Posts

, ,

We Have a Long Way to Go

The Government of The Bahamas has made the decision to be lazy and to, once again, scapegoat the Bahamian public in its attempt to provide an excuse for its refusal to perform one of its primary functions — to protect, promote, uphold, and expand human rights. It made the decision, without proper consultation with civil society, to not only shelve the marital rape bill, but to shelve the years-old Gender-Based Violence bill and instead pass the nonsense “Protection Against Violence” which makes no reference to gender and does not even have an elementary level definition of violence.

The Attorney General, in his statement intended to defend this administration, said that the public would be confused by the word “gender”. This Progressive Liberal Party-led administration has determined that “gender” is too scary a word. This comes after a Progressive Liberal Party-led administration dubbed the constitutional referendum on nationality rights a “gender equality referendum” in 2014, and after the same administration “expanded” the Bureau of Women’s Affairs into the Department of Gender and Family Affairs in 2016. Then Minister of Social Services and Community Development Melanie Griffin said the Department would “be tasked to coordinate, advocate and inform policy for, and on behalf of, women and girls and men and boys, as well as the family unit”.

At some point, the Progressive Liberal Party had at least a vague understanding of gender. It was not afraid of the word, nor was it quite this terrified by the reactions of general public to the term. It believed, it would seem, that it was possible to educate the public on gender and the importance of a gender approach in Social Services, where the Department sits, and in governance. It understood that women and men, currently the only two genders they dare to acknowledge, are perceived differently, are socialised differently, have different needs, and require different approaches to achieve particular outcomes. In fact, in the first year of monthly non-governmental organisation meetings organised by the Department, it was determined the gender-based violence was an issue that we could organise around and work to address with relative ease because people generally agreed that gender-based violence was a scourge, much like today, that needed specific attention. In fact, it was considered “low-hanging fruit”. Today, the Progressive Liberal Party does not even want the words “gender-based violence” in the bill that it led us to believe was meant to address gender-based violence.

In 2015, the Strategic Plan to Address Gender-Based Violence was published. This Plan fed directly into the 2016 drafting of the Gender-Based Violence bill. The Department of Gender and Family Affairs held meetings with regard to the bill, and one of the particular areas of focus was the development of the institutions that the bill would create including the Gender-Based Violence Authority (now absent from the nonsense “Protection Against Violence” bill). At the time of her 2017 visit to The Bahamas, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women emphasized the need for comprehensive law addressing violence against women (VAW). Violence against women, it is important to note, is a form of gender-based violence. It is as important to note that women and girls disproportionately experience gender-based violence. This is not because women and girls are inherently at-risk, but because they are put at risk by harmful gender stereotypes and ideology that simultaneously suggest that women and girls should be subservient and that men and boys should be dominant and domineering. These harmful gender stereotypes reduce masculinity to violence and denigrate the feminine while putting it in opposition to masculinity.

The Bahamian public is not incapable of understanding gender. It is not necessary for everyone to study gender theory. The important piece for us to all understand is that both women and girls and men and boys are taught that they need to behave in certain ways, perform certain tasks, and occupy space in specific ways. We are all socialised and come into our gender performance based on what we see in our homes, schools, workplaces, and other places where we spend time with and are influenced by other people.

For example, girls are given dolls to pretend and practice motherhood while boys are denied dolls, even when they want to play with them. Boys are sent to play outside, allowed to run around and climb trees, and scolded for crying because that is reserved for girls. These are some of the ways to confine people, based on their gender, to particular activities, expression, and ways of being. It is not difficult to see how these seemingly small experiences from childhood are connected to the electives girls and boys choose in school, programmes they enter after high school, structure of their families and households, and their ability and willingness to negotiate salaries and seek promotions.

We can look to our own experiences to see how people treat others when they deem their behaviour or performance to be outside of the constraints outlined for all of us, and it is not difficult to see how people, frustrated by these limitations and/or failure to adhere to them, respond in violent ways, and with impunity. There is no excuse for violence. People make excuses for it quite often, and use gender to do it. In simple terms, gender-based violence is harm inflicted upon a person because of their gender or that is disproportionately experienced by people of a particular gender, and it can take various forms including verbal, physical, sexual, psychological, and financial.

We need a law that specifically addresses gender-based violence. The Gender-Based Violence Bill is not, as some people believe, focused on criminality and punishment. There is significant focus, in the bill, on creating systems that enable survivors of gender-based violence to access the services and resources they need with ease. A general violence bill entirely misses the mark. We need a system that takes care of the survivors of gender-based violence, and this can only be built on the understanding that gender-based violence is not (a subset of) general violence.

Prevention of and intervention in gender-based violence requires an understanding of and changes to societal knowledge and attitudes about gender. Collecting and analysing data on gender-based violence is critical. There can be no shortcuts. If the Government of The Bahamas is truly interested in ending gender-based violence and if it actually cares about women and girls in this country, it cannot throw its hands up and declare the people too stupid to be engaged, educated, and sensitized. It cannot be too afraid to pass laws to benefit people who are at-risk. If this administration is not prepared to legislate, make policies, and meet human rights obligations, it ought to make the way clear. There is work to be done, and we do not need seat-warmers.

But what is the difference between sex and gender?

There is a difference between sex and gender. The term “sex” is used to refer to biological characteristics which have, in recent years, been used to put people into two supposedly distinct groups — female and male. Sex is assigned at the time of birth based on the appearance of genitalia. There are two main factors that complicate sex as many understand it. One is that sex is not binary, meaning there are not just two sexes as is still indicated by many forms that have two checkboxes — one labeled female and one labeled male. The two sexes that are widely recognized are also not opposites.

Sex, while treated as though it is biological, is actually a social construct. People, many years ago decided that having specific genitalia meant that a person was a particular sex. At the same time, we all learn about sex chromosomes in grade school. As a refresher, chromosomes carry the genes that determine sex. Cells with two X chromosomes determine that a human being, and other mammals, is female. Cells with X and Y chromosomes determine that a human being, and other mammals, is male. Every person does not have XX chromosomes or XY chromosomes. Some people have XXY chromosomes, and there are other variations. In addition, some people have both ovarian and testicular tissue.

These biological differences are not in keeping with the idea that there are two sexes. Intersex people, with different chromosomes and with differences in their internal and external sex organs, exist. People are assigned “female” or “male” based on their external sex organs at the time of birth, but sex cannot be determined on a biological basis without further examination. Intersex people are sometimes incorrectly assigned “female” or “male” and later find out they are intersect, sometimes during puberty when their bodies go through changes that are considered inconsistent with their assigned sex. In some cases, where there is a noticeable difference in genitalia such as a newborn having both, doctors, based on their own assessment of which one is most dominant, preform a procedure to disguise the other, and this can result in complications later on as genitalia are not the only factor in sex.

The insistence that there are only two sexes excludes intersex people in many ways, and it continues a harmful ignorance that can be violent. In reading the description of the biological differences that intersex people may have, another word may have come to mind that was widely used decades ago. “H———–e” is a derogatory word and is no longer to be used. The appropriate word and sex is “intersex.”

