Who is the articulate minority? The phrase was coined by Environment Minister and Chairman of the governing People's National Party, Robert Pickersgill, to describe Twitter users commenting on the NHT/Outameni scandal. Pickersgill is quoted as saying that ordinary Jamaicans don't know anything about the social media website, and that Jamaicans on Twitter are an articulate minority, who're politically motivated. The comments have not gone down well with social media users, who've used the forum to criticize the senior Cabinet Minsiter.
There are no official statistics available on the Internet for the number of Jamaicans who use the social media website, Twitter. An executive from Twitter told one social media researcher (@corvedacosta) in July, that the number was somewhere around 35-thousand, about the size of a large constituency. However, another researcher (@top5jamaica) puts the figure at around 82-thousand, which is the number of Facebook users in Jamaica who also have a Twitter account linked to their Facebook page. The number could be much higher, considering many do not have the two accounts linked. By either estimate, it is indeed a fraction of Jamaica's estimated 2-point-7 million population. Many more Jamaicans use Facebook, an estimated 760-thousand up to January this year, according to Facebook's advertising analytics.
Yet, Twitter users are particularly influential. The site is designed to allow members to easily share someone else's posts by re-tweeting with the click of a button. According to the Twitter-tracking website, Keyhole, the hashtag #Outameni was tweeted over 552 times by 270 users in the past 48 hours. Those messages reached almost 600-thousand people. The tracker does not count how many times Outameni was tweeted about since October 30, when the scandal broke. The hashtag #ArticulateMinority was tweeted 537 times in the past two days, reaching an estimated 662 thousand people. A story on the Observer's website about Pickersgill's comments has been viewed over 18-thousand times, and shared on social media nearly 200 times. A third of those shares are on Twitter.
Minister Pickersgill does have a Twitter account, @bobbyp425, with129 followers. He's tweeted only 51 times, and his last message was in July 2012. Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller (@PSimpsonMiller) has just over 3-thousand followers, and last tweeted on October 5. While Opposition leader Andrew Holness (@AndrewHolnessJM) has nearly 9-thousand Twitter followers, and last tweeted this morning. That message read, "Any politician that ignores or brushes off the articulate minority shows a high level of disregard for those who choose to express their opinions." He continued, "I urge every Jamaican on Twitter to continue making your voice heard. Some of us are listening. I am listening." One of those messages was retweeted 45 times.
According to the 2014 Global Information Technology Report published by the World Economic Forum, nearly half of all Jamaicans are online. In a survey by the Director of Caribbean Institute of Media and Communications, CARIMAC, Professor Hopeton Dunn in 2011, 72-percent of Jamaicans with Internet access said they used social media. That was three years ago. Social media has been steadily growing in Jamaica since, with more and more users creating profiles on the popular websites daily. Telecoms companies Digicel and LIME both offer mobile data packages tailored specifically towards social media users for as low as $50 a day. "Ordinary Jamaicans" are aware of Twitter.
Using the conservative estimate of 35 thousand Twitter users in Jamaica, Jamaicans on Twitter represent a larger constituency than Minister Pickersgill's division of North West St. Catherine, which had 31,570 registered voters as of May 2014. Twitter users are influential shapers of social opinion, and if they are as articulate as Minister Pickersgill suggests, he may be keen to consider them Jamaica's 64th constituency, the Twitter constituency. Maybe then he will get more followers.
And THAT'S my perspective.
Thursday 27 November 2014
Friday 7 November 2014
Why a man CAN rape his wife
Opinions about marital rape appear to have split along gender lines. Men argue that they should be entitled to have sex with their wives whenever it suits their fancy, for what else is the purpose or benefit of marriage, if not to have consistent access to sex that is also sanctified by God? Women argue that they should have the right to say no, even to their husbands. Men are pleased to quote scripture pointing out that a marriage is union in which two become one, and of course there's the old adage, "What's yours is mine." Women, however, would like to think that they maintain control over their bodies even in marriage.
What both sides of the argument miss is the difference between sex and rape. The discussion about marital rape is not about a man's right to have sex with his wife, nor is it about a woman's right to say no honey, not tonight. It bemuses me how the issue of sex has usurped the conversation about rape, when rape has absolutely nothing to do with sex. A man does not rape because he wants sex, for there are obviously much easier ways of obtaining it. A man rapes to assert power and dominance, to humiliate, to hurt and to punish. While the objective of sex is pleasure and procreation, the objective of rape is pain and power, so although the physical act of penetration is the same, the psychological act is diametrically different. A woman knows the difference between being raped and having sex, just a child knows or is taught the difference between a good touch and a bad touch. One is innocent and welcome; the other is a crime.
