Independent vigil for abused toddler sparks controversy

Mar 02, 2014 News

---

An independent candle light vigil, held in solidarity with a one-year-old who had been abused by her babysitter, has sparked a controversy between the demonstrators and the Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA) who criticized their efforts stating that the response to child abuse is justice, not ‘harshness.’
Fatima Martin is the 19-year-old babysitter at the center of the tumult. On February 14, she was hauled before the courts and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment after she confessed to inflicting grievous bodily harm on the one-year-old child who was in her care.
Reports are that the babysitter, who flew in a fit of vexation with the toddler, dealt the child several slaps and even choked her. However, amidst public outcry over the sentence, pro bono lawyers had moved to appeal the sentence and managed to secure bail in the sum of $100,000 for the young woman.
In response, a group of public-spirited citizens has been calling for justice for the afflicted child by gathering in front of the Guyana Human Rights Centre which houses the association on Hadfield Street and Austin Place for three nights last week.
The vigils with numbers peaking at 130 have excited the Executive Committee of the Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA) who issued a response on Friday.
The association stated that though it is ‘mystified’ by the picket exercise, it is quite disposed to discuss with the group involved what it is in ‘complete disagreement’ with.
The GHRA, however, seems unmoved by the candlelight vigils and maintains that its concern is with regards to the legal proceedings taken in the matter.
“In summary our concern is that the legal proceedings appear to have been unduly influenced by the parents’ role in the administration of justice, the mother being a magistrate and the father a lawyer.”
According to GHRA, the charge of ‘maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm’, an indictable offence, was excessive and the decision to try the matter summarily was taken without the defendant having the benefit of legal advice.
The association contends, too, that the speed of the proceedings which included arrest, trial and imprisonment was completed within three days. Then there was the severity of the sentence which is the maximum any magistrate is allowed to impose.
GHRA claims that the day the babysitter was sentenced, the court was cleared so that only persons associated with the prosecution were present; including the father of the child. The sister of the accused was excluded.
The press release related that the allegations of assault against the defendant need also to be investigated.
GHRA argues that while emotional reactions are understandable in those close to abuse cases, it is the role of the legal process to deter people from taking things into their own hands.
“It is precisely because there is a fine line between ‘harsh’ and ‘cruel’, that justice must be blind to distracting influences.”
The statement, particularly referencing drug cases, claimed that the GHRA recently had cause to protest against the unpredictable sentencing taking place for some time in the Magistrates’ court.
“Other cases of young women being advised to plead guilty by the police and bundled through the courts in a matter of days added to this concern.”
In closing, the GHRA noted that the only evidence of the group’s presence was two posters taped to the gate and fence of the centre. The association claimed that they have been subjected to a number of broken windows on the building which is “a harsher legacy of earlier visits of people in ‘complete disagreement’ with the GHRA.”
On the other hand, the organiser of the vigil, Sarah Balgobin, stated that the group is dedicated to its cause and will not stop speaking out about the injustice that was committed against the infant.
When confronted by the response of the GHRA, Balgobin pointed to the severity of the act which resulted in the child sustaining serious injuries and questions what the association believes the charge should be for a woman “who could have killed the child.”
The organiser challenged the position taken by the association on the way the court proceedings were handled. She is calling for justice for the child and is asking whether that warrants “this woman to not pay for the crime she committed.”
Maintaining that they are a group of peaceful persons wanting justice to be served for crimes against children, she recorded dissatisfaction with the fact that the babysitter has been allowed bail and could likely flee the jurisdiction “without paying for a crime she committed.”
Balgobin confronted GHRA’s position on the issue as she questioned, “Is it that the woman’s ethnicity is more worthy of attention than the real issue of a beaten baby?”

---

---