Russia to decriminalise domestic violence to preserve ‘tradition of parental authority’

A bill aimed at decriminalising domestic violence to preserve the “tradition of parental authority” has easily passed through the first stage of approval in the Russian parliament.

Ultra-conservative MP Yelena Mizulina, who chairs a committee on family and women’s affairs, proposed the bill to have “battery within families” taken out of Russia’s criminal code, removing the right of victims to press charges.

“In Russian traditional family culture parent-child relationships are built on the authority of the parents’ power,” she told a meeting of parliament in Moscow. “The laws should support that family tradition.”

The proposed law was approved by 368 MPs, with only one coming out in opposition.

In July last year, Vladimir Putin oversaw an amendment to the law which declared family violence a criminal offence for the first time in Russia. Ms Mizulina and her supporters have been protesting the ruling ever since.

“Battery carried out towards family members should be an administrative offence,” Ms Mizulina continued. “You don’t want people to be imprisoned for two years and labelled a criminal for the rest of their lives for a slap.

Read the full story from The Independent

Total Abortion Ban Debuts in US Congress

Rep. Steve King (R-IA) on Thursday introduced the first federal “heartbeat bill” modeled on a failed Ohio attempt to end legal abortion as early as six weeks into a pregnancy—before many people know they’re pregnant.

“Heartbeat bills” amount to total abortion bans. They have been declared unconstitutional in federal court.

King’s office confirmed that HR 490 marked the first introduction of a so-called heartbeat bill in the U.S. Congress. Former Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) introduced a forced ultrasound bill in 2011, but her measure did not ban abortion—King’s stated goal.

A King press release called Roe v. Wade unconstitutional, adding that under HR 490, “if a heartbeat is detected, the baby is protected.”

His spokesperson provided Rewire with legislative text specifying that an abortion provider “who knowingly performs an abortion and thereby kills a human fetus” without determining a heartbeat, informing the patient of a heartbeat, or proceeding regardless of a heartbeat would face fines and up to five years in prison. The bill includes limited exceptions for the physical health of the pregnant person but not for “psychological or emotional conditions.”

Read the full article from Rewire

OURs at the 13th AWID Forum

Reclaiming Rights in the Face of Rising Fundamentalisms

This September, members of the Observatory on the Universality of Rights (OURs) met in Bahia, Brazil to participate in the 13th International Forum, a convening held by the Association for Women’s Rights in Development (AWID), the coordinating organization of the OURs Working Group.

The OURs initiative was formally presented to the Forum at a session titled “How Can We Reclaim Our Rights? Universal Human Rights and the Fierce Backlash of Religious Fundamentalisms”.  During the session, which was moderated by Meghan Doherty of Sexual Rights Initiative, presentations were given by Zainah Anwar of Musawah, Carrie Shelver of the Coalition of African Lesbians (CAL), independent expert Cynthia Rothschild, and AWID’s Naureen Shameem.  This session presented initial findings from the OURs’ first trends report (forthcoming).   

Push Back and Step Forward: Our Human Rights at Risk,”  a second session, was presented by Marisa Viana of RESURJ, Juan Marco Vaggione of Católicas por el Derecho a Decidir Argentina, Mirta Moragas of Ipas, and Karima Bennoune, who spoke in her personal capacity.  This discussion traced the rise of religious fundamentalisms, examining socioeconomic factors that have led to their current level of influence upon human rights standards. Participants took to Twitter to continue the conversation, using the hashtag #RightsAreUniversal.

thumb_img_3346_1024

Drumming group Banda Dida playing at the AWID Forum in Bahia, Brazil

Actors, Tactics, and Discourses

Information about the anti-rights players operating in international spaces and the tactics and discourses they use was a prominent feature of the discussions at the AWID Forum.  Discourses of religion, culture, and tradition are perhaps the most well-known arguments used by these conservative actors.  However, the preview of the forthcoming OURs research revealed a whole plethora of other discourses being employed in creative ways.

