THE news this week that the police had detained someone for questioning in relation to racist statements made on Facebook posts which also made threats against the life of the President is very disquieting. We live in a country that tasted the nasty brew of ethnic violence five decades ago, and, as a nation, we are still trying to overcome the legacy of that violence.We appreciate that there are very deep emotional responses to these reports. On the one hand, there are those who are enraged by the vitriol contained in the posts; on the other hand, there are others who are enraged that the police have moved to take action against those making the posts.

There are two issues at play here. First, there is the issue of racist speech. This matter has to be handled very carefully. Despite our great advances in ethnic healing, some of our everyday speeches in Guyana, made away from the glare of the public, are still characterised by our ethnic prejudices.

This is understandable, give our deeply charged ethnic rivalry, especially in the political and economic arenas. It is not surprising that some of this speech sometimes spills into the public arena. This is in no way excusing overt and even covert racist speech. The fact of the matter is that such speech should have no place in our society.

The police are reportedly considering filing charges under the Racial Hostility Act against the alleged authors of the posts. This would be unchartered territory. The challenge would be to determine what, under the law, constitutes racial hostility.

In Guyana, we don’t often make a distinction between ethnicity as identity and ethnicity as political and racial domination and superiority. Whereas the former is by definition not a negative phenomenon, the latter is. In our haste to paint every reference to ethnicity with a broad negative brush, we have, over time, engendered much confusion as to what constitutes racial incitement and racism.

We therefore urge caution on this matter. Once we begin to prosecute ordinary citizens on this score, it could open the proverbial can of worms in terms of lawfully going after political opponents.

We now come to the second issue before us: the threat to the President’s life. As far as we are concerned, such action should not be tolerated. Threatening the life of any citizen is unacceptable, but threatening the lives of public officials is especially outrageous. Further, threatening the President’s life within the context of making racially charged comments takes the matter to another level.

In our highly charged environment, such a threat represents a clear and present danger. We simply cannot have a society in which citizens express such thoughts in public without fear of sanction.

Whatever the outcome of this matter, this is a wake-up call for Guyana. The issue here is whether the hate emanating from those Facebook comments is more the exception than the rule. This can only be determined by consistent study of our behaviours in relation to ethnicity.

While we hope that such sentiments do not represent the rule, we have to take cognizance of them. There is need for all our political leaders to come to the realization that if we are not vigilant and responsible, our society could slip right back into that slippery slope of ethnic hostility that could quickly deteriorate into mindless conflict.