A Time To March

Posted on by
Submitted by Dr. Grenville Phillips II

I read the Child Protection Bill (2023) and found that I would certainly be found guilty, and liable for a fine of $100,000 and 10 years in prison for being a normal parent.

Either the bill is extremely poorly written, or there is an agenda to make all Barbadian parents guilty and liable for the same fine and imprisonment.

PARENTS’ RIGHTS

The Minister claimed that parents’ rights are protected in Article 5. I read Section 5 and I did not find it. However, throughout the Bill, the main rights for parents appear to be the right to be fined, imprisoned, and to have their children taken from them – for being normal parents.

The Minister declared in the House of Assembly that the fine should be one million dollars. Lord have mercy! He also encouraged persons who objected to the Bill to come forward to a Select Committee where they would be heard. But there was a condition – “where they align with what we are trying to do.”

NOT ALIGNED

If what they are trying to do is what they have written in the Bill, then I am not in alignment.

My son is now an adult. However, I cannot simply watch other parents in this new jeopardy without doing something. I have written twice about this. It is now time for me to march.

Grenville Phillips II is a Doctor of Engineering and a Chartered Structural Engineer. He can be reached at NextParty246@gmail.com

93 thoughts on “A Time To March”


  1. The blogmaster will be honest and express ignorance about what this march is about. What are the issues being protested? Bear in mind this is a Bill that is suppose to assist abused children. The blogmaster wonders how many on the march have donated of their time or money to mentor or assist/support at risk children.

    Reply ↓

    • Some of these people marching the blogmaster will not follow down a street paved with gold. The good thing is that citizens must always wave their right to protest especially in an environment of 30-0.


  2. “The blogmaster will be honest and express ignorance about what this march is about.”
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Well boss, where ignorance is bliss….

    You minding Christina…?
    You of all people should be aware by now that the road to Hell is paved with good intent. Yet you seem to be judging the process and the Bill by the overall INTENT claimed, much like the officials defending the process.

    HOWEVER, common sense should have alerted us by now to the FACT that most of the shiite currently infecting Barbados has been the result of the hasty implementation of ‘good intentions’ by incompetent JAs, without proper thought, careful review – and mostly without even sharing information with the public – until it becomes clear that the implementors HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE HELL THEY ARE DOING.

    – The license sticker idiocy that was started a few years ago that has now resolved into a colossal joke

    – The National ID card folly

    – The IADB child grooming survey

    – The IDIOTIC assault on the 11+ – largely because Petra was encouraged to rant about it on VOB for years – all because HE did not pass the damn 11+

    – The energy thrust led by the ‘St James tyre slasher’ which has ground to a halt with the latest excuse being ‘lack of batteries’

    – the latest $100 Million plot involving sewerage, which appears to have been conceived and planned in the dark – by class 4 students…

    …..we can go on and on ALL DAMN DAY…

    Obviously the actual proposed LAW as drafted by these jokers has not been well thought out….
    Obviously it will cause problems if not properly addressed…like all the rest..
    Obviously there is room for much discussion, review and reflection.

    …So what EXACTLY do you have against a march again?
    Are you suggesting that we wait until the shit hits the fan, so you can write a blog about how we Bajans are laid back and not proactive…?

    Bushie supports Grenville 100%

    Reply ↓

    • @Bush Tea

      What are the issues that are not well thought out? An ignorant Blogmaster wants to know.


    • The Child Protection Bill, 2023 – a review
      By Anya A. A. Lorde

      The new Act places much emphasis on regulating the Authority’s authority to intervene and manage the relationship between the child and the child’s parent or relatives. My view of section 32, which allows for the Authority to apply for court orders where a child is in need of care and protection, is that it does not provide the Authority with power to make applications for meaningful remedies against other persons even though the Act does require the Authority to protect children from abuse generally.
      A few points are worth noting here. The request for intervention by the Director in relation to a child believed to be in need of care and protection may be made by any person inclusive of a child or a child’s parent (see sections 5(2), 22 and 23). In responding to a request, the Director may provide assistance or make arrangements for the receipt of assistance as is necessary (see section 23(2)).
      Let us assume for example, that a child’s parent requests the Authority’s intervention in a matter involving a person who is knowingly grooming a young child for the purpose of sexual exploitation. This is conduct recognised under the Act as sexual abuse (see section 2). Let us further assume for the purpose of this scenario that there is not yet conduct that might warrant a criminal charge, for example, statutory rape, but this is the direction in which it is heading.
      Should the Director be of the view that intervention is necessary, the applicable available orders under the Act may be (i) an Emergency Protection Order which is only effective for a maximum period of 28 days (see section 34(1) and 34(2)(f)), (ii) a Supervision Order which allows the Director or person recommended by the Director to perform the duties of a supervisor of that child (see section 40), (iii) a Contact Order denying contact with the specified person (see section 47(c)), or as a last resort, (iv) a Care Order for the temporary removal of that child from the parent’s care (see section 37).
      In each of these instances, there is little emphasis on effectively dealing with the perpetrator’s behaviour. The court is also not properly empowered under the legislation to apply sanctions for a breach of those Orders. For example, impose fines or terms of imprisonment where there are breaches of a Contact Order.
      Accountability and the supervision of the Authority Section 10(1) of the Act establishes the Child Protection Board which will have responsibility for the administration of the Authority and formulation of its policy. The Director of Child Protection will be appointed by the board with the approval of the minister and is responsible to the board for the execution and management of the Authority’s affairs (see section 12). The minister will have the power to give the board direction with respect to a policy (see section 16(4)). There will be approved child care centres established under the control of the Authority for the purpose of providing substitute family care for a child and such centres shall have delegated care responsibility for that child (see sections 51 to 55).
      Foster homes, children’s
      homes, residential care centres and secure residential care centres are deemed to be child care centres for the purposes of the Act (see section 2). The Authority is mandatorily required to submit an annual “report of its proceedings in respect of childcare and protection to the minister” which shall be laid before Parliament and published (see section 17). I am not entirely satisfied that this properly ensures that there is also mandatory reporting with respect to the activities of the child care centres themselves, especially with respect to the recording of all complaints made by children against the Authority while they are in the care of the Authority and the outcome of any investigation inclusive of the provisions made for that child’s safety.
      I am also nagged by the fact that it is possible that a child with a mental/ cognitive disability may end up in the care of the Authority with no parent or other fit person to whom their care can be entrusted. What happens when that child attains the age of 18 years but still only has the cognitive ability of a child? How do we transition them into a world where they have no safety net and are unable to function?
      There is always the possibility that the administration of an Act may not reflect the purpose and intention of the Act. Any policy implemented by the board of the Authority or recommended to the board by the minister should include a mandatory review of this legislation on a periodic basis with reporting on suggestions for reform where necessary.
      For the administration of this Act to be successful, all persons who are a part of its implementation must be fully trained in the relevant areas. We are reminded that a key issue coming out of the Report of the Independent Committee’s investigation into GIS which was read to the public on September 19, 2022 was that the staff entrusted with the care of the wards lacked the qualifications to cater to their emotional, psychological and educational needs.
      If there is anything that the lessons of the recent past have taught us, it is that the legislative framework is not alone responsible for the maltreatment of our children. I am hopeful that there will be a simultaneous shift in a positive direction of the administrative culture of the staff within these care centres if not, as circumstances change, history will repeat itself.