Some of key discourses used to support conservative agendas in human rights spaced include:

  • The right to life
  • National sovereignty
  • Western imperialism
  • Religious freedom and freedom of conscience
  • Preservation of culture and traditional values
  • Protection of children
  • Parental rights
  • Protection of the family
  • Sexual rights
  • Sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI)
  • Freedom of expression
  • Maternal mortality
  • Violence against women

One particularly worrying trend mentioned was conservative groups becoming more adept at using the very language of human rights, women’ rights, and even the language pertaining to the universality of rights, in order to push agendas which actually aim to curtail rights, especially those relating the gender and sexuality.

Karima Bennoune gave the example of cultural rights.  She reminded the audience that culture is never static, and is something to be created by people rather than imposed upon them.  Bennoune reiterated that culture cannot be allowed to be misused as an excuse for violence, and reminded participants of  Article 5a of the CEDAW convention, which outlines the obligation states have to transform aspects of culture which give rise to discrimination against women.  She urged WHRDs to remind the world that they are the ones who are defending cultural rights.

Naureen Shameem’s preview of the research conducted by OURs was replete with examples of tactics used by conservative non-government groups.  The room was shown, for example, online petitions set up to protest the UN’s ‘Gay Gestapo’ (referring to the new position of Independent Expert on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity), and international convenings such as the World Congress of Families.  Lobbying was shown to be an important tactic of non-state groups, as well as training of lawyers and other experts to defend regressive stances. The research presentation included an example of a detailed manuals used by one group to train its members to lobby UN officials.  Marisa Viana and Mirta Moragas emphasized the huge amount of young people doing this work, who are very confident operating in international policy spaces, and are also very well trained.  

screen-shot-2016-12-19-at-12-52-55-pm

Example of an online petition by right-wing website CitizenGo

Similarly, the tactics of states were elaborated upon, such as the practice of state reservations to treaties and resolutions; procedural tactics such as the introduction of hostile amendments; and the sponsoring of regressive resolutions.  States also embed limitations on rights by galvanising enough states to pass agreed regressive language.  One example given was a sentence from the July 2015 ‘Protection of the Family’ resolution: “The family plays a crucial role in the preservation of cultural identity, traditions, morals, heritage, and value system and the values system of society”.  Presenters discussed the central tactic of the states behind the ‘protection of the family’ agenda: the attempt to switch the subject of rights away from the individual and onto the institution of ‘the family’, rigidly conceptualised as hierarchical, patriarchal and heteronormative.

Juan Vaggione emphasised the power of the Vatican.  The only religious body to be given nearly the power of a state at the UN, the Vatican (Holy See)’s sophisticated tactics have had an extensive impact of the construction of rights and international law.   Vaggione described this as the Vatican maximizing channels that had been opened for democratic purposes, using their power for their own cause.  He gave the example of the defence of religious liberty and conscience as a pro-democracy principle that had been turned on its head.

We heard from Zainah Anwar (Musawah) and María Consuelo Mejía (Católicas por el Derecho a Decidir, Mexico) about the ways in which this array of strategies works to threaten human rights at national and regional levels as well as the international.    Both speakers outlined the creative strategies employed by civil society in different parts of the world to resist the rise of religious fundamentalisms, and their work to encourage more proactive responses to this trend.

Through the discussion it became clear that fundamentalists use the same arguments at both of these levels, but the difference is that attacks at international level actually aim to erode the very foundation upon which human rights are rested and can be claimed against violators.

screen-shot-2016-12-19-at-12-52-26-pm

Anti-rights players at the UN, as described during the AWID Forum

Finding our solutions to the current crisis

Cynthia Rothschild warned that the contemporary era is witnessing the mobilization and growth of challenges to human rights at a pace never seen before. As she pointed out, this comes as a result of increasing collaboration between regressive forces across regions, religious affiliation, and between state, intergovernmental and religious institutions, non-state actors.    We heard how these regressive actors, like feminists and social justice activists, have come to understand the importance of ‘intersectionality’; they use various angles, from sustainable development, the environment, poverty, to introduce anti-rights views.

Overall, the discussions painted a picture of an international landscape in which female bodies, and the bodies of people who do not fit ‘norms’ relating to gender and sexuality, are the battleground for parties that stand at each end of increasingly polarized policy spaces.  Cultural and nationalist discourses intersect with the religious, and, when it comes to questions of sexuality and gender, states are adopting positions that are often actually more regressive than their national laws.  Furthermore, these regressive actors are making strides to erode long-achieved standards that had previously been taken for granted.

