| The Matrix | Rhetoric of Reggae Music | Reggae Links | Dread Library Catalog |


Don’t Shoot the Sheriff:

An overview of Rastafarians and the Legal System

Geoffrey Alex Domenico

Rastafarianism is a way of life… for many it is the only way of life. Growing up under a certain religion instills varying values and understandings into one’s moral fiber. These values are what shape a human’s character. In some countries, the government is trying to tell these peaceful people to disregard their upbringing and to conform to alien ways.

Every religious sect has its own traditions and historical rituals that they abide to. In religions, almost everything has significance to it. And anyone concerned about the future of his/her religion, will continue to ensure that these traditions are followed, to preserve their own way of life. Now, most countries have religious freedom clauses in their constitutions that state that anyone living on their soil has the right to practice the religion of their choice. Now this might seem a minuscule fact for someone of a common religion, but to someone of a minority religion, this is all the protection they have from the legal system. This paper is only a taste of the justices and injustices that Rastafarians have faced in legal systems across the globe. Some instances a loophole for the "misfortunate", others an outcry from the oppressed.

Every country’s legal system has problems. Some problems are masked with legal terms. Theses are the hardest to overcome. The "land of the free" is what the United States is sometimes referred to as, but for some, this statement seems phonier than an Ed McMahon sweepstakes.

In the U.S. case, Belgrave vs. Coughlin, an inmate of the Sing-Sing Correctional Institution in New York, claims his religious rights were revoked. Nekyon Belgrave, a Rastafarian, says the Department of Correctional Services ("DOCS" hereinafter) denied his request to wear his religious head covering known as a crown. A crown is a loose-knit, circular hat that covers the wearer’s dreadlocks (Anderson, 1).

Belgrave’s appeal reached the Second Circuit where acting Justice Anthony A. Scaprino Jr. sent the matter back to DOCS saying they overlooked their own regulations denying Belgrave’s request. The matter had already been solved in the precedent of Benjamin vs. Coughlin, 905 F2d 571, where the Second Circuit had agreed with a lower court ruling that denying a Rastafarian’s request to wear a crown did not break the First Amendment, ruling that is was an interest of security (Anderson, 2).

This precedent and an August 8, 1990 memorandum stating that regulations allowed the wearing of certain head-coverings, was enough to send the matter back into the hands of the DOCS. An inmate’s request to wear religious garb, must be presented to the head chaplain or warden. The request must be approved by the chaplain and then by the head of security (Associated Press, 3). This is the hardest part of the process. The hierarchy of American prisons alone could decide the fate of any inmate, let alone the decision to wear religious head-coverings. If the head of security deemed the crown or any other head covering unsafe, he must present a written explanation to the inmate as to way his/her request was denied (Anderson, 2). The whole issue that the DOCS was trying to push was the safety factor. The DOCS found that the large, loose-fitting hat could present a danger to the staff and other inmates. Weapons, controlled substances, and other contra band could be hidden within the crown. Justice A.A. Scarpino Jr. had this to say, "These regulations provide a reasonable and workable formula by which an individual’s right to freely exercise his/her religious belief may be balanced against the

legitimate penological interest of the state in providing adequate security in state correctional facilities,"(Anderson, 2).

The result of Mr. Belgrave’s request was a flat denial by the DOCS. They found that the crown does present a problem, but they are willing to find a common ground in which both sides are the win. The DOCS does say that not all Rastafarians wear crowns, and hopefully an alternative will present itself (Anderson, 2).

Paul Jolly, 29, who is serving 37 _ years-to-life for murder at Attica Correctional Facility near Buffalo, New York, says he has been isolated for the last 3 _ years for refusing a tuberculosis screening test (Pines, 1). His refusal of the test, which Jolly says goes against his Rastafarian religion, has made his prison term much harder. Jolly states that he is denied visits, denied exercise and is only permitted out of his cell for one ten minute shower a week (Pines, 2).

Attica officials say that Jolly was confined "due to the epidemic of multi-drug resistant tuberculosis and to protect the public because the inmate would eventually be released," (Noname1, 1). Jolly’s attorney stressed these three points:

"(1) Mr. Jolly, who shows no signs of "active" TB, the only contagious kind, poses no health threat to other inmates.

