Several label heads, industry insiders and common music lovers, are increasingly questioning the parent role being played by some regional governments in the creative music industry, when they ban certain artistes from performing, citing concerns about violence and lewdness.

The episodes have been many, but the most recent include the Government of Grenada banning deejay Vybz Kartel from performing there in May. They reportedly declined his work permit application on the basis that his tunes were too lewd and violent.

Others who have met similar challenges include deejay Mavado who was prevented from entering the Bahamas for a concert last year. He was also prevented from entering St. Vincent due to concern about violent lyrics, while he, along with Bounty Killer, has been banned from performing in Guyana on the same basis.

Expectedly, there have been handclaps of rejoicing at these decisions, and at the same time, loud howls of disapproval. Many regional citizens see the Government of their nation as the protector and guardian of the nation’s values, and as such it should take all necessary steps to protect its citizens from harmful external elements. They feel the constant exposure to violent and lewd lyrics will erode the values of the citizens, pushing the country towards anarchy.

Others however, argue that the actions amount to censorship and a deprivation of their right to freedom of expression, which violates many Constitutions across the region.

The proponents have argued that countries like Jamaica and Trinidad for example open their arms to artistes from all across the globe for countless number of concerts every year, despite the lyrical content of these artistes. Yet, some Caribbean nations select who they want to admit into the country, despite the fact that their recorded music is readily available on the island anyway. Many ask how effective is banning an artist from performing at a concert, when the artiste’s music saturates the radio in that particular island, is readily available on the internet, from mobile phone downloads and ring tones and also on cable television.

Without going into the merits of these arguments, it is clear that despite our cultural history and similarities in the Caribbean, there are contrasting cultural norms here. What is acceptable or tolerated in one society by the majority may not be tolerated by the majority in another island. It has long been settled that crime is a complex matter which is not attributable to a single factor such as music. The other part of the issue is the inherent difficulty in trying to police and enforce public morality. Historically this has been extremely difficult in the region. Several laws in the islands have been overturned because they sought to have legislative control in the interest of public morality, but which were found to be too harsh, and found to violate the very Constitution which gave them power in order to achieve this objective.

What therefore is the solution? Carlette Deleon of Headline Entertainment, Jamaica’s largest Booking Agency and Artist Public Relations Firm which includes Sean Paul among a number of Caribbean acts, gave some insight to the Jamaica Gleaner recently. She suggested the islands develop systems for the artistes to follow whenever they go to a particular territory. "You should outline to the artistes the guidelines that they will follow, and if the patrons don't want to see them, then they don't pay to go…I'm disappointed that Caribbean islands are having a knee-jerk reaction to a situation that is far more complex and one that needs more thought put into decision-making than to simply ban our indigenous artistes," she stated.

It is clear that the islands will never settle on certain values. The struggle has been long and seems set to continue because as with other commodities, whenever they are banned or prohibited they gain tremendous popularity underground.

Territories can provide guidelines to follow for performances, and the artistes could temper their shows depending on the territory they are entering. Other practical solutions include the concert contracts detailing guidelines about the performances. This smacks of censorship which is a curse word to some artistes who thrive on creative freedom. However, these measures may become a necessary middle ground in these times, where governments are confronting increased economic challenges and potential social unrest as a result, and where they are tempted to resort to drastic measures to eliminate anything they see as challenging the social order.

What is clearly required however is more dialogue and understanding between state agencies, concert promoters, the artistes, and influential record label executives in the various territories. Currently, the discussion level is extremely low, and mostly emerges when an artist gets banned. The attempts at consensus should be constant, consistent and cordial. The benefits will start at the level of the citizens, and by extension the economy, and ultimately, the country as a whole.