When the first stone was thrown by Stevie Wonder, more artists joined in the decision to boycott performing in Florida, at least theoretically, sort of, maybe. In addition to the lack of confirmation from any of their camps, not surprisingly, there’ve been opposing voices raised against the action, from a variety of different spectrums; politics, private enterprise, music and the arts. And, with what can only be called an ironic twist, some opposition is coming from within the ranks of the Congressional Black Caucus.
Whether or not it’s truly opposition, history will judge. Let’s say for now that some members have their reservations. I suppose it’s understandable since they have additional concerns to be evaluated. Things like the potential loss of jobs and the impact on constituents as a boots-on-the-ground result of such an action, probably sits heavily on their minds.
On the other hand, one hopes that the CBC will collectively see the necessity of this action. If consensus holds that the law needs to be retooled-and make no mistake that is the opinion of most-then let’s do so. Problem is that even though everyone agrees that the statute is not worthy or ready for implementation, Governor Rick Scott has steadfastly said there will be no changes made to it, no special legislative session called. In the face of such political pigheadedness, an economic boycott might be the only action to sway the governor, and ultimately, the state.
In so far as the rapidly dwindling list of celebrities on board is concerned, there’s very little anyone can do about that. We can only hope that they’ll see the necessity of what’s being attempted. And for those artists whose performances are still a go in Florida, there is still time for them to make an adjustment if they choose to do so.
That the fans will suffer is understood and can’t be helped. We can only hope that they would be on board with their decisions to forego performing. It comes down to what sacrifice they feel they should have to make and are willing to make, along with the impact such sacrifice would have on their bottom line. Only they have to decide exactly where their bottom line is. And that’s where the soul-searching comes knocking.
As far as the naysayers go, they are entitled to their opinion.
But those who say that the trial wasn’t about Stand Your Ground, that the defense was based on self-defense, I say that I think you are wrong. Stand Your Ground, or the shadow of such, has always loomed over the trial and the entire affair. It was there in the initial failure to arrest or even consider that anything could be amiss, even with one unarmed person dead. The pall of Stand Your Ground was there in the truck with George Zimmerman on the night that he stalked Trayvon. It soothed him into thinking that whatever happened, he was justified. It cajoled him to exit the safety of his vehicle’s cab and dash through the streets like a wannabe super hero, disregarding law enforcement’s instructions to the contrary. And when he finally caught up to his quarry, rather than retreat and allow the police to arrive and handle the situation, it was Stand Your Ground that told him it was alright to harass, confront and ultimately kill with the use of deadly force. The statute told him that he would be vindicated. So don’t tell me that the statute had nothing to do with the trial.
For those who say that proponents of the law are not indicative of the whole of Florida, I‘ve never said that I thought everyone in the state feels akin to the defense. But I don’t think that makes a difference as to whether or not a boycott is either needed or warranted. Furthermore, I would hope that all Floridians would want some clarification of and improvement to the law and recognize that the boycott is not an indictment against them; it’s an indictment against the creepy statute. Even with the district gerrymandering games that are afoot, join us and together we can change it.
Finally, for those that say it’s not about race-that black people have executed their rights under the law as much as white people-I agree with you. But having said that, I know that race will always ultimately be a part, or a possible part, of any altercation that occurs in a jurisdiction that has the statute, unless prohibitions are in place. Race will always be a part of our lives. It figures into how we interact with each other, treat each other. Put simply, no man, regardless of the color of his skin, should have at his disposal a law that affords him an unfair advantage; an advantage that allows him to routinely kill another.
So it’s good we’re having these discussions. In September, the eyes of the world will once again be on Florida where another case of self-defense/stand your ground will have to be decided. Michael David Dunn is accused of opening fire on a group of teens at a gas station, killing 17-year-old Jordan Davis, because he thought he saw someone leveling a shotgun towards him. No gun was found, witnesses will testify that Dunn had instigated words with the teens and his girlfriend is turning state’s evidence against him. Yet, none of that will matter. What will matter-and only, it seems, what will matter-is what Michael David Dunn thought at the time. And so far, he’s not changing his story.