Dear Editor,
GECOM has once again demonstrated its ineptitude, and probably its bias, in determining that the symbol submitted by the party 鈥淲e Invest in Nationhood鈥 be denied. The Chairperson specifically stated that based on article 7 of the Constitution: 鈥淚t is the duty of every citizen of Guyana wherever he or she may be and of every person in Guyana to respect the national flag, the coat of arms, the national anthem, the national pledge and the Constitution of Guyana, and to treat them with due and proper solemnity on all occasions鈥.
Her contention was that the image of the Jaguar is a part of the Coat of Arms and as a consequence it cannot be used as a symbol. Without any reference to the solemnity of the use of the Jaguar as a symbol, it is beyond reason or logic for the Chair to have concluded that an element of the Coat of Arms, to wit the 鈥淛aguar鈥 is what the Constitution meant when it specified the Court of Arms, among other national symbols. If an element was meant, then there is much to be undone, since other elements of the Coat of Arms, such as the pick-axe, the Canje Pheasant and Victoria Regia, among others, are frequently used by various organizations, including political parties, and on various occasions.
It should be noted that this decision was made against the background of the Government Appointed Commissioners` attribution of intellectual property rights, of the image of the jaguar, to the Amerindians, purportedly in keeping with the provisions of international conventions, and the arguments presented by the chairperson of the National Toshaos Council, and Mr. Shuman, in their respective letters. This attribution effectively bastardized the concept of intellectual property, the core of which is the originality of an idea or invention.
Article 149G (Indigenous peoples shall have the right to protection, preservation and promulgation of their languages, cultural heritages and way of life) was also referenced. However, the connection between the image of the Jaguar and 鈥渓anguages, cultural heritages and way of life was not exemplified鈥. The idea of having a judicial interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution on this matter, and the petitioners` case was thrown out. However, the Chair retorted that the court may be approached by interested parties for a ruling on her decision. GECOM once again resorted to the power of numbers, rather than that of reason in making its 4/3 decision.
Vincent Alexander