9 December 2022 01:04 am Views - 969
The Panadura push which the Police Commission saw as no harassment
The independent Police Commission’s recent verdict exonerating a senior police officer from charges of inappropriately pushing two female officers, though shocking, failed to generate
In video footage that went viral on social media, a Chief Inspector was seen grabbing the female police officers by the scruff of their necks during a protest in Panadura on November 12. At the same protest, the chief inspector was also seen manhandling two female protesters. The incidents triggered a public outcry demanding action against him.
After dillydallying for days, the Police Commission undertook a probe and cleared the inspector of all charges, claiming that two female police officers in their statements had said they did not consider the inspector’s push or touch as inappropriate.
In explaining the Police Commission ruling, its chairman Chandra Fernando, a former police chief, told the Morning newspaper this week: “What happened there was two female protestors were to be arrested, and male police officers were not permitted to handle them. Therefore, some female police officers had been called, and where were they? They were standing at the back, but their role should have been in the front.
“When the arrests were to be made, female officers were not available, and so they were pushed to the front by the OIC. How can this be harassment? Harassment is something totally different. At that moment, the OIC was stressed, and the female PCs, who should have been assisting him, were at the back. That is why he positioned them to the front. I do not think that they should have been pushed, but I also do not see it as harassment.”
With such explanations, it is no wonder that whatever little faith the people have in the Police Commission is fast eroding. Recently, its integrity has been called into question, after the Police Commission chairman was seen among the crowd that gathered at the VIP lounge of the Colombo airport to welcome Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna strategist Basil Rajapaksa. Whatever the excuses the commission chief trotted out, it did not meet with public approval.
Whatever the explanation the Police Commission chief may give in dismissing the case against the chief inspector, the ruling will only embolden male public officers to inappropriately touch junior female officers in the hope that they can be cajoled or coerced to issue statements.
The apparent miscarriage of justice highlights the need to revisit the country’s laws and strengthen them to protect women and vulnerable people.
Needless to say, the Police Commission ruling ignores international best practices. It is tantamount to acquitting a man charged with attempted murder on the basis of a statement given by the injured victim even though there was overwhelming evidence to corroborate the charge.
A woman’s or a man’s body is a private space and no one -- including the spouse -- has the right to violate its sanctity.
Touching is allowed only with consent or when life is in danger. In workplaces, physical contact between coworkers, including superiors, should be strictly professional and consensual. In some Islamic countries, even a handshake with the opposite sex is seen as a violation of the sanctity of a person’s private space.
No touch should make a person uncomfortable, unsafe, or intimidated. Just like physical assault, an inappropriate or unsolicited touch is also a form of violence. In workplaces, decency demands that coworkers should avoid making physical contact with others. Sexual innuendoes and ogling have been normalised in most workplaces and public spaces. In most workplaces, hugging is part of the culture. But there are people who detest it and see it as a form of invasion into their private space.
In some societies which are ultra-sensitive to sexual violence, permission is sought before the hug.
The worst place where women, girls, and even boys face untold sexual harassment is public transport. In crowded buses and trains, deliberate brushing against the body and groping go on unchecked.
The threshold of morality is correspondingly proportionate to the spiritual awakening of society. It is little surprise that in the liberal West where atheism and agnosticism are pushing Christianity to minority status, as seen in the recent census findings in Britain, the Christian teaching that whosoever looks lustfully at a woman has already committed adultery with her is observed in the breach.
Yet, it is from the liberal West, the #metoo movement rose to become a global tornado to slam those who have sexually abused women. In the United States, on Wednesday, President Joe Biden signed a new law – the Speak Out Act -- to ban the use of confidentiality agreements that block victims of sexual harassment from speaking publicly about misconduct in workplaces.
Despite this highly commendable act, the 80-year-old President himself has come under criticism from activists and journalists for touching women and girls without their consent.
The BBC in an article described Biden as a “touchy-feely” politician. During the campaign for the presidency, two women said the touchy was a problem and the feely inappropriate.
However, several women said Biden had hugged and touched them too and it never felt inappropriate, only affectionate.
The BBC article by Katty Kay points out a candidate runs the risk of being dismissed as cold and aloof if he refuses all physical contact with voters. “So clearly there’s a line politicians have to walk. Physical, but not in the wrong way.”
Biden’s predecessor, Donald Trump, on the other hand, apparently sees no such line, with some 25 women accusing him of sexual misconduct.
Coming back to the Sri Lanka Police Commission ruling, it sounds primordial when seen in the context of the law that Australia’s New South Wales police invoked to arrest Sri Lanka’s National Cricketer Danushka Gunathilaka on rape charges.
In NSW, it is an offence to have sexual intercourse with another person, without consent. A person may, by words or conduct, withdraw consent to sexual activity at any time during the act.
But unfortunately, Sri Lanka’s laws remain inadequate to deal with sexual violence. Marital rape, for instance, is no rape. When a woman or man says no, it should mean no.
In Sri Lanka, where the 2019 Women’s Wellbeing Survey conducted by the Department of Census and Statistics in partnership with the United Nations Population Fund, found that one in five (20.4%) ever-partnered women have experienced physical and/or sexual violence by an intimate partner in their lifetime. The study found that nearly half (49.3%) of these women did not seek formal help anywhere due to reasons such as shame, embarrassment, fear of being blamed or not being believed, and/or thinking the violence was normal or not serious enough to seek help.
It was only last week, that Sri Lanka’s women parliamentarian caucus members came to Parliament dressed in orange to show their solidarity with moves to curb gender-based violence. But more action is required from them to amend the laws to eliminate all forms of gender-based violence and criminalise inappropriate and uninvited touches. Their action should also include the much-delayed Muslim Marriage and Divorce Act reforms.