This situation in international policy spaces is certainly part of a broader global picture of shrinking civil society space, a crisis of democracy, and a rise in populist right-wing movements.  Against this backdrop, NGOs and activists are painted as in cahoots with elites, and international norms are demonized as imperialist diktats.

Those present reflected on the future of working within and in relation to international spaces like the UN: how much time and energy should we commit to these spaces, and how much should we try to push the envelope to bring more radical feminist politics into them?  There were also repeated statements of the need to work through a more integrated approach to human rights, bringing activist concerns about intersectionality to the fore at the international level.   The multi-organizational OURs initiative was discussed as an exciting way forward in response to the current crisis.

Given the ability of conservative actors to organize across issues and regions, the promise of OURs to bring together existing efforts was a welcome vision for the future. Given the way that the current political landscape is often polarized between either focus on the religious right or questions of imperialism, it was refreshing that the discussion brought together both of these phenomena as two sides of the same coin.   

Taking a intersectional approach, the conversation did not shy away from uncomfortable realities.  In particular Carrie Shelver of CAL outlined the fact that rights discourses and systems have been misused by those with power to prop up existing global power inequality, and that both cultural and economic imperialisms continue to devastate Global South nations.  In both sessions, the links between militarism, capitalism, imperialism, and religious fundamentalisms were made clear. 

With this conceptual framework as a foundation, there was a feeling that the OURs initiative had the potential be an important vehicle.  A vehicle to successfully reclaim human rights from the pervasive accusations that rights norms and systems are somehow imperialist impositions, while still pushing beyond traditional liberal formulations of universality which have failed to serve intersectional visions of justice.  While many of the questions for the future revolve around how this can be articulated as a sustained and thorough political position and vision, the discussions at the Forum felt like one of the first of many steps in the right direction.

Human rights are under attack by an ultra-conservative agenda

The advance of actors pushing fundamentalist agendas within international policy spaces is cause for concern this Human Rights Day. Feminists and other social justice activists must act now to reaffirm and safeguard our human rights.

By Isabel Marler and Naureen Shameem

Each week a conservative group based in the United States sends out an email message to its followers across the globe. These newsletters are replete with warnings that “UN radicals” and “deliberately barren radical feminists” pose a threat to the moral order with their “devilish gospel of contraception, population control, p*rnography, abortion, gay rights, and all the other aspects of the sexual revolution”.1 They have included such items as “Gay Parents Might Make You Sad and Fat” and “Gender Ideology Leads to Child Abuse”.2

Those of us invested in social justice work may dismiss this kind of rhetoric. However, the scale and power of the global anti-human rights movement warrants serious attention, especially in the context of the rise of right-wing movements around the world, including Brexit and the US election this past year.

Take, for example, the World Congress of Families (WCF), whose 35-partner network has a combined annual budget of over $200 million, and, according to WCF, has a reach of over 50 million people worldwide.3 In addition to a regular stream of declarations, “social science” publications, and policy papers, WCF’s key contribution to the global anti-human rights scene is its regular international conference, self-described as the “Olympics” of social conservatism.

The latest WCF convening was held in Tbilisi, Georgia, the first to be hosted in an Orthodox country, and brought together ultra-conservative religious figures and scholars from around the world to network and hash out new strategies. The WCF crowd riffed on “the family” to back up their arguments against gender equality and to demonize feminists and other social justice actors. References to the welfare of children and parental rights were interspersed throughout the four-day conference, providing the thinnest of veils for the reality of their oppressively narrow conceptualization of family.

The WCF is just one initiative enthusiastically taken up by diverse global anti-human rights milieu. There exists a large constellation of diverse initiatives that have found innovative ways to mobilize those who feel that the gains of feminism, and increased acceptance of “non-traditional” or non-heteronormative relationships and families, pose some threat to the fabric of society. Many have managed to tap into segments of the millennial generation and mobilize them as the next generation of advocates for extreme conservative causes.

The discursive tactics used by these actors can be very subtle. Some groups work to disguise the conservative religious doctrine that drives them, by strategically employing secularized discourses or pseudo-science, presenting themselves as research bodies or “think tanks”. Indeed, the output of many conservative actors is nothing short of expert double-speak, co-opting the language of human rights to attack rights themselves. Take a passage from the mission statement of UK-based Voice for Justice, which reads like that of a rights-based social justice organization: “Our call is to fight for the disadvantaged and marginalised, and to defend all who face exploitation and/or oppression from the imposition of an increasingly totalitarian worldview.”

