Human Rights Bodies Archives - Page 2 of 5 - OURs - The Observatory of the Universality of Rights

HRC 35: Recognizing the critical role of WHRDs to support and implement the SDGs

Women human rights defenders are at the forefront of rights struggles across the breadth of the SDGs and in all human rights arenas. WHRDs are targeted in each area because of our work, including for what we do, the fact that we do it, and the identities we carry.

The Women Human Rights Defender International Coalition has particular intersectional contextual concerns which shape our defense of rights:

Attacks on the entire framework of human rights
Government efforts to limit space for civil society voice and action
Rise in fundamentalisms across all regions and contexts (including those related to religion)
Negative effects of globalisation, and neo-liberal economic ideology, including poverty and inequality
Militarism and the devastating effects of proliferation of arms and defense industries and related spending
Crises of governance and democracy
Patriarchy, heteronormativity and other social norms that limit enjoyment of rights of women, WHRDs and all people.

In terms of SDG 3 and 5, we emphasize the following two main points:

1-WHRDs are involved in defense of rights related to health and are targeted as a result.

Our focus areas include rights to services, to non-discrimination in health services, to reproductive and sexual rights, rights to independent and autonomous decision-making about our bodies and our lives, and we also focus on specific issues such as access to or denial of medical care in detention. WHRDs also promote health-related rights related to ending torture and violence, whether at the hands of state agents such as police, or of family and community members, for which the state can bear responsibility, as well.

2- There is deep impact on the physical and mental health of WHRDs because of threats to and attacks against our work, our bodies and those of our colleagues and families, and even our offices.

This is true particularly for WHRDs who experience violence, torture, psychological harassment and other forms of discrimination and antagonism.

Recognizing the roles of WHRDs is critical to the support of and implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals. These all must be better documented by the mechanisms of the Council, and by others in the human rights system, including by UN agencies and programs that address human rights defenders.

Would the panel address concrete ideas about the roles of women human rights defenders as they relate to the promotion and protection of the rights and implementation of the SGDs?

Thank you.

Read the full article from AWID.

HRC 35: Strong concerns on the resolution on the protection of the family

In Vienna, States reaffirmed their commitment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In that vein, we would like to express our strong concerns about the draft resolution on the protection of the family [A/HRC/35/L.21 on “Protection of the Family: Role of the family in supporting the protection and promotion of human rights of older persons.”]

Together with NGOs working on the rights of older persons, we highlight that this resolution:

reinforces ageist stereotypes,
fails to adequately recognize older persons as individual rightsholders and
falls far short of States’ obligations to respect, protect and fulfil their rights.

We reject its limited focus on ‘protection and assistance’ and failure to reflect research that the family is the primary site of violence against older persons. [We also note that the resolution ignores the work of the Open-ended Working Group on Ageing and ignores the conclusions of the Independent Expert on the enjoyment of all human rights by older persons.]

This resolution is one of a series of Protection of the Family resolutions that aim to subvert the universality of international human rights; stifle diversity and autonomy; and to shift rights protections away from family members, including older persons, into the institution of ‘the family’. We are concerned that the resolution attempts to instrumentalize older persons and their rights towards these ends.

We are also concerned by the resolution’s failure to recognize that various forms of family exist everywhere, and its stating that “the family plays a crucial role in the preservation of cultural identity, traditions, morals, heritage and the values system of society,” without recognising that families can perpetuate discriminatory and harmful values and traditions, particularly against older women. Culture and tradition are not static or homogeneous; we all have equal human rights to participate in and create culture. [When powerful institutions attempt to claim ownership over, or enforce ‘authentic’ interpretations of culture, tradition, or values, individuals – particularly those who are marginalized or vulnerable – are denied their fundamental rights.

For these reasons, we do not believe this draft resolution is in line with human rights principles and standards and therefore call on the Core Group to withdraw it or for members of the Human Rights Council to amend or vote against it.

Read the full statement from AWID.

