“ PLEASE “Other Person:” In public discourse we don’t go by “understanding” of a controversial event that took place in the past.
1) Two incidences of Liahona girls who were leading a “school girl brawl” in 2014 and 2015 is hearsay in your part.
2) Police have no records, and I arrived in Tonga in 2014, stayed for better part of 2015, returned earlier this year, but I’ve never heard of a Liahona school girl brawling. Unless you have witnesses and victims that you interviewed who can collaborate your story…(a) Which school did Liahona girls fight with? (b) Who started the fight? (c) Were there injuries?There are just too many concocted stories going around that are unsubstantiated.
3) The former Police Inspector that I interviewed knew only of complaints by uniform Liahona girls who were attacked by Tonga College boys. Perhaps the Liahona girls tried to join the boys fight and were attacked as well. Police have no confirmed confession by Liahona girls.
4) Your assertion regarding Liahona school girl brawling is not supported by Police records. Therefore, it’s hearsay, and not good enough to state in public as fact.
Secondly, you asserted that Elder Kim B. Clark, “…was exactly reasonable in what he was saying.” But you’re mis-characterizing the point in my column: That Elder Clark dd not come to Tonga to address the school-boy brawl. Please read my column again. I proposed Elder Clark was “unfairly” put on the spot to give an answer of local nature; he was not well-informed on the history and barbarity of the violence that has gone on for over 40 years.
You, instead wrote a sermon to preach your religious values, however, this is not a religious discussion.
The local media had an agenda to trap an LDS General Authority to saying Liahona High School will be closed due to uncontrollable school-boy brawls. You must understand media sensationalism mentality, and media underlying strategies before participating in public discourse with the media on facts, inferences, analyses, and logic.
Why then did the local Church Education public relations office issue a restatement of Elder Clark’s comments? As I was correct to suggest that the local media ambushed an LDS Church programs by unfairly confronting a General Authority to comment on an age-old local problem. The question was a trap knowing that Elder Clark will answer in the affirmative, knowing that a religious organization does not condone violence.
How else was Elder Clark supposed to answer the direct question? Obviously, someone in the Church Education public relations office should have briefed Elder Clark on how hotly debated the issue is in the media. Caution should have been to Elder Clark prior to the media conference, that the question would be raised.
That’s the job of a public relations office. Putting out fire afterwards is too late; the damage is done. The local media had forewarned LDS members and Liahona students’ parents of Liahona’s probable closure before the damage control news release was sent out. ”