Gender is not the same as sex. Gender refers to the socially constructed characteristics (constraints) and behaviours required of people based and the relationships between people based on their assumed sex. Society decided, and continues to decide, how people should be in the world, and this can vary greatly from one region to another and from one country to another. In some places, like The Bahamas and many countries in the Caribbean, people have difficulty understanding and accepting that there are more than two genders. In other countries, like India, there is an officially recognised third gender. In other places, through a combination of education, sensitisation, advocacy, and interest in respecting the humanity of people, people understand that gender is spectrum and gender should not be forced upon anyone or used as a weapon against anyone.

We have a long way to go. We obviously do not have a government that is prepared for the journey. Civil society has to step up. If you’re interested in learning more and doing more, get in touch with Equality Bahamas at equalitybahamas@gmail.com.

Published in The Tribune on August 9, 2023

/0 Comments/by
, , ,

Ending Sexual Violence Begins with Education

Comprehensive sexuality education in all schools is an absolute necessity. It is a preventative measure that can and does protect children from sexual violence in various forms including incest and rape by people known to them. The absence of comprehensive sexuality education and the ongoing refusal to implement it in all schools is not only a disservice to children and the people who have gone through the system, but an act of violence. It is withholding information that is critical for people to assess risk, make good decisions, identify acts of violence, and report threats, intimidation, and acts of violence toward them by (would-be) perpetrators.

The children of this country need access to information. We need to acknowledge and respond to the fact that they will not be children forever, and they cannot be expected to responsibly participate in a world they do not understand. Providing them with information gives them the ability to make informed decisions. It does not promote or encourage recklessness.

Comprehensive sexuality education does not teach children how to have sex. It increases their ability to prioritise their health and wellbeing, not only when they decide to engage in sexual activity, but as they navigate relationships.

Below are ten facts that are important for us to know about comprehensive sexuality education.

  1. It is scientifically accurate. It includes biology and uses the proper names for body parts including penis, vagina, vulva, and anus. Knowing these words and being able to identify these body parts is critical for children as it enables them to clearly communicate about what is happening to their bodies and report acts of sexual violence against them.

  2. Contraception, pregnancy, and sexually transmitted infections (STIs) are covered. Students are introduced to condoms (both external, known as male condoms, and internal, known as female condoms), oral contraceptives (commonly known as birth control pills), implants, injections, patches, and intrauterine devices. They are taught about pregnancy and how it happens, how it can be prevented, and which contraceptive methods also protect against STIs. It is important for young people to know the proper names and common names of STIs, the symptoms, how they are transmitted, and the available treatments. At least as important as this information is national statistics on the prevalence of STIs.

  3. Comprehensive sexuality education is for all ages and curriculum is designed to be age-appropriate. Those in the first grade do not receive the same information as those in the tenth grade. Younger students are taught that their bodies belong to them, that there are good touches and bad touches, and that they can trust their own instincts and feelings about which touches are good and which touches are bad. They are taught about consent in simple, relatable ways and given permission to say no when anything is uncomfortable, and encouraged to talk to their parents or another authority figure if someone makes them feel uncomfortable. High school students are taught more about biology, relationships, and making the distinction between sex and rape.

  4. Comprehensive sexuality education has a human rights approach. It focuses on the humanity of people and does not aim to shame them for the changes in their bodies and their curiosity about sex. It affirms young people’s identities and how those identities affect the way they experience the world. They learn about discrimination and violence, and they are taught the value of empathy and being able to resolve conflict in nonviolent ways.

  5. Self-determination is a critical part of the curriculum. By providing this information, young people are empowered to make their own decisions. They are given life skills that they will need and use forever. These include condom negotiation, which can be difficult for people of all ages, and firmly, confidently saying no, even under pressure to say yes.

  6. Power dynamics are included in comprehensive sexuality education. Young people, especially children, need to know that people in positions of authority and older people do not get to automatically do whatever they want to their bodies. They learn that they own their bodies. They also learn that people sometimes misuse and abuse power. Adults may use age or positions such as teacher, religious leader, or relative to convince young people to do something, to not talk about something that happened, that something terrible was okay, or that no one would believe them. They need to be aware of this and to know that it is manipulation and it is wrong.

  7. Discussions about healthy relationships are an important part of comprehensive sexuality education. Young people often start thinking about, observing, and entering relationships before the adults in their lives know or talk to them about it. Navigating relationships is difficult, and they need to be equipped with tools that help them to be clear about what they want, clearly communicate what they do and do not want, set boundaries, see red flags, prioritise their own wellbeing, and get help from an adult when needed. They need to know that relationships should be mutually beneficial, should not involve pressure to do anything, and should not involve any form of violence.

  8. Sexual and reproductive health and rights are deeply connected to comprehensive sexuality education. Having this information is a right for everyone. Young people need to know the age of consent. They need to know what consent means and what does and does not constitute consent. They need to know when and how they can access healthcare on their own and what that healthcare should include.

  9. Gender, discrimination, and violence have to be included in comprehensive sexuality education. Gender is a factor in various parts of the curriculum including power dynamics and the legal age of consent. Discrimination is also relevant in those components. Violence is, unfortunately, always relevant and the risk of violence can change with age, gender, socio-economic status, and various other identity markers.

  10. A sex-positive approach is critical to the success of comprehensive sexuality education. Sex should not be presented as bad or negative, and people who have sex should not be characterised that way either. It needs to be acknowledged that sex involves pleasure. It is not exclusively for procreation, nor is it for the enjoyment of one person. It should be mutually enjoyable. This is important as it makes clear that sex should be a good experience for the people involved and not a sacrifice that is made for or to someone else. This is helpful for people as they make a distinction between sex, which is consensual and enjoyable, and sexual violence which is nonconsensual and in many cases, though not all, does not feel good. This is not the same as encouraging sexual activity. It is providing important information that they can use to assess situations, both in the future and in the past.

It is our responsibility to ensure that children are protected from predators, young people have the information and confidence to make good decisions and access to the services and resources they need, and perpetrators of violence can be identified, reported, and appropriately charged. We cannot do this by pretending young people will be immune to their own sexuality and abstain from sex unless we acknowledge the existence of sex and sexuality. It is unrealistic to expect them to accept the directive to abstain without any further information or the explanation of other options and the related risks and benefits.

Reports on sexual violence are in the news every day. There are cases of incest, statutory rape (reported in very incorrect, misleading terms as “unlawful sex with a minor”, conflating rape with sex), and rape that get very little attention unless we hear specific details. Sometimes the age of the survivor or the circumstance of the assault cause alarm and upset, but every case does not get the same response. People have become and are becoming desensitised. People are finding ways to excuse sexual violence. Rape culture continues to dominate, leading adults to blame children for being preyed upon by adults. Adults demonstrate their complete ignorance about consent every day. Young people are not the only ones who need comprehensive sexuality education, and that is obvious, but they certainly need it immediately.

Many parents are unwilling to talk to their children about sex. Many are unequipped. Many do not want anyone else to do it. What ends up happening is young people learning from other young people, and young people using the internet and turning to popular culture for answers to their questions. Depending on the sources they find, they could get accurate information, or they could be misled. We have the opportunity to ensure that they have accurate information and access to resources and services. This should not be squandered in the name of fear. Adults have to get past their discomfort, and they need to prioritise their children. The government needs to take responsibility for the education and health of the people in this country.

