Women Human Rights Defenders

Contextualising the International Campaign on Women Human Rights
Defenders

The Campaign

The International Campaign on Women Human Rights
Defenders is an international initiative for the recognition and
protection of women who are activists advocating for the realization of
all human rights for all. The campaign asserts that women fighting for
human rights and particularly focusing on women’s human rights face
specific violations in the course of their work because of their sex and
gender. In addition, the Campaign focuses on the situation of human rights
activists defending women’s rights and in particular calls attention to
the violations experienced by lesbian, gay, bisxeual, transgender and
other rights activists on grounds of their sex and gender identities.
The identities of these actors as well as the nature of the rights they
strive to uphold are both factors that make them the focus of the
Campaign.

The Campaign aims to support the critical role played by
human rights defenders all over the world in the promotion and protection
of all human rights for all through expanding the ambit of understanding
of this concept to include specific defenders and groups of defenders that
are at risk because of their sex/gender identity. This has become all the
more important in the present global context in which the space for human
rights advocacy by civil society actors is shrinking in the context of the
US-led ‘wars’ against terrorism and rising fundamentalisms.

The Campaign, which emerges out of a process of coalition
building between women’s rights organizations and human rights
organizations, brings together a wide range of experiences and histories
of defending human rights. It looks at issues of impunity and
accountability of the State as well as accountability of a range of
non-State actors for violations against women human rights defenders. It
focuses on developing collective analytical and political strategies for
strengthening the defense of women human rights defenders within a broader
context of reaffirming internationally recognized commitments to
democratic principles and universal human rights and freedoms.

The Campaign has identified four core calls:

The historical background:

History is replete with accounts of countless men and
women worldwide who have been subjected to discrimination, abuse and
violence in the course of their activism in advocating and defending their
own rights as well as the rights of others. Many have paid with their
lives for their courage and commitment to the defense of human rights, and
yet their lives, and deaths, have often gone unrecognized. While it is
true that existing legal structures can be drawn upon to protect
individuals and groups of individuals from violations of their rights by
states and by other specified actors, our experiences show that many
activists do not enjoy the protection they are entitled to, by law. The
demand for better legal frameworks and heightened social awareness for the
protection and security of human rights defenders has emerged out of this
context. 

Throughout the campaign, women human rights defenders
have shared their concerns with the Campaign Team at a series of
consultations and meetings. The information they have shared has led to a
more nuanced understanding of the specific violations and abuses they face
and the need to develop protection mechanisms that are responsive to the
threats and risks they encounter as women human rights defenders. 
The campaign has also brought women’s rights groups and human rights
organisations to work together, through joint actions and activities, to
address these concerns raised by women human rights defenders. 
Together, they have responded to specific instances of abuse and violation
of women human rights defenders through Action Alerts and other tools used
by women’s human rights groups and human rights groups looking at
violations against human rights defenders. The team has also been working
collectively to draw attention to the lack of legitimacy given to women as
human rights defenders, which accounts for the lack of protection accorded
to them in their work.

The Declaration on Human Rights
Defenders

In 1998, the UN General Assembly adopted the Declaration
on Human Rights Defenders. This marks the first international recognition
afforded to human rights defenders, and the first overt commitment by the
international community and by the states that are members of the United
Nations to the defense of the rights of those who strive to defend human
rights. It is a document adopted by consensus and as such represents
broad-based recognition of the importance to protect human rights
defenders and promote their work. It does not create new rights, but
speaks to the applicability of existing human rights norms and standards
to the specific needs of human rights defenders. While the Declaration is
not in itself a legally binding instrument, it contains a series of
principles and rights that are based on human rights standards enshrined
in other legally binding international instruments such as the
International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and
International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).
Above and beyond its legal validity, the Declaration gives due recognition
to the status of human rights defenders and reinforces the legitimacy of
their work. It also lays out the basis on which human rights defenders can
seek redress for the violations committed against them.

The creation of the position of Special Representative
(SR) of the UN Secretary General on Human Rights Defenders in 1999 and the
mandating of this SR to make an annual report to the UN Commission on
Human Rights on the situation of human rights defenders worldwide further
strengthened the discourse on human rights defenders and their needs for
recognition and protection.

