Serious indecency, obscene exposure and law at Carnival

THE EDITOR: Years ago, as a teenager at Mausica Teachers’ College, using our general science syllabus I designed a Carnival band for my fellow Kirkendale Hostel inmates. I portrayed a heated round-bottomed flask. Although the good Lord had not been neglectful, I decided to improve on nature by adding my pillow. I had a good time wining around the campus, showing the heat in my round bottom.

After Carnival, a Canadian lecturer, who with his wife held me in high regard, such that I was their babysitter of first choice for their two young children, told me how disappointed he was in me. It was his first experience of Carnival and he found my behaviour unacceptable.

I felt ashamed and, though I was inclined to regard his disappointment in me as has misunderstanding of our culture, I knew that my parents would also not have approved of my behaviour.

Today, I am disgusted by the lewd behaviour and grossly indecent costumes I see on the streets, at fetes and in the media during the Carnival season. Recently, on television, the host interviewed a police officer on the topic of indecent exposure at Carnival time. To my surprise, the policeman spoke of laws prohibiting such conduct.

I had assumed the police were under the misconception that the provisions under the Sexual Offences Act, which criminalise acts of serious indecency, the Summary Offences Act, which forbid wilful and obscene exposure of the person, being indecently attired, performing lewd or suggestive dancing or actions, and under the Children Act, which penalises sexual touching and other sexual acts against a child, had been repealed.

I began this letter right after the television interview three weeks ago but, to my regret, became distracted by various pressing commitments. A pity, as it might have avoided the situation in the video that is circulating today, Carnival Tuesday, and which was drawn to my attention by a concerned public official.

It portrays a young male child, obviously prepubescent, simulating a sexual act against a young woman, who is encouraging him. That is child sexual abuse and I publicly commend the CEPEP woman who rescued the child by pulling him away.

No doubt, some view the widespread public simulation of sexual acts as freedom of expression and the condemnation of such behaviour as the imposition of other people’s standards on their personal choice.

While freedom of expression is a right of both adults and children, it is not an absolute constitutional right. The laws have placed limits which are reasonable and justifiable in a democratic society.

These laws are, to quote a Canadian case, “in accord with the proportionality test and have not been proven to have overreached or impaired freedom of expression” and must be upheld.

In the same Canadian case, which dealt with the sale of pornographic material, it was said that “such material failed the community standards test not because it offends against morals but because it is perceived by public opinion to be harmful to society, particularly women.”

It continued that there was “a substantial body of opinion that holds that the portrayal of persons being subjected to degrading or dehumanising sexual treatment results in harm, particularly to women and therefore to society as a whole.”

The sexual act being simulated by the young child is very harmful to his development. It teaches him to exploit, disrespect, dehumanise and degrade women, which is wrong, even when there is consent.

The police who turn a blind eye to these laws being broken are in dereliction of their duty. Carnival is no excuse for not upholding the law.

HAZEL THOMPSON-AHYE

senator

via e-mail