Dear Editor,
The Ethnic Relations Commission (ERC) met with both the Stabroek News and the Indian Arrival Committee (IAC) on Friday, July 04, 2008 to deliver its ruling to a complaint made by the IAC regarding the paper’s cartoon of Sunday, June 15, 2008.
The ERC cautioned against the seemingly natural reaction of the party which may find the said ruling favourable to its cause, to claim victory. Both the Stabroek News and the IAC agreed that this would be taken into consideration when making subsequent statements.
Whilst we cannot speak for the Stabroek News, our concurrence to the ERC’s request was based on our awareness of the potentially dangerous implications of the sensitivities depicted in the said cartoon.
It is in this context that the IAC has found the caption ‘ERC rules against IAC cartoon complaint’ of an article pertaining to the ERC’s ruling in Stabroek News of 5.7.08, not only to imply that the newspaper was victorious, but to be in breach of this ‘gentleman’s’ agreement.
The impression conveyed in the first sentence of the first paragraph of article in Stabroek News 5.7.08 mentioned, is that the ERC has disagreed with all of the issues raised by the IAC. The IAC views this as a gross misrepresentation of the ERC’s findings.
It is therefore unfortunate that the Stabroek News has reneged on its commitment not to publish statements which can be interpreted as being victorious. The IAC now feels compelled to comment on the said ruling.
Whilst the Commission did not find favour with some of our interpretations of the said cartoon, the IAC feels vindicated on points it raised during the discussions and caucus held with both the ERC and the Stabroek News. One such point which the IAC vehemently argued was that the freedom of expression which was the beacon of the Stabroek News’s argument is not a freedom to offend.
In this regard the ERC noted that this freedom is not absolute and must be practised in a responsible manner. The ERC noted that Article 143 (3) says that freedom of expression does not relate to hate speeches or other types of expression which can excite ill-will against any person or class of persons.
The IAC held its position that while it fully supports freedom of expression; it is of the opinion that the Stabroek News acted irresponsibly by exercising poor editorial judgment by publishing the cartoon which it still believes is politically and racially offensive.
By this argument alone, the IAC can claim victory based on the findings of the ERC which expressed disappointment with the “cavalier and high-handed approach taken by the Stabroek News at the said meetings.” The ERC further noted that a statement by the Stabroek News in clarifying its intention “was not seen as helpful by the newspaper in bridging the divide.”
The ERC also noted in its ruling that the IAC might be correct in its interpretation that the cartoon may have unfairly typified one ethnic group as a racist group and this may be a false premise that needs to qualified.
Herein lies another opportunity for the IAC to so claim victory on the point that it interpreted the cartoon to be racially offensive.
The IAC wishes to note that it was never its intention to use the findings of the ERC to imply that it may or may not have been victorious in relation to the objections raised against the said cartoon. If this were so, a statement would have been released almost immediately following the ERC’s ruling.
Being a responsible organisation and one which promotes Indian culture and deals with issues and concerns of persons of Indo-Guyanese origin, the IAC feels satisfied with its efforts in bringing the subliminal messages of the said cartoon to the fore.
Yours faithfully,
Felicia Persaud
Executive Member
Indian Arrival Committee
Editor’s note
The Stabroek News treated the report from the Ethnic Relations Commission in the same way as it would any other news report.
I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN UP A DEBATE, as HARRIS did, on Child Soldiers:
I would like to bring a debate to the forefront of Guyanese society.
I want a CARTOON to be drawn of a pint-size person, wearing a facemask, pointing and firing an AK47 in the air causing an airplane to spin out of control as it plummets to the ground (with the passengers scrambling to get out of the windows”, shouting “slo fyah, mo fyah” in front of the Statue of Cuffy with dead bodies of little children strewn across the ground with their entrails pushing out of a punctured belly.
Next to this pint size person I want another person, who is shorter than the pervious pintsize person, saluting the Statue of Cuffy. Keep drawing shorter people until they are like a little toddler holding an AK47 with a “teething sucker in their mouth” (signifing a little child).
On the caption side I want captions like: “Our cause is justified”, “Does not support inequality (in that old as well as young are treathened and enrolment of little most children welcome, women and men treated alike; every religion threated alike, African, Indian, Amerindian and all other races treated alike”
AFINAM,
Ah tell yuh it hard fuh undah stan what yuh saying.
But is no surprise for you have no idea of what cartoons are intended to be.
ggsbny mentioned a tiny part..cloaked in humour… but the subtleties are infinite
in good cartoons. Also as bgsbny put it, your hoped for cartoon would be
overloaded. I would say idiotic.
