Trades Union Congress meets OAS on free speech violation in Guyana

The Guyana Trades Union Congress (GTUC), the federated body of the majority of trades union in Guyana, met with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), an organ of the Organisation of American States (OAS) to report on the state of free speech in Guyana, particularly the denial of access to state-owned media. The tax funded state-owned media in Guyana, which are print and broadcasting (television and radio), has monopoly on the widest of reach, media platforms and presence in all ten administrative regions.

The Congress, represented by its General Secretary Lincoln Lewis, engaged the OAS’ Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression recently and outlined the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) practice of denying the federated body access to state-owned media.

Lewis, in an interview with Village Voice News,  said he met with virtually with the Office of the Special Rapporteur two Mondays ago, December 4, and highlighted the government’s acts of discrimination and supported the GTUC’s contention with evidence.

He asserted examination of state-media will show while other media houses provided coverage for the trades union May Day March and Rally (1^st May) the state-owned Guyana Chronicle did not.

The GTUC 5^th Triennial Congress which was held November 8^th to 10^th, the General Secretary said the media houses were invited to provide coverage, but whereas other media houses provided coverage the state media did not.

Citing another instance, Lewis said he responded to then acting President Mark Phillips’ report false assurance to a visiting IACHR team the PPP Government does not practice discrimination, but the state-owned Guyana Chronicle refused to carry his response. Phillips met with the delegation on November 28, and told them “as a Government, we practise no acts of discrimination.” Lewis said he was able to get his message out to the public, countering Phillips’ deception in media houses like Stabroek News, Kaieteur News and this publication, not the Guyana Chronicle. Lewis’ letter pointed out several acts of discrimination by the Government.

The  right to respond for some individuals and sections of society is always denied in the state media and raises serious concern for cultivating an enlightened society of which information, knowledge and truths are fundamentals, he charged. “Whilst other media houses uphold this tenet, the state media flout this with impunity, thereby denying Guyanese opportunity for clarity on issues raised.”

Going outside of the discriminatory treatment the Trades Union Congress receives from the state-owned media the General Secretary said he informed the Special Rapporteur’s office the state media also deny access to or the right to respond to persons even though they would often carry negative and misleading stories from government operatives and allies.

The aforesaid behaviour, he said, is also supported by some private media working closely with or in tandem with the PPP regime to also deny opposition or opposition perceived sources access to, or the right to respond to persons even though they would carry negative messages from government and government supporting forces.  This, he said, is widely believed to be done often due to fear of government backlash such as withdrawal of advertisements.

Lewis asserted that “there is no doubt in our minds that these actions are representative of an orchestrated effort by the Irfaan Ali/Bharrat Jagdeo regime to stifle dissent and limit alternative views to those which they propagate to influence the minds and behaviours of the Guyanese population.”

This denial, he said, has been on ongoing practice that has resulted in many now engaging, consciously and unconsciously in self-censorship, being fearful that daring to speak a narrative different from that adumbrated by that of the governing party will get them in trouble, where they are attacked verbally, physically, economically, and they can even be incarcerated, and face made to face trumped-up charges even though there might be no intent to prosecute. “In other words, they are tried in a court of public opinion and not through the judicial system.”

Article 146 ‘Protection of freedom of expression’ in the Constitution of Guyana expressly states, the following:-

“(1) Except with his or her own consent, no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his or her freedom of expression, that is to say, freedom to hold opinions without interference, freedom to receive ideas and information without interference, freedom to communicate ideas and information without interference and freedom from interference with his or her correspondence.

“(2) Nothing contained in or done under the authority of any law shall be held to be inconsistent with or in contravention of this article to the extent that the law in question makes provision –

“(a) that is reasonably required in the interests of defence, public safety, public order, public morality or public health;

“(b) that is reasonably required for the purpose of protecting the reputations, rights, and freedoms of other persons or the private lives of persons concerned in legal proceedings, preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, maintaining the authority and independence of the courts, regulating the technical administration or the technical operation of telephony, telegraphy, posts, wireless broadcasting or television, or ensuring fairness and balance in the dissemination of information to the public; or

“(c) that imposes restrictions upon public officers or officers of any corporate body established on behalf of the public or owned by or on behalf of the Government of Guyana;

“(d) that imposes restrictions upon any person, institution, body, authority or political party from taking any action or advancing, disseminating or supporting any idea, which may result in racial or ethnic divisions among the people of Guyana.

“(3) Freedom of expression in this article does not relate to hate speeches or other expressions, in whatever form, capable of exciting hostility or ill-will against any person or class of persons.”