WUNRN
TRADITIONAL VALUES RESOLUTION &
STUDY OF IMPORTANCE FOR WOMEN'S HUMAN RIGHTS.
Preliminary
study of UN Human Rights Council Advisory Committee on promoting human rights
and fundamental freedoms through a better understanding of traditional values
of humankind (A/HRC/AC/9/2)
Consider if "traditional
values" may be referenced to justify (harmful) traditional practices and
legitimize such violations of women's human rights based on the traditions on
which they are founded.
The texts that follow are lengthy,
quite government- and UN process-centric, but can be highly significant in
interpretation of traditional values and human rights, and international law
documentation and interpretation.
As the
concept of “traditional values” is affirmed in a Human Rights Council
Resolution, it can be introduced into future discussions and potential
mechanisms/instruments.
_________________________________________________________________
PROMOTING HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL
FREEDOMS THROUGH A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF TRADITIONAL VALUES OF HUMANKIND
___________________________________________________________________
In Resolution 16/3 the UN Human
Rights Council requested the HRC Advisory Committee to prepare a study on how a
better understanding and appreciation of traditional values of dignity, freedom
and responsibility could contribute to the promotion and protection of human
rights.
PRELIMINARY STUDY OF THE UN HUMAN
RIGHTS COUNCIL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON PROMOTING HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL
FREEDOMS THROUGH A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF TRADITIONAL VALUES OF HUMANKIND
B.The negative impact of traditional
values on women and minority groups, and efforts to overcome it
39. Special procedures mandate
holders, treaty bodies and OHCHR have published many works that emphasize the
importance of ensuring that "traditional values" are not elevated
above universal human rights standards. They highlighted the use of such terms
to justify the marginalization of minority groups and for maintaining
gender-based inequalities, discrimination and violence, and the corresponding
need to situate these terms within a human rights context......
__________________________________________________________________
UN HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE DISCUSSES TRADITIONAL VALUES & HUMAN RIGHTS
6 August 2012
The
Human Rights Council Advisory Committee this afternoon took up the preliminary
study on promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms through a better
understanding of traditional values of humankind.
Ahmer Bilal Soofi, Committee Expert and Chair of the Drafting Group on
Traditional Values of Humankind, presented the revised study on promoting human
rights and fundamental freedoms through a better understanding of traditional
values of humankind. The preliminary study provided definitions and
descriptions of key terms of traditional values, dignity, freedom and
responsibility; discussed the relationship between traditional values and human
rights; explored the protection and promotion of human rights through
traditional values; and also contained concrete examples and good practices of
traditional values and the promotion of human rights.
Committee Experts welcomed the important work done by the Drafting Group on
providing a definition of key terms of traditional values, dignity and freedom
and debated the issue of responsibilities and who it should include. Experts
suggested that this section of the preliminary study be expanded to also
include the crucial role of the family and community, and of private citizens
who were not only rights holders but also had duties and responsibilities. The
negative impact of traditional values needed to be mentioned, at least in one
paragraph explaining why it was important to better understand them. An Expert
noted that the Committee must answer the crucial question asked by the Human
Rights Council on whether traditional values could facilitate the observance of
human rights and freedoms and what could be done if traditional values came in
conflict with human rights.
A speaker noted that traditional values and harmful traditional practices
should not be confused; even though they overlapped in many instances, they
were different. Another speaker said that traditional values meant different
things to different people and there were legitimate concerns about the ways
that States had invoked traditional values as a defense against the application
of human rights law. Several speakers welcomed the balanced approach of the
study in examining both positive and negative impacts of traditional values on
human rights and expressed concern that the lack of an internationally agreed
definition of traditional values opened the door to using the term to
legitimize human rights violations.
