Impressed with Dr. Flaherty and Ms. Dennison’s pieces

Jan 15, 2013 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
Dr. Peter Flaherty penned a fantastic piece on his observations of life in Guyana. (KN Jan 7).  Like Ms. Geralda Dennison (KN Jan 8), I am also impressed with Flaherty’s piece. But I disagree with Geralda’s position on the need for writers to reveal their identity.
Politicians should heed Dr. Flaherty’s call for national unity to facilitate development. Dr. Flaherty is right about his observation that few newspapers around the globe carry commentaries that make references to well known philosophers like Foucault, Kant, Voltaire, Plato, Hegel, Marx, etc.  I travel a lot and read international publications and found few papers that carry op-ed pieces that reference outstanding social or political theorists.
Prof Bertell Ollman, under whom I studied Political Theory at New York University in post grad work, told me he was most impressed with the high quality of commentaries and references to political theories in Indian newspapers when he was a visiting scholar at Indian universities. I would rate the commentaries in the Guyana media on a similar footing as those in India.
As Dr. Flaherty stated, Dr. Ravi Dev and Mr. Freddie Kissoon are excellent writers (never mind that the latter is a perennial critic of my work). In a survey I conducted last year and in 2011, readers told me
they look forward for the Kissoon, Dev, Adam Harris and Peeping Tom columns as well as wha dem boy seh. They like Kissoon for his attacks on the government.  People admire Dev for his intellect. Adam Harris also some very interesting commentaries.
Geralda objects to anonymous writers because “they often attack others”. Letters that attack people or are deemed to be personal or libelous should not be published. I don’t know which writer is anonymous. Freddie Kissoon feels he should know a writer’s education, background, employment, etc. Knowing the background of writers won’t change the contents of their writing.
Even if their writing is bad, the public does not need to know their identity which is their personal life — it is called freedom of speech.  And at any rate, bad speech is better than no speech as the late American Chief Justice Wendell Holmes so eloquently argued in a precedent setting case before the US Supreme Court.
The public does not need to know any writer’s identity.  The writers are not writing for a peer reviewed academic journal which would require a brief note on the person’s institution of employment.  For the mass media, it is the substance that matters. Readers are impressed with fresh ideas and coherent thoughts, as in Dev’s or Harris’s columns, not the degrees behind one’s name and job status.
There are several excellent writers without letters behind their name.  I don’t know Messrs Mohammed and Maxwell, but they have not penned anything outrageous that would warrant readers knowing their
identities – their education, work place, etc. In fact, in New York and in Guyana, people I spoke with are extremely impressed with both writers.
Mohammed and Maxwell are excellent writers and political analysts.  Very few write as well as them. They are not redundant. I do not agree with their views (and they are known critics of mine) but I admire their depth of knowledge and how they make logical arguments. They are fair, objective and balanced.  They are intellects informing, instructing, and educating readers.  They don’t mislead and distort. They help to make us wiser about issues and our society. Their writings are not driven by personalities or hate.  They are not pompous, ego-driven and condescending. Their writings are credible, fresh, powerful, outstanding and several times they took shots at me, but I am not offended as I learn from them as indeed writers learn from each other.
Mr. Kissoon has a habit of wanting to know peoples’ personal life as though that would make their writings more credible.  Freddie should just take it or leave it when it comes to peoples’ writings. He uses an old worn out strategy to discredit good writers – a demand to reveal everything about one’s self or else newspapers should not publish one’s letters. That is wrong. I urge the editor not to require people to describe their background before publishing their letters.
Virtually no newspaper in a democratic society operates that way.
Knowing the identity of the writer is optional as publishing criteria. Writers may have justifiable reasons for not revealing their background.  And at any rate, one’s background does not reveal a true picture of a person.  Several unlettered people are excellent writers and thinkers.
A free press protects people from revealing their identities.  People should be protected from intimidation and harassment, which could happen if the public knows one’s background.  If they write under another name, they can write freely.  I should note that a lot of people write under pen names (nom de plume) and pseudonyms — Peeping Tom and Dem Boys Seh. Also, famous writers like George Orwell, Ann Landers etc., are all pen names.
We should not censor writers just because we don’t know their background.  All that is required to pen a letter is some contact information so that the editor can affirm whether he or she actually penned the text – the names Maxwell and Mohammed are enough as identities. These men have not written anything that is repugnant or libelous that the editor would demand they reveal their place of work. And even if a writer pens under a pseudonym, good readers can decipher the true identity of a writer through the writing’s diction, tone, style, content, logic, etc.
If Mr. Kissoon is so offended with what someone pens, he can respond to it. Censoring writers should not be an option.
I urge politicians to pay heed to all objective writers – in particular the outsider’s view of Dr. Flaherty -who have expressed concern about the political problems we face and the direction of the country’s future.
Vishnu Bisram

---

---