Ethiopian Women's Movement Needs a
New Strategy
11 January, 2012 | By Seble Teweldebirhan
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
murder and illegal possession of a gun. However, despite the public
prosecutors proposal for death penalty or life imprisonment, the
court decided, considering several mitigating grounds, including his
HIV/Aids positive status, 14 years of imprisonment. Many were
disappointed by this verdict of the court, especially the women’s
rights movement in Ethiopia.
The minute after the news was heard that Ethiopian airlines senior
flight attendant Aberash, 36, was attacked brutally in her own house
by ex husband Fisseha, anger broke out inside the society. Right
away, the case was associated with women’s rights in Ethiopia.
Demonstrations and petition requesting for the biggest punishment
possible took place in different parts of the country. The case
brought many forgotten and neglected pains of women. Of course,
the expectation among those who actively participated and followed
the case was that, at the minimum Fisseha will be punished by life
imprisonment. The anticipation among this group was that the
decision once for all would teach potential offenders how serious the
government and the justice system is when it comes to women’s
right.
Despite this high expectations, the court passed a sentence that
appears rather insensitive and somehow discourteous to the
nationwide women’s movement. The main question here is what this
decision really means to women in Ethiopia.
After the sentence was announced, one that hardly met
expectations, many started to doubt whether there will be any
change on the direction of women’s rights in Ethiopia. Many also
started asking how far the pressure can go if the entire movement
remains dependent on individual cases, which has high probability of
ending up discouraging the movement itself. The question also raises
one of the critical questions of all times, that is, should we treat all
crimes committed on women as a matter of gender? And will the
movement in general benefit from such an approach?
Undeniably, women in Ethiopia are victims of several gender-based
crimes: rape, sexual harassment, discriminations based on gender,
harmful traditional practices and several other crimes targeting
entirely women takes place every minute of everyday. However,
sometimes, it is important to question if all crimes committed on
women are gender-based. The relevance of this question might
lessen the disappointment women are suffering currently as an
outcome of Fisseha’s sentence. If the crime is one of those Gender
Based Violence, then the law has special answers to it. For
example, our criminal code specifies crimes committed against
women with a punishment that takes their gender relevance into
consideration.
Gender Based Violence is a term we use to refer violent acts that
are primarily or exclusively committed against women. Recently,
there seems to be a universal understanding that gender based
crimes is part of what is known as hate crime. A crime becomes a
hate crime when it is motivated by bias or prejudice against a person
or people perceived to be part of a certain group. It is entirely
intended to induce fear, and cause psychological harm. This is one
of the reasons violence against women, like rape, are not about
sexual desire, rather intended to maintain the power imbalance by
inducing fear and insecurity among women.
However, if we have to define every crime against women has some
gender connotation in it, then, the ultimate question will be how far
the advocacy based on such crimes can be effective in advancing
the movement for women’s rights in Ethiopia.
The movement towards ensuring the rights of women will suffer for
two main reasons when we try to use crimes committed against
women as an exclusive means of advocacy. First, experience in the
past has taught us that, especially when the movement is based on
cases, which is common in Ethiopia, it has a better chance of moving
backward. This is because, cases in the court of law are
unpredictable, and to obvious reasons, it is fundamentally wrong
(based on the basic legal principles of the rule of law and
presumption of innocence) to influence them by demonstration or
petition. Assuming that courts prioritize the rule of law, their decision
is entirely based on the evidence that is presented and what the law
provides for the specific crime. That seems to be why, regardless of
the huge campaign waged against Fisseha, the court passed a
sentence that disappointed many.
Therefore, the usual trend by women’s rights activists in Ethiopia,
which is organizing campaigns and demonstration only when women
are attacked for whatever reasons, might have negative
consequences. Instead of empowering women and making the issue
a public agenda, women rights activists take a risk of tarnishing the
little hope there is for women when they base their movement on
criminal cases which they do not control the outcome in any way.
