Some aspects of the UN’s Human Rights dialogue have made a mockery of the word expert

The UN Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner just wrapped up its dialogue with Guyana. Some parts of the report of the dialogue are catastrophically inaccurate, while others could benefit a great deal from actual knowledge of this country, as well as greater professional independence of the “experts.”

One issue that truly boggles the mind is as follows – “A Committee Expert said 90 per cent of mass media were reportedly either controlled by the State party or owned by Indo-Guyanese who supported the

Government, and that Afro-Guyanese faced censorship as a result.” While I unequivocally support the Human Rights Dialogue, I must part company with the “expert” who thinks that Kaieteur News, Glen Lall, GHK Lall, one of the Peeping Toms, and scores of letter writers who are Indians, are supporters of the PPP.

It is shocking that anyone who knows even the bare minimum about this country can claim that there is censorship. The plain truth is that this writer is probably the most censored in the modern history of Guyana. More than 80% of what I have submitted to Kaieteur News and Stabroek News have been rejected. These two outlets provide the strongest evidence that there are considerable limitations in reducing Guyana’s politics to race. Indians have leading roles in both, yet these are among the most anti-PPP platforms in the country. Stabroek News’ “In the Diaspora” column, for instance, has been a relentless and conspicuously biased avenue of professionally manicured attacks against PPP administrations. I regret to say that some aspects of the dialogue have made a mockery of the word “expert.”

Sincerely,

Dr. Randy Persaud

Office of the President