THE
DREAD LIBRARYTHE
DREAD LIBRARY| The Matrix | Rhetoric of Reggae Music | Reggae Links | Dread Library Catalog |
Rastafarianism is a way of life… for many it is the only way of life.
Growing up under a certain religion instills varying values and understandings
into one’s moral fiber. These values are what shape a human’s character.
In some countries, the government is trying to tell these peaceful people to
disregard their upbringing and to conform to alien ways. Every religious sect has its own traditions and historical rituals that they
abide to. In religions, almost everything has significance to it. And anyone
concerned about the future of his/her religion, will continue to ensure that
these traditions are followed, to preserve their own way of life. Now, most
countries have religious freedom clauses in their constitutions that state that
anyone living on their soil has the right to practice the religion of their
choice. Now this might seem a minuscule fact for someone of a common religion,
but to someone of a minority religion, this is all the protection they have
from the legal system. This paper is only a taste of the justices and injustices
that Rastafarians have faced in legal systems across the globe. Some instances
a loophole for the "misfortunate", others an outcry from the oppressed. Every country’s legal system has problems. Some problems are masked with
legal terms. Theses are the hardest to overcome. The "land of the free"
is what the United States is sometimes referred to as, but for some, this statement
seems phonier than an Ed McMahon sweepstakes. In the U.S. case, Belgrave vs. Coughlin, an inmate of the Sing-Sing Correctional
Institution in New York, claims his religious rights were revoked. Nekyon Belgrave,
a Rastafarian, says the Department of Correctional Services ("DOCS"
hereinafter) denied his request to wear his religious head covering known as
a crown. A crown is a loose-knit, circular hat that covers the wearer’s
dreadlocks (Anderson, 1). Belgrave’s appeal reached the Second Circuit where acting Justice Anthony
A. Scaprino Jr. sent the matter back to DOCS saying they overlooked their own
regulations denying Belgrave’s request. The matter had already been solved
in the precedent of Benjamin vs. Coughlin, 905 F2d 571, where the Second Circuit
had agreed with a lower court ruling that denying a Rastafarian’s request
to wear a crown did not break the First Amendment, ruling that is was an interest
of security (Anderson, 2). This precedent and an August 8, 1990 memorandum stating that regulations allowed
the wearing of certain head-coverings, was enough to send the matter back into
the hands of the DOCS. An inmate’s request to wear religious garb, must
be presented to the head chaplain or warden. The request must be approved by
the chaplain and then by the head of security (Associated Press, 3). This is
the hardest part of the process. The hierarchy of American prisons alone could
decide the fate of any inmate, let alone the decision to wear religious head-coverings.
If the head of security deemed the crown or any other head covering unsafe,
he must present a written explanation to the inmate as to way his/her request
was denied (Anderson, 2). The whole issue that the DOCS was trying to push was
the safety factor. The DOCS found that the large, loose-fitting hat could present
a danger to the staff and other inmates. Weapons, controlled substances, and
other contra band could be hidden within the crown. Justice A.A. Scarpino Jr.
had this to say, "These regulations provide a reasonable and workable formula
by which an individual’s right to freely exercise his/her religious belief
may be balanced against the legitimate penological interest of the state in providing adequate security
in state correctional facilities,"(Anderson, 2). The result of Mr. Belgrave’s request was a flat denial by the DOCS. They
found that the crown does present a problem, but they are willing to find a
common ground in which both sides are the win. The DOCS does say that not all
Rastafarians wear crowns, and hopefully an alternative will present itself (Anderson,
2). Paul Jolly, 29, who is serving 37 _ years-to-life for murder at Attica Correctional
Facility near Buffalo, New York, says he has been isolated for the last 3 _
years for refusing a tuberculosis screening test (Pines, 1). His refusal of
the test, which Jolly says goes against his Rastafarian religion, has made his
prison term much harder. Jolly states that he is denied visits, denied exercise
and is only permitted out of his cell for one ten minute shower a week (Pines,
2). Attica officials say that Jolly was confined "due to the epidemic of multi-drug
resistant tuberculosis and to protect the public because the inmate would eventually
be released," (Noname1, 1). Jolly’s attorney stressed these three
points: "(1) Mr. Jolly, who shows no signs of "active" TB, the only
contagious kind, poses no health threat to other inmates. (2) In "medical keeplock" he still shares the same breathing space;
unlike inmates segregated with "active" TB. (3) Even inmates whose screening tests are positive for "latent"
TB are not placed in medical keeplock," (Pines, 1). These three points show that for some reason other than his refusal to take
the test, officials were illegally confining him. Mr. Jolly’s whole refusal
was based on his Rastafarian beliefs which states prohibition of "artificial
substances into the body," (Pines, 2). After proving Mr. Jolly’s unjust lock-up, his lawyers went
after their client’s right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment
