| No Big Deal |
 |
 |
| Written by Jamil Matar |
| Thursday, 04 March 2010 00:00 |
|
I have heard the recurring denunciation that the UDP now has two ministers who have used words which can be interpreted as being disrespectful to our country, in one instance, and to our teachers, in the other. The criticism persists, it is claimed, because neither of them is willing to apologize. To remind readers of the two words being referred to, these are “artificial” and “ignorant”, and were uttered by Ministers Erlington and Faber respectively. Please appreciate that I cannot speak for the ministers, or for anybody else for that matter, but I can share with you the interviewed response given by the Foreign Minister, and the explanation for the use of the word “ignorant” given by the Minister of Education in the Honorable House on Friday February 19. Hon. Erlington has made several attempts to clarify that his use of the word “artificial” to describe our border with Guatemala simply meant that the mentioned border was manmade, and not natural like the Rio Hondo, which demarcates our border with Mexico. Since his explanation, we have been privy to several “official” meanings of the word artificial, accompanied by comments that if the Foreign Minister does not issue a retracting statement, this could compromise our national security and our international standing regarding the claim on our country. Call me cynical, but sometimes I believe that some Belizeans are perhaps too squeamish (hope I don’t get a backlash here) and take issue with things that really have no great impact on our nation’s well- being. I have heard comments from friends that it is felt that some people are dedicated enthusiasts in fomenting quarrels with the Barrow Administration at every turn. The Hon. Minister offered an explanation as to the context in which the word “artificial” was used, yet some of us are not satisfied, and prefer to choose several other definitions which suits us. I mean, it’s not like a treaty was signed with Guatemala and this word was bed-rocked as the main argument. To me, it was just an impromptu statement, shot from the hip, not the most suitable word to apply, granted, but also not one to make great hullabaloo about. The other great fiasco, according to pundits, is the “ignorant” word by Hon. Faber. Several acquaintances have suggested he should have been milder, gentler with his former colleagues. I have said before that I respect the right of Unions for peaceful protest, and would only enquire as to reason and objective. If the Minister thinks that the only reason that the teachers doth protest against removing corporal punishment is through lack of formal training in this field, he also has this right to express himself. Now I instantly understood that his use of the word ignorant was not meant in the colloquial but in the grammatical sense. Again here I am surprised at the level of chagrin expressed by some in the officialdom of the Union, since they also spared no “nice” words for the Minister. In my valueless opinion, the two circumstances we discoursed about above do not bear enough importance to keep hammering on. On the other hand, if it was me that was the target of the relentless jabs in the media, I would promptly say I’m sorry and move on. I repeat- it’s no big deal, for both sides. |