Latest update June 17th, 2025 12:40 AM
Jun 17, 2025 Letters
Dear Editor,
Kaieteur News – The remand of Daniel Wharton (“Baby Skello”) under Guyana’s blasphemous libel law has brought to the fore an urgent national conversation. It concerns not merely the use of an antiquated law, but more fundamentally, the moral and constitutional nature of freedom of expression in a democratic society.
Let me be clear from the outset: I do not write to defend the lyrical quality, moral tone, or artistic value of Mr. Wharton’s song. I write instead to defend the principle that speech, particularly in a plural society such as ours, must remain free even when it offends, provokes, or challenges our cherished beliefs. If freedom of speech is to mean anything at all, it must include the freedom to offend, for to be able to think and speak risks being offensive. This is not a reckless or anarchic proposition. It is a foundational truth of constitutional democracy, grounded in legal, philosophical, and historical foundations.
We must distinguish between offence and harm. These are two terms conflated in the current debate. While I fully understand that members of the Hindu community, among others, found Mr. Wharton’s lyrics distasteful and spiritually insulting, the mere fact of offence cannot suffice as legal grounds for remand. In any democracy worth the name, citizens are free to criticise, satirise, and even crudely challenge religion and politics. Liberty works by tolerating those who disagree and are impolite.
Hurt feelings, while real, do not equate to legal harm. In liberal societies, we protect against speech that directly incites violence, defames individuals, and threatens public order. We do not protect against that which merely causes moral or emotional discomfort. Otherwise, all speech becomes vulnerable to suppression by the most easily offended among us.
Furthermore, the application of the blasphemous libel statute in this case is deeply troubling. This law is a colonial relic and was designed to uphold the religious monopoly of the Christian establishment in British territories. Its continued presence on our law books is not a sign of cultural respect or religious harmony.
More importantly, its application today violates the spirit and letter of our Constitution. Articles 145 and 146 of the Constitution provide for freedom of thought, conscience, and expression. These are not marginal rights. They are the foundation upon which our democratic society stands. To invoke a law that punishes expression simply because it disrespects a religious symbol is to entangle the state in theological policing, a role that no secular republic can justify.
Some have argued that in a multi-religious society like ours, speech must be curtailed to preserve peace. This sounds reasonable, even noble, but it leads to a dangerous path. True pluralism does not mean the avoidance of offence; it means the willingness to live with difference even when that difference challenges our sensibilities. We cannot legislate national harmony by criminalising disagreement.
Mr. Wharton’s song may have been crude and immature, but the response to it must not be equally immature or unjust. Let the public condemn what is offensive. Let the artist face scrutiny in the court of public opinion. But let us not allow the state to decide which religious feelings merit legal protection and which do not. That is a dangerous power that, once granted, will not stop with one artist or one community. If we uphold blasphemy laws today to protect one religion, what will stop them from being used tomorrow against another? Or against political critics? Or journalists? Freedom is indivisible. When we suppress it for some, we jeopardise it for all.
Guyana must now decide what kind of society it wants to be. Do we wish to inherit and perpetuate colonial mechanisms of control that suppress speech in the name of social order? Or do we wish to be a mature, modern democracy that trusts its citizens to handle disagreement without criminalising dissent? If we truly believe in the dignity and moral agency of every citizen, then we must reject the use of blasphemy laws and commit ourselves to the harder work of dialogue and tolerance. If we don’t, then let us arrest and silence those we disagree with and deem offensive.
Sincerely,
Ronald N. Emanuel
Jun 17, 2025
…PPPC East Bank/Soesdyke/Timehri Cluster/Inter Village 7-A-Side Football Kaieteur Sports – The 2025 edition of the People’s Progressive Party Civic (PPPC) annual East...Kaieteur News – They raised us. They worked for us. They fed us. And in the end, too many of them are abandoned. The... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News – The 55th Regular Session of the General Assembly of the Organisation of American... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]