By Sade Gardner

The yuletide season usually brings happiness and cheer, but for some families, this Christmas will only be a reminder that their loved ones will not be around because of domestic violence.

Take for instance the latest case of domestic violence resulting in the death of nine-year-old Steve Johnson. The St Catherine resident was chopped to death following a domestic dispute which left his mother and two-year-old brother injured. December 25 will never be the same for that family, and will always serve as a reminder of the circumstances surrounding Johnson’s death.

Residents from Johnson’s Windsor Heights community have since called on the relevant authorities to develop counselling centres in “vulnerable communities” for people experiencing domestic abuse. I truly admire the initiative being taken by the residents especially in light of the spur of killings committed against our children this year, but I cannot help but see the potential dangers of such initiative.

The term “vulnerable communities” is not explored in the story, but based on the trends in reported domestic cases this year a vulnerable community can be seen as an inner city or area which houses low income earners.

Prior to Johnson’s death, 16-year-old Leroy Hamilton of Stewarton Gully, Clarendon was murdered after his sister’s ex-boyfriend set their house ablaze. In September, Rosemount, St James residents were left shocked when Fabian Lyewsang committed suicide after murdering his spouse and her 16-year-old daughter Jayshenel Gordon. The previous month, 33-year-old Allisha Francis and her 10-year-old son, Teco Jackson, were chopped to death by her ex-boyfriend in Linton Park, St Ann. These are only some cases of children being slaughtered as a result of domestic abuse in Jamaica.

There are elements that persist in vulnerable communities which may pose a threat to the success of a counselling centre for victims of domestic abuse. While the centre is the brainchild of concerned residents, not all people are supportive of solutions and change. To illustrate my point, some people may “inform” when they see Mary, a mother of two, heading to the centre. When this reaches the ear of Mary’s abusive spouse, the possibilities are endless as to what can happen. What will be the security measures for victims who visit the centre? How will their identities be protected from the beast that is “informer culture”? These things need to be considered in the development of these centres as to not put people’s lives in more peril.

More so, who will be the counsellors? Will they be trained professionals or “upstanding” members or leaders of the community? I recommend recruiting outside professionals as using members from the community (even if they appear genuine) is a conflict of interest and can interefere with the level of privacy each case is given.

There are other things to consider as counselling is just one aspect. Many of these women who endure abusive relationships are unemployed and thus stay with their spouse as means of finanical support for their child. We need to find ways of training these women in different skills and getting them certified so they can seek a job and gain independence. Having their own income will provide a kind of assurance that they can survive without that abusive male partner, and hopefully give them courage to get out of the relationship.

I believe counselling is essential in identifying issues that cause women to feel emotionally stranded or stuck with an abusive man. But I believe we also need to be practical and ensure these women can physically leave the relationship by providing them with skills and ensuring they are gainfully employed thereafter. Independence will not only allow women to take themselves and their children out of dangerous situations, but it will ensure that on December 25 each year, the home is not haunted by the cries of the child whose life was robbed.