the United Nations and Human Rights Male Normativity

This semester I am taking a course called "Human Rights in Global Perspectives." As opposed to the class I took last semester on the politics of accessing human rights, this course is actually on the theory, philosophy, rhetoric and implementation of human rights internationally, and to a certain extent, on state level.

As part of the course work, I have had to read different treaties and agreements on human, civil/political and socio-economic rights. Tonight I have read the Universal Declaration on Human Rights; the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights; and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. All three are quite short reads and fairly repetitive, so if you want to have a look through them, I would recommend that you do.

What struck me to begin with is that these arguments are such blatantly male-centric documents, probably because they are written by men and for men. Remember, CEDAW - the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women - came later, as it was widely viewed that women's rights were not sufficiently covered by these previous covenants.

And no wonder that UN, member states and women's rights groups felt the need to create a separate and complementary agreement referring specifically to women and women's needs after these, so called, universal rights documents had been produced. The covenants are literally teeming with male-centric language and rhetoric. In every single instance, when referring to an individual in the documents, "his," "him," "he" is used. Even if the use of the gender neutral plural pronouns were not widespread at the time, it would not have taken much energy and effort to add a corresponding female noun there to make sure that the female gender was represented as well. Although, it should be noted that this would probably not be accepted practice today anyway, as there are people who do not define as either gender and are thus not covered by these gendered nouns. Unfortunately, this thinking had not come as far in the 1948 when the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was finalised, nor in 1966 when the two covenants were.

If it were not blatantly obvious in the way that any other genders but the male gender are excluded, it is certainly obvious in the very first article of the UDHR, which states

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

The word 'brotherhood' implies that either we are operating under a male normative set of rules, i.e., all people, women, men, all human beings, should act and operate under the rules for something which is defined as 'brotherhood', implied by the name to be a set of rules set up by males for males. Even if this would be an inclusive set of rules, welcoming all genders, it would still be referring to a specific set of male normative rules. If it is not inclusive, then it means that all genders, apart from the male one, would not be included in this 'spirit of brotherhood', which is a human right. Women and other people not identifying as male, would thus be excluded from human rights. This is set out in the very first article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

As if this was not enough, the sacrosanctity of heteronormative culture is also inscribed in the Covenant on Civil and Policial Rights (1966) in Article 23. I quote (my bold):

Article 23

1. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

2. The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognized.

3. No marriage shall be entered into without the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

4. States Parties to the present Covenant shall take appropriate steps to ensure equality of rights and responsibilities of spouses as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. In the case of dissolution, provision shall be made for the necessary protection of any children.

There is so much wrong in this article, but let me just start out by saying the natural and fundamental group of society? In this part of a sentence, the UN and its signatories have assumed that the heteronormative family is a biological fact and that it shall not be threatened. By what? Gay marriage, probably. Assuming that blood bonds are very strong is not in itself a wrong, but not defining what they mean by 'family' is. I assume, however, that in the 1960s, when this covenant was agreed upon, it was quite self-evident what was meant with 'family,' as homosexuality was still illegal in many countries. Point 2, also indicates that this was the intention, as "the right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and found a family..." probably means to each other and not to whomever they so wish.

That fact, alone, should make all of us question the intention of universal human rights. Or shall I say universal as long as one conforms to the white male heteronormative society in which families are the untouchable cornerstones of society and women are not a part of being human to the extent that complementary agreements have to be made to ensure that they, too, are covered by human rights. (If you want more information on either of these topics, just look into the two of big debates within human rights 'are women human?' and 'are human rights Western?')

International debate and treaties made by international organs like the UN are riddled with gendered language. If there is one thing that I have learned while reading for my dissertation on the discourse around women in conflict, it is that. While there seems to be a will to mainstream gender into organisations, which essentially means making sure that gender has been taken into consideration at all times, there is a disconnect between that and the implementation of gender-neutral policies. Not to mention that gender mainstreaming as an approach has been severely criticised, among other things, for 'streaming' women away, neglecting women's particular concerns that may exist.

