JavaScript is disabled in your web browser or browser is too old to support JavaScript. Today almost all web pages contain JavaScript, a scripting programming language that runs on visitor's web browser. It makes web pages functional for specific purposes and if disabled for some reason, the content or the functionality of the web page can be limited or unavailable.

Thursday, July 24, 2025

Domestic Violence Act’s missed chance

by

1857 days ago
20200624
Editorial

Editorial

On Mon­day evening in the Sen­ate, an op­por­tu­ni­ty was missed to deal with an area in which cit­i­zens of this coun­try face dis­crim­i­na­tion based on their sex­u­al pref­er­ences.

Amend­ments are be­ing made to the Do­mes­tic Vi­o­lence (Amend­ment) Act that widen the scope of pro­tec­tion or­ders and ad­dress the use of tech­nol­o­gy by abusers to ha­rass and stalk their vic­tims.

These are the first changes to the leg­is­la­tion in 21 years, cre­at­ing a stronger law which should get unan­i­mous sup­port from all sides in the cham­ber. That is, ex­cept for that glar­ing loop­hole which leaves same-sex cou­ples de­prived of the pro­tec­tions pro­vid­ed by the law.

In­de­pen­dent Sen­a­tor Hazel Thomp­son-Ahye, an at­tor­ney who is wide­ly re­spect­ed for her work in fam­i­ly law, ex­pressed con­cern about that over­sight when she made her con­tri­bu­tion to de­bate in the Up­per House and at the com­mit­tee stage of the bill moved for an amend­ment to ad­dress that de­fi­cien­cy in clause 3 of the leg­is­la­tion.

Re­gret­tably, the amend­ment got very lit­tle sup­port and was not part of the bill that was even­tu­al­ly passed by the Sen­ate late on Mon­day.

The un­for­tu­nate mes­sage be­ing telegraphed through that de­ci­sion is that mem­bers of the T&T LGBT com­mu­ni­ty are not en­ti­tled to the same lev­el of pro­tec­tion as het­ero­sex­u­al cit­i­zens when they are abused by their in­ti­mate part­ners. They will not be able to ap­ply for pro­tec­tion or­ders un­der the amend­ed Do­mes­tic Vi­o­lence law.

The bill, which will be de­bat­ed in the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives to­day, cov­ers 13 types of re­la­tion­ships, in­clud­ing chil­dren, those over the age of 16 and cou­ples in ro­man­tic and sex­u­al re­la­tion­ships. It al­so in­cludes a more ex­pan­sive de­f­i­n­i­tion of emo­tion­al and psy­cho­log­i­cal abus­es.

At­tor­ney Gen­er­al Faris Al-Rawi, who pi­lot­ed the bill through the Sen­ate and will do the same in the Low­er House this af­ter­noon, needs to ex­plain why an en­tire seg­ment of the pop­u­la­tion has not been brought un­der the am­bit of this law.

It is dif­fi­cult to fath­om why, in 21st-cen­tu­ry T&T, a cit­i­zen with a par­tic­u­lar sex­u­al pref­er­ence is not be able to se­cure an emer­gency pro­tec­tion or­der against their part­ner of the same sex. In a coun­try where do­mes­tic vi­o­lence is a ma­jor prob­lem, these cit­i­zens re­main ex­posed to phys­i­cal and emo­tion­al harm by their abu­sive part­ners.

For this fail­ure, the Gov­ern­ment, Op­po­si­tion and quite a few mem­bers of the Sen­ate’s In­de­pen­dent bench­es share equal blame.

This gi­ant step back­wards, just over two years af­ter the land­mark April 2018 High Court rul­ing that de­clared the coun­try’s bug­gery law un­con­sti­tu­tion­al, shows how much work still needs to be done at all lev­els of this so­ci­ety to erad­i­cate dis­crim­i­na­tion in all its ug­ly forms.

A ma­jor in­fringe­ment on the rights of LGBT cit­i­zens was struck down in that his­toric judge­ment de­liv­ered by Jus­tice Devin­dra Ram­per­sad, which re­pealed sec­tions 13 and 16 of the Sex­u­al Of­fens­es Act.

On that oc­ca­sion, the law vi­o­lat­ed hu­man rights to pri­va­cy and ex­pres­sion. This week, how­ev­er, the right to pro­tec­tion from abuse was de­nied to LGBT cit­i­zens and the op­por­tu­ni­ty was missed to in­tro­duce a strong, pro­gres­sive law.


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored