Jabou,
I told you that you're at liberty to come to different conclusions/opinions
with us on this issue. I have no problems with that. The bone of contention
is when you insinuate that we are trying to manipulate, trick or attempt to
discredit in our arguments with Halifa. I have asked you to provide evidence
of that; you still haven't. That's all.

Cherno


>From: Jabou Joh <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: The Gambia and related-issues mailing list
><[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Halifa Sallah, PDOIS & Foroyaa
>Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 09:34:58 EST
>
>Cherno,
>
>l am gald you can finally decipher that l never made any statement to the
>effect that you are not entitled to your opinion.l  will never attempt to
>stop anyone from expressing their's either, you can rest assured of that.
>However, you seem to be quite perturbed at the fact that l feel l am free
>to
>look at the same material  provided by Halifa and come to quite a
>different
>conclusion, both on his position, as well what l see as your motivation on
>these issues.That is my entitlement. For the response on my allegation that
>your motivation in this debate is much more than just taking a public
>figure
>to task, please  see my response  to Saul.Yes, all of us are entitled to
>our
>own conclusions.We cannot anything contrary  to that principle.
>  My remark  regarding your expression of respect for my views only when we
>agree stems from the fact that you  wrote:
>"Third, my respect for you is not conditioned on your agreeing with
>  my views, but rather the objectivity and sanity you have mostly tossed
>into
>  your writings."
>So naturally, the question arises as to whether my writings have suddenly
>become un-objective and insane because l have come to a conclusion
>differing
>from that of your own on the issue at hand, and have expressed  thus? You
>wrote:
>"Among other things, my duty is to stir a debate and put in place, a
>conduit
>for an array of views and opinions from others to filter through. In this
>way, we all can
>learn from one another. It often pleases me for my readers to
>constructively
>criticise me, point out my inaccuracies, and provide better viewpoints. No
>one is perfect or  can claim a monopoly on ideas."
>
>Please Mr Jallow, let not my conclusions that l reached from my own
>assessment of the situation lead you to deny me this ideal you state here.
>
>On Ebou Jallow,  l did not intend to state that you have strong convictions
>on his allegations, and l am sorry if l failed to be clear in my addressing
>this particular point correctly  as far as your  views are concerned. What
>l
>meant was that you had strong covictions on the way Halifa and Foroyaa
>handled this particular issue, as well as the issue regading his role with
>the '97 Constitution. My  remark regarding your failure to bring the
>information you had on this issue   to the Gambian public  is based on the
>fact that you undoubtedly believe strongly about the  necessity to bring
>the
>facts  regarding this issue to the Gambian people.The role  Halifa played
>in
>providing the   information on this subject that you say was  printed  in
>Foroyaa is one of the issues that you are taking him to task on, and that
>this is one of the reasons  you feel his credibility  as a public  figure
>is
>in question.My question then  was,  as a Gambian and a journalist, and as
>someone who is questioning his credibility based partly on this issue,
>should
>we also not question your  credibility and sincerity to our  people which
>you
>say is your motivating factor here? As a journalist, should you not have
>been
>moved to bring to the people something counter to what you allege was
>misinformation  or a  sell out on the part of Foroyaa? Shouldn't you as a
>journalist been moved to brave the wolves  and  bring something to the
>people
>to correct this action that translates to a heinous misdeed.l  think that
>it
>is  not only our public figures who should be held up to high ideals, but
>that journalists infact are the eyes  and ears of the people even in the
>wake
>of impeccable leadership, much less a repressive one. Journalist  prowess
>is
>not deterred by distances between them and their potential interview
>subjects. What do you suppose prevented  both yourself and Foroyaa from
>getting the information from the horse's mouth, because that  is the only
>way
>the real truth would and could have been attained, otherwise,. it seems
>each
>of you put on paper what the  circumstances put at your disposal, until
>further information becomes available. Cherno, l am not a  journalist, but
>l
>am not totally cluelees about journalists being careful  to substantiate
>their stories.Oftentimes, the  need to substantiate stores has led them to
>even more conviction to find the truth, but sometimes  people can only deal
>with what is available to them.In this case, l think anyone who is not
>blind,
>deaf and  dumb  can conclude that credible information on the issue  of
>Koro's death can only come from those who are not speaking. If we are to be
>honest, we must not try to hold others to ideals that we ourselves cannot
>reach and did  not try to reach.
>Question: Did the daily Observer at the time merely give the overview  of
>the
>Koro affair ( due to their inability to substantiate the story as you
>said),
>or did they actually also  go out and try to conduct an investigation as
>Foroyaa said they did.
>Cheers.
