I write in response to the Freddie Kissoon’s column on December 19, 2017, under the title “In the church of the poisoned mind”. In this column, Mr. Kissoon sought to label me as undemocratic, while he attacked the Parliamentary Opposition, referring to us as “philistine ignoramuses” and “plebeians”.
In his characteristic style, Mr. Kissoon’s column contained nothing but misguided statements and self-centred opinions. Notably, if there was any truth to any of the contentions or assertions made by Mr. Kissoon in this column, I may have engaged in a rebuttal.
However, since the article has been published and presumably read, the following can be deduced from this unsuccessful attempt at attacking my character and person:
- Kissoon is petty and bare grudges, twist stories to bring attention to himself and when he sees it fit, uses his pen and access to the media to carry out his own agenda;
- Kissoon, either, dislikes himself or is not comfortable with who he is and when he sees what he desires to be in other persons, instead of admiring them for their successes, he reverts to asinine behaviour using his hired pen as a weapon to destroy;
- Kissoon reached his age of retirement while at the University of Guyana and believed that he had the divine right to be rehired although he was credited with poor performance as a lecturer who never published a single peer review article in over 30 years;
- Kissoon has a pattern of attacking any professional who is more accomplished than himself, which seems to be almost everyone;
- Kissoon’s politics is not about issues and policies but is one of hate and destruction of character and persons who he dislikes, refer to his columns and this is visible;
- Kissoon believes that his views are superior and sacrosanct, even if it is singular or in the minority. For example, he devotes much of his column under discussion here, to a supposedly UNDP funded project.
For the record, the study that Mr. Kissoon made reference to was initiated by the Ethnic Relations Commission (ERC) under my Chairmanship while we were preparing for our strategic plan and wanted feedback from the seven constituencies that then comprised of the ERC. Of the seven constituencies, Mr. Kissoon participated as a member of the labour constituency and sought to dominate those consultations. All the views expressed in the column, which Mr. Kissoon alleged are part of a report, is in fact, the views of Mr. Kissoon at those consultations. He now seeks to take his views and sell them as if they were part of an official report; such is the nature of the man. He truly believes if he repeats a lie often enough they will become truth. At the time of my departure (November 2011) as Chairman of the ERC there was no official report.
Editor, Mr. Kissoon’s non-acceptance of me being a Bishop (ordained church leader) does not change the fact of who I am. I do not use the title Bishop because I assumed that office; it was Mr. Kissoon who lied to the world about his qualifications. On the 8th February 1995, at the Square of the Revolution, more than 20,000 Guyanese of the Christian community witnessed for themselves my consecration as a Bishop. I know who I am, does Mr. Kissoon knows who he is? As it relates to this matter, I do not need to defend myself.
Anyone who wants to be objective, including those who disagree with my politics, knows that the strength of my character will not allow me into a gutter fight, especially with a non- entity. My previous non-response to attacks from this gentleman must never be misread as me succumbing to fear or intimidation.
Editor, meekness is not weakness. My Christianity or my role as a Bishop is not an impediment to me functioning as a national leader and standing for principles. Mr. Kissoon’s attempt of driving me into silence has been unsuccessful, he should seek another target.
I remain militant and committed to the just cause of ensuring Guyana is developed for all Guyanese.
Bishop Juan Edghill