Who is illogical, me or JFJ?

The Editor, Sir:

On June 27, an article from Jamaicans for Justice was published in response to my June 20 column, 'Stand Firm Bruce or Tek Wey Yuh Self'. Among other things, it claimed that:

"... [Mr Chang] does not like (or has not bothered to read) the many documented solutions for reducing crime, proposed by JFJ over the years."

It went on to list JFJ-proposed solutions that included: 'Fix the police force', 'Fix the justice system', and 'targeted community interventions'.

It then continues, 'these proposed solutions do not seem to suit Mr O'Brien Chang (for reasons he can't or won't articulate)'.

But here is a paragraph from the article JFJ is critiquing.

"The current crackdown cannot, by itself, solve all our crime problems. It must be followed by social interventions such as job training and education for young men, dispute-resolution training and the promotion of active fathering. Our justice system must be reformed, our police force must be cleaned up..."

Who has not bothered to read what here?

The JFJ response also accuses me of a 'blatant lack of fairness and balance'. Then it later condemns my 'support for the crime bills'.

Yet, all I said about crime bills was that groups like JFJ should "constructively criticise the flawed bills, yes. But how about publicly supporting and thus speeding up the passage of the credible ones?". And I called for "sensible anti-crime legislation that has worked elsewhere."

So why is JFJ castigating me for my 'support' of crime bills I expressed no position on?

Differences of opinion are the essence of democracy, and we are all sometimes right and sometimes wrong. But where is the 'fairness and balance' in criticising someone for what they did not write?

But let me not bore readers with any more 'kas kas'. Those who are interested can compare both pieces, and decide whether it is my article, or the JFJ reply, that is guilty of 'illogical thought processes that ignore evidence'.

I am, etc.,

Kevin O'Brien Chang

Manchester.