POWA LINE

I did not hear the Observer Radio debate, but I read in Wednesday’s paper the comments of a caller who supported the distribution of condoms in schools “because you love your children and you want the best for them… . Condoms is what is going to protect them.”

It was only last week that a colleague shared with me her conversation with a State College pupil. “You’d be surprised at the number of students who’re not having sex, but who say they are – just to fit in,” the A-level girl had said.  What this says, to my mind, is that most schoolchildren are, in fact, abstaining; and I have not seen any data, reliable or otherwise, to disprove this.  Why, then, the push, the shove, to distribute condoms in school?

A reprint that deserves a re-read... Listening to Observer A.M. on Tuesday, one could hear, and almost feel, the passion and even the pain of the adults who called to weigh in on the subject of youth crime.  Still, as conventional wisdom has told and shown us, zeal without knowledge is simply a runaway horse. If we want to truly turn things around, for our young people and, by extension, our society, how to harness that horsepower is really where we should be concentrating our efforts. Before we go further, however, we think it is important to state that just as there is no single formula for saving our youngsters, there is no single factor pushing them onto the wrong road.

It is so easy to point the finger at parents and blame them for going out to work, for placing their kids in daycare, and even for buying them designer clothes.  But if we were to sample the parents and guardians of those children who turn out to be fine adults, we would learn that a variety of methods and a combination of efforts were employed in their raising. We would learn, too – perhaps to the consternation of some – that some of these “good kids” were brought up by downright bad parents and that some of the worst hooligans were gently reared by the best souls.

The Bible, still our final authority – at least when we want to win an argument – is rife with examples:  We’re sure that Adam and Eve raised their boys in much the same way; but that didn’t prevent Cain from slaying his brother.  Jacob and Esau were twins – two cannot get any closer genetically than that – and, yet, the latter was venal enough to sell his inheritance to fill his belly.  Incest was committed in the house of King David when his son Amnon raped Tamar, his half-sister.  And we are pretty sure that the parents of Judas Iscariot were devout followers of Christ.

What some of us adults seem unable, or unwilling, to face is the cold, hard truth that some young people – no, some children – are just bad, and no effort we can expend is going to change that; no amount of breast-beating and hair-tearing is going to make them good. Some schools of thought and religions hold fast to the theory that a child, at age seven, is a responsible being; that the “age of innocence” is over. While circumstances certainly might militate against such responsibility, most primary-schoolers are very well aware of what is right and what is wrong.  Somehow, we don’t believe that Hash Rider, for instance, was a little angel while growing up.

That is why the Bible also says that we should train up a child in the way it should go. That is because children will – they must – depart from their parents’ ways in order to find their own, and sometimes they will get lost as they do so.  However, when they are older, they will almost always return to their grounding.  Which is exactly why they need to be grounded in their youth.

That’s a matter for those Jews of old, you’re probably saying; but what does all that have to do with the statistics quoted from the bench: that most of the violent crimes we are seeing today are being perpetrated by men younger than 30 years?   Well, we could look at the glass as being half empty or half full.  The fact is that the majority of young men are not committing crimes, and for that we are thankful.  So perhaps we need to look at what these youth are doing that their criminally inclined peers are not.

One of the things we learned last week – if we had not known before – is that, in tourism, the numbers do not tell the whole story.  While the statistics on visitor arrivals are, indeed, vital to gauging the health of the industry, mere arrivals will not put butter on the national bread. Where the grease comes from, in tourism talk, is the "spend;" the amount of money each tourist lays out and into the economy is what really counts.
Given that economic reality – and based on our own discussions with both service providers and tourists, themselves – we support the Government’s decision to pursue the middle-to-high income tourists and eschew the holiday crowd that comes to browse but never to buy.

We support, as well, the strategy underlying the cruise-tourism sector: Bring them in for the best possible "site inspection" in the hope that they will return as stay-over visitors and spend some "real" money.  But, despite Government’s best intentions and best efforts, we fear that this strategy is being undermined in a very significant way.

How?  Anyone who works downtown or even within a certain radius of St. John’s will tell you that nobody can walk around like a cruise-ship visitor.  You will see them meandering around the Point area and hiking along the Anchorage Road and, much further East, wandering around the Sir Vivian Richard Cricket Grounds.  Which makes sense – for the best way to know a country is by getting around on foot.

Therein lies the rub, however.  For while a taxi or a tour bus will whisk the cruise tourist away from the City to visit the beauty spots, the historic sites, and the breathtaking beaches, those hoofing it around town not only get to see the armpits of St. John’s, but to smell them, too.  And, unfortunately, these are not the sights and scenes that entice the pass-through day-visitor to return for a longer stay.

We have heard, repeatedly, that the perpetual garbage floating around the entrance to the Heritage Quay piers – Styrofoam, plastic bottles and other detritus – is not the way any tourist wants to be welcomed. But that is only the beginning.  The heavy rains experienced in mid December served only to underscore how the harbour got that way, as any tourist unfortunate enough to be walking around then could tell you.

When the decision of the Court of Appeal was handed down last October, the nation, regardless of party affiliation, exhaled, because, at long last, there was closure to the Election Petition Cases, notwithstanding that the outcome was not what some people were expecting.  It would seem, however, that this is a never-ending story, an interminable version of As the World Turns, as the drama continues with various figures hopping into bed, politically speaking, with each other, while the audience struggles to keep up with the plot lines.

From a lay woman's perspective, the story appeared straightforward enough: The results of the General Elections conducted in 2009 were challenged by members/supporters of the losing Antigua Labour Party. Four challenges made it to and through the High Court, with three wins being overturned, among them the sitting prime minister of this country.

Now, to us, it was simple: Like Pontius Pilate declared after examining Christ, the judge "found no fault in [these persons] touching those things whereof ye accuse [them]."  What she did find fault with, however, was the way in which the elections had been conducted, ie, the late opening of the polls which, in her view, might have influenced the outcomes.

Given that the prime minister stood to be deposed and two other ministers looked to be unseated in the wake of polls which the majority of voters and observers had found to be a free and fair exercise, and given that the balance of power in Parliament and, subsequently, on the ground was at stake, could the people of this country simply look the other way, dismissing what the Electoral Commission had done or failed to do as a gaffe, human error, a mere snafu?  We think not! Accordingly, we supported the prime minister's (albeit seemingly halfhearted) convening of a tribunal to inquire into the Commission's patent failings.

Now that the exercise has been completed, we are more dissatisfied than ever; for, as it stands, there is nothing to be had for all our troubles. The Supervisor of Elections, herself not "charged" with anything, took unto herself all the trials, tribulations, and decisions to print the unlawful list first, thereby absolving everyone else of everything; and the men duly charged with running our elections were content to take cover under her voluminous skirts.

We find it interesting, and not a little disconcerting, to think that those whose responsibility it is to run things could simply say, "Well, we didn't know things had gone awry; she didn't tell us," and imagine that the public would be satisfied to reply, "Oh, okay, then." Are we to believe that, with all falling down in several constituencies, the Supervisor did not, at any time, pick up the phone and sound an alarm and that the Commissioners, as voters themselves, did not "get the memo" that all was not well at a number of polling stations?  And given the implications – to the nation, the OECS, the Caribbean region, and the Commonwealth – of the decisions taken by the Supervisor, decisions that, in and of themselves, appear, at best, ultra vires, was any sort of discipline meted out to her by the Commissioners? Did she receive from them a reprimand, a warning letter, a two-day suspension?  Or was it only a case of "hail-fellows-well-met" the day after?