Of late, the Malawi Human Rights Commission (MHRC) has been delving into the issue of “sex for fish”, which is said to be a thorn in women’s flesh— especially in fishing districts of the country.
To begin with, MHRC is an independent national human rights institution established by the Constitution of the Republic of Malawi. That is, under Section 129. Its primary function is to protect and investigate violations of the rights accorded by the Constitution or any other law.
The commission’s other duties and functions are further specified in the Human Rights Commission Act; the Gender Equality Act and the Access to Information Act.
I am sure that that is enough information on the ‘animal’ that is MHRC.
Now, MHRC has, for some time, been investigating the issue of “sex for fish”. In its drive to establish the truth of the matter, it has been to places renowned for the fish trade. We are talking of sites along Lake Malawi.
- Advertisement -
There, MHRC is on record to have bemoaned rising cases of “sex for fish” practices, describing them as a human rights violation. The commission has gone beyond describing the practice as a human rights violation; it has also identified factors that are contributing to the ‘problem’.
It has, for instance, cited lack of awareness and knowledge among people who stay in fishing areas along Lake Malawi. The other ‘alleged’ factor is that women are not economically empowered.
Gender officers in a number of districts have also acknowledged the proliferation of the “sex for fish” practice.
All these things have come to the fore because MHRC conducted public inquiries on the issue.
- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -
Women have, in several places, narrated— of course behind the curtain to evade public shame—how things typically unfold.
At one such ‘hearing’, some women claimed that high demand for fish, compounded by the perceived low supply of fish, made it a challenge for them to buy the fish using normal channels.
Some of the women claimed that they were forced into having sex with, for instance, some boat owners.
However, men who have testified on the issue have claimed that it is women who initiate these exchanges, going to the existent of coercing fishers into having sex when they [women in question] cannot pay for the fish they purchase.
One of the fishers indicated that “When we ask them about our money, some women show us their private parts, such that we end up falling for them and having sex”.
There we go!
Maybe, before I say what I want to say, let me refer to the Gender Equality Act of 2013. The Act has provisions that prohibit sexual harassment with a penalty of roughly $1,000 (about K1.9 million) and a five-year jail term imposed on those found culpable.
Now let me say what has prompted me to write something about the “sex for fish” issue today.
It is a story that one of The Times Group’s reporters filed earlier this week, to the extent that MHRC has called on Malawi Police Service personnel to take action on men who perpetuate the ‘practice’.
Fine and well. Nothing wrong with taking action on men who force women into having sex with them so that they [women] can get the fish they want.
However, I also perceive some misconception—I prefer to call it “confusion”— being perpetuated by MHRC, which is supposed to be neutral.
I think that MHRC is perpetuating a war against men, who are perceived to be the “perpetrators” of the “sex for fish” practice and yet some of the men have lamented that “When we ask them about our money, some women show us their private parts, such that we end up falling for them and having sex”.
It is as if MHRC is becoming an anti-men organisation instead of embracing both men and women on human rights issues. So, men of this country have no rights, even when women blackmail them into having sex?
Why should it only be men being prosecuted when some women also use ‘blackmail’ to ‘force’ men into having sex with them?
I “smell” confusion on the part of MHRC. This perceived MHRC confusion is based on, of all things, gender biases. It is as if MHRC is perpetuating the perception that if it involves men and women, it is the men who are always in the wrong.
In so doing, MHRC is confusing itself and [confusing] the people of this country. Indeed, by casting women as ‘innocent’ ones in all cases of “fish for sex”, MHRC is confusing matters here.
May, for once, MHRC become gender neutral on the issue of “fish for sex” please! This country belongs to all; men and women, boys and girls and babies [who are referred to as “it” in some cases], too.
Well, I do not want MHRC to be confused on the issue of “sex for fish”. My take is that only neutrality on the part of MHRC will clear the “cog” of confusion in its eyes.
