Constitutional Reform, How Should We Progress

This essay is published on Grenadians for Secular Humanism site. Please share your comments. Enjoy!  

Don't Bring Your Ideas Here

One of the most basic human emotions is fear. It is a survival instinct we are endowed with through evolution as a means to respond to dangerous circumstances. Thus, there is no denying that fear is a helpful emotion. With that said, however, the opposite is also true. Fear can also be dangerous. This danger, many believe, comes when the emotion of fear is not controlled. “As a universal human experience, anxiety [fear] is described as an apprehensive uneasiness of mind, or even dread, over an anticipated but unidentified or uncertain danger.” (Schumaker, 1992). Fear is manifested at all levels of human society and in the lives of individuals. It is especially visible, for example, when someone is confronted with new ideas and information that does not conforms with his or her accepted worldview.

The fear of information that challenges one's worldview is pretty high among us, Grenadians. Well, at least, among the Grenadians I have come into contact with. I am not directing this charge towards all Grenadians. Most certainly not. I have not spoken to all Grenadians. But, in a general sense, if we are truthful, one cannot dismiss the legitimacy of this assertion. Thus, I maintain it to be true; not only of Grenadians on the island, but of many of us living abroad. 

As an atheist, I am constantly confronted with this fear whenever I speak to friends and family. Ironically, these are individuals who, for example, despite being very openly vocal about their faith, will fume with anger when their worldview is being challenged. However, maybe it is just my perception. Again, maybe I am wrong in my assertion. But, in the many discussions I've held with Grenadians from diverse backgrounds, I have found my perception to be on solid ground. I discovered that Grenadians back home, for instance, are especially very hostile to the suggesting of new ideas, be they political or social, especially if these ideas and information are presented by Grenadians living abroad. “Don't come here with your ideas, you guys get from overseas,” I often hear, whenever I visit. They will make comments like, “We, Grenadians home, know what is best for us.” Of course, despite their position, Grenadians abroad want what is best for Grenada too. It is our country, regardless of where we live. Whatever affects the country, affects all of us, and since political and cultural change are a constant phenomena that happens both locally and internationally, the country needs a constant flow of new ways of thinking to effectively address these changes. Sadly, however, this basic truth is lost on many of us because of this fear. 

That's What the Bible Say

What is it with us that renders new ideas and information a threat? This is not an easy question to answer. It is complex. I believe, however, that there are clear periods of our history that speaks to why such fear exist. On an individual level, many Grenadians I come into contact with, push back on new ideas or information because it conflicts with the ideas and information they already cherish. The fear builds because the person does not want to learn that he or she may be wrong, and thus, may have to change his or her mind as a result. Of course, apart from being afraid to change one's mind, the cherished knowledge is usually so ingrained within the individual psyche that it becomes inseparable from the individual's identity. Thus, questioning the validity of the individual's worldview is to question the person's identity itself. To the individual, it is an attack on his or her person. Although not unique to the religious, this behavior is especially prevalent within the religious world. Religious people most often associate their dogma with their identity and, as a result, are most often close-minded and bias. 

Grenada is a young country, with a young education system. And after 40-years of independence, it continues to struggle to prepare Grenadians to deal with the inflow of new ideas and information. What do I mean by this? Grenada's educational system, has been slow in equipping Grenadians with the cognitive tools, such as critical thinking, for instance, needed to be able to make sense of these new ideas and information. Instead, however, the controllers have always sought to reinforce the religious (Christianity) foundation upon which our educational system has been founded. This is especially true after religion in education was interrupted during the revolutionary regime reign (1979 – 1983). According to the World Data on Education. 6th 2006/07, on Grenada, one of the objective of our education system is to give student "the ability to apply principles of sound spiritual health." What does this objective mean is vague and undefined. However, the document shows that half-hour per day is designated to religious education from grade one to grade six, at the primary education level. This is indeed keeping in line with the foundation of the system itself, which was mandated, from its inception by England, to impart religious instructions to students in both the primary and the secondary level of education. 

The fear of new information, although not exclusively, happens when dogma is allowed to control the workings of the mind. And religious dogma is of no exception. Religion always seeks to guard itself from scrutiny. Thus, through Grenada's education system, because of its strong urge to impart religious (Christianity) instructions on its pupils, coupled with the legion of priests and preachers we listen to every weekend, many of us, consciously or unconsciously, tend to guard our education from scrutiny. In other words, we develop an uneasiness, a fear and become anxious whenever confronted with new ideas and information that challenge us to think differently. 

Government as a Reason

The education system itself suffered severe setbacks throughout the country's history. The most notable time of such educational setbacks happened during the time of the Eric Matthew Gairy's regime [a topic discussed in my forthcoming coming book, Apostate! No More Bazodee: A Grenadian's Quest to Think Outside the Box]. Gairy, Grenada's first prime minister, in his preoccupation with unilateral control over the country, neglected the education system to ruin. The revolution period, under the leadership of Maurice Bishop, is another period that contributed to stocking this fear and uneasiness to new ideas and information. The regime vouching to eliminate illiteracy, which was about 40 – 50 percent as Bishop assumed control of the country, did not accomplish this goal. The regime fell apart within four years. 

The revolutionary period is significant in creating a “new sense” of fear and uneasiness of new ideas and information. I use the phrase “new sense” because the revolution was based on Grenadians accepting new ideas, and in large numbers, we certainly did. During the revolution there was a positive and well needed movement towards educational growth, and thus, a somewhat health openness towards new ideas and information. 

If this was the case, what happened that reversed this forward movement? The answer is in the failure of the revolution, but more so in the unnecessary taking of innocent lives during this period. This sad chapter, where innocent civilians, including school children, were gun down along with Prime Minister Maurice Bishop and others, I believe, can be attributed to why many Grenadians today eschew new ideas and information. 

The influx of new ideas itself have been charged as the reason why the revolution happened and thus, was accused of being responsible for why lives were lost. The people were mortified after the incident, and the counter-revolutionaries used this very public sentiment to create even more counter-revolutionary fervor among the population. The revolution, they assured the grief-stricken population, was informed by ideas foreign to the Grenadian people. Ideas influenced by the ideologies of the Black Power movement, socialism and communism, which was indeed true. Yet, there are many more nuances as to why the revolution failed, than just the regime's ideologies. 

