The Guyana Groove

What does each party’s manifesto pledge to do for Guyana’s women?

2011-12-03T10:25:00.001-05:00

(Originally published in Guyana’s Stabroek News on 26 November 2011)

The elections are upon us and this year has seen more focus on women’s issues on the political platforms than ever before. This is how it should be and even more so until women are safe and hold equal status in all spheres of life. As such, I combed through the manifestos of each party to see what Guyana’s leaders had to offer the women.

This column highlights what each party has stated it will specifically do for the women of the nation in the next term. Key issues pertaining to women will be addressed with the coordinating response from the parties according to their manifestos. If there is no answer provided for the issue, it will be noted.

(Note: Each party’s manifesto response is listed alphabetically by the party’s acronym.)

Domestic violence:

AFC – Establish legal aid support for women who are victims of domestic violence systems and a rescue support fund during rehabilitation. Increase the number of shelters and care centres available to women in trauma. Establish and implement a Family Court to address the specific needs of women. Enact a Family Law Act to deal with common law unions, child support and the custody of children, spouse maintenance and the resolution of property disputes. Establish systems to ensure earlier intervention by social services in disputes and the collection of data to determine causes of domestic violence, identification and implementation of solutions. (Page 31) Train and empower the police to respond more effectively to domestic violence. (Page 17)

APNU – APNU endorses and commits to the implementation of the National Domestic Violence Policy (NDVP) developed in a consultative process between civil society and government, and as an essential part of ending domestic and sexual abuse, will promote a sustained campaign to uproot the cultural acceptance of violence against the less powerful. (Page 16) Reduce crime and fear of crime especially the high rate of… domestic violence by improving policing and maintaining police teams that spend more time on the beat to deter, detect, prevent or investigate crime. There will be zero tolerance on…violence against elders, children women and other vulnerable members of society. (Page 30)

PPP – Expand the work of the Women’s Affairs Bureau, the Men’s Affairs Bureau and the Child Protection Agency. Increase support for programmes to prevent domestic violence and against molestation of our children. (Page 36)

TUF – TUF considers domestic violence as a most reprehensible anti-social and criminal behaviour in our society… As an organization that believes in a social and legal coherent society, TUF will seek to amend the relevant legislation to increase the severity of the penalty that may be imposed on those found guilty of this cowardly act. TUF argues that early intervention and the offer of financial and other assistance by the relevant authorities can serve as motivating factors for victims to pursue their complaints. Victims must be encouraged to pursue their complaints and should not directly or indirectly be discouraged from so doing. TUF would recommend that all complaints of domestic violence filed with the police be treated with due urgency by the police and that immediate and prudent steps be taken to minimize risk of further injury to the victim. (Pages 15-16) Note: TUF further addresses this issue on page 16 of its manifesto, but I cannot include the entire section in this column for lack of space.

Gender equality:

AFC - Ensure adequate representation of women on all statutory boards, gender sensitive politics in government and champion the rights of women. (Page 31) The AFC recognises that greater gender equality and empowerment are essential to eradicating poverty in Guyana since significant inequality in gender responsibility, opportunity and influence still exist. Therefore, the AFC intends to introduce policies to encourage the rebuilding of Guyana’s family structure, the sharing of caring tasks between mothers and fathers as well as mentoring and financially supporting Guyana’s children. In this regard the AFC plans to reintroduce allowances into the income tax system for dependents.

Further, it sees gender equality in the context of enhancing democracy, developing peaceful communities, eradicating poverty and violence against women. In advancing this objective, the AFC considers education for all, improving maternal health, reducing child mortality and combating HIV/AIDS crucial elements as well. (Page 10)

APNU – APNU will work to effect genuine 50:50 equality in Parliament, and as a proactive step in this direction commits to the global standard for the balance between women and men in governing bodies which is 40/60 – that is, neither sex should have less than 40% or more than 60% representation. (Page 16)

PPP – Nothing has been provided on this issue.

TUF – The United Force…will provide conditions to facilitate gender integration in policies, plans and programmes for sustainable development of all women and the furthering of gender equality and equity. Our areas of focus will be: Restructuring and upgrading of the gender equity mechanism via discussions with relevant groups based on regional and international commitments; capacity building within the ministries, statutory bodies, local government and across the sector to perform integration tasks; working towards the removal of obstacles, legislative and cultural, which hinder gender equality and equity; conducting gender analysis and planning training with public, private and non-governmental organisation sectors, with more emphasis on public sectors, so as to equip women and men from different sectors, to participate effectively in the integration process; Ensure the further involvement of women in power sharing and decision making at national level. (Pages 21-22)

Economics:

AFC - Build starter homes for single parents and other vulnerable persons in society in every housing scheme being developed. (Page 22) Establish micro-financing opportunities at banks and other financial institutions for women and other vulnerable groups. Review collateral requirements at financial institutions to address historical imbalances, which can exclude women from qualifying for loans. Increase levels of child support payment and implement effective systems for ensuring funds are paid such as court orders garnisheeing wages of parents who have defaulted. Implement special tax benefits for single women with school age children. Expand school feeding programmes to assist single parents with the cost of living and improve attendance. Free land for housing to people below poverty line. Establish retirement villages and subsidised rentals. Allocate house lots to…female heads of households. (Page 31) Note: The AFC further addresses economics in regards to women in its “Poverty Eradication Plan” on Page 14.

APNU – Examine and take steps to correct the negative impact of economic policies and working conditions on women’s unwaged work and on children (boys and girls) and families. Ensure equal pay for work of equal value. Immediately ratify and implement the ILO Convention #189, which recognises domestic workers as workers. (Page 16)

PPP – Expanding the benefits available to…single parents. Examine options for making the tax system more family friendly, including through personal income tax relief conditional on the number of dependent children. (Page 36) Distribution of another 30,000 new house lots, including…special programmes for young professionals and single persons. (Page 30)

TUF - Designing and implementing, with full involvement of organizations of employers and workers concerned, awareness campaigns to promote…entrepreneurial role models and award schemes, taking due account of the specific needs of women… (Page 6)

Health:

AFC – Expand maternity benefits and introduce parental leave for males and females. Employ a full time counsellor at every technical, community and high school given the social challenges of the day. Establish a national health fund under the auspices of the Ministry of Health. (Page 31)

APNU – Improving maternal and child health services, refusing complacency about the level of maternal mortality. Sustained popular education on the prevention of hypertension, diabetes, breast and cervical cancer and fibroids, in particular. (Page 16)

PPP – Establish family counselling centres in all counties. (Page 36) Continue to take the necessary steps to reduce infant and maternal mortality. (Page 28)

TUF - The implementation of a practical health programme specifically designed for AIDS awareness and teenage pregnancies. (Page 23)

Education/Career Building:
AFC – Establish training and development centres for women that will provide support through career guidance programmes, job placements and apprenticeships. Identify funds for scholarships, grants and loans to train women in non-traditional sectors, information technology, capacity building and other areas. Improve truancy monitoring and support services to assist women with managing their children. Establish day care facilities to assist working women, especially in government offices. (Page 31)

APNU – Encourage more family-friendly working environments, for example, child/family care facilities; alternative hours of waged work, where possible, for women and men caring for young children or elders, chronically sick or severely disabled relatives; and maternity and paternity leave. Combating gender and other stereotyping in educational choices. Providing second-chance educational opportunities for…girls who leave the system early due to pregnancy. (Page 16)

PPP – Nothing has been provided on this issue.

TUF – Facilitating the retention of young mothers in the classroom. (Page 22) TUF urges that the selection process be competitive in nature and that qualified male and female members of the force holding the rank of assistant commissioner and above be given equal consideration for the position of commissioner. For too long, female members of the force have been overlooked or by-passed during promotion to ranks above assistant commissioner. As such we must re-examine the eligibility, selection, and appointment processes by encouraging those qualified members to apply and compete for positions in the upper echelon of the force. (Pages 8-9)

Trafficking in Persons:

AFC – Nothing has been provided on this issue.

APNU - Nothing has been provided on this issue.

PPP - Nothing has been provided on this issue.

TUF – Our programme is intended to prevent the exploitation of our people who are routinely uprooted from the sanctity of their communities with false promises of employment by unscrupulous characters who then use them as sex slaves at mining sites and other locations. TUF intends to conduct community awareness programs warning members of the risks involved, such as: being used as a prostitute; being used as sex slaves; working more than 20 hours a day and receiving little or compensation; being the victim of sexual and physical abuse; and becoming a victim of HIV/AIDS. TUF will seek to have this information disseminated through churches and other community based programmes. (Page 16)

Columnist note: What would I have liked to see addressed in the manifestos that was not? A plan to tackle the issue of sexual violence against women (rape), a proposal to look at improving the condition of the women’s prisons, ideas to further female leadership in agricultural careers and a strategy to fund and support the nation’s female athletes. But these fights I will save for another day.

Is sexual harassment really a big deal?

2011-11-26T15:39:00.001-05:00

(Originally published in Guyana’s Stabroek News on 19 November 2011)

When I was in the Seventh Grade (about 12 or 13 years old), two male classmates came up to me and grabbed my breasts. The entire class was standing in the hall in a line as we waited for our teacher to instruct us to move into the classroom. However, immediately after this incident occurred, I walked out of the line, right past my teacher who was demanding I get back in line and went straight to the principal’s office where I told those in the office what had happened.

The boys were suspended for two weeks and no guy at school ever dared to try something like that with me again.

The subject of sexual harassment has been all over the news in the US as one of the Republican presidential candidates is facing allegations of sexually harassing several women. In my opinion, sexual harassment disqualifies a person for leadership as it creates the picture of a leader with significant deficits in terms of temperament, judgment and, potentially, veracity.

This issue on sexual harassment sparked a conversation on Facebook recently between some Guyanese friends when one gentleman asked, “What is sexual harassment? …you been told ‘you having a thick-delightful butt, you looking sexy, great lips, mellow breast, you have the height of my wife.’ Does this amount to sexual harassment?”

The immediate reaction from a female was simply, “Yes.” There was a lengthy discussion on the topic that of course touched on the attire of the woman and whether she is seeking attention.
Allow me to interject here that a woman’s attire is not a solicitation for sexual harassment.

Why is it that someone is always trying to tell women what they can and cannot do, say or wear?
There have been protests all over the world this year about the question of what women should and should not wear. These protests are being called “SlutWalks.”

According to Wikipedia, “The SlutWalk protest marches began on April 3, 2011, in Toronto, Canada, and became a movement of rallies across the world. Participants protest against explaining or excusing rape by referring to any aspect of a woman’s appearance. The rallies began when Constable Michael Sanguinetti, a Toronto Police officer, suggested that to remain safe, ‘women should avoid dressing like sluts.’”

Let’s be honest, a woman can be dressed quite modestly and still be sexually harassed. Looking to the attire of the woman to justify sexual harassment is only trying to blame the victim because a man somehow felt he had a right to say or do something inappropriate to the woman.

The Women Watch arm of the United Nations (UN) describes sexual harassment in this way, “Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favours, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature.”

The UN’s definition extends to state that sexual harassment includes many things, such as:

· Actual or attempted rape or sexual assault
· Unwanted pressure for sexual favors
· Unwanted deliberate touching, leaning over, cornering or pinching
· Unwanted sexual looks or gestures
· Unwanted letters, telephone calls or materials of a sexual nature
· Unwanted pressure for dates
· Unwanted sexual teasing, jokes, remarks or questions
· Referring to an adult as a girl, hunk, doll, babe or honey
· Whistling at someone
· Cat calls
· Sexual comments
· Turning work discussions to sexual topics
· Sexual innuendos or stories
· Asking about sexual fantasies, preferences or history
· Personal questions about social or sexual life
· Sexual comments about a person’s clothing, anatomy or looks
· Kissing sounds, howling and smacking lips
· Telling lies or spreading rumours about a person’s personal sex life
· Neck massage
· Touching an employee’s clothing, hair or body
· Giving personal gifts
· Hanging around a person
· Hugging, kissing, patting or stroking
· Touching or rubbing oneself sexually around another person
· Standing close or brushing up against a person
· Looking a person up and down (elevator eyes)
· Staring at someone
· Sexually suggestive signals
· Facial expressions, winking, throwing kisses or licking lips
· Making sexual gestures with hands or through body movements
· Touching the person’s clothing, hair or body

By this definition, accepted worldwide as sexual harassment, the answer to the male friend from Facebook (whom I promised I would write on this subject), is yes, telling a woman “you having a thick-delightful butt, you looking sexy, great lips, mellow breast, you have the height of my wife” is sexual harassment. Sadly, this type of demeaning behaviour begins at very young ages for women.

A November 7 article in the Huffington Post entitled, ‘Sexual harassment pervasive in US middle and high schools, survey finds,’ said, “During the 2010-11 school year, 48 per cent of students in grades 7-12 experienced some form of sexual harassment in person or electronically via texting, email and social media, according to a major national survey being released Monday by the American Association of University Women.

The harassers often thought they were being funny, but the consequences for their targets can be wrenching, according to the survey. Nearly a third of the victims said the harassment made them feel sick to their stomach, affected their study habits or fuelled reluctance to go to school at all.”

There is oft times an assumption that sexual harassment is no big deal and that no one is getting hurt, but that is just not the case. Sexual harassment is a very big deal.

On this topic, Wikipedia said, “Some of the psychological and health effects that can occur in someone who has been sexually harassed are: depression, anxiety and/or panic attacks, sleeplessness and/or nightmares, shame and guilt, difficulty concentrating, headaches, fatigue or loss of motivation, stomach problems, eating disorders (weight loss or gain), alcoholism, feeling betrayed and/or violated, feeling angry or violent towards the perpetrator, feeling powerless or out of control, increased blood pressure, loss of confidence and self esteem, withdrawal and isolation, overall loss of trust in people, traumatic stress, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), complex post-traumatic stress disorder, suicidal thoughts or attempts, suicide.”

Still think sexual harassment is no big deal?

Our very lives are at stake

2011-11-19T13:27:00.000-05:00

(Originally published in Guyana’s Stabroek News on 12 November 2011)

“You know this is not really a matter of women’s liberation, it is really a matter of survival.” This is what a friend said to me this week on Facebook. She was responding to this statistic I had posted on my page:

“Women perform 66 percent of the world’s work, produce 50 percent of the food, but earn ten percent of the income and own one percent of the property.” (UNICEF, ‘Gender Equality – The Big Picture’, 2007)

When my friend said those words, “it is really a matter of survival,” it pierced my heart and I realised that she was absolutely right. Some may think her words an overstatement, but I had just returned from a domestic violence awareness weekend in Orlando with Sukree Boodram where I shared some other vital statistics that prove my friend is right; it is really a matter of survival.

Here are some of those statistics:

More girls have been killed in the last 50 years, just because they were girls, than the number of males who were killed in all the wars of the 20th century. (Half the Sky, Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn)

On average more than three women a day are murdered by their husbands or boyfriends in the United States. In 2005, 1,181 women were murdered by an intimate partner. (Family Violence Prevention Fund)

Women who have experienced domestic violence are 80 percent more likely to have a stroke, 70 percent more likely to have heart disease, 60 percent more likely to have asthma and 70 percent more likely to drink heavily than women who have not experienced intimate partner violence. (Family Violence Prevention Fund)

Approximately once every 2 hours, a practice known as “Bride Burning” takes place in India, due to inadequate dowry or to eliminate her so the man can remarry. (Half The Sky, Nicholas D. Kristoff & Sheryl WuDunn)

Fifty-two countries have explicitly criminalized rape within marriage. However, worldwide, 2.6 billion women and girls live in countries where rape within marriage is not explicitly criminalized. (UN Progress of the Women 2011-2012 Report)

In Canada, 21 percent of women abused by their partners were assaulted during pregnancy. Of those, 40 percent said the abuse started when they became pregnant. (Hot Peach Pages, International Directory of Domestic Violence Agencies)

The World Health Organization estimates 100 million to 140 million girls and women worldwide have been “circumcised,” which is also called Female Genital Mutilation [FGM]. These procedures all involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons, but rather to control when the woman may and may not have sex.

Despite impressive gains in gender equality, nearly 4 million women are “missing” each year in developing countries (World Development Report 2012: Gender Equality and Development)

The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) estimates that perhaps as many as 5,000 women and girls a year are killed by members of their own families by “honour killings.” Many women’s groups in the Middle East and Southwest Asia suspect the victims are at least four times more.

The perceived dishonour which merits an “honour killing” is normally the result of one of the following behaviours, or the suspicion of such behaviours: (a) dressing in a manner unacceptable to the family or community; (b) wanting to terminate or prevent an arranged marriage or desiring to marry by own choice; (c) engaging in heterosexual sexual acts outside marriage, or even due to a non-sexual relationship perceived as inappropriate; (d) engaging in homosexual acts.

In other words, if a woman has a mind and will of her own, she should be killed. I find no honour in that.

I have gathered so many statistics of this type that they would fill this entire newspaper. If four million men were killed in a war (which they started themselves), the world would weep. Yet four million women go missing in developing countries each year and not a tear is shed.

If there were a food or some other factor that increased the likelihood of stroke by 80 percent, the medical community would be in an uproar to encourage everyone to avoid that potential risk. Yet women who are abused are 80 percent more likely to have a stroke and we can hear the crickets chirp in the silence that follows.

The lives of women are so devalued that they can be beaten, tortured, burned to death, raped and brutally murdered without a blink of an eye.

The more statistics I gather, the more I realise that we really are in a fight for our very lives.

There are some who have questioned why I continue this fight. Why do I jump on sexist jokes? Why do I find such disgrace in a President who backballs on a political stage? Why do I insist that political parties make women’s issues a priority this election season? Why do I write so much on something so morbid as domestic violence? Why not just leave good enough alone? These statistics are the reason I continue and things are not good enough.

I spend one week a month in Guyana and while I am in town I do not hobnob with the elite and drink champagne at exclusive parties. I meet with women who are trying to escape their abusers. I talk with women who are being raped by their partners. I cry with mothers who have lost their daughters to abusers or murderers.

These women, and many more besides, are the reason I keep these issues alive. How can I be silent? How can I brush off a sexist joke when I know the disrespect it creates perpetuates the brutality suffered by my sisters?

This is indeed a fight for our lives and I intend to save as many women as possible in my lifetime. My additional hope is that every woman reading these words can find the strength to do the same. For those who do not yet have that strength, I understand and I have faith that it will come.

You could save your daughter’s life

2011-11-12T13:22:00.000-05:00

(Originally published in Guyana’s Stabroek News on 05 November 2011)

When I found out that my eldest daughter was diagnosed with the human papillomavirus (HPV), I was more than a bit distressed. Cancer runs in my family and, in fact, my mother died of a different form of cancer at the young age of 48. Therefore, it was a frightening thing to discover my 24-year-old daughter had a virus that is known to cause cervical cancer.

According to an October 14 report by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), “Cervical cancer is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the Americas, where an estimated 80,574 new cases and 36,058 deaths were reported in 2008, with 85% of this burden occurring in Latin America and the Caribbean. Two oncogenic human papillomavirus types (16 and 18) cause approximately 70% of cervical cancers and a substantial proportion of other HPV-related cancers.”

Concerning Guyana, a report by the Remote Area Medical [RAM] Guyana Cervical Cancer Project said, “According to the Pan American Health Organisation, in 2002 the incidence of cervical cancer in Guyana was 47.3 per 100,000, and the mortality rate 22.2 per 100,000. By contrast, the incidence and mortality in the US were 7 and 2.3 per 100,000 respectively.”

The good news is that in 2009 a vaccine was made available to prevent disease caused by the oncogenic subtypes 16 and 18, said to be responsible for approximately 70% of all cervical cancers worldwide. Two years on, it still boggles my mind that humans have created a vaccine against cancer.

The CDC suggests that, “Because HPV infections are acquired soon after initiation of sexual activity, HPV vaccine is most effective if administered before onset of sexual activity. The World Health Organisation (WHO) recommends a 3-dose vaccine schedule, completed over the course of 6 months, for a likely primary target population of girls within the age range of 9 or 10 years through 13 years.”
In other words, diligence is necessary to make sure the patient receives all three doses, but the solace that comes with knowing the effectiveness of this vaccine is worth the effort. What can be even better than knowing a vaccine to prevent cervical cancer exists for our daughters? Knowing that Guyana now has this vaccine!

A Kaieteur News report from October 30 entitled, ‘HPV vaccines arrive in Guyana’, said, “Within a matter of two weeks 20,000 doses of the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) will be administered to girls as young as 11 years old, as part of the Ministry of Health’s attempt to protect them against cervical cancer.”

I am very excited about this news, as I do not want other mothers to have to experience the feelings of fear I felt when I discovered my daughter was diagnosed with HPV. I know there are some who are wary of vaccines. I understand this completely, which is why it is important for each parent to do their own research to weigh the risks that come with HPV and the probability of your daughter contracting HPV if she does not get vaccinated against any possible side effects that may accompany the vaccine.

How safe is the HPV vaccine? According to the CDC, “The [Food and Drug Administration] FDA has licensed the vaccines as safe and effective. Both vaccines were tested in thousands of people around the world. These studies showed no serious safety concerns. Common, mild adverse events reported during these studies include pain where the shot was given, fever, dizziness, and nausea. As with all vaccines, CDC and FDA continue to monitor the safety of these vaccines very carefully.”

The CDC also stated that the vaccine is highly effective in preventing specific HPV types and the most common health problems from HPV. From my own brief research, there seems to have been some mild side effects from the vaccine in some recipients, but there does not appear to be any serious side effects proven to be linked to it. However, like I said, parents should do their own research.

Additionally, there has been an ongoing debate in the US over a moral dilemma concerning this vaccine. Since HPV is usually transmitted during sexual activity, there are some who maintain that by getting their daughters vaccinated against HPV, they are encouraging them to have sex.

This would be like saying if I put a raincoat on today, I will cause it to rain. It would seem a wiser notion to get your daughter vaccinated on the chance that she may become sexually active during her teen years (as many teenagers do) rather than to refuse to vaccinate her on this moral ground and leave her vulnerable to HPV and cervical cancer.

I have seen the devastating effects of cancer and I choose to protect my youngest daughter from any such outcome.

It takes much time and effort to get leaders to take women’s issues seriously – and this includes female health issues. I am very pleased to see this very important step toward maintaining the health of the women of Guyana.

The Kaieteur News report states that 20,000 HPV vaccine doses were received. However, this vaccine must be administered three times in a six-month period. As such, I hope the subsequent vaccines necessary to make this treatment effective are already on their way and not held up by the famous red tape that encumbers Guyana all too often.

The newest information on the HPV vaccine is that it can also be administered to boys. On October 25, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of CDC made the vaccination recommendation for males 13 to 21 years who have not been vaccinated previously or who have not completed the three-dose series.

This is another remarkable development since both men and women can be carriers of HPV. The fight against cancer, in all its forms, has been a long and arduous one. That we have this one victory that can save the lives of thousands of women and promote healthy lives for millions more, gives hope that one day we can demolish cancer altogether.

Beating women into political submission

2011-11-05T13:10:00.000-04:00

(Originally published in Guyana’s Stabroek News on 29 October 2011)

Within the last three weeks, there have been reports of women being assaulted, both verbally and physically, while participating in politics. These events are of particular relevance as just last month 28 female politicians from various nations signed a declaration that their countries would ensure the safe participation of politics for women.

The Joint Declaration On Advancing Women’s Political Participation said in part, “We call upon all states, including those emerging from conflict or undergoing political transitions, to eliminate all discriminatory barriers faced by women, particularly marginalized women, and we encourage all states to take proactive measures to address the factors preventing women from participating in politics such as violence, poverty, lack of access to quality education and health care, the double burden of paid and unpaid work, and to actively promote women’s political participation including through affirmative measures, as appropriate.”

It is no small thing for a woman to find a way to contribute politically. There are so many obstacles to overcome just in everyday life alone that the idea of adding political participation can be simply overwhelming.

Additionally, in a poll conducted in Guyana in 2003 of 446 women, “A significant portion held the view that ‘politics is too dirty and ugly.’” The last couple of weeks have proven these women to be right in their assessment. Why is it that women must fight so hard to exercise a right that is already constitutionally theirs?

Millions of women around the world have the right to vote and to hold political office, but the existence of that right alone does not mean they can always act on it without ramifications, both political and social.

That domestic violence continues to steal the lives of women and children is a human travesty. That women must also face violence as they exercise their constitutional right to participate in the political arena is barefaced gender discrimination.

Worse still yet is the fact that there seems to be very few who are willing to raise their voices in protest over the fact that there are men intimidating these women who were brave enough to put aside the stereotypical feminine roles concerning politics and women.

One cannot help but wonder whether there would not have been an uproar of epic proportions if Khemraj Ramjattan, David Granger or Donald Ramotar were faced with the same type of verbal and physical abuse as Valerie Garrido-Lowe. So why was there no uproar for Garrido-Lowe?

Would anyone have dared to even attempt such a stunt with Ramjattan, Granger or Ramotar? Is it because Garrido-Lowe is a female that these men felt such behaviour would be tolerated by society? Did they know there would be no uproar because she is “just a woman”? All of these questions should and must be asked and answered.

In a nutshell, certain men intimidated Guyana’s only 2011 female presidential candidate into quitting her run for that office. This was a shameful act. Even more shameful is the fact that the person who chased her off is campaigning for an entirely different political party, which shows this was not about wanting to lead the United Force again, but about getting rid of this particular female presidential candidate.

Even if the other United Force faction felt it somehow had the legal right to occupy Unity House, there was no legal right to verbally and physically abuse a political leader. This is a perfect example of how little respect women are afforded in society. Even first ladies and female presidential candidates are not spared the contempt.

There have been other alleged assaults against women on the campaign trail as well. Let me make this very clear, even if there is an argument and things get heated, there is no justification for violence against women. Women are not animals to be beaten into submission to the male will. Women have wills of their own that deserve and require equal space.

Where is the outcry against this violence? Why are the president and his party not denouncing the violence?

Guyana has what is called a “critical mass” of women in legislative positions. This means that close to 30 per cent of parliament is female. This is an international goal that was set just a few short years ago and has already been accomplished in Guyana. The intention of this target was to have more female decision-makers to whom women could voice their issues.

The female politicians of this nation should be looking out for the women of Guyana. Yet very little of that is being done. More often than not, these female leaders are whipped into submission and curtsy to the agendas of their male colleagues for the sake of the party. In the process, women’s issues get lost again.

For example, on this issue of women being subjected to violence while participating in politics, who among the female politicians has championed their cause? Who has stood up for them and demanded justice? Who has demanded that those involved be removed from their positions immediately? There may be one or two, but Guyana’s women legislators should have come together en masse to stand up for their gender’s right to participate in politics.

Mark my words, dear female politicians, unless these men are held accountable, the violence will continue – and next time it could be you. Ask yourselves how these acts of violence will affect the female voters and those who want to participate in politics. If I am wrong and Guyana’s female leaders are not the “yes” women of their male counterparts, then prove me wrong and I will happily eat my words.

I want to eat my words. I want to see the fight in their eyes, but more often than not what I see is acquiescence and compliance to the very same patriarchal system that forces them to have to fight for every inch of their constitutional right. Heaven help our daughters if this is not righted.

Renewing sisterhood in Guyana

2011-10-29T11:51:00.001-04:00

(Originally published in Guyana’s Stabroek News on 22 October 2011)

I have had both men and women tell me that in Guyana, some women are as cruel to women as some men are. I cannot rebut this claim as I have seen or read about women who have been very abusive to others of their own gender whether by a verbal beat down, proudly stealing the husband of another woman (even if he has children with her) or even physically harming a woman.

The harsh words I have heard from women about other women have baptised me in a deep grief. It seems some females would rather tear down other women than ever lift a hand to help. Even more, there are some women who critique others from head to toe without one kind word. She is fat or she is skinny or she is ugly or her hair looks stupid. I could go on and on.

To make matters worse, some women are often unwilling to help each other – even to the point that a neighbour could be beaten to death by her husband while the women of the area hear it and yet do nothing. Some even blame the woman for the beatings she receives or for a cheating husband.

I am not sure what caused this division between the women of Guyana. What drove this wedge between Guyana’s sisters? The hostility that some women display toward other women is highly disturbing. I do not know why this is so, but I do know it has got to end if the quality of life for women in Guyana is ever going to improve.

There is a saying by Ghandi that my sisters and I like to use, “Be the change you want to see.” Mind you, I do not have any biological sisters. When I speak of my sisters, I am referring to the “Break the Silence” team that consists of Varshnie Singh, Sukree Boodram, Dianne Madray and myself. These are my sisters and we work together to help other women.

Believe it or not, this group of sisters only met a short time ago, some longer than others, but none for over three years. Yet you would never know because when we are together we are a tightly knit group that operates with one mind toward one goal – to eliminate domestic violence.

I have had many friends in my life, though as a survivor of domestic violence (by my mother) I find it difficult to trust, but my sisterhood with these women is completely different. I know I can call any of them at a moment’s notice and if I need them, they would be there for me.

This gives me a feeling of security that is beautiful. We are all strong, confident women who do not often need a shoulder to cry, but it is nice to know a shoulder is there if it is needed. This beautiful sisterhood has filled a spot in my life that I never knew was empty.

Lately, I have noticed others calling me sis or sister – and I love it. I have made some wonderful friendships with women in Guyana who touch me deeply and I am glad to be called their sister. That means the sisterhood is growing. Even on Facebook, I have women refer to me as sister – not in a religious way, but in a sisterhood way.

This sisterhood is not an exclusive club; it is a fact of nature. We are born as females and endure this world as females and we need other females to help us along the way, whether to understand biological changes as we grow into women, or to garner wisdom on raising children or any number of other crazy and unpredictable issues life may throw at us. We need each other.

I recently decided that if you are a woman and you have the same goals that I do to help other women, you are my sister, too. But do not think this sister to be all flowers and giggles. I am much more than that. The situation for women in the world today is a grave one and as sisters we have much work to do.

The work starts by resisting the urge to be hostile to other women. Sisters do not make moves on husbands of other sisters. The word sisterhood itself produces visions of a strong unity among women. Women have enough in this world to tear us down, the last thing we need is for our sisters to do it, too.

This week, one woman stood by herself against powerful men who want to unseat her from her place as leader of TUF. This should not be. There should have been dozens, even hundreds, of women to stand with her. We have let men dictate our responses to situations like this instead of listening to that voice inside us that says go help our sister.

Last week, a young girl cried out to her father as he stabbed her to death. We are all shocked and upset, but we can stop domestic violence if we come together as one force against those who would beat women into submission. Those cowards would run from a sisterhood of strength.

Right now, the politicians scarcely know or care about the issues that plague women. They are more concerned with power. Even the good ones do not really get it. But as a sisterhood, we could change that. In fact, I am convinced that it is only as a sisterhood that we can change the lack of political interest in women’s issues in Guyana.

When the sisters from the “Break the Silence” team come together, we are a powerful and dynamic force, yet we are only four women. Can you imagine what a sisterhood of thousands could accomplish in Guyana? This is my dream, sisters.

Sisters, we have to be the change we want to see. This hostility between women has got to end and a sisterhood of support must take its place. Think of this the next time you see a sister hurting, or poor or being abused.

Presidential backball

2011-10-22T11:43:00.000-04:00

(Originally published in Guyana’s Stabroek News on 15 October 2011)

These two words, presidential backball, seem contradictory – as if the two words should never be uttered in the same breath. Indeed, there ought to be respect when the word “president” comes across our lips. Backball, on the other hand, is a lewd word, something we hope our children do not mutter until they are adults.

Yet we are begrudgingly forced to join these two paradoxical words as we consider the conduct of President Bharrat Jagdeo and the PPP Presidential Candidate, Donald Ramotar, who both received backballs at their party’s recent rallies. I honestly cannot even believe that I am forced to talk about such coarse behaviour, but talk about it I must and so I shall.

The Urban Dictionary defines backball as a “Caribbean term for sensually gyrating in a forward bent over position, most often in front of a male while partying, sometimes also touching the ground with hands. Referred to as receiving by males and giving by females.”

This type of conduct is something that should be done in private, or at the very least in a dark room at a club full of people who are doing the same thing. It does not belong on the platform of a political rally in front of all and sundry – including children and impressionable young people.

However, my focus for this column is to draw a clear and concise line on how the crucial issue of domestic violence relates to the president of a country receiving a public backball. Common sense tells us that this type of public behaviour is inappropriate for any leader, much less the president of a country, but allow me to connect the dots for those who still do not seem to get it.

You see, as long as women are sexualised and objectified by society, they will never obtain the respect necessary for men to stop treating them as mere objects that can be toyed with, abused and discarded. Therefore, reducing women to objects of sexuality at a political rally by putting them in a permanent ‘club’ atmosphere perpetuates domestic violence.

With the depth of disregard and contempt displayed to the women of Guyana by these leaders, is it any wonder that so many women are being beaten, raped, tortured and murdered everyday? How will the youth of today ever learn to form healthy and respectful relationships when their leaders do not seem to know about healthy and respectful relationships?

To make matters even worse, Mr Ramotar is married! After speaking with Mr Ramotar about his wife earlier this summer, I believed he held her in high regard. However, no husband who respects his wife that would do what he did on that stage last weekend. It would seem the president is being a bad influence on Mr Ramotar.

Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination. The legal definition of sexual harassment is “unwelcome verbal, visual or physical conduct of a sexual nature that is severe or pervasive and affects working conditions or creates a hostile work environment.”

The fact that most of those on the stage at last weekend’s rally in Kitty were being paid by the PPP or the government made that situation a hostile working environment for the women.
Moreover, that the conduct in question was done in front of “thousands” of attendees and then broadcast throughout the nation and put on the Internet to go throughout the world, it then created a hostile living environment for all Guyanese women.

Minister of Human Services, Priya Manickchand, knows the definition of sexual harassment. She also knows what a hostile working environment is. She knows the only way domestic violence will stop in Guyana is by changing the existing social norms that degrade women.

Why has the Minister not put an end to this demeaning behaviour toward women? Why has she not, at the very least, condemned the shameful conduct? In fact, it would seem the entire PPP elite needs a comprehensive sensitivity training course. Madam Manickchand, if you want men to start respecting the women of Guyana, you need to start with the men in your own party.

Women should be seen at these political rallies giving stirring political speeches focused on how they are going to participate in transforming the country. We should see them displaying their intelligence, their ideas, their platform and their plans. Women attending the rallies should be seen as potential voters who want to make informed choices at the polls. They should not being objects of sexuality.

The media incessantly bombards us with sexualised images of women. Kaieteur News gives us a pretty face to look at every Sunday. But the government of Guyana should be leading the country in a different direction. The men of the PPP should be the standard to which the men of the nation can look for an example of how to treat a woman. God forbid they use the example they see now from the men in the PPP.

I do not know of any other president or presidential candidate who could behave in such a vulgar way in view of the whole world and still continue in that role. Any other political party would have publicly shamed them and attempted to save face by saying it would never happen again. The PPP has done no such thing, which leads one to assume it is just fine with their leaders disrespecting Guyana’s women.

It is not fine. It is not ok. In fact, the President and the PPP presidential candidate owe the women of Guyana an apology for further perpetuating the already insufferable situation in which they live. But let’s be honest. An apology will not be forthcoming. If these men did not esteem women enough to refrain from public backballing in the first place, they will not find enough regard for women to apologise now.

Ask yourself, can you as a woman, do better than the men are doing right now?

2011-10-15T11:36:00.000-04:00

(Originally published in Guyana’s Stabroek News on 08 October 2011)

In 2003, a national survey of 446 women from the ten administrative regions in Guyana was conducted by Roxanne Myers with the assistance of UG students, on the political participation of women in Guyana. Of the 446 women surveyed, a whopping 68 per cent “felt certain they would endorse a woman candidate.” Well, ladies, here is your chance to do just that.

Valerie Garrido-Lowe, the new presidential candidate and party leader for The United Force (TUF), has already faced an attempted coup d‘état by the former party leader, Manzoor Nadir, who this past week was on his Facebook page promoting the PPP rally this weekend.

Garrido-Lowe felt it was essential for TUF to go into the elections without any of its previous ties to the PPP and even though Nadir had the power and prowess of the PPP machine behind him in his attempt to take back a position that was no longer his, Garrido-Lowe did not shy away from this David/Goliath situation. This is one tough lady!

Garrido-Lowe has worked as a school teacher, an insurance agent, a computer graphic designer and a contributor to Kaieteur News on health issues. For the past 15 years, she has managed her own business. She has also raised two children as a single mother and now has two grandchildren as well. She has been a member of TUF for 15 years.

When I met Garrido-Lowe at Unity House this past week, I just had to pick her brain to see what kind of woman would stand up to the political bulldogs of Guyana.

Here are some of the questions I asked Garrido-Lowe (portions of this interview have been edited for space):

Stella Ramsaroop [SR]: I put a post on my Facebook page from a CNN report that said in part, “Today, 18-to-34-year-old men spend more time playing video games a day than 12-to-17-year-old boys. While women are graduating college and finding good jobs, too many men are not going to work, not getting married and not raising families. Women are beginning to take the place of men in many ways.”
You (Garrido-Lowe) responded to my status by saying, “That is why we need to support the lone woman running for President of Guyana (that’s me!) We can do this girls… we can transform Guyana, and when we are finished many who know it now would not recognise it.”
Tell me, why do you believe women should vote for a female candidate?

Valerie Garrido-Lowe [VGL]: Women are going forward, educating themselves and getting involved and doing their part. We have [had] the two major parties in government; we had the PNC for 28 years and the PPP for 19 years now, and although there is progress, I don’t think the men are caring enough with things that should matter.
A simple thing is the city. Look at the city and how dirty it is. It is our capital city. Now as a woman, naturally, before I invite anybody into my house I would tidy up my place and then tell that guest, ‘Welcome to my home’. Those in government are saying we are going big into tourism, we are inviting people to come and look at our beautiful country and our country is so dirty. Look at the rubbish all around. And we are inviting tourists to come and see that? Granted, you are touting eco-tourism, great. But this is the capital city. It must look good.
The men are there and they do not care to clean up and they are busy going ahead with what they think should be done for the country and they are walking all over the piles of dirt.
[SR]: What would you say to those who say women should not vote based on gender?

[VGL]: Women should not necessarily vote for women, but… the circumstances we are in now…call for a woman. I feel so, and I think women should realize that they should come together now because look, the men have had their chance. A simple example is [what I have mentioned about] the city, and they are not coming up to scratch. I think we as women must not be afraid to take over and get things done.
It’s simple, just like in the home. A man is late with his salary or he gets fired or something and cannot provide, what will you as a woman do? [Will you not] go and try and find work? Or go and borrow [some money]? You do your part as a woman, taking over that part that is not being fulfilled by the man.
Right now I feel a lot of things need to be done and since the men are not doing it, the women have to do it.

[SR]: This past Monday night, I was at the vigil in front of Sharma’s station and so were you. You spoke to those gathered there, as did Gerhard Ramsaroop from the AFC and Rupert Roopnaraine from the APNU. Yet, I noticed the next day in the newspapers, the others were mentioned and you were not. How does it make you feel when the media ignore you? Do you feel it is because you are a female candidate?

[VGL]: Actually, we are still trying to figure out what really is their problem. [laughing] Some-times I think it is because I am a woman. Sometimes I think it is because I am an Amerindian. Those two go back and forth.
It feels a bit odd. It is like I have to fight for everything. My daughter was telling me, ‘You know, although you are going through all this as a new politician, I am proud of you. You are not getting it easy; therefore, you can go down in history as fighting for something.’ That was her perspective and I looked at it and thought, ‘OK. Alright. That is a good way of viewing it.’
It can be a bit disheartening at times, but it will take a lot to floor me because I expect a lot of things. If I didn’t expect a lot of things, maybe I wouldn’t be here up to now.

[SR]: What would you like to tell the women of Guyana?

[VGL]: I think women should realize that we are in a situation in Guyana right now that we need to recognize that we can do a lot more than stay on the sidelines. That we can come out and actually transform Guyana instead of waiting for our men to do it. Once we have the time and we feel we have the strength and the vision, let us go for it. Nothing is wrong with voting for a woman.

Compare us to the men right now. Compare yourself. Ask yourself, can you as a woman do better than what they are doing right now and if you can say yes, then vote for me.

Must we lock away the men for women to be safe?

2011-10-08T09:10:00.000-04:00

(Originally published in Guyana’s Stabroek News on 01 October 2011)

Today is the first day of October, which is Domestic Violence Awareness month. There is some important information I want to share with you as well as part of a story written by an Indian woman in 1905.

Domestic violence makes absolutely no sense in society – it has no purpose other than to control the victim and maintain subjection to the abuser. This type of hostility and barbarianism has no place in a modern world and must be exposed for the lowly ideology that it is.

According to a September 23 article entitled, “India, China Responsible for Many ‘Missing’ Women,” on the Wall Street Journal Blog, “In its annual World Development Report, which this year focuses on gender issues, the World Bank estimates that two-fifths of the world’s 3.9 million “missing women,” or over 1.4 million, went “missing” at birth. And this was in 2008 alone, the latest year for which figures are available. The rest are excess female deaths at later stages in life.”

The US Council on Foreign Relations blog had and posted this on September 20, “The most alarming statistics are with respect to the roughly 4 million excess deaths of women and girls, relative to males, in low and middle income countries. Forty per cent of these ‘missing girls’ are never born: the spread of inexpensive sonogram technology allows parents to abort unwanted female fetuses. Another 17 per cent die in early childhood. Some 35 per cent die during their reproductive years. Maternal mortality, which takes approximately 1,000 female lives a day, is still the top killer of women in many countries.”

And according to SayNoToViolence.org, “Among women aged between 15 and 44, acts of violence cause more death and disability than cancer, malaria, traffic accidents and war combined.”

When one also considers the amount of honour killings and deaths from domestic violence into this grim situation, the outlook for women is not a good one. There can be no denying that this is a Female Holocaust. Only this is not something from humanity’s history, this is reality for women today.

Women are still being murdered! This is not in the past for women, this is now!

Allow me to share a story with you from a young Indian woman as she dreams of a different way of life for herself and the women around her. The following is an excerpt from Rokeya Sakhawat Hossain’s Sultana’s Dream, written in 1905 when she was in her early 20s. Sultana (Hossain’s alter ego) is conversing with a friend she calls Sister Sara as they stroll through Ladyland, a society quite dissimilar to her own because Sultana and the women in her culture are isolated from anyone but their immediate family:

“Where are the men?” I asked her.

“In their proper places, where they ought to be.”

“Pray let me know what you mean by ‘their proper places.’”

“Oh, I see my mistake, you cannot know our customs, as you were never here before. We shut our men indoors.”

“Just as we are kept in the zenana?”*

“Exactly so.”

“How funny.” I burst into a laugh. Sister Sara laughed too.

“But, dear Sultana, how unfair it is to shut in the harmless women and let loose the men.”

“Why? It is not safe for us to come out of the zenana, as we are naturally weak.”

“Yes, it is not safe so long as there are men about the streets, nor is it so when a wild animal enters a marketplace.”

“Of course not.”

“Suppose some lunatics escape from the asylum and begin to do all sorts of mischief to men, horses, and other creatures: in that case what will your countrymen do?”

“They will try to capture them and put them back into their asylum.”

“Thank you! And you do not think it wise to keep sane people inside an asylum and let loose the insane?”

“Of course not!” said I, laughing lightly.

“As a matter of fact, in your country this very thing is done! Men, who do or at least are capable of doing no end of mischief, are let loose and the innocent women shut up in the zenana! How can you trust those untrained men out of doors?”

“We have no hand or voice in the management of our social affairs. In India man is lord and master. He has taken to himself all powers and privileges and shut up the women in the zenana.”

“Why do you allow yourselves to be shut up?”

“Because it cannot be helped as they are stronger than women.”

“A lion is stronger than a man, but it does not enable him to dominate the human race. You have neglected the duty you owe to yourselves, and you have lost your natural rights by shutting your eyes to your own interests.”

[*A zenana is the part of a house belonging to a family in the Middle East and South Asia reserved for the women of the household.]

Hossain’s story goes on to describe a beautiful utopia for women as “Sultana” explores Ladyland, a place of peace, structural beauty and efficiency as well as intellectual ingenuity. When women live in so much torture, is it any wonder they dream of a place where men are hidden away and women live in safety and peace?

Ultimately, Hossain’s goal was, as mine is, to see a utopia where no one is isolated from society, where no one is killed because of gender, where all are safe. However, how can one not see the logic in “Sister Sara’s” argument that those who are so dangerous to others should not be the ones running the world? Just look at the world today. Just look at Guyana today.

The main point I wanted to highlight from this story is the statement by Sister Sara, “A lion is stronger than a man, but it does not enable him to dominate the human race. You have neglected the duty you owe to yourselves, and you have lost your natural rights by shutting your eyes to your own interests.”

Likewise, Guyana’s women have neglected the duty they owe to themselves and lost their natural rights by shutting their eyes to their own interests.

By staying with men who beat them and abuse them, by making excuses for the way women are treated in Guyana and by allowing things to get to such a dangerous state for women – Guyana’s women have neglected their own interests and lost their natural rights to a safe life, equal pay, a work atmosphere free of sexual harassment and ultimately the respect due to the female half of the nation’s population.

This October, Domestic Violence Awareness month, let us explore what is necessary to create a utopia of peace, structural beauty and efficiency as well as intellectual ingenuity for all. Let us find a way to finally end the ongoing Female Holocaust.

An abuser is not a ‘bad boy’ that daring females should find intriguing

2011-10-01T09:06:00.000-04:00

(Originally published in Guyana’s Stabroek News on 24 September 2011)

According to the Toronto Sun, “One of Canada’s ‘Most Wanted’ criminals, who was convicted twice of beating women, has been deemed a threat to public security.” Since this most wanted criminal is a Guyanese, Canada has sent him back here.

The report said, “Shameer Ally Allie, 36, of Guyana, was picked up Thursday [September 15] by the RCMP [Royal Canadian Mounted Police]. He had been on the run since January to avoid deportation stemming from a lengthy criminal record that includes convictions for assault causing bodily harm, threatening death, assault with a weapon and twice failing to report to authorities.”

Allie arrived in Guyana this past week and now his conduct is the business of local law enforcement. The Canadians called him “a violent offender who has shown no sign of remorse or rehabilitation.” What did he do that was so bad?

The Toronto Sun report said, “…[He] was convicted in 2003 for attacking a common-law wife with a baseball bat…Allie also attacked another woman, whom he was seeing, with a ‘large kitchen knife’ after he accused her of dressing provocatively, Stephanie Echlin, a counsel for the immigration department said.

“The woman was threatened with death several times and escaped after the building’s landlord heard a struggle and ran to her aid. ‘Both of those assaulted were women with whom he had a close relationship,’ Echlin said. ‘He (Allie) is a violent offender who has shown no sign of remorse or rehabilitation.’”

As if Guyana’s women didn’t already have enough violence to deal with, now they have yet another man who was convicted of assaulting his wife with a baseball bat and attacking a woman he is seeing with a knife because she was dressing too provocatively for his taste.

In my opinion, it is difficult to understand why anyone would think it is defensible to beat a woman for “dressing provocatively,” not cooking the right food, not saying the right words, etc, when the aggressive act itself is far more immoral than any of those lesser “offences.”

Please note that I do not consider those actions by women offensive, but I am attempting to put things into perspective. How does one think it is wrong for a woman to stand up for herself to her husband or dress however she may like but consider it is right for a man to hit a woman?

This type of thinking has to be more about control and power than about morals.

It greatly concerns me that any abuser can come to Guyana (or may already live in Guyana), blend into society and easily find another woman he can knock around to sate an overinflated ego. The unassuming women of Guyana are at a significant disadvantage, as most do not even consider the risk of the good-looking guy at the club being a woman beater.

More importantly, if an abuser chooses to assault a woman here with a baseball bat or a large kitchen knife, chances are that he will get away with it, especially if he knows the right people. We have seen offenders get away with abuse similar to this and even worse (like the husband who shot his wife recently). In fact, we have seen offenders get away with murder.

Last March marked a year since Leeloutie ‘Pinky’ Seeram, a mother of two, was killed when chopped to the back of her head. She also had three fingers on her left hand severed. Her husband did this after he came home drunk one night. It was said that he often abused Pinky, so she lived no easy life. And in the end, her own husband took her life in a drunken rage.

He also chopped Pinky’s mother, Lata ‘Cheryl’ Inderdeo, 52, to her right shoulder and left palm as she tried to help her daughter. Cheryl survived the attack, but has a long scar down her right arm and across her left hand.

The children from the marriage, who grew up seeing their father beat their mother, now have no mother at all.

The husband is still on the run, though he did visit Guyana earlier this year and while it was known he was in the country, he was not arrested. Cheryl and her grandchildren live in fear of the day he decides to come back again.

This Diwali will be one year since Babita Sarjou went missing after constant threats from her husband. It has to be assumed that she is dead and yet no one is being held accountable.

On February 21 of this year, I read a status update on NCN’s Facebook page that said, “President Bharrat Jagdeo is calling on citizens to break the silence to injustice. The Head of State was referring to the issue of domestic violence where persons fail to render assistance to victims.”

I did wonder if Jagdeo truly made this very important statement since no other media house picked up the story. Regardless, I am curious as to what he thinks about the fact that yet another domestic violence offender has been injected into Guyanese society. I wonder what Human Services Minister Priya Manickchand thinks about it?

I am using today’s column to advocate that women protect themselves. Keep a watch out for any man who displays signs of being a woman beater.

An abuser is not a bad boy that a daring female should find intriguing, he is someone who likes to control every aspect of a woman and when she doesn’t comply, will cause great harm to her mentally, physically and emotionally.

Whether in the clubs, at the restaurants or any number of other places, be on your guard against becoming the next victim.

This policy of avoidance applies to all men known to beat and abuse women. If he has a reputation for domestic violence, stay away! No matter how charming or intriguing he may seem, a bit of exploration is not worth your life. Be smart. Use wisdom. And if necessary, call the police.

The female voice of authority in Guyana

2011-09-25T08:00:00.001-04:00

(Originally published in Guyana’s Stabroek News on 17 September 2011)

As more women venture into areas previously occupied solely by men, there is bound to be a clash of cultures, of sorts. The leadership style employed by many women is vastly different from that which has been used by men for millennia. The dress style will, of course, differ greatly. Even the way in which women in leadership speak will be in sharp contrast to their male counterparts.

However, one should not misconstrue the distinction in the way women voice their authority as being weak. In fact, it is quite the contrary. The new Executive Editor at the New York Times, Jill Abramson, wrote an article entitled, ‘On the Challenge of Creating a Female Voice of Authority,’ which was published on More.com in 2006 and re-published on HuffingtonPost.com recently.

Abramson said, “I know that acquiring authority as a woman is tough enough; using and projecting it is even more complicated. There are plenty of pitfalls and few good role models.” This is true in all societies that are currently unwrapping themselves from the longstanding patriarchal culture and embracing women as equals in all segments of society.

This cultural shift is happening in Guyana, too, and it is evident that some – both male and female – find the change chafing. I recognize that there are times when the female voice of authority may sound defensive, but it must also be acknowledged that there are credible reasons for women to be defensive.

In the aforementioned article, Abramson continued, “Just by doing their jobs, women pose a challenge to the Daddy Knows Best hierarchies of [politics], media and business. But our gender gives those who feel discomfited an apparently easy way to dismiss or undermine us: It’s a feline scratch-fest; we’re ‘mean’; ‘we’re something that rhymes with rich,’ to quote Barbara Bush.”

Recently on my Facebook page, there was a discussion going on about whether male politicians in Guyana take the female politicians seriously. The primary discussion was between a male friend who is in the media in Guyana, a female friend who is a politician in Guyana and myself. All of those involved in the debate were up to the challenge.

However, when the male friend said, “I will not be dragged into a political catfight with you,” I pointed out his sexist remark just to demonstrate that such language still exists far too often in our society. Would he have made such a demeaning statement had it been all males involved in a debate? We all know the answer to that question.

When a man takes a strong stance on an issue, they are admired. When a woman takes a strong stance on an issue, she is looking for a “cat-fight.” In fact, a strong woman is seen as abrasive, arrogant or any number of names that are not fit to print.

Moreover, when a woman takes a stand for herself, she is seen as whiney. For example, when Faith Harding said her candidacy was not taken seriously, few even took that statement seriously. However, had a male candidate made the same allegation, it would have been front-page news.

When are women taken seriously in Guyana? When they are put in swimsuits and paraded in front of the world at a beauty pageant. However, if a female voice of authority veers away from makeup, fashion or hairstyles, things then start getting uncomfortable.

Yet, if women do not learn to develop their authoritative voices (and those around them learn to acknowledge that voice of leadership) the future looks very bleak for all of humanity. Consider these facts from www.oxfam.org.nz:

* Of the 1.3 billion people living in extreme poverty worldwide, more than two-thirds of them are women and girls.
* Women work two-thirds of the world’s working hours and produce a significant amount of the world’s food, yet earn only 10 per cent of the world’s income, and own less than one per cent of the world’s property.
* Two-thirds of all children denied school are girls, and 75 per cent of the world’s 876 million illiterate adults are women
* Women hold only 14 per cent of the world’s parliamentary seats, and only 8 percent of the world’s cabinet ministers are women.
* Gender-based violence is one of the biggest causes of injury and death to women worldwide, causing more deaths and disability among women aged 15 to 44 than cancer, malaria, traffic accidents, and war.
* As a result of violence and neglect, there are 50 million fewer women in South Asia today than there should be.
* Only eleven countries have met the UN target of 30 per cent female decision-makers.

Closer to home, the Jamaica Gleaner published a September 15 report entitled, “Striking imbalance for women in leadership positions – group,” which said, “The Women’s Resource and Outreach Centre (WROC) says a 2007 surveyit conducted showed that just over 50 per cent of the population are females and that women are graduating from universities at a four-to-one ratio.

Despite this, WROC Executive Director Dorothy White said the survey showed that women made up less than 10 per cent of lawmakers in the House of Representatives. In addition, White said the survey revealed that women account for just 16 per cent of the board of directors in the private sector, while the number was 33 per cent in public-sector bodies.”

What does a feminine voice of authority sound like? Few truly know the answer to this question, as it is difficult to hear that voice in the political, religious or media circles. However, make no mistake about it, as shown in the Jamaica Gleaner report, women are more than qualified enough to be heard. They have the education, the experience and the drive.

Abramson put it this way, “Clearly, any woman giving orders and making tough calls needs to be deeply knowledgeable, even as she displays humour and shows her human side. Getting the right calibration, though, isn’t easy. And qualities admired in men are still sometimes seen differently when exhibited by a woman.

A man can be decisive and aggressive; with similar traits, a woman may be deemed a control freak.”
I believe the next five years will see the female voice of authority in Guyana develop substantially. And I believe that voice will be instrumental in creating and sustaining a quality life for all Guyanese. It is high time for the women of Guyana to speak up and let their voices be heard.

My choice for the next president of Guyana

2011-09-18T13:07:00.003-04:00

(Originally published in Guyana’s Stabroek News on 10 September 2011)

I have never made a public declaration on political candidates because I attempt to stay as objective as possible in my role as a columnist. However, in this case, the numbers speak for themselves. Also, I am an advocate for women and, as such, it is my obligation to speak up at times like this when a female voice is necessary.

In the last 12 weeks of this column, I presented one question per week that was posed to Guyana’s major presidential candidates on women’s issues and their answers. At the end of each column, I rated the candidates’ answers with the anticipation that the candidate with the highest score would be the one who most deserved the female vote.

I rated the candidates on a scale of 1-3 with the highest rating going to the best answer, in my opinion. There were also times when the candidates rated a zero. Please keep in mind that the highest possible overall rating is 36 points. (If you would like to read the past 12 columns with the questions and answers, they can all be found at stabroeknews.com/author/sramsaroop/)

Here is the tally of the ratings: APNU candidate David Granger – 20. 5; AFC candidate Khemraj Ramjattan – 26.5; PPP/C Candidate Donald Ramotar – 18.5.

The tally shows Ramjattan as the clear winner. That Ramjattan was the strongest on women’s issues was obvious to me as soon as I had finished the interviews. His responses were strong and passionate. He has a good feel for the situation of women in Guyana, probably because he has interacted with so many in his profession as a lawyer.

When I conducted these interviews, I must admit that I was thrown by the fact that the candidate I expected to be the strongest on women’s issues was still very “old school” in thought. Granger started off by making a huge gaffe in saying women should dress less provocatively to deter the attention of creepy old men.

Ramotar barely scored at the halfway mark with 18.5 points. This scares me. He was a very nice man and easy to talk with, but most of his answers seemed disingenuous to me. Perhaps he had other things on his mind (like a billboard with his image that had been vandalised that day), but whatever the reason, women’s issues did not seem very important to him at that moment.

Of these candidates, Ramjattan is most certainly the one who should get the votes of Guyana’s women. I have spoken with each of these candidates on important matters concerning women, I have watched their reactions, I listened to their responses and I am convinced that Ramjattan would serve the women of Guyana best as president.

However, let’s face it, even Ramjattan only scored 26.5 out of 36 possible points. That is not a victor’s place. In fact, it is very disheartening to know that the selection of candidates the women of Guyana must choose from rate so low on women’s issues. I long for female candidates in Guyana.

I know, I know, there were female candidates and they lost in the primary stages. Did they really though? For example, Gail Teixeira would have made a fantastic president. I am even more convinced of this after reading by way of WikiLeaks of her desire to rid the nation of corruption. The US Embassy is quoted as saying, “Post rates Teixeira highly as an honest, forthright interlocutor.” Too bad she wants to distance herself from such high praise and instead curtsy to the party that has held her back.

In any case, party members did not decide the PPP/C candidate and those who had thrown their hats in the ring simply stepped aside for President Jagdeo’s choice – whether it was the best choice or not. Clearly, for the women of Guyana, it was not the best choice.

The PNCR did have an election to decide the party’s candidate, though even to this day I question the outcome of that election. Faith Harding has said numerous times that she felt she was shafted by the party and the media and while many just write her off as being sour, I agree with her position and believe she would have made a far better candidate than the one currently in place.

And then there is the never materialising prime ministerial position. Granger promised the women of Guyana a female prime minister, but that has yet to happen and I doubt it will. The same goes for the PPP/C. Though names of females have been tossed about for prime minister – mark my words, it will be another man.

There is also the case with TUF candidate, Valerie Garrido-Lowe, being locked out of the party’s headquarters while attempts were made to unseat her from her lawful elected position as party leader apparently because she felt it necessary to break longstanding ties with the PPP/C. This is such an ugly scene and I could not be more proud of her for fighting back instead of bowing to that nonsense that she should cave for the sake of the party.

Women have curtsied to men for long enough. If we ever hope to see a better life for our daughters and their daughters, we have to get up from our perpetual curtsy and take our rightful positions in political, business and religious circles.

While many would like to infer that there has been an infusion of female candidates during this election season, I would counter that there has been also been a lot of strong-arming of these female candidates to keep them out of the political old boys’ club.

I have no doubt whatsoever that every single one of the women I have mentioned would have made changes that would have taken Guyana in a more positive direction than their male counterparts.
The sole exception to this whole election charade is Sheila Holder, the prime ministerial candidate for the AFC. There were no strong-arm politics in this case. Holder took her rightful place and the AFC respected her position – and that was that. This is yet one more reason the AFC is the best choice for women.

While the rest of the parties just played with female candidates, the AFC made the choice to have one from early on. In fact, I would suggest that the only reason the other parties even toyed with female candidates at all is because of Holder’s position on the AFC ballot. (Editor’s note: Holder has since announced her withdrawal from the race due to illness.)

I know many women will still vote for the PPP/C or the PNCR (APNU) for any number of lesser reasons. But if they do and if one of those parties wins the elections again, then when the situation for women in Guyana has not changed two years from now, the women will have only themselves to blame.

They say the definition of insanity is to continue to do the same thing over and over while expecting a different result. I say that if a woman in Guyana votes for the two parties that have governed this nation for decades, you can only expect more of the same treatment that has always been meted out to women.

In other words, if you want more rapes, domestic violence, murders, lower wages than male counterparts in the same job with the same experience and education, sexual harassment by employers, discrimination against expecting mothers, aloof and mocking law enforcement encounters, leaders who do not respect gender equality, creepy old men chasing young girls and leaders who blame the girls instead of the creepy old men, first ladies who are treated like trash and put out of their homes with nothing but the clothes on their backs, leaders who turn a blind eye to a woman being brutalised by her spouse, politicians who could care less about female voters and political strong-arming of female candidates – then by all means, vote for the same political parties that have put Guyana in this condition in the first place.

I have done my best to help Guyana’s women by making it as easy as possible for them to choose the best candidate for women. It is now up to them to help themselves by choosing to vote – and by voting for a party that will best represent their interests.

Guyana’s presidential candidates on getting the female vote

2011-09-10T09:00:00.000-04:00

(Originally published in Guyana’s Stabroek News on 03 September 2011)

Question 12 of 12: What are you actively doing in your campaign to secure the votes of women?

AFC Candidate Khemraj Ramjattan
(This answer was edited for space)

I am, more or less, doing what every politician does, and that is to try to come across as an honest, decent, man of integrity who is going to keep his promises to them. At this stage in the campaign, there’s nothing else you can do but ask them for their trust in you so that when you get into [office they know] these are the programmes you are going to implement.

I have largely indicated what I am talking about here [during the interview] — reduce domestic violence by the education process, make sure that women are going to be employed, they are going to have better wages, their security is going to be taken care of by a better and professional police force – all of that of which I am talking about for the country, they are going to benefit from.

What is required from a politician is to ensure that the womenfolk will understand you and understand that you are speaking from the heart and that you are not in any way trying to confuse them into just wanting their vote. I think I have managed to do that with the women, especially.

At the legal level, I have managed to win the support of very many of the women lawyers. Wherever I speak, I talk more to the women. At the bottom house meetings, women come out to see me more than the men. And it’s amazing.

You have to tell them how the corruption is affecting their lives because this is what I find you have to say to the electorate and women, your lives are bad because of the misspending, the corruption and the thievery that is happening in upper governmental levels so that the money is not there to make your lives better.

APNU Candidate David Granger
(This answer has been edited for space)

As a member of the People’s National Congress Reform I recognise that women constitute more than half of our party.

They may be half of the national population, but they are more than half of our party. Our women’s arm was founded on the same day the party was founded, on the 5th of October, 1957. Right now it is called the National Congress of Women.

Since the campaign started, we have participated in what is called a Women’s Convention. Again, you can see from our literature that women are very prominent in all of my visits. When I went to the Rupununi recently during the floods, I was met by a large number of women. Men were noticeably few in number. Women – housewives and some very vocal women because they were critical of the government’s response to the disaster – those women came out.

Wherever I go, the women come forward before the men. The men might come and give advice later, but the women are always very concerned because I believe most of the issues that affect the Guyanese population today hurt the women first.

PPP/C Candidate Donald Ramotar

I stand on the PPP/C’s record on that issue. We can point to several things that we have done to make life better for women and to remove women from being disadvantaged. I can list a long list of things that Priya Manickchand’s Ministry has been doing and laws that we have passed. Generally, I think everyone in this country knows the philosophy of the PPP – that we have always been an organisation [that is] open and friendly and encouraging to women to participate in the political life in our society.

So, I don’t think I have to promise anything special, I would just say that we have a proud record, that we stand on many achievements and we will continue to work with women, women’s organisation, women in the party and women in the country generally to work together to improve their own conditions.

I would say that in promoting and developing their own conditions, I am sure we would be promoting the development of our country as a whole.

My response:
Let’s be quite honest here: All three answers from Guyana’s major presidential candidates are basically saying that they are actively doing nothing to cater to the female vote.
How ironic that both the AFC and the APNU admitted that everywhere they go around the country, women are more interested in their meetings than men, yet aside from the PNC’s women’s convention, there seems to be no focus whatsoever on securing the female vote!

Ramotar does not even feel he has to “promise anything special,” as if it would be meaningless to cater to female voters. Further, Ramjattan said, “At this stage in the campaign, there’s nothing else you can do but ask them for their trust in you….”

I could not disagree more. When these interviews were done in June, there was a whole world of things that could have been done to cater to the female vote. Even now, at the start of September, the parties should be out in hot pursuit of the female vote. I feel these political leaders are lazy.

Moreover, Ramjattan’s statement feels condescending when he said, “What is required from a politician is to ensure that the womenfolk will understand you” and “that you are not in any way trying to confuse them….” This feels as if women are so dunce that we cannot possibly understand the political playing field or the ins and outs of government. Again, how ironic given the state of the country today at the hands of men.

I asked what these candidates were actively doing to secure the votes of women and both Granger and Ramotar treated me with history lessons. I did not want to hear of what the party is doing or what the party has done. I asked what each candidate was doing to persuade the women to vote for him.
There is one thing that the APNU is doing – or rather not doing – right now to keep the female vote for as long as it can.

It is not naming a prime ministerial candidate. You see, Mr. Granger said early on as a candidate in the PNC primary race that he would like a female prime minister. With Faith Harding in the race, this announcement was a good way to sway the female voters away from Harding.

However, although the entire country knows Rupert Roopnaraine will likely be the APNU’s prime ministerial candidate, the announcement has not taken place even at this late stage. Could it be that the coalition fears the loss of female votes if Granger backs down on his declaration of wanting a female prime minister?

Even the PPP/C has yet to choose a prime minister for Ramotar. Names of qualified female candidates have been tossed about here and there, but let’s face it – this election will sadly be another meeting of the boys club with Sheila Holder as the sole female.

