Dear Editor,
I read a letter in your newspaper dated November 13, 2008 under the caption ‘Not allowed to speak,’ in which the writer comments on his inability to speak and subsequent departure from a public consultation held on Friday, November 7, 2008 at City Hall on the reform of divorce laws.
I am truly sorry that the participant, whom I did not know at the time, but who has now identified himself, did not get to speak in the order assigned and hastily left the forum. I recognized Mr George’s leaving as an act of frustration as he had been identified by me to speak on at least two occasions. On both occasions someone else took the microphone before Mr George. I did not stop the other person, although that other person had spoken twice before, particularly because I did not want to be shutting out views especially as the other person was giving (and holding on to) a view that was clearly contrary to the proposals in the paper. Ironically, it was this reluctance on my part to shut out views, which caused me not to hear the views of Mr George.
The ministry’s policy, which is strictly adhered to, is that all views should be considered and given their due weight in any consultation exercise.
Mr George may be assured that absolutely no disrespect was meant to him.
I thank Mr George for demonstrating his interest in the proposed reforms and for attending the consultation to express his views on the subject. I apologise unreservedly to Mr George for the circumstances that made him feel he must leave. I would still like to hear the views of Mr George and invite him to either visit me at my office or call me on telephone number 225-6545. Mr George may also write to me at divorce.reform@gmail.com.
Yours faithfully,
Priya Manickchand