Even more, after the fall of the revolution regime, the counter-revolutionaries sought, with the help of the United States, to reverse and rid the country of any knowledge connected to the revolution. As I argue in my forthcoming book, Apostate! No More Bazodee: A Grenadian's Quest to Think Outside the Box, the new regime has sought to return to the old guard. They created institutions like the New Life Organization (NEWLO) to “rehabilitate” young people educated by the revolutionary regime. They also turned to banning books from coming into the country, which, according to the new regime, taught “foreign” ideas. Yet, these banned books were and still are being used in the University of the West Indies. Regular Grenadians were being barred, once again, from accruing knowledge and new ideas. We were expected once again to guard ourselves from new ideas and information. Sadly, thirty years after the revolutionary regime and the United States invasion of the country, we continue to be afraid of new ideas and information. 

Overcoming the Fear

Here is the question: do we need to overcome this fear? The answer to this question is obvious. Yes, we do! The world, due to ongoing technological development, is a much smaller place than it once was. Because of social media like Facebook and Twitter, we are now crossing paths with people and culture that once had been hidden in hard to reach enclaves. In the economic sphere, Grenadians are now having to compete with people in the region and around the world. All of these truths require us to be open to new ideas and information. God certainly cannot help us. We cannot pray our way to prosperity. We have to be open to new ideas and information, both as individuals and as a country, if we want to keep up with a growing and changing world. Education is the virtue not blind faith! 

We should note that new ideas and information were intrinsic to influencing the thinking of two great Grenadians: William Galwey Donavon, the Grandfather of West Indian Federation, and Theophilus Albert Marryshow (1887 – 1958), the Father of West Indian Federation, and apprentice to Donavon. These two individuals  not only lay the foundation for the West Indian Federation, but were the ones who paved the way for Grenada's independence and the independence of other countries in the region. 

How then can we overcome this fear? The truth is that it will be a hard road ahead, but it is an essential and worthy goal. Of course, the first place one is most likely to look for fostering this change is to the educational system, and we should. We should hold our law makers responsible and demand that they adopt and implement the best new ideas to improve our educational system. We should ensure that there is a separation of church and state, and that our educational system focus on granting our children an education that promotes critical thinking and not focuses on religious instruction. 

Moreover, even if we cannot be totally free of bias and preconceptions, as individuals, we must be open to new ideas and information. As we develop sports clubs, we should also create organisations that focuses on educational development and promote debates and discussions of new ideas among our youths. Important also to achieving this goal, in the light of the outrage over the proposed Electronic Crime Bill, through which dissenters charged the government of trying to marginalized voices opposed to the regime, we should be vigilant citizens in ensuring that our constitutional and human rights of freedom of expression is protected. The free flow of new ideas and information is essential to the educational growth of both the individual and the country. Thus, we must bring our ideas here.       

Jab Jab: The True Essence

Grenada Jab Jab

Okay, I know. Carnival is still months away. Despite this truth, however, the carnival celebration context is not the only context in which the Jab Jab masquerade can be talked about. Jab Jab is much more than just masqueraders gyrating through streets during carnival celebrations. 

So, in what context am I speaking of Jab Jab? I am speaking of Jab Jab as consciousness in action. As an awareness, fueled by a passion, that can and should be channeled, not only as masqueraders on the streets of Brooklyn during Labour Day, or during the Trinidad and Grenada carnival celebration, but to inform us in the fight for positive world change. Think about it! Thinking of Jab Jab in this context, however, requires us to, not only rethink our modern view of the Jab Jab masquerade, it requires us to remind ourselves of the true historical reality of the Jab Jab.

What is the historical reality of the Jab Jab? The word Jab, in English, simple means to strike with quick short blows. This is indeed an aspect of the Jab Jab masquerader. Armed with ropes and chains, [and snakes today, to frighten spectators] one has to pay compensation to the Jab Jab or else be jabbed with ropes and chains. Of course, this jabbing is a pretentious action, but it has a significant historical connection to the story of black human beings and their person-hood and humanity.

As a word connected to the carnival celebration, the word jab has its roots in the French word “Diable,” meaning “devil.” Thus, in the Grenadian context, Jab Jab, as it is used, means “devil, devil” or “double-devil.” Certainly, the masqueraders are not the devils themselves. They are instead acting out the actions done by a people they believe to be devils. In this context, the Jab Jab masquerade can be interpret as one group of people abusing another and forcing them into providing or performing some type of act [giving money to the Jab Jab in the carnival celebration context] against their will.

The question then is this: Who is the devil or devils, as demonstrated by the Jab Jab masqueraders? The answer can be found in the Jab Jab historical connection to the fight against slavery and the freedom that follows. There are different stories of how the Jab Jab masquerade in carnival came about. First, however, we have to remember that before the emancipation of slavery, the slaves were not allowed to partake in carnival celebration. After emancipation, however, the formally enslaved Africans were able to take part in the masquerade and began using, what is called, Cannes Brulees or “burnt cane” to paint themselves black and greasy as a commemoration of their freedom.

L.M Fraser, in History of Carnival, gives this story as the origin of Jab Jab. Fraser writes that:

“In the days of slavery whenever fire broke out upon an Estate, the slaves on the surrounding properties were immediately mustered and marched to the spot, horns and shells were blown to collect them and the gangs were followed by the drivers cracking their whips and curging with cires and blows to their work. After emancipation, the negroes began to represent this scene as a kind of commemoration of the change in their condition, and the procession of the “cannes brulees” used to take place on the night of the 1st of August , the date of their emancipation… After a time the day was changed and for many years past the Carnival days have been inagurated by the “Cannes Brulees”. [Traditional Mass Archive]

In Haiti there is the Lanse Kod, who are masquerading people that paint themselves as black and greasy as possible, to resemble the African slaves, and carries ropes and chain, as a representation of the brutality of slavery and the Haitian freedom in 1804. This very context is the essence of the Trinidadian Jab Molassie, [Molassie come from the French patois Mélasse, meaning Molasses] and the Grenadian Jab Jab.