Comprehensive sexuality education needs to be in all schools and at all grade levels. We cannot afford the consequences of not making this decision. We need to end rape. We need to end incest. We need to end all forms of sexual violence against everyone. This begins with education, and this is the only way to truly empower the people who are at the highest risk.

Published in The Tribune on July 26, 2023

/0 Comments/by
, , , ,

Unlawful Sex is Rape; Time to Name It and Do What’s Needed to Stop It

It is nowhere near surprising to read news stories about increased reports of sexual violence. It has become a near-daily challenge to get through articles about court cases involving men who have raped or otherwise sexually assaulted children where their crimes are referred to as sex or, in some other way, named as though they are not criminal, abuses of power, and void of consent.

The language used by police and courts is used in newspapers, all but erasing the word “rape” from public conversation. This is, in part, how we have come to talk about children as though they are adults, and survivors as though they are perpetrators. This is rape culture. This is adultification of children (and black girls in particular), the hatred of women, the refusal to acknowledge human rights, and the determination of far too many people to ignore the crisis that is gender-based violence.

Violence of many kind has been normalised in The Bahamas. It has been a part of our everyday vernacular for a long time with words like “hit” being used to describe various acts that are not necessarily violent, and threats of violence are made loosely, in jest, and without reproach.

“Rape” is used to describe various activities that people consider unfair, but which, otherwise, do not compare to the vile, criminal act of sexual violence. Somehow, though, when it comes to rape, the language changes. There is less willingness to use the appropriate word — rape. Instead, terms like “unlawful sex” are used to refer to the criminal act of a man raping a child. There is no excuse for this. Police reports do it, then the news media does it. The courts do it, then the news media does it again. One says they are using the language of the other, for consistency, yet the law says that the offence is rape.

Rape is caused by rapists. Rape culture makes it easy for rapists to rape people. Rapists seek to dominate, so people in situations of vulnerability, largely due to their identities, are often targeted. These include women, children, and people with disabilities. Rape, as we have seen in the reported cases over the past few weeks, does not need many conditions in order to occur. Rape happens during the day, and it happens at night. It is perpetrated by rapists indoors and outdoors. Rape is perpetrated against strangers, family members, friends of family members, friends, co-workers, people under the care of the rapist, and people with many other relationships to the rapist. There is no single act or set of actions that anyone can take to prevent themselves from becoming the target of a rapist. Rapists rape.

It is not that nothing can be done to prevent rape, but that preventative action is not for potential targets to undertake. It is not up to individuals to protect themselves from rapists. It is for governments to enact and enforce laws, make clear the obligations of institutions, including schools and workplaces, connect institutions and stakeholders and facilitate ongoing communication and implementation of action plans, develop appropriate, effective interventions, provide support services for survivors, centre survivors and their healing in justice systems and practices, and provide programmes for perpetrators that rehabilitate and prevent recidivism.

Asked about the increase in reports of sexual violence, the police press liaison officer said there are “crimes of opportunity because we are not taking the time out to put necessary precautions in place”. Let us assume, for the purpose of usefulness and productivity, that the officer was referring to prevention that must be led by public institutions. What precautionary systems and measures should be in place?

Let’s start with the root of this issue. There is a dangerous gender ideology that stems from slavery, colonialism, capitalism, and patriarchy that has convinced people that women are subhuman, are to be dominated by men, and are objects. It has also convinced people that men are to perform masculinity in the most toxic ways which include violence, hostility, a very limited range of emotions, and both the willingness and ability to dominate anyone who is not a man performing in the same way, especially women and men who are not (perceived to be heterosexual.

The vast majority of sexual violence is perpetrated by men. This is not disconnected from toxic masculinity or the constraints of the gender ideology that put women and men in boxes while marginalizing all other people. One of the ways that some men seek to assert their masculinity — and distance from femininity which has been so devalued by heteronormative gender ideology that it is regarded as perverse — is perpetrating violence. When manhood is questioned, when masculinity is undermined, when authority is not theirs alone, see how many men thump their chests and proclaim, “I’s man!”

Listen to the threats they spew. Watch the way they engage women as opposed to men. Listen to the way women talk about their experiences with them. Differentiate between the platonic love and respect they have for each other and the vitriol and disdain they have for women they may even claim to love.

Where a relationship exists, perpetrators of violence convince themselves that it is ownership. Where a relationship does not exist, and a perpetrator wants there to be a relationship, he decides to punish. Where a relationship does not exist and the perpetrator has no interest, and ownership — by another man — is not established or immediately evident, the perpetrator assumes control.

Rape is about power and control. Relationships only determine how a perpetrator violates a person, unless he respects a man who has already claimed ownership. All of this is misogynistic. All of it is dehumanising. It is all linked to the idea that women are subhuman and subject to the whims of men. This dangerous idea is perpetuated in explicit and implicit ways, from fathers giving their daughters away at weddings to the normalization of sexual harassment in public spaces. None of this has anything to do with what women do or do not do, or efforts made or not made to protect ourselves from rapists. It is directly related to societal ideas and behaviours related that subjugate, devalue, and dehumanize women and girls.

The press liaison officer, unfortunately, went on to do what we have come to expect from the police. Victim blaming. “Females need to make sure that they are upfront and they are honest with their family members in letting them know where they are going, who they are going with, and not saying you going one place and you end up another and something goes wrong.”

While we may agree, in theory, that it can be helpful for us to let people know our plans, we need to be realistic about the benefits of the practice. If something goes wrong and people know where we are, then what? Something has already gone wrong. Sure, we may be found and receive assistance sooner, but the violation has already occurred. No sharing of plans would prevent a rapist from raping in a location that we disclose. The problem is the rapist. We can, of course, delve into the reasons people lie and withhold information, especially when there are differences in values and fear of judgment. For now, we need to be realistic about where prevention takes place.

Prevention is in schools. It is in the way we teach children about their bodies, about consent, and about paying attention to and responding to their instincts. It is in comprehensive sexuality education, and discussions on healthy relationships, warning signs of abuse and abusive partners, sex positivity, and bodily autonomy. It is in households. It is in the way we tell people to moderate their behaviour, the respect we show and demand be shown to our children, the communication channels and practices, and the modeling of safe, healthy relationships of various kinds.

Prevention is in street lighting. It is in safe, reliable, accessible public transportation, and having it as an option at night. It is in the clearing of bushes, pedestrian crossings and enforcement of traffic laws. It is in legal reform to criminalise rape, contributing to the widespread understanding that rape is rape, no relationship is a defence for rape, and women are human beings with human rights regardless of marital status. It is in legal systems and practices, from bail to assessing the actual effects of a sexual offenders registry to reporting mechanisms.

Prevention is in the way government officials regard women and girls, and the urgency with which they respond to issues, especially gender-based violence, that directly affect us and often lead to femicide.

The Minister of Social Services said: “The rush of the past in dealing with sensitive issues have failed and caused Bahamians to be sceptical and cynical about what they perceive is haste without complete dialogue with the people.”

