Despite the lower than desired media coverage and a lower than desired turnout of less than 3,000 people, the WCF organizers have accomplished what they ultimately set out to do—create a network of conservative civil society and parliamentarians who can influence European policy both at the national level and throughout the European Union. Unlike previous World Congresses whose aim was often to build cultural support for right-wing ideals, this WCF had a clear legislative goal from the beginning and several national (MP) and European Parliamentary members (MEP) were present throughout the conference, including Ana Zaborska (Slovakia), Head of Women's Rights and Equality Commission, and Carlo Casini (Italy), Head of Committee on Legal Affairs.
In conjunction with the standard WCF program of speakers and sessions on conservative social and cultural issues, this year the organizers also hosted an Inter-Parliamentary Forum that brought together 50 national and European Parliamentary Members from Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, France, and the United Kingdom to strategize on how to achieve the "globalization of pro-family ideals." Additionally, over 100 European Parliamentary members signed a declaration in support of the Congress and its conservative ideals. Presented to the audience as a response to the letter from 19 European Parliamentary leaders for Ellen Sauerbery not to attend, the declaration was read by Catherine Vierling of the European Forum for Human Rights and Family, one of the many right-wing groups already lobbying the European Parliament to change its policies.
Each World Congress of Families has ended with the adoption of a declaration. The Warsaw Declaration which called on governments to adopt pro-family policies was presented along with an encouragement to make 2008 the real year of the family—an idea that seems easy for the mainly Polish audience. Since, as one Polish sexual and reproductive health and rights advocate said when I asked her why there was not a bigger protest to the conference, "every day in Poland is family day." That is exactly what the WCF organizers want to hear.
]]>The approximately 2,000 participants clapped loudly each time speakers like Richard Wilkins, of the Doha International Research Institute for Family & Development, Paul Mero, of The Sutherland Institute, and Allan Carlson, of the Howard Center for Family, Religion and Society passionately cried out for governments to enact policies "friendly and encouraging to the natural family"—the oppositions' code phrase for policies that criminalize abortion, prohibit same-sex marriage, eliminate comprehensive sexuality education, and ban access to contraception. At no time was the audience's resounding applause more frightening than after a speech given by Roman Giertych, Poland's Minister of Education whose statements like "truth is on our side—in the heartbeats of the unborn," and a description of his party's current proposals to the Polish government resulted in a near-standing ovation. One proposal would mandate primary and secondary schools to teach that abortion is a crime and a social and moral evil that must be severely penalized. A second proposal would also help to instill hate in youth by forbidding the teaching of "homosexual propaganda"—this too would be criminalized.
Giertych and his hate-rousing speech was followed today by several other speakers, including Ellen Sauerbery, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees and Migration, who opened her speech by saying to the audience "I bring you greetings from President Bush!" She then went on to say that this Administration "values strengthening the family as an important goal for the sake of our common humanity" and congratulated Poland on its own courageous "pro-family" policies. Sauerbery did say a few things, however, that seemed out of place with the views of many of the other speakers—like advocating for the education of women as a way to protect the family.
Educated women were a sour note with several male speakers who blamed the "demographic crisis" in Europe on women attending university and choosing (imagine women with a choice!) not to have children until it was too late. In fact, there was a lot of blame being passed around today for the deterioration of the natural family. Educated women, law professors, liberal academics, LGBT individuals, judges, national governments, and local governments, and of course, the United Nations all share the blame. The U.N. took the brunt of this blame since in the eyes of every speaker today, all U.N. documents since 1950 have contributed to the destruction of the natural family. Or, as Richard Wilkins, Director of the Doha Institute for Family Policies, so eloquently described the bedrock documents of human rights—just "a bunch of good ideas gone bad."
Check back for more reports from the World Congress of Families.
]]>Elisha Dunn-Georgiou is the International Policy Associate at the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS).
Last week, the Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator (OGAC) released its 3rd annual report to Congress, The Power of Partnerships: The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). According to the report, "Partnership is rooted in hope for and faith in people. Partnerships mean honest relationships between equals based on mutual respect, understanding and trust, with obligations and responsibilities for each partner." While this is a lovely sentiment—and hope and faith do have a place in fighting disease—OGAC should instead be talking about the power of partnerships as being rooted in collaborations that deliver the best, most effective, evidence-based public health program. This includes partnerships with institutions that have technical expertise in evidence-based HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment, and care, or expertise in poverty reduction, capacity building, reducing gender inequalities, reducing stigma and discrimination, and strengthening health systems. Truthfully, it could include forming partnerships with organizations that have expertise in any of the confounding issues that perpetuate high morbidity and mortality rates for HIV/AIDS in the 15 PEPFAR focus countries.
]]>Elisha Dunn-Georgiou is the International Policy Associate at the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS).
Last week, the Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator (OGAC) released its 3rd annual report to Congress, The Power of Partnerships: The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). According to the report, "Partnership is rooted in hope for and faith in people. Partnerships mean honest relationships between equals based on mutual respect, understanding and trust, with obligations and responsibilities for each partner." While this is a lovely sentiment—and hope and faith do have a place in fighting disease—OGAC should instead be talking about the power of partnerships as being rooted in collaborations that deliver the best, most effective, evidence-based public health program. This includes partnerships with institutions that have technical expertise in evidence-based HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment, and care, or expertise in poverty reduction, capacity building, reducing gender inequalities, reducing stigma and discrimination, and strengthening health systems. Truthfully, it could include forming partnerships with organizations that have expertise in any of the confounding issues that perpetuate high morbidity and mortality rates for HIV/AIDS in the 15 PEPFAR focus countries.
OGAC, however, can't start the report that way, because it is not selecting all of its partners based on these criteria. Instead, some of these partnerships are rooted in a desire to implement an anti-sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) perspective that has become one of the hallmark ideologies of the Bush Administration. This is abundantly clear in the section on the New Partners Initiative.
Announced by President Bush in 2005, the initiative seeks to "increase the Emergency Plan's ability to reach people with needed services," and "build capacity in host nations by developing indigenous capacity to address HIV/AIDS to promote the sustainability of host nation's efforts." Theoretically, of course, this is a wonderful idea. But, a closer look at the list of new partners shows that this is not necessarily happening in practice. Fully 15 of the 22 new partners are faith-based organizations. Two of these new partners, the Natural Family Planning Center of Washington, D.C. and Geneva Global based in Pennsylvania, stand out as being particularly bad choices that meet neither goal of the initiative.
The Natural Family Planning Center received a grant to use its hallmark abstinence-until-marriage program for HIV prevention in Nigeria and Ethiopia. The program, TeenSTAR, developed by Sister Hanna Klaus, M.D., claims to teach girls about their fertility to promote chastity. In actuality, the program, which contains separate lessons for boys and girls, reinforces gender stereotypes and preaches an anti-contraception message. In Klaus's review of the program, titled "Undergirding Abstinence within a Sexuality Education Program," she says, "contraception dichotomizes sex and procreation, thus facilitating fragmented, often solely or largely genital relationships, which do not lead to growth." Moreover, she states that understanding fertility enables girls to develop a "healthy feminine identity" and to understand the "psychosexual differences" between men and women—a key lesson of the curriculum. Klaus, a member of Physicians for Life, is a proponent of allowing medical personnel to refuse to present medical information they find morally objectionable—including information about contraception, condoms, and other sexual and reproductive health services.
Geneva Global, grounds its HIV/AIDS prevention programs in collaborations with faith-based organizations because of the "moral authority" such groups bring to combating the epidemic. Mark Forshaw, manager of Global's HIV/AIDS programming, has a long history of connecting Christian missionary work with HIV/AIDS prevention and of promoting abstinence-until-marriage and be-faithful programs to the detriment of condom promotion. Global praises Forshaw's contribution to an on-line book, The Truth About AIDS by Patrick Dixon. Dixon's chapter, "Condoms are Unsafe," explains, "The condom is the least reliable contraceptive in wide use" and "Over the next few years there will be a growing number of angry men and women who have become infected, despite their using a condom, having thought they were safe."
Ironically, the Power in Partnerships report is replete with rhetoric about the evidenced-based, country-driven focus of the program's efforts, including a whole chapter on PEPFAR's progress in responding to the critical issue of gender and HIV/AIDS. Unfortunately, OGAC's rhetoric is totally disconnected from its recruitment of new partners. How one is supposed to challenge gender norms with programs, like TeenSTAR, that teach girls that their "feminine identity" is rooted in their fertility is inconceivable. Also inconceivable is how PEPFAR can claim a balanced ABC approach while funding partners whose staff has contributed to books containing such medically inaccurate information about condoms.
Partnerships can indeed be powerful in the fight against HIV/AIDS, but only if they use evidence-based, comprehensive prevention strategies that truly address the real needs of people battling this epidemic. Otherwise, the power of these partnerships lies not in the good that they do, but only in the harm.
]]>Elisha Dunn-Georgiou is the International Policy Associate at the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS).
You would think that this year's 51st session on the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) on Ending All Forms of Discrimination and Violence against the Girl Child would not be all that controversial compared with other themes the CSW has tackled. In past years the CSW has focused on themes like the equal participation of women in society, enhanced gender equality, or a reaffirmation of the Beijing conference—all topics that have strong opposition in countries around the world—especially those, like the United States, Sudan, and Iran that have refused to ratify the Convention to Eliminate All forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). But the topic of this year's CSW should be a feel good topic that everyone—conservative or liberal—can rally around because everyone wants to get to the root causes that perpetuate violence against girls. Right? Well, maybe—it actually all depends on how you define violence and discrimination against girls.
]]>Elisha Dunn-Georgiou is the International Policy Associate at the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS).
You would think that this year's 51st session on the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) on Ending All Forms of Discrimination and Violence against the Girl Child would not be all that controversial compared with other themes the CSW has tackled. In past years the CSW has focused on themes like the equal participation of women in society, enhanced gender equality, or a reaffirmation of the Beijing conference—all topics that have strong opposition in countries around the world—especially those, like the United States, Sudan, and Iran that have refused to ratify the Convention to Eliminate All forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). But the topic of this year's CSW should be a feel good topic that everyone—conservative or liberal—can rally around because everyone wants to get to the root causes that perpetuate violence against girls. Right? Well, maybe—it actually all depends on how you define violence and discrimination against girls.
If you are defining or linking violence and discrimination against girls as having anything to do with a lack of sexual and reproductive health and rights—then there is a very, very large international right-wing contingent present at the CSW that does not want to rally around that. Concerned Women for America, Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, Human Life International, United Families International, World Vision International, and a host of smaller, lesser-known, right-wing non-governmental organizations would instead like to rally around what they see as the two most egregious forms of violence against the girl-child—abortion and the disintegration of family values.
Perusing the list of events held during the CSW, its easy to see the right-wing point of view represented—with such panel presentations as "Womanhood and Motherhood: How to be a World Changer," hosted by Endeavour Forum, Inc or "Complete Equality: Gain or Loss?" hosted by the International Islamic Committee for Women and Child. Both of these groups are open about their conservatism regarding the ideals of CEDAW, but other right-wing groups are taking a much more subtle tack and cleverly utilizing the human rights language surrounding violence and discrimination against girls to attack the reproductive rights of women.
This is particularly true in discussions and presentations about sex-selective abortion or as the international right prefers to call it—female feticide. Sex-selective abortion has become a hot topic among the international right. Media attention to practices in India and China where preference for male children has resulted in the use of ultrasounds to determine fetal sex has been a boon for the right-wing. Instead of focusing on the root societal causes of gender inequality that have given rise to disproportionate value placed on males, right-wing groups instead use this situation to try and assert arguments of fetal personhood and fetal rights.
The Worldwide Organization for Women, a right-wing group whose website states that its mission is to "strengthen, support, and unite women and men of faith in order to create a peaceful, moral, and loving environment that values the sanctity of human life, and preserves the natural family," hosted a panel presentation at the CSW titled "Female Infanticide." The point the right-wing panelists hammered home during the presentation is that abortion is an assault on the female child's right to be born and right to live. This use of fetal rights language is reaffirmed in the pamphlet, A Girl's Right to Live: Female Feticide and Girl Infanticide, that was distributed at the presentation by a coalition of predominantly right-wing organizations calling themselves the "Working Group on the Girl Child." The pamphlet not only echoed the "right to be born" language of the panelists but included references to human rights documents like the Convention on the Rights of the Child, as well as fear-based messages about the increases in organized crime, alcohol abuse, and wife-sharing that will surely result from abortion practices.
Many of the organizations involved in the "Working Group" are right-wing European groups like the Institute for Family Policy and the European Federation of Women Active in the Home whose chief concern is raising alarm about the "demographic crisis" in European countries. In 2006, for example, the Institute for Family Policy released a report (PDF) citing abortion as a main cause of death in Europe, second only to cancer.
The presence of groups such as this at the U.N. is alarming to say the least. But more alarming perhaps is the growing influence they wield and their ability to have their ultra-conservative voices heard when it comes to making policies on sexual and reproductive health rights internationally. To argue against sex-selective abortion on a platform based on a "right to be born" is of course a sneaky right-wing way to whittle away at the sexual and reproductive rights of women and girls. Boy preference and sex-selective abortion is without a doubt one form of discrimination against girls and women. But, as Yakin Erturk, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women, repeatedly pointed out at various presentations, this form of discrimination has the same root causes such as poverty, economics, and gender inequality that underlie all other forms of violence against women. And it is not until we address these issues that we will be able to truly meet the CSW objective of ending all discrimination and violence against the girl-child.
]]>