Protests useful, but objectives must be clear

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.

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. 

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