ust over two years ago, political, business
and religious leaders met at the Four Seasons in a Forum for National Unity.
The meeting came at a time of great unrest in the Federation, and led to an
agreement which included, among other things, the "discontinuation of the
use of political party newspapers and platforms to `demonise' political opponents."Unfortunately, this commitment turned out to be very short-lived on the part of both The Democrat and The Labour Spokesman. While there is no substantive evidence, one can't help but wonder whether last week's firebombing of the home of Chief Secretary Joseph Edmeade is one outcome of these vicious verbal attacks. While accusing the political leaders of either party of carrying out such actions would be going too far, the incendiary language they and their papers use can inspire others to take their "fighting words" literally.
In the Edmeade case, the three suspects who were detained last week have been released pending the results of forensic analysis. The police expect those results back by mid-February, and have issued a reward for information leading to the arrest of the person(s) responsible.
Similar issues have arisen in other countries in recent years. In the United States, the bombing of the Oklahoma Federal Building led to questions about its connection to anti-government views espoused by right-wing radio talkshow hosts Rush Limbaugh and G. Gordon Liddy. In Israel, the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin led many to lay some of the blame at the feet of right-wing politicians who used the language of hate to describe Rabin and his policies for peace with the Palestinians.
In none of these cases is there conclusive proof of the link between the words spouted by those in the media or the political arena, and acts of violence carried out by individuals. However, while freedom of speech is a right which must be closely guarded and defended, those in the press must be responsible in our use of language.
A perusal of recent issues of The Democrat found several articles which could be viewed as inciting violence:
"Scandalous! Outrageous! A Monstrosity!" (January 4, 1997, page 6-7) After listing accusations of misdeeds against a Labour Party officials and supporters, the article ends, "I wonder how many of them have read the book of Esther about the story of Haman and Mordecai." In this book of the Old Testament, Haman is the Prime Minister who schemes against the Jews. He is killed as a result of his wickedness.
"Henry Browne, Angela Inniss & Peter Jenkins Take Warning `Those whom the Gods wish to destroy they first make mad!'" (November 30, 1996, page 5A) The headline and the article accuse these three public officials of madness and warn them that "destruction follows." The article is signed by "Psychic."
"Labour's Mouthpiece Calls for Intensified Political Terrorism" (November 9, 1996, front page) The article calls the country's leaders "incompetent miscreants" and refers to Dr. Douglas as "the Prime Evil." It refers to the dismissal of two employees at the Development Bank "on the instruction of Llewellyn Edmeade." This is one of only several articles we found with specific reference to Chief Secretary Edmeade. None of them, however, call for attacks against him.
A letter to the editor, "P.M. Must Take Blame" (December 7, 1996, page 5) describes the desperation of people "victimised" by the government, stating, "There are still a lot of canefields which can be burnt, and Government Headquarters and other property which can be stoned."
In their response to the firebombing, PAM and The Democrat have voiced several theories to explain it. One claims that "what goes around comes around," that this violence is a new round of that which "Labour let loose in the country between 1993 and 1995." A second PAM speculation, says that the perpetrators are people who carried out acts of violence for Labour previously and have turned on their former sponsors with whom they have become disgruntled. One PAM official went so far as to speculate that the firebombing may have been manufactured by Edmeade or other Labour officials "to divert attention" from the state of the country.
The Labour Spokesman's headline of 8 January 1997 "Chief Secretary's Home Set on Fire by PAM Criminals" warrants a similar level of condemnation. Based on no evidence whatsoever, this charge is clearly meant to incite. While its current coverage concentrates on applauding the positive actions of government, The Spokesman continues to use the divisive language which it honed during its years in opposition. It would not require detailed investigations to find other such examples.
Unless police investigations are able to uncover exactly who carried out this act and what motivated them, all of us will be guessing. However, it is reasonable to believe that inflammatory language can well lead to violent behaviour. The entire nation would benefit if both The Democrat and The Labour Spokesman would take this lesson to heart.
