The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of News784. Send all articles to [email protected]
During my daily read of online articles, I read with disgust the statements made by the founder and head of L.O.V.N.S.V.G, at a rally over the past weekend in Brooklyn, organized to protest what a number of Vincentian groups around the world deem as being injustice against women in St. Vincent and the Grenadines.
At this rally, Mrs. Nailah John-Prince in her capacity as head of L.O.V.N.S.V.G stated quite boldly that “No one should use their office. No one should use their office for sexual gratification. If you want sex pay a prostitute if your wife is not giving it to you, do not exploit our women.”
I read and re-read the online news outlet’s article hoping that she was misquoted. However, to my dismay, there was an attached video clip that confirmed that the words were uttered by Mrs. John-Prince.
I am quite flabbergasted that the suggestion was ever proffered but even more dismayed that the founder of an organisation established to focus on issues of crime and violence in SVG and to curb it through education and awareness, in accordance with their mission statement, will openly and publicly encourage not only adultery but prostitution. Based on the laws, prostitution is a violation of human rights and is illegal in SVG. Therefore, I have failed to comprehend why this “advocate” will use her platform to encourage the further exploitation of women and in so doing somewhat justifying the inference that it may be “okay” if the PROSTITUTE IS PAID.
I could add the moral and societal concerns with her utterances, as it relates to the encouragement of adultery, but I do not think there is a further need to dissect how wrong and inappropriate Mrs. John-Prince comments were.
This incident is unfortunately too similar to the pronouncements of Ms. Beverly Richards, a representative of the Woman’s Council outside of the Magistrate Court during one of the court appearances of Ms. Yugge Farrell.
In an interview, clear bias was extended in favour of Ms. Farrell, without a simple and holistic understanding that the virtual complainant in this matter was also a WOMAN- Mrs. Karen Duncan-Gonsalves.
Is the role of the Woman’s Council in SVG for some women and not for all women?
There are other incidents that can be highlighted but I think the two are sufficient to beg the questions: What exactly is the role and agenda of these “Women’s Rights” Groups and Organisations in SVG and the Diaspora? Are these individuals and groups using their platform correctly? Is there a political undertone? Why will two organisations that were established to empower women clearly exhibit bias in one woman’s favour against another or encourage the further exploitation of women by suggesting prostitution?
I have written on many forums that I believe that both women should publicly apologize, and I will add, distance themselves from both groups at least until they can curb their personal opinions and/ emotions and truly work towards the missions of both organisations.
The proverbial saying that the “upholder is worse than the thief” doesn’t give justice to two situations where women, who should know better have not done better and have in fact encourage actions or elicit emotions that are worse off than the original actions they seem so desperate to condemn.
Vincy Lawyer
