THE EDITOR: Last week I read a statement by the Leader of the Opposition in which she boldly and carelessly alluded to a possible repeat of the 1990 insurrection. This is the most dangerous language from any political party in recent history. The strategically worded statement has the potential to cause much harm to this nation.

According to research conducted by Nathan Kalmoe, assistant professor of political communication at Louisiana State University in the Manship School of Mass Communication and Department of Political Science, social and psychological research tell us about the potential link between political rhetoric and violence.

Researchers have good circumstantial evidence from the real world as well as evidence from scientific experiments concluding, overall, that rhetoric is probably not the main cause in most attacks but violent, hateful language can inflame people who are already inclined toward violence and focus their rage.

In a series of experiments he conducted in 2010, Kalmoe found that exposure to mildly violent political metaphors increased general support for political violence among people with aggressive personalities.

After participants answered personality questions about aggression, he randomly assigned them to read a short campaign speech that included either violent metaphors or nonviolent substitutes. Then, participants responded to questions about political threats, property damage and physical violence against leaders.

Among interpersonally aggressive people, those who read the violent text had higher average political violence scores compared with those who saw nonviolent language. People with low aggressive personality scores were unaffected by language differences. In other words, aggressive people are already more likely to support political violence, and violent language makes them more so.

As the world faces so many challenges brought about by the coronavirus, now more than ever we should preach the power of spirituality, love, peace, patience and patriotism. All people, especially those opposed to the Government, are free to express their opinions and their suggestions. Discussions and dialogue are encouraged but they must be done responsibly with the goal of putting the safety and security of all citizens first.

NIGEL SEENATHSINGH

San Fernando