Dear Editor,

I am offended.

On Wednesday, July 29, The Nassau Guardian printed a full-page opinion column by Anthony S. Hall entitled "Black lives matter? Sandra Bland is an example, not a martyr". First I acknowledge that Hall is not only lawyer but an international one so perhaps I simply didn't understand the fancy words he spoke. The thing is, despite being a Bahamian living in the majority black Bahamas, it is difficult to not get upset at what has appeared to be the racial injustice coming to light in the American law enforcement system. So when I saw the title black lives matter I was confused.

Honestly, I only read the article because I thought it must be satire to even question if black lives matter. However as I read the piece, the further I got the less intrigue I found and the more anger I discovered in myself.

Hall painted the officer that arrested Sandra Bland as "very professional and polite" even though when she asked him why she was being arrested the officer's response was "I'm going to light you up".

The writer also states "(Sandra) Bland copped a confrontational attitude from the moment white cop Brian Encinia approached her car... there can be no denying that if Bland had returned Encinia's professional approach with just a little civility (and cooperation), he might have issued her a ticket or let her off with just a warning. Either way, she would not have ended up in jail, dying under suspicious circumstances."

The implication that I gathered is that her "suspicious" death was her fault. That she is not a victim. That she should have known better. Why didn't she smile and kiss the feet of the man who drove uncomfortably close behind her, and when she moved to let him pass her on the road he pulled her over for failing to signal in a situation he had caused? This argument is one mini skirt away from being a "if she didn't want that to happen she shouldn't have worn those clothes!"

I could go on to explain how Hall continued his piece by "proving" that several dead black people responsible for their own fates, including the recent shooting of Samuel Dubose where he repeats the then official story which ironically the day of his article being published was proved to be untrue and video evidence was released proving the officer's actions "asinine". I could go on and recall how he mocked the slogan "black lives matter as nothing more than a 'hollow rallying cry'".

I could even go on and on about how anyone who says "all lives matter" misses the point. "Black lives matter" is not an exhaustive statement. It exists with the assumption that everyone knows that white lives/Asian lives/rich people's lives/lion lives matter, but because of the disproportionate incidents involving police and black persons in the States, it demands that it be stated explicitly that "black lives matter (also)". But I won't do that, because I am offended.

Hall is allowed to have his opinion but this column was requested by The Guardian, as the disclaimer at the bottom of it states that it sought permission to reprint it in the newspaper and then gave it a full page in the main section. It is irresponsible to give this level of space to such rhetoric without any counter argument present. We already suffer enough living in a country where it is rude to question authority despite seeing them do foolishness day to day. We do not need to read excerpts condoning that abroad.

It is easy to choose the side of the powerful, the conqueror, the hegemonic structure. So if Hall wishes to be an apologist for the flawed American justice system that is clearly impacted by that country's general rules on race, he is free to do so, but refrain from importing that dreck here.

- Stephen Hanna

Click here to read more at The Nassau Guardian