Connect with us

New Social Compact

Is Earth in the recovery mode?

Published

on

Who would have thought just a few months ago that 2020 is going to be a turning point for whole of the world where every huge economy and countries with top security measures would be going to fight an unknown enemy?

Corona virus has almost been penetrated in every country of this planet. COVID19 is proliferating beyond the borders of the countries without any exception. Starting from the Wuhan, capital of the Hubei province of the China, this virus is affecting people mercilessly and have turned out to be fatal for the humankind. The material and human cost has been increasing every minute.

As the world has become a global village the extent of interdependence of nations on one another is also the major reason of the spread of the virus.

Juts few weeks ago things were not that alarming then they are today where the number of the patients affected globally had crossed 7 lacs with more than 38,000 deaths till now.

The rapid mounting of death rate in the Italy, Spain and Iran has changed the epicenter of virus from china to Europe. The deadly Corona is not bailing people out based ontheir nationality or racial link.  Be it any head of the state or the general masses, everyone is under the same degree of the risk.

If we erase Corona virus from the whole equation of the world affairs, today the headlines in the newspapers and on the tv screens would have been quite different.

America would have been busy in its presidential race; UK would have been engulfed in its Brexit policy and south Asia with its hopeless expectations pinned on the US and AfghanTaliban deal.

But now the whole world is only interested in one thing and that is “when will the vaccine be available?”

The world is at its peak of technological and scientific advancements but still no country has yet been able to achieve this milestone. The most alarming thing is that how the third world countries are going to manage the peak of their corona cases because even one of the most advanced health care systems have not been able to tackle that. We have roaring example of Italy in this regard.

IMF, last week, announced that they are going to write off debt for the poor states in this situation, but those nations also want monetary assistance to manage the worst-case scenarios. Iran is suffering most in this fight against Corona virus mainly due to sanctions. There is no doubt the initial recklessness by the Iranian Government is one of the main reasons of the outbreak but at this stage the severe sanctions are the biggest hurdles in their fight against the Corona virus. Many Iranian government officials have become the target of this virus in the recent few weeks. The most recent victims of this virus, as this article is being written, are the Prime Minister of UK Boris Johnson and Duke of Wales Prince Charles. The number of the patients of COVID19 are increasing every minute. The states that have enforced lockdown as a result of this microbe are not able to predict as in till when this situation is going to last.  Daily wagers in every economy are the biggest victim of this virus. The most vulnerable section would not be able to deal with this lockdown for a long time. Now this is up to the world community and various international organizations including IMF, WB and ADB to help the deserving governments in devising a bail out strategy for the most affected section of their respective populations.

After two months of lockdown, Wuhan city has been reopened few days ago. With China reducing its daily number if patients and death rate, the numbers are surging in USA, Iran and Italy. But the most dangerous and disheartening thing is that no country knows any tried and tested formula to curb the spread of this virus until the vaccine is invented.

Every educational institute in almost majority of the world is closed, industries have been shut down , markets have been closed, offices have started work from home policy in short, the life has been halted at the hands of the virus that is not visible to the naked eye. The busiest places in the world have been transformed into the most deserted spots. There is n o hustle bustle in the liveliest places of this world.

Every affected country is fighting an endless battle with this virus without knowing that when this is going to end. WHO emphasizes more and more testing but even the most richest countries on the face of this planet are not able to test every single person. The health workers: including doctors, nurses and the paramedics are combating of the frontline with the most exposure to the virus than anyone else. This also reminds us about the nobility and selflessness about their profession.

The abandoned beach of Miami, empty streets of Venice, vacant mosques of Mecca and Medina, unoccupied streets of Budapest, clear surroundings of Trevi fountain and the closed Louvre museum are the depiction of the consequences that this virus had bought down on the people of this planet. It has restricted people in their homes for God Knows till when.

The world is in the dire need of hope and optimism which unfortunately seems very far away right now. There is emptiness and pessimism all around where no one knows till when this stand still mode is going to be activated. This consistent shallowness presses a thought in one’s mind that is this planet fed up of the daily routine of its inhabitants or it wanted to take some break from the usual happenings of the mankind. Despite of that, the debate that this virus is going to change the social and personal norms of the mankind, is quite uncontested.

The more this present stalemate lasts the more this question persists in one’s  mind that Is Earth in the recovery mode?

Continue Reading
Comments

New Social Compact

Disability policies must be based on what the disabled need

Published

on

Diversity policies, especially when it comes to disabled people, are often created and implemented by decision makers with very different life experiences to those who their policies affect most.

We would never expect economic policy to be crafted without input from economists and bankers. We should demand the same for disability policies, if we want to create the change needed to produce inclusive societies.

Starting in 2017, I was humbled to be given an opportunity to develop the first multi-media, audio dictionary translating Bangla to English. As a disabled individual who is visually impaired, I was uniquely placed to design such a programme, based on my lived experience. The principle of entrusting service design to those who have the most experience in that area is a logical, common-sense approach to policy, yet many governments can do more in this area. 

This has been particularly true throughout the pandemic, where it has been even more important to respond quickly and appropriately to the needs of citizens. 

For example, school children have been failed in many countries through poor or non-existent education provision. Medical professionals have been let down due to poor access to PPE.

This begs the question, why haven’t teachers created public policy regarding schools? Why haven’t Doctors and nurses been a bigger part of public policy with regards to hospital management and equipment? 

Those who have direct, lived experience should be able to formulate policy. I’m grateful that in Bangladesh and other nations, this is what is increasingly happening, with some groundbreaking results. 

If nothing else, this approach is consistent with other professions: When applying for a job, an employer will always demand evidence of past experience. There is no reason why this should not apply to policy and politics. 

You would never hire a builder to work on your house if they had never set foot on a building site: at most, you could hire an experienced interdisciplinary project manager if he or she was relying on the expertise of seasoned builders. 

The benefit of applying lived experience to problem-solving has long been established in business – governments should follow suit. 

The founders of the ‘Lean methodology’ are a great example of this, where they developed a process of continuous improvement and waste elimination that saw a failing car production company, Toyota, turn into a global market leader. 

This methodology’s pioneers, Kiichiro Toyoda and Taiichi Ohno, would demand that those working on the camper van, for example, would travel themselves in the vans they were trying to improve. This enabled them to uncover the sources of discomfort created through poor design, in a way that would have been impossible in a design office in Tokyo. 

This cannot be directly applied to disability policy – it would be unethical and impossible to ask someone to be ‘blind’ for a period of time, in order to develop better policy.

The next best thing is for policy makers to engage with those who have the experience. 

This isn’t about denigrating the policymaking experience of those in government, but it is about helping them empathise with those whom their decisions impact. When public services are not designed with empathy for the people who use them, they are useless, or even potentially harmful. 

The a2i empathy training programme, for example, arranges for relatively senior government officers to act as secret shoppers and visit citizens’ access points for services outside of their ministry or area of expertise. This exercise puts them in “citizens’ shoes” since they are forced to navigate public systems without any official or intellectual privileges. This experience helps participants develop a critical eye that they use to scrutinise their own agency’s delivery systems and improve the overall quality of services. 

This kind of real-world experience (either through engaging with service users, or by putting policy makers’ in service users’ shoes), as well as high-level expertise, should be part of governance as we move towards a ‘new normal’. 

There is no reason why Ministers for health shouldn’t be ex-Doctors, and Ministers for education can’t be ex-teachers. And there is no reason why disability policy cannot be informed by disabled people.

Public service is not rocket science, but if it was, it would make sense to entrust it to the rocket scientists. 

Continue Reading

New Social Compact

Reform of mental health services: An urgent need and a human rights imperative

Published

on

Already in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, the World Health Organisation (WHO) was warning that substantial investment in mental health services was necessary to avert a mental health crisis. The evidence for the devastating impact of the pandemic on mental health is now overwhelming. The reasons for this are clear: the pandemic caused fear and anxiety for everyone, and many of us had to face illness, grief over lost family members, insecurity and loss of income. In addition to this extraordinary burden placed on our mental health, we were cut off from our usual support networks, friends and families, while the pandemic was also disrupting the delivery of existing mental health services themselves.