under the Eight Amendment. Keep in mind that Mr. Jolly was only permitted to
leave his cell for a total of eight hours and forty minutes per year (Pines,
2). That by anyone’s reasoning is cruel and unusual. In this case of Jolly vs. Coughlin, Second Circuit Judge Jose A. Cabranes
found, "the government failed to demonstrate a compelling stat interest
to overcome the burden on Mr. Jolly’s religious freedom of forcing him
into the choice of confinement or the TB test," (Pines, 2). Cabranes also
found strong proof in Mr. Jolly’s Eighth Amendment claims. The jury found that, "We have no difficulty concluding that, on the
heels of such extreme and prolonged confinement, to continue to confine the
plaintiff to medical keeplock under somewhat improved conditions would run afoul
of the Eighth Amendment," (Pines, 2). Jolly could not be confined because
of his refusal to take the test due to his religious belief. The jury awarded
him $33,000. In this next case, Brown vs. Daytop Village, Inc., a Rastafarian is fighting
against yet another one of Babylon’s institutions. Mr. Brown, who was convicted
of the sale of a controlled substance of the third degree, had a choice between
an in-patient drug treatment program and a jail sentence. Daytop Village ("Daytop"
hereinafter) is a government-funded clinic that provides rehabilitation/detoxification
to drug "addicts". Daytop, which rarely accepts convicted felons,
admitted Mr. Brown on the condition that he would stay the duration and not
cause unneeded disturbances. Mr. Brown was paroled to the custody of Daytop,
but on the following day, October 30, 1991, he was expelled after a dispute
over cutting his hair. The Rastafarian dreadlocks that the plaintiff wore are
of religious significance. Cutting his dreadlocks would be a violation of his
religion and himself. Daytop insists that all new-coming patients cut their hair before entering
the program. Their residential treatment program, "is regulated by strict
conformance with uniform standards for admission, and thereafter for continued
treatment in a ‘therapeutic community.’ These uniform standards were
early on designed by medically supervised trial and error experimentation. They
have since been maintained with a quarter century or regulatory consistency,"
(Noname2, 3). This change helps break psychological and physical ties to the
patient’s destructive life patterns. All new patients receive the same
treatment, as so to start on equal footing, it is a birth to a new, substance-free
life. During the course of the patients stay, he/she can earn back, as a privilege,
the rights of individuality (Nomane2, 4). This value of earning privileges is
very important in the eyes of Daytop. They feel that it is part of the healing
process. With Mr. Brown’s refusal to cut his hair, Daytop had no choice but
to expel him. Brown feels that Daytop discriminated against him because of his
creed. Arguing that Daytop is a "place of public accommodation", Brown’s
lawyer says that being a clinic for the public, Daytop has violated Brown’s
constitutional rights. Under New York law, "it is an unlawful discriminatory
practice for any person, being the owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, superintendent,
agent or employee of any place of public accommodation…because of the…
creed… of any person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from
or deny to such person any of the accommodation, advantages, facilities or privileges
thereof…" (Noname2, 3). Daytop’s stance is that it is not a "place
of public accommodation", but rather, "a private corporation entity
whose program integrity will be damaged and undue hardship imposed should the
sough after relief be granted," (Noname3, 2). Mr. Brown, since his release from Daytop, has not "run afoul of the
law" or been with the assistance of a drug-treatment program. For fear
of a drug relapse or reincarceration, Brown seeks "preliminary injunction
enjoining Daytop from refusing to admit him unconditionally into its drug treatment
program during the pendency of the action," (Noname3, 2). This motion was
denied because Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that irreparable injury was sustained
by Daytop’s refusal. Brown’s main argument is that Daytop’s refusal of his admittance
is solely due to his being Rastafarian. Daytop maintains its stance on it being
"medical necessity". The point of discussion now is whether Mr. Brown’s
religious beliefs can be proven true in court. When questioned about his religion,
Brown’s knowledge of Rastafarianism was limited. He knew of neither its
history nor contemporary culture. The Plaintiff was completely unaware of the
"Vow of Nazarite". This "vow" is the scripture that forbids
male Rastas from cutting any body hair. Concluding, Brown had little to no knowledge
of his religion, or for that fact, the matter at hand. After his "religious inquisition", Brown rebutted with the follow,
"I follow through what I know and what I believe and how I feel about it,"
(Noname2, 5). He recounts that he was raised a Rasta by his father who taught
him "the ways". Also, he recalls having, "dialogues about the
meaning of scripture, known as reasoning." Brown’s knowledge of his
religion was very sparse, but if the court rejected his plea, it would be in
the position of promoting religious orthodoxy. "Religion is best left between
a believer and his belief," (Noname2, 5). The court sided with Daytop Village,
saying that, "Daytop has met the burden of proving the regulation is based
