Ratification of Important Women’s Rights Document Sparks Controversy in Cameroun
reader diary by Chelsea Ricker, International Women's Health Coalition
July 17, 2009 - 10:51am (Print)
Let's start off with some good news- Cameroun joined 27 other
African countries in promoting the health and rights of women when it
ratified the Maputo Protocol on May 28th,
2009. The Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights
on the Rights of Women in Africa, better known as the Maputo Protocol,
guarantees the human rights of women throughout the continent.
Adopted by the African Union in 1993, the Protocol calls for the
adoption and implementation of national measures that uphold women's
sexual and reproductive rights, political and social equality, and the
right to live free from violence and coercion, while providing a
comprehensive legal framework for holding African governments
accountable for violations.
Sadly, the reaction in the Camerounian press to the ratification of
the Protocol has been largely negative, and predominately based on
false information and deliberate obfuscation on the part of the
Catholic Church. The National Episcopal Conference of Cameroun
released a press statement denouncing Article 14 of the Protocol, which
calls on State parties to "protect the reproductive rights of women
by authorizing medical abortion in cases of sexual assault, rape,
incest, and where the continued pregnancy endangers the mental and
physical health of the mother or the life of the mother or the foetus."
The release, which the prelates accuse of giving "abusive
reproductive rights" to women, is actually far more measured than the
church's reaction in other fora has been. At a demonstration against the ratification on July 11,
Cardinal Christian Tumi, Archbishop of Douala, once again condemned
abortion as "an abomination" and conflated abortion with gay marriage,
despite the absence of gay rights from the actual Maputo Protocol.
Many protesters showed similar confusion, recently highlighted on the popular television program Cartes Sur Table, which dedicated its June 23rd
episode to the controversy. Speaking on behalf of the Catholic
International Press Union of Africa, Abbot Antoine Depadoue Chonang
insisted that the Maputo Protocol is a "trojan horse" for homosexual
rights. Fortunately, Cartes Sur Table also featured Ms. Alice
Nkom, the president of the Association for the Defense of
Homosexuality, or ADEFHO, who spoke eloquently on the need for Cameroun
to step out from under the influence of the Catholic Church and
recognize the human and civil rights of all its citizens, including
sexual minorities and women. ADEFHO will continue its public
information campaign to advance sexual and reproductive health and
rights. As part of its advocacy campaign, ADEFHO is calling upon
other women's rights organizations in Cameroun to reclaim control of
the debate over the Maputo Protocol and place it back firmly where it
belongs: in the hands of the women who need it.
Click here for a full report of the June 23 edition of Cartes Sur Table in PDF form.
To learn more about ADEFHO's work on LGBTQQI rights in Cameroun, click here and here.
To learn more about IWHC's work on women's sexual and reproductive rights and health in Cameroun, click here.
To learn more about IWHC's regional advocacy on sexual and reproductive rights and health, click here.
Chelsea Ricker is the Africa Program Assistant at the International Women's Health Coalition. Read her bio here.
I think they are saying that "helping" a woman via abortion is not "help" at all. If I had some kind of difficulty (rape, incest, psychological or mental distress), the LAST kind of help I would want is abortion. Maybe they can come up with a protocol to decrease rape, incest, etc.
If I had some kind of difficulty (rape, incest, psychological or mental distress), the LAST kind of help I would want is abortion.
Okay, so if you're ever in that kind of situation, you can refuse to have an abortion. And the women who do want that, can have one.
Yet another difficult problem solved by Captain Obvious!
I agree with you that if they could pay attention to decreasing rape and incest that the abortion rate would drop. Let's do that FIRST and see what happens?
My grandma always told me that the proper way to give "help" was to give the person what they asked for and to beware of sliding over into "bossiness" where the 'helper' ignores what the person asks for and decides to take over and run their life for them.
It seems they know exactly what you are up to, and legitimately conflate abortion rights with gay marriage, since they know that you consider the Catholic church a common enemy, and have constructed some commonality between the two issues as a matter of "privacy".
I wonder what will happen to this happy alliance once genetic testing becomes mainstream and mothers abort babies with the ballyhooed homosexual gene just like they do Down's Syndrome babies? I guess the hunt for that gene may just vanish.
legitimately conflate abortion rights with gay marriage,
Huh? Gay people don't get abortions.
constructed some commonality between the two issues as a matter of "privacy".
Personally I've constructed a commonality between the two issues on the basis of religious freedom: that the Catholic Church doesn't get to decide who gets to have sex or what type of birth control or medical care people get, PARTICULARLY since they've made it clear that their position is based on church laws, discipline, and doctrine of the faith, none of which should be applied to NONCatholics, and that their opinion will remain unaffected by pesky details like the likely death of 9-year olds.
"This is not just theory. And you can't start backpedaling just because the real-life situation carries a certain human weight."
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1911495,00.html
Allowing children and women to die because their suffering can 'glorify' their souls -- that's the way to 'value life'.
Should someone have the "choice" to abort a baby with a homosexual gene?
Should someone have the "choice" to abort a baby with a homosexual gene?
As far as I'm concerned, a woman should be able to have an abortion for any reason she chooses. Neither I nor anyone else has to agree with her reason - it's got absolutely nothing to do with us. That's why it's called choice.
Abuse of a living child by attempting to de-gay them through indoctrination and systematic degredation, however, is a different matter.
Okay, so if you're ever in that kind of situation, you can refuse to have an abortion. And the women who do want that, can have one.
HMMMM. Championing of "choice" was shown to be a complete lie in the case of a famous politician and her family. And also, Captain Obvious, I would like to point out the obvious--there would be no need to terminate or kill a being if it weren't already alive.
And also, Captain Obvious, I would like to point out the obvious--there would be no need to terminate or kill a being if it weren't already alive.
I'm sorry, what are you talking about now?
If the first part of your comment is in reference to Sarah Palin and/or her daughter: it's not the *choice* to continue the pregnancy that anyone had a problem with, it was doing that *while campaigning to take away the possibility of choice from other women*. But thanks for playing.
And also, Captain Obvious, I would like to point out the obvious--there would be no need to terminate or kill a being if it weren't already alive.
Huh? Whuh? Is this yet another coded way of saying, "Abortion is bad, mmmkay?"
I'm sorry, ma'am, but you must have me confused with Captain Ambiguous.
