The Tribune

“People does lie.”

Those are the words of a religious leader in The Bahamas. While he used the word “people,” the rest of his drivel indicated that he was really talking about women. In particular, he was talking about women who are raped by their husbands, suggesting that they are liars who want to get out of a marriage.

“People does lie.” This is what he said at a supposed national ecumenical service in one of the events leading up to the 50th anniversary of independence. What a travesty, what an insult, and what an easy way to cause harm to generations of women and girls who have been sexually assaulted and the one in three women and girls who will be. What a quick way to make it more difficult for women and girls to process incidents as rape and sexual assault, report, and access justice. What a clear way to indicate that he and his church are not safe for sexual assault survivors and that they can offer no assistance to anyone who is not a rapist. What a large red flag it is that the religious leader decided to wave.

What an indictment on the Christian church that this filth would be uttered by Rex Major at a national event, and that there is not a single religious leader who has come forward to rebuke it, leaving the impression that the church hates women, the church does not support women’s rights, and that the church is and will always be our enemy. If it is not true, say so. Prove otherwise. What would Jesus do?

While it is clear where that man, and many of his colleagues, stand, there are questions that need to be answered. The first one, and perhaps the most important is this: Who decided that he should be the one to speak? The questions that follow include: Did they know that he would say this? Did they encourage him to take aim at the bill to amend the Sexual Offences Act in order to criminalise marital rape? Is the government destroying the bill by giving naysayers platforms - national platforms - to say what it knows it must not say?

Is this government administration sabotaging its own bill to criminalise marital rape? Is it planning to blame its inaction on “civil society” instead of admitting its choice to fail. It has, in fact, laid the foundation for this already. In its report for the fourth cycle of the Universal Periodic Review, it said, “Draft legislation to amend the Sexual Offences Act to criminalise marital rape is under consideration and subject to consultations with the public.”

Why is changing the definition of rape in the Sexual Offences Act — which is incorrect and provides an exclusion that allows people to legally rape their spouses — subject to consultation (that has devolved into a mess of “opinions” that translate to “men own the women they marry”) with the public?

The marital rape bill has already been put on the back burner for, as we say, the umpteenth time. We have been through years and years of public discussion, advocacy, drafting, and government administrations pretending to be unaware of their obligations until they are in international spaces and must acknowledge their commitments.

You know who does lie?

Politicians does lie.

In September 2022, the Minister of Social Services and Urban Development Obie Wilchcombe said: “[…]We will have to determine where we move, whether or not we move with the legislation, but I am very impressed with the drafting of the legislation that we’re looking at now and we’re hoping to get some feedback from all sides on the draft legislation that would allow us to make strides in the right direction, but, very clearly, it’s an issue and we have to deal with the issue one way or the other.”

What are the “sides” he was talking about? Rapists and non-rapists? People who are okay with rape and rapists and people who are not? People who believe rape, regardless of relationship to the victim, is violent and people who do not? People who know that women are human beings with human rights and people who insist that women are objects? People who are more concerned about their reputations as religious leaders and the reputations of their religious institutions and associates (who may be rapists) than they are about the people, specifically women, who hold them up and can, if mobilised, expose them and their violence?

Former Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham said: “You can only do what you have the support for so I assume Mr Davis will make a judgement as to whether or not he has the support of his members to pass it.”

He added: “Many persons who you see parade around here as ordinary decent human beings do not believe that marital rape ought to be a criminal offence and in private, they have their views so as members of the press, you can grill them, crisp them, put them on the record for their personal private positions and see how many duck you and how many give you an honest answer.”

Does Davis not have the support of his members?

Which Members of Parliament have not yet made their positions on marital rape clear? Which of them will vote against the criminalisation of marital rape?

Perhaps the silence and the ducking and dodging we have seen in recent weeks, following the accusation that a sitting Member of Parliament is a rapist, is an indication of this government administration’s position on the issue. It could be that they care even less about women being raped by their husbands than they do about women being raped by people they are not married to. On the tower of power, do Members of Parliament or husbands rank higher? Who gets away with more?

In January 2023, Wilchcombe said he hoped that consultation on the marital rape bill would be complete by the end of that month. More than four months later, the government still has not brought “consultation” to a close. In fact, the government is saying nothing about the marital rape, having shifted its attention to the gender-based violence bill it has yet to release for public consultation.

