Do you believe President Ramotar?

May 23, 2013 Features / Columnists, Freddie Kissoon

Anyone who read the philosophy of language as explained by the genius, Ludwig Wittgenstein, would never accept to be forced into a situation in the witness box to questions put that they have to answer in monosyllables – yes or no.
There was a huge argument in the court and widely reported in the press during the last day I was in the witness box in the libel Bharrat Jagdeo brought against me.
As reported in the media, I explained to the judge that I could not answer yes or no to a particular question because to do that would be to mislead the court, create a situation of historical fiction and be dishonest to myself. I was asked; “Did you indicate to the University that you wanted your contract to be renewed.”
I couldn’t answer yes or no because such a situation never arose. I was in the middle of the contract when it was terminated so there was never a situation whether bureaucratic or otherwise when I had to ask that it be renewed. You only do that when it ends. My contract was in the middle of its life.
Here now is how the fiction comes in. A “yes” answer meant that I did ask the University to renew it. A “no” answer meant I indicated to the University I was leaving. Nothing of the sort in both contexts occurred.
I was teaching and before the contract could end and I could talk with the university on continuing or not, it was terminated. A “yes or “no” answer could not be a true reflection of my association with UG at the time. Perhaps the most amazing example of the monosyllabic answer is; “Do you still beat your wife?” If you say no, then it logically follows that you did so in the past.
To create a true historical picture, the question should not be answered monosyllabically. I will explain to any judge why a monosyllabic answer is a language depravity in a given context
The foundation of law is built on language and its interpretation. Wittgenstein explained that traditional philosophical problems confused human civilization for too long because philosophers were not looking at the analysis of language. Words can be self-destructive depending on the context. Of course context is everything.
No judge can give a libel judgement against you if you publicly state that you do not believe what the Prime Minister or President of your country said. No lawyer should even file for libel.
You cannot commit a libel for stating if you believe or accept. It is when you use language to explain how you arrive at your belief that creates the perfect storm. The reason is because in natural law, it is the right of a person to decide whether they believe an explanation or not. No one can or should take away that right. Another way of saying that you don’t believe is by describing the speaker as a liar. Here is where words become complex.
If you move from saying you don’t believe to labeling the speaker a liar then you move from a defensive position to one of offence. You have the right to say you don’t believe your president. You are on thin ice if you call him a liar. Quite often on this page I wrote that I didn’t believe what President Jagdeo said when he spoke to the media.
I wrote in one instance about the current President, Mr. Ramotar. Mr. Ramotar explained to Opposition Leader, David Granger, that it was a mistake on his part that he did not share an important letter sent to him by Caribbean Financial Action Task Force.
Citizens have the right to decide if they accept or reject that submission by Mr. Ramotar. I do not believe the presidential reason.
I do not believe the presidential offering when he said in early this month that he did not know where the two Bills were that were sent to him by the Clerk of the House since February. To date no one from Government, from the President down to secretary, has told this nation where the Bills were from February to May. Who kept them from the President?
Did the President receive them in February but put a lot of papers on top of them so they became obscure. Or is there another unpalatable reason?
They say you do not wish for things to happen but I would like to be in a court battle with Mr. Ramotar should he sue me. I know I have pressed Nigel Hughes and Khemraj Ramjattan enough but I know they would defend me. I would ask Mr. Ramotar about the training he received to cause him to say in a published interview with a Reuters journalist that I was a “sick man”.

Latest News

Do you believe President Ramotar?

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show|| March, 17th, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

NSC, Office of the DPP to host Criminal Law and Sexual Offences Act...

Lucas Chung maintains strong standing at 2nd...

Farm Supplies Ltd. supports Bartica Regatta 2025

Legislation and Investment: Trinidad to Brazil,...

Three more matches billed for this weekend

CM Khan rules at 2025 National Blitz Chess...

Features/Columnists

“One Guyana” is no less a national slogan than “Green Guyana”

If Guyana’s President Ali is the “Zelensky of the Caribbean”, who is the Putin?

Partner v. investor

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]

Do you believe President Ramotar?

Share this:

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show|| March, 17th, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Features/Columnists

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]