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