Dear Editor,
To suggest that a female politician cannot be called a ‘lowlife’ and, is an act of misogyny, is to suggest that females are weaker, are unable to compete on equal terms and, need the protection of men.
Ironically, Cathy Hughes, a seasoned politician, was slinging mud at a political meeting in Linden (if an audience of three people and a dog can be so considered) when she disingenuously suggested: “the Vice-President himself, was giving Venezuela, a channel he call it” (sic). This falsehood at a time of heightened tensions surrounding the Border controversy invoked the ire of Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo who thusly described Hughes’s behaviour as ‘lowlife’. In so doing, Jagdeo treated Cathy Hughes as he would any man, is this not the definition of equality?
During that same diatribe in Linden, Cathy Hughes described Jagdeo as ‘an evil, dangerous man’ which is par for the course and garnered no response from Jagdeo; it is the constant repeated ‘big lie’ about the Sea Lane offer that invited the ‘lowlife’ description. According to Cathy Hughes’ husband, “legal action would be taken in Guyana’s Courts concerning the adverse impact of Mr. Jagdeo’s “low-life” comment about Mrs. Hughes and preparations were being made to take the matter to the IACHR after advice on the procedures”. It is at this point I wish that Jagdeo was more creative with his descriptions.
Sincerely,
Yours faithfully,
Robin Singh
