The Tribune

APRIL is Sexual Assault Awareness Month — a time to focus specifically on the pervasiveness of sexual violence and its impact on survivors and their communities, educate the public, and advocate for the introduction and/or expansion of prevention, intervention, and support programmes and services. The Bahamas continues to have a high rate of sexual violence and indications, through specific cases and patterns and the responses they receive, that rape culture continues to go unchallenged by people in positions of power.

Rape culture is the normalisation and trivialisation of sexual assault, which includes victim-blaming. It is repugnant behaviour based on a set of beliefs that support aggression of and domination by men while dehumanising and devaluing women. Gender stereotypes result in and perpetuate sexual violence against women. This is evident in the comments made about survivors of sexual violence, from assumptions about their relationships and sexuality to accusations with false connections to their appearance and behaviour. It is not unusual for people reporting rape to be interrogated as though they committed a criminal act. As an example, last week, in the news report about the rape accusation against a current Member of Parliament, it was stated that the woman making the report was questioned by police for four hours.

Asked about the failure to charge, or even question, the Member of Parliament who has been accused of rape, the Commissioner of Police said: “It’s just that we want to take our time and do this investigation properly.” In the same week, sexual assault on a cruise ship followed by the arrest of the accused person was reported. Days ago, it was reported that a woman was raped by a man known to her in Cat Cay, and that man was arrested. In those cases, arrests were made, and in the latter, it was stated that the accused was “assisting” with investigations. It has yet to be explained how the reported rape by the Member of Parliament is different from the other incidents, aside from the involvement of a person with political power.

The Commissioner of Police said: “We don’t want to be pressured by media, how social media responds to our investigation. We will not do that. We will do our investigation and at some point get back to media and let them know where we’re at in our investigation.”

He went on to say: “In fact, we take time. We don’t want to rush it, like I said.”

We have heard from at least two people in positions of leadership talk about not wanting to “rush” when, in fact, they were referencing long-delayed actions that need to be taken. It often becomes necessary for non-governmental organisations and members of the public to apply pressure to the government, to encourage it to move forward, and to demonstrate that we are paying attention and we expect action. In many cases, instead of acknowledging the very real circumstances we are highlighting, validating our concerns, and taking the responsibility it campaigned for, the government uses this tactic. It attempts to convince us that we are being unreasonable in our expectations and our demands that they be met. It tries to shift our attention from incompetence, corruption, and/or unwillingness to take appropriate actions. It wants us to believe that it needs more time to do what it is required. It would like us to believe that we are not only wrong, but foolish to expect swift action. We have to know better.

It was revealed, in recent days, that the Prime Minister instructed all Members of Parliament to remain silent on the accusation against a Member of Parliament. They have been muzzled, and they have agreed to it. This suggests that Members of Parliament see nothing wrong with one of their colleagues, accused of rape, being allowed to carry on as though everything is normal. While he is not being named, members of the public are convinced that they know who he is. How is it that other Members of Parliament are content to be silent, and to abide the leadership of a Prime Minister who is deliberate in his silence? Who are these people? Can we really expect them to value the lives of women and girls, and to demonstrate interest in or commitment to the protection and realisation of our human rights?

Asked about the report of rape by a Member of Parliament, the Prime Minister said: “I have no concern about that because the police know how to do their job.”

How could the leader of this country have no concern about a rape accusation against a Member of Parliament, and one within his own party? What does it mean that he has no concern? How is it that his confidence in police erases any other concerns?

The Prime Minister went on to say, “And someone said — I didn’t hear the tape — but someone said, that the person, the accuser is saying they don’t want to press any charges, so what the police is to do in those circumstances?”

This is an irresponsible statement, in multiple ways. First, the survivor never said that she did not want to press charges. Second, no reference was even given for the statement which is, at best hearsay. It is an unsubstantiated claim, and the survivor has since made it clear that it is untrue. In the initial news report, it was stated that the survivor wanted the accused Member of Parliament to get help. This is not the same as not pressing charges. It is actually quite common for survivors who know the perpetrators to want them to be rehabilitated. This does not mean that perpetrators do not face consequences for their actions. There are many ways to think about, discuss, and create access to justice. Today, justice is approached in ways that are quite different from the punitive systems we have come to know and often depend on, even when in cases where it is insufficient and ineffective. It is clear that justice is different from one case to another, and we need to understand that survivor healing must be centred. Before we get to the stage where the court is involved, it is critical that survivors are able to report, are treated with respect, receive the resources and services they need, including housing, healthcare, childcare, and counselling, and have information on the way forward. Already, the system has failed the survivor in this case.

