Posts

, ,

Femicide in The Bahamas

THIRTY-YEAR-OLD Lauren Saunders, who was seven months pregnant, was reported missing last week, and her body was found in a bushy area days later. On Monday, a man known to her was charged with her murder. Her murder is a case of femicide—the killing of a woman or girl that is related to her sex or gender. In fact, it is a case of pregnancy-associated femicide.

As the government of The Bahamas continues to refuse to acknowledge the sex- and gender-based killings of women and girls as femicide, it is difficult to count these incidents, analyse them, and develop prevention and intervention mechanism.

It means, for example, that are not able to definitively state the rate of femicide in The Bahamas, the rate of pregnancy-associated femicide, or the rate of femicide by perpetrators known to the victims. The government prefers to pretend that it does not understand the term “femicide” and/or to refuse to use it, obscuring the severity of gender-based violence against women and girls and the rate at which it results in people being killed.

In the 2022 United Nations statistical framework for measuring femicide, ten indicators of femicide are identified. They include women and girls killed by intimate partners, women and girls killed by family members, previous record of harassment/violence, body disposed of in public space, sexual violence was committed before, and hate crime motivated by bias against women/girls.

There are specific laws, recording methods, and analytical tools in use that can be adapted to the Bahamian context, enabling us to create and share knowledge about femicide, and use that knowledge to end sex- and gender-based killings.

The passing of the Gender-Based Violence Bill would have at least moved us toward improved quantitative records and analysis of the murder cases resulting from gender-based violence.

Instead, the current administration tossed it aside, instead passing a the useless “Protection Against Violence” bill that does attend to the issue of gender-based violence and the resulting murders.

Along with abandoning the bill to amend the Sexual Offenses Act to criminalise marital rape, this is a clear indication of the complete disregard this administration—and every single person in Parliament—has for women and girls, regardless of their empty words.

This week, as with every other week with a report of femicide, there is significant attention to penalties. People continue to look to the judicial system for justice.

What number of years can the murderer spend in prison, funded by taxpayers, to undo the murder of 30-year-old Lauren? How many years would be sufficient to bandage the hearts that bleed for the unborn baby?

The truth is that the very few members of the public with no relation to Lauren Saunders will think of this case until there are reports of the voluntary bill of indictment being served in January 2026.

Shortly after the case updates appear in the news, the case will be forgotten again. For loved ones, however, it will never be far from thought. No prison sentence is enough.

Lauren Saunders, like so many others whose names have been forgotten, was murdered, and that cannot be undone.

Justice is not punishment. Punishment may be a component of justice, but it is does not right a wrong, it does not bring balance, and it does not result in equity. Punishment is a consequence of an action. Justice that centers the survivor brings the survivor as close to the life they had before the act as is possible.

In the case of femicide, living dependents can be considered survivors. This means the children of Lauren Saunders should not suffer the effects of the loss of her income. They should maintain the same quality of life as they would have if she was not murdered and could continue to work, received her salary and/or wages, and meet household needs. Justice is often viewed as individual, intended for one person, but our concept of justice must be expanded.

As a collective, we can consider justice to include action by the government to prevent femicide by addressing the issue of gender-based violence, acknowledging that it can be fatal.

With research showing that one in every four women in The Bahamas has experienced physical and/ or sexual violence and 65% of survivors of physical violence reporting that it was severe (eg they were punched, hit with an object, dragged, choked, burned, or threatened with a weapon), there is no denying that this is a high-risk environment and gender-based violence is a public health crisis.

The government is obligated to take action to address gender-based violence which will not simply cease to exist. In 2018, following its report and constructive dialogue on its progress, or lack thereof, in coming into compliance with the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), the government of The Bahamas received the recommendation to “develop and implement comprehensive measures for the prevention and elimination of gender-based violence against women and girls, in particular domestic and sexual violence and rape, assess the reported incidence of crimes against lesbian, bisexual and transgender women and intersex persons and intensify efforts to change the social norms and cultural perceptions through which gender-based violence is tolerated as culturally acceptable”.

The CEDAW Committee also recommended that the government of The Bahamas develop an action plan to eliminate gender stereotypes, pass the Gender-Based Violence Bill and implement the Strategic Plan to Address Gender-Based Violence, and to ensure police and courts address complaints of gender-based violence quickly and efficiently. The government knows its obligations under international human rights law, and its responsibility to people in The Bahamas, to uphold all human rights. It fails to take action.

ABANDONED NEWBORN

A newborn, umbilical cord still attached, was found earlier this week, and a news outlet polled its social media audience on the introduction of “safe haven” or “baby box” laws, allowing people to safely surrender babies without facing criminal charges. This led to an array of comments expressing opinions on sexual and reproductive health and rights and the (un)availability of services.

“Ok so let me get this right: a law to say that after a responsible adult female has sex and finds out she got pregnant, she can carry her child nine months, deliver it somewhere, then put it in a box on a strangers doorstep. Then repeat this procedure the following years to come. My my…”

This person has already made an assumption that the person who birthed the baby is an adult and that the pregnancy is the result of consensual sexual intercourse. Even a cursory review of the news on a weekly basis would provide enough information to let anyone know that there is a high rate of rape in The Bahamas, and that teenaged girls are preyed upon by men who know that they are children and that the legal age of consent is 16. This person also seems to believe that pregnancy and motherhood are punishments for sexual activity. Is this the way we want people to become parents? Is there any thought to the way that many people parent when they forced into it?

“Could also just stop [having sex].”

Sex has more than one purpose. Some people have sex to conceive. Many people have sex to experience pleasure. Pleasure is good. By encouraging people to enjoy sex, and letting them know that it should absolutely be a pleasurable experience, we also encourage them to exercise consent, to recognise unsafe sexual relationships, and to value their experience at least as much as the other person’s.

“If The Bahamas adapt that law, the no good uncaring women will be dropping babies like flies and mosquitoes. They want to open their legs so let them be responsible.”

This person seems to think pregnancy and childbirth are fun. They also have a clear hatred of women. Enjoying sexual activity is not a commitment to have a baby. There is no good to come from forcing people to carry unwanted pregnancies to term and forcing them to parents babies they did not plan or want. Pregnancy is not a punishment for having sex. Babies are not a punishment for having sex. We need comprehensive sexuality education in all schools, access to contraceptives from the age of consent, and to end sexual violence.

“Adoption should always be an option. Give two babies up for adoption and we tie them tubes up.”

While some people may choose adoption, abortion must be legal and accessible. No one should be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. It is reprehensible to suggest a medical procedure such as tubal ligation without the consent of the person. A person who does not have to have a baby today may want to have a baby in two, five, or ten years. Everyone has the right to plan for their families and, as an extension of the right, everyone needs access to the resources to do so.

There were a number of comments that acknowledged the rights of women and girls and the realities of gender-based violence and the limited access to information about sexual and reproductive health education and services in The Bahamas. People mentioned the importance of Plan B being accessible to people who cannot afford to buy it, the need for comprehensive sexuality education that extends beyond one class, access to health care without a parent/guardian at the age of consent, and decriminalizing abortion.

As one commenter said, “Until our society stops shaming and ostracising women who become pregnant out of wedlock and [stops] treating CHILDREN who are raped who end up pregnant like they are lepers, none of this matters. Until we start holding the men who rape and impregnate CHILDREN [accountable], none of it matters. Until we give girls and women who become pregnant the ability to make safe choices without condemnation and humiliation and fear of lack, they will continue to make unsafe choices including not putting a baby in a […] box, on an island where NOTHING is sacred or secret.”

Published in The Tribune on October 29, 2025.

/0 Comments/by
, ,

Who will defend our ‘Zone of Peace’?

We’re living through a time of significant change in economies and global politics. While we’re heavily impacted by current events and trends at the global level, it’s imperative that we participate in regional mechanisms and establish shared positions on pressing and emerging issues. Diplomatic relations between the US and Caribbean countries, for example, have never been as simple as we might like to believe, and may quickly become more complex.

