Four more women have died and two others came close to joining them over the past few weeks. Alarming news anyhow you look at it. But even more so when one considers that Guyana has a population of fewer than three-quarters of a million people, never mind that according to statistical evidence women are still in the majority.
It is more than obvious from the interest displayed, or rather lack of it, that the population has become blasé about murders; there are just too many of them and not just of women, even though the evidence seems to suggest that more women are dying in a violent manner than men. Perhaps people have reached saturation point, where their minds can no longer absorb the gruesome, mostly domestic-violence related murders and have switched off. Or they have ceased to care being more preoccupied with putting food on the table, which for many people has recently become an arduous task.
Maybe it’s the former. Think about it. Three women were killed over the Valentine’s weekend and in one of those incidents a teenage girl was also chopped across the face resulting in serious injury and possibly even disability. This was not even allowed to become a nine-day wonder before the next blood-letting occurred. And less than nine days before Valentine’s weekend there had been a murder and attempted suicide.
In between, there have been charges of rape, abduction and carnal knowledge all against women, pointing to the suggestion that contrary to what social scientists have been saying, women and not men are the endangered sex. Still, frighteningly, there is no massive anti-violence movement by women’s groups and civil society.
Apart from the usual voices which decry these episodes, individuals who have become familiar because of the consistency with which they plead for an end to violence generally and violence against women and children specifically, the current sentiment seems to be ‘as long as it does not visit my house.’
Well, if trends continue it will not be long before each of us knows or is related to someone who has either died or has killed someone as a result of domestic violence. And, just as occurred in the AIDS epidemic, there will be hundreds of domestic violence-related orphans being cared for by old and infirm grandparents and other relatives or in our overrun orphanages.
Is it really necessary for things to get to that point before there is decisive action? Yes we have the Domestic Violence Act; yes we have the Domestic Violence Policy. What are they really though? Just bits of paper, because no one seems to be paying any attention to what is laid out in them. It is true that the victims have to be willing to take the first step away from violent homes and relationships. But how many of them know for sure that when they do they will get the necessary support? How many have been made aware of what is available?
Then there is the enforcement. The police are still not doing all they should to deter gender violence. In many cases their response to crime in general is way below par. Far too often we have heard robbery victims bemoan the police’s attitude to reports. We have heard the same complaints from women who are victims of domestic violence or from their relatives after they have been murdered.
If a case is prosecuted the courts still hand down slap-on-the-wrist sentences; nothing is wrong with this if the court finds that the guilty party is truly contrite, but there should also be an order for mandatory counselling for both parties. Rarely does there seem to be cognizance by the court or the police that the accused and the virtual complainant are domiciled together and that the situation following a report or charges being laid would be fraught with resentment on the one hand and fear on the other. The tendency for volatility would still exist and perhaps the only means of reducing this would be through counselling, which addresses the underlying psychological issues. The time has come for an end to the talk about who should be doing what. There is need for action.
