THE Kaieteur News and the Opposition parties have continued to misinterpret the private conversation between the Attorney General and his ‘friend’, Leonard Gildharie despite the fact that the Director of Public Prosecutions has made it pellucid that’ that private conversation contained no threat as defined by the Criminal Laws. There is no doubt about the political agenda of the Opposition Parties and their media.

The Kaieteur News continued to publish sensational and misleading headlines such as, ‘Anil Nandlall has made a criminal threat,’ ‘Nandlall’s threats to K/News’, and ‘Nandlall repeats threats to Kaieteur News’. The battery of lawyers at the disposal of the Kaieteur News, AFC and APNU should explain to Glenn Lall the difference between a ‘warning’ and a ‘threat’.
Let us look at the latest article which stated that, ‘Nandlall repeats threats to Kaieteur News’. In that article the Attorney General simply stated that what he had said ‘should be seen as a warning and if you cross the road carelessly you are likely to be struck down by an errant driver.’ Even Nagamootoo inadvertently admitted that, ‘Nandlall has given this country a warning that it is possible that you can have a terrorist attack on newspapers and that journalists can be killed.’ So indeed Nagamootoo, even though a neophyte lawyer, knows the difference between a ‘warning’ and a ‘threat.’ However, he then realised his mistake and added that, ‘Nandlall cannot escape such types of threats because peoples’ lives are at stake.’ What a chameleon! Even Dr Roopnarine spoke of ‘threats by Nandlall.’ A threat is a declaration of intention or determination to inflect punishment, injury, death or loss on someone’ whereas a warning is simply to give notice or advice or intimation to a person or group of danger, impending evil, possible harm or anything else unfavourable.’ Clearly, what the Attorney General was in effect saying is that if the Kaieteur News continues to provoke and attack people personally there might be repetition of what happened in 2006. If I told my friend that if you continue to curse people you will get beaten, should my friend take that as a threat or as a warning?
Now just a few weeks after this warning by the Attorney General, the Paris terrorist attack was unleashed by a Muslim Group because of blasphemous cartoons published against Prophet Muhammad. These publishers were both warned and threatened by Muslim extremists but failed to realise the gravity of those warnings and threats. Again, Mr. Nagamootoo claimed in his dramatic style that ‘Nandlall could have written the script’ of that attack. Little does this man realise that there is a limit to what you can do with peoples’ emotions and beliefs. This was expressed by no other than Pope Francis. The Pope said ‘it was wrong to provoke others by insulting their religion and that one could expect a reaction from such abuse…and…if his great friend says a swear word against my mother, then he is going to get a punch’ and he punched the air. He continued by saying that, ‘it’s normal, it’s normal. One cannot provoke, one cannot insult other people’s faith, one cannot make fun of faith. There is a limit. Every religion has its dignity.’
If we reconstruct the Pope’s statement and superimpose Nandlall’s conversation, it can read as follows, ‘if Glenn Lall continues to hurt and provoke people and hurt their dignity then someone may react to such abuse and innocent people may get hurt’. If Nandlall’s conversation can be construed as a threat then the Pope’s statement should be similarly construed. Nagamootoo, Christopher Ram, the Guyana Bar Association and the Women’s Groups should once and for keep their mouth shut. What is their take on this?
The Attorney General has been vindicated once again, this time globally, and so has our President’s alleged ‘slapping’ statement at Aishalton. I want Kaieteur News and Stabroek News to analyse the Pope’s ‘punching’ and President’s ‘slapping’ and publish its findings.

HASEEF YUSUF
AFC Councillor-Region 6