When we try to stifle the views of others

Jan 11, 2015 Features / Columnists, My Column

---

As a reporter one is confronted with many things, especially when one is researching topics. Another aspect of the life of a reporter is the obsession with reading all the news. Sometimes, as effortlessly as the sun comes up, a bit of news strikes the reporter and he is forced to take a backward step.
On Wednesday, I got up to the news that gunmen had entered the Paris offices of a satirical magazine that goes by the name Charlie Hebdo, and killed five cartoonists whom they asked for by name. One of those killed was the editor. When the dust settled twelve people were dead and others injured.
Then there were the videos. I marveled at the cruelty of mankind when I saw one of the gunmen shooting a helpless policeman in the head as the cop lay on the ground. By the end of the work week the killers had joined the slain cartoonists to wherever people go when they die.
Needless to say, the incident sparked debates around the world. There was one vocal debate in the Kaieteur News editorial room. Some countries and newspapers had described the killers as terrorists, but there were those in Kaieteur News who contended that the men were not terrorists, that they were people reacting to something that offended their religion.
From the time I have been working at Kaieteur News I took the decision and won the support of my employer, Glenn Lall, that the newspaper would not become involved in issues concerning religion, race and sexual orientation. That decision made sense, because people do not relinquish views that they hold firmly.
Who can convince a Christian that Christ is not the son of God? Who can convince a Muslim that Christ is the son of God?
Not so long ago the parliament had to deal with some Christians over the issue of abortion. The Christians insisted that the foetus was a life and should not be taken. In the end the Parliament passed a piece of legislation that precluded the public institutions from conducting abortions. However, the law said that these public institutions could correct whatever mistake is made during a botched abortion.
But there were those who insisted that a woman’s body was her own, and that she had the right to determine whether she would carry a foetus to full term. Both are strongly held views and any debate would be futile. It would be unending.
But there have been instances, even in the democratic United States, where people killed doctors who performed abortions. Some even burned the clinics. The argument here is that there are people who are prepared to make their views known in no uncertain way. But others contend that they are also entitled to their views and should not be denied that right.
By killing a doctor performing an abortion and by burning the clinics were acts designed to deny some people their rights. The act by the gunmen in Paris was akin to denying the cartoonists the right to express their views. That is what invoked the ire of the various world leaders.
The issue brought me back home, where Kaieteur News opts to comment on issues that offend the leaders of the country. There were the publications on the shoddy contracts that saw taxpayers’ money going down the drain; the investments such as the Skeldon sugar factory that have proven more costly than if there was no investment.
The politicians criticized Kaieteur News but the fact remained; the criticism was justified. More recently there was the focus on the actions of the Guyana Revenue Authority. The first was the act of nepotism that saw the employment of at least four members of the Commissioner General’s family.
Needless to say, this sparked a reaction that was unprecedented. Charges were laid against the publisher of Kaieteur News for fraud. But even before that there were the leaks of e-mail that smacked of a witch hunt.
Other issues followed and suddenly there were the threats or warnings – depending on which side of the fence one stood. The Attorney General told a reporter that he should get out of the newspaper office because persons with machine guns would invade the office and kill the innocent and the guilty.
In the case of Charlie Hebdo, there were similar warnings. The state placed policemen to protect the office but as it turned out, even that protection was not enough. In Guyana, the government could not be bothered.
One Presidential adviser even asked a reporter if she was aware of any country where the government provided security for a newspaper. Attempts to get the courts interested were thwarted because the Director of Public Prosecutions could not see any evidence of a threat against the newspaper.
This was a newspaper that had five of its pressmen gunned down in its printery; had its press firebombed; had gunmen entering the editorial department and forcing the staff on the ground. Certainly, the Paris incident would have brought back those grim memories.
One can only conclude that the government would be happy to see the newspaper change its course, that is, stifle its right to free expression. And that is what the world is against.
When the government labelled the Kaieteur News an opposition newspaper that did not help the situation. So the newspaper, each day, must contemplate a fate similar to what happened in Paris, knowing that there would be no support from the government.
In Paris the government pulled out the stops to hunt down the killers, and in a country with more people than Guyana can ever have, found the killers within two days. They had the identity of the killers within hours, although the men took the precaution of wearing masks.
And the most frightening thing about the situation is that I am an editor at Kaieteur News.

---

---