The following Experts of the Advisory Committee took the floor: Wolfgang Stefan
Heinz, Obiora Chinedu Okafor, Dheerujlall Seetulsingh, Halima Embarek Warzazi,
Coco Quisumbing, Shigeki Sakamoto, Ahmer Bilal Soofi, Laurence Boisson de
Chazournes, Mona Zulficar, Vladimir Kartashkin, Alfred Ntunduguru Karokora,
José Antonio Bengoa Cabello, Latif Hüseynov and Shiqiu Chen.
Russia, European Union, Switzerland, United States and Chile also took the
floor, as did the following non-governmental organizations: International
Service of Human Rights, Action Canada for Population and Development, Human
Rights First, ILGA Europe and Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network.
The next meeting of the Advisory Committee will be held on Tuesday, 7 August at
10 a.m., when it is scheduled to discuss human rights and issues related to
terrorist hostage-taking.
Requests Stemming
from Human Rights Council Resolutions
Preliminary study on
promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms through a better understanding
of traditional values of humankind (A/HRC/AC/9/2)
AHMERE BILAL SOOFI, Chair of the Drafting Group on Traditional Values of
Humankind, presented the revised study on promoting human rights and
fundamental freedoms through a better understanding of traditional values of
humankind. The first part of the study was an introduction; the second part
provided definitions and descriptions of traditional values, dignity, freedom
and responsibility; the third part discussed relationship between traditional
values and human rights; and the final part of the study was centered on the
protection and promotion of human rights through traditional values. The Group
had taken into account comments by colleagues who had provided feedback and
comments and now contained specific and concrete examples of the traditional
values and good practices. The preliminary study also contained conclusions and
recommendations, including the need to accord respect to cultural and
traditional values which were consistent with human rights. This was also a
means to prevent conflicts and demonstrate the universality of human rights.
VLADIMIR KARTASHKIN, Rapporteur of the Drafting Group, said that the
Human Rights Council had instructed the Advisory Committee to draft a study on
how a deeper understanding of traditional values could promote human rights. At
the last session, the Advisory Committee had discussed the preliminary study
and many comments and proposals had been made on implementing the resolution of
the Council. The research in its current form contained many facts and
documents adopted by the United Nations and regional organizations. There was
much wording on traditional values in the study, including both their positive
and negative impacts on human rights. The conclusion was drawn to the fact that
some traditions were in line with human rights standards, while others were
not. Mr. Kartashkin suggested that the Advisory Committee request prolongation
of this study for another year.
CHUNG CHINSUNG, Rapporteur of the Drafting Group, informed the Committee
about the efforts to provide definitions of traditional values, dignity,
freedom and responsibility in the preliminary study. There was no agreed
definition of traditional values of humankind, but some wording included in the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights could be considered as having sufficient
agreement. The text of the Universal Declaration could also provide acceptable
definitions of dignity and freedom. Freedom was further defined by standards of
international law. Responsibility was defined by the international law and
imposed on States the duty to protect human rights, also from violations by
private actors. Explaining human rights principles that resonated in diverse
cultures might assist in promoting human rights. Many of the Special Procedures
and treaty bodies noted that it was important to ensure that traditional values
were not elevated above human rights and that the laws were in conformity with international
human rights standards.
WOLFGANG STEFAN HEINZ, Committee Expert, said that the paper was
relevant, clearly structured and provided a basis for discussion. Mr. Heinz
said he was in agreement with many sections of the paper and agreed that the
section on responsibilities might request further consultations. He proposed
that the Drafting Group explain the point in the study concerning traditional
values which propagated harmful practices in Western countries and suggested
the inclusion of positive examples from Western countries.
OBIORA CHINEDU OKAFOR, Committee Expert, said that the Drafting Group
would have to respond to the point made concerning proportionality. It might be
helpful to expand the notion of freedom beyond the political and civil aspects
and include freedom from want and freedom from fear. The study presented a good
starting point but more work was needed. Section C in the study could be
expanded and further details could be added.
