Dear Editor,
I refer to the open letter to the Minister of Education published in the “Sunday Stabroek” supported by persons described as Concerned Citizens and Guyanese Educators of the “Old School” on the issue of banning corporal punishment in all its forms as administered to children by teachers and parents under the guise of discipline.
The publication of the letter affords me the opportunity to return to this matter on which I have previously made contributions in your newspaper. Your readers may recall that in my correspondence to your newspaper I adopted the position that Guyana and other Caricom States had ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child without reservations and, therefore, they were obliged under international law to give effect to the articles of the Convention.Even if reservations had been made they would have had to be compatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. In my letter of June 18, 2007 published in Stabroek News, I referred to the resolution adopted by the National Assembly sponsored by the Hon Minister of Education that the controversial issue of abolishing or retaining corporal punishment in schools in Guyana should await any recommendation on that issue which may be made by the Task Force on Education established sometime ago under the auspices of the Ministry.
It is certainly heartening to read of the support of Jamaica’s Minister of Education. I had read the release from the Caricom Secretariat on the recently concluded special Caricom Meeting of Ministers which adopted “The Georgetown Declaration on Building a Region Fit for Children.” I was surprised that the Declaration contained no reference to this issue of corporal punishment, at least in schools.
However, it was reported in your issue of Thursday March 20 that the appropriate official of the Caricom Secretariat informed representatives of the media that the Ministerial body had not come to a position on the matter and that consultations are ongoing in this regard.
Having regard to what I stated previously, in my opinion, further consultations on the issue by Caricom Governments cannot result in a derogation from their commitments already undertaken by them under the Convention on ratification.
With respect to Guyana, in my letter of June 18, 2007, to your newspaper I had adverted to Article 154A of Guyana’s Constitution which is intended to enable Guyana to implement partially or progressively International Treaties to which Guyana is a party. I must confess that I have not seen a similar provision in other Constitutions which have engaged my attention.
I would welcome being informed of similar provision in other Constitutions particularly of Commonwealth Countries.
In my letter I had, however, expressed my reservations on the effect of that constitutional provision at the international level with respect to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child already ratified by Guyana without reservations.
I have noted Mr Roger Williams’ letter in your issue of Thursday March 27 taking issue with the position adopted by Ms Vanda Radzik and other citizens.
Suffice it to say that my contributions on the subject in your columns deal with the legal effect of Caricom States having ratified the Convention on the Rights of The Child without reservations.
They could have entered reservations to certain articles of the Convention so as to allow for the retention of the application of corporal punishment in educational institutions and even in homes provided, as stated earlier in this letter, that such a reservation is not regarded by the depositary of the Convention and other ratifying States as being inconsistent with the aims and objectives of the Convention.
However, the Government of Guyana can, at any time, denounce the Convention in order to preserve the retention of corporal punishment, but if the Government of Guyana were to exercise that right what a retrograde step that would be as that would put in jeopardy the enjoyment of all the other laudable rights conferred by the Convention for the benefit of children!
In one of my previous letters on this subject in your columns, I had expressed the view that there are occasions when Governments, in the final analysis, have a responsibility to lead in making decisions in the best interests of the nation.
Yours faithfully,
Brynmor Pollard
