The Other Hate In Guyana

The other day I was waiting in a room and this lady looked at me and sneeringly told me about something a person of Asian descent had once done that was improper. She snarled her faced together and said, “It was the Chinese.”

The tone of her comment, her facial expression and the attitude that provoke this statement was nauseating. I walked away and asked my companion why people have to be that way. Racism is rampant in Guyana on all fronts, that much is true. However, there is another type of bias that is just as prevalent but gets very little attention – it is called misogyny.

Misogyny, or the hatred of women, is so embedded into our society that even most women have come to accept it as normal. But there is nothing “normal” about hate. Whether toward another race, another nationality or another gender – hate is always wrong.

Misogyny is evident even in our court system. The rape statistics recently released are atrocious alone. However, what is far more appalling is the number of convictions that DON’T put those thieves behind bars. I say thieves because these men steal something from women that can never be replaced – a woman’s peace of mind and her right to consent. It is a violation of the most heinous proportions.

These types of men should be removed from society for a good long time, but instead the courts have given them free reign to rape again and again. And be assured, they will rape again and next time it could be your daughter, wife or mother instead of a stranger.

Another example of misogyny in Guyana is obvious in how difficult it is for an abuse victim to find shelter, report violence and obtain protection. Every day there women all over the nation who shudder at the arrival of heavy footsteps belonging to her husband, lover or father. She knows those footsteps bring pain and more misery – and she knows there is nowhere to turn for help.

Some of these women even fear for their very lives. They remain stuck in a situation that could end in death, yet have no way to get out. She lives in constant torment at the hands of someone who is supposed to love her. If she has children, the hopeless situation increases exponentially. There are a few programs in place and some positive changes have recently been implemented to help these women, but the system is far from being sufficient.

There are also many forms of misogyny that may not be as drastic as these first two; however, they are just as poignant. This includes such facts as the low number of women in the corporate workplace, that women are under represented in politics and even that women are still expected to be the primary caregivers for the children instead of maintaining an equal role of childrearing to allow the mother an opportunity to pursue her own endeavours in life too.

Did anyone stop to think that she might want to do something else besides raise kids? Or does anyone care to know? The answer to both questions is usually, “No.” There is no doubt that women love their children and have developed, by necessity, a nurturing ability. However, it is shortsighted to assume that women have no dreams or aspirations to use their God-given intelligence in other areas as well.

Women are just as intelligent and capable as any man. In fact, I know women who can run rings around the IQ’s of many men. Where are these women? In their homes waiting for the children to grow up, which by then opportunity will have been long gone.

There are so many women who will never realize their full potential because of the chains placed on them by society. Likewise, society will never realize its full potential until it unchains the women. To block women from participation in every single aspect of society is to shoot ourselves in the foot.

When you put a hard-working woman in a place of leadership, you are all but guaranteed success. At least far more success than you would get from a lazy, self-absorbed man who is so busy catching a looking at the latest rear-end to walk by that he can’t get any substantial work done.

Drastic change needs to come to Guyana. It is time for the women of this country to stop hiding their beautiful intelligence in deference to an insecure man in their life. Ladies, arm yourselves with a solid education and step into a bright future. Take risks and open businesses, participate in politics and expect respect from those around you. Change will not be handed to us, we have to demand it and be willing to fight for it if necessary.

There will undoubtedly be women who read this letter and, because they are comfortable in their traditional chains, will get testy because I am pushing the boundaries of social norms. Dear Lady, it is for you that I write this letter. You may not understand or appreciate it today, but one day you will be glad that someone is standing up for your rights and the rights of your daughters.

Likewise, there will be some men who say, “I don’t hate my wife.” However, hate comes in many shades of colours. For example, when you came home from work yesterday, did you offer to help cook dinner or did you demand that your dinner be served immediately? The answer to this question will determine your level of hate.

And, Dear Sir, what will you do if you find hate in your heart? Will you excuse it as a cultural expectation, like that lady who snarled her face at the “Chinese”? Or will you love your wife and change? Will you ask her what she wants from life and help her find the answer that will make her happy?

If the men of Guyana would take these small baby steps, this country would see a revolution like never before. Who knows, maybe we could even start loving other races too.

- Stella Ramsaroop

Socialism is great in theory, but not practical for Guyana

This week, the PPP announced their plan to continue with “business as usual” – as George Bush would say (see Stabroek News article PPP rolls out new Guyana programme-says it remains true to socialism for more information). The obvious feeling is that everything is just fine with the country and nothing needs to change. According to Guyana's leaders, we just need to “stay the course” - another ridiculous Bush euphemism.

I am no capitalist by any stretch of the imagination. However, I am very much a realist and the reality is that socialism is not working for Guyana. I am also an activist, and when I see something that is broken, my first instinct is to attempt to fix the problem, which is why I cannot understand why Guyana 's leaders will not even make the slightest attempt at changing a failing system.

I am a strong believer in the core ideals of socialism. Marx's famous axiom, “From each according to his ability and to each according to his need” is a value I hold dear to my heart, and try to demonstrate each day of my life.

I am a supporter of the foundational thought of socialism, in that it puts the need of the community before the need of the one.

There is so much good that comes from this ideology that it is hard to see why it does not work in even a small country. The answer to the $10 million question is implementation. The reason socialism does not work for Guyana (and for many other countries) is because mere humans implement it.

Humans have this nasty little tendency to lust after power and money. Even the best of us can get swept away when a heady power surge is plugged into our feeble system. It makes us feel immortal.

Some get addicted to power and seek the highest seat in even the most humbling of circumstances. The love of money, we know, is the root of all evil. Yet we cannot live without it and, therefore, are constantly driven to find more and more every single day.

In the implementation process of socialism, humans sometime decide to keep the power and money all for themselves. Therefore, people become mere pawns in their whimsical power struggle game and the lofty principles of socialism are trampled underfoot. The good of the many is forgotten in a fight for power. In the meantime, the country keeps trudging along in poverty.

Where do we draw the line? Where should we relinquish power and refuse money for the sake of our conscience? Some would say never. They are wrong – and probably a capitalist. So how does a good socialist find his way into office just to turn into a money grubbing, power-hungry politician? Like I said, we are all human.

I do not believe socialism in its full glory is the answer for Guyana's woes at this point in time. Despite the lofty values, socialism meets its end every time a human touches it. And such is the case with Guyana. It has not brought the desired results and the country is no better off economically than it was ten years ago.

For example, the PPP just announced that it wants to build a strong modern economy and strive for financial independence. How is this going to happen?

They are going to focus on encouraging investment in the productive sector of the economy, which is abundantly clear by the way they just recently chased off a substantial investor in this sector.

The focus will be on the sugar, rice and mining markets. However, this is where the focus has been for years and it has not brought about the desired results.

The system is broke. Is it not apparent to anyone in the PPP that to be competitive on the world stage today there needs to be a focus on technology? Rice and sugar alone will not make the country financially independent. If the PPP wants a modern economy, the most logical step is to begin modernising our thought process.

The PPP's attempt at hoping no one will notice the sad state of the country if they pretend it is economically sound is embarrassing.

Do they really think the people are so naïve that they can't look around and see just how bad things really are? Staying the course is not doing the job. Change is what the PPP should have given Guyana this week, not business as usual.

- Stella Ramsaroop

Beware of Stella, Freddie - Lloyd Marshall

This letter by Lloyd Marshall was published in the Kaieteur News.

Beware of Stella, Freddie

Dear Editor,

The letter entitled “My groove is fully intact Mr. Kissoon”, which was written by Stella Ramsaroop and appeared in your issue of Tuesday July 26, is a literary gem. It is rife with sardonic humour but at the same time compelling in substance.

Stella Ramsaroop's letter prompted me to locate and read the article by Freddie Kissoon which provoked this brilliant response. In the unlikely event that I should arrogate to myself the title of Social Commentator, I would be very cautious about engaging Ms. Ramsaroop in a literary exchange.

Incidentally Mr. Kissoon, the calypso about the Trinidadian Stella was sung by Lord Nelson and not the Mighty Duke.

Lloyd Marshall

My Groove Is Fully Intact, Mr. Kissoon

Mr. Kissoon, This Letter is About You

I did not want you to fret about my groove, so I felt obliged to let you know that it is still fully intact. Also, there are some other pesky little issues we need to clear up as well.

Firstly, allow me to dispense with the formalities of manners. I want to offer my condolences to you, dear Mr. Kissoon. You mentioned that dabbling in Guyanese politics might cause one to lose their marbles – and it is more than obvious from your response to my letter that you have been dabbling for quite some time since yours appear to be all but gone as well. Again, my condolences to you and yours.

