Last week People And Things commenced a reflection on the extent to which we have progressed along the path towards conformity with the UN Covenant On Civil And Political Rights, and this week that review is concluded.
One other concern for the UN Committee is the extent to which corporal punishment (of adults) is still a legitimate sanction in law and moreover can be used in both the school and home (against children).
In the former regard, Barbados would presumably argue that this legislation is irrelevant since Hobbs and Mitchell (1992) established that the provision under which prisoners were whipped was inconsistent with the Constitution. It is, however, still legally possible to legislatively prescribe such punishment as a lawful remedy, and this possibility offends those among us who cherish a contemporary appreciation of fundamental human rights.
As it relates to the children, the UN Committee will no doubt continue to have challenges with the fact that our law prescribes flogging as a legitimate punishment in public schools and the home. Here also there is considerable, although diminishing, support in the public domain and there is considerable comfort to be gained from the most recent UNICEF survey of public opinion here, which notes a significant decline in public support for corporal punishment in schools over the past ten years.
These data suggest that a legislative prohibition on corporal punishment in schools would not carry a significant political risk and should perhaps be considered at this time, especially as informed opinion is clear on the greater damage done by such punishment.
Corporal punishment in the home is another matter, however, and this is treated as somewhat of a “sacred cow”, largely because flogging is perceived to be one of the indicators of our adherence to Christianity. As such, one presumes (sadly) that successive periodic reviews will lament the fact that we are still unwilling to amend our laws with respect to corporal punishment in a way that is not offensive to the Covenant.
Similarly controversial is the UN Committee’s concerns that Barbados continues to criminalise sexual acts between adults of the same sex, which makes homosexuals potential victims of harassment and physical violence. This issue has been a perennial concern of human rights activists and is unsurprisingly mentioned with equal concern in the 2013 periodic review.
Like the issue of flogging, the buggery laws enjoy considerable public support, which arises from a similar association with Christian virtues. The extent to which public opinion on this issue is widely misunderstood has recently been exposed by a CADRES survey which not only charts a significant decline in support over the past ten years (similar to flogging in schools) but also notes a greater public objection to one of the by-products of these laws, which is discrimination.
Buggery is distinguished from flogging children in that while children are still actively flogged in schools, Barbados maintains that the buggery laws are not enforced and moreover that there is no intention to enforce these laws in the short, medium or long term.
One also presumes that in time Barbados will make good use of the aforementioned survey data, which demonstrates that Barbados is among the most tolerant countries in the Caribbean on the issue of homosexuality, to make the case that the buggery laws are largely irrelevant and not a priority. In this regard, the reference to the committee’s position on the need to legislatively abolish flogging as a penal punishment is still relevant since these laws also speak volumes about Barbados’ attitude towards human rights in a more general sense.
Among other less controversial issues raised by the committee is our unwillingness to articulate asylum policies, which is no doubt related to the fact that we are not a state that is likely to be presented with asylum claims and as such this is not a priority.
The issue of human trafficking is related to asylum and the committee here felt that we had made insufficient effort to respond to the scourge of human trafficking, which is consistent with an opinion offered by one United States agency subsequently. Human trafficking in general, and specifically with respect to human trafficking for purposes of prostitution, is illegal in Barbados but the committee felt that the state needed to go further to protect the human rights of women and girls, especially those who are not necessarily citizens of Barbados but might be trafficked here for such nefarious reasons.
Considerable effort has been made by Barbados in recent times to act decisively against human traffickers and the next review will no doubt acknowledge this; however, one wonders whether our unwillingness to decriminalise and regulate prostitution might inadvertently make efforts to treat to this issue considerably more complex.
Peter W. Wickham ([email protected]) is a political consultant and a director of Caribbean Development Research Services (CADRES).
