Joint Open Letter on Threat to CEDAW Session

7 June 2019

To Permanent Representatives to the United Nations in Geneva and New York
Antonio Guterres, United Nations Secretary General

Cc:       Michelle Bachelet, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights; Hilary Gbedemah, Chair of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women

 

We are deeply concerned by the likely postponement of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women

(CEDAW) session scheduled for the final quarter of 2019. We also note that the shortfall in funds has affected the ability of the CEDAW Committee to implement its mandate under the Optional Protocol to CEDAW.

This comes as a heavy blow in the wake of ongoing pushback against human rights, including tremendous opposition to women’s human rights, on a global scale. Ethno-nationalism and religious extremism are increasingly emboldened by sensationalist media pushing xenophobic narratives, with women and girls rendered particularly vulnerable. The very existence of LGBTIQ people is in many places considered a threat to the fabric of society, while threats to their safety and well-being are excused. We have recently seen a UN Security Council resolution[1] fail to specifically uphold women’s right to autonomy over their own bodies, even as survivors of sexual violence in conflict.

Submissions to the CEDAW Committee by civil society organisations and women’s human rights defenders have long been included and valued, presenting a clear picture of the realities on the ground and enabling the Committee to hold states parties accountable. The CEDAW review session is an increasingly rare space in which civil society organisations and women’s human rights defenders can articulate, and access support for, the struggles they face in their home countries. At a time when civil society spaces are shrinking in many national contexts, it is all the more crucial that impunity for human rights violations can continue to be challenged at the UN level.

We understand that financial cutbacks have occurred due in large part to delays by UN member states in paying their contributions, and note that CEDAW is only one of six treaty bodies whose sessions face postponement[2] – all of which will have a negative impact on women, girls, civil society organisations and activists. We are deeply concerned both by this financial situation and by the resulting de-prioritisation of state accountability under international human rights law. Additionally, the considerable efforts put into aligning the Sustainable Development Goals with human rights could be rendered ineffective by this weakening of the treaty body system.

As of 10 May, only 44 UN member states had paid all their assessments due.[3] We would like to  commend Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Bhutan, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, China, Cuba, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Malawi, Malaysia, Monaco, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Poland, Rwanda, Samoa, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, Sweden, Switzerland and Tuvalu for having done so. We express concern however at the glaring absence on this list of members of the Human Rights Council and Security Council, of members of the G7, and of entire regions which remain unrepresented.

Now more than ever, we need to see decisive action to reverse this downward spiral. We call upon all member states to pay their membership fees in full without further delay.

We additionally call upon the United Nations Secretary General to:

• Prioritise funds dedicated to ensure the operational mandate of treaty bodies;
• Ensure the CEDAW review sessions will not be jeopardised by the shortfall; and
• Prioritise sustainable financing for treaty bodies in the agenda and ongoing deliberations of the General  Assembly.

This is a signal that deliberations in the UN’s 2020 treaty body system review cannot be business as usual. We are at a critical point, and we need multilateralism to stand up for justice and equality and strengthen the ability of individual states to do the same.

The post IAW has signed this Joint Open Letter on Threat to CEDAW Session appeared first on International Alliance of Women.

Three Global Treaties:
Let’s explore what emphasis the three global treaties brought to the conversation about women’s education.

-1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).  Described as an international bill of rights for women.

– adopted by UNESCO which aims to combat discrimination, cultural or religious assimilation or racial segregation in the field of education.

– Articles 13 and 14 of the International Convention on Economics, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)

While these treaties address education challenges for women and girls there are whole communities that are at a disadvantage for both genders.  For the purpose of this article, we will focus on the challenges for women and girls and efforts needed to empower a cohort of the population made vulnerable by systematic practices.

To further stress the urgency for positive action by UN member states, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development obliges countries to take gender equality into account throughout all 17 of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Sustainable Development Goals # 4 focusses on inclusive, equitable education whereas Sustainable Development Goal # 5 aims at achieving gender equality and empowering women and girls.

Persistent gaps in educational opportunities for women and girls in Canada exist at an acute level within the Black Community and the Indigenous Communities across the country.  While In 2009 the Ontario Ministry of Education “recognized the need for greater diversity within school boards through its Equity and Inclusive Education Policy, this policy in educational institutions continue to be predominantly under serviced with no change in hiring practices, no requirement for data collection and no designated resource allocation to address needs as they manifest in the intersectionality of gender, race, educational opportunities and poverty.

At all levels of education it is noted that, “There are many individuals and organizations that continue to resist any suggestion that racism exists in employment policies and practices in Ontario school boards and classrooms. This continued resistance ignores the mounting evidence of racial disparities in educational outcomes between African Canadian and other students” (VOICES OF ONTARIO BLACK EDUCATORS An Experiential Report – May 29, 2015).   The same challenge is further validated by student voices at the university level as reported in a Toronto Star article on February 3, 2016 by black students Sandy Hudson, Brie Berry, Yusra Khogali and Sefanit Habtemariam of the Black Liberation Collective.  “At our own institution, there are no courses where you can study black people at the graduate level. The school of Global Affairs is completely devoid of programs and courses that focus on the continent of Africa. This is the largest school in Canada (University of Toronto), often touted as the best. It’s difficult to imagine such an omission with regard to, say, Europe or Asia. Canada itself has a long and vibrant black history. Should we not be able to study it?” https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2016/03/01/canadian-campuses-have-a-racism-problem.html

Thirty years in public education as a professional has lead me to believe that education is rooted in building community within the school and extending that sense of belonging and purpose into society.  Our connectedness must be explicitly exposed because we each bring a gift that is valuable to others.  Educators are instrumental in influencing the learner’s confidence to expose their personal gift(s)  and realize their best life.  It should be a given that students have role models who look like them in the role of head of the class or a position of power in the institution.  This shared leadership among diverse groups builds strong, healthy communities and has a 360 degree affect on well-being, economic prosperity and realized potential for all.  The opportunity to fully participate must be accessible for all women and girls. Institutional biases based on ethnicity, culture and geographic location are devastating and must be addressed by government and Civil Society. In physics for every action there is an equal reaction as Issac Newton pointed out so clearly.  This tenet is the same in institutionalized education.

In indigenous communities for example, continuing to ignore the barriers that reinforces segregation practices in education is in and of itself a non commitment to equity and inclusion.  No matter how one argues that school segregation serves the needs of a particular group.  Leaving whole school communities without internet access or connection to partner organizations is a segregation practice.  At its core isolation destroy’s community.  Segregation forces students into tribal groups that may organize on norms that are myopic.  Women and girls in the far north experience this sense of isolation despite the existence of technology that is available to the rest of Canada.

Black women and girls struggle with not seeing people who look like them in their education institutions.  In the absence of representation, women and girls are subject to implicit or explicit biases in every aspect of their education.  Often Black students will say they feel like they are being judged (evaluated) with a different set of standards than their counterparts of different races.  They have to be prefect because they are representing their race or they are full out denied privileges offered to others.

“Even the animals choose their own breed” was an utterance from segregationists during the period when integration of schools were taking place in the southern part of the United States.  Are there any similarities to situations in 2019?  How is education for Indigenous children being organized in North America?  How is education for Black students in Canada being delivered?  A disproportion number of students of colour continue to be represented in Special Education.  Could it be that teaching strategies for black students need to be examined?

Indigenous schools in remote areas of Canada are still receiving donations of books from schools in urban areas.  The schools in urban areas, typically non Indigenous communities, are funded to support the learning needs of their students.  Urban schools are outfitted with resources necessary for 21st century learning because there is a budget to do so and pressure from parents, the Ministry of education and teachers’ unions.  Therefore, the effort to educate students in urban areas is focussed and intentional.

After the devastating effects of Residential Schools in Canada it is time for Canadians to demand full implementation for the education plan that came out of the Truth and Reconciliation Report to support Indigenous communities.  Past systemic education practices have brutally ravaged and destroyed the potential of generations of Indigenous people.  It is now time to move forward and undo the epidemic of lost potential.  The response must insists on dignity, community and positive self actualization.

Empowering women and girls through education must include the hiring of people who look like them and sound like them.  Never having a Black or Indigenous teacher, principal, superintendent, director of education, professor or academic advisor during their career as a student has an impact on how they orient themselves in the world.  Indigenous and Black students experience  a similar insensitivity to their culture and suffer disregard for their sense of well-being.  At this juncture in the road it is imperative that marginalized students have role models from their own ethnic communities as well as other ethnically diverse educators.

