Dear Editor:
I continue to be bamboozled by the persistent criticisms of the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Philip ‘Brave’ Davis, QC that he is not impressive when he speaks, and that his ‘speech’ leaves much to be desired. An example of such denunciations by some of the electorate is that when the Leader speaks or conveys an opinion one is ‘left to wondering what he was trying to say”. These condemnations appear to be with no rhyme or reason taking into account that Mr. Davis who has been appointment a Queen’s Counsel due to successful career as a Counsel and Attorney-at-Law, a job which requires excellent verbal or oral skills.
The title of QC is awarded to those who have demonstrated particular skill and expertise of advocacy, and to be selected QC is reflective of having played a highly respected role within the legal profession. Although I do not know Mr. Davis on a personal level, I do know that during his many years of practice at the Bar he has had to have good verbal/oral skills in order to present his many cases to be able to communicate arguments in such a way as to persuade the judge or jury of the merits of his clients. He has represented many clients, and has appeared in several high profile cases in our courts being successful in many of his cases, and perhaps has even appeared before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in England.
Given that being a successful advocate involves mastering a whole host abilities from public speaking to critical thinking, I am at a complete loss as to where such unfounded criticisms of his speech are coming from, nor the object of such vile calumny. Undoubtedly, Mr. Davis over the years has had no verbal/oral difficulty in convincing the courts why his clients’ cases should prevail not just on the law and facts. Needless to say, the same legal attributes are evident in his presenting political issues with clarity and proper research in Parliament as a Member of same on behalf of his constituents. Surely, it is no easy task in presenting a case so that Mr. Davis would have to be clear, concise and convincing in the courts of law thereby earning and being awarded ‘Her Majesty’s Learned Counsel learned in law.”
We as voters seem to have some type of obsession when electing a Prime Minister as to the way they speak. We will recall the electorate complaining way back in the day of ‘ole sore throat; the lexical gaffes, inter alia, of former Prime Minister Ingraham in pronouncing the word woman/women as if spelt with a “v” rather than a “w”; or, the eloquent speaking by PM Christie whose speeches appeared devoid of substance.
At any rate, the way the leader speak may not altogether determines his ability to lead once he secures and promotes the interests of the Bahamian people. One will recall PM Ingraham, in getting things done for the constituents/electorate, would often said “so said, so done’----this obviously is a far cry from the mythomaniac Dr. Hubert Minnis, our present Prime Minister.
Yours sincerely,
E. V. ALBURY