What is morally wrong is always wrong
Woman's-Eye View
By Andaiye
Stabroek News
April 18, 1999
This column is being written on Wednesday, April 14, so cannot take
account of whatever else may be said on the subject of women's equality
in the intervening days.
Last Monday night the President was shown on a TV interview. A
question was put to her
based on recent incidents of police brutality against women - one,
sometime in March,
involved the beating of women in Charlotte Street; the second, later on,
involved the
beating - apparently to unconsciousness - of a woman by city constables.
In the interview,
the President was reported as not knowing of the two incidents, so she
was not responding to the facts of those incidents.
Being a cautious person, I asked a friend to go to check the tape at the
TV station which
carried the interview, to find the full text of the statement. This is what it
said: "We are
all against police brutality. I have been a proponent of equality for
women all the time,
and I believe that my work and those of my colleagues have had an input
in the status of
equality, and that is what we have. But at the same time, if women want
to agitate and
cause problems, they have to face the same police the men face. We
have attained equal
fights, and that's what it's all about."
To which a friend of mine said, "Equal licks."
I want to talk about the content, context, and possible effects of the
President's
statement. Although they are obviously connected, dealing with them
separately might
help me to be clear.
The President's statement is about equalising downwards, equality at the
lowest common
denominator. It is perfectly true that if police beat women as much as
they beat men, that
would be an example of equal treatment. So would dropping men's wages
so they are as
low as women's. Or getting more women to beat more men so there
could be as much
female violence against males as male violence against females. The
issue is whether
men and women are getting equally good or equally bad treatment. In
relation to the use
of police force, the issue is whether it is justifiable whether its victims
are male or
female.
And that' s the problem. I have read recent letters to the press which
argue that given the
rise in crime and violence, whatever force the police use is necessary.
Sometimes this
force is said to be necessary because the victim was a suspect or a
wanted man who
resisted arrest. Often people believe this even when eyewitnesses say
that the victim
offered no resistance. The reason for this let's face it, is that the victims
fit a certain
profile.
The President's statement is about equalising
downwards, equality at the lowest common
denominator
All profiling is inherently biased and unjust. Travelling in the Caribbean
during the
seventies and eighties I was often badly treated at the airports of other
Caribbean
countries; at ours too, but that was not because of profiling, it was
because the
government could not tolerate dissent or dissenters. What happened at
other Caribbean
airports was that I fit a profile; I was a Guyanese and that made me
suspect. There was
another level of profiling. While I made no formal study of it, the
evidence of my eyes
was that although most Guyanese were badly treated, some were treated
worse,
especially young Indo-Guyanese and Rastafarians of any age. A little
probing at airports
would elicit arguments like this. More young Indo-Guyanese were
arriving at these
airports, so more were assumed to have the intention of staying in the
various countries
illegally. More Rastafarians smoke ganja, so more were assumed to be
trying to smuggle
it in. What was really happening was that possible fact mixed with
definite prejudice
made possible fiction.
New York is a place where people believe they can identify criminals by
their looks, and
where, right now, there is a rising protest against it, fuelled by the police
shooting of an
unarmed Guinean immigrant street vendor whose name was Amadou
Diallo. In March,
Diallo was killed when four members of the New York Street Crimes
Unit fired forty-one
shots at him, hitting him nineteen times. The shooting took place in the
hallway of his
apartment building, and it happened because he fit a profile. Studies
show that the profile
of the criminal in New York is African-American and Latino. Members
of the street
Crimes Unit are largely white.
The profile of the criminal for many Guyanese is young Afro-Guyanese,
male and poor,
to the extent that there are people who say they know that this profile
fits the perpetrators
of violence against mainly Indo-Guyanese businessmen. But since we
are all suffering
from the poor police investigating, they can only know this, at the
moment, through
assumption and prejudice. How many inquests have we held, how many
arrests have we
made, how many trials have we had in all these cases of violence,
beginning, in recent
times, with Monica Reis?
The profile of the violent agitator is a little different. It is still
Afro-Guyanese, but this
time, male or female. Maybe this profile always existed, although it has
not always and
everywhere matched the truth of our history. But it has become more
firmly entrenched
by the fact that those responsible for physical violence and verbal abuse,
mainly of Indo-
Guyanese, during the protests of January 12, 1997 and after, were
Afro-Guyanese, male
and female. And this fact, coupled with the failure of anyone involved in
the protests to
apologise for the violence they at least facilitated, feeds a sense of
injustice that is used to
justify injustice to people who fit the profile. The civilians who used
physical or verbal
violence against innocent people on the street during these protests
were targeting them
by profile. Police force against anyone who looks like them may feel like
payback.
There is the question of proportionate force. The Minister of Home
affairs has said that
the women beaten in Charlotte Street attacked the police with pots, pans
and other
implements. The public should be given more information on this if it is
being suggested
that the women made the police beating necessary. I know of no report
on what the
woman beaten by city constables had done to deserve her blows. And
what are we to say
to the beating of a group of men and five women in Wellington Street by
blackclothes
police where, according to the victims and to eyewitnesses, the only
offence was
commenting that the glass on the police vehicle was tinted?
What is morally wrong is always wrong. Police brutality against women is
not new, and it
would carry us all forward if those who were in the government during
the 1970s and 1980s (I am referring to the period I know about by
personal experience) admired this.
I remember September 17, 1981. Sometimes the violence took a more
serious tum than
beating, for example, the shooting of Rose Ann Barrow outside a
Ministry on Homestretch Avenue.
What is morally wrong is always wrong. In 1975, I remember reading,
the whole
opposition of the day, including the PPP, protested police brutality
against a militant
woman sugar worker, Halima, who was "causing problems". Whatever
the President's
intention, her statement can be used to give shelter to police who abuse
their power
against women who are causing or not causing problems.
All those who condemn the wrongs of others without admiring their own
wrongs lessen
their own moral authority.
|