That said; I would like to point out the obvious. You went on and on in your response to my letter about how I took shots at you and Kaieteur News. However, if you read my letter closely, you will find I never once mentioned either of the two. I never even hinted or provide any promising inclinations that would allow you to come to such a conclusion.

I’m not sure if you are just a bit jumpy, what with all the suits flying around, or if you are also plagued with bouts of narcissism that causes you think everything is about you. Either way, your conclusion to my letter is still wrong.

In fact, the primary point was to express my extreme dismay of a newspaper being sued by a president. I am a firm believer in the freedom of the press and would fight tooth and nail to ensure its continued independence from government interference. I honestly had no thoughts of any suit concerning you or Kaieteur News. In fact, I thought as journalists you and your co-workers would appreciate my stance on the freedom of the press.

As a side, and because the subject warranted explanation, I addressed Mr. Ram’s freedom of expression and his letter. I do believe in his right to free expression and said as much. What I did not say was that he “has a greater right to his opinion” than you – which you accused me of doing in your column.

In fact, your name was never mentioned once in my letter because I did not place any connection between the President’s suit against SN and Mr. Ram’s suit against you. I was solely on a tirade about his Excellency’s slight to democracy and you just didn’t play a part in that.

I hope I haven’t disappointed you too much. Although my first letter had nothing whatsoever to do with you, this one is all about you. That should make you happy. I really did appreciate the song - you are so very sweet. And the movie review was simply riveting. If nothing else, your column was entertaining.

Just for fun, and to show you that I bear not ill will, I even considered some word play by injecting clever little comments about Freddie Kruger and how I could be your nightmare on Elm Street. However, I’m just not that witty and I figured with all your marbles gone you might think I was being mean to you again.

It is easy to see how someone as sensitive as you would not do well in politics. It really does take a thick skin to deal with all of those brass politicians. You seem to be more of a poet type who enjoys a good song and a steamy movie. However, as you pointed out, I personally find my groove in politics.

While I appreciate your advice to steer clear of the nastiness of Guyanese politics, I must confess that I’m having way too much fun with all the merriment of the songs, soldering and sarcasm to stop now – not to mention my cheeky little tendency for doing the exact opposite of what I am told.

Your concern for me is touching, but my groove is still fully intact and I think it is high time a woman tossed in her two cents about the state of Guyana. Perhaps a womanly touch, especially a woman with a groove, can help everyone else find their marbles – even you, Dear Mr. Kissoon.

- Stella Ramsaroop

How the Guyanese Stella lost her groove - Freddie Kissoon

Here's Freddie Kissoon's response to my letter concerning the suit by the President against Stabroek News and Christopher Ram.

The Trinidadian Stella may have been the most pretensive of the three Stellas, though not a bit the least interesting comparatively.

The Mighty Duke sang the story of the Trinidadian Stella. But I found the version of the Jamaican group, the Starlites, more hilarious.

While the Mighty Duke tried to soften up the image of the Trinidadian Stella, it is the reggae interpretation that needs highlighting too. Here are some of the lyrics of the Jamaican depiction of the Trinidadian Stella. The song is called “Soldering.” You will see how soldering drove the Trinidadian Stella to be unfair to her old man:

She say she don't want no young man Cause young man drink too much white rum

She say she don't want no soul man

Cause soul man fast asleep in bed

She say she don't want no dreadlocks

Cause dreadlocks smoke too much Irie

Soldering is wuh de young girl want

When ah check it out, de young back on the scene

When ah check it out, the soul man in de groove

While de old man he watching de move

Soldering is wuh de young girl want

It was because of her love for soldering that the Trinidadian Stella left her old man. But what a duplicitous woman she was. According to the Mighty Duke, Stella told her aging lover that she was going to a wedding, when he saw her all dressed up. The poor geriatric didn't believe her because he suspected that Stella was only interested in soldering.

He followed her and saw her and her young lover about to be pronounced as man and wife in front of a priest. The poor, old romantic threw himself in front of Stella and poured out his soul to Stella, telling the priest Stella is the only woman he loved.

Stella then held her old guy, wrapped him round her arms, and walked out of the church with him, leaving a stunned young boyfriend wondering why Stella turned her back on soldering.

Further North, in the United States , the America Stella went on a Prozac binge because she lost her grooves and wanted them back desperately. The vivacious American Stella went to Jamaica . She picked up a young Kingston youth, twenty years her junior. He gave the American Stella a bucket load of soldering.

