RECENTLY, I read a news clip captioned “father jailed for beating promiscuous daughter” and quickly got my glasses on to read and re-read the said article, because I could not believe what was unfolding before my very eyes. To be honest with you my readers, I have never read an article so many times as this one and up until now still haven’t got the full meaning of it all. In fact, similar emotions enveloped a work colleague when he read the same article and he asked me if this is the same Guyana, West Indian society, that this situation is taking place. I responded that I am in the same predicament, trying desperately to figure out what is taking place in good old Guyana.
The story tells of a father who is accused of; note my words, administering “corporal punishment” to a promiscuous daughter. The youngster who is into the habit of sleeping out and having sexual relations with multiple adult partners. It is cause for concern to a worried father who responded by beating his out-of- place girl. He was duly convicted and given a six-week prison sentence for child abuse.
Now this is a clear case of a magistrate who lacks what I would call “judicial alertness”, a mild way of saying the magistrate in question lacks wit and proper thinking. Can the magistrate explain so that anyone with half a brain can understand why a father who clearly cares for his daughter should be imprisoned for doing the right thing? A stern reprimand would have been sufficient to send home the message to that heavy- handed father. His method of discipline might have been injurious to his daughter, which parents must be cognisant of when administering punishment while at the same time being in a rage. Being very angry and administering punishment is a sure way for injury to occur. But sentencing him to six weeks imprisonment is not a smart move either; this means that the teen is free of a protective father to roam the streets and continue her sexual promiscuity.
A very dumb decision by a magistrate who did not take into consideration, that her father might have saved his daughter from sexual predators and, God forbid, sexually transmitted diseases. This is the cold, hard reality of a promiscuous lifestyle and Magistrate Octive- Hamilton should be conscious of this. I know that Madame Justice might retort that she is simply upholding the law “you cannot abuse your children.” And something I am getting in this case of an absentee father who only “comes around to brutalise the children.” While this might be the case, it still does not warrant six weeks of imprisonment. This is sending the wrong message to teenagers out there who are prone to have a rebellious attitude which will in the long run cause them a lifetime of regrets.
In our haste to becoming “more Americanized” we are going overboard with this abuse clause. Then it behooves parents to be less involved, less inclined to administer discipline, choosing the laissez-faire approach when it comes to child upbringing. Or, they will be forced to adopt the good old Guyanese “put them out the house” approach when teens cannot comply with rules, because parents will not have to put up with obnoxious teens and have them stay under the same roof. Then, I am afraid, this will be the worst-case scenario that is bound to hit the Guyanese society very hard. Picture a society of runaways having no home, no future, and no hope. Is this the society we are moulding?
I hope Lurlene Nestor and other such social scientists are taking note, because when decisions of this nature are handed down it means that people of a certain social status will continue along the downward spiral. A very sad picture indeed.