OLD KAI read the Chronicle editorial which APNU spokesperson Joseph Harmon recently condemned for being racist in nature, and for which similar condemnation was subsequently observed from the Guyana Bar Association, which also included Harmon’s signature among others.

It is nice that the Bar Association seems to have come out from its state of dormancy. It has been silent on several issues, but Old Kai will deal with that in another article.

The gist of the editorial at issue is the historical aspect of political indoctrination of criminals by opposition elements, and this is what has ruffled the feathers of those who would like to conveniently sweep this reality under the carpet.

Notice how those attacking the editorial have not made an effort to point out what aspects were not factual, but have rushed to attack it along some racist line. They even went so far as to point out aspects of the Racial Hostility Act; and I am glad they did, because I will now research all those racially inciting statements which were made by opposition politicians and some in the trade unions over the past few years, particularly in the lead-up to the Linden violence, and I hope the Bar Association will take action, since some of those individuals are from its own membership.

Where was the Bar Association when the PNC/R-APNU circulated a flier during and after the last elections in which they encouraged their supporters to boycott certain businesses, the majority of which were owned by persons of a certain ethnicity? What message were they sending to their support base by such an action? Was it not that these businesses were the enemy? The opposition leader and Mr. Harmon should tell the nation if they still have in place such a boycott against certain sections of the business community.

Now, thankfully, a significant portion of their support base refused to fall for this sinister plan, and these businesses went by largely unscathed; but this cannot extricate the APNU from its actions, as Joseph Harmon and the Bar Association are seeking to do now.
Did they not think what kind of message they were sending to impressionable and misguided youths?

This is further aggravated by the fact that the opposition has always used a kid glove when addressing certain dimensions of crime, especially robbery under arms. Take, for instance, the recent incident where Kevin Fields was killed as he tried to escape after a robbery. He might have lived, had he not opened fire on the unnamed businessman, who was apparently forced to respond, based on media reports. The gun he had in his possession was similar to one of those he had posted on his Facebook page over the past few years.

I had cause to point out recently that, in all of his worrying posts, only two persons condemned his actions: His uncle and apparently his step-father, who came in for attack from other sections of the family for warning him of the consequences of the life he lived. Amazingly, there were those who encouraged him to keep a low profile, lest he attract unwanted attention.

But what about the opposition? What was their response?
Referring to the incident, based on media reports, the opposition leader’s only concern was apparently the need to tighten border security to prevent the smuggling of firearms. This position is highly absurd, when one considers that we have thousands upon thousands of miles of open borders with the countries that surround us. During his time in the hinterland, Old Kai has personally walked across several locations along the Takutu and Ireng Rivers, which we share with Brazil. We will need quite a few million security personnel to patrol our borders, if we are to go with Mr. Granger’s plan; but that also is for another article.

There was something missing in Granger’s reference to the incident; something that is usually missing whenever opposition leaders refer to such incidents. No, I was not looking for him to condemn the actions of the youth, even though there was no condemnation from the opposition. Old Kai simply wanted him to encourage the youths to stay away from a life of crime; put down the guns and pick up the books.

They could not pass off the actions of the youth on economic circumstances, which they have attempted to do in the past, as, apart from all the wads of cash he was observed posing with on Facebook, Fields’ mother has told the media that they were well off economically, with her thriving catering business; while she had given Fields a small shop for him to operate within the community of Agricola, where they lived.

In the meantime, bearing in mind the opposition’s influence in the community of Agricola, did anyone not wonder why the opposition leader, in referring to the Fields incident, not use the opportunity and his influence to encourage the youths to stay away from the guns and crime?

Mr. Granger constantly reminds us that one of the pillars of his focus is on youths, yet we have not heard of a single initiative by the opposition whereby they encourage youths to get involved in the many education and youth employment programmes being run by the Government, either through the Ministries of Labour; Youth, Sports and Culture; Amerindian Affairs; Education; and even at the level of the Office of the President. We have seen absolutely no attempt by them to collaborate with these programmes.

What they have done, instead, is use their combined one-seat majority in the National Assembly with the AFC to cut funding for some of these very initiatives.

They have even attacked a revolutionary initiative by the Guyana Police Force to enhance its relationship with communities where traditionally there has been tension; one area being Agricola.

This is what the Chronicle editorial seeks to highlight — what seems to be a deliberate intransigence on the part of opposition leaders to shield their support bases from accessing opportunities, and then turn this around, when it is politically convenient, and lay the blame elsewhere, as was so aptly illustrated in the above telephone conversation.
To be continued…