Having witnessed our Prime Minister’s recent social media post—a picture of a female opposition candidate’s feet designed to invite public ridicule—and the subsequent rush of over 1,200 celebratory reactions, I am confronting a low point in our nation’s public discourse. The attempt by some to excuse this as mere “political jest” or “Caribbean tradition” is simply a moral abdication that I must reject. To suggest this is just “satire” consistent with our political culture is to deliberately ignore the clear, bright line between political ribbing and the use of the highest office to focus on a woman’s body part to dehumanize and humiliate her. This is not witty commentary; it is bullying, pure and simple.
My stance here is not an endorsement of one party over the other; it is a general, urgent plea to correct a toxic and nasty culture. I am well aware that this political vulgarity is not exclusive to the ABLP administration. There are known instances where the UPP and others engage in the very same destructive behavior toward those within and without their party. My condemnation is for the culture itself.
To claim the Prime Minister is not targeting women because he is “confrontational with all opponents” is to deliberately ignore the difference: he used a gendered attack. When the critique of a male opponent focuses on policy or competence, but the critique of a female opponent focuses on her body, it is undeniably misogynistic. Excusing this because “politics is a high-pressure environment” or arguing that his supporters saw it as “political ribbing” is an effort to normalize toxic behavior. I am right to demand better from our leader than the lowest common denominator of social media pile-ons, and catastrophizing the incident is far less dangerous than silently accepting the lowering of the bar for acceptable conduct.
This incident, which successfully diverted attention from a serious matter, occurred while the opposition was protesting the multi-million dollar vehicle scandal—a serious issue demanding transparency and accountability. The PM’s overall tone—defensive, aggressive, and utterly unapologetic—has been consistent throughout this saga. This brings me to the particularly troubling spectacle of women “standing with MP Maria Browne” against a call for an inquiry into her ministry, all on the very same day as the shameful post.
What were these women standing in solidarity for? The call for an inquiry, in no way, suggests guilt or wrongdoing on the Minister’s behalf; rather, good governance and the very accountability and transparency that the PM claims to champion would dictate this as the right thing to do. This “stand” was, by definition, a protest against a protest for a call for an inquiry. I am left to wonder if these women know something that needs to be kept hidden, pre-empting a need to support the Minister prematurely or in advance.
What I find even more troubling is the Minister’s presence, and that of her husband and children, during this counter-protest. Was the Prime Minister there in his personal capacity as the husband, or as the head of government? His presence, regardless of capacity, served to elevate the event, turning a simple matter of departmental accountability into a dramatic political event framed as a personal attack on a family. This strategy seeks to blur the lines between governance and personal persecution, making it harder for the public to demand institutional oversight. This selective outrage, concentrated in a single news cycle, exposes a deep moral flaw in our community’s political compass: protection and respect are granted based on party colour, not on shared gender or human dignity.
The message this sends to our girls is clear and cruel: if you dare to lead or disagree, your appearance will be weaponized. When the global theme for the upcoming 16 Days of Activism is to Unite to End Digital Violence Against All Women and Girls, our leader is actively modeling the very behavior we should be campaigning against. Our community is better than the base and vulgar spectacle I am being forced to observe. I must refuse the low standard of the apologists and the deafening silence of those in power who privately disagree but are too terrified to speak. Their silence is tacit approval and an act of self-preservation that allows this toxic culture to flourish. We must demand that our leaders, regardless of party, model integrity, not juvenile rage. The future of our nation’s character depends on it.
Advertise with the mоѕt vіѕіtеd nеwѕ ѕіtе іn Antigua!
We offer fully customizable and flexible digital marketing packages.
Contact us at [email protected]
