Wednesday, 20 February 2013

Some people so much love to misunderstand me and am loving it!

Sometimes, when I post something here some of us do not even bother to read it in detail before heaping mountains and oceans of insult on me. Though I am gradually getting used to those insults, it is important that I explain something. First, if you do not read my post, you can never understand what I am saying. It is not enough to read others reply and then go on attack. The best policy would be to read all the post before you begin your third world war on me. Secondly, I have a background in Mass Communications, Journalism and at the moment I am in the law school. These three disciplines demand a high level of reasoning and I mean a very deep logical reasonable reasoning not just that type of reasoning based on what my father, tradition, religion or culture said. It is a powerful type of empirical reasoning that takes into account facts as it is being witnessed, as it happens, as it develops and as it is being discussed.

Secondly, I have read a lot and I still read. At the moment, I have over thousands of collection in my library and reading hundreds of books, journals, magazines yearly is a pleasurable challenge to me. One big advantage I have acquired over the years is that I am able to learn from the way others think. I am also able to compare ideas and using empirical evidences I am able to come to my own conclusion. The implication of this is that I speak with audacity because I know that I will be right in at least 99% of the time. Yes! Because what I am saying has been subjected to scientific analysis and held to be nothing but the truth! There is no way many experts in a field will get it absolutely wrong. Two good heads maybe better than one!

I therefore do not understand why some people chose as a passion to deliberately misunderstand me. It is not actually a sin to misunderstand someone but I guess it is foolhardy and an idiotic not to subject other party’s opinion to research before heaping oceans and mountains of insult upon him; that is exactly what is meant by being stupid and idiotic and that is why I am so quick to delete from my friend’s list those who chose as passion to be stupid and idiotic. Even as a lawyer, I do not agree that freedom of expression also include the right to talk nonsense and rubbish. We are here to learn from each other. You cannot expect to gain from well researched opinion of others and when it comes to your turn you begin to insult others. You do not have to agree with everything I say here but then you owe me a duty to disagree with me in a very polite and educated manner and not in a manner that is very common to monkeys in the wild. If I wanted monkeys to be my friends here, I know where to find them but because am very eager to learn from you, I demanded and accepted you to be my friends. I wish therefore you do not let me down.

To get the facts right, I am not at all offended by this but am concerned that having been my friend here for quite sometime now, it is high time people began to appreciate the love of learning, the art of reading, the joy of disagreeing in an intellectual manner and the beauty in thinking with our magnificent, natural and God-given brain. It is quite interesting to note that I am actually not alone in being misunderstood in this way. In fact, many English judges have lamented on number of occasions that British journalists have either persistently refused to understand them or have taken leave of their brain. Twenty five years ago, Sir John Donaldson, then Master of the Rolls got so pissed with this deliberate lack of understanding by the British media that he deemed it wise to explain himself in detail in his judgement in (1) Nadarajah Vilvarajah, (2) Vaithialingham Skandarajah v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1990]. He said:

"This court has before it two applications for bail by Tamils, Vaithialingham Skandarajah and Nadarajah Vilvarajah. Before dealing with those applications I would like to try and clear up two fundamental misunderstandings about what it was that this court decided on 12th October 1987. Reading the newspapers the next day and listening to the radio and television (with, I am bound to say, the notable exception of Law In Action) as far as I could make out either no-one had read the judgment- this, I am bound to say, included the Secretary of State, who broadcast on the radio at one o’clock -or they did not want to understand the judgment. So let me make it quite clear what we decided-or rather what we did not decide.

We did not hold that any of the Tamils were genuine refugees. We did not hold that any of the Tamils were entitled to asylum. What we did do was to set out the scheme of the relevant immigration rules which, as we saw it (I am not sure how much dispute there is about this aspect), went in two stages. First the Secretary of State had to examine whether the applicant was a refugee, based on the formula to be found in the Convention of well founded fear of persecution on various grounds. Secondly, if he was a refugee as defined in the Convention, the Secretary of State then had to consider whether or not he was going to grant him asylum. The fact that he was a refugee did not entitle him to asylum. The only circumstance in which he, being a refugee, was entitled to asylum was if he could bring himself within Article 33 of the Convention, which adopted an entirely different formula related to fear of death or loss of freedom.

What we said was that when the Secretary of State said that none of the Tamils were even refugees, let alone entitled to asylum, he had applied the wrong test, and that each of the Tamils was entitled to have the question of whether or not he was a refugee decided in accordance with the right test, although it might very well be-we had no means of knowing-that, applying the right test, the Secretary of State would still have concluded (this time rightly) that the Tamils were not refugees. But it was not for us to decide that and we did not decide it. We certainly never approached the question of whether they were entitled to asylum, because that was the next stage down the line.

I hope, without any great confidence, that, having set it out again, it may be understood what it was that we were deciding. It is in the judgment, and nothing that I have said now is intended to modify one word of the judgment which we gave on that occasion. I am merely indulging in an effort at communication, but as I say without any great confidence that I have succeeded".

Thanks for reading and now you can behave yourself!

No comments:

Post a Comment