The Bahamas puts significant effort into maintaining an amicable relationship with the US for various reasons, including continued economic reliance on the tourism industry. Maintenance of the tourism industry is, of course, a primary area of concern for other Caribbean countries as well, which don’t have the same proximity or level of reliance as we do. It’s difficult to balance sovereignty and both national and regional priorities with the global and western systems that demand our participation. While it’s challenging for a country to stand on its own, it can be advantageous to form blocs and to leverage regional organizations such as CARICOM.

When our governments fail to represent us, our values, and our positions in these spaces, however, it becomes especially necessary for the people to stand together.

Trinidad chooses sides

In August 2025, Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago, Kamla Persad-Bissessar, pledged full support to the US government in its deployment of military assets to the Caribbean, including the positioning of three warships off the coast of Venezuela in the supposed attempt to stop drug trafficking.

“I want to make it very clear that if the Maduro regime launches any attack against the Guyanese people or invades Guyanese territory and a request is made by the American Government for access to Trinidadian territory to defend the people of Guyana, my Government will unflinchingly provide them that access,” Persad-Bissessar said in reference to the possibility of aggression action by Venezuela to Guyana over Essequibo, a disputed territory.

Unflinching in her disinterest in aligning with a CARICOM position, she doubled down on her stated position. “The Government of Trinidad and Tobago has not engaged and has no intention of engaging CARICOM this matter. Each member state can speak for themselves on this issue.”

Following the US strike on a boat that killed 11 people early in September 2025, Persad-Bissessar said she was “happy that the US naval deployment is having success in their mission” and that “the US military should kill [traffickers] all violently.” The US Secretary of State claimed that the boat had departed Venezuela and was likely headed to Trinidad or another country in the Caribbean.

Many over the past few weeks have expressed concern about the callous statement, which ignores the absence of due process in the killing. When questioned about another military air strike on a boat that killed six people, including two citizens of Trinidad and Tobago, Persad-Bissessar reiterated her position. “I stand by my previous comments,” she said. “Nothing has occurred to cause any change in my opinion.”

Venezuela Ambassador to the United Nations, Samuel Moncada, called on the United Nations to investigate what he called the “assassinations,” with a total of 27 reported deaths from US strikes in the Caribbean so far. He noted that the killings are unjustified and that the US is trying to start a war. “There is a killer prowling the Caribbean,” he said. “People from different countries are suffering the effects of these massacres.”

In an open letter to Persad-Bissessar, Ambassador General of the Global African Congress, Cikiah Thomas, called the Prime Minister’s statements in defense of the current US administration reckless, disgraceful, and shameless. “[It echoes] the tone of colonial subservience that our ancestors fought to cast off in our long struggles to achieve independence over our national and regional affairs,” he said.

“By excusing the extrajudicial killings, and dismissing the US’ violation of international law, you have aligned yourself with Donald Trump and US imperialism and against your sovereign people. But you have also aligned yourself with the same imperial ideology that once enslaved our people and plundered our lands.”

Grenada to decide

Recently, Grenada’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Export Development confirmed that the US had also made a request to temporarily install radar equipment and technical personnel at their Maurice Bishop International Airport.

The Government of Grenada is reviewing and assessing the request. However, it made clear to the public what considerations will be examined. “[Our decision] will be guided by Grenada’s sovereignty, public safety, and national interest, including the protection of our tourism industry, the travelling public, and the country’s economic well-being.”

Concerned by this request, particularly given recent events, a network of Caribbean feminists responded in October with an open letter opposing incursions by the US military.

“We, Caribbean advocates for equality, security and development within and between states, note with grave concern the recent incursions by the US military in the Caribbean Sea. This signifies an egregious breach of international law and has resulted in the extrajudicial killing of at least 27 people to date – two of whom are nationals of Trinidad and Tobago.

“These incursions threaten the Caribbean tourism industry by jeopardising the safety of cruise ships and sailboats. They interfere with the livelihood of fishermen and all those who depend on the sea to feed their families. They also violate laws protecting our regional waters and the people who depend on them. They contravene the commitment of our region by our leaders, past and present, and our citizens to establish our region as a zone of peace,” the statement said.

“The US has long wielded disproportionate power over the small island states of the Caribbean and its peoples. We call on our governments to strengthen our sovereignty, defend our right to peace, the livelihoods of our peoples, and our right to be safe from the consequences of militarization. We urge the Grenadian government and people of Grenada to stand firm and refuse the US request to extend its military capacity by installing radar and technical personnel in Grenada. We call on CARICOM to support Grenada’s refusal of this request, and to stand up for our independence, knowing, as we do, that this may result in real costs at the hands of the US.”

The Caribbean Congress of Labor also issued a statement on the preservation of the Caribbean as a zone of peace. “The CCL expresses deep concern over any use or intended use of the Grenada Airport by the United States military or any foreign power for military operations or activities contrary  to the peaceful principles of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM). Such activities not only violate the spirit of regional cooperation but also endanger the peace, sedulity, and sovereignty of the Caribbean people.”

And CARICOM?

In an incredibly lackluster, empty statement, CARICOM referenced a recent meeting that addressed a number of issues, including this increased militarization in the Caribbean. “Save in respect of Trinidad and Tobago, who reserved its position, Heads agreed on the following: They reaffirmed the principle of maintaining the Caribbean Region as a Zone of Peace and the importance of dialogue and engagement towards the peaceful resolution of disputes and conflict.”

It appears that CARICOM has taken no position on foreign military occupying Caribbean territory, using force, and operating without intelligence or assurance of due process. The phrase “Zone of Peace” is rendered meaningless when there is a discussion on security matters that does not directly respond to the events of the past few weeks and the current and potential impact on Caribbean people. There will certainly be more statements and further action from Caribbean citizens, residents, non-governmental organizations, civic groups, and individuals.

Unfortunately, the Government of The Bahamas is not one we can look to for leadership on this issue. Minister of National Security Wayne Monroe merely advised Bahamians to “stay out of [the US military’s] way.”

“If they were to choose to sail in your harbour, there’s nothing you could do,” he said. “It would be a breach of your sovereignty, and you could complain, but you couldn’t stop them.”

Isn’t that really all we need to know when it comes to our own security and the commitment of the Government of The Bahamas to upholding human rights and maintaining our precious sovereignty?

The Zone of Peace is severely lacking in defenders.

Published in The Tribune on October 22, 2025.

/0 Comments/by

The refusal of shame

Last week, a series of events were held in New Providence for PRIDE. PRIDE is rooted in the history of the LGBTQI+ movement and, more specifically, the Stonewall Riots that took place in New York in June 1969. This is the reason that many LGBTQI+ communities all over the world have PRIDE during the month of June. PRIDE is the commemoration of the riots and the resulting advancement of rights in the US and beyond. Equally important, it is an opportunity to bring community members together and to advocate for further advancement the human rights of LGBTQI+ people. Human rights are inherent, indivisible, and interdependent, and full enjoyment of any rights relies on access to all rights.

PRIDE is not a time of grandstanding, however it may appear to people outside of the community. It is a direct response to the expectation that LGBTQI+ people be invisible and quiet, performing shame for the benefit of people who are uncomfortable with and hateful of people who have different identities and do not conform to their limited understanding of human life.

As actress Laverne Cox said, “In 1969, there was really no such thing as being ‘out’. Gay and lesbian people were deeply stigmatised. Of course, it was illegal to be who you were. There weren’t a lot of places where LGBTQI+ people could gather. So, everything was underground.”

Pushing LGBTQI+ people to the margins did not prevent people from being LGBTQI+. Sexuality is not a choice, so gay men continued to be gay men, lesbian women continued to be lesbian women, trans people continued to be trans people, and so on. Being criminalised meant it was or felt safer to be less visible. As all human beings need social engagement, it became necessary to create spaces that were safer for LGBTQI+ to inhabit. People negotiated space, made it available in limited ways, and made deals to keep them open to the intended market.

Cofounder of the Gay Liberation Front Jim Fouratt—who was walking up Christopher Street when he saw a police car outside the Stonewall Inn and 30 to 40 people in the street at the start of the Stonewall Riots—said: “Wherever there was a gay bar that existed, the cops were paid off.”