>
>Jabou Joh
>
>
>
>
>
>Jabou,
>  I am now pleased that we are at least understanding each other on this
>  issue. At least, I have discerned some appeal to sanity in your response
>to
>  my response to your posting. Let's agree or agree to disagree. That's
>  healthy indeed. You said, "...why does my voicing of my opinion, and my
>  statement that I and others are not prone to manipulation lead you to the
>  conclusion that I am trying to stop you from pursuing this topic,or from
>  having a different opinion." Well I neither said you were "trying to stop
>  us" nor are you stopping us, because you simply can't. What I requested
>from
>  you was that we be allowed the opportunity to express ourselves without
>any
>  baseless insinuations against us. But you wrote, "... please be
>forwarned,
>  manipulation, trickery and attempts to discredit do not and cannot
>qualify
>  as acceptable as acceptable methods."
>
>  You are insinuating, if not agreeing, that what we are doing is to
>  "manipulate, trick, or attempt to discredit" in our arguments with
>Halifa.
>  That's baseless. If you had provided evidence how we were doing what your
>  insinuations portend, then we would have been better off in our
>exchanges.
>  But when you simply throw tirades against us, without any tangibility,
>  that's akin to villifying us in our quest to express ourselves in this
>  debate. And that's unhealthy.
>
>  You wrote:"I am sorry if your opinion and respect for me was based only
>on
>  stands that I take that agree with you views." Well, first, you have
>nothing
>  to be sorry about. Second, it is news to me that you have mostly agreed
>with
>  my views. I never knew that. The only time I have seen your agreement
>with
>  my views was when you lent credence to my position against Ebrima
>Ceesay's
>  article on Gambia's "Liberalised authoritarianism." In any case, if you
>have
>  mostly agreed with me, so be it. You are at liberty to be entitled to my
>  opinions. Third, my respect for you is not conditioned on your agreeing
>with
>  my views, but rather the objectivity and sanity you have mostly tossed
>into
>  your writings. Fourth, I am not in the business of seeking agreements
>with
>  my readers on issues I write about. Honestly, it does not please me
>greatly
>  to see my readers concur with, or throw plaudits at, me. Among other
>things,
>  my duty is to stir a debate and put in place, a conduit for an array of
>  views and opinions from others to filter through. In this way, we all can
>  learn from one another. It often pleases me for my readers to
>constructively
>  criticise me, point out my inaccuracies, and provide better viewpoints.
>No
>  one is perfect or  can claim a monopoly on ideas.
>
>  On Ebou Jallow, you seem convinced that I "have strong convictions" on
>his
>  allegations. That is untrue. I have never believed anything close to
>that.
>  What I said was thus: Ebou Jallow's contentions must be viewed with care
>and
>  tact, but again, we still can learn from the snippets of information he
>is
>  rendering. You seem inclined that we should have published Jallow's
>account.
>  You wrote: "Why did you not find any way to print Ebou Jallow's
>account...."
>  Well, without any evidence to rely on should it became evident that we
>were
>  going to land in trouble with the law or the military authoirities, we
>just
>  couldn't. That's responsible journalism. I presume you are not a
>journalist,
>  and since you aren't one, you don't know what is a publishable story or
>what
>  isn't. Recently, Jallow used the Net to convey his allegations. And when
>the
>  Gambian press got hold of the information, they simply carried an
>overview
>  of it, carefully failing to publish the names of those alleged by Jallow
>to
>  have "killed" Koro Ceesay. Nor did they publish the details surrounding
>  Koro's death. And that's what the Daily Observer did at the time.
>Newspapers
>  have to be very careful not to disseminate information they cannot
>  substantiate.
>
>  I rest my case. Thanks for the correspondence.
>
>  Cherno Baba Jallow
>  Detroit, MI
>
>  >From: Jabou Joh <[log in to unmask]>
>  >Reply-To: The Gambia and related-issues mailing list
>  ><[log in to unmask]>
>  >To: [log in to unmask]
>  >Subject: Re: Halifa Sallah, PDOIS & Foroyaa
>  >Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1999 17:31:39 EST
>  >
>  >Cherne baba, you wrote:
>  >
>  >" Well some of us beg to differ. And can we be afforded the opportunity
>to
>  >  hold contrary views, please?"
>  >
>  >l am glad that you realize that what one sees is not the same that is
>seen
>  >by
>  >everybody, and that there are two sides to every story. What l express
>here
>  >is what l see, and my view, and since you do realize that we are each
>  >entitled to our opinions and views on any given situation, then we have
>no
>  >problem. Also, why does my voicing of my opinion, and my statement that
>l
>  >and
>  >others are not prone to manipulation  lead you to the conclusion that l
>am
>  >trying to stop you from pursuing this topic, or from having a different
>  >opinion. My conclusions are based on the arguments and counter arguments
>  >between yourselves and Halifa. Let the debate continue because it is
>  >proving
>  >to be quite an education on more than just Halifa's character actually.