(2) In "medical keeplock" he still shares the same breathing space; unlike inmates segregated with "active" TB.

(3) Even inmates whose screening tests are positive for "latent" TB are not placed in medical keeplock," (Pines, 1).

These three points show that for some reason other than his refusal to take the test, officials were illegally confining him. Mr. Jolly’s whole refusal was based on his Rastafarian beliefs which states prohibition of "artificial substances into the body,"

(Pines, 2). After proving Mr. Jolly’s unjust lock-up, his lawyers went after their client’s right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eight Amendment. Keep in mind that Mr. Jolly was only permitted to leave his cell for a total of eight hours and forty minutes per year (Pines, 2). That by anyone’s reasoning is cruel and unusual.

In this case of Jolly vs. Coughlin, Second Circuit Judge Jose A. Cabranes found, "the government failed to demonstrate a compelling stat interest to overcome the burden on Mr. Jolly’s religious freedom of forcing him into the choice of confinement or the TB test," (Pines, 2). Cabranes also found strong proof in Mr. Jolly’s Eighth Amendment claims.

The jury found that, "We have no difficulty concluding that, on the heels of such extreme and prolonged confinement, to continue to confine the plaintiff to medical keeplock under somewhat improved conditions would run afoul of the Eighth Amendment," (Pines, 2). Jolly could not be confined because of his refusal to take the test due to his religious belief. The jury awarded him $33,000.

In this next case, Brown vs. Daytop Village, Inc., a Rastafarian is fighting against yet another one of Babylon’s institutions. Mr. Brown, who was convicted of the sale of a controlled substance of the third degree, had a choice between an in-patient drug treatment program and a jail sentence. Daytop Village ("Daytop" hereinafter) is a government-funded clinic that provides rehabilitation/detoxification to drug "addicts". Daytop, which rarely accepts convicted felons, admitted Mr. Brown on the condition that he would stay the duration and not cause unneeded disturbances. Mr. Brown was paroled to the custody of Daytop, but on the following day, October 30, 1991, he was expelled after a dispute over cutting his hair. The Rastafarian dreadlocks that the plaintiff wore are of religious significance. Cutting his dreadlocks would be a violation of his religion and himself.

Daytop insists that all new-coming patients cut their hair before entering the program. Their residential treatment program, "is regulated by strict conformance with uniform standards for admission, and thereafter for continued treatment in a ‘therapeutic community.’ These uniform standards were early on designed by medically supervised trial and error experimentation. They have since been maintained with a quarter century or regulatory consistency," (Noname2, 3). This change helps break psychological and physical ties to the patient’s destructive life patterns. All new patients receive the same treatment, as so to start on equal footing, it is a birth to a new, substance-free life. During the course of the patients stay, he/she can earn back, as a privilege, the rights of individuality (Nomane2, 4). This value of earning privileges is very important in the eyes of Daytop. They feel that it is part of the healing process.

With Mr. Brown’s refusal to cut his hair, Daytop had no choice but to expel him. Brown feels that Daytop discriminated against him because of his creed. Arguing that Daytop is a "place of public accommodation", Brown’s lawyer says that being a clinic for the public, Daytop has violated Brown’s constitutional rights. Under New York law, "it is an unlawful discriminatory practice for any person, being the owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, superintendent, agent or employee of any place of public accommodation…because of the… creed… of any person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from or deny to such person any of the accommodation, advantages, facilities or privileges thereof…" (Noname2, 3). Daytop’s stance is that it is not a "place of public accommodation", but rather, "a private corporation entity whose program integrity will be damaged and undue hardship imposed should the sough after relief be granted," (Noname3, 2).

Mr. Brown, since his release from Daytop, has not "run afoul of the law" or been with the assistance of a drug-treatment program. For fear of a drug relapse or reincarceration, Brown seeks "preliminary injunction enjoining Daytop from refusing to admit him unconditionally into its drug treatment program during the pendency of the action," (Noname3, 2). This motion was denied because Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that irreparable injury was sustained by Daytop’s refusal.

