Publish : 14 Nov 2021, 02:33 AMUpdate : 14 Nov 2021, 02:35 AM
When it comes to rape and sexual assault legislation, we always seem to be taking one step forward, and two steps back.
On the one hand, the government’s recent decision to scrap a provision in the 1872 Evidence Act, which allows for the victim or survivor’s character to be brought into question, is commendable. There is a long history of victim-blaming not only in our courts but also in other social institutions such as our homes, schools, and places of religious practice.
More often than not, victims who should be offered unconditional physical and mental support are hounded for their lifestyle, actions, or even physique, in attempts to shift the full blame from those accused. It begs the question: If one fails these moralizing tests, are their rights to justice and a fair trial automatically revoked?
As such, the government’s recognition of the baselessness of such a provision is more than welcome news. We can only hope these amendments are made effective as soon as possible, and that a similar change in mindset eventually becomes the societal norm.
On the other hand, however, a comment was recently made in a Dhaka court, where the judge advised the police to not accept rape cases if more than 72 hours had lapsed after the incident. Not only is this comment unscientific, it is particularly egregious coming from a judge belonging to a Tribunal for Prevention of Women and Children Repression. It is also horrific in its implications, as several protestors have noted, since it raises the question of “if rape is legal after 72 hours.”
Going forward, it is imperative that the government make timely yet well-informed decisions, and that comments antagonizing victims are held accountable. We can no longer afford to tiptoe around essential laws and amendments when the safety of not only our women and children, but also men and gender diverse individuals, are at stake.
ED: One step forward, two steps back
When it comes to rape and sexual assault legislation, we always seem to be taking one step forward, and two steps back.
On the one hand, the government’s recent decision to scrap a provision in the 1872 Evidence Act, which allows for the victim or survivor’s character to be brought into question, is commendable. There is a long history of victim-blaming not only in our courts but also in other social institutions such as our homes, schools, and places of religious practice.
More often than not, victims who should be offered unconditional physical and mental support are hounded for their lifestyle, actions, or even physique, in attempts to shift the full blame from those accused. It begs the question: If one fails these moralizing tests, are their rights to justice and a fair trial automatically revoked?
As such, the government’s recognition of the baselessness of such a provision is more than welcome news. We can only hope these amendments are made effective as soon as possible, and that a similar change in mindset eventually becomes the societal norm.
On the other hand, however, a comment was recently made in a Dhaka court, where the judge advised the police to not accept rape cases if more than 72 hours had lapsed after the incident. Not only is this comment unscientific, it is particularly egregious coming from a judge belonging to a Tribunal for Prevention of Women and Children Repression. It is also horrific in its implications, as several protestors have noted, since it raises the question of “if rape is legal after 72 hours.”
Going forward, it is imperative that the government make timely yet well-informed decisions, and that comments antagonizing victims are held accountable. We can no longer afford to tiptoe around essential laws and amendments when the safety of not only our women and children, but also men and gender diverse individuals, are at stake.
Topics: