Dear Editor,
Amid the current praises showered on the life and times of Stabroek News’s Editor-in-Chief the late David de Caires, it is almost distasteful that Sunday Stabroek’s editorial of November 9, 2008, would, out of force of habit, again incorrectly interpret the President’s remarks on a sensitive issue like “torture.”
According to the editorial, President Jagdeo opined that Guyana needs to understand the contextual nature of torture allegations, implying that this President is applying ‘context’ to justify ‘torture.’ The editorial then merrily rambled on to say that no ‘context’ can engender justification of state agents torturing any person. This is a total misrepresentation of the President and his government’s position on ‘torture.’
At the State House briefing on November 1, 2008, the President clearly stated that the Government of Guyana does not condone any torture; and any excesses of torture would be subject to comprehensive investigations, as attested to by recent investigations, and where from those investigations, some officers received indictments.
The President’s use of the term ‘context’ is meant to provide a holistic understanding of the situation, but certainly not intended to justify any allegation of torture. And so, Sunday Stabroek would need to be ‘sensitive’ in its editorial when editorializing about ‘sensitive’ issues, as the late David de Caires would caution.
Yours faithfully,
Prem Misir
Editor’s note
We do not normally publish letters which have appeared elsewhere, and as is customarily the case with Dr Misir’s letters, this one too has already appeared in other sections of the press. We are carrying it because it contains a criticism of one of our editorials.
As far as the content of his letter is concerned, Dr Misir has missed the point of the editorial, which said that on the basis of statements made by government spokespersons in the parliamentary debate it appeared that the PPP/C was attempting to redefine torture. When the President says, therefore, that the Government of Guyana does not condone ‘torture,’ it is not at all clear to anyone what the administration regards as torture. The most it has conceded in the case of the injuries sustained by the men cited in the opposition parliamentary motion, is “roughing up.” The public in contrast, having seen either directly or indirectly the wounds involved, has no doubt that the allegations made against the Joint Services in these instances constitute at least a prima facie case of torture. If Dr Misir, speaking for the President, therefore, does not consider that when the Joint Services allegedly have beaten and burned those they have arrested, this amounts to ‘torture,’ then perhaps he would like to say what level of injury they have to inflict on those in their custody before the government would deem it ‘torture.’
Dr Misir says that the President’s remark about understanding the context in which the torture allegations had been made, was not intended to imply that this would justify torture. However, since the head of state also said that he did not regard any of the reports of torture which were circulating as ‘torture,’ and as said above we really don’t know what would constitute ‘torture’ for the government, Dr Misir’s clarification is not very helpful.
