Analogies, I?insist, are meant to clarify; not to confuse – and must be held by some thread of common sense. And Member of Parliament James Paul stands before God and refuses to call on Him for the wisdom to be able to differentiate between the two.
Firstly, Mr Paul exhorts the good people of the Mount Of Praise Wesleyan Holiness Church not to be distracted by the “negative” last week in Parliament, but instead to be consumed by the many “positives” coming from the Chamber, for there were many such “positives” in Barbadian society, and as such “a concerted effort must be made to lift up and identify” with them.
What are the “positives” coming out of Parliament these days, apart from the passing of laws hopefully for the betterment of society? They cannot have much to do with ordered thought, measuredness, gracefulness, refinement or polish. Regrettably, these qualities have been exiting our formal and social lives for a little while now – and most of us are in denial.
We cannot continue – with impunity – to make excuses via faulty philosophy for simple, unadulterated bad behaviour within Parliament or without!
One could not help but be taken by Member of Parliament Dr William Duguid’s live, raw and obscene retort in the sacrosanct House of Assembly last Tuesday. And mulling over the stunning conduct, wondering how it was possible that we could reach such a stage of debasement is not about being “distracted by the negative”.
It is about facing the prospect of having to go through the slow process of grieving over the bereavement of decency in our beloved Parliament.
Damage controllers must take care that in attempting to hide the distasteful they do not diminish the depth of its repugnance. Bad apple juice is not for the drinking!
The most recent tragedy befalling Parliament has been in the nursing for some time, despite the bold and proper interventions of the presiding officers of our Chambers.
Boisterous and argued nonsense have been earning rah-rah acceptance and cheers for its brand of bling-bling oratory. Trivia presented in earnest, and parading as substance, has overtaken Parliament.
And we have these mostly rambling and empty presentations of many an MP at times replicated for days by the media. Woe to us, freedom of speeches!
Regrettably, the Speaker of the House or other presiding officer cannot rule on substance or intelligibility; only on conduct, parliamentary language, compliance with the Standing Orders, points of order, and relevance – and even this has come to be proven a challenge.
Time was when substance was revered and trivia frowned upon; when asides had some literary value; and crosstalk bore no profanities.
William Duguid, MP, has since apologized for falling “far short” of the noble traditions and standards of our Parliament – before the public and before the Speaker – and as Christian as we will want to be, and in the tradition of Jesus Christ, we will forgive him; but cannot ever forget the sully to our House of Assembly.
Saying sorry, as sterile and unfeeling as it may have been, was the right attempt of Dr Duguid; seeking to blame his sin on “grievous provocations which came from the mouth of a Democratic Labour Party parliamentarian” is a distractor and subtracter. It is tantamount to a legislator – like a man in the street – taking the law into his own hands. Yes, Dr Duguid, “no matter the provocation”, I have been disappointed in you!
Our elected representatives ought to be exemplars, eschewing bad temper, lack of self-control, dirty mouths and “pow’ful foolishness”.
It behoves all Members of Parliament now to take this dark moment and shed upon it a new light that could see in future a greater respect being shown to each other on either side in that august Chamber – so much so that we could not remotely miss their good works before one another.
We may yet come to experience a horrid negative truly turned into a promising positive.
I will give it to Dr Duguid for his sixth sense, though, in being aware when the battle is won – and definitely lost!