The World Congress of Families: A prime example of today’s anti-rights lobby

On Thursday 25 May 2017, ultra-conservative activists and policy-makers will come together in Budapest, Hungary for the 11th international World Congress of Families (WCF) under the title “Building Family-Friendly Nations: Making Families Great Again”.

As the biggest annual meeting of the right, the organizers have stated their hopes that this year’s WCF will “help launch a new global pro-family alliance of countries dedicated to defending marriage, the family and the sanctity of human life.”

Throughout the four days (25-28 May) delegates from the clergy, civil society, the business world, and politics will build relationships and learn from each other’s tactics for achieving regressive change – all under the auspices of the Prime Minister of Hungary.

While extremely troubling, the WCF is not an exceptional event. In fact, it can be seen as an archetypal example of much broader trends. A new report released this week, documents the rise in numbers, increased coordination, and increasingly strategic approaches of anti-rights actors operating in international spaces, and the significant impact they have made so far.

Behind the Research

In 2016 a group of organizations and activists, including AWID, launched a collaborative project called the Observatory on the Universality of Rights – OURs, for short.

The project stemmed in part from a strategy meeting on religious fundamentalisms held by AWID in 2013, during which a number of participants raised concerns about the effects of ultra-conservative groups on our human rights, and shared the work they were doing already to resist.

A clear trend was visible: These anti-rights actors, both state and non-state, were working more concertedly than ever to undermine a core concept of human rights: their universality.

Universality is a cornerstone of international human rights law. It encapsulates that we are all equally entitled to our human rights simply by being human – whatever our nationality, place of residence, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, language, sexuality, or any other status.

The OURs initiative decided to undertake a comprehensive study of the forces working to undermine universality, the impact they have had so far, and ultimately what this might mean for people’s lives.

What did we find?

1. A large and complex anti-rights lobby

The research revealed an unprecedented level of engagement by anti-rights actors in international human rights spaces today. Following an initial foray in the UN arena during the Beijing and Cairo conferences in the 1990s, these ultra-conservative actors have been increasingly targeting the international policy arena.

One of the most notable trends found is the tendency towards strategic alliances. The report maps a complex and evolving anti-rights lobby at the UN, with older forms of affiliation, based on religion or institution, giving way to pragmatic organizing according to shared goals.

2. An evolving repertoire of strategies

A striking finding of the research is that ultra-conservative actors – despite all their rigidity when it comes to worldview – very much move with the times when it comes to strategy.

Where anti-rights actors may have previously been explicit in their religious or “moral” motivations, they now often appeal to supposedly intellectual or “social science” arguments. What is more, when certain human rights bodies prove difficult to infiltrate or influence, anti-rights groups find new points of entry.

Across all the strategies of these actors, some key trends are visible:

Learning from the organizing strategies of feminists and other progressives.
Adapting successful national-level tactics for the international sphere.
Moving from an emphasis on symbolic protest against the human rights system, to becoming subversive system “insiders”.

3. Expert “double-speak”

The report paints a picture of the myriad creative discourses anti-rights actors use to undermine the universality of rights. In several cases, these actors take a legitimate concern or struggle and appropriate it for their agenda.

A good example is the way that anti-imperialist discourse is used by both ultra-conservative states and civil society organizations. This narrative revolves around the idea that national governments are being unjustly targeted by UN bodies, or by other states acting through the UN.

Of course, there is much to be said about the instances in which national governments are bullied by other states and by international institutions.

However, we documented the ways this discourse is co-opted to cast a powerful institution – the state – as the victim, in order to justify national exceptions to universal human rights standards. Tellingly, many of those who employ this discourse are in fact global North-based organizations.

Another striking finding is the trend towards co-opting the very language of human rights, women’s rights, and even the notion of “universal” itself.

To give just one example, conservative players have attempted to construct a new category of “parental rights”, which has no support in existing human rights standards.

While sounding something like a genuine area of human rights, this dangerous framework in fact works to twist the rights protections children have, as articulated in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, to support the rights of parents to control their children and limit their rights and autonomy.

4. The impact on our rights is grave… but there is hope

Anti-rights actors have already had a substantive impact on our human rights framework, especially rights related to gender and sexuality.

