Orville W. Taylor

This week will be exactly 12 years since O.J. Simpson was freed from a double-murder charge. He allegedly killed his Caucasian ex-wife, Nicole Brown-Simpson, and her 'friend', Ron Goldman, who was in the habit of driving around in the car he had bought for her and spending long hours in the house Simpson still owned. It was a gruesome murder, committed with an incredibly sharp knife.

As a then resident in the U.S.A., the divide in America was so apparent I could not help but wonder if the American motto E Pluribus Unum (Out of Many One), was realistic, because the difference between black and white reaction to the acquittal was so great. All white faces - well, they turned pink and red - were sombre and angry, while blacks of all shades, hues and weaves, were jubilant.

This included my barber, speaking in South Florida cursive (join up), who, in excitement, took the last of my flat-top hairstyle, making me decide to shave it all off.

Semblance of unity

One good side of the Simpson verdict for people of colour was that, at least, there was some semblance of unity, albeit over an unpleasant subject, even if he were truly innocent. Nonetheless, it was indeed a puzzle because it was difficult to believe that in a nation of people that is perhaps one of the most self-centred countries on Earth, two sets of citizens could look at the same sets of facts and arrive at diametrically opposed positions and feelings.

Eventually, it occurred to me that it was not about the innocence or guilt of O.J. Rather, it was because American blacks largely believed that the justice system did not serve them. Therefore, the possibility of a guilty 'brother' literally getting away with murder was macabre poetic justice.

In a small country such as ours, we cannot afford to have that level of divisiveness ideal, we must subscribe to one set of rules for all and that fairness must instruct all that we do.

The mêlée of orange and green-clad supporters outside of Parliament on Thursday last, shows how divided we really are. Two sets of Jamaicans refused to acknowledge and respect the leader of either party and jeered the rival party leader. It was as if the worst thing that anyone could be was either a Labourite or Comrade. Amazing, since this is Jamaica, land we love.

As has been his stance since his victory, Prime Minister Bruce Golding continues to be conciliatory. Clearly inspired by his 18 years in the political wilderness when he had more than enough time to think about the role of the Opposition, he has now placed the Leader of Opposition on par with the Deputy Prime Minister, and he is offering more participation in national decision making - a great initiative it makes me wonder if people who spend years in a particular interest group carry forward those biases when their roles are changed. The ideas here are a bit cloudy and 'webby', but Golding's gesture is very 'gracious'.

Nonetheless, one wonders whether these attempts at national consensus have filtered down to other members of the party. Attorney-at-law, Harold Brady, a failed Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) politician, who now shies away from front-line appearances, seems to be more successful working behind the scenes to thwart the democratic process. In East Hanover, despite the ruling in favour of D.K. Duncan, there appear to be strange moves that seem simply designed to delay the process. Showing some dexterity in moving from one side to the other, he is simultaneously engaged in preventing the counting of two apparently untampered boxes in St. Mary. Then suddenly, after the victorious JLP is sworn in under a cloud of uncertainty, he drops the suit faster than a slippery bar of soap. This can't be good for national unity.

Coming back to O.J., is it not strange that he was convicted in a civil court for causing the death of Goldman and his ex-wife it was difficult to establish that O.J. caused their death? Perhaps it was a case that O.J. owned the knife and the house and placed them so carelessly that they fell on it. Nevertheless, O.J. has been sentenced to literally pay all of his future earnings to the Goldmans and Browns and to give them all of his wealth, excepting his pension from the National Football League.

Assumption of the majority

O.J. has never been acquitted in the public eye and he has not helped by having little skirmishes with the law. The assumption of the majority of Americans is that he was a murderer not convicted. Therefore, he has been constantly hounded by the media and it is doubtful if he has ever been allowed to travel to Canada or England. His present travails are sub judice so we cannot speak of those.

Here, in Jamaica, we have an interesting paradoxical situation. There is a convicted rapist who, unlike O.J., is largely declared to be innocent. What is strange is that in all the interviews that he has given, including one Thursday on radio, he has either skirted around the issue or has not directly said that he was wrongly convicted as his fans and supporters maintain. Neither has he admitted guilt and repented.

Yet, apart from his celebrity status, we now know that he has an upcoming European tour and possibly an elusive British visa that the victim perhaps does not have. Two Jamaicas indeed. I, like Peter Tosh, believe that peace is only possible with justice. After all, the National Anthem puts justice and truth in the same line.

Dr. Orville Taylor is senior lecturer in the Department of Sociology, Psychology and Social Work at the University of the West Indies, Mona.