The national debate over whether the Prime Minister’s remark—“I’ll cuff you down”—was inappropriate is being distorted by selective outrage and a complete refusal to consider context.
Let us start with the facts. Kamla Persad-Bissessar is a 72-year-old woman. Colm Imbert is a physically able, seasoned political operator with a long and publicly recorded reputation for aggressive parliamentary behaviour. To pretend these two individuals meet each other as equal physical threats is intellectually dishonest.
Was her comment the height of parliamentary decorum? Of course not. But focusing solely on her words while ignoring Imbert’s provoking conduct—jabbing his finger, taunting “why not?”, and escalating what was already a hostile exchange—amounts to erasing the underlying power dynamic. The instigator suddenly becomes the victim, and the person reacting becomes the offender.
It is also remarkable that the PNM Women’s League, normally quick to invoke women’s empowerment, chose to defend the male aggressor rather than acknowledge that pointing in someone’s face, especially at close range, is itself a threatening gesture. Their statement reframes intimidation as innocence and self-defence as violence. That is not feminism; it is political convenience.
None of this excuses deteriorating parliamentary standards. But if we are serious about civility, then we must condemn the entire chain of conduct—not only the final remark spoken by the older woman, but also the behaviour of the man who provoked her and has a track record of berating colleagues publicly.
The integrity of parliamentary debate cannot be restored by chastising only the weaker party in the exchange. Civility is not maintained by punishing the reaction while ignoring the provocation.
If the country wants higher standards from its leaders, then it must demand them consistently—not only when the person raising her voice is a 72-year-old woman standing up to a known bully.