Haiti Lanse Kod

Trinidad Jab Molassie

Yes, indeed. Jab Jab is an artistic metaphoric expression of freedom. That is the Jab Jab essence. Thus, as we celebrate the 20th celebration the Rwandan genocide, in the light of the Jewish Holocaust, the Albanian genocide, the ongoing actions of Muslim killing Christians and Christians killing Muslims, and other grave harms that we human beings have brought and continuing to bring upon each other, we must think of the Jab Jab in the context of a consciousness in action. In the context of an awareness that is informing our action towards promoting world peace, freedom and human rights for all. That is true Jab Jab.

Sure the Jab Jab dramatization is the mockery of the evils visited upon our black Africans ancestors by the white colonialists. Thus, these colonialists were the devils. However, we cannot let the Jab Jab spirit begins and end there. There are many evils in today’s world and their perpetrators transcend “race” and color. Therefore, as a people who are the Jab Jab essence; a people who embrace the consciousness of the Jab Jab, we should not let that awareness remain in the historical past. Let it be active. Use it and promote it as the awareness in the continuing fight for freedom and human rights for the many, many people around the world.

The high intense energy that the Jab Jab family demonstrates during the carnival seasons should also be channeled into fighting against those who act on the urge to demonize and marginalized minorities at home and abroad. The Jab Jab awareness should not be limited to just a celebration. It should be a consciousness that is used to foster the rights for freedom of speech, self-expression, and others' human rights. It should be used as an awareness to promote and protect gay rights, lesbian rights, nonbelievers rights, believers rights, women rights, etc. Our Jab Jab calypso and soca songs should echo a call for those rights to be upheld and protected. To me, this is the true expression of the Jab Jab essence.

So my Grenadian people, my Caribbean people, next carnival, as we blacken our skin and conjure up the African awareness of the Jab Jab, remember its true representation, and let us together, in the words of Jab Jab singer Tallpree, “play a wicked Jab” for the protection and promotion of human rights for all human beings, rights for animals, and for all of nature.

Jab Jab!

Here is a Jab Jab song. Enjoy!

Where is the Outrage?

The hysteria that has engulfed my nation over the dehumanizing photos of a 16-year-old girl posted on Facebook, I posit, was deserved. However, there is a real problem associated with the photos that has not received the outrage it should have. I am speaking of the sexual abuse of our women and girls.  

The reactions to the photos showing up on Facebook called upon the government to intercede and do something about the photos being on Facebook, which they heeded. Immediately the government announced a Bill called the “Electronic Crime Bill,” which seeks to hold people criminally liable for posting “offensive” material online – Electronic Crime Bill section 6.

The Bill itself triggered a backlash on the government. According to many Grenadians, the Bill appears to be too vague and far-reaching. Many argued that it seems to attack our constitutional right of freedom of speech; an attempt, by the government, to silence dissent, and quiet media and journalists from critiquing the administration.

Indeed, the initial outrage over the photos on Facebook and the subsequent push back on the government’s attempt to use the outrage to push through this ambiguous Bill is certainly warranted.

There is, however, the criminal act of sexual abuse of minors that this child fall victim to, and needs to receive the same, and/or even more outrage, and it has not. For that, I am outraged!

A headline posted on January 24, 2013, in The New Today reads “Bus Drivers Charged with Rape.” The story went on to point out that “Statistics provided to this newspaper by the Criminal Records Office of the RGPF show that from January to October 2012 there were 24 cases of rape, 78 cases of incest, defilement of a female 43, and indecent assault 77.” It went on to state that “From among the 25 sexual offenses that were on the case list for October 2012 Criminal Assizes, there were 12 cases of rape.”

I site these statistics to demonstrate what our country is dealing with. Crimes against women, some argues, are on the rise. It is known that Grenada has an epidemic of adult males sexually violating young school girls, (boys too); committed mostly by bus drivers (of course not excluding male school teachers and fathers). 

There is a story in Caribbean News Now, posted June 19, 2013, that speaks of a ten-year-old girl child sexually abused by her father, who, according to the story, was left in the custody of the father by the Chief Magistrate, after hearing the facts of the case. Yes, you heard right. The Chief Magistrate left the child in the hand of the sexual deviant! Is this the justice we have in store for our minors?

As I have mentioned in a previous post on the Facebook photos issue, I engaged some Grenadians, home and abroad, in an attempt to get different prospective on the issue. Quite interestingly, no one brought up the issue of sexual predators preying on minors. I had to ask the question, and I was taken aback by many of the comments I received. Like the Chief Magistrate, it seems to me that no one (both male and female) was really concerned about the minor, as much as they shown about the photos being on Facebook for the world to see. In my understanding, the public image of Grenada was their main concern; thus, the outrage.

Because of the deafening silence concerning the abuse of the minor, one can only conclude that if the photos were not posted on Facebook, then there would not have been any outrage. Which brings me back to a Grenadian event I attended where a government official literally asked Grenadians, who critique what they view as wrongs going on in the country online, not to expose our dirty laundry to the world. His words were that you are putting a bad face on Grenada.     

This position of course does not speak for all Grenadians, and I hope not for the majority. But it does speak to a much bigger problem in Grenada; the ongoing concern whereby Grenadians remain silence about sexual abuse of minors – and woman in general. Here we have a minor who has been sexual violated by an adult man, who then thinks it was cool to take and post sexual explicit photo of her on Facebook, and people is only upset about them being posted on Facebook.  No discussion about the elephant in the room, the sexual abuse of our woman and girls (boys and men included).

As reported in the New Grenada on May 1, 2013, “The Caribbean in general is grappling with an extremely high prevalence of child abuse in our island. In Grenada, news media has reported that the problem is grievous, and increasing.”

Yes, abuse of minors is increasing in Grenada. As a result, our job is to aggressively push our government to crackdown on these child predators, and women abusers. The outrage over these sexual explicit photos on Facebook is deserved, and so to is the push back on the government over the Electronic Crime Bill. However, this incident should have also ignited a national outrage over the issue of abuse of minors and women. Their concerns should have been part of the ongoing discourse; if not the priority issue.

I conclude with this. Apart from calling for the sexual violation of minors and women to be included in our outrage, I am also demanding that my government respond rationally and appropriately. Instead of using the public outrage to push through a Bill that seeks to silence its critics, focus on the real issues. Protect our minors, and women from these sexual deviants. The sexual explicit photos of the minor posted on Facebook were indeed a criminal act, but they are, in addition, more so a road sign to the large criminal acts going on in the country. “Grenada is being labeled dangerous for women and girls. This is evidenced by one third of all criminal High Court trials, being for sexual offenses,” – Now Grenada. 

