Posts Tagged ‘Men’s Right’

Sexual Harassment Bill- design for abuse of law

July 25, 2009

Sexual Harassment at Work Place: Design for abuse of Laws

What is Sexual Harassment at Workplace:
In Visakha Judgment, the Supreme Court defines sexual harassment at workplace. The Vishaka judgement provides the basic definition of sexual harassment at the workplace. According to the Supreme Court, such behaviour “includes such unwelcome sexually determined behaviour (whether directly or by implication) as:
(a) physical contact and advances
(b) a demand or request for sexual favours
(c) sexually-coloured remarks
(d) showing pornography
(e) any other unwelcome physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct of sexual nature”
“Where any of these acts is committed in circumstances where under the victim of such conduct has a reasonable apprehension that in relation to the victim`s employment or work whether she is drawing salary, or honorarium or voluntary, whether in government, public or private enterprise such conduct can be humiliating and may constitute a health and safety problem. It is discriminatory for instance when the woman has reasonable grounds to believe that her objection would disadvantage her in connection with her employment or work including recruiting or promotion or when it creates a hostile work environment. Adverse consequences might be visited if the victim does not consent to the conduct in question or raises any objection thereto.”
Thus the “act simplicitor” like demand or request of sexual favour, sexually coloured remarks, or any other conduct of sexual nature is not a sexual harassment at work place. Such acts may be an immoral act or illegal act and punishable under various other laws, these are not sexual harassment at work place. Such acts becomes sexual harassment, only when due to womens employment it becomes difficult to object, for the women may have reasonable apprehension that such objection may interfere with her employment. It needs to emphasise here that the concept of “sexual harassment at workplace” has nothing to sexual act per se, it comes into operation only when such acts interfere with the right to employment by creating a hostile work environment.
A plain reading of Visakha Judgment shows that the ruling has been made based on right to equality, right to life and right to livelihood. Although the judgment has been delivered in case of a women petitioner, the court throughout judgment emphasized gender neutral nature of the right.
The Protection against Sexual Harassment of Women Bill, 2005 (hereinafter referred to draft bill) is a dangerous piece of legislation, which will create more problem than it solves. I oppose the bill on the following grounds:
Firstly it is a gender biased laws. The act of sexual harassment at workplace can happen both against men and against women employee. It can be argued that more women are victim of sexual harassment, however that fact cannot disentitle the smaller number of male victims from legal protection. Thus I demand that the proposed legislation be made gender neutral.
Secondly, it is to be noted that in Visakha Judgment, the court was examining petition of a women, and hence the definition given by the court is women centric. There are situation where males face specific type of sexual harassment. Thus while allotment of duties in an organisation, risky and tough work is given to males employee which is a blatant gender discrimination and sexual harassment at workplace. In granting leave etc., discrimination is made against men, which is another form of sexual harassment. Another subtle form of gender discrimination at work place is prevalent. Many a times it is felt that women employee gain advantage over men employee by extending sexual favours to seniors. This is a blatant form of sexual discrimination against men. Thus the definition must include male specific form of sexual harassment at workplace. In equal opportunity laws of US, sexual harassment has been defined Sexual Harassment as – This includes practices ranging from direct requests for sexual favors to workplace conditions that create a hostile environment for persons of either gender, including same sex harassment. This is a gender neutral definition, which takes into consideration various forms of subtle harassment of sexual nature at workplace.
Thirdly, it is seen from the definition of sexual harassment that the act has been defined as “unwelcome sexual conduct”. It is irrelevant as to whether such conduct is related to work or employment or not. Such wide and inclusive definition of offence will merely results in wild and false allegations which will hamper not only the accused individual and individual sense of justice, it will destroy the work environment in general and will result in closure of various businesses. When such false allegations will become more widespread, it will result in general distrust of women due to acts of some unscrupulous women and will affect women’s future employability. In this connection, I would like to point out that blatant misuse of dowry acts are resulting in same situation, where every complainant is being looked with a sense of suspicion.
Fourthly, the act can be a tool of extortion. The provision of dispute resolution prior to enquiry (Section 40) is creating a situation where it will become very easy for a women employee to make false allegations and then seek dispute resolution. As the person charged with allegations, even when innocent, is likely to loose his job, reputation etc., he will become a very soft target of extortion. An act which promotes such type of extortion needs to be opposed. It cannot be denied that a victim must be compensated, even monetarily if by the alleged act she has lost some material gains. But such power should be there at the hand of enquiry authority or disciplinary authority, who can award appropriate compensation if the situation so requires.
Fifthly, it is to be seen that the definition of the act solely depends upon a mental element, i.e. “unwelcome”. Thus if the sexual conduct is not unwelcome, it is not an offence. There is no definition of “unwelcome” or “communication of unwelcomeness” to the accused. It should be provided that when a reasonable person is expected to understand that the act is “unwelcome”. The alleged act should be made offence, only after communication of unwelcomeness by the victim. As welcomeness or unwelcomeness depends upon the mental state of the victim/accused, it is suggested that polygraph test may be applied in these allegations so that real perpetrators of crime can be punished and innocent persons are not harassed by false and motivated allegations.
Sixthly, it needs to be legislatively recognized that abuse of law exists and false allegations are leveled. Such false allegations are eating into the very faith of our judicial system. As the legislation does not make effort to discourage false allegations, every accused claim false charges and break the very faithfulness in legal procedure. Section 64 of the proposed Act is making same mistake. It gives immunity to false complainants. Further, it is giving real perpetrators of crime and excuse to level false allegation of false allegations. What should be provided that if the complaint is not found to be true, there must be inquiry into the genesis of the complaint itself and the complainant if found guilty, appropriate action should be taken against the complainant. I propose that the definition of sexual harassment must include “false charges of sexual harassment”.
In view of these, it is submitted that such changes in the proposed laws to be made to achieve the objective of safe and secure work environment. A work environment cannot be made secure for women by making it unsecure for men. Further, gender biasedness is such laws will result in division of society on the based of gender, a far more dangerous thing than division of society based on caste or religion.

