Conduct unbecoming
Freddie Kissoon Column
Kaieteur News
January 20, 2007
The low level to which political exchanges descended began with the Channel 9 talk show hosts and on CNS Channel 6.
These were people without training in the social sciences and the humanities. They couldn't resort to political/sociological/historical analysis to disprove their critics, so they cussed out. The bulk of their dirty, nasty attacks were centered on the leaders of the government.
The then leader of the opposition, Desmond Hoyte, went further down the ladder of vulgar abuse. After castigating Roger Luncheon in the most libelous manner using personal derogations, Mr. Hoyte turned around and sued Dr. Luncheon.
It was one of the most barefaced pieces of hypocrisy in political confrontation at any time in the world at any period in history.
The issue was a statement Dr. Luncheon made about Mr. Hoyte's disregard for honouring political agreements. Mr. Hoyte was furious and insisted that Luncheon scrub his dirty skin. After making that statement, he sued Luncheon.
The most intolerable nonsense came from the talk show hosts of Channel 9 and Channel 6. Here were these people who sermonized to the nation on the wrongs of the government but were making their criticism using uncivilized language and behaving in ways that decent people found revolting.
No one in the other media houses and in the PNC ever saw it as a wise thing to do to tell these people that with such unbecoming conduct why should anyone ever believe that they were better than the PPP leaders they carp about. The situation still goes on.
Imagine a certain politician that owns a television station can direct a remark against Adam Harris and bring in the man's wife. For God's sake, Harris is the person that makes political commentary, not his wife.
Why was the man's wife dragged into the controversy? How can people like these ask us to accept them as alternatives to the PPP? Why do people tolerate this kind of unbecoming conduct?
I asked a colleague of mine at Kaieteur News why he listens to this television owner, and he said: “Freddie, I do it to get some fun.” I hope so.
The situation was not as bad in the print media, but unbecoming conduct can be found among the debaters in the newspapers.
As for me, I have had my share from all of them, including a certain medical doctor whose money lawyers actually sue people on his behalf.
No serious lawyer should touch this person given the disrespect this man has for proper behaviour in political exchange (not that he knows a damn thing about politics).
Unfortunately, Guyana 's polemical environment has reached the gutter level. It comes from all quarters. I was totally surprised when in reply to me in the letter columns Christopher Ram once wrote that even the dull and ignorant must have their say.
I expected a more intellectualised response even though I know Mr. Ram was not trained as a social scientist. Mr. Ram is in the news again in two situations. And the question of the ethics in political exchange comes into sharp focus.
First, in a letter in Thursday's SN, Mr. Ram turns the precious saying “innocent until proven guilty” into a communist caricature when he wrote that he was “concerned that someone who is facing a serious charge of fuel smuggling is being financed partly by tax payers' money…”
But should one be ostracized even though one has not been convicted? Is Mr. Ram saying that because someone is charged with treason against the state, he/she should not be allowed to voice an opinion on state behaviour? Should we stop carrying the letters, written from prison, by Mark Benschop?
Mr. Ram came in for an unorthodox attack from Mr. Odinga Lumumba in KN yesterday when he publicly disclosed information relating to Mr. Ram's divorce proceedings. Yesterday at lunch at the Roti Hut, some of my UG colleagues and I had a sustained discussion about the propriety of Mr. Lumumba publishing some unspeakable details of Mr. Ram's court papers involving his wife's statements in her divorce pleadings
Let me describe the parameters of the intellectual dispute that went on at Roti Hut. There was the point that if the line in Mr. Lumumba's letter consists of facts then facts cannot be libelous but that the publication was in bad taste.
A second contributor opined that public figures who pursue morality in politics should be held to higher standards. A third assessment went this way; you cannot separate different parts of a person's character. A person should not be honoured for being a caring boss when he/she is an uncaring parent.
As for me, although I was now made aware of a certain dimension of Mr. Ram's life, for me that part of Mr. Lumumba's letter I found completely irrelevant to the confrontation between Lumumba and Ram.
Ram evaluated Lumumba's parliamentary contribution to the casino Bill as containing an attack on the churches. Lumumba should have replied with intellectual facts. What have the complaints of Mr. Ram's wife in her court papers have to do with Ram's interpretation of Lumumba's position on the casino Bill?
I could anticipate Mr. Lumumba's response to me. His judgement would be that Ram was being mischievous in wrongly quoting him and that it is indicative of the type of man Ram is. To carry through his point, he tells readers about the alleged anti-social behaviour of Ram.
This may be a plausible argument but I still believe that what Mr. Lumumba did lowers the quality of intellectualism in Guyana . As for Mr. Ram, I would surely love to hear his side.
Mr. Ram once sued me for libel, which I believe was intended to intimidate me but that does not mean that I support distasteful analysis of his writings by Mr. Lumumba.
As for Mr. Lumunba, do we have a case of pot telling the kettle that its bottom is black? Mr. Lumumba knows that he owes me an apology going back to the late eighties. He knows what he did. The incident involves someone that I love more than my own self.
I have written on it twice so Lumumba is aware of what it is. I hope President Jagdeo advises Lumumba about the need to do the decent thing.