, ,

Country Strategy & Gender

The Bahamas, though it is a Small Island Developing State that is heavily reliant on tourism, continues to be classified as a “high-income country” and this comes with consequences. It is becoming more widely understood that Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is not only an inadequate measurement, but misleading and harmful. It is common knowledge that at least 80% of the money generated by the tourism industry leaves the country, and quickly. This money, however, is included in the GDP of this tourism-dependent country that does not truly own the tourism industry. According to the Inter-American Development Country Strategy for The Bahamas 2024-2028, “From 2015–2019, tourism accounted for an average of about 41 percent of GDP (when counting the sector’s direct and indirect contributions), about 48 percent of total employment, and about 78 percent of total exports.” 

This is a country where the income per capita, in the area of $31,000 in 2022, is a dream to many and barely manageable for the people at that income level who have to take care of anyone other than themselves. These considerations should be at the beginning and at the foundation of any conversations about planning, development, and assessments at the national level. The Bahamas is not a “developed” country based on the standards set by development organizations, including development banks, and this clear when ownership and control of resources is taken into consideration along with the destination of money generated here, particularly by the tourism industry. 

The tourism industry is a precarious one, and we have been directly warned by unpredictable events and shocks that economic diversification is critical. The sudden halt in travel immediately following 9/11 and the prolonged effects should have prompted a response that went beyond speeches. The COVID-19 pandemic brought the industry to a standstill close to twenty years later. Most people were affected by this in a direct and noticeable way. Many who are not directly employed in the tourism industry depend on those who are to support their businesses and, in many cases, their households. Given the nature of tourism and the amount of frontline service work it demands, in combination with the concentration of women in service jobs, women were severely impacted. 

Gender inequality affects every sphere of life. The evidence of it is everywhere. It affects our access to education, job opportunities, ability to advance in the workplace, access to public space, safety, social engagement, and home life. Gender-based violence is both interpersonal and structural, and this maintains the connection between issues that one may assume are completely separate, such as unemployment and domestic violence. The ability to work and receive appropriate compensation affects the ability of a woman to, for example, seek medical care, secure a safe place to live, keep her children in school, and leave an abusive relationship and household. The specific impact of a global shock like the COVID-19 pandemic on women and girls includes household affairs—ability to physically leave the residence, ability to buy sufficient food and other necessities, access to mental health services, management of addiction, primary topics of conversation, and responses to frustration. Gender is a factor, among others, that determines both opportunities and outcomes. 

One of the cross-cutting themes noted in the Strategic Areas of the Country Strategy is gender and social inclusion. On the Global Gender Gap Index 2021, The Bahamas was ranked low in comparison to similar countries. It found that while women were 75% more likely to have completed education at the university level, they were twice as likely to be unemployed. When employed, women with university-level education received 68% of the income men received. An IDB survey revealed that, in 2020, more women lost their jobs than men. Contrary to popular belief, women were also less likely to hold managerial positions. The representation of women in frontline politics remains low at 18% (in Parliament). Gender inequality is a longstanding, systemic issue that requires a response that includes action to end gender-based violence.

In section 3.27 of the IDB Country Strategy, a Bahamas Women’s Health and Wellbeing Survey, administered under the Citizen Security and Justice Program, is referenced. The survey was the first on the national prevalence of gender-based violence, examining “lifetime and recent experiences of intimate and non-intimate partner violence and abuse.” Survey results indicate the one in every four women in The Bahamas has experienced physical or sexual violence in her lifetime. One in every five women experience physical violence in an intimate relationship and just less than one in every ten women in The Bahamas experienced sexual violence in an intimate relationship. One in three women in The Bahamas experiences psychological or emotional violence by an intimate partner, and almost one in ten women experienced economic violence. The Country Strategy states that IDB will work with the Government of The Bahamas to use this data in the development of policy. 

One of the issues that is raised by development agencies, (potential) funders, consultants, and civil society organizations is the lack of data. This is true for The Bahamas, and it is true for other countries in the Caribbean. The situation appears to be different for Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, and Barbados where there are University of the West Indies campuses. We have recently seen research being shared by departments and faculty at the University of The Bahamas, and it has been helpful for students, advocates, researchers, and policymakers to have access to the data and analysis. It is known that the government pays for research to be done, reports to be written, and policies to be drafted, and that this does not always mean we will ever see, much less benefit from, the product. This needs to change. Data collection is great; we can only use it if we have access to it. Analysis is great; we can only apply it if we have access to it. There is a waste of resources when people undertake work that has been done already with the failure of making it accessible. We need to have access to the Bahamas Women’s Health and Wellbeing Survey. The data shared in the Country Strategy is useful, and there is certainly more that we can delve into and put to good use. It starts with access.

Recommendations for National Poetry Month

  1. Participate in National Poetry Writing Month NaPoWriMo in April. This annual event is a spinoff from National Novel Writing Month (NaNoWriMo) which is every November. For NaNoWriMo, participants try to write 50,000 words in 30 days, or 1,667 words per day. In NaPoWriMo, the goal is to write one poem every day for 30 days. Poets need their month of intentional daily writing too. 
  2. Read Poetry is Not a Luxury by Audre Lorde, Black lesbian feminist, socialist, mother, warrior, and poet. In it, she said, “For women, then, poetry is not a luxury. It is a vital necessity of our existence. It forms the quality of the light within which we predicate our hopes and dreams toward survival and change, first made into language, then into idea, then into more tangible action.”
  3. Seek out the work of Bahamian poets. Buy Bougainvillea Ringplay by Marion Bethel. Pick up a beautiful handmade book by Sonia Farmer. Check out the open mic nights where people share their work. Challenge yourself to become a Bahamian poet if you do not see yourself as one already. 
  4. Attend the NaPoWriMo Kick-Off. Poinciana Paper Press is hosting a session of generative writing prompts and community building, in-person at 12 Parkgate Road on Saturday, March 30 from 10am to 1pm. Participants will come up with prompts for the month of April, get to know each other, and be invited to join the WhatsApp group where prompts will be shared and daily poems are welcome. Sometimes prompts are one word, sometimes they are phrases. We may even see prompts that do not include worlds. One of the prompts in 2023 was “the (wo)man at the bottom of Nassau harbor.” Coffee and tea will be available, and participants are welcome to bring snacks and treats to share. Whether you have never written poetry or have several books of poetry, NaPoWriMo is a great time to create new work with the support of other writers.
/0 Comments/by
, ,

No more empty words, government – we need action on equality

In two days, it will be Women’s History Month, also known as International Women’s Month due to International Women’s Day being on the eighth. It is a time to not only acknowledge the work and achievements of women in the past, but to face the issues of the present in a way that can contribute to an equitable future.

