The government’s rhetoric on torture – does it add up?

Nov 19, 2008 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
Thursday 23 October 2008 should be declared the darkest day in the history of our nation. This was the day when one of Guyanese most basic human rights was unrepentantly dismissed by the Peoples’ Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) and the Guyana Government in the Parliament. To use the highest decision making forum, the Parliament, to refer to the torture complaints of Guyanese as mere “roughing up” is a devastating blow to every Guyanese and a blatant attack on human rights. It is clear that the government’s attack on the torture motion, tabled by the PNCR, was not only to defeat the noble intention of the bill but more so to further dehumanize citizens.
Editor, I deliberately decided against submitting any previous views on the debate on the motion, and more particularly to comment on the government’s swipe at same, since I was of the opinion that, because of the overwhelming dismissive comments made by those speaking on behalf of the government that some apology would have been given to the Guyanese people.
However, my optimism was shattered when, the President, Bharrat Jagdeo, himself sought to make comments suggesting that torture of citizens may be justified. The government’s dismissive way of dealing with the issue of torture should, therefore, leave no Guyanese in doubt as to where it stands on the issue. In recent years and months we have heard senior government functionaries make light of torture and Guyanese human rights.
To illustrate my point, let us revisit some of these unfortunate realities. On the heels of the Lusignan massacre the Minister of Home Affairs, Clement Rohee, when asked, by a reporter, about the allegations of torture raised by the two Buxtonians made a joke of the question when he responded by stating that Guyanese are more interested in what they get in their barrels from overseas than any torture allegations. Though Guyanese were outraged by this unthinkable comment, the people received no apology.
Then as if to restate the government’s policy position on torture, the Honorable Prime Minister, Samuel Hinds, in a teleconference with the Guyanese Diaspora in September, when asked about the torture allegations attempted to advance some sort of justification for the brutal acts. The Prime Minister reiterated that every government has a right to employ such interrogation techniques on suspects in order to get information from them. To further substantiate his position, Mr. Hinds stated that the U.S. “water boarding” incidence at Guantanamo is a good example. This comment, by the PM, clearly demonstrated his lack of knowledge of the “water boarding debate”.
It is obvious that he is not informed of, nor made himself aware of the intensive Senate and Congressional Hearings that the top U.S. Commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus Secretary of Defence, and others were subjected to by U.S lawmakers. In fact, Mr. Hinds should educate himself on the current debate surrounding “Guantanamo” and the, in coming, Obama Administration.
In the U.S. Congress, members on both sides of the political divide approached the subject in a non partisan way; the tough questions were asked.
The Prime Minister, however, did state that his government does not condone torture, a claim which seemed clearly contradictory, and indicated a “fork tongue approach” on the issue. As Guyanese, it is important that we understand the rhetoric and actions of the executive, on the issue of torture in order to determine what is the government’s position regarding same.
So let’s examine Minister of Agriculture, Robert Persaud’s comments made in the Parliament regarding allegations of torture by citizens. In describing the brutal treatment experienced by citizens,  Persaud diminished and made light of the allegations by stating that the men were merely exposed to some kind of “roughing up” by the disciplined forces. Others speaking on behalf of the government continued in the same vein to “water-down” the issue.
Then, as if to make the government’s position clear, on the torture subject, and therefore, “ice the cake”, President Jagdeo at a press briefing on November 1, 2008 told Guyanese that they must understand the context in which the torture allegations were made and that he, Jagdeo, did not regard any of the reports of torture which were circulating as torture.
It is clear from the President’s comments and the statements of top government functionaries that protecting the human rights in Guyana is not a top priority of the PPP/C administration.
For the President and his cohorts to attempt to justify torture is an insult to the people of Guyana and a blatant disregard to our intelligence. The President and government have concluded that the torture report is not a document that we should analyse for ourselves, so it is deliberately not disclosed to the public despite several promises by the authorities. In fact, the President was brazen enough to tell us that he and his government have made some changes to the report, and when, or if, made public, names of officers implicated in the torture saga will be deleted, in order to protect those officers. So, we must ask ourselves whether this report, doctored by the President, is what we deserve, and whether such a report can be deemed authentic.
Further, while I may understand the President’s move to protect the members of the Joint Services implicated in the report, I wish to ask who is looking out for the interest of those citizens, and their families who have made the allegations against these men. Are the complainants not vulnerable in this highly criminalised and witch hunting society in which we exist? Seems like the law rests on the tip of the President’s fingers.
Let us not forget George Bacchus and others, who were left without protection having made certain complaints.
The government said the complainants were “roughed up”, not tortured; the President said that the men were “questioned aggressively”, not tortured.
So the authorities claim that the following acts of brutality do not amount to torture: pepper spraying victims, injecting men with chemical substance, whippings with metal pipes, wet bag over face, being drenched with cold water, shocking victims with electricity, throwing acid on men’s bodies, squeezing genitals, scalding prisoners with hot water, beating prisoners until bones are fractured or broken, among other forms of brutality.
From the rhetoric and actions of the administration, it appears that Guyana may have a whole new meaning for torture, formulated by the government.
But may I remind President Jagdeo and his administration that the United Nations Convention, which outlawed torture, and which the PPP/C signed on to, defined torture as “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering inflicted by or at the consent or acquiesce of a public official or other person acting in an official or a public capacity”.
Based on this definition, is the administration telling Guyanese that brutality meted out to these men did not cause them pain or suffering? And since the government is bent on reducing the suffering to “roughing up” and more recently the President’s concoction “aggressive questioning”, it is reasonable to conclude that government officials sanction the brutality and thereby, endorse torture.
Men were strangled in prison, Cheddie Brijbilas in the New Amsterdam Prison, scalded to death, Edwin Niles at the Georgetown Prison, and so many more.
Some died in the midst of their suffering; they were tortured to death. Others are living with their physical and emotional scars. We have seen the wounds on the men’s bodies and there was no denying where these men got their beating.
Today, with the government’s position on torture, people are encouraged to take matters in their own hands. We see villagers exacting vigilante style deaths, and beating of convicts captured in their neighbourhood.
These incidents cannot be isolated from the over-riding lawlessness and immorality which have engulfed the nation and to which the government, unfortunately, is a major contributing force.
The issue of torturing Guyanese cannot be diluted to mere “roughing up” nor “aggressive questioning”. Guyanese basic human rights are at the cross roads.
With the government’s stated position, we must now ask ourselves whether the disciplined forces are to be blamed solely in this torture saga or whether the administration can be held solely culpable.
I support the move to take the issue to the International Human Rights Body.
Lurlene Nestor

---

---