Not everyone has been affected in the same way by the pandemic, and mental health is no exception here. Among others, the mental health of certain demographics such as older persons, children and adolescents, and women, as well as that of disadvantaged groups such as persons with disabilities, LGBTI people and migrants has been affected more compared to the general population. For example, in a statement I co-signed with the UN Independent Expert on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and numerous other human rights experts, we alerted states to increasing mental health problems for LGBTI people, in particular youth, notably as a result of having to shelter with family members who were unsupportive of or hostile towards their LGBTI identity.

I recently published an Issue Paper entitled “Protecting the right to health through inclusive and resilient health care for all” in which I set out twelve recommendations. These include universal health coverage (of which mental health services are an essential component), more equality and dignity for patients, more participation and empowerment in relevant decision-making, the promotion of transparency and accountability throughout policy cycles, and better health communication policies. Since the right to health is defined as the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, these recommendations naturally apply to mental health care as well. Some recommendations, however, are more specific to mental health, such as those related to the need to ensure that mental health services are accessible to all when needed, of appropriate quality and affordable, to transition from an institutional to a community-based model and to eliminate coercive practices in mental health services.

Mental health systems: a longstanding source of human rights violations

While the additional strain generated by the pandemic is new, the mental health situation and lack of services has been a neglected human rights crisis in Europe for a long time. Despite the suffering and economic burden caused by mental health problems, mental health spending in the WHO European region was estimated to amount to only 1% of total health expenditure in 2019, and the majority of that expenditure was channelled towards mental health hospitals. In a very important report in 2017, the UN Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health was already raising the alarm over the fact that “the arbitrary division of physical and mental health and the subsequent isolation and abandonment of mental health has contributed to an untenable situation of unmet needs and human rights violations”.

In my Issue Paper on health, I called on governments to pay attention to the essential social determinants of health in order to rebuild more inclusive and resilient health care systems, notably social protection, living conditions, working environment and education. These are all the more relevant for mental health, since mental well-being is determined not only by individual attributes but also by the social environment which can prevent, cause or aggravate mental health problems. In recent decades, a human rights-based, holistic and psychosocial understanding of mental health has been emerging, but this approach still faces a lot of resistance in many of our member states, where a reductionist, biomedical paradigm remains prevalent. Further problems identified in the aforementioned report of the Special Rapporteur are power asymmetries in mental health policies and services, and the biased use of evidence in mental health. In combination, these reinforce a vicious cycle of stigmatisation, disempowerment, social exclusion and coercion.

In order to rise to the challenge posed by the pandemic for mental health services, it is essential to reform them, as well as relevant laws and policies, urgently and from the ground up. As with health policy generally, the imperative to prevent human rights violations must be the guiding principle behind these reforms.

The human rights of persons with mental health problems or psychosocial disabilities (i.e. disabilities arising from the interaction between a person with a mental health condition and their environment) are routinely violated in two significant ways. Firstly, their human rights continue to be violated by mental health services themselves, notably because they often display a tendency towards paternalism, coercion and institutionalisation. Secondly, affected patients may not have access to the care they need to achieve the highest attainable standard of health. In this connection, we should bear in mind that this right depends on the realisation of many other human rights, notably those enshrined in the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).

Coercion: a persistent source of human rights violations

In a recent report on its visit to Bulgaria, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) documented how patients in psychiatric hospitals were subjected to widespread and systematic ill-treatment at the hands of staff: they were slapped, pushed, punched, kicked, beaten with sticks, chained to beds and medicated without consent. While this example is particularly horrific, we should not forget that similar institutions, and the underlying approach taking coercion for granted, are still common in the majority of our member states, as demonstrated, for example, in recent exposés on the situation of psychiatric hospitals in Malta. My own Office has addressed human rights violations caused by such institutions in a large number of member states, including in an intervention before the European Court of Human Rights.