So when I am reading documents like these, the fundamentals of human rights, which are supposed to be universal, and women are supposed to be included, but the language is so blatantly male-centric, it is hard to believe that things will get better. The problem is that the entire framework within which, and upon which, human rights implementation, discourse and philosophy are based, is gendered. Regardless of what improvements we do in the future, there will always be the male-centric original documents that to a certain extent neglect or exclude women and other people who do not identify as male. Added to that, it also excludes LGBTQ groups that wish to exercise, what is supposed to be a universal right to marry whomever they wish.

As long as our rights are based on a male perspective, we will be excluded in one way or another - through implementation, in the rhetoric (which is a severe problem), in the discourse (which is slightly different from the rhetoric), in the philosophy, in the politics - in all aspects. Human rights cannot be universal until everyone is included, and according to the Western thought on human rights, they are. Human rights may be inalienable and universal, but the implementation and thought certainly do not ensure this. It could even be said to hinder the universality of human rights through its exclusionary nature. If human rights are to be universal, rhetorical issues like these need to be paid attention to. Ignoring gendered aspects of human rights is not benefiting anyone, apart from the white male.

Rape A Human Rights Issue?

Today is the Human Rights day, so my blog post will deal with that. Human Rights Day is a day where all defenders of human rights are recognised, including ones that work on a personal level and in obscurity. Every single one of us who respects human rights and works for them should feel they deserve part of the creds of this day.

This article by Nina Fennell in the Australian news paper argues that rape is not only a feminist issue, but also a human rights one. Essentially, any sex crime, is a violation of human rights because it is an infringement on the human right of self-determination, as well as some other negative human rights, i.e. freedom from certain things.

Fennell argues that putting rape into a context of human rights rather than leaving it exclusively on the feminist turf will open up the debate and bring in people that feel alienated by the exclusiveness of feminism. In my personal letters to various universities, I argued that this is precisely what I believe is necessary for feminism - an opening up of the nuanced debate that occurs in feminist and academic circles to be brought out into a more accessible arena in order to avoid misconceptions and hostility towards feminists and feminism. I agree with Fennell that, sometimes, feminism is perceived as quite hard to relate to for a lot of people, especially, I think, men. Feminism is often viewed as this pro-female movement, which it in all certainty is. The misconceptions start where people believe that to be pro-female one must also inevitably be anti-male. For me, and a lot of other feminists, this is as far from the truth as can be (more in the above linked post and also here).

Would it be beneficial to view rape as a human rights issue? Yes, it definitely would. Using a more neutral ground for the discussion could possibly lead to a more inclusive debate and that would consequently lead to a more open debate around rape culture, rape myths and rape apologia. Debating these things in a non-feminist light could allow for these concepts to become more neutral, i.e. not seen as a feminist myth evoked to bring down the great evil patriarchy, or rather men. This would be very beneficial to all parts in society as these are prevalent problems and they have the consequence of leading to further misconceptions about rape, sex crimes and the survivors of these crimes.

But, there is a reason why rape and sex crimes lie so close to the heart of women. Most statistics point out that these types of crimes happen mainly to women, with males representing approximately 7-15% of the survivors (USA, Britain - more statistics are usually available through each individual country and are quite easily accessible). Because of this, it is often seen as a big part making up the encompassing subject of violence against women. Power in these situations are often a gendered issue with the dominance of a male being established over a female as a consequence of a sexual crime. Interestingly, UNFPA devotes an entire chapter on 'Gender roles in flux' in their publication at the 10-year anniversary of the publishing of Resolution 1325 which deals exclusively with women in conflict. The chapter shows how in post-conflict societies, where women continue doing 'men's work' of running the productive economy that they took up during conflict, men often resort to domestic violence in order to reclaim their masculinity. Alan Greig also has interesting work on masculinities for anyone who is interested in reading further on the issue.

