Resources to be listed in Resources section page(s)
The Case of Meem in Lebanon
By Nadine M., Meem
This case study presents Meem, a support community for lesbian, bisexual, queer and questioning women, and transgendered people in Lebanon. It maps out the strategies used by Meem to challenge religious fundamentalist oppression of alternative sexualities and gender identities in Lebanon.
This resource is one part of AWID’s 2010 series of 18 Case studies, Feminists on the Frontline: Case Studies of Resisting and Challenging Fundamentalisms
Conscience: The Newsjournal of Catholic Opinion
Catholics for Choice
Vol. XXXIV No. 2 2013
EDITOR’S NOTE
RELIGION IS NOT THE BARRIER TO PROGRESS AT THE UNITED NATIONS or in parliaments around the world. Religious extremism, on the other hand, is. Religious extremism ignores the moderate views of most religious people and those with no religion, and it has the potential to do serious damage to the health and well-being of anybody in its path. Many religious people work for the greater good. Religious extremists, however, have an immoderate, uncompromising approach to politics and, given the chance, they would deny basic rights and require fundamental changes to the way most people want to live. In this issue of Conscience, we examine how religious extremists seek to shape the world to their worldview.
Earlier this year at the United Nations-sponsored Commission on the Status of Women, the Holy See used its elevated status to try to derail a declaration condemning violence against women. This opposition to women’s rights is business as usual for the Holy See at the UN. Noted journalist Joanne Omang examines the history of the Holy See and considers what might be in store under Pope Francis.
We then move to Europe, where Neil Datta has done significant research into the activities of various members of the European antichoice lobby. He illustrates how the attempts to organize a coherent and effective opposition to reproductive health services are still at the birthing stage, despite having impressive resources at their disposal.
We are very fortunate to be able to draw on the expertise of Marieme Helie Lucas, a leading advocate with the organization Women Living Under Muslim Laws, who explains what fatwas are, and more importantly, what they are not. She discusses the role the media has played in popularizing misunderstandings about fatwas, thereby strengthening fundamentalists’ agendas while down- playing other Muslim points of view.
Finally, Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick, currently working in Israel, examines the worrying influence of ultra-Orthodox Jews on the lives of women, as in both Israel and the US, they are seeking to curtail women’s rights. Does the religious freedom of ultra-Orthodox communities trump women’s right to ride at the front of the bus?
As always, our letters page is open for your comments.
2014 marked the twentieth anniversary of the International Conference on Population and Development’s Programme of Action, one of the landmark consensus documents, in which governments agreed to and signed off on commitments towards improving women’s sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights. Monitoring government achievements and performance is a critical way of holding governments and development stakeholders accountable to those international commitments. ARROW and partners have been involved in monitoring work at community, national and regional levels across the Asia-Pacific and the Global South.
ARROW has consistently monitoring the implementation of the ICPD Programme of Action at the +5, +10 and +15 intervals. For the ICPD+20, with support from regional networks and donors, they upscaled their efforts and replicated the monitoring work across the Global South regions – Eastern Europe, Latin America & the Carribbean, Africa, Middle East & North Africa and Asia-Pacific. For the Asia-Pacific region, the monitoring was done by ARROW, while in the other regions the monitoring was done in partnership with relevant regional networks. The aim was to show the evidence around the critical need for the continued sustenance of the sexual and reproductive health and rights agenda across the Global South.
The debate over religious freedom will continue to be a key issue in the United States and Europe. Religious lobbies are pressuring policymakers for exemptions or for permission to impose their views on the rest of society. Catholics for Choice co-convened a forum at the European Parliament to discuss the real meaning of religious freedom with members of the European Parliament, journalists and civil society leaders.
“Can Faith and Freedom Co-exist?”, a film produced by Catholics for Choice on behalf of the Global Interfaith and Secular Alliance, answers the pressing questions about religious freedom, secularism and extremism.
Drawing Back the Curtain on the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute
This 2001 report from Catholics for a Free Choice examines the history, activities and finances of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (CAFHRI), a conservative, anti-reproductive rights Catholic organization that lobbies the UN. The report uncovers shocking remarks made by Austin Ruse, president of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, quoting Ruse as saying that a priest from the Holy See’s UN delegation guaranteed him “absolution if I just took her [Hillary Clinton] out—and not on a date.”
Among the key findings of the report:
The Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s Evolving Human Rights Framework
TURAN KAYAOĞLU, Brookings Doha Center Analysis Paper Number 6, January 2013
This study provides an assessment of the OIC’s human rights instruments. It argues that their impact has remained limited for two reasons. The first is religious: the OIC lacks a clear framework dealing with the issue of compatibility between international human rights norms and the conservative brand of Islam dominant among leading OIC member states such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Pakistan. The second reason is structural: the organization’s state-centric nature complicates the functioning of its human rights mechanisms. Within the OIC, the primacy accorded to states diminishes the organization’s authority as a supra- national body and inhibits its ability to work with NGOs on the promotion of rights.
Despite its shortcomings, the OIC has real potential as an advocate of human rights in the Muslim world. Unfortunately, this potential has been overlooked by the international human rights community, which has little knowledge of the OIC and its human rights agenda. International debates about the OIC and human rights have been selective, focusing on issues such as the defamation of religion, gender, and gay rights.
In discussing the OIC as a human rights actor and the factors preventing it from fulfilling such a role, this paper attempts to shift the debate on Islam and human rights from a cultural and religious framework to an institutional one. As such, its focus is not on the compatibility of sharia with universal human rights, but on the structural obstacles that prevent the OIC and its member states from establishing effective human rights mechanisms.
The paper offers three principal arguments. First, that Muslim states’ commitment to a traditional understanding of sovereignty has been an obstacle to the advancement of human rights in the Muslim world. Second, it argues that the evolution of the OIC’s human rights instruments shows a shift over time, from an emphasis on sharia to an emphasis on sovereignty. The study concludes by positing that if the OIC were to have greater authority over individual states on human rights issues, it could be a more effective force for promoting human rights in the Muslim world. An approach that focuses not on the difficulty of aligning human rights and Islamic law, but on the necessity of “sharing sovereignty,” could empower OIC institutions and strengthen human rights NGOs.
ARROWs For Change, published by the Asian-Pacific Resource & Research Centre for Women (ARROW), Vol. 3 No. 5, December 1999
This edition of ARROWs For Change covers:
ARROWs For Change, published by the Asian-Pacific Resource & Research Centre for Women (ARROW), Vol. 14 Nos. 1 & 2 2008
Antigonish Women’s Resource Centre
by Lucille Harper, Leona M. English and Betsy MacDonald
In one rural school board district in the Canadian province of Nova Scotia, there has been a concerted effort led by a small group of religious fundamentalists, with support from fathers’ rights activists, to limit and in some instances to prevent students from accessing information about personal relationships, health and sexuality. This paper explores four situations that occurred between 2002 and 2008 in which some members of the local school board actively resisted the provision of resources and programs that were approved for students by the Nova Scotia Department of Education. It provides an analysis of the strategies used by a local women’s organization working with community allies to support the provision of the Rural Youth Healthy Relationships Education Project (2002), Sex? A Healthy Sexuality Resource (first edition, 2004), Youth Health Centres (2006), and the Healthy Relationships for Youth Program (2007).
This resource is one part of AWID’s 2010 series of 18 Case studies, Feminists on the Frontline: Case Studies of Resisting and Challenging Fundamentalisms