It is no surprise that, when questioned, people in positions of power make references to “due process”. Again, this is a form of deflection. The general public has never expressed that it has the expectation that laws or policies be flouted. The demand has been for the process to be unimpeded. The demand has been for immediate action that is not prevented, obstructed, or delayed by special favours or abuses of power. Due process is our expectation, and that it be applied to both parties. The survivor has a right to access justice. Because she was aware that this access was being denied or delayed, she went to the media, making the public aware of the situation. Due process is not an excuse for justice being overdue.

In addition to the long wait for access to justice for the survivor, asinine statements are being made about the case. Irresponsible people in media are using the survivor’s story for entertainment purposes, intentionally giving platforms to people with predictably dangerous commentary.

One show, known for its promotion of bombastic rhetoric, had two men as guests, recklessly talking about the case. One of the guests, a former Member of Parliament — who made a non-joke in Parliament about abusing a girlfriend — suggested that the survivor said she was not pressing charges (which was and is not the case). He exclaimed, “What is this foolishness all about?” as if it were a personal affront to him that a woman would dare to report a Member of Parliament for rape, much less choose whether or not she would like to press charges. It is as though he is not even aware that police often discourage women from pressing charges, suggesting that they make up with abusive (ex-)partners. In fact, the guest said, “They probably ga make up[…] It happens all the time. Brudda,” he said to the other guest, “How often that happen to you?”

What does it mean that this former Member of Parliament said “it happens all the time”? It seemed that he was saying it is a frequent occurrence that a woman experiences abuse, then makes up with the perpetrator. He then seemed to suggest that this is an experience (abusive) men share.

The other man on the show said, “We are suffering from a nation of dysfunction.” He went on to say, “As for our women[…] there is a spirit of[…] wanting things[…] We all know that the men are providers by nature. We are expected to give to women when we want their interest, but men today seemingly are very angry, and the minute a woman wants more than a male can offer[…]” At this point, the man went down a misogynistic, anti-LGBTQI rabbit hole, never to return to finish the statement.

This is an example of rape culture. He said the nation is dysfunctional, then went on to connect that to a supposed desire that women have for things. Within the same argument, he said that men are providers. In one minute, he blamed women for wanting things and characterised men as genetically wired to provide things. The statement that he never managed to finish seemed to be going in the direction of suggesting that violence enters relationships when men are unable to give women the things they want. This is, at best, an oversimplification of relations between men and women in relationships. That aside, it highlights a prevailing issue with gender ideology people cling to in The Bahamas. It is not up to women to control the way men behave. Women are not at fault for men’s violence against them. It is also not women’s fault that men think they are supposed to, or that men are expected to, use money and goods to interest women. This is a dynamic that has been created and supported by gender stereotypes and continued gender inequality.

As public discussion on the report of rape by a Member of Parliament continue, longstanding issues are coming to the fore. Gender stereotypes are prominently featured. Rape culture, and victim-blaming in particular, are on full display. The refusal of men to taking responsibility for their acts of violence continues. The Prime Minister, the Progressive Liberal Party, and the government have absolutely failed to respond appropriately to the rape allegations against a Progressive Liberal Party Member of Parliament. Whether or not they believe him to be guilty, they have a responsibility to communicate with the nation, to remove him from his position — a position of significant power — as the investigation takes place, to encourage his full cooperation with the police, to publicly support a thorough investigation and swift justice, and to condemn all acts of gender-based violence against women. These are all easy, necessary actions, and none have been taken. This cannot be forgotten. There is no remedy. There is no better evidence that this government administration is not concerned about gender-based violence and is not committed to gender equality. This is the truth.

To learn about gender inequality in The Bahamas and its connection to gender-based violence, watch Two-Faced: Gender Inequality in The Bahamas. Written, directed, and produced by Gina Rodgers Sealy, it is a documentary on gender-based violence and gender (in)equality in The Bahamas. It includes stories from survivors of domestic violence, intimate partner violence, sexual violence, and gender-based discrimination against women and trans people. The documentary, followed by a panel discussion and cocktail reception, will premiere at Fusion this evening at 7pm. Tickets are $40 and can be purchased at Hoffer Sports in Cable Beach, Sears & Co at 10 Market Street, and Kennedy Medical Center in the Galleria West Plaza on JFK.