Ah, but there is another female. The United Force (TUF) has a female presidential candidate, Valerie Garrido-Lowe, and she is looking better by the minute. I am so sorry that I did not get to interview her for these columns because it is looking more and more like the best man for this job is a woman.

Ratings: Ramjattan – 2; Granger – 1; Ramotar – 0

Note: Next week, I will tally the 12-week ratings and write on who, in my opinion, would most likely work for the women of Guyana as president.

How would your candidate help a colleague who is being abused?

2011-09-03T07:13:00.001-04:00

(Originally published in Guyana’s Stabroek News on 27 August 2011)

Question 11 of 12:
If a colleague or a spouse of a colleague came to you because she was being abused, how would you handle the situation? Would you handle it in the same way it has been handled in the past – with silence and try to cover it up?

PPP/C Candidate Donald Ramotar

(Laughing) You don’t really expect me to answer that. (More laughing)

First of all, I would not expect a colleague of the PPP to behave in such a manner because that goes totally against the whole grain of everything that we believe in. So, first of all, I would not expect it. Secondly, if something like that really occurs and it is brought to my attention, I will let it take its course…let the law take its course.

I do not think I would like to intervene in a situation like that, to defend even a colleague caught in that situation. The most I would probably do to help is if there needs to be psychological help or to get medical attention. Sure I would help in that regard.

I don’t expect it; let me put it that way. But if it does occur, then I would allow it to take its course. It’s not my business. That would be for the law enforcement people.

AFC Candidate Khemraj Ramjattan

I will never cover it up. I have had very many close friends whose wives have come to me and I have [let the abusers have it]. And that is how you have to do it with them. Friend or no friend, brother or no brother, you got to do it that way. There is no other way. And we as lawyers must be fearless to go straight to them and tell them that’s the way.

You have to ask them, “You coming to be a big public figure or judicial figure and you are treating your wife like that? You haven’t got any shame at all? This is what you do with the girl?” They get scared then and they settle [the case].

The woman has got to be brave too. They have to bring it to an end. If you start being scared and cowardly, the thing is not going to work. You have got to be forceful with him. There is no other way. You go half-hearted; you are going to get half burnt. You have got to go full forward and see this thing brought to a halt.

APNU Candidate David Granger
(Edited for space)

Well I don’t know the circumstances, so it is difficult for me to speculate. I would like to feel that I could play a role in discerning what the problem is and in trying to resolve the problem. Now it is very, very difficult for third parties to know enough. Certainly they cannot know the whole truth. It sometimes takes a long period of counseling to get the two parties to even explain what the problems are.

I don’t know the present divorce rate in Guyana, but I am sure might be close to 40 percent of all marriages. And it takes a very long time to find out what problems exist between two human beings because each party might be unwilling to explain, particularly if the problem is of a sexual nature. I do believe it is also very difficult for adults to overcome the prejudices and anxieties of childhood…or the insecurities of childhood. And you may be dealing with someone who is very insecure.

So if I have a Cabinet Minister, for example, or if I have a senior colleague, I wouldn’t jump into the marital problems. I would try to find out what could have caused that problem and maybe try to expose the two of them to professional counseling.

Domestic violence is a crime and it has to be treated as a crime and punished as a crime. That crime has its roots in the person’s behaviour. Domestic violence is an invention people use to dominate other people. It is not natural. It is something [like this]: you want to control your subordinates, you want to control the women, you want to control your children – use violent means.

You equip yourself [with] some instrument and you go home and terrorise your family. It has to be treated at a crime, but at the same time you have to go back to why that person used that type of behaviour to dominate persons who are helpless in his or her own household.

My response:
If there is one thing I have said over and over and over throughout the years I have been writing on the issue of domestic violence, it is that abuse is NOT a private issue. It makes me incredibly sad to think that someone who could be the next president of Guyana would say that the abuse of a colleague or the spouse of a colleague is none of his business – as Donald Ramotar has done in his answer to this question. It is most certainly his business.

One of the most distressing aspects about domestic violence is how isolated victims can feel from the rest of the world. Living in an abusive relationship is a lonely life. There are threats of more violence if the abuse is spoken about to others, yet even when the silence is not broken, the violence continues. It is a lose/lose situation and the silence only allows the violence to continue.

When someone says that domestic violence is a “private matter,” they are completely and utterly wrong. I know what it is like to feel isolated from the rest of the world in my own little hell and to believe there is no one else who can or will raise a finger to help me. Dismissing domestic violence as a “private matter” after someone has reached out for help keeps the victim in her prison of silence.

How many women suffer in silent torment today in Guyana? Hundreds? Thousands? Even if it is just one (though we know it is far more), that is one too many. Guyana needs leaders who are not afraid to say that domestic violence is a crime, as David Granger has done, or to get in the face of abusers and shame them for their actions, as Khemraj Ramjattan has done.

Ratings: Ramotar – 0; Ramjattan – 3; Granger – 2

What does your candidate think about 16-year-olds having sex?

2011-08-29T09:40:00.000-04:00

(Originally published in Guyana’s Stabroek News on 20 August 2011)

Question 10: How do you feel about the current age of consent being 16?

APNU Candidate David Granger:

My view is that it should be 18 because 18 is the age when you can join the armed forces, vote, own a firearm or drive a car. I think 18. By that time I think you are mature enough to make a decision about many things.

PPP/C Candidate Donald Ramotar

I think that society went through a lot of debate and that Parliament went through a lot of debate on that issue and it seems to have been the age that most people see fit. I do not think everybody agreed on it, but most people seemed to agree on it. I suspect that taking the reality into consideration, it is probably the best we could do.

My own view, however, is that [the age of consent] should not take away the responsibility of the society or the many institutions of society or the home from educating young women not to fall into the trap of having sex too early and having kids too early. Let them know how it can affect their lives. It is not necessarily a good thing to have such young people having children.

So while that law is there, I don’t think it has removed the responsibility from us to guide our youngsters. Those of us who have more experience in life and have some form of public responsibility should advise them and guide them to probably wait until later for these types of things.

AFC Candidate Khemraj Ramjattan

That is always a difficult one. I feel that 16-year-olds are big enough to understand sexual relations in this country. And it is an arbitrary thing, Stella. It is very arbitrary. Eighteen, we indicate, is an age of majority. It’s two years down. Sixteen year olds have been getting 16 subjects [at] CXC. You know what I mean?

So, when this age thing came into being, I always said it was going to be arbitrary. You could flip a coin and say yes. Knowing the state of the Internet, children are so capacitated today to understand the ways of the world at the age of 16. So in a sense, I feel they can understand what is responsible conduct from what is irresponsible conduct.

For me, I am not going to make it a big issue. I feel that yes, if someone wants to consent to sex at the age of 16, so be it. I understand years before you had [the age of consent at] 13. A young Indian girl could marry at that age. Gandhi’s wife was married at the age of 13. Well, of course, the modern times I suspect.

I don’t know. It is a pretty arbitrary thing. There will be some people, like girls, who at the age of 16 and up are not fully mature to bear children. Well, there again you may have even 18-year-olds who may not be fully mature enough to bear children.

I can see where there might be argument for going upwards to 18, but in our context here in Guyana, I feel 16 is okay for the age of consent.

My response:
I have a problem with Ramjattan’s nonchalant attitude about this topic. While I acknowledge that this issue was beaten into the ground a few years ago, there is no one who can convince me that the age of consent change to 16 has protected the young girls of Guyana from sexual predators anymore than when it was 13.

Did you know that in Nevada, the home of Las Vegas (a.k.a. Sin City), a person over the age of 21 can be sent to jail for life without possibility of parole if convicted of sexual assault against a child under the age of 14? That includes the child’s father.

Sin City even goes so far as to convict of a misdemeanour anyone “who knows or should know that a violent or sexual offence has been committed against a child, and does not report that offence to a law enforcement agency within 24 hours.” These types of laws would go a long way toward protecting the children of Guyana (if they were enforced).

I still believe 16 to be too young for the age of consent. If a girl is not physically ready to bear children at this age, as Mr. Ramjattan has already acknowledged, what makes us think they are physically ready to have sex? Would not the fact of someone not being ready to handle the ramifications of sex (i.e. pregnancy) signify that the person is not ready to have sex? That does not seem so arbitrary to me.

None of my four children were ready to have sex at 16. Seventeen? Maybe, but I would rather err on the side of knowing they were taking this important step while they are fully mentally, physically and emotionally prepared rather than being pushed into something for which they were not ready.

Just because Gandhi’s wife married at 13 does not make it right. There is no girl child in the entire world ready to marry at 13 years of age. Are there 16-year-olds who are ready for sex? Perhaps a small percentage. However, the number of 18-year-olds ready for sex is significantly higher.

When this topic was being debated in Parliament in 2005, I wanted to see the age of consent at 17. Truth be told, I suppose all women’s advocates were just happy to see that it was no longer the innocent age of 13. However, in the end, the age of consent matters very little if those who still have sex with little girls are never brought to justice.

The ratings: Granger – 2; Ramotar – 3; Ramjattan – 1

The candidates on women being forced to work soon after giving birth

2011-08-20T23:03:00.000-04:00

(Originally published in Guyana’s Stabroek News on 13 August 2011)

Question 9: There are many mothers who are forced by their employers to return to work soon after giving birth. Do you view this as discriminatory against female workers?

AFC Candidate Khemraj Ramjattan

Oh yeah, it is very much. What time are you talking about? I mean a week after they have to go and [work]? That is crazy.

My response: Less than the 13 weeks that are allowed to them.

That is a violation. That woman’s body may not be prepared yet for work again [so soon after]. But more than that, you want the woman to be comfortable in her zone so that she can then go back to work within that 12 or 13 weeks rather than to simply put her back after childbirth.

I think it is a serious violation of women’s rights and we should ensure that whatever the standards are [13 weeks after], that must be adhered to. I feel an Alliance For Change government will ensure an adherence by the private sector and [implement] serious penalties to employers who do not adhere to that.

APNU Candidate David Granger

Since only women can bear children, and since I believe that human beings need a much longer period of education before they become independent – anybody who has held a child would know that the child is completely helpless – so I believe that the facilities given to a woman who has just given birth to a child needs to be as favourable as possible.

There is nothing more important to the development of human society than the upbringing of children and when it is rushed and the parent has to take that child to a crèche or to leave that child with a relative, I think the child’s upbringing is likely to be impaired. So I believe that more time should be legislated so that women could pay much more attention to the upbringing of children. I think a mother needs to spend as long as possible, given the economic circumstances.

I believe the same ministries, the ministries of Human Services or Labour, should ensure there is no abuse of that rule. Certainly, when I was in the Defence Force, that rule was observed. The woman got at least what her entitlement was and if there were difficult circumstances—for example, the illness of the child or the child may have contracted some infantile disorder–the person was given more time.

But I think there needs to be more sympathy. The upbringing of children is the most important thing a society can do. That is why we put so much emphasis on education. It is the most important thing that can happen in the first 20 years of your life – your education.

I would make sure there is no infringement of that rule and that it is extended to give the mother more time with her child if it is necessary.

PPP/C Candidate Donald Ramotar

Yes, of course. I think it is. Because that is something only women can do, I would say yes that it is discrimination. And we should insist on the law in this regard, that the women would have a certain amount of time to be allowed to be home to be better prepared with their children and so forth.

Even though it is not, it is not always [necessary]. I have a personal experience. When my son was born, my wife was… working at the hospital and she had to do a certain amount of delivery in a certain amount of time before she could qualify. So, she went to work three weeks after she gave birth because she didn’t want to have to do the exam all over again.

But if it is forced upon them, and if they are in the circumstance where they are forced by their employers to do it, I think that is not right at all. I think there is a certain amount of maternity leave they are supposed to be given and that should be insisted upon at the minimum.

My response:

I feel it necessary to point out that Ramotar’s answer included an example of the very problem put forth in the initial question. Ramotar’s wife should have been given an extended period (several weeks) to finish her qualifications once she gave birth, instead of being pressured to return to work so that she was not left behind. I do not think Ramotar even realised this point, which is really just too bad.

Ramjattan’s answer was nice, but Granger really and truly got it. He pointed out that the process of giving birth, and bonding with the child after birth, is essential to the continued development of the human race. As this is an act only women can perform and as this is also an act that is vital to the survival of our race, to penalise women for giving birth is counter-productive to the overall good of all.

The good of all humans surpasses by far the lower position of merely making money in a business endeavour. Yes, it is absolutely gender discrimination to force a new mother to return to work mere days after giving birth. Even the 13 weeks allotted by law in Guyana are paltry compared to the standards set by many other countries, but then to have even that short amount of time pilfered by money hungry employers is a catastrophe waiting to happen to the future of Guyana.

A country cannot sacrifice its future to the short-sighted and shallow whims of those who can only see the almighty dollar in their hands today. By allowing employers to pressure new mothers to leave their babies so soon after birth, we give assent to the notion that money is more important than people, than babies, than mothers, than humans. It becomes yet one more way that we lose our humanity to the rat race.

Ratings: Ramjattan – 2; Granger – 3; Ramotar – 1

The candidates on saving economically-trapped victims of domestic violence

2011-08-13T08:35:00.005-04:00

(Originally published in Guyana’s Stabroek News on 06 August 2011)

Question 8: In interacting with domestic violence victims around the country, one issue that consistently rears its head is that victims with no education and no means of financial independence feel trapped in abusive relationships because they cannot support themselves or their children. This is one of the most difficult issues at hand in the fight to end domestic violence. As president, how would you address this problem?

PPP/C Candidate Donald Ramotar
(Edited for space)

As you said, it’s a very difficult case to confront. I don’t think, not necessarily as president, but I would say that right now the PPP/C has been grappling with those issues from the time we got into the government. If you look into the budget, you will see how much money we spend on education.

And what is good, too, is that we are spending on our students not only in the Coastland and in Georgetown, but in the interior areas. People are now appreciating the importance of education in the society.

So I think, not to say that when I become president, but I will continue the work of the PPP/C in making education accessible to all our students and children and young people in our society so that they will be more empowered in making informed decisions and they will not necessarily have to be trapped in these types of relationships.

Moreover, I think that we probably need to have more access to counselling. There needs to be [friendlier] and private/confidential areas that people who are trapped in these situations can feel comfortable to go to people so that they can be helped because sometimes those things go above their head and they feel they should not talk about it.

There also needs to be more public airing of many of these things so women who are caught in this type of relationship should not feel trapped and should be ready to want to speak about it to people with whom they have some confidence.

AFC Candidate Khemraj Ramjattan
(Edited for space)

That is very difficult to address and I will concede that at the very beginning because you have high emotions playing out whereby the woman would still love the man and, moreover, you can have her being bound to him because of the children in the relationship (if there are children) and, also, because there is always this hope that he is going to change in the future.

I feel that we have to lessen these instances by the education of the man. My first task would be to have counselling centres in every region and probably more than one or two in those regions where you have high levels of domestic violence. It will be mandatory that the men go to these counselling sessions. Reports must be made as to whether they are changing and if they are not, well fine, but if they beat up their wife and she wants to give the evidence in a court of law, he should be jailed. But the women are the first to say, “Your Honour, don’t jail him. [I need him to take care of me].”

And that is where the economics of the thing comes in because if that woman had a good job somewhere and is getting enough money to take care of her kids and so on, she could break out of the relationship. She is chained and bonded into it largely because of the economics. That is why I feel the economics underlie almost all of these problems.

It is not going to go away just because you have a big job, because I know of even CEOs beating up their CEOs wives.

I think the moderate way to go first is counselling and setting up these counselling centres. And if the case is real bad or if the woman is real poor, we have to spend some money on social centres, on Help and Shelter Centres in and around and try to get the woman a job somehow to avoid that battered woman’s scenario. That is where I feel it could be done.

In the meantime, we need to ensure that a new generation of girl children and boys have [been] socialized and educated that [domestic violence] is the wrong thing to do. And then hopefully after a ten, twenty year period – a new generation – it can be lessened and reduced dramatically.

APNU Candidate David Granger

In the first question you asked [on the three most important issues for women] I answered this question. I said the emphasis of my campaign has been on education and employment because it will give the women independence. An educated woman is less likely to put up with this nonsense and a person who is employed will just tell the man to go to hell. That is the first answer I gave you – education and employment.

I think there have been instances, of course, where persons who are not independent would give in to violence or tolerate violence over a long period of time. But my view is that, maybe for cultural reasons, sometimes the family would say, “Oh my, we need the family connection” or something.
But educated people nowadays, in 2011, would say I’m not going to put up with this. I’m going to become an independent professional and I’ll leave this relationship. So I believe that my answer still stands – that educated and employed persons are less likely to put up with that.

My response:
Before I get into my analysis, I want to say that David Granger’s statement, “An educated woman is less likely to put up with this nonsense and a person who is employed will just tell the man to go to hell” was absolutely inspiring. I truly enjoy it and will give thought to quoting it as a Facebook status.
However, no matter how inspiring, there are some women who do choose to stay with abusers even when they are educated and employed. Nevertheless, this column is about those women who are trapped in abusive relationships because they cannot afford to leave.

Ramotar talked about education, counselling and bringing awareness to the problem. Ramjattan spoke largely on counselling and touched on education and socialization. Granger’s answer was focused on education and employment.

In my opinion, Granger not only spoke to the issue of so many women who are being abused today by introducing employment as an avenue by which independence can be gained, but he also insisted that education is key to ending this cycle.

Counselling is necessary, yes, but without employment there will never be financial independence.
To be sure, there is so much more that needs to happen to rescue these trapped women from their abusive relationships. In fact, I am not sure anyone who has not spoken with these women can truly understand just how dire this situation really is.

Here’s hoping the next administration will find a way to address this issue in a more comprehensive and thorough manner.

Ratings: Ramotar – 2; Ramjattan – 1; Granger – 3

What will your candidate’s First Lady’s role be?

2011-08-06T08:19:00.000-04:00

(Originally published in Guyana’s Stabroek News on 30 July 2011)

I must admit that I asked the following question of Guyana’s presidential candidates simply because the nation’s last ‘First Lady’ attempted to play a significant role in helping the people of Guyana, but her work was frowned on by the President. In asking this question, it was my desire to bring this issue to the forefront with the hope that the next First Lady can actually help the people of Guyana in her own way if she so desires.

Question 7:
Can we expect to see your wife participating more in your campaign as elections are now drawing near? What role will she play as First Lady?

APNU Candidate David Granger

[Granger hands me a copy of an interview his wife did with the Guyana Times] That’s her role. Those are her words. I wasn’t present. She accompanied me on my visit to North America in late May and June. We went to four states, Georgia, Maryland, New Jersey and New York – and Washington [DC], as well, and she was with me. When I went to the Barima/Waini region she was with me.

We’ve been married a long time and I depend on her for support. So she is part of my team. Very much a part of my team.

(Writer’s note: On July 22, Sandra Granger [David Granger’s wife] was on Mark Benschop’s radio show, “Straight Up.”)

PPP/C Candidate Donald Ramotar

I think you have to ask her. [Laughing]

I don’t know. That is the most difficult question [laughing]. My wife is a strong woman on her own. She is not a very public woman.

All her life she has been working. When I met her she was a nurse. She has been a hard-working nurse and spent many, many years as a nurse. She has been a midwife. So she always had her own income and her own independence in some ways.

She worked as a manager, too. First in an accounts department and then eventually moved to be a manager of a welfare organisation. So I think she would probably have her own views on many of these things. Whatever her views are, however she sees her role, I will support her. I don’t know if I can impose anything on her. [Laughing again]

Yes, I would support whatever she wants to do in that role.

AFC Candidate Khemraj Ramjattan
(This answer has been edited for space)

You know, she indicated as much in a Guyana Times interview, a wonderful little interview. She called me up and said, “Here, these people want me to answer some questions.” I said, “On what?” She said, “On politics and on being a first lady candidate.” So I said, “Be yourself.”

She is very nervous about answering questions and she feels she might mess up and she might do my candidacy a harm, and this and that. But I must say that she did well. I want her to play a bigger role in my campaign. I want her to be at my side when I’m giving major addresses. And she has indicated she will do that. She has done that at all our national conventions. When I am addressing, she is there. If I call her up, she will be there.

She wants to help more in indicating what are the issues that she has in mind, like education and security, she mentioned, and jobs for young kids when they graduate from university. She has [said] it all in that Guyana Times interview.

Domestic violence is a big thing because she has seen it now that she works in my office. She works in my office and she helps to take statements now and again. She has learned how bad it is. She came from a real nice, stable cane cutting family. She saw the violence in the cane cutting areas…and she told me it is pretty bad. But you know, she didn’t know it was this nasty.

But coming back to your question, she must be by my side. I would want her to be a little more aggressive in the sense of wanting to go out to other political platforms and probably answer questions and so on. But I know she is going to be very, very nervous and she might not want to be like Mrs Obama.

My response:
I am going to say right off the bat that Donald Ramotar’s answer was fabulous. Why? Because there was an obvious respect for his wife in many ways: he did not want to presume to answer the question for her, he esteemed her financial independence, he thought it comical to think he could impose his views on what she would do as First Lady and he said he would support whatever she decides to do in that role. What more could anyone ask from a husband when asked this type of question?

Sadly, the role of the First Lady is not actually an official role in Guyana, as it is in many other countries. The First Lady of Guyana has not been given the freedom to work for the people and there is no First Lady Office through which finances can be channelled for any programmes she would want to start. In short, the first lady of Guyana is expected to just shut up and look pretty. And when she does not…well, we have all seen what happens when she does not do as she is told.

In fact, unless her husband chooses to be generous, she does not even have an allowance for clothes and other essentials like travel on behalf of the nation. Further, after years of hard work and sacrifice, there is no formal pension provided for these women who served their country.

The obvious lack of respect afforded to this esteemed position (esteemed in other countries) is yet one more avenue by which we can determine the dire situation of women in Guyana. If even those who serve the country are not respected, how can the rest expect any better?

Ratings: Granger – 1; Ramotar – 3; Ramjattan – 2

What was learnt from the Neesa Gopaul case?

2011-07-30T16:41:00.000-04:00

(Originally published in Guyana’s Stabroek News on 23 July 2011)

Question 6:
Tell me, what were your feelings when you first realised the full scope of the Neesa Gopaul case?

AFC candidate Khemraj Ramjattan
(Sections of this interview were edited)

It was shocking. I just couldn’t believe it. You get a sense of what our society has come to.
The proof now of one instance like this means that there are [others]. As to how many, I am hoping to God they are not very many. We have to ensure that they are [brought] to a halt.

And that is why community life must come back. I find that we have become individualistic now. Whereas in times before — like where I came from Number 47 Village, everybody knew everybody else’s business. Today nobody wants you to be prying into their affairs, but it is necessary. There needs to be a state of being where we are informed about what our neighbours are doing… .

[We need to] get that kind of culture back… . [There are issues] of privacy, rights and all of that, but I believe, know, that we have to get back to that culture whereby we are going to look after the children. It takes a village to raise a child and I would like to see that happening even in the city whereby the street will know what is happening to the child.

And we must be a little more perceptive. When we see a child distraught and dishevelled and whatever, we [should] ask the parents, ‘Why is the child like that?’ And if the parents are hesitant in their answers, we then ask the child. Some of us don’t even want to touch that child or the parents with a 40-foot pole, but that is what causes these things to happen. Because everybody is in their little units in isolation… . But if they know that the society is making some inquiries—‘Why is that girl not going to school? Why is that girl putting on lipstick at 11? What is that?’—we then, give them something to think about. It is a collegial community life that we want to bring back. I think that will help.

APNU candidate David Granger
(Sections of this interview were edited)

I was upset that the system let her down. I tried to understand the emotions of the persons involved. But I think there was no system at the law enforcement and at the governmental level… because there were indications. These things hardly evolve suddenly.

Domestic violence is not sudden. Domestic violence is not the result of alcoholism as some people seem to believe. It doesn’t happen because a man goes home drunk. There were antecedents. There were things that were happening, which predisposed the assailant to be violent. Alcohol is probably just the trigger.

So in [the Gopaul] case, what I’ve read about it in the newspapers, there were clear indications that there was abuse long before the girl died. It meant that the signals were not acted on by persons who should have done so; both at the level of the police and at the level of the government – the ministry.

It is quite unfortunate that blame seems to have been shifted to the school although there is some indication that the school teachers realised something was going wrong and they did respond. I think that was a question of trying to shift the blame; it was a question of passing the buck. That was my reaction when I read the newspaper reports.

PPP/C candidate Donald Ramotar
(Sections of this interview were edited)

…I think I was numb. I was shocked by what had happened. I couldn’t believe something like that was happening in our country; that kind of an insensitive attitude generally across the board, because it seems that many of our institutions actually failed Gopaul.

But I think that we must not allow her life to be just wasted and to be snuffed out at such an early stage – that we should take lessons from what happened there to ensure that something like that does not happen to another young girl in our society.

We need to try to put measures in place to ensure that those things do not happen so that her life would not have been in vain. That is how I see it.

My response:
The Neesa Gopaul case was especially difficult for me because of the physical, mental and emotional abuse I suffered as a child by my mother. Moreover, I know there are still so many children who are beaten and tortured everyday by their parents while neighbours do absolutely nothing to stop it. I was sick to my stomach when I realised the full scope of Neesa’s case and asked Guyana’s presidential candidates this question to understand how they felt about it.

There is no wrong answer to this question. However, Granger’s response of the government’s failure – though absolutely correct – was also predictable. Ramotar’s answer, on the other hand, conceding institutional failure across the board, was not at all expected. I have to say that it gives me a good feeling that a senior member of the ruling party can admit that the government has messed up. The good feeling is not a gloating feeling, but comes because it seldom happens; even when that fault is glaring.

Ramjattan’s answer was by far the most interesting. In suggesting more community involvement, he does walk a tightrope on privacy issues. However, I know full well how many neighbours, family members and church members looked the other way when I was being abused as a child.

There had to be literally over 100 people who knew full well of the pain I suffered and did nothing. As such, Ramjattan’s suggestion is spot on.

If those in the community, the ones closest to the abusers and the victims, turn a blind eye and do nothing to stop the violence, where does that leave the community in 20 years when that abused child is living with physical and psychological scars? If those in the community do not help the abused child today, that community will suffer for years to come.

Ramotar is right. We must use the Neesa Gopaul case to find ways to make sure something so horrible does not happen again.

Ratings: Ramjattan – 3; Ramotar – 2; Granger – 1

Would your candidate jail rapists? Maybe

2011-07-23T16:42:00.003-04:00

(Originally published in Guyana’s Stabroek News on 16 July 2011)

Question 5:
The laws of Guyana currently allow for perpetrators of rape to settle financially with the victim, thereby dodging the justice system and leaving a rapist on the streets to rape again. Would you be willing to champion a change in legislation that would enable the state to prosecute rapists based on the evidence regardless of whether there is a civil settlement?

PPP/C Presidential Candidate Donald Ramotar

Yes, that is a fair position. I don’t think the people should escape justice because they have money or because they can raise money and buy themselves out. Rape is a crime. Rape is a criminal offence. Just like how they say murder doesn’t have any statute of limitations, I think rape, too, should not have that limitation so people could be charged at any time – because I think it is a crime. It is a criminal activity. Yes, I think it could be done and it should be done.

AFC Presidential Candidate Khemraj Ramjattan
(Small portions of this interview were edited out for space)

I agree with civil settlements. I am in total agreement with civil settlements, but it must be accompanied with some criminal penalty. Because of the nature of Guyana’s economy, a girl being raped forcibly is going to be damaged, of course, and [there should be] recompense in the form a compensatory package or something that the man can afford, very many of them cannot afford it in Guyana, but once he can afford it, the girl should get it.

That should not wholly then exculpate him from criminal penalties. There must be some criminal penalties.

That criminal penalty could be lessened to the extent that he compensates. I believe in that. And a lot of women have indicated to me, especially the mothers, “But when he get out of jail, he get out of jail. I want him to get a little bit of jail, but I want him to give this girl $600,000 or a million dollars. It will help her.” You have to understand the value system we have here, too.

It must not be a substitute in lieu of criminal penalties. It should go a far way in at least accommodating a lessening of the penalty because he is [already] somewhat paying a penalty. So that is good enough. Like when someone pleads guilty as against going through a trial, the penalty for the one going through a whole, long trial and is found guilty, he will get the higher penalty.

So if he [the rapist] comes and pleads and says, “Alright, I’m going to give her a compensation,” and he gets two years instead of ten years without the compensation – I have no problem. It’s also going to cut judicial time, jury time, judges’ time and so on. So there is a pragmatism about my approach on that question.

But he must not, in any way, avoid criminal penalties. There must be some criminal penalties if he is guilty.

APNU Presidential Candidate David Granger
(Small portions of this interview were edited out for space)

Yes, I would champion such a cause. I think that a person who commits that offence, particularly repeatedly and if there is some indication that the person may have a flawed character, I think it would be necessary to give that person treatment and maybe incarcerate the person to revenge for the abuse. And the laws must treat that crime, not as a one-off event, but as something that indicates that the person is likely to be a habitual or repeat offender.

A financial settlement does not cater for persons in that category. So a rich person could rape repeatedly. Is that what the law is trying to say? I don’t believe that that could be right because the victims are out there and they continue to suffer. From what I have read in the newspapers, there have been instances of abuse in which persons have been repeatedly abused by known assailants.

In this regard, I would like to call attention to the plight of Indigenous girls who are trafficked into mining and timber/logging areas and there is every indication that some of those girls are underage, which means that rape is involved – if those girls are sexually abused – the abuse would constitute rape.

I do believe that the present government is not active enough in searching out cases of trafficking in persons. As a journalist I have looked into it, I have published reports, and as president I will look into it.

Even this year when I was in the Barima-Waini region I received credible reports that trafficking is still prevalent in the Barima-Waini region of this country. There are credible reports. But the administration seems to be blind. As far as I am concerned, that is abuse. That is rape.

My response:
I asked this question of the three men campaigning to be president of Guyana because there is a definite tone of frustration amongst women’s advocates when rapists skip away from justice because they have bought off the victim or her family. Like Ramjattan, I consider a mixture of criminal penalties and civil penalties to be a good balance in this situation.

However, unlike Ramjattan, I do not think a civil settlement should go “a far way” in the lessening of the penalty.” I think it should go a little way. It definitely should not cut eight years out of a ten-year sentence by any means. That is far too generous in my opinion.

Granger’s opening statement baffles me, as it would appear there are many “ifs” in Granger’s idea of how to punish a rapist. If he rapes repeatedly? If he indicates a character flaw? (Wouldn’t the rape already constitute as a character flaw?) Give the rapist treatment and “maybe” incarcerate him?
Maybe? I would really like to see a leader stand strong on this issue, but that is not going to be Ramotar either. Again, he said all the right words, but there was no zeal on this topic from him either.

The answers to this question were just too wishy-washy. Could it be that even the nation’s leaders are desensitised to the atrocity of rape? We have lots of right answers like “it is a criminal activity” (yes, we knew that) and we have some “pragmatism” too, but where is the fervour to get rapists off the streets of Guyana?

Granger does find some grit when talking about the trafficking of Amerindian girls. I agree with him fully, but that ardour should encompass all the women of Guyana. Ramotar suggests lifting the statute of limitations. And Ramjattan, well, he is pragmatic.

Rating: Ramotar – 1.5; Ramjattan – 1.5; Granger – 1.5.

How would your presidential candidate address domestic violence?

2011-07-16T16:50:00.002-04:00

(Originally published in Guyana’s Stabroek News on 09 July 2011)

Question 4:
What is your current plan for combatting domestic violence?

APNU Presidential Candidate David Granger
(Small portions of this interview were edited out for space)

My plan is to ensure that the education system is reformed to deal with this. It has to be done at the school level. It has to be done at home. It has to be done within the religious organisations – the churches, the mandirs and the mosques. I would certainly ensure that educational programmes are modified to ensure that there is respect for each other’s ethnicity, respect for each other’s gender and respect for each other’s property at the level of the school. This is something that has to be taught.

The second instance is at the institutional level, within organisations [like] the National Assembly, the magistracy, and within the institutions of the State, equality should be mandated. At the national level, at the level of enforcement particularly, the police force has to be retrained. Not just trained, it has to be retrained to deal the domestic violence because right now the police force is what its name says – force.

[The police force] is designed to enforce then to arrest and charge people. It is not designed to counsel people. It is not designed for problem solving. And domestic violence is something that requires sympathetic counsel. I think the police force has to be changed.

Secondly, as far as the police force is concerned, there must be more policewomen. Policemen, because of the reasons I explained when I answered your first question, policemen are men and they don’t see problems the same way that women see problems. They may tend to feel that women might be wrong when they are not wrong because of their own upbringing. So I believe there must be more policewomen in the police force who would have, in addition to their other duties, a greater responsibility for dealing with issues of domestic violence.

And at the highest level, at the level of the state, legislation has to be constantly revised to ensure that it is up-to-date and enforceable. Guyana has a powerful reputation for signing all the international conventions, but there needs to be the political will to enforce those laws at the level of the state. We need a party in government that enforces the laws.

