‘The Domestic Violence Act 1996 in history’

Dec 02, 2024 Letters

---

Women Peace and Security Index 2023/2024

 

Denmark 1

USA        37

Barbados 47

 

Guyana 49

T&T     70

Jamaica 77

 

Suriname   87

Brazil        115

Venezuela 116

 

Dear Editor,

25th November was the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women and it may be useful to note that Guyana was one of the earliest countries in CARICOM to pass a domestic violence act. Only the Barbados act of 1993 preceded Guyana’s. This, and more importantly, the understanding that social progress, particularly in these longitudinal projects, depends upon there being a united national – not partisan – body of persons perennially dedicated to support and defend the process, is perhaps responsible for the Women Peace and Security Index being one of the rare international social indices upon which Guyana is comparatively highly ranked.

My statement as then Senior Minister of Housing, Labour, Human Service and Social Security below suggests a commitment to this national approach. Some progress has been made but there is still much to be done. For example, if the parliamentary opposition is correct, the existence of relevant data and enforcement are still problematic. The 1996 Act is now replaced by an ‘upgraded’ Family Violence Act 2024 and my comments also provide a backdrop to this journey.

———————

Mr. Speaker, rarely are the contradictions of our social existence so glaring as in our relationship with the notion of violence.  Everywhere violence is condemned but everywhere it is applied.  We are repulsed by the use of violence in adult relationships and a crescendo has come upon us to do something about domestic violence.  Yet, the value of a few lashes to instill discipline in a child is well established and there is a growing chorus for the use of the hangman’s noose to rid society of violent crimes.  Therefore,  even as we take this partial and  worthwhile step to rid our  society of the scourge of domestic violence, it is important that we realise that our understanding of the nature and implications of the use of violence is extremely rudimentary.

Mr. Speaker, so far as I am aware, the precise scope of the problem of domestic violence as it relates to Guyana is largely unknown.    It is customary to argue that incidents of domestic violence have increased even from the figures which Prasad and Danns gave in the mid-eighties, when they argued that two out of three women of all races and socio-economic backgrounds suffered some form of domestic violence. The issue has not been adequately studied, but if the claim that domestic violence has increased is correct in this era of increasing gender awareness, the problem may be much more complex than we appreciate.

Our Constitution enshrines equality between the sexes and the Equal Rights Act 1991 seeks to enforce that equality. To   these must be added the many international conventions on the elimination of discrimination and violence against women to which Guyana has become a party. In the circumstances our government, and indeed this parliament, would be extremely remiss if it failed to tackle, in a progressive fashion, what is an issue of fundamental human rights.

Of course, women are not the only victims of domestic violence and what appears to have increased in recent times is violence against children, men and the elderly. The Bill before this Hon. House is comprehensive in its coverage. Put tersely, by way of protection orders and various enforcement mechanisms, it seeks to protect and ensure the safety of family members confronted by physical and psychological violence.

In our view the existing legal regime which relies largely on High Court remedies by way of injunctions and proceedings for damages for trespass to person and so on, does not offer quick and effective relief to victims of domestic violence.

My reference to “our view” should not be taken to suggest that this Bill is essentially the creation of the government.  The contrary is closer to the truth. Indeed, the design of a few other pieces of legislation has allowed for such mass participation.

In the first place, the Bill was drafted by lawyers attached to the National Women’s Rights Campaign who used Caricom model legislation as their starting place.  Some thirty organisations associated to the known political parties, trade unions, religious and professional organisations, the disciplined forces, etc., participated, in one way or another, in preparing this Bill. Added to this, the Guyana Human Rights Association held a series of workshops in various parts of the country at which the draft Bill was considered in some detail. Recommendations for amendments were made and many have been adopted.

We wish to thank all those persons and institutions who participated in the process. We would also say to all those who claim that this piece of proposed legislation is a foreign import that nothing could be further from the truth, although attempts were made to be as broadly comparative as possible.

Mr. Speaker, to those who contend that legislation is not the answer to these kinds of social problems, put charitably, we would like to believe that such a position is an overstatement of a truism which argues that legislation is not the only answer to the kind of social problems under consideration. This Bill recognises the latter and foresees the need for counseling (6:1:n) and for other institutional support (44:1).

Indeed, some of the very persons who have helped us to frame the Bill have proceeded to develop organisations such as Help and Shelter which provides counselling and other support to victims of violence. We recognize that this is but the beginning and much more needs to be and will be done.

I believe that those who argue that we should wait until what they consider to be a critical level of support is in place before we proceed to legislation lack the most minuscule understanding of social dynamics and offer only administrative sterility.  A piece of legislation like this provides the focus and creates the necessity for action.

There are also those who claim that this kind of law can lead to the breakup of families and the possible pauperisation of children.  How, we are asked, can we possibly equate the stability of the family with a few boxes and perhaps (my inclusion) a few kicks.   This question is as difficult to answer as that which claims that this law should be abandoned since it would encourage women to make malicious complaints. Both positions bespeak a warped and somewhat degraded perception of the human condition and thus will not detain me.

Finally, it is said that the Bill gives the police excessive powers of intervention and arrest.  My understanding is that the powers allowed in this Bill are not much of an extension on those already possessed by the police.  In any case the police must show good reason for intervention, and it appears an absurdity to allow the police to intervene if my neighbour is beating the hell out of me but not if my wife is doing so.

Mr. Speaker, the time when one could possibly have believed that it would constitute a credible defense to say to a court: “a me wife, a me feed am, a me clothe am and a me kill am” has long passed.  I trust that this House will find it possible to support the Bill before it. Thank you.

Sincerely

Dr Henry Jeffrey

(‘The Domestic Violence Act 1996 in history’)

---

• develop organisations, Help and Shelter, National Women’s Rights Campaign, The Domestic Violence

---