Letter: Unparliamentary behaviour from Hinds

It is with a heavy heart I set about the task of writing this letter, and the person who drove me to such chagrined state was one whom citizens are expected to hold in high esteem, Mr Fitzgerald Hinds, he being a senator, proud Rastaman (like me), and attorney at law.

It has always been my understanding that attorneys, no matter whose brief they may for the time being hold, endorse, or defend, always interact with due deference to each other...I believe the expression is "with proper decorum". 

As a result, no matter the arena where they engage each other or interact, attorneys at law diligently pursue a course which amply and publicly demonstrates to the unlettered and or common citizen that the legal profession is such a noble career, only the couth can ever be called to it.

I must confess, such an understanding developed incrementally, having quietly and happily observed how, over the past few decades, the art and practice of litigation have shied away from being outright adversarial and acrimonious, adopting instead a more conciliatory approach in resolving conflict (as evidenced by more and more court matters being settled by alternative dispute resolution, arbitration, or "out of court" settlement), causing the opinion of attorneys at law which many now hold to be much more healthy than it was when Shylock wanted to excise his pound of flesh. 

One other significant and inevitable consequences of such transformation is the dearth of browbeating lawyers in every courtroom today.

Sadly, Senator Hinds seems not to have gotten that message yet. Today he gave an exhibition which practically unravelled all the positive progress advocates senior and junior have made in furthering the legal fraternity's self-worth. 

I am speaking of what transpired during his contribution to the Senate debate of the National Budget 2013, where he refused several times to permit the Attorney General the leeway to clarify some vehement allegations he had made and to which the Attorney General had rightly objected. The Parliament, we know, is the highest court in the land.

While Senator Hinds was within his right not to give way, (the letter of the law invested him with the capacity), the aforementioned legal revolution demanded him to follow the moral and spiritual legal evolution on the occasion in question. That he didn't, to me means he demeaned both his professions: as attorney and as senator. 

My recommendation to him (and those who side with him), is to change course immediately, so everyone, especially the younger generation, could benefit, not join in condoning poor conduct by those who are exemplars in whatever court.

Humphrey Diefenthaller | La Horquette, Trinidad