In the wake of Danielle Archer’s timely alarm through her article in the Jamaica Gleaner on April 5, 2026, on Jamaica’s shrinking beach access, a familiar counterargument has surfaced: that public misbehaviour—littering, disorder, harassment—justifies the increasing privatisation of our coastline. It is an argument that sounds practical, even reasonable. It is also profoundly dangerous.

For it asks us to accept a quiet but consequential shift: from seeing the coastline as a shared birthright to treating it as a conditional privilege—revocable upon evidence of poor conduct.

No serious observer denies the challenges. Some public beaches suffer from inadequate sanitation, weak enforcement, and, at times, predatory informal practices. These are real issues requiring urgent attention. But they are failures of governance, not grounds for dispossession.

We do not privatise our roads because of reckless driving. We do not surrender public schools because of indiscipline. In functioning societies, disorder triggers reform—not retreat.

What is unfolding along Jamaica’s shores is not merely a response to misbehaviour; it is a deeper structural transformation. The commons are being enclosed, regulated, and, increasingly, monetised. Access becomes mediated by fees, permissions, or proximity to private developments. The effect is subtle but cumulative: the ordinary citizen finds fewer points of entry to the sea that has always defined our identity.

This is not simply an environmental or economic issue. It is a question of belonging. A nation surrounded by water cannot afford to become estranged from its own edge.

To suggest that Jamaicans are too “undisciplined” to enjoy their beaches is to cross a troubling line. It risks normalising the idea that rights may be forfeited where behaviour falls short. Yet rights, properly understood, are not rewards for good conduct; they are the foundation upon which responsible conduct is built.

The answer, therefore, lies not in ceding ground but in reclaiming responsibility. Clear legal guarantees of public access, properly resourced management, consistent enforcement, and sustained civic education are all within the competence of a serious state.

Archer has done the country a service by sounding the alarm. The task now is to ensure that the response does not deepen the very injustice she has exposed.

For if we accept that birthright may be withdrawn in the name of order, we may soon discover how much else can be taken—quietly, incrementally, and with our reluctant consent.