Beware of Fake Father Advocates

Feminism has infiltrated every aspect of modern day life, even in a country like Trinidad & Tobago. Even our attitudes about fathers cannot escape the fury of feminist bigotry. I have seen signs that denigrate fatherhood. One of the powerful vehicles that propagate the negativity of fatherhood is the state funded Ministry of Gender, Youth and Child Development in the Government of Trinidad & Tobago. Let’s get this clear – this is feminism (organized to appear neutral) and they make no qualms about this. However their message is anti-male and anti-father. We have all seen the stories in the media – about absent fathers, domestic violence, sexual abuse, fathers who sexually abuse their daughters and in my opinion, the worse – Dead Beat Dads. I have seen the large billboards funded by our tax dollars “teaching men” to be more responsible about having children that they do not father. AssociatiFather and son (5-7) playing chess in living room, smilingng fatherhood with marriage, being a good (and obedient) husband and of course not being a Dead Beat Dad.

Have we ever seen any signs or articles by anyone in official capacity – either a feminist or a government minister, tell us about irresponsible women who have children they have no intention of taking care of? No! The overwhelming narrative is that these are women we must take care of! We must set up social programs, grants and find jobs for them. The men who happen to be the one impregnating these women – well they have to pay up! That’s the extent of the narrative.

Is this a fair perception? How many men actually choose to be fathers? And of these, how many men abandon and neglect their children? Personally I don’t know of any. The only conclusion I can derive from this situation is that when women get pregnant with children they cannot take care the men get blamed and the woman gets assistance. And that is equality for some feminists.

I am going to make a statement that will irk some. Fatherhood is a myth to fool men into staying with women in Trinidad & Tobago. Yes. Even if you stay with your wife and remain with the family until the kids grow to be adults you only have the illusion of being a father. Consider this. If at any point during your marriage you fall out of favor with your wife for whatever reason – she has the state backing to kick your sorry ass to the curb without reason. Although the house, car and everything in the house was bought for with your hard earned cash and you were the best and most responsible father. The state has the machinery set up to ensure you stay out of the home and that you continue to pay alimony and child support, whether or not you can afford it. She is free to bring her boyfriend in the house that may have caused the separation in the first place. If the new man molests your kids, as in the case of Kenyana (the 6 year old that was murdered and placed in a barrel last year) the state machinery, which includes the press, will blame fathers and the mom will get all the sympathy. Applying for custody can be wrought with hurdles for fathers. Even if it is found that you were the parent who spent more time with the kids, the state will ensure that you remain out of that child’s life if that is the objective of the mother. There is a whole system with Mental health, and social workers, Courts and infinite power to ensure she cuts you off as a father. That’s the reality! You can be falsely accused of rape and domestic violence, locked up, unless you can prove that she lied and made the whole thing up. If you are lucky to be able to prove that the allegations are untrue, she will merely be excused and the worst thing is that she might be warned – but nothing punitive. That’s fatherhood in Trinidad & Tobago.  Smart married men wise up and will live a life of abuse from their wives choosing to stay away from the home as much as possible or have an outside mistress, especially if you have a good job and assets to loose. But they dare not try to divorce her. Smarter men avoid marriage and commitment all together.

If you doubt this is a reality – you need to talk to men that have applied for custody in Trinidad. There is a Single Fathers Association in Trinidad. I am sure they can corroborate these stories, because we have quite a few of them and we ill start publishing them. They stand NO chance unless the mother has either tried to kill the child several times or, is worth being locked up in St Anns or, is a serious drug dealer or something nefarious like that. That’s what’s stacked up against fathers in Trinidad. Now I am not doubting that there are men who have found wonderful women who respect them and appreciate what they do even as they both contribute to the household responsibilities, but that’s not what I am talking about. I am talking about men for whatever reason have decided that they are going to break it off with their wife and there are children involved.

There are offshoot organizations from feminism like, The National Organization for Men Against Sexism, American Mens Studies Association and Society for the Psychological Study of Men and Masculinity. These are fundamentally male hating feminist organizations, with a male friendly name. They are rife with articles and research downplaying the role of fatherhood, the best fathers can get with feminism is an “also ran” rating. Feminists clamor about stereo-types wanting man to take on household roles – but they will never give up the advantage that women have, by being considered the primary and only parent when the union breaks down. The same data that generates much of their conclusion on the role of fathers, clearly show that when fathers are not around the results are disastrous for children’s outcomes. We never hold women responsible for the children they fail to bring up. Where are young boys learning to be antisocial and violent? The research does not support single women raising them. The increasing exposure of female authority figures in children’s lives – from single mothers, female child care persons, Female preschool and female primary school teachers must have some role to play in these boys that end up in the criminal system. We have research now that show women caregivers single out boys from a very young age. From single mothers to primary school teacher’s, Our boys learn that violence is the answer from a very young age. We treat girls very differently. We are doing a literature research project on the effect of violent women on the outcomes of boys especially in marginalized environments like single mother households. What have Trinidad & Tobago done with their young men, by creating the ecosystem for single motherhood? What do you think?

To the authorities that have the power – if you want fathers to take more responsibility – stop incentivizing single motherhood and start giving fathers a reason to care, like preferential treatment in custody matters (like they ought to) and financial rewards. You will solve a lot of our social problems – GUARANTEED.

Post Script

Two things inspired me to write this post. An article in The Trinidad Woman Express on Fatherhood – by Irvin Paddier – a pastor and the President of Men of Purpose and father advocate and a few emails this site received recently discouraging us to write about men’s issues in Trinidad & Tobago. I think this is where there is a serious problem. Many of the men in high places today are supporters of the feminist movement. Feminists overwhelmingly support women and their right to do as they please with children. They believe that children are their property to exploit. Feminism has advocated for fathers to be cut out from children’s lives, that the position can easily be substituted by a “father figure”.

Here are some quotations from the article.

I am not a “Baby Daddy”, I am a husband and a father. I believe fatherhood is a decision; it is not something that just happens.” MAFTT –It might be a good idea but fatherhood is not something many men have a choice about. Women have all the choices here – even to give up the child for adoption. Fathers have to pay up even if it is found out that the child is not biologically his, and the mother deceived him into thinking so. In the US if a child is born when a woman rapes a man (made to penetrate with a minor) that boy will be liable for child support payments to his rapist. Usually the woman rapist don’t face any charges or the charges are statute barred. It might be the same under Trinidad law.

“Part of the problem with many men who are fathers is that we believe we are still bachelors who have children, so it’s something we just “handle” rather than commit to.” MAFTT –You are confusing men who chose to have kids and men who find out later that they are the father without choosing.

There is something that fathers neglect, and that is nurturing. MAFTT – That’s not true – most dads who elect to do so are very nurturing, some will even do more than his wife in rearing the children, these social stereotypes are giving way to practical parenting based on who works and for how much.

“I believe the greatest gift a father could give his children is to love their mother. Yes, wives have responsibilities too. But they are not your concern here, especially if you aren’t even taking care of your own responsibilities. The vows you made to your wife were not conditional upon how your wife lived up to her end of the deal. The reality of this is that your children see this love and appreciate it.” MAFTT – This most sexist anti-father BS I have ever come across from someone claiming to be an expert in fatherhood.

