HUMAN RIGHTS and concern for the NEGLECTED
Amongst the agencies that I have worked with over the last year to
encourage movement on the National Human Rights Action Plan, the most
important from outside the government sector has been the Institute of
Human Rights. They have been the most regular in attendance of the
groups that come together in the informal consultative mechanism I set
up together with the Consortium of Humanitarian Agencies, even before I
was appointed to convene the Task Force of the Inter-Ministerial
Committee responsible for implementation of the Plan. Ironically, given
the absence of a Ministry with direct responsibility for Human Rights,
sometimes I feel the informal committee we have does more work.
The Institute of Human Rights has done yeoman service in ensuring
attention to those victims of human rights violations who fall through
the net. The unfortunate obsession with War Crimes spun out by those
determined to attack the Sri Lankan State sometimes takes away from the
real issues we face. These relate not so much to the victims, direct and
indirect of terrorism, which we have now overcome (unless the motives of
the less innocent of the War Crimes brigade triumph), but to the
naturally vulnerable, who are not of concern to the vast majority of
their fellow human beings.
The most appalling example of these are the women and children
swallowed up through the punitive system we inherited from the British
for those considered socially inferior. The British have long moved on
from the Victorian systems of incarceration Dickens so graphically
condemned, but we still have a Vagrants Ordinance, and government claims
that it will be amended have fallen prey to the lethargy of officials
with regard to anything they are not compelled or personally motivated
to pursue actively. Worse, they seem unashamed of the callousness with
which it is implemented.
Strong recommendations
Nearly two years back I asked for statistics about the victims of
this Ordinance. This followed a presentation by IHR of what goes on at
Methsevana, about which it had complained some years back to the Human
Rights Commission. The Commission took some action then, and it seems
that the Ministry of Social Services tried to improve things, though not
entirely satisfactorily, given the number of the mentally ill, who have
no adequate medical support. What was a complete failure was the effort
to get the Ministry of Justice and the Judiciary to actually treat
people brought before the Law under the Ordinance as human beings. My
question was postponed six times, because it seemed the Ministry of
Justice was trying to find statistics. An official of the Judicial
Services Commission, last year, before the appointment of what I hope
will be an active new broom to sweep the place clean, told me the
judiciary did not keep details of those it committed into custody in
such cases. This is strange, given the statutory requirement that
magistrates visit places of custody, but this was not an obligation
taken seriously, except by a few dutiful individuals, who were usually
promptly transferred for their pains. Thankfully, it has now been
announced that magistrates have been appointed to visit prisons (and, I
hope, Remand Homes), and though I would have preferred it rather being
entrenched that those who commit people should also take responsibility
for what happens to them, I will not complain if these specially
designated magistrates at least look into the welfare of those the State
has incarcerated.
My question was finally answered on February 22, but the answer I got
was that statistics were not available. This means that the State in
effect admits people have got lost in the system it enforces. We have
long known this, but now that it has been officially granted, perhaps
the State will be spurred to do something about this neglect. I have
written accordingly to the Minister of Justice, but I suspect it will be
a long time again before I get a response.
It is for that reason that the constant attention to such
inadequacies evinced by IHR is so important, and I hope its engagement
on the subject with the Human Rights Commission, which our committee
assists in, will continue. Unfortunately the energy the Commission
displayed soon after it was appointed, as exemplified by its visit to
Welikada and the strong recommendations made at the discussion convened
afterwards, seems to have faded, but I suppose we have to keep trying,
and hope it will revive.
Remand Homes
Meanwhile IHR has also drawn our attention to another grave problem,
namely the plight of youngsters in Remand Homes, for whom no provision
is made for a productive life after they are released. The report they
sent in suggests that sometimes youngsters are absorbed by the religious
organizations which run such homes, Buddhist and Hindu as well as
Christian, because there is no alternative. Given that the homes to
which they should be returned were dysfunctional in the first place,
which is why they were taken into care, and that no remedial action was
taken, it would serve no purpose to send them back there – if indeed
there were still a home that could take them in.
I have written then, to the head of the National Child Protection
Authority, to suggest not only preparation programmes for families, to
include psychosocial support, but also vocational training to give
youngsters opportunities to build their own lives. Given the energy of
the NCPA now, and its concern with care, as opposed only to punitive
action for abuses, I hope that productive plans will be forthcoming. The
present decision of the Ministry of Education to pay greater attention
even in schools to vocational and technical training bodes well for the
future, and I am sure agencies such as ILO and UNICEF will also be able
to contribute both to planning and to implementation. But whether the
concerted efforts needed will be forthcoming remains to be seen. |