By PNG Echo
This is the second in the series about violence against women in PNG. It was my intention to just tell the stories in all their horrific detail … alas, although I consider myself a storyteller, sometimes the academic in me will not be still. An analysis of the case outlined below is instructive on some of the problems that women face in PNG when looking for justice. Within that problem also lies the solution (or at least a part thereof.) Read on:
The story:
A potential client went to see a young lawyer to complain that her husband was adulterous and wanted to take another wife. While I’m not sure with what she wanted him charged, the young lawyer did consider her case was clearly winnable.
Now, I know adultery is still on the statute books in PNG and I’m not sure about the polygamy laws and/or customs in the province in which she was residing at the time. It’s a fair assumption, though, that she wanted to stop her husband taking another wife.
Notwithstanding that she had a winnable case, this young lawyer dissuaded her from taking court action because winning in court would not stop her husband from beating her (a new piece of vital information) and there were the children to consider, he told her.
What a damning indictment of the efficacy of justice in PNG accompanied by an acceptance of a sick status quo.
Instead he gave her enough money to return to her home province but stipulated it must be alone and without taking any belongings or any of her children. Clearly this put her out of her husband’s reach. Problem solved?
No, no, no – it just exacerbated and further entrenched the customs of an unfair and unsafe society for women.
This lawyer’s solution represents pragmatism over justice and punishes the victim. I’m sure the young lawyer was well-meaning, BUT HE WAS WRONG.
The trouble is, this young lawyer grew up to become Justice George Manuhu of the National and Supreme Courts of Papua New Guinea and the learned judge has recently told this story to a public audience of thousands (available to millions) espousing the wisdom of the decision and exhorting others to take notice. With no juries in PNG, he now sits in sole judgment (in the first instance) on similar cases.
Why was he wrong?
- He was wrong because he knew that the wife was living with a violent man – yet he focussed on the victim rather than the perpetrator.
- She was the one punished by being banished, penniless, in the clothes she stood up in, back to her home province – yet she was the victim.
- He irresponsibly aided her to leave her children with a man he knew to be violent – what’s more, children whose mother abandons them suffer enormously – how would they know, at the time, that she had little choice?
- It was ignored that it left a miscreant living in the community who would possibly continue his violent ways because his illegal behaviour was never challenged – and it should have been – and by Manuhu. Removing the victim does nothing to curb the behaviour of the perpetrator who, in all probability, will just find another victim.
It was this lawyer’s job to prosecute alleged felons, not to find solutions that let off the offender scot free while penalising the victim. Perhaps he could have given her that one-way fare AFTER the courts had suitably punished the behaviour of the perpetrator, did he think of that?
It brings up the problem of the reluctance of anyone in PNG to tackle the problem of male perpetrated violence against females – or to even acknowledge it exists – except in the abstract. (I know, it is not the only problem that exists with violence but it is the predominant one and the one we are tackling here.)
The solution is for men to stop. It’s simple, really. Except who is going to make them?
When we have a system, in the main administered by men, (where are those women parliamentarians?) most of whom do their own share of wife-beating, according to recorded statistics, who’s going to stand up and point a finger and/or make a stand?
If the statistic of 70% (disputed, I know) is anywhere near the actuality, then we have around 78 parliamentarians who are perpetrators – and why would the judiciary be immune?
Apparently, the story has a happy ending for her: but the end does not justify the means and I find it alarming that the people who commented on the Jjudge’s post, to a wo/man, agreed with him. They were admiring – gushing even. No one had the wherewithal and the insight to say, “no, in this instance, you did not do well.”
Instead they said his story was:
“…inspiring”
“…the Manus way”
“…the ideal way to go”
and my all time favourite – which illustrates my next point perfectly
“…a worthy lesson for a lot of womenfolk.”
The lesson that I took away from the story is that the courts in PNG are all but useless to protect a woman that’s being brutalised and, in fact, they would prefer not to have to bother themselves with such a thing. Prosecuting a man on behalf of a woman would be anathema to many PNGeans – the women should take responsibility themselves (it’s probably their own fault).
I’m not at all surprised that commenters were sycophantic to Justice Manuhu. He is considered a PNG ‘Bik Man’ and the wisdom of a Bik Man is not to be questioned, just marvelled at.
With this one story, Justice Manuhu has set back the cause of beaten women in PNG and further entrenched the paradigms that keep her bruised and subdued.
Yet the perpetrator carried absolutely no responsibility – and that includes an obligation to obey the law – assault is against the law in PNG – yes, even assault on a woman (pardon my sarcasm – it’s hard to contain when I’m utterly disgusted).
Solution within the problem
How much more useful would it have been had the learned judge said something about the evil’s of bashing women? How much more useful if he had roundly condemned the man’s behaviour and said that the courts would not tolerate the flagrant breaking of the laws of the land? How much more useful would it have been if he had talked about zero tolerance in his court for perpetrators of violence against women – that should these miscreants be before him, that he’d throw the book at them? But did he? No he did not.
You ‘Bik Men’ know your word is gospel to those who look up to you – use it to solve the biggest problem you have in PNG today – or can we assume that you are part of the problem: a perpetrator yourself?
In the USA over 50% of the marriages fall into Divorce category. And hopefully other developed countries are the same who knows.
You speak of law and yet your law sets marriage apart, create home for the orphans of those whose parents could’nt afford looking after them and yet you split the child from the parent.
We talk of the law as if it can solve a problem.
Dr. Susan Merrel let me reassure you that no matter how much you try to change our culture and mind sets, your solution will lead to broken homes and families.
While ours allow the perpetrator to face the consequences of his decisions and in time come to realization. If Love is the case they reunite and become good couples.
The law forces people because it punishes. Our culture do not force people it allows us to face our choices.
After all in marriage you cant force LOVE by the use of LAW. It is the origin of marriage and all the accompanies it, both good and bad and those factors determine the life span and quality of the bondage.
What ARE you talking about? Anyway, I’ll have whatever you’re smoking.
Perhaps this will help in your understanding of the problems that arise from introducing new laws willynilly into a country which has not had its own reformation. I am not in any way condoning the issue of the moment here but what I am saying is that if you really think that you can enforce the mores of a first or second world country onto a country where, in many places its citizens first look at a wheel was on the undercarriage of an aeroplane, then as our American cousins are saying you are really whistling Dixie.
I am not here being critical of your campaign against domestic violence in PNG, Dr., but I think you need to be more mindful of the gulf you have to bridge and this, to my mind is what my namesake here was getting at.
What makes you think that I’m not mindful of the the “gulf?” Most people are. Nevertheless, no one needs to re-invent the wheel – that’s already been done. NGOs are busy treading on eggs around the problem being “mindful of the gulf.” And yet for all their sensitivity the problem keeps getting worse, not better. Women are still dying – needlessly and in horrific circumstances. I have no need for you to outline the problem to me, nor does anyone else – we are all fully aware. What the women of PNG need is a solution. The new PM seems to be more amenable to tackling this problem – and I believe that if he puts resources and effort into it, it may just be the pivotal point. I hope so.
But in the meantime I will continue to point out why some thinking is dangerously erroneous (for women, that is.)
In answer to your opening question, Dr, your questioning of my namesakes’ comments, to with “What are you talking about..”
Sorry, to wit, not to with; I blame fat fingers and senility.