The Declaration and the mandate of the SR on HRDs refer
broadly to the rights and responsibilities of states and other actors with
regard to the recognition and protection of human rights defenders. While
the language does not focus particularly on any specific group of
defenders, it allows for the broadest possible interpretation of the term.
In her reports to the UN Commission of Human Rights, Hina Jilani, the
Pakistani human rights advocate who is presently the Special
Representative of the UN Secretary General on the issue of Human Rights
Defenders, has singled out the specific situation of women who are
actively engaged in the defense of human rights.

Why a special focus on women human rights
defenders?

Within the arena of human rights activism, winning
recognition for women’s rights as human rights was a hard won battle,
fought on many fronts for many years. Challenging the assumption that the
term ‘human rights’ was by definition applicable to all human beings
equally, without consideration of the various differences that exist among
human beings on the basis of race, ethnicity, economic or educational
status, sex or gender identity, age or ability, and without consideration
of the diverse relationships of power among and between human beings
because of these differences was not an easy task in itself.

Within the patriarchal and male dominated social
formations that exist all over the world, arguing for equality for women
has been even more difficult. Women who speak out for their rights, for
the rights of other women and for the rights of other communities that
suffer from discrimination and marginalization, experience harassment,
abuse and violence on a daily basis because of what they dare to do. 

Issues of women’s rights and, now, of women human rights
defenders, are especially troublesome to states, non-state actors and even
mainstream human rights organizations and progressive social movements
because of the challenges posed to existing norms and social frameworks.
Engendering human rights most critically entails giving life to the
principle that the personal is political. The call for gender
mainstreaming demands that we pay attention to unequal relations of power
within all structures and organizational frameworks, including our
own. 

The high ‘risk’ factor

Women human rights defenders in the course of their work
experience human rights violations on multiple grounds. As human rights
defenders, they face the same gamut of risks faced by all human rights
defenders, when they challenge repressive state machinery, for example, or
when they raise demands for freedom of opinion and expression from
authoritarian states. As women they are also exposed to or targeted for
gender-based violence and gender-specific risks. Recognition of the
specific risks and the specific violations women face in their work in
defense of human rights because of their sex or gender identity is
crucial, especially in a broader context in which women’s equality and
dignity is denied and in which the violent suppression of women’s autonomy
and rights is endemic in every society.   

Women throughout the world who work for the protection
and promotion not only of women’s rights, but also of human rights in
general, are placed at risk by social norms and assumptions about women’s
primary role as being located within the private/domestic sphere. The
isolation and silencing of women imposed by patriarchal structures play a
critical role in making women more at risk to abuse and violations. Anyone
who works with women and girls who are victims of domestic or sexual
violence knows the many obstacles that prevent women from speaking out
about the indignities and abuse they face on a daily basis. The culture of
blaming the victims of sexual violence for their victimhood is a key
factor that places constraints on women, and those around them, from
reporting these abuses.  

Social norms and traditional and customary practices that
construct women as symbols of family and community ‘honour’ also make
women responsible for protecting their community’s honour and justify
severe and inhuman punishments for women who transgress the boundaries of
behaviour laid out and ascribed by male-dominated religious and cultural
authorities. This makes it hard for women human rights defenders to report
or even articulate the existence of violence against women committed by
members of their own political or ethnic group.  Masculinist
constructions of power, embedded in the State and reflected in families
and communities, consider it unpatriotic and traitorous of women activists
to point to perpetrators of violence from among members of the family or
colleagues in the movements. Women who speak out and act in defense of
their own rights as well as of the rights of other socially marginalized
groups are rendered most at risk of attack and abuse. These interlocking
networks of silence and ‘shame’ reinforce a culture of impunity for crimes
against women. This in turn heightens the risk of women activists to
violations of their rights and impedes their enjoyment of the full
benefits of their citizenship.
 
Women and other activists who
actively promote women’s rights in arenas such as land rights, the right
to inheritance, reproductive rights and sexual rights and who pose a
challenge to tradition, culture and customary practices through their work
are also often at the receiving end of a range of attacks and abuses. The
manipulative use of culture, tradition, custom and religion by
conservative and right-wing forces to justify human rights abuses of women
makes the task of women human rights defenders working for the protection
and promotion of women’s rights in these arenas most complex and
difficult. Promoting and protecting rights located within these arenas can
lead to additional risks for women activists, since the assertion of such
rights is seen as disruptive of cultural values and traditions. Activism
for women’s human rights that challenges patriarchal and hetero-normative
social forms places women’s human rights defenders at risk, not only of
physical abuse and violence but also makes them vulnerable to being
ostracized by the community and society as a whole on allegations of being
witches, apostates and heretics.

Of particular concern in the discussions on women human
rights defenders is ‘sexuality-baiting’, a term broadly used to encompass
a range of practices that manipulate attitudes and prejudices about
women’s sexuality to intimidate, humiliate, embarrass, stifle or
discourage women from organizing around, or addressing issues of
sexuality, sexual and other human rights. Sexuality-baiting against women
human rights defenders can take many forms: women activists are labeled
lesbians, sexually promiscuous deviants, anti-God, anti-religion; they are
accused of promoting ‘Western’ or ‘alien’ cultures, and seen as
responsible for the break-up of families. These labels are meant to
denigrate the importance of their work. It discredits women’s motives for
engaging in human rights work.

In addition, sexuality-baiting gives rise to situations
that often have grave consequences for women. Such consequences include
dismissals or forced resignation from employment and from holding office,
dispossession of home and children, expulsion from the community, forced
exile or migration.  Women who demand accountability and
criminalization of marital rape, for example, women who critique the
patriarchal forms and nature of the monogamous nuclear family, or women
who challenge heteronormativity – the imposition of the heterosexual norm
– are often subject to attack and vilification, including criminal and
religious penalties in some countries. Accusations of being ‘bad’ women
and negligent mothers abound; comparable standards cannot be found for men
engaged in public life and involved in the defense of human
rights.   

Public attacks against women human rights defenders often
result in imposing restrictions on their freedom of speech, expression and
assembly, and in challenging the legal standing of their organizations.
Sexuality is manipulated not only to attack lesbians, gays and other
activists working on sexual rights, but also to discredit any other
political agenda espoused by women’s activists. In many instances,
confronted with these hostile and sometimes violent responses, activists
themselves take a conscious decision to tone down their political agendas
or, for example, not to take on sexuality-related rights abuses for fear
of retribution. This type of self-censorship and internalization of fear
becomes so ingrained that breaking the barriers of silence becomes
difficult even when the political and social climates are more favourable
for these issues to be raised.

Given this broad context, therefore, the term ‘women
human rights defenders’ encompasses both women active in human rights
defense who are targeted for who they are as well as all those
active in the defense of women’s rights who are targeted for what they
do. 

What are the campaign calls?

Recognition of women human rights
defenders

Despite the obstacles and suppression they face,
throughout the world today women continue to be active in promoting and
protecting human rights – their own and the rights of others. Their
activism straddles a broad range of rights, including civil and political
rights, economic, social and cultural rights, health rights, reproductive
rights, sexual rights, labor rights, indigenous peoples’ rights,
environmental rights and minority rights. Many women are also engaged in a
range of anti-globalisation and anti-war activism that advances the rights
of different communities and groups of people through working for social
justice and sustainable peace, and for consultative forms of transparent
and accountable governance that respect principles of equality and
non-discrimination.

In addition to gender-specific violations inflicted on
them as women, women human rights defenders have to also struggle against
gendered and gender-based stereotypes that seek to invalidate their
roles as leaders in the public sphere.  They are exposed to more
hostility than their male colleagues because they defy cultural, religious
or social stereotypes about femininity and the role and status of women in
society. This is so particularly in situations where men are presumed to
have the monopoly of knowledge. Women human rights defenders are also more
likely to face personal attacks, stigmatisation and marginalisation on the
basis of their personal lifestyles, for example, than men in comparable
situations.

The focus of most mainstream human rights institutions
and frameworks on the public arena and on state accountability is another
factor that leads to a callous disregard of the role played by
so-called private or non-state actors in committing women’s human rights
abuses. Among the non-state actors engaged in the perpetration of
human rights abuses are multinational corporations, private enterprises,
armed or unarmed militant and extremist groups and individuals, especially
those in an intimate or familial relationship with the women victims.