Brown’s main argument is that Daytop’s refusal of his admittance is solely due to his being Rastafarian. Daytop maintains its stance on it being "medical necessity". The point of discussion now is whether Mr. Brown’s religious beliefs can be proven true in court. When questioned about his religion, Brown’s knowledge of Rastafarianism was limited. He knew of neither its history nor contemporary culture. The Plaintiff was completely unaware of the "Vow of Nazarite". This "vow" is the scripture that forbids male Rastas from cutting any body hair. Concluding, Brown had little to no knowledge of his religion, or for that fact, the matter at hand.

After his "religious inquisition", Brown rebutted with the follow, "I follow through what I know and what I believe and how I feel about it," (Noname2, 5). He recounts that he was raised a Rasta by his father who taught him "the ways". Also, he recalls having, "dialogues about the meaning of scripture, known as reasoning." Brown’s knowledge of his religion was very sparse, but if the court rejected his plea, it would be in the position of promoting religious orthodoxy. "Religion is best left between a believer and his belief," (Noname2, 5). The court sided with Daytop Village, saying that, "Daytop has met the burden of proving the regulation is based upon medical necessity, not upon discrimination based on religious belief," (Noname2, 7).

Breaking away from Rastafarians in the custody of the government, this next case deals with injustices in the workplace. Desiree Smitherman, a black, practicing Rastafarian, says she was discriminated against by not being promoted on numerous occasions, causing a hostile work environment, leading to her resignation. The case is Smitherman vs. Williams- Sonoma, Inc.

Smitherman was employed by Pottery Barn from April of 1992 to February of 1996. In September of 1994, she says a store manager told her, "…People like you should be working at a McDonald’s…" and that, "…most Rastafarians are homophobic…" (O’Melveny, 1). After these comments were made, she phoned in to the Pottery Barn’s corporate headquarters. This call resulted in a meeting where the store manager had to apologize. For various reasons, Smitherman requested and received a transfer to another store location where she remained from October of 1994 through December of 1995.

Throughout the rest of her employment by Pottery Barn, she says that she was repeatedly warned never to call the headquarters again. Also, her supervisors and co-workers made repeated comments about her dreadlocks. On one occasion, a supervisor said her dreads, "…smelled musty…" and needed to be washed (Noname4, 3).

At the second Pottery Barn location, three separate senior sales associates positions opened and she was overlooked each time. Smitherman claims she was at least as qualified as the others, but was overlooked due to her race and religion (O’Melveny, 2). Pottery Barn said she was not qualified for the supervisory position of Senior Sales Associate. Let it be known that two of the three promoted were black, but of unknown religion, and the third was Catholic Hispanic. Her original position included selling merchandise, cleaning the store and maintaining visual displays (Noname4, 2).

When Smitherman was overlooked for the third time, she requested another transfer and received it. She worked there from December of 1995, to February of 1996. On February 2, 1996 Desiree’s brother Joseph, also an employee of the Pottery Barn, was arrested by the White Plains police for driving a company vehicle with a suspended license (Noname4, 4). She believes that this incident was all part of the Pottery Barn’s "grand scheme" to force her to quit (Noname4, 4). On February 10, 1996, two days later, she resigned from her position.

Now, the Pottery Barn wants this matter dismissed altogether, but the courts see that there is a case of discrimination here. They find that in the case of Constructive Discharge, where a company coerces an employee to quit by making working conditions intolerable, Pottery Barn is at fault. The courts concluded that, "Smitherman’s allegations relating to 1) her lack of promotion; 2) the repeated discriminatory comments about her dreadlocks; and 3) the arrest of her brother were sufficient proof for a juror to conclude that a reasonable person would’ve felt compelled to resign," (O’Melveny, 2). Both parties shall be ready for trail within 48 hours notice as of October 1, 1999.

Part of the Rastafarian religion requires the use of marijuana, or dagga, as it is know outside of the U.S., as a sacrament. Smoking the herb gets them closer to god so they can better understand their sins. But how does their religious right to smoke herb coincide with the crime of transporting it? Do the two go hand in hand? In the sensitive case of People vs. Peck, we will see how American courts feel about this subject.

