07 12 / 2013
by Mirta Kennedy, Honduras
After four years of the coup d’etat in June 28th 2009, Honduras has become known internationally as the most violent country in the world with a homicide rate of 85.5 murders per 100,000 inhabitants and as the most dangerous for women. Women’s organizations and feminists have denounced the relentless increase of femicides. According to the National Observatory of Violence, violent deaths of women has tripled in these four years, with 606 victims in 2012. Impunity and the disastrous performance of the justice system increase the vulnerability of women to male violence. Of the 3,124 violent deaths of women in the last decade, only 5% have been investigated and prosecuted. Femicide victims are most often young women between 16 and 30 years of age who have been killed with firearms.
The irruption of new scenarios and actors has made the solution of the problem more difficult. We find that added to the violence women experience in the couple, the family, and the most intimate sphere, we now have the public violence that occurs in contexts of drug trafficking and organized crime, migration, gangs, political violence, militarization, and the dispossession of territories.
The presence of networks of drug traffickers, gangs, hitmen, and bands of organized crime that control poor urban neighborhoods in the big cities and in the countryside does not allow in particular women to move freely to go to work, be with their families and work in their communities. They are afraid to become victims of robberies, extorsion, sexual assaults or targets of vendettas against third parties and recruitment of their children and themselves.
Instigated by the US war on drugs in the last four years, drug trafficking has become the main argument to reinforce the purchase of arms and militarization. Internal security has been put in the hands of the military and private security companies and the possession of arms. In Honduras, an individual can own legaly five firearms. The proliferation of weapons, private security companies, and the military occupation of urban and rural communities does not protect women, in the contrary, more reports link sexual assault, rape, abuse of authority, harassment, violent assaults, femicide, and the murder of youths to this presence of the military that puts women in mourning. The corruption inside the institutions in charge of fighting crime has forced recently the intervention of the police and the district attorney office and to discharge judges. This has made evident that the root of impunity is the infiltration of organized crime in the state’s institutions.
A new form of violence against women has emerged in the context of ultra neoliberal policies implemented by the post coup government that promote foreign investment and the exploitation of natural resources in detriment of local interests. National and foreign corporations are allowed to encroach the ancestral territories of the indigenous and Garifunas, and peasant communities for the large scale exploitation of monocultures, mining, hydroelectric plants, and tourism without previous consultation in violation of the 169 ILO Convention suscribed by Honduras. The communities and women suffer all kinds of repression and aggression in their struggles of resistance against the dispossession of their territories because of the intimidation and the use of force of private security guards, hitmen, and even the national police. Community leaders are criminalized, persecuted and imprisoned as well as the human rights defender that accompany them. Among the most well-known and persecuted social activists are Berta Caceres, Magdalena Morales, and Miriam Miranda.
A new hope arose in the light of the elections of November 24th, 2013 in Honduras. The women’s movement and feminists had been able to negotiate a platform of urgent measures with the only and first female candidate in the history of the nation. Unfortunately, as we have been able to witness the electoral fraud that most had anticipated seems to be a reality. November 25th, the International Day on Non-violence Against Women went unnoticed. The attention of the majority of the population is centered around the electoral fraud. Feminists are faced with the need to promote an agenda for a humane and integral security of the citizenship, demilitarization, a focus on the violence against women, an end to impunity under a new administration that continues the agenda of the coup d’etat and a military and police forces the emerge with greater strength.
Mirta Kennedy, is founding member of Centro de Estudios de la Mujer-Honduras (Center of Women’s Studies-Honduras), feminist and women’s rights defender, researcher, and consultant for national and international organizations. She has coordinated and participated in several research projects on prevention and violence against women in Honduras and the Central American region. She is author of numerous articles on the subject.
* Translated from Spanish to English by Breny Mendoza
Nueva Esperanza en Honduras?
por Mirta Kennedy, Honduras
A cuatro años del golpe de Estado el 28 de junio, 2009, Honduras cobró notoriedad internacional como el país más violento del mundo, con una tasa de 85.5 homicidios por cien mil habitantes, y como uno de los más inseguros para las mujeres. Las organizaciones de mujeres y feministas han denunciado la incesante escalada de femicidios. Según el Observatorio Nacional de la Violencia las muertes violentas de mujeres se triplicaron en el período, con 606 víctimas en 2012. La impunidad y la pésima actuación de la justicia acrecientan la vulnerabilidad de las mujeres ante la violencia sexista; de un total de 3124 muertes violentas de mujeres ocurridas en la última década, menos de un 5% fueron investigadas y judicializadas. Las víctimas más frecuentes de femicidio, son las mujeres jóvenes entre 16 a 30 años de edad y el principal instrumento de agresión es el arma de fuego.
La irrupción de nuevos escenarios y actores ha complejizado el abordaje del problema. A la violencia contra las mujeres en el ámbito de la pareja, la familia, y en el entorno cercano, se impone ahora la violencia pública en los contextos del narcotráfico y el crimen organizado, la migración, las maras, la violencia política, la militarización, y el despojo de territorios.
La presencia de las redes de narcotráfico, maras, sicarios, y bandas del crimen organizado, controlando los barrios de los sectores populares en las grandes ciudades, y áreas rurales no permiten en especial a las mujeres desplazarse libremente y desarrollar sus actividades laborales, familiares y comunitarias, por miedo a ser víctimas de robos, extorciones, hostigamiento y agresiones sexuales, o el blanco de las venganzas y cobros de cuenta contra terceros, y del reclutamiento de mujeres y niños.
Alentado por la estrategia de EEUU de lucha contra las drogas, en los últimos cuatro años, el combate al narcotráfico ha sido el argumento para reforzar el armamentismo y la militarización del país. Se ha puesto la seguridad interna en manos de militares y empresas de seguridad privada y la circulación de armas. En Honduras, individualmente se pueden adquirir 5 armas legalmente. La proliferación de armas, de fuerzas de seguridad privada y la ocupación militar de las comunidades urbanas y rurales, no significan seguridad para las mujeres, por el contrario, son frecuentes las denuncias de abusos sexuales, violación, abuso de poder, hostigamiento, agresiones, femicidios, y asesinatos de jóvenes, que se vincula con esa presencia militar y que enluta a las mujeres. La corrupción en las instituciones públicas encargadas del combate a la delincuencia, obligó recientemente a la intervención de la Policía y de la Fiscalía, y a la destitución de jueces, poniendo en evidencia la raíz de la impunidad por la grave penetración del crimen organizado en las estructuras del estado.
Un nuevo ámbito de violencia contra las mujeres ha sido favorecido por medidas económicas ultra liberales tomadas por el gobierno pos golpe de Estado, que promueven la inversión extranjera y la explotación de los recursos naturales por encima de los intereses locales. Se permite el avance de las empresas nacionales e internacionales sobre los territorios indígenas y garífunas ancestrales, y comunidades campesinas, para la explotación de monocultivos, minería, hidroeléctricas y turismo a gran escala, sin previa consulta, en violación al Convenio 169 de la OIT suscrito por Honduras. Utilizando la intimidación y la violencia de las fuerzas de seguridad privadas, sicarios, e incluso de las fuerzas de seguridad del Estado, las comunidades y las mujeres sufren represión y agresiones de todo tipo, en sus luchas de resistencia a la desposesión de sus territorios. Las líderes de las organizaciones son criminalizadas, perseguidas y encarceladas, así como las organizaciones y defensoras de los derechos humanos, que las acompañan. Entre las luchadoras sociales mas perseguidas están Berta Cáceres, Magdalena Morales, y Miriam Miranda.
