Archives: Resources

Universal Rights Group

Authors: Marc Limon (URG), Nazila Ghanea (University of Oxford), Hilary Power (URG)

It is almost impossible to turn on the news today without witnessing scenes of hatred, violence and intolerance perpetrated in the name of religion or belief. The march of ISIL across Syria and Iraq, with associated reports of gross and systematic violations of human rights, may be an extreme example of such hatred, but it comes against a background of heightened religious hostility and discrimination in virtually every part of the world.

According to a recent report by the Pew Research Center, violence and discrimination against religious groups by governments and rival faiths have reached new heights in all regions except the Americas. This bleak picture is supported by the findings of the latest report on religious freedom by the US State Department, which concluded that 2013 saw ‘the largest displacement of religious communities in recent memory,’ with millions of individuals from all faiths ‘forced from their homes on account of their religious beliefs’ in ‘almost every corner of the globe.’

In the face of such trends, it is clear that the fight against religious intolerance and discrimination must be a key political priority for the international community, and in particular the UN and its Human Rights Council.The main UN global policy framework for combatting intolerance, stigmatisation, discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against persons based on religion or belief is set down in Council resolution 16/18.

Resolution 16/18 was adopted, with much fanfare, in March 2011 and hailed by stakeholders from all regions and faiths as a turning point in international efforts to confront religious intolerance. After more than five decades of failure, UN member states had, it was hoped, at last come together to agree a common, consensus-based approach and practical plan of action. Almost four years on, and against the aforementioned backdrop of heightened religious hostility, UN consensus around the ‘16/18 framework’ is at breaking point. Rather than working together to implement the 16/18 action plan, states have returned to pre-2011 arguments over the nature of the problem, the correct role of the international community, and whether the solution to intolerance lies in strengthening the enjoyment of fundamental human rights or in setting clearer limits thereon.

These divisions have re-emerged, in large part, because of conceptual confusion among policymakers about what implementation of resolution 16/18 means and what it entails. Linked to (and indeed flowing from) this conceptual opacity, states – especially states from the Western Group (WEOG) and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) – argue over whether resolution 16/18 is being effectively implemented or not and, if not, who is to blame.

The present policy report aims to help put the 16/18 framework ‘back on track’ by cutting through the political rhetoric to understand the different positions of key actors and how to bridge them, and by providing an impartial assessment of levels of implementation.The report ends by proposing a set of recommendations designed to ‘re-energise’ the 16/18 process and thereby strengthen the international community’s ability to effectively respond to rising intolerance and discrimination.

Universal Rights Group

Report of URG Policy Platform

Many of the most important and intractable human rights challenges facing the world today are closely interlinked with religion and belief. Failure to protect freedom of conscience, the enduring problem of religious intolerance and incitement to religious hatred, as well as widespread misunderstandings about the nature of the relationship between religion and universal freedoms, all act as a major break on achieving progress towards the full realization of human rights.

This project aims to generate awareness and challenge misconceptions as to the compatibility of the main monotheistic religions (Christianity, Islam and Judaism) and international human rights norms/standards, and make recommendations to more permanently deal with such misconceptions. It will particularly focus on the relationship between religious law and practice, and the enjoyment of women’s and children’s rights.

United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD)

Occasional Paper No. 9

Author: Gita Sen

This paper is a reflection on the environment within which the struggle for gender justice is currently under way in the global arena. It also steps back to provide an analytical frame to explain the core of the tensions between gender justice and other elements of social/economic justice, and the strategic implications of the multiple sites in which gender relations operate. It draws from the experiences of feminists who engaged in analysis and advocacy while participating in the negotiations of the United Nations conferences of the 1990s. These conferences – on environment, human rights, population, social development, women, habitat, children, HIV/AIDS, small island states, food security, racism – and their five- and ten-year reviews have provided a unique opportunity for negotiating a progressive social agenda in a systematic and ongoing way.

But even as such an agenda was being spelled out, the global economic policy terrain was almost entirely subordinated to neoliberal economic thinking dominated by the Washington Consensus. The interplay between these two sets of forces is our subject matter. The paper also comments on the implications for gender justice of the shift to a unipolar world order, and in particular, the movement from the neoliberal era to the neoconservative one.

The work of feminist and other scholars and activists following the conferences of the 1990s showed clearly that security of livelihoods and an enabling economic environment are an important basis for moving forward to meet reproductive and sexual health needs through well-functioning health systems (Petchesky 2003). Yet, some of the very countries that were most vocal in their support for sexual and reproductive rights were also the most hard-nosed in South-North economic negotiations. These tensions came to the fore not only in the UN conferences themselves, especially Cairo and Beijing, but also in their ‘plus five’ reviews. Despite this, considerable advances were possible on reproductive and sexual health and rights during the 1990s because of the limited control over state power by religious fundamentalists.

This scenario has undergone a major change in the neoconservative period with much stronger control over key levers of state power by religious fundamentalists on the one hand, and the rise of neoconservative political economy on the other. The first decade of this century has seen significant and tangible evidence of this in key conferences on HIV/Aids, Children, and Population, as well as in many other sites. This paper builds on previous analysis of the earlier phase to draw out implications for the current terrain in which feminists and allies are struggling to maintain hard-won gains and move forward.

United States Institute of Peace

United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1325 (2000) was groundbreaking in that it provided strong support for greater attention to the role of women in international peace and security. It acknowledged the inordinate impact of violent conflict on women and recognized that women’s empowerment and gender equality are critical to international peace and security. The UN Security Council explicitly recognized the link between the Women, Peace and Security agenda as laid out in UNSCR 1325 and the role women could and should play in preventing violent extremism.

