Archives: Resources

Anti-rights actors have had a substantive impact on our human rights framework and the progressive interpretation of human rights standards, especially rights related to gender and sexuality.

When it comes to the impact of conservative actors in international policy spaces, the overall picture today is of stasis and regressions.

We have witnessed the watering down of existing agreements and commitment; deadlock in negotiations; sustained undermining of UN agencies, treaty review bodies and Special Procedures; and success in pushing through regressive language in international human rights documents.

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. In March 2015, conservative efforts set the tone before events or negotiations even began; the outcome document of the Commission was a weak Declaration negotiated before any women’s rights activists even arrived on the ground.

At 2016’s CSW, the new Youth Caucus was infiltrated by large numbers of vocal anti-abortion and anti-SRHR actors, who shouted down progressive youth organizations. Again, intensive negotiations resulted in a lacklustre text, which included regressive language on ‘the family.’

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

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 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, most often resolutions focusing 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 Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and allies. 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; and the need to repeal laws which perpetuate the patriarchal oppression of women and girls in families, and those criminalizing adultery or pardoning marital rape.

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.

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), a pivotal human rights instrument.

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 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.

SDG negotiations and Agenda 2030

Anti-human rights actors were involved in lobbying towards the development of the new Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2015, focusing again on rights relating to gender and sexuality. These efforts had limited traction in their attempts to embed regressive language in Agenda 2030.

However, after successfully pushing back against progressive 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.

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, stating it was “confident that the related pledge ‘no one will be left behind’ would be read” as meaning “the right to life of the person, from conception until natural death.”

Saudi Arabia went one step further, declaring that the country would not follow any international rules relating to the SDGs that reference sexual orientation or gender identity, describing them as running “counter to Islamic law.”

General Assembly (GA)

Anti-rights actors have made increasing headway at the UN General Assembly (GA).  Most recently, during the 71^st session in 2016, the GA was the scene of feverish anti-rights organizing in opposition to the new mandate created by the Human Rights Council resolution on sexual orientation and gender identity in June 2016: the Independent Expert on SOGI. Four separate attempts were made to undercut the mandate in GA spaces.

One approach was to introduce a hostile resolution at the Third Committee, led by the African Group, which in essence aimed to indefinitely defer the new mandate. While this approach was not successful, such an attempt in the GA to retroactively block the creation of a mandate brought forward by the Human Rights Council represented a new and troubling tactic – anti-right actors are now working to directly undermine the HRC’s authority respective to the General Assembly.

Another approach targeted the Fifth Committee (responsible for administration and budgetary matters) as an entry point to attack the mandate. In an unprecedented move a number of States attempted (again, unsuccessfully) to block the funding of UN human rights experts, including the new IE on SOGI.

While these multiple efforts were unsuccessful in blocking the creation and continuation of the new mandate, the significant support they received, the novel strategizing employed, and the strong alliances built along regional lines through negotiations point to difficulties ahead.

---

This is one chapter of Rights at Risk: The Observatory on the Universality of Rights Trends Report 2017

Other chapters:

• Key opposition actors
• Key opposition discourses
• Key opposition strategies and tactics

Despite their rigidity in matters of doctrine and worldview, anti-rights actors have demonstrated an openness to building new kinds of strategic alliances, to new organizing techniques, and to new forms of rhetoric. As a result, their power in international spaces has increased.

There has been a notable evolution in the strategies of ultra conservative actors operating at this level. They do not only attempt to tinker at the edges of agreements and block certain language, but to transform the framework conceptually and develop alternative standards and norms, and avenues for influence.

Strategy 1: Training of UN delegates

Ultra conservative actors work to create and sustain their relationships with State delegates through regular training opportunities – such as the yearly Global Family Policy Forum – and targeted training materials.

These regular trainings and resources systematically brief delegates on talking points and negotiating techniques to further collaboration towards anti-rights objectives in the human rights system. Delegates also receive curated compilations of ‘consensus language’ and references to pseudo-scientific or statistical information to bolster their arguments.

