clique, its rules, and its music so much? Is that preaching? Because it’s not a a church/synagogue/mosque? How does one define preaching exactly? Would this activity then be promoting? What prohibits that? Or what’s to prevent protesting teachers, students, or a particular community’s members from boarding buses to loudly share that message of protest? Is it that the JUTC will react each time a similar or related issue arises, eventually creating a patchwork of ad hoc and arbitrary rules? This ban is yet another short term solution to a problem and so it’s unacceptable.  I expect that there are other rules or laws specific to disturbing the peace on public transportation so why not simply dust them off, improve where necessary, and emphasize that these rules or laws will be better enforced against any and all parties?

Protest, preach, pontificate, or ponder aloud...just according to general rules not targeted at your message or group affiliation. (Image from wku.edu)

Protest, preach, and pontificate, or ponder aloud…just according to general rules not targeted at your message or group affiliation. (Image from wku.edu)

Or, building on my original thought: craft a rule that is general and broad in scope; a time, manner, and place restriction that does not address either the content of one’s speech or the deliverer of that speech.   The current rule gets at place (on a JUTC bus) and time (never), hints at manner but is incomplete (preaching presumably vocally so what about sandwich signs or a sign language preacher?) but fails generality because it is directed at a specific group (preachers) sharing a specific message (a religious one).  Instead I think that it should be a rule limiting loud music or activity, speaking, or any other activity meant to disseminate any message in, from, or using public carriers — whether charter taxis, robot taxis, those cars with mounted PA systems, “executive ” or regular buses, or the Knutsford Express — unless (1) one has a license or specific permission to disseminate a specific message in, from, or using that vehicle (e.g., a government agency or NGO sharing a public health message about the dengue outbreak or HIV/AIDS testing/prevention/awareness, or a public service message reminding people to register to vote (but not about voting for particular candidates or parties)); or (2) the vehicle has been restricted to a private group (e.g., a staff bus) and business will not be solicited along a route or from the general public.  Private vehicles would fall outside the scope but would still be subject to other public nuisance rules, laws, or ordinances.  Perhaps this kind of rule would (re)kindle in Jamaican society things like civility and respect for public spaces and those using them.  A spark for truly embracing the ideals of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (see also here).

As it is now, the ban has created an atmosphere where a group has been singled out to the (apparent) delight of many; some are on the defensive and others are gleeful.  Schadenfreude? Constructive discussion be damned.   That’s another reason I hate this ban: it prevents real, constructive discussion.  There’s also the fatigue — something’s been done, so much is wrong so I’m just glad that something has been done — that breeds complacency regarding rights.  And then the cavalier attitude of many toward discrimination of all sorts — job announcements that specify age or gender, unwritten rules about the type of person who can use an establishment, laws about how people can have sex.  Discomfort.  

I take no issue with the growing discussion of the invasion of Christianity into official public life. For example, the brief commentary that I saw on Twitter during the Jamaica 50 presentation at the National Stadium about why there was only a Christian prayer (or any prayer at all) is entirely valid in my opinion.  It is a discussion that needs to happen.  Why?  Because, again: Jamaica is a democracy not a theocracy.  Also: the nation’s motto doesn’t and shouldn’t only apply to skin colour or ethnicity.

As I see it the slippery slope has been greased – maybe lightly but greased nonetheless – toward censorship and more formalized discrimination.  

Who’s next?

About these ads
Comments
8 Responses to “Of Preachers on Buses and Censorship”
  1. petchary says:

    Yes, you are right. Jamaica is NOT a theocracy. It is NOT (so far as I know) a “Christian nation.” I know many Jamaicans who are NOT Christians. I don’t think, though, that this has anything to do with censorship or discrimination. If a Rastafarian or a Hindu came on a bus preaching loudly and HARASSING passengers, as they often do, the same concerns would arise. It is not discriminating against one religion. Preachers have been “singled out” because they constitute a major problem. It is only fundamentalist Christian preachers who are behaving this way on buses. I believe the “constructive discussion” should center around respect for others’ space, others’ religions (many non-Christians might be offended by this, but have to sit on the bus and listen – and often PAY UP). There is nothing “arbitrary” about the JUTC’s ban. It would apply to other noise-making nuisances too, and rightly should. Passengers have a right to travel in peace and quiet, undisturbed by others. They do pay for the bus ride after all… My point is that preachers ARE the problem right now. (And, in my view, the Charter of Rights is inadequate and seriously flawed, but that’s for another discussion!) Anyway those are my thoughts for what they are worth…

    • Just to be clear: I didn’t say that the ban is against one religion because it is not. But it is against a particular class of people: preachers. Evangelical Christian preachers are apparently the main culprits but they’re not the only type of preacher targeted. So preachers of any persuasion are targeted, but only preachers. As presently constructed I do not see how the ban is applicable to any other group. So it is censorship because a particular class bearing a particular message has been targeted by the government. Discriminatory because a particular class has been singled out for attention and censorship because content of message is curtailed. You admit this too by saying that “preachers ARE the problem right now.” So what? What happens if/when women are the problem? Or those who are atheist? Or Chinese-Jamaicans? Or any other discrete group? That kind of singling out does not sit well with me. It’s not right. Who decides the problem and what to do about the group that either actually is or is perceived as causing or contributing to a problem? And by what measurement or other criteria is that group identified or the problem classified as such? When is the singling out and the remedies applied a problem?

      I call the ban arbitrary because, generally, I think, it is not reasonable to target a specific group (discriminate against or for) with action that prohibits or promotes their speech (censorship either way).

      I agree about what the constructive discussion should include. And I agree about the conditions under which paying customers should be able to use the bus.

      No comment about the Charter…yet. And your thoughts are worth much because I appreciate the discussion. Thank you for reading and commenting :)

  2. Legin says:

    Very cogent and coherent. Bug I to tally disagree with the underlying argument. There is no foreshadowing of free speech infringements to come. We have been so indoctrinated by Christianity since the days of slavery that any act to apply rationality to it causes and uproar. These people are annoying and I see this as a good thing. A lot of the things you suggest can come along progressively but you had to start somewhere. Why not start with the most visible aspect of the daily disturbance.

    • Thanks for reading and commenting.

      I don’t think that this ban is foreshadowing — that’s a little too ominous — as much as it’s a huge red flag that’s seemingly gone unnoticed. It makes me very wary because it was done but most of all because it’s been so readily accepted/approved.

      Why not start off on neutral, general footing regardless of what prompted that start?

    • Shar says:

      I really don’t think the idea that “you had to start somewhere” is a good reason…the ban does not need to single out a group to be effective…it should apply more broadly.

      More generally regarding the post, I didn’t know much of this topic till I read this blog post so thank you. It is about time something is done about public disruption….My recollection (from over a decade ago) of the public transport system is loud and uncomfortable. Just as people don’t want people preaching on the bus, I don’t want to hear anyone’s selection of music. Even though the preaching is the problem now, there is no need to frame the ban in a manner that only applies to preaching. To me, just more evidence of shortsightedness.

  3. Busboy says:

    Thoughtful, careful, well-informed. You made me think.

  4. bethpow06 says:

    I think your blog is very well thought out, and makes some extremely valid points. Glad you posted it, I have shared on my facebook page – will let you know what kind of response it gets!

  5. Enos Anderson says:

    When I want to hear a sermon I attend the church of my choice, when I take the bus I do not want to be preached to or preached at. There is a time and place for everything.

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 97 other followers

%d bloggers like this: