Dear Editor,
The recent pronouncement by the Minister of Home Affairs, Robeson Benn after the “Baderation” concert, caused much consternation and rightfully so. The Minister is quoted as saying, “I have to say here and now, that no artiste like Skeng will ever come again into this country, will not come again into this country under the signature of any person from the Ministry of Home Affairs or from the Guyana Police Force, will not come on a public stage. If they want, they can go into a private club and behave as badly as they want. We will not sign off on any such artiste or any artiste who has a record of promoting vulgar and lawless behavior including the firing of gunshots in public places”. Editor, the “Baderation” concert was one of a series of concerts endorsed by the Minister of Culture, Youth and Sports. Minister Benn had expressed similar views before and similar actions were executed on an artiste and music he didn’t find favour with. In 2013, a calypso which in his view was “abusive, and libelous or rather slanderous,” was played on the National Communication Network radio; he, Benn, allegedly ban the song. He later indicated that there was no formal discussion in Cabinet to ban any of the year’s anti- government calypso songs. Was this action against Skeng birthed from a formal discussion and decision of cabinet? Or was this a knee jerk, personal opinion of the minister? The public has a right to know.
The minister described Skeng’s music as disgraceful and made it clear that such music does not have a place in Guyana due to its lack of positive influence and message. I wonder, does he share similar views about violent movies shown at cinemas and on the television? In agreeing that our society should promote more music that have positive messages, it is equally important for the minister to know that music mirrors the society in which one lives. Furthermore, the very songs/music of the artiste which he condemned, and claims should have no place in Guyana, were being played daily, weeks in advance on several popular national radio stations, television and on several social media platforms, with much larger audiences than was present at the concert. Minister Benn, what prevented the larger society from moving to violence or violent behaviour since the entire country was hearing the same songs? Skeng’s music is still being played after the minister’s statement and is apparently enjoyed by men in uniform under Minister Benn’s portfolio, as was seen recently on social media, where firemen were having some fun and frolic.
Editor, is the artiste to be blamed and held responsible for the happenings at the concert or the behaviour of the firemen? Who was responsible for security at the respective entrances of the concert venue? Were the police not present at the gate for such mega events? How is it possible that guns were discharged with cameras streaming to the world but the perpetrators have not yet be charged? What is equally concerning Editor, is that this concert was kept a short distance away from the headquarters of the Guyana Police Force and the Guyana Defense Force. Were the military personnel stationed at those headquarters not hearing gun shots? Editor, not only were the lives of the concertgoers endangered, but also the artiste and his team. Again, I ask, who should be blamed? What sanctions did the promotors face? I am sure that Skeng was not at the gate of the venue working as a security. Hence, is this the best way to address our own societal challenges of increased crime, violence and corruption in the country, by shifting blame on a visiting CARICOM national? Editor, Minister Benn’s approach reminds me of this Malcom X quote; “I have no mercy or compassion in me for a society that will crush people and then penalize them for not being able to stand up under the weight”.
The helplessness of the security on that night said a lot to the world. Editor, is it ok to say that violent and salacious lyrics undermine public morality and promote crime without empirical evidence? If the answer is yes, would a ban on an artist be the best solution? Artistes, Editor, are known to have many songs; do we ban the artiste or ban him or her from performing that particular song/s at a concert? One could argue that adult concertgoers should have the freedom to decide for themselves what sort of lyrics they wish to enjoy, rather than having Mr. Benn decide for them in a free society? How will this ban play into the Minister’s own government’s efforts to foster regional integration system within the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas? Isn’t this move in itself undermining our very own efforts in helping to create a true Single Market and Economy across the Caribbean to bolster intraregional trade of goods and services? If Benn needs a focus, he could well enquire of his Minister of Culture, Youth and Sports, what is being done or not done to promote culture in a holistic way in Guyana? When the culture ministry endorses concerts named Stink & Dutty and Baderation, it is embracing a brand, and I dare say one that is known to the PPP. The concert promoters are all passengers in the culture minister’s excursion bus. Thus, the Jamaican artiste must not be the fall guy.Editor, this decision to ban
undermines the agency and freedom of expression of artists and adult concertgoers. It undermines CARICOM’s law that guarantees to CARICOM nationals the freedom to provide and receive services across regional borders. So a Jamaican service provider, be it an artiste like Skeng and the likes, a lawyer, banker, musician, etc., is entitled to provide his or her services to patrons in other CARICOM countries. The Caribbean Court of Justice, our final court, has ruled on this matter in the Cabral Douglas case in which Jamaican dancehall artiste Sparta Lee (Leroy Russell) was denied entry in a sister Caribbean state. The CCJ found that Sparta Lee, who was to headline a festival, was a service supplier under CARICOM law. Furthermore, the CCJ made this even more pellucid in the Shanique Myrie case, in which a Jamaican was deported from Barbados. The court said: “It is clear, therefore, that in certain approved sectors, nationals of a member State who supply these services must in principle have the right, freely to enter any other member State in order to ply their trade; but… also nationals of a member State desirous of receiving such services in another member State must be allowed to enter the latter State in order to receive that service without being obstructed by unreasonable restrictions.”
Editor, it is my view that Minister Benn’s decision to ban the Jamaican artiste is illogical and is a zero-sum game. Before that artiste came to Guyana, there were no report from Jamaica which said that when he performed at concerts, he got gun salutes or there were widespread robberies at the events. Secondly, the same artiste went to Trinidad and performed within twenty-four hours of leaving Guyana and there were no reported gun salutes and or wide scale robberies at the event at which he performed. The aforementioned clean report was achieved, against the known crime situation in Trinidad and Jamaica which is pronounced. It is in this context that I consider the pronouncements made by Mr. Benn about the Baderation concert as absurd. Truth be told, it is the acting Top Cop and the promoters who failed to provide proper security at the venue that need sanctioning. No one else should be blamed. Did the artiste tell the promoters to sell alcohol to patrons in glass bottles that can easily be used as a weapon? Editor, Minister Benn and his government must first identify what are the problems the society is experiencing that would lead to the levels of degeneration we saw at the Baderation concert. I did point out above that one of the issues was the irrational education policy which promoted delinquency, with a focus on hairstyles.
Sincerely,
Jermaine Figueira MP
Shadow Minister for Culture
Youth and Sports