[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
=?X-UNKNOWN?Q?a1374=3A__=5Biso-8859-1=5D_M=E9dard_replies_to_?==?X-UNKNOWN?Q?Pina_=28re=3A_#a1338=29_=28fwd=29?=
From: amedard@gte.net
>PLEASE HIT DELETE NOW IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO READ MESSAGES IN THIS THREAD.
>I am not making this stuff up Madame
First, Mr. Pina, let me remind you that the point of my post was not to contest or to
support your incinuations. As I said, I am not a personal friend of M. Nadal. All I
have to go on are certain obviously unsubstantiated and/or biased reports, certain
objective but only indirectly and distantly-related reports, limited personal/family
knowledge about certain members of the Nadal family and/or their activities, and
casual friendships with a few people who are only distantly related to M. Nadal. I -
like so many others - do not have enough objective, substantiated information to
legitimately take a posture one way OR the other.
Stimulated by your post #a1294, my point was, instead, to reiterate the notion
already presented, that the list has degenerated into political bickering and
incredible narrow mindedness. It was, additionally, to ask for constructive debate
and discussion rather than unsubstantiated accusations. It was, along the same line,
to express my thoughts that, as I said,
"it is unfortunate that the list has been reduced to so much bickering,
name calling, unsubstantiated personal attacks and tripotage. It does not
reflect well on the group or its individual members, and does not provoke
cultural, intellectual, educational or informative exchange." "Is this the
image we want to present? Has our group become as rude as the political
atmosphere in Haiti?"
The tone of your reply was obviously of disagreement and requires addressing:
Assuming that you are not supporting bickering, name calling, unsubstantiated attacks
and tripotage, are you saying, Mr. Pina, that you have substantiated evidence that M.
Nadal provoked you, personally? If you do, why did you not present that in your post
#a1294? Had you presented it in your post #a1294, the reasoning behind the
derogatory tone of your post might have been more evident, although objectivity might
or might not still need to be analyzed.
And/or are you saying that you have SUBSTANTIATED proof that M. Nadal is involved in
corruption, drug traficking and human rights violations? And if you do have
SUBSTANTIATED proof, DID YOU PRESENT IT in your post (#a1294) which stimulated this
thread, or did you simply sling malicious defamations? (I've already expressed what
I observed in post #a1294.)
You stated in your last post (#a1357),
> I am merely bringing it to the list's attention
So are you saying that to bring certain viewpoints to the list's attention, one must
do so by launching an undignified, sarcastic, libelous slander on a fellow list
member, accusing him of corruption, drug trafficking and human rights violations?
As I said, you launched quite a serious accusation that has yet to be substantiated
except by heresay. It is one thing to present an argument for (or against)
something/someone, but it is another to launch unprovoqued, sarcastic slander and
libel at a fellow list member. It is not constructive, but rather destructive.
Nothing good will come of it. No problems will be resolved. And it is a reflection
of unnecessary, uncivilized behavior which, as the author of post #a1176 alluded, has
begun to unpleasantly creep into the character of too many postings of late.
You wrote:
> Now, I agree with you that the statement of Mr. Otto Reich was far too
> inclusive and unfair in lumping together « violators » in his criteria
for
> withdrawing visas of Lavalas officials.
You are putting words in my mouth that were not there. Although I happen to agree
with your aforementioned conclusion regarding Mr. Otto Reich's statement, I must
point out that my post was not directed at Mr. Otto Reich or his statement.
Referring to "[YOUR] cursory web search" denoted in your last post (#a1357) - and
without reading anything into it - a critical examination (noted simply by CAPITAL
letters) of your first example reads:
> The elite's DEMONSTRATION AGAINST INSECURITY -- as HAITI'S
> CLIMATE OF VIOLENCE AND TERROR is called -- WAS SPEARHEADED
> BY OLIVIER NADAL, president of the HCCI, whose prominent bourgeois
> family helped finance the coup, ACCORDING TO A _LIST_ widely
> circulated and published in early 1992"
If spearheading a a demonstration against insecurity / violence / terror is bad, then
it would follow that to spearhead a demonstration FOR insecurity / violence / terror
would be good. I can't agree with that and I don't know many who would. In fact,
as you suggested that I lend attention to OAS and UN documents, I think it would be
only fair to read the International Civilian Observers' Mission to Haiti of the OAS
and United Nations Press communique of May 31, 1999 which relates their view of this
demonstration. I refer you to: <http://www.us.net/cip/micivih.htm>. [I'm certain
that there are other equally or even more reliable (and objective) sources that
contradict the political analyses you so often project of the past and current
situation, but I won't go there because this post would be so long it would clog
emailboxes.
