
Maria das Dores dos Santos Salvador

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. »
There are varied conceptualizations about the commons notes activist and scholar Soma Kishore Parthasarathy.
Conventionally, they are understood as natural resources intended for use by those who depend on their use. However, the concept of the commons has expanded to include the resources of knowledge, heritage, culture, virtual spaces, and even climate. It pre-dates the individual property regime and provided the basis for organization of society. Definitions given by government entities limit its scope to land and material resources.
The concept of the commons rests on the cultural practice of sharing livelihood spaces and resources as nature’s gift, for the common good, and for the sustainability of the common.
Under increasing threat, nations and market forces continue to colonize, exploit and occupy humanity’s commons.
In some favourable contexts, the ‘commons’ have the potential to enable women, especially economically oppressed women, to have autonomy in how they are able to negotiate their multiple needs and aspirations.
Patriarchy is reinforced when women and other oppressed genders are denied access and control of the commons.
Therefore, a feminist economy seeks to restore the legitimate rights of communities to these common resources. This autonomy is enabling them to sustain themselves; while evolving more egalitarian systems of governance and use of such resources. A feminist economy acknowledges women’s roles and provides equal opportunities for decision-making, i.e. women as equal claimants to these resources.
للجنسانيّة تدفّقات متعدّدة ومتبدّلة كحال الغمد الملتهب بين فخذَيّ
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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[1].
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.
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.
By understanding the strategies employed by anti-rights actors, we can be more effective in countering them.
[1] The fora that are state-led, like the General Assembly, the Human Rights Council, and UN conferences like the Commission on the Status of Women and the Commission on Population and Development
Upasana est un·e illustrateurice et artiste non binaire basé·e à Kolkata, en Inde. Son travail explore l'identité et les récits personnels en partant d’un vestige visuel ou d’une preuve des contextes avec lesquels iel travaille. Iel est particulièrement attiré·e par les motifs qui, selon Upasana, communiquent des vérités complexes sur le passé, le présent et l'avenir. Quand Upasana n'est pas en train de dessiner, iel organise et dirige un centre d'art communautaire queer et trans dans la ville.
Contenido relacionado
El Heraldo: Mujer asesinada en Valledupar era líder wiwa, defensora de derechos humanos
Survival: Colombia: lideresa indígena de Sierra Nevada asesinada
La creciente dominación de los mercados y las instituciones financieras internacionales en la definición de las políticas económicas globales ha tenido como resultado la captura del poder popular en aras del interés de las élites y las grandes corporaciones globales.
Este informe «Flujos financieros ilícitos» analiza su desproporcionado impacto de género y los marcos legales y políticos actuales que permiten a las corporaciones multinacionales beneficiarse del fraude fiscal en detrimento de las personas y el planeta.
El informe concluye con siete recomendaciones feministas de políticas para exigir transparencia y rendición de cuentas por parte del poder corporativo para frenar los flujos financieros ilícitos.
Los flujos financieros ilícitos están llamando la atención como nunca antes: ya sea en negociaciones para el desarrollo, como los que condujeron a la Agenda 2030 y a la Conferencia sobre Financiamiento para el
Desarrollo de Addis Abeba en 2015, u ocupando los titulares de los medios hegemónicos con la publicación de documentos filtrados sobre finanzas offshore conocidos como los «Panama Papers». En otro ejemplo, en un
referendum de febrero de 2017, el pueblo ecuatoriano votó para prohibir que políticxs y funcionarixs públicxs posean acciones, compañías o capital en paraísos fiscales. El Gobierno de Ecuador es ahora, dentro del grupo
G-77, una de las voces principales que reclaman en las Naciones Unidas la creación de un organismo tributario global para poner fin a los paraísos fiscales.
Esta atención pública potencialmente da impulso para que lxs feministas, los movimientos sociales y lxs defensores de la justicia tributaria presionen por la transformación del sistema financiero internacional, donde
se arraigan desigualdades globales, incluidas las desigualdades de género.
Ofrecemos aquí siete pedidos de políticas como contribución a los crecientes esfuerzos de incidencia de actores por la justicia social, feministas, por los derechos de las mujeres y por la igualdad de género.
4. Promover la transparencia y la recolección de datos con perspectiva de género:
7. Poner fin a la impunidad de las actividades delictivas asociadas con los flujos financieros ilícitos y garantizar la rendición de cuentas:
Explore these projects put together by AWID teams to promote feminist advocacy and perspectives.
Hakima Abbas, AWID
"Estamos utilizando las herramientas que tenemos para compartir nuestra resistencia, nuestras estrategias y continuar edificando nuestro poder para actuar y crear nuevos mundos valientes y justos"