1 week ago
6
A bill aimed at expanding protection for survivors of domestic violence and intimate partner violence was debated in the Senate today. Introducing the bill for its second reading, Leader of Government Business, Senator Eamon Courtenay, said it seeks to give courts greater powers to support survivors and improve access to justice. It would also repeal and replace the existing Domestic Violence Act. Courtenay said the proposed legislation recognizes that abuse can occur in dating relationships and other relationships beyond marriage. He explained that the protection must also address mental, psychological and financial abuse, alongside physical violence. The bill seeks to streamline emergency relief, including giving senior justices of the peace powers to assist police and people facing domestic violence. Courtenay said the intention is to empower survivors and make the response to abuse more sensitive and effective. Lead Opposition Senator Patrick Faber supported the proposed improvements to assist victims, but questioned how effectively those protections would reach people living in remote communities. His concern focused on access to help for survivors who may be far from the services needed to put the law into practice.
Patrick Faber, UDP Senator: “Mr. President, the opposition supports this bill, of course. Too many Belizean women and some men, and far too many children live with violence behind their own front doors. Too many of our constituents have told us the same story, the police did not come, or they came and left, the court was closed, the order was never served, the perpetrator was back in the house by the weekend. Some of those stories, Mr. President, ended up in funerals. Anything this Senate can do to change that, it should do. The bill, Mr. President, makes some real advances, and I want to acknowledge them. It recognizes financial, emotional, and psychological abuse, as the Leader of Government business has I said, and cyber-stalking. It protects people in dating relationships and former partners not only spouses. It allows police officers and social workers to apply on behalf of a victim. It requires hearings within five days. It allows for virtual attendance, and it removes the filing fee and holds proceedings in camera. It gives the court power to order compensation, relocation costs, counseling and removal of the abuser from the home, even when he or she owns it. It creates a national domestic violence register and a duty to collect the data. All of these things, Mr. President, are good things. But Mr. President a law in this field is judged by one test. Does it protect the person being abused at 11 o’clock on a Saturday night in a village 40 miles from the nearest magistrate? On that test, this bill has gaps. Some are drafting errors, some are policy choices we think are wrong. Some are promises without money. Our job in this Senate, Mr. President, is to find them before the victim does. I will go through them and hopefully at the committee stage as the Leader of Government Business has promised, we will get through some amendments. The centerpiece of the House Committee’s white paper is emergency protection outside court hours. The white paper, Mr. President, rightly says that under the current law, survivors are left vulnerable during nights, weekends, and emergencies. Clause 12 is the answer. A select senior justice of the peace may issue an exparte interim protection order for up to 72 hours when no magistrate is available.But read clause 12.1, Mr. President. The Justice of the Peace may act where a person is engaging, has engaged, or threatens to engage in domestic violence on the applicant. Clause 12.3 repeats it, where the Justice of the Peace determines that the domestic violence has occurred. Clause 12.4 again, domestic violence. Nowhere does clause 12 mention intimate partner violence. And this bill very deliberately defines the two separately. Domestic violence in clause two is violence against a spouse, child, cohabitant, common law spouse, dependent, former spouse or member of the household. Intimate partner violence is violence against someone with whom the respondent has or had a sexual or dating relationship. So the victim beaten by a boyfriend she does not live with or stalked by an ex-boyfriend is protected by this bill in the daytime at the family court. At night, at the weekend when she most needs it clause 12, Mr. President, does not reach her. The very group the bill was renamed to protect is left out of its emergency provision. We will move on this side, Mr. President, to add the words “Or intimate partner violence” throughout clause 12, and I hope the government will accept that change.”
Church Senator Reverend Louis Wade Junior also contributed to the debate, stressing the need for respect within relationships. Wade spoke about the way people treat their partners and the importance of respect in addressing abuse.
Louis Wade, Church Senator: “Forced confinement of a person, child or spouse, you are blocking the door, locking up the house, verbal or non-verbal threats of physical violence, stop threatening people about violence or that you will do them something. Cyber-stalking which is also defined inducing or coercing as it relates to drugs. And so this talks about it and I want to say 34.2d talks about the effect that drugs can have on abuse. And I was just reading an article that has, it’s a meta-study of over 60, of over 60 different studies that show that marijuana use specifically has attached to it an anger issue that makes many relationships go physical. And so I wanted to focus on that but I want to remind us that it is a privilege to be loved. And we should love, but that love does not entail ownership. You don’t own nobody, even if you’re married to them you don’t own them. And so maybe there are ways to improve the bill, but we are satisfied of what is at the present moment. We will continue to listen for the improvements that I recommended. But I want to encourage us as a nation that violence is not the solution. And it’s better to walk away to live another day and I will close with that.”
Courtenay acknowledged that senators had raised concerns about some provisions, while saying there appeared to be agreement on the bill’s overall purpose. He told the Senate that the government was willing to address serious issues during consideration in committee.
English (US) ·