We are still living in an inequitable, violent world that privileges men, boys, and the masculine and discriminates against women, girls, and the feminine. Misogyny and gender inequality are entrenched in the constitution, permeate our laws, and influence behaviour that is often conflated with culture and deemed unchangeable. Many people continue to ignore the existence of gender inequality and to insist that gender equality does not exist, while looking at and being a part of the evidence that it does, indeed, exist and is affecting all of us every day.

This week, I am participating in the World Conference on Stateless where people from all over the world are talking about stateless, the laws and conditions that lead to it, and the affect that it has on stateless people and broader society. In some of the sessions, the focus is on gender inequality in nationality rights, making it difficult or impossible for women to confer citizenship on their children and spouses.

Several people have made it a point to tell me that they did not know The Bahamas had this issue. They did not know that things were so bad in The Bahamas. I know that there are many Bahamians who would take great exception to this, feeling the need to defend The Bahamas and insist that it is not a bad place, or that its problems are not so terrible. This is easy to do when people do not face these problems themselves, and even moreso when they could not care less about the trials and tribulations of others —particularly those they already consider to be “other.” This, in fact, is evidence of the terrible state affairs. People do not even have the capacity to care about what is happening around them, to people around them, many of whom they depend on for various forms of labour.

Women’s History Month begins in two days, and I take this opportunity to share that my colleagues at Equality Bahamas and I have been requesting a meeting with the Minister of Social Services for months. In fact, we had been requesting a meeting with his predecessor for months as well.

It is unclear whether we have ministers who are incapable of meeting with feminist civil society organisations or ministries and departments that are staffed with people who are unwilling to do their jobs or see it as their duty to be the bottlenecks that frustrate so many into non-participation. Perhaps it is a combination of the two.

This is not only unfortunate, but to the detriment of the country which is struggling to present itself as doing all right, and a government desperate to hide its failures and sugarcoat its complete disinterest in meeting international human rights standards. Civil society organisations such as Equality Bahamas are advocating for women to have full access to our human rights by participating in and invoking international mechanisms, demanding legal reform, providing public education material, and engaging with community members. This often means its representatives provide written and oral accounts of what is taking place in The Bahamas, how the government is responding to issues, and how government officials engage with advocates and affected people. These reports, generally speaking, are not good. The failure of successive government administrations is colossal, embarrassing, and wholly unnecessary.

In 1993, the Government of The Bahamas ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and reserved on Articles 2(a) and 9(2) which obligate States to “embody the principle of the equality of men and women in their national constitutions or other appropriate legislation if not yet incorporated therein[…]” and to “grant women equal citizenship rights with men with respect to the nationality of their children”. The CEDAW Committee has, on more than one occasion, recommended that the Government of The Bahamas withdraw its reservations, stating that these Articles are integral to the intended effect of the Convention itself. In particular, to reserve on Article 2 is antithetical to CEDAW and the ratification of it. How can a government commit to eliminating discrimination against women, yet refuse to make the necessary changes in the law?

Does a government committed to gender equality have ministers with responsibility for the gender department who refuse to meet with women’s rights advocates? Does it employ people who refuse to coordinate meetings at the request of civil society organisations? Civil society in some countries, with much smaller civic space, often complain of being unable to engage with government except for when they meet in international spaces, particularly where reporting is done. This should not be the case in The Bahamas, especially when the government has told the Human Rights Council that it is unaware of hostility toward human rights defenders.

We have to demand more of the government. We barely get promises, much less action that moves us toward gender equality. Even ending gender-based violence is not a priority for this administration which has failed to pass the Gender-Based Violence bill and is pretending as though the marital rape bill has vanished into thin air.

It is not enough to make speeches in other parts of the world about its “commitment” to human rights, and it is unacceptable for it to overstate its plans and actions. Equality Bahamas invites members of the public — women and girls in particular — to join us in taking our feminist demands to the streets. Our International Women’s Day March and Expo is on Saturday, March 9. Meet us at the Eastern Parade at 8:45am for the march to The Dundas Centre for the Performing Arts on Mackey Street, then spend the day with us at the Expo with several none-governmental organisations and practitioners who will facilitate great sessions from Zumba and yoga to letterpress printing and an introduction to bush medicine. Learn more about the event at tiny.cc/iwd242nassau.

Published in The Tribune on February 28, 2024.

/0 Comments/by
, , ,

End hypocrisy over human rights reforms

SUNDAY, December 10, was Human Rights Day, with the theme of Freedom, Equality, and Justice for All (with italics indicating the emphasis on “all”). It marked 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The most translated text in the world, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights consists of 30 articles and serves as “a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society[…] shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance[…]”

It is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that states that we are all born free and equal in dignity in rights, that everyone, without distinction, is entitled to all of the human rights and freedoms outlined, that we all have the right to life, liberty, and security of person, and that no one is to be held in slavery or servitude among many other rights.

The Human Rights 75 Initiative was launched to bring attention to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and a High-Level event was organised to promote universality and indivisibility, look to the next 25 years, and bolster the human rights ecosystem. At the event, the Attorney General delivered pledges on behalf of The Bahamas at the High-Level event to commemorate the 75th anniversary by contributing to “change and concrete progress on the ground on the promise of freedom, equality and justice and accountability[…]” The Ministry of Foreign Affairs website describes the pledges made as:

(1) Strengthening and development of national human rights mechanisms and institutions in alignment with international standards, including the establishment of the Parliamentary Human Rights Committee, the Office of the Ombudsman and strengthening the National Reporting Cooperation Mechanism;

(2) Strengthening cooperation with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) as host country for the proposed regional office of OHCHR for the Caribbean Community (CARICOM);

(3) Ensuring equality in nationality rights and

(4) Taking concrete measures to address the existential threat of climate change and its adverse effect on human rights.

