|
"It's a shock to realize it happens in the army"
"What's new? It was just hushed up till now."
Typical responses to the series of recently publicized cases
of sexual violence in the army. Some citizens are shocked
by the incidence of sexual violence in an environment ruled
by iron discipline, while others shrug and say it was a festering
sore that finally came to a head. As the reality of sexual
violence in the army is gradually revealed to the public,
concerned voices - besides calling for campaigns to eradicate
such violence and to educate soldiers on the truth of homosexuality
- are appealing to "the victims to take matters into
their own hands to solve the problem of sexual violence among
soldiers."
 ◀<illustrated
by Park Hyang-mi>
On July 5, Lieutenant Colonel Son (aged 46), commander of
a battalion, was arrested by the military police on suspicion
of sexual harassment of A (aged 21), a private belonging to
his battalion. Son was charged with summoning A to his office
on more than 10 occasions from early last month to July 3,
to sexually molest him, including touching his private parts.
And on July 9, Private Kim (aged 21), who had been sexually
molested by a senior sharing his barrack, ended his agony
by throwing himself down from the roof of a 25th-storey apartment
instead of reporting back to the army after his vacation.
Amidst increasing cases of sexual violence among soldiers
of the same gender, the military has decided on special measures
to conduct surveys on all the battalions and to punish all
offenders.
But sexual violence in the army is not a new problem that
appeared out of the blue. According to a survey that the Catholic
Human Rights Committee conducted last year on 232 soldiers
and 140 university students who had completed military service
less than a year before, 9.1% (34 respondents) had replied
that they had "been coerced into sexual contact while
serving in the army."
And before the survey, congressman Chung Dae-chul (currently
representative of the ruling party) reported during the national
audit of the Defense Ministry that since 1998, a total of
666 sexual violence cases - 244 cases of rape and 133 cases
of molestation - had occurred in the army. Continuous attempts
have been made to address the issue of sexual violence in
the army, but they have failed so far due to the closed-up
structure of the army and the reluctance of victims to speak
out.
In the case of Private A, he had appealed to the battalion's
medical officer to transfer him elsewhere "as the commander's
sexual harassment was giving him a hard time." So unless
the victims make their cases known, as A did, sexual violence
in the army will continue to be buried and forgotten.
Park (aged 24) recalls, "The senior official lying next
to me would touch my chest and private parts while everyone
was asleep. I used to pretend I was asleep. It was difficult
for me to speak out, and I think the other soldiers in the
barrack knew but pretended not to notice."
Park goes on to say, "Most of the victims, even after
they're discharged, would talk about it as if it happened
to someone else. I know how embarrassing and humiliating it
is, but like women victims who courageously reveal what happened
to them, we have to speak out."
The Korea Sexual Violence Relief Center and the Sexual Minority
Group of the Korean Charter of Amnesty International released
a joint statement on July 15, appealing to the military to
disclose sexual violence survey results to the public, eliminate
the "prohibition of sodomy" clause in the military
penal code, and replace it with stronger punitive measures.
The government has announced that a close investigation of
sexual violence cases in the army will be conducted to expose
and severely punish all offenders, but for sexual violence
between member of the same gender, Article 92 of the Military
Penal Code stipulates that "individuals found guilty
of sodomy and other such misconduct shall be punished by imprisonment
of less than 1 year," a considerably light penalty considering
the seriousness of the crime.
Those appealing for heavier sentences also reason that the
"prohibition of sodomy" clause carries the potential
of human rights infringement by prohibiting homosexuality
altogether. As such, they believe that besides providing for
heavier punishment, the clause should be revised to include
all sexual violence crimes including sexual molestation.
Through the joint statement, the two groups called for ▲ the
establishment of a fact-finding investigation team and the
disclosure of consequent findings ▲ the strengthening of education
in the army to prevent sexual violence including that between
members of the same gender ▲ the revision of Article 92 on
"sodomy and other such misconduct" to a more inclusive
article prohibiting sexual violence ▲ measures to provide
victims with compensation and support.
They emphasized that the Ministry of National Defense "must
show a proactive attitude in rectifying the environment that
allows sexual violence between different and same genders
in the army," and that it should also "come up with
concrete measures based on a comprehensive awareness of human
rights and structural observations regarding the army."
Kim Kim Bo-yeon, working in the human rights department of
the Korea Sexual Violence Relief Center, says, "Article
92 of the military penal code is a clause prohibiting homosexuality
rather than sexual violence between people of the same gender."
