In how many ways can one view His Excellency's pre-action protocol letter? Is there merit on a personal level for a husband to feel sorely aggrieved about perceived derogatory remarks about his wife and to take up her defence by way of the law? Does the fact of being the highest officer in the land detract from this sworn duty to protect his wife; and how solid is the argument that such action belittles the office which should deal with more "lofty issues"?
Can the President be both a man and a holder of the highest office, fulfilling his duty towards his wife and ensuring as the nation's mentor that the law is observed in all things? Which raises another question. Is it defamation or the widely touted "freedom of expression"? Is the latter "licence" to say whatever or is it true test of ability to know where to draw the line?
Does freedom of expression not involve standards of behaviour enshrined in the law which must be applied, or is the behaviour in question a marker of the new licence evident on the airways and a manifestation of the now pervasive lawlessness which can be practiced with impunity?
On the argument about the "licence" of the artist, as espoused by a recognised literary figure which suggests that through art, "truths" are unearthed which would otherwise remain hidden, the question arises as to how true is this "truth" as claimed by the "artist" in question? Is that so-called "truth" a lie to the real truth in many ways?
First, was the "exposure" over which there seems to be some disapproval as unacceptable as it seems or was it limited and subdued, and even so, can it be considered a variation of baring the midriff as is typical of the sari in the East Indian tradition?
Again, was it not a fashion event for which she seemed appropriately fashionable and did foreign journalists not praise her for same without a single negative comment?
If she seemed less conservative than her more "senior" counterpart at her side, is that something to be critical about considering that she is young and beautiful? Must her beauty and fashion consciousness as a young person be a fault to be condemned?
Switching to the other side, could the comedienne be enjoying her new found status of being drawn into a controversy involving the President's wife and exploiting the glamour of it to the fullest, and could the fact of not receiving a pre-action protocol letter from the Office of the President be alarming for all different kinds of reasons?
Dr Errol Benjamin