FREEDOM of expression and the right to information of citizens of the land are enshrined constitutional and moral rights, ratified by the Declaration of Chapultepec; but today, once again, Guyana is being held ransom to ethical depravity and moral turpitude by persons whose moral compasses need serious calibrating.

At an APNU rally held at Square of the Revolution last Friday evening to protest President Donald Ramotar’s prorogation of Parliament, that party’s co-chair, Rupert Roopnarine urged the crowd to, among other methods of protest, “… do not buy the Guyana Chronicle or the Guyana Times; and when you see Channel 11 come on, change it.”
He went on to say: “Within a very short time, we will have to arrange a ceremony at the Square of the Revolution where we can make an enormous ‘bonfire’ of the Chronicle and the Guyana Times.”

The Guyana Chronicle which boasts probably the largest global online readership among local news sites, is a State owned media entity, but merely because this publication adheres to the tenets of truth, factual dissemination of information without recourse to sensationalism, pandering to power-hungry politicians clamouring for public recognition, it is being targeted right alongside its sister State Media agency (NCN) and the privately-owned ‘Guyana Times’ newspaper.
The joint Opposition – including their supporting media houses, perceives and treats as enemies to be destroyed, any person or entity that does not support their histrionics, or who/which condemns their calls to insurrection and violence in the nation.
However, Opposition parties’ periodic calls for the boycott of State Media – singly or collectively, as well as for the burning of state publications such as the ‘Chronicle’ newspaper, has sinister overtones and troubling implications for the security of the staff of state media houses and the ‘Guyana Times’, given Guyana’s history of oppressive forces dictating – or attempting to dictate what is acceptable information that should be transmitted to the public, even to the point of unleashing violent attacks on perceived offending media entities and media operatives.
In yesterday’s publication of this newspaper, General-Manager of Guyana National Newspapers Ltd (GNNL), the publishers of the ‘Chronicle’ newspaper, Mr. Michael Gordon expressed his alarm at the threat to the security of his staff members. Mr. Gordon said, inter alia: “It is a sad day in Guyana when an individual, moreso a political leader, believes that a media entity does not represent his views; and as a consequence, he sees it fit to rile the masses against the news entity…I think the frivolity of Dr Rupert Roopnarine’s comments borders on the irresponsible. The fact that Dr. Roopnarine has threatened to burn the physical paper itself is cause for concern. I’m now left to wonder whether such threats could be transcended into other spheres. I am now even more concerned than ever about the safety of my staff.”

Referencing the Declaration of Chapultepec, which addresses the protection and defence of Freedom of the Press, Mr. Gordon posited: “I do not believe that the Declaration of Chapultepec, to which Guyana is a signatory, speaks only to the Executive Branch of Government,” and affirmed “The Guyana Chronicle remains committed to upholding the fundamental tenets of journalism, and to providing fair and balanced information, including Dr. Roopnarine’s views, to the general public.”
Attorney-General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Mr Anil Nandlall, said, in response to Roopnarine’s inflammatory calls for boycott and conflagration of the two publications: “… one would expect a more responsible statement from Dr. Roopnarine. His remarks constitute nothing less than an assault on the constitutionally guaranteed right of Freedom of the Press and the right of the Guyanese citizens to receive information…I do not expect the Opposition to be supportive of these News Agencies, but at a minimum, they should respect their right to publish, and the right of the Guyanese people to receive that which is published.”
Nandlall said he hopes that the persons and organisations who came out so stridently in defence of Press Freedom recently will now come out in full force on this matter. “Their silence will lend itself as tacit support for Dr. Roopnarine’s obvious thinking that only information that is one-sided; that attacks the Government; and that is biased in a particular direction must permeate the airwaves and the print media.”
However, the deafening silence by these individuals and bodies, inclusive of normally vociferous members of the diplomatic community, is indication of the overt and covert support that the extreme positions adopted and expounded by anti-national, anti-democratic forces in the collective Opposition receive.
From silencing the press, how far is the distance to silencing the voice of opponents – as has happened once before with many who opposed the repressive PNC regime, such as Roopnarine’s former political colleague, Dr. Walter Rodney, who was blasted into oblivion approximately three decades ago? We have gone that route before; and the very persons who were victims of that suppressive dynamic have now joined hands with their former oppressors and have become oppressors in turn.
Politics have, in this instance, indeed proven to make strange bedfellows.