Contenido relacionado
Front Line Defenders: Asesinato de la defensora de derechos humanos Ruth Alicia López Guisao

Au cours des dernières années, nous avons observé une nouvelle tendance inquiétante dans les espaces internationaux consacrés aux droits humains. Les discours axés sur « la protection de la famille » sont en effet utilisés pour défendre des violations des droits de membres de la famille, pour renforcer et justifier l’impunité des auteurs de ces violations et pour restreindre l’égalité des droits au niveau de la vie familiale.
La campagne en faveur de la « Protection de la famille » est motivée par une volonté conservatrice d’imposer des conceptions « traditionnelles » et patriarcales de la famille et de priver les membres de la famille de leurs droits pour les transférer à « l’institution familiale ».
Depuis 2014, un groupe d’Etats travaille de front dans les espaces dédiés aux droits humains sous le nom de « Group of Friends of the Family » (Groupe des ami-e-s de la famille) ; des résolutions sur la « Protection de la famille » ont été adoptées chaque année depuis 2014.
Ce programme s’est propagé au-delà du Conseil des droits humains. Nous avons observé l’introduction d’un discours régressif autour de la « famille » à la Commission sur la condition de la femme, ainsi que des tentatives d’introduction dans les négociations sur les Objectifs de développement durable.
L’AWID travaille avec des partenaires et des allié-e-s pour s’opposer ensemble à la « Protection de la famille » et à d’autres programmes régressifs et défendre l’universalité des droits humains.
En réponse à l’influence croissante d’acteurs régressifs au sein des espaces dédiés aux droits humains, l’AWID a rejoint des allié-e-s afin de créer l’Observatoire sur l'Universalité des droits (OURs) (site en anglais). L’OURs est un projet de collaboration qui surveille, analyse et diffuse les informations concernant les initiatives anti-droits telles que la « Protection de la famille ».
Le premier rapport de l’OURs, Nos droits en danger, trace une cartographie des acteurs et actrices qui constituent le lobby mondial anti-droits et identifie leur réthorique et stratégies clés ainsi que leur impact sur les droits humains.
Le rapport précise que le programme de « Protection de la famille » a développé une collaboration entre un large éventail d’acteurs régressifs aux Nations Unies, qu’il décrit comme « un cadre stratégique abritant des positions anti-droits et patriarcales multiples, où le cadre vise entre autres à légitimer et institutionnaliser ces positions. »
Contesting the premise that a country’s economy must always ‘grow or die’, de-growth propositions come to debunk the centrality of growth measured by increase in Gross domestic product (GDP).
A de-growth model proposes a shift towards a lower and sustainable level of production and consumption. In essence, shrinking the economic system to leave more space for human cooperation and ecosystems.
The proposal includes
Feminist perspectives within de-growth theory and practice argue that it also needs to redefine and revalidate unpaid and paid, care and market labour to overcome traditional gender stereotypes as well as the prevailing wage gaps and income inequalities that devalue care work.
La fecha límite para proponer actividades se extiende hasta el 1ero de Febrero de 2024.
En el espíritu del tema del Foro, invitamos a proponer una diversidad de tópicos y formatos para actividades que:
Contenido relacionado
Front Line Defenders: Asesinato de la defensora de derechos humanos Ruth Alicia López Guisao
« Je veux jouir tellement fort que ça réveillera mes ancêtres, qui se joindront à la lutte. »
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.
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 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.
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.’
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
.
Nuestro nuevo documento de investigación El diablo se esconde en los detalles aborda la falta de conocimientos sobre los fundamentalismos religiosos en el sector del desarrollo, y se propone comprender mejor de qué manera estos fundamentalismos inhiben el desarrollo y, en particular, los derechos de las mujeres. Propone recomendaciones para que quienes trabajan en temas de desarrollo desafíen la labor de los fundamentalismos y eviten fortalecerlos inadvertidamente. [CTA download link: Leer el documento completo]
Graphic1 | 1. Control of women’s bodies, sexuality, and choice are “warning signs” of rising fundamentalisms. |
2. Neoliberal economic policies have a particularly negative impact on women, and fuel the growth of religious fundamentalisms. | Graphic2 |
Graphic3 | 3. Choosing religious organizations as default for partnerships builds their legitimacy and access to resources, and supports their ideology, including gender ideology. |
4.Everyone has multiple identities and should be defined by more than just their religion. Foregrounding religious identities tends to reinforce the power of religious fundamentalists. | Graphic4 |
Graphic5 | 5. Religion, culture, and tradition are constantly changing, being reinterpreted and challenged. What is dominant is always a question of power. |
6. Racism, exclusion, and marginalization all add to the appeal of fundamentalists’ offer of a sense of belonging and a “cause”. | Graphic6 |
Graphic7 | 7. There is strong evidence that the single most important factor in promoting women’s rights and gender equality is an autonomous women’s movement. |
El Diablo se esconde en los detalles proporciona detalles de las graves violaciones a los derechos humanos y, en particular, de las violaciones a los derechos de las mujeres, causados por los fundamentalismos auspiciados por los Estados, así como por actores fundamentalistas no estatales como milicias, organizaciones comunitarias confesionales e individuos. La profundización fundamentalista de normas sociales atávicas y patriarcales está provocando el aumento de la violencia contra las mujeres, las niñas y las defensoras de derechos humanos (WHRDs). El informe propuesta estas ideas clave para abordar el problema:
Quienes trabajan en el desarrollo están de capacidad de asumir una posición más firme. Su capacidad colectiva para reconocer y enfrentar conjuntamente a los fundamentalismos religiosos resulta crucial para promover la justicia social, económica y de género y los derechos humanos de todas las personas en el marco del desarrollo sostenible. Resulta fundamental promover que el poder y los privilegios se entiendan desde la óptica del feminismo interseccional y aplicar esta comprensión a los interrogantes sobre religión y cultura. Las organizaciones de mujeres ya poseen conocimientos y estrategias para oponerse a los fundamentalismos. Quienes trabajan en el desarrollo deberían apoyarse en estos e invertir en coaliciones enfocadas en múltiples temáticas. Lo anterior, les ayudará a alcanzar nuevos horizontes.
ใหม่
ผู้เข้าร่วมประชุมออนไลน์สามารถดำเนินรายการในโปรแกรมต่างๆ เชื่อมต่อและสนทนากับผู้อื่น และสัมผัสประสบการณ์ความคิดสร้างสรรค์ ศิลปะ และการเฉลิมฉลองของเวที AWID ได้โดยตรง ผู้เข้าร่วม ที่เชื่อมต่อออนไลน์จะได้พบกับกับโปรแกรมที่เข้มข้นและหลากหลาย ตั้งแต่การประชุมเชิงปฏิบัติการ การอภิปราย ไปจนถึงโปรแกรมกิจกรรมเยียวยาและการแสดงดนตรี โดยที่กิจกรรมบางอย่างจะเน้น การเชื่อมต่อระหว่างผู้เข้าร่วมออนไลน์ด้วยกัน ในขณะที่กิจกรรมอื่นๆจะเป็นการเชื่อมต่อแบบผสมผสาน เพื่อการมีปฏิสัมพันธ์กันระหว่างผู้เข้าร่วมออนไลน์และผู้ที่อยู่กรุงเทพฯ
‘La sexualidad es fluida y en este momento mi vagina también’
#FeministFestival #SextLikeAFeminist
Learn more about Feminist Realities
Any questions? Please do not hesitate to contact us