WATCH: Air Me Now: Violence Against Women - Taking Back Our Voices 

Does Grenada Need This Electronic Crime Bill?

The Electronic Crime Bill has triggered a fire storm of discussion among Grenadians. What is most noticeable from these discussions is how emotionally disturbed Grenadians are about the Facebook incident that formed the pretext for the Bill. “Did you see the pictures on Facebook,” I was asked by one woman. “Keith Mitchell is right,” she continued with sincere conviction. To them, PM Dr. Kith Mitchell is the ‘knight in moral shining armor’ riding to Grenada’s rescue.

These Grenadians are angered that something so atrocious has happened to a fellow Grenadian. To them Grenada moral fabric has been shaken. As a result, Grenada exploded into a barrage of knee jerk reactions, and “a public outrage on talk shows with callers demanding that the law enforcement take appropriate action” – (Now Grenada). Thus, in my conversations, almost all with whom I spoke, agreed with the passing of this Electronics Crime Bill, without displaying a tread of forethought.

So, is Prime Minister Dr. Kith Mitchell trying to employ a bit of what author Naomi Klein called “The Shock Doctrine,”of his own? In that, did Dr. Mitchell’s administration view the shocking situation on Facebook as a pretext to pass this vague intrusive Electronic Crime Bill, for political purpose? The answer we may never know

Using situations that place citizens in a state of shock to implement intrusive laws and policies that would otherwise not be considered have been a long, standing tactic of many governments. Klein argues that political leaders exploit crises, pushing through controversial, exploitive policies while the citizens are busy emotionally, and physically dealing with horrible situations.

Despite all this emotional outrage, however, we have to stop and think, and as we do that, here are some questions we must ponder. Do we need such a Bill? Are there mechanisms already in place that give our government the capable of handling criminal acts perpetuated online and offline? The answer seems to be yes. To all accounts, the person responsible for, not just posting such despicable photo on Facebook, but also sexually violating a minor has already been apprehended and charged. If not, this should be the government's priority. Ensuring that this criminal is of the streets. Not trying to censor free speech.

According to Randall Robinson, who was a candidate for the National Democratic Congress in last election, “We already have a remedy in the Civil Courts that adequately compensates offended parties where they sue and win.” In addition, Facebook and other online social networks have mechanism in place where individual users can flag unwanted immoral posts and photos – Facebook Community Standards. Thus, as reported, “the matter was reported to Facebook as abuse and it was eventually removed,” (Now Grenada).

According to Grenada’s minister for legal affairs, Elvin Nimrod, the law was necessary “to protect society, especially those who are vulnerable to modern technology.” This is certainly a noble thought, indeed. We do this by holding people accountable, which we already can and have done; so why do we need this intrusive law?

As regular citizen of Grenada, we are in the right place to show anger to such horrendous behavior displayed by this individual who violated the young, teenaged lady’s humanity. However, we have to pay more attention. “The law appears intended to address defamation not only via social media, but also via user-generated content on news websites, usually in “comment sections,” (Grenada Connection). Our right to freedom of expression is at stake from this Bill.

Despite, the public knee jerk reaction that lead them to be in agreement with this far reaching Bill, many Grenadians, most in the intellectual community, home and abroad, pushed back, exposing the shortcomings and potential implications of the Bill, leading Prime Minister Dr. Kith Mitchell to “asked his legislative team to review all sections of the bill to ensure that it remains consistent with his commitment of not just protecting open debate and dialogue, but to reflect the new commitment to broaden patterns of democracy that will be reflective in other upcoming legislation,” (Grenada Connection). He said that his government is “committed to looking at the segment to ensure that in no way free internet comment is either inhibited or by any slightest measure, threatened," - (Nation News)

According to Prime Minister Dr. Mitchell, “we are confident that at the end of the process we will have legislation that will deal with issue of cyber crime, identify theft, child pornography and electronic stalking without infringing, or undermining public debate or any matters attendant to an open, free and democratic society.” (Now Grenada).

To some, however, this is a joke. Not only should this Bill be squash, but as stated by one Grenadian blogger “given the very well-known fact that literally NO ONE in the government or judiciary of Grenada – irrespective of party affiliation – knows anything about computers, the internet, electronic communications or social media, I am at a loss as to how they are going to establish such legislation.” (Pam Northman's blog)

Free Speech Under Attack in Grenada

When one thinks of natural rights, for many, the freedom of expression stands at the top of the list. In fact, a society cannot be free if the freedom of speech isn’t protected. According to our constitution, Chapter 1 section 1b, Grenadians have the right to “freedom of conscience, of expression and of assembly and association."

However, this freedom of speech which is guaranteed and protected under the constitution seems to again be under attack. As per the new political administration, Grenadians can be charged EC $100,000 or face three years in prison for what the administration termed “offensive” speech, posted or transferred online, as part of an Electronic Crime Bill. 

Of course, with the advent of the internet our social interactions are now transferred from the real world to an online world. Thus, law makers have to rethink law making. In that, the internet has to now be taken into consideration. But how can this be done while ensuring user protection? How can our free speech not be infringed? This new Grenadian law that seeks to make it a criminal offense to insult someone online provides no guaranties.  

According to the Now Grenada online news network, the legislation says that you can be charged for electronically transferred “information that is grossly offensive or has a menacing character.”

The troubling thing with this legislation is its vagueness and broadness. Who determines what “offensive” means? It is left undefined, leaving it open to interpretation. “According to the new law, complaints about offensive comments would be filed with the police, and a judge would then decide if the message was offensive” (Grenada Connection). This means that any “Electronic Mail or an electronic message,” can indeed be viewed as being “offensive" and is being transferred “for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience.” There is no guard lines. It is all up to the person making the charge and the "judge" hearing the case.    