upon medical necessity, not upon discrimination based on religious belief,"
(Noname2, 7). Breaking away from Rastafarians in the custody of the government, this next
case deals with injustices in the workplace. Desiree Smitherman, a black, practicing
Rastafarian, says she was discriminated against by not being promoted on numerous
occasions, causing a hostile work environment, leading to her resignation. The
case is Smitherman vs. Williams- Sonoma, Inc. Smitherman was employed by Pottery Barn from April of 1992 to February
of 1996. In September of 1994, she says a store manager told her, "…People
like you should be working at a McDonald’s…" and that, "…most
Rastafarians are homophobic…" (O’Melveny, 1). After these comments
were made, she phoned in to the Pottery Barn’s corporate headquarters.
This call resulted in a meeting where the store manager had to apologize. For
various reasons, Smitherman requested and received a transfer to another store
location where she remained from October of 1994 through December of 1995. Throughout the rest of her employment by Pottery Barn, she says that she
was repeatedly warned never to call the headquarters again. Also, her supervisors
and co-workers made repeated comments about her dreadlocks. On one occasion,
a supervisor said her dreads, "…smelled musty…" and needed
to be washed (Noname4, 3). At the second Pottery Barn location, three separate senior sales associates
positions opened and she was overlooked each time. Smitherman claims she was
at least as qualified as the others, but was overlooked due to her race and
religion (O’Melveny, 2). Pottery Barn said she was not qualified for the
supervisory position of Senior Sales Associate. Let it be known that two of
the three promoted were black, but of unknown religion, and the third was Catholic
Hispanic. Her original position included selling merchandise, cleaning the store
and maintaining visual displays (Noname4, 2). When Smitherman was overlooked for the third time, she requested another
transfer and received it. She worked there from December of 1995, to February
of 1996. On February 2, 1996 Desiree’s brother Joseph, also an employee
of the Pottery Barn, was arrested by the White Plains police for driving a company
vehicle with a suspended license (Noname4, 4). She believes that this incident
was all part of the Pottery Barn’s "grand scheme" to force her
to quit (Noname4, 4). On February 10, 1996, two days later, she resigned from
her position. Now, the Pottery Barn wants this matter dismissed altogether, but the courts
see that there is a case of discrimination here. They find that in the case
of Constructive Discharge, where a company coerces an employee to quit by making
working conditions intolerable, Pottery Barn is at fault. The courts concluded
that, "Smitherman’s allegations relating to 1) her lack of promotion;
2) the repeated discriminatory comments about her dreadlocks; and 3) the arrest
of her brother were sufficient proof for a juror to conclude that a reasonable
person would’ve felt compelled to resign," (O’Melveny, 2). Both
parties shall be ready for trail within 48 hours notice as of October 1, 1999. Part of the Rastafarian religion requires the use of marijuana, or dagga,
as it is know outside of the U.S., as a sacrament. Smoking the herb gets them
closer to god so they can better understand their sins. But how does their religious
right to smoke herb coincide with the crime of transporting it? Do the two go
hand in hand? In the sensitive case of People vs. Peck, we will see how American
courts feel about this subject. Wisconsin resident Gregory Peck was stopped at the Temecula, Ca Border
Patrol checkpoint. When officials searched his car, they came across 40 pounds
of marijuana worth approximately $40,000 wholesale. During the trial, Peck explained
that he was the President and priest of the Israel Zion Coptic Church ("IZCC"
hereinafter). The IZCC is an offshoot of Rastafarianism. He explained that he
had gone to California to purchase a large quantity of marijuana for the use
of the IZCC. Peck said he, "obtained [the] marijuana not only for personal
use but also for distribution to at least two other church members, those who
contributed the rest of the money," and that he, "made a practice
of providing marijuana to nonmembers of the church." (Ofgang, 2) In a 1990 case called Employment Division vs. Smith, a court ruled that
Native American religions had no constitutionally protected right to use peyote
for religious uses. In response to this case, Congress enacted the Religious
Freedom Reformation Act ("RFRA" hereinafter) in 1993. The RFRA states
that the government cannot impose a "substantial burden" on a person’s
exercise of religion, unless it shows that it is in the "furtherance of
a compelling government interest to do so, and that the burden is the least
restrictive means of furthering that interest," (Ofgang, 2). Any claim
made by Peck would then have to fall under the RFRA. Justice Betty Richli had
the following to say, "Although the use of marijuana as a sacrament is
central to the IZCC, [the] defendant was prosecuted not for using marijuana
but for transporting a large quantity of it and possessing it for sale…
These activities are only related peripherally, if at all, to the practice of
defendant’s religion" (Ofgang, 2). In a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
ruling in United States vs. Bauer, the court found that a defense of the RFRA
could be used if it were only a possession case and not a matter of distribution.
