Constant Vigilance

 We are now in the most dangerous stage of the pandemic. Vaccination is proceeding at one of the fastest rates in the world, and is being efficiently implemented by the armed force and medical personnel. Great effort is being made to reach elderly, disabled, fragile and incapacitated people, with health care workers doing home visits throughout the country. The eligible citizens of the country should be fully vaccinated by October. 

But this momentum is in competition with the increase in transmission, and the Delta strain is showing itself to be faster and more deadly, as well as affecting those of younger ages far more than the original novel coronavirus did in 2020. The threat and the remedy are pitched directly against each other. 

Is it possible in these circumstances for anyone to be ‘safe’? Is it actually realistic to speak of ‘beating the virus’? The virus adapts and changes form expediently, and the variants are more virulent, as we would expect from anything so survivalistic and so opportunistic. 

But human beings are adaptable, too. The numbers of deaths are starting to rise, and amongst these numbers are names of people known to us. If we are reading this, we have held the line in this battle for 18 months, and now we must all consider consciously strengthening our self care practices and increasing our vigilance. 

In exchange for our compliance, these restrictions will ease. This is the new social contract operating in the world in which we live. ‘Democracy and pandemics don’t mix’, a friend of mine told me last week. We were discussing the possibility of fast tracking the quarantine process after vaccination has progressed through the population and the numbers of people getting ill have reduced. The initial processes included a two week stay in mandatory quarantine, including PCR testing at entry and departure, and enforced isolation monitored by security guards. In some countries, people were locked in their rooms in designated quarantine hotels. 

There is a 24 hour quarantine option in Sri Lanka for those who have been double vaccinated, and who have consistently tested negative at all the check points, coming in to the country. ‘Level 1’ hotels in Colombo currently offer a 24 hour stay package including room, PCR test, insurance and transport, for USD 229. These hotels can be booked directly. They need your fully vaccinated status confirmed by vaccine card dated and time stamped, certified negative PCR test results, and visas if you are not a citizen of the country. 

Initially, before the numbers of cases increased, and the hospitals became unable to take more patients, people were sent to quarantine centres. Now as the situation has become more intense, people are being encouraged and incentivized to self monitor their symptoms and stay at home. It is possible to call health care personnel for medical advice via telephone numbers on dedicated lines. We can buy basic medical equipment like blood pressure machines and pulse oximeters to track our condition at home. 

We can order our groceries home delivered from our local supermarket. We can ring through or WhatsApp our chemists and food outlets and make our requests for the items we need, and collect them, delivered to our car door, to minimise transmission via the air conditioning in the store or restaurant. 

Even after double vaccination, with 3-5 weeks between doses, booster shots may be needed. But the most important thing to note is that a multi-layered approach is now necessary on a daily basis. 

Plastic gloves, hand sanitizer, strict hygiene procedures and disinfection of surfaces in the home, wearing masks even within the house, putting on face shields as well as gloves when going out in public. Changing clothes immediately when we come home from outside. Soap and water and Dettol hand wash several times a day. Making sure our household sheets and towels are washed regularly. Making sure we bathe daily to keep our bodies as clean as possible, and less prone to infection. Eating fresh, home made food with high nutritional value. Drinking a lot of clean water every day. Ensuring we have vitamins C, and D daily. Taking immediate action if any health issue arises, however small. Practising personal vigilance. 

Instead of passively waiting to be told when and if lockdown will be brought in, at this juncture people need to proactively protect their families and each other by putting themselves into voluntary isolation, and fully supporting themselves throughout the process without panic or self pity, and in as realistic and sustainable a way as possible. Lockdown as a country is not going to be possible for daily wage earners, who form a large part of the workforce. 

Consistency is the key. What we do every day will save us, and serve us well. Vaccination must be added to. Think vaccine plus hygiene plus social distancing plus avoidance of contact with anyone outside the circle of immunity we create at home. For the next few years, a month at a time, a day or week envisioned at a time, if the prospect of years is too daunting. 

Working online where possible, keeping in touch via telephone, and being able to see each other’s faces via video enabled apps like Messenger and WhatsApp and Skype and Zoom; participating in group discussions via Clubhouse and audio podcasts. Scheduling calls with those dear to us. Encouraging each other. 

