You are hereAnand's Collection / Vacuous Valley
Vacuous Valley
It is with much amusement that I read about Minister Ken Valley’s apology and counter-attack in the Parliament over his injudicious statements about Justice Tiwary-Reddy. Valley attempted to defend his political leader PM Manning who had just lost a case because the learned judge found that the PM had acted unfairly and abused his power when he tried to block the transfer of a senior public servant who was entitled to serve in the London High Commission.
His political exuberance and blind loyalty caused him to unfairly brand the judge a ‘UNC functionary’. He said the PNM saw her as ‘a politician’. He promised that the government would appeal all the way to the Privy Council and be vindicated because of her bias. As I noted in last week’s column, attacking judges on the ground of political bias is one of the favourite pastimes and hobbies of all politicians. If they lose, they are quick to take pot shots at the court, knowing full well judges cannot defend themselves. If they win, they feel vindicated and have no complaints. Judges are therefore impartial and unbiased when they rule in favour of politicians, but not otherwise.
Valley defends his statements on the ground that they were mere unrecorded banter. He doesn’t deny accusing the judge of political bias but protests the fact that his comments were made public. As Leader of Government Business and an experienced Parliamentarian, Valley should know that banter and crosstalk however low and cheap, could never justify or condone such a baseless attack on a judge of the High Court. This is far too dangerous and delicate a matter.
Justice Tiwary was appointed a judge during the tenure of former CJ Michael DeLabastide. Surely Mr De La Bastide and the other members of the Judicial & Legal Services Commission (JLSC) were satisfied that she was well-suited and qualified to be appointed a judge. Why did Valley wait until the PM lose a case before Tiwary to make known his government’s view that she is a biased UNC functionary? Why did they not make a complaint to the JLSC before to have her removed
The judiciary is an independent organ of the State that must adjudicate on the lawfulness of the actions and conduct of the government. If it is attacked on the ground of political bias public confidence will be eroded and the administration of justice will fall into disrepute. The appearance of justice and the belief that justice can be done according to law and evidence is as critical as the actual delivery of justice. Valley’s attack on the judge was tasteless and wrong. It matters not that it was not recorded in the Hansard; it matters that he actually said it!
Valley criticized the Chief Justice for condemning his statements. He sees it as his privilege to attack a judge because she committed the criminal act of deciding a case against his political leader but seeks to deny the CJ the right to defend his judicial officers from scandalous attacks. The CJ had an obligation and duty to comment on such a scurrilous attack on the character of one of his judges and could not shirk his duty.
Valley queries how and why the CJ commented without checking the Hansard. Perhaps he forgot that every single media house has a reporter covering the proceedings in parliament. The reporters quite rightly thought Valley’s statements were newsworthy and solicited a response from the relevant parties. (This is how I came to know of his comments.)
The arrogance of the statement that ‘strangers, regardless of their office’ have no right to criticize MPs unless what they say was recorded in Hansard demonstrates how easy it is for the power of a Priority Bus Pass and free parking around the Red House to go to one’s head. Perhaps Valley forgot that they are there to transact the business of the people and that parliamentary proceedings are now shown on cable TV with crosstalk and all.
Scandalous attacks on judges by unsuccessful litigants whether inside or outside parliament, whether on the record or off-the-record, cannot be tolerated. Given our racial based political culture, such comments contain coded political messages which are provocative and inflammatory. They can take John Public down the same dead-end road our politicians have taken us. Afro-Trinis will believe that they can only get justice from African judges and Indo-Trinis will feel the same way. Justice is too precious a commodity and should not be sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. Appeal if you want, but don’t stoop so low as to attacking the judge.
By Anand Ramlogan
2007-05-10
Site Administrator's note:
This site commends Dominic Kalipersad, Editor-in-Chief of the Trinidad Guardian, for his courage and leadership in promoting Freedom of Expression through his newspapers.
It is recommended that comments submitted to this site also be sent by email, fax, or post to the editor of the Trinidad Guardian Editor-in-chief, 22-24 St Vincent Street, Port-of-Spain. Fax: 625-7211. E-mail: letters@ttol.co.tt. This will give opportunity for the Guardian to publish select responses for those without internet access.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| Vacuous_Valley_2007-05-10.pdf | 21.43 KB |
- Printer-friendly version
- Login or register to post comments
- 1107 reads
(Ishwar) Ryait confirmed in his statement that when the boat was eventually intercepted and boarded by Allum, the Coast Guard "tried to switch off Shazard engine and when he stretch he hand, Shazard tried to push back his hand. Shazard just hit it away". (Adesh) Ramkissoon gave a similar account.