The consolidated transmission of these messages explains in part why State delegates who take ultra-conservative positions in international human rights debates frequently do so in contradiction with their own domestic legislation and policies.

Strategy 2: Holding international convenings

Anti-rights actors’ regional and international web of meetings help create closer links between ultra conservative Civil Society Organizations (CSOs), States and State blocs, and powerful intergovernmental bodies. The yearly international World Congress of Families is one key example.

These convenings reinforce personal connections and strategic alliances, a key element for building and sustaining movements. They facilitate transnational, trans-religious and dynamic relationship-building around shared issues and interests, which leads to a more proactive approach and more holistic sets of asks at the international policy level on the part of anti-rights actors.

Strategy 3: Placing reservations on human rights agreements

States and State blocs have historically sought to undermine international consensus or national accountability under international human rights norms through reservations to human rights agreements, threatening the universal applicability of human rights.

The Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) has received by far the most reservations, most of which are based on alleged conflict with religious law. It is well-established international human rights law that evocations of tradition, culture or religion cannot justify violations of human rights, and many reservations to CEDAW are invalid as they are “incompatible with the object and purpose” of CEDAW. Nevertheless, reference to these reservations is continually used by States to dodge their human rights responsibilities.

‘Reservations’ to UN documents and agreements that are not formal treaties – such as Human Rights Council and General Assembly resolutions – are also on the rise.

Strategy 4: Creating a parallel human rights framework

In an alarming development, regressive actors at the UN have begun to co-opt existing rights standards and campaign to develop agreed language that is deeply anti-rights.

The aim is to create and then propagate language in international human rights spaces that validates patriarchal, hierarchical, discriminatory, and culturally relativist norms.

One step towards this end is the drafting of declarative texts, such as the World Family Declaration and the San Jose Articles, that pose as soft human rights law. Sign-ons are gathered from multiple civil society, state, and institutional actors; and they are then used a basis for advocacy and lobbying.

Strategy 5: Developing  alternative ‘scientific’ sources

As part of a strategic shift towards the use of non-religious discourses, anti-rights actors have significantly invested in their own ‘social science’ think tanks. Given oxygen by the growing conservative media, materials from these think tanks are then widely disseminated by conservative civil society groups. The same materials are used as the basis for advocacy at the international human rights level.

While the goals and motivation of conservative actors derive from their extreme interpretations of religion, culture, and tradition, such regressive arguments are often reinforced through studies that claim intellectual authority. A counter-discourse is thus produced through a heady mix of traditionalist doctrine and social science.

Strategy 6: Mobilizing Youth

This is one of the most effective strategies employed by the religious right and represents a major investment in the future of anti-rights organizing.

Youth recruitment and leadership development, starting at the local level with churches and campuses, are a priority for many conservative actors engaged at the international policy level.

This strategy has allowed for infiltration of youth-specific spaces at the United Nations, including at the Commission on the Status of Women, and creates a strong counterpoint to progressive youth networks and organizations.

Strategy 7: Defunding and delegitimizing human rights mechanisms

When it comes to authoritative expert mechanisms like the UN Special Procedures and Treaty Monitoring Bodies and operative bodies like the UN agencies, regressive groups realize their potential for influence is much lower than with political mechanisms.

In response, anti-rights groups spread the idea that UN agencies are ‘overstepping their mandate,’ that the CEDAW Committee and other Treaty Bodies have no authority to interpret their treaties, or that Special Procedures are partisan experts working outside of their mandate. Anti-rights groups have also successfully lobbied for the defunding of agencies such as the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).

This invalidation of UN mechanisms gives fuel to state impunity. Governments, when under international scrutiny, can defend their action on the basis that the reviewing mechanism is itself faulty or overreaching.

Strategy 8: Organizing online

Conservative non-state actors increasingly invest in social media and other online platforms to promote their activities, campaign, and widely share information from international human rights spaces.

The Spanish organization CitizenGo, for example, markets itself as the conservative version of Change.org, spearheading petitions and letter-writing campaigns. One recent petition, opposing the establishment of a UN international day on safe abortion, gathered over 172,000 signatures.