This is the turning point. We can either extend our suffering, or take conscious steps to end it, and exit into a cleaner and clearer world. It’s our individual choice. Multiplied by 22 million.

Vaccine 💉 Politics

Public health crises by definition are not going to grant much personal choice to individuals. It’s been 18 months now since the inception of the coronavirus pandemic, and there’s just enough data available to be able to see some clear patterns. Each country deals with the virus and the challenges posed by the variants it is presenting in different ways, based on their specific population numbers, demographics and organizational infrastructure - and the level of education and compliance (or resistance) of their citizens. 

When we were dealing with the less transmissible and less fatal novel coronavirus in its original form, in 2020, many people were hesitant to get vaccinated: the vaccines were still in development, they were rushed through under emergency measures, and not properly tested, and their comparative efficacy was still being measured until recently because not enough of the global population had trialled them for conclusive results to be clear and indisputable. 

Then came the vaccine power plays: wealthy nations had more economic capability to secure large amounts of the most effective vaccines. These were also countries where most people enjoyed a high standard of living, and economic and political stability. This also made them complacent, entitled  and skeptical. Nations without those reserves of wealth had large populations who were particularly at risk: when 80% of a country’s work force are daily wage earners, extended lockdowns cause disproportionate socio-economic devastation to these workers and their families. The educated elite who work in the corporate, media, legal, financial or academic worlds, and who work digitally, are able to increasingly work from home, and this privilege protects them from exposure. 

The pandemic is exposing the flaws and inconsistencies in every system on earth: from administrative blockages, to inequitable distribution of goods and services, to disproportional danger faced by lower economic groups working in service industries like cleaning and catering; and the areas in each individual household and community where processes and support, related to food provision and hygiene protocols and health and safety, need to be improved. 

Vaccine politics can be seen in the way countries like Australia require that anyone seeking to enter the country show proof that they have been vaccinated by specific vaccines which are approved by the Australian government. SinoPharm is not accepted, but Pfizer and Astra Zeneca are, and Moderna has been approved most recently. 

We will need to produce documentary evidence via vaccine certificates that we have been vaccinated, not only to travel internationally, but going forward, probably as a pre requisite for entry to any large public space or venue within any country in which we reside: to prove that we are not a threat to public health. 

Rising numbers of infected people constitute a public health crisis; and justify the taking of measures for public safety such as increased surveillance, checkups, police visits to citizens’ homes and random testing which would be felt to be intrusive under normal conditions. 

Sri Lanka did an excellent job in 2020 of keeping the numbers of infected people and the number of deaths down. But since Sinhala and Tamil New Year this April/ May, and the simultaneous rapid spread of the Delta variant, the hospitals are becoming crowded and the health care personnel are under heavy stress. 

This new situation of crisis has resulted in many more people seeking to be vaccinated, and countries like Japan have contributed thousands of doses of Astra Zeneca and Pfizer. Those seeking the vaccines which are in less plentiful supply must apply to be given them, with reasons for their application, and letters of support. 

Soon our vaccine card will be as essential a document as our NIC card. We had better start keeping the card with its dates, times and updates in a strong protective plastic wrapper, so that the details remain clearly visible, protected against dirt, water and damage. We will be continually asked to produce this card, over the next few years. 

Sri Lanka’s public health system has braced itself for the crisis: many hospitals and health workers are being supported with needed equipment and facilities by private donations from families and community organizations such as Rotary, island wide. 

The Colombo Municipal Council are providing the vulnerable groups of elderly and incapacitated citizens with a home visit service. This enables those  who would not be able to access vaccines at the public vaccine centres in Viharamahadevi Park and other venues in Colombo City where 10,000 people wait in queues, supervised by the armed forces, to be vaccinated with maximum safety and dignity, and a minimum of exposure to transmission, in their own homes. 

This service is a stellar example of public  health care serving the needs of the community, and many of the wealthier and better resourced countries can learn from this humane and well thought out initiative. 

The most vulnerable until recently were clearly those in older age groups. The Delta variant is now showing virulence to those of younger ages, and those in their twenties and thirties need to be vaccinated as well. Sri Lanka’s vaccination effort is rapid, efficiently administered, and on track, and the ongoing compliance of the citizens, who are aware of the current pressures on hospitals and resources, makes it likely that the country can ensure that all eligible people will be vaccinated by October this year. 

Doctors have made themselves available to be consulted via telephone monitoring packages with blood pressure machines and pulse oximeters and basic first aid kits, so that people can self monitor their symptoms and get the support they need from medical professionals while staying safe at home. This is an incentive to encourage people to be more proactive in their own self care, as a supplement to the government protocols. 



MOH workers are travelling to remote areas of the country to ensure that disabled people of all ages are able to be vaccinated, in their homes. Entrepreneurs are offering oxygen equipment to be delivered to people’s homes, hopefully with training offered in how to administer it to family members in a non hospital environment. 

Internal class politics are what are impeding and derailing this national effort: the non daily wage earners, largely urbanized, and with better access to vaccines, those who have been partially vaccinated, or who do not have to go out of their homes to work, and who - as a result - actually consider themselves immune and set apart from the ‘hot struggles of the poor’, have continued to socialize, travel across interprovincial borders, attend weddings and large gatherings, and conduct themselves as if the pandemic was not happening. 

It takes up to 5 weeks for the human body to develop immunity after each vaccine shot. Those who think that getting ‘the jab’ is an immediate passport to a return to their normal social life before March 2020 are fatally mistaken. They still need to continue mask, gloves and shield wearing, washing their hands, avoiding crowds and social distancing, for weeks and months after receiving the double vaccination, until about 80 to 90% of the country has been vaccinated. Public awareness and a sense of civic responsibility are required. 

People who until now have been accustomed throughout their lives to find that their wealth and privilege have bought them exemption from restrictions of all kinds will need to embrace a new and more realistic approach to the way they conduct themselves in public. All are susceptible, and money and status are no shield. 

In the regional areas of the country, the inequitable access to vaccines has been protested in colorful and creative ways, with mannequin parades in areas like Puttulam, making their case for vaccine equity with no possibility of transmitting the virus, or being accused of endangering others or disrupting the peace. 

The threat posed by the pandemic is causing us to evolve. We can beat the numbers which currently horrify us by personalizing our approach. It may not feel like it, but the odds are actually in our favour, if we adapt our ways of thinking and behaving, well within the time frame that we have been given.

Errors of Judgment

I have been for many years now an editor of essays, articles, short stories, novels, poetry, dissertations, theses, memoirs and business textbooks. Working with many writers across these spheres of interest, I have found to my surprise that people are sometimes more concerned with their own image as ‘all-knowing’ and ‘all-perfect’ in the eyes of the public, than with the factual accuracy of their own work. Editors are, in fact, disliked by many writers, because their role is to point out errors in the writer’s work. 

These errors may be factual, or may be stylistic - typographical errors, such as minor spelling errors, or grammatically clumsy expressions, or even an awkwardly placed comma. The factual errors are usually the author’s responsibility to check, and get right before publishing their work in the public domain, as it is the author who loses face, if they profess to be an authority on a subject, and then make inaccurate claims. 

The editor of the publication in which the article appears can then take the decision to publish a retraction in the next issue, with a list of the errata, so that the credibility and reputation of the publication does not suffer as a result. 

The public domain includes printed national or even local/regional newspapers, magazines, and quarterlies. And today, in the age of the internet, it includes blogs and Facebook posts and online articles, which have a huge global public reach, being far more accessible than any print publication could ever be. Most newspapers now have websites, where the contributors’ articles are published online, after they appear in print. 

The responsibilities of sub-editors, therefore, ideally include checking each article which will appear in their publication for these errors. They are also responsible for the layout and presentation of the content: the font used, the wording of the main headlines and the creation of sub headings which sequence and pace the article to make it clearer for readers to understand, the choice and positioning of appropriate visual images to accompany the text, and any caption quotes and the accurate citation of any accreditations for these. 

