RECENTLY, a debate started in certain quarters over the use of ‘negro’ as a word to describe persons with African ancestry who are Guyanese. Attorney-at-law Nigel Hughes is the main proponent of banning the word more so from being used by the Guyana Police Force in their descriptions of African Guyanese. He has written to the Ethnic Relations Commission (ERC) and other entities seeking for the word to be blacklisted or end its usage as it is discriminatory and has negative connotations.

It has been suggested now by an organisation, the International Decade for People of African Descent of Guyana, that the government take steps to have the usage of the word outlawed and strongly prohibited as it is highly insensitive and objectionable to Afro-Guyanese. It held a symposium at the Critchlow Labour College featuring Hughes, Winston Felix and David Hinds, among others.

Other politicians, largely from the opposition, have added their voices to the debate. They have all agreed that the word should not be used when describing persons of a particular race or ethnicity.
The same opposition politicians and public commentators have attacked the PPP/C Government out of the blue. They alleged that Attorney General, Anil Nandlall and the current Cabinet are not in favour of prohibiting the use of the word and are guilty of stalling the progress towards this end. They have also alleged that this is a clear case of the government supporting a system of racism and discrimination rooted in words and actions that date back to slavery and colonial days.

Firstly, the AG never objected to banning the use of the word ‘negro’. Similarly, the PPP/C Government, through Vice President Dr Bharrat Jagdeo, has never had objections to the request made by Hughes, IDPADA-G, and other bodies.

The government welcomed the move to the ERC and hoped the matter would get its deserved attention. The government has not mounted a fight or resistance to the effort aimed at change as Guyana is ever-changing and evolving.

So, there is no amount of political points to be had by the politicians who are guilty of pushing various narratives in the public domain for sinister motives. This is a dead issue because each ethnic group or race in Guyana is entitled to be respected for how it wishes to be referred to in light of its past cultural and historical experiences.

Therefore, it is unfair to label the PPP/C Government and by extension the Guyana Police Force as uncaring and unresponsive to sensitivities of a particular matter. The latter has gone out of its way to comply with the more serious changes in the laws and legislation in the country, training hundreds of its personnel in various matters.

Give Jack he jacket! There was no need for a symposium on Friday last and IDPADA-G knows this. There was no need to be dramatic or eccentric over the use of the word. The public was not feeling the use of the word either and it was just a matter of time before the police and hospitals underwent the necessary process to change the systems.

Secondly, Hughes, IDPADA-G, and the opposition politicians were caught with their pants down and the sight was not pleasing to the eyes. Hughes was trying to distract attention from the cause of Kidackie Amsterdam’s arrest and subsequent charge by the GPF. So, he noticed this misstep by the police and rang the alarm, starting a whole movement knowing fully well that tempers and emotions would flare. It would cause a direct appeal to one’s race and identity, and one’s – ‘Guyanese-ness’. It would cause the government and GPF to be painted a certain way and public outcry of African Guyanese.

This, maybe, is what Hughes intended to happen. But it fizzled when he teamed up with IDPADA-G and the opposition politicians who then blamed the system for allowing the continued use of this derogatory term to describe African Guyanese. They failed at the attempt to blame the current PPP/C Government despite their claim that GPF was an agent through which alleged PPP racism and discrimination were fuelled. They also failed in their attempt to score cheap political points and get the sympathy of US Congressman Jonathan Jackson who was still in the country.

After all, the police have been using the word for 150 – 180 years and this is the first time it has been objected to formally. This is the first time a group feels so strongly about it since Guyana gained independence in 1966. Also, why did Hughes not raise the issue with the PPP or APNU+AFC government if it caused him so much consternation? Why did he not choose another means of engaging the police or the AG in NOT using the word? Why did the public symposium not focus on sensitisation about the issue as opposed to broadsiding the government and police, and seeming to play the victim of political and racial discrimination? Why did the outdated politicians Felix and Hinds speak at the symposium if the aim was changing the paradigm to a more acceptable word?

These are, respectfully, washed-up and murky politicians who offer no real perspective to the debate other than confusion powder and ‘let’s blame the PPP’.

Thirdly, Amsterdam, an African Guyanese, is still charged with the offence of using a computer system to encourage or incite persons to commit a criminal offence against the President of Guyana, in contravention of Section 18(1)(c) of the Cyber Crime Act, No 16 of 2018. Amsterdam allowed a caller on a social media programme to advocate for the decapitation of the President and three Ministers of the Government – all of whom happen to be East Indians. He is on record thanking the caller for his contribution and proceeded to make other damming statements.

Where is the public outrage on the content of the call? Why the silence? Where is the condemnation or can it be a covert expression of support?

Recall, Article 146 of the Constitution which guarantees “Freedom of Expression” expressly except hate speeches and other expressions capable of exciting hostility or ill-will. No ethnic group or Guyanese, regardless of what they prefer to be called, has the “freedom” to publish or aid and abet the publication of murderous threats, incitement to violence, seditious remarks, or any statement capable of exciting hostilities. The publication of such statements constitutes serious criminal offences under the Laws of Guyana. So, Hughes, IDPADA-G, black supremacists, cults or politicians on social media cannot lawfully seek the refuge of “Freedom of Expression” when they make their criminal publications.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander! What is good for former Presidents David Granger, the late Desmond Hoyte and Forbes Burnham is good for Presidents Irfaan Ali, Donald Ramotar and Bharrat Jagdeo. Wrong is wrong and right is right.

Finally, the public must not give the campaign of Hughes, IDPADA-G and others much time and thought. The public must not respect these politicians and attorneys when they cry crocodile tears, and throw their tantrums. This is just another storm in a teacup. The opposition, through Hughes, wants to make a mountain out of a molehill. Respectfully, for an intelligent man, maybe he had a moment of dumbness.