Last month, a Georgetown family experienced a terrifying few days when a loved one went missing. The young man, who has Down syndrome, was later found in the company of a 30-year-old woman and a 15-year-old girl at a shop in an indigenous village in the Rupununi, more than eight hours’ travel from his home.
Though Colin Junior Blair, who is 28 years old, was subsequently reunited with his mother and grandmother, through the efforts of the Guyana Police Force (GPF), his family remain concerned that he was removed from the city against his will and that his human rights were abused by the individuals who took him. They have been calling for justice in this regard and the police advised last week that they had sent a file to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) for advice.
The actions of the police, as outlined by the family, point to a marked reluctance to proceed with charging anyone regarding this matter. Law enforcement officials have stated that there was no evidence Mr Blair was abducted, as he was unable to give a statement to this effect. However, the issue here is that Mr Blair is non-verbal as a result of his genetic condition, which in some instances gives rise to severe cognitive impairment. Mr Blair’s mother had earlier told this newspaper that she had communicated this to the police. Perhaps she was not understood, or worse, they did not believe her.
At any rate, after Mr Blair was returned to Georgetown, he was held for some hours at a police station where an officer had attempted, unsuccessfully, to communicate verbally with him. Even after this failed, his mother told this newspaper, the policeman told her that he believed her son went willingly with the women.
No one expects members of the GPF to be imbued with the ability to understand intellectual disabilities. However, it is not asking too much for them to be aware of and empathetic to or grasp the nuances involved when dealing with such individuals. Not to mention the fact that people with Down syndrome have obvious and known physical characteristics which are prominent in Mr Blair’s visage.
What is at issue here, of course, is consent. The police are of the opinion, based on heaven knows what, that Mr Blair agreed to travel to the hinterland with the people who took him there. His family members are contending, and they know him best, that he was unable to do so because of his condition and the fact that he is also non-verbal. An evaluation done subsequently by a professional in the field compared favourably with the family’s assertion.
Studies done over the years have placed the mental age of an adult with Down syndrome as low as five years old and as high as 12 years old, making them forever young cognitively. Of course, their emotional and social acumen could be much higher, but this varies by individual and is often affected by their exposure to education and society. It has also been proven that the intellectual disability associated with Down syndrome tends to affect reasoning, learning, and problem solving. Therefore, despite their physical age, such individuals often fail to recognise potential danger or be cognisant of certain complexities making them susceptible to exploitation and abduction.
Consent involves a person’s ability to understand the information being given, appreciate the likely consequences and then use logic to make a choice. These are among the reasons why children are deemed unable to give consent. Consent has to be unambiguous. The person giving consent must know exactly what he/she is agreeing to and most importantly should not be coerced or deceived into saying yes. These are facts the police should be aware of, especially since they are applicable to other sections of the law.
Meanwhile, one cannot help but wonder whether the police’s reaction would have been the same if a non-verbal young woman with Down syndrome had been taken to the interior by a man and a boy. The fact is that given their vulnerability, people with cognitive impairment should be protected from any form of discrimination or exploitation, and this includes being subjected to public ridicule.
Though completely abhorrent, it is worth noting here that Mr Blair’s family only realised he had been taken when they viewed a video on social media in which he appeared wearing a dress, with his nails painted and his hair slicked back. Given his condition, Mr Blair would have been unable to make a caricature of himself in this way, or even object to it being done. How despicable, particularly when one considers that it was probably only done for likes.
Whatever the DPP decides, one hopes that some legal luminary would undertake to argue a civil case pro bono for Mr Blair and his family. The law must offer redress for the vulnerable, even if all it does is ensure that something like this never happens again.