It is not much different from what we see today. It was not long ago that “web shops” operated in The Bahamas, everyone fully aware that they were places for Bahamians to illegally gamble. Everyone was fully aware that authorities were being paid off. Raids happened, but not much else. Soon enough, against the results of the “opinion poll”, the law was changed and we now have a different reality. Some people are still upset about the legal change, some people who opposed the change now participate, openly or secretly, in gambling. Some people could not be more happy that they can buy numbers and spin from home. For some, the issue of gaming, the “opinion poll”, and the change to the law will always be the first example they reach for when they consider whether or not the government is trustworthy.

You may be against gambling, but you have to recognise that it is not against the law in certain circumstances. You may believe gambling is against your religion, but that has no bearing on what others choose to do, or even what is in the law. You may be against the diversity in sexuality, but you have to recognise that it is not against the law to be an LGBTQI+ person. You may believe being LGBTQI+ is against your religion, but that has no bearing on the existence of LGBTQI+ people or entitlements through the law. No one has to live by your religion. No one has to have the same sexual interests as you do. You can concern yourself with your own sexuality and sexual activity, and it that is too boring, talk with your sexual partner about safe, consensual ways to change that.

PRIDE exists today in response to the fear and secrecy that shaped the environment for LGBTQI+ people who tried to balance living their lives in authentic ways with surviving in a place rife with hatred for people who are othered and a very specific hatred for and violence against LGBTQI+ people. The social and legal changes, as small as they have been in comparison to what is needed, have made it possible, to varying extents in different countries, for LGBTQI+ people to simply exist. In a sex-negative society, it is, of course, difficult for (sexually repressed) people to see and accept the sexual freedom of consenting adults, and this may be a source of jealousy. This discomfort and jealousy can lead those experiencing it to focus on LGBTQI+ people rather than investing in education, therapy, and practices that can foster a positive relationship to sex and sexuality. This may be a driver of the misconception of PRIDE as an in-your-face stick-it-to-the-heterosexuals affair. LGBTQI+ people, however, do not center non-LGBTQI+ people in LGBTQI+ events.

Many, perhaps intentionally, misunderstand PRIDE. While LGBTQI+ people are justified in having positive self-regard and security in identity, PRIDE is a shaking off and refusal of shame. It is a shame that was imposed by people who harbour hatred and seek to oppress people whose identities and lives are different from and have no effect on theirs. It is a reclaiming of space, a building of community, a refusal to hide, and a decision to take up space.

There are marches for various causes held at various times of the year and at the onset of events. These are largely unchallenged. It is generally understood that people can organise themselves, carry signs, chant phrases, make demands, and draw attention to themselves and their interests. In most cases, these marches and protests take place without opposition. When it comes to PRIDE, however, people choose to be loud in their opposition in order to gain a spotlight, often in the name of a god they may not even truly know.

On Saturday, a group of people showed up at the PRIDE march in New Providence, claiming that they were doing so for god. Drawing more attention to the event, they imagined themselves to be protesting PRIDE, having no understanding of what PRIDE is or why it exists in The Bahamas. A person in this confused group said, “The months belong to God,” in a weak attempt to put LGBTQI+ people in opposition to god—the same god who presumably made them.

October is Mental Health Awareness Month. October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. October is known for the Food and Wine Festival by Bahamas National Trust. It is known for “Food Fest”. November is known for Jollification. It is Lung Cancer Awareness Month. It is Movember. December is known for the holiday season, including Christmas, which is, itself, often quite separate from god and religion. There is generally no opposition to issues being attached to months. It is understood by the reasonable among us that it is useful to mark a particular time of year with an issue, cause, or observation to raise awareness, share information, and engage people for a distinct period, repeating it year after year. Suddenly, in October, when a PRIDE march is taking place, all of the months “belong to God”.

There are other ways to seek relevance. There are far better ways to represent the Christian god. The fruit of the spirit – love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, gentleness, and self-control – could be a great place to start, within oneself before anywhere else. How might a deep, unconditional love for oneself unlock love for neighbours Christians are called to love as they love themselves? How might this prevent judgment of others and distraction from one’s own areas for improvement? How might access joy change the way one approaches life and where attention goes? How might the pursuit for peace turn one away from activities that lead to confusion, discrimination, and violence? How might the way we treat one another and share this earthly place change for the better if everyone lived according to the principles of their own religions rather than focusing on the (mis)alignment of others? If only the right-thinking Christians would be as loud and visible as those fuelled by hatred and the desire to control others.

Published in The Tribune on October 15, 2025.

/0 Comments/by
,

Respectability politics in Bahamian schools

In The Bahamas, the commitment to and practice of respectability politics continues to outweigh common sense, human decency, and care for one another. It shows up in so many spaces and has been accepted as “normal” and “proper” for so long that it is rarely questioned, even when it causes obvious harm.

Respectability politics, at one time, was a survival tactic. People in situations of vulnerability, who were marginalised, and who were at risk of violence and discrimination did all they could to blend in by conforming to mainstream “standards” that were, ultimately, those set by white and wealthy people. Black people tried to match their appearance and behaviour with that of white people in the attempt to either go unnoticed or be seen as exceptional, thereby escaping, to some extent, discrimination.

Racism is still rampant today. Classism is still a part of our reality. The survival tactics of one generation are passed down and imposed upon the next. It can be difficult to see the historical context of our practices when they are not discussed, but carried out as a matter of duty, fulfilling expectations, and become norms. For this reason, respectability politics can, in its current practice, appear to be about morals or manners rather than a tactic that was useful (to a limited extent) and is now counterproductive, harmful, and anti-black.

It was not long ago that black women who kept their hair natural, meaning it was not chemically straightened, were strongly discouraged, told that it was unprofessional. People insisted that it did not look neat when, really, it simply was not straight and did not have the properties of straight hair. At a certain point, it was fine to have natural hair if it could be made to look like it was not. This was not about neatness. It was racism. It was the oppression that accompanies the idea that blackness is shameful and that black people aspire to be as close to whiteness as possible. We have seen and heard new stories about people being dismissed from work and school for having afros or locs. Those days, evidently, are not over.

“They came to school looking like hoodlums,” a social media post by RM Bailey said. The school, dissatisfied with their length of hair, decided to take a set of boys to a barber for haircuts. They declared them “beautiful” after the haircuts were provided. The school, mandated to provide education to all enrolled children, removed these children from their classes, took and posted photographs of them, likely without the consent of their parents/guardians, and made a disgusting, disparaging comment about them.

“Hoodlum” is a term that refers to a violent criminal. This is a completely inappropriate term to use to describe any child, especially based on the length of the hair or style of their haircuts. Removing the post is not enough. The boys are owed an apology, both for denigration in the social media post and the violation of their bodily autonomy. RM Bailey, unfortunately, is not alone in this anti-Black racism that has been internalised and unleashed on children in the form of certain rules and they ways they are enforced.

CC Sweeting reportedly kept out of classes when their haircuts were deemed unacceptable. The involved adults, and likely all administrators and educators, need specialised training to give them culturally relevant information on anti-black racism, stereotyping, implicit bias, and microaggressions and support them in developing appropriate rules, regulations, and application principles.

Schools have rules and regulations. Of course. Schools have uniforms. Yes. Schools attempt to set a standard through their rules and regulations. This does not mean the rules and regulations should remain as they have been for years, and it does not mean they are being applied and enforced in appropriate ways, particularly for the education, growth, and full development of this generation.

White boys are not made to keep their hair as short as black boys. For this, there is no reason. There is a root, and it is anti-black racism. It is due to the normalisation and continuation of respectability politics that people continue to practice. From the chemical straightening of black hair and the amount of gel used to manipulate the texture and volume of black hair to achieve a ponytail that looks slick and flat from the front, these practices can be stylistic and personal choices, yet should be considered by those who engage in them. These practices absolutely should not be expected or required of anyone.

Recently, there was lively conversation about a social media post by a business that is refusing service to people wearing bonnets. It is reasonable that a person may wear a bonnet, whether protect their hair, to preserve a hairstyle, to cover hair that is not styled to their liking, or as an accessory one simply likes. It does not need to suit anyone else. No one else needs to applaud the act. It is okay to dislike someone else’s appearance. It is not okay, however, to police the bodies of other people.