A "widely circulated and published" "LIST" (probably from a strongly
politically-biased Haitian newspaper) is your substantiated proof that implicates the
Nadal family as having helped to finance the coup? A "LIST"?! If that is proof,
then with all the "lists" that have gone around (including death lists that have
circulated with M. Nadal's name on them), there is a lot of proof against a lot of
people, including the 'Aristiders' who blatently threatened that, along with others
on the list, Nadal's "blood will serve as the ink and [his] skull[s] the inkwell[s]
for writing Haiti's second declaration of
independence.<http://www.ciponline.org/Haiti/Dec2000-Feb01/threats.htm>."
And then it is M. NADAL that you label as being
>very vocal in his unfounded accusations and extremely nasty
?!?!
As to your web search's asserted evidence regarding
>the massacre [M. Nadal] is accused of organizing in Piatre,
and your theoretical proof that M. Nadal masterminded the massacre:
>The section chief
>and his deputy organized a crackdown against them, resulting in the death
of
>a peasant by the name of Samuel Saintfacile. In retaliation at the failure
>of the judicial authorities and the police to act, the people lynched the
>section chief and his deputy. The following day, on 12 March 1990, a
>detachment of 30 soldiers backed by armed civilians from St-Marc
>perpetrated the Piatre massacre. (See Haïti-Progrès, vol. 17, No. 52.)"
What I see is a newspaper journalist's comments (which amounts to PROOF about
NOTHING) saying that the crackdown resulted in the death of Samuel Saintfacile. It
does not say or prove, however, how it resulted in his death, or who did it. He
could have been shot point blank by the chief or deputy, but he could also been
murdered by even the husband of the woman who lives next door or, for all the article
comments, he could have choked on a seed while eating a quinep.
I also see comments about the section chief and his deputy and about soldiers backed
by armed civilians. And I see comments about the people, too! But I see nothing
even mentioning, much less substantiating anything about M. Nadal's actions. I must
have missed something.
On to more of YOUR cursory web search results:
>Antoine Izmery, a rare Lavalas-aligned
>businessman, also denounced the Nadals as coup
>supporters, along with other bourgeois families, in the epic 1997
>documentary Rezistans, which was rerun on National Television the
>evening after the demonstration. Izmery was martyred by a
>putschist death-squad on Sept. 11, 1993.
"Izmery ... denounced the Nadals" in a documentary. If a simple denouncement
constitutes proof, then it would follow that if the Nadals or anyone else were to
denounce Izmery, someone else in (or not in) LAVALAS, or even if they denounced YOU,
that denunciation would that qualify the denouncer as an authority, and it would
prove the denouncee guilty. (I'm not too sure you'd go along with that.)
"Izmery was martyred". Killing someone IS worse than bad (... the same as it was
worse than bad with "the people" in the cursory web search's newspaper article).
What's more, we are TOLD that it was "a putschist death-squad" - and maybe it very
well was - but I hope the proof is not in simple clothing that anyone could wear or a
vehicle that anyone could drive or a gun that anyone could own (or steal and use).
But nonetheless, none of that necessarily implicates any involvement whatsoever of M.
Nadal, so I fail to understand why it was presented in this discussion.
But, gee, then, if you disagree, it would follow that you will also freely offer that
accusations, associations and denunciations directed toward LAVALAS with regards to
the murder of and/or death threats to - to mention a few - Dominique, Lindor, Police
Officer Ricardo BASTIEN, radio stations, Guy Delva and the 40+ journalists mentioned
in post #a396 (see below) necessarily mean implicates Aristide as having masterminded
their death! (I'm sorry, Kevin, but I just don't see you doing that.)