Grenada has had a history with political leaders’ infringement on the freedom of expression before. I am speaking of the Eric Mathew Gary regime (1967 - 1979) and the Maurice Bishop and his revolution regime (1979 - 1983). With this backdrop, many Grenadians fear that this move seems to be going down the same road. In that, Prime Minister Keith Mitchell passed this law as a way to curtail his opposition; to restrain the media, journalists and others from speaking out against him and his regime. In fact, Keith Mitchell is no stranger to such tactics. He, in his previous tenure as Prime Minister of Grenada for thirteen years (1995 - 2008)  sought to suppress the media. He, on many occasions, brought criminal charges against media people and journalists with “intentional criminal libel” for reporting stories that exposed his wrongdoings. He even threatened Tillman Thomas, the then opposition leader, with prosecution for criminal libel - (Grenada Connection).  

“In June 2004, the US-Based Committee to protect Journalists (CPJ) wrote a strongly-worded letter to then Prime Minister Mitchell, calling on him to “desist from any efforts to curtail the work of the press.” (Grenada Connection)

Indeed, Grenada has a criminal code “which established the offense of intentional criminal libel,” as per Criminal code Section 252. There is, however, a growing call for the elimination of this law. Tillman Thomas, as Prime Minister (2008 - 2013), had made the “move to eliminate criminal penalties for defamation under Section 252 of the Criminal Code, and was praised by the International Press Institute (IPI) for his courage.

We, however, in light of Prime Minister Keith Mitchell's apparent  move to curtail the freedom of expression, have to take action. We most not sit back and crack jocks about this. It's not funny! As concerned citizens who want the best for the country, we must stand up for free speech. We must protect our constitutional rights, and push back on this encroachment. We must stand and protest not just this Electronic Law, but also the “Criminal Libel” code. These codes most often than not provide legal cover for political regimes to muzzle any opposition, and Journalists from reporting their wrongdoings.  

Nothing Atheist About “Real” Black Atheists

Nothing is wrong with the need to understand about one’s distance past; one’s history. The eagerness to learn about our African past is real and alive in Grenada. Africa’s great past and contributions to civilization are discussed among many young people looking for a new narrative that speaks to their nature. Their Africanness! No educational institution, I know of, on the island, imparts such education. Thus, organizations like Rastafari become an appetizing resource.  Not only that, many of these young people seek to sever themselves from the Euro-centric religions that continue to define their cultural and religious experiences. Consequently, many of these young Grenadians often find themselves part of black organizations framed within an Afro-centered cultural and theistic worldviews, but are organizations as divisive and as irrational as the ones they seek to leave. Take this black organization that caught the attention of a Grenadian friend of mine.

Amazing indeed! There is now a little known “Atheist” organization (group), located in the US state of Atlanta, Georgia, calling themselves the “Real” Black Atheists. I learned of this when speaking to a friend of mine a couple of days ago. My friend was interesting in my atheism. He also described himself as being an Atheist. However, he explained, there are differences between us. You are a Black Atheist, but, I am a “Real” Black Atheist. I was at a loss for words! Black Atheists I get, but what is a “Real” Black Atheist?

My friend went on to enlighten my ignorance. According to him, he would break down the “science” behind the name. The origin of atheism is from the Greeks/Romans, he explained. His contention was the early Greeks philosophers had gone into Africa (Egypt – Khemit) to study, and upon their return to Greece, set up schools where they taught the African Knowledge they had acquired. These African teachings, he explained, did not recognize the Greek gods. He identified Greek philosopher Thales as one such person who journeyed into Egypt and upon his return to Greece refused to reorganize the Greek gods as the center of his knowledge.  Thus, he concluded, Thales went “against the god(s).” Who’s God(s)?  The Greek God(s); thus, he became an “A” (without/not) theos (God). One who rejects the Greek/Roman’s God(s)?

I had to acknowledge my friend was right to some extent. The issue here, of course, is not whether some Greeks or Romans philosophers went into Africa (Egypt) to be educated. The issue is Atheism. And, viewing Atheism through its narrow historical context means it does originate from the Greeks/Romans cultural experience. I doubt, however, being skeptical about the existence of a God was purely a Greek/Roman phenomenon.

Theism was a fundamental aspect that supported the Greek and Roman state. They believe the gods gave the state its divine right. Thus, its citizen was obligated to believe in these gods, and anyone who did not, was designated an “Atheist,” and an enemy of the state.  In fact, the Christians, prior to being designated the state religion by the Roman Emperor Constantine, were named an atheist group because they too did not accept the pagan gods the Roman State reorganized. (Murdock, 2009)

This is the framework that informs my friend’s (and other “Real” Black Atheists) understanding of Atheism. Thus, Atheism to them is limited only to the rejection of the Greek /Roman God(s). Indeed, a faulty and parochial view of Atheism. My friend is not only looking at the word atheist through a narrow historical context, he is also applying atheism within a much closed historical framework. No doubt a willfully chosen position; done for a purpose, and an irrational one at that. Limiting Atheism to such a narrowed historical context is an attempt to exempt the African gods and religions. Black people should certainly reject the white man’s God(s) and religions, but, must accept the African religions and gods as objective truth. This, my friend maintained, underlines the difference between a Black Atheist and a “Real” Black Atheist.

Atheism, however, is more far-reaching than the “Real” Black Atheists’ supposed understanding. In effect, their unique understanding of Atheism means they have missed the real issue. Atheism, as employed, covers all religions and all God(s). Atheism is not simply rejecting a particular God concept, from a particular race or culture, but all concepts. All deities!

Indeed, what I have outlined thus far points to one conclusion, “Real” Black Atheists are not Atheists. In that they do not have, as the word Atheism outline, a “disbelief in the existence of God or any other deities.” They are instead, “Atheists” in the same context Christians are “Atheists” to the Hindu gods, or African God(s). Muslims are “Atheists” to the Christian God or African gods, etc. “Real” Black Atheists are against (or without a belief in) all God(s) except the African Gods.

Not Like the Greek/Roman God(s)

According to my friend, understanding that the African’s God concept(s) is different than the Greek/Roman concept is important to understanding oneself as a “Real” Black Atheist. African gods, he explained, were human beings who ruled as kings and elders. In other words, what he is saying is these "divine" rulers are religio-political leaders who were seen and accepted by their subjects as incarnated gods. To the lay Africans man, women and children these god rulers were mediators and agents to the inaccessible sacred, and after they expired, elevated from human gods to ancestor gods. Incredible!