The post Education for All, Including the Marginalized appeared first on International Alliance of Women.

According to Torild, gender does make a difference. 1/3 of the women leaders she studied challenged the prevailing male domination. But, Torild claims, this is not enough. To be able to implement women friendly policies, women leaders must have the support of an active women’s movement.

Moreover, the political system must work in a democratic way and top leaders must obtain support in central political institutions.

Torild Skard explains the small percentage of increase of women in top leadership positions from 1990 to 2010 by the fact that political parties, which are the gateways to power in practice, undermine democratic governance preventing women from making progress in politics.

There are many measures that can be taken to help women access decision-making positions in politics: the quota system, access to the media and political networks, measures for reconciling work with family life etc. The problem is whether these measures have any effect and if not, why?

The answer is negative because these measures do not challenge patriarchy i.e.  gender stereotypes, gender culture, and traditional roles.

Experience in Scandinavia, which has high percentages of women in top leadership positions, has proved that this is not enough to challenge and transform patriarchal codes and practices.

So what can be done?

In my view, the answer is the lack of an enabling environment at all levels for the empowerment of women and the realization of their human rights. This lack of an enabling environment is produced by development models that support market led growth only. These models contribute to the persistence of unequal power relations between women and men and reproduce gender inequalities, exploiting women’s labour and unpaid care work.

These patterns are based on a new form of capitalism disorganized, globalized, neo-liberal. This form of capitalism has replaced state managed capitalism of the post-war era. It relies heavily on women’s wage labour, especially low wage work in service and manufacturing. The reality that underlies this new model is depressed wage levels, decreased job security, declining living standards, a steep rise in the number of hours worked for wages, exacerbation of the double shift, and rising poverty increasingly concentrated in female headed households.

Neo-liberalism is driving poor people, in particular women, poor classes and poor countries deeper into poverty. Feminist organizations should work to ensure that human rights are the ethical framework for macroeconomic policies. They should participate in reforming dominant economic policies, that is neoliberal policies, including the development, implementation and evaluation of these policies. We all know that the women’s movement is the most critical factor in the implementation of gender equality policies. The women’s movement should strive for the full promotion of the human rights of women through the full implementation of all human rights instruments especially CEDAW.

We should demand a new development model that is not based solely on economic growth but prioritizes people over profits as well as social solidarity. A new development model that regulates the role of the private sector through binding frameworks that align their actions with human rights and sustainable development objectives.

We should also work for human rights accountability for all actors, international financial institutions, multinational corporations and national governments. This is a new field of activism that the women’s movement should follow in order to see progress in its struggle for gender equality and the realization of women human’s rights.

The post Women of Power appeared first on International Alliance of Women.

Introduction and short history

In 1999 an Optional Protocol was adopted by the UNGA, which was ratified by the Netherlands in 2002. The Optional Protocol provides a Communications Procedure which allows individuals or groups of individuals to complain to the CEDAW committee.

Short History of CEDAW
Equality of rights for women is a basic principle of the United Nations. The Charter says that one of the purposes of the UN is to achieve international cooperation in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to, inter alia, sex. Through the UN Charter, the promotion of human rights, including the goal of equality between women and men, thereby became a contractual obligation for all Governments and the UN.

Despite the development of the Charter, women did not get to enjoy the rights that were supposed to be guaranteed to them. In response, the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) worked out a number of important declarations and conventions. Between 1949 and 1959, the CSW put forward, among others, the Convention on the Political Rights of Women, the Convention on Consent to Marriage, Minimum Age for Marriage and Registration of Marriages. CSW considered these Conventions necessary as these were areas where the rights of women were particularly vulnerable. Beyond these specific areas, it was believed that women’s rights were best protected by the general human rights treaties.

The 1960s saw the emergence, in many parts of the world, of a new consciousness of the patterns of discrimination. The adverse impact of some development policies on women became apparent; for instance men were taught new agricultural techniques, even though it was women who worked on the land. Consequently, in 1974 the CSW decided to prepare a single, comprehensive, and internationally binding instrument.