Rajesh Kumar, Advocate

Oppose Women Reservation

June 7, 2009

For many decades, the political establishment of our country is ignoring men’s issues and under pressure from feminazis women, enacting laws which are blatantly Anti-men, designed to emasculate men, deprive men of their self-esteem, rights and property. The proposed women reservation bill is the latest measure, which should be opposed tooth and nail by men.
On face of it, such proposal is unreasonable. In Indian democracy women has always been adequately represented. We had women prime minister and still have women president. Indian legislature has approximately 10% women representative, which is highest in the world. This percentage is not there even in American or British parliament. This sinister design of women reservation was never applied in any of the developed nations. Then why this is being applied in India? What is the basis or rationale of this reservation in India? There is no answer.
The logic that only 10% women representative is there in parliament and so reservation is required is faulty. Not many women participate in politics. In any political party, at grassroots, hardly a few percentage points of the workers are women. When there are fewer grassroots women workers, obviously there will be few women members in legislature. What should have been demanded and granted is more places at grassroots level, which no women organization is demanding. This is typical women demand- let there be men grassroot worker in political parties, seats should be reserved for women in legislature. Men are beast of burden to do grassroot work, women will be members in parliament. Men are slaves. Men must understand this and oppose such design.
Whenever special provision has been made for women in law, it has been abused by women. Section 498A, Rape laws, maintenance laws etc. are burning example. Further, feminist politicians has supported such abuse of laws by women. When such feminist politicians will be in parliament, they will make more such gender biased laws and oppression of men will increase. We have to understand these sinister designs and oppose such reservation at the very outset. Otherwise, it will be too late.
Oppose these sinister reservations.

