Dear Editor,
I refer to the Stabroek News editor’s note of November 12, 2008 with respect to the caption on my letter, ‘Sunday editorial misrepresented the President’s position on torture.’ The editor’s note missed the point of my letter where I indicated that the President’s use of ‘context’ refers to the need for a holistic understanding of a situation of torture.
Let me make it very clear that I send out my letters to all media houses at the same time. Given this scenario, I should ask the question, how come the other media houses carry my stuff the next day, or shortly thereafter, and you do not? But that does not matter to me; I merely mention this because you insinuated that I provide a headstart to other media houses in the publication of my letters.
I am not aware that this government is attempting to redefine the word torture. This government continues to subscribe to the United Nations’ definition of torture, thus:
“For the purposes of this Convention, the term ‘torture’ means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.”
The Government of Guyana is a signatory to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
The editor is presumptuous to say that “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.” The editor seems to have definitively concluded that the injuries are as a result of torture. What is the basis for that conclusion? And how does the editor know that “the public… has no doubt that the allegations made against the Joint Services in these instances constitute “at least a prima facie case of torture” ? The editor needs to tell us about the evidence used to reach that conclusion that “the public… has no doubt.” Or is the conclusion a product of conjecture?
At the presidential state 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.
The editor conveniently omitted that there were previous investigations of torture and officers were indicted; these investigations surely applied the UN definition of torture, and so there is no attempt to redefine it.
It is unbecoming to engage in such nefarious acts where Sunday Stabroek editorial paid no mind to the sensitivity of torture. The Government of Guyana continues to subscribe to the United Nations Convention against Torture.
Yours faithfully,
Prem Misir
Editor’s note
While Dr Misir’s last letter seems to have been sent to all media houses at the same time, it nevertheless arrived after our letter pages had closed. The same thing happened in the case of the one above, which was printed in the Guyana Chronicle yesterday. There have been previous occasions, however, when Dr Misir’s letters came to Stabroek News after they had already appeared in other sections of the press.