The text of CEDAW[i] was prepared by working groups in the CSW during 1976 and was extensively deliberated on by a working group of the Third Commission of the UNGA.

Work was encouraged by the World Plan of Action for the implementation of the objectives of the International Women’s Year, adopted by the World Conference held in to finish its work by 1976, so that the Convention would be completed in time for the next Women’s Conference in Copenhagen in 1980. So it happened that at a special ceremony at the Copenhagen Conference on 17 July 1980, 64 States signed the Convention and two States submitted their instruments of ratification.

CEDAW
Why is it, in spite of the protection of the Declaration of Human Rights and the general human rights treaties, ICCPR and ICESCR, that women need their own Convention?

It is because women are discriminated against in every possible way, sometimes unintentionally, by deeply ingrained ideas about the roles of women and men and the unequal power relations between the sexes, generally known as ‘gender’. The word ‘gender’ doesn’t appear in CEDAW, it was introduced in the Platform for Action of the IVth Women’s Conference in 1995 in Beijing. But, with a similar purport, there is article 5 of CEDAW that obliges States Parties to take all appropriate measures:

a): ‘To modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, with a view to achieving the elimination of prejudices and customary and all other practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes or on stereotyped roles for men and women;’

What is discrimination against women?
Article 1 of the Convention says that it means:
‘any distinction, exclusion or restriction, made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field.’

It took a long time for the Netherlands to ratify CEDAW. The reason for this is that the government first wanted to adopt legislation in conformity with the Convention and repeal discriminatory laws. For example, it took until 1985 before women could confer their nationality on their children on an equal basis with men. The law on equal treatment of men and women (WGB) of 1980 deals with discrimination in the workplace. And of course the revision of the Constitution (which came into force in 1983) brought us article I: ’discrimination because of … sex … is not permitted.’
All this happened in order to comply with article 2 of CEDAW.
The same article obliges the State to refrain from engaging in any act or practice of discrimination against women and to ensure that public authorities and institutions act in conformity with this obligation.
Even today there is a difference of opinion between the State and the CEDAW committee on the applicability of the Convention to local and provincial authorities. The Dutch government thinks it is not, the Committee says it is.
Another obligation of the State is to take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women by any person, organization or enterprise (2.e).
Temporary measures of ‘positive discrimination’ are permitted by art. 4.
I have already mentioned article 5. Not only does this call for doing away with stereotypes, it also asks the State:

b):to ensure that family education includes a proper understanding of maternity as a social function and the recognition of the common responsibility of men and women in the upbringing and development of their children, it being understood that the interest of the children is the primordial consideration in all cases.

This means that there should be no discrimination between boys and girls in the family.
The last article (6) of the general obligations is the suppression of all forms of trafficking in women and exploitation of prostitution of women.

Part II deals with the political rights of women: to vote and stand in all elections, to participate in the formulation of government policy and the implementation thereof, to hold public office and perform all public functions at all levels of government, and to participate in non-governmental organizations and associations concerned with the public and political life of the country.
Women should have the opportunity on equal terms with men to represent their Governments at the international level and to participate in the work of international organizations.
Article 9 says that States shall grant women equal rights with men to acquire, change or retain their nationality. In particular, they shall ensure that neither marriage to an alien nor a change of nationality by the husband during marriage shall automatically change the nationality of the wife, render her stateless, or force upon her the nationality of the husband. Women shall also have equal rights with respect to the nationality of their children.

