Dreading the stigmatisation and propagandisation of the dread
IT WAS Nelson Mandela who said : “To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.” A significant portion of the Jamaican populace (including the diaspora) is currently viewing Emancipation and Independence celebrations with cynicism, based on the recent ruling by the Supreme Court, which ruled that the Kensington Primary School did not infringe on the child’s constitutional rights in demanding that the child cut her dreadlocks. The ruling has infuriated members of civil society, who have expressed their disgruntlement on social media and other platforms, sometimes using unadulterated Jamaican vernacular.
This, inevitably, and rightly so, drew the ire of the chief justice, Bryan Sykes, who said: “Abuse of judges presents a grave threat to judicial independence and sets the stage for democracy to be undermined.” He further said: “The publication of pictures of judges in the context where violence is being suggested is unacceptable.” I categorically and unequivocally condemn such acts, and therefore, side with the chief. In an emotionally charged atmosphere, where tensions run high and violence and death are pervasive, as we plummet into an abyss of decadence, any and every one of these comments by citizens who act impulsively must be repudiated. However, without excusing these egregious acts, let me hazard a guess as I try to infiltrate the minds of these individuals to ascertain the rationale for their behaviour.
ANTICLIMATIC RULING
The perception held by the Jamaicans is that classism is deeply ingrained in our society, and that the ruling is a classical case in which the status quo must be maintained. The ‘small man’ doesn’t necessarily have rights. His rights can always be abrogated – conveniently trodden on by his colonial masters or surrogates. On the contrary, the rights of the elite, the upper class and, to a lesser extent, the bourgeoisie, must never be impinged on. Theirs are sacrosanct! Just imagine the tumultuous effect the verdict had on the Rastafarian community, along with the dreadlocked individuals who have no religious affiliation – having liberal ideologies, in addition to others sitting on the periphery, envisioning Jamaica having a plural society, vacillating whether to make the transition from bald head to locks, but being cognisant of the prejudices that await them. The ruling was an anticlimax.
In this dispensation, they would have anticipated a positive outcome, especially after the death of George Floyd and the worldwide protests and condemnations that ensued, as well as the pledging of widescale amendments to streamlining ‘black lives’ rights. The judges surely would use the events that unfolded as a parallel.
Alas, that was not to be, and a state of implosion occurred – utter disbelief, a feeling of exasperation. To encapsulate the frustrations, listen carefully to Sherine Virgo, the mother of the then five-year-old child two years ago: “I cannot believe that this kind of discrimination, harassment and public humiliation is being dished out to my child and family because of a school policy … How can someone look at a little girl and blatantly classify her as ‘nasty’, ‘unsanitary’, ‘dirty’- all because of the way she wears her hair?”
COULD THE CASE HAVE BEEN ARGUED DIFFERENTLY?
The question can be asked: Was the case argued efficaciously in court? Did the lawyer meticulously use due diligence to thoroughly apprise himself as to the most appropriate argument to take? Based on the judges’ summations, this is not in the affirmative. Judges are revered and ascribed as lords, but are not infallible, and do err. It is possible that they may give rulings based on their own nuanced perspectives, seen through their lenses, whenever rules are not succinct. I opine that, in the absence of clarity, a judge’s overarching philosophy that underpins his world view, is what will determine his ruling. Was this the situation with this case? The lawyer representing the child and parents valiantly tried to convince the court that all persons who wear locks are to be automatically identified as Rastafarians and, as such, do not have to state their religious beliefs. This argument about freedom of self-expression clearly did not resonate with the panel, who might not be ready to be the pioneers to usher in the floodgate to liberalism. I submit to you that countering the lice and ‘junjo’ argument would have been more effective.
DOES DREADLOCKED HAIR REDUCE EFFECTIVENESS
The attorney general’s office has unequivocally stated its position on wearing dreadlocks. In justifying the policy of the school, paragraph 48 of its submission reads: “It was targeted at hairstyles that were found to be the source of bad hygiene and disorder in classes, which ultimately reduced the effectiveness of the teaching and learning experience.” Is this a discriminatory stance – suggesting a cause-and-effect situation?
This submission seems to run counter to the views of most individuals of the present administration. Does dreadlocked hair reduce the effectiveness of the teaching and learning experiences? Is there empirical evidence to substantiate this viewpoint, or is it anecdotal and simply a case of furthering the propagandisation and stigmatisation of the dread? If the answer is the latter, then the Chambers, perhaps not overtly, are culpable of institutionalizing a bias towards a certain ethnic group. Is it scientific, that locks have the propensity to become infiltrated and further inundated by headlice?
Are the wearers of locks more susceptible to ‘junjo’ than persons of other races, who sport long, straight or curly hair? Was the rule pertaining to the wearing of locks in place since the school’s inception, or was it an addendum to satisfy the ego of someone in administration? I posit that, in this era, with shampoos and soaps being ubiquitous in the Jamaican landscape, almost everyone is using them. Even if the conservative Rastafarian, or Nazarene, doesn’t warm to the use of Babylon’s products, is it beyond him or her to use natural products to enhance the aesthetics of his or her child’s hair, and to ensure that it is disinfected? A careful examination of the hair of the child in question demonstrates how wellgroomed it was.
POTENTIAL RAMIFICATIONS
The ruling may have serious ramifications for the student dread – emotional, mental and psychological. This can have a detrimental effect on their emotional and mental status, incapacitating their desire to be at school, and subsequently being alienated by their peers. Consequently, there may be a lowering of their self-esteem, selfconfidence and self-worth. To arrest this problem and its repercussions, the Ministry of Education should forthwith formulate a national policy on the wearing of hairstyles in schools and the wearing of locks. At my school, and many others, and to which the panel of judges alluded, no bias is made against Rastafarian or students with locked hair. Does the ruling mean that dreadlocked individuals have lost their humanity?