      Anya A. A. Lorde is an attorney. This concludes the series.


      Source: Nation


    • The Child Protection Bill, 2023 – a review
      By Anya A. A. Lorde

      There has been much public discussion around the question of parental rights and whether these rights are properly recognised. In all matters dealt with under the new Act the best interest of the child is to be paramount (see for examples section 3(1)(e)), section 3(2), and section 4). Removal of a child from the care of the parents “shall only occur where it is necessary to protect the child from risk of serious harm or danger” (see section 22(3)).
      The Authority is obligated to take the least intrusive intervention in the life of a child and their family in order to “(i) protect the child from harm and (ii) promote the development of the child” (see section 4(d)). However, where a child is removed from the care of the parent the safety and welfare of that child “shall be paramount to the rights of the parent”. It follows that wherever it is contrary to a child’s best interest, whether temporarily or permanently, a child may also not be allowed to retain a relationship with a parent after removal from that parent’s care (see section 4(f) (ii)).
      This is not only applicable to instances where there is physical harm or danger or the likelihood of such occurring, but also to instances of emotional or psychological harm or danger or the likelihood of such occurring. The minister also has a duty to ensure that procedures and protocols are developed and implemented that have the objective of providing support services directed towards “strengthening and supporting families” (see section 16(3)(b)).
      Request services
      The director is empowered to request such services “to a child or the family of a child” from a Government department, agency in receipt of Government funding, non-Governmental organisation or other persons providing care and protection of children (see sections 6(1) and 29(1) and (2)). There are therefore mechanisms built into the Act to ensure that children in need of care and protection can remain in the care and control of their parents as long as it is not contrary to that child’s best interest. This may be done through the provision of support services or the development and implementation of a care plan in consultation with a parent to meet the needs of that child without the need to take that child before the court (see section 29(2)(a) and (b)).
      The director shall however take a child before the court and apply for any order under the Act if he is of the view that the child’s safety or welfare remains in jeopardy despite the assistance provided (see section 23). If the application to the court is for a Care Order for a child’s placement in the care of the Director, that application must be accompanied by a care plan and must be served on that child’s parents along with all supporting documents and evidence within seven days of the application being made (see section 37(5) and (7)).
      Care plan
      The director is required to set out in that care plan the proposed arrangements for a child’s care for the court’s consideration.
      This includes “the allocation of parental responsibility for the duration of the period for which the child is removed from the care of his parent” (see section
      38(3)(a)).
      Care plans are to be as far as possible made with the agreement of both parents of the child concerned and the child (see section 38(4)). The permanent removal of parental rights can occur under a Custody Care Order. Such an order will place a child in the custody of the Authority with the Authority acquiring the rights and responsibilities of a parent for the purpose of caring for the child who is the subject of the order. To acquire a Custody Care Order from the court, the Authority is required to show that (a) there is “not a realistic possibility of restoring the child to the custody of a parent pursuant to the provisions of the Act”, (b) living with the parent is no longer in the child’s best interest and (c) that “a least restrictive approach is not available” (see section 42).
      On the face of the legislation, safeguards have been built into the legislation to ensure the retention of parental rights and responsibilities and collaboration by the Authority with parents during the time which a child and their parents interface with the Authority, save and except where a Custody Care Order is made.
      Whether this will be the case in the application of the legislation is left to be seen. My further interpretation of the legislation is that the removal of a child from the care of a parent, whether temporarily or otherwise, can now only occur by sanction of the Court (see sections 31 and 32).
      The level of consultation and collaboration the Authority is required to have with parents before decisions are made on behalf of children who are in the care of the Authority pursuant to a Care Order will be determined by the terms of the care plan as approved by the court.
      Under section 10 of the soon to be repealed Child Care Board Act (“CDB Act”) the care and protection of a child or supervision of a child could be placed in the care of the Authority by agreement between the board and the child’s parent.
      There is no further provision set out in that Act about the parameters or supervision of that agreement.
      The oversight vested in the court under this new Act allows for a greater measure of transparency and supervision in the relationship between the Authority, the child and the child’s parent than what currently exists.

      Anya A. A. Lorde is an attorney.

      Source:Nation


    • Time restriction not justified
      PART 1 OF 3
      by ANYA A. A. LORDE

      THE PUBLIC OUTRAGE and legal action in response to the well-known long-standing issues surrounding the Government Industrial School (GIS) is not that far behind us.
      Neither is the administering of an inappropriate exam by the Ministry of Education, Technological and Vocational Training to first form students in secondary schools across this Island in 2022.
      In both scenarios, parents were and still are left with more questions than answers about the physical, spiritual, emotional, and psychological safety of their children while in the care of the State, especially given that the pursuit of accountability appears to many to be fleeting.
      At the wider societal level many of our children are being raised in dysfunctional homes. Many are experiencing abuse and domestic violence either through infliction on them or through witnessing it. The prevalence of child abuse is a concern that was, within this past month, publicly raised by the Minister of People Empowerment and Elder Affairs, Kirk Humphrey.
      For others, there is no enjoyment of a reasonable standard of living. The navigation of the high cost of living by a single parent can also be exacerbated by the refusal of one parent to assist the other with financially maintaining the child (financial abuse). Men are openly grooming, having sexual intercourse with and impregnating school aged girls, sometimes as young as 11 years old.
      Death by fire
      The recent tragedy in Guyana resulting in the death by fire of at least 20 young children should serve as an example of the danger of such relationships. A quick online search can reveal to the interested reader several studies on grooming, love bombing, and trauma bonding and how damaging such behaviour is emotionally and psychologically when experienced by adults let alone young girls who are only now learning to understand their bodies and how to regulate their emotions and behaviour.
      For many of us the question therefore is, how does the proposed Child Protection Act, 2023
      adequately address these issues, if it does at all.
      Long overdue shift
      The recently tabled Bill represents a long overdue shift away from the existing antiquated laws and policies, relics of our colonial past, currently in place for the care of children who are “in need of care and protection”. The new Act will repeal the Child Care Board Act, the Prevention of Cruelty Act, the Protection of Children Act and the Young Persons Act and is being heralded as establishing a modern framework for the protection of children by the State.
      Section 3 of the Bill expressly recognises the State’s international obligations under the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child (“UNCRC”), the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (“UDHR”) and “all other international instruments to which Barbados is a party with special regard to those” which apply to the rights of children.
      The Child Care Board will be replaced by the Child Protection Authority (“the Authority”). Its overall mandate will be to safeguard the safety and welfare of children through the powers and duties assigned at section nine of the Bill. These powers and duties include providing care, protection, and rehabilitation to a child, investigating complaints or reports and providing assessments of any such complaint or report see section 9(1)). Where a child is in danger, the Authority will have the power to remove the child from the home, childcare centre or dangerous environment (see section 9(1)(c)).
      Under this new Act, “child” is a person under the age of 18 years old and “parent” includes a birth or adoptive parent or guardian but does not include a person acting as a caregiver on behalf of the Director or the
      Director (see Section 2).
      The circumstances in which a child will be deemed to be in need of care and protection are listed at Section 5(1) of the Act. Some examples from the list include circumstances where a child does not have a parent or does not have one who is fit to exercise care or guardianship and there is no other available person “capable, fit or willing to care for that child”, instances where the child has suffered harm as a result of neglect, inadequate supervision, experiencing or exposure to domestic violence, or circumstances where the child is a victim of abuse or exploitation, is beyond the control of the parent or is a threat to himself and others.
      The Bill expressly states that in the administration of the Act and in determining what is in the best interest of any child, the child’s views are to be taken into consideration where appropriate, having due regard to the circumstances and that child’s developmental capacity (see section 4(c) and section 3(2)(e).
      The Director is obligated to ensure that a child is allowed to participate in the making of any decision that “is likely to have a significant impact on his life” and the child is entitled to “representation by an attorney-at-law in any proceedings or hearings in relation to the child” (see sections 7 and 9(3)(f) and (g)). Where a child’s views differ from the Director’s the child may within “30 days of the notification of the position, appeal to a Judge in Chambers” (see section 7(5)).
      I am of the view that the time limitation imposed at Section 7(5) is draconian and runs contrary to the overall intention of the legislation. It imposes an unnecessarily potentially punitive measure.
      Vulnerable and traumatised
      There are several reasons that might prevent the filing of such an application within the stipulated 30 days. Such a reason might involve maltreatment or abuse. That child is now a vulnerable and traumatised child who will be further traumatised by the legal process out of the fear alone of being told that they may not or cannot be heard.
      It is immaterial whether a Judge can or will use their discretion to hear an application despite it not being filed within the time stipulated in the Act. It is an example of how the legislative process lends itself to abuse and the traumatisation of vulnerable children. I also note that there is no such restriction on the Authority when exercising its discretion to make an application to the Court with respect to a child. The time restriction is in my view not justified.

      Anya A. A. Lorde is an attorney.


      Source: Nation


    • Peter Wickham did not pass the 11+? He went to Foundation, is a so sci graduate and an entrepreneur. Are you ‘saying’ Wickham failed because he did not attend HC, QC, Combermere or St. Michael’s? Just asking.


  3. Grenville has written on this before, but repeating/ providing more details now would have brought those unfamiliar with the topic up to speed.

    Reply ↓

  4. Ready Ready Ready
    We’re Gonna
    March Down Babylon

    The raised fist itself has been used as a gesture of solidarity, opposition to oppression, and political protest since at least the early 1900s.

    It is always time to march
    but what are these people marching for?

    Peace and Rhythm………………………………………… Idris Muhammad
    Brother You Know You’re Doing Wrong……….. Sakinah Muhammad

    Reply ↓

  5. The two articles by AAA Lorde are a good read. I like the first two paragraphs of the second article as they point out that we have to keep our eyes on all including the government.
    Take your time with article 2. Moving on the third paragraph.

    Reply ↓

  7. Are you ‘saying’ Wickham failed because he did not attend HC, QC, Combermere or St. Michael’s?
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    No Artax…
    HE says it, in every way, every time the subject comes up…

    In Bushie’s opinion Petra’s failure in in his DNA….

    Reply ↓

  8. Steupsss @ David
    Bushie don’t wanna hear nothing from no lawya – not even a ‘Triple-A Lord’.

    Tell her to write some shiite on the protection of Client’s Fees in Barbados…

    AFTER that, and we see how she deals with something that she actually KNOWS something about, … Bushie MAY entertain her approach to a MOST challenging subject like raising children. (She has how many? and how old again…?) …and the results are…?

    Anybody can talk shiite – especially lawyers, who can do so continuously for days without even the slightest understanding of the issues.

    Bushie listens to those who HAVE SUCCESSFULLY raised all kinds of children in all kinds of circumstances – and whose SUCCESSES are legendary….

    Reply ↓

  9. main concerns about the Bill….

    it is built on emotional good intent, ….however…

    -No proper planning and inclusion of key stakeholders
    -No clear study and articulation of strategic intent (lotta emotional talk bout how everyone deserves to be happy, rich and healthy etc)
    -No communications plan to bring all PARENTS on board
    -Too many damn NON PARENTS involved (recall when Solomon was going to divide the baby between two alleged parents?)
    -Too much HURRY to close ….before full discussion
    – Too many know-it-all politicians talking (when we all know that without full access to the treasury, most of them would be on welfare themselves)
    Too many brass bowl Bajans not prepared to THINK for themselves – always awaiting directions from their aunties…

    Look….
    What it takes to protect and guide children successfully CANNOT be written down in any shiite Bill….cause..
    It takes wisdom boss…
    …and
    Unless the LORD builds the house, its builders labor in vain. Unless the LORD watches over the city, the watchmen stand guard in vain. In vain you rise early and stay up late, toiling for food to eat– for he grants sleep to those he loves.

    Reply ↓

    • We are trying to protect children, many times from parents.
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      Honestly David
      Sometimes you make Bushie wonder….

      You may want to review that statement?
      You are asking us to accept that the BARBADOS COURT SYSTEM is needed to protect children from their own parents?

      There are probably less that 50 really bad parents in Barbados – 49 of them are mentally challenged and the last one emotionally so… these should be identified and treated by the state – not the damn children.
      …and we ALL know that we cannot even trust a single lawyer with client funds….far less our children.

      The love of a parent for a child is one of the miracles of our world. On the rare occasion when that fails, the VERY BEST backup is close family, close friends, neighbors etc.

      The VERY WORSE response is to have callous strangers, (in it for a salary,) intervene in that child’s life….

      Who would believe that we just went through that whole saga with the girls at Barrows, the accusations of molestation and exploitation by officials, the lies from the Minister, the uselessness of the court system….

      Perhaps a deep and honest self reflection would show what our REAL problems are…


    • @Bush Tea

      You need to familiarize yourself with the work of the Child Care Board.

      Because the Barbados Court is inefficient it does not mean the expectation of the law should not be written to resort the court. We need to fix the Court.


  10. Ironically, the Bill was endorsed by children’s rights advocate and member of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, Faith Marshall-Harris, and senior lecturer and head of the Department of Goverment, Sociology, Social Work & Psychology, in Faculty of Social Sciences, Senator Dr. Kristina Hinds. But, ‘at the end of the day,’ people are entitled to form their own opinions.

    Reply ↓

    • Who endorsed the Covid -19 injections Artax?

      Do you hear any of them now that the shit is bouncing off the fan…?

      ..or have you NOT been busy at funerals every damn day line Bushie?

      The HIGHER the endorsements, the more likely that they are contaminated with jobby….

      And BTW, it was the interventions of some of the above named, that made it clear that we were dealing with stuff designed to baffle brains.