The issue of accountability of non-state actors for human
rights violations they commit remains one of the most difficult within
contemporary human rights discourse. For example, many minority,
indigenous and ethnic communities face grave violations of their human
rights at the hand of multi-national corporations who take over their land
and forests, often employing private armed guards to provide ‘security’ to
their enterprise. Armed groups propagating extremism often violate the
human rights of civilian communities, and especially of women, brutally
enforcing anti-democratic and inhuman practices in order to crush
opposition and silence voices of dissent.  In all these situations,
women are specifically targeted because of their sex and gender as well as
because of their espousal of common and collective causes on behalf of
minority, indigenous and ethnic communities.

The direct and indirect methods employed by patriarchal
institutions and legal frameworks to control women human rights defenders
are reinforced by the non-recognition of their work. This lack of
recognition of women human rights defenders as defender in their own right
directly challenges their legitimacy as leaders of communities and of
social movements. Jeopardising the credibility of their work through
non-recognition exposes women human rights defenders to further risks. For
example, violations against women human rights defenders are given less
priority when compared to those committed against ‘recognised’ human
rights defenders who are often male. This is crucial especially in the
context of women activists who work at the community level and have not
achieved public recognition for their work; they are more likely to suffer
human rights violations such as abduction or torture, without the public
being aware of it.  At the same time, the political nature of the
violations is also often lost as they are simply classified as common
crimes. Further, these violations against women are subsumed within the
ambit of ‘women abuse’ rather than perceived as acts of violence and
affirmations of power. The struggle by women’s human rights defenders to
assert that ‘rape’ is not a sexual act but rather an act of violence is
but one example of the ways in which this type of stereotyping exists even
within human rights movements.   

The risk faced by of women human rights defenders and
activists is also increased because there is no systematic
documentation of the gender-specific nature and manifestations of the
violence against women human rights defenders.  This results in
the denial of the specific concerns of women human rights defenders and in
the persistent lacunae in legal frameworks and structures that can ensure
them adequate and appropriate protection. This vulnerability in turn makes
women human rights defenders more likely to be subjected to abuse and
violations. More gender-sensitive processes of reporting and monitoring
abuses against women have to be developed also to encourage the victims to
report violations. For example, activists working in the area of violence
against women have developed alternative methodologies for recording
testimonies that can reduce the trauma for rape survivors recounting their
stories; this process facilitates prosecution of abuses in a manner that
does not further violate the rights of survivors of violence.  

In a context where women’s rights are not easily
acknowledged and recognised as human rights, non-recognition of the
specific roles of and risks faced by women human rights defenders
translates into doubts regarding the validity of women-specific concerns
within broader human rights frameworks, and into denial of the
leadership and of the significant contributions made by women activists to
human rights defense and work. Traditionally, within most mainstream
human rights organizations and networks, as in many mainstream trade
unions and political parties, raising specific issues of women’s rights
was considered to be divisive. Women’s rights issues were subordinated to
more ‘pressing’ issues, and advocacy for women’s rights could move onto
the mainstream agenda only after other more important and ‘universal’
goals had been achieved.  This tendency not only serves to isolate
women’s human rights but also results in the curtailment of the rights of
women human rights defenders. For example, women activists who are forced
to flee their countries due to imminent danger as a consequence of their
activities in defense of human rights and women’s rights must often, if
married, seek asylum and obtain refugee status as dependents of their
spouses who are often also leaders of political and social
movements.  There is insufficient recognition of the position of the
woman in her own rights, as a human rights defender.

Through their activism over the years, women have
transformed their traditional roles in the family, which provides the
basis for much of their subordination and marginalization, into a source
of agency that provides the basis for collective action and organization.
For example, in many countries around the world, women have re-shaped the
notion of motherhood in the face of severe political repression,
challenged repressive machineries, both state and non-state, and demanded
justice and accountability for human rights abuses of all. In Argentina,
the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo constituted a significant pressure group
demanding accountability for their ‘disappeared’ children during the
military regime of the late 1970s.  The special expertise and
knowledge garnered by women through the multiple roles and
responsibilities they assume as care-givers must be can provide the basis
for specific and often strategic interventions to improve protection for
women human rights defenders.

Resistance to State Violence

The changing nature of the nation state in the latter
part of the 20th century and the various political and military processes
which paved the way for the formation of many new states has had a grave
impact on the protection and promotion of human rights. In addition, the
range of economic processes which are referred to by the term
‘globalisation’ has led to often traumatic transformation of societies and
communities under so-called neo-liberal economic policies that focus on
growth, privatisation of public services, and de-regulation of trade and
finance. These processes have all created immense social tensions and
competition for scarce resources within the poorest and most marginalized
communities in the world.

This process is accompanied by a growth in the use of
violence as a method of resolving conflict and has led to the
proliferation of internal armed conflicts, separatist struggles and
so-called ‘low intensity’ conflict as a global phenomenon. Insecure states
rely more and more on the might of their militaries and security forces to
ensure stability on all fronts. Militarism is inextricably linked to
processes of militarization and the ‘normalization’ of military presence
in civilian life and in decision-making structures. The global ‘War
against Terrorism’ that followed the attacks on the World Trade Centre and
Pentagon in the U.S.A. on September 11, 2002 has strengthened the hand of
those who pursue militaristic resolutions of tensions and conflicts. Along
with growing intolerance for diverse opinions and for dissent, one has
observed the consistent threats to global governance posed by acts of
unilateralism, the most blatant example of which was the decision of the
government of the USA to attack Iraq in the face of wide opposition to
such approach. Governments of many developing countries have had to accept
the roles assigned to them in this ‘global war’ led by the USA, largely
because aid and economic concessions are tied to their cooperation in this
war.  

This context has legitimized steps taken by many
governments to enact and implement a range of anti-terrorism laws that
suppress democratic opposition and violate a range of human rights of the
peoples they govern. Authoritarian regimes have been provided with an
opportunity to hunt down their opponents with impunity. Advocacy for
fundamental freedoms that check the excesses of governments and that
demand democratic change are identified as a ‘threat to national and
international security’.  This creates a climate of heightened risks
for human rights defenders in general.  Human rights defenders, men
and women, who work for democracy, social justice and human rights, face
charges of ‘inciting to rebellion’, ‘disseminating false information’ and
‘damaging the countries reputation’ for reporting on the internal human
rights situation at international events. The courts and legal proceedings
are used to harass activists through multiple law suits, lengthy trials,
exorbitant fines and bails, and prolonged detention. Governments have also
enacted regulations that allow for monitoring and tight state control of
the activities of civil society organizations such as, arbitrary
registration procedures, restrictions on receiving funding from foreign
sources, and mandatory reporting for non-resident NGO
workers.
 
The report of the UN Special Representative on Human
Rights Defenders for 2005 has made critical observations on this
situation, pointing out reports she had received in which human rights
defenders have been attacked even during peaceful public demonstrations
and rallies, while conducting investigations of human rights abuses, and
before, during or just after publicising human rights concerns. Among the
abuses set out in the report are arbitrary arrest and detention, often
without access to counsel and their families, intimidation and harassment
by authorities including tapping or cutting telephone lines and
confiscation of travel documents, prosecution for making critical
statements against the government and blacklisting and threatening family
members

The case of Mahboubeh Abbasgholizadeh, an Iranian
feminist, arrested and questioned about her presentations at international
meetings outside Iran, including at the European Social Forum and at the
Asia Pacific NGO Forum on Beijing + 10 provides clear examples of the
types and levels of abuse liable to be face by women human rights
defenders when confronting state violations. She was repeatedly questioned
about her sexual partners and was threatened that her daughter would be
arrested if she did not cooperate. Amidst growing gay and lesbian
organising in Zimbabwe, President Robert Mugabe similarly launched a
series of verbal attacks against lesbians and gays, associating sexual
diversity with national decline and justifying not only their
marginalization but also any attacks against them.