Every religion makes different truth claims. However, to say this means the African god concepts and religions are not constructed upon unreasonable claims is a deliberate negation of objective facts. As the Greeks and Romans, the African religions have a high God concept, for instance; a being, who sits on high, responsible for the creation of the universe and all within it. Unlike the Greeks and Romans, however, this high God, to the Africans, is normally seen as removed from the regular life of the people. Thus, in the Yoruba religious myth, for example, the pantheon of Orishas is the ones assigned to carry out the work for the high God, Olodumare. Here, the pantheon of Orishas are not unlike the Judaic pantheon of Mal’ak (messengers of Yahweh), the Muslim pantheon of mala’ikak (messengers of Allah), nor the Christian Angels (messengers of God), etc. Another common aspect to these religions are the adherents appealing to these gods or dead relatives to literally affect the condition of the living. The point then becomes not if the African God(s) concepts are different from that of the Greek/Romans God(s) concepts, but whether these concepts are actually objectively true.They are not.

Even if these God(s), in the African concept, were first humans, and were later elevated to ancestors, does not mean we have to accept them in a dogmatic religious sense. Certainly, being a Black Atheist does not mean that one does not appreciate his or her culture and ancestors.  I just don’t accept them as gods. Praying or presenting offerings to these dead relatives in an effort to affect our lives, in a positive way or otherwise, in the real word is as absurd as pleading to Jesus, Yahweh, Allah, and Zeus to the same ends. The Nigerian philosopher Adebowale Ojowuro writes he “used the Christian religion as a pilot to indicate the numerous absurdities that altogether consist in the entire religions of the world. The stacks of these outrageous absurdities are similarly of equal magnitude in every religion, without any exception,” (Ojowuro, 2010). To this truth, however, my friend, and the rest of the “Real” Black Atheists crew, made themselves deliberately blind and deaf.

I agree, we (black people) must “reclaim our history and our identity…,” (Ture & Hamilton, 1992). However, pseudo-science, pseudo-history and superstitions should not be the culture and identity we reclaim. Contrary to what some Afro-centric writers believe, rationality, objectivity and critical thinking should be the cognitive pillars defining us and our culture, and rejecting not only the Greek and Roman God(s) and dogmatic theology, but also the Africans’ God(s) and dogmatic theology are important in eradicating the pseudo-science, superstitions and the many irrational beliefs that for far too long define us.

My friend went on to define the word God, in the African context, as meaning “ownership.” But who are the African gods/ancestors in ownership of? It is the African people. In the words of Afro-centrism, African culture is collective. In other words, one cannot maintain his or her individuality while being a member of her group; her identity must be wrapped up in group identity. Yet my friend went on to explain he is against all non-African god concepts because they are a political concepts designed to keep black people under control. Really! Didn't you just describe the African gods/ancestors once human political leaders, who, as he defined the word God, in ‘ownership’ of the citizen? Cognitive dissidence, indeed!

Everyone being forced or willingly relinquishing his or her body and mind to be molded by those in power. I am not saying community is a bad thing. Humans are social beings and need community, but a community that requires, or expects and/or indoctrinates (educates) its citizens to be conformists to group identity dangerously borders on authoritarianism – thinking of North Korea here (Religious descriptions paint Heaven in similar manner). In fact, in the African context, these authoritarians are placed as the intermediary between the community and the gods/ancestors, who one must go through to be considered.  Sounds like Catholicism to me! Saying no to accepting these authoritarian human beings as gods and negotiator on your behalf to the sacred is not rejecting your ancestors or your culture. It is a rejection of irrationality.

        

Stuck in the Past

“Real” Black Atheists seems to be frozen in time; bound to ideas which haven’t evolved to deal with the new problems facing the black population today. My friend described “Real” Black Atheism as analogous to Black Power. Indeed, my friend’s belief seems to be grounded in the Black Power, Black Nationalist movement worldview. Despite it might seem quaint to ask what is Black Power, many today who chant the slogan has very little understanding of the ideology and of its historical context. No doubt, Black Power is not unknown to Grenada and Grenadians, for the revolutionary leaders (1979 – 1983) were informed by such ideology.

Theodore G. Vincent writes “there are many shades of black power.” He, however, listed these three.

• In the middle of the black power continuum are those who believe that the injustices of discrimination and forced segregation can be successfully challenged if blacks join with disadvantaged whites and reform the system through interracial cooperation.
• At one extreme are those who believe that since racism is endemic to America the black must accommodate himself to the segregated world that has been forced upon him, avoid any challenge to white authority, and build power within the segregated world through a combination of capitalist economics and white philanthropy. 
• At the other extreme are those who believe the system is simple unworkable, so far as the rights of black people are concerned. People who hold this latter view refuse to accept force segregation, but they do seek the right to build a society of their own. Independent black power, on a par with white power, is their goal.  (Vincent, 1970)

Listening to my friend and watching YouTube videos (Real Black Atheists vs. Black Atheist) posted by the “Real” Black Atheists adherents, they, I believe, fall within the context of the third extreme. They appear not to be the Kwame Ture type Black Power movement, where black people are called to work with other marginalized groups and people to achieve social, economic and political justice. They appear to be an organization promoting separation. In fact, they separate themselves from Black Atheists and brand Black Atheists race traitors. “Real” Black Atheists endorse a philosophy of race superiority, and as such, they are akin to Afro-centrism, although they seem to have a problem with the word “Afro” in Afro-centrism.

Of course there is no such thing as ‘Black Atheism’ or ‘White Atheism.’  Simple Atheism! And one can choose to be without all God(s) regardless of the culture, or choose to be without/against only the God(s) outside one’s culture. The differences that can be found between Black Atheists and White Atheists more or less lies in the type of social justice struggles. Each ethnic group has problems that are unique to its people. Black people are still fighting racial discrimination; institutionalized racism, which shows up as socio-economic disparities, educational disparities, police brutality, stop and frisk and the many other faces in which white racism manifests, and these societal ills we must fight.

As I end this polemic, I must agree, my friend is correct. In that, “Real” Black Atheists is different from Black Atheists. They are certainly unalike. Black Atheists promotes and supports moral justice for all of humanity, within a secular humanist framework. Black Atheists are concerned with building a better society for all of humanity. In fact, as a Black Atheist, my world view is informed by this fact, “humanity is one,” (The Human Prospect – V2; p.5).

