Scores of Guyanese at home and abroad have taken strong offence to the sentiments expressed in another controversial Kaieteur News editorial which says that prominent people and national leaders are immune from criminal attacks and crimes based upon what it referred to as traditional norms and principles. The editorial dubbed “Crossing the line” in the January 31, 2013 edition, gives the skewed view that the attacks perpetrated on General Secretary of People’s National Congress Reform Oscar Clarke was the straw that broke the camel’s back and made it more evident that criminals had crossed the line as far as who they should and should not launch attacks on.

“Even though the editorial rightly condemns the attacks on Clarke, former Agriculture Minister Sash Shaw, the police and senior public servants, it leaves more questions in one’s mind than answers when the wording is examined closely, given the well known position of the newspapers which plays a role in glorifying crime”, a senior political commentator advised.

The commentator said it is objectionable that the editor attempts to justify the newspaper’s position that these people must be exempt from attacks based upon the status and rank of who the criminals seek to attack.

“Is the newspaper then supporting the argumentation that criminals have the right to attack ordinary citizens - fishermen, sugar workers, school teachers and others who do not enjoy the privileges of status and rank in our society as do the politicians, senior public servants and former ministers?” the commentator questioned.

“Or is the newspaper saying that criminals have not crossed the line when the innocent lives of residents of Bartica, Lusignan and Lindo creeks were snuffed out because these people did not enjoy status”, the political commentator quizzed.

Maria Williams, an overseas based Guyanese, said that such sentiments were rightly objectionable coming from a national newspapers as all Guyanese are guaranteed under the Constitution of Guyana the right to life.

“I want to personally condemn the editorial’s position that because one lives in a community which may enjoy the political support of the party which one is akin to then one automatically is exempt from any sort of attacks from criminals regardless of the work one has done”, Williams said.

Williams, who is a political scientist, argued that crime has no face, no race, no boundaries and no political preference, as criminals aim to achieve different objectives in pursuit of their end result.

“Clarke’s political affiliation is irrelevant. Bandits should not pounce on citizen of this country with the intent to rob or snuff their lives out. Youth gangs and robbers have no place in our society, but yet crime is a threat to the development of Guyana and other developing countries the world over”, Williams argued.

Meanwhile, another Guyanese, Mike Thomas, utilising the social media, argued that the Kaieteur News itself has no moral authority to speak on issues related to crime and criminals crossing the lines if it is seeking to discriminate as to who is exempt, based on certain pre-established criterion from the scourge of crime.

“As any society develops, there will be a shift from the traditional socially accepted norms to those that are considering emerging, even though we must weed out the bad from the acceptable and good”, Thomas said.

“Kaieteur News attempt to paint a grim and morally degenerating society under this present government is noted through the tone of the editorial which in itself is discriminatory. As Guyanese, we need to not only highlight and given prominence to the social problems in our society, but we must become part of the solutions, and we must start spreading positivism and awareness about the need for all stakeholders to grab the bull by the horns”, Ruel James said on Facebook.

Dario Comacho wrote: “However, the essential focus of this editorial, after all the window decorations, came down to the final paragraph. PNC stalwart Oscar Clarke was shot in Sophia, the stronghold of the PNC, populated by the party supporters; and as such it is opined that he should have been immune to any acts of criminality premises on that reasoning. How dare the young men shoot and attack one of their own.         

I just wish to end by drawing attention to the editor’s question “Did the perpetrators not know that the home was that of a person who served the party for which their parents walked the streets in protest?” What the editor is implying here is that it is acceptable to rob and shoot others of different persuasions, but not your own people and especially not your senior party officials. One wonders as to the true motives of publishing this type of language in today’s society”.

Other Guyanese and politicians have also taken note of the trend of highly offensive Kaieteur News articles and editorials which are aimed at using journalism to stir up conflict and strife in the society.