It is one thing for a business to refuse service to customers and forgo the related revenue from them and the people who decide not to spend money there as a matter of principle, and it is an entirely different thing to deny or interrupt the education of a child. It is especially egregious just weeks after the handwringing over the national examination results. It is especially foolish when there are children who do not make it to school every day for various reasons, and educators complain about the absences. It is especially irresponsible when so many express concern about boys, fearing that they are or will be “lost”.

We have to be clear about what is important to us and why. Do we want the children in this country to have access to education? Do we want them to have positive experiences at school? Do we want them to fear and be insulted by teachers and administrators, or do we want them be respected and to have respect for others? Do we want them to hate themselves and feel inferior to others, or do we want them to understand their history, know that racism still exists today, and learn to embrace their blackness?

It may be easier to teach children to conform, especially for the adults who only ever conform. It is more difficult to respect children, to allow them them to have opinions, to welcome their questions, to encourage their development of personal style, and to see and treat them as whole human beings.

It is easy to dominate children and control them with fear. It is more difficult to develop relationships with them, have conversations with them, develop codes of conduct in collaboration with them, and ensure that they feel and are safe with you, and can even express a difference of opinion or offer proposals for change.

If schools—the places children spend most of their waking hours—are not environments for children to develop, grow, and learn navigate the world with dignity and respect, how do we expect them to become adults who can effectively communicate, resolve conflict, and contribute to the creation of a better world?

The Ministry of Education and Technical and Vocational Training needs to understand that its mission must extend beyond the provision of curricula and administration of exams. It is also responsible for creating environments for children to know and love themselves, to develop care and empathy for the people around them, and to navigate complex situations with dignity and respect for themselves and others.

Published in The Tribune on September 17, 2025

/0 Comments/by
, , ,

Misogyny in politics holds women back

While Leslie Miller’s misogynistic, infantilising reference to Senator Michela Barnett-Ellis is not at all surprising, given his many public episodes, it has drawn attention to the longstanding issue of discrimination against women in political and public life.

The idea that women are inferior and must be relegated to the private sphere and men are superior and entitled to the public sphere persists well beyond the time that one income was sufficient and (some) women’s only work was in the home and in service to the family (which was never the case for black women).

That patriarchal arrangement was in service to capitalism, even more than it was for men, as women made (and still make) it possible for men to work through the provision of various unpaid services including the maintenance of the home and the people living in it and the reproduction of labourers.

Patriarchy created a hierarchy and it has required us to live according to this division, even after the point that women entered the public sphere and, as a matter of necessity, started to work for wages. Patriarchy assigned values and expectations based on gender and while the economic realities have changed and society along with it, patriarchy has its devotees.

Just as patriarchy separated women and men into the private and public spheres, it instilled the belief that men are to be leaders and decision-makers while women are to follow and submit.

Misogyny extends beyond the hatred of women to the hatred of all that is feminine. As emotions are viewed in a binary way, considered feminine or masculine, certain emotions are reserved for women and restricted for men.

On the basis of these socially constructed rules, it was determined that women are too “soft” and “emotional” for leadership, even as men regularly perform anger to the detriment of the people expected to follow them.

Women have worked, for generations, to gain access to opportunities to work and to lead through consistent efforts including, but not limited to, higher education. Today, men regularly attempt to use the level of education many women have attained, and subsequent professional success, as evidence that gender inequality does not exist.

They refuse to see the persisting issues including sexual harassment in the workplace, the gender wage gap, and the impediments to participating in frontline politics and public life.

Miller’s misogynistic comment is evidence of the discrimination that still exists and is not only an annoyance, but a barrier to equal participation and, ultimately, the representation of women in leadership at the level that is proportionate to the population. It also highlights the issue of intersecting forms of discrimination that women face.

A women vying for candidacy or for a seat in Parliament are not only unfairly judged rather than appropriately assessed because of their gender, but because of their (perceived) age, class, and other identities. Women are expected to be deferential and young people are expected to be deferential. Young women are expected to be doubly deferential should they even dare to be in the same space as men.

It is an embarrassment that only 18 percent of parliamentarians are women. No government administration has ever addressed this issue by instituting a political quota. Perhaps even worse, no political party has chosen to take the lead in addressing this issue, demonstrating commitment to achieving gender equality by instituting a quota at the party level.

This is clear evidence of the priorities and the cowardice of political parties. Temporary special measures such as political quotas have been recommended to The Bahamas on numerous occasions through international human rights mechanisms in which The Bahamas voluntarily participates.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in Article 3, obligates States to “ensure the equal right of men and women to the enjoyment of all civil and political rights set forth in the present Covenant.”.

Importantly, Article 25 states, “Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity[…] to take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives [and] to vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors.”

Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women (Convention of Belem Do Para) states in Article 4 that “Every woman has the right to the recognition, enjoyment, exercise and protection of all human rights and freedoms embodied in regional and international human rights instruments. These rights include, among others[…] The right to have equal access to the public service of her country and to take part in the conduct of public affairs, including decision-making”.

It continues, in Article 5, “Every woman is entitled to the free and full exercise of her civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, and may rely on the full protection of those rights as embodied in regional and international instruments on human rights. The States Parties recognise that violence against women prevents and nullifies the exercise of these rights.”

The Sustainable Development Goals were adopted in 2015, and goal five on gender equality includes “ensure women’s full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership at all levels of decision-making in political, economic and public life” as a target. The indicators are the proportion of seats held by women in national parliaments and local government and the proportion of women in managerial positions.

The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), also known as the bill of women’s rights, was ratified by The Bahamas in 1993—acknowledgement discrimination against women as a violation of women’s human rights and a commitment to take the necessary steps to come into compliance with the Convention in order to end discrimination against women.

Article 7 of the Convention calls on States to “take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in the political and public life of the country and, in particular, shall ensure to women, on equal terms with men, the right[…] to be eligible for election to all publicly elected bodies [and] to participate in the formulation of government policy and the implementation thereof and to hold public office and perform all public functions at all levels of government.”

As CEDAW was adopted in 1979 and entered into force in 1981, there issues that have emerged and knowledge that has since been created that are not explicitly stated in the Convention. To ensure that it can carry out its mandate and respond to the realities on the ground with its collective human rights expertise, the CEDAW Committee produces General Recommendations which expand upon Articles of the Convention, address areas of concern, and guide States in their reporting.

There are General Recommendations, for example, on violence against women, older women and protection of their human rights, rights of rural women, and gender-related dimensions of disaster risk reduction in the context of climate change. In 2024, the CEDAW Committee produced General Recommendation 40 on equal and inclusive representation of women in decision-making systems. It begins, “Women have the right to equal and inclusive representation in all decision-making systems on equal terms with men[…] This right is still not respected. This also seriously hampers implementation of all other rights under the CEDAW Convention.”

General Recommendation 40 was produced as a comprehensive guide for States “on achieving equal and inclusive representation of women in all decision-making systems across all sectors, aiming for a systemic change”.

It recognises seven pillars of equal and inclusive representation of women in decision-making systems, recognising “patriarchal structures impede women’s equal and inclusive representation in decision-making systems” and the need for a transformational approach that dismantles those structures. The pillars are:

1. 50:50 parity between women and men as a starting point and universal norm;

2. Effective youth leadership conditioned by parity;

3. Intersectionality and inclusion of women in all their diversity in decision-making systems;

4. A comprehensive approach to decision-making systems across spheres;

5. Women’s equal power and influence in decision-making systems;

6. Structural transformation for equal and inclusive decision-making;

7. Civil society representation in decision-making systems.

General Recommendation 40 is available online. It described all seven pillars and not only sets on the obligations of States, but provides guidance for meeting the obligations. Its recommendations include legal amendments to institutionalize 50:50 parity between women and men in all spheres of decision-making, adoption of a parity strategy, provision of education on temporary and permanent special measures, implementation of awareness-raising campaigns toward positive discourse on parity, cooperation with media to condemn, monitor and ensure accountability for sexism and misogyny, and prevention and prosecution of hate speech in decision-making and against women candidates.

All candidates, representatives, leaders, and members of political parties should read the document and contribute to moving The Bahamas toward compliance through all means available to them.