Quotations are from:

Trinidad Express Womans Magazine Sunday 28 September, 2014.

Discrimination Alive and Well in Trinidad & Tobago

“I do not support discrimination in any form against any individual regardless of their gender and sexual orientation.
Kamla Persad-Bissessar, December 2012 responding to criticisms on discrimination of LGBT rights (Wikipedia).

The Trinidad & Tobago PM is currently in New York on official government business. She was asked by NPR anchor Lakshmi Singh about the status of Gay rights and discrimination:

“There is an intensified campaign in the Caribbean among gay rights advocates to decriminalize homosexuality. I’m just wondering what has been your Government’s specific response to this growing concern.”

kamlaKamla was speaking at a conference promoting Trinidad in a bid to attract foreign investment, She responded:

“At this moment it is not legally possible. “The draft gender policy came to the Cabinet, discussed at length and given the very divided voices of Trinidad and Tobago. It will not be prudent for Government to proceed in that direction “It’s too divided, there’s no consensus on that issue, And, therefore it may require what is known as a referendum,” personal views are not good enough”. “Tremendous opposition was faced, especially from the Roman Catholic Church.”

If you found these responses to a very straightforward question very confusing you are not alone. Although Ms. Persad-Bissessar’s government is committed to equality and eradicating discrimination, it has to be within the context of staying in power. Staying in power means pleasing as many people as possible without any regard for ethics and morality.

Benjamin Frankin said that Democracy is ‘mob rule’. A Republic recognizes the unalienable rights of individuals while Democracies are only concerned with what the masses want. Theoretically in mob rule or democracy, all that is needed is for 50% of the people to want something plus one person to have the majority. This can lead to anarchy and social dysfunction. Pure democracies will self destruct when the majority realizes that it can vote to patronize itself and live off hardworking people. This might be going on in Trinidad & Tobago right now. Politicians over the past several decades have not served Trinidad & Tobago in this regard, with statements like “Politics has a morality of its own” and “The word of the People is the word of God”. These people have not read the constitution.

Hypothetically, if we in Trinidad decide that the French Creoles and Syrians have too much money we could, according to Persad-Bissessar’s “referendum”, we could demand that all the property of anyone of Syrian or French descent, give up their property to the poorest half of the population. If properly marketed it could get 51% of the popular vote very easily. Which is why we have the constitution which provides the checks and balances to ensure that unalienable rights are not trampled upon by the majority. If this were an issue pertaining specifically to women or girls, Hindus or Catholics – discrimination would be dealt with without any “referendum”.

The Prime Minister has categorically singled out the Catholic Church as the primary source of discrimination of Gays in Trinidad & Tobago. This is proof that organized religion can be a bad thing. Here, it is obvious that the Catholic Church is sponsoring discrimination. Should we then consider the Catholic Church a hate group? In this case it surely is. In the past the Catholic Church has been central to the abuse and proliferation of child sexual abuse. They might not want homosexuality to be legalized because a significant proportion of their priests are homosexuals and engage in pedophilia. But surely they can deal with this issue and their membership on their own level.


The response from the PM, that fundamentally subverts the constitution of the republic, that she and her ministers swore to uphold, and then choose to “go to the people”, can be misread as a noble action. But let’s get something clear – it’s a self-serving political survival strategy. Persad-Bissessar’s government is not on solid ground. They need to please the masses with elections being due by next year. This ‘referendum’ while it sounds similar to the Republican’s plea to let gay marriage be determined at the local and state government will have the same result but possibly for different reasons. Trinidad’s case is a matter of survival and lack of testicular fortitude, while the Republican senators who advocate this “let the people decide” is more so that the can bring the policy to the state level and have it killed there, both have the same result – discrimination.

I would leave this issue with a few conclusions:

  1. Discrimination is alive and well in Trinidad & Tobago. International organizations and human rights watch groups need to look closely and publicize the human rights violations in Trinidad & Tobago. Petition Corporations that want to do business in Trinidad & Tobago.
  2. While this matter is a gender neutral topic and feminists support gay rights, this matter affects mainly men and boys as it is they who are arrested and charged and discriminated against in Trinidad and the wider Caribbean.
  3. In a republic, it is unjust to have public referendum where the rights of minorities are concerned. This has to be addressed in the ongoing Constitutional Reform efforts.
  4. We need to have Separation of Church and State written into the law in Trinidad & Tobago. This is one of the greatest hurdles. We have organized religion playing such a large role in the country. Our education system practices discrimination throughout the primary and secondary systems. Churches get tax payers money for the management of their schools where children are free to be discriminated against, Teachers are forced to teach religious doctrine and worse, child indoctrination which is psychological abuse gets to parade as a “well rounded” education, at the expense of tax payers.



“Feminism is Getting Hotter”?

I recently came across a blog post by Trinidadian Feminist – Gabrielle Hosein – “Diary of a mothering worker”, who also writes a column in the Trinidad Guardian and is a Lecturer at the University of the West Indies in Gender Studies. From what I can decipher, from a few of her posts, she shies away from controversy and focuses on the positive aspects of her chosen brand of politics.

She implies from her blog that the “dilemma was about the ‘I’m not feminist [sic], but…’ kind of feminism…” resulting from the negative stereotypes is giving way to positive representations where feminists are mixing their activism with capitalism to dismantle the powers that create barriers. While her post deals with sexual freedom of women and talks about feminist boogieman “gender stereotypes” she then takes a swipe at men with the statement, “that men, even those who are molesters, rapists or adulterers, don’t face…” – great going! By the way, it is mainly women who shame other women for being sex workers and expressing their sexuality.

muscleI imagine that she is talking about the imaginary “patriarchy” that feminism is so replete with, without actually referring to it by name, how clever! Except that Feminism isn’t getting “hotter” at all. I suspect that this metaphor to distract the barrage of criticism feminism is facing these days. Is feminism getting “hotter”? Not by any measure – feminism is being associated with hatred and bigotry towards half of the world population, after they have gotten away with it for over a hundred years. We have almost dismantled institutionalized racialism, we are working on dismantling sexual discrimination, and the next wave of equality will dismantle hate groups like feminism. Feminist argue that they are only about equality but they fail to show it in virtually every aspect of their work – take for example the work of another UWI Feminist Professor, Rhoda Reddock who, with other feminists authored Trinidad & Tobago’s legislation on Domestic Violence and Sexual Offences – those works are rife with sexism, which we exposed in a recent post. The Sexual Offences Act completely excuse and ignore sexual offences that women commit. We will show in another post why women are just as much perpetrators of sexual offences as men are – but if the law does not recognize their transgressions women pedophiles will fly below the radar. In preparation I conducted an unscientific experiment with many of my fellow male citizens. Almost every Trinidadian man I have asked in recent weeks have a story to tell about how an older adult female, often a teacher or a family member molested him when he was a minor. Now I will be honest here. Most men don’t regard this as abuse – but that’s not relevant. Why would feminists ‘egalitarians’ who erected this law, author it in such a manner that overly punishes male offenders and excuses and pretend that women are squeaky clean? Whatever your answer is, that’s not equality, but bigotry.

