By: Dr. Charles Warner
In the underworld or in cases of investigations, it is said that the person sang “like a canary”. With parrots it is said that the birds sang or do as told or shown.
It is interesting that both Parrot – former or dismissed Elections Supervisor – and Dr. Douglas will – Dr. Douglas already – stand before the court. One for stopping the count in the last elections and the other for holding a Dominican passport. True to style, each is claiming that he has done no wrong.
As to the Douglas case, the so-called specialist seems to be of the Bill Clinton tape. Bill Clinton was bold enough, amiss enough to tell the whole world that he has a new meaning for “IS”.
It seems as if their so-called specialists are telling sensible people that the person who legally holds a passport of another country is not a citizen of the particular country. A person carries the emblem or document of citizenship, travels on it, enjoys the benefits. But yet is not a citizen of the named country. By analysis then or comparison, even though a person holds a driver’s licence for a country, the person is not legally entitled to drive in the particular country.
On the matter of the former Elections Supervisor, the halting of the counting of the ballots is/was really the epitome of two decades of electoral fraud. In a way, a last ditch effort to “thief” another election.
The question holds: Will the canary sing or the parrot repeat what it was told. What parrot did is something that in other countries persons go to jail for.
As is the old English story, it will be a matter of serving my God as I served my master.
Until God says otherwise, it would always be believed that Parrot acted on the instructions of Dr. Douglas.
Consider Gonsalves’ comments to Dr. Douglas on the matter of cancelling the elections and calling a new poll. For sure that idea was not that of Wingrove George. The only logical conclusion can be that the instructions were given by Dr. Douglas.
Also in the hiatus/interim Dr. Douglas told all that he went back into the Government Headquarters. Not even the single celled amoeba will think otherwise. It cannot be a matter of sheer coincidence.
The court should press Parrot on the matter of the basis of his decision. Also do not forget that Dr. Douglas deemed himself the “Minister for Elections”. The buck will have to end at the Minister of Elections, so Dr. Douglas cannot be divorced from the case of Parrot. Dr. Douglas should be called to court to tell all if he gave or did not give Parrot the instructions to halt the count.
All this talk about feeling threatened is pure folly. The count was stopped in order/to accommodate Dr. Douglas. Dr. Douglas said it in public. Thus the real issue has to be resolved; was the Elections Supervisor threatened or he acted on orders to worship his boss.
So this will not meet sensible people as a coincidence. Let one party or both try to convince the court and the people.
Many persons seem to think that Dr. Douglas went back into the house to remove documents. But, other people think deeper and know more. Exactly, what he went to remove.
What he went to remove is what he is now using to keep a grip on the leadership of the party. That is also why he opted instead to cancel the elections for a new poll.
Things such as cancelling an election are only contemplated by the ilk of Douglas’ Labour. The mere thought of cancelling the 2015 elections is a record and a smear in St. Kitts and Nevis. What in the world or in the conditions existing that could warrant cancelling the elections? What!
Because Dr. Douglas found he was losing the polls? As usual, he felt he could steal the election as he did those in the past. In arrogance he left – we know what – in the Government Headquarters. So get or order the Election Supervisor to stop the count and rush in to take it out.
The nature of what was taken out tells the nature of the man. All in all, the former Elections Supervisor will make a choice, be a parrot or sing like a canary. And make sure where his voice is heard from!
Frankly, Dr. Douglas assumed the role of Minister of Elections, so he too should be facing the court on this matter. The Minister of Elections stopped the count and one has to wonder on what basis should a minister of elections stop the basic counting of votes.