Carolyn Cooper | Parliament pussyfooting around alleged abuser

The viral video of a man repeatedly punching a woman and then hitting her with a stool is at the centre of a controversy about how our society intends to confront the abominable physical and psychological abuse of women. Though the video is somewhat murky, the identity of both the man and the woman appears to be quite clear. He’s, supposedly, a member of parliament and she’s a businesswoman.

The attorney for the alleged abuser issued a statement on the matter, excerpts of which were published in T he Gleaner on April 21: “Having regard to the public pronouncement of the police that the investigation has come to an end due to the poor quality of the video footage and lack of evidence in the matter, the multitude of public statements implicating Mr Wright are, in my view, defamatory.”

Is there actually a “lack of evidence” that Wright is the man in the video? On April 12, The Gleaner reported that, “The Hanover police are seeking government lawmaker George Wright as a ‘person of interest’ in a case of assault that occurred in Chester Castle district. The police confirmed today that Wright, the member of parliament for Westmoreland Central, is the man seen in a video of an altercation, which has since gone viral.”

According to Detective Inspector Carl Brown, acting crime officer for Hanover, Wright admitted that he was in an altercation with a woman. In fact, on April 6, he filed a report at the Ramble Police Station, in which he claimed he had been attacked. In Brown’s words: “Wright is saying that he saw her along the roadway, approached her, an argument ensued resulting in a fight and he was basically attacked by her.” If Wright was telling the police the truth, he couldn’t possibly be the man in the viral video, which tells a completely different story. So it seems as if the Hanover police got it wrong. But what if Wright’s version is a lie?

PREMATURE ACTION

The matter is rather complicated. The Parliament of Jamaica does appear to have seen some evidence in the video confirming Wright’s identity as the woman beater. If we are to take Mr Wright’s attorney seriously, it seems that Parliament would be engaged in defamatory behaviour if it takes any steps to discipline the MP for his alleged beating of a woman. All the same, Wright has now taken leave of absence from Parliament. If he’s not the man in the video, what is the basis for his decision to tek weh himself?

Two weeks ago, the Opposition did attempt to table a motion to suspend Wright from Parliament. But the speaker of the House, Marisa Dalrymple-Philibert, argued that such an action was premature. No charges had been brought against the MP. Last week, the speaker changed her mind. The Opposition has now been allowed to table the motion. Why? Was her first decision wrong? And, if so, what facts have surfaced to make her new decision right?

The leadership of the Jamaica Labour (JLP) also appears to have seen evidence in the viral video that Wright is the woman beater. He has been advised to take leave of absence from the party. For what reason? The people of Jamaica need a truthful statement from both the JLP and Parliament about why George Wright has been forced to take leave of absence from both institutions.

The female victim of the beating does not seem to have confirmed to the police that the man in the video is, indeed, Wright. That’s another twist to the tale. Her failure to finger him has resulted in the collapse of the case. This is such a familiar story. Battered women often protect their abusers. American psychotherapist Karen Ruskin gives 14 reasons in a 2014 article posted on her blog: embarrassment, fear of the unknown, dependency/feeling weak, love, protection/obligation, self-blame, marital philosophy, rationalisation, compartmentalisation, vision of what was and what will be, energy already put in, child, denial and, finally, male philosophy. I don’t know if any of these reasons apply to Tannisha Singh.

OTHER VIRAL VIDEO

Then, I can’t help thinking about that other viral video in which an amorous policeman devotedly administered to the sexual needs of his willing female partner. It was obvious that this was a man who knows how to give a woman pleasure, not pain. He’s evidently not an abuser. Unfortunately, his face was clearly visible, making it quite easy to identify him. There was no lack of evidence in the matter. And, unlike the MP, he was not in civilian clothing. He was in uniform.

The policeman was immediately relieved of his official duties. Presumably, he was still able to perform his extracurricular activities. Last week, the Corporate Communications Unit at the Office of the Commissioner of Police confirmed that the internal investigation of the matter was almost completed and a report on the findings would soon be sent to the commissioner. By contrast, neither the JLP nor Parliament has, up to now, managed to find a straightforward way to deal with George Wright. It seems as if in our perverted justice system, a passionate licking of a woman with a tongue is a far more shameful and criminal act than a brutal licking with a fist and a stool.

- Carolyn Cooper, PhD, is a specialist on culture and development. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and karokupa@gmail.com.