  11. @ Bush Tea

    Seems as though you didn’t noticed the last sentence of my contribution. I ‘said,’ “But, ‘at the end of the day,’ people are entitled to form their own opinions.”

    I read the Child Protection Bill (2023) and disagree with Phillips II’s interpretation and assessment thereof.

    Interestingly, you did not answer David’s questions, preferring instead to provide him with an eloquent articulation of your usual generalized criticisms……. ‘Bushie stylie.’

    What are your thoughts, for example, on ‘financial abuse,’ which, according to the Bill, “includes withholding the financial support necessary to maintain a child?”
    Or, emotional abuse, which includes “the use of threatening words or behaviour?”

    As it relates to ‘financial abuse,’ Phillips II asked, “Who determines the amount of money necessary to maintain a child? What happens if the parent loses her job and must reduce the size of everyone’s meals to pay the mortgage or rent?”

    According to the Bill, “financial abuse” ‘means the exercise of control by a perpetrator over a child’s access to financial resources through coercion, deception or intimidation, the effect of which is to hinder the ability to maintain a child and includes withholding the financial support necessary to maintain a child.’

    Based on the Bill’s definition, do you believe Grenville’s questions are relevant?

    Additionally, there are definitely situations whereby some fathers would withhold child maintenance, if their children’s mothers do not comply with their sexual demands, and more so especially under circumstances where those women moved on into new relationships.

    There are also cases of ‘fraudulent conversion,’ which, as it relates to this particular issue, simply means a parent taking into possession payments of child maintenance and converting it fraudulently for their own use and benefit, or that of a third party to whom such maintenance was not intended.

    But, as I ‘said’ previously, we are all entitled to form our own opinions.

    Reply ↓

    • Artax:

      According to the Bill, emotional abuse includes “the use of threatening words or behaviour” (Section 2). So, what happens if a parent threatens a badly behaved child with discipline. Well, according to the Bill, a fine of $100 000 or imprisonment for 10 years both (Section 61).

      According to the Bill, physical abuse includes any act “which causes pain” (Section 2). Spanking a child is intended to cause pain. The spanker becomes liable.

      According to the Bill, verbal abuse incudes communication to harm, including “by silence” or “shouting” (Section 2). Both the shouter and the one remaining silent are liable.

      Are you comfortable these broad subjective definitions that carry $100,000 fines, 10 years imprisonment, and the removal of the children from parents?


  12. The problem with the law is
    1) the expansion of the abuse definition to include extremely subjective terms which have very different interpretations based on one’s upbringing and life experiences.

    2) the criminalization and other aspects requiring involvement of court to seek relief or defend onself from overzealous or targetting which requires lots of money for lawyers which only the rich can afford.

    For example, if I refuse to give my child a medical treatment or vaccine my doctor believes my child should have, does that now constitute abuse because I am going against their professional opinion.
    Will the doctor now be required to report me under the mandatory reporting rule?
    Will I now be forced to comply or find lawyer money to defend my decision because they see it as abuse?

    That is the problem with the law. Prosecution discretion is too subject to interpretation by so called experts that will not have to answer for the repercussions of their bad decisions.

    Reply ↓

    • @ CA
      Thank you.

      Bushie would have expected that having written those ridiculously GENERAL examples of ‘abuse’, Artax would have gotten Grenville’s point.

      Shiite man!!!, one of Bushie’s children could well argue that not giving them a Benz on his 16th birthday was ‘withholding financial support in an abusive manner’. (what Suzuki what??)
      He would be right as shiite too – cause Bushy could have…
      …and it may in fact have damaged his character due to the disappointment suffered… steupsss!!!

      Any Bets that Enuff would RELISH taking Bushie’s donkey to court over the next 32 years, wasting time, while robbing Bushie of the money saved by not buying the damn benz….

      The WHOLE thing is a lotta emotional shiite – mainly designed to impress the usual albino suspects, and probably funded by some international bulling advocates.

      All that is really needed is to ACTUALLY apply the existing laws on the books and make ALL of the $ES%$# (who the SAME minister claims to be currently KNOWN to be abusing children) pay a price that sends a REAL message of seriousness, Bushie has suggestions…

      Imagine KNOWING of guilty ‘children-abusers’ and doing nothing…. except rearranging existing laws and finding work for lawyers and our useless courts…

      steupssss…


  13. Not bout hey
    Is the Caribbean a 3rd world country?
    The Third World includes all countries of Africa (except South Africa), Asia (except Japan), and Latin America and the Caribbean, and some states and territories of Oceania.

    seems like Barbados has 3rd world problems same as 1st world problems

    anti-vaxxers
    anti-homos
    religious extremists
    family law fuckeries

    Reply ↓

    • I have not read the whole bill, but judging by what Grenville says, there should be some concern. I have shouted bigly. I have spanked, though sparingly. Got outta hand once. I have said some things I really should not have said. I have not been the perfect parent. But I took the time to warn my son that he shouldn’t expect perfection from a mere mortal. Even one that would take a bullet to save him. So he’s happy, well adjusted and loves his imperfect mother to death. Says he’d prefer to take the bullet to save me.

      Says he’d choose me for his mother, if he had a choice. And also his father.

      As I have mentioned before, I have had the CCB called on me when my child was a toddler. (And the police when he was a baby.) It became a thing in my neighbourhood to scrutinise my every move. Based on nonsense and lies from one person, it spread like wildfire. Until the child could speak for himself. Then not a man, woman or child could say one damn thing about his mother.

      I would bet my last dollar that my son has turned out better than the son of whoever it was that called and those who listened.

      My LAST DOLLAR!

      These definitions are too loose.


    • Is a march really necessary?