Una esperanza se abrió en el contexto de las elecciones en Honduras, el 24 de noviembre 2013. El movimiento de mujeres y feministas había logrado negociar una plataforma de medidas urgentes con la única y primera candidata mujer a la presidencia en la historia del país. Sin embargo, como hemos podido presenciar el fraude electoral que de antemano se había anunciado parece haberse hecho realidad. El 25 de noviembre, Día Internacional de la Eliminación de la Violencia contra las Mujeres, transcurrió en Honduras sin ninguna relevancia. La atención de gran parte de la ciudadanía está concentrada en la denuncian fraude y corrupción. Las feministas se enfrentan al reto de impulsar una agenda por una seguridad ciudadana humana e integral, desmilitarización, atención de la violencia contra las mujeres, y alto a la impunidad, ante una nueva administración de gobierno, con una agenda de gobierno de continuidad con el golpe de Estado y un aparato militar y policial fortalecido.
Mirta Kennedy, es cofundadora del Centro de Estudios de la Mujer-Honduras, feminista, activista por los derechos humanos de las mujeres, investigadora y consultora de organismos internacionales y nacionales. Ha coordinado y participado en diversas investigaciones sobre violencia contra las mujeres en Honduras y la región centroamericana. Es coordinadora de programas de prevención y autora de varias publicaciones en el tema.
06 12 / 2013
by Isabelle Geuskens, The Netherlands
The Women Peacemakers Program (WPP) finds it important to apply a masculinities perspective in the work for gender-sensitive peacebuilding. Feedback received from women peace activists in our network initiated this work. They indicated that two main obstacles interfered with their peace activism: (1) society as a whole lacking a gender-analysis of violence; and (2) many men involved in peacebuilding lacking gender awareness.
This confirmed for us that changing cultures of violence requires not only investing in the empowerment of women; it also requires looking critically at men’s socialization. For UN Security Council Resolution 1325 to become a reality, we need to go to all the roots contributing to women’s victimization and marginalization before, during, and after armed conflict. This implies addressing the construction of male gender identities that support men’s dominance, violence and militarization. Hence, it means addressing the deeply gendered nature of violent conflict itself.
It is our experience that, when addressing the topic of gender-sensitive peace-building through men’s gendered experiences of violence and war as well, it is easier to connect men to the women, peace, and security (WPS) agenda. Next to paying attention to the privileges of men, this means discussing how men are also losing out from current hegemonic male gender roles in society; and in particular, how these gender dynamics exacerbate during armed conflict.
At the same time, when questioning hegemonic gender roles, it is important to also invest in alternatives. This includes looking - through a gender lens - at how society perceives and deals with conflict. Often, society frames conflict as something negative, to be solved through a win-lose approach (“power over”). A gender-sensitive nonviolent approach does not see conflict as the problem – as conflict is considered a part of life, and can even carry the seeds of positive change. The issue lies in how we as humans, and particularly men, are socialized and trained into accepting violence as a part of life and in particular a way to address conflict.
Investing in alternatives means investing in people’s skills to recognize and analyze conflict and injustice, as well as in how to address it by strategizing and working together (“people power” or “power with”). It is interesting to mention here that research increasingly argues that a strategy of nonviolence is more effective than violence in achieving policy goals. According to data analyzed by Stephan and Chenoweth, between 1900 and 2006, nonviolent campaigns were more successful in achieving their policy goals (53 % of the time), whereas violent campaigns only had a success rate of 26 %.
To illustrate what is meant by ‘alternatives’, we would like to share some of our lessons learned in terms of integrating a masculinities approach in our training work around gender-sensitive peacebuilding:
- Investing in monitoring the impact of the work is important as to see whether the approach is relevant and effective. Our trainees informed us that the follow-up trainings they in turn implemented in their countries generated much positive response. They reached out to a diverse group of interested stakeholders; including NGO representatives, police officers, representatives from the media, government officials, lawyers, community elders, religious scholars, student representatives, youth leaders from indigenous groups, and representatives from the men’s movement. Beyond their own trainings, a far broader group was reached (at least 25,000 people), through: - The use of media (radio programs) and the dissemination of articles on nonviolence, women’s rights, masculinities, and peace-building;
-The establishment of men’s groups/ programs in their community, to address men’s role in eradicating violence against women and wider violence in society, and to raise awareness on nonviolent conflict resolution;
- Providing expertise to other organizations upon request (e.g. workshops);
- Integration of gender-sensitive nonviolence in their organisations’s work (from policy to program level);
- Joining women’s lobby and advocacy initiatives for women’s rights;
- Sharing the concepts within other networks (incl. regional networks).
- Trainees confirmed that training male activists to become trainers in gender-sensitive active nonviolence is very effective, since male trainers are often in a good position to reach out to male participants in a group. Equally important is including women in every step of the work. E.g., we always stress working with mixed trainer teams (female and male trainers); which according to our trainees results in powerful role modeling in their communities (“women and men working as partners for gender equality”).
- Solidarity is very important, as our trainees shared that working for gender-sensitive nonviolence often means being a minority voice. Several shared facing ridicule;opposition; silencing; and even threats. It is therefore important to take time to discuss this reality with trainees, as well as how to deal with it collectively, so that it does not end up undermining one’s commitment.
- There are no shortcuts; paradigm shifts take time. When we started our work on masculinities, we looked critically at how to build in accountability and sustainability. For us, this meant e.g. investing in thorough and strict selection processes; intensive training cycles (consisting of two trainings and a mandatory country-based follow-up training); and the trainings addressing knowledge and skills building as well as people’s commitment:The personal is political!
- It is important to invest in the creation of constructive spaces for the “unsaid” and the difficult conversations; e.g. during trainings we create this space through the organizing of gender dialogue sessions, during which male and female trainees can address sensitive gender dynamics/issues.
- When talking about masculinities and war, it is important to do so against the background of women’s long history of peace activism and organizing against militarism. It is important to raise awareness on the roots of the WPS agenda in the women’s movement;and to keep the masculinities work connected to this bigger picture. This is to prevent masculinities work from being narrowed down to a focus on male victims of war only; and to balance this by also pointing out how male privilege operates; the resulting costs for women; and the importance of women’s participation and leadership in peace-building. It is this “bigger picture” that will support men and women to work together, as partners,for gender-sensitive peacebuilding.
Isabelle Geuskens is the Executive Director of Women Peacemakers Program(WPP), based in The Hague, The Netherlands. Since 2010, Isabelle serves on the 16 Days Advisory Committee. Before working for the WPP, Isabelle worked with local communities and activists in Bosnia Herzegovina and Northern Ireland. She has a Master of Arts Degree from the University of Maastricht, the Netherlands.
05 12 / 2013
by madeleine kennedy-macfoy, International
Gender-based violence, especially against women and girls, happens in all societies, across time and space and to any type of woman or girl; it is indiscriminate. One out of every three girls born today will be beaten, forced to have sex or suffer some other type of abuse from an intimate partner during her lifetime. Violence against women and girls can be physical, emotional, sexual, or economic; it happens in private and public places, and in physical and virtual online spaces.
Feminists have shown us that the root cause of violence against girls and women is the deeply entrenched and historically unequal power relations between women and men, and the persistent discrimination against women the world over. Today it is widely recognised that the occurrence or threat of gender-based violence deprives women and girls of their basic human rights.
School-related gender-based violence (SRGBV) is violence perpetrated against children in and around the school setting. SRGBV is defined as acts and the threat of acts of sexual, physical or psychological violence that happen in or around school and educational settings. Both girls and boys can be the target of such violence, which may include bullying and cyber bullying, sexual or verbal harassment, gang-related reprisals and confrontations, non-consensual touching, rape or assault. Girls are particularly vulnerable to sexual violence and harassment at school, although little is currently known about the numbers of boys who also suffer such abuse in the school setting.