Rape is an act of violence. In a relationship, it is akin to domestic violence. There are men who use rape, just as they would a beating, as a method of physically asserting their dominance in the relationship, while simultaneously reminding the woman of "her place". If a man beats up his girlfriend and then forces her to have sex with him against her will--for few women would want to have sex after being beaten--could he not be charged with assault and rape? If a man beats up his wife and then forces her to have sex with him, are those not the same crimes? Should he not be charged with both assault and rape? Or should, as one gentleman asserted to me, the wife simply accept the rape as part of the beating?
Under the Sexual Offences Act 2009, marital rape is confined to very specific situations. A husband can only be accused of raping his wife if they are separated, a divorce proceeding is pending, a restraint order has been issued against him, or if he knowingly suffers from a sexually transmitted infection. These conditions should be removed to allow for a charge of rape even when the marriage is in tact.
During the debate on marital rape in the House of Representatives, former Justice Minister Delroy Chuck posited that a charge of marital rape would result in the immediate collapse of the marriage, and that the possibility of reconciliation would be zero. This is not necessarily the case, although in my opinion, it ought to be. If marital rape is viewed through the context of domestic violence, it is immediately evident that many women, even after reporting their husbands to the police for domestic violence, return to the abusive home. The possibility for reconciliation, therefore, does exist, usually after the husband apologizes and vows never to do it again. Relationships are complicated.
There is also the argument that marital rape should not be criminalized because could allow vindictive wives to lie about their husbands raping them. The possibility of the complainant lying about her alleged abuser has always been a concern in the discussion about rape. Indeed, there are men whose lives have been irreparably damaged due to false accusations of rape against them; however, no one has ever argued that because of this liability, rape should be decriminalized. Likewise, this is not a solid argument against the expanded criminalization of marital rape.
It is time that we advance the discussion about marital rape beyond the assertion that what happens in a married couple's bedroom is their business. It is evident that sexual abuse within a relationship and even a marriage is a legitimate issue, and although there are those who would prefer to ignore even physical domestic violence, those among us who are familiar with the consequences of abuse within a family, should not allow this to be swept aside.
And that's MY perspective.
What both sides of the argument miss is the difference between sex and rape. The discussion about marital rape is not about a man's right to have sex with his wife, nor is it about a woman's right to say no honey, not tonight. It bemuses me how the issue of sex has usurped the conversation about rape, when rape has absolutely nothing to do with sex. A man does not rape because he wants sex, for there are obviously much easier ways of obtaining it. A man rapes to assert power and dominance, to humiliate, to hurt and to punish. While the objective of sex is pleasure and procreation, the objective of rape is pain and power, so although the physical act of penetration is the same, the psychological act is diametrically different. A woman knows the difference between being raped and having sex, just a child knows or is taught the difference between a good touch and a bad touch. One is innocent and welcome; the other is a crime.
Rape is an act of violence. In a relationship, it is akin to domestic violence. There are men who use rape, just as they would a beating, as a method of physically asserting their dominance in the relationship, while simultaneously reminding the woman of "her place". If a man beats up his girlfriend and then forces her to have sex with him against her will--for few women would want to have sex after being beaten--could he not be charged with assault and rape? If a man beats up his wife and then forces her to have sex with him, are those not the same crimes? Should he not be charged with both assault and rape? Or should, as one gentleman asserted to me, the wife simply accept the rape as part of the beating?
Under the Sexual Offences Act 2009, marital rape is confined to very specific situations. A husband can only be accused of raping his wife if they are separated, a divorce proceeding is pending, a restraint order has been issued against him, or if he knowingly suffers from a sexually transmitted infection. These conditions should be removed to allow for a charge of rape even when the marriage is in tact.
During the debate on marital rape in the House of Representatives, former Justice Minister Delroy Chuck posited that a charge of marital rape would result in the immediate collapse of the marriage, and that the possibility of reconciliation would be zero. This is not necessarily the case, although in my opinion, it ought to be. If marital rape is viewed through the context of domestic violence, it is immediately evident that many women, even after reporting their husbands to the police for domestic violence, return to the abusive home. The possibility for reconciliation, therefore, does exist, usually after the husband apologizes and vows never to do it again. Relationships are complicated.
There is also the argument that marital rape should not be criminalized because could allow vindictive wives to lie about their husbands raping them. The possibility of the complainant lying about her alleged abuser has always been a concern in the discussion about rape. Indeed, there are men whose lives have been irreparably damaged due to false accusations of rape against them; however, no one has ever argued that because of this liability, rape should be decriminalized. Likewise, this is not a solid argument against the expanded criminalization of marital rape.
It is time that we advance the discussion about marital rape beyond the assertion that what happens in a married couple's bedroom is their business. It is evident that sexual abuse within a relationship and even a marriage is a legitimate issue, and although there are those who would prefer to ignore even physical domestic violence, those among us who are familiar with the consequences of abuse within a family, should not allow this to be swept aside.
And that's MY perspective.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)