I do agree with some of the sentiments expressed by Esther Tyson in her column. 'Rampin Shop - musical poison', published on February 1.

While I am not going to argue from a moral position about what should be considered 'filth', or in regards to how people choose to describe or enjoy sexual activities (because clearly in this case, both individuals are having a conversation about how they spend their private moments together), the real serious issue that the columnist raised is the role of government in regulating what is fit for public consumption.

Government's role

The Government needs to respond to this situation by banning songs like this, to counter the negative influence on society, especially the children.

This is not to say that they would not otherwise hear the song, as many children are online, visiting websites which share this kind of material. They go to dances and parties where this music is played, among other things.

Nevertheless, it is the responsibility of the Government to act and to mediate the effects of explicit forms of musical expression such as this. Government action should not only speak to sex, but also the violence that is promoted in music.

Isn't this the role of the Broadcasting Commission? Where is the commission in all of this?

Perhaps, as the columnist has made us aware, it is time to reconsider our position on this matter, if there is already existing legislation.

We cannot deny the existence of dancehall's contribution and value to Jamaica, therefore we cannot blame academics who find it relevant to study this form of musical expression.

We should, therefore, understand that bringing knowledge to the public about the nature of dancehall has benefits, in terms of enabling us to contextualise this type of music.

I am, etc.,

AFIFA

development_partner@yahoo.com

UWI, Mona