It was reported on May 19, 2023, following the fourth cycle of the Universal Period Review of The Bahamas, that the Attorney General Ryan Pinder said: “During the questions and interventions presented by the member countries on our national report the top five points raised include: 1) Criminalising of marital rape, 2) Gender-based violence, 3) Moratorium on the death penalty, 4) Equality in the transmission of citizenship and 5) Asylum and trafficking in persons matters.”

Marital rape was the number issue raised by United Nations Member States. Is this government going to continue to put responsibility on the “public” and with particular emphasis on the most regressive, hateful, misogynistic, anti-rights groups within that public?

Last month, Minister of Youth, Sports and Culture Mario Bowleg said: “I wouldn’t say whether I support it or not, it’s still something that is being looked at.” He added, “But I don’t believe that any man or woman should be taken advantage of in any form or fashion when it comes to rape.”

Those are two incongruent sentences. Why is it so difficult to state a position, as an elected official and an appointment minister? Are these people this indecisive, confused, and terrified every day in office, signing documents and issuing directives? If so, we are in trouble. If not, they are liars and cowards.

Member of Parliament for Golden Gates Pia Glover-Rolle said: “The context of the relationship doesn’t change what the definition of rape is. It’s non-consensual sex, so (criminalising martial rape is) very important, but what is also important is that we have conversations with all of the stakeholders.”

The responses of politicians are all over the place. Very few of them have been able to clearly state a position and refrain from giving any caveats. They continue to reference “consultation” and “stakeholders” to the point that these words have no meaning in this specific context.

Cindy Godet, a survivor who shared her story in the documentary Two-Faced: Gender Inequality in The Bahamas, said, “We are overrun with sexual predators, but even worse, we are overrun with people who protect them.”

Are you protecting sexual predators today? Are you hiding behind “the public” or “the stakeholders” or some other such nonsense instead of making your position clear and being on the side of human rights? The other side, just so you know, is violence.

Here are key points to remember as news stories continue to reference the (lack of) movement toward the criminalisation of marital rape and the asinine statements being made by people in positions of power and significant influence:

1. The Government of The Bahamas is obligated to uphold and implement human rights standards. It is obligated to protect individuals and groups from human rights violations.

2. The Government of The Bahamas is aware of its obligations and has made commitments, in numerous locations and through many mechanisms, to meet those obligations. These include the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) which The Bahamas ratified in 1993.

3. The Government of The Bahamas voluntarily participates in reviews by treaty bodies and other groups to be assessed on the progress made toward full compliance with human rights mechanisms like CEDAW. In 2018, for example, it made a report to the CEDAW Committee and the CEDAW Committee made recommendations to the State. The recommendations included, “Adopt, without delay, the amendments to the Sexual Offences Act expressly criminalising marital rape[…]” Similarly, several United Nations Member States recommended, at the Universal Period Review earlier this month, that the government amend the Sexual Offences Act to criminalise marital rape. It must, in order to come into compliance with human rights mechanisms, criminalise marital rape, acknowledging that rape is rape and that women, whether married or not, are people.

4. Consultation is not a never-ending exercise. It is supposed to be a planned, finite process for receiving feedback. In the case of the bill to criminalise marital rape, there are people and groups that have opinions on the bill. They have had opportunities to share those opinions. The right to express opinions is not synonymous with a right to control, delay, or discontinue the process that is necessary to provide a mechanism for married women to report rape perpetrated by their spouses and to access justice (which is not the same as getting a divorce). Consultation is really not to be about opinions, but receiving and sharing information that can strengthen — not weaken — the bill.

5. People who cannot give their position on rape, marital or otherwise, certainly cannot vote on a draft bill in Parliament. We need to know where they stand. We elected them, and they must be made to answer to us.

Recommendations

1. Watch Two-Faced: Gender Inequality in The Bahamas, a Gina Rodgers-Sealy film, which is a documentary on women’s rights in The Bahamas and includes credible information from advocates and technical experts and stories of domestic and sexual abuse from survivors. It is being screened at Four Walls Squash and Social Club on Village Road at 7pm and will be followed by a question and answer session.

2. Get ready for the June meeting of Feminist Book Club with Equality Bahamas and Poinciana Paper Press by buying or borrowing and reading Dignity: Its Essential Role in Resolving Conflict by Donna Hicks. For information on Feminist Book Club and meeting dates, sign up at tiny.cc/fbc2023.