Feminism is a very dirty word in 2014, and it is most likely due to the rise in the Men’s Rights Movement that is calling for true equality. If you would like to know what the Men’s Rights Movement is about go over the the most popular blog of the men’s right movement –

According to several polls conducted in the past few years that sought to understand what people think about feminism and equality, what is obvious and shown over and over that the overwhelming majority of the population don’t regard themselves as feminists and another majority also believe that women and men should be social, political, and economic equals. If that isn’t a death knell for the notion that:

Feminism = Equality,

I don’t know what is. The numbers only vary slightly – but they are typically over 75%. You should understand that

Feminism ≠ Women

Many men in high places – like directors of large corporations, world leaders – that are typically men, identify as feminists. Isn’t this the same group of men feminists pretend is the Patriarchy, and they are trying actively to dismantle? The same men like Barack Obama, which appointed several women – although their competence is often called into question. Men like Mark Zuckerberg who appointed feminist, Sheryl Sandberg to the position of COO of one of the largest tech companies in the world, the same Sheryl Sandberg who spends most of her energy talking about women’s issues and who openly admits being clueless about technology. Only a feminist can pull that off. Many male leaders say that they are “feminist” – they have to be, women vote in droves for change that favor them. Most western countries have a majority of female voters that will determine the end result. Politics is no longer about policies and strategies for nation building – it’s about who can do more for “me”. So men listen, they have to identify with those who can boot them out of power. The striking change in attitudes toward feminism comes from younger women – typically women less than 25, who see feminism as a man hating, bigoted ideology. In 2014, the hashtag #WomenAgainstFeminism was the most newsworthy development in feminism – exposing feminism for what is really is. And will continue to decline, and guess what? It is bright smart young women are doing it.



Another Child Dies at the hands of Incompetent Women

Yesterday’s Express Reported the death of 5 year old Kimberly Williams. Kimberly’s charred body was found by firemen in the corner of a room when her house caught fire after the grandmother left the child with Kimberly’s brother and went to attend to a matter outside the house. According to the Express newspapers, the child’s mother fell ill the day before, and was taken to hospital. The maternal grandmother was left with the children. Yesterday morning the grandmother got a call from Kimberly’s mother (her daughter) that she needed clothes for her hospital stay and the grandmother left the children by themselves. The house burned down and Kimberly’s brother escaped while Kimberly was left behind.

You are wrong, Express!

The Express published an Editorial, “Never Again this Tragedy”. I beg to disagree. We will relive this horror over and over because we fail our children. There is enough information there, that this was a case of poor judgment of the adult women who were in charge of these children. Too many parents leave their children unsupervised. This is clearly what she did, unless the reports in the paper are wrong. These women should have to pay. The welfare of women does not trump the safety of children. And pretending that the mother and grandmother are victims are an insult to children that are abused everyday by this type of Help mecarelessness.


Remembering Keyana

Every year more children die or are seriously harmed under the hands of their mothers. Just nine months ago the country was rocked by the tragic death of six year old Keyana Cumberbatch who was raped and murdered by her mother’s boyfriend. According to reports Keyana’s Dad had very limited access to his daughter and the mother, Simone Williams gave instructions to her family that the Dad was not to see his daughter. The father reported to the news that “I beg this girl for my child all how, she said ‘no’, but look what happened now. Who’s paying for this?”

It appears from the reports that the mother was using the child to punish the dad and her live in boyfriend ended up killing their child. At the funeral our Prime Minister Kamla Persad Biesessar and government officials from the Ministry of Gender, Child and Youth affairs prayed with the mother. From all the news reports the country saw the mother as the victim. Subsequently the government set up the Child Protection Task Force to look into what was going on with all the reports of harm to children in Trinidad & Tobago. This task force was headed by radical feminist/Activist – Diana Mahabir Wyatt and a host of other Trinidad feminists. Diana Mahabir Wyatt was quoted subsequently in the newspapers saying:

“Very rarely do you hear a child being killed or abused when the mother has custody. It’s usually when the father has them. “I don’t know how we can prevent the father from taking them? It is the court that orders custody. You can’t ask the court to be more careful. “If, over and over again, nothing happened to the children when the father had them, how can you tell that one day he would snap? All over the world there are people who are becoming mentally unstable.”

This is a very dishonest statement that is typical of radfems and we will take it apart in another post. Trinidad & Tobago loves women to the extent that they are willing to sacrifice the lives of children and pretend that women are not responsible. More children in Trinidad and Tobago are harmed by women caregivers each year and we ignore this problem. Instead we give women incentives to have children that they will act irresponsibly around.

In the case of Kimberly Williams, the express reported extensively on the excuse the grandmother gave why she left the children to fend for themselves. If we are to protect children we need to hold parents accountable for their misdeeds. In the case of Keyana, No one held the mother responsible – instead we focused on the step father not acknowledging the fact that he was present because of the mother’s sexual desires. And no, the mother’s right to her sexuality and her partner does not trump the child’s right to life. Trinidadians & Tobagonians are completely disgusting when it comes to how they view children. All over there are crocodile tears for dead children but we will never lift a finger at the perpetrators. In most cases the perpetrators – the ones entrusted with the children to act responsibly, are the mothers.

In Trinidad & Tobago, if a father wants custody of his children, even if he will not make any demands on the mother for child support payments – he stands the chance of a snowball in hell, as the Feminists who run family and divorce proceedings in Trinidad & Tobago see children as the property and income source of the mother. As far as they are concerned – “if you could wine, you could pay” is the motto of many family court magistrates.

Most research (will present in another post) that dares to compare Single Mother vs Single father outcomes in the US report that single father raised children fare as well as “two parent” households. We cannot see why it won’t be the same for Trinidad & Tobago, especially that there is a bigger income gap between women and men in Trinidad than in the US. Income and poverty are some of the strongest indicators for child outcomes. The fathers who want custody – like little Kenyana’s dad, should be automatically given custody when they want it and especially if their financial resources are better than the mothers. Trinidad need to stop feeling sorry for single mothers – they are the problem. Single mothers are the greatest risk to child outcomes – pouring grants and special job opportunities will not help children. It’s clear in all the research – children who grow up with their fathers have the best outcomes, children who grow up with the mothers and absent fathers grow up to be criminals and misfits in society. That is one of the clearest reasons why we have a lot of antisocial behaviors in Trinidad – we have too many single mothers and we are giving women incentives to become single mothers. Further, the feminists that are in charge of the implementation of these policies are putting children in the hands of these careless women. We know that many fathers are unengaged and don’t want a relationship with their children – but if you really care about children, let the dads do what they are genetically engineered to do better than anyone else on the planet – protect them. As Mr Basdeo Panday said – if you sow the wind prepare to reap the whirlwind. Our crime is fueled by the poor administration and policies of feminists. Children should not have to pay for this.



