EDITORIAL

Responsible Commentary

Wednesday, March 24, 2004

As journalists and publishers, we know only too well that it is sometimes difficult to identify that fine line between the responsible publication of sensible commentary, and the ill-considered and irresponsible.

However, in our opinion, the letter from long-time resident Gordon Barlow published in another local newspaper on Monday, 22 March, oversteps the mark of responsibility by a very long way.

First, Mr Barlow claims that the proceedings initiated by the Caymanian Bar Association (CBA) to challenge the propriety of last year's wholesale grants of Caymanian Status by the Cabinet represent an "attempt to roll back the recent civil rights advances." This is clearly absurd.

As one of our correspondents pointed out a few weeks ago, what the CBA is, quite rightly, attempting to uphold is the rule of law in the Cayman Islands. The issue is a very simple one: either the Cabinet acted lawfully or it acted unlawfully. 

This question is eminently capable of being tested in the courts by parties holding opposing points of view. In many respects, this is the very way to go about opposing governmental actions in a democratic society.

In equating the action to a "roll back" of civil rights, Mr Barlow has confused the application of the law with the law itself. If Mr Barlow and other like-minded 

people are concerned about the civil rights situation in the Cayman Islands, we suggest that their time and other resources would be far better spent campaigning for a change in the law rather than advocating a disregard of existing law.

The intemperate protest itself leads one to conclude that the protestors are not convinced as to the propriety of the Cabinet's actions. If they were, there would be no need to complain at all - they would be confident of a favourable outcome of the court proceedings. As Shakespeare put it, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks"

Mr Barlow then proceeds to advocate that local law firms dismiss their lawyers who are members of the CBA. Curiously, their civil rights of freedom of expression and association seem to have conveniently fallen by the wayside in the space of a just few sentences in Mr Barlow's world.

Furthermore, such an attempt to interfere in the livelihood of any person is both reprehensible and certainly not fit for publication, as well as itself quite likely representing a potential cause of action.

Another outrageous comment in Mr Barlow's letter was the suggestion that, should the CBA succeed in its action, and if the People's Progressive Movement were to win the next election, long-term residents here would never be given any security of tenure, and short-term residents would be subjected to "indentured service."

Mr Barlow then goes on to incredibly insinuate that the ultimate goal of the CBA might be to nationalize all foreign land holdings, ala Fidel Castro in Cuba.

In his own words, Mr Barlow's avowed objective is "to kill off this mad CBA venture." This is an unfortunate turn of phrase, to say the least. Such a suggestion is capable of being viewed as an outright personal threat and is inimical to Caymanian values and way of life.

The type of hysterical exaggeration that was proffered with no basis in fact in Mr Barlow's letter is dangerously divisive and potentially harmful to the community. Despite our firm belief in an individual's right to freedom of speech, there are times when, for the good of the society as a whole, that some messages should not be afforded a public forum. 

Giving credence to such prejudiced views as Mr Barlow's is an example of a letter that perhaps could be considered better left unprinted.

Back...

Click here for reader comments...