At this time, sadly, the local newspapers have turned a blind eye to the ongoing debate over the murder of a talk-show host and politician, Ronald Waddell, who was gunned down while in his car at the front of his home, last week in Georgetown.

At first the news reports appeared to be skeptical; one paper tried to link him to criminal elements and another simply reported the facts and the views of his family that the hit may have been politically motivated.

But now that a week has passed, the Guyana Human Rights Association has opened a can of worms with a statement that implies that Afro-Guyanese are being targeted.

And this in the run-up to general elections scheduled for 2007!

Waddell, after all, was a strident protector of the rights of Black Guyanese; maybe nowhere as profound as Walter Rodney who was murdered.

The Guyana Human Rights Association was only brave enough to speak out after Foreign missions in Guyana issued a joint statement of concern. Guyana, after all, remains a repressive place.

The Human Rights people say there is a definite link between Waddell’s death, wider violence and the future of the society.

It said: “Ronald Waddell’s manner of demanding justice for the Black community was viewed by many as repulsive incitement to racial hatred, but a dispassionate judgement would recognise in his messages that the more the authorities resist recognition of the issue, the more strident the efforts will be for them to do so.

“The government run by Bharat Jagdeo is not obliged to accept the position of radical Black leaders but should set in train transparent processes to allow the claims to be properly ventilated.”

It even went so far as to highlight a number of concerns that have not been addressed by the government over the past year as providing ready evidence for those who believe that the Black community is being systematically marginalised.

It also noted that “the recent call by one party for the Black community to boycott elections unless some form of shared governance is put in place is illustrative of this feeling”.

It also noted that “the enquiry into a spate of extra-judicial “phantom” killings of predominantly Black men was reduced to the question of whether the then minister of home affairs was personally responsible, while the substantive issue of who was responsible was never pursued.

“The failure to hold an enquiry into the origins and conduct of East Coast violence was also cited, as were the extraordinary proliferation of unlicensed weapons and the perception that powerful drug gangs operate at best with official indifference and at worst with official collusion.”

The Human Rights body observed that “Waddell’s removal by NBTV Channel 9, though justified in its own view, did not lead to any steps to address the fundamental issue that promoted increasingly radical expressions of this kind”.

It added that while these issues may be articulated largely by Afro-Guyanese regarded as radical, a wide spectrum of Guyanese of all races, class and political persuasion want them resolved.

But you know that Waddell, in the final analysis, was controversial because he spit what would have been considered as racial fire.

Still, as the Human Rights body noted, he was reacting to the oppressions against Black Guyanese, as they exist under a government that is predominantly Indian.

Given the level of thinking and lack of compassion these days, it is obvious that many top-ranking Indians in Guyana would be saying that is their “time now” and “who feels it knows it”.

Haven’t we in Trini heard that kind of reasoning?

Now we see where it can lead us, let’s take a second look at the way we treat with the politics of race here, which, in the first instance is not necessary.

When yuh neighbour’s house on fire, wet yours because men like Bas Panday and his cohorts will be coming to fan the flames!