---

Overarching Trends:

• Learning from the organizing strategies of feminists and other progressives.
• Replicating and adapting successful national-level tactics for the international sphere.
• Moving from an emphasis on ‘symbolic protest’ to becoming subversive system ‘insiders.’

By understanding the strategies employed by anti-rights actors, we can be more effective in countering them.

---

This is one chapter of Rights at Risk: The Observatory on the Universality of Rights Trends Report 2017

Ultra conservative actors have developed a number of discourses at the international human rights level that call on arguments manipulating religion, culture, tradition, and national sovereignty in order to undermine rights related to gender and sexuality.

Anti-rights actors have increasingly moved away from explicitly religious language. Increasingly, we see regressive actors – who may previously have derided human rights concepts – instead manipulating and co-opting these very concepts to further their objectives.

Protection of the family

This emerging and successful discourse appears innocuous, but it functions as a useful umbrella theme to house multiple patriarchal and anti-rights positions. The ‘protection of the family’ theme is thus a key example of regressive actors’ move towards holistic and integrated advocacy.

The language of ‘protection of the family’ works to shift the subject of human rights from the individual and onto already powerful institutions.

It also affirms a unitary, hierarchical, and patriarchal conception of the family that discriminates against family forms outside of these rigid boundaries. It also attempts to change the focus from recognition and protection of the rights of vulnerable family members to non-discrimination, autonomy, and freedom from violence in the context of family relations.

The Right to Life

The Holy See and a number of Christian Right groups seek to appropriate the right to life in service of an anti-abortion mission.  Infusing human rights language with conservative religious doctrine, they argue that the right to life, as set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, applies at the moment of conception.

The discourse has no support in any universal human rights instrument. Yet this is an appealing tactic for anti-rights actors, because the right to life cannot be violated under any circumstances and is a binding legal standard.

Sexual rights

Anti-rights actors use a number of rhetorical devices in their campaign to undermine sexual rights: they argue that sexual rights do not exist or are ‘new rights,’ that they cause harm to children and society, and/or that these rights stand in opposition to culture, tradition or national laws.

Conservative actors engaged in advocacy at the UN attack the right to comprehensive sexuality education from several directions. They claim that CSE violates ‘parental rights’, harms children, and that it is not education but ideological indoctrination. They also claim that comprehensive sexuality education is pushed on children, parents, and the United Nations by powerful lobbyists seeking to profit from services they provide to children and youth.

Attempts to invalidate rights related to sexual orientation and gender identity have proliferated. Ultra conservative actors argue that application of long-standing human rights principles and law on this issue constitutes the creation of ‘new rights’; and that the meaning of rights should vary radically because they should be interpreted through the lens of ‘culture’ or ‘national particularities.’

Reproductive Rights

Christian Right organizations have been mobilizing against reproductive rights alongside the Holy See and other anti-rights allies for several years. They often argue that reproductive rights are at heart a form of Western-imposed population control over countries in the global South. Ironically, this claim often originates from U.S. and Western Europe-affiliated actors, many of whom actively work to export their fundamentalist discourses and policies.

Regressive actors also cite to ‘scientific’ arguments from ultra-conservative think tanks, and from sources that rely on unsound research methodologies, to suggest that abortion causes an array of psychological, sexual, physical, and relational side effects.

Protection of children and parental rights

Just as anti-rights actors aim to construct a new category of ‘protection of the family,’ they are attempting to construct a new category of ‘parental rights,’ which has no support in existing human rights standards.

This discourse paradoxically endeavours to use the rights protections with which children are endowed, 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.

Violence against women

Increasingly, anti-rights actors are attempting to infiltrate and subvert standards and discourses developed by women human rights defenders, such as violence against women (VAW).

At the Commission on the Status of Women and other spaces, one rhetorical move is to treat VAW as a concept in which to embed anti-reproductive rights and patriarchal arguments. Ultra conservative actors, for example, have argued that non-heteronormative or traditional intimate partner relationships are a risk factor for violence, and emphasize that fathers are necessary to protect families from violence.

