4
guyanatimesgy.com
TUESDAY, JUNE 30, 2020
Views After 3 strikes, Lowenfield must be given out Editor: Tusika Martin News Hotline: 231-8063 Editorial: 231-0544, 223-7230, 223-7231, 225-7761 Marketing: 231-8064 Accounts: 225-6707 Mailing address: Queens Atlantic Investment Estate Industrial Site, Ruimveldt, Georgetown Email: news@guyanatimesgy.com, marketing@guyanatimesgy.com
Keeping our children safe
A
ccording to a recent report published by the World Health Organisation (WHO) in collaboration with UNICEF, UNESCO, the Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary General on Violence against Children and the End Violence Partnership, half of the world’s children, or approximately one billion children each year are affected by physical, sexual or psychological violence, suffering injuries, disabilities and death, because countries have failed to follow established strategies to protect them. The report – “Global Status Report on Preventing Violence Against Children 2020” – is the first of its kind, charting progress in 155 countries against the “INSPIRE” framework, a set of seven strategies for preventing and responding to violence against children. The report signals a clear need in all countries, including Guyana, to scale up efforts to implement these strategies. While 88 per cent of the countries surveyed have key laws in place to protect children against violence, less than half of countries (47 per cent) said these were being strongly enforced. It is, therefore, clear that having the policy framework in place is not enough, there is a serious challenge as it relates to implementation. The data for the report was compiled through a survey administered between 2018 and 2019 with responses from over 1000 decision-makers from 155 countries. The INSPIRE strategies, launched in 2016, call for the implementation and enforcement of laws; changing norms and values to make violence unacceptable; creating safe physical environments for children; providing support to parents and caregivers; strengthening income and economic security and stability; improving response and support services for victims; and providing children with education and life skills. The report also includes the first-ever global homicide estimates specifically for children under 18 years of age – previous estimates were based on data that included 18 to 19 year olds. It finds that in 2017, around 40,000 children were victims of homicide. Of the INSPIRE strategies, only access to schools through enrolment showed the most progress, with 54 per cent of countries reporting that a sufficient number of children in need were being reached in this way. Between 32 per cent and 37 per cent of countries considered that victims of violence could access support services while 26 per cent of countries provided programmes on parent and caregiver support; 21 per cent of countries had programmes to change harmful norms; and 15 per cent of countries had modifications to provide safe physical environments for children. Although a majority of countries (83 per cent) have national data on violence against children, only 21 per cent used these to set baselines and national targets to prevent and respond to violence against children. According to the report’s findings, about 80 per cent of countries have national plans of action and policies, but only onefifth have plans that are fully funded or have measurable targets. A lack of funding combined with inadequate professional capacity are likely contributing factors and a reason why implementation has been slow. The report also noted that stay-at-home measures, including school closures, have limited the usual sources of support for families and individuals such as friends, extended family, or professionals. This further erodes victims’ ability to successfully cope with crises and the new routines of daily life. Spikes in calls to helplines for child abuse and intimate partner violence have been observed. And while online communities have become central to maintain many children’s learning, support and play, an increase in harmful online behaviours including cyberbullying, risky online behaviour and sexual exploitation has been identified. WHO has underlined the need for global action to ensure that the necessary financial and technical support is available to all countries. It notes also that monitoring and evaluation are crucial to determine the extent to which these prevention efforts are effectively delivered to all who need them. Dr Howard Taylor, a representative of End Violence Partnership, puts it this way: “Ending violence against children is the right thing to do, a smart investment to make, and it’s possible…We can and must create a world where every child can thrive free from violence and become a new generation of adults to experience healthy and prosperous lives.” Like WHO and other partners, we believe that it is time to fully fund comprehensive national action plans that will keep children safe at home, at school, online and in their communities.
Dear Editor, It would appear that GECOM CEO Keith Lowenfield either has a charmed life or a “godfather” in high places. Whatever the reason, over the past threeplus months, it has not mattered how many egregious and deliberate spanners he has thrown into the carefully integrated machinery of GECOM, he still remains poised to continue in the same vein, following the decision of the CCJ later this week. This will not do. In the first instance, after his RO Clairmont Mingo confabulated Reg Four SoPs, even as there was a resort to the courts citing Mingo for contempt in not following
the clear instructions of the High Court, Lowenfield yet used the concocted figures to create the report he submitted to the Commission, showing APNU/AFC as the winner and which the Chair held in “abeyance”, without explicitly rejecting it and censuring Lowenfield. The second Lowenfield infraction came after the recount when he arbitrarily awarded himself the powers of an elections court to evaluate the “irregularities” APNU/AFC had wildly thrown up during the recount process and in preparing his report disqualified 275,000 persons. This report, which again showed the APNU/AFC winning,
was not accepted by the Commission and he was told to utilise the figures from the Certificates of Recount. He was not penalised for his gross overreach. The third infraction came after the Court of Appeal ordered a three-day stay on all GECOM proceedings following a petition to prevent a declaration and ruled that only “valid votes” must be counted. This, as a matter of fact, was what the recount process had produced. Lowenfield, however, took it upon himself to announce (incorrectly) that he was a constitutional officer and had been given the authority by the COA to prepare his report of “valid and
credible” votes. This he did and disqualified 115,000 voters this time to give APNU/ AFC a win once again. And once again, he was not disciplined nor cited by the Commission or Chair. The CCJ is about to rule on the status of the votes coming out of the recount. It is beyond belief that the Commission and the Chair of GECOM will use Lowenfield as the person to effectuate the apex court’s ruling. The Chair must move expeditiously to declare that after three strikes, Lowenfield is out.