Henderson pointed out that in these circumstances, based on the witnesses' statements, it is highly unlikely that the prosecution will be able to successfully prove to a jury that "the Coast Guard did not kill Shazard in self defence, nor will it be able to show that the accused did not honestly believe that he was under some threatened or actual attack that required immediate defensive action".
Given that there will be a certain bias on both sides, and as such I expect the other Coast Guardsmen to support their fellow officer, I still cannot see how this case cannot proceed. If I recall correctly, the fishermen were fleeing from an unlit boat (according to the initial reports) which they mistook for pirates. It was only AFTER they were boarded and Shazard was shot that the perpetrators identified themselves as a Coast Guard unit.
I have to say I agree with the wife of the deceased in this one. What exactly Shazard had in his hand that he (Allum) could say was self defence and pull his gun just so and kill him? It's not like Shazard had a gun too, so I don't understand how he could say self defence," (Nalini) Ramkissoon said.
This alone would make the charge manslaughter at least. Far too often we have members of the armed forces pulling a gun without the slightest reasonable excuse to do so. I personally am of the mind that the majority of members from many parts of the protective services can satisfactorily perform their jobs without being armed and that there should be one highly trained unit to be called out if needed, much like a SWAT team. Then monitoring of firearm use can be made easier.
Still, even if Shazard slapped the hand of Allum away, how can that justify pulling a gun and shooting an unarmed (by all accounts) man?
What is even more incredulous, the Guardian reports that Allum is a Coast Guard mechanic. Can someone please explain to me why a mechanic is armed and out loose in the public domain?
DPP Henderson has raised many an eyebrow this morning I am sure, and once again showing that Justice is difficult to obtain in TnT, especially under his watch. I myself am wondering about the independence of the judiciary, and whether we tout that phrase too quickly.
Jumbie you make a lot of sense here. I just read the viewer comments for the Express and one person had the gall to say that the DPP was right and he was ruining the murderer's life and that Mohammed's family should get over the murder. I cannot for the very life of me understand how a man could be killed...and justifiably so according to the DPP unspoken admission...just for hitting away someone's hand?
Now the murder receives protection!!! I sincerely hope that this case is reviewed and the charges are laid and the murderer receives his due.
On a more related note, I don't think that Valley regrets his comments...I think he regrets that they were reported in the first place and that there was public outcry in the second and that he was forced to do it so that the people of TnT didn't take his head off.
Imagine! Valley says these things forgetting that a camera is videotaping him!
You wonder what Patos, Valley, Imbert, Regis, and Rahel say about Indians behind closed doors when they are absolutely comfortable. You must think about that, especially now!
I am the first to admit that many older indians are often bigoted, but I hold our parliamentary representatives to a higher standard than old men in a bar at the corner.
I would love to be a fly on the wall when these guys talk about the mishandled CJ affair, the botched attempt to persecute Vijay Narayansingh [see my posts in previous threads], or the humiliation that Inshan suffered in the hands of police forcing him to strip, squat, and be searched.
Do you think Valley shed a tear for Inshan or do you think he had a good laugh at the episode? What was the quote from Valley? He claimed not to even know his name.
I would have loved to be a fly on the wall during Valley's conversations that evening. I would bet he had a couple scotch and coconut-waters, and toasted to Inshan's health that evening with his buddies.
I would love to be a fly on the wall when the likes of Valley and Patos get their divine and just due. Even the best part of me might refrain from having any sympathy.
You know, I've said it in other ways at other parts of this site - and I'll say it again ad nauseum - the quality of your Parliamentarian must be referenced against the ability of the electorate to choose the right people.
Even if Valley's verbal diarrhoea is the indirect result of a bunch of idiots giving him a false sense of security and power, I will still ask 'who selected the bunch of idiots?' Answer: the people!!
Many out there will blame Valley. Yes he is to blame but he is there because of the people, and his conduct is the cumulative product of a permissiveness among the people selected to manage such tendencies.