Cartoons are immediate reognition. If you have to examine every part of a
cartoon to understand this or that, then you are writing a comic book and you
would for sure not get published.
Who would want to read or examine such trash?
The IAC are pretentiously sensitive to a mundane matter.
There was no harm in that cartoon except to pretentiously sensitive people, and
as is generally the case, people do interpret cartoons differently. I was one who
had a different interpretation for I saw fun being poked at the media for their
poor interviewing skills, the aged woman who could have been of either ethnic
background finding herself being asked a question impossible to answer.
The ERC should have chastised the IAC for wasting their time.
If the IAC members are reading this they would be well advised to Google
“Cartoons” and do some reading on the history and origins of cartoons and
what they are intended to convey.
C’est tout.
….. such a cartoon would be overloaded !…. cartoons are generally meant to be sublte with an impact that generate fodder for the masses ! cloaked in humour……
CARTOONS is used as a means to communicate picturesque.
It promotes a point of view like a letter does. But it seeks to ridicule a situation rather than open a “discussion” as Harris contends….hence, why the features of characters are Exaggerated to disportionate levels.
Harris used his CARTOON to promote his view that Indians in Guyana would not like a Black President in Guyana.
When challenged on his CARTOON by showing him that in Guyana there have been:
3 African Guyanese Presidents (or Black President using Harris’ words….why did he used Black as oppose to African Guyanese?)
2 Indian Guyanese Presidents
1 Chinese President
1 Caucasian President
1 Woman President
Harris tried to disguise the fact the the CARTOON was not relevant to Guyana situation hence his question bears no relevance.
His question was based on the concept of Equality IN GUYANA. In particular racial equality (by his determination to use Black as oppose to African Guyanese).
Since the above showed that there is greater equality in Guyana than in other countries THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF A BLACK PERSON BECOMING PRESIDENT IN GUYANA as a precidence was set by the 3 other BLACK presidents in Guyana.
HAD you understood that the ISSUE was about EQUALITY (in particular RACIAL EQUALITY…) then you would not seek to convey that the CARTOON was JUSTIFIED.
Had Harris taken the time to apologise for the insult that his CARTOON caused then, and only then, would I have said that HARRIS WAS TOLERANT as oppose to his pig-headness of putting forwards HIS VIEWS without acknowledging others views on the subject are just as relevant when it has been PROVEN that his CARTOON incorrectly portrayed the question of RACE EQUALITY in GUYANA.
EVEN when people had HINDSIGHT (ref: the reaction to the Harris Cartoon) they were still offended by someone “openning a debate” using a CARTOON.
What is the difference Harris?
THE POINT THE I AM MAKING ABOVE IS THIS:
1) A Black President is possible in Guyana as there have been 3 other BLack Presidents.
2) Since the PNC says that it represents Black people had the PNC gained the 62.5% of the voting population they would have been in Government.
So IS it possible for a Black Person to become President in Guyana?
Yes its is based on the election results, based on past performance and also based on the main 3 political parties (PPP/C, PNC, AFC) all have Black people in promenient position that could result in a Black person becoming PResident.
In the name of Jesus Christ, we rebuke you.
THIS IS WHAT IS CALLED STABROEK NEWS manipulating the news:
By taking out all the proof:
PPP/C received 37.5% of the votes
Opposition had an opportunity to get 62.5% of the voted had they done enough.
Statement by Main Opposition is fallacious as they had the opportunity to get 62.5% of the votes.
3 African Guyanese Presidents (or Black President using Harris’ words….why did he used Black as oppose to African Guyanese?)
2 Indian Guyanese Presidents
1 Chinese President
1 Caucasian President
1 Woman President
So there was no question the a Black Person could be President since there was the opportunity to do so.
The IAC is showing its mean spirit-ness and is only reinforcing to the public its witch-hunt for the SN on behalf of the PPP. Felicia Persaud, is engaging in harassment towards the newspaper and her organization the IAC should be cautioned.
The ERC gritted its teeth to remain neutral and ruled on the cartoon matter– yet, seemingly disgruntled, the IAC is grasping at straws to find grounds for another petty complaint.
All cartoonists are mandated to be provocateurs- feel free to peruse other regional and global newspapers for confirmation.
WHAT is the matter, cannot create a justification argument?
Souldn’t be that difficult as you have all the other arguments to draw sustenance from.
The Spy who love me.
From “New Russia” with love.
Can’t you transfer him to Alaska?