An overdue reform

Child marriage is an issue that does not affect just one religion or race. The law allows these marriages for the Hindu, Muslim and Orisha faiths. In relation to the Christian faiths, the Marriage Act permits a judge to marry somebody who does not consent. Up until 1929 the Church of England permitted ministers to marry 12-yearolds.

Under the 1983 Code of Canon Law, priests in the Catholic Church have been allowed to marry girls of 14 and boys of 16.

Statistics provided by the Ministry of the Attorney General indicate the practice has been alive and well. But with the passage of the law raising the marriageable age to 18, that is about to end. We must congratulate both the Government and the Opposition for coming together to pass this legislation.

We also note the key role played by Chief Justice Ivor Archie, whose call last year at a forum of the Bocas Lit Fest triggered the deep and far-ranging debate on the issue which culminated in the tabling of the reform law. In its own way, the passing of the law is a vindication for the Chief Justice who was brave enough to openly make his call. Were it not for Archie’s intervention, it is hard to imagine this reform happening as politicians on both sides of the aisle have been hesitant to appear as though they are riding roughshod over religious practices.

But as we have said before, in a democracy law should be based on secular facts and policy, not on the spiritual beliefs of segments of the population. There is undoubtedly a right to religion, but that right cannot trump the right of children and girls to be free from a practice that amounts to a form of chattel ownership.

The laws have a history that politicians are undoubtedly aware of.

When the Hindu Marriage Act was being passed in November 1944 the Legislative Council was of the view that it was doing something noble. The law was meant to address inequality. It sought to tackle the injustice created whenever the State seized the assets of Hindu families because Hindu marriages were deemed illegitimate.

T M Kelshall, a Council member, said on the first day of debate, “I congratulate the Government on bringing this measure. It is indeed a great step forward.” However, the Legislative Council sensed it was taking one step forward, two steps back. H Wilcox Wilson, the then Attorney General, felt the need to justify the 12-year age limit. The best he could do was point out that Muslims had been allowed the same since 1936. E V Wharton said, “I think that Government should undertake some educational propaganda amongst these people.” Kelshall added, “Perhaps later we shall see what can be done about this question of raising the age.” The limit stayed for half a century.

Out of a deep history, then, comes this practice. But that context is no longer relevant in the age we find ourselves in today when we know so much about the human being: her personality, biology and development. No child should be forced to enter a marriage contract.

No child is in a position to make such a commitment. We note both the Government and the Opposition came out in support of raising the marriageable age to 18 since last year. We commend all parties for allowing all sides to exercise their right to express their views.

This was a rare instance where Parliament has been responsive to social debate, where the politicians have held extensive consultation (including with children) and where the decision in the end was for the benefit of Trinidad and Tobago as a whole. An overdue reform.

Well done!