No room for benefit of doubt?
October 18th 2007 11:59
By Yelibenwork Ayele
I find the response from a group of disabled persons to what Sayat Demise, Miss World Ethiopia 2004, had said on radio a week ago too inappropriately sensitive. And their demand for apology is outrageous.
Sayat, winner of the 2004 Miss World Ethiopia beauty contents, stands accused of saying offensive words in reference to the disabled on radio. Words should by no means be twisted to give the meanings not intended by the speaker or writer. Listeners and readers may misunderstand and sometimes they can't help it.
According to the Wednesday issue of the Amharic Reporter, all Sayat said was that she had been a victim of rape at the age of 13 and had now no fear of publicly speaking about it. And what she was quoted as saying regarding her courage was roughly something like "even the disabled survive (or was it "live"?) let alone people like us."
It should be taken into consideration that answers for questions during an interview are not premeditated. They are spontaneous and anyone speaking spontaneously has no time to consider the implication and unintended meaning some of their words might bear.
Even in writing, in which writers have the time to revise their work and refine it and purge it of any idle or offensive idea, there wants not some inappropriate expressions.
Are her accusers faultless in their accusation against Sayat when they say that she trampled the rights of millions? Why are people so hasty to twist a set of well-meaning words? Even if Sayat's words potentially had the meaning they ascribed to it, is there no room for tolerance positively considering that she actually meant no offence?
As a civilized woman, when anyone complains about what she said on radio, Sayat could have easily apologized if her conscience had convicted her of having hurt peoples' feelings. Or, if she was not convinced of having done anything wrong, was it not easy to explain her meaning, by giving a press release, instead of trying to avoid phone calls, before that group of people voiced their anger to the Reporter?
In this article, I will not presume to explain what exactly Sayat meant by that phrase the disabled found so offensive. And I don't mean to represent or defend her either. But as one gets to know about this scenario only from the Reporter and has not listened to the program hosted and broadcast by Fana FM 98.1, it is not easy to fathom Sayat's meaning. The "offensive" phrase, read in isolation, is a bit ambiguous and therefore subject to private interpretation or intentional misinterpretation.
The Amharic quotation in the Reporter might mean that even the disabled survive rape or there may be rape victims even among the disabled.
Are people never allowed to use comparisons to make their points clear? If what Sayat said meant that even the disabled could survive rape and speak about it or against it without fear and was drawing the conclusion, though indirectly, that surviving rape and speaking about it were harder for the disabled than for those who are whole, is she not right?
I personally say that some, if not all, of the disabled that I came across have the tendency to take certain actions or words spoken to them or about them by those who are whole, too personally.
There is no earthly reason why some disabled persons get easily angry at those who are whole, sometimes even without cause. Once, I saw a young disabled man who limped on crutches as he walked. Suddenly he tripped and fell. He tried get to his feet and could not. But when a passerby, out of real concern and pity, stooped to lift him up, the disabled man gave him a mean look and then shoved the helping hand away.
Tewedros Tsegaye, a poet and one of the disabled, said to the Reporter that he was sorry that Sayat spoke thus about the disabled while she claimed to be fighting for women's rights. What kind of a criticism is that? What do the disabled have to do with women's rights? And, was Sayat speaking about the disabled? If we set our hearts on finding fault with what people say instead of focusing on their motive and message, we can find fault even in words from a poet who was responding to what he heard Sayat say on radio and who, unlike Sayat, had time to be angry, savor his feeling and premeditate what he had to say when expressing his anger. Then why should anyone raise eyebrows on what Sayat said spontaneously?
There is nothing wrong with expressing anger. There's nothing wrong with feeling hurt or offended. However, the object or subject of anger has to be one that genuinely merits it. Trying to give a person an unattractive image, as Tewoderos did, is impolite. Poets obviously are better in their choice of words and in the ability to foresee in what several unpleasant ways they could be interpreted if chosen without care. And definitely Tsegaye the poet should have been better than Sayat in his choice of words.
Why did he have to say that Sayat intentionally said those "bad" words in an effort to achieve her own personal ends? Whatever "personal ends" she had in mind, would utterance of a few words spoken on the radio help her achieve them?