Take the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), for example. Precisely when addressing women’s human rights is of urgent importance, the very space dedicated to this has become extremely harder and harder to make advances in. Our energy is taken up trying to hold the ground against conservative backlash – sometimes even on agreements made 20 years ago!

At the Human Rights Council (HRC), in between progressive gains, we have increasingly witnessed ultra-conservative states aggressively negotiating out positive language and introducing hostile amendments to resolutions.

In a whole range of spaces beyond these two examples, the presence of regressive actors is being keenly felt. However, we should not see this as a done deal.

First of all, we should remember that these advances have, at least in part, been a response to the gains of feminism and other progressive movements – a backlash that indicates the extent of our power.

We can also take courage from the many times when anti-rights actors’ attempts were unsuccessful due to the strong efforts of progressive activists.

From the limited amount of regressive language conservative actors managed to insert into Agenda 2030, to the repeated fruitless attempts to block the new mandate of the Independent Expert on sexual orientation and gender identity, to the strong provisions on sexual and reproductive rights and health in the 2016 HRC resolution on discrimination against women – these regressive agendas can and will be thwarted.

Understanding the attacks, to strengthen our rights

This research was founded on the belief that to counter the advance of our “opponents” in human rights spaces we must have an intimate knowledge of the ways they operate. As the first report to come out of OURs, we have focussed most of our attention on the threat itself.

One might wonder if this detailed look at anti-rights efforts risks over-emphasis on the negative aspects of the picture. Our hope is that this first report will act as a strong foundation for building awareness and action in this area. As we go on, the plan is to build upon these findings, including by documenting the important gains feminists and other progressive actors have made in recent years.

There are many progressive activists doing remarkable and sustained work on our rights related to gender and sexuality – we are many, and we are strong. Our hope for this research is that it will provide the knowledge to make our collective struggle more strategic, more proactive, and ultimately more effective.

Let’s work together to defend the universality of rights!

Add your voice and apply to become an institutional member. Get in touch to learn more

Holding the Line: Reflections from the 61st Commission on the Status of Women

Given the diversity of state positions and civil society organizations present at the CSW in the current era, we always anticipate that the CSW will be a challenging space in which to defend or advance the rights of lesbian, bisexual, trans and intersex persons (LBTI).

By Erin Aylward

While this year’s CSW saw some important strategies and successes in holding the line, we also witnessed some concerning developments that underscore the very real need for human rights organizations to prevent backsliding on key issues and strategies for NGO-engagement.

Let’s start with the Agreed Conclusions: the “meat and potatoes” of each year’s CSW. Because the Agreed Conclusions are agreed upon by consensus, LBTI rights have yet to ever be explicitly mentioned or acknowledged in this outcome document, and we do not anticipate that this will happen anytime soon. From the perspective of organizations focused on sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, and sex characteristics (SOGIESC) issues, then, “success” during the CSW political negotiations is often framed in two ways:

fighting off hostile language – often, though not exclusively put forward by the Russian Federation – on the family, traditional values, and state sovereignty, and
fighting for broad, inclusive language that could be interpreted to include SOGIESC issues, even if they are not explicitly mentioned.

According to these metrics, the final version of the Agreed Conclusions can largely be considered a success.

However, the author is alarmed by three main anti-rights trends at the CSW: pink-washing at the CSW, the shrinking space for civil society actors and the rise of the religious right within the CSW.

Read the full article from ARC International.

Conservatism abets failure to reach consensus on CPD50 resolution – ARROW’s response

The 50th Session of Commission on Population and Development (CPD) on the theme, “Changing Population Age Structures and Sustainable Development”, took place from 3-7 April, 2017 at UN Headquarters in New York. After weeks of strenuous negotiations, the session ended without an outcome document and with a summary of deliberations by the Chair.

