Apologise? Compensate? Well, pardon me!

Dec 07, 2008 Features / Columnists

---

The Parrot read with interest the recent utterances of former treason accused, Phillip Bynoe, who was pardoned by Uncle Bharrat last week.

Bynoe was in hiding for just over six years following the storming of the Office of the President in July of 2002.

It was a most despicable act; an act which was perpetrated for narrow political gains; an act which was aimed at unseating a democratically elected government; an act which instilled fear amongst law abiding citizens; an act which climaxed weeks of violent street protests which brought economic activities to a halt; an act in which two persons lost their lives; an act which unfolded while Regional Heads were here for their annual Summit.

Today, the two prime accused have been pardoned by the Head of State; clearly an act of magnanimity on his behalf. In my opinion the accused are fortunate; fortunate to be free for what was seen as an act of treason.

Hundreds, who are being held in Guantanamo for allegedly being involved in acts of terrorism, can only dream of an opportunity to be granted a rightful audience with an Attorney to at least give their side of their story. No one knows when their day would come.

Hopes are pinned on a promise by President-elect Obama, to close the entity. Security officials are not that enthusiastic for its closure given the resurgence of terrorist groups and the recent attacks in Mumbai.

Those who bombed the World Trade Center and who committed many other acts of terrorism in various other parts of the world are not seen as “freedom fighters” by the countries affected and the victims.

No; they are considered as a threat to national security, and any such threats are taken seriously, very seriously.

Mark, after being pardoned last year, demanded an apology from the Head of State; an apology for him being incarcerated for some five years. Words to describe that demand cannot be written in these pages.

You get the idea. All the pictures splashed in the newspapers and television following the incident in 2002, clearly showed him, Mark that is, in front of the Presidential complex with loud-hailer making seditious remarks and urging on those who followed him.

What was he there for? Clearly it’s not to invite the staff there to dinner! What would have happened if, for some reason, he and his followers had over-powered the guards at the gate?

What would have happened if they had been able, and again for some reason, to continue their marauding protest into the heart of the complex? We saw what happened in the area they forcefully gained access to; the Accounts Department was ransacked and some staff injured. Did he not think of these consequences?

He knew what he was up to; he knew the political implications if he were somehow successful. The main Opposition, who was clearly in his corner, would have been gloating. Did he apologize for his actions which led to the loss of lives? Does he expect to be given a parade for his “accomplishments”?

It seems to me that he expected not to be made to pay for the consequences of his actions. As old people does seh, “he wrang an’ strang”. Why must the Head of State apologize to him? For what?

He should be grateful that he is a free man and can enjoy the many comforts of life. He is now demanding that the State compensate him for the time he was incarcerated.

Excuse me? Can he compensate the relatives of those who lost their kin and those who were injured and are still traumatized?

The expression “pardon me” is not only used to beseech forgiveness, it’s also used sarcastically to show disgust. I am using it in the latter sense in relation to his shameful demands for an apology and compensation, “Pardon me?”

He and his cohorts within the main Opposition have sought to make the public to believe that he, Mark that is, was the victim; not the democratically elected government; not the interest of national security; not the welfare of the law abiding citizens; not the economy of our country; not the staff of the Presidential complex; no him. Ridiculous? You bet. Getting back to the Bynoe interview, he made some interesting revelations.

He alluded to have “used the wrong approach”. Approach for what? Wrong or right approach, it means that there was a goal to be accomplished. We all know what that was. Mark was there, so were supporters of the main Opposition.

It therefore means that the goal was common. The rest is history. Bynoe also mentioned that “violence and street protest must be removed from the bargaining table when attempting to deal with issues that affect the country”. He learnt that after six years.

Wasn’t that what this administration and civil society were saying all along? I hope that those at the Place of CONgress have taken note of this comment for they have been exposed.

He also commented on those who rob and maim others while engaged in protest. For years it was known that some who protest were only there to create mayhem. Businesses suffer many times over at their hands.

Many pleaded with the main Opposition to stop them so as to safeguard life and the economy. Those calls went on deaf ears for many years and for many beatings on innocent people.

The political gains sought were more important than the wellbeing of the nation and its people. Who should apologise for that? Who should compensate those who were affected physically and economically during that time? Mark? Bynoe? The Place of CONgress?

Maybe the citizens should now seek such apologies and compensation. Pardon me; I have no apologies and compensation to offer for saying that.
Squawk! Squawk!

---

---