Different remedies for illegality, immorality

THE EDITOR: This is a response to a recent letter from someone who “was taken aback ... about the Defence Force being zero tolerant on any of its officers who abuse drugs and other substances.” To paraphrase the writer, there should also be zero tolerance for those who have issues with immorality; those who attend functions with their “deputies” because such lifestyles destroy their homes.

While I appreciate the concerns expressed by the author, I must point out that there are different remedies for illegality and immorality. Illegality is punishable by secular laws under which transgressors are proscribed by statutes. On the other hand, immorality is usually governed by religious laws, beliefs and social mores, and deviants are denounced by castigation and ostracism. It must be emphasised that there are myriad activities that are considered immoral, many of which lead to the breaking up of the “family.”

Is there any particular reason for focusing on infidelity and promiscuity only? There are countless “happily married” adulterers, as well as loving and faithful couples, albeit joined without the benefit of the clergy. In the business sector, particularly where entities are small and privately held by individuals, owners may exercise their rights to hire whom they please and to fire those they find unsuitable to be retained, provided they skirt the issue of discrimination when it might be considered relevant.

On the other hand, in the public sector, with absent contractual caveats, managers cannot impose their personal moral standards upon others, let alone penalise them for embracing different values. Of course, experience has taught us that employers and managers sometimes fabricate shortcomings to punish employees because the true reasons cannot be legitimised. It is commonly accepted that infidelity is immoral but there is no law in TT that I know of which allows charges to be brought against one for adulterous or promiscuous activities. It is also generally held that cohabitation, as well as procreation outside of marriage are not to be extolled, nevertheless there is no Statute outlawing such occurrences. If employers had latitude in these matters there would be an alarming growth of the ranks of the unemployed.

I do not make these points because I hold any brief for the Defense Force or any other establishment, neither do I intend to scold the writer. I make the observations because it is too easy for well-intentioned people to ascribe to others responsibilities outside their purview and then condemn them for failing to do things they cannot legally do. No one wants to be accused unfairly, therefore, we should be cautious before impinging others. The light might be brighter in the Defense Force but the values were lost in a dimmer locale.

SELWYN P NIMBLETT
Brooklyn New York