1 Brignol Lindor, Radio Echo 2000, Assassinated, Petit Goave
2 Arthus Webert, Radio Caraïbes, Exiled, [1]Port-au-Prince
3 Carlo St. Ristil, Radio Caraïbes, Exiled, Port-au-Prince
4 Gaston Janvier, Radio Galaxie, Exiled, Port-au-Prince
5 Descollines Abel, Radio Galaxie, Exiled, Port-au-Prince
6 Remy Jean Joseph, Radio Ibo, Exiled, Mirebalais
7 Dominique Beauplan, Radio Ibo, Exiled, Port-au-Prince
8 Duc Donathan Joseph, Radio Metropole, Exiled, Gonaïves
9 Teschler Dimanche, Radio Metropole, Exiled, Mirebalais
10 Mayard Jean Marie, Radio Metropole, Exiled, St. Marc
11 Rose Franceline Léonard, Radio Metropole, Exiled, Cayes
12 Gary Bélizaire, Radio Signal FM, Exiled, Port-au-Prince
13 Gina Colas, Alexi's Wife, Exiled Cayes
14 Yves Clausel Alexis, Radio Vision 2000, Exiled, Port-au-Prince
15 Pharès Duverné, Radio Vision 2000, Exiled, Port-au-Prince
16 Josette Duverné, Duverne's Wife, Exiled, Port-au-Prince
Soraja Duverné, Duverne's Daughte, rExiled
Pharès Duverné, Jr.Duverne's SonExiled
17 Robert Philomé, Radio Vision 2000, Exiled, Port-au-Prince
18 Darling Robert Philomé (7 months pregnant)Press Correspondent
(Philomé's Spouse)ExiledPort-au-Prince
19 Pierre Richard MidiRadio Vision 2000ExiledPort-au-Prince
20 Marc Sony Jean Baptiste, Radio Vision 2000, ExiledPort-au-Prince
21 Ernst Ocean, Radio Vision 2000, Exiled, St. Marc
22 Gladys Joseph, Cabaret Magazine, Exiled
23 Lirianne Fenelon, Press Correspondent, Exiled
24 Neker Grégoire, Radio Belle Anse, Exiled
25 Charité André, Radio Eben Ezer, Exiled
26 Pierre Nazon Beaulière, Radio Express. Exiled
27 Pierre Richard Thomas, Caribbean Press Center, Threatened,
Port-au-Prince
28 Zacharie NazaireRadio Metropole SudThreatened, Cayes
29 Moleus Jean Elie, Radio Caraïbes, Threatened, Cayes
30 Red Cosogu, Radio Caraïbes, Threatened, Port-au-Prince
31 Israel Jacky Cantave, Radio Caraïbes, Threatened, Port-au-Prince
32 Rodlin Jean Francois, Radio Caraïbes, ThreatenedPort-au-Prince
33 Patrick Moussignac, Radio Caraïbes (Director), Threatened,
Port-au-Prince
34 Ulrick Justin, Radio Vision 2000, Threatened, Petit Goave
35 Montigène Sincère, Voice of America, Threatened, Petit Goave
36 Elysée Sincère, Radio Haiti Focus,Threatened, Petit Goave
37 Derival Claudy, Radio Ephata, Threatened, Jacmel
38 Desruisseaux Joseph, NicoRadio Thiotte, Threatened, Thiotte
39 Frantson Raphael, Radio Belle Anse, Threatened, Belle Anse
40 Wilson Dorvil, Radio Ibo, Threatened, Port-au-Prince
41Jean Claude Noe, lRadio Gonaïves, Threatened, Gonaïves
42 Patrick Chery, Radio Signal FM, Threatened, Port-au-Prince
43 Antoine Marc Adolphe, Radio Tete à Tete, Threatened, St. Marc
Referring back to your latest post, #a1357:
>With respect to Mr. Nadal, however, the families of the
>victims of the massacre he is ACCUSED of organizing in Piatre, ceratinly
>differ from your opinion. They are making a strong case that this was a
>direct result of his family’s complicity in the Duvalierist corrupt
>land-lease system involving state owned lands in Piatre.
"Accused." So if simple accusations necessarily make M. Nadal guilty, then it would
be logical that the multitude of accusations directed at LAVALAS not only by
non-Lavalas, but also by human rights organizations, governments, journalists, etc.
necessarily makes LAVALAS guilty. [Somehow, I don't think this train of thought is
necessarily substantiated, either - at least not without proof.]
"A strong case". Hmmm. I guess you could not be referring to the part or your
cursory web search that reads:
> The peasants of the village of Piatre sued Mr. Nadal
> unsuccessfully in the court in St-Marc.
It would seem that you are saying that IF the Nadal family was somehow related to the
land-leasing system, that being 'somehow related' would actually prove M. Nadal
guilty of masterminding a massacre. I'm sorry. I don't follow such a train of
thought. I don't see any legitimate court of law following it, either.
And then there's:
>the peasants of Piatre decided to initiate
>legal action to recover territory form which they had been expelled by
>landowner Olivier Nadal,
"LANDOWNER". LAND-OWNER. LAND owner. Land OWNER Hmmmm. Now, that was a tough
one! I was really trying to figure that one out: how in the WORLD could a LANDOWNER
possibly be justified by expelling someone (who just decides to take over the
landowner's land) from that landowner's land? Well, I will admit, for this one I
'HAD' to get out The Webster's Dictionary to try to find out: what is a
"landowner"?. The Webster's Dictioner defines "landowner" as "an owner of land". It
defines "land" as "Any portion, large or small, of the surface of the earth,
considered by itself, or as belonging to an individual ..." And it defines "owner"
as "one who owns; a rightful proprietor; one who has the legal or rightful title,
whether he is the possessor or not." Gee, that's exactly what I thought in the first
place. But following your train of though, then if the peasants of Piatre decide to
come and sit on land YOU own, it would make sense that 'YOUR' land will then
rightfully belong to the peasants, and you'd be fine with that. (Now, I'd almost be
willing to bet you would call that argument a "false parallelism".) I'll tell ya, if
that is actually the current situation in Haiti, then I'm surely grateful I'm not in
Haiti right now.
Maybe your problem with M. Nadal is that his property was reported to be
>worked by peasants from the community of Delugé,
>generating conflicts between them and the peasants from Piatre.
and
>It should be noted that these conflicts have provoked bumerous
>deaths and the arrest of Jean Milius Jean Baptiste,
But what those sentences infer is that
(1) peasants are employed.
That's a good thing. They also assert that
(2) those employed apparently come from another community.
It doesn't say why they came from another community, and it does not deny [how could
it?!] that an employer has a right to hire who he chooses right for the job. It does
state that
(3) there was conflict between the PEASANTS of Delugé and the PEASANTS of
Piatre,
- not between M. Nadal and the peasants. It does not state why there was conflict,
but it could be surmised that the peasants of Piatre would have wanted to work
Nadal's land, which would mean they would want to work for/with M. Nadal, which would
mean that if only M. Nadal would agree to work with them, he would not really be that
a horrible person in the peasants' eyes .. or else that the peasants must be really
messed up to the point that they fight to work for an ogre.
The quotations also refer to
(4) disputes among peasants have resulted in deaths and in the arrest of a
peasant,
who must have somehow been involved in the disputes and/or deaths. I do not see any
proof or even any indication that M. Nadal was involved in the disputes or in the
deaths.
YOUR cursory web search reported that an
>inefficiency of the judicial system was explained to the Commission
>to be the result of the great influence over the judiciary excersise by
the
>landowners, who have been evicting peasants from their lands.
Your report does not say WHO did the explaining. I would think that to be a very
important element to critically scrutinize. And again, there's the concept of
LANDOWNER and a land owner's rights.
Your report argues that
>To accomplish
>the action described, the landowners resort to the military and the
section
>chiefs to repress any form of resistance.
Again, this does not report WHO did the explaining. It does not prove anyone's
actions; it only reflects that whomever allegedly did the explaining allegedly
accused the landOWNERS of an action. It would also seem fair to assume that if the
landOWNERS, for whatever reason, did want the peasants off of their land, the
peasants refused to leave. I am not sure what resort the landOWNERS had to evict
squatters off of their land. In the States we would call the sheriff or the police -
an American equivalent of the Haitian military. I do know that after drug smugglers
stole one of our boats, my husband and I searched under curfew and through the wee
hours of the night with two previously-unknown-to-us armed soldiers (who I never saw
again) that we recruited at a post in the provinces to back us up when we eventually
reclaimed the stolen property. I will never forget the gunshots that whizzed by my
head and the flashing morse-coded lights between the sea and the opposite side of
Rte. Nationale No. 1 as I drove down the highway while my husband was also being shot
at by the smugglers as he and the soldiers approached the boat thieves. If we had
not recruited the soldiers, we would surely be dead today. That is life in Haiti.
And as for your statement that M. Nadal has been
>very vocal in his unfounded accusations and extremely nasty
>indictments of Haiti’s poor majority
all I can say is that you have presented no actual quotation of M. Nadal nor other
honest proof of your accusations. On the other hand, like I said before, M. Nadal
was not only known to have
"crossed social lines by visiting the street vendors in Bel-Air
whose wares were burned during the violent demonstrations
of the past month. He urged support for the demonstration
against violence"
but
" was there to assess the damage, ask the government to
compensate the vendors, and to offer to make available
small-business loans from the chamber. He took away a list
of 266 alleged victims whose property was damaged."
Source: Center for International Policy
<http://www.us.net/cip/nadal.htm>
You assert that you
>prefer to channel my energies into educating and advocating for the rights
>of the poor rather than bickering.