At first glance, it may not be obvious how militarism is linked to school-related gender-based violence. However, in recent years, schools and female students and teachers have increasingly been targeted by terrorist groups. When we consider the role that education plays in shaping young minds, we begin to get some idea of why they are a primary target for violent and militarised insurgents. Speaking about the situation in Afghanistan, footballer and women’s rights activist Khalida Popal has explained that: ‘uneducated youth represents a security issue as the uneducated are more easily recruited to terrorist groups because they won’t ask any controversial questions’. She further stated that ‘girls get poisoned in school’ in Afghanistan. We can see then, that the violence unleashed by terrorists on schools and students is clearly gendered: boys are potential recruits and girls must remain confined to the domestic sphere, so both must remain uneducated. ‘School-related gender-based violence’ takes on a particular connotation when seen in this light: the violence may not happen in or around a school, but it is undoubtedly school-related. And the terrorists will employ any means necessary to meet their objectives.
The atrocious attempted murder of Malala Yousafzai by the Taliban in December 2012 has become the most widely known example of this type of SRGBV: Ms. Yousafzai was targeted because of her activism and advocacy for girls to have access to education in the Swat Valley. In northern Nigeria, the terrorist group Boko Haram (meaning ‘Western education is forbidden’ in Hausa) have burned down more than 300 hundred schools since 2009, and in September of this year they gunned down as many as 50 students as they slept in their dormitories in an agricultural college in the north-eastern part of the country. Similar violent acts against girls’ schools and women teachers have been recorded in Pakistan since 2007. In the Education under Attack (2010) report by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) attacks on schools, teachers and students are documented from all over the world. Such attacks include, but are not limited to, mass and multiple killings, explosions, poisoning, and violence by armed groups.
As we focus on gender-based violence over the next 16 days, we must not overlook the violence that occurs in and around schools or the fact that schools are prime targets for militarised extremist groups that are hell-bent on preventing young people from obtaining an education. We must safeguard the provision of quality education because education plays both a preventive and protective role in the struggle against violence in and around schools, but also in the wider society. We must reclaim schools and ensure that they are safe sanctuaries where teachers can provide, and students benefit from, a quality education.
madeleine kennedy-macfoy works on gender equality issues at Education International, the largest global trade union federation, which represents 30 million teachers and other education employees worldwide.
04 12 / 2013
by Ayisha Osori, Nigeria
Imagine your young adult daughter out for the evening with friends. Sometime after 9.30pm she calls crying hysterically and in the background you hear raised voices. Through the noise she explains that she and her friends were forcibly abducted by members of the Abuja Environmental Protection Board (AEPB) and taken to the Area 10 Sports Complex. You rush there, calling every ‘important’ person you know in the FCT to see what can be done and you are shocked by what you find. A small airless room packed with almost 40 people and your daughter and her friends looking like extras for a horror movie. You try in vain to get them to listen: your daughter and her friends are not prostitutes and the boys in their company, who chased after the vans into which they were thrown, are not customers but friends.
A female policewoman carrying a rifle casually waves her weapon at them and asks ‘is this the way Nigerians dress?’ You look at her in her dirty black uniform with blouse bursting at the buttons and at the women in the room in several stages of undress. There are scraps of cloth all over the floor, like fabric confetti. Other rescuers are in various stages of negotiation with the officials of the AEPB and the discussion is getting heated. Suddenly one of the policemen jumps up and points his gun at a young man’s stomach and says ‘I will waste you here and nothing will happen’. Your phone rings and one of the government officials you had called on your way asks to speak to whoever is in charge…none of the abductors are willing to take the call. You start getting desperate. ‘What do you want?’ Someone pulls you aside. You know a good deal when you hear one; you pay up and know that no receipt will be offered. You are not disappointed.
The main objective of the AEPB is supposedly to ‘make the city safe and clean’. Yet for at least 2 years, the AEPB in collaboration with the Federal Society Against Prostitution and Child Labour in Nigeria (SAPCLN) and the Federal Capital Development Authority have worked with the Nigerian Police and the military to make moving around Abuja extremely dangerous for women. Reports say that under the pretext of ‘eradicating commercial sex workers in Abuja’, employees of the AEPB together with armed unidentified members of the security service have been abducting women from the streets at all hours of the day. Without asking for any form of identification these armed men, grab women, shove them into waiting buses, beat them when they try to resist and take them to pseudo law enforcement centers. There, those who can, buy their way out after being thoroughly humiliated, often only after spending a night without any food or water while those who can’t are tortured into admitting they are prostitutes. Then the real and forced prostitutes are forcibly transferred to an alleged rehabilitation camp for purported sex workers maintained by SAPCLN in Arco Estate, Sabon Lugbe.
SAPCLAN’s raison d’etre is getting prostitutes off Abuja streets and rehabilitating them…a job worth at least 5 million Naira for every 50 ‘rehabilitated’ women according to an African Outlook story written by Ovada Ohiare. And not even the lawsuits against the Minister of the FCT, Senator Bala Mohammed and the AEPB can stem their determination.
While the Nigerian Penal Code makes prostitution a crime, the definition of prostitution provides amongst other things that the person arrested must be found to be ‘persistently soliciting’. How many of these women abducted as they come out of offices, restaurants, houses, clubs or even sitting inside cars can be found guilty of ‘persistently soliciting’?
At the Nigerian Women Trust Fund (WF) while our primary objective is to increase the quality and quantity of women in government we understand that there has to be an enabling environment for the successful emergence of women. Violence affects one in three of all women and girls aged15-24 according to the Gender in Nigeria Report 2012.
Since October 8, 2012, when the WF released its first press statement about the activities of AEPB, there have been marches, petitions and even a mock public hearing arranged by the House of Representatives Committee on Public Hearing on March 7 2013. Mock because not only because of the jokes made at the expense of women but because although the Committee claimed it could not have a proper hearing without the Attorney General at the hearing, promised to reconvene and nothing more has been heard from them since.
The abductions and harassments have not stopped and neither has the work of the WF and all its most active partners such as the African Feminist Alliance to get justice for the women and get the AEPB and its stakeholders to stop the state sponsored terrorism against women in Abuja. If women cannot even exercise their rights to freedom of movement without fear, how will we increase the number of women confident and secure enough to take up the mantle of leadership?
Ayisha Osori is a lawyer, writer and consultant with over twelve years’ experience in corporate & regulatory practice, change communications and gender advocacy. She is the founder of Advocates for Change & Social Justice and the current CEO of the Nigerian Women’s Trust Fund, a non-profit organization created from a public civil society partnership to increase the quality and quantity of women in decision making. She’s passionate about women girls being able to live a life where there are no limitations to what they want to achieve and believes changing the narratives about females and their role in society is critical.
03 12 / 2013
by Fikile Vilakazi, South Africa
Violence against lesbian, bisexual, transsexual, and intersex (LGBTI) people remains a huge challenge in South Africa. The minds and hearts of our people are hardened by oppressive violence. In 2013, the death toll of lesbian women in South Africa stands at 31 since 2003 whilst gay men continue to be brutally murdered in townships. This anecdote includes only cases that were reported to the police and/or made public through the media by LGBTI human rights defenders. There could be more other cases that we do not know about that have gone went unreported or did not receive public media attention. In addition to murder is the pervasiveness of rape against black lesbian women that continues unprosecuted even though it is reported regularly to the criminal justice system. It is said that for every twenty five men that rape, about twenty four walk free, and only one of them is likely to be prosecuted with ninety five percent chance of getting bail and having such charges dropped. It is a never ending battle, exhausting and infuriating.
They are not going to allow us to be who we are and live our lives freely. They continue to make it harder and harder, particularly for visibly masculine lesbian women and feminine gay men in black townships to live happily and joyously. The nature, extent and depth of violence is worse for people who are visibly in trans-(gression) and trans-(ition) from biological sex, gender and sexual orientation as assigned at birth and/or traditionally. We are perpetually seen as a threat to traditional masculinity and femininity and thereby weakening the arrangements of patriarchy and hetero-(norm)-ativity.