Let me digress to give you a give you a story that colours my world view. If you're having a meal please put it away for later.
Let's be frank shit (aka human excrement) is an intrinsically nasty thing; no two ways about it. It comes from inside us; it is produced by every one of us. In my adult life when I see or smell a stink toilet I don't only scorn it, I scorn the people responsible for it. Who are they? Firstly, 'they' are the people who make their deposits - they are partly to blame for leaving the toilet in a filthy state. Secondly, I blame the people who manage the toilet for the state of neglect of the toilet.
And now when I see filth in a Parliament, I blame the people who put the filth there and the people who are meant to cleanse the Parliament of filth!! On both counts the electorate are largely to blame!
There are many Vacuous Valleys out there. When we point the finger, take time to look into the mirror as well and ask yourself 'Could I be partly responsible, in some small way?'
You're right to the intelligent. You're wrong to the unintelligent.
The intelligent would realize that Valley needs to take responsibility for his words. That's understood clearly. That's the first step. The next step after people expecting him to shoulder his responsibility is to blame those that put the bumbling idiot there.
The unintelligent wouldn't realize that he needs to eat crow. For them we need to reiterate that he is an ass and he needs to stop braying such stupidity, and when he does he should apologize with sincereity instead of stupidly and clumsily saying "it was only banter," and "nothing was recorded in the hansard."
So, CW, we need to accept that: 1. he is a divisive politician, 2. he doesn't respect the judiciary, and 3. the population of TnT is responsible for him holding power.
While i agree that the populace needs blame, don't abdicate him of his own responsibility for his words and deeds.
<<.....don't abdicate him of his own responsibility for his words and deeds>>
Eh? So what does "..Yes he is to blame....", mean. I think we actually agree. He has not been relieved of personal responsibility. Certainly not by me.
Much of the rest of your comment I agree on as well. However, the class of Vacuous Valley's just did not arrive de novo. I doubt they were just born that way and were suddenly plonked in to Parliament.
They may have actually started out appearing to be quite good. Boy, yuh know sometimes yuh pick a mango and it look real good from outside. But when you cut it open in over-ripe or rotten. But if you get to know yuh mangoes, you develop an ability to see through the skin. For budding psychotics out there I'm speaking figuratively.
Some times you pick a half-ripe mango and you develop a sense for how long it might need to get properly ripe.
Of course I'm not talking about mangoes here. I'm trying to get across that in my perception 'the people' have demonstrated little or no ability to select the right politicians to lead them to a better place. The electorate doesn't appear to be developing a skill in selecting better representatives. Doesn't history show us that they have been jumping from pillar to post, from frying pan to fire, back and forth - spinnin' top in mud if you like? We saw similar syndromes in the political histories of Jamaica, Guyana, and Haiti.
If we simply blame Valley as an individual, without looking squarely at what may have produced Valley, we are truly doomed to reap more Vacuous Valleys in the years to come. But we don't even have to wait years; we're seeing it happening all now. Just look around.
I know what you are trying to say about choosing a bit more wisely the people whom we elect... only one problem there. We are not exactly free to choose.
Remember people are selected by the parties and then offered to the population. Kinda hard to have true freedom of choice when you have to choose between Dumb and Dumber.
Hence why we are left with "he who will do the least harm to the greatest number of people."
When we are more mature, maybe we can aspire to better.
Forget not, besides dumb and dumber, we have someone else in the running now.
Jumbie, I see what you mean about a choice between Dumb and Dumber. But even that situation arose from ineptitude among the electorate.
If you have a patient with a chronic degenerative disease, or a cancer - you don't need to be a doctor to understand that these are very serious problems. Or in the IT world the analogy might be some kind of fundamental problem with a network protocol. In either of those scenarios 'choosing wisely' is to put it into a tight nutshell. At a deeper level it's about saying: how bad is the situation, how did we get here, how much damage has been done, how do we repair the situation, can it be repaired etc. Making informed remedial choices.
The chronicity of the problems with the electorate span more than 50 years perhaps. We have seen electorates in other Caribbean Nations suffer with the similar problems. Can we calmly sit down and say "Nah boy...is jus' to do with Vacuous Valleys...dee people smarter dan yuh t'ink."? I can't.
