Following a meeting with former PPP/C heads of state held shortly after President Irfaan Ali’s accession to office he was reported by the Department of Public Information as saying: “The whole issue of National Unity, how do we achieve national unity, were discussed … How do we look for example at the Racial Hostility Act to make it stronger with greater penalties for those who are bent on creating mischief and dividing our people?”
It might be noted that the Racial Hostility Act was amended by an earlier PPP/C administration in 2002, and the penalties increased. It now says that anyone who “wilfully excites or attempts to excite hostility or ill will against any section of the public or against any person on the grounds of their or his race” is liable to a sanction of $500,000 in addition to seven years in prison. Exactly how much heavier does the President think the penalty should be, it might be asked, in order to bring about national unity? Presumably taking their cue from their head of state, the authorities last week arrested Mayor Ubraj Narine and MP Sherod Duncan under the Racial Hostility Act, and perhaps since further draconian penalties have not yet been added to that item of legislation as the President would like, for good measure they were also charged under the Cybercrime Act. There were traffic offence charges in addition, but at least where these were concerned they had some basis in fact.
The arrest of the two officials stemmed from their attempt to prevent the removal of vendors from outside the Public Hospital on the orders of the government, which had not bothered to consult the City Council that normally has responsibility for such matters. The Mayor was alleged to have said in relation to the President about the removals, “Is this because I’m a Hindu and he’s a Muslim? That he cannot work with me. I listen to the President on racism, these are black people, are you going to bulldoze them in this manner or have a talk with them? Like you did with the speedboat operators? Like you did with rice farmers? Like you did to cane cutters and fisher folks? Because they are majority Indians? But these are black people, you are bulldozing them like dogs and animals.”
Since all sides of our political divide tiptoe cautiously around religious matters, Mr Narine soon found himself the subject of general expressions of outrage from every quarter. He was quick to issue an abject apology. That said, how did the authorities come to the conclusion that his statements qualified as exciting hostility on the grounds of race? Did they envisage, for example, crowds of angry Hindus expressing themselves in antagonistic terms against Muslims? Or vice versa?
And as for the rest of the Mayor’s comments about “black people”, those are of a political character and require a response from the highest political officer in the land. Georgetown’s First Citizen has challenged the head of state in respect of his statements on racism as well as his treatment of different groups in the society. Whether he is right or wrong is not the issue. The point is the question is legitimate in a democratic context and invites an answer.
The opposition in recent times has made various allegations about discrimination against African Guyanese yet no one has yet charged Mr Norton for inciting racial hostility. So what is going on? Are we to believe that the government has decided to embark on a policy of closing down political criticism by the back door, and alighting with their heavy-handed methods on the Mayor, with whom they are in any case at odds, and Mr Duncan who has a reputation for indefensible speech and behaviour? Or is it something personal against the Mayor and Mr Duncan just happened to be present too? It is particularly interesting that the Cybercrime Act was also invoked against the two defendants. In his 2020 statements referred to earlier, the President had also said in reference to racial hate and hostility that the State would not hesitate to resort to provisions under the Racial Hostility and Cybercrime Acts “in appropriate circumstances.” This is decidedly odd considering that in 2018 the PPP/C went to considerable lengths to try and oppose the passage of that particular piece of legislation. The sedition section which was eventually excised aside, the Granger government passed the Bill over their objections.
Once in office, the government, whether or not inspired by the President himself, forgot their earlier opposition and warmed to this Act, and this is not the first time they have used it. What is more than passing strange, however, is that earlier this week the Attorney General told Stabroek News that the government intended to repeal the Cybercrime Act and replace it with a modern act. This would be drafted, he said, by an ad hoc United Nations committee on the basis of the recommendations of the UN Convention on Countering the Use of Information and Communication Technologies for Criminal Purposes, and was intended as a modern cybercrime Bill for the Caricom region.
As far as the issue at hand is concerned, it has to be asked why on earth Messrs Narine and Duncan were charged under the Cybercrime Act when the government has no intention of keeping it on the books? It is beyond ludicrous. Is it a case that the right hand of government does not know what the left hand is doing, or is it a matter of utilising the current act for as long as possible in relation to certain kinds of political criticism?
What gives the matter a somewhat more sinister air is that according to Attorney Roysdale Forde, the court had issued orders seeking to gag the Mayor and Mr Duncan from speaking about the matter. This order, he said, was also extended to apply to their agents and servants. And this is supposed to be a nation where the Constitution guarantees freedom of expression?
Using the law as a sledgehammer to silence political criticism a government doesn’t like will not only achieve the precise opposite of national unity, but it will also attract international attention because of its denial of freedom of speech. As mentioned earlier, there is nothing which was alleged in court to have been said by the Mayor that qualifies as exciting racial hostility, and as such the charges should be dropped. Apart from anything else if the authorities persist with the ones under the Cybercrime Act which is apparently to be repealed, they will make themselves a laughing stock. Above all, one might have thought, the government would not be comfortable being accused of moving in a Burnhamite direction where freedom of expression was concerned.
Perhaps one of the more concerning aspects of this case is that Mayor Narine, a reserve officer in the GDF, has now been dismissed. This is a disgrace, and the army hierarchy should be ashamed of themselves. Or did this decision too have a political provenance?