I find the response from a group of disabled persons to what Sayat Demise, Miss World Ethiopia 2004, had said on radio a week ago too inappropriately sensitive. And their demand for apology is outrageous.
Sayat, winner of the 2004 Miss World Ethiopia beauty contents, stands accused of saying offensive words in reference to the disabled on radio. Words should by no means be twisted to give the meanings not intended by the speaker or writer. Listeners and readers may misunderstand and sometimes they can't help it.
According to the Wednesday issue of the Amharic Reporter, all Sayat said was that she had been a victim of rape at the age of 13 and had now no fear of publicly speaking about it. And what she was quoted as saying regarding her courage was roughly something like "even the disabled survive (or was it "live"?) let alone people like us."
It should be taken into consideration that answers for questions during an interview are not premeditated. They are spontaneous and anyone speaking spontaneously has no time to consider the implication and unintended meaning some of their words might bear.
Even in writing, in which writers have the time to revise their work and refine it and purge it of any idle or offensive idea, there wants not some inappropriate expressions.
Are her accusers faultless in their accusation against Sayat when they say that she trampled the rights of millions? Why are people so hasty to twist a set of well-meaning words? Even if Sayat's words potentially had the meaning they ascribed to it, is there no room for tolerance positively considering that she actually meant no offence?
As a civilized woman, when anyone complains about what she said on radio, Sayat could have easily apologized if her conscience had convicted her of having hurt peoples' feelings. Or, if she was not convinced of having done anything wrong, was it not easy to explain her meaning, by giving a press release, instead of trying to avoid phone calls, before that group of people voiced their anger to the Reporter?
In this article, I will not presume to explain what exactly Sayat meant by that phrase the disabled found so offensive. And I don't mean to represent or defend her either. But as one gets to know about this scenario only from the Reporter and has not listened to the program hosted and broadcast by Fana FM 98.1, it is not easy to fathom Sayat's meaning. The "offensive" phrase, read in isolation, is a bit ambiguous and therefore subject to private interpretation or intentional misinterpretation.
The Amharic quotation in the Reporter might mean that even the disabled survive rape or there may be rape victims even among the disabled.
Are people never allowed to use comparisons to make their points clear? If what Sayat said meant that even the disabled could survive rape and speak about it or against it without fear and was drawing the conclusion, though indirectly, that surviving rape and speaking about it were harder for the disabled than for those who are whole, is she not right?
I personally say that some, if not all, of the disabled that I came across have the tendency to take certain actions or words spoken to them or about them by those who are whole, too personally.
There is no earthly reason why some disabled persons get easily angry at those who are whole, sometimes even without cause. Once, I saw a young disabled man who limped on crutches as he walked. Suddenly he tripped and fell. He tried get to his feet and could not. But when a passerby, out of real concern and pity, stooped to lift him up, the disabled man gave him a mean look and then shoved the helping hand away.
Tewedros Tsegaye, a poet and one of the disabled, said to the Reporter that he was sorry that Sayat spoke thus about the disabled while she claimed to be fighting for women's rights. What kind of a criticism is that? What do the disabled have to do with women's rights? And, was Sayat speaking about the disabled? If we set our hearts on finding fault with what people say instead of focusing on their motive and message, we can find fault even in words from a poet who was responding to what he heard Sayat say on radio and who, unlike Sayat, had time to be angry, savor his feeling and premeditate what he had to say when expressing his anger. Then why should anyone raise eyebrows on what Sayat said spontaneously?
There is nothing wrong with expressing anger. There's nothing wrong with feeling hurt or offended. However, the object or subject of anger has to be one that genuinely merits it. Trying to give a person an unattractive image, as Tewoderos did, is impolite. Poets obviously are better in their choice of words and in the ability to foresee in what several unpleasant ways they could be interpreted if chosen without care. And definitely Tsegaye the poet should have been better than Sayat in his choice of words.
Why did he have to say that Sayat intentionally said those "bad" words in an effort to achieve her own personal ends? Whatever "personal ends" she had in mind, would utterance of a few words spoken on the radio help her achieve them?
| 61 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Dexter