We are aware that PM Gonsalves is a liar, he actually told us so himself. So I suppose writing a press release and pretending it came from someone else would not be beyond his capability, after all it’s perhaps just another kind of lie. So would that not be acceptable behaviour on his part? At least to him if not us.
They say no one likes a liar, but on his part yes they do. Why? Because he told us so, when he told us the Vincentian people love him.
When the article appeared in Caribbean News Now: “New law in St Vincent exonerates corruption
”, I was told and verily believe it to be true, by someone one removed from the table, there was absolute panic and it was top priority to get a statement published countering the CNN article, the very same day.
I have read the statement supposedly from Hans King
and compared it with a statement made by Gonsalves and posted on another media site: "Changes to Passport Law Will Not Exonerate Illegal Activities".
So I printed both and carried out what a court would describe as 'forensics that can identify or narrow the possible sources of the document'. If they were handwritten, the task would have been simplified.
A phrase from the Hans King statement "Scaremongering and falsehoods by internet crazies" is as follows:
"The NDP's false allegation is a species of propaganda straight out of the play-book of the Nazi propaganda chief, Goebbels, who took the immoral position that if one repeats a lie persistently the unsuspecting would accept it as the truth."
A phrase from Gonsalves’ statement "Changes to Passport Law Will Not Exonerate Illegal Activities" is as follows:
"He accused the NDP of using a Goebbels-like technique to speak falsehoods, repeat the falsehoods frequently enough and loudly enough and they believe that people would believe in."
Now my belief is this: Gonsalves wrote both statements. Why do I believe that? Because I believe that Hans King would not even know who Goebbels was.
Who was Goebbels?
Goebbels was one of Adolph Hitler's closest associates and most devoted followers. He was known for his zealous orations and deep and virulent anti-Semitism, which led him strongly to support the extermination of the Jews when the Nazi leadership developed their "Final Solution". In simple terms, Goebbels planned, arranged and organised for the extermination, the murder of millions of Jews in the cruellest possible way.
To compare any person, anybody or any association or political party with Goebbels is a very deep insult and is, in my opinion, when used in such a way meant to damage the standing of recipient/s of the insult. In my opinion, it can be nothing less than libellous, perhaps criminally so, in the case of Gonsalves as a solicitor, he would have been fully aware of that when writing such a thing.
It’s also my considered opinion that Gonsalves would know exactly who Goebbels was. Gonsalves hails from Portuguese Jewish ancestry and, as such, I believe he would know exactly who Goebbels was and what he did. As a world traveller and having mixed with the Iranians, he would most certainly of brushed up on the Holocaust matter and all those Nazis involved, because his friend Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the former Iranian president, denied the Holocaust ever happened.
What a disgraceful thing to do: to compare any Vincentian with Goebbels. Once again, Gonsalves is insulting not just us black people, but all Vincentians black and white.
There are many similar sentences and phrases in both documents, some almost identical, but both being about the same subject perhaps there would be. The things that stand out like a sore thumb are the references to Goebbels in both documents. It stands out because it has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject. One may say in defence perhaps that both their great minds think alike; my reply to that is what great minds.
PM Gonsalves, I ask you, did you write both statements? Will you apologise and withdraw your remarks about Goebbels? Will you apologise both to the Vincentian people and to the NDP for your disgraceful and spiteful choice of words?
It’s got to stop.
Let’s ask ourselves this question: if the boot was on the other foot, would he sue?