The judge found that Peck and the other members of the IZCC use marijuana
to bring about "some effect" other than using it as a sacrament like
wine. It was also stated that Peck had shared the drug with non-members of the
IZCC and including children on multiple occasions. Justice Richli had this to
say on the verdict, "It is a criminal offense to distribute marijuana,
whether or not for profit… The elimination of traffic of illegal drugs
is a compelling state interest… The court reasonably could conclude that
is not restrained from association with users of marijuana, defendant would
continue to distribute marijuana, both within and without his church,"
(Ofgang, 2). Peck was found guilty and sentenced to five years probation. Pecks probation brought about another topic for discussion. Would Peck
be allowed to divulge in marijuana while on probation? Justice Richli said Peck
would have to submit to drug testing during his probation period. She concluded
with, "Probation is a privilege and not a right. A probationer is not entitled
to the same degree of constitutional protection as other citizens," even
a probation condition can infringe on a constitutional right if, "it is
to serve the dual purpose of rehabilitation and public safety," (Ofgang,
3). Rastafarians living in the U.S. territory of Guam have just had a large weight
lifted off their shoulders. Guam Superior Court Justice Michael Bordallo says
that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA" hereinafter) is
"ire, mon," (Elias, 1). In 1997 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the RFRA
unconstitutional, saying it violated the commerce clause of the 14th
Amendment. Bordallo explains that the commerce clause’s language specifically
implies to that of states, and since Guam is yet to become a state, the clause
has no relevancy (Elias, 1). This is great news for Rastafarian Benny Toves
Guerro. On January 2,1991, Mr. Guerro was traveling back from Los Angeles, when
he was stopped and searched by airport security. The officials found Mr. Guerro’s
personal stash of marijuana in his backpack. Guerro explained that he used the
herb for religious purposes. He was indicted nine days later. Justice Bordallo says that Guerro’s arrest violated the Organic Act
of Guam. This act guarantees Guam’s residents complete religious freedom.
He also found that Mr. Guerro has demonstrated that he is a legitimate member
of the Rastafarian religion. Bordallo’s findings resulted in the dismissal
of all of Guerro’s "importation" charges. The previous cases displayed how the U.S. government feels about the rights
of legitimate Rastafarians. U.S. courts have had a slew of drug smugglers who
have tried to use the RFRA as a loophole. The Rastafarian excuse for marijuana
charges has become all too familiar these days. The courts have no choice but
to tighten their stance on religious freedoms. Other nations of the world have
tried other ways to diminish the gap between Rastafarian beliefs and modern
culture. In Handsworth, England, riots are said to be started by Rastafarian drug-dealing
gangs. This comes to as a shock to many of the victims, mostly Asian shopkeepers,
who noticed that the Rastas and police were actually working together. The two
share efforts to keep "hard drugs" off the street, while the police
turn their backs when it comes to the herb that the Rastas love so much. They
share a symbiotic relationship where both must strive for the better of the
whole. Although Rastafarians "try to look fierce… they wear their hair
in religiously unkempt ‘dreadlocks’… and talk a dialect of English
devised to baffle unbelievers…" they are the only group whose authority
is recognized by the poorest and most alienated of Britain’s ghettos (Noname5,
1). Great Britain’s Rastafarian community consists of approximately 10,000
members, which breaks down into two specific groups, the Ethiopian World Federation,
and the Twelve Tribes of Israel. The British police know marijuana is a pacifier,
and keeps the "discontented from turning into malcontents" (Noname5,
4). The biggest problem the police have is dealing with the heroine influx.