Understandably, courts function despite the activists interpretation
and opinion of the case.
This is obvious for the activists who are legal professionals. When a
man is charged with attempted murder and possession of illegal
armament, it was obvious he was not looking for life imprisonment
or death penalty, no matter how many petitions are collected or
demonstrations take place. That is where the activists must do their
calculation on the consequence of the product of their case based
advocacy on women in general. This is because, the decision sends
a strong twisted message that says it was a women’s rights question
(since they have been advocating it be) but the court actually gave a
decision encouraging for potential offenders. For millions of women
who take the words of the activists, it is imaginable how
disappointing this ending can be.
The strategy that might keep women’s spirit up is pushing for a real
progress through policy changes, amendment of laws and trying to
get more gender sensitive laws from the lawmakers by regularly
advocating the matter. Only this will make courts pass sentences
that serve the sentiment of women.
The second relevant and crucial point in this case is, even if the
criminal – Fisseha in our case - received the maximum sentence
possible, let us say life imprisonment or death penalty, will this deter
potential offenders from committing such crime? Women’s rights
activists have been saying that severe penalties will ensure crimes
will not be committed on women in the future. Of course, deterrence
is one of the many justifications for criminal punishment. Among
Criminologists, however, there is a controversy that is as old as the
concept of crime itself on the point that if deterrence can actually be
achieved through punishments.
The prevalent attitude these days is that it is morally unacceptable to
aggravate punishment on the offender entirely for the purpose of
deterrence. Beyleveld, one of the prominent criminologists states as
follows, when arguing for this position. “…there exists no
scientific basis for expecting that a general deterrence policy
which does not involve unacceptable interference with human
rights will do anything to control crime rates…” Based on this
statement, we can achieve deterrence only if we are willing to take
the risk of violating the human rights of the offender. In the modern
society we are living in, we cannot expect courts to hang a person to
make a point.
Though scholars like Bentham made a significant point that man is
rational being who chooses between courses of action having first
calculated the risks of pain and pleasure, the prevalence thought is
that criminals do not make rational choices. This is because they act,
in the majority of the cases out of emotional instability through lack
of self-control. If we actually go with this line of argument, shouting
for the penalties to get severe is like throwing darts in the dark.
People are law abiding when they are in their rational state of mind
rather than based on fear of penalties.
The bottom line is that we need to be cautious when making
strategies for the movement on women’s rights. Before initiating
campaigns and demonstrations, activists must assess the significance
and the possible outcomes of a certain case on the movement in
general. This is because, once the matter is associated with the
movement of women’s rights, the decision of the court has an effect
on all women in the country. Many who do not understand the
details, but only expect a sentence that will be a lesson for every
man, are disappointed and become more insecure than ever
because of the outcome.
Women’s rights movement in Ethiopia needs a long-term strategy
that empowers women and give them the strength to stand up for
their rights under any situations. The present startagy, however,
might negatively affect women by reminding them they are always
victims and even the justice system is not on their side. This
obviously ends up putting the movement in a more fragile position.
Courtesy
New Strategy
11 January, 2012 | By Seble Teweldebirhan
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Aberash Hailay’s ex
husband Fisseha Tadesse
who was convicted for
gouging her eyes with a
knife and sentenced to
fourteen years in prison. His
crime caused a great deal of
commotion from the media
and women’s rights activists
murder and illegal possession of a gun. However, despite the public
prosecutors proposal for death penalty or life imprisonment, the
court decided, considering several mitigating grounds, including his
HIV/Aids positive status, 14 years of imprisonment. Many were
disappointed by this verdict of the court, especially the women’s
rights movement in Ethiopia.
The minute after the news was heard that Ethiopian airlines senior
flight attendant Aberash, 36, was attacked brutally in her own house
by ex husband Fisseha, anger broke out inside the society. Right
away, the case was associated with women’s rights in Ethiopia.