Maintenance is not a bounty

May 14, 2009

No Maintenance to Able Bodied Educated Women:
As per newspaper report (Times of India, 14.05.2009), the District Court in Delhi Refused maintenance to a wife who was found able bodied and educated. Justice Rajendra Shastri said,
“An able bodied person expected to maintain himself and family members depended on him. The same is equally applicable to his wife. In an advanced society like ours, a woman who is young, healthy and well versed cannot afford to sit idle, particularly when facing difficult circumstances, as the applicant in this case.”
The judgment is also took into consideration the applicant wife conduct like elopement of wife with his lover, abandonment of minor child and health of the husband. Nevertheless, the judgment is a step towards making maintenance laws, what it is.
Maintenance is not a bounty. It is not a birth right of a wife. It cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is for a women, who cannot maintain herself & who has done the duties of a pious wife, to claim from her husband. Any women who has not done the duty of a pious wife, must not be entitled to claim maintenance from her husband. The other point is “ability to maintain herself”. A young healthy women, who is educated (even when not educated, can work as maid- many uneducated women are maintaining themselves that way) cannot be classified to be not able to maintain herself. The test is , whether a women of applicants ability is able to maintain themselves in the society or not- if yes, no maintenance- if no, there is a case for maintenance.
Maintenance laws needs to be applied strictly and in rare circumstances. It is usurpation of fruits of labour of a man in the guise of gender biased welfare laws. Such usurpation cannot be allowed to be made in a routine manner.

Why Should Men Refuse to Marry

May 12, 2009

Marriage was treated as a sacred institution in India. The strength of Indian marriages was praised all over world. Many of the Indian expatriates, who are settled in foreign land for generations prefers to get married in India. However, due to recent shortsighted changes in marital laws in India has made marrying into India a dangerous affairs and it is adequate reason for Indian males to decide not to marry.
Marriage was always treated a social institution in the past. Now, the state with all its might is interfering in the institution of marriage. Unfortunately the state interference aims at women vote bank and not preserving the institution. Such vote bank legislations in India has made a marriage dangerous institution in India, to be shunned.
There are three reasons; firstly gender biased laws in India. Indian law is highly gender biased in favour of women and gives all civil rights to women in marriage. Secondly, it gives unfettered right to women in terms of maintenance and property and thirdly it gives power to abuse laws to women to force the man into submission of her extortionary and greedy attitude. In this whole spectrum of law, there is no right in the hand of men and in such situations he becomes a laughing matter in the society.
These are some of the reasons why should men refuse to marry:
1. Becuase man is being punished for marrying by Section 498A.
2. Because married man is treated like a criminal based on false allegation by unscrupluous women.
3. Beacuse law give no right to men in marriage.
4. Because men are treated as beast of burden in marriage- to maintain wife, even adultrous wife, deserting wife- without any obligation on part of wife.
5. Because the children will be in custody of wife but men will maintain them (beast of burden)
6. Because law is there to sent you to jail if you say anything to your wife. Your parents will be present their with you.
7. Because you will be ruined financially if you file for divorce to get out of bad relationship.
8. Because you will be ruined financially if your wife files for divorce to marry her lover. 9. Because chances that you will be sent to jail for marrying is increasing day by day, with newer acts coming day after day.
10.Because you can loose your livelihood, home and reputation just by a call from your wife.
Marriage has become a slavery for Men- a slavery of wife- A legal slavery. Marriage is a dangerous institution for men. It is not generalisations- it is a reality. A sad reality which one understand only when he or his relative faces the music of marriage.
Laws are there to examine suicide by woman- Section 304B of IPC, Section 113A of Indian Evidence Act. Further, the laws will punish you, without any fault from your part, because of presumption cause. However, if men suicide due to torture of women, there is no redressal. Rate of suicide in men is more than twice in men than women. Many of the married man commit suicide due to harassment by their wives- through comments like 1.You dont earn much.
2.You cant keep your parents with you.
3.I will meet my friend (euphemistic name of lover).
4.Force your parents to transfer this matrimonial home in my name.
5.Man’s mother should work like a servant in the house. etc.etc.
And there is no law to check such abatement of suicide by men. If the husband speaks, he is sent to jail on the false charge of dowry. He looses is livelihood, reputation. His vioce is not heard or heeded in court. Police get a case to extort money. Sadist woman constable get a victim to torture. If man has not suicided early on wife abatement, he will suicide now, after his tryst with law.
Men are weak. Men cannot fight for their honour. Men cannot force the judiciary to change its prejudice and also hear the grievance of men. Men cannot force legislature to think beyond votes and make just laws. Men cannot force police to be impartial investigator.
At least men can refuse to marry.