At the risk of hearing someone raise a question regarding the concept of “separation of powers”, I accepted an invitation from Chief Justice Hon. Dame Janice Pereira to attend a service at St. Mary’s Anglican Church, as well as a special sitting of the High Court in Anguilla to mark the commencement of the Law Year. It is an event I regularly attend – that usually requires that invitees dedicate an entire morning. Despite that sacrifice, all things being equal, it is my view that one’s attendance shows respect for an institution that is charged with the lofty – indeed the sacred – responsibility of dispensing justice on our island and the region as a whole. As law-abiding citizens it must be of concern to all of us that our Judicial System grows in relevance to the needs of our communities and upholds the cause of truth and justice. As in the past, in my opinion, the occasion was well marked by the presentations both at the Service and at the High Court.
It began with a most inspiring homily by the Rev Dr. Wycherley Gumbs who, using appropriate references from the Bible as well as the works of Shakespeare and other famous authors, vividly described some of the human obsessions that could stand in the way of the pursuit of knowledge, truth and justice. Among these obsessions he spoke of the preoccupation with wealth, power, arrogance and personal interests. I believe that he painted a very captivating picture of how our judicial system could be perverted by such shortcomings in the persons who have been charged with safeguarding these sacred trusts.
At the Court House we were also privileged to hear from Justice Cheryl Mathurin and other members of the Judiciary and the Bar Association as they outlined their achievements and their plans for the upcoming Law Year – and the vision and future goals of the High Court and the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court as a whole. The Hon. Chief Justice, herself, presented the wider plans and vision in a simulcast from the High Court in the British Virgin Islands.
The presentations included characterizations of the Judiciary as the “last bastion of democracy”; the responsibility of facilitating access to justice through charitable service (pro bono); the importance of the family court; the importance of swift access to justice; the importance of technology in enhancing the efficiency of the judicial system; the introduction of new innovations; admonishments to young practitioners; and so on.
I was, however, particularly moved by the presentation by the Senior Magistrate, Ms. Ivenia Benjamin, as she spoke about respect and civility because it occurred to me that this was one area that transcended the various divisions in the concept of the “separation of powers”. Ms. Benjamin observed:
“These days, it has become increasingly common for lawyers to dispense rude and offensive behavior and discourtesy to each other and to the court. Such conduct cannot be tolerated for it will erode the nobility of our profession and destroy the camaraderie which should exist among learned friends.
“Our society at this time seems to be accepting a fundamental loss of common courtesy as a trend that accompanies, perhaps, the technological age or the fast-paced existence in which we live. Perhaps it is simply the cynicism inherent in our modern society that values winning at all costs. Whatever the reason, it is appropriate for lawyers to maintain the valuable traditions upon which the profession was built. Civility is important in the courtroom where emotions are close to the surface because of the normal conflicts that arise in the adversarial system. Lawyers’ conduct should be characterized at all times by personal respect and professional integrity. Lawyers owe to opposing counsel, the parties involved in a matter, the court and the court staff, a duty of courtesy candor, honesty, fairness and cooperation.
“I therefore wish to appeal to every lawyer to espouse the values of courtesy and of civility in our professional dealings with each other and more so in dealing with the court.”
Ms. Benjamin could have been appealing to any and every sector of our country; any department of government; any business; any family; any institution; any organization; and so on. There is erosion in respect and civility in our society, as well as an attitude that promotes getting ahead or “winning at all costs” even if it means willfully and deliberately destroying the character of a colleague with lies and half-truths. What is even worse is the “fertile ground” that serves to perpetuate the most ridiculous and destructive gossip spouted from even the highest places.
Over the last few weeks the whole idea of liars, blamers and defamers has become the topic of conversation as persons are coming to the realization that the 2010 AUM campaign strategy seems to be playing out once more. The fact that someone would take the time to write a six-page document full of scandalous statements anonymously and un-signed, is a clear indication that it contains lies. We have been questioning how reasonable people unwittingly spread these lies by simply sharing this information with others. That is the fertile ground I referred to earlier that causes it to spread.
I was sufficiently impressed by an excerpt that a friend sent me on this subject of gossip, that I felt that I should publish it in my column in its entirety. It reads:
“In ancient Greece (469 – 399 BC), Socrates was widely lauded for his wisdom.
“One day an acquaintance ran up to him excitedly and said, “Socrates, do you know what I just heard about Diogenes?”
“Wait a moment,” Socrates replied, “Before you tell me I’d like you to pass a little test. It’s called the Triple Filter Test.” ‘Triple filter?” asked the acquaintance.
“That’s right,” Socrates continued, “Before you talk to me about Diogenes let’s take a moment to filter what you’re going to say. The first filter is Truth. Have you made absolutely sure that what you are about to tell me is true?”
“No,” the man said, “Actually I just heard about it.”
“All right,” said Socrates, “So you don’t really know if it’s true or not. Now let’s try the second filter, the filter of Goodness. Is what you are about to tell me about Diogenes something good?”
“No, on the contrary…”
“So,” Socrates continued, “You want to tell me something about Diogenes that may be bad, even though you’re not certain it’s true?”
The man shrugged, a little embarrassed. Socrates continued, “You may still pass the test though, because there is a third filter, the filter of Usefulness. Is what you want to tell me about Diogenes going to be useful to me?”
“No, not really.”
“Well,” concluded Socrates, “If what you want to tell me is neither True nor Good nor even useful, why tell it to me or anyone at all?”
How we wish that this filter could be a part of the way we approach gossip in Anguilla — and that the preoccupation with “winning at all costs” would not stand in the way of civility and respect for each other.