“Real” Black Atheists, on the other hand, have a theistic philosophy which seeks to separate the world into US vs. Them, just like many religions. Moreover, after listening to my friend and the many “Real” Black Atheists on those YouTube videos, it seemed clear that “Real” Black Atheists are not only stuck in the past, they support bigotry, intolerance, hatred, sexism, homophobia, pseudo-science, irrationality, xenophobia, etc. Interestingly, “Real” Black Atheism is not unlike the very Euro-centric (European) theistic philosophy it claims to eschew.

Note: In the words of the great ancestor Frederick Douglass “I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong.”

Black History Month: The Lesson We have Missed

We are now in the middle of celebrating another Black History Month, and again the failures and achievements of the black struggle are discussed and debated in almost all arenas. These debates are waged between people some describe as Traditionalists, Fence-Sitters and Dissenters. However, despite these debates and the category one may be placed in, have we neglected an important lesson that for years has been staring us in the face? I believe we have.

 One aspect of the black experience that is certain to capture the center of these discussions is the black religion, or more correctly, the black church. One is certain to hear the statement, “Religion has always been a part of Black life in both Africa and the U.S” (Karenga, 1993), made constantly. This statement is something of a mantra used by many people of color as they defend the continuing need for religion as a viable institution in the Black community. Indeed, as one looks back through antiquity, the many uncertainties that plagued our ancestors explained why God and what became known as religion may have been needed. Thus, in this context, God and religion seem, as supported by a huge body of evidence, to have been created by early humans in an attempt to calm their fears.

The statement that religion has always been a part of the black experience both personally and collectively is indeed a true one. Not only to black life in Africa and the United States, but also to black life in Central and South America and the Caribbean.

In this essay, however, I am not interested in religion as a personal influence. I believe that every individual has his or her right to worship whomever or whatever he or she wants, and for their rights I will certainly defend. My concern here lies in religion as an institution, around which people collectively form their identity. This I believe is harmful to the collective harmony of a society, since a society may not be homogenous in all respects.

Nowhere else has a people’s identity been more tied to religion than in the black world?  In the United States, for example, “92% of African Americans identified themselves as Christians” – (Hutchinson, 2011). Of course, there are the Afro-centrists who identify with the many Traditional African Religions, the black Islamists, i.e. the Nation of Islam, the Moorish Science Temple, etc. This level of religious adherents is also true for the Caribbean region. Grenada’s population is identified as being 98% Christian, for example.  In the black world, theism can be found in all forms, and not accepting one sadly places an individual in the absurd category of race traitor.

Moreover, apart from arguing that religion has always been a part of the black experience, another reason given for its continuing need is its claimed use as a tool against oppression. From the African continent to the Americas our ancestors engaged in struggles against the European colonizers, and in their struggles, religion certainly played a role. In Haiti, for instance, the Vodoun religion played a significant part in the Haitians’ struggle for freedom. The Black Church in the United States also played a significant role in the struggles of African Americans against white discrimination. Here, however, is what I think is worthy to note, neither religion itself nor its God/gods or deities were responsible for the success in these human struggles. Instead, these religions simple provided a safe space and community from which revolutionaries were protected as they carryout their work. The fact is, “It was the human being who did the work,” (Lewis, 2012). 

With this understanding, I believe that throughout the continuing struggle for black liberation, self-identity, sociopolitical and socioeconomic equality, we, the black population, has missed a noteworthy lesson. This lesson, despite being virtually ignored, has been significant to the success of the black struggle.

To elucidate what I am talking about here, I am pointing to the Marcus Garvey Universal Negro Improvement Association (UNIA), as a case in point. The UNIA I believe presents us with an obvious, and maybe the best, picture of my argument. No, I am not asking that we create today a UNIA type organization. There is I believe no real benefit to racially homogeneous type organization in a multicultural world. We are living in a global village, where we are interconnected in diverse ways. However, I am arguing that there is an intrinsic feature to the movement that allowed it to achieve the successes it did; the largest mass movement in African history. Indeed, “the Universal Negro Improvement Association was the greatest and strongest movement ever started among Negroes” (UCLA African Studies Center).

Even though Marcus Garvey was, to all accounts, a religious (Christian) man, and placed his liberation philosophy within a god-based theistic framework, adopting the motto "One God! One Aim! One Destiny!” the movement itself embodied a feature of secularism. In that I mean, Marcus Garvey, unlike the leaders of the many black movements that followed, did not promote his movement as a religion. Marcus Garvey is recorded as saying that he had “no time to teach religion” (UCLA African Studies Center). In fact, the defeat of the UNIA’s Muslims members in 1922 and its Christians members in 1924 from trying to make Islam and Christianity the official religions of the movement speaks to the intent of building a movement that embodied a secular characteristic. Despite Garvey’s assertion that black people should view God as being black, the UNIA members did not have to drop their religion to become a member. As Garvey said, “our God has no color, yet it is human to see everything through one’s own spectacles,” (Garvey, 1986).

There is no doubt that the massive growth and success of the UNIA, despite how short lived it may have been, was a result of its secular nature. If one surveys the black experience after the UNIA, we will notice that all the liberation movements that followed, failed to eclipse the UNIA although possessing almost the very same philosophy and goals; for example, Elijah Muhammad and the Nation of Islam (NOI), Noble Drew Ali and the Moorish Science Temple of America, Dr. Malachi Z York El and the Nuwaubian nation, and even the Black Churches that feature Liberation Theology as their manifesto. The problem here is certainly religion/theism as an identity for the community.

As I have mention before, we are a diverse group of people. This truth cannot be denied. Thus, designing a community/society with a specific religious ideology as its identity, be it Euro-centric or Afro-centric is unhealthy for us and the world in general. Indeed, many of us are believers, but some of us are not. Some of us are heterosexuals; some of us are not, and list of diversities goes on. We are certainly “at the crossroads of freedom and equality.” As a result, I ask that as we reminisce on our pass struggles, achievements, and debate on how we should move forward, remember that an unprejudiced society that embraces and accommodates all human beings, regardless of sexual orientation, religious belief, non-belief, color, sex, etc, is most certainly the best recipe for success, and only a secular humanist society can, I believe, accommodate such a vision. This, I believe, is the lesson we have missed.