And so, at all four of the levels I explained – the individual, the institutional, the national and the state – I think we must ensure that there is political will on the part of males to enforce the law.

PPP/C Presidential Candidate Donald Ramotar

It has to be a combination. I don’t think there is a silver bullet to pick up and fire to solve the problem. I think it has to be a question of education. Some of these things sometimes are probably caused by frustrations and the pressures of life themselves, which are part of society. So I think that generally as our economic conditions improve it probably will become easier to deal with some of these issues.
In the meantime, in the whole course of the development, whether we develop or whether we do not develop, I think we have to carry out a mass education in our society.

(For clarification at this point, I asked if when he said “education” was he referring to sensitising the public or education at a primary school level)

I would not rule out any. Once it is possible to be done at every level of our society and at a public level as I mentioned to create an atmosphere of intolerance to this violence against women – domestic violence as a whole.

That alone would not be enough. I think there has to be some level of enforcement of the laws that we have passed and to make our security forces more aware and more conscious of many of these things. And even in the training in the police force and the security forces, that should become part of the training in the police force itself.

AFC Presidential Candidate Khemraj Ramjattan
(Small portions of this interview were edited out for space)

That is a very, very serious issue and I think it will have to be somewhat an upturning of the whole system. This male chauvinistic approach that we are dominant, that it is good to be aggressive against females, that it is good sometimes as the Sparrow calypso says, “buss up they eye, bruise up they knee and then they’ll love you eternally” kind of a culture. It is good lyrics to the man drinking and feeling good, but it is a terrible piece of lyrics that has been inculcated into our culture that makes men beat up their wives.

We have to also deal with alcoholism because I believe alcoholism also makes the men uninhibited and do the damning things they do. I believe also that we have to teach our boys, boy children we call them here, at a very, very small age – through the education process and through a home socialisation process – [to] respect girls; they are but your other half.

And they must, in the concept of respecting their girls, never ever be violent with a girl. Never ever slap a girl. You are less of a man [if you do]. What we, however, in this culture teach our boys is to slap a girl generally is to be a man. I think that is where the resolution of it, the remedying of it, resides. It is that education process.

And, of course, I feel that we should also sharpen up on our reprimands in the court system, investigations of these things and also the publicity of them. [We should] publicise their names and let the country know because the public opprobrium would be there as also another penalty. But we don’t. Very many of these men when they go [to court] they treat them in-camera and we never know of them. But we have to start doing that to shame them in society.

We also have to have exemplary leadership at the top that enhances that socialisation and education through the process. And we have to create counselling sessions…especially in rural areas.

And of course, as I said, all the while in almost all of these things, [we must consider] the economics of it. If we can solve and get growth and development, we are going to get more people working, more people earning, and I feel that when you earn these things lessen. It is the general frustration that causes the man to behave the way that he does. So we got to get our economics right. It is an underlying principle right now.

My response:
It is very interesting that none of the three candidates approached the matter of dealing with domestic violence by educating women of the harmful effects of entering into a relationship with an abusive man or on how to safely exit an abusive relationship. In fact, the female factor (aside from Mr Granger’s idea of training more policewomen) was entirely absent in all three answers.

Moreover, although all three provided viable suggestions to address the long-term problem, there are still women being tortured and murdered today. Likewise, there was nothing from any of the candidates to address the fact that many women today are in abusive relationships because they cannot afford to support themselves and their children if they leave (though I do ask this question later). There was also nothing to address the lack of safe houses for abused women to escape their abusers.

However, Granger and Ramotar did address the lack of assistance given to women by law enforcement, which is one of the most pressing issues for abused women today. Also, all three candidates spoke about educating the public to some degree or another, which is a vital component as well.

Overall, I feel Granger had a well-thought-out plan to combat domestic violence. He has obviously given this issue much thought. Ramjattan once again had the pulse of the situation and I liked his suggestion of making the names of perpetrators public and his stance on the need for good examples in leadership positions (something severely lacking right now).

Ramotar had the right answers – such as education, police training, etc – and for that I cannot fault him. However, there is something about the lack of effort he put into his answer that feels
discomforting. It could be that he was very busy that day (though all of the candidates were busy when I interviewed them) or maybe his mind was on something else, but his response seems like a pat answer for a very serious matter.

This week’s ratings: Granger – 2; Ramotar – 1; Ramjattan – 2

What does your candidate think about gender equality in leadership?

2011-07-09T17:13:00.000-04:00

(Originally published in Guyana’s Stabroek News on 02 July 2011)

This next question was designed to help the reader better understand what to expect from each candidate regarding female leadership in government should that candidate get elected.

Question 3:
I believe gender equality in leadership positions – including political leadership – is vital to balanced development worldwide. What are your views on gender equality in leadership and how would we see your views translate into policies if you are elected to be president?

AFC Presidential Candidate Khemraj Ramjattan:
(Small portions of this interview were edited out for space.)

I agree with gender equality. It is a big principle in our programme. It was a big founding principle of the Alliance For Change. That is why in everything we do, we have indicated that we want women to be involved. In our leadership structures, in the rank and file doing the actual work on the ground, we want to see women, more or less, involved in even in the designing of our programmes and have had very many women being involved in that.

We support there being at least a percentage of our women going to Parliament, and in the Cabinet if we win the government – of course, not in any way derogating from the principle of meritocracy – we know that Guyana has bright women who can be involved in all of these.

Unless we start respecting the womenfolk, we feel that we are going to perpetuate our society being gender divided and that is not right. We feel we have to bring them up and support them and help them. And I am certain once you get the women supported by the men, your entire society prospers because there is a certain magic about a woman that helps society and especially if they are treated well.

So we believe our society will be better off with women being respected and being given those opportunities for equality – and in everything else. The salary structures for women, the ones who do the same amount of work as men, pay them equal salaries. They are qualified like the man. Pay them the equal salary that man is getting. The quicker we do that and the more exemplars we find in political parties who are cultivating that attitude, we feel that is going to create – faster – for us in this society, more equality for the women.

APNU Presidential Candidate David Granger:

The answer is very simple, equality means equality. Five equals five. Ten equals ten. It’s like I say – not trying to be vulgar – equality is like virginity, it is absolute. You cannot be partial. You cannot be partially equal. In 1976, our party [the PNC], which was then the government, introduced a white paper on the equality of women – and that was 35 years ago. We were the party to describe, or to lay down the guidelines, for women’s equality and I believe it must be fulfilled to the letter.
I believe women must be given equal status, not semi-equal status. Equal/equal. Fifty/fifty. Right now, our party [the PNC] is the only party in the National Assembly that has exact equality in the members. I am committed to equality for women. And as I said, equality means equality.

PPP/C Presidential Candidate Donald Ramotar:

I have grown up in a political party in this country that actually started the fight for women’s equality. We have done a lot of advocating for equality for women. So that is part of my own make up – as a PPP member, as a PPP leader – I developed it within the party. So, surely I will try to ensure that we have the various balances that exist within our society.

Yes, I would like to promote women in various institutions. Right now, it is also getting easier because if you look at our institutions, particularly the University of Guyana, you will see a lot more women graduating than men. Clearly I would like to see people in positions where they can make a contribution and they are not discriminated against, on the basis of sex. I would like to see – as far as that is possible – that it should be in our society as a whole, particularly in public institutions.

My response:
I must say that I was quite amused that both Granger and Ramotar claimed their respective parties to be the champion of gender equality in Guyana. What makes their responses concerning their parties even more fascinating is that since the PNCR and the PPP/C have basically been the only ones to govern the country since independence, these two parties must also take responsibility for the very sad state of gender inequality in Guyana.

With that out of the way, Granger’s response appeared genuine and heartfelt, and that is what matters in this consideration of gender equality in leadership. Granger also mentioned the fact that his party is the only party with half of its representatives in National Assembly being female.

This is true and it is a fact that resonates with the part of me that wants to see the best for women. Actions speak so much louder than words and a genuine desire to see gender equality is what counts most of all.

Ramotar’s answer was frail and seemed forced. I was not at all convinced that should he be elected president, gender equality in leadership would be of import to him.

In the end, Ramjattan once again provided us with a substantial answer. I like the idea of a man saying that society should be helping and supporting women to become independent. Ramjattan puts forth a persona of a man who truly respects women and sees them as equals. Moreover, he appears to sees the value and importance of having a gender equal society.

After my last column, I was accused of being biased toward Ramjattan by a PNC member. This is not true. In fact, I have written many columns about the follies of the AFC (as well as the PPP and the PNC) in the past. I stand by my objective opinion. Moreover, anyone can read the words of these men themselves and make their own honest assessment of which best answered the questions.

The purpose of these interviews is to inform the public on how the candidates think about women’s issues. People are then able to make up their own minds as to who they think will best represent women.

Here are my ratings for this week’s answers: Ramjattan – 3; Granger – 2; Ramotar – 1.

Presidential candidates on those creepy old men

2011-07-02T17:23:00.001-04:00

(Originally published in Guyana’s Stabroek News on 25 June 2011)

Here is the next question I posed to the three main presidential candidates on women’s issues. I view this question to be especially telling in how much we can expect the candidate to protect the young girls of the nation.

Question 2:
Tell me, what is your view of older men who seek out girls under the age of 18 for sexual relations?

PPP/C Presidential Candidate Donald Ramotar

First of all, I think it is extremely immoral. Extremely immoral. Most of these relationships are sometimes exploitative relationships. I am very much opposed to it. I know we have a law of consent at the age of 16, but I think it should be frowned upon in the society even if the person is above 16.

If you have much older men preying on women in this regard, I am sure this is something we should frown upon in our society. We should discourage and expose these issues. If the relationship is exploitative, then the law can take its course. My own view is that it is immoral.

AFC Presidential Candidate Khemraj Ramjattan

There are men who are perverts. There are men who absolutely have no morality. I put into that category men who are old – like that – going after minors, because I say under 18 are minors. It is abominable in this modern age.

But of course, as I mentioned in my first answer, [because of] the culture of Guyana, wealthy older men feel that they can have any amount of young girls. Generally, that is proscribed in other societies because of the education levels of those men and their moralities. But in Guyana, it seems if you got the money, you pay for them.

And some of these girls, too, because of their education levels, they feel they can do their relations with these men and make a quick buck. Sometimes they can make more than big bucks, because I’ve seen young girls become pretty well off indulging in all these kinds of behaviours. Only, of course, for a short, temporary period of time and then they are left on their own and would have then been marred for life thereafter.

But these men, we have to do something about them. First of all, when they are caught and it is a non-consensual relationship, they should face the full brunt of the law. Very many of them don’t in Guyana. They pay the policemen off. They pay the prosecution off. They sometimes pay the jurors off. Even when they get caught and go to jail, they break out of the prison. So the deterring factors are not there, the deterring circumstances are not there to discourage it. That is why men of that calibre perpetuate and continue these wrongs. In my book, they are immoral. They are perverts.

PNCR Presidential Candidate David Granger
(Small portions of this interview were edited out for space)

Men in Guyana, and to some extent, men in the Caribbean – to the extent that I have experienced – have inherited a certain cultural tradition. Their behaviour is strongly influenced by their peers and by their fathers. I think, to that extent, if you regard their behaviour as predatory, it is something they learn. It is learned behaviour.

I cannot say what spurs that, but again I come back to the way men are educated. If society promotes images of nubile women in terms of advertising, in terms of shows, in terms of fashion contests and so on, that is the image that people grow up with. There are magazines and fashions shows and so on, and people see these images repeatedly and that is the image of what is regarded as a desirable mate. What I feel society must do is try to reduce the frequency with which these images bombard the public.

I have been in all ten regions in my campaign and cultural presentations were arranged and some of them were very beautiful. There were girls in beautiful dresses dancing and reading poetry and so on. These were very satisfying and very attractive. But I went to another function at Linden and some dance was put on and some very young girls came out in costumes that were suitable for swimming rather than dancing in a public full of men.

And so, coming back to the question, putting the images of very young girls dancing in a very provocative way in front of a huge audience – because it was at the start of Linden Town Week – I think you are begging for trouble…When young men see those things, they get excited. So I think that is a factor. I am not blaming women.

(At this point, I asked if there was no responsibility on the man’s part to control those urges.)

My view is that it is a social responsibility to both educate the males and to dissuade teachers or parents from allowing their daughters to perform like that in public. It’s not one-sided alone. But what I’m saying is that my own experience is that young males who are encouraged to go after girls – even when they are young – when they [males] grow up, they continue going after the same images that excited them in their adolescence. It doesn’t really come to an end and they just keep on that track for much of their adult life because that is what they were taught to do when they were young. And people learn their lessons when they are young.

I’m an Anglican. I was an Anglican since I was born, I was baptised, and I’ll remain Anglican until I die because that is what I grew up with. And if I am taught to look on women in a certain way when I am age four or 14 or 24, when I am 44 or 54 I will probably be doing the same thing. So the correction has to be made when they are young, when they are at home, when they are at church, when they are school. That is where the correction has to be done. It is very difficult to correct a person’s behaviour at 54.

Stella’s response:

I want to start with Granger’s answer first because it left me with a bad taste in my mouth. My question was how he felt about older men seeking out girls under 18 for sexual relations, but his entire response was a justification of the predatory (yes, I do consider it predatory) actions of these creepy old men against girls. Yes, Granger does have a point that the objectification and sexualisation of young girls is morally and socially wrong (I have written on this often), but “culture” and “tradition” do not at all justify the actions of mature men who prey on young girls.

Next, I think Ramotar had the right answer in that this behaviour is immoral and that we should discourage and expose it. However, I was energised by Ramjattan’s emphatic stance that such behaviour is perverted and abominable. What comes over in Ramjattan’s answer, even in reading it, is the ardent and forceful tone he used concerning this topic as well as his obvious conviction that something needs to be done to stop this perversion.

Here are my ratings for this week’s answers: Granger = 0; Ramotar = 2; Ramjattan = 3.

How does your candidate rate on women’s issues?

2011-06-25T17:40:00.001-04:00

(Originally published in Guyana’s Stabroek News on 18 June 2011)

This past week I interviewed Guyana’s three major presidential candidates, PNCR Candidate David Granger, AFC Candidate Khemraj Ramjattan and PPPC Candidate Donald Ramotar. I ask them each twelve questions on women’s issues. In the next few weeks, I will be sharing those questions and the candidates’ answers in this column.

I will also be giving my response to those answers and rating the answers: a rating of 1 is the lowest rating, a rating of 2 is the middle rating and a rating of 3 will signify the best possible answer in my opinion.

At the end of the twelve questions and the candidates’ answers, the presidential candidate with the highest rating is the one who, in my opinion, should receive the votes of the women. I wish to remind the reader that I do not support any political party and base my reputation as a columnist on my objectivity.

Question One:

What do you feel are the three most important issues to the women of Guyana, and why?

APNU Candidate David Granger

The first issue, I believe, is that of economic or financial security. I think they want to be secure. And because of that I feel they are now more than ever interested in their own education and employment, because education and employment would give them a platform for independence. I think that is really paramount to them – they want to be independent.

The second issue I think that faces women, at least women of working age, would be human safety. Safety from attack. Safety from physical violence.

And the third issue, I think they would like to see their children grow up and live fulfilling lives. I think most women want children and they want to see their children have a good life.

Those three values are the values that our campaign propagated from the start. Education, economic independence and people want to be safe. Our motto is “A good life for all Guyanese.” So those are the three values I think are paramount in women’s minds. Of course, I’m not a woman so I’m just putting myself in their place, but I think those are the three issues.

AFC Candidate Khemraj Ramjattan

I think it is the economy, security and education. Economy is so important for everybody. Once they can have that capacity to be independent through finances of their own, they can become far more esteemed in the eyes of so many around them. And that is why the economics must be solved in relation to our women so that they can seek that independence.

Education is so vitally important, too, because I feel that if there are opportunities for them to educate themselves, they will win that independence through economics.

And, of course, security. Security, again, is another vital ingredient to the complete woman. Because when I say security, I mean in the larger perspective. Not only security against bandits coming in, but security from the cultural perspective - that she is respected. Women in Guyana, I find - because of the male chauvinists that dominate business, labour, industry all around, they dominate - and because of that [women] are made less of a human being. Because of that predominance that comes from males all around, that makes [women] very insecure and they can’t blossom their personalities out. They can’t in this kind of a culture. And so, I feel we have to create that framework for a better security for our women so that they can bloom and blossom in this country.

It comes also with fathers nurturing them to be respected, our churches, all of that is what I incorporate into my security concerns for women because too often you find sometimes the family treats them as another cast down the gradient. It is not a good thing at all. So I feel security at all levels is also an ingredient there that can have to help [women] lead fulfilling lives in this country.

PPP/C Candidate Donald Ramotar

The first one we have to deal with is domestic violence. I think that’s important because many women have suffered at the hands of abusive partners or abusive families. The laws have been put into place already to deal with it, but I am sure we have to do a lot of training with our security forces to cope with this issue and to make it an intolerable thing in society. No one will tolerate it then and no one will take the position that it is a family affair and they should be involved.

Anyone who sees a woman being brutalised by her partner, her father, a relative or what have you, should intervene in those instances. And as I said, our security forces generally need to be trained to cope with this.

Secondly, in the work place a lot of women are sometimes exploited, particularly in some of the stores and shops where they work. We also need to ensure that there is equal pay for equal work within society and to ensure good conditions to work in. Many women work in industries and workplaces where they are not unionised. A lot of women, domestic workers and so, are not unionised, but maybe in the areas where they are not unionised, the Ministry of Labour could play a bigger role to show that women that work are protected properly and they are not underpaid.

The third issue, something that women have been clamouring for and there has been a major improvement in it, is more representation in the various public and political institutions within the society. That is happening. We already have a law where our [political parties] lists have to have one third women. It is possible to have more.

Like at the level of local government I think we can find more women to be involved because they might be more involved in community life. We have seen generally that there are a great amount of women now in politics, in parliament and other institutions, but we need to ensure that we maintain that and even improve upon it.

Stella’s response:

I asked this question of the candidates first because I wanted to get a feel for whether they really understood the issues that the women of Guyana face on a daily basis. I feel Ramjattan’s response on security truly got the heart of that topic and proved that he does “get it.” Also, I give high marks to Ramotar for citing domestic violence as his top issue, though the other two candidates touched on the overall topic of security, Ramotar went straight to the heart of a vital issue that must be addressed.

However, although Ramotar’s citation of workplace exploitation and female representation in leadership roles are both important issues to women, I feel Granger and Ramjattan got it right by citing education and economic security as being of higher importance.

As such, here are my ratings for this week: Granger = 2; Ramjattan = 3; Ramotar = 2

I was overwhelmed at the Pegasus

2011-06-12T12:02:00.000-04:00

(Originally published in Guyana’s Kaieteur News on 12 June 2011)

I write my Sunday columns on Friday mornings as my deadline is at noon on this day. This Friday morning I am up early (another jam packed day today) after the world premiere of the “Break Out” Documentary by Sukree Boodram at the Pegasus on Thursday night.

The documentary is Sukree’s story of her brave and silent struggle to survive domestic abuse and alcoholism amidst strict cultural and religious traditions.

Let me start off by saying that the event at the Pegasus blew my mind. We initially asked the staff at the hotel to set up seats for 250 people. However, as time grew close to the event it was obvious that we would need at least 300 seats and the Pegasus staff was kind enough to oblige.

The event was to start with a non-alcoholic cocktail hour at 5:30 pm and the program itself was to start at 6:30 pm. Yet at 4:30 pm the people started to fill the halls as they waited for the doors to open. By the time 5:30 rolled around the crowd had grown so thick it was difficult to navigate through it.

When we opened the doors, the attendees were nice enough to oblige us by stopping quickly and getting some of the food and drinks we had prepared for them, but their primary goal was obviously to find seats quickly – and they did. By 6:00 pm the huge Savannah Suite at the Pegasus was packed and more people continued to come.

Again, the Pegasus staff found more chairs so no attendees had to stand during the entire event. Flabbergasted at the enthusiasm and size of the crowd, at 6:15 my colleagues and I looked at an audience that was completely seated and ready to get the show on the road, so we decided to go ahead and start the program.

I do not believe an official head count was taken, but I do know the room was entirely packed. Even the back walls were lined with chairs. Moreover, during the entire event, the attendees were engaged and responsive.

After the documentary ended, we opened the floor to questions and there were so many that we unfortunately could not get to all of them. The dialogue was real and heartfelt. The audience stayed for the entire event even though the documentary was lengthy and there were no music artists to entertain them.

My point is this; those who attended the world premiere at the Pegasus did not care about anything else except to address the issues of domestic violence. This was obviously their first and foremost concern.

Again, the event blew my mind because I am not sure that if we had held this same event a year ago that we would have seen this same type of crowd or the same kind of engagement and dialogue. The people of Guyana know full well that it is time to ‘Break the Silence and Say No to Violence’.
Moreover, we did not have only women in attendance. There were quite a few men, some of whom spoke up and declared that they are also victims or that indeed men are victims of domestic violence as well as women.

Our Break the Silence, Stop the Violence Team will continue to show the “Break Out” documentary and hold interactive sessions like the one at the Pegasus for the next week in other places in the nation.

Moreover, we intend to plan more events like this one in places that we have yet to be able to visit. One place I truly want to take this effort is to Essequibo because my husband’s family lived there for a period of time and because I have had domestic violence victims from that area contact me, asking for us to come.

I had one woman at the Pegasus tell me that she never goes out and does anything, but she knew she had to come to this event. She was a victim. There were many victims, some survivors and others who came to support the cause to end the violence so prevalent in society today.

My dear colleague, Varshnie Singh, often talks about how we need to look out for our sisters and brothers. She says as a community we need to care about each other and should not stand by as a sister or brother is being harmed.

I agree with her sentiments, but often feel as she is speaking that this is a futuristic notion and not something that really applies to this very violent present. However, the event at the Pegasus has proved my thinking wrong and proved Varshnie’s right.

There are many, many people who care about the plight of their sisters and brothers who are subjected to domestic violence. I saw the faces of those who care at the Pegasus. There were so very many who want to help in the effort to stop the violence.

After we wrapped up the event on Thursday night (we ran late because we were trying to get to all of the questions), the attendees still did not want to stop the dialogue. They came up in droves to the front and there were even more conversations about addressing domestic violence.

This is a dream come true for our Break the Silence, Stop the Violence Team. We could not have wished for more. In fact, in organising this event, it is apparent that I did not dream big enough from the start because I did not expect such a large and engaged crowd.

Moreover, I viewed this showing of Sukree’s documentary as a way to test the waters to see the response. Instead, Guyana has proven that it is ready to jump into the water head first to stop the violence.

Are Guyana’s political parties afraid of gender equality?

2011-06-10T11:59:00.000-04:00

The map shows the South American countries who have signed on to the Protocol in some degree or another. Guyana and Suriname stand out as obvious exceptions to the rest of the continent.

(Originally published in Guyana’s Kaieteur News on 10 June 2011)

There are times when I just do not understand the logic (or rather illogic) behind the actions of those who lead the country. This time it is concerning a piece I read in Stabroek News on the Women and Gender Equality Commission (WGEC) and whether the four major parties in Guyana intend to sign the United Nations (UN) Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women.

According to the June 8 article, the chairperson, Indranie Chandarpal said, “party officials spoke of, ‘wanting more time to study it’ despite the fact that the questions were sent in advance of the engagements.”

This reminds me of last September when a forum was held at the Office of the President with local religious leaders, a delegation of Faith-based leaders from the US and representatives of the government to discuss domestic violence and the role of the religious community.

Here is a quote from my column on that meeting, “The initial projected outcomes of [the] meeting were: to sign a joint communiqué by representatives of all religious groups, declaring a Zero Tolerance on Domestic Violence…Following the almost three-hour meeting, [PPP/C MP Pastor Kwame] Gilbert told Stabroek News…that the leaders did not sign on to the communiqué as had been hoped. It was agreed that they would go back to their constituencies first before signing the document.”

After that first meeting, some religious leaders did, in fact, sign the communiqué. However, their early hesitation was of great concern to me because there was nothing at all that needed contemplation in the suggestion put to them of declaring zero tolerance on domestic violence.

I posed this question on the topic, “Did the religious leaders have to go back and ask their congregations if it was right to declare zero tolerance on domestic violence? What was there to discuss?” I now have the same question about the fact that the four major political parties in Guyana have hesitated to sign a document declaring their stance on eliminating discrimination against women.

What is it that Guyana’s political parties need to “study” in regard to whether they should sign on to this UN Protocol to end discrimination against women? Once again, what is there to discuss?

If the political parties want to end discrimination against women, they sign on. If they do not want to end the discrimination against women, they can continue to do exactly what they are doing right now.

The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women outlaws discrimination on the basis of gender, and obliges its parties to repeal discriminatory laws and guarantee equality in the fields of health, employment, and education. The Optional Protocol is a subsidiary agreement to the Convention. It does not establish any new rights, but rather allows the rights guaranteed in the Convention to be enforced.

Could it be that Guyana’s political parties do not want to be held to the standards of the Protocol or to be subjected to the examination of the Committee should a complaint be filed against the party?

It is very telling when one goes to the Wikipedia page for the UN Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. The map on the right hand side of the page shows those who have signed on to the Protocol in some degree or another. Yet Guyana (and Suriname) stands out as an obvious exception to the rest of the continent.

I can guarantee you this. As long we have to wait for the political parties of Guyana to decide they are against gender discrimination and are willing to be held accountable to the standards of true gender equality – the women of this country will continue to live in fear.

I do wish someone would answer my question. Why are the political parties not signing the UN Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women? I am waiting for an answer…

Dramatic excerpts from Sukree Boodram’s life

2011-06-08T11:54:00.000-04:00

(Originally published in Guyana’s Kaieteur News on 08 June 2011)

Tomorrow evening at the Pegasus is the World Premiere of Sukree Boodram’s documentary, “Break Out,” which is about her brave and silent struggle to survive domestic abuse and alcoholism amidst strict cultural and religious traditions.

After that, the Break the Silence, Stop the Violence Team will be hosting screenings of the documentary at four other locations throughout the country in the next ten days, and encouraging open dialogue with the attendees. All events are free and everyone is welcome.

As such, I have decided to dedicate this column to excerpts from Sukree’s book by the same name, “Break Out.” The reason for this is two-fold; 1) I want to entice readers to come see the documentary, and 2) I feel Sukree’s experience with domestic violence mirrors that of most victims, and it is my hope that her words can help others who read them.

Sukree grew up in Black Bush Polder in a loving family. From her book’s chapter entitled, “Dreams of All Young Girls,” she said, “Being born last, I felt very sheltered growing up…Nevertheless, I was confident I was not going to end my education with secondary school.”

“At the same time, I wanted to ensure I maintained my traditional values of being a kind, loving, and caring individual. In addition, my cultural expectations of being an obedient daughter and loyal wife were not going to change. I had to preserve these values at all cost.”

Sukree met her future husband in the same area in which she grew up. In the chapter entitled, “The One,” she said, “He came up to me bravely and said, ‘Robbie here,’ as he extended his hand to me. I said to myself, ‘How nice of him, not to mention, how cute.’ I stared into those dark brown eyes and fell in love. I said to myself, ‘This is the one.’ I knew it and I was sure of it. I was only fifteen, but who cares. It was love at first sight.”

Sukree left for the U.S. to continue her college education. After a few years, Robbie joined her and she began planning the wedding while he spent his time drinking with friends. After they married, the drinking continued.

In the chapter entitled, “The Lost Years,” Sukree said, “One night soon after we married, Robbie came home late and drunk, long after I had gone to bed. This was starting to become a routine. I got up and asked him where he was. Out of nowhere, he slapped me with such force on the right side of my head that I flew across the bed.”

“My head went backward, and I hit the iron heater on the other side of the bed against the window…There was blood everywhere. I turned around, and the sheer white window draperies were splattered with a streak of blood. My pink nightgown was drenched with blood.

I’m not sure if you have ever smelled the scent of fresh blood, but it is not a good smell. It is the scent of fear, in my opinion. I was experiencing fear for the first time in my life. I was afraid to utter another word in fear of the consequence.”

In that same chapter, Sukree tells her husband, “Don’t you ever touch me again, as long as you live. Do not ever touch me again. I won’t tell anyone this time, but if it ever happens again, I will ensure this marriage is completely over. Do not make me repeat myself.”

The physical abuse stopped for Sukree after that, but she soon discovered that abusers have many ways to cause harm to their victims. In the chapter entitled, “Nothing Beats Higher Education,” she talks about some of her experiences a few years into the marriage.

She said, “Robbie started to demonstrate more serious anger outbursts. He would get home late and order me to get his dinner, even though it was cooked and on the stove. I started to say no a lot.
This did not sit well at all. He would repeatedly slam his plate full of food on the floor or the wall or the sink when he was drunk and upset. More than once I called the police, and they came out to the house. Robbie told the cops he’d made a mistake and then asked for forgiveness.”

After more agonizing years of abuse, Sukree had come to the end of her rope and wanted a way to escape the torture. In the chapter, “The Longest Ending,” she said, “How long would I run from my pain? I’d learned the hard way that running did nothing. It only buried the pain deeper and deeper and delayed the inevitable. It did nothing to the pain except grow it and nurture it. The pain went with me everywhere I went.”

I could go on with more excerpts from “Break Out,” because I was truly touched by Sukree’s story. Instead, I will stop with the hope that these passages have given the reader a reason to come view the documentary at one of the events we have planned in the next ten days.

Here are the dates, times and locations of the events:
June 9 at the Pegasus in the Savannah Suite, World Premiere of the “Break Out” Documentary, 5:30 – 8:30 p.m.
June 10 at the Life Springs Cathedral, 1 Chateau Margot, ECD, 6:00 – 8:30 p.m.
June 12 at I.M.R.A.R.C., Sahwah, Cane Grove, ECD, 5:00 -8:30 p.m.
June 17 at World Harvest Mission, 34 Gay Park, New Amsterdam, 6:00 – 9:00 p.m.
June 19 at Grace World Harvest Mission, 67 Sera Lodge, Stewartville, WCD, 11:15 a.m. – 1:15 p.m.

For more information on these events, please contact:
Email: StopTheViolenceGY@gmail.com; Kids First Fund @ 623-8505 or 226-5926, I.M.R.A.R.C @ 257-9012, Facebook page: Stop the Violence Against Women In Guyana

A victim’s story about surviving domestic violence

2011-06-05T11:52:00.000-04:00

(Originally published in Guyana’s Kaieteur News on 05 June 2011)

My friend and colleague Sukree Boodram handed me a signed copy of her book, “Break Out: Surviving Abuse and Alcoholism,” in March when it was fresh from the publisher and we were in New York for her book signing. My book from Sukree had a loving inscription inside and came wrapped and in a gift bag.

However, I set this precious gift aside, choosing not to read it until now, because I wanted to write this review to coincide with the World Premiere of her documentary that is set for this coming Thursday (June 9) at the Pegasus.

Sukree, being well aware that not all domestic violence victims are literate, invested even more of her own money and made a documentary that mirrored the feel of her book in hopes of helping still more women to understand that there is a way out of the abuse.

I am so proud of Sukree for breaking the silence about her abusive marriage.

Although I have both read the book and viewed an early copy of the documentary, I am going to write about the book today and hope it peaks the reader’s curiosity to come to the free showings of the documentary that will be playing in various locations throughout the country in the next two weeks.

Sukree’s book is about how she ended up as a victim of domestic violence and what she did to break free of it. The book starts in Black Bush Polder, where she grew up, and follows her life as she marries a young man from her area, migrates to the United States and spends 21 years in a marriage that from the very beginning was marked with abuse.

Sukree provides her readers with great detail of how she felt during those long years of abuse, and she is blatantly honest when she conveys the methods of escapism she used to just to be able to handle the abuse.

There were times when Sukree believed she had lost her own sanity, only to pull herself up once again from the depression and fear. She constantly questioned how she could possibly be in such a situation, given the fact that she was a very successful professional and the primary breadwinner in her family.

One truly senses Sukree’s confusion about the abuse, because she grew up in a very loving home and had never been exposed to such ill-treatment before her marriage. However, what stood out most to me were the innumerable times Sukree told herself she should leave the marriage – for her own safety and mental well-being and that of her children – only to find herself staying yet again.

Over and over again, Sukree would attempt to muster the courage to make the break from the abusive marriage, but would end up reconciling with her abuser for love, or fear of the future, or social expectations that dictate that she not divorce, or even out of pity for the abuser. It took 21 years before she was able to find the necessary resolution to make the final break.

Those 21 years were very hard ones. Sukree writes about how she and her children would walk on egg shells around the house, so as not to set off the abuser and be subject to yet more verbal and emotional abuse. I know this feeling all too well, as this was exactly how I lived each and every day while growing up under my mother’s abuse. It is a terrible way to live a life. It is sheer torture.
Sukree finally broke free. She made the decision that she wanted to live a good life – a happy life – and she removed the abuser from her life by way of divorce.

During the marriage, Sukree’s abuser isolated her from her loving family. This is a common tactic in domestic violence cases. However, she is now free to spend time with her family without fear of reprisal. And in support, many of her family members are coming to Guyana this week for the World Premiere of her documentary on Thursday.

When I saw an early copy of this documentary in March, I knew we had to find a way to bring it to Guyana as soon as possible. It was just finalized recently.

Moreover, the Break the Silence, Stop the Violence Team (consisting of Diane Madray from I.M.R.A.R.C. in Cane Grove, Varshnie Singh of Kids First Fund, Sukree Boodram, the author of Break Out, and myself) will be taking this documentary to several communities throughout the country where we will be holding interactive sessions with those in attendance. Everyone is welcome to these events and all events are free.

I know from first-hand experience that as a victim of domestic violence by my mother I had so many questions. Why did she do it? Will she kill me today? How do I make the hurt go away? Why didn’t anyone stop her? How can I trust others now? How do I allow myself to love again? Did she understand what the abuse did to me?

There are just so many questions and it is our hope that victims of abuse will bring their questions to us during these interactive sessions.

Here are the dates, times and locations of the documentary viewing/interactive sessions:
June 9 at Pegasus Hotel in the Savannah Suite, World Premiere! 5:30-8:30 pm;
June 10 at Life Springs Cathedral, 1 Chateau Margot, ECD, 6-8:30 pm;
June 12 at I.M.R.A.R.C., Sahwah, Cane Grove, EDC, 5-8:30 pm;
June 17 at World Harvest Mission, 34 Gay Park, New Amsterdam, 6-9 pm;
June 19 at Grace World Harvest Mission, 67 Sera Lodge, Stewartville, WCD, 11:15-1:15 pm.

If you need more information about any of the events, just send me an email (at the bottom of all my columns) or call 226-5926, 623-8508 or 664-3741.

Hope to see you at one of these events.

The issue of “stay-at-home” wives

2011-06-03T11:36:00.000-04:00

(Originally published in Guyana’s Kaieteur News on 03 June 2011)

I want to clear up a misunderstanding on how I feel about women who are deemed “stay-at-home” wives or moms. Last week I wrote about what the relatives of the brutally murdered Shewraney Doobay had to say regarding her marriage to Dr. Doobay, and I fear that I was not clear enough on my sentiments about women who – like Mrs. Doobay – care for the home.

As a reminder, the Doobay relatives told Kaieteur News, “‘She was his right hand; she spent all of her days at home while he spent most of his time at work…she did everything for him and he adored her.’
This newspaper was told that the couple had been married for more than 30 years.” I then pointed out that I had a problem with this statement because, “While traditional thought might insist this was a great marriage, for me and many other women, this would be hell on earth.”

This was the whole gist of my column – that there are many women who are no longer happy in the “traditional” role of being a stay-at-home wife.

Several times throughout the column I pondered whether Mrs. Doobay had a choice in being a stay-at-home wife. Among which I said, “I wonder if Mrs. Doobay chose this life for herself. I wonder if she even had a choice or if social expectations and spousal expectations chose this life for her.”

Acknowledging the oft stated choice factor in that column is key in understanding my point on this matter, because I believe that if a woman chooses to stay at home, that is her prerogative.
I have the utmost respect for women who choose to sacrifice a career to rear their children themselves.

In fact, I did the same thing myself and did not go to college until after my youngest had started school. I cannot say that I was always a happy stay-at-home mom. I was not, because I needed an intellectual stimulation that caring for the home did not provide.

But that does not negate the fact that there are many women who find effective ways to stay at home and maintain intellectual stimulation at the same time.

Having said that, I cannot emphasize enough how vital it is that it is the woman’s decision to stay at home. It is not a man’s decision and it is not society’s decision.

This is the crux of the issue I have with whether a woman becomes a stay-at-home wife. I know first-hand how much work caring for a home and children entails, and believe me when I say it is far more work than having a “job” outside of the house.

However, if a woman does not want to be a stay-at-home wife, it should not be forced upon her as if she is a slave without a choice in the matter.

Every person, be it male or female, should have the opportunity to decide for themselves what they want to do with their lives. Women are too often relegated to the home without due consideration of their dreams, their aspirations and their desires. That is just wrong.

In regard to the Doobay column, I had one person ask me about my knowledge concerning East Indian traditions, as if I do not know that East Indian traditions expect women to stay at home. Of course I know. I am married to an East Indian. I have an East Indian mother-in-law, East Indian sisters-in-law, East Indian brothers-in-law, East Indian extended family and many East Indian friends.

I know a lot about East Indian culture (as far as it relates to the Guyanese culture) – and I also know how many East Indian women chafe under the social expectations placed on them and long to break the binds that hold them back from their own aspirations. That is why I am writing these columns about women having a choice in how they live their own lives.

I know full well that these types of columns irritate certain men – regardless of their racial background – because there are still those who believe women to be on a lower stratum than men intellectually, socially, politically, religiously and in every other way. They are wrong. They are so wrong.

In fact, even if a woman chooses to be a stay-at-home wife and then changes her mind later on because she decided it is time to do something else – that, too, is the woman’s decision alone.

Yes, husband and wife should talk about the mechanics of the woman’s decision to find the best way to manage the house, children, chores, etc., but it is the woman who makes the final decision of what she does with her life – just like the man makes his own decisions about his life.

To hold women back from their own dreams and aspirations is to squander human potential, something this world simply cannot afford to do. This is not a matter of women attaining permission to make a choice about their lives, because the same rights and freedoms afforded to men also apply to women. The permission already exists.

What stands in the way of women realizing their own dreams are the traditions that chain women to certain roles, whether they want those roles or not. Humans create traditions and humans can vanquish those traditions.

This is one tradition that is morally bankrupt and socially irresponsible – and should thus be eradicated. Women should make their own choices about their own lives.

It is my hope that Mrs. Doobay did in fact make the choice to stay at home alone and do everything for her husband for 30 years. I would hate to think how she would have felt if it was not her choice.

Is homosexuality an abomination?

2011-06-01T11:31:00.000-04:00

(Originally published in Guyana’s Kaieteur News on 01 June 2011)

Last week I wrote on how homosexuals should be able to choose whom they have sex with (just like anyone else) without feeling adjudged by the rest of society. As expected, I received a couple of responses that steered me back to biblical scripture in an attempt to point out to me the “abomination” of homosexuality.

One person sent me an email that said, “Remember certain things God would forgive easily but certain things he said in an abomination. It is not forgiven that easily. Men sleeping with Men and Women Sleeping with Women are some of the abominables.” [Sic]

This ongoing debate concerning the morality of homosexuality carries the weight of validation for an entire segment of people. It is not as if they require the validation of society to exist, for they will exist regardless. However, if and when society finally accepts them, those who are homosexuals will finally be able to live their lives to the fullest without fear of reprisal for being who they are.

Let’s face it, society has at countless points in history sought to rid itself of varying segments of the population that it feared would change the status quo.

These offensive segments typically reflected factors such as race, gender, intellectual capability, financial status, physical health, mental health and political ideologies, etc. This list could go on forever.

Sexual preference continues to be at the forefront of the “get rid of them because they are different” battle, simply because there are so few who wish to accept the fact that a person’s sexuality is as ingrained as a person’s race or gender.

However, even if – for the sake of argument – homosexuals choose to have same sex relationships, society has no right to stand in their way. If society affords a person the right to choose what house to buy, what car to drive and what clothes to wear, then surely people should also have the right to choose the gender with whom they want to have sex.

Moreover, we all know very well that a heterosexual person can choose whom to have sex with.
A heterosexual can choose to have sex with several separate people in one day if she/he so chooses and society will have nary a word to say in resistance, so long as that person is being responsible by practicing safe and consensual sex.

So why must those who practice safe and consensual homosexual sex be constantly chided by society for their lifestyle?

Do they not have the same right to have sex with whomever they want as the heterosexual? Oh, I know that many of those who fight against the homosexual lifestyle are religious and use their holy books to make this segment of humans feel like social outcasts.

For example, the Bible says in Leviticus 18:22 that it is an abomination for a man to lie with another man as with a woman. If a Christian wants to accept this as law, so be it, but give some thought to this. A few verses later Leviticus 19:19, the Bible also says “Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.” I need not say how many people wear clothes of varying material nowadays.

Likewise, in Exodus 35:2, the Bible says, “For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.”
Why do I not see the letter pages of the newspapers marking a movement against working on the Sabbath? Obviously, this is so offensive to God that death is mandated for anyone who does not observe the Sabbath.

In Exodus 21:7, a man can sell his daughter. Does that mean the Bible condones the trafficking of humans? In Deuteronomy 22:9, we are informed that a crop will be defiled if two different kinds of seeds are planted in the same field. Defiled? Should we be eating defiled food?

I am not attempting to malign these Scriptures in any way, it is simply my desire to point out that many of these ancient customs are no longer practiced. However, even if a Christian wanted to insist that the New Testament is the guideline for contemporary living, in those scriptures we find further luminosity to the hypocrisy used when singling out homosexuality.

For example, the scripture used by Christians to judge homosexuals so harshly in the 21st century is 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.

It says, “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

It seems to me that if Christians are going to be so publicly adamant about the homosexual lifestyle being wrong, there should also be a public outcry against all who are sexually immoral (having sex outside of marriage), adulterers, male prostitution (I guess female prostitution is okay), thieves, the greedy, drunkards (no rum?), slanderers and swindlers.

I guess that just about covers us all.

Christians just let the adulterers, drunks and swindlers live their lives without direct interference. Homosexuality is no worse a “sin” than adultery or stealing (according to the Bible, not to me), so why the hostility against this segment of the population?

I have a great idea. Why don’t we focus on the adulterers for a while since adultery has a direct impact on families? Or focus on thievery since so many people are being impacted by robbers nowadays?

Jesus said that the person without sin should cast the first stone (I carefully lay my stone down and walk away). Who among us do not fall into one of the other categories listed with “homosexual offenders”?

If you have been guilty of any of the sins listed, then you should also put your stone down and walk away, because you have no moral high ground by which to judge.

Serving alcohol at Feminition is like asking a woman to kiss a cutlass

2011-05-27T11:28:00.000-04:00

(Originally published in Guyana’s Kaieteur News on 27 May 2011)

There has been debate amongst highly regarded women’s advocates concerning the Feminition Expo that will still be in full swing as most people read this column.

There are two main points at hand: the first point is whether Feminition should be serving alcohol and the second is whether the money spent on the Expo could have been better used in other ways to help women.

I will address the issue with alcohol first by saying that I fully agree with Vidyaratha Kissoon (Stabroek News, May 25 Letter to the Editor), S. Nageer (Kaieteur News, May 27 Letter to the Editor) and Andaiye (Stabroek News, May 27 Letter to the Editor) on this topic.

In fact, my colleagues and I in the “Break the Silence” group recently had the same conversation as Minister Priya Manickchand said she and her team had about whether to serve alcohol at an upcoming event. We decided against it.

We chose not to serve alcohol because of the message of duplicity it would send as we talked with our attendees about the role alcohol plays in domestic violence in Guyana. Although our group primarily focuses on bringing awareness to the issue of domestic violence, we have helped enough women to know that alcohol does indeed play a part in the ongoing violence toward women.

In fact, one of our own colleagues, Sukree Boodram, has just released a book about her own experience of being married to an abusive alcoholic. I just finished the book this week and I can say without a doubt that having followed her tormented married life, the link between domestic violence and alcohol does, in fact, exist.

Manickchand released a statement saying, “In our team’s discussion on whether alcohol should be available at the event, the team, mostly comprising women, was of the firm view that our participants, exhibitors as well as patrons, who we expect to be mostly women, are very capable of using alcoholic products in a responsible manner.”

I can understand this point of view. However, it is my opinion that concerning the presence of alcohol at the Expo it does not matter that I can drink alcohol responsibly. What matters is the degree to which alcohol has contributed to the still ongoing slaughter of women in Guyana. There is no statistical data available on this matter, but as it can be seen from the NGOs who work closely with abuse victims (i.e., those who wrote the aforementioned letters to the Editors), there is no doubt in their minds as to whether there is a connection between alcohol and abusive behaviour.

Furthermore, according to the October 1997 National Institute of Justice Research Preview published by the U.S. Department of Justice, “Victims and family members reported that 92 percent of assailants used drugs or alcohol during the day of the assault.” To make matters worse, there are abuse victims who then turn to alcohol to numb the emotional and physical pain of the abuse.

It is not as if I do not understand the desire by Manickchand and her team to create a celebratory tone for this event. In fact, unlike the letter writers, I do support the concept of this Expo to highlight the accomplishments of women. I believe it to be money well spent. Building self-esteem in women is a necessary component to give them the courage to discover a way to escape their abusive situations and build a good life for themselves.

That is the stated focus of this Expo, to highlight women and their accomplishments. I know there are some who feel like this event is just another political ploy to garner votes for the incumbent government. This may well be the case, I do not know. But in my opinion, as long as women are helped in the process, I will support the endeavour.

Having said that, Manickchand is also fighting a war against domestic violence and by allowing alcohol at this event, it gives the appearance that she sanctions one of the contributing factors to domestic violence.

It is a great idea to celebrate women and if I were in Guyana this weekend, I would have attended Feminition to show my support. Conversely, there were three women brutally attacked this past week – two of whom died – and we cannot simply turn a blind eye to those deaths and the role of Manickchand’s Ministry to help prevent more deaths.

I have attended women’s expos in the U.S. and I have always left feeling empowered and proud to be a woman. And yes, there is often (not always) alcohol at these events. However, Guyana is different, in that with a population of only 750,000 it is unconscionable that so many women are constantly brutalized, tormented and murdered.

As such, it is right for women’s advocates to question the prudence of serving alcohol at an event to celebrate women when alcohol could very well play a role in their brutal death one day. Look at it this way, how many cutlasses will be at the expo? How many crazed, jealous-fuelled husbands? I bet none.

Yet if you have a crazed, jealous-fuelled husband with a cutlass who has been drinking all night, the outcome could very well mean death for the wife. Yes, alcohol most certainly plays a significant part in domestic violence, and to say otherwise is to show ignorance of what is really going on every single day in Guyana.

In other words, let’s do get together and celebrate women. Let’s sing and dance. Let’s praise feminine accomplishments. Let’s enjoy the creativity of the fashion designers. Let’s support the female entrepreneurs by purchasing their goods. Let’s encourage each other to be healthy. Let’s give due regard to the wise women all around us. But let’s do all of this with a strong heart and a sober mind.
Refrain from the alcohol facet inserted into this celebration. By doing otherwise is the same as kissing a cutlass.

She did everything for him

2011-05-27T11:11:00.000-04:00

(Originally published in Guyana’s Kaieteur News on 27 May 2011)

This week has been yet another bloody one for the women of Guyana – and it is not even over yet. The violence and murders continue and the brutality escalates. One woman was slashed with a knife (luckily, she survived), another had her head bashed in and yet another was chopped to death with a cutlass – all in a matter of days.

There are witnesses to prove that two of the three attacks were carried out by the husbands. However, as yet there is no proof that Sharanie Doobay’s husband had anything to do with her brutal murder. As such, we will assume he is innocent until proven guilty.

Yet as I was reading the May 25 Kaieteur News report on the murder entitled, “Doctor’s wife found dead in pool of blood,” there was something that struck me. Here is what the article said, “Relatives also dispelled any suggestions that the woman and her husband had any problems…‘She was his right hand; she spent all of her days at home while he spent most of his time at work…she did everything for him and he adored her.’ This newspaper was told that the couple had been married for more than 30 years.”

Although the “relatives” did not see any problems, I see a big problem. In fact, I have a problem with that entire statement. The wife stayed at home all the time, the husband was at work all the time and she did everything for him – for more than 30 years.

While traditional thought might insist this was a great marriage, for me and many other women, this would be hell on earth. I did not know Mrs. Doobay, so I cannot say whether she stayed home by choice or because she did not have a choice in the matter – as is the case in too many relationships.

Moreover, think about this part of the statement made by the relatives, “she did everything for him and he adored her.” So what happened if she failed to do everything for him? Would he not adore her? What if she did not cook the meal to his liking? Or what if the house was not clean when he came home? I truly loathe the lowly state to which women are relegated by society.

Perhaps the Doobays had a happy marriage, I cannot say since I did not know them. I do know that staying home and taking care of a man for 30 years is not my idea of being happy. Being consigned to little more than slave status is not what I would choose for my life goal.

I wonder if Mrs. Doobay chose this life for herself. I wonder if she even had a choice or if social expectations and spousal expectations chose this life for her. Additionally, if she did in fact spend all of her time at home and her husband spent all of his time at work, it sounds like she had a very lonely life.

However, let’s say the Doobays were happy. Let’s say Mrs. Doobay was fine with doing “everything for him” and being at home by herself all the time, why on earth would someone want to brutally murder a quiet, submissive housewife? There were no signs of robbery and the house was so secure that even the husband had a difficult time getting into it when she did not answer the door. Those on the scene after the discovery of the body said “it must have been someone close to her who killed her since she was not a person who would open her door to strangers.” Moreover, they said she had no problems with anyone.

Another strange piece of the puzzle is the fact that although all of their neighbours had security guards, the Doobays did not. I’d be interested in knowing if this is a new development or if they have not had security guards all along. Yes, there are too many curious particulars in this case.

As if a brutal murder is not already horrible enough, we all know that it is highly unlikely that Mrs. Doobay’s soul will ever see justice. She will become yet one more statistic in Guyana’s ever growing list of murdered women.

Without justice, the disregard and disrespect demonstrated to Guyana’s women in life is carried on in their deaths. The violence against women situation is not getting better. The fix to this problem has yet to be discovered and the longer it takes to find a way to stop these murders, the more women will die.

This weekend is the much touted Feminition Expo hosted by the Ministry of Human Services for women. The attacks and deaths of these women this week seems to be a clear indication of how the men of Guyana feel about empowering the women.

Be sure of this, for every attack and death we see in the newspapers, there are many more women being brutalized and tormented, about whom we do not hear. I am so tired of hearing calls for action. I am ready to see the action.

I am ready to see abusers locked up to protect the women – even if the women beg for the release of their abuser. I am ready for the police to take an abused woman’s cries for help seriously and protect her from becoming the next murder victim. I am ready to see an end to the acceptance of the bribes and payoffs that undermine justice and give abusers the license to abuse again. I am ready to see women care more about their safety and the safety of their children than they care about their abuser and the fact that neighbours will talk if they leave an abusive relationship.

I am ready to see neighbours stand up and help women who are being verbally, emotionally and physically abused. Guyana’s female population has plunged in the last decade and the next decade is looking very grim. Yet my hope is failing me still.

The morality police are watching

2011-05-25T11:06:00.000-04:00

(Originally published in Guyana’s Kaieteur News on 25 May 2011)

I am often disappointed, and at times even offended, at the way homosexuals are viewed. Those who interact with me throughout the day will customarily refrain from their usual sexist verbiage so as not to offend my sensitivities on this topic.

However, I am also quite offended by homophobic speech because as a woman I understand all too well the plight of a group of people that is besmirched and degraded simply because of how they were born. This is not an easy life.

For example, imagine that you have decided to have sex with someone. Whether you are in love with this person or not is not the issue. Neither is whether you want to pursue a relationship with this person. The only issue is that you are going to have mutually consenting sex with a person of your choosing.

In Guyana, this choice could get you arrested if you are a man and the person with whom you choose to have sex is also a man. The enforcers of the law would not care if both people involved were mutually consenting adults. They would not care if the two were Christian, Hindu or Muslim. Nor would they care about the race of the “offenders.” The only thing that would matter to those with badges is that both people involved were men.

This type of despicable incident could take place in Guyana today, since laws against sodomy are still in the law books. In fact, unless the standing laws of the country change to be more tolerant of sexual preference, it seems the logical outcome could one day see paranoid heterosexuals narking on their homosexual neighbours to “clean up the neighbourhood.”

The privacy of gay couples could be torn asunder by the scrutinizing eyes of disapproving moralisers. The civil rights of these homosexual Guyanese could be at stake because of ignorance and fear. Sometimes when I think the human race is progressing along at breakneck speed, all I have to do is think about this kind of backward behaviour to be reminded of how far we still have to go.

Although I am a white woman, I have never been attracted to white men. As such, it would infuriate me to have someone deem me “immoral” simply because I do not find white men attractive. However, our world is such that there was a time not so long ago when a white woman could have been killed for having sex with a man who was not her same race.

So what about women who do not find any men attractive or men who do not find women attractive? In my opinion, they should be allowed to pursue whomever they do find attractive – even if is their same gender.

Humans can be slow to accept change, even if we claim to be open-minded and ready to learn the ways of other cultures. This is especially true when it involves our religious beliefs. However, the question of gay sex morality is not even the point when it comes to these standing laws.

Rather, this is a question of whether civil rights apply to all Guyanese or just the ones who comply with traditional, conservative religious values. Should those who practice one of the mainstream religions be afforded a higher status as a citizen simply because they choose to align themselves to traditional values?

What of those in society who choose to reject those traditional values and seek to be the master of their own values and goals? Typically, as long as these individuals do not infringe on society’s established rules, they are given the freedom to pursue their own way of life.

It is when these non-conformists begin stepping on the toes of the traditionalists that things start to get messy. Homosexuality has been one of those areas that society as a whole has been far more resistant in doling out tolerance. However, society should not have the right to define the parameters of its citizens’ sexual preferences.

What is done in a person’s bedroom should be honoured with privacy, regardless of sexual orientation. If those rights are subject to infringement at the whim of a person who frowns on a homosexual lifestyle, then we should expect the same of other “moral” issues as well.

Will drinking and dancing be next on the list since there are many religions that frown on these activities too? Legislation such as the sodomy laws were passed in ignorance and intolerance, just like laws in several states in America that banned inter-racial marriage.

However, the fact that such laws remain is an affront to people who want to step outside of the simple construct of religious morality. It is high time to step out of the dark ages and recognise that all forms of diversity make us beautiful – not evil.

When we stop insisting that everyone must look and act like a certain group, we will finally be able to enjoy the beauty of our diversity, instead of feeling like we are being forced into a mould made for someone else.

Women must vote if they want to see change

2011-05-22T11:04:00.000-04:00

(Originally published in Guyana’s Kaieteur News on 22 May 2011)

In a world where the female population often outnumbers the male population, it is an immense travesty of the human race that “men rule the world.” In Guyana, where the female population has taken a nose dive in the last decade, the aforementioned travesty becomes a crime against women.

It is my opinion that as long as men alone roam the corridors of power, women will continue to live their lives as second rate citizens, as beating posts for the men and as the lower wage earners.

There are umpteen other demeaning and degrading roles that women are forced to play to entertain men and to feed the male ego, all of which relegate women to a subservient status. It is a disgrace. It is unjust. And it is because women do not vote.

For far too long, women had no voice in the home, in religion or in the matters of politics. The very fact that I am writing this column is proof that this is no longer the case. However, though women may have the opportunity to have a voice, it does us no good at all if we do not use that voice.

It is not good enough just to know that if we wanted to speak up, we could. We must speak up if we desire genuine change for our gender. We shake our heads when the neighbour beats his wife. We want to do something, but we are afraid of the same beating. We must vote if we want to see change.

We know very well that the man who was hired to do the same job is being paid more just because he is a man, but if we demand equal wage we could lose our job. We must vote if we want to see change.
We bear the progeny of the human race and are denied maternity leave because it is a man who runs the company and a man who made the laws and a man who enforces the law. We must vote if we want to see change.

Our daughters are raped by men who care little about the psychological and physical impact it will have on the girl – sometimes these men are even related to the girl. Then they want to pay the girl off, as if she were a prostitute instead of an innocent soul. We must vote if we want to see change.

The religions of this world are run by men. The finances of this world are run by men. The businesses of this world are run by men. The courts of this world are run by men. The legislative bodies of this world are run by men. The countries of this world are run by men. We must vote if we want to see change.

Where does this leave women? Take a good look around and see. Look at your mother, your sister, your neighbour, your co-worker. Is she valued by her spouse, her boss, the police, the judge, the minister of government or the president of the country? We all know very well that too often she is not. We must vote if we want to see change.

To accept this bleak situation as our future is the same as bowing in submission to the male rulers who want to keep us subservient. Not all men fit this role, but it is obvious that if the male rulers of this world were looking out for the best interest of women that life would be far better for us than it is right now.

If we want to change our situation, it is vital to vote. Do your research and vote for the candidate who best represents women and the issues most vital to us. If a candidate has not taken a public stance on women’s issues, it means that candidate has no regard for the topic. Do not vote for such a candidate.

Register to vote, ladies. Take your sister, mother, grandma, aunties and all your girlfriends with you when you register. And vote. When you do vote, do not vote based on race. Do not vote for a candidate because she/he is in the party your parents and grandparents supported.

Do not vote based on the fear-mongering tactics of politicians. Don’t play into their twisted game. Don’t let them mess with your head. Be smarter than that. Vote for the candidate who is going to best represent you as a woman in Guyana.

Find the energy you need to take a stand for yourself in this election season. Do not allow apathy to decide the future for Guyana’s women. The women of Guyana should decide their own future and it starts by voting.

When rats take over

2011-05-20T11:01:00.000-04:00

(Originally published in Guyana’s Kaieteur News on 20 May 2011)

Let’s be honest, it is time to address the rat problem. With trash piling up in mounds all over Georgetown, can we expect anything less than for them to start taking over and trying to get rid of the rest of us?

One rat decided to shut down the electricity and make life miserable for a lot of people this past Wednesday.

I have never heard of a rat shutting down an entire city before, but hey, this one did. It is becoming more and more obvious, these rats mean business.

Therefore, I maintain it is time that we know exactly what we are up against with these rats who want to take over. Rats come in many shapes and sizes.

For example, there is the rodent type, like the one that took out GPL this week. There are also the human rats.

We have all met human rats in our lives – they are those squirrelly people with beady eyes just waiting for the right minute when our backs are turned to nibble away at our precious goods.

Yes, it is most certainly time to learn more about rats and how to protect ourselves from them. I have done some research on the behaviour of rats to be better informed on the matter and I am more than willing to share this research with my readers.

This information could come in handy when dealing with these rats that want to take over. I will not list all of the rat behaviour research I found, but if you are dealing with a rat, you can find more information on ratbehavior.org.

Why do rats hiss? “Hissing is usually a sign of distress and is given at times of stress. For example, a rat may hiss during a tense social interaction with another rat.”

In other words, if you make a rat mad, that rat may react by hissing at you. Be careful.

Why do adult rats chase each other, box, sidle, roll on their backs and squeak? When rats reach social maturity, male rats in particular, they “start to behave more aggressively toward each other.

They shift from harmless play fighting into more serious adult fighting. The consistent winner of such interactions imposes himself on the other members of the colony. Humans describe this as “becoming socially dominant.” Once a dominance hierarchy is established, it may remain stable for a long period of time.

Adult fighting involves contact and defense of the rump. If a rat manages to contact an opponent’s rump, he may try to nip or bite it. A rat tries to hide his rump from attack by running away.
He may also stand and face the aggressor and maintain whisker-to-whisker contact with him (called boxing), or by laying on the back to hide his rump.

As long as a rat keeps distance, or his whiskers, teeth or body between the attacker and his own rump, he has a higher chance of preventing an attack.

To counter the defensive boxing strategy, the attacker may drop to all fours and sidle forwards, and thus reach around and inflict a bite from the side. To counter the belly-up strategy, the attacker may lay perpendicularly on top of the supine rat and try to dig under him to gain access to the rump.”

This explains so much about the rats I have known in my life. It is obviously a good idea to know as much as possible about rat behaviour since we never know when we will have to deal with a rat. Here is another piece of important information.

Why do rats pee on each other? Rats mark each other to some extent. “For example, juveniles mark adults, females mark males, males mark females, dominant males mark subordinates and subordinates mark dominants and each other.

The copious urine marking by dominant males of subordinate rats is probably a feature of his dominance, rather than a cause of dominant status. Through fighting and other behavioral strategies, the dominant rat has won the ability to impose himself on others.

The dominant male can therefore crawl over everyone else and urine mark them with relative impunity. Subordinates cannot crawl over the dominant rat as frequently, but when they do manage to do so they deposit lots of urine on him.

Therefore, frequent urine marking of another rat is contingent on the ability to crawl over him. The ability to crawl over another rat depends on the rat’s status, and the rat’s status depends on the outcome of past aggressive interactions.

Copious and frequent urine marking by the dominant male of other rats is therefore not a cause of his dominance, but an indicator or a consequence of his dominant status.”

I am so glad I took the time to learn more about rat behaviour. It has certainly been enlightening. However, though they may sometimes be deceptively cute, do not be fooled, rats are dangerous and this rat problem should be taken very seriously. Rats are a hazard to your home and your health.

How does one go about getting rid of rats? Since it is vital that you do not give shelter to rats, first, and most important, block the rat’s access to your home. I am of the opinion that the best way to keep a rat out of your life is not to give any access in the first place.

This has always been the best course of action for me and has worked effectively for years. Do whatever is necessary to rid yourself of the rat. It is just too dangerous to let it linger in your home. If all else fails, adopt yourself a cat. I’m not sure why, but I have found that, in general, rats avoid me like the plague. Smart rats.

One woman’s struggle for a safe life

2011-05-18T10:57:00.000-04:00

(Originally published in Guyana’s Kaieteur News on 18 May 2011)
Last year in March, a young mother was chopped to death by her reputed husband and father of her children. As she was being attacked, her mother stepped in to try and keep her daughter alive and in the process was also chopped on both arms.

The mother, whom we shall call “Donna” to protect her from further harm, survived the attack. The perpetrator of this violent act then ran away leaving his two children without a mother or father. A murder charge was filed against him and a judge issued an arrest warrant.

At first, it is believed this man was hiding in the community, but he eventually left for a neighbouring country to dodge the law. However, he recently turned up again in the same community where he killed his wife and attacked his mother-in-law.

“Donna,” the mother-in-law, feared for her life, but decided to do the brave thing and tell the police that the perpetrator had returned. She first went to the local police station to make the report. However, she was sent to another police station. She went to that station, but they did not take a formal statement, just a verbal acknowledgment of what she said.

After a few days of the man remaining free, my colleague in women’s advocacy work, Dianne Madray, called the local commander and asked why the perpetrator had not yet been picked up. Heated words were exchanged between the two and the conversation did not end on a good note.

Feelings of frustration were mounting with each day this man remained free as Donna and her grandchildren feared for their lives. In fact, the reason I am not giving the details of the case is because of this fear. Donna feels the man, or his relatives or even those who are in cahoots with him will cause her harm for speaking out.

Moreover, many of the law enforcement officials with whom Donna spoke acted as if they did not know the case to which she referred, even though it had received a great deal of media coverage. She was also told that the law enforcement officials needed more information. This all combined to cause even further frustration. However, she was not deterred. She wanted justice for her daughter.

Donna then went to the Ministry of Human Services in Georgetown and spoke with a helpful Probation Officer [PO] who not only referred her to a specific PO in her local area, but also made an appointment for her to meet the other PO the next day. So she travelled back to her village.

She spoke with the PO in her area and they made plans to meet at the police station at a certain time. So Donna went to the police station at the predetermined time and waited, but the PO never showed. Donna felt as if she was running out of options.

Dianne Madray then contacted Khemraj Ramjattan for his assistance. Ramjattan spoke to a secretary at the Ministry of Home Affairs, but that did not really go anywhere. Therefore, since he was going to be in Donna’s area, he visited the police station.

Ramjattan was informed by the police officers that they could not find the perpetrator. Donna had provided the police with the perpetrator’s address, directions to the address, his photo and anything else they said they needed, but even after all of this and a great amount of effort on her part, the man still walked around her village as a free man. And Donna remained in fear.

The girl, Donna’s granddaughter, remains in fear, too. She is depressed and crying all the time. She asked if her father was coming back with a cutlass. She wants her grandmother to come back to the village, but Donna must try to do what she can to make her life and the lives of her grandchildren safe again. Otherwise, they will continue to live in fear.

I finally decided to contact the Minister of Human Services, Priya Manickchand, to see if she could help Donna feel safe again. I wrote an email detailing Donna’s past week full of attempts to find justice for her daughter’s murder. Within minutes, I got a response saying she was looking into the situation and within an hour, I was informed on the current status of the case.

The Minister said, “The alleged perpetrator has an outstanding charge of murder against him. The police have indeed received information that he is back and was spotted even after some disguising measures in public transportation. He apparently exited that transportation in [a certain village] and hasn’t been seen since. I am assured that the police are presently conducting surveillance on places he may visit given their profile of him.”

As I read this email response to Donna, I watched as she broke down in tears from the stress of it all, as well as from the pain she still bears from the injuries she received on that fateful day. The injuries still have not completely healed and the pain makes her already complicated life even more difficult.

This is one woman’s struggle with fear. It is also the struggle of many domestic violence victims in Guyana as they fight to live a safe and happy life – a life free from violence and abuse. It is not an easy struggle, as is clearly evident from Donna’s story. In fact, most victims would have given up after the first visit to the police station.