Particularly disquieting is the growing number of groups and institutions that claim to represent an alternate vision of women’s rights or feminism. In this line of arguing, women’s rights are not criticized qua women’s rights. Instead, conservative actors present feminist activists as self-interested advocates of a Western, sexualized radical ideology, and themselves as advocates for “real” women around the world, protecting their “dignity” and links to family and the home. This clever discursive device was first promulgated by the Holy See, and today employed by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) as well as many conservative Christian NGOs who also speak in this tenor. These tactics have also managed to gain legitimacy within human rights spaces, illustrated by, for example, UN bodies and actors referencing the OIC’s role in empowering women.

Beyond deconstructing the discursive tactics used by these groups, what is most important is that we, as feminists and other social justice advocates, understand these examples as part of a larger, extremely alarming, phenomenon. Religious fundamentalists are now operating with increased frequency, resources, and support in international human rights spaces. Furthermore, these actors are extremely well coordinated, building dynamic, issue-oriented affiliations between civil society actors, intergovernmental organizations, and states, and across regions and religions.

Indeed, the strategies employed by anti-human rights actors have already had a substantive effect on the international and regional human rights systems, especially in areas related to gender and sexuality. Here we outline four areas in which fundamental rights and freedoms have been threatened.

rs1001_negotiations-room-web

The Commission on the Status of Women (CSW)

The CSW, held annually in March, has long been one of the most contested sites in the UN system for anti-human rights actors. In March 2015, conservative efforts set the tone before events or negotiations even began. Not only was the 20th anniversary of Beijing not taken up as an opportunity for a Fifth World Conference because of real concerns about potential erosion of decades old commitments; the outcome document of the Commission was a weak Declaration negotiated before any women’s rights activists even arrived on the ground. The final Declaration was watered down to the point of irrelevance. Glaring omissions included lack of reference to feminist organizations, gender-based violence, or sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR), and very few mentions even of states’ obligations to upholding human rights.

Subsequently, at the 60th CSW, the new Youth Caucus was infiltrated by large numbers of vocal anti-abortion and anti-SRHR actors. Progressive youth organizations reported being outnumbered and shouted down by anti-rights actors in attendance. And again, intensive negotiations were followed by a lacklustre text. One notable regression – met with celebration by Christian Rights NGOs – was that the final draft of the Agreed Conclusions included reference to “the family as a contributor to development, including in the achievement of the internationally agreed development goals for women and girls.” In the end, the text of the Agreed Conclusions bolstered a unitary, and implicitly patriarchal, hierarchical and heteronormative vision of the family and its place in development.

Precisely when addressing women’s human rights is of urgent importance, the CSW has been rendered a depoliticized space. Using it to advance rights has become harder and harder since much of our energy is taken up trying to hold the ground against conservative backlash.

The Human Rights Council (HRC)

As the intergovernmental body responsible for the promotion and protection of human rights around the globe, the HRC is a key entry point for conservative actors in their campaigns to erode and shape human rights protections. In recent years, this mechanism has been the scene for a number of damaging anti-human rights moves. In conversation with other anti-rights actors, one strategy of conservative states, and blocs of states, is to aggressively negotiate out positive language and to introduce hostile amendments to resolutions, a move most often seen with resolutions that focus on rights related to gender and sexuality.

To take one example, during the June 2016 session of the HRC, opposition was mounted towards a resolution on discrimination against women by the member states of the OIC and allies, on the basis of that they were “offensive” regarding culture and tradition. However, during contentious negotiations, multiple provisions were removed, including women’s and girls’ right to have control over their sexuality, sexual and reproductive health, and reproductive rights; the need to repeal laws which perpetuate the patriarchal oppression of women and girls in families, those criminalizing adultery or pardoning marital rape; and the importance of comprehensive sexuality education in addressing gender inequalities.

