Dear Mr/Ms Intellectual

While the rest of us held our breath and wiped tears  after watching Jolly Tumuhirwe thrust, whip and step on baby Arnella*, you were intellectualizing the incident. REASON and RATIONALE is what you subscribe to.

Which is Ok and it wasn’t a problem, until you criminalized our own reactions to the incident. You said we were being EMOTIONAL. And being emotional is a terrible thing, something common among the brainless, those without intellect.

You tried hard to convince us that maids like Jolly are treated so bad and paid so little by their bosses, the reason they batter children entrusted to them. And for that alone, you were ideally justifying and rationalizing what caused us goose bumps and nightmares.

We are also still trying to believe your arguments that if one pays a maid highly (up to how much, you don’t say) and treat them well (whatever that entails) they will automatically treat children better than Jolly did.  Jolly! What a waste of name!

Anyway, we of #TeamEmotional would like to inform you that so many maids are not Jolly. They didn’t emerge from hell and they, like us, shed tears when they watched the gory video. That makes them emotional, too I know, but why should we care?

Why should we buy into this, your reasoning, this ‘legal’ mind of yours that, even for the most obvious crime, insists on shouting that Jolly is innocent until proven guilty? Really? Who needs another dose of evidence other than the one we watched? To hell with your white-collar law!

We ceased fire when you insisted the 22-year-old could be mentally perturbed and when police declared she is of sound mind, you covered your face in shame.

That point lost, you turned your gun on mothers, telling them to stop relegating their duties to maids. So all mothers should stay home, look after their children and no Jolly shall befall them.

You don’t care that not all mothers can leave their jobs and stay home, that some mothers are actually sole bread winners for their children and families. No, to you, if we want to avoid a repeat of the Jolly madness, all working mothers must tender their resignations like yesterday.

We hear you, but is that really a solution? Since you reason with your head and us with our hearts and whichever feeble body part, we thought you would jot a line or two on having the wage bill in place and a policy or legislation that regulates the work and welfare of domestic workers.

We also waited for you to argue that this incident should make us mull over the need to take extra precaution – buy nanny cams if possible – and do more background check of house helps we employ.

We don’t know what your next line of rational thinking will be, but as we figure out whether Jolly and LRA’s Joseph Kony are related in some way, allow us express our distaste at this barbaric act and your twisted thinking.

And lest we forget, we are aware that you and your ilk usually argue that, oh police officers are paid so little, that’s why they are the most corrupt, teachers are paid so little, that’s why they don’t teach, midwives are paid so little, that’s why they strangle babies and slap mothers etc etc.

You forget to admit that all these people are not employed at gun point. And if indeed they are worth their name and professions, they would let their actions show for it.

This legalization of wrongs, advocated by you and your disciples, under the guise of being rational is just lame, it is shallow. It is this blatant disregard for emotions and conscience that your lot pick and plunder. Such acts like looting cash meant to lift up the poor and buy medicine for the sick don’t make you itch.

You are rational. We recognize that. But give us this day our daily emotions.

15 thoughts on “Give us this day our daily emotions, Dear Intellectual!

  1. This is a read a couple of my fellow learned can use! It is the kindest tell off to those who seem to have put law books where their hearts once were.As kind as a British “F**k off”!

    I do law too, but before and after law, man always had and will have a heart. And to Okuda, it is for those rigidities in the law that the concept of Equity was founded by the Chancery Court. Law is a system alright, but there is a reason why it is run by HUMANS and not MACHINES!


  2. This is a rather sober take on that horrifying video. Thank you Harriet for being a voice of reason among the pretentious lot in this town who shamelessly masquerade as intellectuals. Kalyegira and his ilk should read this.

    The video of a maid senselessly smacking a child is too emotional for one to pretend not to be emotional while reacting to it.

    Pretensions Pretensions !!!


  3. This is the true rational and sober take on that horrifying video. Thank you Harriet for being a voice of reason among the pretentious lot who masquerade around as ‘intellectuals’. Kalyegira and his ilk should read this.

    For goodness sake, the video of a maid smacking a child of two years is too emotional for one to pretend not to be emotional about it. Why do people act like they are machines and not human beings? Pretensions, pretensions!!!


  4. My question is, can we be allowed to be both emotional and reasonable? I feel like the article says that you are either emotional or reasonable.

    Even until now some people actually dont vote or trust a woman to lead because to them women are emotional. I say that the world needs both emotion and reason. Emotions serve a purpose and asking questions which beg us not just carry on only on emotions is very important aspect of justice.

    And yes things will move and we will cry but at the end of the day reason will ask what have we learnt from here. What debate is important so that we can prevent more inhumane treatment of children that is going on in our homes?


    1. Interestingly, those who deride people who show emotions believe the two can’t go hand in hand. Once you show ’emotions’ then you are brainless, and unable to reason. Which of course is not true. A person who is humane (because that’s what ideally drives emotions) and reasonable at the same time has better perspective of things.


  5. Nice one Anenah. I have said before that there are no mounts of justifications that can be made in reference to the callous actions of the maid.

    However, to achieve what one will call “Justice”, to achieve her being brought to account the “rational” and “legal” arguments cannot fall short. They have to be explored. One can never allege legal precedents and doctrines to be applied in one case and not the other. The law cannot be that selective, especially in criminal matters.

    Whatever you will call “justice” is not one sided. It has to explore the entire case holistically and that is what you call rational!! It may sound insensitive, lame, shallow etc but for that family and child to achieve fairness, that has to be squarely considered.

    As for the empathy and so forth, it is still fine though i wonder what solutions it gives!!! #justthinking….

    Otherwise, it’s a nice thoughtful piece from your perspective.


    1. Thanks Patrick. I don’t have a problem with the court taking action on Jolly, the process is already ongoing, my problem is with people who want us to excuse the entire incident based on flimsy justifications — justifications that require us close our eyes to the atrocity meted out on the child and think of ‘human rights’ of the suspect. Why must it be that way? It is the law, but not all laws lead to justice. Ivan just said people who kill in broad day light sometimes get acquitted. That’s the law, but is it just? Of course not.


  6. It’s ignorance of the law for any one to assume that a video alone, which can be challenged on many grounds, is enough ground to convict a person. We have seen people kill in broad day light and get acquitted or convicted on a less offence. That shows that the two elements of a crime which are actus reus (such as the battery or killing) and mens rea (guilty state of mind) didn’t add up. These are complex matters of law upon which presumption of innocence Is based. That it’s not enough to say you killed but also look at intention. Besides, that police report is not the gospel truth as it can be challenged, we are not sure it’s a hoax or if it was done in accordance with lawful procedure. Even then, state of mind goes beyond insanity. Sense of judgement can be blurred by more things than insanity so to chest thump about the police report is ignorance of the scope of state of mind. No one has refused anyone to hold emotions but those emotions must respect any suspect’s rights.


    1. You are a future lawyer Ivan, the law to you is everything and if you were practicing law, you would no doubt defend Jolly in court, which is Ok. It is what you lawyers do. If you really can’t see anything wrong with this incident, without clutching on the so-called law, then I have nothing more to tell you.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s