Why is this still accepted in 2021? Historically, fear, rejection and isolation have been our default response to persons with mental health problems. The ingrained fear and stigma of mental illness is still very strong, fuelling prejudice and the narrative that persons with mental health problems pose a danger to themselves and to society, against all available statistical evidence to the contrary – persons with mental health problems are in fact far more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators. Mental health laws that normalise closed institutions and forced treatment confirm and reinforce these prejudices. Furthermore, while there is ample evidence that coercive treatment may lead to substantial trauma and that fear of coercion can actually deter persons experiencing mental ill-health from seeking help, there appears to be little scientific evidence to substantiate the supposed benefits of forced treatment.

In 2019, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe unanimously adopted a groundbreaking Resolution calling on member states to end coercion in mental health, pointing to the fact that the number of persons subjected to coercion was still growing in Europe. It noted that so-called safeguards to prevent excessive use of coercion had not reduced but, on the contrary, seemed to have increased coercion, for example in France following a reform in 2011: what is defined as last resort in legislation often becomes the default approach, especially when resources are scarce. The corresponding report presented to the Parliamentary Assembly also reflects my observations concerning the marked differences in the level of involuntary placements between countries, but also between different regions of the same country or even from one hospital to another, suggesting that the main cause of coercion is not the inherent dangerousness of persons or therapeutic necessity, but an institutional culture that confines more out of prejudice or habit. This interpretation is supported by research.

In my address to the Parliamentary Assembly prior to the adoption of this Resolution, I drew attention to how my own country work allowed me to see first-hand the vicious circles caused by a mental health approach based on coercion, which perpetuates the isolation of the very persons who need the support of their community the most, fuelling more stigma and irrational fear. The lack of community-based, voluntary mental health services also results in even more coercion and deprivation of liberty.

I have also shared my observation that safeguards supposed to protect persons from arbitrariness and ill-treatment are reduced to mere formalities because they operate in a legal system where persons with mental health problems do not even have a chance to have their voices heard, owing to the profound power asymmetry between the patient and physician in most mental health settings. Judges almost invariably follow the opinion of the psychiatrist over the wishes of the patient, when the law provides for such a possibility. At their worst, such safeguards do little more than ease the conscience of those who are in fact taking part in human rights violations.

My position on coercion in psychiatry and the Resolution of the Parliamentary Assembly should be seen against the background of a growing consensus within the international community to consider involuntary measures without the informed consent of persons with mental health problems as human rights violations, or even as possibly amounting to torture. This is in large part due to the paradigm shift operated by the CRPD when it entered into force in 2008, and the efforts of civil society, in particular of persons with lived experience of mental health problems and psychosocial disabilities, to have their say in policy-making. As a result, a growing number of relevant international and national human rights bodies are now calling for an end to coercion and its replacement by community-based treatment options based on consent. This approach is slowly making headway in the medical community as well, as can be seen in the growing body of WHO guidance to states to reduce coercion, establish community-based alternatives and integrate mental health into primary care. Similarly, the World Psychiatric Association issued a position statement on the need to reduce coercion in October 2020.

This revolution is rooted in the CRPD and it would be a mistake to cling to older Council of Europe standards that place the bar lower. In this context, it is regrettable that work is still continuing in the Council of Europe on a draft Additional Protocol to the Oviedo Convention that reflects an outdated, biomedicine-driven approach reducing mental health to mental disorders and empowering physicians to forcibly confine and treat persons without consent, with virtually no limit being set on the duration of this placement or the treatments to be used. The vagueness of the definitions in this text and the trust in the judgement of a single physician, which appears misplaced given the human rights violations we are still witnessing on a daily basis, could easily give the impression of sanctioning even the worst kinds of human rights abuses in psychiatry. The opposition of the Parliamentary Assembly, several UN bodies including the treaty body of the CRPD, the unanimous protests of representative organisations of persons with psychosocial disabilities and my own opposition to this initiative have so far been ignored.

I call on member states to stop supporting such initiatives at international level, which may create confusion and become a stumbling block to necessary progress in advancing the human rights agenda when it comes to mental health. If new international standards do not nurture the paradigm shift from institutional to community-based care, and from coercive to consent-based care, they should at least do no harm by muddying the waters.