The HRC has also been the site of pernicious conservative initiatives to co-opt human rights norms and enact conservative ‘human rights’ language, such as that of the Russia-led “traditional values” resolutions, and more recently the “Protection of the Family” agenda. Three related resolutions have passed so far, from 2014 to 2016. This multi-country initiative aims to enshrine a patriarchal, heteronormative, and nuclear concept of “family” that does not reflect lived realities in human rights language, translating ultra-conservative support for the ‘natural’ or ‘traditional’ family and ‘family values’ to the international level. It also emphasizes the role of this unitary form of family over obligations to respect, protect and fulfill individual human rights, glossing over the realities of the rights violations that take place within families, in particular gender-based violence.

united_nations_flags_-_cropped

Tom Page/ Flickr

Human Rights Committee

In 2015, moving their sights to another front, a number of religious right organizations began to target the Human Rights Committee, the treaty monitoring body for the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The ICCPR is a pivotal human rights instrument, a binding multilateral treaty that along with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights forms part of the long-standing International Bill of Human Rights.

Anti-human rights groups mobilized in hopes of cementing their anti-abortion rhetoric into the treaty. When the Committee announced it was drafting a new authoritative interpretation of the right to life, over 30 conservative non-state actors sent in written submissions, advocating their inaccurate and misleading discourse on ‘right to life’, that life begins at conception and that abortion is a violation of the right, be incorporated in the Committee’s interpretation of article 6.

Conservative groups targeting the Human Rights Committee was a shift considering that historically anti-human rights actors have repeatedly attempted to undermine and invalidate the essential work of the treaty monitoring bodies, including the Human Rights Committee, characterizing their authoritative interpretations of binding human rights language as biased or “activist”. This move is one indication of the pro-active approach of anti-right actors in seeking out new spaces within the United Nations that can be used to further their subversion of fundamental human rights.

SDG negotiations and Agenda 2030

Anti-human rights actors were involved in lobbying towards the development of the new Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) through fall 2015, focusing again on rights relating to gender and sexuality. These efforts gained less traction in influencing Agenda 2030 in UN spaces. For instance, their cornerstone ask of a stand-alone family goal – the key objective of a new 25-state bloc, led by Belarus, and calling itself the Group of Friends of the Family – did not come to fruition.

However, after successfully pushing back against strong human rights, SRHR, and sexual orientation and gender identity language in the final text, conservative actors then pivoted to another strategy. In an attempt to evade state accountability and undermine the universality of rights, several states have repeatedly made reservations to the Goals. Notable reservations came from Qatar, the African Group, Ecuador, Egypt, Sudan, Chad, and the Holy See.

On behalf of the African Group, Senegal claimed that African states would only “implement the goals in line with the cultural and religious values of its countries.” The Holy See also made a number of reservations, and also stated that it was “confident that the related pledge ‘no one will be left behind’ would serve as the perspective through which the entire Agenda would be read” in order to protect “the right to life of the person, from conception until natural death.” Saudi Arabia went one step further after reservations, declaring that the country would not follow any international rules relating to the Sustainable Development Goals that reference sexual orientation or gender identity, describing them as running “counter to Islamic law.”

Time to act

The power of conservative religious actors, both state and non-state, to erode the very basis of human rights, is not to be taken lightly. These are but a few examples; a range of our human rights related to gender and sexuality are under canny and coordinated attack. Conservative states and NGOs are working in new and more coordinated ways to undermine existing human rights systems.

In fact, the religious right, no longer content to tinker at the edges of agreements and block certain language, can be said to be working to transform the human rights framework conceptually and develop parallel tracks of influence, standards, and norm production. This reflects conservative groups’ higher level of engagement and long-term investment in the UN as an institution, including their investment in organizing strategies to anti-human rights agendas.

With governments the world over shifting to the right, and most recently the election of Donald Trump in the United States, more power and legitimacy has been given to anti-human rights actors at both national and international levels. Given this situation, feminists and other social justice advocates face the challenge of defending our existing human rights standards, and best preparing ourselves to stave off further attempts to erode them, while we continue to push for changes that offer better protections and accountability.

The first step in this struggle is to amass the necessary knowledge of the opposition – to understand the trends of their efforts so far, their strengths and weaknesses, and their trajectories for the future. We can then come together in renewed efforts to work across issues and spaces to reclaim and reaffirm our human rights.

