It’s been some time since I ceased taking my own advice—that citizens ought to make a special effort to experience the nation’s parliament in session. If there had been a time when I could be counted on never to miss a House sitting, I tend now to depend on the expertise of other journalists, especially on the STAR’s Christine Larbey, whose ear for a memorable sound-bite is sans pareil. Oh, but some habits die hard. From time to time I have managed somehow to take in a House performance live; live as in live television. This time around HTS and DBS must’ve had better things to do. (Another police shooting? Another teen suicide by hanging?)
I was finally grateful to the government’s TV crew, never mind that on this particular occasion the camera work fell well short of NTN’s normally high standard. The honorable hecklers were audible enough but viewers were denied the uncommon spectacle of an aroused Menissa Rambally hysterically pounding her well-manicured little fists on the table in front of her while her only sister MP tried to fend off the bloodthirsty House wolves.
Perhaps NTN had its instructions. Conceivably our parliamentarians have by now learned to be wary of the camera’s loveless eye: it is no secret that the camera tends to add pounds to even the skinniest frames, so imagine the disaster when it locks on a Jello belly or a set of jiggly double chins. As I say, on Tuesday I settled down in my after lunch, not so much to discover where the scheduled one-sided debating of the Revised Criminal Code was headed (even Father Clovis must’ve anticipated the outcome) but rather to hear the predictable rebuttals of the Castries Central MP, Sarah Flood-Beaubrun. Earlier I had observed the Gros Islet representative Mario Michel oozing his characteristic ooze, haughtily holding forth on legal matters. As I marveled at his over-rehearsed delivery, I could not help recalling the Helen Air debacle that had established forever the truth behind his regular façade, to say nothing of his pre-1997 reputation as a man whose word was close to bankable!
On Tuesday afternoon Mario Michel spoke with the practiced ease of a snake oil salesman, safe in the knowledge that nothing he said on the occasion would be effectively challenged: the look in the bespectacled eyes of the opposition leader spoke volumes about his own self confidence. As for Marius Wilson, judging by his boy-wonder facial expression, he could barely wait for his shot at the day’s soft target. As for the other opposition member, long before the prandial hour he had been, well, let us be kind and say out to lunch!
Mario Michel took swipe after privileged swipe at individuals in and outside the House, including a certain journalist who had expressed in the strongest terms his concerns about the reworked Section 673 of the Criminal Code, so it became Section 361 under which individuals found guilty of publishing “false news” likely to cause mischief to a “public interest” could face imprisonment for up to two years. As if he were talking to a kindergarten class of fawning sickofans (chill, Urban Dolor, the word has not yet made it to your favorite dictionary), Michel explained: “A public interest is not a person,” contrary to what some had suggested.
Fair doos, but then a government minister is also a person and it is not altogether inconceivable that this person could decide to bring charges on the basis that writing untruths about his ministry contravened the “false news” law. And while it was highly unlikely that the complaining minister-person would prevail in court, still the offending newsperson would have been put through the always huge expense of defending himself, to say nothing of the concomitant stress.
Of course, the minister faces no such ominous possibilities. As has become the norm in such matters, Dominica’s most renowned senior counsel Tony Astaphan will be imported to represent the complaining party, his unrevealed fees paid without question out of the Consolidated Fund. Consequence: newsmen and other concerned citizens will now more than ever be disinclined to publish or to speak out on matters of obvious public interest. In any event, should a government as notoriously litigious, as demonstrably burdened with a persecution complex, as resentful of public criticism, be trusted with a Weapon of Media Destruction like Section 361?
(Since taking office in 1997, the prime minister has filed libel and slander lawsuits against the following: newspaper publisher Dennis DaBreo, former prime minister Vaughan Lewis, Peter Josie and Sir John Compton. The prime minster had also publicly instructed Walter Francois to sue George Odlum after he published in his newspaper, The Crusader, an article pertaining to statements regarding the MP’s advertised credentials. (There is Francois’ still unresolved libel suit against used car dealer Thomas Roserie!)