These pledges are without much meaning when we consider the complete and decided inaction of the Government of The Bahamas to protect, promote, uphold, and guarantee access to human rights. In April 2023, mere weeks before the appearing before the Human Rights Council for the Universal Periodic Review, the government passed a resolution in the House of Assembly to form a “Human Rights Committee.”

At the Universal Periodic Review, 17 Member States recommended that the Government of The Bahamas establish a national human rights institution (NHRI), many of them specifying that it be in line with the Paris Principles which outline specific responsibilities and modes of operation and gives a specific composition to guarantee independence.

A national human rights institution is not a committee, and it is certainly not a parliamentary committee. It is to have pluralist representation to include civil society and universities and qualified experts. It is to have funding and its own staff to support its independence from the government. It is expected to have a broad mandate including the promotion of the harmonization of legislation with international human rights instruments, encourage ratification and implementation of human rights instruments, contribute to reports to human rights mechanisms including treaty bodies, and to publicly advocate for and increase public education on human rights.

The Government of The Bahamas has not acted in alignment with its purported commitment to human rights. It readily participates in talk shops and makes statements and pledges in international spaces, but fails to follow through on commitments or even acknowledge that commitments have been made at the national level. It is inconsistent even in its international acknowledgement of commitments.

For example, The Bahamas noted (meaning rejected) the recommendation to “ensure the full applicability of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women,” but supported (meaning accepted) the recommendation to “continue its efforts to harmonise its national legislation to match its international human rights obligations and commitments.” The 1993 ratification of Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women is, in fact, a human rights commitment. It does not make sense for The Bahamas to accept a recommendation to harmonise legislation with international human rights commitments while refusing to fully comply with the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.

Several member states recommended that the government of The Bahamas take measures to ensure the equal participation of women in political and public life. The government of The Bahamas noted, rather than supported, all of the recommendations in this area that obligates it to take specific action. Its nonsensical and false responses were, “There are a very high percentage of women having leadership in public and political life,” and “Women in The Bahamas are already participating equally in public life with their male counterparts.” It is important to note that the second response conveniently excludes political life. The first response is especially concerning as it is absurd to suggest that less than 20 percent is high representation when women are more than 50 percent of the population.

The Government of The Bahamas is not only content with its own mediocrity, but is consistent in its attempts to mislead multilateral organisations and the general public with regard to its position on issues and progress (or stagnation). It continues to reference the human rights committee as though it meets international standards. It does not. It is not in line with the Paris Principles. It is not a national human rights institution. No amount of pomp and pageantry around it will make it any more substantial or bring it any closer to the international standard. That the same government would suggest that 18 percent of parliamentarians being women is a high percentage is cause for great concern. Either the people submitting responses to the recommendations received in the Universal Periodic Review do not have a basic understanding of mathematics and, in particular, proportions, fractions, and percentages, or they have no commitment to gender equality or women’s equal participation and have set a devastatingly low bar that it does not intend to raise.

It remains to be seen whether or not the government will follow through on its commitment to address the issue of gender inequality in nationality law. When asked about the persisting inequality which prevent women from conferring Bahamian citizenship to their children and spouses, the government said it would take action upon the decision from the Privy Council. That decision was delivered in May 2023, more than seven months ago. Just days ago, the pledge was made to ensure equality in nationality rights. The pledges made by The Bahamas are not concrete and have no timeline, making them difficult to measure which was likely the point. The Government of The Bahamas participates in international events and processes in this marginal way, and perhaps its peers fail to call it out. We need not fail it and ourselves in the same way.

Published in The Tribune on December 13, 2023.

/0 Comments/by
, ,

We should take a stand when there is a crisis

THERE is always a crisis somewhere, and when there is a crisis anywhere, there is a crisis everywhere. This is the nature of the world, given the way that the global economy, geopolitic, and interpersonal relationships work on their own and are connected with each other. Crises, however discreet they may appear to be, are also interconnected. Discussed as though they are about one issue or another, armed conflicts are usually started to gain control of resources, destabilise economies, and/or oppress and subjugate people. The latter two are usually connected to the desire to steal, control, and profit from resources.

Some crises make it to the news while others are ignored, deemed less important, impactful, or relevant. Sometimes it is about the direct effect of crisis in one or two countries on the rest of the world and how much we depend on them for necessities. Sometimes it is about the people involved and how human the rest of the world considers them to be.

Everyone knows that there is a conflict in Ukraine, though everyone who is aware of it may not understand and discuss it as a war being waged by Russia.

We have seen footage of the violence against people and destruction of property. We have heard from the people who fled of the absence of choice and the will to survive which led to the separation of families. Ukrainian people have been forced to go to other countries that, thankfully, rightfully, accept them as refugees. They, in many ways, have to learn new ways of life, and they face the difficulty of deciding in which ways they should assimilate and in which ways they can and should maintain their culture. They balance the maintenance of their collective identity with living as comfortably in community with a receiving country. Language and food, of course, are integral to cultural identity, and are both the easiest and most difficult aspects to maintain when a minority in another country. Many have pointed to the targeted destruction of museums, galleries, and other cultural sites — clear attempts to wipe out every trace of Ukrainian cultural. This — all of it— is genocide. This is a war on people, on their culture, and on their history.

Everyone knows that there is conflict in Palestine, and particularly in Gaza, and there are different narratives about it, so not everyone acknowledges that it is genocide.

Some understand that Israel has inflicted violence upon the Palestinian people for decades, displacing them, trapping them in open-air prisons, and killing them. Some are unaware, and maybe uninterested, in the history of this crisis and the human rights violations by Israel against Palestine.

