SUE THE BASTARDS

Posted by Anderson Phillip on October 13, 2015 in Alix Boyds-Knight Defamation Dr. Pascal Lawsuit Skerrit | Comments : 2

News broke last week about the miscarriage of justice meted out by the Privy Council (PC) in the case of Pinard-Byrne v. Linton. We at MITC believe the PC made serious errors in coming to their decision, including but not limited to ignoring evidence submitted in support of Mr. Linton's arguments. Whatever spurred the PC to tack in  that direction we may never know, but what we can say with certainty is that the Lords who sit on that panel have failed in their duty. The tendency to believe that decisions emanating from the PC are infallible are, well, fallible. If proof is needed then look no further than the decision itself; the PC decided that an appeals court was wrong in a decision they made. Well, an appeals court is a court of justice, and so is the PC, an appeals court. That being said, what makes the PC any different? Isn't that the same PC that sanctioned slavery? Sure the bodies on the council may have changed, but it's the same PC, handing out judgments based on their interpretations of law while keeping an eye on precedent, at times with foggy vision.

With this decision in hand, MITC is strongly recommending to Dr. Irvin Pascal that he pursues a defamation case against Prime Minister Roosevelt Skerrit for his actions in the House of Assembly (HoA) last year. The prime minister engaged in what can be unequivocally described as defamation of Dr. Pascal's character. We believe he has a case, or at least he can set precedent.

The rationale for this recommendation pivots off the HoA own rules of Parliamentary Privilege, or whatever it's called. From what's being said, Members of Parliament (MP's) are immune from legal action for what they say in parliament, and we understand that. It does not make it right, for an MP virtually has carte blanche to malign and vilify an individual, and that is especially true with the person who sits as the Speaker of the House. These same parliamentary rules also prohibit MP's from talking about anyone who is not an MP as well, but that abusive woman who everyone refers to as Madame Speaker (we have a few other choice names for her), is especially biased, enforcing the rules against the members of the official opposition while allowing MP's on the government side to do and say what they want, as if it's "do-as-you-like" day in the cresh that she runs. More on her in a subsequent post.

Back to Dr. Pascal. We assert that the good Doctor has a case against Roosevelt Skerrt and Alix Boyd-Knights; he for uttering the words, she for allowing the words to be propagated without interference. Insofar as the rules of parliament are concerned, we will concede that nothing can be done if Dr. Pascal and all who heard them were in parliament when they were uttered. But that is not the case. The rules protect Skerrit in parliament, but the fact that they were heard over the air, in homes, offices, etc locally and worldwide, buttressed by the fact that both Skerrit and Alix knew that the HoA session was being broadcast live, they authorized it, we at MITC contend that the prime minister essentially placed himself  in the public sphere, and thereby waived whatever protections he could have enjoyed in parliament, and with Alix's blessings, proceeded to defame Dr. Pascal. That makes them liable. Think it's impossible to prove? No it's not, especially after that decision from the PC; it's called precedent.

Share this:

SIMILAR ARTICLES