Dear Editor,
Several articles have been published with mixed opinions on the remanding of Skello, as well as on his lewd remarks on a Hindu goddess. Some say he should not be punished because he enjoys freedom of expression, while others take the opposite position. Some say his remanding is excessive. Arrest, indictment, and punishment are for the court and the law. Our constitution, like that of most countries, grants free speech but with limits. Skello’s free speech falls within those limits.
One of the limits is respecting a people’s faith or deities (who in Hinduism are God or Goddess) that Hindus worship. All countries put limits on outlawing hate and disrespecting faith.
Some say the blasphemy law is outdated. The judge in Guyana is in the best position to interpret the law on blasphemy (attacking God) or hate or disrespecting faith and assigning punishment accordingly. Skello attacked Hinduism; he engaged in blasphemy. He hurt the sentiments of Hindus and religious people. He abused freedom of speech. For all of those reasons and more, he ought to be held accountable in a court of law. The judge determines the course of action. His lawyers will represent him.
Please note that in Hinduism, the almighty is male or female. And in Hindu worship, great reverence is placed on goddesses, the most important or revered being Goddesses Lakshmi (which is tied to Diwali celebrations), Durga (Kali), Saraswati, Parvati, Sita and Radha, among others. All of them are the same God (or Goddess) known or called by different names (including Rama, Krishna, Ganesh, etc.). When a person abuses Goddess Lakshmi, it is an abuse of God and the Hindu faith. The same would hold true for any attack on religious figures in Islam and Christianity or another faith.
Skello’s song, if it can be called that, is indefensible; that is not allowable free speech in any society, not even in a mecca of freedom like the USA. Religion is a very sensitive, touchy issue that can lead, and indeed has led to violence in many countries, including in Europe and America. When religious figures in Islam and Christianity were disrespected, serious violence followed; those who were thought to disrespect those faiths were attacked, many killed. Tens of thousands were known to be killed in the name of faith or for engaging in blasphemy in the Middle East.
No country allows unlimited freedom. The Guyana constitution, indeed that of all countries and the UN Charter, prohibits language that spreads hate or disrespects faith. Also, the Commonwealth has a “Summary Offences” rule, if not an Act, that carries indictment and prison time if convicted of attacking faith. The magistrate or judge makes that determination based on the law.
Some claimed that the blasphemy law is outdated and that Skello’s remarks were not blasphemous. Let him make remarks about Christianity and Islam in Europe or the Middle East; he would know what is blasphemy. Hindu goddesses are the essence of Hinduism. Saying one wants to perform sexual acts on a goddess is blasphemy. Attacking a religious figure is not free speech but blasphemy that can lead to divisiveness and serious violence.
In a multi-cultural Caribbean context and in the diasporic countries, all of which are multi-cultural, faiths are respected. In the USA, the mecca of freedom of expression, artistes don’t attack religious figures. Why should Skello get a pass under a claim that it is freedom of expression? Several prominent figures, including Anil Nandlall, Pandit Ubraj Narine, Dr Vindya Persaud, Rhyaan Shah, Swami Aksharananda, President Irfaan Ali, Ravi Dev and this writer, among others, assailed Skello for disrespecting Hindus and Hinduism. Ubraj Narine and a few others should not be the only pandits or religious figures to come out publicly in the media excoriating Skello. I would like to think that there are also other courageous pundits who are not afraid to voice their opinion when Hindus are attacked or feel they are marginalised or discriminated against.
A minister of government as well as a GECOM commissioner are of the view that remanding Skello to prison is an extreme punishment. The duo has no business becoming embroiled in this controversy. They are public figures; the matter does not relate to their work. They are not lawyers on record for Skello. Let Skello’s lawyer approach the court for relief. If they wish to petition the court on behalf of Skello, then they should resign from their respective positions and join Skello’s defence team.
Blasphemy or not, there must be limits to free speech. Attacking people’s religious sentiments is not protected free speech.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Vishnu Bisram
