Tweet
published: Tuesday | February 26, 2008
The Editor, Sir:
Mr Delroy Chuck, the speaker of the House of Representatives, has sought to upbraid the press for unfairness. Addressing the issue of a published photograph of a yawning Mr Daryl Vaz as he sat in the House, the speaker said that it was, "only fair that pictures should not be taken of members in their unfortunate moments ..." and "... exposed to the public generally".
Mr Chuck may be right on all counts. Judgement is left for a considered appraisal by the public.
Suggestion
I, however, take serious issue with him for the selective battlefield that he has chosen for his assault. And I also ask him to reflect on his own sense of fairness. I, therefore, suggest that Mr Chuck contemplate the following questions:
Was it not your party which, only a few months past, paid enormous sums of money for the prolonged public exposure of members of parliament in unfortunate moments? Is it that it is quite in order to break the fairness rule - and with the kind of severity that was employed by your party - for use in certain types of exercises?
Why is it that not one solitary word was heard from you when it was done to your parliamentary colleague and constituency neighbour, Mrs Maxine Henry-Wilson? Is it that it is fair to subject PNP members of parliament to that type of exposure, but not JLP members?
Taking words out of context for public dissemination is no less a sin than the "unfortunate moment" exposure that you now complain about. Will we also hear from you on that issue soon?
The Biblical injunction to "do unto others as you would have done unto you" takes centre stage, Mr Speaker, as you seek to send your message to the Fourth Estate. They are in the best position to defend themselves. However, you be the judge of whose eye has the beam in it.
I am, etc.,
A.J. NICHOLSON Opposition Spokesman on Justice
The Editor, Sir:
Mr Delroy Chuck, the speaker of the House of Representatives, has sought to upbraid the press for unfairness. Addressing the issue of a published photograph of a yawning Mr Daryl Vaz as he sat in the House, the speaker said that it was, "only fair that pictures should not be taken of members in their unfortunate moments ..." and "... exposed to the public generally".
Mr Chuck may be right on all counts. Judgement is left for a considered appraisal by the public.
Suggestion
I, however, take serious issue with him for the selective battlefield that he has chosen for his assault. And I also ask him to reflect on his own sense of fairness. I, therefore, suggest that Mr Chuck contemplate the following questions:
Was it not your party which, only a few months past, paid enormous sums of money for the prolonged public exposure of members of parliament in unfortunate moments? Is it that it is quite in order to break the fairness rule - and with the kind of severity that was employed by your party - for use in certain types of exercises?
Why is it that not one solitary word was heard from you when it was done to your parliamentary colleague and constituency neighbour, Mrs Maxine Henry-Wilson? Is it that it is fair to subject PNP members of parliament to that type of exposure, but not JLP members?
Taking words out of context for public dissemination is no less a sin than the "unfortunate moment" exposure that you now complain about. Will we also hear from you on that issue soon?
The Biblical injunction to "do unto others as you would have done unto you" takes centre stage, Mr Speaker, as you seek to send your message to the Fourth Estate. They are in the best position to defend themselves. However, you be the judge of whose eye has the beam in it.
I am, etc.,
A.J. NICHOLSON Opposition Spokesman on Justice
Comment