In Peckham (South London), and Croxteth (Liverpool), the heroine impact is very
high, but in Brixon and Toxteth, there is almost no sign of heroine. Officials
say that it is because of the black Rastafarians who keep it out of their communities.
Both parties are concerned with the "preservation of the marijuana culture,
that both find convenient, and suppression of the more addictive drugs that
both fear" (Noname5, 3). One can deduce that the British police have a much more lax tone with Rastafarians
and marijuana than does the United States. Marijuana is to the Rastas as wine
is to the Catholics. It seems odd that the United States has such a harsh penalty
for marijuana when it should be trying to put an end to the senseless persecution
of an entire religion. In New Zealand, cannabis is becoming a familiarity on Parliament’s
docket. Nandor Tanczos, a 33-year-old Rastafarian, has been pushing for the
legalization of marijuana for his religion. Tanczos was elected in November
of 1999 as a Green Party candidate. He has been touring his nation’s campuses
on his campaign for the decriminalization of cannabis. Tanczos stated that his colleagues "are drunk, drunk in charge of
a country" (Noname6, 1). He condones their harsh laws on other drug while
they freely drink within Parliament confines. The motion to have Tanczos reveal
the names of the particular individuals involved was denied. It’s surprising
that no one wanted to know any names. With respect to his nations laws, he says the "degree of tolerance our
society shows for alcohol is inconsistent with the approach it takes to cannabis"
(Barber, 1). Also he believes that "…Young people would be more likely
to have respect for the law if their elders showed less hypocrisy" (Barber,
2). Mr. Tanczos is hoping to change the beliefs of his nation’s leaders
and people about marijuana. Some believe that being famous means being above the law, this is not always
true. In the Freedomland are of Katututra, Nambia, Omehoyaaliyatala Hans Sheehama
was arrested when police found a bit of dagga stuck to the inside of an orange
peel which Sheehama says kept it moist. The amount, undeclared by police, was
rumored to be under a gram. Sheehama is a Rastafarian reggae singer who proclaims
that he uses dagga "to lead me to a positive meditation" (Menges(1),
1). Sheehama is making his defense under the protection of the Nambian Constitution.
Article 19 "guarantees every person the right to practice any culture,
tradition or religion", and Article 21(1)(c) "guarantees the fundamental
freedom to practice any religion and to manifest such practice" (Menges(2),
3). He believes that his rights as a Rastafarian have been violated. In Sheehama’s
first conviction, police in Upington, South Africa arrested him for a small
amount of dagga stuck to the inside of an orange peel. The court found him guilty
and sentenced him to pay a fine of R40 or 40 days in jail. Trying to explain marijuana’s legitimacy to the courts, Sheehama started
to recite a few quotes pertaining to the subject from the Bible. He started
of with a selection from Genesis 1:12 that says, "And the earth brought
forth grass, and herbs yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit,
whose seeds are inside itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good."
From Genesis 3:18, "…thou shalt eat the herb of the field," and
"…eat every herb on the land…" from Exodus 10:12. His last
quote from the scripture was a selection from Psalm 104 verse 14, "He causeth
the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man," (Menges(2),
4) Even after his many attempts, Sheehama’s chances looked slim. On September 25, 1998 the courts found him guilty of the illegal possession
of marijuana. He had the choice of either a fine of R300 or 90 days in prison.
The courts view is as follows, "All it does [the prohibition] is limit
the aspect of this religion which is harmful and dangerous to public safety,
order, health, morals and the fundamental rights and freedom of others and in
so doing is not in the national interest," (Menges(2), 4). Jamaica, the homeland to many of the world’s Rastafarians, has a somewhat
scanty legal system. The police are corrupt and leave the people to themselves,
to fight for themselves. That is where a lot of reggae music comes from, the
fear or courage of having to protect one’s self and loved ones. As a sign
of this, six reggae stars have died in the past 14 months, "victims of
their own violent culture" (Turriff, 1). The most upsetting death is the
one of Garnett Silk, a 27-year-old singer. Silk was killed when a propane cylinder
near his house exploded. A stray bullet hit the tank, causing the ignition of
the gas. Police believed it was an accident, and that Silk had fired the fatal
shot. He bought the gun for protection from a man who was stealing his timber.