Gender and ‘gender ideology’

The Holy See has set off a sustained critique of gender, ‘gender ideology’, ‘gender radicals,’ and gender theory, and anti-rights actors often read the term as code for LGBTQ rights. Gender is used by the religious right as a cross-cutting concept that links together many of their discourses. Increasingly, the hysteria on this subject fixates on gender identity and trans rights.

Complementarity and human dignity

Complementarity of the sexes is a discourse employed by a number of ultra-conservative actors today. Its rhetoric is structured around an assumption of difference: men and women are meant to have differing but complementary roles in marriage and family life, and with respect to their engagement in the community and political and economic life.

Reference to ‘natural’ roles is meant to fundamentally reject universal human rights to equality and non-discrimination.

It is also used to justify State and non-State violations of these rights, and non-compliance with respect to State obligations to eliminate prejudices and practices based on stereotyped roles for men or women.

National sovereignty and anti-imperialism

This discourse suggests that national governments are being unjustly targeted by UN bodies, or by other States acting through the UN. This is an attempt to shift the subject of human rights from the individual or marginalized community suffering a rights violation to a powerful and/or regressive institution – i.e. the state, in order to justify national exceptions from universal rights or to support state impunity.

Religious freedom

Anti-rights actors have taken up the discourse of freedom of religion in order to justify violations of human rights. Yet, ultra-conservative actors refer to religious freedom in a way that directly contradicts the purpose of this human right and fundamentally conflicts with the principle of the universality of rights. The inference is that religious liberty is threatened and undermined by the protection of human rights, particularly those related to gender and sexuality.

The central move is to suggest that the right to freedom of religion is intended to protect a religion rather than those who are free to hold or not hold different religious beliefs.

Yet under international human rights law, the right protects believers rather than beliefs, and the right to freedom of religion, thought and conscience includes the right not to profess any religion or belief or to change one’s religion or belief.

Cultural rights and traditional values

The deployment of references to culture and tradition to undermine human rights, including the right to equality, is a common tactic amongst anti-rights actors. Culture is presented as monolithic, static, and immutable, and it is is often presented in opposition to ‘Western norms.’

Allusions to culture by anti-rights actors in international policy debates aim to undermine the universality of rights, arguing for cultural relativism that trumps or limits rights claims. Regressive actors’ use of cultural rights is founded on a purposeful misrepresentation of the human right. States must ensure that traditional or cultural attitudes are not used to justify violations of equality, and human rights law calls for equal access, participation and contribution in all aspects of cultural life for all, including women, religious, and racial minorities, and those with non-conforming genders and sexualities.

Subverting ‘universal’

Anti-rights actors in international policy spaces increasingly manipulate references to universal or fundamental human rights to reverse the meaning of the universality of rights.

Rather than using the term universal to describe the full set of indivisible and interrelated human rights, ultra conservative actors employ this term to instead delineate and describe a subset of human rights as ‘truly fundamental.’ Other rights would thus be subject to State discretion, ‘new’ rights or optional. This discourse is especially powerful as their category of the truly universal remains unarticulated and hence open to shifting interpretation.

---

This is one chapter of Rights at Risk: The Observatory on the Universality of Rights Trends Report 2017

We are witnessing an unprecedented level of engagement of anti-rights actors in international human rights spaces.

To bolster their impact and amplify their voices, anti-rights actors increasingly engage in tactical alliance building across sectors, regional and national borders, and faiths.

This “unholy alliance” of traditionalist actors from Catholic, Evangelical, Mormon, Russian Orthodox and Muslim faith backgrounds have found common cause in a number of shared talking points and advocacy efforts attempting to push back against feminist and sexual rights gains at the international level.