The decision was made after weeks of informal and formal negotiations and a draft text which was put forward by the Chair. However, there were consistent disagreements on several issues including sexual and reproductive health and rights, families, and comprehensive sexuality education. The draft text emphasised that population and development, gender equality and women’s empowerment, and the promotion and protection of the full enjoyment of all human rights, especially sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights, are essential for sustainable development. It also reaffirmed to strive to provide young people with a nurturing environment for the full realisation of their rights and capabilities and to help member states to benefit the demographic dividend by investing in policies and programmes that ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health and quality education.

However, after an exchange between the representatives of multiple regional blocs, including US, there was no consensus on the draft which was withdrawn by the Chair. Instead of a resolution, the session ended with a Chair’s summary.

We express our deep regrets on the lack of an outcome document for the 50th Session of CPD. The International Conference on Population and Development Programme of Action (ICPD PoA) remains the most comprehensive negotiated action document on many aspects of sexual and reproductive health (SRH) and reproductive rights (RR). At its 20-year review, all governments agreed that the agenda should be continued until it is fully achieved, yet many member states were disputing over references to SRH and RR. These non-negotiable population issues are inalienably people’s rights. And the Commission’s failure to reach agreement on these issues – which should be based solely on scientific evidence – casts a shadow on future success of intergovernmental negotiations. It was also disappointing to note that there were huge gaps between what member states were implementing at national level and what they were advocating for at UN; the country statements were far from the actual realities and programmes and development needs at grassroots level.

We hope subsequent CPD sessions uphold the ICPD PoA and further the agenda by protecting and fulfilling universal access to SRHR, including full range of SRH information and services, access to full range of safe, effective and affordable contraceptive services, safe and legal abortion services, comprehensive sexuality education and youth friendly health services for young people, and gender equality and empowerment of women and girls, SOGI, taking into account the lived realities of people and the emerging population and development priorities.

ARROW is deeply committed to continuing to work towards a just, equal, and equitable world together with member states, UN agencies, and civil society organisations.

ARROW’s response to the absence of an outcome document from the 50th Session of Commission on Population and Development (CPD). See ARROW’s oral statement during the event here.

HRC34: Women human rights defenders challenge fundamentalist and extremist rhetoric and ideologies

A coalition of women human rights defenders draw the attention of the Human Rights Council to the ‘wake-up call of our times’, and reject the normalisation of fundamentalist and extremist rhetoric.

Governments relying on the manipulation of ideas about culture to attack human rights defenders were put on the spotlight yesterday at the Human Rights Council. A coalition of organisations supporting women human rights defenders urged States from all regions to ‘wake up’ and be genuine in their fight against extremist and fundamentalist ideologies.

On behalf of the Women Human Rights Defenders International Coalition, International Service for Human Rights (ISHR) highlighted the importance of ensuring the genuine and safe participation of women human rights defenders in policies and programmes to combat fundamentalist ideologies and rhetoric. ‘In too many instances, civil society groups that oppose fundamentalist and extremist ideologies are themselves branded as threats to State security’ said Ms Pooja Patel, Programme Manager at ISHR. She called on States to remove barriers and obstacles for independent civil society members who promote rights in accordance with international standards.

The Human Rights Council engaged in dialogue with the UN expert on Cultural Rights Karima Bennoune on Friday and Monday. In her report, Ms Bennoune outlined that those defending the rights of women to take part in cultural life are de facto cultural rights defenders. As cultural rights defenders, they are the very antidote to fundamentalist and extremist agendas.

In a joint statement on International Women Human Rights Defenders Day last November, a number of other UN experts had also raised concern over the wave of populism and fundamentalism taking place in the world, and highlighted that ‘women human rights defenders represent an essential counter-power and a colossal force of action’.

Read the full text from International Service for Human Rights.

HRC34: Joint statement on the Rights of the Child Resolution

Following the adoption of a resolution on the protection of the rights of the child at the 34th session of the Human Rights Council, the Center for Reproductive Rights, the Sexual Rights Initiative, and Child Rights Connect have released a joint statement.

Today, March 24^th, the Human Rights Council adopted a resolution on the protection of the rights of the child in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

The resolution, led by the EU and GRULAC, aimed to provide a child’s rights lens to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). However, the adopted text does not represent the most advanced human rights standards pertaining to the protection of the rights of the child and falls below the agreement reached in the 2030 Agenda.