This is a matter of urgency. Years and years of back and forth on a bill, turning it into a senseless debate when it is an issue of human rights, is not rushing. This issue is not sensitive to anyone but the people experiencing violence every day, and having little or no recourse. It is not sensitive to government actors, content to let bills like the marital rape bill and the gender-based violence bill languish, and who allow extended discourse about whether or not it matters that a woman is raped if the rapist is her husband. There is no sensitivity there, and there is certainly no sense.

The minister also said: “The position of the Church is fundamental and has been in each step taken in the growth and development of our country.”

The Church is fundamentalist. The religious leaders who are talking about this issue, delaying the bill with their misogynistic, violent nonsense are fundamentalist. They fundamentally believe that women are less than men. That women do not deserve rights. That men should get away with rape if they are married to the victim or survivor. That their god is pleased with violence. That their opinions are more important than the fact that rape is violence, women have human rights, and that those rights include freedom from violence.

This is what is delaying the passing of the marital rape bill. This is what is delaying the gender-based violence bill (rather than the significant work that needs to be done to make it useful, including actual engagement with human rights experts and NGOs with proven technical expertise on women’s human rights rather than the government’s — or the Attorney General’s Office’s — selection of yes-organisations).

“We have made progress, and we will soon complete our due diligence,” the Minister of Social Services said.

What progress? What due diligence? What is the meaning of “soon”?

It is interesting to see the specific ways that government institutions suggest we, women and girls, protect ourselves, juxtaposed with the vague, unsubstantiated nonsense they offer when pressed to do more than perpetuate rape culture by blaming us for the violence we experience.

If the government did its job, we would be able to go to ours without being raped on the way, or on the way back, or while there, or during a call to tell someone where we’re going, or when catching a ride, or or or or or.

At some point, the government, especially legislators and law enforcement, must accept that the blame is on rapists, and that they facilitate rapists far better than they protect us, the women and girls who live with the perpetual fear of rape, and/or the memory of it.

Published in The Tribune on April 5, 2023

/0 Comments/by
, , , ,

People and Human Rights Need To Be Honoured Over Votes and Power

International Women’s Day is two weeks away, and the celebration of The Bahamas’ 50th year of independence is 20 weeks away. Whenever there is talk about independence, I think about women’s rights.

I look for the progress that has been made and all that we still need to do, for the people of The Bahamas and, in particular, women.

It is sobering to think about the meaning of independence, the effects of colonisation, and the continued refusal to free ourselves of the discriminatory and violent laws – largely inflicted upon us by Britain – that continue to limit us in many ways.

Colonisation has long-lasting effects. In The Bahamas, we can see the influence it has had on every facet of life.

We drive on the left side of the road. Ideas about professional attire are inappropriate for our climate. There is still considerable distance between the government and the people, and little opportunity for people to actively engage in governance. Christianity is the dominant religion, whether or not the people who claim it actually practice it. The economy is prioritized over people. Racism and colorism are rampant, and people are still afraid to name them. Laws discriminate against women. Human rights are not valued. Positive changes, to increase access to human rights, are debated and few people are interested in, much less equipped to, advocate in the face of an opposition that has gained power through colonial means.

The criminalisation of marital rape has been discussed for years. In 2018, the then government drafted a bill to amend the Sexual Offences Act to criminalise marital rape without acknowledging it as rape. There were many unacceptable flaws in that bill, and it was rejected.

It was not until 2022 that we saw another amendment bill – the one that is currently being discussed to what seems to be no end. The government refuses to do what it knows must be done, pandering to the loud and wrong voices of church leaders who are, frankly, misogynists.

The church leaders who support the criminalisation of marital rape are not nearly as vocal or consistent as those who oppose the rights of women.

The Minister of Social Services and Urban Development, who has responsibility for the Department of Gender and Family Affairs, has said, without shame, that the government is waiting to hear for a meeting date from a particular church.

What? The bill is being held up because one church wants to have its say and has yet to even propose a meeting date? And this is after the government held a “symposium” that was specifically for church leaders?

Would the government wait to get a meeting date from a non-governmental organisation that promotes women’s rights? Would it stall on legislation regarding finance when the International Monetary Fund or Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development are making their demands? Who could delay its decision-making on such issues, and by calling for a meeting and offering no date?

The truth is that the position of the church should not matter when it comes to human rights and governance.

The church may be important to its members. It may be a useful network through which to reach people. It may be a guide for the people in it. It is not, however, the government and should not control the government. We, of course, know that the church wields its power regularly and is able to do this because political parties depend on them for votes. It is no secret that religious leaders use their pulpits politically, and in partisan ways.

This is the only reason the government panders to it while undervaluing and, in many cases, ignoring the positions of and evidence provided by people who represent – not control – people, especially those in situations of vulnerability.

The government has allowed the church to cement the narrative, easily disproven by reading the constitution, that The Bahamas is a “Christian nation”, that this was the intent of the framers of the constitution, and that this is the way it must be.

Among our tasks, 50 years into independence, is to gain a clear understanding of the constitution.

It has been, for far too long, a mysterious document whose actual contents are deemed irrelevant or unimportant. It has been treated as though it can only be read and understood by a particular class of people.

One of the only things most people ever hear about the constitution is a lie — that it states that The Bahamas is a “Christian nation”.

Let’s be clear. The Bahamas is not a Christian nation. Not constitutionally, and certainly not in practice. The violence and corruption that people actively participate in every day is evidence of that this is not a Christian nation, unless Christianity is violent and supports corruption.

First, we need to know that the part of the constitution that people reference when they declare that The Bahamas is a “Christian nation” is the preamble.

The prefix “pre” means before, or prior to. The root word “amble” means to walk at a slow pace. A preamble “walks before”. It leads to something else. It is an introductory statement that precedes, or comes before, a law. The preamble, then, is not the constitution.

The preamble, which is not an Article of the constitution, says, “founded on Spiritual Values”. It does not say “Christian nation.” It states “the preservation of [our] Freedom will be guaranteed by a national commitment to Self-discipline, Industry, Loyalty, Unity and an abiding respect for Christian values and the Rule of Law.”

Interestingly, when the preamble is brought up, reference is not often made to the rule of law, despite its proximity to the misquoted term “Christian values.” The rule of law means that everyone is accountable under the law, that the law which ensures human rights, is applied evenly, that laws are adopted and administered in a fair process, and that adequate resources allow for timely access to justice.

This, obviously needs more attention. We know that the rule of law is severely lacking in The Bahamas. Say “human rights” and see what happens. Look at the way laws are written and who is protected by them. Pay attention to the ways laws are passed, and which laws are put to the public for “discussion” which may as well call what it really is – delay. Read and watch the news to find out how the court system (dys) functions.

The preamble states that the nation is “founded on Spiritual Values” and “spiritual” is not specific to any religion. The constitution itself, in fact, entitles every person to freedom of religion and to “propagate his religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance.” It even states no person attending any place of education shall be required to receive religious instruction or to take part in or attend any religious ceremony or observance[…].” Why, then, would our laws be based upon any religion?