Published in The Tribune on September 10, 2025

/0 Comments/by

We need new solutions for education’s problems

Here we are, once again, bemoaning the result of the Bahamas General Certificate of Secondary Education (BGCSE) examinations. This newspaper reported that only 22.3 percent of students who took the exams in five or more subjects got a C or above in mathematics, English, and a science. The vast majority of students are not meeting the mark in the three subject areas considered to be of critical importance and central to the evaluation of their academic capabilities and, given requirements for jobs, career prospects.

Year after year, students are branded as academically inept and teachers are considered to be ineffective and uncaring. Neither of these, however, is necessarily the case. The practice of administering these examinations seems to have continued just for the sake of it rather than there being an indication of any value to the students, teachers, administrators, or the country.

If we truly viewed the BGCSE examinations and results as a tool that allows us to measure the academic success, or potential for success, of the graduating students in any particular year, we would actually have learnings that are actively reported and used to make the changes that have obviously been needed for many years.

For so many students to attain grades of D and lower can only mean that something is wrong with the education system. While it may be difficult, we have to face that fact that the stellar performance of some students is not evidence of an appropriate, functioning system. It is irresponsible, lazy, and insulting to take the position that students do not want to learn or that teachers do not care enough or put enough effort into teaching. There are other possibilities to consider, recognising that we can develop a different system, a different tool, and a different outcome.

1. The BGCSE examinations are flawed. It may be that the content of the exams does not match the material delivered in classrooms. It is possible that the time allotted in the exams are insufficient. It could even be that the way the exams are structured and the questions posed are unhelpful.

Perhaps it is unrealistic to expect teenagers to adequately prepare for examinations across many subject areas, especially while continuing to learn new material in their classes, much less participating in extracurricular activities and carrying household responsibilities and the everyday stresses of a period in life in which many changes occur. Maybe back-to-back exams in different subjects, day after day, is not an acceptable way to assess the learning of high school students.

2. The curriculum is being delivered in an ineffective way. Even if the material is reflected in the exams, it is possible that the delivery does not foster learning for the students in the classroom.

More and more, students need to experience the material they are expected to absorb and have the aptitude to apply. How many times do students ask why they need to learn algebra, or when they will ever use trigonometry in their lives, for example?

Educators need to show them the relevance of the material beyond their classes and the need to pass a test. How does a baker who designs and builds elaborate cakes determine the exact amount of icing needed to cover it, or the amount of weight a 10-inch round cake can bear? There also needs to be variation in teaching style and the ability and willingness to adapt to different learning styles.

Copying notes from the board may be useful for study at a later date, but completely useless for learning. Reading aloud from a textbook may be a good way to reinforce information, yet not the best way to introduce it. What if students were presented with a problem, or presented problems of their own, and were introduced to the information and tools needed to solve them?

3. Students are not sufficiently prepared for the examinations, and many students simply do not test well. Using old papers and taking mock exams can help set students’ expectations, but it does not necessarily help to them to develop a strategy for taking the exam.

Exam preparedness does not begin with studying. It begins with engagement in the classroom, note-taking, application, and revision. Students can benefit from assignments that deviate from the usual question-and-answer and written projects.

Application of learning across subjects and leverage students’ interests and adeptness in using technology can lead to students producing incredible material that not only demonstrates their learning, but deepens understanding of the material and can serve as learning tools for others.

What if students produced a ten-minute animated video about the digestive system, following the journey of a conch fritter through the body? What if students produced a 30-minute podcast about Animal Farm, comparing it to a popular television show?

Create an environment for students to explain class material to one another, and encourage application to their real world experiences and areas of interest. When they understand the material, there is room to prepare them for the testing environment, from managing the allotted time to assessing their best chances to gain points and knowing which sections they should work on first. Test-taking is a skill on its own, completely separate from mastery of material.

4. The format of the examinations needs to change in order to align with the ways students learn and use their knowledge. The results of the 2025 BGCSE examinations showed better performance in the practical subjects such as food and nutrition.

It is quite possible that students perform better when they can put their learning to work in practical ways, ending with a product beyond answers to set questions. In what ways, outside of essays and hours of equations, can we assess the learning of students and their understanding of the material? The time has come to be more creative in setting the curriculum, delivering the material, and assessing students. The ways of decades gone by are clearly not the ways that will work for us now.

Published in The Tribune on September 3, 2025.

/0 Comments/by
, , , ,

We agreed to protect women – why don’t we?

THE Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence against Women, also known as the Belém do Pará Convention was adopted on June 9, 1994. Belém do Pará is now 30 years old and has been ratified by 32 of the 34 member states of the Organization of American States (OAS). The Bahamas ratified the Convention, obligating it to prevent, investigate, and punish violence against women.

In Article 1, Belém do Pará defines violence against women as “any act or conduct, based on gender, which causes death or physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women, whether in the public or the private sphere”. In Article 2, it elaborates with the specific inclusion of violence that “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”, “occurs in the community and is perpetrated by any person” including harassment in the workplace and other institutions, and “is perpetrated or condoned by the state or its agents regardless of where it occurs”.

In addition to the specific mention of the public and private spheres in Article 1, Article 3 specifically states the right of every woman to be free from violence in both the public and private spheres. Article 3 also draws attention to State-condoned violence and, in the Bahamian context, makes it necessary to look at laws that discriminate against women and exclude particular acts of violence or perpetrators of violence.

Articles 1 to 3 are easily applied to the issue of marital rape in The Bahamas and the flimsy excuses put forward by successive governments and anti-rights groups who insist, implicitly, that women are not full human beings and there should be exceptions when violence is perpetrated at home and by spouses. Violence against women is clearly defined, and the Convention explicitly states, twice, that women have the right to be free from violence in the public and private spheres, and perpetrated by any person. This means states are obligated to prevent, investigate, and punish violence enacted against women in the home and violence enacted against women by their spouses.

Articles 7 to 9 are specific to the duties of State Parties. These include their obligation to:

1. apply due diligence to prevent, investigate and impose penalties for violence against women

2. include in their domestic legislation penal, civil, administrative and any other type of provisions that may be needed to prevent, punish and eradicate violence against women and to adopt appropriate administrative measures where necessary (This includes the gender-based violence bill, recommended by the CEDAW Committee in 2018 and by member states in the Universal Periodic Review process in 2023. The government committed to pass the bill, but stopped consultation, abandoned the bill, and passed the “Protection Against Violence” Act which does not, in any way, address the specific issue of gender-based violence.)

3. take all appropriate measures, including legislative measures, to amend or repeal existing laws and regulations or to modify legal or customary practices which sustain the persistence and tolerance of violence against women (This includes the amendments to the Sexual Offences Act, removing “who is not his spouse” from the definition of rape, repealing section 15 on “sexual assault by spouse”, adding a statutory definition of consent, and adding a clause of non-immunity on the basis of marriage.)

4. promote awareness and observance of the right of women to be free from violence, and the right of women to have their human rights respected and protected (The CEDAW Committee has recommended that the government ensure that women and girls are aware of their human rights, particularly under the Convention, and there has been no movement toward this in the five years since.)

5. modify social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, including the development of formal and informal educational programs appropriate to every level of the educational process, to counteract prejudices, customs and all other practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority or superiority of either of the sexes or on the stereotyped roles for men and women which legitimise or exacerbate violence against women (Related to the previous point, there is no plan and there has certainly been no action by the government to address the issue of gender stereotyping and harmful ideology. This, too, is an obligation through CEDAW, and one that is critical to preventing violence against women and girls.)

6. to ensure research and the gathering of statistics and other relevant information relating to the causes, consequences and frequency of violence against women, in order to assess the effectiveness of measures to prevent, punish and eradicate violence against women and to formulate and implement the necessary changes (The gender-based violence, which was never passed, should have included a system for recording and analysing incidents of violence against women and, in particular, femicide, in order to identify risk factors and trends which would aid in developing effective prevention and intervention.)

The Belém do Pará is not often discussed in The Bahamas. We have generally been more attentive to the United Nations human rights mechanisms. While they are useful, it is important that we make better use of regional mechanisms and find ways to learn from other countries in the region that have had success in reducing violence against women and in implementing the Convention in effective ways.