In particular, the resolution fails to incorporate the right to be heard, the right to participate, adolescents’ rights to sexual and reproductive health, and the principle of evolving capacities. Moreover, the resolution neglects the particular needs of children with disabilities and LGBTI children and does not recognize that family environments are often sites of violence, especially for girls.

As the highest political body dedicated to the promotion of human rights, the Council has a duty to move beyond the status quo, to champion the core principle of universality of human rights for all and to move forward in the development of norms and standards. The Council must demonstrate the political will and leadership necessary to address the protection of the rights of all children everywhere, bearing in mind that they are active agents in their own lives and rights holders under international human rights law.

Read the full text from Sexual Rights Initiative.

HRC34: States should reject attempts to weaken mandate of UN expert on human rights defenders

Member States of the Human Rights Council should resist attempts to weaken the resolution mandating the UN’s expert on the protection of human rights defenders, the International Service for Human Rights said today.

The Human Rights Council is currently negotiating a resolution (L.5) to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders, Michel Forst. The resolution, which was formally tabled by Norway on behalf of more than 60 supporters, is now being attacked by adverse amendments tabled by the Russian Federation, China, Cuba and Pakistan. The amendments and the resolution are expected to be considered – and voted upon – as early as Thursday, 23 March 2017.

South Africa has also tabled an amendment, which could – if appropriately rephrased – serve to increase attention to some at-risk groups of defenders.

ISHR’s Director of Human Rights Council Advocacy, Michael Ineichen, said many of the proposed amendments represent a renewed attempt by a minority of hard-line States to undermine the protection international law provides for human rights defenders.

‘The suggestion of replacing the well-established term ‘human rights defender’ in the resolution with a long and convoluted formulation is ridiculous,’ Mr Ineichen said. ‘Human rights defenders are key agents of change, and their work is critical for human rights, the rule of law and democracy,’ Ineichen said. ‘Accessible terminology is vital to increasing public understanding of and support for their work.’

On 7 March, a global coalition of leading civil society organisations called for the consensus renewal of the mandate of the UN expert on human rights defenders. A diverse cross-regional group of ambassadors, experts and human rights defenders has also strongly backed the renewal of the mandate.

Attempts at reducing visibility and legitimacy of human rights defenders

Overall, six amendments have been proposed. ISHR’s overall position on the amendments is that the resolution, as currently drafted, represents a minimum consensus given the ‘unprecedented attacks’ on human rights defenders seen around the world.

Two amendments (L.44 and L.45) seek to replace the well-established term ‘human rights defenders’ with a more limiting formulation, seeking to give States the ability to arbitrarily restrict the human rights issues on which defenders work, and remove the term ‘women human rights defenders’ from the resolution.
One amendment (L.42), presented by the Russian Federation, seeks to replace consensus language from previous resolutions renewing the mandate with a selective quote from the 1998 Declaration on Human Rights Defenders. Its effect would be to limit the full protection international law provides to human rights defenders, and open a door for States to legislate to restrict defenders in conflict with international human rights law;
One amendment (L.43), also presented by the Russian Federation, seeks to remove reference to previously adopted resolutions on the protection of human rights defenders. The inclusion of such references assists States to better understand the situation of human rights defenders and the obligations of States in this regard. Removing the references would run counter to the Council’s efforts at ensuring its work is visible, impact oriented, and provides easy to understand policy guidance.
Finally, one amendment (L.51), presented by China, the Russian Federation, Pakistan and Cuba, seeks to downplay the importance of the report of the Special Rapporteur, and thus ignore the evidence of the unprecedented attack on defenders.

ISHR calls on all Member States of the Human Rights Council to reject these amendments, and resist attempts to legitimise arbitrary restrictions and attacks on human rights defenders by their sponsors.

Potential focus on environmental and corporate accountability defenders

A final amendment, L.46, presented by South Africa could potentially contribute to strengthening the text. The amendment seeks to include a particular focus on ‘human right defenders active in the areas of environment, corporate accountability, indigenous issues, children, anti-racism and advocacy against racially motivated killings, and cultural rights’, many of whom have been highlighted by the Special Rapporteur’s recent reports as facing particular risks.

