The Tribune

LAST week, I participated in the pre-session of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) at the United Nations which focuses on human rights.

In the review, Member States review the reports submitted by States and nongovernmental organizations, then make recommendations that serve as a guide for States to improve access to human rights for everyone. At the pre-session, participating nongovernmental organizations deliver five minute statements, giving insight into the situation in their countries and requesting specific recommendations that, if implemented, would move their countries forward by upholding and promoting human rights and making them accessible.

Throughout the week, I was able to meet with advocates from various countries as well as representatives of national and international nongovernmental organizations working on a broad range of issues. Their areas of work included women’s rights, LGBTQI+ rights, climate justice, children’s rights, and migrant and refugee rights.

We had opportunities to talk about our work, the pressing issues in our countries, the recommendations received in the last cycles, recommendations we want to see in this cycle, and priorities for the week. Some people were able to point to positive steps taken by their governments while others spoke about worsening conditions. Some have been able to engage their governments while others have been ignored or endangered by governments. Even with our differences in context and experiences, we found many commonalities and opportunities for peer learning.

There was no time that I spoke about the Sexual Offences Act and advocacy to criminalize marital rape that people were not both shocked and appalled. When people think about The Bahamas, violence does not come to mind. They do not think about rape, much less marital rape. They imagine a paradise, so it is jarring to receive information that makes it clear that The Bahamas is far from paradise, especially for women, LGBTQI+ people, and other people in situations of vulnerability. One unsurprising component was the misogynistic rhetoric from “the church” which continues to insist that women do not deserve to be protected from or have any recourse if they are raped by their spouses.

People were rarely caught off guard when hearing about the position of the most vocal religious leaders and their congregants. Some were, however, perplexed by the lack of separation, in practice, between church and State and the failure of the government to take a clear, strong position in defence of women’s human rights.

This week, it was reported that the president of one of the most anti-rights groups in The Bahamas added to the nonsensical remarks already made about marital rape and the group’s position on it which, simply put, is in support of men raping their wives.

Members of this group use flimsy arguments, usually contingent on a flawed interpretation of biblical text and/or incomplete and out-of-context scripture, in their attempt to convince the general public not only that women are not rights-holders, but that the god they believe in set a mandate for women to be treated as though we are subhuman, with less dignity, agency, choice, and rights than men. Theirs is a vile and intentional mal-interpretation of a text and a religion that is, at other times and in other spaces, said to be rooted in love and peace.

The people of this faith claim that they are trying to live like someone who practised non-discrimination. Somehow, in response to issues of rights, they are selective in their religious beliefs and practices, and consistently fail to embody the values that ought to be inherent.

This time around, the president of the anti-rights group said, erroneously, that “If we remove marriage out of the portion [of the act], we begin to move marriage. Civil union will come in. Civil unions come in, it removes the term marriage.”

This is far from the truth. If it were not so dangerous, it would be laughable. Unfortunately, many people listen to what is said by people who are ignorant and people who are dishonest, and may never look at the documents for themselves. There are definitely many people who read and heard his comments and could easily be misled. The only aspect of marriage that would be moved by criminalizing marital rape is the belief, that remains too common, that women become the property of their husbands when they get married, do not have the right to make decisions about their own bodies, and cannot give or withhold consent to sexual activity.

All of these assumptions, made frequently by religious fundamentalists, are incorrect. Human rights are universal and inalienable; indivisible; interdependent and interrelated. All people are entitled to human rights, and all human rights are equal in status and application, so there is no hierarchical positioning. Human rights are all connected and they all depend on each other to be fulfilled.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person. No one is to be in slavery or servitude. No one is to tortured or subjected to cruel or degrading treatment. Everyone is to be recognized as a person under the law.

These are among the first set of rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which also clearly states, “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.” It should be clear by now that human rights apply to women. Women have human rights, and it is the role of the government to ensure that they are accessed and realized.

What was said about the criminalization of marital rape, specifically the creation of a relationship between this necessary amendment and the introduction of civil unions is incorrect. It would appear that it was a deliberate lie to cause confusion and to dissuade people from supporting this critical amendment. The president of the anti-rights group was not able to even begin to explain the relationship between the two, and would not even name the people he claimed had given him this idea.

The draft bill to amend the Sexual Offences Act proposes specific changes to the Sexual Offences Act, and no changes to any law on marriage. Section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act has a definition of rape.

“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].”

That definition is violent as it excludes cases where the rapist is married to the victim or survivor. The proposed amendment is to remove “who is not his spouse” which creates the exception. Removing these words means the definition of rape will not have an exclusion and it will apply regardless of any relationship that may exist between the rapist and the victim or survivor.

It is also proposed that Section 15 be repealed as it will no longer be necessary when the definition of rape applies to married people. The bill includes a definition of consent, different from the general and inadequate definition that is in the Penal Code.

None of this will result in civil unions. It might be interesting, though not particularly productive, to have a conversation about civil unions—and the rights of people who cannot or do not want to marry—at another time, but this is not currently being proposed. One of the tactics that is frequently used by religious fundamentalists is fear-mongering among people who are hostile and violent toward LGBTQI+ people.

Whenever they want to prevent people—particularly women—from making progress in the realization of rights, they use the magic words that quickly turn people against whatever is being proposed. They talk about “doors opening” to what they consider to be terrifying, but actually amounts to rights for more people which have no impact on the rights that other people already have.

This tactic of presenting red herring issues and distracting people by playing on their fear and hatred is violent. It creates a dangerous environment for people in situations of vulnerability, and it has, unfortunately, proven to be quite effective. It is unlikely that they will stop unless their followers gain access to accurate information and choose to centre, protect, and care for people more than systems which, more often than not, perpetuate inequality, discrimination, and violence.

The public discourse on marital rape is not improving. It is becoming more contentious and there are more elements of confusion being introduced by people who are desperate to block women’s access to human rights. There is no good reason for anyone who is not a rapist to oppose the criminalization of marital rape. We do not need violent people and people who support violence to dictate laws to protect against and provide recourse in the case of violence of any kind.

The government has the responsibility to promote, uphold, and provide access to human rights. Its abdication of responsibility and its delay in taking action is unacceptable. Its excuses, especially the meetings with various religious leaders, must end.

It needs to find its backbone. It needs to take a position in support of human rights. It must, at this point, defy the groups that are not concerned about women’s rights and prefer to protect their ideas about the text they claim to live by.

Marital rape needs to be criminalized.

Religious leaders can decide what they will preach, married people can decide how they will interact, and individuals can decide whether or not they would like to call on the law to protect themselves. These are decisions they can make.

Criminalizing marital rape is a decision the government must make.

It has taken far too long already.

When The Bahamas goes to the Universal Periodic Review in a matter of weeks, it ought to be able to say marital rape has been criminalized and acknowledged as rape. More importantly, it needs to face the women of this country and tell us, in its action, that it acknowledges our humanity and our human rights.

RECOMMENDATIONS

• Join the Feminist Book Club, hosted by Equality Bahamas and Poinciana Paper Press, in reading Race After Technology: Abolitionist Tools for the New Jim Code this month. The book explores the four dimensions of the new Jim code which are engineered inequity, default discrimination, coded exposure, and technological benevolence. The meeting will be held on Thursday, April 27 at 6pm at Poinciana Paper Press, 12 Parkgate Road. There is also the option to join virtually. Register at tiny.cc/fbc2023 to receive updates and the virtual meeting link.

• Check out the Art for Life exhibition opening on Monday, April 17. The collaborative Art For Life exhibition between HEALinc, ArtRegen, The Gray Spaces, and Emerging Creatives will be held from April 17th – 19th in Exhibition Hall at the Atlantis Resort on Paradise Island, The Bahamas. The exhibition is free to attend and officially opens onMonday, April 17th at 5:30pm.