 

This article is in part adapted from the forthcoming 2015-2016 trends report from the Observatory on the Universality of Rights (OURs).


1 C-Fam (Center for Family and Human Rights) email August 5, 2016, paraphrased

2 C-Fam Friday Fax email newsletters, Vol. 19, No. 29 (July 13, 2016) and Vol. 19, No. 34 (August 18, 2016) respectively

WCF newsletter

Women in Saudi Arabia want to be full-fledged citizens

Saudi Arabian women have signed a controversial petition to end male guardianship. We are ready to pay the price, Hatoon Als Fassi told DW.

DW: Ms Hatoon Al Fassi, you are one of the famous women’s rights activists in Saudi Arabia and a professor for woman’s history at “King Saud University.” Over 14,500 people in Saudi Arabia have signed a petition sent to King Salman calling for an end to the kingdom’s guardianship system, which requires women to have male permission for most of life’s tasks. That is a remarkable number for Saudi Arabia. How could this new collective consciousness develop in very traditional Saudi society?

Hatoon Al Fassi: We cannot tell where this sample of signatories have come from; we need to do another statistical analysis and we don’t have much information. One question was asked, what do you do. But in general and from the social media that keeps the trend of this campaign going every day – today it reached its 95th day – we can say that it comes from middle class women and men, educated and young. Most of the indications go in this direction and with the support of many men.

Hatoon Al Fassi is one of the leading figures of the women’s rights movement in Saudi Arabia

What exactly do you want to change?

With this petition we wanted first to change the status quo that renders Saudi women a “thing” that has no will of its own. The petition is a call to stop and end the system of guardianship for women. This means to stop letting women who are mature and adult to need permission of their guardian (i.e. father, brother, husband, even son) to allow her to study, work, travel, receive a scholarship, be admitted to hospital, undergo an operation related to her own womb, and even to be released from prison after finishing a sentence. This system has nothing to do with religion, however – women were always under the impression that it is so. Our petition and campaign clarified many of these myths as well as showed by proof and evidence that this is a mere patriarchal system that violates women’s human rights.

Is the male dominated society in Saudi Arabia ready for this change?

The conservative society is under the impression that guardianship is religion, so we have seen resistance by many of that community; however, many well-known religious scholars have appeared and spoke out saying that what this campaign is asking for is legitimate and it is true that there is no guardianship on the adult sane mature woman, to name one, Sheikh Abdullah al Menee, member of the Council of Senior Scholars, the highest religious commission in Saudi Arabia that reports to the king directly.

Read the whole interview from Deutsche Welle

Same-sex marriage plebiscite bill blocked by Australian Senate

The Federal Government’s bid to hold a plebiscite on whether to legalise same-sex marriage has been defeated in the Senate.

Key points:

  • Public vote on same-sex marriage rejected by Parliament
  • Labor, Greens say plebiscite would have sparked hatred towards LGBTI community
  • Nationals MP says Coalition will not have conscience vote on issue

The proposal was voted down on Monday night in the Upper House 33 votes to 29.

The Attorney-General George Brandis had warned a defeat would result in delaying same-sex marriage in Australia for years to come.

But the Federal Opposition says the plebiscite would have resulted in harmful debate against the gay and lesbian community and want a direct vote in Parliament, instead.

Read the full story from ABC

The women tweeting for their freedom in Saudi Arabia

“I’m a dead soul in a living body and I hope that doesn’t happen to my little sister,” Sara, a Saudi woman, tells CNN.
Sara is one of a growing number of Saudi women who are challenging the country’s male guardianship system using social media.
In Saudi Arabia, every woman has a male guardian — often a father or husband, sometimes a brother or son — who has the power to make a range of critical decisions on their behalf.
After speaking to dozens of Saudi women, Human Rights Watch found in July that the system is “the most significant impediment to realizing women’s rights in the country.”
Read the full article at CNN.

Aruba Parliament approves civil unions for same-sex couples

ORANJESTAD, Aruba (AP) ” Lawmakers in Aruba have voted to grant same-sex couples the right to register their unions and receive benefits granted to married people on the Dutch Caribbean island.

Parliament voted 11-5 with four abstentions late Thursday to amend civil code regulations related to marriage to cover same-sex unions. Those articles include such things as the right to a spouse’s pension in case of death or to make emergency medical decisions.