      Parents have been on high alert since the IDB “survey” was given to young children without prior parental consent.
      Can you blame them when the survey came to light, not through the more appropriate channels of notices from the Ministry of Education, but because some parents sounded the alarm after learning of the “test” from their children? It’s therefore unsurprising that the Child Protection Bill has garnered so much interest and debate. Parents are concerned about their children, about their rights as parents and about potential government intrusion or overstepping of those rights.
      Over the last few weeks, the airways, newspapers and social media have been filled with a multitude of questions, concerns, objections and fears being expressed about the Bill. Unfortunately, some of these concerns have not been addressed with the delicacy and convincing reassurance required in these sensitive engagements, particularly given the recent and still widespread distrust created by the IDB survey.
      Dismissing or reducing some concerns as propaganda or agendas of alarmists will only add fuel to the fire.
      While I don’t support those who prefer to shelter children from what can be uncomfortable realities of this world, (since that may do the child an injustice) I nonetheless respect a parent’s right to impart their value systems to their children and the right to determine what may be age appropriate for their child based on the child’s personality, maturity, beliefs and background.
      If a parent’s actions or practices are not harmful, neglectful or abusive in some way, then the parent should largely have autonomy on how the child is raised. Only in certain limited circumstances should the state be allowed to intervene for the protection of the child. But the State must be held to an even higher standard of care and accountability if it usurps the parent’s role.
      Uncalled for
      A march is planned for Saturday June 10, 2023 (and will take place before this article is published) to protest some aspects of the Bill and to insist that amendments be made to the Bill in consultation with parents and certain concerned groups. In the Thursday edition of this newspaper Minister Wilfred Abrahams was quoted as saying the march was not necessary because: “They are marching to protect their right to have an
      input but that right is already there and clearly stated . . . the committee has the right to call witnesses and it can do this in any way it sees fit . . . when the committee has heard its evidence, it then compiles the report to Parliament and at that time the decision can be made to amend or even withdraw the legislation entirely,” Abrahams explained.
      Most people were probably unaware of this process. But the real question is whether the public has any confidence in this process or whether the process will produce the results of those who feel marching is the best resort? It isn’t unusual for these legislative procedures, though well intentioned, to still miss errors or potential issues in proposed legislation. Potentially problematic provisions often go unnoticed by the drafters and reviewers and their negative effects then come to light when applied in real life situations.
      Valid concerns
      A good example can be seen in section 37(1) of the Employment Rights Act ( ERA) which effectually allows an employer to avoid an order of reinstatement made by the Tribunal and instead benefit from his breach of the order by being able to pay an employee compensation for unfair dismissal rather than the higher amount of arrears of wages from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement. I doubt Parliament intended or even foresaw this effect. Maybe if we had protested at the time the bill was introduced, more attention would have been paid to some of the failings in the ERA.
      The parents should march if they so choose.
      But more importantly, let’s give due consideration to the valid concerns that are expressed about the provisions within the Bill that may prove problematic and amend them where necessary.

      Michelle M. Russell is an attorney with a passion for employment law and labour matters. She is also an advocate for social justice and mental health.
      Email: mrussell.ja@gmail.com


      Source: Nation


    • A more than casual observation by a lowly blogmaster. It is interesting to note a St. Lucian who is lecturing at UWI, Cave Hill is able to whip up national interest in this matter. The BU family should recall Felcia Browne as she was known then submitted many articles to BU back in the day. What was she able to do that others have not been able including Grenville, Atherley et al.



    • Protests useful, but objectives must be clear – by Barbados Today June 10, 2023

      Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by the author(s) do not represent the official position of Barbados TODAY.

      By Paula-Anne Moore

      “The principle of the best interests of the child is a well-defined legal principle which applies in all circumstances.” – Senior Barbadian attorney-at-law.

      The following comments represent another constructive perspective to the current public discussion on the Child Protection Bill. It may not be as popular, but hopefully will be judged no less valuable or truthful.

      There is nothing more emotional, passion-evoking and instinctive than a parent’s desire to protect their child from harm. Additionally, most human beings, whether parents or not, are hard-wired with a natural instinct to protect innocent, vulnerable children. This deeply personal perspective is usually a powerful motivator for positive behaviour in a healthy, caring society.

      It is acknowledged that there is a growing lack of public trust in traditional authority figures – Government, specialists, experts, professionals etc. The impact of social media and the ability of anyone to directly access data have been identified as some of the reasons for this. This lack of trust was evidenced in much misinformation and disinformation circulated and absorbed relating to the COVID-19 pandemic and vaccines, which were not supported by the global scientific consensus. Additionally, insufficient past communication and missteps (e.g. the IDB questionnaire fiasco) have only fuelled this suspicion and distrust. The Government has to continue to rebuild public trust, via the tool of continuous, transparent communication.
      Courtesy Garage_Tucson2023_300x300 June (copy)

      Right to protest fundamental

      Public discourse and the right to protest are fundamental rights and hallmarks of healthy democracies. It is laudable that more ordinary Bajans feel comfortable, with the courage and confidence in voicing their opinions publicly, especially since our culture tends not to be comfortable with such public displays.

      Protests are especially useful to bring swift national attention to crisis situations of major import. They are particularly valuable when traditional communication channels are either non-existent or ineffective. I have demonstrated (literally) that I believe in the value of public protest on behalf of our children in 2020, during the public outcry and protest marches against CXC’s flawed grading.

      However, based on the information reported in the media, it is unclear what specific provisions in the Child Protection Bill (and the National Nutrition Policy) the parties leading the June 10 protest march are protesting. To maximise effectiveness, public protest ideally should have clearly-stated objectives.

      Minister Wilfred Abrahams has indicated that there is a select committee charged with formally receiving written and other public input relating to finalisation of the legislation. Therefore, clear communication mechanisms are available and public consultation specifically and deliberately contemplated.

      We need to focus on the facts before the nation, and yes, insist on further clarification and information where lacking, be calm, and trust that what has been recently drafted relating to our nation’s children – the Child Protection Bill, National Nutrition Policy, the Grooming Policy, the upcoming National Education Reform – were all done in the best interests of our children, utilising the best combination of local expertise and global best practice. This constructive approach is essential if we seek to mature and progress as a model, small, open society which holds its children dear.
      Glucerma May/June

      Local expertise globally recognised

      Barbados is apparently one of the last countries in the region to enact modern child protection legislation, as indicated by Ms Faith Marshall-Harris, international child rights expert. It would be embarrassing and shameful if we lose our familiar position of regional and global leadership, as a Small Island Developing State, and if we are seen to be a people rejecting the opportunity to ensure and enshrine child protection in modern legislation, usually a basic imperative of any caring society.

      We are uniquely fortunate, as a nation, to have the benefit of a globally-recognised, home-grown child rights expert in Marshall-Harris, integrally involved in the crafting of this long-pending legislation. Ms Marshall-Harris was recently re-elected by an overwhelming majority of UN member countries, more than 120, as vice chair of the powerful and invaluable UN Rights of the Child Committee. The Child Protection Bill therefore likely reflects the best of modern best practice relating to the protection of child rights. This is the type of expertise and leadership we should value, if not celebrate. It is noted that this Bill speaks to a very small percentage of our children, those most at risk who need protection.

      Importance of integrity and credibility in leadership

      Any member of our society has the right to emerge as a spokesperson and leader. However, there is the need to express concern, held by many, relating to a couple of the public figures who have presented themselves as leaders of the upcoming, and past public protest. The unfortunate negative baggage which some carry, including wallowing in easily-debunked non-factual conspiracy theories on COVID and vaccines etc, make them not serious nor credible and therefore, by extension, makes their positions on the bill also suspect and not credible. There is therefore the risk of tarnishing by association, those parents and others who are uncertain, with genuinely-held concerns.

      Currently, a loud, vocal, apparently well-funded minority, is being given lots of media attention, unchallenged, to mount an aggressive campaign of encouraging and amplifying hysteria, conspiracy theories, misinformation distrust and fear of authority. This had been allowed to percolate and fester within our society. Is this the real purpose of the protest?

      It also seems that there is a deliberate strategy to raise and conflate certain unrelated, irrelevant points, (often bringing up gender identity), and hijacking any topic relating to children.

      There have been certain familiar talking points frequently used in the media including parental rights, the “gay” agenda being pushed from foreign lending agencies, Hungary’s model human rights approach (that most fascist and racist of European governments). None of these seem relevant to the bill and the school nutrition policy. All of them are popular talking points emanating from the US MAGA far-right white conservative playbook.

