NSHR Takes Issue Over Child Bill

I WOULD be pleased if you publish this letter. This is our response to an anonymous opinion piece that appeared on pages 6 and 7 of The Namibian of March 3 2006.

The opinion in question is titled ‘The Children’s Status Bill – Does Public Opinion Matter?’ It accuses Government of inter alia “resolutely and repeatedly ignoring public opinion”. It also laments that contrary to “the public opinion” overwhelmingly expressed in two separate rounds of public hearings, the Children’s Status Bill (CSB) has returned to the National Assembly “with provisions mandating equal custody and guardianship for mothers and fathers of children born outside marriage, with no restriction on the parental rights of rapists and with custody and guardianship to go to the surviving parent automatically when the other parent dies”.Whose opinion was this? The author(s) of this opinion also sought to unfairly put us in bad light by deliberately and or negligently claiming that “of all the persons who spoke at [the National Council’s February 2006 hearings on CSB], there were only two submissions in favour of the Bill as it stands – from the National Society for Human Rights, and from one individual man”.Nothing could be further from the truth! It is this half-true accusation against us that has principally provoked this response.The accusation is half-truth or false in two basic respects: firstly, because out of a total of seven provisions which the House of Review (i.e.National Council) invited NSHR to comment about, we agreed with only two provisions ‘as they stand’.Secondly, we have pointed out that CSB as it stood then was not “fully compliant and or compatible with the provisions” of the UN Convention on the Rights of Child (CRC).In an attempt to make it so compliant, we have made at least 10 recommendations! The record is there for everyone to see.Hence, it cannot be honestly, accurately and fairly claimed that NSHR has made a submission “in favour of the Bill as it stands”.The article is also fallacious in many other respects.In one such respect, the author(s) claimed that Government has ignored “public opinion”.By this claim the authors sought to create a false impression that their own opinions, supported by 19 or 25 organisations and individuals, constitute public opinion.However, the term “public opinion” is known to us to mean the cumulative of individual attitudes or beliefs held by the adult population.Hence, the fact that the opinions of the authors are supported by a total of 19 or 25 organisations and individuals “which work closely with women and children” can hardly be called the opinion of the general adult population of the country.Nor can it be truthfully claimed that the opinions of all NGOs and or civil society organisations in this country are those of the general adult population.Or can it? The anonymous authors also wrote: “On the key issues of custody, guardianship and the rights of rapists over children fathered through rape, the [NC hearings] Committee recommendations were consistently rejected by votes of three to 15.The only three members of the National Council (NC) to support the [NC hearings] Committee on these points were the three MPs who were members of the Committee.There was very little debate on any of the main issues, with the other members of the NC seemingly having already made up their minds on which way to vote”.One also wonders why the whole Parliament (i.e.both National Assembly and NC) but three MPs has apparently ignored or rejected “the public opinions” of a total of 19 or even 25 “experts”, grassroots women and respected organisations, which work nationally with women and children.Phrases such as “organisations which work with women and children”, “about 40 women and six men”, “women and men alike”, “women stated that they wanted good fathers to be involved with children”, “if a child goes to live with the father, the child will not have stability”, “concerns about men who father children through rape”, “most men are not participating in the processes to develop legislation in the best interests of children”, “men are simply ‘not sensitised’” and “absentee fathers should not be able to enjoy equal custody rights” – create an impression that the author/s of the opinion piece in question might be feminists or women’s rights defenders who tried to use CSB as a battleground for equal rights for women.The authors have apparently forgotten that CSB is exclusively about the best interests of children: not the interests of non-children whether or not they are women or men.In addition, the argument that “if a child goes to live with the father, the child will not have stability but will be passed around among his girlfriends and female relatives” defeats the impression being created that all women are automatically capable of serving the best interests of children while all men are apparently automatically incapable.The authors also exposed themselves and their hidden agenda when they claimed: “…grandparents are often the people who end up caring for children” and that the rights of such grandparents should receive greater protection in CSB”.Wasn’t CSB supposed to be all about the rights and best interests of only children? The authors also argued: “Several speakers, both male and female, expressed concerns about men who father children through rape, and were afraid that such ‘a rapist’ could come later and claim the child”.A highly emotional phrase “rapist fathers” was used.This argument could only be valid in countries where perpetual presumption of guilt is allowed.Moreover, a father who has raped the mother of his children and who consequently has been found guilty in a court of law and who has received the prescribed prison sentence and who has completed such a sentence can no longer be called “a rapist”.Otherwise, a man (or even a woman) who is a rape suspect belongs in jail and cannot be allowed to roam around freely, let alone to have access to any children.It is totally absurd! Last but no least, we are a truly independent and impartial organisation.Sometimes we must go it alone if necessary and as a matter of principle, even if this is contrary to the opinions of many other fellow civil society organisations.Nor do we avoid so-called controversial or “politically” sensitive or unpopular issues.Proof of this is the fact of all NGOs in this country, we have probably been the most vocal, the fastest and first organisation to react when and if Government officials threaten, for example, the rights of sexual minorities (i.e.gay and lesbian people).As a general human rights organisation, we campaign for due recognition of all human rights, without exception.Dorkas Phillemon National Society for Human RightsIt also laments that contrary to “the public opinion” overwhelmingly expressed in two separate rounds of public hearings, the Children’s Status Bill (CSB) has returned to the National Assembly “with provisions mandating equal custody and guardianship for mothers and fathers of children born outside marriage, with no restriction on the parental rights of rapists and with custody and guardianship to go to the surviving parent automatically when the other parent dies”.Whose opinion was this? The author(s) of this opinion also sought to unfairly put us in bad light by deliberately and or negligently claiming that “of all the persons who spoke at [the National Council’s February 2006 hearings on CSB], there were only two submissions in favour of the Bill as it stands – from the National Society for Human Rights, and from one individual man”.Nothing could be further from the truth! It is this half-true accusation against us that has principally provoked this response.The accusation is half-truth or false in two basic respects: firstly, because out of a total of seven provisions which the House of Review (i.e.National Council) invited NSHR to comment about, we agreed with only two provisions ‘as they stand’.Secondly, we have pointed out that CSB as it stood then was not “fully compliant and or compatible with the provisions” of the UN Convention on the Rights of Child (CRC).In an attempt to make it so compliant, we have made at least 10 recommendations! The record is there for everyone to see.Hence, it cannot be honestly, accurately and fairly claimed that NSHR has made a submission “in favour of the Bill as it stands”.The article is also fallacious in many other respects.In one such respect, the author(s) claimed that Government has ignored “public opinion”.By this claim the authors sought to create a false impression that their own opinions, supported by 19 or 25 organisations and individuals, constitute public opinion.However, the term “public opinion” is known to us to mean the cumulative of individual attitudes or beliefs held by the adult population.Hence, the fact that the opinions of the authors are supported by a total of 19 or 25 organisations and individuals “which work closely with women and children” can hardly be called the opinion of the general adult population of the country.Nor can it be truthfully claimed that the opinions of all NGOs and or civil society organisations in this country are those of the general adult population.Or can it? The anonymous authors also wrote: “On the key issues of custody, guardianship and the rights of rapists over children fathered through rape, the [NC hearings] Committee recommendations were consistently rejected by votes of three to 15.The only three members of the National Council (NC) to support the [NC hearings] Committee on these points were the three MPs who were members of the Committee.There was very little debate on any of the main issues, with the other members of the NC seemingly having already made up their minds on which way to vote”.One also wonders why the whole Parliament (i.e.both National Assembly and NC) but three MPs has apparently ignored or rejected “the public opinions” of a total of 19 or even 25 “experts”, grassroots women and respected organisations, which work nationally with women and children.Phrases such as “organisations which work with women and children”, “about 40 women and six men”, “women and men alike”, “women stated that they wanted good fathers to be involved with children”, “if a child goes to live with the father, the child will not have stability”, “concerns about men who father children through rape”, “most men are not participating in the processes to develop legislation in the best interests of children”, “men are simply ‘not sensitised’” and “absentee fathers should not be able to enjoy equal custody rights” – create an impression that the author/s of the opinion piece in question might be feminists or women’s rights defenders who tried to use CSB as a battleground for equal rights for women.The authors have apparently forgotten that CSB is exclusively about the best interests of children: not the interests of non-children whether or not they are women or men.In addition, the argument that “if a child goes to live with the father, the child will not have stability but will be passed around among his girlfriends and female relatives” defeats the impression being created that all women are automatically capable of serving the best interests of children while all men are apparently automatically incapable.The authors also exposed themselves and their hidden agenda when they claimed: “…grandparents are often the people who end up caring for children” and that the rights of such grandparents should receive greater protection in CSB”.Wasn’t CSB supposed to be all about the rights and best interests of only children? The authors also argued: “Several speakers, both male and female, expressed concerns about men who father children through rape, and were afraid that such ‘a rapist’ could come later and claim the child”.A highly emotional phrase “rapist fathers” was used.This argument could only be valid in countries where perpetual presumption of guilt is allowed.Moreover, a father who has raped the mother of his children and who consequently has been found guilty in a court of law and who has received the prescribed prison sentence and who has completed such a sentence can no longer be called “a rapist”.Otherwise, a man (or even a woman) who is a rape suspect belongs in jail and cannot be allowed to roam around freely, let alone to have access to any children.It is totally absurd! Last but no least, we are a truly independent and impartial organisation.Sometimes we must go it alone if necessary and as a matter of principle, even if this is contrary to the opinions of many other fellow civil society organisations.Nor do we avoid so-called controversial or “politically” sensitive or unpopular issues.Proof of this is the fact of all NGOs in this country, we have probably been the most vocal, the fastest and first organisation to react when and if Government officials threaten, for example, the rights of sexual minorities (i.e.gay and lesbian people).As a general human rights organisation, we campaign for due recognition of all human rights, without exception.Dorkas Phillemon National Society for Human Rights