Aruba is one of the constituent countries that make up the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Same-sex couples previously could marry in the Netherlands and return to have their marriage certificate recognized under a law obligating recognition of official documents throughout the kingdom.

…Aruba has been under pressure in recent years from LGBT rights advocates to allow same-sex marriage but religious groups have opposed the effort. The opposition also fought civil unions as the bill came to a vote.

Read the full article at the New Zealand Herald.

Marriage equality: Christian lobby backs legal help for businesses refusing gay couples

An organisation founded by the Australian Christian Lobby plans to bankroll legal cases for business owners who refuse to provide services to gay couples should marriage equality be legalised.

The Human Rights Law Alliance, set up in Canberra last month with seed funding from the ACL, is seeking private contributions for a “fighting fund” to run cases that may arise if changes to the Marriage Act are passed.

The managing director of HRLA, Martyn Iles, said the alliance would “only support cases where people have a conscientious objection to participating in a same-sex wedding”.

Read the whole article from The Guardian

HRC33: SRHR Recap

The 33rd session of the UN Human Rights Council took place from the 12th to the 30th of September 2016.
The HRC33 Recap provides information on some of the key sexual rights related:
all of which the Sexual Rights Initiative (SRI) was engaged with during the session.
Sexual Rights-related Resolutions

 

Preventable maternal mortality and morbidity and human right
The Council adopted by consensus its biannual resolution on preventable maternal mortality and morbidity. The resolution represents an advancement to women’s human rights on several counts.

However, fourteen amendments tabled by Russia aimed to significantly reduce the potential advances in the resolution, five of which went to a vote. The amendments targeted references to the CESCR General Comment 22 on the right to sexual and reproductive health and the CRPD General Comment 3 on women and girls with disabilities, and the call for States to remove third party authorization for health services ( agreed language from resolution A/HRC/RES/32/4), insisting on the qualifiers of the ICPD and Beijing Platform for Action for agreed language on sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights, and sought to change the title of the proposed panel on maternal mortality and sexual and reproductive health and rights.

These five amendments were voted on and accepted by a majority of States in the Council. While the text remains strong and represents important advances in several areas, the number of amendments put forward and their acceptance by the Council members illustrates the continued challenges to advancing women’s rights to equality, health, life, information, privacy and control the number and spacing of children, among others. It is especially disappointing that the Council would backtrack on language agreed only three months ago in the Elimination of Discrimination against Women resolution at the June session regarding the removal of third party authorization for information and health services.

How the resolution advances women’s human rights:

  • highlights the linkages between human rights obligations related to ending preventable maternal mortality and morbidity and the SDGs and the Secretary General’s Global Strategy for Women’s, Children’s and Adolescents’ Health;
  • recognizes the obligation of States Parties to the ICESCR to take steps to achieve the full realization of the right to health, including sexual and reproductive health as an integral part of this right;
  • recognizes that sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights, in accordance with the PoA of the ICPD and the Beijing Platform and the outcome of their review conferences are integral to the progressive realization of the right to health;
  • upholds the principles of formal and substantive equality within comprehensive sexual and reproductive health care and services, while including the need to address intersecting and multiple forms of discrimination;
  • reaffirms women’s right to have control over, and to decide freely and responsibly on, matters related to their sexuality, including their sexual and reproductive health, free of coercion, discrimination and violence;
  • recognizes the importance of identifying, within the SDGs framework, appropriate national indicators in reducing maternal mortality and morbidity with full respect of States relevant human rights obligations and commitments;
  • recognizes the large disparities in the maternal mortality rate between and within countries, between women with different incomes, between rural women and women living in urban areas;
  • notes with concern the higher rates of maternal mortality and complications in pregnancy and childbirth for adolescent girls under the age of 15;
  • recognizes the exacerbated risk of maternal mortality and morbidity in armed conflict and humanitarian emergencies;
  • identifies unsafe abortion, poverty, lack of access to services, discrimination against women, gender inequality and gender-based stereotypes as factors that can lead to maternal mortality and morbidity.
  • urges states to address these interlinked causes utilizing a human rights-based approach;
  • requests states to integrate a human-rights based perspective, addressing the impact that discrimination against women has on maternal mortality and morbidity, in maternal mortality and morbidity initiatives;
  • calls upon states to assess accountability mechanisms, where they exist, while ensuring access to justice for women and girls and to build accountability into interventions and strategies;
  • calls on states to ensure the meaningful participation of women and girls in all decisions that affect them;
  • calls upon all relevant actors to strengthen their efforts to reduce preventable maternal mortality and morbidity including through, amongst others, the application of the OHCHR technical guidance;
  • Decides to convene a panel at the 34th session of the human rights council on preventable maternal mortality and morbidity as a human rights priority for all states including in the context of the implementation of the 2030 agenda.
Click here to read the joint SRI & CRR statement
The human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation A/HRC/33/L.19
The resolution was Adopted by vote of 42-1-4 and led by Germany and Spain. It includes the following reference to menstrual hygiene and stigma: “Deeply concerned that the lack of access to adequate water and sanitation services, including for menstrual hygiene management, especially in schools, contributes to reinforcing the widespread stigma associated with menstruation, which negatively affects gender equality and women’s and girls’ enjoyment of human rights, including the right to education and the right to health.”
Click here to read the resolution
Sexual Rights-related Panels & Discussions
Annual half-day discussion on the rights of indigenous peoples
Theme: The causes and consequences of violence against indigenous women and girls, including those with disabilitiesThe panel discussion will be based on a holistic approach to the issue of violence against indigenous women and girls, recognizing that such violence is deeply influenced by ethnicity, gender, and historical factors, and that addressing such violence requires an intersectional approach to human rights.