Part III gives women the rights that cost the government money: education, employment, health, and economic and social benefits. There is a special article on rural women.
Articles 10, 11, 12, and 13 forbid discrimination in these fields, and they are pretty specific. The article on education not only demands equal conditions for teaching staff and school buildings, it also asks for measures to eliminate any stereotyped concept of the roles of men and women by coeducation, and in particular by the revision of textbooks and school programmes and the adaptation of teaching methods.
Sports and physical education are to be accessible for girls and boys. And access to specific information to help to ensure the health and well being of families, including information and advice on family planning, must be equal. At the same time, CEDAW asks for the reduction of female student drop-out rates.
High drop-out rates are due to a number of reasons. Apart from the reason of girls ‘being needed in the household’, drops-outs are often due to early or child marriage and child bearing. There are also seemingly mundane reasons, like not having toilet facilities in the schools, which can lead to the rape of girls by schoolmates. A persistent problem is rape by teachers.
The right to work is proclaimed in art 11 to be an inalienable right of all human beings, as is equal pay for work of equal value. In order to prevent discrimination on the grounds of marriage and maternity, the States Parties must take appropriate measures to prohibit dismissal on the grounds of pregnancy or maternity leave and discrimination in dismissals on the basis of marital status.
Maternity leave with pay and child-care facilities are necessary to combine family obligations and work responsibilities.
Health care (art.12) includes family planning. Appropriate services in connection with pregnancy, confinement, and the post-natal period are to be provided on a non-discriminatory basis.
Article 13 concerns measures in all other areas of economic and social life. Equality between men and women must be ensured in the right to family benefits, the right to bank loans, mortgages and all other forms of financial credit. and the right to participate in recreational activities, sports and all aspects of cultural life.
A special article 14 is dedicated to rural women in view of the significant roles which they play in the economic survival of their families, including their work in the non-monetized sectors of the economy. They should have a say in development planning, and a right to obtain all types of training and education. Family planning is also mentioned in this article.
Landownership is still a big problem for rural women, despite their right to equal treatment in land and agrarian reform.

Part IV deals with equality before the law. This is absolute. The States Parties agree that all contracts and all private instruments with a legal effect that are directed at restricting the legal capacity of women shall be deemed null and void.
Article 16 is about equality in marriage, the right to freely choose a spouse and enter into marriage with free and full consent. It gives the states the responsibility to ensure the same rights and responsibilities for men and women during marriage and at its dissolution, the same rights as parents, regardless of their marital status, the same personal rights as husband and wife, including the right to choose a family name, a profession and an occupation, the same rights regarding property, and most important of all: the same rights to decide freely and responsibly on the number and spacing of their children and to have access to the information, education, and means to enable them to exercise these rights.
The betrothal and marriage of a child shall have no legal effect. This article 16 is the one that, mainly from Islamic states, elicited the most reservations. Many other states did not accept these reservations because they were contrary to the meaning of the Convention.

The Committee (Part V)
For the purposes of considering the progress made in the implementation of the Convention there shall be established a Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. This CEDAW considers the reports submitted every 4 years by the States Parties (art 17,18). Nowadays the Committee meets in Geneva at the UN headquarters, where the Human Rights Council also meets. It has two weeks a year to discuss all the reports. (Other Human Rights Treaties don’t contain a time limit.)
Apart from suggestions to the States Parties on the basis of these reports (and of the shadow reports of NGO’s), the Committee may make General Recommendations.
CEDAW does not mention violence against women, a burning issue since the 90’s. This is partly remedied by a General Recommendation on the subject, and partly by the Istanbul Convention of the Council of Europe (CoE) on Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (2014).
Accession to this Convention is open to all States, not just the members of the CoE.
There are General Recommendations on women and AIDS, on female circumcision, and on disabled women. Others Recommendations focus on unpaid women workers in rural and urban family enterprises, and on the measurement and quantification of the unremunerated domestic activities of women and their recognition in the GNP.

Part VI has procedural articles.

Conclusion
Are women equal and treated equally to men?
There are a number of challenges regarding the Convention.

After almost 40 years CEDAW has not achieved universal ratification.
Many State Parties have entered reservations to important articles, thus not recognizing their duty to implement them and undermining the strength and the universal validity of the Convention.
Other States Parties refer to religion, culture, and to their national identity in order to keep discriminating against women on their territory.
Religious fundamentalism in its various forms threatens the universal validity of the Convention.
Many State Parties to the Convention still have to ratify the Optional Protocol, which allows the Committee to assist individual women and to develop a jurisprudence concerning the discrimination against them,
Even more State Parties still have to ratify the amendment to article 20 (1) of the Convention which lifts the restriction on the meeting time of the Committee. This restriction is a unique feature in the now seven UN human rights treaties and constitutes a discrimination against the Convention in itself and against the women which it protects.

The future
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDG’s), proclaimed last year, have as goal 5:
Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls.