DHEERUJLALL SEETULSING, Committee Expert, said that the issue of
responsibility had been played down in the preliminary study and that this duty
was accorded only to States. It needed to be acknowledged that citizens too
were duty bearers and not only right holders; citizens needed to respect rules and
norms, for example to respect the elderly, to preserve the environment or
respect the rights of persons with disabilities. Children needed to be taught
not only their rights, but also their duties and responsibilities, as they went
hand in hand and were part of citizens’ education. The latest version of the
study accorded significant importance to gender, which was the right approach
because practices such as female genital mutilation or early marriages should
not be considered as traditional values. The Committee should be careful to
make the distinction between traditions and traditional values, which were not
one and the same. In this context, Mr. Seetulsing mentioned the death penalty,
abortion, the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons, drug
use and sex workers. In conclusion, he noted that the study needed some
polishing and would be ready for the submission to the Human Rights Council in
its September session.
HALIMA EMBAREK WARZAZI, Committee Expert, noted that violence against women
also affected the Western countries and there were some studies indicating that
60 per cent of women in some of those countries were victims of violence. The
Committee must be impartial and recognize that perfection was not of this
world. Human rights violations did not occur only in non-Western countries. The
text of the preliminary study needed to include the text adopted by the Vienna
Declaration that recognized those traditional values that did not adversely
affect human rights.
COCO QUISUMBING, Committee Expert, welcomed the important work done on
the definition of traditional values and noted that the language used could
also be stronger. It seemed that the study was covering both universal and
national traditional values which posed methodological challenges. Should the
Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination be mentioned in the
context of equality and dignity? Ms. Quisumbing suggested that more practical
examples be added throughout the study to better make the point, which would
turn the study itself into a valuable teaching tool. Further, the crucial role
of the family, community and those in parental roles could be further developed
in the responsibility section of the study, particularly in the context of
raising and educating children. The negative impact of traditional values
needed to be mentioned, at least in one paragraph explaining why it was
important to better understand them.
SHIGEKI SAKAMOTO, Committee Expert, noted that the discussions within
the Advisory Committee revealed the need for consideration of both positive and
negative impacts of traditional values on the promotion and protection of human
rights. The study noted that there was no agreed definition of the term
traditional values of humankind and that certain traditions supported the
enjoyment of human rights, while others violated them.
AHMER BILAL SOOFI, Committee Expert, welcomed the suggestions by the
Experts on issues that the study could address and cautioned that the Committee
needed to exercise restraint in order to respect the limits of the mandated
framework in preparing the study. The responsibilities had been addressed
throughout the study which emphasized the crucial role of States as primary
duty bearers under international law, but also stretched further to include the
responsibility of non-State actors and individuals.
LAURENCE BOISSON DE CHAZOURNES, Committee Expert, noted the interesting
interfaces between human rights and traditional values that were obvious in the
study and said that human rights were also a very important instrument to
promote values, for example the value of solidarity. States had a leading role
in responsibility in the international human rights discourse, while the case
law in human rights revealed that individuals too had responsibilities in
upholding human rights.
COCO QUISUMBING, Committee Expert, said that the Human Rights Council
resolution 16/3 did not limit the study to either women or minority groups;
lacking any stated justification for why only those two groups had been
included in the study, why were all vulnerable groups not included too?
MONA ZULFICAR, Committee Expert, said that there was an ongoing stress
surrounding the debate which was reminiscent of tensions surrounding the Vienna
Conference. There was a fear of cultures and traditions posing a threat to the
universality of human rights.
VLADIMIR KARTASHKIN, Committee Expert, said that the crucial questions
to be answered were whether traditional values could facilitate observance of
human rights and freedoms and what could be done if traditional values came in
conflict with human rights. The Advisory Committee was a think tank of the
Human Rights Council and as such had the duty to provide the Council with its
views on the issue.
ALFRED NTUNDUGURU KAROKORA, Committee Expert, asked what the traditional
values of humankind were and whether they could be defined.
MONA ZULFICAR, Committee Expert, suggested that, in light of all
comments, the Drafting Group should revisit the conclusions and recommendations
and revise them with the view of making them more operational. Ms. Zulficar
disagreed with the request for an extension for the submission of the study.