>  >Also,l am not shallow enough to think that  any human being on God's
>earth
>  >can claim or have perfection attributed to them, and for you to even
>  >insinuate that this is what l am doing leaves me a bit dissappointed in
>you
>  >too. Since when does voicing support for a stand taken by someone amount
>to
>  >declaring them totally infallible? And while you are talking of
>  >infringement
>  >on other's opinion and views, perhaps you guys should also take heed of
>  >this.
>  >Everything l have stated is my opinion and my observation, and as l have
>  >said
>  >before, and will say again, l am entitled to it, and no barrage of
>words,
>  >or
>  >insinuations aimed at belittling my view  will change that.
>  >l am sorry if your opinion  and respect for  me was based only on stands
>  >that
>  >l take that agree with your views.if the opinion l now hold on this
>issue
>  >has
>  >changed your view of me, then l guess that is the way it has to be. A
>  >question l have for you is this: Why did you not find a way to print
>Ebou
>  >Jallow's account of  the circumstances surrounding Koro's death if you
>have
>  >such a strong conviction about it? Perhaps we should view that as a
>  >betrayal
>  >of the Gambian people by a member of the press whose job it is to inform
>  >the
>  >public.Perhaps as a competent journalist, you should have pursued the
>story
>  >with Mr Jallow and conducted your own investigation, or did you not
>think
>  >that you, as equally as anybody else owned this to the Gambian people?
>  >
>  >Jabou Joh
>  >
>  >  Jabou,
>  >
>  >  You wrote: Mr Sallah, the jury is still out as far as I am concerned,
>and
>  >  all I see is credibility, competence and undying dedication to the
>  >  betterment of our people and our country."
>  >
>  >  Well some of us beg to differ. And can we be afforded the opportunity
>to
>  >  hold contrary views, please? While you and Alpha Robinson and others,
>see
>  >  ALL "credibility, competence and undying dedication" in Halifa Sallah,
>  >some
>  >  of us see Halifa as a competent, dedicated public servant, but equally
>  >see
>  >  him as imperfect, having done things that do not make him credible and
>  >  competent at all. Do you see our differences in our grappling with
>  >issues?
>  >  Of course, you are at liberty not to agree with us all. But will you
>stop
>  >  your insinuations of deceit on our part in our challenges to Halifa?
>You
>  >  averred: "But please be forewarned, manipulation, trickery and
>attempts
>  >to
>  >  discredit do not and cannot qualify as acceptable methods." You
>stressed
>  >  further, "Let those who think that cunning, manipulation and the
>smearing
>  >of
>  >  people's character is what will win them or those they support a
>position
>  >in
>  >  the hall's of Gambian leadership think again."
>  >
>  >  And you wonder why Saul Khan is "tongue-lashing" at you? Honestly, do
>you
>  >  think that we are hell-bent on sullying Halifa's character? Do we have
>  >  hidden agendas to discredit Halifa and his party, much to the
>advantages
>  >of
>  >  others in Gambian politics? Given our arguments with Halifa, have you
>  >  noticed any sycophancy, or deliberate vindictiveness to destroy the
>  >  personality of Halifa? Do you know that we were all supporters of
>PDOIS?
>  >Can
>  >  we be allowed to voice our dissent with the party we supported in the
>  >past?
>  >
>  >  Take or leave, our arguments with Halifa. What you see is not seen by
>  >  everybody. People have different opinions, views, observations. What
>is
>  >  healthy is to allow unfettered cross-fertlisation of ideas without any
>  >  infringement upon one another. Let's give access to even nonesensical
>or
>  >  illogical ideas. In the marketplace of ideas, the cure to free speech,
>is
>  >  not less speech, but more. If you had given Halifa a bed-of-roses
>speech,
>  >  defending his record, I, and probably others, would have cared less.
>But
>  >  when you go further to employ tirades against his critics, than can be
>  >  cynical imbecility.
>  >
>  >  I have always held your views in high esteem. To peddle sycophancy or
>be
>  >a
>  >  sycophant, is anybody's inalienable perorogative, but please don't
>  >  disappoint me by stooping so low in your cynicism over our dissent on
>  >Halifa
>  >  and his party. Perhaps, you need a reminder that there are two sides
>to
>  >  every issue. Take note.
>  >
>  >  Best regards,
>  >  Cherno Baba Jallow
>  >
>
> >----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  >
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
>Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------------