She adds, "This is a violation of the right not to face
discrimination based on sexual orientation, protected by the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article
37 of the Constitution, and Article 30 of the National Human
Rights Committee Act."
Kim claims that despite the fact that the rigid power hierarchy
of the military is what causes sexual violence between members
of the same gender in the army, the Ministry of Defense is
misinterpreting a problem that has nothing to do with homosexuality.
Thus, Kim emphasizes that "the sodomy prohibition clause
should be abolished, shifting the focus to the structural
problem where victims find it difficult to speak out due to
the power relationship and closed-up nature of the army."
Kim also adds that the clause should be replaced with a clause
stipulating heavier punishment against sexual violence in
general, as the punishment of less than 1 year does not reflect
the severity of human rights infringement involved in sexual
violence between members of the same gender.
This is not the first time that the Korea Sexual Violence
Relief Center called public attention to the sodomy prohibition
clause. In 2000, it submitted a written opinion stating, "If
the clause was written with the objective of preventing homosexual
relationships based on mutual consent rather than punishing
sexual violence between members of the same gender, then it
should be noted that homosexual relationships are part of
an individual's rights to choose his or her own sexual orientation,
not a crime to be punished."
<reported by Na Shin Ah-Ryeung arshin@womennews.co.kr>
This summer, together with other class graduates, I formed
a team to pay a two-day visit to our juniors, who were helping
out in the farms in Bongwha County of Gyeongbuk Province as
part of the universities' rural community service program.
A slogan that I had not seen in my days caught my eye. It
said, "Make rural community service free from sexual
violence." Last year, one of the female students on rural
community service had been sexually harassed by a farmer,
resulting in the students making a protest to the Farmers'
League. The slogan had been added this year to mend fences
between the students and farmers and to prevent sexual violence
during the rural community service program.
I had expected the students to hold discussions on how to
prevent sexual violence, but was disappointed to find that
it was just a slogan added to the regulations that students
were required to adhere to during the program. Perhaps I had
been expecting too much. A friend commented, "What has
rural community service got to do with feminism? Feminist
talk while working on a farm? That'll be weird!"
I disagree. Patriarchal customs are still deeply-rooted, even
in the lives of university students considered progressive
enough to organize themselves for greater social involvement.
So how could feminist talk be useless? The problem lies not
in the student organization but the mentality of individual
male students; not in policies but in everyday life.
When students live communally, be it for rural community service
programs or camping trips or any other cause, covert gender
discrimination against women still exists; things are no different
from any other organization in society. When I was a student,
my seniors put me to work writing wall posters, simply because
"being a girl," I had prettier handwriting. During
school festivals when students sold beer and snacks, I was
always relegated to the kitchen, like the female seniors before
me who took care of deciding the menu and shopping for groceries.
When I was on rural community service in my sophomore year,
the senior in charge of housekeeping was a female student.
I remember holding her hand and crying with her as she talked
about how sorry she felt for herself, the kitchen drudge who
slept in the warehouse next to the kitchen and got up at the
break of dawn to cook breakfast.
Sexual violence not only refers to acts of sexual violence
per se but also includes all verbal, psychological and physical
assaults. Men, and sometimes even women, do not realize that
sexual violence means all the suffering that women go through
simply because they are women. I have talked to my boyfriend
about the range of acts that can be considered sexual violence,
and the more we talked, the more he nodded in agreement. Likewise,
discussions are a good way to deal with misunderstandings
or ignorance about the issue of sexual violence.
This year, I had secretly hoped that the housekeeping duties
would go to a male student. I imagined him jumping up to claim,
"You should watch me cook!" But the housekeeping
duties were once again assigned to a female student, and the
head of the rural community service program was once again
a male student. The question of why the head always has to
be a male student aside, my complaint is, why does the housekeeper
always have to be a female? It's really unfair.
In my junior year (I was student vice-president of my department
and therefore the "natural choice" for housekeeper
during that year's rural community service.), I was appointed
housekeeper, and I was outraged at the unfairness of it all.
I did not even know how to cook, and so you can imagine how
ridiculous being the housekeeper made me feel.
I refused to take the job, but only ended up being shamed
as an irresponsible person and labeled a lazy girl reluctant
to make the effort to learn. Everyone probably assumed an
older female who had been the housekeeper in previous years
would help me learn the ropes. Sure enough, I had to wake
my predecessor everyday at dawn to answer my stupid questions
and help me with the cooking. And of course I had to listen
to people remarking that I was only "half a woman"
because of my unsatisfactory culinary skills. Those who made
such remarks may protest that they were "just kidding,"
but I definitely did not find anything to laugh about.
