AGL 38.15 Decreased By ▼ -1.43 (-3.61%)
AIRLINK 125.07 Decreased By ▼ -6.15 (-4.69%)
BOP 6.85 Increased By ▲ 0.04 (0.59%)
CNERGY 4.45 Decreased By ▼ -0.26 (-5.52%)
DCL 7.91 Decreased By ▼ -0.53 (-6.28%)
DFML 37.34 Decreased By ▼ -4.13 (-9.96%)
DGKC 77.77 Decreased By ▼ -4.32 (-5.26%)
FCCL 30.58 Decreased By ▼ -2.52 (-7.61%)
FFBL 68.86 Decreased By ▼ -4.01 (-5.5%)
FFL 11.86 Decreased By ▼ -0.40 (-3.26%)
HUBC 104.50 Decreased By ▼ -6.24 (-5.63%)
HUMNL 13.49 Decreased By ▼ -1.02 (-7.03%)
KEL 4.65 Decreased By ▼ -0.54 (-10.4%)
KOSM 7.17 Decreased By ▼ -0.44 (-5.78%)
MLCF 36.44 Decreased By ▼ -2.46 (-6.32%)
NBP 65.92 Increased By ▲ 1.91 (2.98%)
OGDC 179.53 Decreased By ▼ -13.29 (-6.89%)
PAEL 24.43 Decreased By ▼ -1.25 (-4.87%)
PIBTL 7.15 Decreased By ▼ -0.19 (-2.59%)
PPL 143.70 Decreased By ▼ -10.37 (-6.73%)
PRL 24.32 Decreased By ▼ -1.51 (-5.85%)
PTC 16.40 Decreased By ▼ -1.41 (-7.92%)
SEARL 78.57 Decreased By ▼ -3.73 (-4.53%)
TELE 7.22 Decreased By ▼ -0.54 (-6.96%)
TOMCL 31.97 Decreased By ▼ -1.49 (-4.45%)
TPLP 8.13 Decreased By ▼ -0.36 (-4.24%)
TREET 16.13 Decreased By ▼ -0.49 (-2.95%)
TRG 54.66 Decreased By ▼ -2.74 (-4.77%)
UNITY 27.50 Decreased By ▼ -0.01 (-0.04%)
WTL 1.29 Decreased By ▼ -0.08 (-5.84%)
BR100 10,089 Decreased By -415.2 (-3.95%)
BR30 29,509 Decreased By -1717.6 (-5.5%)
KSE100 94,574 Decreased By -3505.6 (-3.57%)
KSE30 29,445 Decreased By -1113.9 (-3.65%)

The National Assembly has passed the Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill, 2009, 'lending both intensity and clarity to an existing law on sexual harassment of women in public'. Another law for the prevention of harassment at workplace is also on its way. The amendment enhances the punishment for harassment from one-year to a three-year imprisonment, and the unspecified amount of fine now has an upper limit of Rs 500,000.
Whereas the previous law described harassment as "insult to the modesty of a woman", the amendment defines it in more specific terms. It says the harassment culprit is the one who "utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits an object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture of object shall be seen by such woman or intrudes upon the privacy of such a woman."
It also describes in explicit terms what constitutes harassment at workplace, and the kind of conduct that could make an individual a culprit. Notably, the bill received unanimous approval, although some members voiced their concern about the possible misuse of the new law. It, indeed, is an important step forward for women. Sexual harassment is common in this country. Almost every women who goes out of the home to work, study or do other things faces harassment of some kind at one or another time.
Now that more and more women are moving into professions that traditionally are regarded as male domain, incidents of harassment at workplace are also increasing. Experience in developed countries, where laws pertaining to prevention of workplace-related harassment have been in place for a long time, shows that women are usually reluctant to come forward with charges. Some do that out of fear of losing her job, sheer embarrassment, lack of sufficient confidence, or merely because they think it may not help.
Still, if the law is there, some women, especially those having a serious interest in a long-term career, are inclined to use it, if the need so arises. Of course, the mere passage of the bill is not going to bring about a sudden change in how men behave towards women. But like any other law, it sets a standard for what is acceptable behaviour in this society and what constitutes an affront to the values it seeks to uphold.
It will certainly be helpful in more extreme cases of harassment prevalent in our rural areas. As for the apprehension expressed by some members that the new law could be used by people to settle personal scores, on the face of it, seems valid, considering that the offences listed in the bill include utterance of a word or making of a sound, or gesture as violative of a woman's modesty.
These offences are not as tangible as other crimes such as theft, murder, or a property grab, and hence the worry that those having a motive to implicate innocent people would find it easier to do so. But then it needs to be remembered that the justice system does not rely on the say-so of an individual to hand out punishment; it wants proof. And the onus to provide proof of guilt lies on the accuser. The anti-harassment bill therefore deserves to be applauded for the good it is to bring to this society.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2009

Comments

Comments are closed.