Opinion, Not Abuse

Sep 09, 2025 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Kaieteur News – The recent controversy surrounding a politician’s comment or insinuation that a particular journalist was “opposition-aligned” has triggered a press release from the Guyana Press Association (GPA). The GPA, in its statement, appeared to view the politician’s remark as an act of abuse against the journalist.

But is it truly so? A careful analysis suggests otherwise. The comment, while perhaps unwelcome or uncomfortable, falls squarely within the realm of opinion, not abuse. Indeed, even the law of defamation recognizes the sanctity of opinion. That this incident should feature prominently in a GPA press release is surprising, given both legal precedent and the everyday realities of political life worldwide.

Abuse is best understood as speech or conduct intended to demean, insult, or threaten the dignity of another person in a gratuitous or harmful way. By contrast, an opinion, however biting or controversial, is an evaluative statement — a subjective interpretation of a situation, a person, or an event. When a politician suggests or implies that a journalist is “opposition-aligned,” he is not hurling an insult about the journalist’s character, appearance, or worth as a human being. Rather, he is offering a political judgment about the journalist’s perceived orientation or professional stance.

Such a statement may be accurate, inaccurate, or unfair, but it does not automatically amount to abuse. Abuse would be calling the journalist derogatory names or seeking to humiliate him in a manner unrelated to his work. To call someone “opposition-aligned” is to express a viewpoint about where their questioning or reporting seems to fall on the political spectrum. In the rough-and-tumble world of politics, this is par for the course.

Even if one assumes that the politician’s comment was stinging, it is important to recall the protections embedded in the law of defamation. A key principle in this body of law is the distinction between statements of fact and expressions of opinion. Defamation arises when a false statement of fact is made about a person, causing damage to their reputation. By contrast, expressions of opinion — particularly when clearly recognizable as such — are shielded, even if they are unpleasant or strongly worded.

In common law systems, including Guyana’s, the defense of “fair comment” or “honest opinion” exists precisely to protect individuals who express evaluative judgments. The reasoning is simple: democracy cannot function if people are afraid to express views. For this reason, courts have consistently held that subjective commentary, even when harsh, is not actionable as defamation so long as it does not purport to be an objectively verifiable falsehood.

Thus, if a politician says that a journalist is “opposition-aligned,” it is plainly an opinion — a political assessment — not an assertion of a provable fact. The law, therefore, recognizes its legitimacy as protected speech.

Against this backdrop, the GPA’s decision to issue a press release that included this matter seems misplaced. Press associations exist to safeguard the independence, safety, and professional dignity of journalists. When journalists are physically attacked, unlawfully detained, threatened with violence, or systematically silenced by the state, press associations rightly raise their voices. But to elevate a mere opinion expressed by a politician into an incident worthy of public censure dilutes the seriousness of genuine threats to press freedom.

It is worth asking: what exactly is at stake here? The politician did not prevent the journalist from asking questions. He did not bar him from covering events. He did not insult his family, his ethnicity, or his humanity. He merely offered a view — albeit a provocative one — about the journalist’s political alignment. To treat this as abuse risks creating a chilling environment in which politicians are expected to remain mute in the face of pointed or partisan questions. That is not healthy for democracy either.

Globally, it is commonplace for journalists to receive jabs and jibes from politicians. In the United States, the British House of Commons, or India’s raucous political stage, journalists are frequently accused of being “left-wing,” “right-wing,” “state-aligned,” or “opposition mouthpieces.” These are not polite characterizations, but they are a normal part of democratic contestation.

Journalists, by the very nature of their work, probe sensitive issues, challenge authority, and occasionally appear to favor one side or another. Politicians, who often feel cornered by such questioning, respond with sharp retorts.

No serious democracy mistakes such back-and-forth for abuse. Abuse occurs when there is intimidation, threat, or language so offensive that it undermines human dignity. But political jousting — even when it involves questioning the neutrality of a journalist — is part of the rough terrain of public life. Journalists who cover politics must accept that their motives or alignments will sometimes be questioned. The professional response is not to cry abuse but to continue asking probing, evidence-based questions that let the facts speak for themselves.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)

---

• abuse, Guyana Press Association, journalist, opinion, Peeping Tom

---