It has to be noted, however, that these statistics might need a bit wider interpretation of sexual assault for males, as most cultures still do not believe that men can be sexually assaulted in the same way as women. It's a part of the common conception of men as perpetrators, women as victims (see Moser, Victims, Perpetrators or Actors: Gender, Armed Conflict and Political Violence for an explanation how this is viewed in conflict); roles which can damage both men and women in the long run. Men are at risk of being largely overlooked as victims of sex crimes, and women are recurrently portrayed as passive victims just standing idly by waiting for someone to sexually assault them or for a man to save them.

Gender analysis is needed in issues such as rape and other sex crimes, just because it often contains a lot of gendered violence as a result of perceived or assigned gender roles. Therefore, to take it entirely from the area of feminist analysis could result in the analytical tools needed to understand this sort of violence and coercion being cast aside, and that would be damaging in the long run for all parties involved.

Women's rights are human rights, however, and Fennell makes a very good point. There is a need to bring out these issues to a more neutral ground where people do not feel alienated by the frame work of discussion. Hopefully this can be done in a way that can reconcile both human rights and feminist/gender analysis.

Happy human rights day!

Asylum Seekers Having to Undergo "Arousal Tests"

I was hoping I had read enough horrible things for one day after posting the previous post not even an hour ago, but I was clearly wrong.

BBC reports that asylum seekers in the Czech Republic have had to undergo 'arousal tests' to determine whether or not they are truly gay, since being homosexual is a valid ground for seeking asylum. This is due to the appalling conditions that a lot of gay people face in their home countries, including violence, rape and persecution.

How this clear violation of human rights and integrity should be regarded as anything less than the persecution a lot of these men have to undergo in their home countries is unclear to me. The article reports that the men are made to watch heterosexual porn, and if they become aroused while watching, they are denied asylum. There is nothing to say that a man cannot get an erection from watching porn even if the actors are heterosexual. Besides, how is one tested if one is a bisexual male? As a bisexual male, having a relationship with a male is still going to make people do all sorts of atrocious things to you in the countries where homosexuality is illegal or completely unacceptable culturally.

Regardless of whether the test works or not, no one should have to go through sexual tests of any kind in order to determine whether or not someone should be granted asylum. According to the same logic, trafficked men and women should be ordered to perform certain sexual favours to prove that they are sex workers. (I know that being a sex worker, especially one held under coercion, doesn't automatically teaches you sex tricks, but it is a common misconception.) It is completely unacceptable, regardless of existing written consent. Come on, what are the asylum seekers going to do? Refuse to undergo the test and be sent back with all certainty? It is a ridiculous defence and would not hold anywhere.

This whole ordeal also strikes me as very unequal. Or perhaps they have thought of ways of testing lesbian women that I have not. I shudder at the sheer thought. Is this another one of those cases where male homosexuality is regarded at least doubly as 'awful' as women's? In either case, it is appalling.
Shame on you, Czech Republic!

EU Widens 'Human Trafficking' Definition

BBC reports that the European Union is widening the definition of human trafficking to include aiding, abetting, instigating or attempting. This is all very well and good, but it is not enough. What is needed is not so much a more inclusive definition of human trafficking as a major overhaul of the migration policies with regards to human trafficking.

In fact, a widening of the definition could mean that victimisation becomes even more widespread. Not to mention that there are problems with the definitions of these new criteria. What, for instance, constitutes as aiding or abetting trafficking? Is it simply enough to employ someone who has been trafficked without knowledge, or buying sexual favours from a prostitute who has been trafficked, even if the person buying is not aware of it? It is not obvious who is and who is not a trafficking victims as they are often held under threats to ensure they do not seek help.

Instead, what is needed, is a major look through EU's migration policies to ensure that people who have been trafficked can access their human rights in their destination countries. Currently, protection and support is often dependent on the trafficked person giving up information on the people who have trafficked them into the country. As the definition of human trafficking includes an element of coercion or threat, it is often hard for trafficked people to turn against the people who trafficked them. It is not uncommon for a sex trafficking victim, for instance, to have his or her family threatened by his or her pimp, making the trafficked person believe (regardless of the truth of the threat) that if he or she tells on the trafficker, his or her family will be in mortal danger.