Demonstrations and petition requesting for the biggest punishment
possible took place in different parts of the country. The case
brought many forgotten and neglected pains of women. Of course,
the expectation among those who actively participated and followed
the case was that, at the minimum Fisseha will be punished by life
imprisonment. The anticipation among this group was that the
decision once for all would teach potential offenders how serious the
government and the justice system is when it comes to women’s
right.
Despite this high expectations, the court passed a sentence that
appears rather insensitive and somehow discourteous to the
nationwide women’s movement. The main question here is what this
decision really means to women in Ethiopia.
After the sentence was announced, one that hardly met
expectations, many started to doubt whether there will be any
change on the direction of women’s rights in Ethiopia. Many also
started asking how far the pressure can go if the entire movement
remains dependent on individual cases, which has high probability of
ending up discouraging the movement itself. The question also raises
one of the critical questions of all times, that is, should we treat all
crimes committed on women as a matter of gender? And will the
movement in general benefit from such an approach?
Undeniably, women in Ethiopia are victims of several gender-based
crimes: rape, sexual harassment, discriminations based on gender,
harmful traditional practices and several other crimes targeting
entirely women takes place every minute of everyday. However,
sometimes, it is important to question if all crimes committed on
women are gender-based. The relevance of this question might
lessen the disappointment women are suffering currently as an
outcome of Fisseha’s sentence. If the crime is one of those Gender
Based Violence, then the law has special answers to it. For
example, our criminal code specifies crimes committed against
women with a punishment that takes their gender relevance into
consideration.
Gender Based Violence is a term we use to refer violent acts that
are primarily or exclusively committed against women. Recently,
there seems to be a universal understanding that gender based
crimes is part of what is known as hate crime. A crime becomes a
hate crime when it is motivated by bias or prejudice against a person
or people perceived to be part of a certain group. It is entirely
intended to induce fear, and cause psychological harm. This is one
of the reasons violence against women, like rape, are not about
sexual desire, rather intended to maintain the power imbalance by
inducing fear and insecurity among women.
However, if we have to define every crime against women has some
gender connotation in it, then, the ultimate question will be how far
the advocacy based on such crimes can be effective in advancing
the movement for women’s rights in Ethiopia.
The movement towards ensuring the rights of women will suffer for
two main reasons when we try to use crimes committed against
women as an exclusive means of advocacy. First, experience in the
past has taught us that, especially when the movement is based on
cases, which is common in Ethiopia, it has a better chance of moving
backward. This is because, cases in the court of law are
unpredictable, and to obvious reasons, it is fundamentally wrong
(based on the basic legal principles of the rule of law and
presumption of innocence) to influence them by demonstration or
petition. Assuming that courts prioritize the rule of law, their decision
is entirely based on the evidence that is presented and what the law
provides for the specific crime. That seems to be why, regardless of
the huge campaign waged against Fisseha, the court passed a
sentence that disappointed many.
Therefore, the usual trend by women’s rights activists in Ethiopia,
which is organizing campaigns and demonstration only when women
are attacked for whatever reasons, might have negative
consequences. Instead of empowering women and making the issue
a public agenda, women rights activists take a risk of tarnishing the
little hope there is for women when they base their movement on
criminal cases which they do not control the outcome in any way.
Understandably, courts function despite the activists interpretation
and opinion of the case.
This is obvious for the activists who are legal professionals. When a
man is charged with attempted murder and possession of illegal
armament, it was obvious he was not looking for life imprisonment
or death penalty, no matter how many petitions are collected or
demonstrations take place. That is where the activists must do their
calculation on the consequence of the product of their case based
advocacy on women in general. This is because, the decision sends
a strong twisted message that says it was a women’s rights question
(since they have been advocating it be) but the court actually gave a
decision encouraging for potential offenders. For millions of women
who take the words of the activists, it is imaginable how
disappointing this ending can be.
The strategy that might keep women’s spirit up is pushing for a real
progress through policy changes, amendment of laws and trying to
get more gender sensitive laws from the lawmakers by regularly
advocating the matter. Only this will make courts pass sentences
that serve the sentiment of women.
