The Georgetown City Constabulary has spent the past few days trying to defend its archaic and discriminatory policy against women, which insists on a two-year probationary period and makes becoming pregnant within that period a firing offence. The Constabulary, when contacted on Monday prior to this newspaper breaking the story on Tuesday that three women had been fired because they became pregnant within that period, stuck to its guns on the issue.
It quoted its Standing Order which it said the women violated by becoming pregnant. One officer said that women are usually offered the option to terminate the pregnancy or resign and if they chose the latter option, they could possibly be rehired after they had given birth. The hierarchy of the City Constabulary was adamant about maintaining its policy even though it is dated and flies in the face of the Constitution of Guyana as well as the Prevention of Discrimination Act.
Not only that, but in the face of a public outcry against this policy and calls for it to be reviewed, the Constabulary’s Superintendent of Training Constable Laurel Gittens posited that a review would lead to “a maternity ward running the constabulary.” One would have to wonder, however, whether this could be much worse than the concrete blocks and robots running the organisation at present.
The three women who were dismissed recently undoubtedly were not the first to face the implacability of this rule and find themselves unemployed at a time when they would be faced with additional expense. All of their stories are not known, but the one which has been reported on reveals the extent of the callousness with which these women are treated.
Petrula Anthony, a mother of five, was one of the three women who were recently given their marching orders. Ms Anthony’s dismissal took effect on August 3 by way of a letter issued to her on August 1. Since Ms Anthony was just one month away from the end of the two-year period demanded and would have been proceeding on leave this month in any case, she certainly could have been considered to be kept on strength.
If there was any other issue with regard to Ms Anthony’s service and it was egregious enough to warrant dismissal then that ought to have been the reason Ms Anthony was fired. If not, then whoever took the decision to deny her the right to earn, given her particular circumstances, should also be up for review. Surely, decency and compassion should demand, rules or not, that all the circumstances of every case be examined based on merit.
Meanwhile, several comments attributed to officers in authority at the City Constabulary reveal an alarming paucity of not only civility and empathy, but also commonsense. The first, said to come from an unnamed officer, appallingly said that women who become pregnant within the two-year period could opt to have an abortion. Obviously, no consideration is given to whether the woman in question might have had difficulty becoming pregnant; no, she must choose between nurturing and earning. She can only have children when her employer says she can.
The second statement was made by Chief Constabulary Officer Andrew Foo. He said, among other things, “Becoming pregnant would seriously limit their ability to function but if they do become pregnant they have the option of resigning and at the end of their maternity once their performance has been good, they can return to the constabulary.” So just how is Mr Foo monitoring these women’s performance once they would have resigned to determine their suitability for re-employment? He isn’t. Mr Foo like every other employer, knows within three to six months whether any employee, man or woman, is suitable for service. In fact, a check of the records would probably show that the men are confirmed within that period. The policy was meant to keep women out, or keep them in their place. It is discriminatory.
The third comment, and the worst, was made by the Constabulary’s Training Officer Ms Gittens to the effect that were the policy to be reviewed, there would be a “maternity ward” running the organisation. While family planning is not widely practised in Guyana, Ms Gittens disparages not just all of the women constables in the organisation but herself as well, by insinuating that all of the women constables would immediately run out and become pregnant. It would seem then that women join the constabulary for that specific purpose. It should perhaps be noted here that pregnancy is not a contagious disease nor is it an illness. It is a normal bodily function. For various reasons, not all women’s bodies are able to perform this function. Ms Gittens ought to be made to apologise to her peers in the constabulary, who according to reports constitute two-thirds of its strength and without whom it would not be able to function.
