Choiseul On The Move

 

IF SHE SPRAYS HER ATTACKER AND SAVES HER LIFE, WHO SHOULD BE IN THE DOCK?

There comes a time when we have to stop discussing violence against women only after another woman is dead.

Another candlelight vigil. Another photograph circulating on Facebook. Another family crying. Another minister condemning the violence. Another police investigation.

And then we wait for the next one.

Following the recent killings and troubling reports involving young women in Saint Lucia, I believe we need to have a serious national conversation about something we have been avoiding for far too long.

Should women in Saint Lucia be legally allowed to carry pepper spray for their own protection?

I know this is a sensitive subject.

But let us put the politics and fancy speeches aside for a moment and deal with the reality facing an ordinary woman.

Imagine a young woman leaving work at night.

She is walking towards her vehicle or waiting for transportation.

A man approaches her.

He grabs her.

Maybe he tries to drag her into a vehicle. Maybe he intends to rape her. Maybe he intends to rob her. Maybe his intention is even worse.

There is no police officer standing nearby.

There is no minister.

There is no security guard.

There is no press conference.

There is just this woman and the person attacking her.

She reaches into her bag, pulls out pepper spray, sprays her attacker in the face and gets away.

She survives.

My question is simple:

Who exactly should we be treating as the criminal in that situation?

The attacker?

Or the woman who refused to become another photograph on social media?

THE LAW ALREADY RECOGNISES SELF-DEFENCE

Saint Lucia's Criminal Code already recognises the right of a person to defend himself or herself.

Section 34 states that a person may use reasonable force to prevent crime or to protect himself, herself or another person from injury.

That is important.

The law itself accepts that there are circumstances where somebody does not have to simply stand there and allow another person to injure them.

You can defend yourself.

The big questions are whether the force used was reasonable and what defensive tools the law allows you to possess in the first place.

And that is where I believe Saint Lucia needs to have a fresh conversation.

WE CANNOT TELL WOMEN "PROTECT YOURSELF" AND THEN TAKE AWAY THEIR OPTIONS

We constantly tell women to be careful.

Don't walk alone.

Don't accept rides from strangers.

Share your location.

Watch your drinks.

Let somebody know where you are going.

Call the police.

Scream.

Run.

Fight back.

All good advice.

But suppose running is not possible?

Suppose the attacker is stronger?

Suppose there are two attackers?

Suppose the woman is trapped?

Suppose she has only seconds to make a decision that determines whether she gets home to her children that night?

What exactly are we telling her to do?

Wait for the police?

Police cannot be everywhere at every moment, and that is not an insult to the police. It is simply reality.

An attack can begin and end in seconds.

By the time somebody calls 999, explains the location and officers respond, the damage may already have been done.

That is why I find it interesting that this discussion is not even new.

Back in 2015, following reports of violent attacks against women, then Gender Relations Minister Alvina Reynolds publicly raised the possibility of women being allowed access to pepper spray and mace for protection.

That was more than ten years ago.

We talked.

And talked.

And here we are again.

RECENT EVENTS SHOULD MAKE US UNCOMFORTABLE

The latest discussions about violence against women did not appear from nowhere.

On September 14, Gender Affairs Minister Emma Hippolyte publicly called for renewed national action following the discovery of the body of a young woman near the Millennium Highway.

The Department of Gender Affairs itself acknowledged growing public concern over violence against women and reports of missing women.

That should trouble every parent.

Every father.

Every mother.

Every brother.

Every man who has a daughter.

Because when we speak about "women" in a general way, sometimes the issue feels distant.

But make it your daughter.

Your sister.

Your granddaughter.

Your wife.

Then ask yourself whether you would prefer her to have something available that might give her five seconds to escape an attacker.

I AM NOT CALLING FOR A FREE-FOR-ALL

Let me make something very clear.

I am not saying everybody should walk around spraying people whenever they get angry.

Pepper spray should never become a weapon for settling arguments, fighting neighbours, attacking partners or dealing with somebody you dislike.

That is assault.

There must be consequences for misuse.

But there is a major difference between spraying somebody during a quarrel and spraying somebody who is attempting to rape, abduct, beat or kill you.

The law should be capable of recognising that difference.

If Saint Lucia decides to legalise civilian pepper spray, then regulate it properly.

Limit the size and strength.

Set an age requirement.

Require approved products.

Provide basic instructions on proper use.

Make misuse a serious offence.

And make it very clear that it is intended for genuine self-defence.

That is not unreasonable.

WHAT I WOULD NOT ADVISE WOMEN TO DO

I would not sit here and tell women to knowingly break the law.

That would be irresponsible.

A woman should not survive an attack only to discover that she has created another legal problem for herself because of what she was carrying.

That is exactly why Parliament needs to settle the issue properly.

Do not leave women wondering whether protecting themselves could make them criminals.

Give people a clear law.

Tell them what is permitted.

Tell them what is not.

BUT HERE IS THE QUESTION THAT BOTHERS ME

Suppose a woman illegally possesses pepper spray.

Suppose a man attacks her.

Suppose she uses it only long enough to escape.

Suppose police later establish clearly that she was the victim.

Should the full weight of the law now descend on her?

Personally, I would find that extremely difficult to accept.

I understand that laws cannot simply be ignored because somebody believes their reason was good.

But justice must also involve common sense.

There is a difference between possession and malicious use.

There is a difference between aggression and survival.

There is a difference between somebody going looking for trouble and somebody desperately trying to get home alive.

Those differences matter.

WOMEN SHOULD NOT HAVE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN THE LAW AND THEIR LIVES

That is ultimately where this discussion leads.

No woman should be placed in a position where she feels:

"If I carry something that could help protect me, I may be breaking the law. But if I carry nothing and somebody attacks me, I may not survive."

That is not a comfortable choice.

And government should not pretend that telling women to "be vigilant" solves it.

Vigilance helps.

Education helps.

Better policing helps.

Faster investigations help.

Street lighting helps.

Transportation helps.

Domestic violence intervention helps.

Stronger prosecution helps.

Men changing their behaviour most certainly helps.

But when an attack has already started, the victim may need something else.

She may need the ability to fight back.

MAYBE THE LAW NEEDS TO CATCH UP WITH REALITY

I support serious consideration of regulated pepper spray for adult civilian self-defence in Saint Lucia.

Not because pepper spray will solve violence against women.

It won't.

Not because every woman needs to carry it.

She doesn't.

And certainly not because women should have to arm themselves simply to exist peacefully in their own country.

But because sometimes the difference between becoming another victim and escaping may be only a few seconds.

If a non-lethal defensive tool can provide those few seconds, I believe government should at least explain convincingly why a responsible woman should be denied access to it.

And if our answer continues to be no, then government must answer the next question:

What practical alternative are we offering her at the exact moment somebody is trying to rape, abduct or kill her?

Not tomorrow.

Not when the police arrive.

Not when the minister issues a statement.

At that exact moment.

Because that is the moment that matters.

We have spent enough time mourning women after they are gone.

Perhaps we need to spend more time giving them a fighting chance while they are still here.

Choiseul on the Move

What do you think? Should Saint Lucia legalise pepper spray for responsible personal protection, with strict penalties for misuse?