The backlash becomes that gruesome experience of violence. The thing about the kind of violence seen in South Africa is that it carries with it signs of intentional and premeditated torture, brutality, degradation and humiliation of people that are being violated. I am talking about things like disembowelment of bodies, insertion of objects into private body parts, mutilation of body parts and feeding of human body parts to dying sufferers. This is deeply disturbing,unacceptably cruel and unforgivable.
One wonders where does so much hatred emanate from? What happened to our own people? How do you kill and treat one of your own in such a terrible, brutal and inhumane manner? Where does this come from? What is it? What are we dealing with here? What happened to the concept of Ubuntu? Where is freedom and better life for all promised in the manifestos of our leading political parties? What happened to constitutional rights of equality for all.
The most wonderful constitution of South Africa with its equality clause did not protect all the dead victims of homophobia and hetero-sexism from being brutally murdered in the same way as it has perpetually failed to protect thousands of rape survivors (women, children, lesbians, gay men, elderly women and people with disabilities) on a daily basis. The world must know that our constitution is a token. It is not real, yet. We need real change in our country, a change of heart and mind, a kind of
transformation that is embedded in a shared sense of humanity, the fulcrum of all humanness, freedoms and justice. A bill of rights alone is not going to bring the desired change for South Africa. We need much more than that.
Much as it pains me to admit, the truth is that on matters of sexuality and gender, the majority of South Africans are still deeply trapped in a power battle of oppressive orthodoxy, hetero-sexism, sexism, ethnicism, traditions and religiosity. There is nothing wrong with choosing a life of orthodoxy, but there is definitely something very wrong about using such a personal choice as a universal normative and a tool of oppression against other people. Noting that women human rights defenders continue to be on the frontline of most human rights and socio-economic struggles in South Africa, regionally and internationally, it is not surprising that it continues to be women who suffer violence the most. The heat of oppression and violence burns a woman’s face hundred times more than it is likely to do a man. The multiplicity of being a girl, woman, lesbian, trans, mother, grandmother, housewife and a human rights defender makes it harder to fight the so many separate yet connected battles of our lives. Yet, the battle continues. No surrender until something changes!
Fikile Vilakazi is a former director of secretariat of the Coalition of African Lesbians. She identifies as a black lesbian feminist, activist and an emerging international development scholar. She has been
involved in different forms of activisms including civic, youth, women, gender, sexuality and poverty since she was 10 years old.
02 12 / 2013
by Norma Maldonado, Guatemala
Existen otras formas de maltrato contra las mujeres—como el abuso económico de las transnacionales, que transgrede el derecho fundamental a la subsistencia, al derecho a la tierra, a la vida, a la soberanía alimentaria, a la autonomía y dignidad.
La violencia contra las mujeres no sólo son los golpes y las agresiones verbales-también existen otras formas de maltrato. Las decisiones que están siendo asumidas por los gobiernos a través de las políticas energéticas, leyes, como los tratados comerciales y la economía verde
por el sistema de Naciones Unidas que garantizan el remate de todos los bienes públicos al mejor postor.
Se nos ha dicho muchas veces que las nuevas políticas Energéticas son para mejorar la calidad de vida, pero lo que observamos en las zonas petroleras, mineras o hidroeléctricas es más pobreza y contaminación. La realidad es que los bloques económicos mundiales intensificaron agresivamente su interés en nuestros recursos naturales y los gobiernos de nuestros países asumieron compromisos a través de los tratados de libre comerco (TLC’s). Por lo tanto ratifican y responden a esas alianzas estratégicas entre actores públicos y privados en lo local e internacional. En este marco, la Política Energética se enfoca en la planificación estratégica de largo plazo para la efectiva producción, comercialización y distribución de los recursos.
Los TLC’s o alianzas estratégicas público-privadas significan para nuestras comunidades el desalojo de territorios, despojo de nuestros bienes comunes, violencia, persecución, desarraigo y criminalización. Las mujeres líderes, sindicalistas, feministas, mujeres rurales, estudiantes, ciudadanas, ambientalistas vemos claramente como las grandes industrias extractivistas y capitales transnacionales se están instalando masivamente en nuestros territorios, con apoyo de estos tratados comerciales que trasgreden nuestras leyes nacionales. Además -discuten estos hechos en escritorios de empresarios en la Organización Mundial del Comercio (OMC)—en vezde tener cualquier participación ciudadana.
Nuestros pueblos están sufriendo una gran oleada de persecución, y re-militarización, los movimientos campesinos y comunidades indígenas se les tilda de terroristas o de oponerse al “desarrollo” porque no estamos a favor dela extranjerización del territorio.
A pesar de ser países con enormes riquezas naturales y culturales, se nos llaman países sub desarrollados y pobres, cuando en realidad hemos sido saqueados y empobrecidos desde que nuestro continente fue “descubierto.” No ha habido respeto a nuestras formas de vida, culturas e idiosincrasias, somos poblaciones con un enorme arraigo cultural y diverso. Este hermoso territorio que ha sido protegido por nuestros abuelos y nuestras abuelas, es el centro de origen de mucha biodiversidad, que ahora se ha convertido en botín de guerra de las empresas de agro carburantes, para la palma africana, caña de azúcar que en su afán de expandirse han deforestado las selvas y los bosques, secando los ríos y las fuentes de agua, obligando a miles de mujeres a sacrificar media vida en la búsqueda del vital líquido para sobrevivir. Las mujeres rurales del mundo están más vulnerables que nunca, nos han ido quitando las fuentes de sustento para desalojar a las poblaciones que no están en sus planes del llamado “desarrollo” y agro exportaciones. Ninguna meta, ningún desarrollo será sostenible, sin la participación de los pueblos. No es posible imaginar que después del 2015 tendremos la posibilidad de disfrutar de ningún derecho como mujeres, cuando hoy día está siendo repartido nuestro territorio en
feudos de grandes empresas.
Norma Maldonado is the founder of Asociacion Raxch’ och Oxlaju Aj, AROAJ, an organization of 12 communities Maya Q’eqchi’ of northern Guatemala. Maldonados been an activist all her life, and was also founder of the Integration of Indigenous Mayas IXIM in Los Angeles. She is an environmentalist and a native of Guatemala with a specialty in food sovereignty and indigenous territories. She has engaged in resisting neo-liberal policies and creating alternative.s since 2000.
30 11 / 2013
by Renu Rajbhandari, Nepal
Violence against women continues to be a challenge for post-conflict Nepal. According to available data two cases of rape are reported on average each day. WOREC Nepal, an organization working on violence against women (VAW) registered 1703 cases from August 2012 to July 2013. The survivors face numerous challenges due to the ever increasing impunity and lack of access to justice mechanisms in the country.
Despite this reality, the Government of Nepal has been applauded by the international community for its National Action Plan on UN Security Council Resolution 1325 to effectively address the increasing numbers of VAW in the country. Almost seven years have passed since the signing of Comprehensive Peace Accord (CPA) between the Nepal Communist Party-NCPN (Maoist) and the seven mainstream parties for ensuring peace and security. Although peace and security for the people was central to signing the CPA, implementation remains mainly unmet while the parties work to obtain power and maintain control over national resources.
Up to this period, the peace dividend largely remains with the leaders at the central level leaving the larger section of people powerless. Political instability has been used by the political party and the government to continue the culture of impunity. It is very important to note that reintegration of Maoist soldiers into the Nepal army was one among many other agendas such as constitution drafting, transformation of the country socially and economically, and truth seeking and justice for people affected by conflict . However, reintegration of the Maoist army has taken most of the time and has remained one of the highest priorities. This process has contributed to a deeper militarized mindset within society. The militarization process has affected the people’s collective mindset and the government’s priorities have contributed to the culture of impunity, making it difficult for women to access justice. The difficult, complicated and lengthy court process along with discriminatory laws compounded with unchanged attitudes and practices of security, judicial and health services has posed further challenges for women and those advocating for an end to gender-based violence and access to justice.
