SIR, here we go again; or rather, here again goes the leader of the SPPF government President James Alix Michel trying to treat the effect of a problem as opposed to treating the cause of the problem. On SBC TV on Tuesday 14th August, after visiting the Mont Royale rehabilitation centre for drug addicts and alcoholics, the President proudly announced the construction of a new rehabilitation centre for drug addicts principally, at the cost of 8 million rupees. I don’t believe the country needs another rehabilitation centre. The money could better use instead to construct a new health centre at Beau Vallon, a promise made prior to the 2002 parliamentary election, which as many other pre-election promises, is yet to be fulfilled.
Therefore, even if certain “Escobars” are closely related to powerful individuals in this country (as many people believe certain are), they should be dealt with firmly and decisively. This is more so, because dangerous ones are the “Escobars” with close and powerful contacts and protection from the authorities. They can easily come in through the airport with their dangerous cargo unchecked. Certain are even alleged to be going through the diplomatic channel. Furthermore we should have trained dogs, several of them in fact, at every point of entry in the country, as well as inside the post office, airport cargo room, even the courier services bags should be checked by the dogs. We should be prepared to seal all the loop-holes that the “Escobars”are presently using to bring drugs in the country. Nowadays there is in operation at many airport around the world a modern detector that is capable not only to “look” inside luggage and sort of “diagnose” their contents but can also “see” inside the stomach of individuals suspecting of carrying drugs that have been initially swallowed.
This kind of detector will be worth investing in, as it will serve two purposes really: to detect drugs or dangerous materials like arms and explosives used by terrorists. When dealing with drug barons/dealers there should certainly be no shortsighted and irresponsible approaches like negotiated or pleading with them to leave our school children alone. This approach used recently is downright dangerous because it conveys mixed and confusing signals. And more so now that the government signals to the “Escobars” is: go ahead sirs, continue with your illicit trade, but please spare our school children, thank you. And to the teenagers who have not yet started using drugs the signal appears to be; ok, boys and girls you can experiment with the stuffs and if you become addicts later on, don’t worry. We have constructed for you, a new modernly equipped rehab centre that you might want to use to treat you.
Unless we start now to tackle the problem and take the bull by its horns, tomorrow might be too late. Please no more talk, this has been tried before. Like putting all “Escobars” behind bars. It hasn’t happened as yet and it won’t happen with only talk. Action, firm and decisive action should be used to back the talk. So, show guts please and start to walk the talk now!
Yours ever
J.Claude “Escobars” Christine
Sir, I was on holiday and returned to read the papers that I missed. Your articles and letters on milk prices and all were interesting but I was quite surprised to see the personal attacks on Mayadas of SMB, especially in tone letter. This is because I am a DP supporter of many years and also get some business sometimes with SMB. I do not agree with many things they do, but I also do not consider Mayadas to be one that makes our lives difficult. In fact he is one of the few people there who is fair and professional in his work. A lot of people respect him for that, and he should get some credit for a difficult job where he could have become very rich like many others, but has lived a simple life instead. We should put our effort to make changes in the right places.
I would be happy for you to give my views some space in your paper.
Yours faithfully,
Mr. Editor the following is an excerpt from the Christians United for
… The sad truth is that in recent years there have been Jews who committed acts of terror in the name of Judaism. Likewise, there have been Christians who committed acts of terror in the name of Christianity. In the past 15 years, these Jewish and Christian terror attacks number less than a dozen, and they have claimed fewer than 50 lives. Why are these acts so few? Much of the answer lies in the response they received. Both the Jewish and the Christian communities have condemned such attacks in the clearest and most emphatic of terms. No Jewish or Christian spokesman of any authority took to the airwaves to try to justify these acts or ask us to understand their root causes. Judaism and Christianity have utterly rejected terror as a tactic. As a result, deaths from terrorism in the name of these two great faiths remain as rare as fatalities on roller coaster rides-- too numerous, but hardly a threat to civilization as we know it.
The contrast with Islamic terror could not be more stark. To cite just one statistic, in the month of July an average of over 110 Iraqis were killed each day in suicide bombings and other acts of Islamic terror. Thus Islamic terror claims more victims in one country in one day than Jewish and Christian terror have claimed worldwide in the course of the past 15 years. Why are acts of Islamic terror so common? Much of the answer lies in the response they receive. Yes, there are some brave Muslim moderates who condemn terror as anti-Islamic. But their noble voices are overwhelmed by the large number of Islamic leaders and spokesmen who applaud the terror or who excuse it, rationalize it, and ask us to understand its roots. Too many Muslim leaders embrace terror as a tactic. As the result, Islamic terror continues to grow and metastasize.
When we look at the world’s ills today, it quickly becomes clear that the problem is not religion. The problem is one interpretation of one religion -- Islam. To engage in the moral equivocation that treats all faiths as equally guilty prevents us from recognizing and confronting the greatest threat to peace in our times. And it takes pressure off of Muslim leaders to do what humanity and decency demand -- condemn terror in the strongest, clearest and most unambiguous of terms.
Ms. Amanpour’s series could have been a rallying call for good people -- Muslim and non-Muslim alike -- to bring an end to Islamic terror. I’m afraid the muddled message of her series will only strengthen those who seek to obfuscate, equivocate, and excuse Islamic terror. This is more than a wasted opportunity. It is a sin.
Name and address withheld.