Dear Editor,
I refer to the Stabroek News’ editorial of April 15 captioned, ‘Defining child abuse’ and their deliberate attempt to misconstrue the President’s words when he was quoted as saying, “Let us be careful, let us fight abuse in the extreme form, but do not… [succumb] to western or other people’s definition…”
Now, any right minded person would not first assume that the President’s reference was of physical abuse only, as that editorial sought to make it appear. In western culture the abuse of children is one which fits their society and its rampant ills and misfortunes. While Guyana is no bed of roses, the abuse of our children has to be contextualised in terms of the cultures and norms that are peculiar to the Guyanese community.
Many Guyanese believe in tough love; that is not to say verbally, psychologically or physically abusing our children, but rather, a stricter form of discipline. However, in western culture this may be considered as some form of abuse; in short they advocate treating children with kid gloves, hence the widespread culture of disrespect and lawlessness that permeate their society.
I am an adult female, and my mother was a very strict woman – not an abuser by any stretch of the imagination – but she spanked when she felt it necessary and used strong tones with me and my siblings when the situation dictated, and we all turned out for the better today; but the same attitude taken into a western setting might have seen her in jail or worse.
Media entities have taken an attitude of nitpicking on every little thing that emanates from the governmental side of the fence, but fail to fully assimilate and internalize the full impact of what is being said.
Mr Jagdeo has always come across to the nation as a lover of children and this is evident on every single occasion that he comes into contact with children, as well as his past and present stance on child abuse, and it is completely unprofessional and unfair for a respectable news outlet such as Stabroek News to even suggest that he meant anything of what is being suggested.
Why is it that the only inference drawn from what the President said when he made those remarks is that of an attempt to discount the other forms of abuse? Why jump to such an ill-advised and far-fetched conclusion when another possible conclusion that could have been drawn from that statement, was that he was referring to Guyanese culture as separate from that of western culture and how we each choose to rear our children?
Note, however, that I am not seeking to draw any conclusion as to what the Head of State meant when he uttered those words, but I am questioning the motive(s) of this news outlet in jumping to that obviously derogatory one.
Also, I am not suggesting that the Stabroek News seek to provide public relations or propagandist services for the government, but, to use common Guyanese parlance, “You gotta give Jack he jacket.”
The man has done a lot for the children of Guyana, and he has allowed and been instrumental and supportive in establishing avenues, both legal and otherwise, for aid and other forms of assistance to the abused children in this country.
No one is asking the Stabroek News to lie or sugar-coat the truth, but at least they can make an attempt, however reluctantly, to be fair and professional.
Yours faithfully,
Delana Isles
Editor’s note
There was no deliberate attempt to misconstrue anything. The Government Information Agency (GINA) quoted President Bharrat Jagdeo as saying, “Let us be careful, let us fight abuse in the extreme form, but do not… [succumb] to western or other people’s definition, because we can end up dispersing our efforts so thinly that we don’t focus on the real problems, which at this point in time are the extreme abuse in the form of physical violence against children.”
This letter-writer chooses to end the quote at “definition” with ellipses – a deliberate attempt perhaps to misconstrue the editorial?
This quote comes from the President of this country who needs to be very clear in what he says, especially when making statements on sensitive issues. This is what the editorial sought to point out.