Individuals have freedom of religion in The Bahamas. Declaring it to be a Christian nation would be incongruent with that right, so this did not happen in the constitution. The Bahamas is not bound to any religious text or interpretations thereof. It is a secular nation.

Chapter three of the constitution is titled “Protection of fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual. Importantly, Article 15 entitles everyone, regardless of race, place of origin, political opinions, colour, creed, or sex, to a set of freedoms including life, liberty, security of person, protection of the law, and freedom of expression.

How has the right to security of person been made accessible to women? How has the right to protection of the law been made accessible to women? In what ways have these rights been denied?

We can start, of course, with gender-based violence against women which includes marital rape. If the definition of rape in the Sexual Offences Act excludes spouses, what does that mean for women who are raped by their husbands? They are denied, by Section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act, the right to security of person which includes the right to be free from all forms of violence.

They are also denied the right to protection of the law. The Sexual Offences Act does not protect married women from sexual violence inflicted by their spouses. It must be amended. Marital rape must be criminalised.

We need to understand our laws and how they impact people. We need to know what the constitution actually says, and not rely on what people say about the constitution. We need civic education, and not limited to school-age children.

Far too many of us left school with little or no knowledge about the role of the government, the constitution and legislation, and citizens of the country. A public civic education campaign is desperately needed in this country. Without it, independence means very little.

We can have a flag and other symbols, sing a national anthem, and put the faces of Bahamians on the national currency, but none of that makes us free. None of that secures our rights. None of that makes this country a better place.

Independence ought to be about the people – our rights and freedoms, our ability to set and progress toward national goals, and our realisation of this place as a home that we would and could actively choose for ourselves.

Independence has little meaning for most of us, not because we do not understand it, but because we do not feel it or access the freedom and pride it promises. We will not get there without gender equality.

Ending gender-based violence against women and girls must be a national priority, and one that is aggressively actioned, even in the face of opposition.

People and their human rights have to be more important than votes, concentrated power, and the lure of money from corruption and collusion.

The colonisers did not see it that way before 1973. Does the government of today?

Published in The Tribune on February 22, 2023

/0 Comments/by
, ,

GBV Talk at Rotary Club of South East Nassau

March is always packed with speaking engagements due to International Women’s Day. I’m always happy to see the conversations continue well past March 8, so I’m looking forward to attending this week’s Rotary Club of South East Nassau meeting to talk about gender-based violence. Last week was full of terrible news, so there are many examples to use in this sessions and, more importantly, put in the context of structural gender-based violence and the reform we need.

/0 Comments/by
, ,

Gender-based Violence Training for University of The Bahamas Greek Life and Student Leadership

Click to increase size.

As a part of the activities planned by Equality Bahamas, I’m looking forward to facilitating gender-based violence training for student at University of The Bahamas over the next few days. These sessions will cover the basics of gender, sex, and sexuality, look at domestic violence, intimate partner violence, and structural violence, review a selection international mechanisms and laws of The Bahamas, and guide participants through development of responses and interventions.

/0 Comments/by
,

We Need Action, Not Just Anger

On the weekend, it was reported that a four-year-old child was taken to the hospital. Soon after, there were claims on social media that the toddler had been sexually assaulted. The toddler, Bella Walker, died.

This assault, not yet confirmed by the Royal Bahamas Police Force which claims it is still waiting for autopsy results, has been met with outrage. People are angry about this child allegedly being abused, and the suggestion that the abuse caused her death. In this state of anger – one that comes and goes as the general public hears a horrific story and, given enough time, forgets about it – people are calling for action.

Anger can be a strong motivator and lead to things getting done, but those are not usually the right things. It is important for us to recognize this as a pivotal moment.

Nothing we do will bring Bella back or undo the abuse she went through or the suffering of the people who loved her.

While we honour her, mourn the loss and empathize with the people who loved her, we have to look at our circumstances. We have to see the gap between where we are and where we need to be, then figure out what we need to do to move from here to there. We will not get there by doing the first thing that comes to mind when we are enraged and want vengeance. If we are to address the scourge that is sexual violence, beyond individual incidents, we have to identify the issue and the systems that allow it to persist.

Gender-based violence refers to harmful acts directed at an individual based on their gender or that affects people of a particular gender disproportionately. Examples include sexual harassment, female genital mutilation, forced marriages, stalking and sexual violence. Gender-based violence occurs in both public and private spaces, and it can be perpetrated by individuals, organizations and states.

Sexual violence includes non-consensual vaginal, anal, or oral penetration, non-consensual capture or distribution of photos or videos and sex trafficking. Globally, 35 percent of women have experienced physical or sexual violence and 38 percent of murders of women are committed by intimate partners.

Intimate partner violence is a pattern of behaviour used by one partner to maintain control over the other, and it is disproportionately experienced by women. Domestic violence is an incident or pattern of incidents of controlling, coercive, threatening, degrading and violent behaviour between people in the same household including spouses, people who are dating, parents, children and cohabitants.

Child abuse is the harm of anyone under 18, including one-time events and a series of events over a period of time. This includes physical abuse, psychological abuse, sexual abuse and neglect. Perpetrators of child abuse may include family members, friends, people in positions of authority over them, people in community settings and strangers.

Children are often afraid of telling anyone that they are being abused, but there are often signs of abuse. These include being afraid to be around certain people or in certain places, being unusually withdrawn, running away, not being taken to the doctor, and knowing things that are not suitable for their age. They depend on adults to see the signs and take action to protect them.

Neighbours told reporters that Bella’s mother was in an abusive relationship with a man who was not Bella’s father. They heard fighting, saw her locked outside while naked, and heard her say she was tired of him harming both her and her daughter. While one neighbour said they tried speaking with the couple, no one else intervened. They did not call the police nor the Department of Social Services.

On at least two occasions, four-year-old Bella was left home alone. This is only known because she left the house and went to neighbours where she asked for food. It was also said she told neighbours she did not want to go back home while the man was there.

This all points to an horrific example of intimate partner violence, domestic violence and child abuse. There are many questions and no shortage of blame to go around. Blame is of little use, but many of the questions, if we truly answer them and connect them to systemic issues, could lead us to a comprehensive plan to ensure that this does not happen again.

The neighbours decided to mind their own business. Why? One mentioned that the new people in the area do not have anything to live for. Many people choose silence in an attempt to protect themselves, thinking that speaking up would lead to them being harmed. Others believe their household is their business, and that is all.

There are two different ideas here that have the same result. People know something is wrong, but no one is prepared to do anything about it. How can we make it safe for people to report these incidents? How can we change our thinking about what is and is not our business? How much more likely would people be to report violence if they are certain to remain anonymous and safe, are certain that the entity they report to would respond in an appropriate, effective manner, know exactly who to contact and how, and it is an easy process?

There are two challenges here. We need a strong, accessible, trusted reporting mechanism that people are able to use with confidence, and we need to shift community culture and change our ideas about what is and is not our business. We need to understand that what we do and do not do matters, and can be the difference between life and death for the people who depend on others to do something.

A four-year-old child was left home alone on multiple occasions, and she is certainly not the only one. She was left in the care of a person who reportedly hurt her and, according to what we have read on social media, possibly sexually abused and killed her. This person was, reportedly, abusive to the child’s mother. People want to know why the mother left her child with a person she knew was abusing her, even if she did not know he was also abusing the child.