Some writers get very defensive when errors are pointed out to them. This is because they do not really understand the vital need for factual accuracy, in the service of providing public information. They feel they are losing face or being made to feel small, by the criticism of their work. They may feel that they are being reprimanded, or ‘commanded’, or even ‘scolded’ by the editor, and this is unfortunate because a professional editor will usually be seeking only to improve the writer’s work, by assisting to clear away anything which obscures or obstructs the writer’s contribution to the world, via the written and published word. I have said many writers dislike being reprimanded. When a writer is egotistical, the dislike intensifies, fuelled by self justification and personalized hostility. 

In this sense, editing is a continuing life lesson in human communication. Tact is needed, and so is determination and commitment. The editor may be seen by the writer as a ‘know-it-all’, as rude, provocative or even insulting; or - if they are a younger woman and the writer an older man - the editor may be perceived misogynistically as someone who is unreasonably focusing on ‘trivial’ matters, and this leads (depending on the levels of maturity and self restraint involved) to belittlement, disparagement and low standards of conduct on the part of the writer. 

It is a learning process, on both sides, and it is ultimately worth it, if the quality of the published work significantly improves as a result. 

I also think editing for publication has a moral dimension. What we write and disseminate in the public domain in this age of misinformation either adds to the sum of human knowledge, or detracts from and diminishes it. 

Assessment of a text and judgment of a person are very different things, and should not be conflated. A medical doctor for example does not think badly of a patient who presents with unsightly symptoms of an illness. She identifies, diagnoses, and suggests remedies. Similarly, an editor should be professional, objective, and distanced from the writer, and ‘call it as s/he sees it.’ 

If writers would set aside their egos, and master their own insecurities, it would enable a relationship of trust and respect to develop between editor and writer, which would assist the focus to be kept on the written text, which is where it belongs.

Opposites Detract

On Independence Day this year, a person made a comment on her personal Instagram Story. 

This personal opinion was misread and misinterpreted, by various personalities on Sri Lankan social media. 

Looking at the comment, I note two statements of sincere patriotism: ‘I love my country; I love this country.’ All good so far. However, this commenter was not expressing a blind love. She added that she is not happy with the way the country has been run - since its Independence. Specifically not recently, or currently. But rather, since 1948. 73 years. Almost three quarters of a century. 

This statement encompasses generations of leadership and mismanagement, across the range of political parties. And many people, including those who went on to criticize this commenter, broadly agree with her opinion. That this is a country naturally blessed in a million ways, but which finds itself in some significant ways not as equitable, economically prosperous and socially progressive as it could and should be, by now. 

The statement that roused the anti-colonialist ire of millennial social media commenters was her assertion that ‘If we were a colony, we would actually have been better off, as a people and as a nation’. She was here, in my view, suggesting that the citizens of contemporary Sri Lanka should stop reiterating platitudes about sovereignty, and retiring into blaming long dead politicians, and making excuses for the state of the nation. Instead, this independent state could and should start to become truly, proudly, sovereign and autonomous, effective in its administrative infrastructure, and transform itself into a land in which all its citizens, and not only a privileged elite, feel truly blessed to live. 

Her statement on Independence Day on Instagram, however, caused her to be labeled a ‘colonial sympathizer’ who was ‘nostalgic’ for the days of British rule. 

In contemporary Sri Lanka, accusations of pro-colonial sentiment are a virtual death sentence. Given the history of oppression, racism and belittlement suffered by colonized people, this opinion expressed by this commenter came across as incendiary, and unfortunately opened her statement to misinterpretation. 

The subsequent misreading of it was selective, and biased, and these coined terms ‘nostalgic’ and ‘pro-Colonial’ were then applied to her over the next several months, in a series of apparently random, disparaging and dismissive comments on Lankan social media. 

As is frequent in the social media sphere in this country, there were commenters whose constant reiteration of these specific key framing terms, aiming to belittle and ridicule their target, identified them as pack leaders, sociolinguistically, and this core group prompted a group of followers, who constantly affirmed their comments, the reach of which were amplified by replies and emojis and memes. 

One of the social freedoms Sri Lankans of all generations most strongly defend is their right to freedom of expression. Social media technology has powerfully weaponised this freedom, and many Twitter and Facebook and WhatsApp users have fully exercised this freedom, to the extent of abuse and breach of the Internet, not stopping short of damaging the reputations of their fellow citizens. 