Happy Black History Month!   

Questions Are Not Welcome

I was in a conversation with some of my friends last week, and I was told to remember that the “devil was very knowledgeable.” I was taken aback by this statement as I had no idea what the devil having knowledge had to do with the conversation at hand. As a skeptical person, however, I was curious. How did they know this statement to be true? But understanding that my friends are believers, and were only reiterating their religious beliefs as opposed to stating objective truth, I was more so interested in understanding why did they make this statement, in the first place. Interestingly, and with some level of expectation, my inquiry into the meaning of the statement was not met. As a result, I decided to present an explanation, on this forum, as to what I understand this statement to mean, and why I believe my friends opt for its use.

This proclamation, as I have experienced, seems to be no stranger to the Grenadian thought process. It is an assertion that will most likely raise its ugly head during most discussions on religion and faith. It is normally thrown around with no explanation, which seems to be a tactic used for psychological effect. Of course, the assumption is that the participants, in the conversation, are or were believers and understand the meaning and context.

But, is there a specific time in a discussion one can expect this declaration to surface? The answer is yes. In my experiences, it will suddenly come up when one begins asking probing questions into the religious beliefs of the believers. That's the time when the believers find it difficult to demonstrate their claims to be true, and for this reason, I conclude that the proclamation is designed to do these things:

1. To guilt the person asking the questions into thinking that he or she is somehow morphing into an agent of the devil.
2. It is used in hope to ignite fear into the person asking the probing questions to stop questioning.

The first point is very important because through it the second point can be achieved.. Of course, the assumption here is not that the person is literally becoming the devil. Instead, the belief is that the person, by questioning the belief, he or she is displaying, characteristics normative to the devil’s. This is a concept that appears to have been derived from the Abrahamic religions – Judaism, Christianity & Islam – mythic stories. Not unlike where the reasoning behind the concept of “original sin” came from. Eve convinced by a talking snake to eat an apple.

According to the myth, the devil, known as Haylal (The Cresent/Lucifer) bar Shakhar (Dawn/Morning) – Lucifer Son of the Dawn/Morning – aka Sammay’el (Samuel), was one of the many heavenly angels. He had possessed great levels of knowledge, and because of his vast intellect, he rose to number three in his order, behind Angel Miyka’el (Michael) and Angel Gabriy’el (Gabriel). As a result of acquiring such great knowledge, his ego also bloomed. He became arrogant and wanted to rule the spiritual (Heaven) and earthly realms, and even going as far as to question the authenticity of God (El) himself. According to the myth, Samuel made claims that the existence of a supreme ruler of heaven and earth was a fabrication made up by the top angels to keep their control. With that, he was evicted from heaven, but not before corrupting 200 other angels, who were also cast out with him. Hence the name Sammay’el, which means “poison those of El”.  Another name he was given because of his rebellious nature was Ibliys, which means “rebellious one.” 

This story is without a doubt mythology, which seems to have entered the Judaic (and thus Christianity and Islam) narrative from the ancient Canaanite myth, which tells of a minor god Haylal (Halel) trying to dethrone the supreme god El. Indeed, this story shows that the devil became such not only because of his challenge to ruler, but became of his skepticism and his decision to challenge the status quo. Hence the connection between knowledge and the devil. The smarter you get, the closer to the devil you become because you are more likely to start asking questionings.

This mythical story no doubt also influenced the theology set in motion by  people like Thomas Aquinas, for instance. These are the stories from which their theologies are based. Aquinas argued for the assent to God via faith only. He argued that faith supersedes human reasoning and intellect. Why, because you can become like the devil by employing the intellect and reason. In other words you will be following your own reasoning and not God's will. Aquinas argued that faith (blind faith) is better than reason, and asserted that blind faith – Christian faith – which is to be accepted without question, is a far more virtuous action, than using the intellect or reason. Thus, apart from these two points mentioned above, it is safe to say that another goal of this declaration, which I believe is not deliberate, is its ability to kill intellectual curiosity, and herein my concerns rest.

In looking at Aquinas’ discussion of the ethics of belief, George H. Smith writes that “by attributing unbelief (which is a position attributed to the use of reason and intellect) to a sinful will, Aquinas stacked the cards against reason by assigning to faith a superior moral status.” (Smith, 2000)

“To believe requires choice – an act of will – so to believe in God requires the voluntary assent of faith (blind faith), which is a meritorious act. Christian belief is praise worthy because it requires that we give our voluntary assent to doctrines that we cannot prove and, in some case, that we cannot even comprehend”. (Smith, 2000)

I certainly do not believe my friends were saying that I should kill my intellectual inquisitiveness. I suspect that they too use reason in other aspects of their lives. However, what they were certainly telling me is that when it comes to God, I should blindly accept their position. However, despite their naiveté, by making this declaration, they are unknowingly supporting, and promoting a view that can, and certainly does quell intellectual curiosity.

The statement may have had no effect on me. Imagine, however, the psychological effects on young Grenadians – most who are likely to be from the Christian faith themselves. Young people whose psyches have already been trapped by religious dogmatic teachings of fair. The fear of becoming like the devil. The fear of being thrown into hell by a all powerful God, for asking some lousy questions. How can these young people exercise their natural reasoning, and intellectual abilities in such an atmosphere where bogeymen runs rampant? This fear of questioning, despite being placed in a religious context, will no doubt overlap into all other aspects of their lives, and as a former teacher, the hesitation and/or fear exhibited by many of our students to ask questions, I believe, has a direct relation to this irrational thought process.

No doubt, the Hayal story above, despite being a myth, may speak some truth to reality. In that I mean, some people's egos become enlarged as their education level grows. They become full with pride; our political systems seems to be populated with such individuals. However, we should encourage our people to question any and everything. Not blindly succumb to accepted norms. Questioning is one of the most important steps we can take in our endeavor to acquire knowledge, and in doing so, religion should not be guarded from being placed on the witness stand. Moreover, remember that equating the acquiring of knowledge with that of being evil is an absurd and dangerous declaration that kills the mind. This is an action that will, no doubt, encourage the growth of irrational thinking. Something we don’t need.