It is easy for us, on the outside, to say what we would never have done. We can easily swear that we would have done whatever it took to protect our children. We, however, were not in this woman’s situation, and we do not know her mental state.

We do not know the specifics of the abuse she endured nor the effects on her mental health. Putting her child in danger cannot be excused, yet we must make the connection between her behaviour and her experience of violence. To ignore it would be a failure to recognize the effects of violence.

We have to ask how and why this happened, and how we can prevent it from happening to anyone else.

We, in The Bahamas, do not have a proper social safety net which should improve the lives of people in situations of vulnerability. We have a desperate need for programmes that reduce vulnerability, and that includes poverty. We need a way to better manage unemployment, illness, disability and ageing. We need to prioritize care for children. Where can people with low incomes take their children while they are at work?

We know that many children are abused when they are left at home alone, with family members and with friends. Everyone does not have responsible, trustworthy family members who are able to take care of their children. For many, they have a trusted person, but their home is not safe because they allow other, not-so-trusted people to enter.

We need public childcare programmes and subsidies. Children are increasingly put in unsafe environments because their parents cannot afford childcare. This is not a private issue or a matter that is the sole responsibility of a household or a family. This is a national issue that needs to be addressed in national policies and programming with allocation in the national budget.

Just as we are outraged about the death of this four-year-old child as a result of injuries that, allegedly, were inflicted by her mother’s boyfriend, we have to be outraged by the negligence of successive administrations that have, without a doubt, been aware of the circumstances.

I have seen people calling for use of the cat -o-nine-tails, the death penalty, and a sex offenders registry.

These are all reactions. It is understandable that people are angry, and the first instinct is to demand the physical harm of the person responsible for the horrific acts we are discussing. People cling to “an eye for an eye,” and want to respond to inhumane acts with the same kind of punishment.

Whatever our positions on their use, the cat o’ nine tails and the death penalty do not solve the problem. They would be used after far too much has happened and at least one person has been significantly harmed. We can beat and kill rapists and abusers every day, and it would not address the issues that the killing of Bella make clear, if only we stop to think about it beyond the incident itself.

We are all angry. We know that Bella should not have been killed. We know this could have been avoided, if only.

We want something to be done. Let’s make sure that what we demand and what we get is not symbolic or ill-suited to our context.

We need to call for actions that will prevent gender-based violence, including domestic violence and intimate partner violence, and child abuse.

Our focus cannot be on what happens after these egregious acts have been perpetrated.

We need to stop them from happening. Let’s ensure that children are in safe, loving homes, that women and mothers are in healthy relationships, and that those who need help can access it with ease.

Let’s build relationships with the people around us so we can truly call ourselves communities, and ensure that we have the resources we need to address the issues we know exist and those we will surely come to know.

The outrage we see and feel will not last. It never does. Let’s do something that will.

Published in The Tribune on November 10, 2021.

/0 Comments/by
,

Culture Clash: We Must Do More to Stop Domestic Violence

Everyone is familiar with the term “domestic violence”. It, unfortunately, comes up often enough that it is a regular part of our vocabulary and we believe we know what it means. Domestic violence is violent or aggressive behaviour between people in the same home, and it usually involves partners. We know that it can be physical, but it can take other forms that are often not recognized as domestic violence, and it disproportionately affects women.

In a 2009 survey of 600 college students in New Providence by Susan J Plumridge and William Fielding, it was found that 21 per cent of students grew up in households where domestic violence occurred. There is also the 2014 study by (then) College of The Bahamas in which 58 per cent of high school boys and 37 per cent of high school girls participating said they believed men should “discipline” their partners. We know that what children experience at home helps to shape their world view and behaviour. It is not enough to educate children about healthy relationships and warn them about intimate partner violence and domestic violence. We have to be able to address what is happening now, causing harm to people experiencing and witnessing violence.

Domestic violence is largely understood as physical abuse. The billboards, pamphlets, and PSAs usually include graphic images of women with wounds and bruises, most often on their faces. In many cases, physical violence is hidden, leaving no visible evidence, or covered up by clothing and makeup. There are also many cases of domestic violence that do not involve physical violence. It can be the threat of violence, denial of basic needs such as food and clothing, isolation from family members and friends, deprivation of money or the ability to work, damage to property, and other controlling behaviour. These may not be immediately recognised as domestic violence by the person being violated or the people in their life, if ever. We all need to know the signs of domestic violence and how people change when they are experiencing it. For that to happen, we need to expand our understanding of domestic violence, indicate that it is not limited to physical violence whenever we talk about it, and portray it in more than one way. This work falls to non-governmental organisations, but the government is obligated to engage. It has a responsibility to the people and obligations through international mechanisms, and it must not be allowed to ignore or assign these responsibilities to other bodies, especially with proper resourcing.

Beyond a clear understanding of domestic violence, we need to acknowledge that people are at different levels of risk and require different interventions and support services. Domestic violence is experienced differently by people with children, and their opportunities to leave and to report are affected by having dependents. Domestic violence is different for people with disabilities. It is different for people who are unemployed. It is different for people who are living in a country where they do not have citizenship, family, or any other support system. Laws, policies, and services have to take these people into consideration and respond to their specific needs.

In her report on violence against women in The Bahamas, Dubravka Šimonovic — former Special Rapporteur on violence against women — noted that socio-economic status and social exclusion put migrant women at increased risk of various forms of violence and reduces the likelihood that they would report violence for fear of being deported. She also noted that crimes against LGBTQI+ people, including domestic violence, largely go unreported.

For both migrants and LGBTQI+ people, there is fear of the unintended consequences of reporting. Will they be blamed? Will their status or identity be made public? How will they be made to suffer because of it? Is reporting worth the risk? The government is obligated to ensure that it is not only possible, but safe for people to report domestic violence and that they will receive assistance beyond the option to prosecute.

Šimonovic recommended continued training for police officers on domestic violence along with training of people in various institutions that would come into contact with survivors of domestic violence, including healthcare facilities, welfare agencies, and immigration officers. As first points of contact, they need to understand domestic violence, its impact on people, and the way it disproportionately affects people who are already in situations of vulnerability.

It was noted in Šimonovic’s report that there is a need for more shelters in all of the islands of The Bahamas. It is important that people are able to safely report domestic violence and access safe temporary housing. It is particularly difficult for women with children, especially boys over the age of ten, to find appropriate shelter.

The report said: “At least one shelter capable of admitting women and children around the clock should be available in every region of the State, including rural areas.”

We are not there yet. It is unacceptable that domestic violence is such a common occurrence and we do not have resources in place to support survivors. Even worse, people are shamed for not leaving (sooner), as though they have somewhere to go. We, in fact, need to shift away from displacing survivors, instead requiring perpetrators to find other accommodations and stay away from the home.

We need to implement the National Strategic Plan on Gender-based Violence and legislation to protect from gender-based violence and domestic violence. In addition to changes in law and the support of plans and policies, we need to implement practices and procedures that support the work to end domestic violence and violence against women.

