ON September 13, at 6: 44 PM, a video was posted on the Facebook page of Jason Welch, which contained an exchange between a man profanely professing to be Attorney-at-law Ryan Crawford and a traffic policeman.

Irreverence, obscenities and malediction engulfed this encounter. By all appearances, this incident stemmed from a traffic stop by a member of the Guyana Police Force. The driver seemed incensed by what he considered to be a baseless intervention that bordered on abuse of authority.

Within hours, thousands of Guyanese Facebook users reacted to this video with shares, ‘likes’, comments and more; this post became viral and made its way into the national conversation. Some condemned the driver’s reaction, others expressed the view that it was justified, some referred to the usual arbitrary interventions by traffic policemen and others plainly celebrated Mr Crawford as the glorified anti-hero.

Firstly, respect for authority is the bedrock on which a law-and-order society stands. Chaos reigns in the cavalier abandonment of laws and rules; they distinguish us from the jungle. Once we begin to glorify wanton resentment of those who enforce the rules, it is the beginning of the end of peace and order. When our kids complain about suffering unfairness at the hands of teachers, we cannot send them back to school to “cuss out” the teacher and argue that it is justified because he/she was not fair. If a referee makes an unjust call in a game, there is no justification for the player at the receiving end of that decision to lace the referee with expletives and feel vindicated with the argument that the match official targeted him.

This begs the question, when is rebellion justified? John Locke said that rebellion is one of the natural rights of man and that is dignified for people to revolt against oppression– and not just armed uprising, but also rebelling against ideals. What transpired between Mr Crawford and the traffic cop does not rise to the level of the requirement for justified rebellion, so the arguments therein are inapplicable.

Secondly, Mr Crawford grandiloquently proclaimed that he is part of a profession where knowledge of the law and legal systems are occupational requirements. His learning placed expected onus on him to respond to what he considered an aggravated situation in a much more measured fashion. He must know that the review of unjust authority is possible.

There are systems in place to curtail spurious, gratuitous and unmeritorious mishandling of authority. Checks and balances exist and we must access those when faced with the misuse of power. Denigrating those who protect the rules and laws will foster a culture that gives credence to anarchists and criminals.

Thirdly, it is incumbent upon the upholders of standards who are vested with the responsibility to enforce the law, to execute same with equitableness and consistency.

A failure to do so results in unnecessary public excitement that can feed into frenzy that is inimical to the aims and objectives of an ordered society. It remains fundamentally dangerous to flippantly dismiss established authority.