Defending the indefensible

It's possible that Ian 'Booklist' Boyne believes that to keep his day job as a Government of Jamaica (GOJ) propagandist, he must defend the GOJ regardless of inconveniences like fact or logic.

If that's the case (and I'm prepared to be corrected), I've no problem with Booklist Boyne. Everybody is entitled to defend his bread and butter. But, when you step outside those parameters and become so earnest that you start making senseless arguments in favour of political parties, my stomach rebels.

On Sunday, March 6, in a typically rambling and illogical piece headlined 'Can Bruce survive K.D.?' (a completely irrelevant issue), Boyne wasted several column inches of expensive newspaper space stoutly defending the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) and its leader. Worse, he had the unmitigated gall to criticise those of us who have recognised, based on fact, the indefensible nature of the JLP's/Driva's position. 'Wusserer' (as Miss Lou might say), Booklist Boyne has come to Driva's defence in circumstances in which Driva himself has admitted wrongdoing and issued a public apology for his involvement in the Manatt, Phelps & Phillips (MPP) saga.

Talk about (not-so) youthful exuberance!

After hundreds of words exposing the national vision of a Stevie Wonder with cataracts, Booklist Boyne delivered himself of this crushing non-sequitur:

"What empirical evidence has been offered for the oft-expressed view that it is improper, and even illegal, for a political party to lobby on behalf of its government? Where is that proven? We in media have not done our job."

Do your job, boyne

Really? I'll agree that some of us in the media haven't done our job, but the bad news is that the name of Booklist Boyne heads that shortlist. Somebody needs to focus Booklist Boyne on the real issue until he stops inventing issues that don't exist and is forced to produce informed comment. Ian, NOBODY has expressed that "view" you so glibly call "oft-expressed". It's amazing that someone who professes to read so widely and is so proficient in listing book titles, seems incapable of reading the reams of comment that have been published in the media about the inappropriate and improper behaviour of the JLP in this matter. The JLP did NOT seek to lobby on behalf of the Government. If that was all there was to this issue, there would've been no need for the elaborate subterfuge referred to by the sleeping dormouse as a "web of deception".

What the JLP leader has done is engage the services of MPP, a United States (US) law firm, and expert lobbyists, who then PRETENDED they were representing GOJ when the JLP leader and all concerned knew that MPP had no such client. The convoluted pretence was necessary because it was illegal under US law for MPP to lobby on behalf of a foreign political party in the avenues of power that were required. If MPP had represented to the US authorities that it was lobbying on behalf of the JLP, access to these avenues would have been refused.

Why the cover-up?

Then, when, because of accidents of modern technology and the strictures of US transparency laws, the plot was revealed, a convoluted cover-up was engineered and tenaciously maintained for months by several high-ranking JLP and government officials.

Now, my dear Booklist, would all that have been necessary if this was simply a "political party [lobbying] on behalf of its government"? Are these the actions of a "nationalist" (your characterisation) "standing up to the big, bad USA"? Why does Booklist continue to treat us as fools? If that was all it was, Booklist, WHY THE COVER-UP?

No, Ian, as usual, what you derisively refer to as "the overweening, overwhelming power of emotions and groupthink" is, in reality, the use, by Jamaican citizens, of their native intelligence, based on published fact, to come to their own perfectly supportable conclusions. That these conclusions don't suit you is your problem alone.

Your beseeching us not to conclude Driva's motive was the protection of Dudus, rather than general constitutional rights, rings hollow. Your facile argument - "The most you can say is that they are plausible and circumstantial. But you can't be dogmatic, and must be open to evidence" - exposes your own self-erected roadblock to logic. 'Plausible and circumstantial' is the evidentiary standard that produces convictions every day in all Jamaican courts. Offenders usually don't commit their dastardly deeds publicly. Despite his personal, voluntary confession, why would you want your own Jamaican media to apply a different standard to Driva's actions than would a court? Is he special to you?

Peace and love.

Gordon Robinson is an attorney-at-law. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.