Dear Editor,
Is the Cybercrime Act driving ‘free speech’ offshore of Guyana? Juice vendor Kevin Hiraman is the latest citizen to be charged by the Guyana Police Force for making a TikTok video that caused policemen Clifton Hicken and Calvin Brutus ‘substantial embarrassment’. Hiraman joins the burgeoning list of persons (including opposition MPs) who have been brought to the courts to answer charges such as causing embarrassment by calling someone a ‘jaggabat’ and ‘trench crapo’, terms that have been bandied about freely without undue consequences before the PPP administration of 2020.
For clarity, the Cybercrime Act was passed into law by the Granger Administration but never used against political opponents; at the time of debate there were many voices (including mine) raised against the ambiguous language contained in Sections 18 and 19 of the act; Section 19 which dealt with ‘sedition’ was dropped as a result, Section 18 remains with us and has been weaponized.
Currently, the definition of ‘hate speech’ is being changed to include what were acceptable questions and criticisms in the near past; a case in point is Mayor Ubraj Narine’s questioning if President Ali was refusing to engage with him based on their differing religious beliefs “is it because I am a Hindu and he is Muslim?”. In the context of Hindu/Muslim relations in Guyana, most of whom share roots in pre-independence India, this is a legitimate question, Pakistan came into existence because of the strain caused by the clash of the two juxtaposed cultures and belief systems.
There has always been a level of mistrust between the communities and the arrest of a Pandit (Ubraj) for raising the issue during his defence of poor vendors on city property against heavy-handed state/police action which was initiated without consultation of the City Council has raised the awareness of the fragility of relations between the Six peoples that make up the Guyanese nation. While the PPP is free to capitalize on the Mayor’s intemperate outburst; they organized a ‘spontaneous’ protest outside of City Hall and did the “down-with… Pan-Dit” effectively and coordinated the condemnation by various organizations smoothly, I consider it most unfortunate that someone has decided that this question by a frustrated, emotional man pleading for the livelihoods of the poor should be categorized as ‘hate speech and warrants his arrest and charges. Editor, it is the actions to repress free speech that are of greater concern than Pandit Ubraj’s question.
Sincerely,
Robin Singh