The way forward

A number of member states have started reviewing their mental health legislation in the light of these considerations, for example in Ireland and in the UK. What I found particularly positive with these two examples is the commitment to engage with civil society, and in particular users and providers of mental health services. Initiatives by representative organisations of persons with psychosocial disabilities to promote more inclusive policy-making, for example in the ongoing trialogue in Germany, are also to be commended. The active participation of persons with lived experience of using mental health services in defining policies, in particular, is a sine qua non condition of successful mental health reform, as their exclusion from the debate so far has allowed human rights violations to continue unchecked for as long as they have. This is also a general obligation under Article 4(3) of the CRPD.

The realisation of the right to full enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of mental health depends on the realisation of many other crucial human rights. In particular, member states need to conduct the necessary reforms of their mental health legislation in parallel with reforms in two crucial areas affecting core rights enshrined in the CRPD: legal capacity (Article 12) and the right to live independently and be included in the community (Article 19). Mental health care that truly respects the autonomy, dignity, will and preferences of service users is simply not possible so long as legal systems continue to tolerate substituted decision-making or segregation in institutions. Ongoing legal capacity reforms in our member states are very important in this respect. States must ensure that persons with mental health problems or psychosocial disabilities, including children, never lose their say on decisions involving their health, if necessary by providing the appropriate supports for decision-making, in order to ensure that mental health care is provided on the basis of free and informed consent. For as long as involuntary measures remain a reality, it is also crucial to ensure full access to justice to challenge any decision, an area where there are also some good practices, for example in the Netherlands.

As for institutions, I refer to the longstanding recommendations of my Office to put an end to their use, starting with immediate moratoria on future placements. Experience shows the crucial importance of closing large psychiatric hospitals where persons are involuntarily placed. To take one example, Italy was a pioneer in this respect by initiating a process of gradual closure of psychiatric hospitals from 1978, replacing them with alternatives closer to the community. While Italy is also facing a number of problems regarding the use of coercive measures in psychiatric establishments that still need to be addressed, it should be thought-provoking that the rate of involuntary placements in Italy today appear to be lower, by orders of magnitude, than in neighbouring states.

Reduction of coercive practices in psychiatric services, including the use of restraints and forced medication, and their progressive elimination should be another immediate priority. As mentioned above, the institutional culture and habits largely determine the prevalence of such measures. For example, my predecessor recommended to Denmark in 2013 that recourse to coercion in psychiatry be drastically reduced, and I was happy to note that a psychiatric centre in Ballerup had managed to put an end to the use of restraints as a first in the country, by training staff on conflict management and increasing physical activity for residents, without augmenting medication, for the benefit of both patients and staff.

The ultimate goal must be to replace institutions and a coercion-based mental health system by a recovery- and community-based model, which promotes social inclusion and offers a range of rights-based treatments and psychosocial support options. These can take many different forms and many models exist including, for example, support provided by peers or a support network, patient advocates/personal ombudspersons, advanced planning, community crisis resolution or open dialogue. It is also crucial to deconstruct the lingering stigma associated with seeking help for mental health problems, whether this is done in the school environment, at the workplace or in primary healthcare centres, through targeted awareness-raising and outreach. Only then can mental health services, as an integral part of primary care, be universally available to individuals throughout the entire life cycle. Once more, true involvement of persons with lived experience in the design, implementation, delivery and monitoring of these services is crucial.

Member states can take inspiration from several compilations of promising practices at the European and global levels, as well as ongoing projects and research conducted into community-based delivery of recovery-oriented mental health services, such as the RECOVER-E project running in Croatia, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Bulgaria and Romania. I am also conscious of the potential impact of new technologies on mental health care, which represent both opportunities and serious risks for human rights, and I refer to my general recommendations concerning human rights and artificial intelligence.

In this context, I encourage states to pay special attention to the mental health of children and adolescents, not least because of the extraordinary strain that the COVID-19 pandemic has placed on them. Lockdown measures and prolonged school closures have deprived them, more than other groups, of their usual routines, while exposing them to isolation and an increase in violence and abuse. We should not forget that childhood and adolescence are crucial periods for life-long mental health. Mental ill-health experienced in the formative years of one’s life, for example as a result of adversities or trauma, affects brain development and the ability to form healthy relationships and life skills. Children and adolescents therefore need non-bureaucratic access to mental health support, as early as necessary and as least invasively as possible, without any shame attached. Institutionalisation of children, on the other hand, has a devastating impact on childhood development. We also need to bear in mind that suicide was one of the leading causes of death among adolescents in the European region even before the pandemic, which makes recent evidence of a marked increase in anxiety levels, depression and self-harm among young people particularly alarming. In order to prevent future burdens on mental health systems, it is crucial to expand our capacities for early psychosocial interventions for children by building on innovative and community-based child mental health services, rather than pursuing the worrying trend of ever-increasing use of psychotropic medication on children.

Mental health reform is an extremely challenging task for all our member states, given the complexity of the issues and the huge gap between agreed international standards and the reality on the ground. This, however, makes it all the more urgent. Let us turn the current challenge of the pandemic into an opportunity, by thoroughly transforming mental health services in Europe, with human rights as our guide and compass.

Council of Europe

Continue Reading

New Social Compact

Drawing the Line: Dark Side of Higher Education

Published

on

“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.” [Martin Luther King, Jr.]

Educational institutions are places for intellectuals to develop a mindset and criticize things that are contrary to the norms. Higher education is a place where students develop literacy and soft skills development, which is essentially a safe space for every student, including a safe place for women from all kinds of threats such as sexual assault.

However, it turns out sexual assault on campuses still exist around the world. In fact, those cases often occur in universities and are a public secret that most of the parties in it have deliberately forgotten. Not many victims dare to report because the stigma towards victims is still exceedingly strong which particularly did by parties who have more power and authority in educational institution. In addition, the absence of policies and even sanctions imposed on perpetrators has impacted to a low number of offender who dare to report.

The sexual assault definition involves crimes where offenders subject victims to any unwanted or offensive sexual contact. According to a 2019 Association of American Universities (AAU) survey on sexual assault and misconduct, there is a 13% rate of non- consensual sexual contact in colleges. In line with the fact, direct complaints to National Commission on Violence Against Women of Indonesia between 2015 till August 2020 show that the educational environment is not a free space from sexual assault.

Moreover,  the  Student  Executive  Board  of  the  Faculty  of  Law,  Universitas Indonesia (UI) reveals a survey of 177 UI students in 2018. The results stated that 21 (twenty one) people had experienced sexual assault on campus, 39 (thirty nine) people were known about those cases. Sadly, only 11 (eleven) people of them who dare to report. This is kind of heartbreaking phenomenon because 79% of respondents stated that they did not know where they could report sexual assault cases.

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 defined sexual assault on campus is happen when 1) submission to or rejection of such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual’s employment or academic work; or 2) submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for

employment or academic decisions affecting such individual; or 3) such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s performance or creating   an   intimidating,   hostile   or   sexually   offensive   working   or   academic environment. So, would you tolerate a place to pursue dreams tainted by sexual assault?

Philosophy of Campuses

In order to describe the role of an ideal university, The Father of Education in Indonesia, Ki Hadjar Dewantoro, stated motto for an educator that still relevant today. There are Ing ngarso sung tulodo, Ing madyo ambangun karso, and Tut wuri handayani. In general, Ing ngarso sung tulodo contains that an educator must exemplify good and correct measures verbal or non-verbally, because students tend to imitate what the educator is doing. Then, Ing madyo ambangun karso is in the midst of students, an educator must be able to provide motivation, encourages enthusiasm in achieving their goals, and Tut wuri handayani means an educator are behind the students who must be able to provide atmosphere in encouraging the enthusiasm of students, so that students feeling confident to take all steps in their life.

