–That’s a horse of a different colour

THERE is an interesting situation that seems headed in a certain direction that suggests very much that it will be the pattern of response from a certain non-governmental organisation whenever a particular line of argument is expressed. It should be recalled that this grouping had been among the prominent groups and known personalities that heckled Minister Priya Manickchand when she took that now famous patriotic stand of defending Guyana’s sovereignty at the 238th Independence Anniversary observances of the United States.
The uproar that ensued is well known and documented, except to emphasise that this organisation, Society Against Sexual Orientation Discrimination (SASOD), was a part of the clique of well-known anti-government activists and personalities that took a particular line that was wholly political.
The fact, however, that must be emphasised is that SASOD, by its participation in such an activity, morphed into a political entity. Certainly, its head, Mr. Joel Simpson may rebound that such was his democratic right. But the stark contradiction here is that his heckling was really an attack on Minister Manickchand’s right of expression!
And he has now continued this further contradiction, hitherto, an assault on Bishop Juan Edghill, who had opined on the moral orientation of the societal group that Simpson’s outfit, SASOD, represents.
Given the fact that Guyana is a democratic country, where freedom of expression stands at its centre as an expression of the people’s will, it is only fair that the Bishop’s point of view be heard without it being attacked, or calls for his resignation being made. After all, he has exercised his right as a citizen of the Republic of Guyana, and spoke in the capacity of such.
But it does seem that such a right should only be the preserve of certain groups and personalities, such as Simpson and SASOD if one were to be guided by their attacks on those who publicly defend particular positions. For why should they be demanding the resignation of the Bishop?
Let it be understood that this is not an attack on Simpson’s person or his organisation. Instead, it is a repudiation of their response to an opinion offered in keeping with the democratic tenets of freedom of expression, which he and his group exhibited in an unrestrained manner when they were part of the ugly heckling, and to which they now object, because of an opinion that differs.