RED THREAD IS BEING UNFAIR

Mar 27, 2016 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

What is the principle on which Red Threat is demanding the resignation of the Minister of Social Protection? What is the wrong that the Minister has done to attract the attention of protests of Red Thread and for that organization to be calling for the Minister to be axed?
The alleged infraction by the Minister is a statement, purported to have been issued by her in response to allegations of child molestation against a local government candidate. The Minister is reported to have said, ”this is a family issue that has been going on and on and on and on for whatever reason, I can’t tell you, because if I had a brother, even if there was an accusation, this is not how I would go about helping him.”
Now there are three aspects to the statement. The first aspect is that the allegations against the candidate originate from within his family. In other words, the allegations are being made by a member of the candidate’s family. This is what the Minister is saying. Red Thread is not disputing that the allegations are being made by a member of the family. Therefore what the Minister is saying is a statement of fact. She cannot be asked to resign for this aspect which is a statement of fact.
The second aspect of the Minister’s statement is that this matter has “been going on and on and on and on”. This means that the allegations are old allegations. In fact reports in the press have indicated that the man was questioned by the police about these allegations. He has not been convicted in any court for the offence which he is alleged to have committed and therefore he cannot now be hanged in the court of public opinion based on Red Thread’s protests.
The Minister should not be condemned for stating that the matter is a longstanding one. No one is disputing this.
It was wrong for APNU +AFC to distance itself from a candidate on the basis of an unproved allegation. It is not as though, also, the matter is being still investigated. The matter was investigated. There is no conviction, so APNU+AFC cannot be judging the man on the basis of an unproven allegation. Suppose someone was to come forward and make some allegation against another candidate of APNU+AFC. Will the party distance themselves without proof of the allegation?
The fact is that the candidate cannot be lawfully deemed as a child molester, because he was never convicted of such an offence. There is no proven fact of child molestation, by the court. All that exists are allegations, old and unproven allegations.
The third aspect of the Minister’s alleged statement is what seems to have triggered the controversy. The Minister is alleged to have said, “if I had a brother, even if there was an accusation, this is not how I would go about helping him.”
Now this has been maliciously interpreted to suggest that the Minister has endangered a minor and is protecting someone who is accused of sexually molesting a minor. Now what sort of interpretation is that? How can anyone read such an interpretation into the Minister’s comments? The Minister is not protecting anybody. The Minister is saying that the way the family is dealing with the matter is not helpful to the man. How can that be seen as protecting the candidate?
Red Thread must explain how it came to the conclusion that the minister is protecting someone accused of sexual molestation. It must also explain how the statement by the Minister endangers the life of a minor.
The allegations against the now successful candidate are not new allegations. They are not subject to any ongoing investigations. This is an old allegation. It was investigated by the police. There is no conviction. So how is the Minister’s comment endangering the minor? This is an alarmist and excitable position being taken by Red Thread. What did Red Thread want the Minister to say? That he will remain condemned until he is convicted?
It seems as if some people wanted the Minister to condemn the candidate instead of hinting that the family is not helping him by the way it is dealing with the matter. But how can the Minister be expected to condemn someone when there is no conviction?
All that exists is an allegation, and if the family wants to help the man it is for them to investigate the matter, gather the evidence and ensure that justice is served, either through conviction or exoneration. The family is not helping anybody by trying to stigmatize the man as a child molester.
Red Thread is being unfair to the Minister. The Minister does not have a basis to label the candidate as a child molester. There is no conviction. There are only accusations. No proven fact in a court of law, just allegations.

---

---