THE TRAGIC and unnecessary death of six-year-old Jahan Gill has shocked our society this past week. It is painful to think of the physical and emotional suffering that this little boy experienced with the only consolation being that now his little soul is at peace.
Already the finger-pointing has begun with everyone looking for someone to blame, but is this really the way we should honour his memory? The Child Care Board is given the mandate to protect the children of our society but how effective can they be when the laws, policies and social institutions are not in place to protect our smallest and most vulnerable citizens?
Yes, the Child Care Board has a role to play, and the training and retraining of staff is critical. Employing individuals without professional social work qualifications and training is not acceptable. An individual with a degree in criminology is not allowed to practise as a lawyer, therefore we cannot allow individuals with social science degrees to practise as professional social workers.
Blaming game
However, instead of trying to place the blame at somebody’s door, we should be examining the systems, laws and policies that we have in place to protect our children from harm, and discussing how we can amend these to minimise the possibility of a similar tragedy ever happening again.
The ongoing debate over the use of corporal punishment in homes and schools usually sparks a heated, emotional response by those in favour of this method. Their argument is usually two-pronged, with the excuse of culture and/or religion at the root of their justification to continue this practice.
Emotional exclamations of “this is we culture” and “spare the rod, spoil the child” seem to overshadow the rational, higher-level reflective thinking about this topic. The religious justification can easily be denounced by reading other tenets from the same Bible such as: “Suppose a man has a son who is stubborn and rebellious, a son who will not obey his parents, even though they punish him . . . . Then the men of the city are to stone him to death, and so you will get rid of this evil” (Deuteronomy 21:18-21). I’m sure if we adhered to this tenet many of us would be childless today.
The cultural argument is predicated on the false premise that culture is static and predetermined when in reality culture is fluid and dynamic, created and co-created by man. We have to be conscious of where this idea of beating someone into submission evolved from.
When we use the excuse of ‘culture’ to justify dehumanising acts, we are continuing to adopt and internalise the agenda of the oppressor. Paulo Friere stated: “The task of the humanists is to see that the oppressed become aware of the fact that as dual beings, ‘housing’ the oppressors within themselves, they cannot be truly human.” He further stated: “This violence, as a process, is perpetuated from generation to generation of oppressors, who become its heirs and are shaped by it.”
It is time to actively create a culture devoid of violence and oppression and it can only begin when we show our children that the ways of the oppressor are no longer being embraced and perpetuated.
We can allow the tragic death of little Jahan to fade from our memory, or we can let it be a catalyst for change where his spirit lives on in laws and policies that ensure the emotional safety and security of all of our children.
– Julie Sealy, PhD