Posts

, , , ,

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
, , , ,

Sexual Assault Awareness Month 2024

Monday, April 1 marked the start of Sexual Assault Awareness Month. This year, the theme is Building Connected Communities. It is recognition of our individual and collective responsibility to prevent sexual violence in all forms, from sexual harassment to rape. It is important for us to remember that:

  1. Sexual violence is not only perpetrated by strangers. Most people who experience sexual violence know the perpetrators. 
  2. More than one in three women have experienced sexual violence.
  3. Offenses recognized in the Sexual Offenses Act include rape (with the exclusion of marital rape), indecent assault, serious indecency, and sex trafficking. 
  4. Marital rape is not yet criminalized. 
  5. Sexual violence is a spectrum, and sexual harassment—including street harassment—is included.
  6. Consent is required for sexual activity. There is no substitute for consent and no excuse for acting without consent. 
  7. We have the power to reinforce and to rebuke gender stereotypes and gender-based violence, and we do it in our intentional and unintentional responses to the behavior of the people around us. 

The general public may not be aware of the commitments The Government of The Bahamas has made to the people of The Bahamas through international mechanisms, and it has a duty to comply with ratified international human rights mechanisms. The government also has a duty to make the general public aware of its commitments, its reports to international bodies for periodic reviews, recommendations made by the reviewing bodies, and its response to the recommendations. Successive administrations have completely failed to raise public awareness and education on human rights and its obligations to ensure access to all of our human rights. 

In 1993, The Bahamas ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), also known as the women’s bill of rights. Article 5 of CEDAW calls on States to “modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, with a view to achieving the elimination of prejudices and customary and all other practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes or on stereotyped roles for men and women.” Under this Article, the CEDAW Committee makes recommendations to States to address the issue of gender stereotyping and gender-based violence against women. 

Since the adoption of CEDAW, the CEDAW Committee has also produced General Recommendation 35 which is specific to gender-based violence against women. In it, the States are called on to “ensure that all forms of gender-based violence against women in all spheres, which amount to a violation of their physical, sexual or psychological integrity, are criminalized and introduce, without delay, or strengthen, legal sanctions commensurate with the gravity of the offence, as well as civil remedies.” States are specifically called to “ensure that sexual assault, including rape, is characterized as a crime against the right to personal security and physical, sexual and psychological integrity and that the definition of sexual crimes, including marital and acquaintance or date rape, is based on the lack of freely given consent and takes into account coercive circumstances.” It is clear, then, that the criminalization of marital rape is required, necessary, and urgent. 

CEDAW Genera Recommendation 35 also articulates the need for integration of gender equality into curricula at all education levels. This should address gender stereotyping and gender-based discrimination, and include the values of non-violent masculinities and comprehensive sexuality education. We must ensure that people, from a young age, understand what sex is and is not. Everyone needs to know that sex requires consent, that consent must be enthusiastically and freely given, that consent applies to a specific act at a specific time and is not transferrable, and that consent can be withdrawn at any time. There is a clear different between sex and rape, and this distinction must be taught before people become sexually active. 

In 1995, The Bahamas ratified the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women, also known as the Belém do Pará. It affirms that “violence against women constitutes a violation of their human rights and fundamental freedoms, and impairs or nullifies the observance, enjoyment and exercise of such rights and freedoms” and that “elimination of violence against women is essential for their individual and social development and their full and equal participation in all walks of life.” Article 2 states that Violence against women includes physical, sexual and psychological 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, including, among others, rape, battery and sexual abuse” which means it includes marital rape. Further, Article 3 states the right of women to be free from violence in public and private spheres. That marital rape has not yet been criminalized in The Bahamas is a failure to come into compliance with the Belém do Pará as well as CEDAW.

Importantly, the Belém do Pará recognizes the intersection of identity and the resulting layers of oppression and discrimination that women differently. This means, for example, that women with disabilities, elderly women, and women experiencing poverty are among those who are more likely to experience discrimination and violence and to face challenges in reporting and accessing justice in the absence of appropriate intervention. 

Reports of sexual violence continue to be in the news every week. Women live with the perpetual fear of being raped. Many still think rapists only lurk in bushes and around dark corners, trusting that people known to us are safe to be around. Rapists are, more often than not, partners, family members, friends, longtime family friends, ex-partners, and people in positions of authority. The abuse the power of familiarity, and they depend on shame, stigma, and silence to maintain their reputations and their freedom. Changing this requires public education campaigns, comprehensive sexuality education in all schools and at all levels, elimination of stigma, survivor-centered reporting mechanisms, and legal reform that affirms the humanity and human rights of all women, regardless of marital status and any other identity markers.