Similarly, extremist ideas such as demanding Nepal again become an officially Hindu country, the emergence of different religious groups, a faster rate of conversion to religion, and different forms of identity-based politics are being used to maintain the status quo among political parties. This has also contributed to the failure of the Constitutional Assembly (CA) in finalizing a constitution. This situation has extended to the level that political parties couldn’t come to a consensus for the creation of the government, though they eventually agreed to bring the Chief Justice and retired bureaucrats to form the government. All this has largely impacted women and exacerbated the occurrence of VAW, which remains at the bottom of priorities for the government and the political parties. There is a lack of interest and effort to create the environment for access to justice for women.
Currently, with the announcement of the elections for a new CA, the militarization process has become more visible. There is a consensus and agreement among the political party and government to mobilize the army under the name of maintaining security during the election. This has largely ignored other issues which are key to addressing sustainable peace in Nepal. Issues related to transitional justice and creation of mechanisms to address violence perpetuated against women during the conflict has not been given space for serious and thoughtful discussion
among political parties or within government.
In this situation, the 16 Days of Activism Against Gender-Based Violence Campaign is a key space for women’s rights activists to bring issues such as investigation of cases of sexual violence against women during the conflict, and unresolved disappearances of their family members. The Campaign gives an opportunity to bring to attention the increased practice of gender-based violence and impunity, as well as the increasing difficulty to access justice by victims.
The question remains: Despite the militarized mindset of the government and the newly elected CA members, who will address these issues that affect women on numerous levels as a priority?
Renu Rajbhandari is a prominent human rights defender and medical doctor in Nepal and has been at the forefront of organizing communities to voice their concerns. She was appointed as National Rapporteur against trafficking in women and children under National Human rights commission and is the founder chairperson of the Women Rehabilitation Centre (WOREC), as well as other groups.
29 11 / 2013
by Amal Elmohandes, Egypt
Appalled by the sexual assaults that took place in Tahrir Square, and after attending a volunteers’ meeting for Operation Anti-Sexual Harassment (OpAntiSH), an initiative formed by volunteers in response to the mob sexual assaults that started taking place in Tahrir Square and its vicinity in November 2012, I decided to volunteer in the intervention group with OpAntiSH, in preparation for the June 30, 2013 demonstrations, calling for the ousting of Mohammed Morsy and dissolution of the Muslim Brotherhood, changing my mind from my earlier decision to volunteer in the safe houses’ group. The meeting was a part of the comprehensive plan that Nazra implemented in preparation for the June 30 demonstrations, in which mob sexual assaults were greatly expected. A massive response was needed from feminist organizations and others.
Preparations also included printing flyers indicating the hot spots in which attacks take place, and distributing them to protesters in the square to avoid them, trainings conducted in First Aid skills and Listening Skills to survivors of rape and sexual assault, and liaising with private clinics for the provision of medical support to survivors. Planning also included the operation of the hotline of the Women Human Rights Defenders Program (WHRDP) and its coordination with OpAntiSH’s hotline numbers for receipt of calls of attacks. Lighting hot spots in coordination with 2 political parties and other feminist organizations took place, and some of Nazra staff members who volunteered with OpAntiSH in various tasks, including the accompaniment of survivors to private clinics and hospitals to ensure that appropriate medical support is provided, provision of psychological support, and Nazra lawyers following up on cases being reported to the police. Nazra’s Executive Director also received calls of hysterical survivors after they were assaulted.
As the date of the demonstrations approached, I grew more anxious of the sexual assaults that would take place, but focused my attention on the tasks at hand. After learning about the sexual assaults that took place on June 28th, a decision was made for OpAntish (in coordination with Nazra and other groups) to start its operations on June 29th, rather than June 30th as originally planned. In a previous intervention training session I had made a conscious decision to opt for volunteering in Tahrir Square, after expectations were made that attacks in Tahrir would be far worse than those in the vicinity of the Itihadeya presidential palace. An aspect of my role in Nazra was coordinating with private clinics for the provision of immediate medical support to survivors. I would envision the complete scenario in my head: a survivor attacked, taken to a clinic, her feelings, the terror of having a physician examine her, reeling into her private parts and administering medication. I imagined the forceps, the shots, the horror, and as my fear grew, my conviction became stronger. I imagined myself backing out at the last minute, but as some friends kept advising me to change my mind, I grew more stubborn.
I struggled somewhat with whether I should dress as advised by the core group members (a one-piece bathing suit under several layers of t-shirts, and 2 pants on top of each other), and decided to do so after all. When no assaults took place on June 29th, I felt extremely confident and grateful that I did not have to witness or intervene in an attack. When getting anxious about the next day, I quickly diverted my attention by focusing on the victory of the assault-free June 29.
As I woke up on June 30th, I felt the anxiety seeping into my stomach. I secretly wished that the intervention group would be able to save all the survivors from the horror of rape even though we were told during training sessions that we would never be able to save all the women. The application of what we had learned in the trainings would be much more violent than its simulation in a training session. As I assembled with others in preparation for our positions, a phone call was received by a core member that four women were being sexually assaulted. I renewed my faith in God, and as we were making our way through the crowds, I kept thinking of these women while staring at another volunteer in front of me, making sure that I don’t lose sight of her. Moving through the crowds, I was perplexed with the contradiction of the loving and generous spirit of the volunteers, as opposed to the roaring crowds and aggressors we would soon face.
The night was long; going up 12 stories of a building that my colleagues and I were trapped in with the survivors as the violent aggressors tried to break into the building; other women being brought in; searching with a mother for her daughter; waiting with my colleagues for a naked survivor to come through the door so we can dress her; going back into the crowds and reaching for a woman being attacked on the ground while being groped along with my colleague. The woman slipped from under the metal gate of a shop she was pressed against and we lost track of her; a child who couldn’t find his mother; being stationed to keep a look out from the window of the building for any attacks taking place… As I viewed the crowds, roaring, chanting, screaming, waving their flags, I felt disconnected. I was closely searching for any attacks taking place while the crowds below ambivalently cheered none among them aware of the women being sexually assaulted or raped in their midst. I felt a sudden overwhelming surge of disgust, for the reality of these sexual assaults on the ground was far uglier than I thought. On that day alone, 46 sexual assaults, some of which were rape had taken place, and 186 sexual assaults had taken place during the period June 28 to July 7, 2013.
Amal Elmohandes works as the Director of the Women Human Rights Defenders (WHRD) Program at Nazra for Feminist Studies. Before joining Nazra, she worked at the Bi-National Fulbright Commission in Egypt under the Community College Initiative.
28 11 / 2013
By Michael Kaufman
For too long, women stood alone. The woman, alone in her kitchen, after her husband beat her. The woman, alone in her bed, after her boyfriend raped her. The woman, locked alone in a room, by the men who trafficked her. The girl alone, harassed by a schoolmate.
Forty or so years ago, women started saying to their sisters: “You will not be alone.” And so, with tenacity and courage, they stared abusers in the face and set up women’s shelters and crisis centers. They researched the problem and questioned the role of the media, religion, and the state
in allowing the violence. They pushed for better laws and training of police. They challenged harmful traditions. They provided a voice for those girls and women who, for too long, had been silenced.
It took too long, but finally, men all over the world are now saying to our sisters, our mothers, our daughters, our wives, our friends, and to the women of the world: It’s time we stood at your side. And we are realizing that standing up to end gender based violence also means championing better ideals for ourselves.