One issue that comes up over and over again on most issues, but especially issues of women’s human rights, is the lack of data. The absence of data is frequently used by detractors as “proof” that a problem does not exist, is not big enough, or does not affect enough people to even warrant a conversation. We need to do much better on collecting data, analysing it, and making it publicly available, not in response to the misogynists and anti-rights people, but to better understand the issue, how it is changing, the ways it affects people, and how we can more effectively prevent and respond to it. The issue of insufficient data has been addressed by various experts, entities, and mechanisms.

Šimonovic’s report calls on the government to “regularly collect, analyse, and publish statistical data on all forms of gender-based violence against women, through a femicide watch or observatory on violence against women, with aggregated data on the number of complaints, convictions, and reparations made to victims”. This is a reinforcement of an existing obligation through an Inter-American mechanism.

The Bahamas ratified the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence against Women (Convention of Belém do Pará) in 1995. Little has been done to familiarize the general public with this convention. We need to be aware of the international mechanisms that expand and protect our rights, especially when the State ratified them. The Bahamas is required to come into compliance with Belém do Pará which acknowledges that violence against women is violation of human rights. Article 2 says violence against women includes that which “occurs within the family or domestic unit or within any other interpersonal relationship, whether or not the perpetrator shares or has shared the same residence with the woman[…]”

The Convention also includes violence that is “perpetrated or condoned by the state or its agents regardless of where it occurs”. It obligates the state to prevent and investigate violence against women and include that in legislation and administrative measures, to amend or repeal laws that “sustain the persistence and tolerance of violence against women,” and to “establish fair and effective legal procedures” for women who experience violence. In addition to legal remedy, the Convention requires states to implement measures and programmes to address cultural attitudes and patterns of violence, raise awareness of the issue, and ensure proper data collection among other obligations.

Belém do Pará is an important convention that has gone without attention for a long time. It is relatively easy to read and understand, and it is imperative that we implement it. It is not enough to ratify. The government is obligated to educate the public on human rights mechanisms and what they mean for us. Civil society needs to be aware of what we have ratified and how it all applies to the lives of the people they are meant to serve.

As we get closer to the start of the global 16 Days of Activism Against Gender-based Violence campaign which begins on November 25, take some time to read the Convention. Simply type “Belém do Pará convention” into your search engine of choice and it will be the first result. Get familiar with it along with other conventions such as the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). Equality Bahamas will be especially focused on domestic violence, femicide, and violence and harassment in the world of work in the coming weeks and will host a series of events on these topics as well as human rights, the importance of data, and the role of the media. Follow the organization on social media (@equality242) and look out for the calendar of events and calls to action to end gender-based violence against women and LGBTQI+ people.

Published in The Tribune on October 27, 2021.

/0 Comments/by
, ,

A Little Disappointment Shouldn’t Kill the Dream

Last week was quite busy as I worked with the all-volunteer team of Equality Bahamas to plan and execute our annual International Women’s Day events. Every year, this process leads me to think about a range of issues, circumstances, gaps and solutions. From people – primarily young women – adding to their regular workloads as volunteers with non-governmental organisations to the response of the public to initiatives designed for and by women, there is no shortage of necessary discussions.

After the march and expo, I came across a Facebook post by someone I’ve known since elementary school. This is not a person I spend time with nor have intimate knowledge of, but I know basic facts such as her name, profession, close friends and other bits and pieces anyone can glean from shares on social media. I did not know anything about her position on political or social issues. Then I saw a days-old post about the (then) upcoming march I organised with a team of dedicated, enthusiastic young women. The post basically said she would definitely not be marching after being duped by We March which proved to be something other than the organiser had suggested.

There were three main commenters, two of whom completely agreed with the post. One person noted it was an unreasonable position to take, unfair to paint women organisers with the brush of a reckless person, and important to properly use non-violent forms of protest.

I struggle to find a word for the way I felt when I read this thread. “Disappointed” is not quite it. I know better than to expect everyone – or even most people – to get on board. I have come to expect naysayers and finger-pointers. I know people find it easy to call other people’s work garbage – and this is a euphemism for the word used – than to do the work themselves. Still, it is almost as though I expected more from this particular person. Why? Because I “know” her? Because she has never shown any signs of being against the expansion of women’s rights? Because she is a young woman and business owner who has surely experienced misogyny and sexism, and has definitely been disadvantaged by the systemic issues we have yet to properly address? Because I think she should care?

In reflecting on this experience, I have been reminded of two important lessons I have learned over the past few years. The first is that it is important to take conversations about rights, justice and feminism outside of the comfortable spaces. The Equality Bahamas team can talk about national issues and what needs to be done to tackle them all day, every day, but it would not change anything. We have to take our critique, our ideas and our plans of action outside of our own space, engage others in the conversation and convince them to take action with us.

To be clear, we do this regularly, but the reminder helps push us to think more about where we have not gone yet and what we need to do to get there. The second is that our greatest opponents in the fight for equality are systems and social constructs – not people. People – including some we know – embody those systems and constructs and they act in the ways that are dictated by those systems and constructs. For many, those systems and constructs are all there is. They have not had the chance to think about a world without them.

The day-to-day hustle to get to and from work, figure out how to pay the bills and keep groceries in the house and take care of the unexpected does not leave us much room for imagination. All some of us have is the memory of what has already taken place and the heaviness of the current situation. Reality does not encourage us to dream. If we never take the time to think beyond what we have, to envision what we do not yet see, we are doomed to a future that looks exactly like the present. To get beyond this point, we have to identify and deconstruct the systems that find homes within people and we have to create opportunities for people to imagine, create and realise more.

Leaders of organisations, movements and people have a responsibility to the people under the sound of their voices. They have to be more than charismatic. They have to be honest. Loyal. Communicative. Accessible. They have to be able to answer questions about where they want us to go, why and how we will get there. They have to be willing to go the distance, to train, mentor and elevate others to take the position they must eventually vacate. They have to do what they said they would do. They have to prove themselves worthy of the trust and support they receive. When they fail to be and do all of this, and without apology, we end up where we are now. We find ourselves surrounded by people who are disappointed, hurt and unwilling to act.

No one fighting for a cause can hope for another’s downfall. The failures, missteps, compromises and disappointments of one can negatively impact others, even when they seem completely unrelated. How can we reactivate imaginations that have been dormant for so long? This may be the challenge of this generation of changemakers – to reactive imaginations so we can see something better, then believe we can make it happen.

Why whistles don’t get to the root of the issue

When Philip “Brave” Davis suggested the government provide women and children with whistles, there was no way to keep it out of the headlines. Yes, he made other recommendations, but this one deserved a response. The knee-jerk reaction grazed the surface, but did not quite go deep enough to explain what is really wrong with the suggestion.

The whistle is not a new idea. Many of us are familiar with the “rape whistle”. We are expected to be equipped with these whistles and, should we feel unsafe, we are to blow the whistle.

The first issue is that the answer to an issue is not in the response of the person on the receiving end. Gender-based violence is a systemic issue. Gender is a social construct that prescribes ways of being for people based on the social and cultural expectations of each gender. Gender-based violence is the name for harm caused that is directly related to understandings of gender and how it controls us.

