15286: Brown: Re: 15267: Ben Dupuy ' s active terrorism in Haiti (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: Haines Brown <brownh@hartford-hwp.com>

Olivier,

I can't in good conscience allow your remarks to pass by
unchallenged. I'm not involved in the issues you raise and so only
comment as an interested outsider on the character of your message.

> From: Olivier Nadal <o_nadal@bellsouth.net>
>
> Ben Dupuy is the owner of the Lavalas and haitian communist
> newspaper printed in New York City

If he is owner of the paper, you must mean his editorial perspective
happens to be pro-Lavalas. Or can you establish that the paper is
owned by the Levalas party? In either case, a paper expressing
pro-Levalas views seems perfectly legitimate, although you may regret
it. Levelas supporters obviously do exist, and they have every right
to express their political views through the publication of a
newspaper. Are you questioning that right?

"Haitian communist newspaper"? Are you serious? Can you establish the
fact that the paper is owned or run by a Haitian Communist Party? I
doubt it. If all you mean is that Dupuy's views are to the left or
progressive, that is quite something else, without the discipline
implied by the term "communist." You seem guilty here of what is
called, "red-baiting," which employs a demagogic attack on a person's
credibility and independence because one is unable to address the
issues he raises.

> using american paper and american ink.

The paper itself probably originated in Canada and is owned by the
newspaper. In what sense is it "american"? Or are you questioning the
right of anyone on U.S. soil to question U.S. foreign policy regarding
Haiti or to take a partisan stand on Haitian internal matters?
U.S. citizens take pride in their traditional civil rights and do
not take kindly to anyone challenging those rights.

> Ben Dupuy is in charge of the Lavalas disinformation and Lavalas
> propaganda on behalf of Jean Bertrand Aristide and his mafia gang.

Sounds like juvenile name-calling. The way to counter the bias of the
paper is to present material representing your own bias so that
readers can judge for themselves.

> Ben Dupuy had a political rally in Croix des Bouquets Sunday March
> 30th. 2003.  Following his success in getting 3000 supporters ,well
> paid by Aristide, in an anti American March in Port-au-Prince. . .

Is it not his right to hold a pro-government rally? If in fact people
only attended because he arranged for the government to pay them, why
do you pay the event any attention? Here, it is commonplace for the
government to release people from work and provide other inducements
(such as food, liquor) so that they might populate a politically
useful rally. Yesterday State employees at the capitol were released
from work in order to make the official celebration of Connecticut's
victorious women's basketball team look impressive. It is common in
the real world of politics to use inducements to have people
participate in rallies.

> I just hope the Haitian opposition in taking notes and the US is
> aware of what is going on in Haiti.

A threat of retaliation? You stand on the side of U.S. government
foreign policy? There are many people who would find both to your
discredit. If opposition to Levalas amounts to backing
U.S. neocolonialism in Haiti, that alone would make many people
embrace Levalas. Again, you should be arguing a case rather than make
threats or unwarranted insinuations.

> Is the light at the end of this long tunnel a "RED LIGHT?

Hopefully there's some light at the end of the tunnel that represents
material wellbeing, social justice and democracy. To object to a "red
light" implies that you feel that unbridled U.S. capitalist penetration
offers that desirable outcome. Since many people obviously find this
very unlikely, you need to argue the case.

The effect of your remarks on this reader, and I suppose others, was
quite the opposite of what you intended.

Haines Brown