      Certain local full-page articles suggest that ‘parental rights’ as determined only by the proponents, should be enshrined in new law, to override the best interests and rights of the child, in all aspects of a child’s life. This is in accordance with the American MAGA push for parents as the sole arbiter for all things relating to their children including e.g. overruling education professionals to determine the content of the school curricula.

      This can be a slippery slope, even with the best intentions. Example: Moms for Liberty, (‘MFL’) a self-described “grassroots parental rights” group, has been recently labelled an “anti-government extremist organisation” by the Southern Poverty Law Centre (SPLC). It has indicated that MFL has spearheaded an “anti-student inclusion movement that targets any inclusive curriculum that contains discussions of race, discrimination ….MFL activities make it clear that the group’s primary goals are to fuel right-wing hysteria.”

      There is a profound irony that some of those expressing concern about ‘neo-colonialism agendas’ from multilateral lending agencies and other international organisations (IMF, IADB, EU, UN etc) appear happy to carry out a similar neo-colonialism of thought emanating from the often racist, discriminatory US MAGA movement. Perhaps there are those who are happy to execute agendas from abroad, only when they agree with these said agendas. I’m awaiting the MAGA-co-opted term ‘woke’ to ‘enter the chat’.

      ‘Nature abhors a vacuum’

      There are many who share the thoughts I express here. Are we the silent majority? Regardless of percentage, more must speak out publicly to ensure all perspectives enter and balance the public discourse.

      I too, am a member of the Christian faith – not that my religious beliefs, or lack thereof, are relevant to this discussion. We no longer have a state religion for a reason. I do not believe I have the right to enshrine my religious beliefs in certain public policy, no matter how fervently held, whether they are the majority view or not. Child rights legislation and other child-related public policy endeavours, should ideally accord with international best practice and specialist expertise, while reflecting national culture, norms and values. However, if there is conflict, independent expertise should be the primary guide.

      It is hoped that continued constructive public dialogue, guided by principled leadership, grounded in facts, will minimise distrust and result in the primary goal we all share which is ensuring a caring society within which our precious children are protected and can thrive and maximise their potential.

      High stakes, indeed.

      Paula-Anne Moore

      Parent Advocate

      Spokesperson/Coordinator

      The Group of Concerned Parents, Barbados

      The Caribbean Coalition for Exam Redress

      Source: Barbados Today


  14. Bush Tea, seems as though you believe you are the ‘all knowing god of BU. That when you ‘speak,’ we should ‘humble ourselves’…… ‘lay prostrate in submission and adoration’ at how wise, powerful and awesome you are. That ‘it is written’ people are obligated to accept whatever you say as the ‘gospel according to, not the ‘original Bushman,’ but Bushman # 2, lest they incur your wrath, if they dare to question or debate your ‘word.’

    Reply ↓

    • Artax…
      Well at least YOU seem to think so…
      Bushie don’t give two bowel movements….


  15. Dr. Phillips II, my experience allows me to understand that a complaint initiates an investigation. In other words, a complaint of emotional abuse does not necessarily means the alleged abuser will be arbitrarily find or imprisoned. He or she remains innocent until proven guilty. In those circumstances, such allegations would be first investigated by trained Social Workers. However, as I mentioned previously, my experience influences my perspective on this issue. I am similarly as comfortable as you with your proposal of imposing a fine of 10 times the cost of an item on the person who stole it. Then again, the intellects of both you and Bushie, far exceed mine.

    Reply ↓

    • We are almost there when our children will be given the right to identify as something they are not!


    • Artax:

      There is a difference between fining someone for doing something wrong, verses fining and imprisoning someone, and taking away their children, for doing what is right.

      There are two main problem with the Bill. One is that it criminalises normal right behaviour. Another is that such criminalisation’s appear to be cleverly hidden throughout the Bill.


  17. Enter your comment here…

    “According to the Bill, physical abuse includes any act “which causes pain” (Section 2). Spanking a child is intended to cause pain. The spanker becomes liable.”

    Spanking affects the development of sensitive children
    There is a cultural perception that black / African children need heavy discipline and should be spanked

    Reply ↓

  18. @Artax

    Everyone is not as fair-minded and uncorruptable like you are.

    This law and other badly written vague, over-reaching ones give people with axes to grind, especially government officials the ability to target and tarnish people. Innocent until proven guilty does not work in the real world.

    If my neighbor does not believe in corporal punishment or thinks I chastise my child too much, will I now have tons of reports and repeated investigations against me to defend with me unable to claim and sue for harrassment?

    Just look at what is happening to Donald Trump now being charged for doing the same thing every president before him has done all because his political opponents found a way to use laws written for one purpose in a novel way that now requires it get tested in court which costs money. All the while ignoring the larger crimes of their buddies.

    Reply ↓

  19. Ignorance has them all where they are in a locked and fixed position and wilfull ignorance will keep them right there for each and every incoming generation. That’s on them, they cant even blame the evil, thieving, conniving sellout politicians they listen to anymore. They dont want to learn anything, too comfortable in their collective slavehood and keeping each other trapped listening to the BS they love to spew. ..pretending and believing they are impressing.

    No one wants to get involved anymore, least of all me..

    Hope they int still waiting for crumbs from politicians.. all the stolen and skimmed loans or stolen birthrights from Afrika cause there will BE NONE….the party is finally over… .the ginormic heist, the decades in the making long con for the motherlode of thefts from Afrika has been discovered, stripped down and exposed..across continents..they got absolutely nothing to get…particularly not from my Bantu tribe they targeted, of all people. ..with their all consuming greed and stupidity….It will be amusing to watch them going forward with nothing to look forward to….it’s all dead in the water just like them…and now they, no one else are laughing stocks across continents…and will be watched everywhere.

    ..minority crooks already starting to cut and run…
    Writing is on the wall and only fools cant see it….Bushman, the end for them is very near. Their Karma await.

    Reply ↓

  20. David, let’s assume you’re a teacher and noticed a change in demeanor of particular student. The he has suddenly become withdrawn and upon further examination, you realised he is badly bruised. You monitor the child and further realised there hasn’t been any change in his situation and decide to ask him a few questions. His responses raises suspicion of abuse. What would be your options, under those circumstances? Do not ‘get involed’ because his parents have the right to administer corporal punishment as brutal as they see fit? Or, report the matter to the principal, who then refers him to the school’s child psychologist for a professional evaluation? Assume you chose the second option, which revealed actual abuse.

    Reply ↓

    • @Artax

      Agree with you. The specialists (teachers, child care workers and other support professionals)must be allowed to follow their training. It will never be a perfect system which is not to disregard the responsibility of relevant authorities to ensure there is fit for purpose legislation. Nowadays it is the way to oppose for the sake of it especially with political considerations and narrow interests to satisfy.

      Another observation, the old laws governing child protection is all over the place and very old, why was there never the interest we see now to protect ABUSED children?