There were three of us, inspired by the women around us, who started the White Ribbon Campaign in 1991in Canada where I live. At the time, it was unusual for men to speak out against men’s violence towards women. But now, two decades later, this little campaign has spread to about eighty countries. And it’s only one of the fantastic efforts that are now blossoming wherever you turn.
Our awareness-raising efforts aimed at men and boys have spread because women everywhere have said no to the violence. But these efforts have also spread because there are more and more men who want the violence to end. Although far too many men use violence in their relationships, the truth is that in most of the world, the majority of men do not. However, the problem has been the silence of that majority. Because of men’s disproportionate social, political, economic, and religious power, men’s silence amounts to tacit consent.
Recognizing this, many of our efforts are aimed at encouraging men who don’t use violence to speak out against gender based violence to their friends and workmates, and their fathers, uncles, brothers and sons.
In our work, we have learned that positive approaches to reach men and boys are most effective in ending our silence. We speak out in favor of equality between women and men. We speak out for new ideas of manhood that do not include violence. We speak out for better laws and for training of police and judges to implement the laws. We speak out for state support of services for women who are survivors of violence and want to leave violent relationships.
White Ribbon in particular has also spread because it is a campaign that believes that people in their own countries and communities, in their own workplaces, schools and religious institutions, know best how to reach the boys and men around them. No one “owns” White Ribbon. It is an idea and symbol we encourage all boys and men to embrace and make their own.
As a result, White Ribbon campaigns are incredibly diverse: from men in contingents at Carnival in Brazil, to sports teams raising money for women’s shelters, to work with religious officials in Pakistan (some of whom have issued a fatwa against violence towards women), to schoolboys writing chalk messages on sidewalks in Singapore, to leaders of the Australian army speaking out against sexual harassment in their ranks.
Those of us who have been doing this work among men are now also looking not only to raise awareness, but for long-term solutions. For example, our new MenCare campaign focuses on social policy and public education to reach the goal of men doing fifty percent of parenting work, and doing so in nurturing, non-violent ways. We see this as key for ending the cycle of violence and establishing caregiving, and not domination and even violence, as central to our practices and beliefs of what it means to be a man.
Not too long ago, it was only a handful of men here or there who were speaking out against this violence. Now, finally, at last, millions of men are echoing the words of our sisters: “You are not alone.”
Michael Kaufman is co-founder of the White Ribbon Campaign, a writer, public speaker, and long-time activist supporting gender equality. His latest book is “A Guy’s Guide to Feminism.” He is writing a book on international efforts to engage men to end men’s violence against
women, and another book, with Gary Barker, on the global transformation of fatherhood. We encourage you to read his blog at www.michaelkaufman.com. @genderEQ
27 11 / 2013
The UN Women’s Rights Convention – An International Framework for Legislative Reform to Eliminate Violence against Women
by Angelika Kartusch, Austria
In 1979, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), a milestone for the recognition of women’s right to gender equality. To date, 187 states parties have ratified this legally binding instrument, which entered into force in 1981. Discrimination is defined in Article 1 CEDAW and encompasses both direct and indirect discrimination, no matter whether committed by state officials or private persons and entities. Further, states parties are obliged to eliminate gender-based discrimination of women in law (“formal equality”) and practice (“substantive equality”).
Gender-based violence – a form of discrimination
Although the Convention addresses a broad range of areas of life in which women experience discrimination, such as political life, employment, the health system or education, it makes no reference to violence against women. This gap was closed by the CEDAW Committee, the expert body in charge of monitoring the implementation of the Convention, in 1992, when it issued General Recommendation No. 19 on violence against women (GR 19). According to GR 19, gender-based violence (GBV) is a form of discrimination and as such encompassed by the CEDAW’s definition of discrimination in Article 1. GBV is understood as violence that is directed against women because they are women or that affects women disproportionately. GR 19 reiterates the obligation of States to eliminate violence against women committed in the private sphere by acting with due diligence to prevent, investigate and punish such violence and to provide compensation to victims.
Standards for legislation to address violence against women according to CEDAW
While GR 19 is as such not legally binding, it is a source of authoritative interpretation of the Convention and, through its list of recommendations, provides a comprehensive framework for state legislation to eliminate GBV and provide adequate and effective protection to all women. To this end, GR 19 calls upon states to establish criminal sanctions, civil remedies and effective complaint procedures and remedies, including compensation. The implementation of existing laws should be strengthened gender-sensitive training of judges, police and health workers, the establishment or support of services to women victims, such as shelter and counselling, or the evaluation of existing measures as to their actual impact in preventing and responding to GBV.
Since the entry into force of the Optional Protocol to CEDAW in 2000, which introduced an individual complaints procedure for women victims of violations of the Convention, the GR 19 has further guided the development of the Committee’s jurisprudence in assessing complaints addressing violence against women. For instance, the Committee held that the lack of restraining or protection orders to protect women from violent family members (case A.T. v. Hungary) or to protect victims of sexual violence from re-victimization, following the release of perpetrators from detention (case S.V.P. v. Bulgaria) violated the Convention.
In T.P.F. v. Peru, the CEDAW Committee has addressed a complaint regarding the lack of legislation to regulate access to therapeutic abortion, resulting in hospitals arbitrarily deciding on requirements and procedures. The Committee found that Peru had violated CEDAW by failing to put in place an appropriate legal framework to enable women to exercise the right to therapeutic abortion which would guarantee them legal security, for example through providing a mechanism for rapid decision-making and a right to appeal.
Effective implementation of anti-violence legislation
As regards the implementation of existing legal frameworks, the Committee in the cases of Gökce v. Austria and Yildirim v. Austria underlined that the adoption of laws in itself is not sufficient to fulfil the obligation under the Convention: laws must be effectively applied by authorities that adhere to the standard of due diligence. In both cases,the failure of the public prosecutor’s to arrest the perpetrators, even though the authorities knew or should have known that the women concerned were in serious danger, constituted a breach of the standard of due diligence. Further, the Committee also dealt with claims of discriminatory interpretation of laws by the judiciary. For instance, in Vertido v. The Philippines, the defendant was acquitted of rape charges because the judge based her judgment on discriminatory and stereotyped myths about male and female sexuality and the behaviour expected from a “typical” victim, which led the judge to favour the credibility of the defendant over the victim (). The Committee found that the state had breached its obligations under CEDAW. A violation of the Convention was also found in Jallow v. Bulgaria: a civil court, rather than protecting the complainant and her daughter from domestic violence, issued a protection order against her in favour of her violent husband, relying exclusively on the perpetrator’s statements. Further, the criminal justice authorities failed to undertake timely and suitable investigations into the reports of domestic violence made by the complainant.
The CEDAW Committee’s GR 19 has brought violence against women, including domestic violence, into the scope of the Convention. As a result, violence against women has become an issue of growing importance in the Committee’s jurisprudence. Indeed, in a number of individual complaints, the Committee found violations of states parties to prevent and respond to violence against women and used the opportunity to further specify the respective obligations under the Convention. This development is particularly interesting, given the fact that the actual Convention did not mention violence; it demonstrates the dynamic nature of human rights which are not static, but evolve over time, reflecting cultural and social developments.
*This article was originally posted in a longer format here: http://www.wave-network.org/sites/default/files/Fempower23_engl_150713_WEB.pdf
Angelika Kartusch is an expert in women‘s human rights, trafficking in women and violence against women, with longstanding experience in research, training and project coordination. She has worked with several non-governmental and international organizations. In 2012, Angelika joined WAVE (Women against Violence Europe) as the manager of the project “Strengthening Health System Responses to Gender-based Violence in Eastern Europe and Central Asia” implemented in partnership with UNFPA.