I agree. Someone certainly does need to channel energies into [objectively]
educating and [honestly] advocating for the [equal] rights of the poor [while the
rights of ALL Haitians are maintained]. The ENTIRE country needs to function as a
UNIT, not separate and opposing entities. Unfortunately - at least in my opinion -
there are very few who have been and/or are working toward this end. It seems either
someone is for one side, or one is for the other. [Interjection: It is, nonetheless,
curious and in certain cases even hypocritical that, excluding the peasantry, the
vast majority of other people live the lifestyle of the upper class - complete with
the big houses with modern facilities, computers and internet service, international
travel, etc - NO MATTER FOR WHOM they advocate. I'll leave that one alone there.]
Bickering certainly accomplishes nothing. But still, your post #a1294 surely did
sound like bickering to me ... which was exactly part of the point I was making when
I replied to it.
I agree with you that M. Nadal is a public figure and therefore, more subject to
public scrutiny. But scrutiny is scrutiny; defamation is defamation. Let me give
you an example that might help you to understand where I am coming from:
MY own results of a "cursory web search" discovered that a fellow Corbettland group
member, "John/Jane Doe" is a reporter, a filmmaker/director/producer, businessman
(director and "co-founder of ... a [U.S.- based] company that sells and markets
products from farmer's cooperatives in Haiti"), and Franciscan associate.
"John/Jane Doe" is, then, also a public figure.
Note: before I continue, I acknowledge that I have not critically examined
or absolutely confirmed my findings, and that articles on the web are
always subject to to the possibility of untruths. [At least _I_ am honest
enough to admit that up front, even though I suspect that my findings are
accurate.] Therefore, I see no need to ascribe "John/Jane Doe"'s true name
- particularly since he/she is a fellow group member.
"John/Jane Doe" is also a strong supporter of Aristide / LAVALAS, as evidenced by
his/her documentaries surrounding Aristide's presidency, his/her webpage-posted calls
for Garrison's whereabouts, and certain other of his/her writings. It appears easy
to understand certain reasons behind this "John/Jane Doe"'s support of LAVALAS and
"John/Jane Doe"'s "very vocal, [and frequently] unfounded accusations and extremely
nasty indictments" and denounciations of anyone who does not speak for LAVALAS,
particularly since "John/Jane Doe" has sought President Aristide's support in his/her
business venture (the promotion of Haitian organic coffee).
A particular Haiti-related organization's website (that, on the side, markets
"John/Jane Doe"'s film featuring "the Lavalas movement that swept [Aristide] into the
presidency") remarks that "John/Jane Doe" was accused of the attempted assassination
of Senator Dupiton and that "following intense interrogation by the police, [he/she]
was forced to leave the country."
While I would tend to believe and hope that the accusation - as the website reflects
- was unwarranted, in YOUR opinion, does the fact that the accusation was launched
and that "John/Jane Doe" is a public figure make it o.k. for his/her/our fellow list
members who disagree with my beliefs surrounding "John/Jane Doe"'s innocence, to
fling sarcastic, slanderous, libeling labels and accusations? Afterall, someone
could surely try to make a case out of the purported fact that "John/Jane Doe"
supports Aristide, the purported fact that (according to the webpage) Dupiton did not
support Aristide, the purported fact that that "John/Jane Doe" was present when an
assassination attempt targeted Senator Dupiton, and the purported fact that while the
Senator and a bystander were shot, "John/Jane Doe" was the only one who was
uninjured. I'll tell you, Mr. Pina, if listmembers were to do the same to "John/Jane
Doe" IN THE MANNER you did to M. Nadal - my opinion about their behavior would no
less critical!
To quote kp, "The campaign of misinformation and demonization has reached new heights
as of late."
P.S.
When I read your words,
> I love my country and my people but sometimes the actions of my government ... is a
> bitter pill to swallow.
I thought, somehow, that your words do not sound all that different than those of the
man who courageously stated
>``Politicians don't care about [Haiti].''
Good thing for you, though, that you are not a Haitian businessman or reporter,
because for
> voice[ing] publicly what many say privately, from Petionville's
> elite to the slum dwellers of Cite Soleil,
certain Haitians who
> [do] so [have their] life ... threatened and [their] dog poisoned,
and even then, it is they and they alone who are accused of corruption[, drug
traficking] and human rights violations. Ask M. Nadal. It happened to him.
That is all I have to say about the matter, Mr. Pina, since I rather doubt that list
members care to listen to what, from here on, should probably either be dropped or
else maintained off list.