Stereotypes, a two-edged sword

DR ERROL NARINE BENJAMIN

It is food for thought how some stereotypes are socially accepted norms. "Truths,” if you will, can appear just, but harbour the potential to become “two-edged swords.” For example, “classified information.”

You need such at the national level to avoid compromising national security, or to protect those who lead, inter alia, but can it also be a denial of the right to information in the public interest, or an attempt to protect leaders who may be culpable in law?

Which brings us to the issue of the much opined, "no one is above the law.”

The current “lawfare” against Donald Trump seems the ultimate violation of this tenet, even as the Bidens, with allegations of wrongdoing swirling around them, remain relatively untouched. And what of the issue of confidentiality? Sounds fair in terms of protection of the individual but can it be the means to suppress information that points to culpability, or used in the interest of one party against another, as much as is the case with attorney-client privilege, or that between physician and patient?

And can the same can be said of libel as a pillar of the law. At one level this “given” provides protection against slander and character assassination but is it not often intimidating and discriminatory, the one, because of forbidding legal expense, especially if proven wrong, which can be easily “managed” by smart lawyers looking for a buck, and the other, being virtually impossible for those without the financial resources to engage, even though their cause may be just. And what of the anomalies surrounding the issue of evidence in law as sacrosanct, in terms of proving guilt or innocence; like a rape victim having to provide evidence and suffer the humiliation of public recall, or evidence being manipulated to secure conviction or release contrary to the real truth of the matter, or evidence suppressed or even destroyed , and in yet another legal stereotype “of beyond reasonable doubt," how just is a verdict of total freedom based on this legal tenet for an accused 99 per cent guilty in terms of the overall evidence with one per cent doubt cast on possible guilt ? Can the penalty in such an instance not be proportionate to the extent of guilt, according to the evidence?

And away from the law, there are other stereotypes such as the “right to protest” and “free speech”, both integral to the democratic process, inalienable, sacrosanct, if you will, but can often be used for less than honourable purposes. Like with BLM in the US using the first to wreak havoc in some American cities like Chicago and, allegedly such a right being the basis of January 6. Its other manifestation “the right to march” has spawned equally disruptive behaviour as with a religious group in London recently and sometimes it can take a political turn as with the newly elected PM in the UK persecuting British citizens protesting the fallout from uncontrolled immigration across the Channel.

As to the second, “free speech” is equally inalienable as a right, but the rhetoric emerging often goes beyond the prescribed limit of reasonableness as with the recent case of the Capitol in the US or the blatant anti-British sentiment espoused by some protesters in that country.

And there are so many other stereotypes that are like two-edged swords but it is fitting to end with the most telling of them all in which the orthodox, conventional sense of right and wrong that the world, generally, has come to know and still continues, in large measure to be guided by, is now under siege by a radical, leftist “woke” ideology which is now its antithesis, of which the desecration of the Last Supper at the opening ceremony of the Paris Olympics 2024 is its most chilling manifestation.

Many stereotypes are often regarded as “gospel” but a critical approach to them illustrate that they are obviously not!