Was this alleged exploitation of young Amerindian girls reported to the police?

http://www.stabroeknews.com/index.pl/article?id=56518426
Stabroek News

Thursday, April 19th 2007

Dear Editor, I wish to refer to a letters under the caption "Churches, human rights groups must speak out against the exploitation of children" (07.04.02) by Seelochan Beharry. In relation to the letter, I wish to state the following: The accusation by Mr Beharry that Barama's expatriate workers engaged in sexual exploitation of young Amerindian girls does not hold water because it is merely an "allegation" . Dr Gail Whiteman's book "International businesses and the challenges of poverty in the developing world" which Mr Beharry refers to said "social problems related to the alleged sexual exploitation of young Amerindian girls by Barama employees also were reported in interviews." (Chapter 11 Forest, Gold Mining and Amerindians) Mr Beharry is therefore unable to tell the difference between a 'fact' and an 'allegation' and continues his misleading campaign against the Barama company. Can Mr Beharry tell the Guyanese people in what year and where the allegations of sexual exploitation took place? Did the 'victims' and their parents make reports to the Guyana Police Force, Ministry of Amerindian Affairs, Ministry of Human Services, GHRA, Red Thread, APA, GOIP TAAMOG and the National Amerindian Foundation? If reports were made to these bodies what actions were taken? Dr Gail Whiteman did not conduct interviews with the 'victims' and their parents, neither with Barama's top management on the matter of sexual exploitation. This demonstrates clearly that her book is unprofessional, mischievous and misleading and so is Mr Beharry. The fact that Mr Beharry is unable to tell the Guyanese people the year and location of his accusation against Barama's employees is clearly not a violation of FSC principle # 1 (Violation of National Laws), worst of all Mr Beharry's accusation is based on pure 'allegations'. Mr Beharry is not an authority on FSC principles and criteria, neither is he in a position to give an interpretation of these principles. Barama made significant contributions to Port Kaituma but Mr Beharry tells the Guyanese people that Barama violated FSC principles # 4 (Community relations and workers rights). Further, while being at Port Kaituma, Barama appointed an Amerindian liaison officer to promote good community relations with the company which were effectively maintained. At Port Kaituma, Amerindians' expectations of improved health care re-mained problematic because with the shift of Barama's operations from Port Kaituma to Buckhall and with the handing over of the management of its hospital to the Ministry of Health they wanted to know if there would have been a continuity of the health care delivery system practised by the Barama company. This also goes for the education system which was resuscitated and maintained by the Barama company. In the pursuit of his vendetta on behalf of a group in Guyana, Mr Beharry is mischievously manipulating and distorting information to discredit the Barama Company. Dr. Gail Whiteman's research is not credible and cannot be the basis for any sound judgment against the Barama Company. While Mr Beharry quotes from Dr Gail's Book in chapter 11 on "Forestry, Mining and Amerindians" he has refused to tell the Guyanese people about the social ills caused by mining at Port Kaituma which continue to dislocate the social structure of the Amerindian communities. If Mr Beharry is concerned about the exploitation of children in Guyana why is he "lip-silent" on the damaging effects of gold mining on Amerindian children in the North West region? Mr Beharry never visited Port Kaituma that is why his writing on this hinterland location is sourced from misleading information which is often flawed. Yours faithfully, Trevor Atkinson