RIGHTS-ASIA: Colombo Meet Teaches Judges Gender Equality

By Feizal Samath Reprint | | Print |

Feizal Samath

COLOMBO, Jan 14 2000 (IPS) - Judges, lawyers and rights activists from the Asia-Pacific region met this week in the Sri Lankan capital to discuss violence against women and children, and gender equality issues.

The conference, the third in a series to sensitise the judiciary on women’s rights, brought together 50 judges, lawyers and rights activists from across Asia, and Fiji, Britain, Canada and South Africa.

Justice Shiranee Tilakawardene of the Appeal Court in Sri Lanka said the four-day meeting, which ended Friday was a “great step for womankind”.

“… I can with confidence say that this conference is a great step for womankind of our country,” the judge, who is also the convenor of the Asia-Pacific Advisory Forum on Judicial Education on Equality Issues said.

Previous meetings to sensitise judges to gender equality were held in New Delhi, 1977, and in Lahore, Pakistan, in 1999.

The Colombo conference was jointly organised by ‘Sakshi’ or witness, a Delhi-based rights group and Colombo’s Law and Society Trust and sponsored by the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA).

Among the speakers were Sri Lankan Chief Justice Sarath Silva, Colombo University Vice-Chancellor Prof Savithri Goonasekera, Albie Sachs of South Africa’s Supreme Court and Dr Radhika Coomaraswamy, Special UN Rapporteur on Violence against Women.

Clare L’ Heureux-Dube, a senior judge of Canada’s Supreme Court and also president of the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), says judges in order to be impartial should have an open mind, and not be swept away by unreal assumptions.

Take rape, she said. It happens across the world. “But the problem is — how is it settled? Why do women feel uncomfortable to report a rape. It is because the system doesn’t help them go through the process,” she said.

Often enough the cross examination is adversarial. “How were you dressed? Does it matter,” she said. “You could be naked, but (judges should find out) was there consent? Judges don’t realise these questions are irrelevant.”

Activists were blunt in their criticism of the handling of women during cross-examination by the police and judges. Most studies have shown the courts increase the trauma and shame experienced by women.

A study on gender and justice by Sri Lankan law teachers Shyamala and Mario Gomez revealed that though Sri Lankan laws provide for “in camera” trials, this procedure is hardly used.

Naina Kapur, an Indian barrister and director of ‘Sakshi’, said as a result of growing awareness among the public, the courts were now handling more cases of women’s rights.

It was a 1996 Sakshi survey on “Gender and Judges: A Judicial Point of View” that spurred the Asia-Pacific Forum to initiate a gender equality programme for judges.

The three-year study concluded that “while the report emphasised awareness of judicial gender bias, judges were unaware that such bias lived within them,” the document noted.

Kapur said “when we interviewed judges they came up with some amazing opinions. One judge said that if his daughter was violated, he would advise her to adjust instead of reporting the incident.”

UN Special Rapporteur, Sri Lanka’s Coomaraswamy, raised pertinent issues of when crimes become rights issues.

She said judges often accepted the distinction between the private and public domain in relation to crimes against women. The sanctity of the home, the family honour are important considerations.

“Judges let people free in many cases due to family honour and traditional practices. These are not related to the law at all,” she added. “How do we change tradition? How do we get judges to use criminal law to tackle inhuman, traditional practices?

Douglas Campbell, a judge of Canada’s Federal Court, said now judges sit together and discuss judgements that have been criticised by the public, to ascertain the areas of criticism and figure out what may have gone wrong.

“This is what judicial education is all about. They want to hear other opinions,” Campbell, who was a teacher of law for

many years, said.

“About 10-20 years ago they did their job and did not respond to public criticism in any way. Now they do. The judiciary is more open. People say what they want to say now,” according to him.

Kathleen Mahoney, a law professor in Canada who also works on human rights and women’s issues, observed that when judges get involved in social education “we know they are making an attempt not to be sexist and racist because the fact is — many of them are without realising it.”

Sri Lanka’s Justice Tilakawardene who is outspoken on human and legal rights of women, observed judicial myths, stereotypes, attitudes of judges have too long been obstacles in women’s fight for fundamental rights.