NOW that the dust has settled on the fiasco of the taped conversation between Nandlall and Gildarie, perhaps we should do some reflection. It is undisputed that the conversation was private and recorded without Nandlall’s consent and made public also without his consent. Many have condemned what Nandlall reportedly said in that conversation, these include the political Opposition, the lawyers associations, the press association, the human rights association and even some in his own political quarters. None of these persons and organizations have addressed what I consider to be the real issues that this whole fiasco has unearthed. These are:
1. that a man’s privacy was invaded, his private conversation made public without his consent and then the public being outraged at what they heard, knowing fully well that they were not supposed to hear it;
2. a media house owner openly confessing that he tapes people’s conversations on the telephone without their permission and as is demonstrated, is prepared to use those conversations to blackmail persons and worse yet, to use them and his press outfit to shove himself over and above the law.
Unfortunately, in their haste to criticize Nandlall, these important persons and organizations have turned a blind eye to these atrocities. In my view Nandlall’s utterances are completely harmless when compared with the gravity of these atrocities. What is worse, because of the silent treatment these wrongs have received, one gets the impression that they are being condoned. If they are, I have no doubt that they will be repeated in the near future. This is a clear demonstration of the depth to which we have sunk as a society.
Just imagine for a moment that the association representing lawyers seem to have no regard for privacy, private conversations and confidentiality. What this means is that, in principle, they will condone the public disclosure of clients private information. It means they have no moral authority to tell the doctors not to disclose confidential information about their patients. Christopher Ram cannot speak on similar ethical breaches in the accounting profession and that profession can disseminate confidential information about clients with impunity. Commercial Banks are now free to publicly disclose the accounts of their customers. The tax authorities would do the same in relations to person’s tax records. The Commissioner of Police, Minister of Home Affairs, the Director of Public Prosecution, the Attorney General himself and many other important government and state functionaries who receive very sensitive information about important people in our society can freely disclose that information to the public. What is worse is that the political Opposition is supporting this societal chaos.
The above is not exhausted, but I hope that a sufficiently clear picture has been painted which should demonstrate to the rational mind that society will disintegrate should those occurrences takes place and then to add icing to the cake, you have a media mogul using his newspaper to make himself invincible. I am convinced that this man enjoys this delusion.
As regards what Nandlall said on that tape, while I may disagree with some of what he said, I would not be critical of him since quite frankly, I was not supposed to hear it. Those who claim to be offended by it are simply hypocrites. You cannot want to eavesdrop on others conversations and be outraged at what you hear. My grandmother would say “you too blasted fast and yo look fo wha yo get.” The real problems are those I have identified. It is left to be seen who will address them. In the end privacy is fundamental to civil society.

BALRAM PERSAUD