Clear the view on the vigils

REJECTING a call for an investigation into how his administration has handled the covid19 situation, the Prime Minister on Monday sought to revise history.

Dr Rowley issued a warning to the Opposition saying such an investigation would not reflect well on the UNC because of its support for the candlelight vigils held in the wake of the murder of Andrea Bharatt.

“Be careful what you ask for, because you will get it,” the Prime Minister told Parliament during debate on the state of emergency. He questioned in what other country an opposition could pay for and organise events that facilitated virus spread.

“They organised transport to bring people.”

There is no doubt an inquiry into the Government’s management of the covid19 situation should be rejected at this time. We are in a crisis. All energy should be directed at getting us out. There will be time for reviews later.

However, the Prime Minister’s insinuation that the current situation is partly the fruit of an artificial enactment of grief that occurred when Ms Bharatt’s body was found in February is, at best, unsupported on the evidence and, at worst, a manipulation of the facts.

There was a time when Dr Rowley had a more sympathetic view of the vigils.

A week after Ms Bharatt’s body was found, the Prime Minister and his party convened a political meeting in Belmont and observed a minute’s silence in her memory.

In a sombre speech, Dr Rowley said he could not, as a father and a leader, ignore the outpouring of grief around him. He said he was happy to see so many people coming out, using their physical presence to give voice to their anger and disappointment.

“That coming together of our nation to say that enough is enough might be the first step in the right direction to say that we are a united nation,” the PM said.

What was a “step in the right direction” in February has apparently now become nothing more than a UNC political gimmick and a public health hazard.

Undoubtedly, the vigils posed risks. At the same time, the situation in the first quarter of this year was worlds away from what it is now.

Vigils for Ms Bharatt began in early February. In the six weeks following, the seven-day rolling average remained under ten. If there was a spike, it paled in comparison with the spike after Easter. And the spike after the August general election.

This week, yet another woman, Ann Marie Diaz, fell victim to violence.

The PM’s post-facto attack on Andrea Bharatt protesters as mere political stooges does a disservice to the women and all the others who have been victims of violence. It also serves to discourage anyone who dares to speak up against injustice.