The same must be said here:

We have seen footage of the violence against people and destruction of property. We have heard from the people who fled of the absence of choice and the will to survive which led to the separation of families. Palestinian people have been forced to go to other countries that, thankfully, rightfully, accept them as refugees. They, in many ways, have to learn new ways of life, and they face the difficulty of deciding in which ways they should assimilate and in which ways they can and should maintain their culture. They balance the maintenance of their collective identity with living as comfortably in community with a receiving country. Language and food, of course, are integral to cultural identity and are both the easiest and most difficult aspects to maintain when a minority in another country. Many have pointed to the targeted destruction of museums, galleries, and other cultural sites — clear attempts to wipe out every trace of Palestinian culture. This — all of it — is genocide. This is a war on people, on their culture, and on their history.

What does the repeated use of these tactics tell us about these wars and the people waging them? What do they say about the intent of the people behind them? What about the common suggestion that it is “just about land”?

It is easy to throw our hands up. We can come up with countless excuses that amount to:

  • We are too far away.

  • We do not understand.

  • We are suffering too.

Whatever the excuses we can find to absolve ourselves of any responsibility for each other, within and across borders, global solidarity is critical. This has been rather difficult to build, but it is happening. One of the main gaps is the low capacity to care.

It is not always that people do not care. Sometimes people do not want to care, so they choose to ignore. Sometimes people do not know why they should care, and they actively work against the human instinct to be interested in the welfare of others. So many of us are tired, struggling, and tired of struggling. Moving from one day to the next can sometimes feel as though we ourselves are turning the massive, heavy hands of time, and that our running feet are what make this planet spin. The burden heavy, the pressure tall, we press on in our daily lives, concerning ourselves with what is immediately in front of us. Sometimes, being asked to care is taken as an affront. It is not that we should be blamed for these circumstances, considering that we are operating within a system that has been designed and maintained for this purpose — self-destructive individualism, hyper-focus on survival, perpetual exhaustion, and a seemingly necessary disinterest in what takes place outside of our own bubbles.

Our pushback against this system, while we are in it, has to be intentional, collective, and unrelenting. We have to choose to be attentive —watching, reading, and listening to the news. This on its own, of course, is not enough. We have to be media literate, assessing the credibility of our sources of information and being critical of the way the information is a delivered. Does the source have a clear position on this issue? What does the source want us to believe? Who has been quoted, and what other sources have been mentioned? What do the people behind this piece want us to do, and why?

One source is not enough for us to be able to make a decision on an issue. It is important to go to multiple sources, draw comparisons, note the contrasts, and verify the information. Are the stories firsthand, coming directly from people who have directly experienced the event? Is it a retelling of someone else’s story? Is there evidence to support the secondary data? What do the photos, video, and audio indicate? Could they have been manipulated in any way? Separate the facts from the opinions and apply the evidence.

After accessing and assessing the information for credibility, it can be helpful to discuss it with others. What do other people think about the news? Have others found other sources of information or completed assessments that we have not yet done? Do people tend to take one side over another? Why?

There is often one side that gets more support, and this does not necessarily mean that it is the right side. In many cases, the conservative viewpoints get more attention, both from media and from the people around us, because their talking points are generally the same and their positions are often so divisive that the media wants to run multiple stories over a long period of time, if only for the shock value that leads to more purchases and clicks. The people who call for human rights, dignity, peace, and equality are often left to play catch-up, responding to the hateful rhetoric and misinformation spread by other people. It is important to pay attention to what is being said on all sides and to identify the intent behind all of the messages. It is not sufficient to know the opinions people hold. Find out why they think, say, and do whatever it is they do. Assume less. Ask questions, challenge positions, and determine why you stand where you do.

Where are people being valued, championed, and protected? Where are systems and institutions being held up as more important than human life? Who is expressing concern and demonstrating care for the people most vulnerable to violence, destruction, oppression, and murder? Who is dehumanising people, using gender, race, socio-economic status, age, and other identity markers to “excuse” what is happening to them?

With information, opinions, and the intent behind them, we are better equipped to find our own positions on issues. Once we do, in order for it to mean anything, we have to take action. This does not mean we need to enter conflict zones or become participants in wars. Being relatively safe, we are able to speak up. We can talk to family members and friends about what is happening elsewhere and help them to understand who the victims are and how we can support them. We can make donations to organisations that are activated, especially on the ground and in receiving countries, to meet immediate needs, including food, water, and medical care. We can engage political leaders and other people of influence, sharing our positions and our expectations of them as they participate in conversations and decision-making processes with regard to the crisis. We can use our platforms, including social media, to share information and encourage others to act. Small acts matter. What is most important is that we take action based on our own capacity, and that we seek to increase that capacity by challenging ourselves and the systems that limit our ability and willingness to participate.

Interested in learning more about Palestine? Check out the list of 40 books at https://lithub.com/40-books-to-understand-Palestine. 

Published in The Tribune on November 15, 2023

/0 Comments/by
, , ,

30 years since The Bahamas signed Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women

FRIDAY, October 6, marked the 30th anniversary of The Bahamas ratifying the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). It was marked by a proclamation, printed in both national newspapers, of October 6, 2023, as Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women Day. The Prime Minister called on organisations, businesses, and families to recognise the importance of women’s rights and the elimination of discrimination against women with relevant activities and programmes.

Follow three decades of work by the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), CEDAW was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1979. It came into force in 1981. Some may be familiar with CSW as it is a large annual event held at the United Nations in New York City, drawing not only Ministers with responsibility for gender and women’s affairs, but non-governmental organizations that advocate for the rights of women for two weeks of meetings.

In its official programming, CSW results in an outcome document that lays out the commitments made by member states. Side and parallel events give non-governmental organisations and individual advocates opportunities to share knowledge, network, and build solidarity across countries and regions, and they also present opportunities to meet with state representatives and international organisations. It was the cumulative outcome of many years of CSW meetings that made the case for the drafting of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, recognising discrimination against women as a specific issue that needed to be addressed.

