And then Yasmeen spoke more in a speech about human rights – a universalist discourse about human rights, and then I heard you speak more in a political speech – a local political speech. And I`m wondering – you know, we`re out, right? Most of us in this room work outside the countries you are talking about. Could you think about it again — maybe a little bit from each of you on what you think is a useful way to deal with these issues, because I think globalization — you know, OK, a backlash, because we haven`t done a lot of things right, and certainly a lot of actors have been left out, and we see a populist backlash from the left and the right here and elsewhere — Europe and so on. ON – So it`s not just about this problem. The time for reform has come. Before the pandemic, researchers found that “egalitarian family law reform may be the most important prerequisite for empowering women economically.” The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic only underscores the importance of women`s and girls` ability to fully participate and contribute to all aspects of society. In addition, Dr. Ahmed Shaheed, UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, organized a series of regional workshops in 2020 to discuss strategies to promote the human rights of women and minorities in relation to sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) while protecting the right to freedom of religion or belief. These sessions were used to prepare for the release of a report that later showed that religion is used around the world to deny women and girls minority rights to sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI). The Special Rapporteur reaffirmed that freedom of religion or belief belongs to individuals, not religions, and that freedom of religion is not a substitute for universal principles of non-discrimination. You can interpret the laws as you wish.
But it is certain principles that are universal. Discrimination must not be tolerated. The status of women must be equal in all respects. I think that`s an argument the mullahs can have. But that`s not an argument we can – we should promote. Our point of reference must be human rights, women`s right to equality and the right to dignity and, as you know, the right not to be discriminated against. The transformation of family law and the path of women`s rights has led a number of remarkable women to question the status quo. How is it that nations can address these structural and cultural inequalities that often shape this constellation of family laws, and what role does the UN play? and, in your case, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to overcome those obstacles? Another important thing — until about three years ago, when we were talking about women`s rights in the economic field, was education and employment opportunities, sometimes political participation, and we were — I mean, I missed the morning meetings with the World Bank and the IMF, but we were looking for them and we said, What about family law — that`s all. What matters most. And three years ago, the World Bank published the Women, Law and Business Report, where it focused on discrimination in the family unit, which I really believe, regardless of the fact that I think progress will be limited in other regions – in other areas. The exclusion of women and girls from full equality within the family prevents them from participating in other areas of community and national life, including the professional environment, politics and education, and also poses a risk to their physical and mental health and safety. The security argument is that you are undermining the state.
You try – you promote terrorism. We are now accused of promoting terrorism. And I have a special role to play in responding to reprisals against people who have collaborated with the United Nations in trying to share information with us. And we see time and time again that the denigration of human rights defenders is based on the fact that they sympathize with terrorists and that the human rights agenda is a terrorist agenda. You are undermining our government and criticizing our police, which means you are encouraging terrorism. Governments can no longer find excuses or invoke religious or cultural practices to sanction and perpetuate discrimination within the family – regardless of the form the discrimination takes or the origin of the law or practice. Now, there were groups — I`m a board member of another group called Musawah, which literally means equality in Arabic, and it`s a group of women`s rights advocates who deal primarily with Sharia law and say we need to get back into the night because we weren`t at the forefront of religious reforms. We could not move this dial. And it`s not like it`s a panacea. You have now managed to argue – in addition to CEDAW, which you usually know – that countries would come before CEDAW.
They would have discriminatory laws and then they would have a caveat that this is based on religion or Islam or, you know, and the CEDAW committee could not challenge it. More than ever, women are entering spheres historically reserved for men. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, one of those women who needed no introduction, and a pop culture figure under the name “Notorious RBG,” was one of the few women in her class at Harvard Law School and graduated from Columbia Law School in 1959. As an advocate for gender equality and women`s rights, she won numerous arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1970s. She was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals in 1980 and to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1993. Justice Ginsburg is known for her dissenting opinions, some of which formed the basis for new legislation proposed and passed by state legislators and the U.S. Congress to further expand and strengthen women`s rights.
There is a national crisis for women and their children in the family courts of this country. Confirmed by experts and leaders of the women`s movement, the existence of this crisis is confirmed by women in all states who report injustices in their family law cases, especially abused mothers who try to protect their children from abusive fathers, who aggressively plead against them and use family courts to persecute, harassing, punishing and impoverishing their former partners and children. NOW recognizes this crisis for women and their children and seeks to combat discrimination against women in family courts. By granting women full property rights, these two laws established women as completely separate legal entities. This laid the groundwork for women to be considered equal individuals in the eyes of the law and refuted many arguments against women`s suffrage (the right to vote at the time was limited to the wealthy of the time). But I would like to come back to your question about multilateral institutions and the United Nations. and, Andrew, you ask in particular about your work, which has focused not only on the legal inequalities already mentioned – property law, inheritance law and other family laws – but also on your work, which deals with the idea that the man is the head of the family, and the impact that this assumption has on housing policy, social security policy. other policies and how this assumption relates to the disproportionate burden of unpaid care and domestic work on women. The information presented here was compiled by the National Special Advisory Committee on Family Law NOW.
Founded in April 2004, this all-volunteer committee is comprised of parents, grandparents, activists, paralegals, organizers, lawyers and lawyers from across the country who dedicate their collective experience and expertise in family law and family justice governance to NOW`s work to promote justice and equality for women. The Children Act 1989 removed assumptions about which children should stay with after divorce. Instead, the needs and well-being of the child were placed at the heart of the system, allowing fathers and mothers greater flexibility in family design. The law also provides for greater financial provisions for single mothers. Finally, the Family Law Act of 1996 made it easier for partners who were victims of violence to apply to the court for injunctions. Q: I`m sorry. I was curious to come back to this tension between the three of you about the discourse that is useful today, and I heard Andrew say something about what might be called the backlash against globalization, as well as the reaction to the universal human rights discourse that many of us face in a number of different areas. Property rights that are equitably distributed after the dissolution of the marriage include pensions, social security payments and land, according to CEDAW. The general recommendation also addresses the rights of widows. The General Recommendation states: “Many States parties deny widows, by law or custom, equal treatment with widowers in matters of inheritance, leaving them economically vulnerable after the death of a spouse.” But even broader than what I`m trying to do – because I see when I go to places and my path leads much more into conflict zones where there are governments that are not very pleasant and don`t care about human rights at all, frankly, The idea of integrating them into a human rights discourse becomes meaningless.