The SRI delivered an oral statement addressing the legacy of colonialism, perpetuated by post-colonial power structures, patriarchy, gender norms and stereotypes and neo-liberal economic policies, which denies indigenous women’s agency, excludes indigenous women from development paradigms and increases vulnerability to violence and abuse. Read the statement »

Click here to read the SRI statement
Annual discussion on the integration of a gender perspective throughout the work of the Human Rights Council and that of its mechanisms
Theme: Gender integration in the resolutions and recommendations of the Human Rights CouncilThe panel discussion will take stock of experts’ analysis on how a gender perspective has so far been integrated in the resolutions of the Council and in the recommendations of the universal periodic review (UPR), with a view to make concrete recommendations

The SRI delivered an oral statement addressing the failure of the Council from substantively taking up most of the findings and recommendations of the different mechanisms in a way that is meaningful for women and girls. We called on this Council to stop using women’s bodies as the battlefield in which geopolitical and ideological debates are fought and to work together to advance women’s human rights as is your duty and obligation. Read the statement »
Click here to read the SRI statement
SRI Oral Statements

 

Visit the SRI website for transcripts and video footage
Outcomes from the 25th session of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) were reviewed during the 33rd session of the HRC. The following fourteen countries were reviewed: Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Tanzania, and Thailand.

SRI delivered statements to three countries:

SRI also made statements on:

SRI Side Events

 

Bodily Autonomy & Sexual Rights
HRC33 Panel: Bodily Autonomy & Sexual Rights
The panel articulated the benefits of advancing a holistic and intersectional understanding of bodily autonomy, explored the interlinkages between sexual rights issues affecting bodily autonomy, and encouraged the Human Rights Council to continue to produce contextualized analyses of sexuality and gender in relation to bodily autonomy. Click here for highlights »
Global Action on Safe and Legal Abortion
Global Action on Safe and Legal Abortion
In recognition of the Day of Action for Access to Safe and Legal Abortion, the panel Global Action on Safe and Legal Abortion shared different country experiences of advocating for safe and legal abortion, highlighted the human rights obligations of States to provide access to safe and legal abortion, and discussed opportunities to utilize HRC mechanisms to affect policy and legal changes at the national level.

more info about the HRC

Created in 2006 to replace the United Nations Human Rights Commission, the Human Rights Council is the foremost international body for the promotion and protection of human rights and can be used to bring substantial pressure on governments to take steps to implement human rights norms. The Human Rights Council is comprised of governments of countries that are members of the United Nations and is an important venue to develop and advance sexual rights as a critical part of the international human rights framework.
Click here for more information on HRC31
 

 

This article is taken from an email round-up by Sexual Rights Initiative.For more information about SRI visit
www.sexualrightsinitiative.com