Holy See

• Key activities: As the government of the Roman Catholic Church, the “Holy See” uses its unique status as Permanent Observer state at the UN to lobby for conservative, patriarchal, and heteronormative notions of womanhood, gender identities and “the family”, and to propagate policies that are anti-abortion and -contraception
• Based in: Vatican City, Rome, Italy.
• Religious affiliations: Catholic
• Connections to other anti-rights actors: US Christian Right groups; interfaith orthodox alliances; Catholic CSOs

Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC)

• Key activities: Self-described as the “collective voice of the Muslim world”, the OIC acts as a bloc of states in UN spaces. The OIC attempts to create loopholes in human rights protection through references to religion, culture, or national sovereignty; propagates the concept of the “traditional family”; and contributes to a parallel but restrictive human rights regime (e.g. the 1990 Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam).
• Based in: Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
• Religious affiliations: Muslim
• Connections to other anti-rights actors: Ultra conservative State missions to the UN, such as Russia

World Congress of Families

• Key activities: International and regional conferences; research and knowledge-production and dissemination; lobbying at the United Nations “to defend life, faith and family”
• Based in: Rockford, Illinois, U.S.
• Religious affiliation: Predominantly Catholic and Christian Evangelical
• Connections to other anti-rights actors: Sutherland Institute, a conservative think-tank; the Church of Latter-Day Saints; the Russian Orthodox Church’s Department of Family and Life; the anti-abortion Catholic Priests for Life; the Foundation for African Culture and Heritage; the Polish Federation of Pro-Life Movements; the European Federation of Catholic Family Associations; the UN NGO Committee on the Family; and the Political Network for Values; the Georgian Demographic Society; parliamentarians from Poland and Moldova, etc; FamilyPolicy; the Russian Institute for Strategic Studies; and HatzeOir; C-Fam; among others

Center for Family and Human Rights (C-Fam)

• Key activities: Lobbying at the United Nations, particularly the Commission of the Status of Women to “defend life and family”; media and information-dissemination (Friday Fax newsletter); movement building; trainings for conservative activists
• Based in: New York and Washington D.C., U.S.
• Religious affiliations: Catholic
• Connections to other anti-rights actors: International Youth Coalition; World Youth Alliance; Human Life International; the Holy See; coordinates the Civil Society for the Family; the Family Research Council (U.S.) and other Christian/Catholic anti-rights CSOs; United States CSW delegation

Family Watch International

• Key activities: Lobbying in international human rights spaces for “the family” and anti-LGBTQ and anti-CSE policies; training of civil society and state delegates (for example, ‘The Resource Guide to UN Consensus Language on Family Issues’); information dissemination; knowledge production and analysis; online campaigns
• Based in: Gilbert, Arizona, U.S.
• Religious affiliations: Mormon
• Connections to other anti-rights actors: leader of the UN Family Rights Caucus; C-Fam; Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality (JONAH); the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH); World Congress of Families; CitizenGo; Magdalen Institute; Asociación La Familia Importa; Group of Friends of the Family (25 state bloc)

World Youth Alliance

• Key activities: Advocacy in international policy spaces including the United Nations, the European Union, and the Organization of American States for “the family”, against sexual and reproductive rights; training youth members in the use of diplomacy and negotiation, international relations, grassroots activities and message development; internship program to encourage youth participation in its work; regular Emerging Leaders Conference; knowledge production and dissemination
• Based in: New York City (U.S.) with regional chapter offices in Nairobi (Kenya), Quezon City (The Philippines), Brussels (Belgium), Mexico City (Mexico), and Beirut (Lebanon)
• Religious affiliations: primarily Catholic but aims for interfaith membership
• Connections to other anti-rights actors: C-Fam; Human Life International; the Holy See; Campaign Life coalition

Russian Orthodox Church

• Key Activities: The Russian Orthodox Church (ROC), capitalizing on its close links to the Russian state, has operated as a “norm entrepreneur” in human rights debates.  Russia and the ROC have co-opted rights language to push for a focus on “morality” and “traditional values”  as supposed key sources of human rights.  Russia led a series of “traditional values” resolutions at the Human Rights Council and has been at the forefront of putting forward hostile amendments to progressive resolutions in areas including maternal mortality, protection of civil society space, and the right to peaceful protest.
• Connections to other anti-rights actors: Organization of Islamic Cooperation; Eastern European and Caucasus Orthodox churches, e.g. Georgian Orthodox Church; U.S. Christian Right including U.S. Evangelicals; World Congress of Families; Group of Friends of the Family (state bloc)

---

This is one chapter of Rights at Risk: The Observatory on the Universality of Rights Trends Report 2017

The International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA) has published its 2017 State-sponsored Homophobia report, a world survey of sexual orientation laws.