The increased political attention to the role of women in countering and preventing violent extremism and terrorism is encouraging. Nevertheless, a coherent international framework is still needed. Indeed, women are not one cohesive group, and as men, they play multiple roles in societies. They can be victims, enablers, and actors for positive change—each requires a different response and approach. Moreover, there is little research and data with respect to these various roles that women occupy.

Our efforts here are intended to engage a discussion on key issues related to the role of women and preventing violent extremism (PVE). This document is not for an academic audience. Nor is it a tool kit. We think of it as a thought kit— a collection of experts’ essays and exercises, designed to help guide activists and practitioners to engage in reflection and dialogue on violent extremism. In addition, we hope to bring greater awareness to the particular roles of women and women’s organizations in dealing with violent extremist ideologies.

Action Aid UK, Gender & Development Network, Womankind, International Planned Parenthood Federation, Orchid Project

International and regional law and policy has recognized the need for States to underpin their efforts to eliminate violence against women and provide protection with national action plans

Violence is Not our Culture Campaign

What is culturally justified violence against women (CVAW)?

The UN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women (UNDEVAW) defines“violence against women as any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or in private life.” The CEDAW Convention considers VAW as constituting a form of gender discrimination that impairs or nullifies women’s enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms under international law. Culturally–justified VAW are these acts defined in UNDEVAW that are explicitly justified or condoned through a misuse of cultural, religious, or traditional beliefs, values, and practices that are meant to impose a patriarchal control over women and girls. This includes control over her body, her sexuality, who to love, who to marry, how to express herself, what to believe and exercise of her own free will.

We fully reject the notion that violence in any form is part of our culture, religion, or traditions.

Read on for information on the practice of stoning, a form of CVAW.

Violence is Not our Culture Campaign

What is culturally justified violence against women (CVAW)?

The UN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women (UNDEVAW) defines “violence against women as any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or in private life.” The CEDAW Convention considers VAW as constituting a form of gender discrimination that impairs or nullifies women’s enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms under international law. Culturally–justified VAW are these acts defined in UNDEVAW that are explicitly justified or condoned through a misuse of cultural, religious, or traditional beliefs, values, and practices that are meant to impose a patriarchal control over women and girls. This includes control over her body, her sexuality, who to love, who to marry, how to express herself, what to believe and exercise of her own free will.

We fully reject the notion that violence in any form is part of our culture, religion, or traditions.

Read on for information on whipping or lashing, a form of CVAW.

 

Violence is Not our Culture Campaign & Justice for Iran

This report locates where the punishment of stoning is still in practice, either through judicial (codified as law) or extrajudicial (outside the law) methods.

Historically, stoning has been used in many religious and cultural traditions as a form of community justice or capital punishment:  the ancient Greeks stoned people judged to be prostitutes, adulterers or murderers; in Jewish written (Torah) and oral law (Talmud),  stoning is a prescribed method of execution for crimes such as murder, blasphemy or apostasy. Although there is no mention of stoning in the Qur’an, the practice has come to be associated with Islam and Muslim cultures.  Laws that rendered stoning as a legally-sanctioned punishment emerged with the revival of political Islam during the late 20^th and early 21^st centuries. However, stoning also occurs in contexts where there is no legal precedent for the practice.

While there are few documented instances of stoning, it still poses a serious threat to both women and men living in Muslim contexts today.  Sexual relationships outside of marriage, along with same-sex relations regardless of marital status, are criminalized in most codified interpretations of Islamic law, or Shari’a.  Any sexual relationship outside a legal marriage is considered a crime punishable according to the individual’s relationship status: 100 lashes if unmarried and death by stoning if married. Over the past few decades, human rights and women’s rights activists have worked hard to challenge this perspective and bring an end to such cruel and brutal punishments.

As this report shows, women are far more likely to be the victims of stoning.  Even though no law exists that prescribes stoning as a punishment exclusively for women, misogynist and discriminatory practices and interpretations of religious laws make women far more likely than men to be found guilty of “adultery”.

Violence is Not our Culture Campaign

This briefing presents a survey of culturally justified violence against women, including how violence against women is justified by ‘culture’, the different forms this violence can take, and recommendations for change. The SKSW Campaign is undertaking projects on ‘culture’, women and violence, with partners in Senegal, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Pakistan, Indonesia, Iran, and Sudan.

This briefing paper will therefore give a general overview of discourses on culture, tradition, and/or religion that are used to justify, and therefore perpetuate, specic manifestations of VAW in these focal countries, as well as local methods to counter such arguments. While recognising that culture and religion can be empowering for, and central to, both individual and collective identities, this article will look at the misuse of these discourses for the purpose of sanctioning impunity for perpetrators and silencing dissenters.

This discussion concludes with recommendations for activists, scholars, and policy makers.

Author: Shaina Greiff

Violence is Not our Culture Campaign

Stoning is a cruel form of torture that is used to punish men and women for adultery and other ‘improper’ sexual relations. It is currently sanctioned by law and carried out by state actors in at least two countries, and at least seven individuals have been stoned to death in the last five years.

This briefing paper analyses the stoning punishment through several lenses. First, we explain how stoning violates basic human rights. Stoning is a form of torture that is often characterised by gender discrimination and unfair judicial processes. Second, although stoning is often justified in the name of Islam, the use of stoning today is wholly un-Islamic and religiously illegitimate. Since stoning is implemented differently in different contexts, this paper presents two case studies – Iran and Nigeria – in order to examine the issue in a comparative perspective. These case studies detail the specific ways in which stoning arises, as well as how local activists work to eliminate stoning in their own countries. We conclude with specific recommendations to policy makers and civil society.

Author: Rochelle Terman and Mufuliat Fijabi