The Law is an Ass 1 – The Sexual Offences Act

book_burnThis is the first in the series “The Law is an Ass” – a critical look at Gender bias and sexism in the Sexual offences act of Trinidad & Tobago. Unfortunately this post is quite long, but there is no elegant way to avoid this.

The overwhelming impression one gets from reading the SOA (Sexual Offences Act) – is that women don’t rape, neither do the engage in acts of sexual assault. The only way a woman (other than incest, adopted child or business subordinate) can be charged under this act is if she has sexual intercourse with a minor more than three years younger than herself, and at most she will get 5 years in a nice comfortable women’s prison. The shocking reality is that males, once they are over 12 years old, can receive sentences from 10 years to life imprisonment. These are boys the age entering high school. An overview of the sentences for various charges clearly illustrate the perverted sense of justice and revulsion toward men and boys by its authors. We believe that this act is contrary to, and should be illegal under the Constitution of Trinidad & Tobago Chapter 1 Part 1 Section 4 Sub-section b. The SOA also conflicts with the rights of children under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Quote from Trinidad Express 7 Sept, 2012.

Professor Rhoda Reddock has worked alongside fellow gender advocates and activists over the years in establishing the Caribbean Association for Feminist Research and Action (CAFRA). She also played a part in bringing about legislation related to sexual offences in the Sexual Offences Act and the implementation of the Domestic Violence Act. She remains disappointed that the draft national Gender Policy and Action Plan, which she worked on with Professor Patricia Mohammed, Camille Antoine and the staff of the Gender Affairs Division for two years, never saw the light of day.

We will get back to Professor Reddock – recipient of the Presidents Gold Medal for the development of Women (2012).

This SOA, defines sexual assault and rape, entirely about males (including boys over the age of 12) performing a sexual act on a woman. It considers not only vaginal and anal penetration, but also oral sex and sexual acts using objects. It looks at fundamentally women being ‘forced’ to perform a wide variety of sexual acts – even performing oral sex on the accused. While the act could theoretically apply to males, it is clear that it’s a law written in support of women and not necessarily sexual offenses. The act presumes males to be perpetrators, except where buggery, incest and other ancillary offences are concerned.

We will refer to this practice of writing laws in support of women, under the auspicious declaration of equality in future posts. Why write a law to protect half of the population specifically ignoring the other half? Wouldn’t it have been much easier and less complicated to write a gender neutral law and protect everyone? This is evidence of systemic bias in the Laws of Trinidad & Tobago. How can an accused expect justice under this law, when the law itself is unconstitutional and inherently biased?
Here are some of the conclusions that is obvious from language in the act.

  1. The act only protect those who have a vagina to be penetrated. The man is only protected by someone performing anal sex on him. Considering that homosexuals perform anal sex, as a matter of normality, this is not a protection.
  2. The act treats act of anal sex on women as sexual assault with penalties similar to that for buggery.
  3. Age discrimination for boys and men. Under the act boys can be charged from as young as 12 years. The act only makes provision to charge adult women when they have sex with under aged boys more than three years their junior.
  4. The act is obsessed and misguided by equating sexual assault with penetration.
  5. The act either ignores or assumes that sexual violence cannot be performed by women – a demonstrably fallacious and scientifically provable fact. This deceptive and irrational absurdity ostracizes boys and men who can be raped and sexually abused. We must assume that a sense of deep hatred of men – maybe retribution because of the malevolent “Patriarchy” boogey man that feminists are obsessed with, lies at the heart of the sexist authorship of this law.
  6. The act applies to married couples – where a husband can be incriminated for sexual assault on his wife, but no such reciprocal considerations are given.
  7. The consequences for men and BOYS (over 12) found guilty of rape under the act are extremely severe and especially so if there are special circumstances – for example the victim is pregnant – mandatory life imprisonment as with a number of scenarios. The act even provides for severe penalties where people have sex with animals before it affords any protection of the males in society. Only women who have sex with under aged boys, if the case makes it to court she will serve a maximum of 5 years! There are no provisions for sexual assault committed by women unless it’s against another woman.

False Accusation

The act also prevents any information about the reputation or circumstances of the person making the accusation OR the history of any sexual relationship be admitted into evidence – unless the judge thinks that it is “necessary” for a fair trial. If this isn’t a miscarriage of justice I don’t know what is. Sure we don’t want to blame the victim and subject her to further humiliation but doesn’t this law make an ass of itself by assuming that the victim is correct, and she is not lying? But how can justice be served by assuming that the woman is speaking the truth, and have her history hidden? Our desire to protect victims before it can be establish that the person is actually a victim is misguided and prejudices the accused.

Women are known to lie about things like rape, domestic violence in a little hardly discussed phenomenon called “false accusations”. False accusations is predominantly a female behavior. Women who feel justified will cross any boundary to commit this injurious behavior against a man. The problem is that feminists all over support this behavior, and some have even gone so far to say, that men benefit when they are falsely accused or that prosecuting a woman falsely accusing a man will deter other women from filing rape charges. This blog believes that False Accusations for serious crimes that can land someone in jail for an act he or she did not commit and knowingly so, should have mandatory life imprisonment sentences for both the main and supporting perpetrators. In fact we believe it is worse to be the victim of a false rape accusation – where you can be locked up for life in an environment where true “rape culture” is the norm, while the perp is outside “you go girl”ing her friends with hi fives, than to be a victim of rape.

Today in western countries rape is being further defined, where a woman can decide after she has had ‘consensual’ sex with a man, to after the fact decide that it was rape because she “feels” this way. There is no doubt that the feminists in Trinidad & Tobago will want the same thing. So much for the equality argument.

Ignoring half of the problem

We have no problem with strong penalties for sexual crimes. But what is clear from the act, is that the original authors wanted to leave a path clear so that half of the population would be unprotected from sexual abuse while the other half was free to commit these acts, unchecked – in other words the act appears designed to cause sexual predator behaviors in certain segments of the population. We do not make this claim lightly as it would appear that the language is deliberately designed for this – and that necessarily would take a certain amount of effort. These types of laws have a secondary effect. It hides women as sexual predators, and keeps the spotlight on men. If there are no laws and social attitudes against women sexual predators there will be no data, it will be hard to collate data on sexual violence. Are women sexual predators and pedophiles? How prevalent are these behaviors amongst the female population? Well, that’s the topic for another post – but the short answer is yes, it’s a significant problem.

This author believes that feminist written legislation that disadvantages men, are only the first phase of another bigger problem. If you follow the news in the US – there is a colossal debate about sex and consent. There is a powerful drive to take away any responsibility that women have to be responsible for their sexuality. They want to give women the power to come after they have sex with a man and accuse him of rape if she has regrets after. And it is feminists that are leading this drive and drumming up the support of women voters to pressure politicians, who have no choice but to act. US President Obama has already started several feminist engendered policies and legislation aimed at create a privileged class of females. One surrounds the rape issue where despite significantly falling rape statistics, feminist claim that rape is a huge problem and the other surrounds a workplace where women get very preferential treatment for producing substandard work. Already some states are enacting legislation. Private Universities are under pressure from the Department of Education to punish male students even after local police have determined that the sex was consensual. Purely on the basis of the accusation, the accused is prevented from providing evidence or even cross examining witnesses and the standard of determining guilt referred to as “a preponderance of evidence” rather than “beyond reasonable doubt”.

