The Ethnic Relations Com-mission (ERC) has disagreed with contentions raised by the Indian Arrival Committee (IAC) about a Sunday Stabroek cartoon and says that the drawing has actually brought to the fore a debate that may have a positive impact.
The IAC had complained to the ERC about the cartoon published in the June 15 edition of the Sunday Stabroek, which it said might be considered racially offensive and denigrating to persons of Indo-Guyanese origin as it could stir up feelings of hostility against Indo-Guyanese by promoting and perpetuating negative stereotypes of Indo-Guyanese. Stabroek News had rejected the IAC’s complaint.
The cartoon depicted an elderly woman of East Indian descent wearing a rumal and an ‘I Love Guyana’ badge and sitting on a stool peeling a vegetable. Standing near her, a bespectacled man representing the media asks:
“How do you feel about a Black man being Presi-dent…” He supposedly pauses, then says, “…er …ahh …of the United States of America, of course!”
The elderly woman then responds:
“Oh! The United States! Well…”
On receipt of the complaint from the IAC, the ERC said in its report, it wrote to Stabroek News on the complaint and received a written response in return. It then held round table discussions with officials of the IAC and Stabroek News, as well as separate caucuses with each organization. It said these attempts at mediation were not successful.
The ERC then deliberated on the issues raised and in its ruling yesterday concluded that the cartoon has brought to the fore a debate that may have a positive impact.
“The cartoon has interestingly brought to the fore a debate that may have a positive impact in the context of race related conversations, debate and dialogue on issues that are topical in a multi-cultural and multi-ethnic society. This debate must take place in a responsible environment having due regard to the ethno-cultural and the ethno-religious sensitivities that exist in Guyana”, the ERC said.
The ERC ruling said the cartoon also “points us to and cautions us on the possible dangers of negative stereotyping and profiling which may be considered prevalent in past and present local theatre, television sitcoms and advertisements.”
Infer
The IAC had complained that the elderly East Indian woman in the cartoon was portrayed as belonging to a past era historically and it interpreted this to mean that Indo-Guyanese were seen as a backward group. The ERC’s ruling said that while there might be some legitimacy in that argument, it was important to note that generally editorial cartoons were a type of gag cartoon, employing humour, very often with a satirical/ironical content. “This genre often employs the use of caricature which is sometimes typified by a grotesque comic representation, exaggerating or distorting perhaps what may seem to be character traits.
“To infer from the cartoon that the elderly woman is of a backward group, merely because she is portrayed in a historical and traditional mode of attire is assuming a definite intention on the part of the cartoonist which is not substantiated. Therefore, we find the IAC’s argument on this point cannot be sustained.”
The IAC has said too that since historically Hindu women had worn the rumal, its depiction in the cartoon was interpreted to mean that Hindus were a backward group. However, the ERC found that there was nothing to be inferred from the cartoon that wearing a rumal was backward, and it noted that the rumal was still commonly worn by women in the “Indo-Caribbean” and there was nothing despicable or degenerate with respect to the attire.
With regard to the IAC’s complaint that the ‘I Love Guyana’ badge pinned on the elderly woman meant that Indo-Guyanese were not inherently patriotic, the ERC found that could not be reasonably inferred “in fact, prima facie, it seems to expressly state the contrary.” However, the commission said it appeared that the cartoonist might have employed the use of irony to question whether East Indians generally or those of a particular age were patriotic in relation to the question he sought to raise.
The ERC said that if that were the intention of the cartoonist and giving due consideration to the usual artistic leverage in a liberal democracy, then it did not give rise to the suggestion that there was any intention on the part of Stabroek News to castigate, demean, be racist or promote racism. “Editorial cartoons are often used to raise for discussion, political and moral issues of a society and whether such issues are legitimate or not, or uncomfortable, by itself, does not promote racism,” the report said.
As regards the IAC’s inference that the act of the woman peeling something was a portrayal that Indo-Guyanese were technologically backward, the ERC said that could not be so inferred since the act of peeling was common across all cultures and social groups, “the opinion of the commission is that this is a non sequitur”.
The IAC said the interviewer was shown as anxious to extract a negative answer to his question and the intention here was to portray Indo-Guyanese as being alarmed at the notion of having an Afro-Guyanese as President of Guyana. The ERC said the IAC might be correct in this interpretation as the cartoon may have unfairly typified one ethnic group as a racist group and this may be a false premise that needs to be qualified. However, even if this were so, the ERC said, and however uncomfortable it might be, it was not by itself sufficient to deem it the intention of Stabroek News or the cartoonist to label East Indians as racists or to promote racism within the society.
“An editorial cartoon very often illustrates a point of view on current social and/or political topics, whether taboo or not,” the ERC said. “The intent is almost always invariably to bring about improvement whether in the way we think, act or speak, as the case may be.” It said this might be one of the partial truths in this society that is perceived to be driven by ethnic politics, polarity and insecurity.
It said that if the message was a positive one – that there is need to address ethnic insecurity — even though it might be presented in a negative context, “then the editorial cartoon may have scored its due points. It is this latter position that the commission believes is relevant and may have been the intended message of the cartoonist and by Stabroek News.”
Divide
The ERC said it had sought to mediate the issue between the IAC and Stabroek News with a view towards achieving common ground and a way forward. It expressed disappointment with the “cavalier and high-handed ap-proach taken by Stabroek News at the said meetings.” It said a statement by the newspaper clarifying its intention was not seen as helpful by the newspaper in bridging the divide.
The commission said it was also disappointed with the IAC’s modus operandi in dealing with the complaint, as it should have first registered its concerns with the ERC and given it free and full opportunity to resolve the matter as opposed to taking it into the public domain.
The ERC also alighted on Freedom of Expression as guaranteed by Article 146 (1) of the Constitution. “This is not an absolute right however and must be practiced in a responsible manner”, the ERC said, pointing out that Article 146 (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.
“It is therefore an important duty of a publisher/media house to exercise good editorial oversight, sensitivity, prudence and judgement when taking publications to press. At the same time the media operative must ensure that there is not undue censorship”, the ERC said.
