Marissa Lowden’s argument amounts to unadulterated piffle

Oct 05, 2009 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
Marissa Lowden takes issue with my letter pointing out the unequivocal reality that affinity with the Rule of Law for some who postulate on behalf of the PPP Government, is largely a function of political convenience.
The writer opines that my expansion of Doctor Misir’s fawning embrace of legal presumptions in the Rule of Law suggests confusion on my part, since he was essentially commenting on an issue relating to his position and responsibilities at the University of Guyana.
My immediate response is “you have to be kidding”? “Surely you jest”. Are you seriously intimating that questions about fairness, balance, ethics, run the gamut, can be compartmentalized within the specific sphere of someone’s office and job responsibilities? Are you seriously intimating that the publicly expressed ethical positions and views of someone who assumes the prerogative to write public letters about any and everything, should be examined only in the context of a specific area of his, hers, or your political preference and convenience? Look, I certainly do not wish to come off as being rude or intolerant to Miss or Mrs. Lowden, but please, give me a break!!
Doctor Misir is a prolific contributor to the letter columns of the newspapers, and his opinions and views are not limited within the confines of his occupational expertise and position.
In fact on April 21, 2009, Doctor Misir had a letter in one of the independent dailies in which he opined liberally on the misconceptions in a specific media editorial pertaining to crime, criminality and Law Enforcement. He further opined that, “Crime remains a problem in most parts of the world, notwithstanding the finest efforts exerted to stop crime. And so, it is not authority that is vital to sustain order, but, perhaps, the institutionalisation of moral belief and moral credibility in the criminal justice system that will bring the crime rate within the zone of acceptance”. Surely since Doctor Misir relishes the freedom and right to pontificate on areas having to do with Law, with Crime, with conceptions and misconceptions in this regard, his public statements on the legal processes in said regard are open to examination beyond the confines of his job or position. To argue other wise is to be childish and petulant.
Marissa Lowden’s response to my letter is testament to the contextual and linguistic acrobatic lengths some will resort to in order to obfuscate the Orwellian pattern of hypocrisy and double speak that is being fostered upon our nation’s collective intellect. Doctor Misir’s chiding assertion was that, “….The salient thing in the rule of law is that you are innocent until proven guilty….”
This is the general presumption under which the laws of our land are formed and should be executed. Cherry picking its appropriateness based on who or what might be under scrutiny seem to have become a national past time for too many in and outside of Guyana. Doctor Misir was citing a legal principle that existed before the University of Guyana became an institution. The subject matter in this context was that Principle of Law. That people are innocent until proven guilty, and that the pronouncement of guilt is the preserve of institutions authorised for such processes and purpose. Given the obvious complacency and laissez faire attitude of people like Doctor Misir, Lowden et al to abuses of this principle in circumstances that ethically and morally dwarfs its absence in other arenas of concern, there is a compelling national interests to illuminate such shortcomings.
The argument being advanced by Lowden might have had legs if the persona involved was just an academic at an educational institution with no wider political connections or interests. Doctor Misir does not qualify for such consideration. He is a partisan political commentator, who publicly and vehemently challenges the positions and assertions of others. When he enunciates a principle that is legally binding on institutions that address conduct and behaviour in Guyana, he cannot and should not expect reactions to his enunciations that are symptomatic of politically induced afflictions like limitations in national attention span. Lowden’s argument that my expanded examination of Doctor Misir’s chiding public comment on a legal requirement in The Rule of Law is an indication of confusion, amounts to nothing less than plain and unadulterated piffle. In fact it more than corroborates the general perception that the literary pundits and apologists deployed to run interference on behalf of the ruling party do so from a perspective that their side is more Orwellian equal, and deserving of a greater degree of Orwellian equality, than any of the other sides.
Robin Williams

---

---