Home Letters Freedom of artistic expression does not override the right of others to...
Dear Editor,
The recent discourse surrounding the imprisonment of Daniel Wharton—popularly known as “Baby Skello”, for his deeply offensive remarks about a revered Hindu deity, brings into sharp focus the urgent need for reflection on the values that define us as Guyanese.
Mother Lakshmi (also spelled Lakshmi or Laxmi) holds immense spiritual, cultural, and devotional significance within Hinduism. For Mr Wharton and others who may not grasp the weight of this significance, allow me to clarify: “profound” in this case refers to something rooted in deep historical, philosophical, and spiritual purposes. The depiction of Mother Lakshmi is not merely symbolic, it represents a way of life, grounded in dharma (righteousness), ethical conduct, social responsibility, and principled living.
In Hinduism, Mother Lakshmi is adored as the life-giving force in the Shiva-Shakti relationship—the sacred balance between consciousness and creative energy. A society without this energy is, as our scriptures say, like a corpse (shava). To ridicule such a symbol is to attack the very essence of the spiritual and cultural identity of thousands of Guyanese.
Mr Wharton’s actions inflicted real emotional harm on a large segment of our population, and that must be acknowledged.
While he may claim the protection of “freedom of expression”, that right is not without limits.
In a pluralistic society such as ours—rich in ethnic and religious diversity—freedom must be exercised with responsibility. Rights do not exist in a vacuum; they coexist with duties, including the duty to avoid actions that deliberately offend or provoke.
In this context, Mr Ferlin Pedro’s letter published on June 15, 2025—asserting that blasphemy laws are outdated colonial relics—misses the present-day relevance of such legal safeguards.
In deeply diverse societies like Guyana, religious identity is intimately tied to individual and communal dignity. What one person views as artistic or harmless may be perceived by another as a direct assault on their spiritual core and their right to live. Where such expression becomes intentionally provocative—especially toward minority or vulnerable groups—the state has a duty to intervene to preserve peace and social harmony.
As a practising Hindu, I found Mr Wharton’s expression to be deeply hurtful and provocative. Anyone willing to view the matter with fairness need only reverse the roles and consider how another minority community would feel if similarly targeted.
Freedom of artistic expression is indeed vital in a democracy. However, it does not override the right of others to live without cultural humiliation or harassment. The true test is not whether words cause physical harm, but whether they destabilise the social fabric, provoke emotional violence, or foster mental disorder.
A just legal system must address both tangible crimes and symbolic acts that threaten this social cohesion.
If there is to be a national conversation, it should focus on how to apply the law fairly and effectively—not on whether all speech, regardless of harm, should be permissible. A mature democracy is not measured solely by how freely its people speak, but by how thoughtfully and responsibly they do so.
As Lord Hewart famously said in Rex v. Sussex Justices (1924), “Justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done.”
That principle remains as relevant today as it was a century ago.
Yours sincerely,
Sasenarine Singh