That 30 years have passed since The Bahamas ratified the Convention and few people recognise its name, much less know what it is about and what it contains is a failure of successive government administrations. It is, as we know, not enough to participate in multilateral processes, sign and ratify documents, make commitments, and occasionally report. The general public needs to be made aware of the obligations of the government to protect and expand our human rights. We need to know our rights and how to access them. We need to have a clear understanding of the existing national legislation and how it is contravention with international commitments. We, importantly, need to know that these commitments are to us, and not to an institution. The institutions are vessels and, yes, motivators, and we, the people, are rights holders. It is our right to know our rights, and it is the obligation of the government to ensure that we know them and access them fully.

Published in The Tribune on June 12, 2024.

/0 Comments/by
, , , ,

Bahamian politics a race to the bottom

It looks like we are in for another race to the bottom. We are now halfway through this term, and the Free National Movement will decide who its leader will be in the coming weeks. While the two candidates, from what we have seen thus far, are quite different, neither inspires confidence. The party itself has a significant amount of work ahead of it to define itself and prove itself to a new generation of voters and the voters who refused to show up for it in 2021. Two and a half years later, this work has not even begun. In fact, it seems to be working against itself. It is not even trying to play the role of Opposition, failing to draw attention to the governance failures, failing to offer solutions, and failing to model better practices.

Member of Parliament for St. Anne’s seemed to be upset by the announcement that The Bahamas now recognises Palestine as a state. The Bahamas took far too long to take this step, particularly as we witness, on a daily basis, the settler colonialism and genocide, by Israel, of Palestine and the Palestinian people. The Bahamas was the last CARICOM country to recognise Palestine as a state, and this is an embarrassment. White has now added to the embarrassment by his weak attempt to challenge it, and using “traditional allies” to do it. He said, “Our traditional allies, Madam Speaker, are countries that we haven’t aligned our position with, and I find that on such an important international issue, now it’s a national issue.”

The genocide of the Palestinian people has been an issue at the international, regional, and national levels for years, and without recognition of the same. As stated in the Caribbean Feminist Statement Against Israel’s Settle Colonial Project and Ongoing Genocide in Palestine, “We, Caribbean people, who have arisen from histories of genocide, enslavement, indentureship, and colonialism, remain firm and unwavering against all attempts at settler colonialism, apartheid, arbitrary arrests and detention, displacement and forced exile, confiscation of land and territories, sexual violence, and other human rights violations carried out by any State against any ethnic, racial, or geographic population. These images of violence are all too familiar.”

Over the past 228 days, we have seen the displacement of over 900,000 people from Gaza. We have seen the destruction of schools, mosques, and hospitals. We have watched as journalists report on the conditions with the eery sound of weapons flying overhead. We have read about the hunger, seen the images of injuries and death, and heard the cracks in the voices of thousands of people who continue to speak against the violence they are experiencing without end and call on us, the rest of the world, whoever our allies may be, to help them.

When we, human rights advocates, call on the government to fulfill its obligation to protect, promote, and ensure access to human rights, there is talk of “sovereignty.” When we reference the United Nations human rights mechanisms that The Bahamas has voluntarily adopted and ratified, such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), “sovereignty” comes up. When the United States Embassy flies the PRIDE flag at its locations, “sovereignty” is thrown around. For some reason, though, when it comes to The Bahamas taking a principled position — the right position — on the statehood of Palestine, it is time for The Bahamas to worry about its allies and their wishes. Why might that be? There are far too many people in positions of leadership who are ill-equipped, unprepared, and generally opposed to human rights, regardless of sovereignty or allyship. It seems, in fact, that they are playing a game that has nothing to do with the wellbeing of the people they claim to serve.

White said, “[…] the people of this nation, Madam Speaker, should be informed I think on a more regular basis on why some of these international decisions are being made, why we are agreeing one way or the other.”

He said this about the decision by The Bahamas to recognize Palestine as a state. He did not say this about countless other decisions made by the Government of The Bahamas with no announcement at all. There are no questions about the financial bills that are pushed through quickly and without consultation. There are no questions about the way The Bahamas votes at the United Nations on a regular basis. There are no questions about participation in InterAmerican processes or the decisions made therein. The continued failure of government officials to disclose assets is not a conversation this week. Why might that be?

Several human rights advocates have been calling on the government to communicate with the general public about its commitments and activities in international spaces. In fact, we have used international spaces and processes to demand that the government inform the Bahamian people of its commitments and to make human rights mechanisms accessible to the public. When we talk about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it should not be a cloudy concept for the general public, but a clear set of rights that we all can easily apply to their own lives, even if we cannot perfectly recite them. When we reference CEDAW, it should not evoke fear. When we remind the country that migrants are human beings with human rights, it should not be surprising or confusing. Perhaps successive administrations have enjoyed the low access to information for the general public which enables them to distract, to lie, and to create enemies of human beings rather than the inequitable systems we live within. Migrant people have always been scapegoats of choice, haven’t they?

It is no surprise that Minnis is not only running for leadership of the Free National Movement again, but that he is so easily and confidently referencing his spectacular failure from 2017 to 2021 — which even he was in a rush to escape with a nonsensically early general election — saying “Let’s do it again,” is a sure sign of delusion or confidence that, in a race to the bottom, he is a good bet.

Rather than focusing on the state of the country, largely due to his egotistical, sloppy, tyrannical “leadership” and the current administration that is taking full advantage of the terrible precedent set in many areas, including undisguised abhorrence for the press, he has taken aim at some of the most vulnerable people in the country. Instead of acknowledging the harm already done by terrible decisions and devastating inaction, he is going the lazy route of scapegoating Haitian migrants. He said that he would “aggressively deport all undocumented people” and claimed he would regularize those who have been in The Bahamas for a long time. These two promises are not aligned. The first is, in fact, quite troubling when we should know what is happening right now in Haiti. (It is important that we do not pretend that he was talking about all migrants. He meant, as they always mean, Haitian migrants).

Pintard, on the other hand, said the Free National Movement should not “make every immigrant a tyrant”. He pointed to willingness to collaborate and a duty to solve problems. It is cause for concern that these conversations do not seem to be taking place within the party and, importantly, across the obvious factions. Is there no clear direction for the party? No shared values? No clarity on what leadership means and looks like in practice?

We have not seen strong leadership from Pintard who has been in the ideal position to demonstrate his ability over the past few years. The current Opposition has fallen into the same practices as every Opposition before it, opposing for the sake of it, criticizing at every turn, and offering no solutions. It is old, it is tired, it is ineffective, and it serves no one. This is unfortunate, not only for a party that is vying for leadership in the next general election, but for the people of The Bahamas who need a true, properly functioning Opposition.

Anyone who is serious about leading a political party, not to mention leading a country, must demonstrate their values. These are not centering hatred of people or particular groups of people. Values are indicative of positions on pressing issues. People who are serious about leadership are clear in their positions. If they cannot decide for themselves, they certainly cannot be trusted to listen to and make decisions in the best interest of others. When will the Progressive Liberal Party and the Free National Movement figure out who they are and where they stand on critical issues? How will they communicate their identities to us? What will it take for them to be truly people-centred? Who, within these parties, are leaders with the competence to listen, learn, collaborate, communicate, and act with the most vulnerable in mind? If it takes anywhere near two more years to see manifestos and charters, we need to be clear that there are no leaders in these parties, and there are no parties prepared to lead.

Published in The Tribune on May 22, 2024.

/0 Comments/by
, , , ,

Blueprint for Change says so

It should not be surprising at this point. Another week, another idiotic statement in response to the call for the criminalization of marital rape. This week, when asked about movement on the marital rape bill, the prime minister made a number of disturbing comments. 

First, he said, “Drafts are given for consideration. So we have a draft that has been given for our consideration. We have not gotten around to it yet.”

The bill to amend the Sexual Offenses Act to criminalize marital rape has been in draft form since, if not before, 2022. We have had the bill for at least two years. This comes after four years of sitting on an inadequate bill drafted by the previous administration. This is not a new issue, and there are no new items for consideration. There is nothing complicated to think about or discuss. Just last week, he stated that rape is rape, and that he has difficulty with categories and descriptions of rape. The marital rape bill removes a category and ensures that rape that is perpetrated by a spouse is legally treated as rape, as it should.