Within this atmosphere there is a very harmonious, synergic and responsible relationship between educators and students, so that the essence of education can be realized. Philosophically, an educator is the role as a father, as a teacher, as a parent, as a friend and as a student environment in an educational environment. Educators and students are elements or components that are interrelated and exist in a system called the education system. In a system, elements are interconnected and interrelated, so that they  move  in  balance,  synergistically,  harmoniously.  This  condition  is  a  supporting factor for the achievement of educational goals. If one of elements does not run well, the results of education system are not maximal as we expected. Therefore, that is why education is a system which is united and interrelated with each other which trying to achieve goals.

What should campuses do?

The American Council on Education Sexual Harassment Guidelines states that an effective campus program on sexual harassment has at least five elements:

1.   A basic definition of sexual harassment;

2.   A strong policy that clearly states that sexual harassment will not be tolerated;

3.   Effective   communication   to   inform   students,   faculty,   staff,   and   campus administrators of policies against sexual harassment;

4.   Educational programs designed to help all community members recognize and prevent sexual harassment; and

5.   An accessible, effective and timely complaint procedure.

Sadly, several universities took a various of preventive and repressive measures to deal with the sexual assault after various cases of sexual assault surfaced in various media, such as making a rector’s regulation related to prevention and handling of sexual assault on campus, establishing a reporting and complaint mechanism, forming a sexual assault handling team, to legal assistance. It means that campuses have not seen sexual assault as terrible issues that must be prevented, and it is the responsibility of every university in order to create a safe and conducive atmosphere for students. Moreover, the law of Sexual Assault Abolishing (RUU PKS) in Indonesia has not been passed even excluded from priority national legislation programs when high cases of sexual assault occur.

Government  must  create  a  regulation  that  obligated  campus  to  build  various sexual assault prevention components by create Ministerial Regulation by Ministry of Women Empowerment and Child Protection also by Ministry of Education and Culture. Furthermore, campus must build those components which are create Rector Regulation concerning to sexual assault, establish report center, having a particular psychologist and counselor,  establish legal aid, making policies based on gender oriented, having a good control system, having supportive infrastructure as well. And the most crucial thing is, campus must build a clear complaint mechanism with regard to the rights of victim and the principle of confidentiality.

Through this article, writer want to emphasize that sexual assault on campus is a matter issues to consider by law maker. Campus issues are not always about bureaucracy, corruption, or conflict of interest, and so on, but also sexual assault. We are not obligated to remain in situation that makes we feel as vulnerable meanwhile we just need to pursue our careers or studies without being sexually harassed. How can you remain in situation that deemed you as sexual object? Please, make sure your voice is heard.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

South Asia11 hours ago

Pakistan and Germany are keen to Sustain Multifaceted and Mutually beneficial Cooperation

Pakistan has varied history of relationship and cooperation with other countries in international arena. Despite of proactive foreign policy Pakistan...

New Social Compact13 hours ago

Disability policies must be based on what the disabled need

Diversity policies, especially when it comes to disabled people, are often created and implemented by decision makers with very different...

WAN WAN
Urban Development15 hours ago

Preparing (Mega)Cities for the 2020s: An Inmovative Image and Investment Diplomacy

Globalized megacities will definitely dominate the future, in the same way as colonial empires dominated the 19th century and nation-states...

modi xi jinping modi xi jinping
East Asia17 hours ago

The Galwan Conflict: Beginning of a new Relationship Dynamics

The 15th June, 2020 may very well mark a new chapter in the Indo-Chinese relationship and pave the way for...

airplane travel airplane travel
Reports19 hours ago

Aviation Sector Calls for Unified Cybersecurity Practices to Mitigate Growing Risks

The aviation industry needs to unify its approach to prevent cybersecurity shocks, according to a new study released today by...

diesel engine diesel engine
Tech News19 hours ago

7 Driving Habits That Are Secretly Damaging Your Diesel Engine

When it comes to driving, no one is perfect, and everyone makes mistakes. But could these habits be costing you...

sofa gate erdogan sofa gate erdogan
Europe21 hours ago

Ммm is a new trend in the interaction between the EU and Turkey:”Silence is golden” or Musical chair?

On April 6, a protocol collapse occurred during a meeting between President of Turkey R. Erdogan, President of the European...

Trending