Banging heads on brick walls
I
was pleased, if not astonished, to see a complimentary reference to my
writings in a newspaper. I was reaching the conclusion that no one read
any more, or bothered about Human Rights issues except to make political
points, so this was heartening. Admittedly a positive reference by one
of the editors who publishes my writings is not evidence that they might
make a difference, but it may help.
The reference was the more welcome, because this week there is yet
another reminder that, as Anne Ranasinghe put it, ‘nothing remains but
to mourn’. Nearly two years ago I asked a question in Parliament about
women who suffer because of the Vagrants’ Act, and it has not as yet
been answered, even though it has been placed on the order paper over
half a dozen times. Each time the Minister asks for more time.
A few months ago I was heartened, because I was told there was a
flurry of activity in the Ministry of Justice, since they had been told
they must supply the answer. But that came to nothing, and on that
occasion too the matter was put off. Subsequently I met an official of
the Judicial Services Commission, who informed me that the Judiciary did
not keep statistics of the people it sentenced. He seemed to think that
this was not their business.
Human Rights issues
The young man was a lawyer, but it did not strike him that this was
an outrageous position to adopt. When people are sentenced, or even
remanded, the State takes responsibility for them. That is why members
of the Judiciary are expected to visit Prisons and Remand Homes. A few
do this, but the vast majority do not bother, and I have been told that
one particularly conscientious magistrate was transferred when visits
proved embarrassing.
I had asked the question in Parliament following a visit to
Methsevana by members of the informal group my office had set up to look
at Human Rights issues. This was even before I was appointed to convene
the Task Force to expedite implementation of the National Human Rights
Action Plan (another task in which I fear, as the late Bishop Lakshman
Wickremesinghe put it, that ‘I have taken on many tasks and failed in
all of them’).
The group found many women who had been completely forgotten, with
neither them nor anyone else having any idea about where they came from
or who their next of kin was. Several – over 70 if I remember aright -
were mentally unstable, but professional support was grossly inadequate.
Drugs were administered by someone without even Ordinary Level
qualifications.
The group that visited have now got a commitment from the National
Institute of Mental Health, a thoughtful body that deserves much more
support, to visit Methsevana daily, but the plan has not been
implemented as yet since arrangements have to be made for transport.
Donor assistance is being sought, but I cannot understand why the State
cannot provide transport on a daily basis.
Standing Orders
Meanwhile my question has remained unanswered, and there have been no
signs of remedial action with regard to the point I was making in asking
the question. Unfortunately the purpose of Parliamentary questions,
which is to draw attention to problems which must be addressed, has long
been forgotten. They are seen mainly as sources of potential
embarrassment, which is why nearly 90 percent of all questions asked are
by opposition members.
Indeed, I was the first MP on the government side to ask a question –
and to propose an Adjournment Motion – in the present Parliament. When
my question appeared on the Order Paper, one of my colleagues suggested
that this was embarrassing to the government.
I have been vindicated however by the President urging us at Group
Meetings to ask questions. Unfortunately, I have practically given up
now, since answers are so rare, in spite of the President drawing
attention to this deficiency when he addresses us.
We did try to introduce some provisions in Standing Orders to remedy
this. Unfortunately the Committee to amend Standing Orders has not met
for well over two years – though that, I trust, will soon be remedied.
I should note that, in October last year, there was some movement in
that it was announced that the Judicial Services Commission had
instructed Judicial Officers to fulfil their responsibilities with
regard to visits to places of detention.
I wrote promptly to the Secretary to express my appreciation of this,
hoping that the instructions applied to Remand Homes as well as Prisons,
and that activities wold be monitored.
Indeed I had been told shortly before that by the Chairman of the
Human Rights Commission that, when he had responsibility for such
things, he had measured such visits for deciding on promotions, but the
practice seemed to have since fallen into abeyance.
I did ask the Secretary to share the instructions he had sent out,
but I did not get a response. That was perhaps understandable at the
time, but I was sorry he had not responded also to a letter sent a month
earlier, in which I had expressed appreciation of the fact that, having
considered a letter we had sent them, the JSC decided to inform us that
measures had already been taken by them ‘to inform Magistrates regarding
the detention of women and children’. I had suggested then that
preparation and publication of such guidelines be extended to all types
of cases.
Unfortunately, in the climate of secrecy we live in, publication of
guidelines is unlikely. But ensuring that the public know the guidelines
might help us to avoid absurdities such as occurred recently in the case
of a young child. |