Gender equality is not only a fundamental human right, but a necessary foundation for a peaceful, prosperous, and sustainable world.
The CSW  discussws this Goal at its session in March of this year.
There is no reason for optimism however; in the draft Agreed Conclusions of CSW, it says that no country has yet achieved gender equality.

Women keep advocating for equality!

This article was first published here

The post The Convention to End all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) appeared first on International Alliance of Women.

“The empowerment and autonomy of women and the improvement of women’s social, economic and political status is essential for the achievement of both transparent and accountable government and administration and sustainable development in all areas of life.” Our argument is pretty much the same today and the results are not much different.

For years, some of us have been desperately looking for new strategies—a new approach to this age-old problem that can help us to scale up and speed up progress. Today, I’m happy to report that the NGO CSW/NY Cities for CEDAW campaign as great potential to take us in that direction.

In 1998, San Francisco became the first municipality in the world to adopt a local ordinance reflecting the principles of the UN Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). I’d like to acknowledge Krishanti Dhamaraj and our peer leaders from San Francisco who pioneered this initiative. Between 1998 and 2013, other cities — including Los Angeles and Berkeley, as well as the State of Hawaii —enacted similar initiatives. In 2014 for Beijing plus 20, the NGO CSW/NY launched a national campaign to enroll a host of American cities—great and small. And at CSW 60 we plan to launch Cities for CEDAW as an international campaign.

The concept is simple: If we can weave women’s human rights into the sustainable development agenda in cities, we can scale up and speed up implementation of the 2030 agenda.

What have we learned so far?

1. We must tap the great potential of women’s leadership in cities. 

Women are increasingly leaders at the municipal level. For example, in Costa Rica, Belarus, Republic of Moldova, and Ukraine, there are more women councilors than men at local levels. The countries with the highest proportion of women mayors include Latvia (25%), Mauritius (40%), New Zealand (26%), and Serbia (26%)[1]. Still, women often do not pay close attention to local elections. With a successful campaign, we can mobilize voters–especially youth and women– in support of the BPfA, CEDAW and the SDGs.

2. Working with city leaders can help bring men on board.

So far, the campaign has engaged more than 50 cities and counties across the U.S., earned commitments to CEDAW from more than 200 mayors. At CSW 59, three male mayors and Gavin Newsom, Lt. Governor of California sent video messages endorsing CEDAW and calling on other mayors to make women’s human rights central to city programs and services. Mayor Li of San Francisco used the CEDAW ordinance to end gender discrimination in the public works, fire and police departments.

3. Coalitions can be built around CEDAW

“Cities for CEDAW” campaigns are just starting in Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Santa Monica, Sarasota and other cities. In New York City the strategy is to build coalitions of municipal constituencies from the bottom up [2] so leaders have reached down to the Borough level to start a “Boroughs for CEDAW” campaign. Two statewide coalitions have emerged in Oregon and North Carolina, while Orange and Miami-Dade Counties have focused on countywide ratification of CEDAW. Hearing of the US effort, the CEDAW experts who serve on the UN CEDAW committee encouraged us at this year’s informal briefing in Geneva to take this campaign to to the international stage. Early prospects include Nigeria, France, Trinidad/Tobago, India and Brazil.

4) Cities have the ability to innovate and measure rapid change, even when national governments cannot—or will not—take action. 

Policy change that has long been stymied at the national level can be achieved at the local level. For example, the WHO has been calling for universal health coverage for years. Guess what? San Francisco has put that in place. How about gender budgeting? Last August, Mayor Garcetti issued an Executive Directive on CEDAW. All General Managers and Department Heads across all sectors are to submit a Gender Equity Action Plan by this February. We continually call for improved data—and that can happen in cities. This year, Los Angeles commissioned groundbreaking research on women’s employment that revealed gender gaps in hiring practices by race, economic status, and disability. The Leadership study will also help city officials make sure that marginalized women and girls are given more opportunities for social and political participation.

5) Innovative financing is possible

There are many lessons to be learned in cities about innovative financing and resource mobilization as many cities work closely with local foundations, individual philanthropists, the private sector, and small businesses. If successful, the Cities for CEDAW campaign will help to strengthen the finances of urban women’s bureaus and commissions and build their capacity to access national and international resources.