Mourners believed he was killed because of a grudge. On onlooker stated, "…
they killed him because he speak the truth". When asked who killed him,
the man replied, "It was just Lucifer" (Turriff, 1). Others believe
it was the result of Silk’s involvement in gang/drug related violence of
the ghettos. The other five killed the in the past year are Mickey Simpson, Dirtsman, Pan
Head, Early Bee, and Massive Dread. Simpson was stabbed to death after getting
involved in a "neighborhood dispute". Dirtsman, a dancehall star,
who lived in a PNP stronghold, was shot after refusing to publicly endorse the
party. Pan Head, another dancehall star, was killed in an incident disguised
as robbery. Nothing was taken from him. Early Bee was shot while on stage in
New York, and Massive Dread was shot for publicly speaking out against the political
authorities. All these performers lived in so-called "garrison communities".
These are ghettos controlled by political gunmen who are loosely linked to Jamaica’s
two main political parties, the JLP and the PNP. None of these murders have
been solved. In years past, the albums that sold the best were those with "gun lyrics".
Guns are very commonplace at dancehalls. They are said to be "bulging from
almost every visible pocket"(Turriff, 3). At some dancehalls, the audience
does a "gun salute", in which everyone fires his/her gun into the
air approvingly. Jah-T, Garnet Silk’s manager, thinks, "For all the
publicity given to deaths of entertainers, ten times the number of ordinary
people die, unnoticed". "Bitches are to rap…[like] gun are to
reggae," (Turriff, 3). Now, the gun lyrics have dropped out of the limelight. "Cultural"
or "consciousness" lyrics are again the best sellers. Themes that
remind us of Bob, such as peace, Rastafarianism, and black oppression, not gun
toting antics. Jah-T says, "Marley didn’t sing violent lyric, because
he was such a superstar, all the political gunmen would look to him for advice
and you’d find some of the biggest gunmen in Jamaica round Bob’s house
every day," (Turriff, 2). But even Bob was susceptible to political pressures.
Two days before the famous 1976 government show where Bob united the JLP and
PNP, a gang of gunmen burst into his house and tried to shoot him. Reggae star murders result from their people’s deep resentment of their
money and success. Individuals, who feel they were cheated of stepped on by
someone, usually have the nature to retaliate, especially if the police services
are barely non-existent and one is almost guaranteed not to get apprehended.
The percentage of unsolved murder cases in Jamaica is staggering. Again we see
that fear plays a role in one’s decisions. Throughout Jamaica, we see a
vicious cycle of life that claims so many promising individuals. Beginning with
Poverty, aspiring performers will do anything to make it. Once they are noticed
and maybe begin getting radio play, the amount of new- found Fame and Attention
are overwhelming. Increasing Fame results in Money. Money leads to Power and
influence over others. Power is the top of the ladder. Many people of the world
think money and power are the keys to life, so instead of working for it, the
frustrated take the aggressions out on these stars who seemed to have succeeded
so easily. This aggression usually ends up in the death of another aspiring
performers. We find it much easier to take than to earn. In a country where
much oppression has occurred, and already so many lives have been lost, and
whose people are filled with so much hurt, why do they insist on making it harder
for themselves? Jah-T put it best with, "Even in the hands of a Righteous
man, a gun is still the Devil’s tool," (Turriff, 4). Throughout this text we have witnessed accounts of how different nations views
affect its people. From the United States to Nambia, Rastafarians are being
senselessly prosecuted. Although there are so many people who use the Rastafarian
religion as a scapegoat for their own misfortunes, there are many, many who
are legitimate members who deserve the rights they are guaranteed. Why do the
courts of our world waste so much of their time and their country’s money
on trials that take years and that should have never made it to court? With
old members of governments, in countries throughout the world, stepping down,
it makes room for a new force of young and ambitious political candidates. This
new generation will see us through the beginning of this new millennium and
hopefully change the world’s views on certain subjects. People of the world
are so very tired of all the hypocrisy and empty promises that many governments
ooze from underneath their crooked and cracked foundations. We need a strong
voice, and things will change only if we change them. Action must be
taken to improve our surroundings. This creepy malaise that grips the youth
of today, must be broken, or we have no one to blame but ourselves. WORKS CITED [All cited works were found online at site specified.] [Some works found did not give an author’s name for the piece. The title
Noname 1-6 was given to articles of this nature. Sorry for the confusion.] 
Don’t Shoot the Sheriff:
An overview of Rastafarians and the Legal System
Geoffrey Alex Domenico