However, its proposed placement in a paragraph forcused on women human rights defenders is problematic in that it would dilute the recognition of the specific threats and protection needs of WHRDs. In order to be acceptable, the amendment should be re-formulated to reflect the full spectrum of defenders who are particularly at risk or exposed as enumerated by the Special Rapporteur, and placed independently of the paragraph focused on women human rights defenders.

Read the statement from the International Service for Human Rights.

In an Unprecedented No-Show, the U.S. Pulls Out of Planned Human Rights Hearing

The United States has pulled its participation from hearings planned for today by a regional human rights body that has enjoyed the support of every U.S. administration since its founding.

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights is meeting in Washington, D.C., for a regular session covering human rights issues spanning North and South America. The hearings today are scheduled to cover the Trump administration’s attempt to ban immigration from six predominantly Muslim countries, its immigration enforcement and detention policies, and its approval of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The ACLU is testifying on Tuesday at hearings that can be livestreamed here.

In the past, when U.S. governments have sought to express displeasure at having their records scrutinized, they have occasionally protested by sending lower-level officials. But today’s refusal to engage the commission at all is a deeply troubling indication of its disrespect for human rights norms and the institutions that oversee their protection.

Read the full story from ACLU

LBT Women’s Economic Empowerment: Reflections on the Successes and Struggles from the CSW

As week one of the 61st UN Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) draws to a close here in New York, a wide range of LBT activists, researchers and governments have reflected on how or whether this annual UN conference can address the struggles facing LBT individuals, especially in relation to this year’s priority theme, “women’s economic empowerment in the changing world of work.”

By Erin Aylward

This year’s CSW appears to reflect a particularly hostile atmosphere to LGBTI rights: the United States has included representatives of two organizations known to oppose the UN human rights system, LGBTI rights, and women’s sexual and reproductive health and rights in its official delegation; human rights defenders from the six countries targeted in the travel ban have been denied visas and thus the opportunity to be heard during this year’s CSW; and US State Department staffers have been instructed to seek cuts of over 50% in funding for UN programs. Undeniably, we have entered troubling and uncertain times in international relations and human rights advocacy.

Yet, alongside these alarming developments in the international arena, substantive achievements in advancing the rights of LBT individuals around the world have been gained since last year’s CSW. In recognition of the need to celebrate the victories that have forged while also reflecting on the outstanding challenges, ARC International, in partnership with the Canadian government and the Permanent Mission of the Argentine Republic to the United Nations, hosted a side event on March 13 that sought to shed light on the successes and barriers to LBT women’s economic empowerment.

For decades, LGBTI activists from around the world have emphasized that advancing the civil/political rights of their communities only matters as much as access to economic rights and opportunities. As Raphael Crowe (event moderator and ILO senior gender specialist) noted, these comments are borne out by what preliminary data exists: the ILO’s PRIDE Project found that, in each of the nine countries that were studied², LGBT workers face discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and/or gender identity throughout their schooling, in accessing employment, and throughout the employment cycle.

Yet, notwithstanding the numerous challenges facing LBT women’s ability to access economic empowerment, this panel also highlighted some encouraging successes and best practices that civil society and government alike have helped to forge. Argentine Ambassador Martín García Moritán noted that states have a responsibility to address LBT employment discrimination. For Argentina, this has ranged from reforms in the education system to developing workshops with the Ministry of Labour and Employment and the private sector to help bridge the employment gap for trans individuals.

This year’s Commission on the Status of Women does not reflect a particularly favourable environment for LBT and women’s human rights defenders. It is clear that, at the international level, previous gains will have to be defended and the shrinking of space for civil society has to be actively resisted against. Yet, for those of us who were fortunate to attend this side-event on LBT economic empowerment, it was impossible to not be struck with a sense of hope, conviction, and renewed inspiration to continue with the struggles ahead.

Read the full article from ARC International.