A key line of defense of human rights defenders builds on
the framework of state accountability and obligations as provided for in
international human rights law. Activism for women’s human rights has
shown that acts of violation and violence against women human rights
defenders, perpetrated by the state, or by those who act in the name of
and under the orders of the state, constitute a critical arena in which
women human rights defenders must operate. The increasing dependence of
many states, especially those  confronted by threats to their
political stability, on private actors such as the business or corporate
sector and private security operators somewhat clouds the reality of state
accountability for these violations. In Thailand and the Philippines,
there are many examples of private sector enterprises using private
security forces to fire at, intimidate and sometimes assassinate people
from the communities who protest against their displacement and against
environmental consequences of the operations of these companies.

The issue of state violence and violations of the rights
of human rights defenders becomes more complex if one considers the
positive obligation imposed on the State to promote, protect and fulfil
human rights under international human rights treaties and
commitments.  The duty of State and authorities created by the state
to prevent, investigate and punish wrongful acts, including those
committed by non-State actors, has been strengthened by a growing focus on
the responsibility of the State for its omissions, including its failure
to prevent human rights violations from taking place and to protect the
rights of those living under its jurisdiction.

Responsibility for violations by non-State
actors

As described above, the concept of ‘Non-state actors’
could include members of the family and community, members of extremist
and fundamentalist groups, armed groups, representatives of the media, and
others such as trans-national corporations and international financial
institutions. The distinction between State and non-state actors can be
sometimes superficial, both in the context of identifying the perpetuators
and attributing responsibilities for the abuses.  For example,
paramilitary groups which are categorised as ‘non-State’ actors can turn
out to be supported by governments in some instances, such as in
situations of counter-insurgency operations. Also, while human rights
abuses may be committed directly by ‘non-State’ actors, both the non-State
actors and the State may be held responsible for the violations. The
emergence of very powerful non-State actors such as fundamentalist armed
groups assimilated in popular movements and the rise in conflicts and
human rights crises that cut across national jurisdictions demonstrate the
limits of a paradigm of accountability for human rights violations
centered on national sovereignty. 

The term ‘non-State actors’ is important not so much for
its conceptual clarity but more because it marks a significant shift in
the accountability of such perpetrators of human rights violations under
international human rights law. Prior to the 1990s,  the assertion
that only states are signatories to international treaties and can
therefore be made subjects of international human rights law, had led to
impunity of non-State actors who committed human rights abuses. The
traditional focus of human rights activism on State accountability partly
explains why issues of violence against women had been eclipsed in
international human rights law and had been considered outside the mandate
of governments and human rights organizations until the 1990s.

For example, in the case of violence against women and
defenders of women’s rights in Algeria throughout the 1980’s and 90’s,
most violations committed by the State affected men, while, for the most
part, violations committed by fundamentalist armed groups affected several
hundred thousand women and defenders of women’s rights. The concentration
on State violations to the detriment of identifying non-State actors’
violence rendered women and the specific forms of violence against them
and their defenders invisible. At the same time, fundamentalist groups
have also proceeded to use the opportunity offered by human rights
discourse to be seen and represented as victims in all possible instances
and to claim rights that were denied to those who were their victims. They
became acceptable partners and speakers on human rights platforms,
enjoying impunity and erasing their roles as perpetrators of violence and
human rights abuse. An outrageous outcome of this situation is that
non-State political actors have enjoyed refugee status in European capital
cities while their victims were not considered eligible since they were
not persecuted by the State.  For the victims and women human rights
defenders who are not even being recognized as defenders entitled to
rights, this has added offense to injury.

Insisting on the responsibility by non-State actors for
human rights violations is crucial for the protection of women human
rights defenders. The ways in which women and their bodies have been used
as markers of culture and tradition by religious fundamentalist groups,
extremist nationalist movements and separatist groups fighting for
self-determination is well documented. Women activists advocating women’s
rights are exposed to violence not only from external actors (the
‘enemies’ who wrench retaliation from the communities of the ‘other’), but
also from internal actors because in the course of their advocacy for
women’s rights, they oppose oppressive cultural practices and traditions
often valorized by these groups. In addition, women human rights defenders
who work in situations of violence and armed conflict, for example, face
specific forms of violence including war crimes and crimes against
humanity. During periods of transition and in post-conflict situations
they face heightened risks, when public violence turns private, and it is
generally perceived that violence no longer exists in this context.

