–or is she just posturing?
IN a letter published under the caption, “Guyanese women must say no to the APNU+AFC bullying,” (SN, July 30, 2020), Ms. Gail Teixeira talks about being “angered and embarrassed” at the “vile and baseless attacks” meted out by the APNU+AFC against a number of women, and asserts that, “the APNU+AFC Coalition leaders are bullies.”
Ms. Teixeira’s obvious selective “anger and embarrassment” against “bullyism” towards women is typical of political practitioners posturing conveniently (PPP/C). Ms. Teixeira and her PPP/C comrades now know that the Constitution is the “supreme law” of the land. They didn’t know that when, for twenty years, they refused to hold Local Government Elections (LGEs), which are constitutionally due every three years. When a former foreign diplomat talked about it, the PPP/C sent one of their ministers to “feral blast” him at his residence. When they were in power, the supremacy of the Constitution was subject to the convenient political posturing of the PPP/C.
But back to Ms. Teixeira and her “anger and embarrassment” at “bullyism” against women. When the former First Lady Varshnie Singh – before she was unceremoniously stripped of the Title – was treated like a piece of trash by her supposed-to-have-been husband, then President Bharrat Jagdeo, in the house that was paid for by the State, did Ms. Teixeira think that that was something for her to be angry and embarrassed about? When one Peeping Tom contributor penned an article, calling the issue a “private affair;” and when those sentiments were echoed by a prominent male religious leader, did that provoke Ms. Teixeira’s ire?
When the late Janet Jagan took a principled stand against what she saw as Mr, Jagdeo’s attack on the press, he relegated her to a status of “just a private citizen.” In other words, she should “just shut up.” That is something that Mr. Jagdeo would never have entertained, not even as a thought, if Dr. Jagan was alive. Did that stir Ms. Teixeira’s wrath against “bullyism against women”? Did she call out Mr. Jagdeo’s sexism? When Mr. Jagdeo labeled a group of protesting women, “loonies from the fringes,” did Ms. Teixeira defend their right to peaceful protest? Mr. Jagdeo could have been gracious to the women. He didn’t have to agree with their position but he could have, at least, demonstrated his own respect for women.
Instead, in his typical condescending fashion when faced with opposition, he described them in the lowest and most grotesque fashion allowed in public. Was that considered “bullyism” in Ms. Teixeira’s thinking?
When the once fearsome black clothes (rogue) police ranks, reportedly, “kicked up” those women in Wellington Street, the word that came from the highest echelons of her party were, “If women behave like men, they will be treated like men.” Did Ms. Teixeira consider the police’s action as “bullyism”? And did she get angry and feel embarrassed about her party’s response? Perhaps that was a different breed of women. When Ms. Teixeira’s colleague doused that female activist with his famous SSS, threatening to “Slap that piece of Sh*t” or get his “girls to Strip” her, did Ms. Teixeira’s anger burn within her, that a powerful male Minister of Government could be so crass and demeaning towards a woman? Was she embarrassed about that?
More recently, when that male lawyer, publicly, threatened that female rank on the steps of the GECOM facility (Hadfield and High Streets), calling on “Dr. Alli” to “remember her face, because she should know that [if] the government changes, she is out of a job.” (That young woman was carrying out the orders of her functional superiors.) Wasn’t that something that Ms. Teixeira should have been angry and embarrassed about? As someone who is, supposedly, supportive of women and is opposed to their being “bullied,” wasn’t that something that she should have said, NO” to? Wasn’t that an absolute “bullyism”?
In her missive she wrote: “we, . . . especially Guyanese women, must say “NO” we shall not be bullied nor shall we stand by quietly and watch these women, or, anyone else, being bullied. Editor, Ms. Teixeira’s selective approach to “bullyism” against women, is typical of political practitioners posturing conveniently (PPPC). These are people who excuse themselves (and their own) for acts they accuse others of.
With kind regards,
Soesdyke Wesleyan Church