‘Me too’ but ‘so what’?

The recent spate of victims speaking up against harassment in Pakistan has galvanised the ‘Me too’ dialogue in the nation. Through this, two matters have become clear: the issue of harassment is polarised within Pakistan — the ‘Me too’ debate is currently confined to privileged quarters; and there is little support within the law to protect a victim of harassment.

In a country where women are groped in markets, stared down in public spaces and are sacrificed in villages for offending a family’s honour, debates about a harassment-free environment in social and urban work spaces may seem insignificant and misplaced. While it is important to recognise that there is a wide gap between the issues women in villages and those in urban cities encounter (though this may not always be the case), it is equally important that the latter’s struggle should not be undermined at the expense of the former’s. In fact, constructive debate about harassment on a smaller, urban scale can set the stage for wider discourse across the nation.

Many ask the question as to whether there is any value to this movement when Pakistani women battle the above colossal issues on a daily basis. My answer to this question is yes for two reasons.

The first is that ‘Me too’ is piercing a bubble — the inhabitants of which have believed (until now) that they will not be held accountable for their actions. Men are being forced to think (twice) before sending an inappropriate message or before placing their hands too low on a woman’s waist. They are being deterred by repercussions. The second is that even though this debate currently surrounds abusers and victims in positions of wealth and privilege, international experience evidences that it is a melting icecap that will spread wide. The trickle-down effect of this movement in Pakistan is that it has ignited a national conversation: victims want (and deserve) safety. Such conversation will require lawmakers to ensure protection through the law.

The current laws — Section 509 of the Pakistan Penal Code and the Protection of Women Against Harassment in the Workplace Act of 2010 (“Act 2010”) — leave victims of harassment wanting and unprotected. Both the Act 2010 and Section 509 do not make clear what level of evidence a woman must provide to prove that she has been harassed. For instance, if she does not have written evidence (either in the form of a text message, an email or otherwise) or any witnesses but only has personal accounts of verbal communication or touching — is she to be left defenceless in the face of the law? The law provides no answers.

Section 509 subjects any person that insults the “modesty of a woman” or causes sexual harassment (either in the workplace or otherwise) to (up to) three years of imprisonment. Intruding upon the privacy of a woman, conducting sexual advances, demanding sexual favours, insulting, intimidating or threatening a woman if such sexual advances are not granted are crimes under this Section. Section 509 was amended in 2009 by Yousaf Raza Gilani to reduce the vagueness in the law and to: “make the public and work environment safer for women but it will open up the path for more women to pursue livelihood with dignity. It will reduce poverty as more and more women will get the courage to enter the job market.”

However, this section fails to provide either clarity or adequate protection to women. It is vague. It does not detail what constitutes the “modesty of a woman” and more surprisingly what constitutes harassment. The burden of proof is on the victim to prove that he or she was harassed. It is thus no surprise that there has been about only one identifiable case in Pakistan’s history where someone has been convicted under Section 509. The petitioners in this case were found guilty of “insulting the modesty” of a group of girls. They followed several girls in a park and made indecent remarks about their attire, sang love songs and made rude proposals to them (PLD 1957 SC 201). The Supreme Court found that where the girls were “followed and pestered persistently and systematically for several hours,” such behaviour deserved the maximum sentence. The court made it clear that insulting a woman’s modesty by calling out obscenely to her or making her feel vulnerable by making inappropriate and unwanted remarks (even over a short span of time) is intolerable. It thus sentenced the men to one-year imprisonment.

This case is important because it sets a strong precedent to protect women from abusers in situations of “harassment” that have become commonplace today: catcalling, following a woman, making her feel uncomfortable. As this case evidences, such behaviour is against the law of Pakistan. Unfortunately, this judgment has been forgotten and there are few cases that cite it as precedent, convicting an accused. This case also addresses an issue of public harassment. There is a lacuna in the law regarding harassment when a victim is preyed upon privately and finds it impossible to prove so.

Unlike Section 509, the Act 2010 is detailed and creates various layers for the protection of a woman. However, its implementation has been feeble. Under the Act 2010, a victim can theoretically approach an inquiry committee regarding any complaint of harassment in the workplace. Such committee is required to ensure that an employer or accused does not create a hostile environment for the complainant. All employers are required to incorporate a Code of Conduct for Protection Against Harassment at the Workplace as part of their management policies. This is to be displayed at a conspicuous place in the employment organisation. The Act 2010 also provides a victim access to a provincial ombudsman.

It is clear that most workplaces in Pakistan do not comply with these provisions. This is apparent upon entering any office. Employees are not made aware of the consequences of harassment and consequently cross boundaries (they claim they are not aware of) frequently. In the case of Sindh, the provincial ombudsman that was required to help victims of harassment was a man that was recently removed for misconduct as he was repeatedly found burying the stories of several victims to aid men in power.

The debate surrounding “Me too” must shift away from trivialising and undermining a victim’s struggle, towards framing and implementing tighter laws that can protect victims. Employers in Pakistan must be made aware of the compliance requirements of the law and must be held accountable to them. The onus of the implementation of these laws is with provincial governments, law-enforcing agencies and with individual employers. The state is responsible to appoint ombudsmen that are sensitive to issues victims face. Finally, the courts must strive to interpret laws to allow victims to seek support from them.

No one wants to say, “Me too” when they know the answer will be “So what?” Everyone wants to hear “No more.”

Published in The Express Tribune, June 1^st, 2018.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.