HELEN DRAYTON
How alike the rapid deterioration in the relationship between governments and the people is to familial relationships that turn sour. Both progress to abuse.
After the death of Asami Nagakiya last February, former mayor Tim Kee resigned under a barrage of criticism when he said, "You know before Carnival I did make a comment about vulgarity and lewdness The woman has the responsibility to ensure that she is not abused." His critics were clear: what women wear and how they behave during Carnival are not invitations to rape and murder, and the Government should take responsibility to ensure the safety of all people.
A year later, a woman, at the Prime Minister's first conversations with the public in Arouca/Maloney, asked a predictable question: What plans the Government has to stop the murder of women (citing the recent MovieTowne killing of Jamilia DeRevenaux)? The PM gave a detailed response including the ratio of domestic violence deaths to the total murder count and the issues facing the police but unfortunately, added the words, "You called on the Prime Minister to do something about crime. I am not in your bedroom, I am not in your choice of men You have a responsibility to determine who you associate with and when to get out, and the State will try to help. But when the tragedy comes and it becomes known to the police, the police must now go the extra mile to ensure there is detection."
Yes, it was a very short "sound byte" and, not surprising, mostly women vociferously condemned the statement, some calling on him to apologise. Significantly, there was an event the same week just gone that underscored police problems-a video showing a female student in a store resisting a police officer who, reportedly, was trying to protect her.
The Attorney General came out in defence of the Prime Minister because as he said, "People were equally responsible for their own situations." He probably meant "actions," and should have included, not the actions of criminals.
Isn't it time for a conversation between the policy-makers and the public-a reasoned conversation on domestic violence and crime in general? Since the "public conversation" programme is underway, maybe the Government should grasp the opportunity to set the stage for a common understanding between itself and citizens on the societal effects of domestic violence and crime generally, rather than deepen public vexation. A part of that conversation should be the depoliticisation of citizens' safety.
The woman who asked the question did so sincerely given the high level of murders, and it is reasonable to assume she had no expectation that neither the Prime Minister nor the police could be in women's bedrooms and everywhere there is a likelihood of violence to detect and prevent it. Because of the low detection and conviction rates and skepticism about prevention, how can we feel safe? How can the Government reassure us it is fulfilling a prime responsibility of any government to keep citizens safe?
Certainly, the Prime Minister and the Attorney General must be aware that if criminals know the chances they will get caught is virtually nil, then crime will spiral out of control-a governance hazard, leaving all citizens exposed to violence and mayhem.
The question posed was an important one and directed to the right person. The "sound byte" was typical of an ingrained patriarchal culture of systematic normalising of rape and murder because of alleged irresponsible behaviour by women. Men and boys are victims of violence and domestic abuse, and they get little if any attention and empathy. Many people will laugh at a man if a woman inflicts violence on him. There is no question that the majority of domestic violence fatalities are women. We know too, many women stay in abusive relationships for various reasons including lack of safe shelter especially if there are boy children. We also know some victims refuse to give evidence against their abusers and return to the abusive relationship. None of these situations and what women wear or how they twerk are excuses for rape, abuse with the intent to kill, and premeditated murder. Abusers often threaten death. Women and men don't always know the true character of the person they are associating with, just as the electorate don't always know the true character of a government before electing it.
My advice is since there are rapists and killers and the police don't know how to catch them, we must take care to protect ourselves.
If the intent of the Prime Minister was to caution women to do whatever they can to protect themselves-and I see nothing wrong with that-then regrettably, the choice of language was inflammatory and inferred victim blaming. If we place the statement in the context of a lack of proper infrastructure to deal with domestic violence and low detection and conviction rates then it is an admission we cannot rely on the State, and we had better find ways to protect ourselves.
The public trauma is heightened when the responses from officialdom are: "The crime rate is unacceptable,""The Police Service Commission is responsible for hiring a Commissioner,""The police can't do it alone,""The public has a responsibility to help the police," and "We are a lawless society."
We are lawless because detection rates are low because laws are not enforced because corruption sucks the integrity of the nation, encourages lawlessness, fuels widespread crime and sends productivity to hell and because there is no accountability and consequences for performance failure.
As said, the time is right for a conversation. The Prime Minister will be wise to meet with women and men's groups and converse with citizens to reassure them of Government's robust actions to protect them. Public pressure is necessary to depoliticise citizens' security.
