The entire Editorial must be withdrawn in the form of an unqualified apology

Jul 16, 2012 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
To remain silent about the Guyana Chronicle July 2, 2012 editorial “Opposition rampages to sow disunity in the country” is to be an accomplice to its bigotry. A media’s editorial reflects the views of its owners.  And since the owners of the Chronicle are the People of Guyana, silence is not an option, especially if the view expressed is not consistent with the people’s collective desire and mandate. Chronicle is owned by the people, benefits from state funding and their properties were purchased with the taxpayers’ moneys. As such the claim that Chronicle does not benefit from state funding cannot withstand scrutiny.
Our Constitution requires us to “Celebrate our cultural and racial diversity and strengthen our unity by eliminating any and every form of discrimination.” This is a principle and civic responsibility we must take seriously.
Amidst the outcries against the editorial, the management of Chronicle on July 7 said “it should be noted, and appreciated, that the Chronicle newspaper cannot please all of its readership all of the time and unfortunately, the Editorial about which the demonstrators protested, even though well-intentioned and factually correct, was a regrettable slippage that does not represent set policy.” The Chronicle Board Chair on the said date released a statement that they “sincerely regret this article ever being published and wish to apologise to all the persons both locally and overseas who may have been offended or affected.”
Note- 1) One of the responsibilities of a Board is to ensure the adherence of the owners’ policy; and 2) one of the responsibilities of management is to implement the Board’s decisions. The policy of the state-owned and tax funded newspapers is usually honed and crystalise by the government of the day, on behalf of the citizens it is elected to serve, consistent with the country’s universal policy (i.e. constitution).
Evidently, there is a disconnect between the Board and the Management, and moreso some of the newspaper’s owners whom rightly expect the Board to ensure adherence to the universal policy. Consequently, answers ought to be forthcoming. For while on one hand the Board has purportedly apologised to the citizens for the Editorial’s content; on the other hand, the management maintains the Editorial is “factually correct,” and “apologise to those who, wrongly, think that the publication intended otherwise”.
When one is correct there is no need for an apology. And since the Chronicle insists its view is “factually correct,” it needs to provide the evidence to support this position.  Juan Edghill too is asked to provide the evidence since he vouched for the article’s accuracy.  If the evidence is not forthcoming the entire Editorial must be withdrawn in the form of an unqualified apology to the citizens of this country. Further, the fact that the Chronicle on July 11 published other bigoted articles by Godfrey Skeete and Jason Abdulla, confirms the opinion that the Editorial reflects not only the author’s and management’s view but the government’s thinking also. For these three opinions (July 2 and July 11) are clearly designed to create and intensify wedge in this nation to pit races against each other based on falsehood.
What the July 11 letters sought to do is reinforce the July 2 Editorial in its repeat that “there are black youths being socialised to attack Indians.” To allow this through the Letter to Editor is an act of reinforcing Chronicle’s position by slipping in this opinion under the guise of allowing freedom of expression when no evidence is provided to the effect. The right to freedom of expression comes with a corresponding responsibility to speak the truth.
This nation was formed and nurtured on racial bigotry and diversity. The strategy to eradicate bigotry and ensure respect and dignity for human diversity is enshrined in our Constitution, consistent with the Universal Declaration that “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” Thus, where a government, its agents/supporters and those who remain silent to acts/actions that judge persons based on physical characteristics rather than the content of their character, collectively they hinder the desire to advance racial harmony, peaceful co-existence and equitable development. They threaten the desire for nationhood- for who we are and ought to be as a people.
And for those conditioned to desecrate themselves, or seek protection via mixed ancestry, to your peril you ignore such notions stripped you of your dignity, give fodder to others, including your extended families, to profile and discriminate against your children because of their inherent African bloodline. Also, these desecrators communicate to the society that it is OK to cultivate apprehension towards them and their children- to judge/fail them without being given a chance to prove. It denies opportunities of sharing and benefitting from each other’s cultural uniqueness and releasing our inherent beauty. Nature itself offers insight to the benefits of this principle.
In the public space such bigotry shapes decisions and has implications for services provided by Africans to Indians and vice versa, sets the government’s policy to discriminate against citizens and their communities, and Africans being denied employment commensurate with their qualifications. It gives legitimacy/justification to police extrajudicial actions and vigilante justice under pretext that s/he is Black or look Black and inherently a criminal. It adversely affects the education system and the relationship among children in the schools, how they see each other, their teachers, and learn from each other as they develop social skills and values that would prepare them for success in the world of work. It justifies acts/actions to marginalise sections of the society since no law-abider will seek interaction with inherent criminals. And it also makes one race inherently good and the other inherently bad. These are perceptions/actions that universal declarations, international laws and conventions, and the Constitution seek to avoid and safeguard. This is the standard as a nation we must abide by.
Unfortunately, activism by Lindeners for social and economic justice consistent with their constitutional rights is being dismissed by a ruthless government, with the enlistment of Chronicle, through racial profiling and demonisation of a people to deny them what is justly theirs. Note, this struggle is led by the 32-year old Regional Chairman, Sharma Solomon, who falls in the category the Editorial seeks to criminalise. Further, approximately 70percent of this nation’s population comprises youths. And according to the Constitution “the future of Guyana belongs to its young people, who aspire to live in a safe society which respects their dignity, protects their rights, recognises their potential, listens to their voices, provides opportunities,…and encourages people of all races to live in harmony and peace…”
It therefore becomes the responsibility of each and every one of us to protect the future from bigotry. We have to teach the children well and let then lead the way, by showing them all the beauty they possess inside, and giving them a sense of pride to make it easier (Whitney Houston). No longer must silence be an option or a strategy. This at least we owe the younger generation.
This letter is also sent to the Chronicle newspaper and the Board Chair.
 Lincoln Lewis

---

---