…in Parliament
Your Eyewitness takes this matter of violence against females very seriously. It’s long past the time to be pussyfooting around the issue. From the newspapers, it’s clear that no category of females is sacrosanct – rich, poor, black, white, (and every combination and permutation of in-between shades) etc. What this signals, of course, is that the problem ain’t just a result of idiosyncratic males, but a systemic problem in males as a category.
And a systemic problem needs a systemic solution, and then we can hone in on the outliers that’ll always crop up.
Now, this problem has been here with us as far back as we can tell – probably all the way back to the Cave Man days. Makes sense, doesn’t it? Even when they were “hunting and gathering”, the men, being bigger, had an advantage, and it’s inconceivable they wouldn’t have taken advantage of that disparity.
And it’s been that way ever since…to the point where women would’ve seen it as “just the way things are”.
But, in the last hundred years, we’ve come a long way…haven’t we? There’s been a gradual acceptance that all human beings are intrinsically equal, and should be treated equally. The fact that some might be bigger, smarter, or taller shouldn’t – in and of itself – be used to treat anyone as a punching bag. And this is where we come to this thing we invented called “the state”, that’s supposed to make and enforce laws to ensure equality of treatment for all.
Problem was, the laws themselves were skewed against women – not surprisingly, since they were made generally by men! It was a long grind for women to join that exclusive club in which there’s been some progress. But to return to the question posed earlier, the answer is “No, we still have quite a way to go as far as women being treated equally!” So, the struggle continues – and continue it must. Because, you see, dear reader, unless women are treated equally everywhere, no one will be treated equally anywhere…whether you’re male, LGBT, coloured or whatever.
And we arrive at the specific instances in which the rule will be tested – one of them having presented itself in what used to be the bastion of male privilege – the Legislature, where the laws of the state are actually made. There’s been a claim by a female MP that a male MP assaulted her. The Police were called in, but upon advice of the DPP, they were told that Parliament has its own rules – overseen by the Speaker – for dealing with such matters.
This is as it should be. If it was good enough for males from the beginning, females must now enjoy!
…for the state
There’s a great hue and cry by the Opposition PNC that the new PPP Government has been cleaning house too arbitrarily. They’re unlawfully firing persons in Government – and doing so in a racially-directed manner. Now, in a country like Guyana – which has always been tethering on the edge of ethnic/racial conflicts – these are very serious charges. And must be dealt with just as seriously.
But because of that long history, fortunately, there are a host of institutions in place to deal with such accusations. For Public Servants, there’s the Public Service Appellate Tribunal. And how about the Ombudsman? Or the ERC? The first stop for most, however, are the courts, and recourse to these has already been taken.
Ironically, however, because many of the persons fired have generally been taken to the courts by the Government ON SPECIFIC charges, some eyebrows have been raised.
Aren’t the courts the arbiter of the laws – and will decide whether the Government violated any of those laws?
And justice will be served?
…in cricket
For a sport that’s supposed to exemplify “fair play”, cricket in Guyana is embroiled in too many unsightly squabbles.
The latest one, involving “Big Man Cricket”, is especially ironic, flowing from the implications of the name.
Big men?
