The Tribune

OVER the past few years, I have been working with the Equality Bahamas team to not only advocate for the Gender-Based Violence Bill (2016) to be updated and passed, but to make recommendations on the draft to strengthen it and bring it to compliance with international human rights standards. We looked at the draft alongside human rights mechanisms including the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), also known as the bill of women’s rights, and the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence against Women, also known as the Convention of Belém do Pará. We read it alongside the draft Gender Policy and the Strategic Plan to Address Gender-Based Violence which are specifically referenced in the draft Gender-Based Violence bill.

Understanding the importance of a bill addressing gender-based violence and ensuring that it is effective in preventing and responding to gender-based violence, Equality Bahamas discussed the draft bill with technical experts. We reviewed laws for a similar purpose in other countries, both in the Caribbean and in other regions. Recognising the expertise of people who are affected by gender-based violence, as a critical part of its process, Equality Bahamas invited community members to join us in reading through the draft bill and discussing its purpose, content, and likely impact. Review of the gender-based violence bill was not limited to reading the scores of pages that comprised the bill itself, but several other drafts, published reports, and human rights conventions and declarations.

This was not a one-day process. It did not take one week. We did not rush through it in a month, or even two months. We spent months on the draft bill, finding gaps and ways to fill them, in the absence of engagement by the Department of Gender and Family Affairs which should have undertaken a similar process and engaged non-governmental organisations, but, it must be noted, has almost always lacked the capacity — including technical experts — to adequately do so. To have an honest, clear conversation about what took place last week and to understand the depth of the deceit by government officials, it is important to understand the state of affairs. The Department of Gender and Family Affairs has not had a director for over one calendar year. This was never formally communicated to its “NGO partners” and there appears to be no progress, if there was ever any effort, in recruiting a qualified person. The gender-based violence bill, last revised in 2016, received no attention over the past few years and has not been presented to the non-governmental organisations or the general public for feedback.

Over the past few years, marital rape has come as close to taking centre stage in public discourse about legal reform as we have seen thus far. Administration after administration claimed that the criminalisation of marital rape was a matter of priority. The draft Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill 2018 was entirely unacceptable and Equality Bahamas made its position clear through its #Strike5ive campaign and direct engagement with those responsible for drafting a new bill. A new bill was drafted and it is much closer to the bill we need to criminalise marital rape. It amends the definition of rape in Section 3, it repeals Section 15 on sexual assault by spouse which is currently insufficient and will be completely unnecessary when the definition of rape is amended to remove the marital exclusion. It includes a definition of consent. There are still gaps that we have made clear. Equality Bahamas has, since the relaunch of its #Strike5ive campaign in 2020, called for the inclusion of a clause of non immunity on the basis of marriage which would make it clear that marriage is not a defence of the violent, criminal act of rape.

The current government administration seemed to want to posture as though it was committed to criminalising marital rape, but failed to take any meaningful action toward that end. Politicians made embarrassing statements, from the empty and inane to the idiotic and misogynistic. Few of them firmly stated what ought to, by now, be obvious — marital rape is rape, all rape is unacceptable, rape is a form of gender-based violence that disproportionately affects women, women are human beings with human rights, and all rape must be criminalised. Inability to understand or clearly state these facts is an indication of rampant, deeply rooted misogyny or, at best, complete ignorance which justifies that requirement that these people have training on gender, gender-based violence, and human rights.

For no apparent reason, this administration refuses to end its so-called consultation — a complete farce— in the interest of making the necessary changes to strengthen the draft bill and passing it. Rather than engaging with non-governmental organisations and technical experts in meaningful, productive ways, and stating a clear position in support of women’s human rights, it is spinning its wheels, kow-towing to the most regressive, blatantly anti-rights people who happen to claim that they represent Christians and/or Christianity. Misquoting and mal-interpretation of the text of one religion, in this secular State, have been allowed to impede progress on the marital rape bill.