Researched and written by Aengus Carroll and Lucas Ramón Mendos, it states that as of May 2017, there are 124 States, (122 UN member States as well as Taiwan and Kosovo) where there are no legal penalties levied for consenting same-sex sexual activity between adults in private. In this edition we sought to provide notation on each of these States, in most cases being able to link to texts of the black letter law, as well as other resources. This year we list 108 countries (including Egypt) with an equal age of consent law, and 16 that have an unequal age threshold: these age of consent notes are listed alongside the country entries.

There are 72 States that we classify as criminalising States – we include Egypt where same-sex sexual relations are de facto severely outlawed. We note that in 45 of these States (24 in Africa, 13, in Asia, six in the Americas and two in Oceania) the law is applied to women as well as men.

Reporting on the death penalty is quite complex, and throughout 2016 we saw it reported in media and elsewhere that 13 States ‘apply’ it. In fact, only four sovereign States apply the death penalty in 2017, while regions of two other States apply it under Shari’a, and non-State actors apply it across two more States. Therefore, it would be valid to say that the death penalty is ‘allowed’, or evidence of its existence, occurs in eight (8) States. Although its potential application by Shari’a courts in Pakistan, Afghanistan, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Mauritania, emits a chill factor, these States have less severe penalties encoded in their penal laws, and there appears to be no data to suggest the death penalty has been implemented in those States for consensual same-sex sexual acts betwenn adults and in private. Further, Brunei Darussalam has not yet triggered its criminal procedure code, thereby stalling the introduction of its second and third phases of the 2014 Syariah Penal Code Order, and as such the threatened death penalty has not yet been implemented.

This year, we list 19 States in North Africa and the Middle East (and Tanzania) where ‘morality’ laws or ‘promotion’ laws actively target public promotion or expression of same-sex and trans realities. With the rise in the use of digital devices in these parts of the world, deployment of these laws becomes all the more sinister. Further, in this edition we have opened a category looking at the barriers to the formation, establishment or registration of sexual orientation- related NGOs: we record 25 States in total: 11 of these in Africa, 13 in Asia and one in Europe. As widely discussed about the 2017 laws in China, these laws function to limit civil society participation and their ability to bring their issues to public attention and be included at the policy and political levels.

In our comprehensive review of how we categorise, our listing of Constitutions is limited to those nine (9) States that actually refer to the sexual orientation or some such unambiguous term in their blackletter text, but we provide some discussion on sources on other’s where constitutional protection is assumed. Laws on discrimination in the workplace have substantial impact on those who are protected by them: allowing not only a basic independent income but the ability to flourish in their work. This year we list 72 States (including Taiwan and Kosovo) that offer such protection.

This year the authors had the opportunity to delve further into a generalist (‘various’) non-discrimination category: we list 63 States with provisions that are either comprehensive or are specific nondiscrimination laws (such as the 2017 anti-bullying law in Japan). This broad category includes several subcategories which may be developed in detail in future editions of this report, such as bans on blood donation, legal protection from partner violence for same-sex couples, and protection against SOGIbased bullying in schools. Regarding hate crime and incitement to hatred we list 43 and 39 States respectively in 2017 that we identify as enacting such protections, at least in law. This year we opened a category on those States that ban so-called ‘conversion therapies’ – the harmful practice often linked to religious practice – we list only three (3) States, but expect this list will increase in future years.

There are currently 23 States in the world that recognise and provide for same-sex marriage, with the law in Slovenia and Finland coming into force at the start of 2017. We include Brazil and Mexico as marriage States in this edition because in both cases, through one legal route or another, it appears to be possible to marry in most jurisdictions within those States. As regards legislation that protects partnership relationships, as of May 2017 we list 28 States: we include Taiwan in this year’s count because around 80% of the population live in areas where such partnership is available to them. Austria, Finland and parts of Australia introduced joint adoption laws in 2016 and 2017, and we find there are currently 26 States that provide for this in the world. A further 27 UN States allow for same-sex second parent adoption, not counting Italy where there have been significant developments in regional courts.