It should not be this difficult to find justice or to live a safe life. Donna should not have to go to such great lengths to find safety for herself and her grandchildren. It is my assertion that there must be a better way to protect Guyana’s women. There must be!

Why the reservation to name names?

2011-05-15T10:48:00.000-04:00

(Originally published in Guyana’s Kaieteur News on 15 May 2011)

There are times when in writing this column I have had an exchange of words with my editors concerning the naming of names concerning perpetrators of crimes. I have to admit that I do not understand the concept of protecting criminals, but that seems to be the norm in Guyanese journalism.

I was taught that anything that was a matter of public record could and should be included in the news to keep the public informed. The only times when there is an exception made to this rule is to protect victims (particularly in the case of sexual aggression) or a child under the age of 18. All other information belongs to the public.

For example, I wrote a column on December 08, 2010, about a Chief Medical Officer accused of domestic violence against his wife. The incident was a matter of public record as the police were involved in the report, but the man’s name was taken out of my column.

I respect my editors’ opinion on this issue, although I do not agree with the premise that everyone already knows the identity of the perpetrators. I also feel the public has a right to know the full story – not the edited one.

Another instance of not naming names is when a businessman who held a birthday party in December at Buddy’s Night Club and decided around 5AM to set off fireworks. The businessman’s name was not published by one newspaper in this country.

Even for smaller matters, names are not published, like last month when a teacher at a secondary school in Region Two (Pomeroon/Supenaam) was sanctioned by his headmistress for comments he posted on his Facebook wall. Why on earth would the name not be published?

I do not support the view that criminals should be protected from the media spotlight. In fact, I wholly maintain that this information should and must be made public.

I have long watched with frustration to see both Stabroek News and my own Kaieteur News, remove the most vital information – the names of the criminals – from their reports.

Even when it comes to providing the names of government officials and public workers who have “misbehaved,” like when they hit a person on the road, their name is withheld. If such a thing happened in the US, Canada, etc., the entire nation would know the full story within a matter of minutes.
At first I thought this omission of names applied only to those whom some call the “untouchables.” And though I am sure it applies to this group in greater measure, it also applies to the rest of society as well – as is evident by the story about the teacher who posted comments on Facebook.
Therefore, one must assume this is a policy.

However, I could agree with not publishing the name of the teacher because it is a minor issue that had been lightly punished.

I cannot agree with the withholding of names of individuals who are high officials and have committed a crime. Nor can I agree that the media should protect a businessman who has broken the law.

I question this policy as I see it as a detriment to journalism in Guyana. There have been journalistic debates on whether to name the names of rape victims and minors, but it has long been an acceptable practice to name criminals and to keep the public fully informed of the actions concerning their public officials.

What is the reason for shielding those who break the law? Consider this; could it be that such protection of criminals by the media is one of the reasons criminals feel the freedom to do as they wish? I do believe this to be the case in part.

Of course, criminals must answer to the law for their unlawful acts, but if the local media does not publish their names, they do not have to answer to the community. Moreover, the community does not know of the crimes committed by these law-breakers – because the media did not publish names – and that makes the community vulnerable to the criminals’ next crime.

It is not law enforcement’s job to inform the community of such things. It is the job of the journalist. When we do not provide the full information regarding crimes, like the names of who committed the crime, we do a great disservice to those who consume our news – whether through newspaper or television.

It seems that everything is turned around in this situation. We are protecting the criminals and leaving the community exposed to harm when we should be protecting the community and exposing the criminals.

Amerindians provide land for Amaila Falls, but get no electricity in return

2011-05-13T10:45:00.000-04:00

(Originally published in Guyana’s Kaieteur News on 13 May 2011)

I attended the community meeting hosted by Sithe Global on the Amaila Falls Hydropower Project at the Tower Hotel on Wednesday night and was disappointed to find it was not the “town hall” structure I had expected, but more of an expo of project. It felt more like a launching than a place to “have your say,” as billed by their ad for the meeting.

I attended the meeting to get a better understanding of the project and I left with just that. Although the atmosphere was not what I expected, I did indeed have most of my questions answered, not all to my satisfaction, but an answer was attempted.

However, as I left I felt very disturbed about a piece of information I discovered during my visit. It seems that although there are several Amerindian villages throughout the nation that will be impacted by this project, none of them will reap the advantages of the electricity once it is finished. Not one village.

I did not know this information before. I did not know a lot before I attended the meeting, which is why I went in the first place – to educate myself on the project. Still, I am troubled by the omission of the Amerindian villages in their rightful share of the coming electricity from the hydropower project.

It is their rightful share, firstly because they are also citizens of Guyana and should get to enjoy the same electricity that everyone else will enjoy, but secondly because they will sacrifice more than any other citizen group to make sure this project becomes a reality.

It seems the government considered it cost prohibitive to build substations that would be needed to bring electricity to each of the villages, even though these villages are sacrificing their own land and resources so the rest of the nation can have electricity from the project. In fact, in some cases their way of life will be changed dramatically.

Yet with all of this sacrifice for Guyana to have clean and economical electricity, the Amerindian communities are being given solar panels instead of hydropower electricity. I asked if it was possible to build smaller sub-stations (as opposed to the two larger ones being built for larger communities) that would suit the needs of the villages and was told that a smaller sub-station would cost nearly as much as the larger ones.

I still cannot help but feel that the nation’s first inhabitants are once again getting the short end of the stick. It seems the Amerindians will make all of the sacrifices and the rest of the nation benefits, but they get nothing.

Okay, they get some solar panels. The government has said it will give them solar panels instead – which equates to a patronising pat on the back.

Although some solar panels are still working satisfactorily 40 years after installation, the conventional view is that most will dip below 80 percent of their rated capacity within about 20 years. This will vary slightly between manufacturers and between different types of silicon.

Let us assume the government has found some supersonic solar panels that will still be working at 75 percent of their rated capacity for the next 40 years (because we know they will provide the best that money can buy, right?), what happens at the end of those 40 years?

Are the Amerindians then in the dark once again while the rest of the nation continues to enjoy the benefits of the Amaila Hydropower Project built on Amerindian sacred land?

Will the government continue to provide solar panels to the Amerindian villages for the duration that an operational Amaila Falls Hydropower Plant exists? That seems only right. Actually, what seems right is that the Amerindian villages also enjoy the same hydropower electricity benefits as the rest of the nation.

I cannot help but feel this action – to deny Amerindian villages hydropower electricity while they provide the land so the rest of the nation can have it – will be viewed by history as yet another way the indigenous people of the nation were exploited for the progress of the rest.

And will anyone care? Will anyone stand up and fight so that the Amerindians benefit from the same hydropower electricity as the rest of the nation? Or will history repeat itself once again and find that as long as progress continues, the exploitation of one group of people is ignored?

It is funny how humans can justify the abuse, manipulation and exploitation of an entire population when it suits the needs of the majority. On second thought, it is not funny. Not funny at all.

I bet doomsday will not come on May 21

2011-05-11T10:19:00.000-04:00

(Originally published in Guyana’s Kaieteur News on 11 May 2011)

I have often wondered with amusement about how many times in my short lifetime of 42 years that someone has prophesied that the end of the world would come on a specific date. It has happened many times – and each time the specified day comes and goes and nothing happens.

I remember when Ronald Reagan was elected president of the United States and there were some who preached that he was the anti-christ because his first, middle and last name all contained six letters – 666! Egads! I was 12 years old at the time and the whole fiasco was more than a bit scary.

There have been several judgment-day close calls for us humans in our past, yet we have somehow found the ability to remain unscathed by all of the doomsdays that have come and gone. I am not sure if it is our doomsday prowess that has saved us thus far, but we have obviously escaped the end of the world to this point.

The latest prophecy, which maintains that the end of the world will come on May 21 at exactly 6pm (sunset in Jerusalem) has preachers going all over the world to save us from judgment. I even saw some billboards on the Texas highway during a 15-hour drive last Saturday. Will the human race be able to escape this doomsday as well?

A Kaieteur News article on May 6 entitled, “Group preaches May 21 doomsday to Berbicians,” detailed the warnings of this group telling those in Berbice of the impending doom. The article said, “…the May 21 Judgment Day message they preach, originated from careful analysis and study of the Bible by General Manager and President of Family Radio, Harold Camping.”

In 1992, Camping predicted the end of the world would be in 1994. Humanity obviously escaped that time. Hopefully we can do the same again on the 21st of this month. I am willing to wager a bet that come May 22, humans will have found a way to escape one more doomsday.

Unfortunately, Harold Camping is not the only one who likes to make doomsday predictions. Concerning Christians, Jesus was the first one to talk about the end of the world. In fact, in Matthew 24 he even predicted the end times would be in the year 1 AD.

This same Bible chapter Christians use to derive the signs of the end times such as “ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars,” and “nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in diverse places,” and the teaching of the “great tribulation,” and the teaching of the rapture – “he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other,” also states, “Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.”

These statements were made by Jesus in response to verse three, “And as he sat upon the Mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? And what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?”

His disciples asked two questions of him – what will be the sign of his coming and of the end of the world. Jesus answered both questions when he told them what signs they could look for and that their generation would not pass away until all of the signs were fulfilled.

Doomsday prophecies continue. On the Website, www.bible.ca/pre-date-setters, there are over 200 “end time” prophecies that have been recorded. Here are just a few of those:

- (53 AD) In the year 53 AD, even before all the books of the Bible were written, there was talk that Christ’s return had already taken place. The Thessalonians panicked on Paul, when they heard a rumor that the day of the Lord was at hand, and they had missed the rapture.

- (500) A Roman priest and theologian in the second and third centuries, predicted Christ would return in A.D. 500, based on the dimensions of Noah’s ark.

- (1000) The year 1000 AD goes down as one of the most pronounced states of hysteria over the return of Christ. All members of society seemed affected by the prediction that Jesus was coming back on Jan 1, 1000 AD. There really weren’t any of the events required by the Bible transpiring at that time. The magical number 1000 was primarily the sole reason for the expectation. During December 999 AD, everyone was on their best behavior; worldly goods were sold and given to the poor, swarms of pilgrims headed east to meet the Lord at Jerusalem, buildings went unrepaired, crops were left unplanted, and criminals were set free from jails. The year 999 AD turned into 1000 AD and nothing happened.

- (1988) The book “88 Reasons Why the Rapture is in 1988” came out only a few months before the event was to take place.

- (1989) After the passing of the deadline in 88 Reason’s, the author, Edgar Whisenaunt, came out with a new book called “89 Reasons why the Rapture is in 1989.” This book sold only a fraction of his prior release.

- (2000) Numerology: If you divide 2000 by 3, you will get the devil’s number 666.66666666666667.
There are so many more of these predictions that I could not have listed them all if I tried, but the good news is that humans have survived all doomsdays up until now and let us hope we can survive the one on the 21st of this month, too.

There is one thing I know for sure, if judgment day does come on the 21st, I had better be counted with the saints because I behave far more “Christian” than 98 percent of the Christians I have known in my entire life.

Denying maternity leave is discrimination against women

2011-05-08T10:12:00.000-04:00

(Originally published in Guyana’s Kaieteur News on 08 May 2011)

Today is Mother’s Day in the U.S. and my readers know I cannot allow any opportunity to slip by to honour women. However, I want to use this holiday to highlight an untenable situation recently brought to my attention that dishonours and discriminates against mothers rather than giving them the respect and esteem they deserve.

I am referring to the fact that there are employers that are not giving mothers their rightful maternity leave. The National Insurance Act allows for thirteen weeks maternity leave. The maternity benefits paid are equivalent to 70% of the average insurable income.

Further, female workers are also protected during pregnancy and after childbirth from discrimination, disciplinary action or dismissal for her pregnancy or reasons connected with her pregnancy by the Constitution, the Termination of Employment and Severance Pay Act and the Prevention of Discrimination Act.

Thirteen weeks is not a very long time for a mother to have with her offspring, but it is better than what women in the U.S. receive, which is only 12 weeks. On the bright side, there are countries that obviously respect their women much more and care more about the family unit by providing substantial maternity leave.

According to Wikipedia, “Central European countries are the most dedicated countries in the world regarding parental leave. In the Czech Republic, it is standard that mothers stay at home for 3 years with every child. All mothers can decide to take 2, 3 or 4 years of maternity leave… For the whole period mothers are supported by the state.

A similar model is also used in Austria where mothers can choose between 1 and 3 years. Also, in Slovakia the standard duration of parental leave is 3 years; for a handicapped child it is up to 6 years. The state pays support of 256 Euros per month for the child’s first 2 years. After this period it is 164.22 Euros per month.”

Sweden, Norway, Estonia, the UK and Canada are also countries that have very generous maternity leave as well. Likewise, Brazil, Argentina and Peru take good care of their new mothers, too. Moreover, in some countries with relatively weak requirements, there are individual employers who choose to provide benefits beyond those required by law. How many of those can be found in Guyana?

If you work for an employer or know of an employer who provides benefits beyond those provided for in the National Insurance Act, let me know, because I want to honour that person and her/his business. Sadly though, it seems there are businesses, particularly in the private sector, that do not even provide the very basic maternity leave.

This is yet one more way women are being discriminated against and disrespected. There are business owners who would dismissively say that it is bad business to pay for maternity leave, but they fail to fully understand that unless women continue to bear offspring for Guyana – there is no future and there is no business.

There are even some more calloused business owners who would say it was the woman’s fault she was born female and why should the business pay for her to reproduce? I would not waste my precious time on such shallow-minded people, because they are the very reason the human race continues to be ruled by misogynists, racists, caste-minded, power-hungry war-mongers and the like.

I have seen these types of people over and over again. They hold humanity back from its full potential with their small-minded ways, archaic perceptions and self-important attitudes. They wrongly believe their gender or race or class somehow makes them better than others.

These types of people and their way of thinking are detrimental to the human race because until we can all work together – all sexes, all races, all classes, etc. – toward a common goal for the betterment of our species, we will be stuck in this ongoing cycle of destruction.

The world needs more mothers in politics, businesses and religion to finally help balance this off-kilter world. That a woman is penalised when becoming a mother shows just how messed up the world truly is. My experience as a mother has enriched my life and enhanced my career by making me a more well-rounded columnist. I would estimate that this is the case with other careers as well.

I would ask all business owners to imagine how you would feel if you had been employed by a company for any substantial length of time, considered a valuable employee and a hard-worker, only to be released when you give birth – or denied the time to spend with your newborn? A man cannot fully comprehend this predicament, but it is akin to being dismissed because of race or any other factor that is beyond human control.

Women should not be punished in their careers for doing what biology has determined to be uniquely female – bringing human life into the world. Women must be able to contribute to all aspects of society – politics, business, religion, etc. – even as they continue to function as the vessel by which the human race propagates. To do anything less is not “good business,” it is discrimination against those who produce our progeny – and is absolutely repulsive.

Is it really so difficult to allow a mother the time to give birth to her child and spend some time bonding with the baby? Is that not more important for society than the expense and inconvenience of maternity leave? It is sad that such a question needs to asked at all.

As I celebrate mothers today, I want to let those who are about to be new mothers know that I am standing with you. Please stand up for the thirteen weeks you are given to spend with your baby. It is not nearly enough time, but it is better than nothing. If your employer will not allow you that time, send me an email and we will tackle the problem together.

State-sanctioned animal cruelty?

2011-05-06T10:09:00.000-04:00

(Originally published in Guyana’s Kaieteur News on 06 May 2011)

I was pleased to hear about the government’s move to start picking up stray animals from the streets. Anyone and everyone can attest to the hazard these animals create with their presence on the roadways – both to others and to themselves. However, I was not at all pleased to read the Kaieteur News article published on May 4 entitled, “Impounded animals dying in State care.”

The article said, “This newspaper was reliably informed that as a result, these animals have been locked up in police pounds for more than two weeks, in most cases, without water and proper food.
So far at least two animals have died at one of the pounds on the East Coast of Demerara, apparently as a result of dehydration and starvation. There are also reports, too, that the remaining animals there are in really bad condition.”

Later in that same article, Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee said he knew nothing of these conditions. He also said, “Before jumping to conclusions, one has to ascertain what condition the animal was brought.”

I can see how this could be the case given the condition of most of the strays seen on the streets.
However, it is highly unsettling for me to think that the unchecked animal cruelty in Guyana has now become State-sanctioned, with animals being starved to death in the custody of the State. If the reports of maltreatment of the strays picked up from the streets are true, this is a new low for the nation.

I have been witness to the animal cruelty in Guyana. One late night, after a trip to Berbice to hold a workshop on domestic violence, my companions and I had just arrived back to Georgetown. We pulled up to a corner in the minivan and across the street, in a fenced area, was the most beautiful white horse I had ever seen in my life – and it was being molested.

I am not sure what was going on, but the horse’s tail was raised and there were two men standing right behind the horse. The men were laughing and the horse was swaying as it was obviously finding it difficult to continue standing.

Everyone in the van just stared. I wanted to jump out of the vehicle and run over to yell at the men, but the driver pulled off quickly almost like he wanted to save us from seeing further abuse.
In bed that night, all I could see was that horse stumbling around and those wicked men laughing. I called my husband and told him about the horrid sight. We are both animal lovers and the idea of abusing an animal is barbaric to us.

At a later point, I also mentioned this to one of my colleagues who was in the van with me that night, and she too is haunted by that image.

We are also both haunted by our inaction, a mistake I will not make again. I was exhausted after a long day and there were still those who had accompanied us to the workshop who needed to be dropped off. I know full well that my fatigue was no reason to abandon that poor horse to the abuse of those wicked men. I repeat, it will not happen again. My conscience will not allow it to happen again.

I have watched with interest for a long time as letters from Syeada Manbodh encouraged the Guyanese people to care about Guyana’s animals. There is no doubt that Ms. Manbodh is a crusader for the nation’s animals and for that she has earned my respect.

In a letter to the Kaieteur News Editor on March 1 entitled, “A demonstration of compassion and love for animals,” Manbodh suggests that the Guyana Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (GSPCA) “develop a volunteer network to provide support services that their existing employees are unable to carry out (animal rescue, animal transport, general support to people who need help with their animals, etc.).”

I agree that the development of such a network is a great idea – especially considering the depth of the problem concerning strays and animal cruelty.

However, I want to suggest that Ms. Manbodh do what I decided to do last year concerning domestic violence – choose to do more than just write about the problem and actually start doing something herself.

Now I know Ms. Manbodh rescues and cares for plenty of animals, but instead of waiting for someone else to put together a volunteer network – as she has suggested – perhaps it is time for her to do it herself.

Take it from me; waiting around for someone else to do what you can do is frustrating and a waste of time. It is also what holds Guyana back from so much, because everyone is waiting for someone else to do something.

The poor animals of Guyana have suffered long enough. They cannot afford to wait any longer for someone to decide to do something for them, which means that those who care about them must choose to do something now to stop the suffering.

According to animalwelfaregy.com, here are some things you can do to help animals in Guyana: Convince someone to return a wild animal to their natural habitat; adopt a dog or cat from GSPCA or off the street; educate children about the positive side of dogs and cats; report cases of cruelty to the GSPCA, your local shelter and police; control dog and cat populations by spaying and neutering your pets; exchange information with others on how to control abuse; or just how to make life easier for our animal friends.

I have six cats of my own, five of which were adopted (three from shelters and two from the street).
Also, I fed a group of feral cats (and their kittens) for years. I helped get them spayed and neutered, too. I did not intend on having so many cats for which to care, but I could not turn my back on them when they needed help.

I am not suggesting you do what I have done or what Ms. Manbodh does, I am just asking that you do not turn your back on an animal that is suffering when it is within your power to help.

Keeping track of domestic violence offenders

2011-05-04T10:00:00.000-04:00

(Originally published in Guyana’s Kaieteur News on 04 May 2011)

There is a new idea being proposed that could have a significant impact in the struggle against domestic violence. According to an April 17 article entitled, “NY Legislators Propose Domestic Violence Registry” on CBSNewYork.com, “Three New York legislators want the state to register domestic violence offenders just as sex crime offenders are publicly listed.”

One of the legislators, State Senator Eric Adams explained: “We would duplicate the same process and the same type of software, so we already have the wheel invented – we’re just adding a new spoke on the wheel.”

I do not believe Guyana has a way to track sex offenders yet, much less domestic violence offenders, but perhaps it is time to find a way to do both. For example, when I moved to the San Antonio, Texas area five years ago, I was able to type in my zip code on a registry Website for the area I live and find out if any sex offenders lived nearby.

Since I had a young daughter, this was vital information for me. Anyone who has been convicted of a sex crime must register with the local authorities. If the sex offender moves to another location, registration is required again in the new location. They must provide their address to the authorities and this information is made public for the protection of the community.

This is a great way to keep track of those who prey on others and the same concept is being introduced to track domestic violence offenders, which means if a person were convicted of domestic violence, that person would be required to register with the authorities.

The information would then be made public and potential partners could check the registry to see if the person they are dating has a record of domestic violence, which could save many women from abuse and sometimes even save them from death.

In the US, each state has its own sex offender registry that is made available online. In Guyana, it would make more sense to have one registry that tracks both sex offenders and domestic violence offenders, which would gather the information from around the country, including the location of the offender, and make that information available on the Internet.

With the names (and aliases) of offenders being made public, an undertaking such as this could literally save the lives of so many women.

I do not know what kind of return the government has seen on the $15 million it invested into “Domestic Violence 101,” a domestic violence training programme structured primarily for faith-based leaders. Likewise, I am not sure how much the Men’s Affairs Bureau is suiting their intended goal.

However, I do know that any money invested into a program to track sex offenders and domestic violence offenders would see an immediate return. The sex offender registry is a proven method of deterrence and community education. The concept of tracking offenders of domestic violence in the same way is brilliant.

This notion is new in the U.S. and that means Guyana has the opportunity to be on the forefront of this revolutionary concept. Let’s face it; the domestic violence situation in the nation is chilling. The number of women who are terrorised, brutalised and murdered by their partners is simply intolerable, which means it may take some innovative thinking to make some measurable headway on this problem.

I have met with the Minister of Human Services and Social Security, Priya Manickchand, and I know she has the capacity to introduce a project like this, tweak it so that it is compatible with Guyana’s needs and capabilities, and see that it is the first real program of its type on a national level (if there is another country with this registry, I could not find it).

A national registry to track domestic violence offenders would put a spotlight on this horrid crime, which is usually committed behind closed doors. It would make what has long been considered a private matter a very public issue. In other words, those who beat their wives and girlfriends could no longer hide from what they have done.

I will not sing John Paul’s praises

2011-05-01T09:38:00.000-04:00

(Originally published in Guyana’s Kaieteur News on 01 May 2011)

Although it was suggested that I should write on a significant global event that occurred this weekend and entitle it, “Royal Love, What women really want, fantasy and reality all at once,” I had already decided to write on the other significant global event to happen this weekend, the beatification of Pope John Paul II.

Today, John Paul will be the first Pope to be beatified by his immediate successor, which is Pope Benedict XVI, and it will be the quickest ascension on the path to sainthood in history.
One would expect such a person to be the epitome of goodness and justice.

While no one, not even this heathen, will deny the good that John Paul did in his life, it would be unbalanced and dishonest of us not to look at the other side of the coin as well.

On this day while many will praise John Paul for the things he did while alive, there are also some who will condemn him for what he did not do.

While I cannot stomach political corruption, it is corruption in the church that at once boggles my mind and boils my blood.

Religious corruption boggles my mind because religion is supposed to be the embodiment of goodness, rightness and purity. Religious leaders are to be the ambassadors of God on Earth.

We expect those who dedicate their lives to the service of God to be free of the nasty little sins the rest of humanity struggles with such as lies, deceit and, most certainly, sexual perversion.
After all, if religious leaders are seeking after love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control – as they are commanded in the Bible – there can be no tolerance for the evils of this world.

Therefore, when we hear of these “ambassadors of God” raping little boys, this is where things get mind boggling.

We are not talking about just one or two priests who gave into their sexual lusts. We are talking about many priests from all around the world raping little boys over and over. This is where my blood starts to boil.

Maureen Dowd, writes on the sex scandals that continue to plague the Catholic Church in an Easter Sunday column last week entitled, “Hold the Halo.” She said, “The latest grotesquerie, amid a cascade of victims coming forward in Belgium, was a TV interview with the former bishop of Bruges, who serenely admitted abusing two nephews.”

Dowd continued, “Sex with the first nephew, he said, started as ‘a game’ when the boy was 5 and lasted 13 years. ‘I had the strong impression that my nephew didn’t mind at all,’ 74-year-old Roger Vangheluwe said, smiling. ‘On the contrary. It was not brutal sex. I never used bodily, physical violence.’ He said he abused the second boy for ‘merely over a year.’ He did not think any of this made him a pedophile.”

This former bishop is one very sick and very messed up person, but the point at hand is that the person who should have been above all of this wickedness, the one who should have stood up and fired each and every child molester in the Church, the one who should have protected the children instead of the rapists – is John Paul II. The very man who is being beatified today.

Does the omission of a necessary good in the face of such immense evil qualify as evil itself? In my opinion, it does. The acts of these rapist priests under the leadership of John Paul alone do not disqualify him for sainthood in my eyes.

It was his decision to sweep this issue under the rug, whereby giving those pedophiles further license to rape little boys, that disqualifies the late Pope from being a saint.

Sadly, the victimisation of the congregants is a practice that permeates all religions. For example, when I mentioned my intention to write on this topic on Facebook, one person responded, “Same goes for lots of Hindu godmen, they abuse children and women and the ignorant masses worship them. It’s the new order, people prostrate before men instead of God.”

Yes, I have heard the same stories everyone else has heard in Guyana about such things. And the “holy” men have the audacity to shake their heads and lament out loud that so many have lost their faith. Isn’t that absolutely ironic? As long as rapists, misogynists, thieves and shysters rule religious institutions, the people will continue to exit the church, temple, synagogue and other religious houses in search of true holiness.

For this reason, John Paul’s beatification today is uncomely. It celebrates the life of a religious leader who turned a blind eye to the evil that he himself could have stopped. I refuse to fall in step to the march of the masses as the religious leaders play their pied piper song today. To do so would be akin to dancing at a concert put on by the government to encourage the people to forget that they have no money, no job and no hope.

I choose to live in reality. I choose to keep my eyes wide open. To close my eyes, plug my ears and tape my mouth shut concerning the obvious evils that religious leaders want to pretend do not exist within their own ranks would equate to intellectual dishonesty – and to me that would be the same as selling my soul.

Ralph Waldo Emerson said in his book, Self Reliance, “Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind.” To parrot the words and ideas of others when those words and ideas are worthy to be repeated is not a sin. However, on this day it would be a sin for me to sing the praises of a man whom I find unworthy of praise.

I would rather take a stand for the victims of sexual abuse at the hands of the Catholic priests, which is something John Paul did not do.

Verbal and mental abuse in the workplace

2011-04-29T14:02:00.002-04:00

(Originally published in Guyana’s Kaieteur News on 29 April 2011)

A person usually spends around 40 hours per week in the workplace. Some spend less, some spend more. Some spend much more than the typical 40 hours. At times, it can seem like one spends more time at work than at home. For this reason, it is vital for the work environment to be safe – both physically and mentally.

It has been brought to my attention that there are too many employers who are abusive to their employees. Abuse comes in many forms and the relationship between employer and employee can most certainly foster an unhealthy situation that undermines a productive work environment because of abuse.

Here is a fictional story from WorkplaceVerbalAbuse.com:

“In a down economy where jobs were scarce, Toby was recently hired by a large IT firm. He was grateful for the opportunity to work.

Even though he had plenty of experience and confidence in himself, there were a lot of others vying for the same position. It wasn’t long before the boss, started talking down to him and treating him as if he didn’t know anything.

Toby wasn’t accustomed to being talked to in that manner, especially in front of his co-workers. He decided to watch and learn to see if this was a common practice for his boss to treat everyone like that or was he singled out. He put up with this workplace verbal abuse, and shook it off every day after work. After all, the job paid well and it was supporting himself and his family.”

Does this sound familiar? Or perhaps you have a boss that yells at the top of his/her lungs at you and the rest of your co-workers?

I had a bad boss in the past who had everyone draw pieces of paper from a box claiming that one piece said, “You are fired,” only to later discover it was a ploy to scare everyone. Those types of employers would do best to fire themselves.

I have also had my own business with employees and never once felt the need to verbally or mentally abuse them in order to get them to perform better. In fact, abusive behaviour in the workplace is counter productive to enhanced performance.

I could never perform to the best of my abilities in an abusive environment. Who could?
Railing an employee, whether in private or in public, about unsatisfactory performance will not produce the intended results.

Moreover, it is disrespectful and humiliating. There are some employers who use this tactic for the very fact that it is so denigrating, which is the very definition of an abusive employer. I grew up in a home where verbal and mental abuse was commonplace on any given day. As such, anyone who behaves in such a manner toward me now is dismissed immediately.

That includes employers. I have no time for anyone who cannot reason with me instead of using yelling or humiliation to express a point. I do not care how much money is being paid or how much I love my job, I decided a long time ago that I would never allow anyone to treat me in an abusive manner again.

And that includes those in positions of authority. I remember a time when I was pulled over by a police officer because I did not see him trying to pass me. He came to my window yelling and by the time he left, he was the one apologizing.

It is my belief that if you want to be treated with respect, you must treat others with respect. I demand respect from those with whom I interact and I give them the same type of respect I expect for myself. If you treat others with disdain, you can only expect to receive disdain in return.

Creating a workplace environment that reeks of fear inhibits employees from performing to the best of their abilities. It stifles creativity and you can bet your bottom dollar that you will have a high turnover rate. After all, who wants to work for an abusive employer? In other words, being an abusive employer costs the business a lot of money.

Here are a couple pointers for anyone who feels they work for an abusive employer (from WorkplaceVerbalAbuse.com):

“First, verbal abuse sometimes starts off in a small way, such as a “correction” or a small ridicule spoken every once in a while. From there it escalates into correcting you in a loud voice in front of others, downgrading your work, making remarks about your personal life in meetings and much more.

Some try to just ignore it, do their job and at the end of the day, go home and try to leave it at work.
But left unaddressed, workplace verbal abuse will ruin your health, both physically and mentally, and cause you to be unsure of yourself and your abilities. Eventually this type of treatment will run over into your personal life and before you know it…you’re being verbally abusive to your family and friends.

Second, when this workplace verbal harassment continues to escalate on a continuous basis, there is only one thing to do. You need to make a decision that now is the time to take a stand for yourself and put a stop to the abuse once and for all.

Before things go too far and you feel like the harassment is starting to get out of hand, confront your boss or co-worker about it directly. Maybe you said or did something that they have misunderstood or misconstrued. Talking out these issues with your boss or co-worker can, in most cases, be the end of the harassment.”

I plan to address other workplace issues in future columns, such as sexual harassment and maternity leave. It seems a shame that these issues must be addressed at all in the 21st century, but since they are still ongoing problems, it would be a travesty to turn a blind eye to the ill-treatment of employees.

We spend far too much time in the workplace to allow abusive bosses to wreak havoc on our psychological wellbeing.

Attacking an elder is a crime against us all

2011-04-27T13:59:00.000-04:00

(Originally published in Guyana’s Kaieteur News on 27 April 2011)

Those who prey on the weak are the personification of cowardice. To harm a child or an elderly person is to go against all virtue and honour that we as humans have established as the moral foundation for our species. Anyone who seeks out these weaker ones for no other reason than to inflict harm demonstrates the epitome of a depraved mind.

We are taught to have the utmost respect for our elders. In society, they are the ones with the wisdom. They are the ones with years of experience to share. They are living history. It is an honour to spend a day in the presence of an elderly person and to gain even an ounce of what she or he has to offer the world.

Yet the elderly in Guyana are now being targeted for robbery. To make this vile matter even more disgraceful, it is elderly women who are being attacked. An April 22 article in Kaieteur News entitled, “Murders of elderly ‘home alone’ women worry cops,” said, “Homicide ranks here are worried at what appears to be a pattern of brutal murders of elderly women who live alone. Of the nine women slain so far for the year, three of them were between the ages of 68 and 74.”

The article continued, “In each case the motive appeared to be robbery, but police said that two of the victims were sexually assaulted. Two were strangled and the throat of the third was slashed.”
I cannot even begin to imagine the type of person who would rob, sexually assault and violently murder a grandmother.

The viciousness continued after the aforementioned article was published. Last Sunday, those vile beasts beat and robbed a 72-year-old businesswoman during a brutal robbery at Triumph, East Coast Demerara. This situation is the worst of the worst.

I don’t care how bad off I am, I would starve to death before I ever harmed an elderly person. Our elders have worked hard their entire lives and deserve to live out the rest of their lives in peace. Moreover, our female elders have brought life into this world and nurtured that life until it could care for itself. They deserve the greatest respect that can be afforded a human.

