Why does Maria think so lowly of our Justices?

Editor: Please permit a final rejoinder to Maria Williams’ diatribe of last week which addressed not a single substantive point rendered in my March 7, 2019 reply to ‘her’ piece published under the title ‘Judgement in the three teachers’ case.’

Assume for a moment that Maria is right that I know little or nothing about legal reasoning. Assume as well that Maria has a better than average understanding of constitutional and administrative law. Then ask this question: why would Maria choose to engage in an ad hominem attack rather than address the points made in reply to ‘her?’

There is nothing in my letter which evidences that I crave the last word or indicates arrogance. Neither can anyone glean from my piece that I am the only one who is right. Nor can one infer that the only people who are right about anything and who have a grasp of legal concepts are those who agree with me. Clearly there is a noise in Maria’s head and ‘she’ wants to get it off ‘her’ chest.
 
Maria accuses me of being a self-obsessed bigot, lacking an open mind, possessing garbage ideas in my head. The public is called on to guard against being misled by thoughts from a mental trash can or dump heap. The quality of the speaker’s decisions and adjudication is questioned.

Really! Why does Maria direct so much bile and venom at someone who shares an opinion contrary to ‘hers?’ This irresponsible, infantile name calling is beyond the pale. It flies in the face of respectable debate. It is definitive proof that Maria is the person possessed of a closed mind. ‘She’ evidently thrives best in the company of mindless jesters and useful idiots.

Maria said I was quick to heap praise on the Justices of Appeal because they returned a verdict in line with my own thinking. I am accused of flattering the judges in anticipation of favourable legal outcome in the future.

What utter nonsense! According to Maria our justices are not only rubber stamping decisions, they are swayed to render favourable decisions to those who positively comment on their decisions. Clearly, people like Maria, who influence government policy, have long abandoned the law. Drunk on power, they have reduced themselves to ideologues rather than students of the law.

Why does Maria think so lowly of our Justices? ‘She’ doubles down on the trope that our Court of Appeal decision in the Teachers case was ‘a poor judgement by any objective standard.’ Worst, Maria’s screed turns sour when ‘she’ described the Court of Appeal judgement as written by one judge and ‘rubber stamped by the other two jurists involved.’ Our Chief Justice and two other highly experienced judges are accused of rubber standing a decision. With this strident, high octane commentary Maria has the gumption to accuse me of being self absorbed or thinking I alone is right.

For a debate to be meaningful all parties have to be respectful. For ‘steel to sharpen steel’ steel has to collide in the market place of free ideas. Sadly, Maria is not possessive of steel. ‘She’ is now little more than highly corroded rusting iron. This is not scholarship. This is petty, puffed up; intellectually bankrupt arrogance masquerading as intelligent thought.

Finally, there is a cogent and compelling reason why Maria locked on to my idea that Maria Williams is an assumed name. ‘She’ knows that writing is like DNA. It cannot escape the trained and observant eye. It is not the first time I have been attacked and called names by this rapidly imploding star who was once one of my intellectual sparks. I close with the disdainful words ‘mas ah know yo.’ 

Jomo Thomas