HALIMA EMBAREK WARZAZI, Committee Expert, suggested that different
proposals made during the discussion be collected in order to facilitate
decision-making by the Committee.
JOSÉ ANTONIO BENGOA CABELLO, Committee Expert, agreed that often
references to traditional values were made to weaken human rights. The study
confirmed the universality of human rights and should stress cultural diversity
and identity. The study needed to reaffirm its respect for the universality of
human rights and for the diversity of cultures.
Russia said that the Human Rights Council hoped to receive experts’
opinions and points of view and noted that traditional values and harmful
traditional practices should not be confused; even though they overlapped in
many instances, they were different. Russia was surprised by the lack of
reference in the study to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and other
important international instruments in which responsibilities were defined.
Russia suggested that the section on good practices be further expanded and
benefit from the comments and suggestions heard today. International Service
of Human Rights, in a joint statement, said that traditional values meant
different things to different people and there were legitimate concerns about
the ways that States had invoked traditional values as a defense against the
application of human rights law. It was highly controversial to import the
notion of individual responsibility into human rights; individual
responsibility mainly came into play in respect of the conduct of individuals
acting in their capacity as agents of States or entities.
European Union noted that some traditional values supported the
enjoyment of human rights while others were harmful. The European Union
reiterated its concern about the potential misuse of traditional values by
invoking cultural relativism by some States. Human rights needed to be
explained in ways that resonated positively in various traditions and cultures.
Switzerland noted that the revised study which now also demonstrated the
negative impact of traditional values on human rights provided a more balanced
approach. The 1994 Vienna Declaration recognised regional differences but also
reaffirmed the universal nature of human rights and the primary duty of States
in their protection and promotion. Action Canada for Population and
Development, in a joint statement, said that traditional values when not in
the best interest of individuals could lead to the violation of the rights of
individuals and vulnerable groups. Negative traditional values should not be
accepted on the arguments of cultural diversity.
United States said that the term traditional values did not have an
internationally agreed definition and was concerned that this term could be
used to legitimize human rights violations and abuses. The United States
reaffirmed the primary responsibility of States to uphold human rights. Human
Rights First recognised the varied opinions of traditional values and said
that it was crucial that the study recognized the universality and
indivisibility of human rights. The prime responsibility to protect human
rights was with States and this principle was non-negotiable. Chile said
that cultures, traditions and expressions made up the diversity of the modern
world and needed to be recognized as such. Even though an internationally
agreed definition of traditional values was lacking, the world was building a
set of common values.
ILGA Europe agreed that the analysis that took both the positive and
negative impact of traditional values on human rights was the right approach.
The Advisory Committee should reframe the discussion on traditional values
which until now were cast in a very positive light, which was not justified
given their use to legitimize human rights violations. Canadian HIV/AIDS
Legal Network shared the concern of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
that those marginalized had the most to lose from invoking of traditional
values to legalize human rights abuse and violations.
CHUNG CHINSUNG, Rapporteur of the Drafting Group, summarized the
discussion and said that the most important issue raised was that of
responsibility, including the responsibility of family, parents and
individuals. The Drafting Group would discuss the proposed expansion of the
definition of freedom, the revision of the conclusion and recommendations
sections and the need to differentiate between traditions and traditional
values. The commitment demonstrated by participants in the discussion indicated
that the report might be completed during this session.
LATIF HUSEYNOV, Committee Chairperson, said that the Advisory Committee
should be able to finalize the study at this session and submit it subsequently
to the Human Rights Council. The Chair encouraged the members of the Drafting
Group to come together and discuss the proposals.
SHIQIU CHEN, Committee Expert, noted that the present understanding of
traditional values was not good enough and that was why the study should
include a section on how to better understand and appreciate them.