Why do we have laws that are so obviously sexist and bigoted? Because of feminism. Feminist’s claim that all they are interested in is “equality”, but their involvement in this act is proof to the contrary. This is an example that their agenda is clearly about creating a society where women have all the rights and a man can be locked up on a woman’s say-so, without any evidence. And it actually goes further – it fleeces any female antisocial behavior associated with this topic. Rhoda Reddock – “gender studies” expert, with other feminists wrote this law in collaboration with the people you voted for. An article in the Express Newspapers said that she was

“not even a woman when her mother instilled in her the importance of being a proud woman. Her mother’s advice came at a time when restrictions were placed on girls and it played a major part in Reddock’s awareness of women’s affairs and gender equality”.

We are unaware of any regulations other than cultural ones that placed restrictions on girls and what they can achieve since our country gained independence. It’s up to your folks to ignore those cultural norms and institute what they think is best for their children. But the gender bias that is institutionalized in the Sexual Offences Act is real and inescapable bigotry and embedded sexism and should be either rewritten or overturned. We are creating a whole generation of gender based sexual abusers that are falling under the radar, as we will provide data to prove this. Young men and boys are the most vulnerable in our society – they are marginalized and they are the ones that create the most social unrest – who’s to blame – take a good look in the mirror.

Appendix: Quotes from SOA

  1. Quote 1 – Section 2: Definition of Sexual Assault
    “grievous sexual assault” means—(a) the penetration of the vagina or anus of the complainant by a body part other than the penis of the accused or third person as the casemay be;
    (b) the penetration of the vagina or anus of the complainant by an object manipulated by the accused or third person, as the case may be, except when such penetration is accomplished for medically recognised treatment;
    (c) the placing of the penis of the accused or third person, as the case may be, into the mouth of the complainant; or
    (d) the placing of the mouth of the accused or third person as the case may be, onto or into the vagina of the complainant;
    Note the language here entirely ignores the possibility of a woman performing any type of “grievous sexual assault”. Under the act, vagina (complainant) is used synonymously with victim and penis is used in conjunction the perpetrator (accused).
  2. Quote 2 – Section 4: Rape
    The definition of rape uses the pronouns “he” extensively with the accused while “she” is used for the complainant. Rape is defined according to “grievous sexual assault” as above with this additional wordage:
    4. (1) Subject to subsection (2), a person (“the accused”) commits the offence of rape when he has sexual intercourse with another person (“the complainant”)—
    (a) without the consent of the complainant where he knows that the complainant does not consent to the intercourse or he is reckless as to whether the complainant consents; or
    (b) with the consent of the complainant where the consent—
    (i) is extorted by threat or fear of bodily harm to the complainant or to another;
    (ii) is obtained by personating someone else;
    (iii) is obtained by false or fraudulent representations as to the nature of the intercourse; or
    (iv) is obtained by unlawfully detaining the complainant.
    (2) A person who commits the offence of rape is liable on conviction to imprisonment for life and any other punishment which may be imposed by law, except that if—
    (a) the complainant is under the age of twelve years;
    (b) the offence is committed by two or more persons acting in concert or with the assistance or in the presence, of a third person;
    (c) the offence is committed in particularly heinous circumstances;
    (d) the complainant was pregnant at the time of the offence and the accused knew that the complainant was pregnant; or
    (e) the accused has previously been convicted of the offence of rape,
    he shall be liable to imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life.
  3. Quote 3 – Section 7 & 8: Double standard with pubescent sex
    7. (1) Where a male person has sexual intercourse with a female person who is not his wife with her consent and who has attained the age of fourteen years but has not yet attained the age of sixteen years he is guilty of an offence, and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for twelve years for a first offence and to imprisonment for fifteen years for a subsequent offence.
    8. (1) Where a female adult has sexual intercourse with a male person who is not her husband and who is under the age of sixteen years, she is guilty of an offence, whether or not the male person consented to the intercourse, and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for five years.
  4. Quote 4 – Section 13 & 14: Buggery & Bestiality
    13. (1) A person who commits buggery is guilty of an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment—
    (a) if committed by an adult on a minor, for life;
    (b) if committed by an adult on another adult, for twenty-five years;
    (c) if committed by a minor, for five years.
    (2) In this section “buggery” means sexual intercourse per anum by a male person with a male person or by a male person with a female person.
    14. (1) A person who commits bestiality is guilty of an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for twenty-five years.
    (2) In this section “bestiality” means sexual intercourse per anum or per vaginam by a male or female person with an animal.
  5. Quote 5 – Section 27: Boys over the age of 12
    26. A person under the age of twelve years is deemed incapable of committing an offence under this Act.
  6. Quote 6 – Section 30: Standard of Evidence
    30. (1) In proceedings in respect of an offence under this Act no evidence shall be adduced by or on behalf of the accused concerning the sexual activity of the complainant with any person other than the accused unless the Court on an application made by or on behalf of the accused, in the absence of the jury, thinks such evidence necessary for the fair trial of the accused.
    (2) Save as provided in subsection (1), no evidence of sexual reputation is admissible for the purpose of challenging or supporting the credibility of the complainant.


    Trinidad Express – Advancing the Cause of Women
  3. Sexual Offences Act of Trinidad & Tobago – Chapter 11:28

The Law is an Ass Series

503_1006921_law_assThe law is an Ass, and nowhere will one find a better example of this than discrimination written into the law. Because the voices representing men in Trinidad & Tobago are silent on the discrimination men experience daily. This series will look exclusively at discrimination against men, in the Laws of Trinidad & Tobago. We are not saying that discrimination against women don’t or never existed – but if you believe in “equality” of the sexes you must admit our societal norms are anti-male. If you don’t believe that men in Trinidad & Tobago are underprivileged – consider the following:

  1. Men make up the overwhelming majority of the homeless. There are virtually no programs that deal specifically with homeless men. The lack of empathy is further reflected in the fact that reliable data on homeless men and women is hard to come by. Far worse an understanding and etiology or even solutions for homelessness in Trinidad & Tobago.
  2. Men make up by far the majority of victims of violent crimes in Trinidad & Tobago and it would be ridiculous to have to quote a statistic on this fact. Yet we spend virtually no effort to arrest this. Most of our social programs and efforts might actually be contributing to the demise of men and by extension – wider society.
  3. Life expectancy for men is only 67 years vs 74 years for women.
  4. According to PAHO (2008), 746 men died of some form of cancer vs 671 women – 11% more than men. Prostate cancer killed 252 men vs breast cancer killing 155 women in the same period. Yet we have never seen very much effort in terms of public events, corporate sponsorship, screening, etc. for prostate cancer. Even the activities of the Trinidad & Tobago Cancer Society show almost no men focused activities, as they prepare to raise awareness with cervical cancer this year. Is it politically incorrect to promote awareness for men’s health?
  5. Men face significant discrimination when they try to parent their children after divorce. Family court policies and feminist hate culture that has infiltrated the system are very prejudiced towards fathers and men who try to secure visitation, far less seek custody. Fathers are only seen as an ATM where feminist indoctrinated judges and magistrates apply the “you could wine, you could pay” philosophy toward men seeing fair treatment. At the same time the courts bend over backward to secure the best financial advantage for mothers no matter how incapable they are as parents. The flawed idea of “best interest of the child” which we will post about, is applied only to benefit the mother seeking financial reward from the system. We have obtained stories from fathers who have been denied visitation or even subjected to the worse kind of visitation procedures in order to suit resentful mothers seeking revenge.
  6. Men don’t have the right to choose parenthood. Our feminist culture are quick to label men as “deadbeat dads”, but what about the women who have all the rights? Who can give up being a parent anytime without consequence, who can use her children to earn income from the state and children’s father. Men cannot opt out. Consent to have sex is not consent to be a parent. Many women have children by deliberately making their birth control ineffective without letting the father know. We continuously make excuses for her recklessness with the perpetual idea that women cannot be held accountable for their reproductive behaviors, and financially helping them is our only option. Our academic institutions refuse to measure the impact reproductive habits of women have had on the quality of life and the economy. The influence of female violence on boys growing up in certain socioeconomic classes must be a factor contributing to the high levels of antisocial behavior in our youths.
  7. A significant number baby boys in Trinidad & Tobago are subjected to the inhumane practice of genital mutilation (circumcision). While a figure of <20% is quoted in various references, as this is a classification of international organizations monitoring genital mutilation, the figure for Trinidad & Tobago is not insignificant. The Children’s Protection Bill (2012) make it illegal to carry out any act of Female Genital Mutilation with a ten year jail sentence for offenders. The Act make no similar provisions protecting baby boys from this barbaric practice. There is no established science connecting male circumcision to any health benefit. This fact debunks the notion that feminism as an ideology is concerned with equality, as it was feminists who put together the Children’s Protection Bill of 2012.

The First Part

This is the first part in a series on Sexism in the Laws of Trinidad & Tobago. We will publish approximately 5 posts dealing with Sexual & Relationship type offences, touching only on marriage as it deals with violence and sexual issues excluding family law.

If one looks at sexual offenses reported and commented upon in the media, it is a very one sided affair. One gets the impression that only Men commit sexual acts. Almost all of stories reported in the media are stories about teenaged girls having sexual relations with males of varying ages. We get the feeling that lawmakers and stakeholders involved in the law think that women don’t commit acts of aggression against boys or men, and that there are no female sexual predators in Trinidad & Tobago. Is this assumption realistic? Or is it that it currently suits our political agenda? All these will be discussed. We will link new posts from this page as we publish them.

This website believes that ANY sexist laws in Trinidad & Tobago are unconstitutional, and illegal under the Constitution of Trinidad & Tobago Chapter 1 Part 1 Section 4 Sub-section b which states:

4.- It is hereby recognised and declared that in Trinidad and Tobago there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, origin, colour, religion or sex, the following fundamental human rights and freedoms, namely:-
b. the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law;

Posts in this Series (links to be updated):

  1. Sexism in The Sexual Offences Act: Published 16 September 2014
  2. Sexism in The Children’s Protection Bill
  3. Sexism in the Domestic Violence Act


  1. Office of the Attorney General, The Constitution of Trinidad & Tobago
  2. Laws of Trinidad & Tobago – Domestic Violence Act 45:56
  3. The Children’s Protection Bill of 2012
  4. Sexual Offences Act of Trinidad & Tobago – Chapter 11:28

Trini Feminists Chime in – “its not enough!”

The Trinidad & Tobago 2015 budget was passed two days ago, and so was the $500/month for Single Mothers. Today in the Trinidad Guardian newspapers – feminists have commented about it.

According to self-proclaimed feminist and children’s rights ‘expert’ Diana Mahabir- Wyatt – “It’s Okay, but mothers need better training in being better parents. Ms Mahabir-Wyatt was disappointed that the government did not take her on when she had lined up a proposal from PLOTT – Powerful Ladies of TT, to train these women to train better mothers. The plan was to hire baby sitters to take care of the kids when the moms go to collect their cheques which they would only get upon attendance of the parenting classes. Mahabir- Wyatt dismissed the possibility that this is going to be an incentive to go out and “make babies” – according to her expertise – “Personally, from my life’s experiences and observations, I don’t think that is a valid comment”.

Head of NGO (non-governmental organizations) Hazel Brown, instead focused on the “baby milk” that was the driving force behind the $500/mth proposal by the PM, who said that she was moved by a story sometime in our past history, where a mother was arrested for stealing baby formula at a grocery store. Brown chided the PM about the importance of breast milk and focused on teen mothers and helping them get out of the predicament they were in – “what these young women need was help with getting back to school”.

asdfasdfHere’s the problem – Young women all over TT are having babies very early in life – Brown said that many of these young women have 3 kids before they reach 19. How do we deal with this? Well for one, you cannot give incentives to have babies – politicians get this wrong all the time – its economics 101 – incentives given to an ‘underprivileged’ group have historically been to the detriment of that group, all over the world this is the case. Welfare or Social Programs as they are known in Trinidad & Tobago have kept, and will continue to keep the underprivileged, underprivileged. It does not work – Sorry, Diana Mahabir Wyatt – you are ignorant about this matter, and we should give two hoots about your ‘life experiences’ as a factor in intelligent discourse on this matter. You should go and read what famed black American economist and social scientist, Thomas Sowell has to say about preferential policies and how it destroy the chances of those you are trying to help. Let’s get back to the problem.

How do you incentivize young girls (and men) to make the right life choices? The problem is that children need resources to grow up well. Over and over, it is resources – money, to learn, to live comfortably, to eat well and live healthy. When teenaged girls go out and get pregnant – it is detrimental to both the child and the mother. And about the father? This website don’t believe that there is such a thing as ‘deadbeat’ dads. There are men who never had any say in the having of a child. Having sex with a woman is not consent to being a father. Until men have a full say in becoming a father – just like the mother (or what those who are advocating the, “my body, my right” mantra) we cannot say men are deadbeat fathers. There are many women who deliberately get pregnant for a particular man without him knowing. I have heard many women propositioning men with “let’s have a baby nah? You won’t have to do anything” trap. A survey commissioned in the UK said that One in 4 women will have a baby without their partner participating in the decision. Yes this is what feminism is about – my body, my right – but when it’s about taking care of the kid, all we hear about are deadbeat dads. We’ll get into this who dead beat dad myth in another post but for now, we need to disincentive men from getting women pregnant when they can’t or won’t contribute to the child’s welfare. These mothers obviously don’t have the responsibility or maturity to manage their reproductive rights.

