TO TRAFFIC OR NOT TO TRAFFIC - SAVING THE VICTIMS

 I confess that I am totally confused. You see, the Prime Minister said in Parliament on Friday (24th February) that there was a report that contained evidence that certain Parliamentarians were engaged in the despicable practice of trafficking in children and women. For the record, in my view trafficking in people is simply another word for slavery. The persons being used in this awful manner simply have no choice. It is exploitation at its worst! The PM went on to say that no Parliamentarian on his side was so engaged, giving the inescapable conclusion that all of the Parliamentarians so engaged in this horrible were on the UNC side.

My confusion is not from the statement that apparently (according to Dr. Rowley) there are some UNC Parliamentarians who are engaged in this god-awful practice, but that apparently (if all concerned are telling the truth) that nothing has been done about it. Nobody has been charged and if there have been any investigations, these were all on "the down-low". Nobody has ever said what investigations have taken place, nor by whom, nor when! But then a former UNC Government Minister who has been fiercely publicly critical of his former political leader has added fuel to the fire by saying that he knew about this sometime ago and he has said both that there was indeed a report when he was a Minister that was covered up because it named (UNC) people. Mr. Maharaj's intervention was widely seen as being not only supportive of the Prime Minister but as confirmation that the PM was telling the truth! But then a reasonable question would be why didn't he (Maharaj) do something about it when he was a Minister and had the power? One can be forgiven in questioning whether or not he is telling the truth. And if he says that he wasn't allowed to, that explanation simply can't hold water. He could have resigned and said why he was resigning. That would have certainly been more believable!

But if the PM is not lying, then why hasn't anything been done by his Government about this trafficking? I mean, if you know that trafficking is going on, and has been for some time, then what have you done about it and when did you do it?  And if the answer is 'nothing' then the next question is why not? Have you saved anybody? And if not, why not? And if so, who did you save and when? Do you know the names of the other victims that you haven't saved? I could go on, but hopefully you get the point.

This whole story seems to come apart when serious questions are being asked and no explanations or answers are given, Why (assuming that the American report on trafficking is true - and I do believe that it is) has nothing apparently been done? No right thinking person regardless of his/her political persuasion could ever condone (even in the slightest) this reported type of behaviour. And this is coming out now when Dr. Rowley et al have been in power for almost EIGHT years!? Why didn't they do something before?

No! Something is wrong and the rather obvious political games being played by all of the actors on both sides are not helping. This matter is too serious to be wept under the carpet. Either there is trafficking or there is not! And if there is, at the very least find the women and children being trafficked and save them.  We can look for the evidence against the perpetrators of this horrible crime AFTER WE SAVE THE VICTIMS. But the most important thing right now is to save the victims.  And if anybody knows about this let them come forward now! 

DEFAMATION 101

 On Carnival Sunday (19th February, 2023) The Express newspaper published an article by Selwyn Cudjoe headlined "Cro-Cro: Our Warrior King". In the article Mr. Cudjoe seems to support the calypsonian and appears to be saying that in his opinion different rules of defamation ought to apply to calypsonians who are "brave" enough to sing about social issues. In other words, a calypsonian should be able to sing about social and other issues without being limited by the current libel laws. 

In order to understand why Mr. Cudjoe is simply wrong on this point, perhaps it is necessary to look at what exactly is a defamatory statement in law. It is a statement that tends to bring some one against whom the statement is made into "public ridicule and contempt". However a perfect defence to this would be if the statement was true. For example, on the face of it, if I said that "John is a thief who steals from everybody", such a statement would be highly defamatory unless I had evidence that John was indeed a thief who steals from everybody.

Mr. Cudjoe attempts to wrap his argument in a not so veiled attempt at raising the racial bogey by arguing that the calypsonian is "ready to protect a verbal-musical (sic) (African) art form such as the kalenda, shango, belair and other work songs. The calypsonian, part of the warrior class, always saw his function as defending the race, which is why he takes his responsibility to his group so seriously".

Well, nothing is wrong with that. But that doesn't mean that singing a calypso about somebody that denigrates that person and is factually incorrect, or can't be proven to be correct, is acceptable because the calypsonian is a "warrior". If that is so, then I could write a calypso about the man who murdered my cousin and the policeman who assisted him and get away with it because it was a calypso! (For the record, I know who killed my cousin but I have no justiciable evidence. It's a little like saying both you and I know that I was at your house at midnight last night; I am going to deny it and because nobody saw me  and my visit was not recorded you can't prove that I was there.)

I am not here trying to defend Cro Cro nor am I commenting one way or the other about whether or not he defamed Mr. Inshan Ismael. That argument will be up to the courts to decide. I am on the very narrow point that singing a calypso about somebody which is derogatory and untrue does not give the calypsonian a "get-out-of-jail-free" card. Like everybody else, the calypsonian is bound by the laws of defamation and if he defames somebody, either by name or by an innuendo where everybody knows who he is talking/singing about then, unfortunately for him, he will be required to pay damages. And no amount of argument that he is a "warrior' and is simply following the traditions of his African race will hold any water.

AN OPEN LETTER TO ALL PARLIAMENTARIANS

 Dear Parliamentarians,

And yes, I am writing to all forty-one of you - as individuals. ALL of you. I was thinking the other day that you are supposed to be elected to look after US -  the people - NOT your political parties! Look! I understand the game well. Heck I served twice in the Senate! But you all give us the impression that your political parties come first and the interests of the country come second.