_________________________________________________________________
International Service for
Human Rights - ISHR
|
|
|
|
|
UN HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL ADVISORY COMMITTEE CONTINUES ITS DISCUSSION ON TRADITIONAL VALUES The Human Rights Council Advisory Committee (the Committee) is currently holding its 9th session in Geneva (from 6 to 10 August). The Committee held a debate on 6 August on the latest draft of its study on promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms through a better understanding of traditional values of humankind (the study). The study has been extremely controversial. Indeed, many States did not vote in favour of the Russian led resolution 16/3 that gives the mandate to the Committee to prepare the study (the resolution was adopted with 24 in favour, 14 against, and 7 abstentions). The first draft of the study was presented at the 8th session by the rapporteur, Committee member Mr Vladimir Kartashkin. It was heavily criticised in several respects[1] by fellow Committee members, States, and NGOs, and it was decided that a new draft needed to be prepared for the 9th session before submission to the Human Rights Council (the Council) in its September session. Committee member Ms Chung Chinsung agreed to take the lead on redrafting the text. The Committee’s discussion on the study relating to traditional values opened with the statement of the Chairperson of the drafting group, Mr Soofi, who presented the new study and gave an overview of the drafting process. In particular, he mentioned that the drafting group tried to take into account comments and feedback from Committee members, and thanked Ms Chung Chinsung for ‘her excellent input’ as new rapporteur of the study. He also noted that the revised draft includes a section that documents best practices in relation to the implementation of human rights through the use of ‘traditional values’. Mr Kartashkin immediately took the floor to remind the Committee of the original mandate presented by the Council. He felt that the revised study does not answer the question asked by the Council resolution, that is, how a better understanding and appreciation of traditional values of dignity, freedom, and responsibility can contribute to the promotion and protection of human rights, and that the current version ‘is essentially dominated by one point of view’ with proposals and sentences that are ‘mistaken and erroneous’. The focal point of the dialogue was the section of the report which discusses responsibility. Strongly opposing views were revealed between Committee members. While Mr Kartashkin is a fervent activist for the inclusion of references to the notion of individual responsibility in promotion and protection of human rights, others were strongly against this. Ms Boisson de Chazournes noted that individual responsibility is a subject of criminal law as opposed to human rights law, and suggested that a reference to individual responsibility could be made by mentioning the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court which provides for individual responsibility in cases of war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and crimes of aggression.[2] The Russian Federation backed up Mr Kartashkin’s comments by noting that article 19 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights provides for individual responsibility as well as the Convention of the Rights of the Child which contains a reference to the responsibility of parents. The representative felt that both instruments should be included in the study to illustrate the responsibility of individuals in case of human rights violations. Ms Quisumbing indicated that she would also welcome a reference in the responsibility section to the crucial role of family and community making sure ‘they live up to their responsibilities towards the child’. Mr Seetulsingh acknowledged that States are duty bearers but ‘citizens also have a responsibility to abide by human rights principles’. Mr Soofi took a more careful approach explaining that even though the study underlines States as primary duty bearers under international law, it does not exclude the responsibility of non-state actors and individuals. Mr Sakamato, along with Switzerland, and the United States, and NGOs such as ISHR and ICJ, expressed their worries regarding importing the concept of individual responsibility into human rights, stating that not only would this threaten the universality of human rights, but that in any case individual responsibility is not a concept that needs further development in international human rights law. Russia also continued to stress its opinion that a difference has to be made between traditional values that may have a positive impact and harmful practices. It restated its point that the notion of ‘negative values’ does not exist and is paradoxical. The drafting group will now have to consider the proposals made with a view to submitting a revised draft for adoption by the Committee by the end of the session on Friday, 10 August. While Mr Kartashkin suggested that the Committee should ask for an extension from the Council of the deadline for submitting the report, other Committee members expressed a preference for finalising the study at this session. ISHR will update this news piece once the session concludes on Friday 10 August, and provide a longer analysis of the session in the October edition of the Human Rights Monitor Quarterly. _________________________________________________________________
|
----- Original Message -----
From: WUNRN
ListServe
To: WUNRN ListServe
Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2009 4:08 PM
Subject: Traditional Values Resolution Adopted at UN HRC 12 - Gender
WUNRN
WLUML - Women Living Under Muslim
Laws
"TRADITIONAL VALUES"
RESOLUTION A/HRC/RES/12/21 ADOPTED AT
12th SESSION OF UN HUMAN RIGHTS
COUNCIL
10/2009:
The resolution "Promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms through a
better understanding of traditional values of humankind" in conformity
with international human rights law, was adopted by a vote of 26 in favour, 15
against and six abstentions. Source: WLUML Networkers
The promotion of traditional values does not necessarily mean the defense of
patriarchal norms; women/human rights defenders have long sought to reclaim
traditions and cultures from the purveyors of fundamentalist and reactionary
ideologies.
The
Resolution, however, assumes that “traditional values” inevitably make a
positive contribution to human rights; there is no recognition in the resolution
that “traditional values” are frequently invoked to justify human rights
violations.
Rather than talking of ‘traditional values’, we should refer to ‘traditional
practices’. The former Special Rapporteur on violence against women, Dr. Yakin
Ertürk, has in her reports repeatedly addressed harmful traditional practices
such as female genital mutilation, honour killings, spousal abuse,
dowry-related violence and customary laws that deny women’s equality. Such
practices – from the Global North as well as from the Global South – are
frequently legitimised by the values on which they are founded. Once the
concept of “traditional values” is affirmed in a Human Rights Council
Resolution, it will be introduced into all future discussions.
In presenting the draft resolution, Russia declined to define “traditional values” or explain what these meant.
We are not alone in fearing these “traditional values” may be invoked to excuse violations of women, sexual minorities, and other vulnerable groups. Indeed many UN instruments and resolutions recognize that tradition and culture may be invoked to violate universal human rights. For example:
• HRC resolution on the Independent Expert in the field of cultural rights, affirms that “no one may invoke cultural diversity to infringe upon human rights guaranteed by international law, nor to limit their scope”;
The Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action calls upon States to work towards the elimination of “the harmful effects of certain traditional or customary practices, cultural prejudices and religious extremism” (para. 38);
• The Declaration on the elimination of Violence against Women (A/RES/48/104), for example, recognizes tradition practices harmful to women as a form of violence against women, includes amongst these harmful practices: “battering, sexual abuse of female children in the household, dowry-related violence, marital rape, and female genital mutilation.”
• HRC Resolution 7/29 on the Rights of the Child expresses concern at “the horrific scale and impact of all forms of violence against children, in all regions, in their homes and families, in schools, care and justice systems, workplaces and in communities, and urges States: … to take measures to change attitudes that condone or normalize any form of violence against children, including cruel, inhuman or degrading forms of discipline, harmful traditional practices and all forms of sexual violence” (OP 14(e), 2008).
• HRC Resolution 6/37 on the Elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief emphasises the need to address “the situations of violence and discrimination that affect many women as well as individuals from other vulnerable groups in the name of religion or belief or due to cultural and traditional practices” (PP 10 and OP 11(b));
• The Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action (A/CONF.177/20) requires governments to “refrain from invoking any custom, tradition or religious consideration to avoid their obligations”;
• The African Women's Protocol requires States to “eradicate elements in traditional and cultural beliefs, practices and stereotypes which legitimise and exacerbate the … tolerance of violence against women”.
Final
vote on the "traditional values" resolution - A/HRC/RES/12/21:
In favor (26 States)
Angola, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, China, Cuba,
Djibouti, Egypt, Gabon, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Madagascar,
Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi
Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Zambia
Against (15 States)
Belgium, Chile, France, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Mauritius, Mexico, Netherlands,
Norway, Republic of Korea, Slovakia, Slovenia, United Kingdom, United States of
America
Abstentions (6 States)
Argentina, Bosnia Herzegovina, Brazil, Ghana, Ukraine, Uruguay