Next, he said, “As you would recall, I am guided by my ‘Blueprint for Change’. That sets out the basis for which I asked people to vote for me and marital rape was not contained in that. I’m not insensitive to it. I appreciate it and I know.” The Blueprint for Change mentions women only twice. On page 49, it states, “The PLP is committed to the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals that ensures quality education, life long learning opportunities, gender equality and empowerment for women and girls; quality water, sanitation, and access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy.”

The Sustainable Development Goals were adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in September 2015 with full support from all Member States, including The Bahamas. All of the 17 goals have targets, and those targets have indicators that facilitate monitoring and evaluation of progress toward the goals. 

Sustainable Development Goal 5, referenced in the Blueprint for Change, is to achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls. The first target is “End all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere.” The indicator for this target is “Whether or not legal frameworks are in place to promote, enforce and monitor equality and non‑discrimination on the basis of sex.” The second target is “Eliminate all forms of violence against all women and girls in the public and private spheres, including trafficking and sexual and other types of exploitation. The indicators of this target are “Proportion of ever-partnered women and girls aged 15 years and older subjected to physical, sexual or psychological violence by a current or former intimate partner in the previous 12 months, by form of violence and by age” and “Proportion of women and girls aged 15 years and older subjected to sexual violence by persons other than an intimate partner in the previous 12 months, by age and place of occurrence.”

Gender equality requires an end to gender-based discrimination in law, policy, and practice. This, combined with the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and the recommendations made by the Committee, led to the government engaging UN Women to undertake a review of all laws to identify those that discriminate against women and girls. This is what led to the discriminatory law review forum where the draft was, in a less than ideal way, discussed. The final report has not yet been delivered and approved, but we know the laws that were identified. The Sexual Offenses Act was one of them and Section 3, which defines rape, was specifically identified as one that needs to be amended. Eliminating discrimination against women, which is required to achieve gender equality, necessitates the criminalization of marital rape. The Blueprint for Change, then, includes a commitment to criminalizing marital rape.

On page 52, the Blueprint for Change states, “The Progressive Liberal Party is committed to eliminating all forms of discrimination against men and women in The Bahamas.” 

The Bahamas ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) in 1993. In 2018, it underwent its sixth periodic review. Marital rape was raised, again, raised as a pressing issue. In its Concluding Observations, the CEDAW Committee recommended that the Government of The Bahamas “Adopt, without delay, the amendments to the Sexual Offences Act expressly criminalizing marital rape, remove any temporal limitations to the right to file a complaint for marital rape in the draft amendment to the Sexual Offences Act and establish a sex offender register and registry.”

In her report following her visit to The Bahamas, the (then) Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women called on the Government of The Bahamas to “Revise or adopt new criminal law provisions to prohibit marital rape, including by ensuring that the definition of sexual crimes, including marital and acquaintance/date rape is based on the lack of freely given consent, and takes account of coercive circumstances, in line with general recommendation No. 35 of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women.”

These recommendations are connected to the aforementioned parts of the Blueprint for Change. Criminalizing marital rape is required to follow through on the commitment to the Sustainable Development Goals which include gender equality and to eliminate discrimination against men and women. We must not accept what the Prime Minister has said. This is the work that is required of his administration, and this is the work that is committed to carrying out in its own campaign document.

Finally, the prime minister said, “My thing is that any time a couple … in blissful marriage reaches a stage where they are going to report their husband for rape, it seems to me that that marriage is irretrievably broken, meaning they are no longer married even though it may not have been so pronounced by a court.”

The marriage is broken? Violence is destructive. Sexual violence destructive. Rape is destructive. The conversation about marital rape, contrary to popular belief, is not about marriage. It is about people. Specifically, it is about a person who is violated in a devastating, irreparable way by a perpetrator who is not only known to them, but in a legal arrangement that is supposedly rooted in love, but often turns out to be obsession and/or possession. At present, the law suggests that legal arrangement erases the humanity of the person who has been violated, and that they should endure that violence and have no legal recourse.

Here comes the prime minister. He says the rape means the marriage is broken, such that they are no longer married, regardless of what the law or courts say. This shifted the line of questioning to divorce. It must be made clear that divorce is not a remedy for rape. Whether the marriage is broken or a person in the marriage fails to see the other person as a human being with human rights, including the right to give and withhold consent, divorce should be readily available. It should be more than possible. It should be easy because those people should not be together and should not be forced, by the law, to operate, in any way, as a married people. The violent act of rape, however, requires different action. Any person who is raped must be able to report the rape and have access to justice. Divorce and rape charges are not the same, they are not interchangeable, and one does not replace the other. We need access to both. Everyone should be able to report acts of violence against them, have their reports taken, and see the justice system work for them. 

In December 2017, the prime minister said, “I think we all accept…I know no right thinking Bahamian will accept that a person should be violated or in any form or fashion be abused.”

In February 2022, he said, “I’ve given the attorney general the mandate to follow the recommendations that will flow from that conference[…] and we’ll see what the recommendations are from there, and we’ll move to enact what laws [are] recommended by them to the attorney general that is deemed appropriate by the Cabinet.”

In October 2022, he said, “Any assault on a woman, be it whether you call it rape, grievous harm or otherwise, the law should take its course. Report those incidents to the police.”

Help women who raped by their husbands to report those incident to the police. Make rape a crime, regardless of the relationship between the perpetrator and the victim or survivor. Commitments have already been made. The bill has already been drafted. Stand in the shoes you so desperately wanted to wear.  Do what you claimed, in your Blueprint for Change, you would do. Move toward the achievement of Sustainable Development Goal 5 for gender equality and eliminate discrimination against women. Criminalize marital rape.

Recommendations

Yesterday was World Book Day, and Equality Bahamas shared a list of recommended books. One set of books were selected from the Feminist Book Club reads, and one set were written by Palestinian authors. Here are four books to consider buying or borrowing to read this month. 

How to Say Babylon by Safiya Sinclair

National Book Critics Circle Award Winner, a New York Times Notable Book, and winner of the 2024 OCM Bocas Prize for Fiction winner, this book is hard to put down. From the first page, Sinclair captures readers with the vivid depiction of her childhood and family life and her determination to get out and create a different life for herself. 

Evil Eye by Etaf Rum

Yara got married to break free from her conservative family. She went to university, got a job, and wants to teach full time. Her ability to participate in the work culture, which seems inextricably linked with upward mobility, is constrained by her domestic and care responsibilities. It does not help that colleagues obviously buy into stereotypes about Palestinian people, and this flattens her view of her own life into obligation and regret. She wants to prove that she isn’t the stereotypical Palestinian woman, and she wants to challenge, carefully, the norms that have been created in her own family so that she does not become her mother. 

What My Bones Know by Stephanie Foo

This is one of those books that, once you have read it, you are bound to think everyone should read. It is memoir infused with research, bringing scientific context to the deeply personal story Foo shared. Foo survived a childhood rife with abuse and abandonment. Though it took a long time, she got the diagnosis of complex post traumatic stress disorder (C-PTSD) and soon realized that she could not just “rally” and move on. She put in significant work to understand the diagnosis and access the care she needed. The story is difficult in parts, yet full of hope. 

You Exist Too Much by Zaina Arafat

A queer Palestinian-American girl is trying to be and love herself. This book takes us back and forth between the U.S. to the Middle East, showing different parts of her life. She struggles to live in a space between cultures and beliefs, trying to keep her identity and sense of self stable and strong. What happens when a mother tells her girl child, “You exist too much?” She has to reject it. She has to accept herself.

/0 Comments/by
, , , , ,

Yes, rape is rape

The Prime Minister said, “Rape is rape!” Women’s rights advocates have been saying this for years. Rape is rape! Rape is rape! Wherever it happens, whoever is involved, rape is rape. There are no exceptions. 

The rest of what the Prime Minister said, however, is nonsense. The rest of what he said, in fact, was contradictory. The rest of what he said was irresponsible and misleading. The rest of what he said was what we, by now, have come to expect from him—unwillingness to state a clear position and a singular commitment to obfuscation.

“Why do you want to describe rape? Rape is rape.”