Looking ahead at the UN calendar for 2016, I have two recommendations:

First, for governments and the UN – We need a strong recommendation a higher priority for Goal 11 on sustainable cities and communities in the Agreed conclusions. Second, the feminist and women’s movement should help build momentum heading to Habitat III and the High Level Political Forum.

In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that if we don’t get it right in cities, we will surely fail on a global scale. In Qatar, Singapore, and South Korea, the majority of women and girls are city dwellers. By 2050, nearly 80% of the world’s women and girls will live in urban areas.[3] Furthermore, decisions made right now in cities is determining the fate of rural women’s livelihoods, food security, climate change, and the environment. We have an historic opportunity to demonstrate – in tangible and measurable ways—that enhancing women’s human rights is a practical approach to sustainable development and that the UN can help transform the lives of women and girls in developed as well as developing countries. The good news is that we are well on our way to sending that message—one city at a time.

____________

You are invited to an NGO CSW/NY parallel event on 17 March at 6:15, second floor at the Church Center that will launch the international campaign.

[1] The World’s Women 2010, United Nations, New York.

[2] The information presented here is a summary of reports submitted to the NGO CSW/NY up to October 15 2015. For more information on the cities engaged in the campaign, see: https://citiesforcedaw.wordpress.com/2014/06/05/welcome-to-the-cities-for-cedaw-weblog/ and https://www.facebook.com/cities4CEDAW/

[3] UN Conference of Parties, Outreach Issues, Warsaw, 2013, www.cop19.gov.pl.

The post Cities and Leadership for Women’s Human Rights appeared first on International Alliance of Women.

Elimination of discrimination against women (A/HRC/29/L7/Rev.1)

Every year the Human Rights Council spends a day discussing the elimination of discrimination against women, informed by the latest report of the Working Group on the issue of discrimination against women in law and practice.

This Working Group is a sequel to Beijing’s Platform for Action. In Beijing, Governments decided to abolish discriminatory laws. The five and ten year reviews made this decision even firmer.  On the occasion of the tenth year review, the Commission on the Status of Women wondered if it would not be appropriate to establish a special rapporteur to report on discriminatory laws and their consequences. The Secretary-General had produced two reports, in 2006 and 2007 on the issue; in 2009 the Human Rights Council requested the High Commissioner to present a report on discrimination in law and practice, and in 2010 the Human Rights Council adopted a resolution with the mandate of the Working Group.

It is the second special procedure of the Human Rights Council dedicated to addressing women’s human rights, complementing the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, its causes and consequences,which was established in 1994 immediately following the World Conference on Human Rights.  In Vienna in 1993 it had been decided to integrate women’s human rights into the overall human rights system.

The first report of the Working Group was about its history and plans for the future. Its second report in 2013 was dedicated to discrimination in law and practice in public and political life. In 2014 the subject was eliminating discrimination in economic and social life with a focus on economic crisis, and this year eliminating discrimination in cultural and family life with a focus on the family as a cultural space.(A/HRC/29/40)

This 2015 report is a radical accusation against patriarchy. It says that Article 5 (eliminate prejudice) of CEDAW is of vital importance. Human Rights Council resolutions – 16/3 on promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms through a better understanding of traditional values of humankind and 26/11 on the protection of the family – threaten to undermine international achievements in the field of human rights in the name of cultural and religious diversity.

It relies heavily on the definition of gender in General Recommendation 28 of the CEDAW Committee.

12. The construction of gender is deeply embedded in culture. In its general recommendation No. 28, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women indicates that “the term ‘gender’ refers to socially constructed identities, attributes and roles for women and men and society’s social and cultural meaning for these biological differences resulting in hierarchical relationships between women and men and in the distribution of power and rights favouring men and disadvantaging women. This social positioning of women and men is affected by political, economic, cultural, social, religious, ideological and environmental factors and can be changed by culture, society and community.”[1]

Gender is a discriminatory factor in all societies. Culture however can be changed.

The recommendations the Working Group makes are all furthering equality, especially within the family.

The resolution (A/HRC/29?L.7?Rev.1) the Human Rights Council adopted is a weak ‘infusion’ of the working group’s analysis.

