ONE of the major facets of democracy is freedom of expression of opinions – be they of a generally orthodox nature or of the eccentric sort. This reality, a fundamental human right, has in many instances proven, like everything else in life save the divine, to have both positive and negative embodiments and manifestations. As a result, the phrase with responsibility was appended to freedom of expression. The new phrase freedom of expression with responsibility attracted much criticism and drew the ire of people who opined that this new phrase was indicative of the intent of the powers that be to muzzle the mouths of citizens. Proponents of ‘freedom of expression with responsibility’ hold that “with responsibility” phrase was necessitated by the fact that many sections of society were in fact abusing the human right to free expressions. And are these proponents justified? Have their propositions been vindicated? 

The reality that there is a direct correlation between certain public utterances emanating from the tongues of citizens affiliated with a particular political group and devastating occurrences should be great cause for concern.

Many years ago, during a public demonstration by the People’s National Congress (PNC), the late Hugh Desmond Hoyte, then Party Leader, proclaimed: ‘Slo fyah; mo fyah!’ This expression became so popular with party supporters, it became something of a party slogan, and unfortunately, it will be immortalised with the party. Immediately subsequent to the first publication of the ‘slo fyah; mo fyah’ proclamation, an upsurge of violence descended upon our nation and its people. There were many killings; many public and private buildings were gutted by fires the enormity of which was never previously known to the nation. Can we then make the association between the ‘slo fyah; mo fyah’ proclamation and the vile acts that followed? Literally and figuratively, there were acts connoting ‘mo fyah’, and they were hardly in any ‘slo fyah’ mode.

The philosopher, psychoanalyst, historian, researcher, and scholar generally, will assert that robust conclusions are not reached by isolating a variable and examining its nature in a single environment on a single occasion. Instead, conclusions that can stand the test of time must be reached as a result of examination of a particular variable over time, controlling its environment. Let us adhere to the recommendation of these most credible experts.

Activist Mark Benschop and trade unionists Lincoln Lewis and Norris Witter were arrested on Wednesday, July 15 for disorderly behaviour and resisting arrest during an illegal protest outside the office of the Commissioner of Police, Eve Leary. They refused to pay bail and were detained overnight until they decided to accept bail privilege.

Hours after the release of the trio, there were public statements of an inciting type. Norris Witter exclaimed on a newscast: ‘The struggle has now begun; the fire has now begun to burn!’ Hours after, the main building of the Ministry of Health was totally consumed by fire. This building housed the offices of the Ministers of Health, Chief Medical Officer, the Secretariat, and other important departments of the sector.

This is certainly a huge setback to the nation, and in particular, to the social and health services to the citizenry.

Investigations unearthed incendiary devices at the site of the fire. This suggests that the destruction of the health facility was an act of arson.

Is it a mere coincidence that the Health Ministry’s building went up in flames on the back of Witter’s statements? Or can we now make an association and reach a conclusion?
GUY SCHOLARI