Instead, they are being sexually molested, beaten, terrorised and robbed. I find this recent development to be utterly revolting. I am disgusted by the audacious dishonour that it would take to perform such evil on an elder and I am repulsed by the engulfing cowardice of these loathsome acts on the weaker ones of society. Only a tremendous coward would target older women for crime.

And we are no better if we allow this evil to continue. It is our responsibility as a society to ensure the safety of the elderly. We must do all that we can to make sure the elderly women of Guyana are protected right now while they are being targeted for harm.

I am not talking about vigilante justice; I am talking about taking care of our elders. Right now is a very dangerous time for the elders in the nation and there are some small steps that can be taken to ensure their safety and well-being.

For example, if you know an elderly woman who is living alone, go check up on her on a regular basis. If you live close to an elderly woman and you hear suspicious noises, grab a neighbour and go make sure she is not being attacked like these others have been. If there is trouble, raise the alarm and call the police.

There are so many small steps that can be done to protect our elders, most of which should be done on a regular basis anyhow. Elderly relatives should not be neglected. Neglecting our elderly is a social wrong, but not protecting them is unforgivable.

We cannot allow the depraved to rob society of these valuable gems just to appease their insatiable greed. There is nothing that can be stolen from these elders that is more important than what they themselves have to give society. We must protect them at all costs.

The perfect anthem for this election season

2011-04-24T13:56:00.000-04:00

(Originally published in Guyana’s Kaieteur News on 22 April 2011)

I heard a song this week that resonated with my core beliefs in a deep and meaningful way.
The song is entitled, “One Tribe” and it is sung by The Black Eyed Peas. From the first time I heard this song, I thought it would be a perfect anthem for this election year in Guyana.

The primary sentiment behind this song is about rejecting racial divisions and racial politics to work together toward a common goal for the good of all.

“One Tribe, one time, one planet, one race
It’s all one blood, don’t care about your face
The color of your eye or the tone of your skin
Don’t care where ya are
Don’t care where ya been
Cause where we gonna go
Is where we wanna be
The place where the little language is unity
And the continent is called Pangaea
And the main ideas are connected like a spear
No propaganda, They tried to upper hand us
Cause man I’m loving this peace
Man, man, I’m loving this peace
Man, man, I’m loving this peace”

I especially like the parts of the song that insist on rejecting leadership that promotes fear of others for selfish political agendas. The people of Guyana have to be smart enough to recognise the fear tactics of their leaders and adamantly reject those divisive schemes.

“I don’t need no leader
That’s gonna force feed a
Concept that make me think I need to
Fear my brother and fear my sister
And shoot my neighbor or my big missile”
“We are one people
Let’s cast amnesia, forget about all that evil
Forget about all that evil, that evil that they feed ya…
Remember that we’re one people
We are one people”

Anyone who uses race to separate a group of people (for example, the people of Guyana) is petty, small-minded and wicked.

In the 21st century, there are millions of enlightened persons who recognise the great harm done to us all by those who have divided humans into racial stereotypical groups.

These enlightened ones identify this divisiveness for what it is and reject it wholly.

Those who continue to encourage racial fear are either of a bygone era that refuses to embrace a human as a human or they have an agenda that can only be accomplished by the continued separation of humankind by ethnicity.

For example, there are politicians in Guyana who would not benefit from advocating for racial unity.
In fact, racial unity could mean the end of the easy ride they and their party have long enjoyed.
So they continue to encourage racial fear, something I find absolutely disgusting. In fact, racists like that make my blood boil. I choose a better way.

“One love, one blood, one people
One heart, one beat, we equal
Connected like the internet
United that’s how we do
Let’s break walls, so we see through
Let love and peace lead you
We could overcome the complication cause we need to
Help each other, make these changes
Brother, sister, rearrange this
The way I’m thinking that we can change this bad condition
Wait, use you mind and not your greed
Let’s connect and then proceed
This is something I believe
We are one, we’re all just people”

When Guyana’s leaders refuse to allow the Guyanese to be one tribe, one people and one nation, they are – in yet one more way – holding Guyana back from the progress taking place in the rest of the world.

As the rest of the world moves closer toward breaking racial barriers, Guyana’s leaders pin this country down to those racial divisions that will only benefit those in power.

The people of Guyana themselves are prone to racial unity, as is evident by the daily interactions of the races. It is only when their leaders tell them it is time to be afraid that the people start to fear each other. But there is a better way. Like the song says,

“Let’s cast amnesia, forget about all that evil, Forget about all that evil, that evil that they feed ya, Remember that we’re one people, We are one people.”

How is it that a mere rock band has a better grasp on this issue than those who lead this country? Sister, brother, do not let the power-hungry drag you down to their smarmy level. Do not give those who speak words of racial division even one second of your precious time.

They do not wish for your best, they only wish for their best and they will have it if you follow their wicked lead.

Choose the higher road. Let this song be your anthem for this election season.

“One world, one love, one passion
One tribe, one understanding
Cause you and me can become one.”

The future of this newspaper is at stake

2011-04-22T13:52:00.001-04:00

(Originally published in Guyana’s Kaieteur News on 22 April 2011)

I spoke with the publisher of Kaieteur News (KN), Glenn Lall, several weeks ago about the fact that I believed there were forces that wanted to shut this newspaper down. After I spoke to him about this, I sent him an email containing several links to printed material that contained malicious statements about the newspaper.

Since then, there has been an escalation in this obvious campaign to discredit this newspaper all around the nation. There was even a flyer distributed in Berbice saying this newspaper was “anti-Guyana” and creating division in the nation.

This campaign against KN, Glenn Lall and Freddie Kissoon has been incessant for weeks now without letting up and includes verbal assaults. I believe the forces behind this assault on KN made a deliberate decision to do whatever it takes to bring this newspaper down once and for all.

However, the more they would tell people not to read this newspaper, the more people would read it to find out why they should not read it. Their plan was backfiring and they needed a more effective strategy to get rid of KN. It is my opinion that when these malicious forces realised their plan was not working, they then came up with an idea to divide and conquer – after all, this is one of the most effective ways to defeat an enemy.

It can be quite clear to anyone who reads this newspaper that division has been wrought in this otherwise harmonious newspaper.

A fracture in the relationship between the publisher and the lead columnist has put this newspaper in a precarious position. The sniping remarks here and there have not gone unnoticed by the readers. I am afraid that if these two individuals cannot find a way to make peace with each other, it may cause a serious problem for the future of the newspaper.

This would be playing right into the hands of those malicious forces that want to see the end of Kaieteur News. When I told Glenn that I felt there was a campaign afoot to bring down this newspaper, he asked me how I thought they could possibly do such a thing.

Well, this division is exactly how they can to do it, and if Glenn and Freddie choose to turn a blind eye to what is really going on, those malicious forces will win.

When Freddie and I had an email exchange a couple weeks ago, that was a private exchange, and after a long face-to-face talk we both know now that neither of us released that exchange. Which means someone got into one of our email accounts and sent that exchange to Glenn. I have since taken extra precautions to secure my email account and suggested to Freddie that he do the same.

Freddie and I have made amends and have returned to a cordial friendship. However, the relationship between Glenn and Freddie obviously continues to simmer and it is for this reason that I fear for the future of this newspaper. I can see those behind this scheme to cause division snickering and hoping for that final event that causes everything to collapse. Who knows, they may even be planning that final event themselves.

There are those who would love to see this newspaper collapse. And they would love to see the end of KN’s Freddie Kissoon column. There have been many attempts to bring KN down, including trying to get readers to stop buying this newspaper via propaganda, verbal assaults and even flyer distribution. There have also been attempts to weaken the newspaper financially by pulling government ads and insisting private companies do not advertise in KN.

All of these and many more schemes have failed, but this divide and conquer plot seems like it could actually work – and I am worried. Will the publisher allow this plot to destroy his newspaper to succeed? There are many who are patiently waiting for his ruin. They have set a net before his feet and cannot wait for the final part of the trap to ensnare him so they can rejoice in his destruction.

Sometimes, enemies can look like friends. At other times, friends can look like enemies. This is especially true in Guyanese politics. It is a wise person who can discern between the two, but there are some clear telltale signs to help the process.

A friend is the one who has been with you every step of the way, through the good times and the bad.
A friend accepts you for who you are – the good and bad parts of you.

Anyone who abandons you is not a friend. Anyone who endangers your promising future for his or her own selfish ambitions is not a friend. Anyone who would sit by and allow others to do you harm without rising to your defence is not a friend.

There are some who would embrace you as a brother or sister, while they have a knife in their hands to stab you in the back. Run from these malevolent forces. Run far and fast.

I truly believe the ongoing success of this newspaper will be decided within the next few weeks. It is my hope that eyes are opened and evil schemes are halted before it is too late. Guyana needs this newspaper and it would be a shame to see those malicious forces finally find a way to bring its destruction. It would be a travesty if they actually win.

Considering Cinderella

2011-04-20T13:34:00.000-04:00

(Originally published in Guyana’s Kaieteur News on 20 April 2011)

I love a good fairy tale. Who doesn’t? Especially when that tale entails a “rags to riches” story. I grew up in an abusive home where my mother physically, emotionally and verbally abused me for the entire time I lived in her house, so I often wished for a prince to come and save me from the tormented life I lived.

For a long time, I thought that prince would be my father whom I had never met. I would sit and daydream about the day he would come back and get me (on a white horse in a knight’s suit), to take me away from the abuse. Little did I know at such a young age that living with my alcoholic father would have been just as bad as living with my abusive mother.

Eventually, my prince did come in the form of a young Guyanese man who would one day be my husband. It is so nice when fairy tales end with a “happily ever after.” The truth, however, is that all those years of abuse did a number on my mind and my prince would have to help me through many years of mistrust and abandonment issues. Not so happy, eh?

I wish there had been some fairy tales that highlighted strong young women who fought for their rights instead of meek ones who accepted their plight until a man came along and saved them. Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate the fact that my prince loved me enough to help me through the hell I went through while growing up, but I so wish I had been taught to be strong enough to stand up for myself.

Let’s face it, not every story has a fairytale ending. Reality is too often very harsh and I cannot help but wonder if we are not hurting our little girls more by teaching them fairytales that encourage them to wait for a man to save them, rather than teaching them to be strong enough to handle reality on their own.

Being taught how to face my harsh reality as a child probably would not have changed my circumstances of having an abusive mother, but it might have taught me how to better deal with that reality so I could have healed much sooner. It might have even helped me find a way to make the abuse stop, instead of waiting for someone else to make it stop.

In any case, I am positive that waiting around for my prince to save me only locked me into many years of fear, beatings and soul-wracking rampages. I only reached out for help one time and after that just accepted my plight. I was just like Cinderella, who resigned herself to washing the floor on her hands and knees until a Prince knocked on her door.

The truth is that I am not that weak little girl. I never was. I was beat into being meek and compliant and just like Cinderella, I accepted my predicament even though I dreamed of being free. I never had a fairy godmother or little mice to help me through those tough years – because that was a fairytale, not reality.

I wonder how many young girls and even grown women went to see Cinderella this past weekend and left wistfully hoping their Prince will come and save them? How long will they wait? What kind of torture will they face until the Prince comes or until they realise there is no Prince?

These old fairytales are wonderful to entertain our children, but we must teach them to be strong enough to face the real world. Even as adults we escape into the fantasy worlds of movies, television shows and video games in hopes of losing ourselves in another reality besides our own.

Even the Prime Minister, Samuel Hinds, wants to get lost in the Cinderella fairytale. According to the Guyana Chronicle, when he spoke at the event on Saturday evening, he “urged the gathering to use the Cinderella story as motivation to work together for a harmonious Guyana. ‘…despite the real world out there…that is full of sadness and violence, if we commit ourselves to work for love, peace and happiness then we can have the Guyana we want.’”

It is so easy to want to get lost in a fairytale. It is much easier than doing the hard work we must face each day in reality. However, teaching our children to escape reality and base their lives on fairytales is counter-productive to constructing a strong and capable society. Children need to be taught that fairytales are just that – fairytales.

Then we need to teach them how to best face the reality of their lives so they can grow up with the most advantageous tools possible and become valuable, productive members of society. This includes the girls. Trying to protect girls from the real world only makes it even more difficult for them to cope when they are adults who live in it.

Instruct girls to be strong, inquisitive, smart and adventurous. Let them get dirty. Let them stand up for themselves. Teach them to stand up for themselves. Encourage them to have an attitude that is ready to take on the world. Teach them wrong from right and then let them fly. Otherwise, the next generation will still have Cinderella’s waiting for their Prince to come.

Check out this alternative to Cinderella

No Women, No Vote

2011-04-17T07:45:00.000-04:00

(Originally published in Guyana’s Kaieteur News on 17 April 2011)

With the selection of Donald Ramotar as the PPP presidential candidate, the election season is now in full swing. As such, I feel it necessary to remind my readers that I never publicly endorse any particular candidate or political party. I take this strong stance because I feel it is difficult to view a columnist’s words as objective if that writer has already stated that she/he is not objective.

I have always felt the same about newspapers, as well. During the elections in the US, I take any political news with a grain of salt if it comes from a newspaper that endorses one particular candidate or political party. One cannot expect to receive unbiased reports from a columnist or newspaper that openly states that it is biased.

However, as usual, I will continue to give my opinion on events, strategies and the overall flow of the campaign season, which is the purpose of this column today. Anyone who reads this column regularly will know that I must speak about the remarks made by PNCR Presidential Candidate, David Granger, concerning the role of women in the upcoming election.

I have to admit that when Granger said he wanted a female prime ministerial candidate when he was first elected (as opposed to selected) by the PNCR as the party’s presidential candidate, I was sceptical that this voiced preference would stand the test of time in Guyana’s political atmosphere.
Yet it seems Granger is sticking to his guns and I am impressed that given the number of would-be male prime ministerial aspirants that he must be fielding, he seems to be adamant on having a female represented in this role. This action in itself is enough to speak volumes about what Guyana’s women could expect from a Granger administration.

However, last weekend Granger went one step further in his bid to secure the female votes in Guyana. In an April 11 Kaieteur News article, entitled, “Granger believes women will determine outcome of election,” the PNCR candidate reportedly said that women must be on equal footing as men.
The article continued, “He said that women make up more than 50 per cent of the population and are the mothers of the nation’s children. He stressed that women hold the nation’s future in their hands. Women should be enabled to play their full and equal role in the development of their families, communities and the nation as a whole.”

I have been waiting for years to see a political candidate enact this level of female inclusion in the political process. I always envisioned that it would be a female politician, but the three women who were/are in the forefront of this election season have not risen to my expectations on this matter.
Gail Teixeira, Faith Harding and Sheila Holder are all strong women with the capacity to call on women to take their rightful place in the political process, yet none have done so to even a small degree in light of what David Granger is doing.

Granger is campaigning on a very smart platform. He knows very well that Guyana’s women are coming out of the shadows and realising their worth to the nation. He can appreciate that they have found their voice – and he is listening to those feminine voices.

The inclusion of women in the political process is something that should have happened long before now. I have my own speculations as to why the PPP has not attempted to garner the female vote, and perhaps one day I will write on those speculations.

However, I will say that the obvious exclusion of females from the PPP campaign is just as telling as the deliberate inclusion of females in the PNCR campaign. Likewise, I do not see the AFC playing to the female half of Guyana’s population either. It is almost as if the PPP and AFC do not recognise the women as viable voters. This is a severe mistake.

When I vote as a woman, I always vote based on the issues that are important to me, but that is after I have sorted through the candidates and eliminated any who do not cater for the female vote. I would never, I repeat, never vote for a candidate who does not include women and women’s issues in her or his campaign.

For a woman to vote for a political party or a candidate who does not address women and women’s issues is like shooting yourself in the foot. The situation for women in Guyana is dire – and it will continue to be so until there is a leader in the country who respects women and refuses to allow the female constituents to be treated as anything less than equals.

The purpose of this column is not to encourage a vote for David Granger, though he has certainly won my respect in regard to his campaign approach toward women. Instead, it is my hope that other political parties will follow Granger’s exceptional lead to comprehend the importance of including women in their campaigns as well.

I will be watching carefully, as will the women in Guyana, to see if the other political parties see fit to cater to the female vote. It is my opinion that if a political party does not include women in its election campaign, that party does not deserve the vote from the women. No women, no vote.

Who Am I? (A poem by Stella)

2011-03-18T20:59:00.000-04:00

(Originally published in Guyana’s Kaieteur News on 18 March 2011)

Do you have a little girl who likes to be rambunctious? Do you spend your day trying to reshape her personality to be less adventuresome and more retiring? If so, do you also impose those traits on your son – if you have one?

It is simply unfair for girls to be locked away and told to be quiet and submissive while the boys are allowed to get dirty and explore the world. When that girl grows up, she will then be told that she does not understand the real world. Of course she doesn’t. Her parents and society did not allow her to learn about the real world.

Moreover, those retiring traits that are too often instilled in little girls and subsequently taken into their adult lives, are often the same traits that put them at severe disadvantage when they enter into relationships, the workplace and leadership positions.

Some believe females are more given to a quiet and submissive life. I do not agree. I was never given to being submissive and if I am quiet, it is because it was beat into me as a child – not because it was my nature. I am not the exception, either. I know scores of women just like me.

Girls should be encouraged to be themselves, even if that includes climbing trees and getting dirty. Young women should be taught how to stand up for themselves in the real world. And young wives should be told that a marriage is an equal partnership in which her opinion matters as much as that of her husband.

The truth of the matter is that if young girls were raised in a world where equality is taught from birth – to both boys and girls – there would be far less friction between the two sexes. It is because boys are deferred to throughout their lives that they feel they are somehow superior and feel the need to put females “in their place.”

There is no superiority. Women and men should be able to navigate life on earth together without the superficial trivialities humans have created to rule over each other. Each gender has its strengths and weaknesses, but when they are put together the human race makes a powerful species.

I understand the frustrations of a little girl who is required to be something less than what she truly is inside. While I was in college in a Gender Communications class, the students were asked to explain where we saw ourselves on a gender line – masculine on one side of the line, feminine on the other and androgynous in the centre.

We were to complete this assignment any way we felt most comfortable, which for me, of course, was writing. The following is the poem I wrote for that assignment:

Who Am I?
Frills and lace are for the prissy
Give me some jeans instead.
Bikes and dirt were my toys
Barrettes never stayed on my head.

I was Momma’s only girl
Though she could never get me in a dress.
Although there was that one big fight
When she had someone to impress.

Me and my little brother
Our bikes answered the call of the city streets.
Boys gave me kisses and hugs
But knew better than to give me sweets.

Don’t ask me to share my feelings
I’d rather share what’s in my head.
Don’t open my door or pull out my seat
Until I’m in my casket, cold and dead.

Chivalry equals dependence
Don’t make me feel small today.
I won’t be kept and I won’t be bought.
No thank you, I can make my own way.

Women cower and cringe at my actions
They think me arrogant and bold.
Some men find me intriguing
Others find me quite cold.

I don’t conform to society
I am the master of my own values and goals.
I won’t allow myself to be used by others
It would equate to selling my soul.

Am I a tomboy? No, not really.
I just don’t fit your mould.
I have more energy and potential
Than a simple structure like that can hold.

So let’s talk, I promise not to bite.
Come on now – let me in.
I know my confident stride can be intimidating,
But I fit just fine in my own skin.

When I write on the situation of women in society, I do so because my one great desire is to see women function in an equal capacity on every level – political, spiritual, educational, business – and in every other conceivable way. It is not because I want women to push men out. It is because I believe that when women and men begin working together – without the unfair disadvantages placed on women from birth – we will see a world that is far better than the one in which we currently live.

When I finally gave up trying to conform to society’s expectation of what a woman should be, when I finally allowed myself to be the real me, that is when I realised that I fit fine in my own skin.

I know who I am. Why not allow your daughter to know whom she really is deep inside, too. Better yet, why not allow her to be whom she really is deep inside.

Curiouser and Curiouser!

2011-03-16T20:56:00.001-04:00

(Originally published in Guyana’s Kaieteur News on 16 March 2011)

Sometimes, in regard to writing on political and social issues in Guyana, I feel like I am watching the Disney movie, Alice in Wonderland. Alice said if she had a world of her own, “…everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn’t. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn’t be. And what it wouldn’t be, it would. You see?”

This is the world of politics in Guyana. Nothing is what it is because everything is what it isn’t. I sometimes feel as if at any moment Alice will show up with the Mad Hatter and the March Hare. My column reflects the opinion of a person looking at Guyana from the outside, and sometimes I am honestly flabbergasted at the things I see.

For example, this was printed in the Guyana Chronicle yesterday, “Press and Publicity Officer of the Office of the President, Kwame McCoy, last evening reacted to a Prime News report which accused the Office of the President as being the owners and managers of the Live In Guyana blog. The report is absolutely erroneous since this blog site www.liveinguyana.blogspot.com is not managed by the Office of the President, McCoy said.”

So far, this statement seems as if it is perfectly normal. There is nothing out of the ordinary in McCoy’s statement, until he says, “The report is mischievous since Prime News is aware that the site is owned and managed by Prime News and the Kaieteur News.” This is where I have to say everything is nonsense.

Why on earth would Prime News and Kaieteur News publish material on a blog that is injurious to members of its own staff – as the Live In Guyana has done? This blog has even posted personal information about those from Kaieteur News. This is what I mean when I say nothing is what it is because everything is what it isn’t. Pure nonsense.

Speaking of nonsense, it is sheer madness when one of the more brilliant minds in a nation – and the foremost columnist – uses infantile language like “King Kong” to refer to a president. Regardless of the lack of respect that columnist holds for the president, for those looking in from the outside, this use of childish antics is confusing at best and at worst, difficult to take seriously – because it is coming from an intellectual. Just madness.

My colleague, Freddie Kisssoon talks about the madness that has taken over the country, but when he lowers himself to the same childish behaviour as those he writes about, he becomes part of the problem and definitely not an example of what the solution should look like. Freddie is like Alice when the Catepillar asked her, “Who are YOU?” Alice replied, “I—I hardly know, sir, just at present— at least I know who I was when I got up this morning, but I think I must have been changed several times since then.”

Freddie has warned me on several occasions not to allow my association with certain people to change me, but Freddie is allowing his crusade against “King Kong” to change him and he does not even see it.

Yes, madness abounds. Mark Benschop is arrested for trumped up charges of breaking Kwame McCoy’s door window while McCoy and his posse walk away after severely vandalising Benschop’s truck. Madness.

Madness abounds when the president of the country tells the people to not allow others to divide the nation while he himself uses highly inflammatory language that can have no other objective but to divide the nation. Curiouser and curiouser!

Guyana is beginning to look like Venice with waterways for streets. Perhaps someone should invest in some gondolas and use the ever-present floodwaters as a romantic jaunt for the tourists? What sense does it make to have streets anymore if they are always covered with water? No sense. Nonsense.

What sense is there in having any opposition parties when they oppose nothing? If they act like the subjects in the court of the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland and simply bow and say, “Yes, your majesty. Yes, your majesty. All ways are your ways, your majesty,” what sense is there in even having them around?

When the Queen of Hearts goes around intimidating her subjects demanding to know who is painting her roses red, not a single soul has the courage to stand up and tell her that roses are supposed to be red.
In Guyana, the opposition parties do not have the courage to take a stand against the tirades of those in power, either. They, too, cower in fear without the courage to take a stand for how things are supposed to be. More madness.

So where do I fit into this madness? Alice told the Cheshire Cat, “I don’t want to go among mad people.” To this the cat replied, “Oh, you can’t help that, we’re all mad here. I’m mad. You’re mad.” Alice asked, “How do you know I’m mad?” The Cheshire Cat responded, “You must be or you wouldn’t have come here.” I guess this means I am in the same boat as everyone else in Guyana. Or should I say I am in the same gondola.

One cannot help but wonder if like Alice in Wonderland, this is all just a dream and we will wake up with a fabulous tale of a place where everything is nonsense and nothing is what it is because everything is what it isn’t. On the contrary, perhaps I can instead expect Freddie to one day ask me why a raven is like a writing desk.

You, too, can be a rebellious woman

2011-03-13T20:52:00.000-04:00

(Originally published in Guyana’s Kaieteur News on 13 March 2011)

One of Guyana’s greatest women has also been named as one of Time Magazine’s top rebellious women of all time. To say that I was elated to hear this news is an understatement. There is no doubt that Janet Jagan was a fighter in every sense of the word.

This newfound fame for a Guyanese woman caused me to assess the “rebel” factor of the Guyanese women at large. There is no doubt that Guyanese women have spunk, attitude and sass – all of which, I can readily relate.

Although I never had the pleasure of meeting Janet Jagan in person, I have a feeling she had to have plenty of spunk, attitude and sass as well. How could she not, given the amount of great things she accomplished in her life? A shrinking violet (a shy or retiring person) cannot storm a castle.

One of my three favourite phrases, which I have mentioned before, is “A well-behaved woman rarely makes history.” This is so true when one thinks of Janet Jagan. The woman is now infamous for her rebellion against so many aspects of societal expectations – and even political expectations (national and international).

Janet Jagan did not wait for a man to do what she knew she could do just as well – or better. She did not conform to what anyone else thought. She claimed her own thoughts and did what she wanted. She was a leader among leaders. This is my kind of woman.

It makes me glad when I see Guyanese women break out of that little box society has shoved them into. However, let’s be honest, there are also some Guyanese women who have been “put into their place” by the likes of men who do not appreciate a rebellious woman. Some have even been murdered for not “submitting” to their “masters.”

I had a good friend of mine once tell me, as he hit his breast with his fist, that he knows deep down inside that men are to be the head of the household. I can do better than that. I know with every ounce of my whole body, soul and mind that no man should be the master of another person – including a woman.

My friend believes what he does because that is what he has been taught since he was born – that a man is to rule over the home and over the woman. What else is he going to believe after being inundated with this sexist viewpoint for his whole life? I was taught those views too, but I always knew it was wrong from the time I was a young girl.

I know, I know – I am a rebellious woman, too. I gladly admit it and I am proud of it! I do not bow to the archaic ideas that I am a second-rate citizen because I am a female. I do not allow men to treat me as if I am anything but their equal and when I walk into a room I am recognised for my intellect – not as the one who cooked dinner.

And you, sister, can be a rebellious woman, too. Come on, you know how much you have been wanting to break those prison bars that have imprisoned you for your whole life. How many times have you longed to be free?

How many times have you thought about how unfair it is that you have to work all day and come home to cook dinner and clean all night? How many times have you wanted to lash out when the bossman grabs you on the rear? Take my word for it; there is no man but my husband who would dare to grab my rear (and my husband knows he has my permission).

I have another question, how long have you been working yourself to death hoping to be taken as seriously as a man? Girl, it is time to rebel. It is time to channel your inner Janet Jagan and let the real you come out in full force. By the time you are done, they will have no choice but to recognise you for the full potential you have as a person.

I am about to make a whole lot of religious people upset, but like I said – I am a rebel. Women, it is time for you to rebel, too. It is time to misbehave. It is time to make our own set of social standards. Stop finding excuses to conform to the patriarchal system and just be your own woman for a change.

Think about this, any woman who has ever made history has done so because they chose to defy the stifling system to which women are chained. Janet Jagan chose to be her own woman and she made history. Aung San Suu Kyi has been the foremost leader in the effort to democratize Burma, and after 15 years of house arrest, she was presented with the Nobel Peace Prize. She was also one of the top rebellious women in Time Magazine.

I am a writer and so my all-time favourite heroine is a writer. George Eliot, born Mary Anne Evans, created her male pen name to have her writings taken more seriously in the late 19th century.

According to Wikipedia, “Women writers were not uncommon at the time, but Evans’s role at the head of a literary enterprise was. The mere sight of an unmarried young woman mixing with the predominantly male society of London at that time was unusual, even scandalous to some.”

Eliot wrote my favourite book, “Middlemarch”. There are stories that she dressed like a man and she, in fact, had a long-term relationship without getting married.

She was a great rebel and set the groundwork for future female writers. When I grow up, I want to be a rebel just like her.

And just like Janet Jagan, you can be a rebellious woman, too.

On the government’s obsession with the media

2011-03-11T20:50:00.000-05:00

(Originally published in Guyana’s Kaieteur News on 11 March 2011)

I have been stewing over some of President Jagdeo’s statements made at Babu John, Port Mourant where there was a gathering to commemorate the deaths of Presidents Cheddi and Janet Jagan last weekend as reported by the website, Demerara Waves, in an article entitled, “Jagdeo attacks Granger; wary of opposition succeeding.”

According to Demerara Waves, the President said, “Someone like Granger will succeed or could succeed if – and they are counting on him succeeding because young people in this country don’t have a memory of the 70s and the 80s.”

And he “urged older party-faithful to educate younger persons about the hard political and economic times when the PNCR was in power and guard against those returning under the guise of democrats. ‘Make sure that people are educated about that past.’”

When I hear this type of language coming from any leader of a nation, I become very distressed. However, when a leader of Guyana says these things, it is irresponsible and – to be honest – a move to divide the nation. To call up to memory the happenings of decades ago is in no way good for the nation.

Ironically, the Guyana Chronicle mentioned that the President also said, “other parties…seek to divide this nation rather than bringing people together; and an era that seeks to chart the nation retrogressively – take it backwards – mentally, economically and, consequently, socially.” To be completely honest, this statement exemplifies the very feeling I get from the President’s call to remember the 70s and 80s.

Having been stewing over the recklessness of these comments for the better part of this week, I happened upon even more statements by the President that shocked me. Demerara Waves reported in a March 9 article entitled, “Media boycott still a political weapon in Guyana,” that at the same gathering at Babu John, the President urged “party-faithful to cease supporting media that he deemed opposed to his party and government.”

That article went on to quote the President as saying, “Don’t put money in their pockets; some of these newspapers are rags because all they would do is to enrage you and move from one lie to the next lie. Some of the TV stations, they are hostile to us; don’t support them if they are hostile to us because they are bent on creating division in our land.”

Is the president of a country telling the people what they should and should not read and what they should and should not watch on television? So what if he feels there are parts of the media who are hostile to him? That is part of being in politics. It is no reason whatsoever to tell the people what they should and should not be able to do.

Does the President not think the people are capable of making up their own minds concerning the issues important to them? Does he believe that if someone reads this newspaper or watches Prime News that they are no longer faithful to the PPP? Should the people of Guyana make their political decisions based only on a diet of propaganda fed to them by the state media?

I do not believe for one second that people will consider complying with his wishes and stop reading the most popular newspapers or stop watching the TV stations he opposes. It is an outlandish request and anyone with a right mind will see it as such.

Still these statements by the President are worrisome. When put together with other statements, like his “shoot to kill” order, there seems to be an obvious sense of desperation in the tone of it all. I do believe there is a real fear in the PPP that this could be the year they are unseated.

Still, that is no excuse to divide the nation by using the fear-mongering tactics the President used last weekend or to call for a boycott on any media the ruling government does not control. These types of actions by the President are the very reason there is a need for media that is not state controlled. In fact, it is these actions that give the media so much to write about.

I often get the distinct feeling from those in power that Kaieteur News and other media outlets exist only because the government “allows” them to exist. The truth of the matter is that these media outlets have a constitutional right to exist. Their existence is not based on the generosity of the government and if they are ever not “allowed” to exist, it will be because the government will be acting against the constitution of the nation.

Dissent with the government is not a reason to shut down a newspaper or TV station. In fact, it is a sign of a healthy democracy when dissent is allowed without government intervention. Calling for a boycott of media outlets that are not state controlled is government intervention, and puts the PPP’s much touted “democracy” proclamation at imminent risk.

I live in a place where thousands, perhaps millions, of people raise their dissenting voices every single day against the government. However, if any political leader ever called for a boycott of a newspaper or TV station, that leader would lead no more.

This is true in most thriving democracies because the liberties and freedom of the people are far more important than any politician or political party.

Furthermore, the current administration’s manic behaviour concerning the media is highly unprofessional. They should be about the people’s business instead of constantly attacking reporters, newspapers and TV stations that do not toe the PPP party line.

The aforementioned March 9 Demerara Waves article said, “The President called on the audience to fight against anyone bent on creating division with “our hearts and every tool available to us.’” I cannot help but wonder if that fight against anyone bent on creating division includes the President himself. If not, it should.

My thoughts on the Men’s Affairs Bureau

2011-03-09T20:46:00.000-05:00

(Originally published in Guyana’s Kaieteur News on 09 March 2011)

The Ministry of Human Services and Social Security has officially launched its Men’s Affairs Bureau (MAB). Once the story hit the newspapers, I received an email from someone named Lenny who had this to say about the MAB, “It’s a great gesture that could very well become the education equilibrium to reduce domestic chaos, violence, and family dysfunction. Your thoughts please!” Lenny, I’d be happy to share my thoughts.

On November 7, I wrote a column entitled, “An interview with Minister Priya Manickchand on Domestic Violence,” in which I asked the following question, “As Guyana transitions from a culture where domestic violence was at the very least a private issue, if not socially acceptable, to a society that now incarcerates abusers, there will be many abusers who should receive professional counselling to help them make the psychological adjustments needed to accept this new reality. Does your ministry offer this type of counselling for abusers?”