Since April 2022, Equality Bahamas has been hosting the CEDAW (Convention) Speaker Series, inviting experts — mostly from the CEDAW Committee — to lead discussions on the Convention, one Article at a time. The series started with Swiss human rights lawyer and former CEDAW Committee member Patricia Schulz leading the discussion on Articles 1 and 2. Article 1 focuses on the definition of discrimination against women and Article 2 focuses on the policy measures that must be taken in order to come into compliance with CEDAW, so those two Articles are discussed together just as they are dealt with together in the constructive dialogue in Geneva. Article 3 on basic human rights and fundamental freedoms was presented by CEDAW Committee member Esther Eghobamien-Mshelia, and it was followed by Article 4 on special measures which was led by Bahamian human rights experts Gaynel Curry. The series continued this way, with one expert discussing one Article (or two when they are handled together by the Committee) each month, presenting the text of the Convention, the relevance of the Article to the rest of the Convention, and the application of the Article to the Bahamian context.

I facilitated the CEDAW Speaker Series sessions, and each one deepened my understanding of the individual Articles and the Convention. Each speaker took time to give context for the Article of discussion, grounding it in the purpose and overall content of the Convention. They also made clear connections to other Articles. We tend to understand almost all of the Articles of the Convention as specific to a thematic area, but the overlaps and the interdependent nature of the Articles became with each session, especially as we considered them within the context of the work we are doing at the national level. For example, Equality Bahamas is currently conducting research on parental leave, and while we considered Articles 11 on employment and 12 on health, we realised that we also need to integrate Article 16 on marriage and family life. Article 14 on rural women is particularly relevant and will feature prominently when, in our report, we delve into the specific experiences of women on the Family Islands and how their maternity leave is impacted by the requirement that they leave their home islands to give birth in a hospital.

I was on a radio talk show yesterday to talk about the 30th anniversary of the ratification of CEDAW by The Bahamas and a caller expressed his concern that women in Centreville and in Bain and Grants Towns do not know about CEDAW because they have a lot of children and would not understand what I was saying. My instinct was to respond to a number of implicit biases and incorrect assumptions. One is that women in townships or inner-city communities are all the same — more than the average number of children and less than the average education among other assumptions. This is, of course, not the case.

He also assumed that I am a “sophisticated” woman, whatever that means, who does not engage at the community level. Instead of responding to these assumptions, I listened to the rest of what he said. The point that he really seemed to want to make was that the people who are supposed to benefit from the international human rights mechanisms that the governments sign do not even know they exist, much less how to use them to their benefit. I can easily agree with that point, while making it clear that it is the responsibility of the government to educate the people, promote human rights, and meaningfully engage people on human rights, domestic law, and international law and obligations.

We have become accustomed to the government, with any administration at the helm, shirking its responsibility to the people. It has normalised and continued its withdrawal from social protection, refusing and/or failing to ensure that people’s basic needs are met. We continue to suffer the effects of structural adjustment programmes, even in the face of multiple crises in recent years.

Despite being urged to do so by advocates and the CEDAW Committee, the government has refused and/or failed to educate the public on human rights, the obligations of the government to promote and guarantee access to them, and the international mechanisms that monitor and hold the government accountable in addition to make clear recommendations that must be implemented. In its Concluding Observations following the sixth periodic review of The Bahamas, held in Geneva in 2018, the CEDAW Committee said it was “concerned that women in the State party, in particular those belonging to disadvantaged groups, are unaware of their rights under the Convention and thus lack the information necessary to claim them”. It called on the Government of The Bahamas to “enhance awareness among women and girls of their rights and the remedies available to them under the Convention, including through awareness – raising campaigns, in cooperation with civil society organisations and community-based women’s associations”.

That the general public, and that women and girls themselves, are not aware of and do not understand CEDAW and its implications for all of our lives is not a failure of the public, women and girls, non-governmental organizations, or advocates. It is not due to an inability to gain new knowledge or to understand the content and application of the Convention. It has been thirty years since The Bahamas ratified CEDAW. The government is well aware of what CEDAW is and what it means for women and girls in The Bahamas. It voluntarily ratified it and it has presented its reports to the CEDAW Committee, the most recent being in 2018 and one in progress now. It has decided that women and girls knowing their rights is either unimportant or disadvantageous to the government and the institutions and people who benefit from the oppression, marginalisation, discrimination, and violence against women and girls. Thirty years is far too long for any excuse to hold.

Equality Bahamas has, with limited resources, run a speaker series in the lead-up to the thirties anniversary of the ratification of CEDAW. The recordings of past sessions are available on its Youtube channel and can be accessed at tiny.cc/cssplaylist. The series will continue during the Global 16 Days Campaign which runs from November 25 to December 10. In those sessions, experts will lead discussion on General Recommendations which elaborate on the Convention and address issues that are not articulated in it.

If you are interested in learning more about CEDAW or you would like to organise a session for a group, contact the Equality Bahamas team at equalitybahamas@gmail.com. If you would like to see the government step up to the plate and do the promotion and education part of its job as it pertains to human rights, say so. Contact the Department of Gender and Family Affairs to find out what it is doing, and contact the Office of the Prime Minister to urge the Prime Minister to properly resource the Department and transition it to the Ministry so that it can function as a national gender machinery and to build a national human rights institute which would monitor human rights, receive complaints, make recommendations, and provide education on human rights to the public. These have already been recommended by the CEDAW Committee and by member states through the Universal Periodic Review, so it will not be news to them. What would be news, however, is that members of the public are paying attention and have the demand, if not the expectation, that human rights be fulfilled.

Published in The Tribune on October 11, 2023

/0 Comments/by
, ,

It may be time for marriage to end

I recently participated in an interactive session organised by a nongovernmental organisation for community members. The participants were a diverse group of people, including single, married, and divorced people, people in their early twenties to people in their sixties, and people of many different sexualities. They sat together, listening to a presentation on the domestic violence law in their country, then moved into small groups to talk about their experiences of domestic violence.

