WUNRN
TRADITIONAL VALUES, CULTURE,
RELIGION MUST NOT SUPERSEDE WOMEN'S HUMAN RIGHTS - UN - PUBLIC SECTOR - PRIVATE
SECTOR
_______________________________________________________________
TRADITIONAL VALUES & HUMAN
RIGHTS 2-PAGE RESOLUTION IS ATTACHED. A/HRC/21/L.2 - UN Human Rights Council
Session 21 - September 21, 2012
________________________________________________________________
IMPORTANT: Human Rights Council
Advisory Committee Consideration of Traditional Values and Human Rights: 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....
.....................................................................................................................
TRADITIONAL VALUES RESOLUTION PASSES UN HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL - STUDY INCOMPLETE The Human Rights Council (the Council) adopted on 27 September 2012 a controversial resolution presented by the Russian Federation on traditional values and human rights. This followed an interactive dialogue held with the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee (the Committee) on 18 September that focused on the work that has been done in preparation for the 21st session of the Council and the ongoing work of the Committee. Mr Ziegler emphasised the Committee's role as that of a think tank and that it can only act under the mandate of the Council. He added, however, that in the absence of additional substantive requests from the Council, the Committee had taken the initiative of developing five proposed areas in which it thought it could fruitfully contribute, and requested the Council to keep these in mind as it considered further work for the Committee. On the issue of traditional values Mr Ziegler noted the distinction between universal human rights rights and traditional values. He stressed that human rights cannot be relativised, while highlighting that within the universal human rights framework, traditional values can be used to interpret and reinforce human rights. Mr Ziegler mentioned that the submission of the report on traditional values has been delayed until the 22nd Council Session in March. During the interactive dialogue with Mr Ziegler, several States expressed concern about the concept of traditional value, and the unchecked assumption that they further human rights. The EU noted that the latest draft of the Advisory Committee on traditional values reflects more critically on the concept, but restated its persisting concern that the concept of traditional values could be misused. Switzerland supported this position. The Russian Federation, on the other hand, stressed that it is ‘impatiently’ waiting for the final report on traditional values which it hopes will make a significant contribution to the discussion on the issue of human rights and traditional values. Despite this affirmation of the importance of the work of the Committee, Russia reiterated its intention to present another resolution on traditional values before the Council despite the Advisory Committee not having completed its own study. During the adoption of the resolution on 27 September 2012, the Russian Federation noted that it was ‘unfortunate’ that the Committee had not been able to prepare its study in time, and pointed out that it had included ‘an instruction’ in the resolution for the Committee to complete that work. Norway, however, calling for a vote on the resolution, strongly criticised the Russian Federation for not waiting until the study was available to the Council. This position was echoed by other speakers, including Austria (on behalf of the EU), Chile, Uruguay (who stated that since the report had not yet been presented, the Council was in violation of resolution 16/3, which had called for the Advisory Committee to prepare the study), Peru, and Guatemala. While the EU States voted against the resolution, Chile, Uruguay, Peru, and Guatemala stated that they would await the final study from the Advisory Committee, and in the meantime would abstain. Their statements were however strong on the need to protect universal human rights from any attempt to undermine them, and Chile for example commented that if the resolution came before the Council again, and concerns on universality were not fully addressed, then it would re-evaluate its position. Other Latin American States (Mexico and Costa Rica) joined the EU States, Mauritius, and Botswana in voting against, while Nigeria and Benin also abstained. The US, despite its criticism earlier in the week of some of the work of the Committee, made a strong statement citing many passages from the Committee's report that sound warning notes about the potentially negative impact of traditional values. It criticised the Russian resolution for presenting the conclusions of the Committee's draft study in a distorted manner. The resolution was adopted by 25 votes in favour, 15 against, and 7 abstentions. More generally, the interactive dialogue with Mr Ziegler also showed some disagreement as to the usefulness of the role played by the Advisory Committee. The United States (US) questioned the effectiveness of the Advisory Committee noting that it was expensive and duplicative. The US was particularly blunt in noting that the Committee is not functioning properly or effectively, a point it had made during the review of the work and functioning of the Council. The European Union (EU) supported the stance of the US on the role of the Committee, though with more restrained language. Cuba and Venezuela noted their ongoing support for the work of the Committee and commended the work it had done on the right to peace, human rights education, rights of farmers, and traditional values. They encouraged the Council to make greater use of the Committee to promote and protect human rights, and ensure it has the resources to do its work effectively. The Russian Federation also emphasised the importance of the work of the Advisory Committee as a think tank with specialised knowledge. Russia in particular called for greater use of the Committee by the Council, which sounded hollow given the disregard paid to the study in preparation by the Advisory Committee on traditional values. |
________________________________________________________________
----- 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.
_________________________________________________________________
UN HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL RESOLUTION
A/HRC/RES/12/21
12 OCTOBER 2009:
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)
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.
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