The second relevant and crucial point in this case is, even if the
criminal – Fisseha in our case - received the maximum sentence
possible, let us say life imprisonment or death penalty, will this deter
potential offenders from committing such crime? Women’s rights
activists have been saying that severe penalties will ensure crimes
will not be committed on women in the future. Of course, deterrence
is one of the many justifications for criminal punishment. Among
Criminologists, however, there is a controversy that is as old as the
concept of crime itself on the point that if deterrence can actually be
achieved through punishments.
The prevalent attitude these days is that it is morally unacceptable to
aggravate punishment on the offender entirely for the purpose of
deterrence. Beyleveld, one of the prominent criminologists states as
follows, when arguing for this position. “…there exists no
scientific basis for expecting that a general deterrence policy
which does not involve unacceptable interference with human
rights will do anything to control crime rates…” Based on this
statement, we can achieve deterrence only if we are willing to take
the risk of violating the human rights of the offender. In the modern
society we are living in, we cannot expect courts to hang a person to
make a point.
Though scholars like Bentham made a significant point that man is
rational being who chooses between courses of action having first
calculated the risks of pain and pleasure, the prevalence thought is
that criminals do not make rational choices. This is because they act,
in the majority of the cases out of emotional instability through lack
of self-control. If we actually go with this line of argument, shouting
for the penalties to get severe is like throwing darts in the dark.
People are law abiding when they are in their rational state of mind
rather than based on fear of penalties.
The bottom line is that we need to be cautious when making
strategies for the movement on women’s rights. Before initiating
campaigns and demonstrations, activists must assess the significance
and the possible outcomes of a certain case on the movement in
general. This is because, once the matter is associated with the
movement of women’s rights, the decision of the court has an effect
on all women in the country. Many who do not understand the
details, but only expect a sentence that will be a lesson for every
man, are disappointed and become more insecure than ever
because of the outcome.
Women’s rights movement in Ethiopia needs a long-term strategy
that empowers women and give them the strength to stand up for
their rights under any situations. The present startagy, however,
might negatively affect women by reminding them they are always
victims and even the justice system is not on their side. This
obviously ends up putting the movement in a more fragile position.
Courtesy
| All rights reserved. |
| Ethio Quest News Together We Can Make It! |
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
| Ethio Quest News: For latest Ethiopian News, views, Reviews and More |
| Zer'a Ya'aqob: Founder of Hatatism Why should one be proud of one's identity or country? Elyas Mulu Kiros New Year Message to patriotic Ethiopians Always keep a diamond in your mind! By Leoul Mekonen Are You An Ethiopian Patriot Or Our Enemies... Capt. Woldemikael Dagnachew What the wealth of nations is really built upon By Belai Zelleke1 The imperative for a new African history By Fikru Gebrekidan, Ph,D |
A day of reckoning and healing:
If not now, when...?
(Rev. Tegga Lendado, PhD)
- "We did not know how to
discipline ourselves but we
wanted to lead our nation.We
did not have peace within us
but we preached utopia. We
hid hatred and war in our
hearts but outwardly advocated for justice... More
If not now, when...?
(Rev. Tegga Lendado, PhD)
- "We did not know how to
discipline ourselves but we
wanted to lead our nation.We
did not have peace within us
but we preached utopia. We
hid hatred and war in our
hearts but outwardly advocated for justice... More
| Other Documents |
| A Challenge to All Ethiopians (Magn Nyang) "We, today's Ethiopians, are incompetent of analysis, principles, discipline, foresight, and vigilance. We are not mentally tough. We...More |
| Ethiopia's History of National Resistance for African Unity & Dignity |
| Previous Articles By Seble Teweldebirhan Many Ethiopians Still Dream of Going Abroad for Better Life By Seble Teweldebirhan Ethiopians Greeting New Year with Mixed Emotions By Seble Teweldebirhan |