It is worth pointing out that AG Petrus Compton cut his lawyer’s teeth in the legal departments of prime ministers John Compton and Vaughan Lewis, during which time parliament had created the infamous Section 651, especially for use against Pat Joseph’s St Lucia Banana Corporation. Michel had campaigned against the “egregiously sectoral” statute (which was blessed by parliament but never officially proclaimed, thanks to the welcome arrival of the Kenny Anthony government) but may have forgotten the exact price paid by the United Workers Party administration. The uncontrollable nature of our AG could well spell similar disaster for his new friends—in much the same way that a fabled Good Samaritan turtle had paid for trusting a sweet-talking scorpion!
But back to Tuesday’s debate. It was interesting to note that throughout her argument against the abortion section of the Revised Criminal Code the member for Central Castries did not rely on Catholic guidelines. Instead, she offered logical conclusions, here and there referencing various Pro-Life authorities. Sadly, she was heckled incessantly by her colleagues: by Mario Michel, by Philip J. Pierre the once “minister for bacchanal”—even by the prime minister. No wonder she dismissed them as “baby killers” and “murderers!”
No point revisiting the devilish details, suffice it to say that when it was their turn to attack Flood-Beaubrun’s position, her above-mentioned colleagues fired their cluster bombs with scant regard for possible collateral damage. One MP actually queried whether his female counterpart had ever had an abortion. Presumably, he was implying that if she had not herself suffered an abortion, she was consequently in no position legitimately to discuss the related stomach-turning details. He did not say what qualified him to speak so confidently on the same subject!
Another honorable member proudly announced that if his 11-year-old daughter were to be raped and made pregnant by “a bastard dog” of an
uncle he would himself hand her over to an abortionist. He had not a word about his daughter’s trusted uncle turned rapist.
The prime minister evidently felt the pain of the gender minister’s arrow to the heart of the matter. Having assured himself that he too had been tagged a murderer and a killer of babies, Dr. Anthony pulled out his own figures in support of his allegation that on Sarah Flood-Beaubrun’s watch as health minister, Victoria Hospital personnel had been required to pick up the leftovers of illegal abortions gone awry. Alas, it seemed that line supported the call for free-choice abortions for all and not only for women made pregnant by rape and incest. Dr. Anthony offered no statistics whatsoever to justify the government’s determination to legalize some abortions.
In any event, if the prime minister meant to suggest that Sarah Flood-Beaubrun had overseen hundreds of illegal abortions and related causalities at VH, then why was she not rotting in jail? Why not also the unconscionable mothers, not to say the illegal abortionists, whether or not on the government’s payroll? (Curiously, several 11-year-olds have delivered babies at VH without comment by the prime minister, let alone police action!)
On Tuesday the matter of the government’s record in relation to rape and incest was never approached—despite Flood-Beaubrun’s repeated citing of the Verlinda Joseph and Gizelle Georges rape-murders, evidently destined to remain unresolved, like the murder of Mary Rackliffe. Predictably, the Revised Criminal Code would be carried by the guaranteed yeas. Kenny-loyalty demanded no less. If at all Tuesday offered a surprise, it came with the prime minister’s open confirmation that from 1997 his government had considered Father Clovis the enemy. There were also several naked references to highly publicized but so far unproven remarks by another priest concerning the prime minister’s origins.
Some final thoughts: Did every single butcher of the Queen’s English have to take home his pound of Flood-Beaubrun flesh? What a sight to see the member for Castries East holding hands—on three occasions!—with Mario. Yes, Mario Michel. On TV! Wouldn’t the prime minister’s contribution to the event (albeit modified and without references to his personal problems with Clovis and Lambert) have been sufficient to seal the deal? All those pointless, desperate arguments. Were they merely more overdone demonstrations of Kenny-loyalty?
Never before had so much bad blood flowed during a parliamentary sitting this side of Japan. It was difficult deciding whether Tuesday’s House performance reminded more of Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse-Five than Jack Nicholson’s One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest.
Film at 11!
The preceding was first published in 2003.