    • “….let’s assume you’re a teacher and noticed a change….”
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      This happens every day now as it is – and in the VAST majority of cases, is resolved quietly, by very professional and CARING teachers and staff….
      The REAL jokers are those who only hear about the 1% of really ridiculous cases – where it is mostly the LEGAL authorities who fail to act, and to do so in a timely manner, when the matter has to be reported to them…. and now to cover up THEIR own poor performance, they blame everyone else and seek to make illogical changes, targeting parents.

      Artax, perhaps you should keep your focus on the economics and politics… or talk to some teachers…

      …as to David’s question…
      “why was there never the interest we see now to protect ABUSED children?”

      Perhaps you mean to ask why were SOME OF US were unaware of, or not showing any interest….

      ‘Cause there are many teachers whose lives have been CONSUMED with that challenge for decades…. and who have performed many MIRACLES in that regard.. many of which are documented….


    • @Bush Tea

      Are you serious? The numbers of abused children reported is the tip of the iceberg. We have to do better to create a safe space to receive many more victims of abuse.


    • @Bush Tea

      Nothing wrong with all actors identifying areas of the Bill they believe can be improved, it is what we should be trained to do. Instead what do we get?


    • What constitutes the Abuse definition under the law needs to be limited to Serious Abuse only. i.e. acts of a physical, sexual or emotional nature likely to threaten life or result in permanent or longlasting physical or psychological damage.

      Any other lesser forms of abuse need to be dealt with through other means like educational campaigns, conflict resolution techniques and various support services.


    • ​@ David, at root the remarks by the BushGriot @9:22 are bluntly accurate … our nation (teachers etc) has been managing the issues of ‘child abuse’ for generations BUT there is a need to update relevant legislation. HOWEVER, one cannot introduce “draconian” punishments which will themselves deeply burden the same society supposedly you are trying to protect.

      The legislation must smartly be fit for purpose for Bim … not a rehash of US or UK or Canadian laws!

      Are we also going to be set up to better handle any higher numbers of foster children taken from these more heavily regulated “abusive” homes; are some of these parents who surely are more and more drug impaired (leading to mental impairment issues also) going to have treatment options once they have been identified as abusers; and will the “abused” children also be handled accordingly with relevant treatment facilities.

      Of course one understands that such systems are already in place BUT the point is the impact of these new regs: are these systems ready to meet that impact!

      How many times have we lamented that whereas in US for example where children will call officials (like our local Child Care Board or police) for an ‘abusive’ parent when the parent disciplines them harshly ‘CAN’T happen bout hea’ !

      Well now it can, as the child can now legislatively “… freely express his views”!

      Thus, as said above: a minor child can also freely determine that his or her “gender” identity is NOT a fit with his/her biological identity!

      Successive administrations have done NOT ENOUGH to fix the issues of increasing teen pregnancies; increasing instances of adolescent drug use/boys on the block etc; or indeed sexual exploitation/harassment of teens by adults (teachers, mentors) but now this supposedly
      benign new Child Protection Bill is before us … it will be a horrid outcome unless those other issues are aggressively addressed too.

      The fact is that there are kids in Bim in 2023 who go to school hungry with no breakfast and are beholden to graciously kind teachers and others who provide sustenance for them….

      Looka, life is about change so do update the old regs fah sure but we gotta be PRACTICAL as well and get our house in proper order FIRST … regardless of MONEY/BRIBERY from these international orgs!

      Lata.


  21. Here enters the Google specialists idiots, who, without availing themselves of any information, in their ignorance come to the forum to spew their usual virtrol of modified versions of the same comments they post to every thread.

    Reply ↓

  22. No, maybe this child protection bill is about depopulation. The depopulation agenda as started by Gollop in Barbados and the Barbados Family Planning Ass. A eugenecist project!.

    Such draconian fines for such a poor country must be to satisfy the regime’s curators in Washington and act as a strenuous deterent to that interaction which alone has the natural ability to procreate.

    These levels of wickedness can only invite circumstances where the big, mushroom-headed, deckie must be savour, from ourselves!

    Oh Ntr, let Pacha stop this wickedness, forever!

    Reply ↓

  24. David, there were not any agendas to pursue as it relates to the old laws. Someone even introduced Trump into the ‘discussion.’ Look at domestic violence. In many cases after a woman is killed as a result of abuse, for exmple, investigations often reveal neighbours, relatives and friends were aware of the situation and not suprised the relationship ended fatally. But, they did not render any assistance, because they deemed the situation not to be their business.

    Reply ↓

    • Abuse itself has become an abused word now used to stignatize actions not traditionally considered abuse as abuse.

      Making my girlfriend cry by telling her she getting fat because she put on a few too many pounds can now be considered verbal abuse in many quarters.

      Too many things are being blownup out of proportions by people with power to satisfy personal agendas.


    • CA
      If u tell ur girlfriend she is fat just one time that is not abuse. Abuse is the manner (shaming as apposition to loving) and frequency u tell her that


  25. “Our eyes are different. What you see ain’t what I see.”

    Parents rarely let go of their children, so children let go of them. They move on. They move away. The moments that used to define them – a mother’s approval, a father’s nod – are covered by moments of their own accomplishments. It is not until much later, as the skin sags and the heart weakens, that children understand; their stories, and all their accomplishments, sit atop the stories of their mothers and fathers, stones upon stones, beneath the waters of their lives.

    Reply ↓

  27. Indeed, the fines should be of concern. I don’t know what they should be, but when fines are put beyond the reach of Average Joe, then every Joe goes to jail.

    What concerns me most of all is that a discussion of gender identification or LBTQ+ matters between a parent and a child could enter the territory now called abuse.

    It is good that some have taken the time to point out that the wording of the bill is not as precise as one would expect for a legal document. In a land where some pride themselves on possessing the skill of wordsmithing, it is unfortunate that new legal instruments are often poorly worded.

    Reply ↓

    • It is not surprising you would not see how lgbtq would emerge in the conversation. A good starting point for you is to listen to those advocating changes to the Bill, especially Felicia Dujon.


    • I believe it is purposely done by lawyers to put more money in fellow lawyer pockets and breed a certain level of corruption to pay people to fix certain matters from going before the law courts because no one knows which way the judge will interpret the badly written law possibly incurring heavy fines and or jail time.


  28. Indeed, I noticed the introduction but refrained from entering the 🍎s part of the 🍊s discussion.

    Reply ↓

  30. People need to stop obsessing about less than 3% LGB

    Changes were deemed contentious 20-30 years ago due to cultural prejudice and man made religious social laws, but had less impact than the emotional shrill objections made. The world did not end due to the anger of an imagined Man up in the sky above.

    Reply ↓

  31. “HOWEVER, one cannot introduce “draconian” punishments which will themselves deeply burden the same society supposedly you are trying to protect.”

    Is the quoted fine a maximum or standard fee?
    Where does this money go?
    Is it to the victims of child abuse or is it a new form of Government income?

    Reply ↓

  32. @David, it is quite facile to say as everyone and their mother does that we are a “polarized and hypocritical society” but in a word that is balderdash (BS is two words 🤣😎) !

