WUNRN
UN PROCESS ON TRADITIONAL VALUES -
CONCERNS FOR WOMEN'S HUMAN RIGHTS
___________________________________________________________________
LINK TO FULL UPDATE - Page 1 pasted
below - See Full Document at Link:
Type size larger for easier reading.
Human Rights Council Session 21 -
Tentative Calendar of Thematic Resolutions as of 24 August 2012.
Computer enlargement of Calendar
suggested. Go to right column, for September/HRCSession 21. Scroll down to #30
and see Traditional Values Resolution on the List but no details shown.
___________________________________________________________________
Also via AWID - http://awid.org/Get-Involved/Urgent-Actions3/Take-Action-New-UN-resolution-on-Traditional-Values
TRADITIONAL VALUES ISSUES/DOCUMENTS
CONCERNS - HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL SESSION 21 - WOMEN'S HUMAN RIGHTS
Concerns
re Traditional Values (PDF version) | Español
(PDF) | Français
(PDF)
Voting
records on “traditional values” (PDF)
|
We are deeply concerned at the Russian Federation’s proposed resolution on “traditional values” at the 21st session of the Human Rights Council. The proposed resolution is deeply flawed for both procedural and substantive reasons, since it would: a) undermine the process mandated by HRC/RES/16/3 by pre-empting the conclusions of the Advisory Committee study; b) fail to present a balanced approach which examines both the positive and negative impacts of “traditional values” on human rights, instead selectively citing only parts of the Advisory Committee study; c) increase polarisation, rather than seeking to build consensus e.g. by repositioning the language of “traditional values” to “advancing universal human rights in diverse traditional and cultural contexts”. |
Procedurally flawed
HRC resolution 16/3 (March 2011) tasked the Advisory Committee to “prepare a study on how a better understanding and appreciation of traditional values of dignity, freedom and responsibility can contribute to the promotion and protection of human rights”. This study is not yet finalised and will not be presented to the Council before its 22nd session in March 2013.
In presenting a new resolution on this topic before Council members have had the opportunity to consider the study prepared by the Advisory Committee, the process mandated by HRC resolution 16/3 is being undermined.
Whole Concept of Traditional Values “vague, subjective and unclear”
The preliminary report of the Advisory Committee (A/HRC/AC/9/2) emphasises that
- “there
is no agreed
definition of the term ‘traditional values of humankind’.
No such definition resulted from the discussions in the Human Rights
Council or its Advisory Committee” (para. 7);
- “discussions
of the relationship between traditional values and human rights have
revealed divided
views” and there is therefore a “need to reflect on both the
negative and positive impact that traditional values may
have on the effective implementation of human rights” (para. 6); and
- “traditional
values must never be presented as a substitute for international
standards, given the generally vague,
subjective and unclear framing of values when compared
with human rights.” (para. 74)
Need to also consider negative impact of traditional values on human rights
The report also notes that traditional values can have a negative impact on human rights, since:
- perceptions
of what constitutes “traditional values” were highly subjective
and dependent on
societal power structures (para.41);
- some
practices and attitudes at
odds with human dignity are derived from traditional
values,
such as family
violence, marital
rape, forced
marriage and female
genital mutilation (paras. 39-44);
- tradition
is often invoked to justify maintaining the status quo,
failing to take into account the reality that traditions, cultures and
social norms have always evolved and will continue to change with time; a human rights-based approach, by
contrast, often requires changes to the status quo in
order to ensure compliance with international standards” (para. 41);
- those
who benefit most from the status quo are more likely to appeal to
tradition to maintain power and privilege, and also to speak on behalf of
tradition, while “those
most marginalized and disenfranchised have the most to lose from a
traditional values approach to human rights” (para.41).
Concerns with approach of lead sponsor
The first draft of the Advisory Committee study (A/HRC/8/4) prepared by Russian member, Vladimir Kartashkin, refers to the “primacy of traditional values” (para. 65) and asserts that “all international human rights agreements, whether universal or regional, must be based on, and not contradict, the traditional values of humankind. If this is not the case, they cannot be considered valid”(para. 75). This reflects the lead sponsor’s approach to the subject.
The concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women on the Russian Federation are striking:
The Committee reiterates its concern at the persistence of practices, traditions, patriarchal attitudes and deep-rooted stereotypes regarding the roles, responsibilities and identities of women and men in all spheres of life. In this respect, the Committee is concerned at the State party’s repeated emphasis on the role of women as mothers and caregivers. The Committee is concerned that such customs and practices perpetuate discrimination against women and girls; that this is reflected in their disadvantageous and unequal status in many areas, including in education, public life, decision-making, marriage and family relations, and the persistence of harmful traditional practices, honour killings, bridal kidnappings and violence against women; and that, thus far, the State party has not taken effective and systematic action to modify or eliminate stereotypes and negative traditional values and practices.
(August 2010, CEDAW/C/USR/CO/7, para. 20)____________________________________________
----- Original Message -----
From: WUNRN
ListServe
To: WUNRN ListServe
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 10:21 PM
Subject: Traditional Values Study at UN & Importance to Women's
Human Rights
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.
_________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
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
_________________________________________________________________
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