The American Stella got her groove back, married her young Jamaican athlete and took him to the US for soldering. She made bucket loads of money by writing her story with her little boy entitled “How Stella got her groove back.” She made more dollars when she sold the movie rights and it was brilliantly played by the subtly, deeply talented Angela Bassett.

Then the American Stella lost her groove again. Four months ago, Stella found out that her junior husband was as vivacious as her and wanted to have soldering just like her. She has sued for a divorce citing his homosexual proclivities which he admitted to in court documents.

But her AC/DC husband is fighting to have a share of the wealth of the American Stella because he (or is it she?) claimed that Stella made a fortune out of their life story.

People, he claimed, would not have bought her books like the top seller, “Waiting to Exhale” if it weren't for the profile she got out of their internationally known romance.

The Guyanese Stella, unlike her Trinidadian and American counterparts, has an interest in politics. But in the process of dabbling in Guyanese politics, she lost her groove. In Guyanese politics, you can also lose your marbles.

Guyanese politics is not for the faint hearted. Even a strong character like Burnham succumbed to a psychotic breakdown. If Burnham could lose his marbles, then anyone else could.

I hope the Guyanese Stella knows that it may be impossible to get her groove back. The American Stella is still looking. Someone said that Guyana is on her watch list. Given the number of young men in Guyana who desire an American visa, the America Stella will certainly get her groove back.

The Trinidadian Stella is in her eighties now. Can the Guyanese Stella get her groove back?

Last week the Guyanese Stella took a dig at me and the Kaieteur News. She wrote a letter in the Kaieteur News and the Stabroek News in which she showed torrid displeasure at the President's libel suit against Christopher Ram.

Let's quote the Guyanese Stella who resents what she refers to as the President's attempt to muzzle Ram. She writes; “The President is suing a newspaper for printing a letter to the editor. My mouth is still wide open in sheer astonishment.”

I hope the Guyanese Stella closes her mouth soon because if she doesn't, she may swallow the marbles she lost. This would be serious because how then can she breathe? The Guyanese Stella is certainly an infatuated person as her Trinidadian and American versions. She doesn't want the President to litigate against Mr. Ram because at one point in her letter, she gets very trenchant in her criticism when she remarks that “Mr. Ram has a right to his opinion…whether this opinion is valid is for the readers to decide.”

Poor Stella from Guyana . At a Freudian level, she obviously believes Mr. Christopher Ram is a superior person to me. Well, I don't mind that. Shall I lose sleepless nights because the Guyanese Stella thinks that Mr. Ram has a greater right to his opinion than I do?

It is alright for Mr. Ram to have free access to his opinion but not me. At one point in her letter, she also shows vexation that the President sued the Stabroek News too. Mr. Ram did not only sue me but also the Kaieteur News. The paper and I will vigorously defend ourselves. We believe we are entitled to publish views that are matter of public importance.

I am going to end with some stories about the right to one's opinion and the importance of the Kaieteur News to freedom in Guyana for your benefit, Stella. When I was a columnist with the Stabroek News, Dr. Hughley Hanoman sued me and the paper. Mr. David De Caires called me to his office and informed me that co-founder of the Stabroek News and its attorney, Mr. Miles Fitzpatrick, will not defend me and that I will have to get my own lawyer, something unthinkable in the newspaper business.

Mr. Khemraj Ramjattan came to my rescue. Co-founder, Mr. Fitzpatrick stopped me from being a columnist with his paper and the paper published an editorial note in which Mr. Fitzpatrick advised its then senior reporter, Ms. Gitanjali Singh, to report me to the police over a disagreement on my dismissal from UG.

I never threatened Ms. Singh but Mr. Fitzpatrick didn't ask me if I did. Then, days later another editorial note appeared. Written by David De Caires, it supported my unjust and illegal dismissal from UG.

My dear Stella, how about that for the right to express one's opinion? There was a time, my dear Stella, when people lined up at the Stabroek News to beg to have their views published. Many were denied.

Now there is the Kaieteur News which carried your letter, Stella. Dr. Anand Daljeet had a letter on UG's Vice-Chancellor, James Rose, rejected by the Stabroek News last week, but he wasn't bothered – Kaieteur News printed it in full.

The Kaieteur News and I are defending our libel suit that Mr. Ram brought against us Stella. In the meantime, I hope you get your groove back.