The kind of malicious commentary described here has visibly become normalized in this country over the past several years, and its perpetrators and those who participate in the public comments threads on Facebook and Twitter clearly relish the social power accorded them by these platforms, to bully and criticize those against whom they have a grudge of any kind - whether personal or professional, real or imaginary. 

It can be argued that if any person makes a provocative comment on a public platform, they should be prepared to receive feedback. In fact, the original creator of the Instagram Story message had invited her extensive base to respond to her statement, so that a conversation could be generated about this issue. Many people did just that, and a fruitful and positive discussion ensued. 

It should be noted that the original Instagram commenter had built her business initially through ‘word of mouth’ and through the intelligent and adaptive use of social media. She was invited by Google to participate in a forum specifically because of her successful use of Instagram as a key instrument in building brand recognition and audience engagement. She has created not just a business but a lifestyle brand, one of Sri Lanka’s first. 

However, the minority who chose to see her statement as ‘pro-colonialist’ and ‘nostalgic’ continued to brand her in a negative way. The original commenter is one of the most successful independent entrepreneurs in the country, and she has built an enterprise over the past seven years which is recognised for its high quality products and excellent and consistent standard of service and delivery. 

During lockdown, she was one of the first to ensure her commitment to the economic security of her staff by resiliently adapting to offer exemplary home delivery and ensuring wholistic compliance with safety standards. From the start, she has supported other businesses, and empowered other entrepreneurs, even those in the same sphere of activity as herself, and as her business and brand have grown, she has generously given recognition to rising artists and creatives who have been associated with her enterprise. 

The group of people who had started to form and indulge the addictive habit of belittling her, as a sort of performative art form, began mockingly calling her an ‘influencer aunty’ - a term not only factually inaccurate, as she is an entrepreneur, not an influencer, but clearly intended to be personally insulting. Success attracts envy. And some were adopting a ‘slash and burn’ approach to creating space for themselves on public platforms where the commenter was seen to dominate. 

Disturbingly, this same group of people who had name-called her regarding the Independence Day comment on Instagram, started to comment on the way this entrepreneur ‘unjustly’ ‘mistreated’ artists and creatives who had worked in association with her. This was a direct attack on her business integrity and ethics, and these accusations were provably false. Despite the evidence of the falseness of the accusations being publicly shared, with direct testimonials from the artists and creatives themselves, refuting the false statements made, the negative commenters issued no apology. 

Damage done knowingly to a person’s right to work, to operate their business, to occupy a social space which they have rightfully earned through their dedication and their hard work and their enterprise, is called defamation, libel and slander. This is where the right to comment and express opinion becomes offensive: when a person’s compulsive actions to cause damage to another, and to air their personal opinions on social media, opens their own conduct to public and legal scrutiny, and they become seen as perpetrators. 

A person who engages in such behaviour may feel initially rewarded by the engagement they receive from their followers, who encourage them and bond with them in attacking their target. But the more they do so, the more evidence they offer of a compulsion on their part which seems to operate to make them use virtually anything that is available to attack the person, as if the ‘issue’ being commented on is not actually the point at all, but just an opening for their own opportunistic critique. 

This observable pattern of attack is cancel culture in the making. And we see burning issues such as race, religion, sovereignty, gender disparity, social injustice and colourism being commented on every day. But when these issues are handcuffed to a personal grudge, the commentary is not objective. It is being used to decry and to denigrate, under the guise of activism or raising public awareness. ‘Having an unpopular opinion’ is a high crime in the conformist and cliquey culture of social media. 

Technology in recent times has empowered a lot of articulate people, who have been given an unprecedented opportunity to express themselves in a world in which many have felt initially excluded and marginalized, by their comparatively young age, and their relatively minor professional status. They can, even from the social margins to which the traditional hierarchy and class conscious broader society has relegated them, create large online followings by expressing reductive, stereotypical, controversial and crowd pleasing opinions in quotable and retweetable ways. And many of them clearly feel that, by doing this, they are redressing the imbalance of a world skewed against them. 

They may not be aware that if their actions - seen not as ‘one off’ comments, but as part of a pattern - constitute malicious harassment, and can be shown to be aimed at targeting, isolating and alienating another person, they can actually be deplatformed. As most of these perpetrators rely on their social media platforms professionally, to keep them relevant to their followers, this is counterproductive, to say the least. 