Before leaving my juniors, I left the girls a note advising
them to "boil the tap water before drinking to prevent
stomach aches" and to "keep the meat in the fridge."
It was a bitter feeling to realize that I had nothing better
than that to say to them.
If the housekeeper had been picked based on the assumption
that women are better housekeepers and always have been, then
the students should realize that that in itself constitutes
sexual violence. It is a pity that the new slogan limited
the scope of sexual violence to actual molestation only. But
as they say, the more you know, the more you see. I only hope
the day will come when the male students realize that they
are no better than the farmer who had been found guilty of
sexual harassment.
<contributed by Kim Ja-kyung, correspondent
with 1020 (coalition of voters in their teens and twenties)>
◀ The Youth Protection Committee holds
a report on the court decision concerning the constitutionality
of disclosing the identities of sexual criminals to protect
youths. July 15, Press Center <photograph by Min Won-ki>
A celebration was called for when the Constitutional Court
decided on June 26 that the system of disclosing the identities
of criminals involved in youth prostitution was not against
the Constitution. On July 15, the Committee for the Protection
of Youths held a meeting in the international conference hall
of the Press Center to report on the court decision. Legislators,
lawyers, academics and civic groups attended the meeting to
talk about the significance of the court decision and ways
to develop relevant institutional mechanisms.
Lee Seung-hee, president of the Committee, reported that "the
Constitutional Court had made a difficult and important decision
on behalf of our youths in Korea," and asked the meeting
participants to "direct their collective wisdom towards
developing the disclosure system so that it will effectively
prevent sexual crimes against youths and actually protect
youths from sexual violence."
Lee had already announced right after the Constitutional Court's
decision that the Committee was planning to "campaign
for the revision of the Juvenile Protection Act so that from
the 5th round of identity disclosure, more details can be
disclosed to the public regarding those found guilty of sexual
criminals against youths." Following up on this announcement,
the Committee is planning to disclose the criminals' photograph,
address and even place of work in the 5th round of identity
disclosure, scheduled for December.
Participating in the meeting was President Choi Young-hee
of the Naeil Women's Center for Youths, who said, "The
disclosure system was finally legalized after two-and-a-half
years thanks to the signature-collecting drive, street performances
and demonstrations that won the support of 90% of the public.
The system will at least allow companies and institutions
working with children to check whether potential employees
have past records of sexual crimes against youths."
Lawyer Kang Ji-won, the inaugural president of the Committee,
pointed out, "Five of the judges ruled the system to
be unconstitutional and four ruled voted for constitutionality,
but the final ruling was possible on the strength of the fact
that the system had already been passed in the National Assembly."
Thanks to the regulation stipulating that two-thirds of the
panel must agree on all Constitutional Court decisions, the
disclosure system passed the constitutionality test even though
five of the judges had voted against it.
Professor Shim Hee-gi of Yonsei University said, "The
judges who voted for constitutionality believed that disclosure
does not constitute punishment, whereas the judges who voted
against constitutionality thought that disclosure amounted
to additional punishment by humiliating the offender. But
the judges who voted against constitutionality were ignorant
of the suffering that the victims had gone through, meaning
that with time, more people will be for disclosure."
Shim pointed out areas where the system could be improved,
such as the difficulty faced by the Committee as an administrative
agency in ordering offenders to take rehabilitation courses,
lack of strategies in timing the disclosure, and clauses that
failed to be included in the process of legislation. Shim
also talked about the global trend towards disclosure systems,
and emphasized the need for exchanges with Taiwan, one of
the countries which have such a system in place.
Politician Cho Soon-hyung, member of the ruling party, said,
"We have finally put a stop to the debate that the system
violates human rights. It is now up to the Committee to make
the system a valid and effective one, irrespective of the
provisory clauses attached to it."
Park Byung-shik, police administration professor in Yongin
University and one of the initiators of the disclosure system,
advised, "Social security numbers should not be disclosed
as it may be misused in credit card frauds, but so as not
to confuse people with same names, addresses should be disclosed
right down to the dong (translator's note: the smallest
administrative/address unit in Korea) and posted in the
dong office rather than the State Hall so that residents in
the neighborhood can check out the criminals' names."
<reported by Kim Sun-hee sonagi@womennews.co.kr>
(The Women's News http://www.womennews.co.kr)
|
