Here’s a
selection of some of the developments last Friday during the discussion of the
Agreed Conclusions.
Roles
and responsibilities of families
An interesting
discussion takes place around the roles and responsibilities of families to
prevent violence. The three paragraphs below show very different angles to look
at this. The first talks of educating families so they can perform their
protective roles better. The second names families as one of many actor-groups
that could play a role in prevention. Whereas the third considers families
crucial, although the text is very vague: “can lead to …. in different ways.” Now what does that mean exactly?!
n quat) [Philippines ADD: Support and strengthen the roles and responsibilities of parents
as primary caregivers in creating a safe, nurturing and supportive family
environment for children, and ensuring that they are protected from violence
and abuse. Parents and legal guardians should be educated so that they themselves
do not perpetrate violence against their children (based on A/61/299 para.110
(a-c))]
u bis) [Iceland ADD: Explore innovative policies and programmes to
address violence against women, through for example promoting the significant role of the family in
preventing all forms of discrimination and violence against women and girls
within the family, including intimate
partner and domestic violence. (based on Beijing Declaration and Platform
for Action, paragraph 29)]
u ter) [Iran ADD:
Strengthen the institution of the family as the [Holy See DELETE: most
important] [Holy See ADD: fundamental group] unit of society which can lead to
decrease the level of violence against women and girls in different ways]
The African Group and Qatar have aligned
themselves with the Holy See’s proposal. The Holy See, the Russian Federation , Syria
and Iran
want u ter) to be the first paragraph in the list. They also want to have
referral to intimate partner violence
removed, probably because “partner” could include LGBTI-relationships. On the
other hand, the EU, Australia, Iceland and champion Uruguay want to have u ter)
deleted, with the latter stating that it is factually wrong.
Sexual and reproductive health and
rights
Paragraphs
n), n bis) and o) deal with sexual and reproductive health and rights. In
pargraph n) the Russian
federation wants to delete the reference to
the human rights of girls. The Holy See wants to delete “their right to have
control over and decide freely and responsibly on matters related to their sexuality
free of coercion, discrimination and violence”
Paragraphs n bis)
shows the progressiveness of Brazil
and the obstruction of Malta :
[Brazil ADD: Guarantee the conditions and resources
for the protection and exercise of women’s sexual and reproductive [Malta
DELETE: rights] [Malta ADD: health] throughout the lifecycle and across
population groups, free of all forms of discrimination, based on the integrated
approach promoted in the programme of action of the International
Conference on Population and Development.]
In
paragraph o) CARICOM (Caribbean states), Chile , the Holy See, Iran ,
Malta , and the Russian Federation
all want to delete “all
human rights and fundamental freedoms including their [Brazil ADD: sexual and]
reproductive rights,] [CARICOM DELETE: by all women and girls].”
In addition there has been
discussion on including a “qualifier” in the texts referring to SRHR. Indonesia , Chile ,
Bangladesh , Poland , African group and Malaysia have
all asked for this. Qatar
wants to delete references to reproductive rights alltogether. Strong advocates
against the qualifier are Turkey
(once again, hurray!) and Norway .
Violence against girls
T ter has been agreed!
t ter) Improve the safety of girls at and on the way to and from school,
including by establishing a safe and violence free environment by improving
infrastructure such as transportation, providing separate and adequate
sanitation facilities, improved lighting, playgrounds and safe environments;
adopting national policies to prohibit, prevent and address violence against children, especially
girls, including sexual harassment, and bullying and other forms of
violence, through measures such as conducting
violence prevention activities in schools and communities, and establishing and
enforcing penalties for violence against girls.
Persons in
authority
As the horrific sexual abuse scandals by the Vatican have demonstrated, persons
with authority can form a real threat to women’s and girl’s safety. It is
crucial to acknowledge this and have strong language about it in the text. Currenlty
it is included as such:
New 4 supra.) The
Commission affirms that violence against women and girls
is rooted in structural inequalities between women and men, constitutes a
violation of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of women and girls and
is a form of discrimination that seriously impairs or nullifies their enjoyment
of those rights and freedoms. It is intrinsically
linked with unequal distribution of resources and authority in the family and
in society and is characterized by the use and abuse of physical, emotional and
financial power and control.
Human rights defenders
are mentioned in 3 paragraphs in the
text, and has become problematic. I can not get my head around it why anyone
would possibly NOT want to protect people who protect the rights of others, but
Syria , China
and the Russian Federation
want to delete this from the text. In addition
the African group, Indonesia , Iran are asking why a separate paragraph
on only this group is necessary. There is however a strong coalition to keep it
in, including the EU, USA, Turkey, the Philippines, Canada, Norway, Caricom
(!), and progressive like minded countries Uruguay, Brazil, Argentina and
Mexico.
The Chair has asked States to write
letting her know what issues they can compromise on so she can pull together
the next draft accordingly. The next draft is expected Sunday afternoon and
negotiations to resume Monday afternoon.
=
Joni van de Sand =
Comments
Are you actually saying that the Holy See is so stuck on not acknowledging same sex relationships that the word "partner" now unofficially means same sex partner? And must therefore never be said? If that is so, this is a victory for the LGBTI movement. The less words can be used, the more boxed-in the anti-emancipation block becomes. THese battles are clearly being won by people with access to words (and lost by people who cannot use specific words).
yep that is how we believe the concept of intimate partner violence is being understood by the conservative forces. I am encouraged by your reading that we are in fact boxing them in : )