Today Guyana joins the world in observance of International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. This year’s chosen theme: ‘Racial profiling and incitement to hatred, including in the context of migration’, is significant, since in many parts of the world discriminatory practices are still widespread, including racial, ethnic, religious and nationality-based profiling and incitement to hatred.
The International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination is observed annually on March 21. On that day in 1960 in Sharpeville, South Africa, Police opened fire and killed 69 people who were participating in a peaceful demonstration against the apartheid “pass laws”. Proclaiming the Day in 1966, the General Assembly called on the international community to redouble its efforts to eliminate all forms of racial discrimination (Resolution 2142 (XXI)). 
In 1979, the General Assembly adopted a programme of activities to be undertaken during the second half of the Decade for Action to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination (A/RES/34/24). On that occasion, the General Assembly decided that a week of solidarity with the peoples struggling against racism and racial discrimination, beginning on March 21, would be organised annually in all States.
The apartheid system in South Africa has since been dismantled; racist laws and practices have been abolished in many countries; and, guided by the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, the UN has built an international framework for fighting racism.
The Convention is now nearing universal ratification; yet, in all regions, too many individuals, communities and societies suffer from the injustice and stigma that racism brings. Racial and ethnic discrimination occur on a daily basis, hindering progress for millions of people around the world. Racism and intolerance can take various forms — from denying individuals the basic principles of equality, to fuelling ethnic hatred that may lead to genocide — all of which can destroy lives and fracture communities.
Quite recently, we have witnessed firsthand the impact that such racial incitement can have. A little over a week ago, two men were beaten in Canal Number One Polder, West Bank Demerara by residents of the community who claimed the men had stolen two rear view mirrors. Immediately following this incident, there was a public outcry, precipitated by media reports that insisted the action was “racist vigilantism”, since the beaten men were African Guyanese and the residents who had beaten them were Indian Guyanese. What is worse, several public officials were unfortunately quick to make irresponsible comments in this regard.
Another Government official, on his Facebook page, came to a similar conclusion – that the incident was “racially” directed – without waiting for the Police report, and without situating the Canal incident as the unfortunate reaction from communities that have been subjected to depredations from bandits with no respite in sight.
Only the week before, there was a well-publicised armed robbery in that very area. In fact, the Police statement issued the very next day rejected a racist or vigilante motive, yet we saw Government officials being quite outspoken in fuelling racial divisions, with no obvious fear of sanctions or reprimands.
This comes at a time when the international community has intensified its struggle against racism, and continues to place obligations on States and task them with eradicating discrimination in the public and private spheres. The principle of equality also requires States to adopt special measures to eliminate conditions that cause or help to perpetuate racial discrimination.
On whom does the accountability rest in this case? While there were calls for the general populace to remain committed to co-existing in an environment of unity and peace as we strive to deepen social cohesion, there were no public sanctions for the officials who were quick to make irresponsible comments.
We look to our leaders, particularly in these tumultuous times, to defend our rights and safeguard us against instability and social conflict, not to foster societal fractures.
