Bert Samuels | Oppressive to allow locks for religious freedom only

Cultural identity and locks are again on the front burner for discussion. Kinky hair has evolved from being totally ‘bad’ – in what is plainly hate speech – to being accepted in some circles. So, judges (female only), doctors, lawyers, poor man, beggar man, but, unfortunately, no Indian chiefs, are now sporting locks.

The prejudice against kinky hair is so deep-seated that female television news readers, who have braved appearing with their natural hair in the past, have experienced severe criticism from the anti-natural black-hair faction.

The case I wish to make is that no African-Jamaican should be forced to have their hair accepted as an exception to the norms of our society under the protection of religious rights. I dare say that there are as many ‘locks Rastas’ as there are ‘locks non-Rastas’ in Jamaica. This significant fact should remove any necessity to only allow wearing locks under religious rights.

Our locked legislators, both men and women, enter Parliament and represent us without having to show the Clerk of the House any religious ticket. I personally empathise with parents who are now being pressured to put on a religion badge to have schools admit their locked kids, in that, though all my children wear locks, I was not so pressured by their respective high schools.

The nature of our hair is that it transitions into locks naturally. It is, based on my research, more amenable to being kept clean than processed hair. Locks can be washed during a morning bath and requires only drying thereafter. Not so for processed hair. The hairdresser has to be called in to restore it after a shampooing. During rainfall, processed hair has to run to dry ground for that very reason. Not so for locked hair.

So all this talk about locks being peculiarly susceptible to attracting lice is garbage, born of ignorance and decades of anti-Rasta falsehood. It represents the paradox of the rule of the minority view over the experience of the majority.

Put anti-African doctrine to rest

We must put this history of anti-African doctrine to rest by calling on the Ministry of Culture to declare locks a permissible hairstyle of choice for all people, irrespective of their religious beliefs. This is necessary because our schools are run by boards and principals who create rules based on their own prejudices, and outdated views of deportment and acceptable appearance.

As Morgan Heritage sings, “You don’t have fi dread to be Rasta”, and conversely, you don’t have to be Rasta to wear dreadlocks. All you have to be is free to wear your hair in its natural form, in a free and democratic society, in our 90 per cent African-Jamaican population. It is no stretch that this right is protected by the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, in which Section 13 (3) (i) states one of our rights as “... the right to freedom from discrimination on the ground of ... race ... ”.

The irony is that black students in many white-majority countries cannot be turned out of school for wearing locks. Consequently, Jamaica should no longer operate on the basis that locks belong to Rastas only. It belongs to black people. Full stop. So as we honour our reggae icon Bob, let us remember his encouragement in song when he said:

“Keep your culture

Don’t be afraid of the vulture!

Grow your dreadlocks

Don’t be afraid of the wolf pack !”

Bert S. Samuels is an attorney-at-law. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and bert.samuels@gmail.com.