We are not yet a monarchy

Jul 21, 2008 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
The justification for the banning imposed on Capitol News reporter Gordon Moseley seems to revolve around the contents of the letter he wrote to the press, in which he was responding to the contents of a press conference he saw on NCN.

Doctor Prem Misir, in his letter captioned “Freedom of the Press is not absolute”, asserts that, quote, “Mr. Moseley acquired persona non grata status at the Office of the President (OP) and State House as a direct result of reproachful and disrespectful comments on the Head of State  in his letter to the press,” end quote.
In other words, portions of Mr. Moseley’s response to the pillaging he received from the President of Guyana in that NCN press conference rendered him persona non grata in the hallowed halls of the “people’s house.”
There are several things that are troubling about this whole scenario, not the least of which is the fact that we are still to learn which section of words or phrases in Mr. Moseley’s letter is being considered as disrespectful.

I have read and re-read Mr. Moseley’s letter over and over, and can find nothing in it that can remotely be considered to be disrespectful in a democracy where elected leaders are answerable to the people.

In addition, under which section of our constitution does it state that the chief executive is above reproach, and that citizens or the press are forbidden from expressing disappointment, disapproval or criticisms with respect to the policies, positions or statements of him or her?

Mr. Moseley claims that he was responding to a press conference in which he was categorised as a “hostile reporter who is hostile to the Government” by the President. I might add that this is the well worn refrain from elements of the ruling political regime to criticisms of anything the Government does.

Doctor Misir, in continuance of that trend, labels the GPA and its leadership as acting like opposition forces over their protests and objections to what is seen as a drive to stifle press freedom in Guyana. But I digress a little.

My issue is: isn’t the President’s labelling of Mr Moseley as “a hostile reporter who is hostile to the Government” not of itself an insult to Moseley and his profession? Are we living in a nation where some sensitivities have to be accorded sacred cow status, while others can be dragged through the mud willy nilly?

The Chronicle letter writers and articles by reporters carry stuff about the Mayor of Georgetown that would make less sturdy stomachs puke. I don’t see those who convulse whenever anyone dares to challenge the views of the executive, being put out by what is going on in those mediums they have control over.

There are people in this country who are partial to the ruling party, and who label opposition members as concerting with criminals, without any proof or justification whatsoever. Some members of the ruling party and its sycophants, including pundits and columnists, casually insult and reproach anyone who takes issue with the position of, or anything done by, the political state. Yet, it is these same people who seem to be always “crying wolf” with little or no evidence of this metaphorical beast’s proximity or appearance. Doctor Misir argues that Denis Chabrol and the GPA are in violation of the tenets of their journalistic profession by not analysing the contents of Moseley’ letter on, quote, “the issues of reproach and disrespect to the Head of State”.

Would the good Doctor be kind enough to highlight those portions of the letter he believes qualify as insulting to the chief executive? And it cannot be merely insulting to a particular chief executive. It has to be beyond the pale of what is acceptable in the established circles of journalism.

Nothing in Mr Moseley’s letter even remotely parallels what is written by journalists about the leaders of the US, the UK, or even Trinidad, right here in our backyard.

There really seems to be an organised effort by some in and of Guyana to produce a press corps that constantly genuflects and simpers before executive power.

What is ironic is that these are the same people who launch the fiercest criticisms against the George Bush presidency for treating executive power as if it was some form of monarchy.

Doctor Misir’s argument that Moseley was wrong to reproach the President is mind boggling. I find it very incomprehensible.

In a real democracy, the chief executive should never be above reproach from the least in any society he or she is administering.

Or, maybe Doctor Misir is forgetting that in a real democracy the Government is supposed to be the servant of the people, and not the other way around.

Robin Williams

---

---