The man who attempts to harm a woman because she is seen as weaker and meant to be submissive is not likely to be scared off by the sound of whistle for various reasons. The whistle has to be accessible enough for the woman to blow it. If is it around her neck, it can become a weapon for strangulation. If it is loose, held in her hand, it can be knocked out. If she gets it to her mouth, she risks more physical injury because she could be caused to choke, or she may be struck. If she manages to use the whistle to make noise, this could aggravate the man and lead to further harm.

The second issue is the uncertainty about its effectiveness. Do we know what to do when we hear a whistle being blown in a parking lot? Is a Junkanoo group on the way? Is someone practising for sports day? Did a child get a new toy? What are we, as citizens, supposed to do when we hear a whistle. Do we know when it is a distress signal as opposed to something else, and do we know how to intervene if we determine it is a distress signal? On Saturday, we distributed whistles and one of the women decided to blow it in a public space when approached by a man she knew. Luckily, she was in no danger, but she noted no one paid any attention at all.

Women and girls are always told what to do and what not to do in order to prevent acts of violence against us, especially rape. Nowhere near as much effort is put into teaching consent, making a distinction between sex and rape and engaging men and boys in conversations about gender-based violence prevention. We need to get to the root of the issue. The problem is not that women and girls are not scared enough, vigilant enough, or bombarded with enough products – like mobile apps to indicate to friends that we’re in distress, pepper spray, and date rape drug-detecting nail polish – to prevent violence against us. The problem is that all the focus is on us and ways we can make sure the less prepared women or girl is the victim instead of us. We do not want to make someone else the statistic. We want to change the statistics. To do that, we need to start at the root, and not create another path to stress and further harm.

Published by The Tribune on March 11, 2020.

/0 Comments/by
, ,

Culture Clash: Eight Years On The Same Debate With The Same Answer – Rape Is Rape

We need to talk about consent. Most of us understand it to mean permission. Parents and guardians signing forms to allow children to participate in extracurricular activities probably comes to mind. We don’t think about consent as a way of controlling and protecting our own bodies. Instead, we view the bodies of women and girls as public property.

When we force children to show affection to family members and friends without prejudice, we teach them they do not own their bodies. When we tell teenaged girls, “Dress the way you want to be addressed”, we are telling them other people’s perceptions of them are the most important thing. We have many ways of making each other less than human, stripping away rights and dignity. We find ways to blame one another for any violation experienced, conditioned by and continuing the perpetuation of rape culture.

Rape culture is prevalent in our environment and allows people to believe there is something women and girls can do to prevent sexual assault. We can dress differently, travel in groups, ensure we are always accompanied by men, refrain from consuming alcohol, get home before dark and ignore our own sexuality. Even further, we can purchase a number of products like special underwear that only we can remove and nail polish that detects date rape drugs in our drinks. The onus is continuously put on us, women and girls to protect ourselves by being less visible and investing in products specifically designed for us. As if this is not enough to bear, our law does not recognise us as full people after we marry.

According to the Sexual Offences Act, once married, women are no longer entitled to (not) give consent to their husbands and are expected to engage in sexual activity whether we would like to or not. The Act says we cannot be raped and, by marrying us, men have unlimited rights to access our bodies.

What if this were the case for murder? If a man owns his wife’s body to the extent he can penetrate her vagina without her consent, what is to keep him from thinking he can kill her without consequence? If we stick to the “two become one” argument, we set ourselves down a slippery slope. Married women can vote, but not say “no” to sex and have the right to press charges if her husband rapes her. Married women are human beings in some ways, but property in others.

There is no reason for women to be denied the right to choose what to do with their bodies, in marriage or otherwise. The narrative of false accusations is completely baseless at best and foolish at worst. If we create legislation and policies based on potential for misuse, we would likely be forced to go without. Anarchy, anyone?

People talk about the great fear of the lying woman. Won’t married women lie on their husbands, just because?

People sometimes lie — not women; people. Cases sometimes go to court and the defendants are innocent. Sometimes it is difficult to prove the crime. We see this happen every day. This is the reason for courts, judges and juries. It is the reason evidence is required. The justice system has its issues, but so do society, the church and the institution of marriage. Are we really satisfied to doom married women to live as the property of their husbands, able to be lawfully violated? Are we happy to have even ten women suffer in silence, with no legal recourse, because one might lie on her husband? Do we really believe men are entitled to sex on demand when they marry a woman?

To be clear, rape is not sex. Sex can only occur with clear, continuous consent from all parties involved. When anyone is forced to participate in sexual activity, it is assault — a violation. If a person is underage, they are not able to give consent. If a person is intoxicated, they are not able to give consent. If a person is unconscious or asleep, they are not able to give consent. Consent must exist for a sexual act to be lawful. It must be explicit and cannot be coerced. There is no such thing as sex without consent; that is rape. It does not matter whether or not the people involved are married. Consent is not granted in perpetuity, regardless of licences and vows. We have the right to say yes or no.

In July 2009, then MP for Long Island Loretta Butler-Turner tabled the marital rape bill which would have amended the Sexual Offences Act to omit “who is not his spouse” so that marital status does not enter the definition of rape or impede access to justice. Eight years later, we are having the same conversation on the same level, seemingly with no better understanding of or appreciation for women’s rights as human rights. We listen to political and religious leaders and allow them to guide our thoughts on opinions far too often. We forget Members of Parliament and Cabinet Ministers work for us and should be acting in the best interest of the Bahamian people. Laws and policies should be made to protect the most vulnerable among us; not putting them at higher risk or further marginalizing them from the rest of society. Religious leaders should not be interfering in governance of the country, or imposing themselves and their views on the citizenry. They should be rebuking the consistent, dangerous misuse of biblical text to support misogyny.

Those who support men who rape their wives often use biblical text, mostly in fragments, to compel others to do the same. A favourite is Ephesians 5:22 which implores women to submit themselves to their husbands. Those quoting this scripture conveniently neglect to mention verses 23 and 28 which call on men to love their wives as Christ loved the church and “as their own bodies”. A true, practising Christian would surely look at the full scripture and, upon seeing “love,” refer to I Corinthians 13 for its definition and characteristics. According to Paul, love is patient, kind and protective and is not self-seeking. If a man loves his wife, would he not be patient, kind and protective, and willing to put his own desires aside instead of being self-seeking? If a man loves his wife as Christ loved the church — for which He gave His life — what limit would there be to what he would give up for her? Why aren’t we holding men to the same standards we demand women meet?

A married woman is still a woman, and a human being. Married women, like unmarried women, have human rights. These include being equal in dignity and rights, the right to security of person, freedom from slavery or servitude and recognition everywhere as a person before the law. In addition to being protected from sexual assault and understood to be human beings, women deserve to have access to justice. We need to look at the Sexual Offences Act and its definition of rape. We need to look at the way we view marriage and, in particular, the privileges of men within the institution. We need to understand that rape is rape, no matter who is involved. Perhaps more than that, we need to look at the positions we take and the arguments we use and ask ourselves who we are trying to protect – and why?

Published in Culture Clash — a weekly column in The Tribune — on December 20, 2017

/0 Comments/by