Read on Twitter
Senator Johnson-Smith's revelation that she suffered harassment from a fellow senator is a good jumping-off point to examine precisely how this #GeorgeWright debacle went so horribly and predictably wrong. So a 
First up; I told you so!
Second up: Mi did tell unu! /1
First up; I told you so!
Second up: Mi did tell unu! /1
Third up: Let's briefly consider whether, legally speaking, a husband can commit the offence of rape against his wife. As we all know, the law on rape in Jamaica is, generally speaking, a steaming pile of bovine excrement. For one thing, it stipulates that only someone /2
possessing a penis can commit the offence of rape and only someone who possesses a vagina can be raped. The Sexual Offences Act (SOA) contains this restrictive tortured definition because, well, something about those damn gays and keeping them in their place. /3
Anyway, the SOA sucks in other ways. One other way in which the law sucks is how it treats the question of marital rape. The SOA stipulates that a husband who has sexual intercourse with his wife against her will is only legally liable for raping her if 1 or more /4
of the following existed when he forced himself on her:
i. they were separated within the meaning of the Matrimonial Causes Act;
ii. there was a separation agreement between them;
iii. divorce/nullity proceedings had begun;
iv. she had a protection order against him; and
/5
i. they were separated within the meaning of the Matrimonial Causes Act;
ii. there was a separation agreement between them;
iii. divorce/nullity proceedings had begun;
iv. she had a protection order against him; and
/5
v. he KNEW he had an STI.
Since we know that one form of abuse is often accompanied by other forms, the law on marital rape is clearly trash. A man who has no qualms about beating his wife, might also not have any qualms about having sex with her against her will. /6
Since we know that one form of abuse is often accompanied by other forms, the law on marital rape is clearly trash. A man who has no qualms about beating his wife, might also not have any qualms about having sex with her against her will. /6
This is where Parliament/the #GeorgeWright cock-up intersects with the issue of the SOA's trash approach to marital rape. As the legislature, one of Parliament's jobs is to review and fix trash laws. In 2014, the SOA was under review and some people lobbied to have the marital /7
rape garbage cleaned up. Parliament ultimately left the garbage right where it was to continue festering and stinking up the more civilised society we were trying to build. As I watched the crap show in the Senate on Friday about the #GeorgeWright affair, I recalled part of /8
one Senator's contribution to the debate on marital rape in 2014. This Senator, Lambert Brown, was in his element on Friday and has since continued in the same vein on this app. Of note are his tweets challenging Sen. Johnson-Smith to name her alleged aggressor outside /9
of Parliament where she wouldn't have the benefit of Parliamentary privilege. In other words, Senator Brown is his usual acerbic self. The thing that got me about Senator Brown's performance in the Senate on Friday, which he framed as concern for abused women, is that /10
given the chance in 2014 to fix the law to better protect women from abusive husbands, he declined to help.
https://jamaica-gleaner.com/article/lead-stories/20141016/senator-resists-proposal-marital-rape-0?fbclid=IwAR36V2idJkLgKiWZvz463oIJop5rVw4HFbj5wOFhdZdd6_eUJP40wow68UAwhen
/10
https://jamaica-gleaner.com/article/lead-stories/20141016/senator-resists-proposal-marital-rape-0?fbclid=IwAR36V2idJkLgKiWZvz463oIJop5rVw4HFbj5wOFhdZdd6_eUJP40wow68UAwhen
/10
In 2014, Senator Brown in his usual acerbic way stated "To now subject every sexual activity to a potential future claim of rape is not something that you will get me endorsing, and I don't care how many conventions we have signed importing from foreign things ..." /11
He also worried that fixing the law could result in, "filling out of a form every night for consent" Look people, the man is nothing if not hilarious!
But y'all can imagine my shock to see Senator Brown carrying on in the Senate on Friday because an MP is alleged to have /12
But y'all can imagine my shock to see Senator Brown carrying on in the Senate on Friday because an MP is alleged to have /12
been caught on tape beating his wife. Is it that Senator Brown would be less outraged if the tape was of an MP allegedly assaulting his wife with his penis instead of his fists or a stool? If it's not the Parliament's place to interfere with the institution of marriage /13
by stipulating that a husband may not legally rape his wife under any circumstances, why is it Parliament's place to be endlessly discussing one specific incident of domestic violence? What changes to either law or policy to better protect women will result from Parliament /14
exceeding its constitutional powers to try to punish Mr. Wright for allegedly beating his wife? Why are Parliamentarians from the PNP suddenly so concerned about violence against and disrespect of women? /15
Who recalls then Senator AJ Nicholson joking about "flexi-rape" in 2014 during a Senate debate about the flexi-work legislation? I believe his PNP colleague Senators had a laugh when the joke was uttered. Who can forget Senator Haughton declaring he is a "breast man" during /16
a speech in the damn Senate about breast cancer awareness?
So what we have is a situation in which Parliament has failed to ix laws or enact new ones to protect women and at least 3 PNP Senators being varying degrees of creepy in terms of respect for women. /17
So what we have is a situation in which Parliament has failed to ix laws or enact new ones to protect women and at least 3 PNP Senators being varying degrees of creepy in terms of respect for women. /17
Who in their right mind really thought that the Parliament was an appropriate forum to discuss the personal domestic violence issues affecting a specific MP? This thing was always going to devolve into a silly partisan cass cass from which nothing of lasting value emerges. /18
There was absolutely no chance that Parliamentary discussions on this matter would have been intelligent or sober. It started out with a craven attempt by the PNP to "suspend" Mr. Wright (the Constitution be damned) and the latest salvo was that acrimonious Senate sitting /19
on Friday that ended with Senator Johnson-Smith revealing that she had to report a colleague to the police or harassing her. In between all of this, some people used the incident to mislead the public about the usefulness of impeachment legislation. /20
And after demanding that the incident by the subject of Parliamentary discussion and action (one more, damn that pesky Constitution), we had the PNP president hiding behind technical legal concerns to try to stop Parliamentary discussion of Trafigura! /21
And now some people who have been screaming at the top of their lungs that Parliament needed to punish Mr. Wright to protect women, are demanding that Senator Johnson-Smith risk legal jeopardy by naming her Senate colleague outside of Parliament! /22
Meanwhile, no concrete steps have been taken to close gaps in the law and policy to better protect women from abuse and to empower abuse victims to make the choices they think are most advantageous to them.
Remind me; what exactly is Parliament's job again? /end
Remind me; what exactly is Parliament's job again? /end
