Dear Editor,
I disagree with your editorial of April 14 (The Channel Six Suspension”) which stated the “threat against President Jagdeo… was criminal, reprehensible and inexcusable”, a view which is even shared by Mr Sharma’s legal friends. Your editorial did not state why you found the caller’s statement, for example, to be criminal. For it to be criminal you should have told us the reason why you felt the caller really intended to kill Mr Jagdeo. I will discuss this later. Also even Mr Sharma’s legal friends offer no reason why the caller’s statement was illegal.
The reason for the action against Mr Sharma is based on the words “I am going to kill Jagdeo” used by the caller, that is, once those words were said then automatically it was offensive and illegal. However, if for example the caller had said “I am bound in a wheel chair and when the moon and the sun collide I am going to kill Jadgeo”, I suspect most people would not have taken those words seriously because they would have placed them in context and they would have considered them idiotic and not illegal. These words then cannot be considered alone but must be placed in the context in which they were said to evaluate if they were illegal.
My position is supported analogously by President Jagdeo at his press conference of April 15th when he said his decision was not based on the first broadcast of the words but because it was subsequently aired a few days later.
That is, in exercising his discretion Mr. Jagdeo applied his mind to the larger context and took other matters into consideration apart from the offending words. I am suggesting Mr Jagdeo should have taken additional matters into consideration when he made his decision.
According to your editorial the caller said “look at the killings and nobody can’t give an account about these people’s lives and Jagdeo going to take a high risk job by going and tell people to calm down; he’s going to bury the dead bodies. If anything is going to happen to my family, I am going to kill Jagdeo”. To fully understand what the caller meant those “offending” words must be placed in the larger context. The call was made “four days after the Bartica massacre which had been preceded several weeks before by the Lusignan slaughter. Tensions were running high; fear gripped all parts of the country.” Do reasonable people feel the 71-year old caller really meant she will kill Mr Jagdeo. Or that the caller used those words out of a feeling of helplessness and hopelessness given the insecurity of the time, and that in a moment of frustration, to emphasize her feeling that the government must do something to protect us and her family, she focused on the leader of the government and said “If anything is going to happen to my family I will kill Jagdeo”. The larger context shows the caller really was asking for help from the government to protect us and her family. A more sophisticated caller might have used different words to express their and our frustrations but the message would have been the same “Mr Jagdeo do something before they kill my family”. Apparently the government shared her frustration about the crime situation and soon afterwards offered a $50 million reward for Fineman and has brought two helicopters for $600 million.
If my memory serves me correctly, I heard one of the panelists comprising the Attorney General, Mr Doodnauth Singh, Anil Nandlall and Ms Gail Teixeira on NCN say the US will not tolerate those words. The 1976 Nobel Peace Prize winner Betty William in July 2007 said in Dallas Texas “Right now I could kill George Bush” (Dallas Morning News, Friday July 13, 2007) but was never charged by US authorities. I do not know the reason why, maybe because she also said “No, I didn’t mean that”. Maybe the US authorities took the last set of words into account to determine the meaning of her message. I suggest that the large context including all the words the caller said be used to determine what she really intended and meant. Focusing only on the “offending” words is not fair to her.
I humbly suggest Mr Jagdeo revisit his decision; look at the large picture, empathise with the 71-year old woman, forgive her excesses and warn Sharma to be careful and to make sure he uses the delay equipment. Mr Jagdeo will be seen by all to be magnanimous, generous and a statesman even to those who use almost every situation to criticise him.
Yours faithfully,
Khushi Kumar
