Going through your column entitled «Bittersweet Victory», one cannot help not to be moved by the pathos underlying the writing and I salute in you the champion for Women Lib which is yet to be materialised, though started way back since the end of World War II. The «calvaire» of lady Sandra and that of hundreds of others throughout the World (Bosnie, Sudan, Rwanda? you name it!), is indeed revolting to say the least.

I went through such a mishap once in my life and I can fully understand where the shoe pinches and when death even appears to be sweet. We wish lady Sandry O?Reilly loads of courage to surmount all difficulties in life.

However, I am not so sure whether the whole blame for this state of affair should be made attributable to one person only, namely lawyer Rama Valayden. Obviously, we could not expect otherwise from your quarters as the tone had already been set elsewhere with our Prime Minister?s finding in him «a voyou de bas étage? » which incidentally is where is situated the gutter containing all the guilty crimes of the ruling classes and therefore the place of work of true journalists not the arm-chair ones.

Coming back to lady Sandra?s case, I presume that Deepa Bhookhun (whose forename means light), has bizarrely missed the shed light to the readers regarding the context in which counsel Rama Valayden was making his plea for his client, Nicolas Potage. One should not forget that his submission was not meant to be broadcasted to the general public but was meant for the presiding judge who mastered all the facts and above all knows the law? Indeed on that Monday, if Deepa got her notes straight, which I do not doubt, Me Valayden said: «Rape, that four-letter word, is the most heinous crime that one can find in our Statute Books. Not only is it heinous, it is horrible because it destroys the very dignity of a woman and that against article I of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? » Me Valayden was distinguishing violence in the sense of the Bilam case with that of lady O?Reilly.

Therefore, focussing mainly on the demeanour of counsel Valayden on that day is indeed incomprehensible. It appears that the journalist has had eyes only for that man. Was she acting under clear-cut instructions (like shoot at sight) ? We would like to know.

Oftentimes, we tend to forget that Rama Valayden too was born out of a woman?s womb. Mark my word ! In days to come, his personal contribution to elucidate the sad Nadine Dantier?s murder will be driven into insignificance, courtesy of some journalists!

In the meantime, Me Jay Rama Valayden will continue with his mission assigned to him just like in the curse of the Greek hero Sysiphus. The legend goes that Sysiphus? vigour never flinched at his next immediate assignment which consisted in rolling a big stone up a hill? knowing perfectly well that once at the top of the hill, the stone would invariably roll down to the bottom again. And that he would be back to square one.

Disdaining fortune, Rama Valayden is proving these days that, contrary to the general belief, everything does not always bog down to a pecuniary accounting.

REPLY

<B>Make the blind see</B>

The column entitled «Bittersweet victory» was an opinion paper that came from the gut. It was the reaction of a woman who also happens to be a journalist, to the attitude of a happy few, comfortable in their masochism and their narrow mindedness. It was a woman talking, perhaps to herself and maybe also to others like herself who might happen to feel the need to open their heart and speak on behalf of all those who have no means to voice out their frustration.

The reaction of Ajit Seechurn is comforting in many ways. He got the message. He feels angry, he feels threatened and feels the need to strike back. His disdainful dismissal of the sufferings of others, sufferings that he is at a complete loss to comprehend, speak volumes. It would be funny if it weren?t so tragic. The uncalled for attack on Sandra O?Reilly ? yet another one, is reprehensible but we shall leave him the responsibility of his words.

As for the insinuation that the column was «remote controlled», this woman would have felt offended had it come from other quarters. In this instance, she feels it safer to dismiss it with some amount of contempt. But surprised, she most definitely is not. Men who don?t think much of women have all the reasons in the world to think women cannot think for themselves. Ajit Seechurn has our sympathy.

Rama Valayden is a brilliant lawyer. One might not agree with his stands but we believe in giving credit where it belongs. Brilliance is however not a safeguard against courtesy. His attitude in court was undignified. It offended not only this woman journalist, but also many others, including Sandra O?Reilly herself. His arguments were reported in l?express. A column is however not the place to reports court proceedings.

How do you fight against people?s mentality? How do you make the blind see? You don?t, I suppose. You just live and let live.

<B>Ajit SEECHURN</B>