Courts or streets?

No lawyer

Mark Archer, APNU’s communications officer, says he’s lost count of the number of times the AG has resorted to the courts because of the actions of the opposition in the National Assembly. Is Archer missing some fingers? The opposition’s apologist is deliberately playing the fool. The question really is “Why is the opposition so determined to violate the constitution and run roughshod over the executive?”
Just because they have a one-seat majority in the Assembly, does the opposition now believe they are greater than the Constitution?” Let Archer and the opposition be reminded that the constitution explicitly divvies up the competencies of the three arms of our state – the executive, the legislature and the judiciary.
And much as the opposition would like to extend their control over the legislature with that over the executive – they’re forbidden by the stipulations of the Constitution. And it is the duty of the Judiciary to determine if and when either of the other two crosses their constitutional “lines”. And this is why, respecting the rule of law, the AG goes to the courts.
Where would the opposition have the government go when they (the opposition) unlawfully reduces, for example, appropriations for constitutional offices, such as the ERC? Into the streets? Man invented governments so that they wouldn’t have to live by the law of the jungle, where might is right. Looks like the opposition’s trying to egg on the government into the streets – as in Linden and Agricola. But the government must resist this – Guyanese don’t want civil war.
Archer admits he’s ‘no lawyer’ but that he has “decades of life experiences”. We’re not so sure what this means but since he’s also no doctor, would he operate on his child’s brain because he has “decades of life experience”?  Anyhow Archer suggests the AG is throwing cases at the court because “judges have been known to “give” one to a complainant whom they have frequently ruled against”!!
Have you ever heard such a crock?? Has Archer ever heard about the Appellate Division of the Courts? Which judge would ‘give’ a decision that has no legal justification, knowing that it’ll be thrown out and he’ll be humiliated? Archer unctuously pleads: “This is by no means an affront to the character of the Honourable chief justice”.
It is damned well “an affront” and Archer and the opposition should apologise immediately!

Clothes and rape
There’s an interesting discussion going on in the letters pages of our newspapers about ‘modesty of female dress’ and ‘rape’. The participants, for the most part are highly educated religious leaders in our society. We believe that this is a very positive development – especially since the discourse is between representatives of different religions and is being conducted in such reasoned tones.
Some of the comments on sites that offer that facility, however, betray a tendency to frame the issue in terms of ‘us’ versus ‘them’. We have to avoid this posture if we are to arrive at a common understanding of our beliefs and behaviour. The question of rapes and violence against women in general is so pervasive in our society that we must seize every opportunity to take action against it.
From where we stand, rape, or any action of violence, against another human being is intimately intertwined with questions of power. Every citizen should have the right to dress the way they like (even cross dressing?). But we believe the question posed in the original letter is whether the citizen ought not to be aware of the ‘message’ others in the society may read into that mode of dress.

National Arts Festival
We notice that a “National Arts Festival” is being launched, “to develop the music industry in Guyana.” We hope that in the “musical renditions on instruments, dramatic poetry, steel pan, and drumming” there will also be harmonium, dholak and tabla.