The vast reach of the internet, used by most to increase their digital presence and online reputation, when used by people of ill will to damage others, ironically operates in reverse as far as defamation goes. The more people who are reached by false, accusatory and damaging statements, the more damage is seen to be caused to the person whose public reputation is under attack. And in law, every action has a direct consequence to the perpetrator. 

People who have grown up commenting to vast and invisible audiences on social media platforms without awareness or recognition of this reality, focus exclusively on their rights, instead of their responsibilities. It is a bad habit to indulge, and sometimes intervention is required to make them aware that indulging it is not, in this appearance-based society, ‘a good look’, and definitely NOT the way to go.

Early Intervention

Sri Lanka’s MeToo Movement is currently being described by Al Jazeera, The Hindu and The Independent as ‘delayed’ or ‘belated’, with stories of harassment, abuse and violation of women in professional spheres and industries now breaking - a full four years after the first stories emerged in the U.S., generated by the exposure and disgrace of Harvey Weinstein. 

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/6/23/sri-lanka-metoo-newsrooms-women-journalists

https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/sri-lankas-metoo-moment-sparks-reflection-on-newsrooms/article34949285.ece

https://www.independent.co.uk/asia/south-asia/metoo-sri-lanka-newsrooms-sarah-kellapatha-b1871211.html

The findings of the legal pursuit of Weinstein by the journalist Ronan Farrow were reported in mainstream and widely respected publications in the U.S. such as The New Yorker, over the past four years. A-list actresses like Gwyneth Paltrow, Emma Thompson and Angelina Jolie spoke up about their experiences not just of Weinstein, but of the predatory culture in which he was a towering and successful figure. This transformed a whisper campaign relegated to the sidelines of the film industry, and accused of being a ‘witch hunt’, into a credible and widely discussed issue centered on evaluation of documented incidents of social and cultural injustice, which needed to be remedied. 

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/from-aggressive-overtures-to-sexual-assault-harvey-weinsteins-accusers-tell-their-stories

Harassment in the workplace is endemic to cultures in which there is an inherent and systemic imbalance of power. Globally, it is relatively very recently that women have joined the workforce in multiple industries, and their professional advancement has been made in the face of immediate territorial pushback from their male colleagues and bosses. Gender based structural inequality, and its biases and assumptions, fuels this territoriality. 

Women, who should, according to the traditional models created and endorsed by the patriarchy, be ‘modest’, ‘selfless’, ‘self-effacing’ - and grateful for any attention shown to them by people in power - were perceived as quitting their intended behind-the-scenes supportive roles of domesticity, childbirth and family rearing, to brazenly indulge their ambition, trumpet their personal arrogance and embrace financial success. 

As two income households became more common, the double standards applied to the genders became more evident. Women’s access to education was initially unequal. Then, when they eventually became successfully qualified, at levels equal or even superior to their male counterparts, in the professions or in the corporate world, they received disproportionately lower wages, and were selectively positioned and deployed in lower status positions. 

This placed them in an inferior situation within the organization in which they worked, vulnerable to exploitation, abuse, intimidation and harassment. Answerable to their employers, their immediate superiors, and the scrutiny of a hierarchy in which they were expected to be subordinate, they have had little opportunity for redress in the distressing situations in which many have suffered. 

Many women were explicitly told that, if they wished to rise in a vertical corporate hierarchy, they had in fact to do so on their knees, as supplicants, placating male egos and smilingly affirming the narcissism of those who dictated the culture of the company which paid their wages. Many employers expected sexual favors in exchange for promotion or reward, and did not care about the damage caused to a woman’s reputation in the industry, or her self worth and sense of self respect, let alone her professional productivity and work flow. 

I have recently read - with disbelief - a 20 page document detailing the extended harassment of a young professional woman in one of the most famous large corporations in this country, with attested testimony, and details of conversations and repeated approaches by her immediate boss, with dates and times supplied. 