One of the hardest things for people is to see themselves as others do. I've never seen a queue outside of any psychiatrist's consulting room. You know why? Because the mad cannot see themselves as mad. If every individual in this world could simply do a reliable objective self-diagnostic - man, we would be living in a paradise - eh? But that is surely not the situation. And now, I hope you can see it is an even more difficult task for a Nation of people to see themselves as others do. What's their collective culture and mentality? Could those things have affected their history and their current political choices? You think the average Jane Bloggs in Brasso Tamana is very likely to ponder these things?
We can punish delinquent Valleys till the cows come home, it may make no difference in the face of what appears to be chronic deep-rooted socio-political pathology - of which I see Ken Valley as just another symptom.
Look, it's like when people keep rebooting their computers in hope that some problem will magically sort itself out - when in fact the solution lies not with the computer or the software. Well, similar to that, the Nation is simply 'rebooting' the Parliament. You could change CPU until the cows come home - the problem may be in the mindset that elects to call it a CPU problem - if you see what I mean. With that kind of strategy 'Yuh bong tuh fail' - and repeatedly as we have seen. So to digress slightly - guess what? Dookeran or Panday may have a fair chance of becoming leaders of the Nation - a kind of 'change the CPU' situation. But if the problem was with the 'collective mind' that selected the CPU, yuh dogs dead - because the Nation will be temporarily jubilant but end up suffering the same disease in similar ways.
Therefore lack of ability (capacity) to choose wisely is the symptom of the disease - not the disease in itself. You just can't go in there and treat a symptom and magically hope the disease will go away (I know you did not say or imply that).
******************
Coming to G's point about people choosing on basis of 'least harm to greatest numbers', I express real doubt that this 'equation' can be sensibly applied for the true long term benefit of the Nation. If the equation was a powerful 'thing' that worked really well, this planet would be a utopia of high functioning societies. It ain't. We sell ourselves ideas promoted by the martyrs and other esteemed persons. They may be good principles to aspire to. However, in the arena of 'real world' business they often fail miserably. The evidence in history speaks for itself that G's proffered equation has truly failed. President Bush and Tony Blair could have argued that their actions in Iraq was for the greatest good of the many. I think they actually did make such arguments if memory serves. I don't think many bought it though - however well reasoned their case might have been. I can't see a reason to be enthusiastic that the equation would work practically in T&T, to empower or facilitate the electorate to making the right choices.
The other point that damages G's argument is that people are intrinsically and secretively selfish. Altruism among individuals and electorates from my perception, is a myth. Let's start with me. When I go into a ballot station I honestly don't think "Aye boy, ah go vote Manning and he boys because he go take care ah dee whole Nation dee bes'....and he go do dee greatest good for the greatest number ". You expect John Public from Tamana Hills to think like dat? While possible for John Public to think that way, it is highly improbable. In reality people vote for what they can get out of voting for themselves and those closest to them - aka selfishness (among many other negatives of course)!
And my third argument against 'altruistic equations' is the one I made before on 'capacity'. I choose an extreme analogy for emphasis only: I don't believe you would rely on a decision by a bunch of average two year olds on which company to invest your hard-earned money in. I'm not appraising the capacity of the Nation just on what's in their heads, but on their history and performance. I can never truly know what is in their heads. But I can more objectively look at performance.
When I try my best to fit them into G's equation - they just don't fit. Should I therefore have a lot of confidence that individuals comprising the electorate will make wise choices based on G's equation? I have a problem with that. If I wouldn't bet 10 quid on it, then I ain't got confidence in it. And I ain't putting my £10 on G's equation applied to individuals or groups of individuals (in T&T).
So to wrap up - blame Vacuous Valley's as much as you please. Punish them etc if you want. That kind of action is good as matters of justice and public accountability etc. However, look for the root causes of how Vacuous Valleys come to be, and to say what they do. The electorate must start with itself. It is also accountable to itself, as much as I am personally responsible to me, first and foremost.
So Mr Valley figures he should have been taken seriously because his conversation was not being recorded into the Hansard... I don't get this. Does this mean that whatever he says when he is not in Parliament is a whole load of bull and should be ignored unless it is being recorded into Hansard?
Blessed is the man who, having nothing to say, abstains from giving us wordy evidence of the fact.
George Eliot [Mary Ann Evans] (1819-1880)