This administration has communicated to the public, especially women and girls, that it is more concerned about being accepted by misogynistic religious leaders than making it clear that there is no form of rape that is acceptable, no rapists who is excused, and no relationship that changes the definition or understanding of (sexual) violence. If any one of the people in Parliament has any integrity and is clear that women have human rights and must have access to them, all rape is violence, no interpretation of any religious text negate those facts, and it is the responsibility of the government to legislate and develop policies to protect, promote, and expand access to human rights, they would not and will not be silent. They would not and will not make empty or idiotic statements. They would and will be clear in their call for marital rape to be criminalised, not only in statements to the press, but in their direct appeals to their colleagues and parties. They would and will separate themselves from the weak and the misogynistic. They would and will refuse to allow a Member of Parliament accused of rape to continue to hold that title and the power that comes with it as investigations into the matter take far too long to begin and yield no results to a demanding public. Is that happening? Will it happen? This tells us what we need to know about our representatives.

The marital rape bill drew attention from people who never thought or spoke about it before. Non-governmental organisations working on issues of gender and gender-based violence turned their attention to the bill and the (lack of) progress. They tuned in to the public discourse. Equality Bahamas consistently challenged the current administration to end its cowardly “consultation” and to stop hiding behind non-governmental organisations and anti-rights religious leaders. It clearly communicated to the government that it was irresponsible in its creation of a debate on an issue that is based on facts that the government has already accepted. Women are human beings and have human rights. Women have the right to live free of violence and discrimination. Rape is an act of sexual violence. The government is responsible for taking every measure available to it to end gender-based violence and address issues of gender stereotyping and harmful gender ideology. This government administration has, instead, reinforced and supported gender-based violence, gender stereotyping, and harmful gender ideology by consistently inviting anti-rights religious leaders to make statements, amplifying their hateful, violent messages, and using those messages as an excuse to avoid meeting its obligations to the people.

Early this year, it was clear that there was a significant reduction in interest and action to move the marital rape bill forward. It was unclear what the government was trying to do. It became clear around the second quarter of the year when there was a sudden switch to this administration referencing the gender-based violence bill. The expectation was the gender-based violence bill would be open for true consultation so that it could be strengthened.

As Equality Bahamas started this process years before, it was prepared to actively engage; however, there was a completely different bill being proposed. Not only is the content of the bill now being discussed different and significantly weaker in content than the gender-based violence bill, the language has changed. The title was changed to “Protection of Women Against Violence Bill” which is a ridiculous name that is both unclear and inaccurate, especially if we are to believe that this bill is meant to offer any solution to the issue of gender-based violence which, to be clear, is not synonymous with violence against women. The title changed again, this time to “Protection Against Violence” which is just as ridiculous and reductive, but even worse, dangerous in its exclusion of people who experience gender-based violence who are not women.

I have already described parts of the process Equality Bahamas undertook to review the draft gender-based violence bill from 2016. I have made it clear that it was not the work of one day, one week, or one month. It should be clear that reviewing a different bill on its own and then putting alongside the previous bill and the related documents is not a one-month job either.

This is just the beginning. This is before we delve into the content of the gender-based violence bill and the one that has been rushed to parliament without consultation. This is the bait and switch this administration has done. This does not even begin to reveal the disrespect meted out by the government to non-governmental organisations and technical experts who have been working on this issue for years. This is not the meetings called one or two days, literally, in advance, or the presentations with little or no time for responses, or the failure to provide the draft at all, much less in advance of meetings. This is not the absence of parliamentarians, including women parliamentarians who dare to suggest that women’s rights organisations and feminist organisers are liars, at the meetings held with non-governmental organisations.

It is unwise for this administration to make enemies of feminists, technical experts, and non-governmental organisations. When it fails, when it does not know, and when it refuses, we are the ones who show up. We raise the money. We find the resources. We meet the needs. For decades, the government has refused to meet its obligations, from education and healthcare to disaster preparedness and response. It is civil society that shows up, and without notice. We know what is happening on the ground, in homes, and within communities. We know how we have and have not been engaged. We know this administration made a decision to shelve the marital rape bill and quickly pass the latest drivel it tried to call the gender-based violence bill, perhaps with the expectation that we would be satisfied.

The bare minimum is not satisfactory. Watering down bills is not going to fly. Glossing over human rights obligations and rushing to check boxes will not stand. Suggesting to the public that civil society is lying will not go unchallenged. Either we are going to meet human rights obligations and address gender-based violence in substantive ways, or we are going to be horrified, embarrassed, and personally harmed by continual increases in sexual violence and intimate partner violence. This administration can decide what it is going to, and so we can we.