But, I was thinking: what are you elected for? There are forty-one of you that are supposed to represent first and foremost the interests of your constituents - the people who elected you!  What promises did YOU make to YOUR constituents? What promises have you kept?

You all meet approximately once a week when Parliament is in session. Why does a reasonable observer get the feeling that NONE of you are ever concerned primarily with the welfare of the people who elected you? What have YOU done to make life better for YOUR constituents?

Crime is a huge problem with everybody afraid to go out and everybody barricading themselves in their homes at night. It wasn't so long ago that many people slept with their doors wide open. Only a fool would do that today. And yet, despite the very real fear that we all have to live with, none of you have said or done anything to make us believe that any of you have a clue as to how to fix it.

ALL of you seem more intent on scoring political points than improving our quality of life. When last did any of you make a speech that didn't directly or indirectly criticize the other side. I am acutely aware that many of you on the Government side believe that your primary role is to defend the Government while those of you on the Opposition side believe that your role is primarily to criticize.

Guess what? You are both wrong! Your primary role is TO MAKE LIFE BETTER FOR THE PEOPLE! Full stop! There is really no other reason and there is no need to defend the indefensible or to criticize everything. For example, we have an education system that is falling apart; what are YOU on the Government side doing about it? What proposals do YOU on the Opposition side believe should be done to fix it?

There is an unspoken fear, especially amongst Opposition M.Ps. that if they tell the Government side how they would fix things that the Government will steal their good ideas and then take credit for it. Hello! I'll ask again: what do you think that you are in Parliament for? How do you justify not sharing your solutions? Do you think that when election time comes people will vote for you because you unashamedly supported your side even when your side was proposing or doing nonsense? Do you really believe that your side didn't or hasn't made any mistakes? If you do think that your side is making or did make mistakes, what did you/are you doing about them? Hey! What were/are those mistakes? And don't you think that we, the people, deserve answers to these questions?

When last did you acknowledge that the other side (whichever is the 'other' for you) did or said something good?  Or do you truly believe that everybody on the other side is completely incapable of doing or saying anything that will benefit us -the people? When last did any of you have a meaningful conversation either inside or outside of Parliament with the other side? When last did any of you congratulate the other side for anything that they said or did?

I could go on, but hopefully you get my point. NONE of you give the impression that you put the welfare of the country first before your own partisan and personal interests. And that is not how this is supposed to work! You are supposed to meet and TALK to each other about making this a better place to live. And so far NONE of you are doing that!

Robin Montano

POLITICAL PERSPECTIVES

 I have been conducting my own very, very inaccurate survey as to whether or not people in general are satisfied or dissatisfied with the way things are going in T&T. I have asked a lot of people if they think that the country is on the right track and how or where the country will be next year. 

I have also been asking people whether or not they believe that the newspapers are reporting things accurately. In my (admittedly very unscientific) survey I was not surprised to find a rather partisan divide. Depending on whether or not the person was a UNC or a PNM supporter the answers to this question fell along rather predictable lines - most UNC supporters felt that the three daily newspapers were biased against their political party and that the stories in the newspapers tended to reflect this bias. Most of the PNM supporters felt that the reporting was reasonably fair and accurately.

In answer to my first question (above) most people, regardless of their political bias, felt that the country was going downhill. My impression in talking with people is that they are deeply unhappy with the state of affairs in the country. UNC supporters certainly feel that the country is on the wrong track. While those who support the PNM have grown somewhat gloomy since the election with inflation and job losses entering into the picture. And don't discount the trauma of the murder/crime rate! The UNC's problem here is that, except for the die hard UNC voters, most people believe that nothing short of an absolute dictatorship can solve this problem. In other words, the UNC has not convinced people that it can fix our crime problem. 

Interestingly, most people seem to feel that the politicians on both sides are "a waste of time" and who will  lie at the drop of a hat. Incidentally, I should say, by the way, that in my "survey" I determined and classified who was a supporter of which party by asking them how they voted in 2020. Persons who might be classified or classify themselves as "floating voters" tended to report that they had voted for the PNM while "holding their noses". On further questioning, a lot of these people tended to report that they believed that the collective leadership of the UNC was weak and ineffectual.

That there is a clear disconnect between the political parties and the population as a whole is clear. But that disconnect seems to be shaped partially  -and in many cases is amplified - by people's fear of what the other party might or might not do (whoever the "other party" might be). All the supporters of each side are afraid to lose and race is a big (unspoken) part of the picture. But no one thinks that they are winning either.

I asked this question of both sides: do you think that the country will improve? And overwhelmingly the answer was in the negative  - on both sides!

I didn't ask, but I do think that there seems to be a racial divide underway.  Put another way, although there seems to be a lot of discontent "on the ground", discontent will not predict election results the way that it used to.

There were other questions pertaining to the leadership on both sides of the political divide - the answers to which are fairly predictable. In 2020 the PNM won largely by running as "not the UNC". They seem to be setting up the same theme for a reprise in 2025. Question: will that be enough?

P.S. To those readers who might take issue with my "survey", let me state as clearly as I can that it can in no way even pretends to be scientific.  But what I have written is the rather firm impression that I have got having talked with a lot of people. I would be the first to admit that I got it wrong if subsequent events (all things being equal) prove this.