Dear Editor, Where else in this world will elections that cover less than ½ million voters take more than 120 days to have a final declaration being made of the winner? Where else in the world will these elections produce 6 different results (original figures based on SoPs, Mingo’s figures of March 5, Mingo’s figures of March 13, recount figures of June 8, Lowenfield figures of June 13 and Lowenfield figures of June 23)? Where else in this world will a de facto Government fail to concede defeat and step down, despite all the pressures exerted by local stakeholders and the international community? Where else in the world will a Government advance an astonishing defence in support of open fraud perpetrated by its operatives at the Elections Commission Secretariat? Where else in the world will a country be regarded as a pariah state? And where else in the world will a governing party launch a vitriolic campaign against western Governments, Caricom, and others? Where else but Guyana! Since the recount figures (SoRs) have replaced the original figures (based on SoPs), comparisons will be made with the recount figures. The SoRs (recount) figures were 3374 votes more than the SoPs (an increase of 0.7 per cent that works out to an average of 1.44 votes per Polling Station). The main reason for the increase was that some of the rejected/discarded votes were re-classified as valid and added to the valid votes count. This difference, however, is statistically insignificant. The data of the recount were duly certified by
GECOM and all the political parties, except the APNU/ AFC. The recount process was deemed credible and transparent. The report by the Caricom high-level Mission was accepted as credible by all the political parties (except the APNU/ AFC), the observer teams of AmCham, European Union, the Organisation of American States, and others. Since the report was publicised, several other national and international organisations as well as the western diplomatic community have embraced the Caricom report and indicate that it constitutes the basis for a declaration of the elections’ results. The PPP/C won the elections by 15,416 votes. With the release of the Caricom report, there has been a concerted campaign by elements within the APNU/AFC to tarnish the authenticity of the report and to attack the Chair of Caricom as well as senior diplomats who stand up in defence of democracy. Barbados Prime Minister and Caricom Chair, Mia Mottley dismisses easily those allegations; “the truth hurts.” David Granger said publicly prior to the recount that Caricom was the most legitimate “interlocutor” to oversee the recount process, against the background that he debarred The Carter Center from observing the recount. Speaking in the defense of democracy is not interference. Rather it’s good diplomacy. The US Senate, the Organisation of American States (OAS), Mandela’s Elders’ Group, among others, including the local Private Sector Commission (PSC) have called upon the Granger regime to concede defeat and make way for a transition to the new
Government. The Chair of Senate Foreign Relations Committee Marco Rubio stated: ”We share in the frustration expressed by the Caribbean Community, the OAS, and other international stakeholders, and call upon the Guyana authorities to issue an official elections declaration that reflects the results of the March 2nd elections which were confirmed in the official recount by the Caricom’s observation team.” Of note, there is a post on FB attributed to PNCR’s James Bond that indicates that the APNU/AFC lost more votes than the PPP/C as a result of Lowenfield’s hatchet job. Apart from the fact that the APNU/ AFC has stopped shouting that “every vote must count” and has not rebelled over Lowenfield’s disenfranchisement of thousands of their voters, they have moved to intensify their misinformation and propaganda campaign and claiming victory that they know is contrived. They fill social and other media outlets with fake news. The APNU/ AFC has learnt, as part of their culture of “lies, deception, venality and rigging,” that if they push forth a lie continuously, it will take on the life of a truth. They excel at this craft. Clairmont Mingo of Ashmins notoriety, had produced fictitious figures in his March 5 declaration that allowed the APNU/ AFC 7692 more votes nationally than the PPP/C. In his second declaration of March 13, his fraudulent figures allowed APNU/AFC a lead of 7389 votes nationally over the PPP/C. But if anyone thinks that those figures represent an orchestrated and transparent rigging of an unprecedented scale, then this would be no
match for the “mother of all rigging” perpetrated by his boss, the GECOM’s Chief Elections Officer, Keith Lowenfield. In Lowenfield’s June 13 Observation Report, he gave the APNU/AFC a massive lead of 68,383 votes over the PPP/C, and in the process disenfranchised 275,092 or 60 per cent of voters (92,910 were APNU/AFC voters, 176,709 were PPP/C voters, and 5473 were other parties’ voters). In Lowenfield’s report of June 23 to the GECOM Chair, he performed another mathematical somersault. But the APNU/ AFC lead this time was reduced to 5482 votes. Notwithstanding that he still disenfranchised 115,844 or 25 per cent of voters (46,095 were APNU/ AFC voters, 66,993 were PPP/C voters, and 2756 were other parties’ voters). Lowenfield’s statistical gymnastics has created a tremendous assault upon decent Guyanese dignity and intelligence! I hope that the Guyanese people are smart enough not to accept this level of Lowenfield’s naked, brutal and vicious fraud. Should they allow this to happen, the negative message would be stinging upon the behaviour of the younger generation in particular. “When you can’t get something the legal way, it’s okay to get it through the illegal way via fraud, deception or lies.” This is a dangerous precedent not only for Guyana but also for Caricom and the Commonwealth. There is only one truth about the 2020 elections results: that is, the PPP/C is the winner, and with a victory margin of 15,416 valid votes.
Sincerely, David Ingram
Only one truth about 2020 elections: PPP/C is the winner
Sincerely, Dr Tara Singh