BioMed Central has published a brief that situates female genital mutilation in the debate on human rights standards and norms.

Two hundred million girls and women in the world are estimated to have undergone female genital mutilation (FGM), and another 15 million girls are at risk of experiencing it by 2020 in high prevalence countries. Despite decades of concerted efforts to eradicate or abandon the practice, and the increased need for clear guidance on the treatment and care of women who have undergone FGM, present efforts have not yet been able to effectively curb the number of women and girls subjected to this practice, nor are they sufficient to respond to health needs of millions of women and girls living with FGM. International efforts to address FGM have thus far focused primarily on preventing the practice, with less attention to treating associated health complications, caring for survivors, and engaging health care providers as key stakeholders. Recognizing this imperative, WHO developed guidelines on management of health complications of FGM.

In this paper, based on foundational research for the development of WHO’s guidelines, we situate the practice of FGM as a rights violation in the context of international and national policy and efforts, and explore the role of health providers in upholding health-related human rights of women at girls who are survivors, or who are at risk. Findings are based on a literature review of relevant international human rights treaties and UN Treaty Monitoring Bodies.

The Musawah Toolkit for Advocates is a compilation of texts that explain and expand the Musawah key messages. It is a tool for building knowledge and mobilising (doing advocacy) on equality and justice in the family.

These facilitator notes accompany the Toolkit for Advocates: Sharing the Musawah Framework and our Key Messages. 

At the end of each section in the Toolkit, there are some suggested questions to discuss – either as a group or for individual Advocates to think about on their own. As a way of helping anyone facilitating these discussions, these Notes provide a brief guide to what issues the questions aim to explore. Some of them point to flashpoints that may be difficult for people to discuss, either because they are sensitive or they challenge dominant ways of thinking.

However, these may not be the only issues that surface during the discussions, and as a facilitator you should feel free to take the discussion in whatever direction and to whatever depth is most useful in your context and for your participants.

Make sure you also read the introduction to the Toolkit itself, as this may give you more ideas about how to use it.

The Musawah Toolkit for Advocates is a compilation of texts that explain and expand the Musawah key messages. It is a tool for building knowledge and mobilising (doing advocacy) on equality and justice in the family.

This document summarises background papers on topics around Muslim law, Muslim families and gender discourses.

Table of Contents

1. Towards Gender Equality: Muslim family laws and the Shari’ah by Ziba Mir-Hosseini
2. Ikhtilaf Al-Fuqaha: Diversity in fiqh as social construction by Muhammad Khalid Masud
3. Islam beyond Patriarchy through Gender Inclusive Qur’anic Analysis by Amina Wadud
4. The Genesis of Family Law: How shari’ah, custom and colonial laws influenced the development of personal status codes by Amira El-Azhary Sonbol
5. Family Law in Contemporary Muslim Contexts: Triggers and strategies for change by Cassandra Balchin
6. Women’s Place and Displacement in the Muslim Family: Realities from the twenty-first century by Kamala Chandrakirana
7. The human rights Commitment in Modern Islam by Khaled Abou El Fadl
8. Opening Speech by Zainah Anwar, Musawah Project Director Global Meeting for Equality and Justice in the Muslim Family 14 February 2009, Kuala Lumpur
9. Annexe 2: How You Can Get Involved

 

The Musawah Toolkit for Advocates is a compilation of texts that explain and expand the Musawah key messages. It is a tool for building knowledge and mobilising (doing advocacy) on equality and justice in the family.

Chapter 4 deals with structures and framework for actions.

Table of Contents

1. Individuals and Groups
2. Musawah Ways of Working: Knowledge Building, Outreach and International Advocacy
3. The Story of the Musawah Framework for Action
4. Musawah Launched
5. Annexe 1: Examples of Advocacy Guides and Manuals for You to Adapt