What is more, and this is especially applicable to people who have been trafficked into sex work, is that there is still a stigma attached to being a trafficked person. Because the access of rights for these people is so poor today, and because the migration laws are so restrictive with regards to trafficked people, actually turning to the authorities for help might not feel like an option to these people. Often, if one comes out as a prostitute, because of the current moralisation of sexuality, that person is viewed as unclean and damaged. Unfortunately, this reflects in the authorities' dealings with such persons, especially because of the general lack of training. Seeking help from authorities might, thus, do more psychological damage. Also, in doing so, the trafficked person knows that the possibility he or she will be return to the country of origin is very big. This is not a bright prospect when these people fear being ostracised from their communities, cast off even by their family, because of the social stigma that is attached to prostitution and rape. Comparable to this is the vast number of women who were sexually terrorised in former Yugoslavia during the war, and have still not come forward because of the social stigma attached to being raped. (For further reading, see the recent UNFPA report published this year.)

Because some trafficking victims are actually voluntary illegal immigrants who were put into slave-like conditions upon the arrival in the destination country, authorities might be reluctant to give these people their rights as they are already seen as criminals. What they fail to understand, however, is that these people are still held against their will in a line of work that they have not agreed to (usually prostitution) and that they are being exploited on a daily basis. They lack the basic rights of self-determination over their own beings, and this can happen regardless if someone has entered a country illegally. Punishing these people for being illegal immigrants in the first place is nothing less than a double restriction of their rights.

As long as women and men who are trafficked into foreign countries against their wills or into a job that was not agreed upon from the start do not have access to protection and human rights, it is not going to be enough to widen the definition of human trafficking. As with a lot of other policies to prevent human trafficking, this one is aimed at stopping the organised crime rings involved with the consequence of ignoring the needs of the people who are actually being trafficked.

Darfur soldiers

It's things like this that make me cry out of sheer horror. We often think about the victims of such crimes, as we rightly should. Hearing someone who has been forced to become a rapist and a murderer out of self-preservation is horrifying. It's easy to sit and say self-righteously that you would rather die than do something like that and faced with the choice you would choose death before abusing any of the two of the most important human rights. Would you really?
When you've got the world at your feet, or at least the opportunities you would if you have access to read this blog, it is easy to be self-righteous because the hardships we encounter in the developed world seldom come close to what this "Adam" has had to endure. It's his life or harming people, and how do you choose? I think the primal instinct is to choose your life. Humans have a built-in instinct of self-preservation. Can you blame it?
Certainly the victims of these actions are horribly wronged and deserve to be spared a thought for, but it is interesting to read the other side of the story. It shows that the whole situation is so totally messed up. It makes me sad.

Mugabe and Zimbabwe

I know in theory that taking a non-aligned political stance internationally is good in theory. It makes the citizens feel safe, and more, it reinforces the liberality of other countrie's rights to choose. I really do like Sweden because of our neutrality and non-alignment, although I have to say that I strongly believe it has more to do with Sweden's incapability to defend ourselves if we ever got into a war rather than as a fighter for liberality. Especially when looking to the Swedish domestic politics where the social democrats, who are anything but especially liberal, have ruled the country for most of as long as I've been alive, and for the greater part before that as well. Sweden has got a sceptical view of the more liberal, capitalistic parties and has also got a history of being a bit wary of international cooperation when it comes to the EU, EMU and NATO. Swedes tend to vote against these political unions, and when we joined the EU, the decision was won by 4% of the voters (52-48 in favour).
Sometimes, I do, however, wish that we would take some kind of political standpoint when it comes to people suffering in the world. Gordon Brown has gone out and said that Mugabe must go, and now the archbishop of York has done the same thing.
The fact is that people are dying as a consequence of this tyrant. 13,000 people are infected with cholera, the inflation is at 231,000,000 per cent. This is not the time to stand idly by and respect Zimbabwe's rights to have its own rulers. Because the fact is that Mugabe did not win a free and fair election, and people are dying. When people are dying, that's where the politeness stops. When someone threatens human rights, that's when you do something. Take a stance. Do someting, say something! Sometimes silence is just a quiet acceptance.

Speaking of Human Rights

This made me really happy. Let's hope the Church and the rest of the states catch on and realises that same-sex marriage isn't a sin. It is love in as pure a form as between a man and a woman. Something has to be really wrong when people are trying to stop love in today's world.

Blogging for Human Rights

Amnesty International is asking everyone to blog for human rights today to draw attention to the problems in the world when it comes to this issue.
For me, human rights, like equality, is something that people just should have. All the human beings, no exceptions. It is not a discussion matter, it is something that is evident.
Unfortunately there are idiots around the world that do not agree with me. To take a recent example: the government in Myanmar who refuse to let help into the country after the devastating cyclone that ruined a country where a lot of people already live under the poverty level. What really baffles me is why do they not accept help when people and organizations are more than willing to give it to them? There is no way the military regime can handle this alone. With that many people already living in poverty before the cyclone, it is quite obvious the country does not have resources to handle a disaster of this size.
What is really saddening as well is that in these kinds of regimes, Human Rights Watch has had to warn people not to leave their aid unattended, since the regime may steal the supplies, BBC writes. That is just plain horrible. They fear that over 2 million people in Burma can be starving and the regime wants to steal food aid. Once again, why?
Human rights is something that we all should actively promote. Join an organization, donate some money to causes supporting human rights, or just keep the discussion alive. As long as the word is spreading, more people can be mobilized, and those people who need our help have a bigger chance of being helped.

Hunting is human rights

So apparently, according to an article in the Independent some people in Britain think that hunting is a part of human rights. I don't actually believe they really think that, but they've found some loopholes, or rather some laws they can press upon to try to legalise hunting again. I find it hilarious. Not the hunting, I don't really like hunting as a sport unless it is actually necessary in order to prevent overpopulation that will disturb the order of nature.
No, the thing I find hilarious is these people's intelligence and cunningness to use EU laws to try to override British laws. Well, if they actually had a case and Britain was doing something that wasn't according to EU laws, I suppose it would be fair enough, but using human rights as an excuse to hunt, that's just genious! Personally, I hope they won't get through the legalisation of hunting, but it still makes me giggle.
I am a politically correct person. It's against my personal beliefs to use something like human rights to benefit personally in this way, but I can't help but finding it brilliant. If I had no scruples and didn't really care for human rights, I probably would too. Although, I do find it wrong to use laws that are there to protect human rights to try to justify killing animals. That disgusts me. But due to the cleverness of these people I have to wish them good luck even if I hope they don't win.

Rosita

Today I found an article on DN.se that really broke my heart. The world isn't fair, and there are a lot of things that have gone wrong, but some days some things just really break my heart.
This article made me want to cry. It's about a 14-year old girl in Nicaragua who has been sexually abused and raped for several years. 19 months ago, when she was 12, she gave birth to a child as a consequence of a rape that her step father is believed to have gone through with.
Nicaragua apparently has a law that forbids abortion and therefore this 12-year old child, who has already been through more than a lot of other people have at her age, has to live with a reminder of this every day. All because of some Catholic people who reckon that being able to choose what is done to your body is insignificant. It's horrible and it really makes me want to weep.
It's because of these days and because of everything horrible I read in the news papers that makes me want to study politics and work against it. No one should ever have to go through things like these. I know it's impossible, there is no way to create a utopia and the world will always be unfair, cold and cruel. But I think that the smallest change you can do for someone's life, the smallest step in the right direction to human rights is worth it. Imagine what it means to that individual.
So start making a difference today even if it means just to keep a debate alive. Never, ever give up, and if you ever stop caring, think of Rosita.