A BLOT, so dark on the social fabric of Barbados, was unearthed last week with the rescuing of three children from an abusive situation.
In the past, these types of reported cases were usually accompanied by initial shock and then whispers in the community. Today, depending on the social standing of the families involved, sexual molestation of minors may be kept hidden out of fear the shame it would bring to the family name. Still very much a taboo subject, many adults cringe at the very thought of reporting the matter and allowing justice to take its course.
The result is a sickening cover-up of a crime so heinous it can destroy lives by causing the victims to behave in a way that goes counter to being a productive member of society. That is, they can remain a victim the rest of their lives crippled by the crime, or, their reaction is to regard that behavior as normal and soon they are the perpetrators themselves. Either way, society is worse off.
The valiant effort by the rural community to save the children in the most recently highlighted case of an outrage to public decency is to be commended. The handling of the case by the state agency is to be condemned.
Here it was the village had taken on the mantra “to raise a child”, and it almost ended in greater tragedy. What more could we ask of these prime example of good neighbours, short of them physically removing the children.
They went through all the proper channels, informing time and again all who possessed the authority to deal with the matter. There are accounts – not refuted – of these desperate neighbours going way beyond the average call to the agencies. These good citizens even turned up in person to lodge complaints. Such was their compassion for the misery in which these children unwittingly found themselves.
How many times have we heard officials from the podium spout the figures of abuse. We express the usual abhorrence at the number of nameless, faceless rising cases and return to our daily living.
Last week, Barbadians could not so easily turn away. The abused now had faces and names. They represented every case that the Child Care Board did not see through to the end. They represented a stolen innocence that no parent would want inflicted on their child.
These symbols of agency neglect forced us to examine our own actions and, more importantly, the actions of those charged with the responsibility of looking out for them. How, for so long, did these poor children remain in such a state when the social agencies were aware of their plight?
The case should not be just another tale of good investigative journalism. What it should be is the catalyst for changing the social order of things, starting with the Child Care Board.