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.