Read My Response

Stella Ramsaroop's fears are seriously misplaced - Robert Persaud

Here's Robert Persuad's well written response to my letter regarding the President's suit against Stabroek News and Christopher Ram.

Stella Ramsaroop’s fears are seriously misplaced

Dear Editor,

I have read a letter by one Stella Ramsaroop in the daily edition of the Kaieteur News (20-07-05) and the Stabroek News (21-07-05).

The writer’s fears are noted but seriously misplaced and it is because of this that I feel compelled to respond to her.

The constitution is quoted and relevant articles mentioned. Unfortunately though, the letter writer obviously failed to read those articles and the other articles relevant thereto in their entirety. Article 40 (2) of the Constitution clearly provides that “the fundamental rights provisions shall effect for the purpose of affording protection of the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual subject to such limitations of that protection as are contained in those provisions, being any individual does not prejudice the rights and freedom of others or the public interest: Article 146 clearly states that a person shall not be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of expression … but that nothing contained in any law shall not be held to be inconsistent with or in contravention of Article 146 to the extent that the said law makes provision for the purpose of protecting …, the rights and freedoms of other persons.

I would be the first to agree with Ms. Ramsaroop that freedom of expression is an essential freedom in any democratic society. One would recall that it was the PPP/Civic Government, which the President currently heads, that restored this freedom which is relied upon these days as if it were always a part of our culture. The President has always and will always continue to defend and champion the citizen’s freedom and rights of expression, as His Excellency recognises that a society in which the said freedom is denied is a society doomed to intellectual paralysis. It is because of the writer’s freedom of expression which is now guaranteed to her that she is able to enjoy the freedom to offer her opinion publicly, however misguided that opinion may be.

We must not, however, confuse democracy with lawlessness. With every freedom comes a corresponding responsibility which must be treated with as much importance as the very freedom itself.

Mr. Ram’s and the Stabroek News’ right and freedom to print and publish must not prejudice the rights and freedoms of others or the public interest. The writer herself recognises that in the Declaration of Chapultepec, it is stated that “no news medium or journalist may be punished for publishing the truth or criticising or denouncing the government”. TRUTH is the operative word. Truth is not a relative term. Mr. Ram did not take the time to determine if what he was saying was the truth or perhaps he did and carelessly, without regard for anyone’s reputation, went ahead and spouted his libel.

The Government welcomes healthy criticism and where such criticism is constructive, always seeks to effectively interpret same to benefit Guyana and her people. One must not, however, under the cover of offering an opinion in our free society, maliciously print and publish that which is wholly untrue and cannot be substantiated.

Moreover, it is dangerous and a bad example to allow a minority in our society with their own narrow agenda to blatantly issue libelous statements against members of the administration. The constitutional right to freedom of expression, which is spoken about, does not allow the printing of a false and malicious statement which is likely to undermine public confidence in the conduct of public affairs. So said the Court in the 1990 case of Hector v. Attorney General of Antigua. In our own local Courts in Jagan v. Burnham, the Court was specific that freedom of expression does not include the right to libel or defame a man’s reputation or his office/ businesses. (Many Courts both locally and internationally have so determined).

Critique is one thing. Blatant misrepresentations which are entirely fallacious are another. It would have been remiss of His Excellency, the President, not to have stood up against the series of blatant injustices committed against him, as a citizen or our dear land, by Christopher Ram and the Stabroek News. And this is not the only instance where the President, his Government and his Party have been subjected to this type of malicious reporting. There are strong reasons to believe that the consistency and frequency of attacks and misrepresentation from certain quarters represent an organised campaign and not errors of judgement or instances of poor journalism.

I challenge the writer to tell us which democratic Court has “tossed out” suits which are clearly libelous. I would, however, wish to encourage the writer to continue to enjoy the freedoms guaranteed to her with due regard for the freedoms guaranteed to her fellow citizens.

I am constrained by the on-going legal proceedings on the issues raised. But there is much more I would have wished to cite so that the letter writer appreciate the pattern of libel and distortions targeted against the Government by some sections of the media. I invite Ms. Ramsaroop to contact my office and I will present her with a dossier of libelous and malicious reports, many of which have been ignored, so she can appreciate the gravity of the situation.

Perhaps, this legal action can help stop the hypocrisy of political agitators who masquerade as media operatives and do great harm to the journalistic profession.

All for your information.
Robert Persaud
Information Liaison to the President