The Broadcasting Commission should not change course. They will make mistakes; perhaps, they have made mistakes. That is the story of all human endeavour. If truth be told, I remain convinced that they fell into procedural error on at least one occasion recently.

The fact or probability of making mistakes, however, should not be a deterrent to doing something. Mistakes are only made by those who act, but the irony is that the biggest mistake of all is doing nothing.

The commission should know, or be reminded, that the course that they have set themselves is not an easy road. Arrows are going to fly towards them from several directions: from those whose livelihood depends upon what the commission is targeting, from those who honestly believe that the commission is moving in the wrong direction and, of course, from those who are afraid of losing the support of the entertainers.

The fact that I am numbered among the hundreds of thousands, nay millions, who are on the side of Esther Tyson on this issue, is not to the point. Tyson and all the rest might not be right, even though it would take a mighty force of argument to convince us otherwise. What the recent initiative on the part of the commission has done is to enhance the discussion which, importantly, is required to take place in our country concerning the direction of our popular music.

In any age, popular music is part of the lifeblood of the people, in particular, the young. In Jamaica's case, our popular music has served to advance our status on the global stage. Like athletics, in our case, it has long been found to be a nugget which must be constantly cherished, protected and burnished. That is where the discussion should lead, even among a people who may be as fractious as we Jamaicans tend to be.

The time would surely have come for this to take place.

The key is not to let it slide out of the public conversation and, in this, the Broadcasting Commission must think things through and deliberately refrain from embarking upon a path of zealotry or resorting to the view that they know everything. It may be that, if they had thought things through, they would have moved against the inappropriate side of soca and the daggering elements at one and the same time. They would then not have left any opening for the argument that they were pushed to move against the former simply because they had moved against the latter.

Consistency

People are going to conduct an in-depth analysis of their efforts at consistency and their push to have the initiative move beyond the areas which fall directly within their remit. Local television and radio, for example, may be within their control, but there will be the necessity for cooperation on the part of other entities to tackle what takes place elsewhere, including on public transportation and at 'sessions' and other places of entertainment.

If there is going to be consistency, thereby warding off suggestions of discrimination, such other agencies ought not to use their discretionary powers to extend the hours of certain festivals when no such extension would be contemplated for 'the session man'. There cannot be one law for the Medes and one law for the Persians. That is one of the foundation rules of the just society.

Of course, what the Broadcasting Commission has set out to tackle is more than our approach to the language of our popular music and the public expressions of popular dance. Beyond that, it points directly to the kind of society that we wish to create for ourselves as a people and how we wish to be seen in the global space.

It cannot be doubted that, for a large segment of the world population, Jamaica's exposure to them is mainly through our popular music. The heart of that cultural expression cannot be allowed to consist of an exhortation to own and make use of the biggest gun, and to 'make duppies', or to employ a constant refrain of x-rated lyrics and the unending display of inappropriate oral and physical expressions. The question would quite rightly be asked: is what are Jamaicans capable of offering and prepared to present to ourselves and the world at this point in time?

And a question we must ask ourselves is this: is the target of the commission not merely a symptom of our daily preoccupation and a predisposition to choosing paths that are not "upful and right"? If the answer to that question is a resounding "yes", this initiative of the commission assumes extremely wide proportions and the societal discussion will have to be broadened. The commission will need help.

Our children must be seen as the rosebuds of the nation. It is the moral standards of the people of the nation that will guide those rosebuds into reaching full bloom in an acceptable manner. And it is those standards that the commission is zooming in on.

What it is that impels a young person to commit to a 'daggering' outpouring that starkly offends the sensibilities? The answer has been placed squarely on the table: give the people what they want.So, what is that has driven 'the people' to 'want' such a display? That is a question that takes us far beyond the act of putting a ban in place. It takes us into fields which include how we treat with each other and the kind of example that is set in public dialogue and interaction.

Both the then Broadcasting Commission and I were derelict in the performance of our duties to the people of Jamaica when, some years ago, a highly influential talk-show host, at that time, heaped copious praise on some children of a primary school for stoning the Denham Town Police Station. The talk-show host dilated at length on his view that the young children deserved to be showered with accolades because the adults in the vicinity were slow to react to a 'wrong' that had been done to a teacher.

For my part, as the then attorney general, I remained silent; I made the cardinal mistake of doing nothing and saying nothing. It is a regret that I have had to this day. Had I intervened, there would have been (another) storm concerning freedom of the press and censorship. But there is the time-honoured principle that the freedom that is given to persons in public life to express themselves and to be able to exert so much influence on the daily lives of the people is not, and can never be, a licence to do or say anything that could lead to a corruption of public morals.

No sacred cows

So again, there can be no sacred cows in the eyes of the commission or within the broad conversation itself. All leadership must be in the forefront of the protection of public morals and how we interact with and how we respond to each other.

But, as has been said, leadership must act and speak in a manner which inspires respect and confidence in its ability to guide that process. Leadership must show itself as part of the moral majority and acknowledge that Jamaica is in the middle of both an economic and a moral crisis - a devastating combination which has to be tackled from all angles.

Here in Jamaica, we have therefore been presented with another opportunity to have all persons and institutions of goodwill come together in bringing the required pressure and offering the necessary guidance for the values that we cherish to be protected and advanced. Our artistes and our entertainers are persons in public life, with a responsibility to hold in trust the undoubted powerful influence that they exert on the lives of our youth. To that intent, then, they are to be made to understand that they are themselves in positions of leadership.

With that kind of power come significant responsibilities. And they need not be fearful of losing their rightful space and influence and income by taking their responsibilities seriously. They and the producers and the army of purveyors are parents, with young persons in their charge and numerous others under their influence. They are therefore not to be condemned out of hand; rather, they are to be driven to acknowledge the privileges that have been accorded to them and how they should guard those privileges.

We cannot afford to drop this ball. The public discussion must be conducted with the kind of respect and frankness that brings home to the errant members of the industry that we can do better. All blame cannot be cast on them, for they themselves might well have received the kind of exposure that have led them to believe that what they are putting forward for public consumption is generally acceptable. Well, it is not.

Tyson has, mercifully, not been afraid to be a Daniel, daring to make her purpose known and she by no means stands alone. The Broadcasting Commission has taken the baton and we cannot merely stand and cheer; we must be active participants as we encourage them and insist that they don't change course.

A.J. Nicholson is the opposition spokesman on justice. Feedback may be sent to columns@gleanerjm.com.