Wisconsin resident Gregory Peck was stopped at the Temecula, Ca Border Patrol checkpoint. When officials searched his car, they came across 40 pounds of marijuana worth approximately $40,000 wholesale. During the trial, Peck explained that he was the President and priest of the Israel Zion Coptic Church ("IZCC" hereinafter). The IZCC is an offshoot of Rastafarianism. He explained that he had gone to California to purchase a large quantity of marijuana for the use of the IZCC. Peck said he, "obtained [the] marijuana not only for personal use but also for distribution to at least two other church members, those who contributed the rest of the money," and that he, "made a practice of providing marijuana to nonmembers of the church." (Ofgang, 2)

In a 1990 case called Employment Division vs. Smith, a court ruled that Native American religions had no constitutionally protected right to use peyote for religious uses. In response to this case, Congress enacted the Religious Freedom Reformation Act ("RFRA" hereinafter) in 1993. The RFRA states that the government cannot impose a "substantial burden" on a person’s exercise of religion, unless it shows that it is in the "furtherance of a compelling government interest to do so, and that the burden is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest," (Ofgang, 2). Any claim made by Peck would then have to fall under the RFRA. Justice Betty Richli had the following to say, "Although the use of marijuana as a sacrament is central to the IZCC, [the] defendant was prosecuted not for using marijuana but for transporting a large quantity of it and possessing it for sale… These activities are only related peripherally, if at all, to the practice of defendant’s religion" (Ofgang, 2). In a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in United States vs. Bauer, the court found that a defense of the RFRA could be used if it were only a possession case and not a matter of distribution.

The judge found that Peck and the other members of the IZCC use marijuana to bring about "some effect" other than using it as a sacrament like wine. It was also stated that Peck had shared the drug with non-members of the IZCC and including children on multiple occasions. Justice Richli had this to say on the verdict, "It is a criminal offense to distribute marijuana, whether or not for profit… The elimination of traffic of illegal drugs is a compelling state interest… The court reasonably could conclude that is not restrained from association with users of marijuana, defendant would continue to distribute marijuana, both within and without his church," (Ofgang, 2). Peck was found guilty and sentenced to five years probation.

Pecks probation brought about another topic for discussion. Would Peck be allowed to divulge in marijuana while on probation? Justice Richli said Peck would have to submit to drug testing during his probation period. She concluded with, "Probation is a privilege and not a right. A probationer is not entitled to the same degree of constitutional protection as other citizens," even a probation condition can infringe on a constitutional right if, "it is to serve the dual purpose of rehabilitation and public safety," (Ofgang, 3).

Rastafarians living in the U.S. territory of Guam have just had a large weight lifted off their shoulders. Guam Superior Court Justice Michael Bordallo says that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA" hereinafter) is "ire, mon," (Elias, 1). In 1997 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the RFRA unconstitutional, saying it violated the commerce clause of the 14th Amendment. Bordallo explains that the commerce clause’s language specifically implies to that of states, and since Guam is yet to become a state, the clause has no relevancy (Elias, 1). This is great news for Rastafarian Benny Toves Guerro.

On January 2,1991, Mr. Guerro was traveling back from Los Angeles, when he was stopped and searched by airport security. The officials found Mr. Guerro’s personal stash of marijuana in his backpack. Guerro explained that he used the herb for religious purposes. He was indicted nine days later.

Justice Bordallo says that Guerro’s arrest violated the Organic Act of Guam. This act guarantees Guam’s residents complete religious freedom. He also found that Mr. Guerro has demonstrated that he is a legitimate member of the Rastafarian religion. Bordallo’s findings resulted in the dismissal of all of Guerro’s "importation" charges.

The previous cases displayed how the U.S. government feels about the rights of legitimate Rastafarians. U.S. courts have had a slew of drug smugglers who have tried to use the RFRA as a loophole. The Rastafarian excuse for marijuana charges has become all too familiar these days. The courts have no choice but to tighten their stance on religious freedoms. Other nations of the world have tried other ways to diminish the gap between Rastafarian beliefs and modern culture.

