Decibels trump reason?

In its editorial yesterday ('Mr Dixon and the peculiarities of democracy') on the results of the Jamaica Teachers' Association (JTA) leadership election, The Gleaner favoured "critical thinking" over "decibel levels" as a route to solving the problems of Jamaica's underperforming economy and education system:

"Unfortunately, there has been no serious, qualitative public engagement of Mr Thwaites by the JTA or any of its spokesmen on any of the issues raised by the education minister."

The Gleaner is absolutely right to berate the JTA for defending its position through elevated decibels rather than through reasoned arguments and "critical thinking".

But what a contrast with its editorial of the previous day! A debate has been raging in this newspaper on abortion and buggery - both illegal under Jamaican law - by advocates who wish to see the laws changed, and supporters of the status quo. Both sides have advanced arguments, and have sought to rebut the arguments of their opponents. On Wednesday, The Gleaner dismissed these efforts at critical thinking as "decibels".

The Gleaner editor wrote: "For as with the issue of advancing gay rights, Mrs Simpson Miller, and her colleagues, will be bombarded with loud life-at-conception and personhood-of-foetus declarations of the Christian fundamentalists and others intent on maintaining the status quo. The danger here is that the politicians will equate the decibel of these claimants to a loss of votes at the polling booth."

Methinks it is The Gleaner that is guilty here of an excess of decibels and an absence of critical thinking. My classmate, the Rev Clinton Chisholm and myself (and others) - drawing on science and philosophy - have written in this newspaper arguing that the foetus is a human being (we have not said anything about personhood, which is a different matter), therefore possessing the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution of Jamaica. Neither of us has quoted Holy Writ as part of our arguments, so neither of us can be accused of fundamentalism.

The fact is, there has been no serious, qualitative public engagement of Rev Chisholm or myself by The Gleaner on any of the issues we have raised in their newspaper. The Gleaner is guilty of the very same malady of which they accuse the JTA in yesterday's editorial.

indistinguishable voice

The Wednesday editorial goes on: "Legalising abortion would give to women a fundamental right to which they are now denied: control over their bodies and reproductive health." The voice of The Gleaner is now indistinguishable from the voice of the minister of youth.

Last week in this column, I challenged the minister to state from where this "fundamental right" (as The Gleaner calls it) of a woman to terminate her pregnancy comes, as people are manufacturing rights left, right and centre. No answer from the minister; and in the face of critical public comment, The Gleaner, mustering much decibels, has restated the minister's spurious "rights" claim without any attempt at justification or legitimisation - as if loud rants and playing to the penny section are enough to win arguments.

The Wednesday editorial states: "Abortion and gay-rights issues are different planes. There is, we believe, majority support for the former." I am happy to know that the editor of The Gleaner has faith in something, but in this case, it might be misplaced. A Don Anderson poll conducted in Jamaica by the reputable Market Research Services Ltd. between June 4 and 10, 2009 asked persons to state whether they are against or in favour of abortion; 67 per cent of all persons interviewed said that they oppose abortion, 15 per cent said they were in favour of abortion, and 18 per cent said they were ambivalent on the issue.

The poll, which has a margin of error of "plus or minus 4.5 per cent at the 95 per cent confidence level", captured the views of 535 persons between the ages of 18 and 65 years. Maybe The Gleaner does not accept the findings of polls like these. On what is its belief that there is majority support in Jamaica for abortion based? The Gleaner's decibels cannot controvert hard evidence and reason.

But make no mistake: What is right and wrong cannot be determined by public opinion polls.

I call upon The Gleaner to practise what it preaches. If the editorial is honest when yesterday it challenged the JTA to serious, qualitative public engagement with the issues raised by the education minister, it should have no difficulty with my challenge to engage itself in critical thinking on the issues raised by Rev Chisholm and myself on the abortion issue before issuing more shrill decibels. The name-calling is unnecessary.

Peter Espeut is a chemist, sociologist and Roman Catholic deacon. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.