Dear Editor,
I have noted a report in the KN edition of Thursday 15th October 2009 under the caption `Manickchand’s statement is terrifying- AFC leader.’
The article reports that Raphael Trotman leader of the Alliance For Change said words to the effect that if the Minister of Human Services feels that nothing could be done legally about the Kwame/Julius saga, then that should have been the first thing on the order paper today (Thursday).
He further calls the statement very terrifying and says that the minister should have stated what she intends to do about the situation regarding the laws being deficient and that the minister should be trying to recommend laws which protect children because it is her responsibility. He went on to urge the Minister to get about and protect the children of Guyana and not try to shield anyone.
If the report in the newspapers is true I find the ill informed statements of the leader of the AFC, Parliamentarian and attorney-at-law Mr. Trotman, most frightening.
Firstly let me say that Trotman’s statements seemed to have been referring to a statement I made and by which I stand; our sexual offences laws are deficient.
On Friday 9th October 2009 the Men Empowering Network (MEN) hosted an anger management conference for men at which I gave brief remarks.
I said during those remarks that there are useful ways in which persons such as the men who I was speaking to as well as the organizations they were coming from, could support positive change in Guyana in a way that would see us continuing to move forward as a country.
I spoke of many different things but specifically of a scenario where an adult male engaged in sexual conversation or sexual activity with a fifteen year old boy and indicated that if the participants there found that offensive then, given the deficient nature of our current law in addressing these types of offensive issues, a useful enterprise would be to rally around the early passage of the Sex Offences Bill which is presently in Select Committee in the National Assembly. I went on to encourage the participants one of which was Mr. Earnest Elliot, MP of the PNC/R, (who may wish to verify this), to demand of their parliamentarians the urgent and speedy completion of the process in select committee.
I would venture to say that I do not believe anyone in that room could have honestly interpreted me to be saying that I was supportive of and/or defending sexual activity between adults and children. In fact I was clear that our anachronistic laws needed overhauling urgently if we were going to effectively address these types of circumstances and offer our children the protection they deserve.
But as with any statement Mr. Trotman and/or any of his cohorts can easily find something to distort and given the fact that I find responses to be time wasting and unnecessary distractions from what I have sworn to do, I may be a good target that would attract the distortions of these types of people.
Outside of the very obvious and dishonest distortions being given to what I said, what I find most disturbing is that Raphael Trotman, leader of a political party in Parliament could be calling for the laying of legislation that would address this issue when the Sex Offences Bill # 30 of 2009 was laid in the National Assembly over two months ago. The reason the Bill has not yet been addressed is because Parliamentarians were more interested in vacationing for two long months instead of addressing the legislation laid in Select Committees.
This new Sex Offences Bill is revolutionary to Guyana. It contains provisions that address all offensive situations that the people of Guyana could have thought of during the lengthy consultation period regarding proposals contained in the consultation document, “Stamp it Out.” Many of these offensive situations cannot be adequately legally addressed now, as attorney-at-law Trotman ought to know.
This new Bill proposes offences such as grooming, gender neutral definitions of every offence including rape (which allows for it to be an offence for a male to be raped), statutory rape for boys (i.e. making the age of consent for boys the same as girls: 16 years), causing a child to watch a sex act, arranging or facilitating of a child sex offence, sexual activity with a child under 16, failing to charge or send file to DPP, committing a criminal offence with the intent to commit a sexual offence and a whole host of other offences.
Where was Mr. Trotman when this was being laid and why has this leader of a party who says he is so interested in children and their welfare not read this important piece of legislation? Is this not a serious omission on the part of a representative of the people?
In his comments, Mr. Trotman calls for the “recommendation of laws to protect children”. How could Mr. Trotman not know that before the National Assembly went into recess, laws were recommended to protect children in the form of the Protection of Children Bill, the Adoption of Children Bill and the Status of Children Bill?
How could he not know that these laws were passed by the National Assembly? Does Mr. Trotman not know that pending before a Special Select Committee now are the Child Care and Development Services Bill and the Custody, Contact, Guardianship and Maintenance Bill 2009.
Additionally cabinet has offered its no objection to a contract for the construction of the Family Court which would allow for all these pieces of legislation to be utilized in a child friendly atmosphere. These pieces of legislation and actions on the part of the Government shall create and establish a much needed environment where child protection and our children could flourish. Where were Mr. Trotman and the AFC when all of this was happening? Surely he cannot claim ignorance when these matters have been happening publicly in the National Assembly. Does a Member of Parliament not have a responsibility to be aware of the happenings in the Assembly, the contents of Bills and the mischief the said contents are trying to cure?
I would urge Mr. Trotman, and indeed all politicians of his ilk, to cease and desist from politicking on important issues like child protection and get down to the business of actually doing their bit to protect children. It is always easier to postulate from an armchair and much harder to actually realize change that would see the people of a country benefitting.
Raphael, my good friend, may I offer my belief that you would be of better service to the people of Guyana and particularly her children if you were to encourage your representative on the Special Select Committees addressing the Sex Offences Bill and the two children’s bills to actually turn up at the meetings and make your and your party’s contributions known. That would mean that you actually have to read the Bill. I would be happy to sit down with you or anyone else in your party to explain the contents of the Sex Offences Bill and more specifically how said contents address the many gaps in our existing outdated legislation.
Yours faithfully,
Priya Manickchand M.P.
Minister of HumanServices
& Social Security
Editor’s note: Minister Manickchand focuses much of her contribution on the fact that comprehensive sexual offences legislation has been tabled in Parliament and that it is currently within the jurisdiction of a select committee. It has however taken her ministry three years to get to this stage and the decision to send the bill to a select committee is, of course, purely in the remit of the governing benches. When it suits this administration and speed is of the essence the mere formality of a select committee is dispensed with.
More importantly, if arranging or facilitating a child sex offence and sexual activity with a child under the age of 16 could soon be offences under this new law then as the subject minister, Minister Manickchand should have been extremely concerned that such an allegation has been levelled against a well-known employee of the Office of the President. She, of all persons, should have been at the forefront of ensuring that this complaint is rigorously investigated so that her administration could not possibly be accused of double standards. Her public pronouncements so far and this letter in particular, evince no concern that a child could have potentially been the victim of an offence that may soon be specifically created by an act of Parliament.