    Brother, we have endured TWO world wars and have had over 100 battles of ethnic cleansing: via wholescale massacres based on religion, race, gender and class!

    Yes ALL that continues in 2023 in one context or other as we see over in the ‘Caucuses’ or in Africa and surely on the political scene … so do excuse me if I find this repeated “polarized and hypocritical” world remark as a lame trope that signifies very little.

    Social Media MAGNIFIES everything a 100-fold but the world really is NO more polarized than it ever was!!!

    Similarly @ Artax I read the remark re Trump as doctrinaire absurdity people bring to debates.

    It was not about bringing extraneous US politics into this very local matter but rather an example of the absolute, inane level of ‘ non-insight’ that is often used in ALL debates.

    There is ABSOLUTELY no VALIDITY to the falsehood that this man is being charged “for doing the same thing every president before him has done”. But very clearly if you speak lies and half-truths repeatedly they will become accepted as truths.

    This Bill reinforces that perspectives in many regards as it pulls lots of things related to child protectives services repeated in many jurisdictions (which have caused many problems) and validates them as truisms.

    THAT is what must be our concerns (as the blogmaster alludes to): fleshing out the BS and getting to the root to fix OUR problems.

    Just saying.

    Reply ↓

    • @Dee Word

      We know you, all of our challenges can be dismissed as nothing new under the sun’. i.e. NTSH.


    • LOLO @David, well brother facts are facts!

      There is quite a lot that’s “new under the sun”, but we have allowed ourselves to get into an absurdity of easy-speak behaviours.

      Accept the old saying: “Those who do not learn (or remember) history are doomed to repeat it.”

      Is Barbados MORE polarized today than it was in 1962- 65??? Based on the electorate acceptance with the 30-0 victory of one political party – twice – the fundamental answer should be a resounding NO, not so!

      Yet on the other hand, we actually have more political parties now than ever …

      However, based on an understanding of the historical context of the time then the answer must still be NO, not so.

      The US fought a freaking civil war and endured years (still) of grave civil strife due to the rage of involvement with wars, social justice etc … yet because of a megalomaniacal narcissist it’s automatic to speak now of how polarized it is!

      No David, I am not dismissive of our massive NEW and fresh challenges I am simply a realist!!!


    • @Dee Word

      You compare across ‘epochs’ is naive to use a generous term. Your opinion is respected however. Enjoy Sunday buffet.


    • @Dee Word

      All joking aside, the blogmaster will update the blog next time around to give you something to gnaw re degree of polarization nowadays.


  33. David, Barbados already has a Child Protection Act that was enacted sometime in 1990. These new Bills have not been passed as yet and, therefore, are not law. I agree with the Bills, which are subject to change. I agree with Bills, because I believe something must be done to protect the increasing number of abused children in Barbados. That is my opinion, to which I am entitled. Unlike the BU ‘know it all, always right gang,’ I will not attempt to ‘force it down the throats’ of others, under the guise of ‘serious debate.’

    Reply ↓

  34. Grenville Phillips II, I do not agree with your opinions on this issue. Let us ‘agree to disagree’ and end the discussion here.

    Reply ↓

  35. This topic is also too close to home for many to allow a dispassionate discussion. The retrospective approach for many who have seen the inadequacies of the current law is indeed of value.
    However as with many issues we have been programmed to believe there is a law that can fix that. At the root of child abuse we often see the same issues: Single parent, lack of parental supervision, poverty, lack of a support network. The current law and the new one do nothing to address this, all it does it satisfies our need to see a bad person get punished. and then what on to the next bad person. The bill like the previous also relies heavily on lagging indicators.
    If we want to protect our children, we start in the womb. Home visits during pregnancy. Increasing maternity leave to six months, establishing an in home support service for all mothers from birth to six months, bringing back the child tax credit and increasing it. Where a child is born into a household where the risk factors exist, then interventions/check ins with the parents should be done with the frequency based on the level of risk.

    Reply ↓

  36. “It is not surprising you would not see how lgbtq would emerge in the conversation.”

    Yes! Sometimes I am unable to completely follow the discussion.

    Given how conservative Bajans are, I find it difficult to believe that issues of gender identification or LBTQ+ will be met with tolerance. At most, this will be used as a next wedge issue between parents and their children.

    One moment we have the brutalization of children who are confined in a state institution, then we have the position of parents being usurped as test are administered to their children without their knowledge and now we see our government ready to play Big Mother and protector to our children and again striving to drive a wedge between parents and children.

    No government will care for our children more than we do.

    Yes! It is difficult for me to follow an administration that exhibits dissociative identify disorder (DID) abusing our children at one moment and then seeking to protect them from their parents in the next.

    Poor me! I am unable to follow the zig zag of our government.

    Reply ↓

  37. Hope the vaccine bullies are happy.

    Glad enuff i can get involved in NONE of it.

    Reply ↓

    • Oh hell! First time ever that I had to give Redguard a vote!

      Murdaaaah! De cat got pups!


    • Looks like a requiem for FAILURES.

      I noticed the parasite slithering around looking for 750K to skim, and taking on all of the physical attributes of a very old parasite….fraudulent as usual…using slavery tourism as a front. How many times have they used the old St. Joseph hospital as a weapon to tief money. Still at it….decades later…and it’s still an eyesore.


  42. Perhaps there isn’t enough information available publicly to raise public awarenes of the Child Care Board’s functions, especially as it relates to some of the issues raised, such as ‘children in households where outlined risk factors exist.’ Reintroducing and raising the tax allowance is an interesting suggestion. However, even if it is raised to $5,000 for example, would not provide any financial benefit for those persons whose incomes are below the tax threshold, and would only guarantee a refund of income taxes deducted from people whose salaries/wages are above it. With in CCB is the Child Abuse Unit, which not only addresses some of the issues raised, but also works closely with the police in prosecuting the perpetrators of child abuse.

    Reply ↓

  43. To my knowledge, everyone supports the parts of the Bill that protects children from severe abuse. Such abusers deserve the punishments of $100,000 and 10 years imprisonment that are in the Bill. So what is the problem?

    The problem is with the wide definition of abuse. If a mild spanking causes pain to the child, then according to the Bill, that is abuse that attracts a $100,000 fine and 10 years imprisonment.

    If that is not what is intended, then why are some (i) fighting so hard not to narrow the definition to severe harm, and (ii) insisting that the Bill be passed with the wide definition of abuse that includes the responsible actions of caring parents and teachers?

    If the intent is to make criminals out of responsible parents and teachers as the current wording of the Bill will certainly do, then the effort to fight to keep the definitions as wide as they currently are has finally been explained.

    Reply ↓

  44. Justice has to be seen to be believed
    Laws are put in place for a purpose
    Laws can be manipulated in Court system

    Laws against Holy Herb has been abused since day one by the Racist Judiciary of the Western hemisphere and it’s former colonies by freemasons embedded in positions of power. Just like the Slave Code of White Supremacy Racism which was originally conceived for Barbados prototype Colony.

    Reply ↓

  45. Pingback: Have we become too polarized?Barbados Underground

Leave a comment, join the discussion.