Parliament should have been united on issues of women, says Kashmala

ISLAMABAD: The Federal Ombudsman for Protection against Harassment, Kashmala Tariq, on Tuesday said the parliament should have been united on the issues of women. “It was the responsibility of all of us to ensure the prestige of workplace and women should also break their silence against injustices,” she said in an interview to the Jang Group on Tuesday on the eve of the National Day of Women, which will be observed today (Wednesday).

In an interview to the Jang Group, the Federal Ombudsman on Protection against Harassment, Kashmala Tariq, said the law of protection against harassment is not restricted only to women but its scope should also be widened to men and transgenders. “If any man faces harassment, he could also contact the Federal Ombudsman Secretariat Protection against Harassment,” she said.

She said women should also break their silence on injustices and harassment and should also not consider themselves insecure.

The Federal Ombudsman for Protection against Harassment said after the enactment of legislation for women rights in property and inheritance, it also comes under the scope of Federal Ombudsman for Protection against Harassment. She said the cases of harassment were decided in two months' time under the law.

"But the real issue is awareness among the people,” she said. She said the access to federal ombudsman with a complaint is very easy and there was no need of a lawyer for registering the complaint. “The complaints are also received through online access,” she said. Kashmala Tariq said sending of messages to any women colleague either it be of “Good Morning” or inviting for a cup of tea and or attempt to punish the complainant for refusal to comply to such a request or making sexual comments, offensive gestures or cat calling falls under the purview of harassment. “These kinds of messages and mails are evidence of harassment,” she said.

She said provisions for the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace builds on the principles of equal opportunity for men and women and their right to earn a livelihood without fear of discrimination.

She said the time has come that we have to change our thinking and it was not the right of any boss to offer any of his subordinate woman worker a lunch, dinner or tea because if she refused, then she may lost her job or get a transfer or get her central contract of job cancelled. She said every case of harassment brought new stories. “The cyber harassment also comes under the purview of Federal Ombudsman for Protection against Harassment,” she said. Kashmala Tariq said in these days, many cases of teachers' harassment of students were mostly coming and most of the harassment complaints related to giving better numbers in exam.

She said the Secretariat of Federal Ombudsman for Protection against Harassment was established through enactment of law by the parliament in March 2010 and she was assuming the post of the ombudsman for the last two years.

Kashmala Tariq said before she took charge of the office, only five cases of harassment were reported on monthly basis but since she took the charge, then on average 60 cases monthly were coming. This shows the people have shown their confidence in the Federal Ombudsman for Protection against Harassment and people have now started to feel that they have to break their silence. She said all the federal government departments and cellular companies come under the purview of the Federal Ombudsman for Protection against Harassment. She said the multinational companies have articulated SOPs for zero tolerance against the women harassment. She said the Federal Ombudsman has taken action on the complaint of senior women officers of Grade 19.

She said all the government departments and private offices were bound to display the code of conduct of the Federal Ombudsman for Protection against Harassment at a conspicuous place in the organization and workplace and on failure of an employer to comply with this provision, the employer shall be liable to fine, which may extend to one hundred thousand rupees but shall not be less than twenty-five thousand rupees.