The Tribune

By LEANDRA ROLLE and EARYEL BOWLEG

Tribune Staff Reporters

THE House of Assembly passed the Protection Against Violence Bill last night after Prime Minister Philip “Brave” Davis said he was disturbed and disappointed that some women’s groups announced their opposition to the bill at the “last hour”.

Mr Davis said many meetings and discussions had preceded the debate on the bill.

The Tribune understands some advocates believe the administration relied primarily on input from the Bahamas Crisis Centre, a respected organisation that may not have represented the views of all women’s groups.

 “I think that’s probably the problem,” Mr Davis said while contributing to the debate. “They are not all on the same page.”

 Noting some women’s groups prefer the legislation to be called a Gender Violence Bill, he said the latest version is more inclusive than previous drafts.

 “We are recognising that violence and the circumstances of violence touches all genders and particularly, we have to recognise that the term gender has a lot of sexual orientation and those persons with their sexual preferences, etc, they too are subject to violence,” he said, noting as well that children experience violence that may not be gender-based.

 A draft of the bill was originally created a decade ago. This year, interest in the legislation increased as The Bahamas faced a wave of reported violence against women, including higher sexual assaults.

 A press release announcing opposition to the bill was purportedly supported by several women’s rights groups and leaders, including Marion Bethel, the vice chairperson and rapporteur of the UN Human Rights Committee on Women & Girls Rights.

 The advocates said the bill they supported was more comprehensive than the one passed last night.

 Charlene Paul, chair of the Caribbean Women in Leadership, said the 2016 bill “was like 58 pages”, unlike the latest version, which is 26 pages.

 “I can say that the lawyers and drafters advised me, and I’d like to advise everyone that this bill does, in fact, satisfy our obligations under international treaties, including the treaty of CEDAW,” Mr Davis said yesterday morning. “That’s what they told me, and so, it may not be perfect, but at the very least, if you had concerns, why wait on the day or the eve of our debating the bill to raise those concerns? That is troubling when the bill was here in Parliament, and if the kind of interest that is now being expressed was there, I would’ve expected to have heard from the group before now.”

 Prodesta Moore, the founder of Women United, one of the groups that opposed the bill, said advocates did not know the bill would be debated yesterday until late.

 Social Services Minister Obie Wilchcombe read a letter he said was sent to many women’s rights groups and leaders in June informing them about the bill so the administration could solicit feedback before the debate began.

 “We heard from one group,” he said. “But I spoke off the record and on the record to some others, but one group wrote in, Mr Deputy, so yes, consultation was sought, Mr Deputy, from a wide range of people and no one voiced objection at the time.”

 Before the bill was passed last night, Mr Davis said provisions had been removed from the bill over time “because the bill has widened and broadened the scope of persons to whom violence could be committed. And it also decides not to dumb down the punishment against persons who would have committed violence against women.”

 He said the previous bill imposed a weaker sentence on a man who committed violence against women, a difference of one year versus 20.

 He said the legislation would be a turning point, a moment where the government steps up rather than lags behind civil society.

 “After the passage of this bill, we will need to make a tremendous effort to generate and allocate resources to hold training sessions and to update our systems and processes to meet our goals,” he said. “We also acknowledge that we are dealing with entrenched views about violence that may take some time to change. In fact, some of those holding these views about violence work in law enforcement, healthcare, social services and other places that survivors of violence rely on.”

 Mr Davis noted the legislation would establish the Protection Against Violence Commission, which would treat victims and “have access to justice without unnecessary delays and impediments”.

 “The bill addresses the need for healthcare and other support to be given in safe, private, and comfortable environments,” he said. “This should be the default approach by professionals in the field anyway, but now we are establishing it as a standard because survivors of violence deserve dignity and respect.”