Abrahams defends gender-neutral amendments to Sexual Offences Act

Minister of Home Affairs Wilfred Abrahams sharply criticised Leader of the Opposition Ralph Thorne for suggesting that gender-neutral amendments to the Sexual Offences Act could promote homosexuality through legislation.

During Tuesday’s debate in the House of Assembly, Thorne said that while he supported the bill’s provisions to enhance protections for minors against predatory behaviour, the introduction of gender-neutral language in relation to spousal rape was questionable. He argued that the changes could have maintained references to a “male spouse” and a “female spouse”, which he said would clearly define heterosexual unions.

“The offence may be committed by a male spouse on a female spouse, or by a female spouse on a male spouse. That leaves it clear that the union is heterosexual, but [if] you exclude the words male and female, you may be treading on ground that ought to be introduced to the public explicitly, by the explicit language of any legislation, whether it’s this legislation or legislation dedicated to the issue of the definition of marital unions,” Thorne contended.

Abrahams, however, dismissed Thorne’s assertion, stressing that the previous version of the Act already defined “spouse” in a gender-neutral manner. He pointed out that it was the use of the term “husband” later in the same legislation that had caused confusion.

“In the interpretation section, which is Section 2, [it] says spouse means a lawful husband or wife as the case may be. The problem comes in [where] you got into the meat of the legislation, Section 3, it spoke about a husband who commits the offence of rape is liable on conviction or indictment to imprisonment for life. It defined spouse but used husband. That created confusion,” the Home Affairs Minister explained.

Abrahams added that for several decades, Barbadian law had recognised that sexual assault could be perpetrated by women as well as men, and the amendments were necessary to ensure clarity.

“The question was for many years, ‘What if the female in the relationship is the aggressor? What if the female perpetuates an act of violation against the male?’ It did not meet the standard of rape because a woman could not rape a man. We clarified that years ago,” he said. “The definition of rape was extended to include the violation of the vagina, the violation of the anus, the violation of the mouth. We could not have spouse being defined as a husband or wife and then have the offence of rape in the legislation only referring to where the husband does something and not when a wife does it. We are saying now, everything that a husband can be charged for, a woman can be charged for.”

He further noted that in the Barbadian context, the term “spouse” also encompasses unions where individuals are “effectively” married after cohabiting for several years, and said it was misleading to suggest that the changes were a precursor to the legalisation of same-sex marriage.

“I can tell you at the time of drafting that piece, there was no contemplation being given to any same-sex marriage, any change of legislation. But I will tell you, what gave me some measure of concern was the venom being spewed by the Honourable Leader of the Opposition that he hopes that this offence and protection applied to heterosexual couples, and was not intended to apply to homosexual relationships,” Abrahams said.

“With the definition of rape, any person, also gender-neutral, does x, y, or z to another person without their consent, [that person] is guilty of rape. Whoever he is seeking to exclude is already protected,” he asserted.

The home affairs minister also accused Thorne of attempting to downplay the rights of individuals in same-sex relationships, stating that these persons have the same protections under the law as any other citizen.

“I don’t have to agree with the way somebody lives their life, I don’t have to agree with the choices they make. Quite frankly, I don’t agree with most things that the leader of the opposition does or says, but let anybody come and say he should be excluded from the protection of the law because I don’t like what he represents, then I would attack that person on [his] behalf,” Abrahams declared.