An inexcusable defence

Oct 16, 2017 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

The President has made a serious error in judgment by deciding to offer a defence of the actions of his senior press officer who was entangled in a controversy over the use of racially offensive words in a social media group chat which was leaked to the public.
The President said that as far as he was concerned the matter was “closed”. He said that no malice was intended by the words used.
The issue however was never about malice. No one has ever said that the words used were intended to harm anyone. The issue was whether the words stereotyped anyone. The issue was not about malice; it was about whether the words were racially prejudiced. The President skirted this issue and declared that the matter was ‘closed’.
The President’s defence of the controversy was inexcusable. His defence essentially was that no malice was intended and that Guyanese society has to purge itself of the use of certain words. He said that the context had to be taken into account.
But it seems that in arriving at his decision the President decontextualized the usage of the offensive words. He seems to have forgotten that the use of the ‘C’ word was juxtaposed with reference to the persons being referred to as being booty kissers. That latter juxtaposition adds a totally different complexion to the issue. But this was deliberately in most of the public commentaries on the issue.
Many persons have sought to reduce the controversy to the use of the ‘C’ word saying that it is commonly used in Guyana. But if those making that argument would replace the ‘C’ word with the ‘I’ word, they would better appreciate the effect and offensiveness of the words used.
The President stuck to the common use of the ‘C’ word in Guyanese society. He said that we need to purge such words from the local lexicon. He did not touch the other part of the controversy, the booty kissing part.
In declaring the matter ‘closed’, the President has effectively refused to impose any sanction on his chief press officer. But the issue nonetheless is not so much about discipline, as it is about the President’s defence of his chief press officer and moreover his decision to take her on his visit to the United Nations before he has publicly pronounced on the outcome of his investigation.
It was a grave error of judgment on the part of the President to have done so. Here was someone who was under investigation and even before he has publicly pronounced on the investigation, the President was touring New York, parading his chief press officer in front of the international community and the Guyanese diaspora at a time when the controversy and the wounds it would have caused were still fresh.
The President was insensitive to the feelings of those who would have been bothered by the controversy to have operated as if nothing serious was happening by shuttling off to New York with his chief press officer in tow.
This was a mistake on the part of the President. It sent a signal that the controversy was not serious for why else in the midst of the investigation and before any pronouncement on its findings, the chief press officer was part of an official presidential delegation to all places the United Nations.
The media has apparently taken the cue of the President and have closed the matter. They have not bothered to ask who did the investigation, who was questioned and what were the specific findings.
But what about those persons whom the words were intended to describe? How comfortable are these persons in working in an institution with the same individual who used those words? It needs to be asked whether the President gave any consideration to their feelings on the matter or whether he foreclosed on this issue as well.

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News