Remember the Strategic Plan to Address Gender-Based Violence?

This week, I saw the announcement of the National Strategic Action Plan on Gender-Based Violence and Sexual Violence of Trinidad and Tobago 2023-2027 which is expected to “empower [Trinidad and Tobago] to build capacity for curbing violence, a deeply entrenched problem that affects individuals across age, gender, and socio-economic lines” and “foster multi-sectoral collaboration in addressing gender-based violence (GBV) and its detrimental effects on families, communities, and the wider society, thereby allowing all of society to suitably approach challenges and serve our vulnerable populations in a comprehensive manner.”

Does this sound familiar? It may be because the Strategic Plan to Address Gender-Based Violence in The Bahamas had multi-sectoral coordination as its first recommendation. The Plan was lauded by UN Women, said to be a model for the Caribbean. This is, of course, not the first time that The Bahamas has led the way, producing a report or taking a position, only to fail to implement or ensure substantive effects of the work, welcoming other, more committed countries to pass it by. 

The National Task Force on gender-based violence launched in 2013. It was chaired by Justice Rubie Nottage (retired), Dr. Sandra Dean-Patterson, and Dr. Robin Roberts. The Taskforce produced the Strategic Plan to Address Gender-Based Violence in 2015. With a vision “to eliminate GBV from our society completely by working together to maintain a zero-tolerance for GBV,” it focused on three core principles—prevention, protection, and accountability. The Plan noted that gender-based violence is “endemic in our communities and constitutes a major public health issue in our country.”

In a section for immediate action, the Task Force identified “The Ten Low Hanging Fruit” which it considered to be practical and measurable. They included a national community awareness program on gender-based violence prevention, a focus on mentoring for men and boys, a sexual assault response team project, and an early intervention program for children exposed to violence. 

At a forum held in New Providence in April 2016, UN Women’s Deputy Representative for the Caribbean Tonni Brodber said, “The 10 Low-lying Fruit” concept, if successful, can signal to other countries how to successfully go about ending gender-based violence.” Ms. Brodber added, “This will speak to all the better practices that we see around the world that are useful in reducing or ending gender-based violence. It shows the world that when the Commonwealth of the Bahamas says it is going to do something it is going to get it done.”

Eight years later, the Strategic Plan to Address Gender-Based Violence has yet to be implemented. Perhaps The Bahamas will have to follow the lead of Trinidad and Tobago. It may implement its Plan before The Bahamas even bothers to update the one it created a Task Force to produce more than a decade ago. The proof of commitment is in the implementation. 

Recommendations

  1. Participate in National Poetry Writing Month (NaPoWriMo). The prompt for April 1, fittingly, was “dupe.” The prompt for April 2 was “Who’s ya people?” Get in touch with Poinciana Paper Press to join the NaPoWriMo WhatsApp group to receive the daily prompts, read others’ work, and share your own. 
  2. Attend Women’s Wednesdays. On Wednesday at 6pm, Equality Bahamas will be in conversation with journalist Ava Turnquest about media literacy in The Bahamas. Register at tiny.cc/wwapril24. 
  3. Read How to Say Babylon by Safiya Sinclair. Feminist Book Club, coordinated by Poinciana Paper Press and Equality Bahamas, meets every third Wednesday of the month at 6pm in a hybrid format. On Wednesday, April 17, participants will discuss Sinclair’s memoir, described as a “reckoning with the culture that initially nourished but ultimately sought to silence her [and] her reckoning with patriarchy and tradition, and the legacy of colonialism in Jamaica.” It is on the long list for the 2024 OCM Books Prize for Caribbean Literature in the non-fiction category alongside Equal to Mystery: In Search of Harold Sonny Ladoo, by Christopher Laird and Harvesting Haiti: Reflections on Unnatural Disasters, by Myriam J.A. Chancy. The winners in the categories of Poetry, Fiction, and Non-fiction will be announced on April 7, 2024, and the overall winner will be announced on April 27 at the NGC Bocas Lit Fest in Trinidad. Register to join Feminist Book Club at tiny.cc/fbc2024. 
/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
, ,

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
, ,

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