However it

3. Calls upon States to ensure women’s equal enjoyment of all human rights by, inter alia:

(a)           Adopting and strengthening national legal frameworks promoting and guaranteeing gender equality in cultural and family life, in accordance with their international obligations and commitments;

(b)           Promoting the equal and full access, participation and contribution of women and girls in all aspects of life, including in cultural and family life;

(c)           Rejecting any discriminatory practice and gender stereotype;

(d)           Adopting or strengthening measures to combat multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination, in particular against those belonging to vulnerable groups;

4. Also calls upon States to promote a culture free from all forms of discrimination against women and girls and to address its root causes by, inter alia:

(a)           Developing national mechanisms, measures and policies, as appropriate;

(b)           Adopting awareness-raising campaigns, educational and informational programmes;

(c)           Promoting the mobilization and engagement of civil society organizations and other relevant stakeholders, including that of men and boys;

(d)           Providing gender-equality training for State civil servants, including those working on the judiciary;

(e)           Adopting a coherent set of gender-responsive social and economic policies;

(f)            Addressing poverty and social exclusion in order to overcome the structural barriers and inequality that they face;

5. Urges States to take all appropriate measures to modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women with a view to achieving the elimination of prejudices and customary and all other practices that are based on the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes or on stereotyped roles for men and women;
6. Calls upon States to take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in all matters relating to marriage and family relations, and to guarantee women’s equality in law and in practice in family life, in accordance with their respective international obligations and commitments by, inter alia:

(a)           Recognizing the equality of all family members before the law;

(b)           Opposing all forms of marriage that constitute a violation of women’s and girls’ rights, well-being and dignity;

(c)           Ensuring that men and women have the same right freely to choose a spouse, to enter into marriage only with their free and full consent and the same rights and responsibilities during marriage and at its dissolution;

(d)           Ensuring the same rights for both spouses in respect of the ownership, acquisition, management, administration, enjoyment and disposition of property;

(e)           Ensuring the same rights and responsibilities with regard to guardianship, wardship, trusteeship and the adoption of children, or similar institutions where these concepts exist in national legislation; in all the cases, the interest of the children shall be paramount.

Further the resolution calls for combating violence, an end to impunity, and access to justice for all women regardless of their status.

I started out noticing that there was so much language about the family in this resolution. Then I understood that this was because the Working Group’s report focused on it. Then I read the report and was impressed with the thorough analysis and description of legal systems regarding personal law.

The post Discrimination of women in law and practice appeared first on International Alliance of Women.

The main objectives of the conference were:

• To celebrate International Women’s day and to highlight the importance of the role of women in peace and development.
• To make key stakeholders aware of the need to support women and endorse a resolution regarding woman’s rights and role in peace and development to be taken forward to the policy-makers.
• To sensitize key stakeholders and the community regarding the contributions of women in promoting peace and harmony.

Conclusions:

• Women are not inherently weak, but their circumstances make them so.
• Any change must begin with education
• Prioritization of Health (physical and mental) and Education policies as an urgent and necessary need.
• More Confidence building and Empowerment opportunities for women.
• Rural women most susceptible to violence and discrimination and must be brought into the conversations surrounding gender equality.
• Peace and Harmony as vital to the advancement of gender equality.
• Greater representation of women in government and decision making process.
• Strict implementation of the CEDAW Convention to eliminate violence against women.

Highlights

• Signing of Resolution developed by APWA highlighting role of women in peace and harmony
• MOU signed between APWA and LCWU for taking this cause forward
• Candle light vigil to commemorate lost lives
• Peace pledge by all participants
• Announcement of development of a National Peace Network, to define and develop policy guidelines for advocating for peace and harmony led by women.

Read the whole report

The post Role of women in promoting peace and harmony for a better Pakistan appeared first on International Alliance of Women.

Read the whole presentation
Report from the event

The post Deeds – no words appeared first on International Alliance of Women.

To uphold international human rights principles and standards;

Ratify and fully implement state obligations, including extraterritorial obligation under all international human rights treaties, including the Optional Protocols; Withdraw all reservations, enact enabling legislation and strengthen accountability mechanisms that institutionalise and support implementation.

Read the whole statement

The post Women’s Rights Movement of the Philippines appeared first on International Alliance of Women.