26 11 / 2013
por Patricia Guerrero, Colombia
En cincuenta años de conflicto armado nadie sabe verdaderamente cuantas víctimas de violencia sexual VS y violencia sexual basada en género GBSV ha dejado el conflicto interno armado en Colombia. Muchos de los crímenes penales internacional ni siquiera existían hace veinte años. El Estatuto de Roma de la Corte Penal Internacional refleja en su articulado, la barbarie de los crímenes de género en la lógica jurídica que reclama la convención, el estatuto, el tratado o el protocolo, después del genocidio, la tortura, la desaparición forzada, o la violencia sexual contra las mujeres.
Aborto forzado, embarazo forzado, esclavitud sexual, prostitución forzada, violación (rape) como genocidio etc., hasta hace muy poco fueron reconocidos como crímenes penales internacionales. Colombia hace parte del Estatuto de Roma y este, como los demás tratados que reconocen y protegen los derechos humanos incluido el DIH forman parte del bloque de constitucionalidad y son de superior jerarquía que la legislación interna. En todo caso prevalecen sobre la legislación nacional.
En Colombia han sido las víctimas, las sobrevivientes, las organizaciones de mujeres, las defensoras de derechos humanos de las mujeres y otras organizaciones democráticas, quienes con el apoyo de la Bancada de Mujeres del Congreso de la República, han logrado elevar a la categoría de ley la persecución de la violencia contra la mujer
La investigación, persecución y castigo para los responsables de violencia de género y la violencia sexual en razón del conflicto interno armado siguen siendo el reto para la Fiscalía General de la Nación. En más de 15 años como defensora de las víctimas de violación sexual y desplazamiento forzado, ni uno de los más de 130 casos que hemos denunciado ante la Fiscalía General de la Nación ha obtenido resultados. Las investigaciones han sido archivadas o suspendidas por falta de pruebas. 100% de impunidad respecto de los casos de la Liga de Mujeres Desplazadas.
La Corte Constitucional ha reclamado a la Fiscalía General de la Nación justicia para nuestros casos así como para cientos de casos más de mujeres desplazadas que han sido víctimas de violación sexual (Auto 092 de 2008) por todos los actores armados en el conflicto: paramilitares, guerrillas y fuerza pública. Sin embargo la respuesta de la Fiscalía sigue siendo descoordinada, parcial e inconsistente y la impunidad no ha sido superada sino que por el contrario, las victimas desconfían del sistema judicial, pues sus derechos como víctimas han sido reiteradamente violados. Ellas han sido re victimizadas al ser expuestas a contar los hechos N número de veces ante diferentes funcionarios públicos, no tiene una asistencia psicológica permanente y calificada que les permita superar el trauma y el estrés post traumático sino todo lo contrario, sus versiones son puestas en tela de juicio y muchas de ellas han debido desplazarse nuevamente por el estigma social y otras, por temor a la persecución de los perpetradores en ocasiones miembros de sus propias familias.
Un reciente informe se seguimiento a estos casos denominado ‘Acceso a la Justicia para las Mujeres Víctimas de Violencia Sexual’  del cual hizo parte la Liga de Mujeres Desplazadas y el Observatorio Género Democracia y Derechos Humanos, hace un extenso recorrido por los obstáculos institucionales, entre los cuales la falta de una política pública de mujer y género es evidente en la Fiscalía General de la Nación así como la falta de un tratamiento diferencial de las víctimas; la falta de garantías de acceso a la justicia destacándose la desprotección, la visión restringida de la VS en conflicto armado y los graves obstáculos en la atención en salud.
Son cincuenta años de guerra e impunidad contra las mujeres.
Patricia Guerrero, Fundadora de la Liga de Mujeres Desplazadas y del Observatorio Género Democracia y Derechos Humanos/Abogada feminista defensora de Derechos Humanos.
 Ley 1257, 4 de diciembre de 2008 Por la cual se dictan normas de sensibilización, prevención y sanción de formas de violencia y discriminación contra las mujeres, se reforman los Códigos Penal, de Procedimiento Penal, la Ley 294 de 1996 y se dictan otras disposiciones en respuesta a las exigencias de la CEDAW y Convención Interamericana para prevenir, sancionar y erradicar la violencia contra la mujer.
 Lo que entre otras cosas me ha colocado en una situación de riesgo extraordinario desde el año 2002 por lo cual la Comisión IDH me ha otorgado medidas cautelares desde el 2009.
25 11 / 2013
by Bernedette Muthien, South Africa
In 1993, the year of the germinal UN conference in Vienna, the first President of South Africa, Nelson Mandela, affirmed that all freedoms (and hence oppressions) are interdependent. This speaks critically to intersectionality, the study of the interactions of multiple systems of oppression, and its intersections with privilege. Intersectionality influenced South Africa’s groundbreaking Constitutional equality clause, which guarantees the rights of all peoples.
Vienna was a groundbreaking intersectional moment too, affirming human rights as a universal standard and emphasising the indivisible, interdependent nature of human rights, specifically in response to the historic divide between civil and political rights on the one hand, and economic, social and cultural rights on the other hand.
Intersectionality shows how categories such as gender, race, class, ability, sexuality and other forms of identity interact in myriad ways, contributing to systematic societal inequity. Classic conceptions of oppression in society, such as racism, sexism and homophobia interrelate, creating a web of subjugation.
While we are familiar with victims suffering violence, we often forget that witnesses suffer vicarious trauma, and that most perpetrators are themselves survivors of violence, including gender-based violence, that violence and discrimination often stems from insecurity and fear, rather than a lustful nature, no mirth intended.
Of less concern are the labels or issues we are still forced to deal with, like widespread gender-based violence that has not diminished over decades of feminist activisms and progressive legislation and policies. Of greater import are the approaches taken, the imperialist or colonial gaze, how we conceptualise issues, how these lenses shape/d activisms.
This includes the narrow LGBTQQI discourse, European letters completely ignorant of and sidestepping ancient same sex practices on all continents, including woman to woman marriage across Africa. Ifi Amadiume and the late Audre Lorde famously argued whether these women had romantic-sexual relations, Audre’s argument, or whether it was entirely about property relations and ensuring succession, Ifi’s contention. This ancient practice was almost entirely eradicated by colonial Christianity, yet it still persists, especially in rural areas, across East, Central and West Africa.
Of equal concern is the classification, led by the global North, of the rape of lesbians, ostensibly due to their sexuality, as a “hate crime”. This divorces so-called “curative” or “corrective” rape from its rootedness in gender-based violence and an analysis and challenge of Patriarchy, effectively deradicalising a revolutionary moment.
The presumption by feminist scholars and activists, especially those entrenched and aptly rewarded in euro-formed discourses, of the primordialism of patriarchy is another point of vexation to those of us from ancient indigenous societies that still remain matrilineal and women-centred, despite centuries of colonial and capitalist depredations. Matrilineal societies, still existing across the continents of the world, tend to be socially and gender egalitarian, with deep-rooted conflict resolution practices and hence less violent. The matriarchal Iroquois of North America’s precolonial Great Peace of the Haudenosee are said to have gifted the United States with the foundations of their Constitution. What can we learn from these nonviolent egalitarian peoples, their complex histories and ways of being? In as much as we study the League of Nations and the social welfarism of Scandinavia. Even as we smartly don the business suits, modern offspring of military uniforms, so necessary for our advocacy and scholarly endeavours, do we hear Audre Lorde’s admonishment of the complexities of employing the master’s tools to dismantle the master’s house?
The silofication of our discourse and struggle speaks to a weakness of the global imagination. We need to indigenise our struggles. We need to use language that is familiar to local peoples the world over, so that tyrannical patriarchal leaders cannot say our practices are un-African or un-Russian, because they are indeed indigenous and we have been doing it since time began. With indigenous knowledge we can more effectively resist the flood of fundamentalist Christians from North America and Europe recolonizing our continents, aided by despots more interested in scapegoating marginalised communities than in addressing issues of socio-economic justice.