In Handsworth, England, riots are said to be started by Rastafarian drug-dealing gangs. This comes to as a shock to many of the victims, mostly Asian shopkeepers, who noticed that the Rastas and police were actually working together. The two share efforts to keep "hard drugs" off the street, while the police turn their backs when it comes to the herb that the Rastas love so much. They share a symbiotic relationship where both must strive for the better of the whole.

Although Rastafarians "try to look fierce… they wear their hair in religiously unkempt ‘dreadlocks’… and talk a dialect of English devised to baffle unbelievers…" they are the only group whose authority is recognized by the poorest and most alienated of Britain’s ghettos (Noname5, 1). Great Britain’s Rastafarian community consists of approximately 10,000 members, which breaks down into two specific groups, the Ethiopian World Federation, and the Twelve Tribes of Israel. The British police know marijuana is a pacifier, and keeps the "discontented from turning into malcontents" (Noname5, 4). The biggest problem the police have is dealing with the heroine influx. In Peckham (South London), and Croxteth (Liverpool), the heroine impact is very high, but in Brixon and Toxteth, there is almost no sign of heroine. Officials say that it is because of the black Rastafarians who keep it out of their communities. Both parties are concerned with the "preservation of the marijuana culture, that both find convenient, and suppression of the more addictive drugs that both fear" (Noname5, 3).

One can deduce that the British police have a much more lax tone with Rastafarians and marijuana than does the United States. Marijuana is to the Rastas as wine is to the Catholics. It seems odd that the United States has such a harsh penalty for marijuana when it should be trying to put an end to the senseless persecution of an entire religion.

In New Zealand, cannabis is becoming a familiarity on Parliament’s docket. Nandor Tanczos, a 33-year-old Rastafarian, has been pushing for the legalization of marijuana for his religion. Tanczos was elected in November of 1999 as a Green Party candidate. He has been touring his nation’s campuses on his campaign for the decriminalization of cannabis.

Tanczos stated that his colleagues "are drunk, drunk in charge of a country" (Noname6, 1). He condones their harsh laws on other drug while they freely drink within Parliament confines. The motion to have Tanczos reveal the names of the particular individuals involved was denied. It’s surprising that no one wanted to know any names.

With respect to his nations laws, he says the "degree of tolerance our society shows for alcohol is inconsistent with the approach it takes to cannabis" (Barber, 1). Also he believes that "…Young people would be more likely to have respect for the law if their elders showed less hypocrisy" (Barber, 2). Mr. Tanczos is hoping to change the beliefs of his nation’s leaders and people about marijuana.

Some believe that being famous means being above the law, this is not always true. In the Freedomland are of Katututra, Nambia, Omehoyaaliyatala Hans Sheehama was arrested when police found a bit of dagga stuck to the inside of an orange peel which Sheehama says kept it moist. The amount, undeclared by police, was rumored to be under a gram. Sheehama is a Rastafarian reggae singer who proclaims that he uses dagga "to lead me to a positive meditation" (Menges(1), 1).

Sheehama is making his defense under the protection of the Nambian Constitution. Article 19 "guarantees every person the right to practice any culture, tradition or religion", and Article 21(1)(c) "guarantees the fundamental freedom to practice any religion and to manifest such practice" (Menges(2), 3). He believes that his rights as a Rastafarian have been violated. In Sheehama’s first conviction, police in Upington, South Africa arrested him for a small amount of dagga stuck to the inside of an orange peel. The court found him guilty and sentenced him to pay a fine of R40 or 40 days in jail.

Trying to explain marijuana’s legitimacy to the courts, Sheehama started to recite a few quotes pertaining to the subject from the Bible. He started of with a selection from Genesis 1:12 that says, "And the earth brought forth grass, and herbs yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seeds are inside itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good." From Genesis 3:18, "…thou shalt eat the herb of the field," and "…eat every herb on the land…" from Exodus 10:12. His last quote from the scripture was a selection from Psalm 104 verse 14, "He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man," (Menges(2), 4) Even after his many attempts, Sheehama’s chances looked slim.

