It’s all about words and their interpretations

Jul 24, 2008 Letters

---

DEAR EDITOR,
If memory serves me right, back in the eighties, popular radio personality Dr. Rovin Deodat produced and presented a five-minute programme every morning on GBC called, “From word to word,” that sought to briefly define the meanings and or nuances of words.

The by-line of his intro and back intro was, “What’s in a word? Roots, stems and branches.” It was educational, informative and presented in an entertaining manner to make for easy listening and learning.

Today, I have also come to realise that words uttered or written by someone can mean one thing to the speaker or writer but something different to the listener or reader.

And then there is the listener or reader who deliberately interprets what is said or written because s/he wants to tailor a response to suit her/his own preconceived motive.

I mention the latter in light of two recent developments involving the use of words by two Guyanese, which the President/Government  interpreted as deserving of a strong reaction by him/it.

A couple of months ago, Mr. Oliver Hinckson reportedly took a microphone at a meeting being held by Georgetown’s mayor and offered himself as a mediator between the Government and the gunmen suspected of carrying out deadly attacks at Lusignan and Bartica.

What he said exactly in his brief presentation that hit the authorities as amounting to sedition and a terrorist threat is still lost on many Guyanese, who have been privy to transcripts of his oral remarks but detected no seditious or terrorist utterances.

Did the President and other Government and security officials detect some code in Mr. Hinckson’s words that made them institute such serious charges against him? Then what’s the code in the words uttered?

Ironically, even though the state’s evidence in this case are basic words, which they had in their possession since Mr. Hinckson made his offer, the state has never been ready to proceed with its case.

Maybe the state thinks it will have a problem getting a judge or magistrate to interpret the words uttered by Mr. Hinckson in the same way the state has interpreted them.

If so, let’s remember, Mr. Hinckson is held in lock down facing charges for uttering words. Just words, and nothing else!

Then there is the Gordon Moseley case, in which words he wrote in a letter apparently hit the authorities as amounting to disrespect, disparagement, and reproach of the President.

Most Guyanese who read the letter have not detected any statement that could prompt the President to ban Mr. Moseley from covering events at OP and State House.

Again, it would seem that to the President and his spokespersons there was some rapping or challenging of the President in Mr. Moseley’s letter, which caused them to react by instituting a ban against him.

But they’re not saying what the rap or challenge is. Why? As with Mr. Hinckson, Mr. Moseley is being punished by the state for words; just words, and nothing else.

Now, what are we to make of these incidents that have one commonality: just words? Is the President or his
government the sole arbiter on interpreting words by citizens and meting out punishments as he/it sees fit?

The President has to be reminded that even he is given to uttering words that, in any other democracy, could have gotten him in serious political hot water.

For example, he told PPP supporters in 2006 that the PNC was in bed with criminals, and that if the PNC got back in power, it would give guns to criminals. Those were not just disrespectful,
disparaging and reproachful words.

That was political slander, since there were no arrests of PNC officials. Maybe the PNC viewed it as politicking and let the libellous words slide.

In another instance, when asked by one local media operative to clarify the Government’s $168 million special loan to Buddy’s to help expedite construction of his hotel, the President lashed out at the media operative (and the media house he represented) as having only negative things to say about Guyana (when the truth was the ‘negative news’ were about the Government’s constant negatives its own media arms never reported).

The President even went one step further and said something about being committed to projecting or protecting the country’s image for CWC 2007.

Right there he confirmed our long-held suspicion that his presidency was all about his image, not about real issues germane to Guyanese, and that is why he is so upset with independent media houses that do not put positive spins on him or his government. Too much negativity, he complains.

Though that media house subsequently felt the wrath of Government for over a year, and continues to report on issues the Government wishes it would not, it is instructive to note the amazing effect of words on
this President; whether he is the one uttering them or the one being uttered about.

Words are powerful. They can start wars and end wars. They can put a man away in prison for a long time, or they can take away a man’s privileges.

They can also expose the mind of a man who is determined to interpret words in ways to help accomplish his agenda.
Just words!
Emile Mervin

---

---