Every participant had experienced domestic violence or knew someone who had. The types of violence varied. We heard the story of someone who experienced economic violence, deprived of their basic needs. We heard the story of someone who experienced sexual violence perpetrated by their parents. We heard the story of domestic violence that moved into public space. People were asked to not only share their experiences, but whether or not they reported, why or why not, and the outcomes. One of the stories was of a man who tried to report domestic violence at the police station and was turned away. The police officer told him it was not domestic violence because he “you’re a man.” One of the stories was about a gay man who called the police when he was physically abused by his partner. A police officer went to the house, but upon realising it was a gay couple, told them it was not domestic violence because “you’re a man,” and laughed at them. The person who called was upset by this, but not deterred, so he told the officer, “It is domestic violence. He is my partner and we live together.” The police officer still did not offer any assistance and left the residence.

No one was surprised by the responses of the police in these stories involving men. It is well known that there is a limited understanding of domestic violence. People, including police, often find it hard to accept that men can be victims of violence. In addition to that, from the stories, we see that police officers also fail to understand that domestic violence does not only occur between one man and one woman, and that domestic relationships are not always between one man and one woman. They do not understand or accept that relationships and households take many different forms, and all people are entitled to security of person and equal protection of the law.

The stories of the man who experienced violence sparked discussion about gender. What is it, and how does it impact the way we treat one another? We talked about the way the inadequate response to gender-based violence against women has helped to create this environment in which we struggle to address domestic violence and intimate partner violence against men. This, of course, goes back to gender ideology and the gender norms developed and reinforced by society. We are taught that men and boys are to be tough, and women and girls are to be soft. We are taught that men and boys are to be in charge, and women and girls are to follow instructions. We are taught that men and boys are to have limited emotions and emotional reactions, and that anger — especially anger that is loud and on display — is more appropriate than sadness or grief, and women and girls can have more emotions and emotional reactions, but are not entitled to anger.

Almost everyone at the session shared a story. Everyone expressed, in some way, that they experienced both sadness and anger. Some of them described feelings of grief and betrayal. They talked about what they knew would be expected of them. To stay. To leave. To cover it up. To suffer, both for people who were supposed to stay or supposed to leave. To overcome. To forget. To make peace. To bury their feelings.

There was a strong reaction from a religious leader participating in the session. The person spoke passionately about the pain that women go through when they are physically and sexually abused — physical and emotional pain. It was said that many continue to search for ways to make things better and reduce the harm caused to them. Eventually, many of them resign themselves to the situations — violent households that can no longer be considered homes. They go through the motions of their daily lives, from work to childcare to community events to church functions, and deny themselves the human response to pain. They have no support from the people around them, and are hyper-focused on saving their marriages, not themselves, because they can see no way out and think they may as well have the dignity of appearing to be in a happy marriage and home. It is a double-life, it takes more than double the effort, and it is a kind of death that they experience, over and over again. They die so that the marriage, and the perception of it, can live.

It may be time for marriage to end. Time for marriage to cease to exist. It continues to be seen, in some circles and cultures, as a goal and a necessary step in life, rather than an option that has a specific set of benefits that are, in many ways, outweighed by the negative aspects. No one is selling marriage very well right now — not the government, and certainly not the (anti-rights) church. Marriage is, according to them, an automatic reduction or complete erasure of rights. Married woman? Can’t pass on your citizenship to your child unless your husband is a Bahamian or you give birth in The Bahamas, because your citizenship is weaker due to your marriage. Oh, don’t forget that these sick individuals think you give up the right to make decisions about your own body when you get married, and the person you marry has more control over it than you do. You become a sex object and you have no legal right to withhold consent, and according to the anti-rights misleaders’ interpretation of The Bible, you are required to submit without thought and regardless of feelings.

Lyall Bethel said he would “reject any law that would weaponize sex in a marriage.” Well, sex is already weaponised. That is, unless we acknowledge that there is no sex without consent, so what people are doing, legally, when they force their spouses to have “sex” is rape. Rapists and rape apologists are weaponizing widespread misinterpretation of biblical text to rob women of their bodily autonomy when they get married.

He asked, “The cries, the statements being made, what more do you want?”

We want men — especially rapists and rape apologists — to either shut up or support the rights of women to make decisions about their own bodies and to be full human beings with access to all of our human rights, whether or not we are married. That would be an acceptable start.

We want religious misleaders to disabuse themselves of the notion that their deranged interpretation of a text they have chosen to follow and use to mislead others is an acceptable basis upon which to govern this secular State.

We want men and the misleaders they follow to stop raping people, and to stop encouraging others to rape.

We want them to be more disturbed by the death of a woman, the rape of a woman, the lost humanity of a woman than they are by the fact that women are human beings with bodily autonomy and men do not and cannot own them, married or not.

He said, “We already have something in place.”

What is in place is an exclusion. It is a law that says it is legal for a man to rape his wife. Section 15 applies only in cases where the two people are divorced or legally separated. That he considered this to be sufficient makes it clear that he denies married women their humanity.

He said, “It is feared that the social ills in our country will increase dramatically, namely less marriages, which in turn leads to destruction of the nuclear family, which was designed by God almighty for the flourishing of society.”

Rape is a social ill. Violence against women is a social ill. Misuse of scripture to support the abuse of women is particularly sick.

I look forward to less marriages. I look forward to people being able to freely leave relationships that are not happy or healthy, and that no longer work for them. I look forward to the complete rejection of the institution that the anti-rights Christians think they own when it is regulated by the State. I look forward to the complete destruction of the fantasy of the nuclear family which is unfamiliar to many generations of Bahamians because we have always had extended families and will continue to need them as the cost of living increases and our elders need our care. I look forward to society flourishing when we learn that we are interdependent, that parents do all of the childcare work, that money does not solve all of our problems, and that we are our greatest resource when we live in love and peace, free from violence, including the kinds of violence that some religious misleaders tell us is condoned by the men who wrote The Bible.

I look forward to us finding other ways to show the world our commitment to one another in love. I look forward to new ways of sharing property and ensuring that we can, in dire circumstances, have the legal authority to make decisions on each other’s behalf in accordance with our expressed desires. I look forward to alternatives to marriage, and to generations and generations of people overwhelmingly choosing that alternative instead. I look forward to relationships where love, freedom, and safety reside without the contradiction or imposition of anyone’s favorite scripture to weaponise. I look forward to the end of marriage — the institution that far too many people value over the people in it. May this weapon, wielded against women, be destroyed.

