
Saraswathi Gora

Dans le monde entier, les femmes défenseuses des droits humains défendent leurs terres, leurs moyens de subsistance et leurs communautés contre le pouvoir des entreprises et des industries extractives. Elles se mobilisent et défient de puissants intérêts économiques et politiques qui motivent la spoliation de terres, le déplacement de communautés, la perte des moyens de subsistance et la dégradation de l'environnement.
L’extractivisme est un modèle économique et politique de développement qui œuvre à la marchandisation de la nature et privilégie le profit au détriment des droits humains et de l'environnement. Enraciné dans l'histoire coloniale, il creuse les inégalités sociales et économiques au niveau local et mondial. Le plus souvent, les femmes rurales, noires ou autochtones sont les plus touchées par l’extractivisme et sont largement exclues des espaces de prise de décision en la matière. Les femmes se mobilisent pour défier ces forces patriarcales et néocoloniales et défendre les droits, les terres, les personnes et la nature.
Les femmes qui s’opposent aux industries extractives vivent une série de risques, de menaces et de violations de leurs droits comme la criminalisation, la stigmatisation, la violence et l'intimidation. Leurs histoires révèlent des aspects évidents de violences sexuelles et basées sur le genre. Parmi les auteurs de ces abus se trouvent les autorités locales et fédérales, les entreprises, la police, les militaires, les forces de sécurité paramilitaires et privées, et parfois mêmes leurs propres communautés.
L'AWID et la Coalition internationale des femmes défenseures des droits humains (WHRDIC) ont le plaisir d'annoncer la sortie de leur publication « Les défenseuses des droits humains résistent à l’extractivisme et aux pouvoir des entreprises », un rapport basé sur un projet de recherche transrégional qui relate les expériences vécues par des défenseuses en provenance d'Asie, d'Afrique et d'Amérique latine.
Nous encourageons les activistes, les membres de mouvements sociaux, la société civile, les donateurs et les décideurs à lire et à faire usage des documents suivants pour leur travail de plaidoyer, comme outil pédagogique et comme source d’inspiration :
« Les défenseuses des droits humains résistent aux industries extractives : Aperçu des principaux risques et des obligations en matière de droits humains » est une analyse de la situation d’un point de vue du genre. Ce rapport (en anglais, bientôt disponible en français) analyse les formes de violations et les types d'auteurs de ces violations, il reprend les obligations les plus pertinentes en matière de droits humains et formule une série de recommandations politiques à l’intention des États, des entreprises, de la société civile et des donateurs.
« Arrimer la résistance à l'action : Les stratégies des défenseuses des droits humains qui résistent aux industries extractives » est un guide pratique qui décrit des formes créatives et stratégiques d'action, des stratégies qui ont porté leurs fruits et des histoires de résistance inspirantes.
La vidéo « Protéger les personnes et la planète: les femmes qui résistent aux industries extractives. » met en lumière le courage des défenseur-e-s des droits humains d'Afrique, d'Asie et d'Amérique latine. Elles partagent leurs luttes pour la terre et la vie et parlent des risques et des défis auxquels elles sont confrontées dans leur activisme.
« Contester le pouvoir corporatif : Les luttes pour les droits des femmes, la justice économique et la justice de genre » est un rapport de recherche qui décrit les effets du pouvoir des entreprises et offre des perspectives sur des stratégies de résistance.
Faites-nous part de vos commentaires
C’est avec gratitude que l’AWID reconnaît les contributions précieuses de chaque défenseur-e des droits humains qui a participé à ce projet. Cette recherche a été rendue possible grâce à votre volonté à partager vos expériences. Votre courage, créativité et résilience est une source d’inspiration pour nous toutes et tous. Merci !
Felogene Anumo, AWID
Dr. Vandana Shiva, India
Dr. Dilar Dirik, Kurdistan
Nana Akosua Hanson, Ghana
نعم من فضلك. لقد تغير العالم منذ عام 2021 ونحن ندعوك لتقديم مقترح يعكس واقعك وأولوياتك الحالية.
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.
เราจับตาดูเรื่องนี้และความเสี่ยงอื่นๆอย่างระมัดระวัง และจะนำเสนอข้อมูลด้านสุขภาพและความปลอดภัยที่คลอบคลุมเมื่อมีการเปิดให้ลงทะเบียน เพื่อให้คุณสามารถตัดสินใจได้อย่างมีข้อมูล มากกว่านั้นการจัดประชุมแบบสองรูปแบบ(ออนไลน์และกายภาพ)ถูกออกแบบให้ให้เกิดการมีส่วนร่วมอย่างมีความหมายสำหรับผู้เข้าร่วมที่เลือกจะไม่เดินทาง หรือผู้เข้าร่วมที่ไม่สามารถเดินทางได้
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.
Co-create the The 15th AWID International Forum in Bangkok, Thailand.
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.
Facebook: @AWIDWomensRights
Instagram: @awidwomensrights
Twitter FR: @awid_fr
LinkedIn: Association for Women's Rights in Development (AWID)
Jour 2
Learn more about Feminist Realities
Any questions? Please do not hesitate to contact us