We need to note that violences are structural-cultural, and due to Patriarchy, women are at the centre of this war on our bodies and minds. While we focus on choice, autonomy, desire and pleasure, we need to remember that we need socio-economic-cultural rights to be truly free.
As the founder of the Black Consciousness Movement in South Africa, brutally slain by Apartheid securocrats during the 1970s said in a speech in my Mother City of Cape Town: “The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed.” And we all know Bob Marley’s song, “none but ourselves can free our minds…”
Bernedette Muthien, scholar, a poet, and an activist. She co-founded and directs Engender, an NGO which works in the intersectional areas of genders, human rights, justice and peace. Over 20 years, on all six continents, she produced 170 publications and conference presentations, some of which have been translated from English into other languages, including Dutch, Flemish, French, German, and Italian. Follow her @BerneMuthien
17 9 / 2013
On August 21, 2013, the Center for Women’s Global Leadership (CWGL) and the US Human Rights Network (USHRN) convened a panel at the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) in New York City focused on the importance of US based activists using international human rights mechanisms in their advocacy. The aim of the panel was to encourage participants to better understand the ways in which human rights tools can be used at the national level to hold the US government accountable to human rights at home. Our goal was to get US based NGOs to see the importance of international mechanisms in their work more broadly. Panelists spoke on a range of issues and made connections to international mechanisms that will be reviewing the US ‘s human rights progress in the next three years, which includes the United Nations (UN) International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the UN Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), and the UN Universal Periodic Review (UPR).
First, James Turpin, United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), provided a brief introduction to the UN treaty body and UPR system. He stressed the importance of civil society engagement with UN international mechanisms to ensure that the information the UN receives is diverse. In discussing gender equality and women’s empowerment, he called on women’s rights organizations to not only exclusively look at the women’s rights convention, but also include the nine existing treaty bodies which are all women’s rights treaty bodies. In essence, women’s rights organizations should not silo or limit themselves to working with only one treaty, but instead use all the treaties to hold their government accountable to women’s rights and the human rights principle of non-discrimination and equality is universal.
Next, Ejim Dike, USHRN, shared an overview of how the network uses international human rights mechanisms. She spoke about the impact of voting restrictions on human rights in the United States and the importance of elevating human rights standards since the government is not compliant with international human rights law. Ms. Dike mentioned that the US is at a critical moment and as serious human rights regressions continue civil society and the social justice movement must take on the role of enforcing human rights standards. Even if you are employed, poverty lurks, she argued, referring to the fact that if you make minimum wage you are still under the poverty line. One example she provided as bringing human rights home is the US domestic workers movement. They have successfully engaged both at the local and international levels, gaining significant progress both in the legal and policy spheres.
Chandra Bhatnagar, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), began by stating human rights are rights entitled to all peoples and the basic minimum which the government must comply to is the human right. Once a treaty is ratified it should become supreme law of the land and it is the responsibility of civil society to submit reports to the UN on various issues to correct the record. Mr. Bhatnagar shared a case that he was involved with in which the ACLU along with others filed a petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights charging that the US violated its universal human rights obligations by failing to protect millions of undocumented workers from exploitation and discrimination in the workplace. These types of legal exercises not only can engender justice, but also result in mainstream media attention and movement building.
Katrina Anderson and Amanda McRae, both from CRR, spoke to the importance of using international mechanisms to hold the US government accountable to principles of non-discrimination and equality. One example Ms. Anderson provided was that it’s not enough to only address unsafe abortions when black women are dying at four times the rate of white women in the US. The CRR uses the CERD to address health through the lens of discrimination and make linkages between sexual and reproductive health and rights and poverty. Ms. McRae emphasized the importance of intersectionality in her work with both the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).
UN international human rights mechanisms are tools that civil society can engage with to hold their governments accountable for human rights, whether that be access to affordable and quality healthcare or ending discriminatory practices that target people of color. The United Nations can help to open entry points for civil society engagement with the state and call upon friendly governments to ensure that the US is not eroding human rights at home.
Here are some useful resources:
- Getting involved in the ICCPR US review
- A Practical Guide to Implementing CERD
- A Practical Guide to the United Nations’ Universal Periodic Review (UPR)
by Margot Baruch, Economic and Social Rights Program Coordinator, Center for Women’s Global Leadership, Rutgers University
13 9 / 2013
The Center for Women’s Global Leadership (CWGL) mourns the loss of our beloved colleague whose strong political voice, smiling face, generosity of spirit, forceful determination and commitment have accompanied us throughout our history of working for human rights and justice. Sunila was a courageous feminist and human rights activist from Sri Lanka who played a major leadership role not only in South Asia, but also in the global women’s and human rights movements. She lived a life on the forefront of many social movements, fighting relentlessly for justice and human rights—for women and on behalf of all those who experienced identity-based discrimination, persecution and marginalization, whether on the basis of race-ethnicity, class, gender or sexual orientation. For more information on Sunila’s work, visit http://cwgl.rutgers.edu/press-room-150/press-releasesstatements/54-press-room/press-releasesstatements/483-sunila-abeysekera-biography..
CWGL has counted Sunila not only as a longtime colleague, but also as one our guiding lights in addressing women’s human rights. She offered her advice and time to us generously over many years. She brought her unique and powerful presence to many of our endeavors from the Global Campaign in Vienna and the Human Rights Commission/Council in Geneva to leadership institutes and strategic conversations held at Rutgers University in New Jersey as well as with the Women Living Under Muslim Laws network in Istanbul and Lagos.
In 2003, she was a visiting global associate at CWGL. During that time, she participated in our commemoration of the 10th anniversary of the United Nations World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna. She also helped shape our work on women human rights defenders, imperialism, the religious right and women’s rights. As we celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Vienna Conference, her spirit will be with us. We will miss Sunila profoundly, but the impact of her work and vision accompanies us forever.
Charlotte Bunch, Radhika Balakrishnan and the CWGL team
27 8 / 2013
I’ve had multiple internships at various institutions throughout my college career. At each of them, I learned a useful lesson about the nonprofit industry. Whether it was experience with fundraising or utilizing social media, the lessons I’ve learned have allowed me to walk away with a feeling of professional growth and empowerment.
Needless to say, my internship at CWGL, offered me those same lessons and then some. By helping to archive GEAR Campaign materials, I learned about the importance of advocacy for socio-economic rights on a global scale. From everyday office work, I learned how useful coalition building is for the growth of an organization. I was even able to get hands on experience with event planning for the Vienna+20 Symposium.
I’ve always been a firm believer in the importance of mentorship. Perhaps even more important than professional growth is personal development - something that mentorship can truly provide. This summer I was fortunate enough to not only be mentored by my supervisor, but the entire CWGL staff. The following are tiny pieces of wisdom that I learned from each of them during my internship experience:
1) Hard work deserves a break. There’s only so much a single person can do on their own.
2) Take your job seriously, but not your life. The complexities of life are much more enjoyable when viewed through a positive lense.
3) It’s okay to push the envelope. Especially when the issue at hand is backed by support of others.
4) It’s okay to disagree. Sticking to your own opinion is more respectable than agreeing with the unanimous opinion around you… even if it is that you think Beyoncé isn’t “all that.”
5) No matter how hectic things can get, it’s important to stay positive. The power of a smile is limitless.
I will take these valuable lessons and skills I’ve learned with me as I venture off into my senior year at Rutgers University. Here is a gracious thank you to my new family at the Center for Women’s Global Leadership!
by Mariel Quintana, Economic and Social Rights Intern, Center for Women’s Global Leadership, Rutgers University
Photo: “Organizing CWGL files.” Many thanks to our interns, Samantha Dugan, Katie Glick, Hanaa Lakhani, Mariel Quintana for all of their hard work this summer. Best of luck next semester!