Published in The Tribune on September 6, 2023.

/0 Comments/by
, ,

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
, ,

Climate change isn’t just a hurricane – it’s the flooding in our streets and we all need to get real

Year after year, the rainy seasons meets us unprepared. There are inches of rain, roads flood, cars damaged and some people have difficulty leaving their homes. School drop-offs and the drive to work take much longer as traffic seems to crawl. Drivers move slowly through the water and try to control for the inevitable drops into holes that are only getting wider, deeper and more treacherous. People frantically switch from one radio station to another, listening for school closure notices and refresh emails hoping for notification that their places of work are closed or, at the very least, opening later in the day.

It is like a new experience every time. Somehow, though, we are supposed to be preparing — or already prepared — for hurricane season.

In studies and discussion on climate change, there is significant focus on two key strategies — mitigation and adaptation. Climate change mitigation refers to efforts that reduce or prevent the emission of greenhouse gases (GHG). These may include adoption of renewable energy such as solar and hydro, using more sustainable transportation methods such as robust and affordable public transportation services and electric vehicles, and better use of land. We can think of mitigation as risk reduction.

Adaptation refers to efforts, both reactive and anticipatory, to reduce the negative impact of climate change. It is preparation and adjustment, recognizing that, even with our interventions, there are effects of climate changes that require a response. Mitigation and adaptation strategies are complementary and require legislation, policies, programmes and services to implement, encourage, enforce and put them into practice.

In recent weeks, there have been several new stories focused on environmental degradation and, more specifically, the destruction of ecosystem-based adaptation, including mangroves and pine forests. This has had a negative effect, increasing flooding in many areas. We are not imagining the increase in flooding, or the increase in damage caused by rainfall. It is happening before our eyes, and our response needs to at least be commensurate with the impact.

Small island developing states (SIDS) are disproportionately impacted by climate change. We get the brunt of it through climate events such as hurricanes, and we are seeing now that our vulnerability is not even limited to hurricanes. While Ministers and advocates travel to large conferences to call for climate reparations, development assistance, commitments to lower emissions (and follow-through), there is work to be done at home.

We have to protect the environment that helps to protect us. We have to secure and insure our homes, make repairs, monitor changes in structures and infrastructure around us, and think about job security, food security and evacuation plans.

There is always talk about climate resilience. The Centre for Climate and Energy Solutions, successor to the Pew Centre on Global Climate Change says: “Climate resilience is often associated with acute events — like heat waves, heavy downpours, hurricanes, or wildfires — that will become more frequent or intense as the climate changes. However, good resilience planning also accounts for chronic events, like rising sea levels, worsening air quality, and population migration.”

Climate resilience requires mitigation and adaptation measures, and the most impacted sectors, including agriculture, and people, including women, people in rural areas, and people with disabilities, to be centred and engaged.

It often seems that we, as individuals, are expected to take responsibility for our own resilience. We have to mitigate and adapt for ourselves and our households. If we have to get to work, sunshine, rain, or severe flooding, public transportation and low-cost vehicles are less of an option. We all need a “high off the ground” vehicle which, in many cases, have larger tanks, requiring more gas. This personal decision comes at a financial and environmental cost. If homeowners want to protect their houses, they need to get insurance, and they had better read all of the fine print and figure out what they need to add to the basic plan to ensure they are covered should there be damage by hurricane or flood. They have to be able to afford insurance and keep up with the payments to have this protection. Again, we are responsible for our own resilience – and resilience costs money.

Who can afford climate resilience? Picture that person. What is their salary? What is the difference between that salary and the salary of a person being paid minimum wage? How is the minimum wage worker going to build (buy) resilience? The rising cost of living, minimum wage, and lack of government and institutional support, from legislation and policy to programmes and services, do not add up to climate resilience. The living wage needs to be implemented immediately. Community-level climate resilience initiatives and national mechanisms — to support people who do not receive enough money to pay for any level of personal climate resilience — are needed now.

We do not have to wait for a hurricane to see how many people are barely getting by. We do not need to be in the midst of disaster to understand the importance of mitigation and adaptation. We do not need to see long lines of people at distribution sites to know most of the people in The Bahamas cannot prepare, nor can they recover. We do not need an academic study to prove there are some groups of people who have less, so they need more support.

The current administration increased its travel budget by $4.1m. The Prime Minister said the government does not know what travel will come up this year. He noted it is a budgeted amount that may not be used. We do know that climate change is here. We know there will be more hurricanes, there will be more devastation and there will be more cries for help.

We know that everyone will not be able to prepare in the same way for their health and wellbeing. If Ministers are travelling to talk about issues of national concern, at least the same amount of money should be spent addressing those issues here in The Bahamas, providing resources to researchers, experts and community organizations in addition to funding government initiatives that meet the needs of the people.

Climate change is not an individual problem and we will not be able to address it with neoliberal approaches. Climate events are happening at various levels, and we cannot afford to simply hope everyone has the money they need to survive, and then recover. We need better, more responsive budgets, stronger systems, and people-centred approaches in climate action.

Published in The Tribune on June 8, 2023

/0 Comments/by
, ,

It is Up to Citizens to Hold the Government Responsible on Human Rights Issues

Human rights are being discussed with more frequency in The Bahamas in recent years, due in no small part to the human rights violations taking place and the responses of non-governmental organisations and the general public. From reports of sexual violence and children becoming victims of gun violence to “police-involved incidents” and the destabilising effects of crisis after crisis, connections are being made between the atrocities we experience and the right to freedom and dignity without distinction on the basis of identity.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was published in 1948, has been translated into over 500 languages, and is the foundation of dozens of human rights treaties. In Article 2, it is clearly stated that everyone is entitled to the rights and freedoms set out in the Declaration. These include life, liberty, and security of person, recognition as a person before the law, equal protection of the law, freedom of movement, nationality, to work, and to education.