On September 25, 1998 the courts found him guilty of the illegal possession of marijuana. He had the choice of either a fine of R300 or 90 days in prison. The courts view is as follows, "All it does [the prohibition] is limit the aspect of this religion which is harmful and dangerous to public safety, order, health, morals and the fundamental rights and freedom of others and in so doing is not in the national interest," (Menges(2), 4).

Jamaica, the homeland to many of the world’s Rastafarians, has a somewhat scanty legal system. The police are corrupt and leave the people to themselves, to fight for themselves. That is where a lot of reggae music comes from, the fear or courage of having to protect one’s self and loved ones. As a sign of this, six reggae stars have died in the past 14 months, "victims of their own violent culture" (Turriff, 1). The most upsetting death is the one of Garnett Silk, a 27-year-old singer. Silk was killed when a propane cylinder near his house exploded. A stray bullet hit the tank, causing the ignition of the gas. Police believed it was an accident, and that Silk had fired the fatal shot. He bought the gun for protection from a man who was stealing his timber. Mourners believed he was killed because of a grudge. On onlooker stated, "… they killed him because he speak the truth". When asked who killed him, the man replied, "It was just Lucifer" (Turriff, 1). Others believe it was the result of Silk’s involvement in gang/drug related violence of the ghettos.

The other five killed the in the past year are Mickey Simpson, Dirtsman, Pan Head, Early Bee, and Massive Dread. Simpson was stabbed to death after getting involved in a "neighborhood dispute". Dirtsman, a dancehall star, who lived in a PNP stronghold, was shot after refusing to publicly endorse the party. Pan Head, another dancehall star, was killed in an incident disguised as robbery. Nothing was taken from him. Early Bee was shot while on stage in New York, and Massive Dread was shot for publicly speaking out against the political authorities. All these performers lived in so-called "garrison communities". These are ghettos controlled by political gunmen who are loosely linked to Jamaica’s two main political parties, the JLP and the PNP. None of these murders have been solved.

In years past, the albums that sold the best were those with "gun lyrics". Guns are very commonplace at dancehalls. They are said to be "bulging from almost every visible pocket"(Turriff, 3). At some dancehalls, the audience does a "gun salute", in which everyone fires his/her gun into the air approvingly. Jah-T, Garnet Silk’s manager, thinks, "For all the publicity given to deaths of entertainers, ten times the number of ordinary people die, unnoticed". "Bitches are to rap…[like] gun are to reggae," (Turriff, 3).

Now, the gun lyrics have dropped out of the limelight. "Cultural" or "consciousness" lyrics are again the best sellers. Themes that remind us of Bob, such as peace, Rastafarianism, and black oppression, not gun toting antics. Jah-T says, "Marley didn’t sing violent lyric, because he was such a superstar, all the political gunmen would look to him for advice and you’d find some of the biggest gunmen in Jamaica round Bob’s house every day," (Turriff, 2). But even Bob was susceptible to political pressures. Two days before the famous 1976 government show where Bob united the JLP and PNP, a gang of gunmen burst into his house and tried to shoot him.

Reggae star murders result from their people’s deep resentment of their money and success. Individuals, who feel they were cheated of stepped on by someone, usually have the nature to retaliate, especially if the police services are barely non-existent and one is almost guaranteed not to get apprehended. The percentage of unsolved murder cases in Jamaica is staggering. Again we see that fear plays a role in one’s decisions. Throughout Jamaica, we see a vicious cycle of life that claims so many promising individuals. Beginning with Poverty, aspiring performers will do anything to make it. Once they are noticed and maybe begin getting radio play, the amount of new- found Fame and Attention are overwhelming. Increasing Fame results in Money. Money leads to Power and influence over others. Power is the top of the ladder. Many people of the world think money and power are the keys to life, so instead of working for it, the frustrated take the aggressions out on these stars who seemed to have succeeded so easily. This aggression usually ends up in the death of another aspiring performers. We find it much easier to take than to earn. In a country where much oppression has occurred, and already so many lives have been lost, and whose people are filled with so much hurt, why do they insist on making it harder for themselves? Jah-T put it best with, "Even in the hands of a Righteous man, a gun is still the Devil’s tool," (Turriff, 4).

