For box of chicken

WE LOOK to our judges to set and maintain standards for our society. When so much about us is crumbling, when respect for women has deteriorated to the point of easy abuse and disregard, we expect that the judiciary, at least, would champion their cause, that our judges would impose exemplary punishment on those found guilty of offences against women and that their remarks would encourage a greater appreciation for those of the gentler sex.

That is why we are surprised and somewhat dismayed by the observations of Justice Herbert Volney when he rejected the leniency plea of an Arima man who pleaded guilty in the Port-of-Spain First Criminal Court on Wednesday of having sex with a cow. Through his attorney, the 35-year-old gardener told the judge that he never had sex before and because of his poverty he could not afford to get a woman, not even a prostitute, so he had no other choice than to have sex with the Holstein heifer. Expressing his disbelief, Justice Volney pointed out that in many parts of the country "one can get a woman for a box of fried chicken." In our view, the judge's remark is unfortunate, unwarranted and even distasteful, as it tends to convey a very poor opinion of women and the level of their moral conduct.

Bestiality, of course, is a repulsive offence and one agrees with Justice Volney in dismissing the man's absurd excuse for committing it. To discourage others who may be so tempted or inclined, the judge's two-year jail sentence on the offender was also perfectly in order. It was open to the judge to condemn this unnatural act in the strongest possible terms. Apart from the indecency of it, the animal in question had to be destroyed resulting in loss to its owners. There was no need, however, for the judge to attempt to refute the man's excuse by expressing his view of how easily a woman can be obtained in various parts of the country. What he virtually told the offender was this: You didn't have to resort to a cow because you are poor, you could get a woman for nothing more than a box of fried chicken.

Is that the judge's estimation of the moral fibre of women in our country, regardless of their occupation? That you can easily find them willing to surrender themselves for a box of fried chicken? On what is he basing such a view? And how did he come to acquire this knowledge? The judge's off-hand sentiments will not help in the need for our society to develop a greater respect and regard for our women. It smacks of a kind of chauvinism that has long been an active, even motivating, element of the Trini male's psyche. The abuse which women suffer in our country stems partly from that kind of attitude; it is all too prevalent for us not to inveigh against any view that may tend to belittle or degrade or reinforce traditional and inherited prejudices. When such a view comes from the Bench, which also has a responsibility for upholding standards in our society, we must express our dismay. An experienced member of the Bench, Justice Voley should know better.