Human rights treaties build and expand on the human rights articulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, making them specific to particular groups of people who are frequently excluded and/or marginalised and who have/had experiences that make their ability access to human rights more difficult. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) — perhaps the most widely referenced human rights treaty referenced in The Bahamas — is an example of this as it built and continues to build on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to specifically articulate the rights of women and the obligation of States to promote, uphold, and expand them.

Take, for example, Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which is on marriage. It has three parts. The first part says, “Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.” The second part says it is only entered into with full consent of both parties. The third part says “the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society[…]” Article 16 of CEDAW is on marriage, and it has two parts with the first part having eight subsections. The Article focuses on eliminating discrimination against women in marriage and family relations. As such, one of the subsections affirms that women and men have “the same rights and responsibilities as parents[…]. Another states that women and men have “the same personal rights as husband and wife, including the right to choose a family name, a profession and an occupation”. While these rights could be assumed upon reading and understanding of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the human rights treaty specific to (eliminating discrimination against) women states them clearly. Other human rights treaties serve a similar function, putting human rights into the context of particular people and situations.

The Bahamas has ratified nine United Nations human rights treaties. These include the Convention of the Rights of the Child, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The most recent is the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of Punishment, ratified in May 2018, closely following the third cycle of the Universal Periodic Review during which several UN member states — including Italy, France, Sierra Leone, and Indonesia —recommended The Bahamas ratify it.

Ratification of human rights treaties is agreement with the content, acknowledgement of the State obligation to take specific actions to promote, protect, and provide access to human rights, and a commitment to take those actions. This is not limited to United Nations mechanisms, but includes regional agreements and those by other multilateral organizations such as the International Labour Organization (ILO). For example, The Bahamas ratified Convention 190 (C190) on the Elimination of Violence and Harassment in the World of Work on November 25, 2022, International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women — the first day of the Global 16 Days Campaign, also known as 16 Days of Activism Against Gender-Based Violence.

Many human rights treaties have committees of independent experts which are responsible for reviewing State reports and submissions from other stakeholders, posing questions, and facilitating constructive dialogues with States about their progress toward full compliance with the related treaties. One process that works differently is the Universal Periodic Review (UPR). It does not have a committee of experts. Instead, it is a peer review in which United Nations Member States review one another. Another unique element is that the UPR is attentive to other human rights treaties and State ratification of and compliance with them.

On Wednesday, May 3, The Bahamas was under review at the 43rd Session of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) at the United Nations in Geneva. This was part of the fourth cycle of reviews. The Bahamas submitted a written report and the Attorney General made a statement before the United Nations Member States. This was followed by 90-second contributions by Member States which includes commendations on the progress made up to that point and recommendations for The Bahamas to act on before its review in the fifth cycle, approximately five years later.

The Bahamas failed to take action on most of the recommendations made at its third cycle review. The Bahamas has not ratified the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of all migrant workers and members of their families. The Bahamas has not ratified the Optional Protocol to the same Convention. It has failed to establish the Office of the Ombudsman in accordance with the Paris Principles, and it has failed to establish a national human rights institution (NHRI) in accordance with the Paris Principles. Several Member States called for the criminalisation of marital rape, implementation of the Strategic Plan to Address Gender-Based Violence, comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation to protect the human rights of all, including LGBTQI+ people, amendments to the Bahamas Nationality Act for gender-equal nationality rights, and abolition of the death penalty.

Several countries expressed concern regarding human trafficking and recommended that The Bahamas provide training to law enforcement and judges to improve identification of trafficking victims, provide support to trafficking victims, provide financing for prevention of trafficking, and improve its coordination with non-governmental organisations and government departments to prevent trafficking. Recommendations related to trafficking were repeated in the fourth cycle review.

The Bahamas did, as previously mentioned, act on the recommendation to ratify the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), a recommendation repeated from the second cycle review.

In his address, the Attorney General, of course, highlighted even the smallest steps taken toward recommendations. He noted that the death penalty had not been carried out for many years and that there is no plan for a formal moratorium on the death penalty. He claimed there is a systemic approach to protecting the rights of children, that corporal punishment is not recommended in schools and that the last school administrators who used it was put on administrative leave, and that the Department of Social Services has a parent training program that includes information on different forms of discipline. Rather than admitting that The Bahamas has failed to establish a National Human Rights Institution, he talked about the Ombudsman Bill—tabled one week before the review, obviously for this purpose—and the laughable Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights, also introduced the week before, which is far from a National Human Rights Institution and does not come close to meeting the Paris Principles.

At the 43rd Session of the Universal Periodic Review last week, United Nations Member States repeated many of the same recommendations from 2018. There were also new recommendations, and recommendations that were repeated with more specificity. The recommendations included amendments to nationality law for women to pass on citizenship to their children and spouses, implementation of the Strategic Plan to Address Gender-Based Violence, criminalisation of marital rape, amendment of the definition of “discrimination” in Article 16 of the constitution, establishment of a National Human Rights Institution, ratification of various human rights treaties including the Convention on the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, discriminatory law review and reform with support from UN Women (which is in progress and we await the final report from UN Women Caribbean Multi-Country Office which is significantly delayed), improvement of prison and detention center conditions, inclusion of climate justice in civics curriculum, and elimination of discriminatory stereotypes against women and girls.

The report on the Universal Periodic Review of The Bahamas in the fourth cycle will be made available on the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights website this month. It will not only have the recommendations made to The Bahamas, organized by thematic area, but will have the response of the government. States can support (interpreted as accept) or note (interpreted as reject) recommendations. It is important to know the international human rights standards, how The Bahamas does or does not meet them, and how the government responds to the recommendations aimed at compliance with the international mechanisms with which it has chosen to participate. Recent news stories on the UPR process have chosen specific points to highlight for various reasons, obviously linked to the market for news, so it is especially important for those with interest in human rights to seek out, read, understand, and share complete information. Knowing our rights is critical, as is knowing the government’s perception of and response to its obligations. With this information, we are better equipped to make our demands and realise all of our human rights.

Published in The Tribune on May 10, 2023

/0 Comments/by