Throughout this text we have witnessed accounts of how different nations views affect its people. From the United States to Nambia, Rastafarians are being senselessly prosecuted. Although there are so many people who use the Rastafarian religion as a scapegoat for their own misfortunes, there are many, many who are legitimate members who deserve the rights they are guaranteed. Why do the courts of our world waste so much of their time and their country’s money on trials that take years and that should have never made it to court? With old members of governments, in countries throughout the world, stepping down, it makes room for a new force of young and ambitious political candidates. This new generation will see us through the beginning of this new millennium and hopefully change the world’s views on certain subjects. People of the world are so very tired of all the hypocrisy and empty promises that many governments ooze from underneath their crooked and cracked foundations. We need a strong voice, and things will change only if we change them. Action must be taken to improve our surroundings. This creepy malaise that grips the youth of today, must be broken, or we have no one to blame but ourselves.


[All cited works were found online at site specified.]

  1. Associated Press. "High Court Leaves Intact Ban On Utilities Billing for Charity". New York Law Journal. October 30, 1990. [Congressional Universe].
  2. Anderson, Cerisse. "Claim by Rastafarian Inmate for Head Covering Remanded". New York Law Journal. August 27, 1991. [Lexis-Nexis].
  3. Noname 1. "Rastafarian Receives $33,000 for Distress for Medical Keeplock". Corrections Professional. March 20, 1998. [Congressional Universe].
  4. Pines, Deborah. "Religion Law Used in Easing Inmate’s Status; Refusal by Rastafarian of Medical Test at Issue". New York Law Journal. February 9, 1996. [Congressional Universe].
  5. Noname 2. "Drug Treatment Program Is Allowed to Refuse Parolee with Dreadlocks". New York Law Journal. February 16, 1994. [Congressional Universe]
  6. Noname 3. "Court Denies Restraining Order Against Drug Treatment Center". New York Law Journal. December 3, 1992. [Congressional Universe].
  7. O’Melveny and Myers. "Employee May Proceed With Discrimination Claim Based On Race and Religion". New York Employment Law Letter. November 1999. [Congressional Universe].
  8. Noname 4. "Rastafarian Claim For Retaliation Is Upheld Because of Her Call to Corporate Headquarters". New York Law Journal. August 20, 1999.[Congressional Universe].
  9. Ofgang, Kenneth. "’Religious Freedom’ No Defense to Marijuana Transportation in CA". Metropolitan News-Enterprise. January 29, 1997. [Congressional Universe].
  10. Elias, Paul. "In Guam, A Rastafarian is Feeling IRIE". The Recorder. August 17, 1999. [Congressional Universe].
  11. Noname 5. "Dreadlocks Under the Helmet". The Economist. September 21, 1985. [Lexis-Nexis].
  12. Noname 6. "New Zealand MP Seeks Support for Decriminalization of Cannabis". Deutsche Presse-Agentur. February 18, 2000. [Lexis-Nexis].
  13. Barber, David. "New Zealand Elects Dreadlocked Rastafarian to Parliament". Deutsche Presse-Agentur. December 7, 1999. [Lexis-Nexis].
  14. Menges(1), Werner. "Namibia; High Court Keeps Ras waiting to Exhale". Africa News. February 15, 2000. [Lexis-Nexis]
  15. Menges(2), Werner. "Sheehama To Launch Challenge on ‘Holy Weed’". Africa News. September 28, 1998. [Lexis-Nexis].
  16. Turriff, Caroline. "Living on the Frontline". Sunday Times. March 19, 1995. [Lexis-Nexis]
  17. Thiel, Gustav. "South Africa; Rasta ‘Not Fit or Proper’ Lawyer". Africa News. March 7, 1997. [Lexis-Nexis].
  18. Chazan, David. "Dreadlocks and Wisdom Weed Grow Roots in Ethiopia". Agence France Presse. July 18, 1991. [Lexis-Nexis].

[Some works found did not give an author’s name for the piece. The title Noname 1-6 was given to articles of this nature. Sorry for the confusion.]