The Tribune

By NICOLE BURROWS

Disclaimer: I am not a supporter of the Utilities Regulation and Competition Authority (URCA), nor am I a supporter of Rodney Moncur and his talk show, nor am I a supporter of Wayne Munroe.

It was reported that, on September 15, URCA made a request for recordings of Rodney Moncur’s show ‘Freedom March’, which airs on ZSR 103.5FM. The recordings requested covered shows that aired between September 5 and September 9. URCA required these recordings to be submitted to the Authority by September 21. It is also reported that the show recordings were submitted as requested.

Munroe, Moncur’s attorney (is he everybody’s attorney?), confirmed that the recordings were submitted, but not without going into a deflecting speech in lawyerly fashion, turning the focus on why URCA doesn’t have the recordings when it’s their job to be monitoring and regulating radio. As opposed to speaking about his concerns about what URCA is actually looking for, which part of the Code of Practice for Content Regulation is believed by URCA to have been violated, and whether or not the concern is a legitimate one, Moncur’s attorney chooses to hit URCA below the belt and point to the possibility that the regulator is not doing its job properly, if at all.

It is also reported that on September 16, URCA issued a general announcement, signalling a ‘crackdown’ on the content providers they regulate. The question is now whether Moncur has been unfairly singled out for whatever comments have been URCA’s cause for concern, with URCA spokesperson Mavis Johnson-Collie suggesting Moncur was not targeted, and the request by URCA is not the witch hunt Munroe has hinted at.

I’ve heard news clips of Munroe talking smack about URCA’s abilities, and I am curious as to whether Moncur, or anyone else for that matter, actually believes URCA has the resources of manpower, time and money, let alone technical capability, to record every show on every station, every day, of every year that it airs.

At the same time, I don’t buy Johnson-Collie’s statement; I would be willing to bet that the ‘crackdown’ is based on specific complaints about specific people hosting specific shows.

Three years ago, when I started a radio show on Guardian Radio, a lot of people didn’t like it, and a lot more people didn’t get it. They complained about what was being discussed, per usual, when people feel offended or see themselves in the dialogue.

After three episodes, I cancelled the show. Yes - that’s a little known fact. I cancelled the show, not the station, not the station manager, not the station owner. I cancelled the show because I refused to 1) turn it into another talking heads series, and 2) be restricted on what I could or couldn’t discuss about the problems of (sex in) relationships, because certain people didn’t want it discussed on live radio.

The fact of the matter was - and still is - that the show was meant to be a real-life relationship interplay between a woman and a man, following and demonstrating how each one managed their issues and how they managed the issues together. But the station didn’t get it and wasn’t ready to get it.

Then, not long after, along came another female host who was fine with that restriction, at least in principle, and operating under the guise of getting ‘experts’ on the show every once in a while to legitimise the content, with a jungle queen flavour to keep it exciting and, basic, I guess.

Needless to say, the next time I do a radio show, it won’t be on FM radio or within URCA’s jurisdiction. I am not okay with being muzzled. Actually, I vehemently oppose anyone’s attempts to edit or mute my words (except, of course, my Tribune editor). And I will always challenge those who make such attempts.

As for this recent URCA fiasco, what did ‘crazy Rodney’ say between September 5 and 9 that pissed someone or many people off so royally that they might be trying to muzzle him? That should be his attorney’s focus, not why URCA doesn’t have its own recordings.

Whatever the answer to that question, I suspect Rodney Moncur will fight to keep his show, in spite of any perceived or actual violations - and that is his right. I think, and it’s my personal opinion, seeing as that’s what I write about here … my opinion of the news, which some people still seem challenged to understand … Moncur is a wee bit wacky to say the least. Some folks are convinced he is crazed.

But even the perceived crazy people have a right to speak, as much as anyone might wish them to shut up. It reminds me of the crazy girl I used to work with who stole my last pay stub to see how much money I made compared to her, who was allowed to call in to my short-lived show and allowed to speak freely there, where she asked how I could be talking about relationships including married relationships when I’m not married.

Were it not for URCA, my very Bahamian response to her would have been when your (as in ‘ya’, as in the Bahamian vernacular, any person’s, not to be confused with her own) husband is trying to get up in my front, I am more than knowledgeable on the topic of husbands, with probably more knowledge about your (as in ‘ya’) husband’s predilections than you as the wife, especially when all you do is talk and whine and complain.

But I couldn’t say that, because, you know, URCA, and station fines and licence suspensions and revocations and such. With that as the obvious exception, I submit to nothing that removes my authenticity. I suggest (though I imagine he won’t anyway) that Rodney Moncur not submit to anything that removes his authenticity … even though he appears to be crazy at times. Whoever thinks he’s crazy now will still think he’s crazy if he flinches, so why flinch? Stand your ground, Moncur, if indeed you do have ground to stand on. If you don’t, well, even superstar attorney Munroe can’t help you.

On a similar note, that is, not so much free speech as true speech, Sunday night was the local premiere of one of my favourite television shows, ‘Poldark’. It’s a remake of an old novel, a British period drama. I enjoy period dramas, especially British ones, because, given our colonial past, I like to see what has led to the world we inherited … this world we live in today. And, as a writer, I especially enjoy analysing dialogue from this period.

In the two-hour season premiere, which has already aired (three weeks ago) in England on BBC One, the lead character, Poldark, is facing a possible death sentence for a crime that he didn’t actually commit because it wasn’t actually a crime. Poldark so desperately wants to tell the truth because, as far as he’s concerned, it will, quite literally, set him free … from the hangman’s noose. His lawyer tells him he is mistaken and should not go that route.

The lawyer says: “A common misconception is that truth is the same as innocence - it is not. My job is to position the truth, so that you don’t pay for it with your life.”

Poldark replies: “So now we’re politicians … positioning the facts to suit our own ends.”

And at this point, I feel like he could be on Bay Street in Nassau in 2016 saying the same thing, while pointing to the House of Assembly with his chin.

A short while later, as tension grows, the lawyer reminds Poldark that he must ingratiate himself to the judge and jurors, if he hopes to escape a death sentence. “That is why you must grovel. Do so now or you will not live to see the sun rise tomorrow.” And my thoughts wander immediately to the number of people who actually think this way in today’s world.

I am an authentic, free-speaking, non-groveller, so I would have probably said and done the same things Poldark said and did. He spoke in his own defence, and, in the end, of course - spoiler alert - because he can’t die without the series ending, he does what he thinks is right, speaks his mind, his reality, in the process appealing to the “better angels” of a jury of his peers, all average people whose daily struggle in life he represents every day as a bankrupt and now poor mine owner ... and they find him not guilty.

As the broadcast ended, I wondered how many of us free speakers, or truth speakers, would avoid the gallows with the rabble screaming for us to be severely punished because we don’t perform to their liking, or even for their warped amusement.

It’s clear that nothing’s changed over 200 to 300 years, just the clothing and the names.

PS: Today marks two years of writing this column in The Tribune; I thank you for reading.

E-mail: nburrows@tribunemedia.net. Facebook and Twitter: @SoPolitiCole