One only has to survey the comments and listen to the voices of the public in order to ascertain their views of what ‘Justice’ truly means for the woman or her partner in Choiseul, who died due to a police shooting after she was maimed by the same partner. For some, her requests for justice for her partner after she believed he was wrongfully killed by the police was unfortunate, and for some it was misplaced.
The great divide therefore has been between those who see justice as ‘retribution’ and others who see it as ‘rehabilitative and transformative.’ In the end, the words of Hon. Bradley Felix, the Parliamentary Representative for Choiseul / Saltibus best bridges this divide when he noted that “while the situation which led to his demise is unfortunate, there is obviously a grieving wife and children at the end of the day, and it means there are no winners.”
However, even amidst the warranted emotional outrage within our society, there is an underlying complexity and intricacy of domestic violence which must be understood and critically assessed before a sentence is passed. These complexities which inform the actions of perpetrators and victims must also be weighed if we are to eradicate the underlying culture of violence and observe and enforce the recently promulgated Domestic Violence Act. Beyond the emotional outrage, the complexity exists when the victim has argued for justice for her partner because in her opinion he was unlawfully killed by the police. Consequently, she expressed fears that she would not be equipped to take care of her family due to his absence as the main breadwinner of the family. This situation only reinforces what we know about domestic violence, that even amidst the physical and emotional abuse women face, their economic disempowerment coupled with their unwavering care for the economic stability of their children and families, cause them to remain in these unfortunate situations.
They remain fearful that in the absence of the breadwinner to take care of their families, they would not be equipped to do so for various reasons. As a result, there is a coping strategy developed by these victims of domestic violence, cognisant of their fear of not being able to feed their children, provide health care and to send them to school every day and while they see education as a way of moving out of poverty, for many the cost of education seems prohibitive. Therefore, amidst the violence, women take into consideration these factors in order to determine whether they ‘accept’ domestic violence for the better of their families. And the unfortunate reality is that a lot of our people who do not have to consider these factors that these victims face when determining their responses to domestic violence may believe that her calls for justice is misplaced as opposed to understanding the inner complexities which informs her calls for justice. Instead, they echo the notion steeped in retribution which believes that she should be liberated and that his death should provide this liberation. The ‘eye for an eye’ philosophy at times still reigns supreme within our society, as opposed to recognising her liberation must be steeped in being economically self-sufficient. But there are also some who believe that irrespective of his actions, and they are not incorrect, that he should have been tried by a jury of his peers and dealt with accordingly. Albeit, dated, the Saint Lucia Poverty Assessment Report of 2005 provides us with a detailed explanation and illustration of these horrifying social realities.
One can also assume that somewhere in the back of her mind, as well as other victims is the feeling of inner guilt wherein she believes that if she did not report him but attempt to resolve the issue internally, that he would still be alive and that she would have the economic means to take care of her family. However, our responsibility as a society is to ensure that these feelings are replaced with the assurance that the law and society is there to protect these victims. It must provide them with the necessary hope in the system and resources required to provide adequately for themselves and their families without acquiescing to being victims of violence.
But there is also a tacit societal silence which looks the other way at domestic violence because they believe that ‘woman and man quarrelling is not my business as they will make up tomorrow and love each other again.’ As a result, a total reorganisation of our economic system is apposite, where through a gendered lens approach, women, and their need to become economically empowered must be at the centre of that system. There must be a deliberate inclusion of women in vulnerable situations in order to remove them from the cycle of violence and a concurrent resocialisation of our people on the true definitions of love, care, and empathy. This must be done in a society which has only known violence and punishment during its history, particularly in the periods of enslavement. But even the law needs to transcend beyond protection orders into ensuring that women will be provided with their economic and material needs in order to provide women with greater comfort that removing themselves from domestic violence ordeals will not impact their livelihoods.
What does the Law have to say on situations like these? Domestic Violence Bill of Any Use?
However, there are some who have questioned the utility and even enforcement of the recently promulgated Domestic Violence Act when regard is had to situations like these. There is no doubt however that this situation if reported correctly by the media may have contravened many provisions of the Act and can be subsumed under the definition of domestic violence.
This is so because the Act expands the definition of domestic violence beyond physical violence and provides ground-breaking opportunity for new jurisprudence when it also includes emotional, verbal, psychological, emotional, economic, destruction of property, entry into residence without consent and also cyber-stalking. Albeit this is not an attempt to classify the situation as enough information has not been provided, it is only meant to show that the law is on the books. Further, it departs from the narrow definition of a domestic household as found in other pieces of legislation and provides a liberal and culturally sensitive definition, to include relationships established in custom, religion, dating, in its quest not to allow perpetrators to go free because of the so-called technicalities. Finally, it has shifted the responsibility on the state from the accused and provided it with principal responsibility to press charges providing there is adequate evidence.
However, even amidst the provisions of the law being clear, it can only be effective if it is known, and therefore, further public education and resocialisation is required in order to eradicate this underlying culture of violence present in our country. If this is done, then we would not be dealing with the symptoms of this crisis but dealing with the indicators. In another article, entitled ‘Beyond the Domestic Violence Bill 2022’, I also addressed some steps required, in addition to the letter of the law which may be instrumental to informing the responses to domestic violence and eradicating the underlying culture of domestic violence.
Situations like these are unfortunate, but our law and society must seek to accentuate as mentioned in the previous article, the judgment given in Francois v Attorney General of Saint Lucia LC 2001 HC 16 (Suit No. 69 of 2001),wherein the learned judge noted that “there is a duty on the state to protect victims of gender-based violence and this can be interpreted from the human rights provisions in the Constitution. This duty can be found within the Bill of Rights of the Constitution and where a state fails to take reasonable measures to protect women and girls from gender based violence, that state is accountable for such failure by virtue of positive obligation under the Constitution, the supreme law.”
