Sixteen Days: One step forwards two steps backwards?

The year began on a positive note. Frustrated by each year having to answer the same set of questions about whether there had been any progress in ending gender violence, last year’s Sixteen Days of Activism campaign saw a groundswell of support for a coordinated year long campaign in which the Sixteen Days became more of an accountability forum than just an annual campaign that runs the risk of running out of steam.

 

The ground breaking “365 Days of Action to end Gender Violence conference” in May adopted the Kopanong Declaration that set a number of tangible objectives and established a task team comprising government and NGO representatives in five clusters: prevention, response, support, children and coordination.

 

The National Prosecution Authority that chairs the Inter Departmental Committee Team (IDMT) in government responsible for gender justice gave the initiative its muscle and, with the support of UN agencies, established a secretariat to give it support. Meetings have been held. But has progress been made?

 

Going down the checklist of the Kopanong Declaration, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that whatever progress has been made has been altogether too slow. Starting with the statistics, two years ago government set a target of reducing contact crime such as murder and rape by 7-10 percent every year until 2009.  According to police figures released in September, murder is down by 2%; rape by a mere 0.3 %.

 

The Medical Research Council (MRC) estimates that one in nine rape cases are not reported at all. This is corroborated by a more recent MRC study in which a staggering one fifth of the young men interviewed admitted to having raped a woman (with 54 926 reported cases of rape, clearly not all of the women affected are reporting their experience). Thus the minuscule decline in reported rape cases offers little cause for comfort and may in fact be a cause for concern.

 

There is still no separate police statistical category for domestic violence (one of the commitments made in the Kopanong Declaration). But most of the 120 367 cases of “common assault” against women reported by the police (an average of one every four minutes) are likely to be just that.

 

Another revelation in the annual statistics is that the overwhelming majority of contact crimes are perpetrated by persons known to the victim (76% in the case of rape).  Yet, as the Jacob Zuma rape trial revealed, the courts, police and society at large still find it very difficult to understand how a woman can  be raped by a person she knows.    

 

The Kopanong Declaration set one key target for the 2006 campaign: the passing of the Sexual Offences Bill that among others broadens the definition of rape to be gender neutral and restricts the extent to which a complainant’s sexual past can be used as evidence (one of the major criticisms of the Zuma case).

 

Over twelve years in the making, the bill has been passed by the Justice Portfolio Committee but will only go for final enactment by the National Council of Provinces in January 2007.

 

There are still major gaps in the legislation. Against the advice of the South African Law Reform Commission (SALRC) and several NGO submissions on the importance of comprehensive treatment and care for survivors of sexual assault, the bill provides for Post Exposure Prophylaxis at “designated sites” but nothing else.

 

PEP is a combination of anti retroviral drugs that helps to reduce the possibility of contracting HIV. The provision in the bill came after a long struggle and is an important recognition of the obligation of the state to women who may be exposed to the risk of HIV as a result of coerced sex. But the designation of sites for drugs that must be taken within 72 hours after the trauma of a sexual assault is a problem because all too often the service is not available when and where it is need.  And, as the SALRC pointed out, it should be part of a package that includes counseling, the possibility of sexual transmitted diseases and pregnancy.

 

Parliament’s reluctance to accept the broader recommendation is apparently motivated by concerns about whether this comprehensive package is affordable. This bigger question is whether the government is willing to put its money where its mouth is where women’s rights are concerned. This question arises in another key area of contention: whether to establish specialised facilities for addressing gender violence, or to ensure that the entire criminal justice system works – to quote Deputy Minister of Justice Johnny de Lange – “seamlessly” to ensure that justice is done.

 

Evidence suggests that the most effective mechanism for achieving this is when the “one stop” Thutuzela Centres work hand in glove with Sexual Offences Courts, achieving conviction rates of up to 90 percent, compared to seven percent in the normal courts. Yet these specialised facilities service less than ten percent of the need.

 

De Lange argues that if the justice system is working as it should, there should be no need for two forms of justice- one for women and another for the rest of South Africans. It’s a reasonable argument. But whether you go for specialised facilities, a mainstream approach or a combination of the two, what is required is policy direction and resources, neither of which appears to be forthcoming.

 

The dilemma over specialised versus mainstream is at the heart of the recent furor over the closure of the Family Violence, Child Protection and Sexual Offences Units (FSC’s) by the South African Police Service (SAPS) on grounds that these specially trained officers need to be on the ground rather than in isolated units. But NGOs in the sector say that the closure of the units has led to victims not getting the redress they deserve.

 

A recurrent theme in these recent debates is that much as there is an effort at greater collaboration, consultation between key stakeholders is still not effective. If the Sixteen Day campaign this year is to make a difference, there is need for some hard talk between the different partners who – working in synergy – must surely have the collective power and will to end this scourge.