After explaining that most of the resources up to that point had been used to make sure the victims of domestic violence were safe, Minister Manickchand then said, “We are about, however, to officially launch a Men’s Affairs Bureau.

The establishment of this bureau was born of the recognition that in this whole effort to address violence against women, we were perhaps failing to address a necessary component, the men – who are in most cases, the abusers – thus making our efforts less than holistic.”

The Minister continued, “One of the mandates of this Bureau, which has begun its work, will be to advise on and implement programs that could address the men of our country in issues that are topical and, of course, with a mandate like that, domestic violence, its causes, perpetrators, consequences and solutions would have to be addressed.”

It has long been my belief that if Guyana is going to make any significant headway in the struggle against domestic violence, there needs to be a comprehensive program, such as Manickchand has detailed in her response to my interview question, to help abusers to make the psychological adjustments necessary to accept that domestic violence is indeed immoral – and illegal.

As such, if this is one of the primary focuses of the MAB, I gladly support this endeavour. Indeed, in a March 5 Guyana Chronicle article entitled, “Men’s Affairs Bureau launched,” the government newspaper said the new program was “aimed at holistically addressing the needs of men in relation to social problems between the two groups [men and women] and the root causes as they relate to domestic violence.”

So far so good. In fact, in that same article by the Chronicle, Manickchand is quoted as saying, “gender issues are often mischaracterised as only women’s issues.” She also said the “government recognised that Guyana could not develop at the pace needed, “if we do not pay attention to the needs of men in the country…the partnership between men and women could only catapult Guyana forward.”

I could not agree more. I even agree with Community Development Officer at the Office of the President, Reverend Kwame Gilbert, who said “domestic violence – another good reason for the establishment of the MAB – depletes the country of human capital, and is therefore injurious to the economic welfare of the country.”

However, before one reads Minister Manickchand’s statements or the statement by Reverend Gilbert, there is a hefty amount of President Jagdeo’s speech – of which left me feeling particularly unnerved about the MAB.

For example, according to the Chronicle article, “The president warned that there is so much pressure on boys in school and in society that the fear exists of the feminisation of young men. ‘If people don’t have a community of men to turn to for guidance, for male values – and masculine values do not mean aggression, but things that are unique to males — we would succumb more and more to this process of feminisation of men.’”

This feels very much like there is something wrong with being feminine. What is “this process of feminisation of men”? I have never heard of such a thing. But the president makes it sound like a horrid disease that no man should ever catch.

The further one reads in this article, the more the reader understands what is actually being said. Jagdeo continues, “We don’t want every young male child to start thinking that that is ok; I am not going to say the word. If we don’t want them to think that, then we need to start providing a community of men where they can get together and discuss male problems in a strong masculine environment.”

I do believe the word the president didn’t want to say was “gay.” Vidyaratha Kissoon thought the same way and wrote a letter to each of the daily newspapers remarking on the president’s statements and pondering the use of the MAB in an attempt to counter homosexuality in the society.

The Chronicle’s editor responded to Kissoon’s letter in part by saying, “…So the President was not condemnatory of the personal choices of adults, but he was expressing concern that, in female-dominated households, boys would not identify with normal male behavioural patterns, but could be psychologically influenced to veer toward identifying with non-inherent female and feminine impulses.”

Again, being feminine is made to feel like a malady – and this undertone is the very problem that lies at the heart of the domestic violence issue.

It seems we have discovered the first ones who need the MAB to help them better understand modern gender roles and the shift in the social makeup of today’s family.

It appears there are some who may not grasp the degree of misogynistic language that comes out of their mouths. Or they simply do not care.

In short, my thoughts on the MAB is that I reserve judgement until I can better determine whether the program is actually going to help in the struggle against domestic violence or – as some of the statements I have mentioned – simply reinforce the machismo that is already embedded into society that gives men the “license” to batter and murder women.

Happy International Women’s Day! (To the women who are still alive)

2011-03-06T20:41:00.001-05:00

(Originally published in Guyana’s Kaieteur News on 06 March 2011)

On Tuesday, March 8, people around the world will celebrate International Women’s Day (IWD). According to InternationalWomensDay.com, “Hundreds of events occur not just on this day but throughout March to mark the economic, political and social achievements of women.”

March 8 is a day set aside for “organisations, governments and women’s groups around the world to choose different themes each year that reflect global and local gender issues.” Different countries, groups, etc., choose a theme for the year and although I like many of the themes chosen for 2011 – the one I feel is most relevant for Guyana is the theme chose by the United Nations (UN).

The UN’s theme is, “Women and men united to end violence against women and girls.” I know many might feel Guyana has got the message that domestic violence is evil. Yet the violence against women continues – and so must our struggle against it.

I have always felt the female population in Guyana must be dropping considerably given the number of women killed each week – either by domestic violence or while giving birth. However, I happened upon a chart that shows just how dramatic the numbers have fallen.

In fact, the statistics provided in this chart are so dramatic that it is as if the women of Guyana are disappearing. The graph appearing with this column (found at: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/guyana/population-female-percent-of-total-wb-data.html) charts the female population of Guyana from 1967 to 2008. Trading Economics created the chart using historical data for Guyana’s population according to the World Bank.

The numbers show a steady growth of the female population from 1967 until the year 2000, at which time the graph show a sharp drop as the numbers nose-dive through 2008. In the year 2000, when the graph showed the female population at its highest, it peaked at 51.48 percent of the total population.

When the numbers bottom out in 2008, the female population is only 48.7 percent of the total population. Can you imagine what this graph would look like if it included the numbers from 2009 and 2010? Yes, the UN’s theme of “Women and men united to end violence against women and girls” is highly appropriate for Guyana this year.

In fact, when this graph begins to chart the female population in 1967, it started at 50.11 percent of the total population and enjoyed steady growth until 2000 when it begins to plummet. That number of 48.7 percent, where the female population bottomed out in 2008, represents the hundreds (maybe even thousands) of women who have been killed in Guyana in the last decade.

The female population of Guyana is slowly, but surely, disappearing. This does not bode well for the nation. Over a 33-year period – between 1967 and 2000 – the female population grew a healthy 1.37 percent. However, in the seven years between 2001 and 2008, the female population dropped 2.78 percent. In other words, Guyana lost more than double the amount of women between 2001 and 2008 than it gained in the 33 years prior. Happy International Women’s Day.

It is for these reasons that there are special days set aside to celebrate women, because for too many days of the year the women are not viewed as special. In fact, they are often viewed as disposable. However, I can guarantee you this, if the rate of the female population continues to nose-dive like it has for the last decade, women in Guyana will soon be on the protected species list. That is special, right?

How did this situation get so out of control? How could we sit by and do nothing while the women of the nation died? Even today, if a woman goes to a police station in Guyana to report domestic abuse, the chances are high that she will be sent back to her abuser to be tortured again.

Every woman who cries out for help and does not receive it – whether it is to a neighbour, a relative, a co-worker, a law enforcement officer, a Human Services social worker or a magistrate – that woman could become the next statistical decline on the graph of Guyana’s disappearing women.

This graph is a visual manifestation of what I have surmised the situation to be for years. Women cannot be killed on a constant basis – as they are in Guyana – without some computable record to account for it. This graph is irrefutable proof of the magnitude of this problem.

To put this information in better perspective, the sex distribution in 2007 for China (where female infanticide is practiced because of the one child per family law) was male 51.53 percent and female 48.47 percent. This is very similar to Guyana. Meanwhile, in countries like Jamaica, Barbados and the US, there are more females than males. In Brazil, the population by gender is nearly equal.

Even in Haiti, the statistical difference in its female population in the entire 40 years between 1968 and 2008 has never been up or down more than .2 percent. It constantly remains right at 50 percent.
Guyana’s female population fell a drastic 2.78 percent in just eight years. With this type of evidence, I dare one person to challenge me on the fact that Guyana’s women are being killed off.

What has happened in the last decade to bring the nation to the point where killing women is socially acceptable? I have asked myself this question dozens of times in desperation of finding a solution to the murders.

The trend demonstrated in this graph makes it obvious that this is a human rights crisis. There should be human rights activists, women’s organisations and other governments from around the world lobbying the government of Guyana to fix this situation as quickly as possible – the same way China is set upon. Instead, there are police officers who act as if they are being put out when a woman asks for protection from her abuser.

Will Facebook and Twitter be blocked in Guyana, too?

2011-03-04T20:38:00.000-05:00

(Originally published in Guyana’s Kaieteur News on 04 March 2011)

Online communication tools played a huge role in recent government changes in Tunisia and Egypt. Social media such as Facebook and Twitter played large roles in both countries. These revolutions also showed how easily governments can interrupt Internet traffic and cell phone transmissions.

In a March 1, Voice of America (VOA) article, Jillian York, with the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University, says the Tunisian government used old-school “Phishing” attacks to get Facebook users’ passwords and hijack their accounts.

York said, “A user would try to log in to Facebook.com and would be redirected to a page that looked just like the login page. When they logged in, their password was captured and their account was thus taken away from them.”

I found this article interesting because of another article I read on February 28 in the Guyana Chronicle entitled, “Teenage girls face off over Facebook.” As I read the Chronicle article, which detailed an argument on Mash Day between two teenage girls about material posted on their Facebook pages, I could not help but think the article was a waste of print page.

Who really cares about two teenage girls getting into a spat? This happens dozens of times a day and it is certainly not newsworthy. However, when I reached the last two paragraphs of the article (I read it that far to see if the article had a redeeming reason for being printed), I discovered the only reason the state media could have for wasting their time on this non-story.

Here is what those paragraphs said, “In recent times, Facebook has been known to contribute to countless breakdowns in marriages, identity theft, stalking, rape, and even murders because of the volume of information it dispenses openly about the user, unless they stringently employ the security settings offered by the site.”

The next paragraph said, “The site, and its Twitter friend have been blamed for aiding communication during the current uprising in the Arab world. Other countries are now examining methods aimed at curtailing Facebook’s influence on its younger population.”

I read the Chronicle because it often foreshadows the government’s next move. It is almost as if a decision is made to move in a particular direction by those in power, and then articles are written for the Chronicle in such a way that it supports the decision that has been made before it is announced publicly. In other words – it is government propaganda.

The wording of these paragraphs is especially worthy of note because it paints Facebook and Twitter in a very suspicious light by attributing them to “breakdowns of marriages, identity theft, stalking, rape and even murder.” Then it “blamed” the sites for aiding communication during the recent revolutions in the Middle East.

Blamed? While the rest of the free world cheers the role these Websites played in those revolutions, Guyana’s state media uses the word blame – as if Facebook and Twitter did something wrong by helping the people of Egypt and Tunisia fight for freedom.

There is something very wrong here. Could this article be another foreshadowing of government’s intention? Although at present it seems unlikely the government would feel it necessary to block Facebook and Twitter in Guyana, the fact that this is an election year forces us to look at the possibility.

In light of the way this article was phrased, it would seem the government would be protecting the young people of the nation by “curtailing Facebook’s influence on its younger population.” In other words, Facebook would be restricted for your own good.

Aside from Egypt and Tunisia, government-sponsored service interruptions of the Internet and cell phone service have occurred in Iran, Syria, Iraqi Kurdistan and elsewhere in the Middle East. According to the aforementioned article in VOA, governments can still maintain a so-called “kill switch” particularly if the government owns or licenses the communications networks or fibre optic cables.

The article said that in some cases, governments control the infrastructure to which social media are connected – as it did in Egypt and still does in countries like China, Iran and Syria – and Internet access can be hindered.

However, York said, “Even with Facebook or Twitter being blocked, there are numerous ways to get around that. There are circumvention tools, when https is enabled it is very difficult and unlikely that a government is going to block all https communications.”

Guyana is a free country and I am hoping this article in the Chronicle was simply written by someone who sorely dislikes modern social media – and not at the behest of those in power with an agenda to undermine the freedom of the citizens.

However, it would be irresponsible of this commentator to discount this unusual propaganda as a reporter’s rant given the political climate of the world today, the fact that the article in question held no other significant information and the fact that this is an election year.

Could it be that a Guyanese leader (or leaders) felt these dictators of the Middle East made a genius move in attempting to cut their people off from the rest of the world? Could it be this move is now being considered for the people of Guyana to curtail outside “influence”?

If this is even a remote possibility, now is the time for those who are tech savvy to begin preparations to circumvent any such plan. After all, it is better to be safe than sorry.

Thank you, President Jagdeo, for caring about the women of Guyana

2011-02-23T07:13:00.000-05:00

(Originally published in Guyana’s Kaieteur News on 23 February 2011)

I heard a host of angels sing as I read the status update on Monday on NCN Guyana’s Facebook page. It said, “President Bharrat Jagdeo is calling on citizens to break the silence to injustice. The Head of State was referring to the issue of domestic violence where persons fail to render assistance to victims.”

This is one of the most beautiful stories of redemption I have ever witnessed. It is nothing short of miraculous! The president is calling on citizens to break the silence concerning domestic violence. Tears are brimming in my eyes at just the sound of that statement. The chorus of angels are still singing.

I even took a screen shot of the status update so I can look at it on days when fighting domestic violence seems overwhelming and remind myself of this beautiful day.

Strangely enough, I did not see this joyous news reported in any of the newspapers on Tuesday and the status update did not say where President Jagdeo made this statement. However, I am not deterred in believing this monumental news. Perhaps it was just that the flooding situation took precedence over the news of the president calling on citizens to break the silence (I just love to say that phrase: the president is calling on citizens to break the silence).

If what was posted on NCN – Guyana’s Facebook page is true – and every ounce of my being is hoping that it is – then how could it have escaped the attention of the local newspapers? After all, it was just two short years ago when the president himself wanted everyone to be silent concerning the treatment of Former First Lady Varshnie Singh.

Ms. Singh was put out of her own home (the State House) with nothing more than the clothes on her back after years of being subjected to various forms of domestic violence by the president. Therefore, my exuberance is justified because the same man who inflicted such harm on a woman has now become a champion for victims of domestic violence.

This is huge! It truly is monumental. It is like hearing Silvio Berlusconi, Italy’s womanising prime minister, tell the world that it is wrong to use and objectify women. The implications of this news could mean the so much to the women of Guyana. They will now have a president who will protect them from their abusers instead of one who inflicts abuse himself or sits in silence while they are battered.

Since I am assuming the president will also be breaking his silence, women can now also expect the president to step up and speak out when any of his ministers or leaders in his party beat their wives. I can still hear those angles singing. My heart is elated. My feet cannot find solid ground. The president of Guyana cares about the women of his nation. Let the world rejoice!

I wonder what brought about this change of heart in the president? Perhaps he saw the firsthand evidence of domestic violence from someone for whom he cares (well, other than his wife). I have seen the firsthand evidence and it is heart wrenching. I could understand this conversion if president’s heart was touched by the tortured experiences of a victim (see Freddie, I told you he had a heart).

I am so giddy about this news, though I still just cannot understand why the nation’s newspapers did not pick up this colossal story. Oh, no! What if that status on NCN – Guyana’s Facebook page was in error or a joke? What if someone hacked into that page and posted that status just to taunt women’s advocates like me?

No, I won’t believe it was a farce. I will believe the president really has made this drastic turnaround and I will now look to the president as an example of a man who will from now on protect women from the evils of domestic violence and wipe this scourge from the land.

I wonder if this change of heart also means an apology will be issued to his ex-wife for the way he treated her during their marriage? Since admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery, I am sure the president knows that making amends would go a long way in his healing process.

Oh, I cannot wait to write on that story! I can see the headlines now, “President Jagdeo issues apology to Former First Lady for years of domestic violence.” What a truly heart warming story it will be! It would prove to all those naysayers that the president is a changed man who wants to leave a legacy of hope and goodness as he wraps up his time in office.

Perhaps I can get an exclusive interview with the president about his conversion from an abuser to a protector. It would be an inspiration to all those men in Guyana who abuse their wives to know they, too, can stop the abuse and become a man of integrity.

(If the president is reading this, please just email me the time and date of the interview because I don’t want Freddie to steal my exclusive.)

I feel as if the world has been righted after being askew for such a long and tiresome time. The sky is bluer, the air is fresher and the song of the birds is more light-hearted. I have fought a good fight. I have waged a war against domestic violence and this week a decisive victory has been won.

From the bottom of my heart, thank you, President Jagdeo. Thank you for caring about the women of Guyana.

What’s cooking?

2011-02-13T11:12:00.001-05:00

(Originally published in Guyana’s Kaieteur News on 13 February 2011)

This column is going to be on a topic I have never written about before. No, it is not sex…I have written on that topic several times. In fact, I have written on many topics, but there is one love in my life that I have never written about in my column in great detail - cooking.

Cooking is for me a way to relax and clear my head. It is a lot like writing for me in that I find it an artistic expression. I love to cook recipes from all kinds of cultures, but my very favourite is Caribbean food.

When I first started cooking, I felt completely out of my element in the kitchen. My mother did not teach me to cook, so I was lost about so much. Since I married young to my Guyanese husband, some of the first dishes I attempted to cook were those I knew he would like. At that time, I could not even cook a decent pot of rice.

Lots of practice led to feeling of confidence, which led to experimenting on my own until I was proficient enough to play around with almost any recipe to make it something I knew I would enjoy. I made pine tarts without having ever seen a pine tart in my life – and they were pretty good.

However, I have to give a lot of credit to one friend who has helped me whenever I had a question about a recipe or dish. Cynthia Nelson, who writes a column on Caribbean cuisine for Stabroek News, has been a patient mentor for me for years. She also has a blog (www.tasteslikehome.org) that has inspired me over and over throughout the years.

I am one of those learners who need to see a map to understand where I am in the big picture. My Guyanese family are wonderful cooks, but they cook like most Guyanese do, they just throw this and that into their recipe without measurements or cooking times. They just know when something is right or wrong. This made learning to cook from them quite frustrating.

I did not have that cooking intuition at first, but Cynthia’s recipes gave me the opportunity to explore Guyanese cooking with a map to guide me. Her recipes, both in her column and on her blog, give step-by-step instructions on everything from pepperpot to roti. To a large degree, it was because of Cynthia’s help while learning to cook Guyanese food that I now feel comfortable enough to venture into cooking any and every food culture that strikes my fancy (because I am also an adventurous eater).

Here is the good news; Cynthia has now put out a cookbook entitled, Tastes Like Home – My Caribbean Cookbook. This cookbook is the most spectacular cookbook I have ever seen. No matter if the cook is well seasoned in the kitchen or a novice who is just starting, Cynthia’s cookbook will inspire with her cooking memoirs and instruct with her easy-to-follow recipes.

I was so excited about Cynthia’s cookbook that I bought one for three family members for Christmas. Two were seasoned cooks and one was new to Guyanese cooking. All three loved the book and were cooking from it from the very first day. This cookbook far surpasses every other cookbook I have seen (and I have seen a lot) in quality, content and instruction. It is truly the premier Caribbean cookbook.

When you see this cookbook, when you run through the pages and read the memoirs and recipes, it will make you proud to know a Guyanese wrote it.

I also bought a copy of the book from Austin’s Bookstore for a friend who was thrilled because she, too, has been an avid reader of Cynthia’s column for years. She intends to have the cookbook signed by Cynthia at the book launching at Herdmanston Lodge on February 20. I would encourage all cooks, both men and women, to go to the launch and get a good taste of Cynthia’s recipes.

Another valuable aspect of Cynthia’s cookbook targets those in the Diaspora who feel the next generation may lose their connection to Guyanese cuisine because this cookbook is essentially a textbook for anyone who has the desire to make great Caribbean food. I cook Guyanese food not just because I enjoy it, but also because I was adamant that my children knew this part of their culture.

It is interesting that my family in the Midwest part of the US said that even after knowing how to cook most of the traditional recipes for years, time and space had forgotten this ingredient or that dish. Cynthia’s cookbook helped to put some of those missing pieces back in place to make sure the tradition of great Guyanese food continues for generations to come.

I know I may seem a bit partial when it comes to Cynthia’s cookbook, but she was there to walk me through my first tomato choka, assured me that I could make a mango chutney and taught me how to make green seasoning so that my chow mein tasted Guyanese and not American. These recipes may seem simple to most Guyanese, but they are not simple for those outside of the Caribbean.

So yes, I am giving Cynthia’s cookbook a raving review because I have tried and tested her recipes for years and know they are spectacular. I have never written on cooking before and I do not know that I ever will again (after all, there are so many things cooking outside the kitchen in Guyana that I want to write about), but I could not miss this opportunity to write about Cynthia’s new cookbook. I hope you enjoy her recipes as much as I have.

(Cynthia will also be signing her cookbook at Austin’s Bookstore on February 19 from 10:30 am to 1 pm. For those outside of Guyana, Cynthia’s cookbook can be found on Amazon.)

Down with the dictator!

2011-02-02T07:17:00.000-05:00

(Originally published in Guyana’s Kaieteur News on 02 February 2011)

I am so inspired by the recent political revolutions happening in the Mid-East. It is as if someone flipped a switch and the whole region decided it was time to challenge the dictators in power. I just love it when people realise that they are the ones who should be in control.

To be sure, there are times when the people are glad to have someone else run everything. They are happy to just go on their merry way, live their lives and not focus too much on the way the country is being ruled. This is part of the ebb and flow of a dictator’s existence. The quiet of the people helps the dictator establish himself in power.

It is the disquiet of the people where things start to change.

The people begin to recognise little things that are wrong or that favour the ruler instead of the people. They start to see the benevolent leader turn into a malevolent ruler. It is a process that has happened over and over in history – and the end result is always the same…the people revolt.

There is something instinctive inside a human that tells them when a leader has crossed the line. I have enjoyed seeing the photos coming out of places like Tunisia, Egypt and now Jordan (The Syrians are calling for protests to begin as well). The photos out of Egypt show a strong showing of women involved in the protests to out President Hosni Mubarak.

The crowds in Egypt chanted, “We’re not going anywhere, Mubarak. You are!” I saw a photo place on a stroller in front of a baby that said, “Enough.” It is these images that inspire me so. It is so very encouraging when people decide that enough is enough and get rid of bad leadership. And there seems to be a domino effect occurring in the Mid-East.

Here is a Washington Post report from yesterday, “Syrians are organizing campaigns on Facebook and Twitter that call for a ‘day of rage’ in Damascus this week, taking inspiration from Egypt and Tunisia in using social networking sites to rally their followers for sweeping political reforms.

Like Egypt and Tunisia, Syria suffers from corruption, poverty and unemployment. All three nations have seen subsidy cuts on staples like bread and oil. Syria’s authoritarian president has resisted calls for political freedoms and jailed critics of his regime.”

In Jordan, King Abdullah II fired his government yesterday (Tuesday) in the wake of street protests and asked an ex-prime minister to form a new Cabinet, ordering him to launch immediate political reforms.

The dismissal follows several large protests across Jordan – inspired by similar demonstrations in Tunisia and Egypt - calling for the resignation of Prime Minister Samir Rifai, who is blamed for a rise in fuel and food prices and slowed political reforms.

Really, it is but simple things that people want and need. Food that is priced within an affordable range, inexpensive fuel to get them to work, an economy that provides jobs for all and a political system that favours the people over those who govern the nation. When these very simple issues are ignored – a revolution is in the future.

The protests in Tunisia were successful and saw the end of that dictatorship. The Mubarak regime teeters on the brink. Jordan’s rulers are already changing and Syria is the next on the list. It just makes me want to dance with joy!

To top off this lovely cake with some delicious icing, it is the young people of these nations who are at the forefront of the revolutions. They are using social networks like Facebook and Twitter to spread the word about the protests and to let the world know what is going on during the protests – even as their government tries to cut them off from the rest of the world.

These young people are far more tech savvy than their government though, and they are letting the world know that they are ready to fight for a government that will listen to the will of the people. Just when us old fogies thought today’s kids were lazy and apathetic, they up and transform the world in a matter of a month. Shame on us old fogies.

We have obviously underestimated the young people. They have done what those of our generation have not. I am so inspired and feel so much hope that good has overcome evil. It feels like a new day has dawned and that day has no place for dictators. I say good riddance!

All of this newfound optimism makes me wonder…where will the next revolution be?

You might know a paedophile

2011-01-30T08:27:00.000-05:00

(Originally published in Guyana’s Kaieteur News on 30 January 2011)

This week we found out about four children who were said to have been sexually molested by “trusted” adults. The good news is that all of the alleged perpetrators have been stopped and will now face justice. However, one cannot help but wonder how many more situations such as these exist and whether there is anything else society can do to protect children.

Here are excerpts from the Kaieteur News reports on the alleged sexual assaults (all are from the January 28 edition):

“Ronald Forde, a 25-year-old teacher of the Fort Wellington Secondary School on the West Coast of Berbice, was charged…with having carnal knowledge of one of his students, aged 14, fully knowing that she was under the age of 18.”

***

“The 33-year-old teacher, who bit a first form schoolboy of Saraswat Primary School on the pretext that he was inflicting love bites, was released on station bail from the Leonora Police Station.
Since the incident that occurred on [last] Sunday, the child was removed from the home that he occupied alone with help from two female neighbours and installed at an institution in the city.
Vigilant teachers, on noticing the marks on the child, called in the police who learnt of the sexual assault on the child. They arrested the teacher.”

***

“A 42 year-old man from Parika has been remanded after being charged with incest of an 11-year-old boy and a 9-year-old girl. The accused made an appearance…at the Vreed-en-Hoop Magistrate’s Court before Magistrate Nyasha Williams-Hatmin. It is alleged that during December last year the man repeatedly sodomized the lad, and repeatedly had sexual intercourse with the girl. The court was told that the matter was brought to the attention of the police by neighbours.”

***

In May of last year Guyana passed the Sexual Offences Act of 2010. This Act was a comprehensive measure taken to protect against sexual predators and will certainly help to put prosecute the perpetrators from the media reports this past week.

I have mentioned before that I volunteered briefly with a rape crisis centre in my area and although every case was heart wrenching, the cases with children were particularly disturbing. My job was to be the victim’s advocate. I would be with the victim at the hospital, ask vital information that could be used to prosecute the perpetrator, make sure the victim sought counselling and offer a shoulder on which to cry should it be needed.

Of course, as a volunteer, I was trained to view each case clinically and I did just that – until I left the hospital. The reason my volunteering stint was so brief is that I simply could not deal with that feeling in the pit of my stomach on my drive home – especially when the victim was a child. Therefore, I left that job for others who were better suited.

Still, when I hear of stories about children being sexually assaulted, I remember the eyes of those children who I worked with personally. I remember the fear and mistrust. The sad fact is that many children who are sexually violated are victims at the hands of someone they trusted.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics in the 2000 Sexual Assault of Young Children as Reported to Law Enforcement report, “Ninety-three percent of juvenile sexual assault victims know their attacker, 34.2 percent of attackers were family members, 58.7 percent were acquaintances and only seven percent of the perpetrators were strangers to the victim.”

I would theorise that the numbers in Guyana would be very similar. The incidents from this past week would certainly point in that direction.

Victims of sexual assault face a very trying time as they attempt to heal from their traumatizing assaults and there are long-term effects on survivors of childhood sexual assault and/or abuse.
According to the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network in the U.S., survivors of sexual assault may experience severe feelings of anxiety, stress or fear, known as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), as a direct result of the assault.

Victims of rape or sexual assault may turn also to alcohol or other substances in an attempt to relieve their emotional suffering. Or they could inflict deliberate self-harm or self-injury. Victims could subconsciously develop Stockholm Syndrome, which is described as a victim’s involuntary emotional “bonding” with their abuser.

There are many emotional and psychological reactions that victims of rape and sexual assault can experience. One of the most common of these is depression and some even consider suicide. Many survivors of sexual assault suffer from sleep disturbances and disorders. Victims and survivors with eating disorders often use food and the control of food as an attempt to deal with or compensate for negative feelings and emotions.

Victims may also experience body memories, which is when the stress of the memories of the abuse experienced by an individual take the form of physical problems that cannot be explained by the usual means. There is also the chance of Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) and pregnancy.

According to the World Health Oraganization (2002), victims of sexual assault are: three times more likely to suffer from depression, six times more likely to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, 13 times more likely to abuse alcohol, 26 times more likely to abuse drugs and four times more likely to contemplate suicide.

These are some startling statistics and each one of them a good reason to find ways to better protect our children. Since 93 percent of juvenile sexual assault victims know their attacker – it stands to reason that we need to protect them even from relatives and friends.

No one likes the idea that their neighbour or cousin could be a paedophile, but it is far better to be safe with our children than sorry.

A terrifying story of domestic violence in Trinidad and Tobago

2011-01-26T16:30:00.000-05:00

(Originally published in Guyana’s Kaieteur News on 26 January 2011)

The fight against domestic violence is a global struggle – and that includes other parts of the Caribbean. I want to share a story from Trinidad and Tobago that is particularly disturbing in both brutality and the continued terrorism faced by the victim, even after she left her abuser and as she is attempting to build a new life for herself.

Shaliza Ali’s first violent encounter with her abuser came very early in the relationship when he tried to prevent her from coming to Guyana for a singing engagement. The physical altercation terrified her, but her situation left her vulnerable and she returned to him. The physical, verbal and psychological abuse continued.

In her own words from a written statement that will be read today in Trinidad and Tobago, Shaliza said, “I endured several episodes of physical violence. He would often enter into severe mood swings and abuse my teenage daughter and myself. On many occasions, my father would have to rescue me as I would either be thrown out of the house, or left stranded in the middle of the highway. My father counted 27 individual times he had to intervene and rescue me from his violent outburst. I faced several embarrassing public outbursts and humiliation in front of employees, clients, business associates and my lawyer and his staff.”

(Shaliza honoured me with an early copy of her statement to write this column.)

Shaliza was feeling broken and fearful. She said, “The final straw came when he placed his licenced firearm to my head and thumped me in my abdomen; I was recovering from surgery at the time. He locked me inside of the house leaving me trapped inside, wounded and suffering from internal bleeding.”

Shaliza discovered as she was leaving the relationship that the abuser had already transferred their business funds out of their joint account and into his account. The statement said, “I left penniless and flat broke. I walked out on assets which included lands, a fleet of high profile vehicles, a well furnished house in Lange Park, several heavy duty tractors, trucks, excavators, rollers and other earth works equipment.

I left all jewellery, books and personal belongings and walked away with the bare necessities.”
Shaliza went into hiding for a period of time, but when she finally re-emerged, the abuse continued. Her abuser continued to stalk her and make violent confrontations – even in public. Law enforcement offered little or no protection.

She also discovered her abuser was not honouring the contractual obligations with their business clients. “I left all assets to him and I expected that he would have done the honourable thing and complete infrastructure works to the outstanding land development projects,” Shaliza said.
She was wrong and yet when lawsuits were made, only she was held accountable. “I did not enjoy the proceeds of these sales nor did I use any of the funds, they were converted and invested by my abuser and he knows what he did with the funds.”

Even without enjoying the proceeds of the sales, Shaliza maintained, “Nevertheless, I … state that I do not intend to leave my obligations unattended. I have been struggling to get back up on my feet financially and I have promised as soon as [I can] I will honour the commitments to those clients who invested in developments where I was the recipient of proceeds from sales.”

However, her abuser continues to terrorise her and attempts to sabotage all her business ventures. Shaliza’s statement said this concerning a restaurant she started, “On two or more occasions, he placed a chain on the two aluminum doors of the restaurant, claiming that we were not opening the restaurant today unless I returned to him. During preparations for a Valentine Day dinner, he barged into the restaurant and started shouting obscenities at my employees. He took a chafing pan filled with hot water and threw it at my daughter. An employee had to restrain him as he brandished his firearm in the air.”

Shaliza walked away from the restaurant in fear of her life and started working in real estate again, but according to her statement, “This has been an uphill struggle, as I have had to face and endure his continuous stalking and predatory behaviour. He has contacted several of my new clients and discouraged them from doing any business with me, making up stories to produce doubt in the minds of several customers.”

However, Shaliza is a strong woman. She has written a book about her experience with domestic violence entitled, “Built by Brokenness.” It is an inspirational journey that would be particularly encouraging for Christian women who need to escape their abuse, as Shaliza uses biblical scripture throughout the book during each phase of her walk through and out of the abuse. I hope Austin’s Bookstore can get some copies.

In spite of Shaliza’s strength, or perhaps because of it, her abuser will not relent. He has used his connection with a Trinidad and Tobago television host to wage a smear campaign against Shaliza and call for a ban on her book from all the bookstores in her country.

The ironic part of this story is that the “offensive” material being used against her is that she did not live up to the contractual business obligations – the very same ventures for which her abuser took the money and never completed. Not a word is being said about his contractual responsibilities though.

Her abuser has done anything and everything to make her life a living hell. But Shaliza is a fighter and today she will be holding a press conference to respond to the ban on her book and the accusations made against her. Will Trinidad and Tobago continue to allow her abuser to inflict harm on Shaliza or will they finally hold him responsible for his abuse? Time will tell…