To solve these problems we need policies and programs that will give incentives in that direction. Give fathers incentives to make child support payments. OR give them incentives to take custody of the child. This website believes that fully engaged men make better parents than single mothers, but our society abhors the idea of a man taking up the mantra of parenthood by himself. As a matter of fact western culture have for decades ridicule men as parents by themselves, hopeless buffoons, clumsy around kids. This is feminism at work. Our pop culture and by extension the media and entertainment have all jumped on this stereotypical idea that men are not supposed to be with kids unless they are married to their mothers. But the data supports men as parents far more than it does the other way around. Single mothers bring a host of risks to the parenting table – poverty, predator men, lack of resources, lack of education and job skills etc. strike at the core of parenting. But this can never be a solution. Engaging men to take up a role in their children’s lives is not what society wants. Our attitude is that men must pay up only. We prefer to allow women to use kids as a weapon against the child’s father (where this is the case) and even a means of income. There are many women today who live off the kids child support. We see men as “also ran” when it comes to being a good parent. This is wrong according to the latest research which we will present in a future post. Single fathers can no longer be ignored – they are growing faster than single mothers. The better outcomes of single father households’ vs single mother households’ are hard to ignore. Single father households in the US now number 2.6 million vs 8.6 million for single mother households – that’s a 9 fold increase vs a 4 fold increase compared to 1960 figures according to Pew Research (2011).

Our solution must include comprehensive sex education and the importance of birth control especially condoms. Another important tool in this battle, convoluted by our social norms. “We don’t want to be sending the message that it’s okay to be having sex all over the place”. Well, the truth is that young people will experiment and have sex whether you like it or not. Abstinence programs are counterproductive and need to be abolished as pseudo-scientific.


  1. The Rise of Single Fathers
  2. Mahabir-Wyatt on baby fund
  3. Thomas Sowell on Preferential Policies
  4. What the research shows about government funded abstinence only programs

Have Vagina, Need $$$

More $$$ for having a vagina. The PM announced that she will be releasing a program that “is very close to her heart”. They will set up a plan to give single mothers $500 per month. When last have we heard of a program to help the marginalized men in our society? Like the 90%+ of men that make up the homeless, eating out of dumpsters. The last time this author recalled ‘help’ for men was when the previous PM, Patrick Manning in 2009 “corralled them out of view” when world dignitaries like the Queen Elizabeth, US President Obama and Hilary Clinton visited for the Summit of Americas and Commonwealth Heads of State conferences.

largeOne of the most blatant ways to excuse sexism is when it is perceived to be for a good cause. One of the best ‘good causes’ in Trinidad and Tobago and ways to get money from the state and large corporations trying to be politically correct, is to come up with any project aimed at helping women. Even if it is a project that will cost more to manage than the total sum benefit to the recipients. All of these social programs by the government are riddled with scams and organized crime.

But, Vagina Sells and sells very well in Trinidad & Tobago. Yes we have a vagina and we needs your help. What could be more sexist? Virtually all of these government programs aimed at helping women and especially those aimed at helping mothers never have any accountability. Just like when extravagant sums are ordered for child support the recipient could easily spend those funds on anything she pleases. Just like divorce have become a feminist institution of social justice so that women could get their hands on property and money they never worked for.

Why is it we are only interested in women and especially, especially single mothers? Why not encourage more men to take over the responsibility of parenting? Give men breaks when they apply for custody. Engaged men who consent to parenting make better parents than mothers (future post). But men have no parental rights. Why not teach these single mothers about family planning? And why they should not get pregnant hoping that the dad will stick around. Or why they should not try to have babies with men with money. Maybe the Greeks were right and Hysteria (or the wandering uterus) is not a myth after all. However it gets you an income as and income backed by big business and big government with big guns – so pay up sucker!



Why Trinidadians are Immoral about the Death Penalty…

… and are a bigger problem than errant Politicians. Anyone who follows the news in Trinidad & Tobago know that crime is on everyone’s mind. Recently Chief Justice Ivor Archie was quoted in the Economist Magazine about the problem with jury trials in Trinidad. He lamented about the knowledge possessed by the jury pool for trials in Trinidad & Tobago. Subsequently this story broke:

buie3n-4-webTwo mentally challenged, African American half-brothers Henry Lee McCollum and Leon Brown were found guilty of the rape and murder of 11-year-old Sabrina Buie in 1983 (North Carolina). Three days ago the men were freed when recently processed DNA evidence proved that another man that lived nearby was most likely responsible for the murder/rape. The case is really telling about what is wrong with the death penalty. In hindsight, the men whose IQ’s ranged in the 50’s and 60’s, had confessions browbeaten out of them by overzealous local police and prosecuted by “Joe Freeman Britt, the 6-ft-6, Bible-quoting district attorney who was later profiled by “60 Minutes” as the country’s “deadliest D.A.” because he sought the death penalty so often”.

What is remarkable about this case? There never was any evidence tying the brothers to the crime. All these prosecutors and courts had to go on, was the confession literally beaten out of a mentally challenged under aged boy who never understood what was going on. Upon signing the confession, after a grueling 5 hour session, 15 yr old Leon Brown asked “can I go home now?” These facts alone should have been enough to afford the “reasonable doubt” safeguard, afforded to every accused citizen under the constitution.

You might ask – why is this relevant to our Trinidad & Tobago? We have a situation where citizens are begging for the implementation of the death penalty. According to a 2011 study commissioned by London based Death Penalty Project, 91 percent of Trinidadians are in favor of executions. Most other surveys/polls publish figures between 90 and 95%. Because of this, politicians have no choice but to implement it, or at least pretend to be. Despite much negative publicity from international watchdog groups, those in charge are singing the same song. Including public statements by successive Ministers of National Security, Attorney Generals and even Prime Ministers. Locally proclaimed crime expert Ramesh Deosaran:

“We are turning into the Wild Wild West where there is shooting and then ask questions afterwards. You damaging families, you brutally killing them, shooting them in the head, what you have now are not just murders, it is assassination where very young men are growing up with no fear of God and no fear of the law. The death penalty, he said, was not only created for deterring but for retribution”.

Here is the problem, Ramesh – how can anyone be sure that they have the right man? We would like to know what part of Mr. Deosaran’s expertise informs him about this. It’s easy to understand why the rank and file would support the death penalty – they are stupid and have not thought it out. And we know why the government and the law makers will have no choice to support it as well – they are just a reflection of the stupid population. But Mr. Deosaran is an expert. I wonder how different is he from the bible thumping prosecutor, Joe Freeman Britt, who last week told the press that “that he still believed the men were guilty”, despite the new evidence.

One of the incredible hurdles in correcting these wrongs, is in the sheer inertia that needs to be overcome when a prosecutor have to make an about 180 degree turn, and say “I was wrong”, I made a horrendous mistake and people might have gotten executed because of it. This inertia is reflected in the recent revelations that, errant forensic methodology persisted for over two decades (treating hair sample evidence on par with fingerprints) and hundreds of innocent men are probably in prison for crimes they did not commit. Now that significantly superior methods of forensic testing is available, it’s remarkable that so many cases are being overturned, considering the reluctance to reopen old convictions. According to a 2014 report published by the National Academy of Sciences, a very conservative 4.1% of those on death row are innocent.