Well, for all who are as confused as the Prime Minister, the statement “Rape is rape” means that rape in all forms, by any person with or without any kind of relationship to the person violated, is rape. Rape of an underage person is rape. Rape on a hotel property is rape. Rape in the morning is rape. Rape by a spouse is rape. In the statement “Marital rape is rape,” we see that “marital” is used as an adjective, indicating that the rape being discussed is rape by a spouse. It is both more succinct and wholly accurate. The reason we use the term “marital rape” is not a suggestion that it is not rape, but an affirmation that it is, in fact, rape. It is not that we are creating a category of rape, but that we are calling attention the distinction that is made in the law—a distinction that dehumanizes married women, violates the right to bodily autonomy, violates the right to be free from violence, and violates the right to be seen and treated as person before the law. “Marital rape” is a necessary term within this context—the violent, misogynistic Bahamian context—where there is no recourse for a women who raped by her spouse.

Rape is, as the Prime Minister put it, divided into categories. This does, indeed, present a problem. Rape is rape! All forms of rape are wrong. Whether rape takes place in the morning or at night, perpetrated by a person known or unknown to the person violated, it is rape. Sexual intercourse without consent is, without question, rape. The Sexual Offenses Act, however, does not align with this fact. Not only are there several “categories” of sexual violence in the Act, the definition of rape in Section 3 has a marital exclusion, hence the term “marital rape” in the advocacy to amend the law. Because the Act creates this exclusion, we must be intentional in naming the exclusion.

The definition of rape in Section 3 of the Sexual Offenses Act says, “Rape is the act of any person not under fourteen years of age having sexual intercourse with another person who is not his spouse —[without consent].” The issue with the definition is that it provides an exception for people who are married to the people they rape. “Rape is rape,” the Prime Minister said, but the law does not say the same, and his administration has the power to change it. 

The definition of rape in the Sexual Offenses Act limits rape to non-consensual sexual intercourse that occurs outside of a marriage. The law, then, recognizes rape perpetrated by stranger, a parent, a sibling, a boyfriend, a teacher, an acquaintance, and a host of other people. It very specifically and deliberately does not recognize nonconsensual sexual intercourse, which is rape, that is perpetrated by a spouse. Again, this is an exception on the basis of marriage. It creates a “category” of rape that is permissible by the Sexual Offenses Act (while in contravention with international human rights standards and commitments that The Bahamas has made through its ratification of various conventions including the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence against Women (Belém do Pará). 

Given this, it important to look at Section 15 on sexual assault by spouse. In this section, the drafters determined that there is a narrow set of circumstances under which nonconsensual sexual intercourse perpetrated by a spouse is a criminal offense. They decided that this nonconsensual sexual intercourse, which is understood to be rape in other cases, is going to be in a different category. Rather than rape, it is called “sexual assault by spouse.” This, then, is another “category” of rape.

Section 6 is the first that addresses indictable sexual offenses and states that “Any person who commits rape is guilty of an offence and liable to imprisonment for life, subject to, on a first conviction for the offence, a term of imprisonment of seven years and, in the case of a second or subsequent conviction for the offence, a term of imprisonment of fourteen years.” Terms of imprisonment vary from one “category” to another. Again, note that women’s rights advocates have not created these categories. They exist in the law.

Section 15 states “Any person who has sexual intercourse with his spouse without the consent of the spouse —[where there is a decree nisi of divorce; a decree of judicial separation; (a separation agreement; or an order of a court for the person not to molest or co-habit with his spouse[…] is guilty of the offence of sexual assault by spouse and liable to imprisonment for a term of fifteen years. In addition, prosecution requires “consent of the Attorney-General.” It is clearly rape, though given another name and treated differently by the law, and putting up an additional barrier to reporting and accessing justice, again, privileging the rapist who is married to the person they sexually violate.

“Rape is rape, whether you’re married or unmarried and the challenge they are having is describing it,” the Prime Minister said.

Who is the “they” being referenced by the Prime Minister? Women’s rights advocates are not trying to “describe” rape. We are using appropriate language to specify that the rape of a person by their spouse is currently not considered, in Bahamian law, to be an act of sexual violence, and it ought to be. As the Prime Minister said, rape is rape! The most direct and clear way to discuss this issue is to use the succinct term “marital rape” until the necessary amendments are made to the Sexual Offenses Act to remove the words “who is not his spouse” from the definition of rape. Then we can talk about rape without the adjective “marital.”

The Prime Minister said, “We passed a bill… a bill against violence against persons[…] that covers any manner of degradation, or what I call behavior that’s not acceptable to society.”

This is, quite simply, incorrect. The “Protection Against Violence” Act is an embarrassment. It was rushed, bypassing consultation processes, in order to displace—and perhaps get people to forget about—the Gender-Based Violence bill. We have not forgotten the Gender-Based Violence bill which has been in draft since 2016. Equality Bahamas has been calling for the Gender-Based Violence bill to be updated and passed for several years, and this has been one of its demands during the Global 16 Days Campaign since 2020. The CEDAW Committee, in 2018, expressed its concern about “the lack of a comprehensive law addressing violence against women and the delay in finalizing and adopting the draft bill on gender-based violence and the draft national strategic plan to address gender-based violence.” The Committee called on the Government of The Bahamas to “accelerate the adoption of the comprehensive draft bill on gender-based violence and the draft national strategic plan to address gender-based violence, in line with the Committee’s general recommendation No. 35.”

Successive administrations have failed to act on the recommendations to move closer to compliance with CEDAW and other international human rights mechanisms. The “Protection Against Violence” Act does not meet the requirements. It is not a gender-based violence bill and it does not address gender-based violence. It absolutely does not “cover any manner of degradation” and certainly does not, as the Prime Minister seemed to suggest, address the issue of marital rape.

The so-called Protection Against Violence Act states as its purpose “to provide for a national strategy to prevent and respond to the occurrence of violence and to protect victims of violence by promoting a strong multi-disciplinary community and services for the comprehensive management of victims and offenders; a system of information gathering for the purpose of generating reliable statistics in instances where violence in domestic relationships results in death; compliance with regional and international human rights treaty obligations of The Bahamas.”

In summary, the “Protection Against Violence” Act is meant to provide a strategy to prevent and streamline responses to violence, collect data on death due to domestic violence, and meet international human rights obligations. The Act has sections on developing and implementing a national strategic plan (which, we must remember, was already published in 2015 and has been collecting dust instead of being implemented or, at this point, significantly and substantively updated), institutional strengthening, establishment of a foundation, establishment of a commission, establishment of a secretariat and appointment of a director, general rights of victims, procedure for handling complaints, care and support services (including housing and legal assistance) which apply only to victims of sexual abuse, protocol when violence results in death, establishment of a violence fatality review team, and administrative details related to the bodies to be established. 

The “Protection Against Violence” Act does not, in and of itself, propose prevention. It does not present a strategy. It does address marital rape at all. It focuses on the establishment of bodies and structures. It is not the kind of law that people imagine when they read or hear the title. The law that address sexual violence is the Sexual Offenses Act and it, as explained, does not acknowledge that rape is rape. The marital exception is cruel, violent, dehumanizing, and does not have to exist. 

All we need is a Prime Minister who cares. Members of Parliament who care. Who are not lazy. Who are not complicit. Who are not more concerned about reelection than addressing the pervasive issue of gender-based violence and, in particular, violence against women that is perpetrated by a spouse or intimate partner. We need legislators who know and understand the law. Who are prepared to work together to amend the law so that marital rape is, legally, rape. It only takes one Member of Parliament to take a bill to Parliament. Thus far, not a single member has cared enough to do it. What great evidence of where we are as a country, with our “representation” in the government and its priorities.

Recommendations

  1. Join the call to criminalize marital rape. Learn more about the #Strike5ive campaign by Equality Bahamas at tiny.cc/strike5ive. 
  2. Read the Sexual Offenses Act. Pay attention the definition of rape, the forms of sexual violence that are included, and the differences in sentences.
  3. Read the “Protection Against Violence” Act. There was no consultation on the bill before it was rushed to be passed, bypassing the Gender-Based Violence bill which was mid-consultation and has been recommended by numerous bodies including the CEDAW Committee in 2018 and Member States of the United Nations at the Universal Periodic Review in 2023. Understand what is and is not in the Act. The misinformation being spouted by this administration is not accidental, and it is not hard to miss if you read the text yourself, looking for the changes it is expected to make.
/0 Comments/by