The perpetrator in this case showed a clear pattern in the way he systematically attempted to impact this young lady, via deliberately sexualised conversations, projecting unwanted attention onto her, and singling out of her in front of her co workers and emotional manipulation, escalating to coercion, threats and punishments. This man had, in fact, a known history of similar conduct in other companies in which he had previously worked. But because he brought money and corporate connections into the company, and was seen as a valued senior employee, the HR department at this company ultimately failed to support the complainant, and did not pursue independent prosecution of his illegal and abusive conduct. The woman subsequently left the company to work in another sphere, despite herself having an exemplary professional record, and being on a clear path to promotion in the original company. 

MeToo as a movement, as the name suggests, was created to remedy the isolation felt by those targeted by sexual predators and abusers, by enabling individual stories to be told, and made public. This collective effort had to initially be made anonymously, to protect the identity of the victims and survivors. Only with the momentum created by multiple proven individual revelations could the exposure of predatory behaviour as a social phenomenon be successfully brought out into the open, with minimal damage to the victim, who was often blamed for hysteria, vengefulness or making false claims to destroy men of good public reputation. 

https://srilankamirror.com/biz/14949-icbt-marketing-director-sexually-molested-ceo-s-secretary

http://www.lankapost.com/icbt-campus-ceo-sexually-assaults-the-secretary/

In Sri Lanka, due to the endemic normalization of patriarchal values, and the socially endorsed disrespect accorded to women, young women until recently had no recourse but to keep their stories of being violated and intimidated private, to preserve their professional reputations. 

I was told by the female EIC of a major media publication a few years ago, that, when she was first appointed, a senior journalist had sent her unsolicited photographs of himself, shirtless and bare chested to her mobile phone. When she did not reply, after a while he sent a text saying the photographs had been ‘sent in error’. This person had been, until then, portraying himself as a mentor and a married man with children, with a powerful reputation in the industry for his writing. 

Many of the most respected and articulate journalists in Sri Lanka are women, and many also come from minority communities whose conservative values made it difficult for them to pursue their careers with the boldness needed to fulfil their ambitions and their talents. Many of these women are also activists, whose ongoing education, critical thinking skills and life experiences have committed them to raise awareness of issues of social injustice in their work. 

When they first started sharing their stories, just a short time ago, they used the reach of social media, in which they are well versed, to create a public space in which individual stories could be told. 

Many of the men they worked with when they first started in the media industry were narcissistic, entitled and lacking a sense of boundary or sense of what constitutes appropriate conduct. 

These young women, now in their early 30s, look back now on the behaviour to which they were subjected upon entry into the industry, which they were told was acceptable, which was normalized in the society in which they lived and worked, and are now openly asking why they did not speak out before. They had been ‘mentored’ and patronised by people who now are clearly shown to have a track record of predatory behaviour, bullying and toxic entitlement. Some of these men worked in NGOs and millennial-owned organizations, and - whether unconsciously or consciously - can be seen to have used the social liberal assumptions of these organizations as a form of virtue signalling, and an opaque, convenient camouflage for utilising the structures and processes of the organization to operate what (in some cases) can be seen as an ego-based fiefdom, or even a personal hunting ground. 

In Sri Lanka, the wider society operates in cliques, and these circles tend to close in when threatened, to exclude anyone who challenges those who hold power within each sphere, including women who have internalized the misogynistic values of their contexts in order to rise within the inequitable structures. If the MeToo movement is going to gain the momentum it needs, at this juncture, it is going to require determination, courage and strength and commitment on the part of the accusers, meticulous documentation, and endorsement by senior members of the very structures which the accusers and whistle blowers are daring to criticize. 

This movement in Sri Lanka has been some time in emerging. It started with independent digital media platforms like Groundviews, having the commitment to showcase the issues on their platforms. Countering Sexual Harassment in the work place: Interview with Mihiri de Silva – Groundviews 

Companies who want to do more than window dress their dedication to equity in the workplace are becoming aware that they need to become vigilant and alert, self evaluate, and do better, across the board. Experts in HR, industrial relations and corporate conduct like Gayani Ranasinghe are being invited to conduct workshops to raise awareness of the need for respect and high standards of ethical behaviour in the workplace. 

https://youtu.be/E1S0vVhVUc8

When you see harassment and abuse occurring in any workplace, do not ignore it or be a spectator. Recognize it as a threat to the company’s integrity. Name it. Question it. Challenge it. Change it.