What is not being discussed is that there are no criminal genes – no one is born a criminal. Criminals are a product of circumstances, environment, and society. Society produces it and is should be responsible for it. Everyone is born innocent and not in control of any of those three conditions. The segments of society that enjoys an affluent lifestyle on the hillsides of the north, must realize that what they enjoy is a product of the same system that sheds innocent blood. Society is also responsible for how justice is administered, that safeguards are in place to protect the innocent. It is more expensive to execute someone rather than have their sentences commuted to life.

Now to Justice Ivor Archie, who thinks that a significant part of our justice problem lie with ‘less than knowledgeable jurists’. Consider what highly knowledgeable US Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia had to say about the case, “Mr. McCollum’s crime as so heinous that it would be hard to argue against lethal injection.” When in 1994 the brothers’ case was turned down by the US Supreme Court. The case was frequently used to bolster the argument for the death penalty. How ironic is it that this case which so many pointed to as a reason for the death penalty is a case of massive injustice? Was Justice Scalia not knowledgeable enough? What drove him to override his knowledge and training? Even to show it publicly? Where he and others equated the severity of the crime with guilt? He allowed his emotion and his bias to propagate an injustice. What is the penalty for this? Will he have to face the consequences? Justice Scalia is the longest serving on the US Supreme Court. Do you think Judges and Magistrates don’t bring their biases and interests in their rulings? Why do we assume that they won’t? What checks and balances do you have to protect the vulnerable and those who cannot buy good representation, from this (other than spending a few million to take your matter all the way to the Privy Council)? Do you think this is insignificant compared to the knowledge-ability of laypersons who serve on juries? How many miscarriages of justice are there in Trinidad & Tobago due to a Judges bias or error? How is this monitored? Not everyone has the money or stomach to appeal.  Especially when there is such an incessant demand for the ‘gallows’.

It is counter ideological that those most vocal in Trinidad & Tobago for the death penalty tend to be religious (The Death Penalty Project). Did god make us criminal? What about the repercussions about that they might face on Judgment Day for their own transgressions? What did Jesus say about revenge and retribution?


  1. Deosaran: “Revamp the death penalty” –
  2. Minister of National Security – Death penalty will be a deterrent
  3. Washington Post – Forensic errors by FBI lab unit spanned two decades
  4. NY Times – 4.1% Are Said to Face Death on Convictions That Are False
  5. DNA Evidence Clears Two Men in 1983 Murder
  6. Democracy Now – A Victory over Justice System’s Failure
  7. Public Opinion on the Mandatory Death Penalty in Trinidad –
  8. Wikipedia – Wrongful Convictions –

Bias in Justice – Juries vs ??

genderequalityWe read with great interest the Trinidad Express editorial “The verdict on trials by jury” – commentary on an article published by the Economist on The CJ’s idea to ‘abolish’ jury trials and we would like to chime in our 2¢. Any issue that affect the law and justice can affect the rights of citizens. This is not a straightforward subject and the Express has done well to point out the flaws in both the Economist and the CJ on this issue. From the relevant articles it’s not obvious what exactly the CJ is proposing – whether there needs to be a panel of ‘educated’ professionals or a panel of legal experts or just a Judge. The point the Express raises is one of bias. Bias is not something that education nor rank in society can eliminate. This is why we are interested in this topic. Bias is one of the cornerstones of bigotry and injustice in our society.

Recognizing bias is one of the best ways of dealing with the problem. Unfortunately bias is legally difficult to prove, which ignores and covers up the problem, and the onus is on the victim of bias to prove the bias. The “bias” referred to in the Economist piece is not bias – but rather that a jurist may have developed foreknowledge of the matter before coming to court – which is not really bias – but rather prejudice.

Bias is a very broad topic. There is cognitive biases that govern the way we think and act and often controls our behaviors and our thinking. This is one of the most studied areas of bias (in psychology) and there are hundreds of sub categories with good definitions. There is statistical bias that where so used, misrepresents that measurement in the actual population. This is a common source of error in psychological and sociological research – for example if you wanted to show an elevated rape statistic in college students say in the US, say hypothetically, you might look at the data for all universities and choose the state, or city where there was an anomaly that cause a high reporting of rapes that’s not representative of the overall country, and they report this finding concealing that bias. Systemic bias is an inherent bias in a system that cause biases in favor of one group or another or can lead to inaccurate measurements – for example using an instrument that reads temperature from an electrical current may be subject to certain systematic biases associated with that method.

Systemic bias is also present in the judiciary – that favors lighter sentences and leniency for women committing crimes or offences. The idea that women are victims and men are perpetrators in the domestic violence equation is a form of systematic bias. Judges and magistrates in particular draw conclusion with these biases. In this regard a judge or even a ‘jury of experts’ that is implied by the economist article – would be subject to the same systematic biases when applied to a matter that is considered to be gendered. Do we really think that a female judge or magistrate who sits on the bench of a matter involving a woman and a man will carry out her duty without any systemic biases? What about a Hindu judge and a Muslim applicant. Or a Pentecostal Evangelical Magistrate who regularly attends Benny Hinn concerts and the agnostic who appears before him, accused of assaulting his Christian wife?

Just a few years ago family matters were carried out using what is known as the “tender year’s doctrine” which is not based on science and cannot even be defined in anyway – it just states that young children are better off with their mothers. Fathers fighting for custody had not a chance of a snowball in hell. Even after the notion was abolished most Judges in the US still supported the irrational idea that mothers naturally make better mothers. On judge explained “[fathers] must prove their ability to parent while mothers are assumed to be able.”, and another “I believe that God has given women a psychological makeup that is better tuned to caring for small children.” Many US judges admit that they deem a father applying for custody as a problem litigant. Studies and surveys on Judges’ attitudes in Alabama, Louisiana, Tennessee, Minnesota all showed clear preference for maternal custody. As a matter of fact – the entire concept of the tender years doctrine, although abolished still allowed a systematic bias against men to be propagated throughout the judicial system.

It is unlikely that any amount of education training could remove this bias. One way to deal with it is to put it in irrevocable law that there should be no assumption who is the better parent until the evidence is heard. It is not sufficient to have a gender neutral language in the act. Then put a system in place to have those decisions and judges’ deportment monitored. Even a board/ombudsman, independent to the court where an aggrieved applicant could report a violation of this.

Education can eliminate some bias, but even the most educated will have biases. Biases are probably ingrained in our thought processes long before we might have learn their dangers. Some evolutionary psychologists think bias is genetic and necessary for survival. Obviously some biases are learned from our environment, some are based on superstition that can be overcome by education. But many biases, especially those that men face from the overwhelming affirmative action that women benefit from, in the court system will continue to undermine the fairness of the Judiciary. Especially where Gendered matters are concerned. We would like to know from the CJ – what about the bias of Judges, especially as it relates to these gendered issues – does he think that this is not a problem or that it doesn’t exist? If not what countermeasures are in place. Why no conduct a study, or better release the data on gendered issues and let the public see if there is bias. Remove the appellants private  information and let the public decide.


  1. Trinidad Express Editorial Sept 2, 2014. The Verdict on Trials by Jury
  2. The Economist, Twelve Clueless Men
  3. Law Blogs – What Judges Really think about Fathers – Summary of Studies –