Realization of all human rights for
all

The best protection for women human rights defenders and
the prevention of violations and abuses committed against them is the
realization of all human rights for all.  Human rights defenders,
both men and women, are most at risk in a climate of growing political
repression, increasing authoritarianism and rising militarization
perpetrated by the state and its allies.  Many governments have
reneged on their commitments under international human rights treaties.
State and non-state actors have continued to commit human rights
violations with impunity.  These have made human rights work more
dangerous for activists.  So there is a need now, more than ever, to
demand for the fulfillment of all human rights and find effective ways to
make state and non-state actors both directly accountable for human rights
violations.

Within the advocacy for the realization of human rights,
the struggle for winning recognition for concepts of rights in the areas
of biological/human reproduction and the exercise of sexual choices has
been continuous and contentious. The outcomes documents of the
International Conference on Population and Development (Cairo, 1994) and
the Fourth World Conference on Women (Beijing, 1995)  contain
language that signaled a shift away from consideration of these issues as
public health concerns to an acceptance of the legitimacy of these rights
in the context of non-discrimination and women’s autonomy. Yet these gains
have been blocked and resisted at every turn by the combined forces of
conservatism and extremism as well as religious fundamentalisms. In
addition, ensuring that interpretations of these rights in ways that
advance women’s agency are incorporated into policies and laws remains
contentious.

Policy makers including those in the mainstream human
rights field have yet to become fully cognizant of the multi-dimensional
facets of reproductive rights to include women’s autonomy to decide
whether, when and how to reproduce, including the right to contraceptives,
safe abortion, and women’s capacity to have a satisfying and safe sex
life, based on choice and consent.  Human rights for women include
this range of reproductive and sexual rights. The present yardstick
remains the statement in Paragraph 96 of Beijing Platform for Action which
reads:

The human rights of women include their right to have
control over and decide freely and responsibly on matters related to their
sexuality, including sexual and reproductive health, free of coercion,
discrimination and violence.  Equal relationships between women and
men in matters of sexual relations and reproduction, including full
respect for the integrity of the person, require mutual respect, consent
and shared responsibility for sexual behavior and its
consequences.

The criminalizing of homosexuality in many countries and
the endemic marginalization of all groups and communities of women, and
men, who exercise sexual choice and preferences in contradiction to
hetero-normative standards make the espousal of sexual rights extremely
difficult. The lack of social legitimacy is also linked to the lack of
legitimacy accorded to sexual rights and reproductive rights within
traditional human rights organizations and networks. The perpetuation of
invisibility not only of sexual rights issues but of gay, lesbian and
other sexualities in all spheres including in broad social movements, is
itself a major form of discrimination and violation of sexual rights.

The centrality of the advocacy for sexuality rights
becomes more urgent with the rise of various forms of fundamentalisms,
which have become powerful forces responsible for many violations of
women’s rights and human rights.  Fundamentalisms, as political
projects that use religion to obtain and retain power, draw their
legitimacy from a fabricated notion of ‘moral universalism’ that works to
create a single, collective identity that is deemed as ‘pure’, ‘valid’ or
‘authentic’. This ‘purity’ or ‘authenticity’ is achieved primarily through
the control over women including over their sexuality. As fundamentalist
ideologies gain power in societies, elements of these ideologies also
begin to influence processes of law-making and policy-making. A glaring
example is the ‘Global Gag Rule’ (or Mexico City Policy) reinstated by the
Bush administration that restricts funds for NGOs that work on any
abortion-related issues, including advocacy for legal reform of punitive
abortion laws, and the later policy that provides HIV/AIDS funding only
for those organizations and groups that encourage the pro-abstinence ABC
(Abstain, Be faithful, use a Condom) method.

Recommendations

The international campaign on women human rights
defenders intends to begin a process of mobilization and reflection among
key players in the human rights arena on matters affecting women human
rights defenders, and to support the many and varied initiatives designed
to deepen the understanding of human rights and push for universal
application of human rights principles, especially in the current global
context.  

Specifically, the campaign aspires to generate interest
and support from the international community to work towards achieving the
following major propositions: