Americas

• MEXICO: ‘Alliances, public debate & diversification of voices are indispensable in the struggle to expand rights’

  CIVICUS speaks with Verónica Esparza and Rebeca Lorea, respectively lawyer and researcher and Public Policy Advocacy Coordinator at Information Group on Reproductive Choice (GIRE, Grupo de Información en Reproducción Elegida), about the significance of recent Supreme Court rulings on abortion rights, and sexual and reproductive rights in Mexico. GIRE is a feminist and human rights organisation that has been active for almost 30 years to ensure that women and others with the capacity to bear children can exercise their reproductive rights.

   From left to right: Verónica Esparza & Rebeca Lorea
  

  What is the situation of sexual and reproductive rights in Mexico?

  Currently, women and other people with the capacity to bear children do not find optimal conditions in Mexico to decide about their reproductive life: there are a high number of pregnant girls and adolescents, affected by a serious context of sexual violence that the state continues to fail to remedy; obstacles to access services such as emergency contraception and abortion in cases of rape; the criminalisation of women and other pregnant people who have abortions; daily obstetric violence during pregnancy, childbirth and postpartum; and women who die in childbirth from preventable causes.

  The structural failures of the health system are compounded by the fact that the majority of people in Mexico are employed in the informal sector, which limits their access to social security and therefore to benefits such as maternity leave and childcare. Women, who continue to play the biggest role in household and care work, bear the brunt of this lack of access to services, which particularly affects those who experience multiple discriminations, such as girls and adolescents, Indigenous women and people with disabilities.

  What does GIRE understand reproductive justice to mean, and how do you work to advance it?

  GIRE understands reproductive justice as the set of social, political and economic factors that give women and others who can get pregnant power and self-determination over their reproductive life. To achieve this, it is essential for the state to guarantee these people’s human rights, taking into account the discrimination and structural inequalities that affect their health, rights and control over their lives, and for it to generate optimal conditions for autonomous decision-making.

  It is no longer sufficient to understand reproductive rights in terms of legally defined individual freedoms, while ignoring the barriers that limit the effective access of certain populations to these rights. Reproductive justice is a more inclusive analytical framework because it links reproductive rights to the social, political and economic inequalities that affect people’s ability to access reproductive health services and effectively exercise their reproductive rights.

  GIRE has worked for almost 30 years to defend and promote reproductive justice in Mexico, making visible the normative and structural obstacles that women and others with the capacity to bear children face in fully exercising their human rights, and promoting change through a comprehensive strategy that includes legal support, communications, the demand for comprehensive reparation for violations of reproductive rights, including non-repetition guarantees at both the federal and local levels, and the collection of data to feed into our work.

  Our priority issues are contraception, abortion, obstetric violence, maternal death, assisted reproduction and work-life balance. While we focus on sex and gender discrimination faced by women and girls in Mexico, our quest for reproductive justice recognises that these variables intersect with other forms of discrimination, such as class, age, disability and ethnicity. In addition, we recognise that the discrimination faced by women and others with reproductive capacity affects not only them, but also their communities, and particularly their families.

  What is the significance of the two recent Supreme Court rulings on reproductive rights?

  In the struggle for legal, safe and free abortion in Mexico, the National Supreme Court of Justice (SCJN) has played a fundamental role. Since 2007 it has issued several rulings recognising access to abortion as a human rights matter.

  In April 2018, the SCJN granted amparos – constitutional protection lawsuits – to two young female rape victims in cases that GIRE had brought forward. The two women had been denied abortions by public health services in Morelos and Oaxaca despite the fact that this is a right for victims of sexual violence. The Court stated that this denial constituted a violation of the women’s human rights and that health authorities are obliged to respond immediately and efficiently to these requests, so as not to allow the consequences of the rape to continue over time. This implies that health authorities cannot implement internal mechanisms or policies that hinder or delay the realisation of this right. With these rulings, the SCJN reaffirmed the legal obligation of health service providers to guarantee access to abortion in cases of rape.

  On 15 May 2019, in another case promoted by GIRE, the SCJN granted an amparo to a woman who had been denied an abortion despite the fact that continuing her pregnancy could cause her serious health complications. With this ruling, the SCJN recognised that the right to health includes access to abortion and ruled on the particular reproductive health service needs of women, highlighting the serious consequences of denial of termination of pregnancy for health reasons.

  On 7 July 2021, the First Chamber of the SCJN ruled on another case joined by GIRE, of a young woman with cerebral palsy and severe limitations on her ability to carry out tasks essential to daily life, which were aggravated by a precarious economic environment. As a result of a seizure, her family had taken her to a hospital in Chiapas, where they were informed that she was 23 weeks pregnant. The pregnancy had been the result of rape when she was 17 years old. A request was made to terminate the pregnancy, but the hospital director rejected the request on the grounds that the 90-day gestation deadline established by the state penal code had passed. The SCJN pointed out that this time limit ignored the nature of sexual aggression and its consequences on women’s health, and reflected a total disregard for the human dignity and autonomy of a woman whose pregnancy, far from the result of a free and consensual decision, was the result of an arbitrary and violent act.

  Finally, in September 2021, the Plenary of the SCJN analysed two pieces of legislation that had a negative impact on the right to choose by women and others with the capacity to become pregnant. First, it analysed an action of unconstitutionality (148/2017) on the criminal legislation of the state of Coahuila, which the Attorney General’s Office had considered to be in violation of women’s human rights for classifying abortion as a crime.

  In a landmark ruling, on 7 September the SCJN unanimously decided that the absolute criminalisation of abortion is unconstitutional; it became the first constitutional court in the region to issue such ruling. The SCJN pointed out that, although the product of pregnancy deserves protection that increases as the pregnancy progresses, this protection cannot disregard the rights of women and other pregnant persons to reproductive freedom, enshrined in article 4 of the Constitution. In other words, it ruled the absolute criminalisation of abortion to be unconstitutional.

  This ruling had several implications. Firstly, the Congress of the state of Coahuila will have to reform its criminal legislation to decriminalise consensual abortion. Secondly, it establishes a precedent, meaning that the central arguments of the ruling must now be applied by all judges in Mexico, both federal and local. From now on, when deciding future cases, they will have to consider as unconstitutional the criminal laws of all the federal entities that criminalise abortion in an absolute manner. In addition, the congresses of the states where voluntary abortion is still restricted and punished now have a set of criteria endorsed by the SCJN to act to decriminalise it.

  In the same week, the Court also analysed actions of unconstitutionality (106 and 107/2018) on the recognition of the ‘right to life from conception’ established in the Constitution of Sinaloa. These actions had been promoted by a legislative minority and the National Human Rights Commission. Unanimously, the SCJN considered that the states do not have the competence to define the origin of human life and the concepts of personhood and right-holding status, which is the exclusive domain of the National Constitution. Furthermore, it considered that personhood cannot be granted to an embryo or foetus and then be used as the basis for the adoption of measures restricting the reproductive autonomy of women and other pregnant persons; this is unconstitutional.

  Based on precedents set by both the Supreme Court and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the SCJN established that the main efforts of the state to protect life in gestation as a constitutionally valuable good should be directed towards effectively protecting the rights of women and other pregnant persons, guaranteeing the rights of those continuing pregnancies they desire, providing the necessary conditions for dignified births, without obstetric violence, and eradicating the causes that provoke maternal deaths.

  What are the prospects for achieving legal, safe and free abortion in all of Mexico in the near future?

  In Mexico as in the region, there have been several successes over the past decade in the struggle for access to legal, safe and free abortion, although many barriers and challenges persist.

  In our country strong stigma still prevails around abortion, based on the idea of motherhood as women’s inevitable fate. This idea continues to permeate all state institutions and laws, and forms the basis for not only the social but also the legal criminalisation of abortion, which particularly affects women and other pregnant persons living in situations of violence, economic marginalisation and lack of access to reproductive information. It also sends the strong message that the state plays a role in reproductive decisions that should belong to the private sphere.

  In most of Mexico, as in Latin America, voluntary abortion is still considered a crime. For decades, feminist activists, collectives and organisations have pushed for the repeal of these laws, pointing out that consensual abortion is part of the reproductive life of women and others with the capacity to bear children, and that criminalisation does not inhibit its practice but rather means that in certain contexts it will be carried out in an unsafe manner.

  From the 1970s onwards, Mexican feminists have raised the issue of access to abortion as a matter of social justice and public health and as a democratic aspiration. Despite the forcefulness of their arguments, it took 35 years to achieve – and only in Mexico City – the decriminalisation of abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy. That victory was replicated more than a decade later in three states: Oaxaca, Hidalgo and Veracruz.

  In the short term, achieving decriminalisation at the national level is complicated because each of the 32 federal entities has its own penal code, so it would still be necessary for each state to reform its penal and health legislation to stop considering abortion as a crime and then recognise it as a health service and provide public institutions with the human and financial resources to ensure access.

  In practice, in recent years both the narrative and the reality of abortion in Mexico have changed due to the increasing prevalence of abortion pills. A few decades ago, clandestine abortion – that is, abortion performed outside the law – was considered to be synonymous with unsafe abortion, but this is no longer the case. Now there are safe abortion support networks, and in contexts of legal restriction, during the first weeks of pregnancy women and others with the capacity to gestate are able to have an abortion with pills at home, without the need to resort to a health institution.

  The victory of the Argentinian women’s movement in December 2020 has shown that alliances, public debate and the diversification of voices are indispensable in the struggle to expand rights. The exponential increase in safe abortion initiatives is an expression of the achievements of the women’s movement’s struggle for human rights and reproductive justice. The Green Wave, the movement whose distinctive colour became synonymous with the struggle for abortion rights in Argentina, has spread in Mexico and although access to legal, safe and free abortion throughout the country is still a long way off, in recent years the issue has started to be discussed in various legislative bodies, even in states with highly restrictive legal frameworks.

  What kind of additional support would Mexican civil society need from its peers in the region and globally to achieve its goals?

  Social support for the causes we feminist human rights organisations defend is indispensable to obtain achievements such as the SCJN ruling of 7 September 2021. The dissemination of our work and the amplification of our voices is also extremely valuable. Local, national and regional networking to share experiences and good practices has also proven to be a tool from which we all benefit. Similarly, connections with other struggles through reflecting about their intersections can strengthen human rights movements.

  Civic space in Mexico is rated ‘repressed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
  Get in touch with GIRE through itswebsite orFacebook page, and follow@gire_mx on Twitter. 

• MEXICO: ‘Civil society is a retaining wall against government malpractice’

  CIVICUS speaks with Carlos G Guerrero Orozco, a Mexican lawyer and co-founder and president of Human Rights and Strategic Litigation-Mexico (DLM Mexico), about a recent victory of Mexican civil society in defence of civic space.

  DLM Mexico is a civil society organisation (CSO) that promotes human rights and the strengthening of the rule of law in Mexico by providing strategic litigation advice and promoting accountability.

  What constraints does civil society experience in Mexico, and how is it working to preserve civic space?

  Historically, Mexican civil society has been a retaining wall against government malpractice. For playing this role, which the authorities can find uncomfortable, it has been subjected to restrictions, particularly denial of legal recognition of organisations and their functions.

  The state has reacted to the work of civil society by limiting its ability to act as a monitor, watchdog and check on power. In the legal area, it has sought to limit its capacity to undertake legal processes and generate accountability. One way of doing this is by disregarding the legal standing that allows CSOs to initiate appeals for protection and other proceedings to protect rights.

  Under Mexican law, CSOs whose mission is to defend the human rights of groups such as children, Indigenous people, survivors of gender-based violence, victims of corruption or public mismanagement and people deprived of their liberty can claim legal standing by virtue of these groups’ special situation with the legal system.

  DLM Mexico provides advice to CSOs, collectives, citizen groups, citizen participation committees and human rights defenders involved in strategic litigation cases, providing them with tools to strengthen their capacities in court and overcome obstacles they may face in proving their legal standing in the case.

  Another way of constraining civil society is to target CSO authorities and hold them criminally liable for actions taken in the course of their work. This is what happened with a recent reform of the Mexico City Penal Code. The reformed code’s article 256 equated CSO leaders with public officials and specified that public servants – and therefore also CSO leaders – could be liable for corruption offences. By including CSO directors and managers in the definition of ‘public servants’, it extended to them the criminal liability public servants are under.

  A particular concern was about the broad and imprecise wording of the definition of the crime of corruption as the conduct of anyone who ‘performs or fails to perform what the law requires them to perform or refrains from performing what the law forbids, in order to obtain an undue advantage of any nature, including financial, for themselves or for a third party’. This undoubtedly opened the door to arbitrary treatment.

  The publication of the reformed Penal Code brought concern from various quarters, but particularly civil society, which issued a joint communiqué expressing its alarm.

  DLM Mexico filed a request with the Mexico City Human Rights Commission to exercise its power to challenge laws deemed unconstitutional. Days later, the Human Rights Commission filed an action of unconstitutionality before the Mexican Supreme Court.

  How was the case resolved, and what do you think its impact will be?

  This month the Supreme Court discussed and resolved the case, declaring article 256 unconstitutional and void.

  The Court established that, according to article 108 of the Constitution, it is not permissible to extend the definition of public servant to people who do not hold a position within the structure of the state. It also considered that the classification of CSO directors and managers as public officials was potentially prejudicial to their rights and freedoms because it created undue criminal consequences for private individuals. It clarified that the fact they receive public funds does not justify extending the penalties applicable to public servants to private individuals who manage CSOs.

  This decision safeguards the rights of CSO leaders and ensures they can continue their work without fear of unfair criminal repercussions.

  Although the case focused on Mexico City’s legislation, the ruling put a brake on other states’ intentions to include in their legislation sanctions against CSO staff for their activities, used to silence the voices of civil society. This is particularly relevant in a country where the judiciary is neither robust nor independent.

  The Court’s decision is testament to the power of civil society advocacy and the importance of protecting civic space. It is a reminder of our collective ability to challenge and overturn laws that threaten our democratic freedoms.

  What other issues are on civil society’s agenda when it comes to the rule of law and democratic freedoms?

  Unfortunately, under the current administration there have been several issues that both civil society and the private sector have had to address. The president and members of his party use aggressive discourse towards civil society that is openly restrictive of civic space and hostile to judicial independence and autonomous bodies. The government has restricted access to public information, de-emphasised the protection of personal data, undermined the National Anti-Corruption System and downplayed Mexico’s crisis of enforced disappearances at the hands of organised crime.

  DLM Mexico’s agenda has focused on strengthening the National Anti-Corruption System by addressing the problem of underreporting of corruption, calling for registration and transparency of beneficial ownership of companies and training officials to better investigate acts of corruption in civil and administrative matters.

  Civil society’s reaction to defend against institutional erosion and the deterioration of the separation of powers was recently seen on the streets when many people mobilised in Mexico City and other cities across the country in the ‘March for Democracy’. A few weeks before the start of the June presidential election campaign, people mobilised against the government’s attacks on the National Electoral Institute, in defence of the independence of the judiciary and autonomous bodies and against the president’s undue influence on the electoral competition and his polarising attitudes.

  Although there was no shortage of opposition politicians who tried to exploit it for political gain, the mobilisation was basically a defensive reaction by civil society to government abuses. Before marching, protesters presented a list of demands. However, far from providing any response, the government has hardened its positions even further.

  Fortunately, Mexico still has strong institutions, as well as strong private and social sectors that take an interest in public issues. This tempers the risks to our democracy regardless of which party’s candidate wins the presidential election.

  ---

  Civic space in Mexico is rated ‘repressed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with DLM Mexico through itswebsite and follow@DLM_Mx on Twitter and@dlmx on LinkedIn.

• MEXICO: ‘The Supreme Court’s ruling marks a before and after in the struggle for reproductive justice’

  CIVICUS speaks about the recent Supreme Court ruling decriminalising abortion in Mexico with Brenda Rodriguez, communications coordinator of Information Group on Reproductive Choice (GIRE, Grupo de Información en Reproducción Elegida).

  GIRE is a feminist and human rights organisation that has been working for almost 30 years so that women and other people with the capacity to bear children can exercise their reproductive rights.

  What is the current state of abortion rights in Mexico?

  In recent years, Mexico has made rapid progress in making abortion a guaranteed health service for all women and people with the capacity to bear children. Currently, 12 states have partly decriminalised voluntary abortion, but another 20 still consider it a crime.

  Even in states where abortion has been decriminalised access to the procedure for all women and pregnant people is not guaranteed. Barriers to access are a constant.

  So there is still a long way to go. Among the many pending issues is the need to stop considering abortion a crime and, instead, to include it in health and public policy regulations to ensure information is provided and guidelines are published guaranteeing comprehensive, safe and quality care.

  Why is the recent Supreme Court ruling important?

  The ruling issued by the Supreme Court on 6 September was a landmark achievement. This ruling decriminalised abortion at the federal level, forcing the Congress of the Union to repeal the articles of the Federal Penal Code that criminalise abortion. As a result, institutions that are part of the federal health system, such as the Mexican Institute of Social Security and the Institute of Security and Social Services for State Workers, will have to provide this service throughout Mexico to anyone requesting it.

  This will have a major impact because these institutions serve the majority of the Mexican population, and a trend long observed by GIRE is that these institutions deny service under the argument that abortion is a crime under the Federal Criminal Code, the legislation that applies to the health personnel serving in them.

  The Congress’s obligation to repeal the crime of abortion at the federal level will become effective once it receives formal notification from the Court, and must be implemented in the course of that same session.

  Do you see this court ruling as a victory of the Mexican women’s movement?

  The recent Court ruling marks a before and after in the struggle for reproductive justice, and it would not have been possible without the tireless commitment of feminist movements at local, national, regional and global levels, of which GIRE is a part.

  The cultural change driven by the feminist movement throughout the Latin American region has been key to advances in pro-choice regulation and social decriminalisation and access to abortion as a health service.

  GIRE has worked for the right to choose for over 30 years, during which time it has worked hand in hand with decision-makers, the media, public opinion and many organisations and collectives. The road travelled has resulted in a strong network on all fronts that has socially decriminalised abortion on the basis of the recognition of reproductive autonomy as a right.

  Our work has been comprehensive. We have produced reports on the state of abortion rights in Mexico and made specific recommendations to ensure that access is guaranteed as a health service. We have carried out public policy advocacy and supported cases challenging human rights violations caused by the denial of the right to abortion. Our communications work has also been key, helping us place the issue of abortion on the public agenda, contributing to its social decriminalisation.

  The strategy to repeal the crime of abortion at the federal level kicked off two years ago. In September 2021, in response to an action of unconstitutionality against the penal code of the state of Coahuila, the Federal Supreme Court unanimously declared that the absolute criminalisation of consensual abortion is unconstitutional. In September 2022, based on this precedent and as part of a legal strategy to eliminate the crime of self-procured and consensual abortion from all criminal codes, GIRE filed an appeal for legal protection against the Federal Congress and executive for having issued a regulation that criminalised consensual abortion.

  It was in response to this amparo appeal – a writ for protection of rights – that the Court reiterated that the absolute criminalisation of abortion violates the human rights of women and pregnant people.

  Have you experienced an anti-rights reaction?

  There are conservative reactions and resistances all the time, but unlike what used to happen until a few years ago, these are no longer so up-front. The most important barrier we face today is the absence of service guarantees, as in some states where voluntary abortion has been partly decriminalised those who would have to provide it continue to put up obstacles. Conservative resistance is even more intense in the 20 state congresses that have yet not reformed their penal codes, but we are confident this will change.

  Although there are never guarantees that backsliding won’t occur, we currently have the advantage of a very pro-choice public opinion.

  What measures need to be taken to ensure effective access to abortion throughout Mexico?

  From a human rights perspective, it is necessary to guarantee access to quality health services, including abortion procedures. For this to become a reality, abortion should no longer be included in criminal codes and should instead only be subject to health and public policy regulations that ensure that information is provided and guidelines published that ensure comprehensive, safe and quality care. GIRE will continue to work to ensure that the crime of abortion disappears from all of Mexico’s state penal codes and access to the service is guaranteed in practice for all people throughout Mexico.

  Is the Mexican process part of a broader regional trend?

  The green tide that rose in Argentina in 2018 permeated the entire region with a force never seen before. Latin American streets have been filled with green scarves – a symbol of autonomy and freedom – and pro-choice slogans. GIRE is a prominent member of this Latin American movement, establishing alliances, creating strategies and new narratives, and sharing knowledge with organisations working throughout the region to make abortion rights a reality.

  This inspiration will continue to guide us. Our movement is unstoppable. In Mexico, the green tide and its libertarian impulse is materialising in the demand, put forward in coordination with other groups and movements, for reproductive rights to cease to be considered an issue that only concerns women and child-bearing people and to be incorporated into the political agenda as a key element of equality.

  ---

  Civic space in Mexico is rated ‘repressed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with GIRE through itswebsite orFacebook page, and follow@gire_mx on Twitter.

• MEXICO: ‘When climate activism threatens powerful interests, it is labelled on the same level as terrorists and drug traffickers’

  CIVICUS speaks about the role of civil society and its expectations for the upcoming COP28 climate summit with María Reyes, a young human rights and environmental activist from the Mexican state of Puebla.

  María is part of the Indigenous Figures (Futuros Indígenas) collective, made up of peoples, including young people, from Mexico and Central America. She participates in the global south division of Fridays for Future (FFF), an organisation that fights for environmental justice and advocates for action in the face of the climate emergency.

  What are Mexico’s main environmental problems?

  Generally speaking, Mexico is very vulnerable to the climate crisis. Water scarcity is a central issue, partly caused by droughts, but also by infrastructure problems, as many people do not have access to piped drinking water, and by very poor distribution and overexploitation of aquifers by private companies. If we add to the existing drought the fact that in many communities there are companies that obtain concessions through non-legal and non-transparent means and appropriate the little water that is left, the situation for people becomes unbearable.

  Mexico is one of the most dangerous countries to be an activist and environmental defender. In the southeast of Mexico there is a series of transnational extractive megaprojects, such as the Interoceanic Corridor and the ‘Mayan Train’, which threaten the environment through logging and water extraction, and displace wildlife, expropriate territories and resources, harm people and commit human rights violations. Local communities, particularly Indigenous communities, are criminalised when they oppose these megaprojects that are imposed on their territories without any consultation and without their consent or through the staging of rigged consultations.

• MÉXICO: “Cuando el activismo climático amenaza intereses poderosos, es catalogado al mismo nivel que el terrorismo y el narcotráfico”

  CIVICUS conversa acerca del rol de la sociedad civil y sus expectativas frente a la próxima cumbre climática COP28 con María Reyes, una joven activista por los derechos humanos y ambientales del estado mexicano de Puebla.

  María es parte del colectivo Futuros Indígenas conformado por pueblos y juventudes de México y Centroamérica. Participa en la división Sur Global de Fridays for Future (FFF), una organización que lucha por la justicia ambiental y aboga por acción frente a la emergencia climática.

  ¿Cuáles son los principales problemas ambientales de México?

  En términos generales, México es muy vulnerable ante la crisis climática. Un tema central es la escasez de agua, en parte causada por sequías, pero también por problemas de infraestructura, ya que muchas personas no tienen acceso a tuberías de agua potable, y por una muy mala distribución y sobreexplotación de mantos acuíferos por parte de empresas. Si a la sequía existente le sumamos el hecho de que en muchas comunidades hay compañías que consiguen concesiones por medios no legales ni transparentes y se apropian de la poca agua que queda, la situación para la gente se vuelve insoportable.

  México es uno de los países más peligrosos para ser activista y defensor ambiental. En el sureste de México hay una red de megaproyectos extractivos transnacionales, como el Corredor Interoceánico y el “Tren Maya”, que además de amenazar al medio ambiente por la tala de árboles y la extracción de agua, desplazan fauna, expropian territorios yrecursos, dañan a los pueblos y cometen violaciones de derechos humanos. Cuando las comunidades locales, y sobre todo las comunidades de pueblos originarios, se oponen a estos megaproyectos que son impuestos en sus territorios, sin ninguna consulta y sin su consentimiento (o con consultas amañadas), resultan criminalizadas.

• MÉXICO: “El debate público y la diversificación de voces son indispensables para ampliar derechos”

  CIVICUS conversa con Verónica Esparza y Rebeca Lorea, respectivamente abogada investigadora y coordinadora de Incidencia en Política Pública del Grupo de Información en Reproducción Elegida (GIRE), acerca de la significación de los recientes fallos de la Corte Suprema de Justicia en relación con el derecho al aborto y de la situación de los derechos sexuales y reproductivos en México. GIRE es una organización feminista y de derechos humanos que lleva casi 30 años trabajando para que las mujeres y otras personas con capacidad de gestar puedan ejercer sus derechos reproductivos.

  

  De izquierda a derecha: Verónica Esparza y Rebeca Lorea

  ¿Cuál es la situación de los derechos sexuales y reproductivos en México?
  

  Actualmente las mujeres y otras personas con capacidad de gestar no encuentran México condiciones óptimas para decidir sobre su vida reproductiva: hay un elevado número de niñas y adolescentes embarazadas, afectadas por un contexto grave de violencia sexual que el Estado sigue fallando en remediar; obstáculos de acceso a servicios como anticoncepción de emergencia y aborto por violación; criminalización de las mujeres y personas gestantes que abortan; violencia obstétrica cotidiana durante el embarazo, parto y posparto y mujeres que mueren en el parto por causas prevenibles.

  A las fallas estructurales del sistema de salud se suma el hecho de que la mayoría de las personas en México está empleada en el sector informal, lo que limita su acceso a la seguridad social y, por tanto, a ciertas prestaciones, como licencias por maternidad y estancias infantiles. Las mujeres, que siguen asumiendo un papel principal en las labores del hogar y de cuidados, cargan con esta falta de acceso a servicios, que afecta de manera particular a quienes viven condiciones múltiples de discriminación, como las niñas y adolescentes, las mujeres indígenas y las personas con discapacidad.

  ¿De qué modo entiende GIRE la justicia reproductiva, y qué trabajo realiza para impulsarla?

  GIRE entiende a la justicia reproductiva como el conjunto de factores sociales, políticos y económicos que confieren a las mujeres y a otras personas con capacidad de gestar poder y autodeterminación sobre su destino reproductivo. Para alcanzarla es indispensable que el Estado garantice los derechos humanos de estas personas tomando en cuenta la discriminación y las desigualdades estructurales que afectan su salud, sus derechos y el control de su vida, y genere las condiciones óptimas para la toma de decisiones autónomas.

  Ya no alcanza con entender a los derechos reproductivos en términos de libertades individuales definidas jurídicamente, haciendo caso omiso de las barreras que limitan el acceso efectivo de ciertas poblaciones a estos derechos. El de la justicia reproductiva es un marco analítico más inclusivo porque vincula los derechos reproductivos con las desigualdades sociales, políticas y económicas que afectan la capacidad de las personas para acceder a servicios de salud reproductiva y ejercer efectivamente sus derechos reproductivos.

  GIRE ha trabajado por casi 30 años en la defensa y promoción de la justicia reproductiva en México, visibilizando los obstáculos normativos y estructurales que enfrentan mujeres y personas con capacidad de gestar en el ejercicio pleno de sus derechos humanos e impulsando el cambio a través de una estrategia integral que comprende el acompañamiento legal, estrategias de comunicación, la exigencia de una reparación integral por violaciones a derechos reproductivos que incluya medidas de no repetición, tanto a nivel federal como local, y la recopilación de datos que sustentan nuestra labor. 

  Nuestros temas prioritarios son la anticoncepción, el aborto, la violencia obstétrica, la muerte materna, la reproducción asistida, y el equilibrio entre la vida laboral y personal. Si bien ponemos el foco en la discriminación por sexo y/o género que sufren mujeres y niñas en México, nuestra búsqueda por la justicia reproductiva reconoce que estas variables se cruzan con otras formas de discriminación, por ejemplo por clase social, edad, discapacidad y etnia. Además, reconocemos que la discriminación que enfrentan las mujeres y personas con capacidad de gestar no las afecta solamente a ellas, sino también a sus comunidades, y particularmente a sus familias.

  ¿Qué significación tienen los dos recientes fallos de la Corte Suprema en materia de derechos reproductivos?

  En la lucha por el aborto legal, seguro y gratuito en México, la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación (SCJN) ha tenido un rol fundamental, ya que desde 2007 ha emitido varias sentencias que reconocen el acceso al aborto como un asunto de derechos humanos.

  En abril de 2018, la SCJN otorgó sendos amparos a dos jóvenes víctimas de violación sexual cuyos casos acompañó GIRE. Los servicios públicos de salud de Morelos y Oaxaca les habían negado un aborto pese a que es un derecho que tienen las víctimas de violencia sexual. La Corte afirmó que esa negativa constituyó una violación de sus derechos humanos y que las autoridades de salud están obligadas a atender de manera inmediata y eficiente estas solicitudes, a fin de no permitir que las consecuencias derivadas de la violación continúen en el tiempo. Esto implica que las autoridades de salud no pueden implementar mecanismos ni políticas internas que obstaculicen o retrasen la materialización de este derecho. Con estas resoluciones, la SCJN reafirmó la obligación legal de los prestadores de servicios de salud de garantizar el acceso al aborto en casos de violación sexual.

  El 15 de mayo de 2019, en otro caso acompañado por GIRE, la SCJN otorgó un amparo una mujer a quien se le había negado el acceso a la interrupción del embarazo a pesar de que éste le podía causar complicaciones serias de salud. Con esta resolución, la SCJN reconoció que el derecho a la salud incluye el acceso al aborto y se pronunció sobre las necesidades particulares de servicios de salud reproductiva para las mujeres, resaltando las graves consecuencias de la negación de la interrupción del embarazo por razones de salud.

  El 7 de julio de 2021, la Primera Sala de la SCJN resolvió otro caso acompañado por GIRE, el de una joven con parálisis cerebral y fuertes limitaciones para realizar actividades esenciales de la vida diaria, agravadas por un precario entorno económico. A consecuencia de una crisis convulsiva, su familia la llevó a un hospital en Chiapas, donde se les informó que estaba embarazada y tenía 23 semanas de gestación. El embarazo había sido producto de una violación sexual cuando ella tenía 17 años. Se solicitó la interrupción del embarazo, pero el director del hospital rechazó la solicitud porque habían pasado los 90 días de gestación que establecía como límite el código penal del estado. La SCJN señaló que esta limitación temporal desconocía la naturaleza de las agresiones sexuales y sus consecuencias sobre la salud de las mujeres, y suponía un total desconocimiento de la dignidad humana y la autonomía de la mujer cuyo embarazo, lejos de resultar de una decisión libre y consentida, es el resultado de conductas arbitrarias y violentas.

  Finalmente, en septiembre de 2021 el Pleno de la SCJN analizó dos legislaciones que impactaban negativamente sobre el derecho a decidir de las mujeres y las personas con capacidad de gestar. Primero analizó la acción de inconstitucionalidad 148/2017 sobre la legislación penal del estado de Coahuila, que la Procuraduría General de la República había considerado violatoria de los derechos humanos de las mujeres por catalogar al aborto como delito.

  El 7 de septiembre, en un fallo histórico, resolvió por unanimidad que la criminalización absoluta del aborto es inconstitucional, convirtiéndose en la primera Corte Constitucional de la región en emitir una sentencia de este tipo. La SCJN puntualizó que, si bien el producto de la gestación merece una protección que se incrementa a medida que avanza el embarazo, esa protección no puede desconocer los derechos de las mujeres y personas gestantes a la libertad reproductiva, consagrado en el artículo 4° de la Constitución. En otras palabras, determinó que la criminalización absoluta del aborto es inconstitucional.

  Las implicaciones de este fallo son varias. Por un lado, el Congreso del estado de Coahuila deberá reformar su legislación penal para despenalizar el aborto consentido. Además, genera un precedente, es decir, los argumentos centrales del fallo tienen que ser aplicados por la totalidad de las y los jueces de México, tanto federales como locales. A partir de ahora, al resolver casos futuros, deberán considerar que son inconstitucionales las normas penales de todas las entidades federativas que criminalicen el aborto de manera absoluta. Además, los congresos de los estados donde aún se restringe y castiga el aborto voluntario cuentan con criterios avalados por la SCJN para despenalizarlo.

  En la misma semana, la Corte analizó las acciones de inconstitucionalidad 106 y 107/2018 sobre el reconocimiento del “derecho a la vida desde la concepción” establecido en la Constitución de Sinaloa, promovidas por una minoría legislativa y la Comisión Nacional de los Derechos Humanos. Por unanimidad, la SCJN consideró que los estados no tienen competencia para definir el origen de la vida humana, el concepto de persona y la titularidad de los derechos humanos, pues ello corresponde en exclusiva a la Constitución General. Además, consideró que no se le puede dar el estatus de persona al embrión o feto y pretender, con base en esto, adoptar medidas restrictivas a la autonomía reproductiva de las mujeres y las personas gestantes; esto es inconstitucional.

  Con base en precedentes tanto de la Suprema Corte como de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, la SCJN estableció que los principales esfuerzos del Estado para proteger la vida en gestación —como bien constitucionalmente valioso— deberán encaminarse a proteger efectivamente los derechos de las mujeres y de las personas gestantes, garantizando los derechos de las mujeres con embarazos deseados, proveyendo las condiciones necesarias para partos dignos, sin violencia obstétrica y erradicando las causas que provocan muertes maternas.

  ¿Cuáles son las perspectivas de conseguir el aborto legal, seguro y gratuito en todo el territorio mexicano en el futuro cercano?

  En México y en la región se han producido en la última década varios éxitos en la lucha por el acceso al aborto legal, seguro y gratuito, aunque persisten numerosas barreras y desafíos.

  En nuestro país persiste un fuerte estigma en torno al aborto, basado en la idea de que la maternidad es el destino obligado de las mujeres. Esta idea continúa permeando a todas las instituciones del Estado y sus leyes, y constituye la base para la criminalización no solo social sino también legal del aborto, que afecta particularmente a mujeres y otras personas gestantes procedentes de contextos de violencia, marginación económica y falta de acceso a información reproductiva. Además, envía el fuerte mensaje de que el Estado desempeña un rol en decisiones reproductivas que deberían pertenecer a la esfera privada.

  En la mayor parte de México, al igual que en América Latina, el aborto voluntario aún es considerado un delito. Desde hace décadas activistas, colectivos y organizaciones feministas hemos impulsado la derogación de esas leyes, señalando que el aborto consentido forma parte de la vida reproductiva de las mujeres y personas con capacidad de gestar, y que la criminalización no inhibe su práctica sino que implica que en ciertos contextos se realice de forma insegura. 

  A partir de la década de 1970, las feministas mexicanas plantearon el acceso al aborto como un asunto de justicia social y de salud pública y como una aspiración democrática. A pesar de la contundencia de sus argumentos, tuvieron que pasar 35 años para que se lograra —apenas en la Ciudad de México— la despenalización del aborto durante el primer trimestre. Esa victoria se replicó más de una década después en tres estados: Oaxaca, Hidalgo y Veracruz.

  En el corto plazo, la despenalización en todo el territorio nacional se presenta complicada porque cada una de las 32 entidades federativas tiene su propio código penal, por lo que aún sería necesario que cada entidad federativa reforme su legislación penal y de salud para, por una parte, dejar de considerar al aborto como delito y, por la otra, reconocerlo como un servicio de salud y dotar a las instituciones públicas de recursos humanos y financieros para garantizar el acceso.

  En la práctica, en los últimos años tanto la narrativa como la realidad del aborto en México han cambiado debido a la importancia que ha cobrado el aborto con medicamentos. Hace algunas décadas el aborto clandestino —es decir, realizado al margen de la ley— era considerado sinónimo de aborto inseguro, pero esto ya no es así. Ahora existen redes de acompañamiento de aborto seguro, y en contextos de restricción legal, en las primeras semanas de gestación las mujeres y personas con capacidad de gestar pueden abortar con medicamentos en sus casas, sin acudir a una institución de salud.

  La victoria del movimiento de mujeres argentino en diciembre de 2020 ha demostrado que las alianzas, el debate público y la diversificación de voces son indispensables para avanzar en la lucha por la ampliación de derechos. El aumento exponencial de iniciativas relacionadas con el aborto seguro es una expresión de los logros que ha tenido el movimiento de mujeres en la lucha por los derechos humanos y la justicia reproductiva. La Marea Verde, el movimiento cuyo color distintivo se volvió sinónimo de la lucha por el derecho al aborto en Argentina, se ha extendido en México y aunque todavía falta para lograr el acceso al aborto legal, seguro y gratuito en todo el país, lo cierto es que en los últimos años el tema fue discutido en diversos recintos legislativos, incluso en entidades con marcos legales sumamente restrictivos.

  ¿Qué clase de apoyos adicionales necesitaría la sociedad civil mexicana de sus pares de la región y del mundo para lograr sus objetivos?

  El respaldo social a las causas que defendemos las organizaciones feministas de derechos humanos es indispensable para obtener logros como la sentencia de la SCJN del 7 de septiembre de 2021. También es sumamente valiosa la difusión de nuestro trabajo y nuestras voces. La articulación local, nacional y regional para compartir experiencias y buenas prácticas también ha demostrado ser una herramienta de la cual todas nos beneficiamos las involucradas. De igual forma, la articulación con otras luchas a partir de la reflexión sobre sus intersecciones puede fortalecer a los movimientos de derechos humanos.

  El espacio cívico en México es calificado como “represivo” por elCIVICUS Monitor.
  Póngase en contacto con GIRE a través de susitio web o su página deFacebook, y siga a@gire_mx en Twitter.

   

• MÉXICO: “La sentencia de la Corte Suprema marca un antes y un después en la lucha por la justicia reproductiva”

  
  CIVICUS conversa acerca del reciente fallo de la Corte Suprema que descriminalizó el aborto en México con Brenda Rodríguez, coordinadora de comunicación del Grupo de Información en Reproducción Elegida (GIRE).

  GIRE es una organización feminista y de derechos humanos que lleva casi 30 años trabajando para que las mujeres y otras personas con capacidad de gestar puedan ejercer sus derechos reproductivos.

  ¿Cuál es la situación actual del derecho al aborto en México?

  En los últimos años, en México se ha avanzado vertiginosamente para que el aborto se convierta en un servicio de salud garantizado para todas las mujeres y personas con capacidad de gestar. Actualmente, 12 entidades federativas han despenalizado parcialmente el aborto voluntario, pero otras 20 todavía lo consideran un delito.

  Sin embargo, en los estados donde el aborto se ha despenalizado, el acceso al procedimiento para todas las mujeres y personas gestantes no está garantizado; por el contrario, las barreras de acceso son una constante.

  De modo que todavía hay un largo trecho por recorrer. Entre los muchos pendientes es necesario que el aborto deje de ser considerado un delito y que, en cambio, se lo incluya en las regulaciones sanitarias y de política pública, de modo que se asegure el suministro de información sobre el tema y se publiquen los lineamientos que garanticen su atención integral, segura y de calidad.

• MÉXICO: “La sociedad civil es un muro de contención de las malas prácticas de los gobiernos”

  CIVICUS conversa con Carlos G. Guerrero Orozco, abogado mexicano y cofundador y presidente de Derechos Humanos y Litigio Estratégico Mexicano (DLM México), acerca de una reciente victoria de la sociedad civil mexicana en defensa del espacio cívico.

  DLM México es una organización de la sociedad civil (OSC) que promueve los derechos humanos y el fortalecimiento del Estado de derecho en México mediante la provisión de asesoramiento en casos de litigio estratégico y la promoción de la rendición de cuentas.

  ¿Qué restricciones experimenta la sociedad civil en México, y cómo trabaja para preservar el espacio cívico?

  Históricamente la sociedad civil mexicana ha sido un muro de contención de las malas prácticas de los gobiernos. Por desempeñar este rol, que puede resultar incómodo para las autoridades, se ha hecho acreedora de restricciones, particularmente relativas a la denegación de reconocimiento legal de las organizaciones y de sus funciones.

  El Estado ha reaccionado frente a la labor de la sociedad civil limitando su capacidad para actuar en su rol de monitor, contralor y contrapeso. En el terreno legal, ha buscado acotar su capacidad para emprender procesos legales y generar rendición de cuentas. Una forma de hacerlo ha sido mediante el desconocimiento del “interés legítimo” que permite a las OSC iniciar juicios de amparo y otros procedimientos, para proteger derechos.

  En la legislación mexicana, las OSC que establecen en su razón social la defensa de los derechos humanos de ciertos grupos como los niños y niñas, las comunidades indígenas, las víctimas de violencia de género, las víctimas de la corrupción o de una mala administración pública, o las personas privadas de su libertad pueden acreditar interés legítimo por afectación en virtud de su especial situación frente a un ordenamiento jurídico.

  DLM México justamente provee asesoramiento a organizaciones civiles, colectivos, grupos de ciudadanos, comités de participación ciudadana y personas defensoras de derechos humanos involucradas en casos de litigio estratégico para dotarles de herramientas que les permitan fortalecer sus capacidades en juicio y superar todo obstáculo que se les presente en relación con la demostración de su interés legítimo en el caso.

  Otra forma de restringir a la sociedad civil es poner a las autoridades de las OSC bajo la mira y considerarlas penalmente responsables por acciones realizadas en el marco de su trabajo. Esto fue lo que ocurrió con una reciente reforma del Código Penal de la Ciudad de México, cuyo artículo 256 equiparó a los directores de OSC con funcionarios públicos e incluso especificó que los servidores públicos – y por lo tanto también los directores de OSC – podrían ser responsables de delitos de corrupción. Al incluir a directores y administradores de OSC en la definición de “servidores públicos”, les extendió la responsabilidad penal propia de los servidores públicos.

  En particular resultaba preocupante la redacción amplia e imprecisa de la definición del delito de corrupción como la conducta de quien “realice o deje de llevar a cabo lo que la ley le impone cumplir o se abstenga de realizar lo que le prohíbe, para obtener un beneficio indebido de cualquier naturaleza, inclusive económica, para sí o en favor de un tercero”. Eso sin duda abría las puertas a la arbitrariedad.

  La publicación de la reforma al Código Penal generó molestia en diversos sectores, y en particular en la sociedad civil, que emitió un comunicado conjunto expresando su preocupación.

  DLM México presentó una solicitud ante la Comisión de Derechos Humanos de la Ciudad de México para que ejerciera su facultad de impugnar leyes que se consideren inconstitucionales. Días después la Comisión de Derechos Humanos presentó una acción de inconstitucionalidad ante la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación.

  ¿Cómo se resolvió el caso, y cuáles piensas que serán sus impactos?

  Este mes la Suprema Corte invalidó el artículo 256 por considerarlo inconstitucional.

  La Corte estableció que, de acuerdo con el artículo 108 de la Constitución, no es permisible ampliar la definición de servidor público a personas que no desempeñen un cargo dentro de la estructura del Estado. Asimismo, consideró que la clasificación de los directores y administradores de OSC como funcionarios públicos era potencialmente perjudicial para sus derechos y libertades por generar consecuencias penales indebidas para personas particulares. Aclaró que el hecho de que reciban fondos públicos no justifica la extensión de las penas aplicables a los servidores públicos a particulares que administran OSC.

  Esta decisión salvaguarda los derechos de los directivos de OSC y garantiza que puedan continuar su labor sin temor a repercusiones penales injustas.

  Aunque el caso se enfocó en la legislación de la ciudad de México, el fallo pone freno a las intenciones que pudieran tener otras entidades federativas de incluir en su legislación sanciones en contra de directores y funcionarios de OSC por las actividades que llevan a cabo, utilizadas para acallar las voces de la sociedad civil. Esto es particularmente relevante en un país en el que la procuración de justicia no es sólida ni independiente.

  La decisión de la Corte es testimonio del poder de la incidencia de la sociedad civil y de la importancia de proteger el espacio cívico. Es un recordatorio de nuestra capacidad colectiva para desafiar y anular las leyes que amenazan nuestras libertades democráticas.

  ¿Qué otros temas relativos al Estado de derecho y las libertades democráticas ocupan la agenda de la sociedad civil?

  Desafortunadamente en esta administración ha habido varios frentes que tanto la sociedad civil como el sector privado han tenido que atender. El presidente y los militantes de su partido han tenido un discurso agresivo hacia la sociedad civil, abiertamente restrictivo del espacio cívico, hostil a la independencia judicial y los órganos autónomos. El gobierno ha restringido el acceso a la información pública, le ha restado importancia a la protección de datos personales, ha socavado el Sistema Nacional Anticorrupción y ha minimizado la crisis que atraviesa México en relación con el tema de las desapariciones forzadas a manos del crimen organizado.

  La agenda de DLM México se ha enfocado en fortalecer el Sistema Nacional Anticorrupción atendiendo la problemática de la falta de denuncia de actos de corrupción, reclamando registro y transparencia en materia de beneficiarios finales de las empresas, y capacitando a funcionarios y funcionarias para ponerlos en mejores condiciones de investigar actos de corrupción en temas civiles y administrativos.

  La reacción defensiva de la sociedad civil ante la erosión institucional y el deterioro de la división de poderes se observó recientemente en las calles, cuando mucha gente se movilizó en la Ciudad de México y en otras ciudades del país en la llamada “Marcha por la Democracia”. A pocas semanas del comienzo de la campaña para las elecciones presidenciales de junio, la ciudadanía se movilizó contra los ataques del gobierno contra el Instituto Nacional Electoral, en defensa de la independencia del Poder Judicial y de los órganos autónomos, y contra la incidencia indebida del presidente en la competencia electoral y sus actitudes polarizantes.

  Si bien no faltaron actores políticos de oposición que intentaron sacar réditos políticos de la movilización, se trató básicamente de una reacción defensiva de la sociedad civil frente a los abusos gubernamentales. Antes de marchar, los manifestantes presentaron un decálogo de peticiones concretas. Sin embargo, lejos de dar alguna respuesta, el gobierno no ha hecho otra cosa que radicalizar todavía más sus posiciones.

  Afortunadamente todavía quedan instituciones sólidas en el país, así como actores privados y sociales fuertes e interesados en temas públicos. Ello atempera los riesgos que corre nuestra democracia más allá de cuál sea el partido político cuyo candidato o candidata gane las elecciones presidenciales.

  ---

  El espacio cívico en México es calificado como “represivo” por elCIVICUS Monitor.

  Póngase en contacto con DLM México a través de susitio web y siga a@DLM_Mx en Twitter y a@dlmx en LinkedIn.

• PANAMA: ‘Protests reflect structural inequalities and frustration at blatant corruption’

  CIVICUS speaks about recent protests in Panama with Eileen Ng Fábrega, Executive Director of the Panamanian Chamber of Social Development (CAPADESO). CAPADESO is a network of civil society organisations (CSOs) that promote social development in Panama. Its main aim is to highlight the contributions of civil society, strengthen civil society and foster alliances to influence public policies.

• PANAMÁ: “Las protestas reflejan las desigualdades estructurales y la frustración ante la evidente corrupción”

  CIVICUS conversa sobre las recientes protestas en Panamá conEileen Ng Fábrega, Directora Ejecutiva de la Cámara Panameña de Desarrollo Social (CAPADESO). CAPADESO es una red de organizaciones de la sociedad civil (OSC) que promueven el desarrollo social en Panamá. Su objetivo es evidenciar los aportes de la sociedad civil, fortalecer a la sociedad civil y fomentar las alianzas para incidir en las políticas públicas.

• Shock and sadness spurs anti-Trump protestors

  Ahead of the inauguration of Donald Trump as president of the United States of America, activists and civil society are mobilising protests against the new establishment. CIVICUS speaks to Nicole Barner, an activist who works on economic justice and is based in Washington D.C. Barner will take part in some of the inauguration day protests.

• ST VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES: ‘We advocate for the repeal of anti-gay laws as a matter of human dignity’

  CIVICUS speaks about struggles for LGBTQI+ rights and a recent legal setback in St Vincent and the Grenadines (SVG) with Jeshua Bardoo, founder and Executive Officer of Equal Rights, Access and Opportunities SVG (ERAO SVG).

  ERAO SVG is an intersectional human rights civil society organisation (CSO) that promotes equality and non-discrimination in SVG. It conducts research and monitors human rights and social justice issues affecting women, children, LGBTQI+ people and people with disabilities. It carries out public awareness campaigns, advocates with local and national authorities, as well as in regional and international rights forums, convenes like-minded organisations, organises consultations and provides training on human rights issues affecting its target populations.

  How do LGBTQI+ organisations in SVG, including ERAO SVG, defend and promote the rights of LGBTQI+ people?

  Human rights advocacy, particularly for LGBTQI+ rights, has limited visibility in SVG. There are few organisations working for LGBTQI+ rights, and ERAO SVG is among the main ones. Other groups, such as VincyChap and Care SVG, work on HIV/AIDS and contribute indirectly to supporting LGBTQI+ people. Notably, VincyChap participates as an interested party in consolidated court cases challenging anti-LGBTQI+ laws. ERAO SVG, while not involved at the inception, now supports the case.

  Focusing on education and awareness, ERAO SVG conducts in-person and online events to sensitise people on queer rights and focuses on tackling stigma. Last year we organised historic Pride celebrations alongside the Resident British Commissioner’s Office. Events included a Pride SVG reception, workshop, panel discussion and a social media campaign.

  Despite the challenges and risks, our efforts seek visibility for LGBTQI+ people in SVG. Collaborations with local, regional and international organisations enhance our impact. As part of our commitment to bringing about change, we worked with Human Rights Watch to produce a report that highlights the community’s challenges and issues a series of recommendations.

  Have you experienced backlash?

  I have faced significant backlash in my activism for LGBTQI+ rights, both online and offline. Negative reactions, to the point to trigger depression, intensified in 2019 after I published an article, ‘Do black LGBTQ+ Vincentian lives matter?’. Despite the discouragement, I went back to writing and advocating for human rights and queer rights.

  Public events, especially Pride celebrations, always trigger backlash, particularly from members of the Thusian Seventh Day Adventists, a Christian group, who continuously publicly call me out on social media. Also, someone on the radio called for my arrest following the recent court ruling that upheld anti-LGBTQI+ laws in SVG.

  Social media posts warning LGBTQI+ visitors about the risks they would face in SVG helped us get some attention but also attracted criticism. Despite the online hostility, to date I have faced no actual physical harm, although the threats I received right after the court ruling made me fear I would. To protect my mental wellbeing, I now try to avoid reading negative comments I receive on social media.

  The backlash and how busy I became after the recent ruling took a toll on me mentally, making me physically exhausted. I plan to take a break to recover but I remain committed to my advocacy. My experiences growing up as a queer person in a hostile environment, including discrimination in school and religious settings, have shaped my resilience. I now choose a religion that predicates love, distancing myself from past religious affiliations.

  How much of a setback is the recent legal court ruling that upheld anti-LGBTQI+ laws in SVG?

  It was very disappointing. In 2019, two gay Vincentians, Javin Johnson and Sean MacLeish, challenged SVG’s so-called anti- LGBTQI+ laws, sections 146 and 148 of the Criminal Code. Both petitioners live abroad. Johnson sought asylum in the UK while MacLeish lives in the USA. Their petition argued that their constitutional rights were being violated, including the rights to privacy, personal liberty and protection from discrimination. They claimed they had left SVG due to the severity of its anti-LGBTQI+ legislation, which made it impossible for them to live in the country as gay men.

  CSOs such as VincyChap in SVG supported the case, while the UK-based organisation Human Dignity Trust played a role in the background.

  However, on 16 February 2024 the court questioned the claimants’ standing and ruled that none of their rights had been violated. It deemed the LGBTQI+ laws justifiable, citing public health concerns related to HIV and morality. As it dismissed their claims, the court didn’t offer any remedy and ordered each claimant to pay EC$7,500 (approx. US$2,800) to the state in legal costs.

  There are still other legal cases in the region awaiting decisions, and despite setbacks, civil society activists and organisations remain committed to challenging discriminatory laws.

  What are the next steps following this disappointment?

  After studying the ruling and the justifications it offers, the lawyers and claimants in the case will decide whether to appeal. They need to weigh whether loopholes or weaknesses in the ruling provide grounds for a potentially successful appeal. Personally, having followed the virtual court proceedings, I find many of its statements absurd and believe the case should be appealed or otherwise new cases should be filed.

  We are disappointed that Prime Minister Ralph Gonsalves has failed to address the issue, which I think reflects state-sanctioned homophobia. Despite past condemnations of violence against LGBTQI+ people, there has been no practical action. It is disheartening to see politicians so focused on keeping the support of Christian voters who are allegedly in the majority. It is worth noting that churches were deeply involved in the judicial case. The judge’s open expression of religious sentiments and allegiances in court raised serious doubts about her impartiality.

  Governments should prioritise people’s wellbeing, and in the case of LGBTQI+ people, this requires at the very least repealing criminalising provisions. The state should also enact comprehensive legislation protecting people from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity and expression. There is nothing like this in SVG, so there is a lot of work to be done. As a first step, ERAO SVG will continue to advocate for the repeal of discriminatory laws as a matter of human dignity.

  ---

  Civic space in St Vincent and the Grenadines is rated ‘open’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with ERAO SVG through itswebsite orFacebook page, and follow@eraosvg on Instagram.

• TURKS AND CAICOS ISLANDS: ‘Advancing LGBTQI+ rights requires advocacy, awareness-raising and a concerted effort to foster a culture of inclusion’

  

  CIVICUS speaks with Tim Prudhoe, a lawyer with Stanbrook Prudhoe, about a legal challenge brought against discriminatory legislation against LGBTQI+ people and the struggle for equal rights of same-sex married partners in Turks and Caicos Islands (TCI).

  Stanbrook Prudhoe is a law firm specialising in complex and cross-border cases in the Caribbean region.

  What legal action are you involved in?

  Since 2021 we have been representing Tim Haymon, a US citizen, and Richard Sankar, a Turks and Caicos Islander, in legal proceedings against the TCI government. The case is now up on appeal after findings of breaches of rights protected under the TCI constitution. The couple married in Florida in 2020, but Tim has been denied an exemption from the need to obtain a work permit, although that exemption is available to the spouse of a Turks and Caicos Islander. There is no definition of ‘spouse’ under the relevant immigration legislation and the definition used in the letter of refusal referenced the marriage legislation. The Marriage Ordinance treats same-sex marriages as void.

  The refusal of the spousal exemption was by the Director of Immigration. Tim and Richard brought proceedings against him alleging breaches of the protected rights of equality before the Law, the right to family and private life and freedom from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

  The trial took place in November 2022 and the decision was delivered in March 2024. The TCI Supreme Court upheld two of our three claims, finding violations of the constitutional rights to private and family life and to protection against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. However, the court did not uphold the claim of equality before the law. That is the subject of an appeal that will be heard on 23 and 24 October.

  The government has also appealed. Although it relied on no evidence during the trial, it now disputes any findings of constitutional breach. The government’s legal team remains headed by Ivan Hare KC of Blackstone Chambers in London, UK. Colours Caribbean, an LGBTQI+ rights organisation, successfully applied to join the appeal as an interested party.

  Before the claims were first started, Tim and Richard offered to abandon their legal action if the government enacted civil partnership legislation giving same-sex couples the same rights and benefits as opposite-sex couples. Unfortunately, this offer was ignored. Our appeal document itself repeats that offer. When we first made that offer, we even provided the government with a copy of the Cayman Islands legislation recognising civil partnerships as a precedent they could work from. But, again, no response.

  The Supreme Court’s decision was a significant step forward for LGBTQI+ rights in TCI. Former TCI Premier Michael Misick criticised it publicly, calling for Richard to have his Turks and Caicos Islander status revoked. If successful, the government’s appeal would be a major setback for equality. Either way, the outcome will have broader implications for LGBTQI+ rights across the Caribbean.

   

  What’s the status of LGBTQI+ rights in TCI, and what difference have recent Privy Council rulings made?

  The status of LGBTQI+ rights in TCI has a long way to go still. The government’s reliance on traditional moral standards and recent rulings on marriage issues by the UK Privy Council, the final court of appeal for TCI and other British Overseas Territories, are significant barriers to the advancement of LGBTQI+ rights.

  Recent Privy Council rulings on same-sex marriage in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands have significantly influenced the discourse on LGBTQI+ rights in TCI. The combined appeal on the right to marry in the Ferguson case in Bermuda and the Bodden Bush case in the Cayman Islands is particularly noteworthy.

  In Bermuda, same-sex couples had the right to marry for a period before the law was changed. Marriages already performed remained valid, but no new marriages could be celebrated – a situation that led to a case being taken to the European Court of Human Rights on the grounds that those left out were in practical effect facing discrimination. The Privy Council ruled that marriage was a unique legal institution and those jurisdictions could decide the scope of marriage without violating their constitutions.

  This gave us an insight into the Privy Council’s position. However, we distinguished our case in TCI by focusing on recognition of equivalent legal rights rather than the establishment of a right to marry. The government argued we were trying to introduce the right to marry via the back door, because of the attempt to invoke the spousal exemption from immigration restrictions.

  The Privy Council’s decision, which confirmed that jurisdictions can define marriage, wasn’t that surprising. TCI’s constitution, like Cayman’s, includes a preamble about TCI being a God-fearing nation. The government’s arguments in TCI appeal rely heavily on this. This is pretty odd, in light of the fact that it failed to present any actual evidence at trial.

  Despite these challenges, the LGBTQI+ community and its advocates continue to press for equality and recognition, reflecting a wider struggle in many small jurisdictions.

   

  What are the challenges for LGBTQI+ activism in TCI?

  A major challenge is stigma, which is keenly felt in a place as small as TCI. Despite the presence of people who identify as LGBTQI+, there isn’t a well-developed community infrastructure such as gay pubs or clubs. There’s been a slight improvement in visibility following recent decisions, but it hasn’t yet become a significant movement. For example, there’s now anticipation for an upcoming gay pride event, a notable first for the TCI, albeit modest, as a boat trip during Gay Pride Week in June.

  Living as an LGBTQI+ person in TCI often means necessarily leading a discreet life. While there are both locals and expatriates in same-sex relationships, such partnerships are not flaunted or embraced as a popular lifestyle choice. Rather, they tend to remain private, perhaps implicitly acknowledged by the community but not openly discussed.

  There’s a complex interplay between legal processes and government responses. Despite government appeals against decisions concerning LGBTQI+ rights, such actions are influenced by political dynamics, particularly when elections are approaching. The electorate consists solely of Turks and Caicos Islanders and has strong opinions on issues such as same-sex marriage, which politicians must navigate with caution.

  Constitutional protections theoretically guard against discrimination, but practical enforcement is uncertain. While legal recourse exists in principle, instances of intimidation and hostility, such as aggressive media commentary or social media harassment, deter people from pursuing anti-discrimination cases.

  In essence, while there is a legal framework to combat discrimination, the challenges of social stigma, political sensitivities and intimidation hinder progress towards full LGBTQI+ equality in TCI.

   

  What role has civil society played in the case?

  We’ve worked with the Pride group that’s recently emerged. Although not gay myself, I was pleased to attend their meeting to have a chance to explain relevant parts of the legal challenge. I have been a friend of Richard for many years, and more recently Tim as well.

  The only outside group involved was Colours Caribbean, whose involvement in the Cayman case I had been aware of for some time. When they heard of our legal victory, despite ongoing appeals from both sides, they approached us to join the proceedings. We don’t control their involvement, but the fact that we haven’t objected to it apparently influenced the court’s decision to give them a speaking role in the October appeal.

  What are your expectations?

  I expect that Tim and Richard will win their appeal on the failure by the judge to deal with the equality before the law claim. Whatever the outcome of the government’s appeal, I expect that the British government will have to exercise its power of override, as it did in the Cayman Islands context, to introduce civil partnership recognition legislation. In TCI, the Governor, a British-appointed official, has a constitutional power to legislate in the best interests of the jurisdiction. For example, previous governors have forced through legislation decriminalising same-sex sexual activity – a move still resisted in other parts of the Caribbean.

  I think our success will primarily relate to the anti-discrimination aspect of the lower court judge’s decision. Right now, we are in a perplexing situation: the judge has agreed with our argument that Richard and Tim’s constitutionally protected rights are being violated but he stopped short of implementing the necessary remedial measures.

  This creates a glaring inconsistency: existing violations are acknowledged but no remedy is provided. So if another same-sex couple were to seek spouse treatment, they would be denied the exemption, even though the Court has recognised this as a breach of constitutional rights. It is unlikely that the Court of Appeal will accept this situation. We argue that the judge made a fundamental mistake in finding breaches but not proposing remedies. Moreover, the judge’s criticism of our approach fails to recognise alternative ways of remedying the situation, such as amending immigration laws to include same-sex couples in the eligibility criteria for spousal exemptions.

  The delay in the judge’s decision, despite mounting pressure, suggests a rushed outcome in the end. It appears that in his haste, the judge failed to thoroughly explore possible solutions to the violations identified. I therefore anticipate that the Court of Appeal will scrutinise the lower court’s handling of the case and consider remedies in line with constitutional obligations.

  What are the next steps?

  The trajectory of progress depends heavily on the outcome of the Court of Appeal hearing. It’s unlikely a decision will be made immediately after the hearing, given the complexity and scale of the case. As we have argued that the lower court judge erred in his decision, the matter could be escalated to the Privy Council for constitutional review.

  However, in terms of broader progress and the continued advancement of LGBTQI+ rights, increased visibility and public awareness are paramount. The greater the exposure and discussion surrounding the case, particularly at the appellate level, the more likely it is that attitudes will evolve positively. Increased awareness fosters confidence within the LGBTQI+ community, encouraging people to live more openly and authentically.

  Historically, many people who identify as LGBTQI+ have felt compelled to leave TCI and seek more accepting environments abroad, primarily in cities in the UK or the USA. This trend underscores the prevailing reluctance to accept LGBTQI+ identities in the local context. It will undoubtedly take time to overcome this suspicion and foster a culture of acceptance, but progress is evident and ongoing.

  It is my hope as a legal practitioner that church groups engage in this discussion in a constructive and inclusive way, avoiding regressive interpretations of religious doctrine. Such interpretations, rooted in outdated beliefs, only serve to hinder progress. It’s worth noting that TCI, essentially a tourist destination, relies heavily on its reputation as a progressive and welcoming place. Failure to address LGBTQI+ rights risks tarnishing this image, with negative implications for tourism and therefore for economic prospects.

  Advancing LGBTQI+ rights in the TCI requires ongoing advocacy, awareness-raising and a concerted effort to foster a culture of inclusion and acceptance within the local community and wider society.

  ---

  Get in touch with Stanbrook Prudhoe through itswebsite and connect with Tim Prudhoe onLinkedin.

• UNITED STATES: ‘Every country should do their part to welcome people in need’

  CIVICUS speaks about new US immigration regulations withAaron Nodjomian-Escajeda, policy analyst on asylum and human trafficking at the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants (USCRI).

  Founded in 1911, USCRI is a non-governmental, not-for-profit international organisation committed to working on behalf of refugees and immigrants and their transition to a dignified life.

  What are Title 8 and Title 42 regulations?

  Title 8 and Title 42 are sections of the US Code that includes all permanent federal laws. Simply put, Title 8 governs immigration law and Title 42 governs public health law.

  Title 42 was never meant to be used as an immigration tool. It was applied in March 2020, at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, as a basis to provide public health services across the USA, but it also allowed border officials to rapidly expel asylum seekers and migrants to Mexico or their home countries without due process. As this was considered an ‘expulsion’ rather than a ‘deportation’, those subject to it were not given the right to seek asylum. Furthermore, no records were kept of an expulsion, which provided an incentive for people to attempt to enter the USA, via dangerous land routes, over and over.

  Even though thousands of public health experts denounced the use of Title 42 as ineffective for stopping the spread of COVID-19, the Biden administration increased the use of this authority to turn people away more than 2.3 million times. The Title 42 public health order was finally lifted on 11 May 2023.

  Title 8 contains the current laws and regulations pertaining to immigration and naturalisation, and outlines the processing of non-citizens at the border.

  What is the new so-called ‘asylum ban’, and how is it being applied?

  Now that the use of Title 42 has ended, the processing of migrants and asylum seekers has returned to Title 8 authority. Additionally, a new rule from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Department of Justice is in effect. This rule, also referred to as an ‘asylum ban’, went into effect right after the Title 42 public health order was lifted, supposedly to address the expected surge in migration and further discourage irregular migration.

  The end of the use of Title 42 to expel migrants and asylum seekers is a good thing, but the new asylum ban is not.

  The asylum ban applies to anyone who presents at a port of entry at the US-Mexico border without a visa or pre-scheduled appointment, who enters without inspection between ports of entry, or who is apprehended in contiguous waters. The rule presumes all of them are ineligible for asylum unless they were granted prior permission to travel to the USA pursuant to a DHS-approved parole process, or were able to make an appointment to present themselves at the border using the smartphone app CBP (Customs and Border Protection) One, or have previously sought asylum and were denied in a country or countries through which they travelled. Unaccompanied children are exempt from this rule.

  The presumption of asylum ineligibility will apply in expedited removal proceedings, as well as to asylum applications affirmatively filed with the Asylum Office or filed in immigration court proceedings as a defence against removal.

  What are the lawful pathways of entry to the USA?

  ‘Lawful pathways’ include entering the USA through regular channels, such as tourist visas, humanitarian parole, or existing family reunification pipelines.

  The Biden administration also points to recently created pathways, including the parole process for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguansand Venezuelans, new family reunification parole processes for Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, the opening of regional processing centres in Colombia and Guatemala, expanded access to the CBP One app, and an increase of the number of appointments available at each port of entry for individuals from all countries from 750 to 1,000 daily.

  People who enter the USA via an established pathway will not be subject to the asylum ban.

  What are the reasons migrants and asylum seekers don’t to use lawful pathways of entry?

  This parole framework for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans is only available for those who have a US-based sponsor, unexpired passports and the financial resources to travel to a US port of entry by commercial air travel. Many advocates see this as a type of means test, since many people fleeing harm do not have the luxury of a passport or resources to reach the USA via plane.

  There are additional access and equity issues with the CBP One app. Many migrants do not have smartphones. And even if they have one, they may lack adequate wi-fi or a data plan. Asylum seekers can be exempted from the rule if they prove it was impossible for them to access or use the CBP One app due to a language barrier, illiteracy, significant technical failure or other persistent and serious obstacle. However, in most cases proving a language barrier or illiteracy is not enough, and asylum seekers must show that they have asked someone for assistance to use the app and were still not successful, which puts them at risk of exploitation.

  What are the exceptional circumstances in which unlawful entry isn’t supposed to be penalised, and how is it implemented in practice?

  People can rebut the presumption of asylum ineligibility if they demonstrate that, at the time of entry, they or a member of their family with whom they were traveling faced an acute medical emergency or an extreme and imminent threat to their life or safety, or were a victim of a severe form of trafficking.

  If one family unit member establishes an exception or rebuts the presumption, the presumption will not apply to the entire family unit. All family members, including children, will be interviewed prior to determining whether the presumption of ineligibility applies.

  In theory, people should not be turned back at the border. Even under the asylum ban, people should be able to present themselves at the border without a CBP One appointment or having been denied asylum in their country of origin. However, if they are unable to prove they can overcome the rebuttable presumption, they will only be eligible for the lesser protections of statutory withholding of removal and protection under the regulations implementing US obligations under Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. In practice, there have been reports that the Mexican Commission for Refugee Assistance and CBP officials have turned individuals away at the border even when they have cited fear of return.

  Is the new regulation compliant with international standards on refugee protection?

  Advocates believe that the asylum ban violates the principle of non-refoulment, which means that a person should not be returned to a country where they face serious threats to their life or freedom, cemented in international standards outlined by the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol.

  The rule is already facing challenges in court. The American Civil Liberties Union, the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies and the National Immigrant Justice Center have amended their complaint in the East Bay Covenant Sanctuary v. Biden lawsuit to include claims that the rule is unlawful. USCRI, along with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and many other advocates, has denounced this rule and continues to call on the administration to rescind it immediately. It does nothing to protect the most vulnerable and creates additional inequities in an already difficult system.

  What impact has the regulation change had so far?

  USCRI was at the border the day after Title 42 ended to observe the immediate impact of the change. The administration and many others warned about a ‘surge’ of migrants rushing to border as soon as Title 42 ended. However, this was not the case; the situation at the border remained calm. There were reports that people were trying to enter the USA before the cruel new asylum policy took effect. In fact, border crossings have decreased more than 70 per cent since the implementation of the asylum ban on 11 May. The administration touts this as a result of its ‘comprehensive plan to manage the border’. However, to me, it shows that many people trying to reach safety are not able to access life-saving protection via the asylum system.

  What obstacles does US civil society helping migrants and refugees face?

  The greatest limiting factors are that people seeking asylum in the USA or in removal proceedings do not have access to federal benefits, including housing. Right now, there is a housing crisis and some civil society organisations have limited resources from emergency food and shelter funds, while many volunteers are offering shelter in churches or in their own homes.

  Another major barrier is the difficulty in providing legal counsel to immigrants in asylum hearings in CBP custody. In alignment with the asylum ban, the administration increased the use of expedited asylum screenings and brought back the harmful practice of conducting ‘credible fear interviews’ in CBP facilities. The goal is to conduct these within as little as 24 hours, which does not give people time to prepare their asylum case or access legal help. USCRI led a letter that was signed by over 90 organisations and sent to the administration outlining concerns about this practice. A more recent letter, which USCRI supported, went to the administration outlining how those concerns have in fact materialised. We continue to advocate through letters and engagement sessions. However, the administration has decided to fully embrace enforcement and pushback policies.

  What international support does US civil society working with migrants and refugees need?

  Everyone in this field needs funding, but the USA is one of the most financially able countries in the world, hence support should not come from the international community. The administration should do a better job of funding civil society initiatives and allowing the American people to continue welcoming individuals in need, as they are ready and willing to do so.

  As international factors such as armed conflict and climate disasters continue to push people from their homes, it is important that every country does their part to welcome them. One country cannot do it all but if everyone comes together, we can empower hope. World Refugee Day is a good rallying point for doing so.

  ---

  Civic space in the USA is rated ‘narrowed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with USCRI through itswebsite orFacebook page and follow@USCRIdc on Twitter.

• USA: ‘Extremist politicians have been hellbent on stigmatising and banning abortion for decades’

  CIVICUS speaks with Caroline Duble, Political Director of Avow – Unapologetic Abortion Advocacy, about the current backlash against women’s rights in the USA, and in Texas in particular, as well as the activist responses. Avow is a civil society organisation that works to secure unrestricted abortion access for every Texan, following the vision of a society in which every person is trusted, thriving and free to pursue the life they want.

  How did we get to the point where abortion has been almost completely banned in Texas? 

  For people just now hearing about this cruel ban, which prohibits abortions as early as six weeks into pregnancy, it can be hard to believe that something so extreme could ever be passed into law. But as Texans who have been long fighting for abortion access, we know that extremist politicians have been hellbent on stigmatising and banning abortion for decades. This is clear if you look at the full timeline of medically unnecessary restrictions on abortion procedures that were passed in Texas since the 1973 Supreme Court ruling on Roe v. Wade, which determined that the Constitution of the United States protects a pregnant woman’s freedom to choose to have an abortion without excessive government interference. They have been relentless, deceitful and cruel in their attempts to push care out of the reach of Texans who need it. 

  How is this different from previous, less successful attempts to ban abortion in other states? 

  Unlike bans in other states, which are enforced by state officials, this bill – known as Senate Bill 8, or SB8 – gives the public unprecedented authority to enforce the ban. It allows anyone – including anti-abortion activists who have no connection to the patient – to act as vigilante bounty hunters and to take to court doctors, health centres and anyone who helps another person access abortion, with the incentive that they will collect US$10,000 for each abortion. In other words, Texas is trying to evade judicial scrutiny and accountability in the courts by encouraging private citizens to do the dirty work for them. But SB8’s legal manoeuvring does not change the fact that banning abortion at six weeks is unconstitutional, and even more importantly, it is unjust and wrong.

  What have been the immediate consequences of the ban, and how are people protesting?

  SB8 is working as intended. Since the law went into effect on 1 September, it has decimated our already vulnerable care infrastructure and has left Texans who need access to care and support services scared to reach out for help, and advocates afraid to help them. Under this law, Texans are being denied the abortions they want and need. Many people are trying to scrape together thousands of dollars to travel out of state, take time off work and arrange childcare and transportation.

  Many Texans are self-managing their abortions, which can be extremely safe but only if the pregnant person has access to information and resources. And tragically, countless Texans are being forced to carry pregnancies against their will. Of course, this is falling hardest on Black, Latinx and Indigenous people, undocumented people and low-income Texans, who are facing the most severe barriers to accessing care out of state and disproportionate harm from this law.

  People are protesting by funding abortion. Texas abortion funds have collectively raised well over US$3 million since 1 September, and those funds will largely be used to get people out of state. People are also literally protesting! Check out #BansOffOurBodies to see protest footage from around the country, and particularly the marches for reproductive rights that took place on 2 October. And of course, people are learning about self-managed abortion, because abortion bans don’t curve the need for abortions.

  What tactics is Avow using in its work to prevent regression and expand sexual and reproductive rights? 

  Avow will continue to fight unapologetically for unrestricted abortion access for all Texans, for any reason. Abortion is essential healthcare, and it should be readily accessible to anyone in our state who needs or wants one. We’re leading this movement and changing the culture with an unapologetic abortion-forward mindset, through community-building, education and political advocacy.

  We work to portray abortion in a positive light because abortion is safe, common and normal, although you wouldn’t know that because abortion stigma keeps people from sharing their stories. We are committed to changing the conversation about abortion to reflect that reality. For too long, anti-abortion extremists have dictated how we’re allowed to talk about abortion; by spreading lies and medical inaccuracies they have controlled the narrative so much that even abortion rights supporters don’t feel comfortable saying the word and prefer to use euphemisms such as ‘women’s rights’, ‘reproductive health’ and ‘choice’. This has allowed stigma to permeate abortion care and ultimately shame people who have had abortions, and feeds into a narrative about ‘good’ and ‘bad’ abortions. But we refuse to judge a person’s reason for getting an abortion, and instead support them once they have made their decision. 

  Looking ahead to the 2022 midterm elections, Avow is preparing to hold anti-abortion legislators accountable through digital ads, on the ground organising and voter mobilisation. We are also pushing the federal government to do more to protect abortion rights by passing the Women’s Health Protection Act, which seeks to establish a statutory right for healthcare providers to provide abortion care, and a corresponding right for their patients to receive that care, free from medically unnecessary restriction. We are also calling on them to repeal the racist Hyde Amendment, a 1980 legislative provision barring the use of federal funds to pay for abortion. We will also continue our work to bust abortion stigma by helping people talk about abortion openly and what access means to them.

  What are the prospects of the ban being overturned?

  It is deeply concerning that the Supreme Court did not block this law before even having a hearing. For nearly 50 years the Supreme Court has affirmed that the Constitution guarantees the right to an abortion, but in Texas we are now living under a different reality. Many people assume the Supreme Court is an objective legal body, but justices are appointed by presidents, and presidents have political agendas. The Supreme Court’s refusal to block SB8 from going into effect is simply more evidence of what we’ve known for years: the courts will not save us. It is necessary to pass federal legislation to secure unrestricted abortion access and funding for everyone in this country. 

  With that being said, we are grateful that the Department of Justice (DOJ) is taking legal action to fight SB8. The DOJ is requesting a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in a federal court based in Austin, capital of Texas. If granted, this restraining order would stop the State of Texas, including private parties who would bring suits under the law, from implementing or enforcing SB8. This is a necessary first step in what we expect will be a long court battle to stop this law. A restraining order should absolutely be granted because the law is clearly unconstitutional and because Texans need access to abortion care while the law makes its way through the court system.

  What kind of support do abortion rights groups in the USA need from their peers around the world?

  The best thing that folks outside of Texas can do for us is support us by contributing to Texas abortion funds and political advocacy organisations, and by uplifting our message. Also, look more closely at how abortion bans and stigma impact on your own community. Instead of boycotting Texas businesses, pass local ordinances that provide practical support funding for people in your region seeking abortions.

  Civic space in USA is rated ‘obstructed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
  Get in touch with Avow through itswebsite,Facebook orInstagram page, and follow@avowtexas and@CarolineDuble on Twitter. 

• USA: ‘Our aggressive tactics helped amplify the demands of the broader climate movement’

  CIVICUS speaks with Evan Drukker-Schardl of Climate Defiance about the disruptive tactics the organisation uses to put climate change on the agenda.

  Climate Defiance is a youth climate organisationdetermined to challenge political betrayal and fight for a just world. Through mass protest and peaceful direct action, it seeks to force politicians to address the existential climate crisis, rejecting the constraints of current political realities in favour of transformative change.

  What makes Climate Defiance different from other climate action groups?

  Climate Defiance takes a direct approach, confronting climate criminals wherever they are – whether they are being honoured by industry peers or speaking in public. We challenge their presence in society and highlight the damaging impact of politicians and fossil fuel executives on our collective future.

  This approach has resonated widely, particularly online, where millions have supported videos of young activists confronting those responsible for endangering their future. It has also allowed us to amplify the climate movement’s demands. Notably, our protests have had tangible results, such as the resignation of Harvard professor Jody Freeman from the board of ConocoPhillips. Similarly, Assistant Secretary of the Interior Tommy Beaudreau resigned just 15 days after we disrupted his participation at an event.

  What are your demands, and how has the US government responded to them?

  Our demands focus on ending coal, gas and oil infrastructure, both in specific cases and as a general policy. We have also joined others in calling for an end to new liquefied natural gas (LNG) export permits. Over the past year, we have consistently raised these issues, most notably during a meeting at the White House where we repeatedly stressed the need to address LNG exports. Shortly afterwards, the Biden administration announced a moratorium on new permits.

  While Climate Defiance cannot take sole credit for these developments, our aggressive tactics have helped amplify the demands of the broader climate movement. We understand we are not here to make friends; rather, we are focused on forcing those in power to listen and respond to our demands.

  Although the Biden administration and Congress may not meet all our demands, we have made it clear they have no choice but to address our concerns, even if it goes against the interests of fossil fuel companies that hold significant power. Our actions ensure that those in power are aware of and accountable to the demands of the climate movement.

  What forms of protest have you undertaken so far, and why?

  So far, our protests have taken a variety of forms, all aimed at holding climate criminals accountable. For instance, we recently targeted Senator Lisa Murkowski, who was instrumental in getting the Biden administration to approve the Willow Project in Alaska, allowing new drilling on federal lands. She was receiving an award at a non-profit gala in Washington DC, presented by Chevron’s top lobbyist. We interrupted her speech with a banner that read ‘Murkowski is a murderer’. This direct action brings our energised activists to where the powerful are being honoured and exposes the truth about their destructive actions.

  Similar actions led to the resignations of Beaudreau and Freeman. While we don’t expect Murkowski to resign, our actions ensure she cannot expect to go unchallenged in public forums. We specialise in these confrontational tactics, disrupting events like the Congressional baseball game, a bipartisan event attended by numerous climate offenders from both parties. This game symbolises a political consensus that perpetuates fossil fuel subsidies at the expense of our planet and its people.

  We’re present at such events to demand an end to these subsidies and highlight the bipartisan support for policies that harm our environment. While we cannot predict the immediate outcome of these protests, they are essential in raising awareness and pressuring policymakers to prioritise climate action over corporate interests.

  Are you seeing restrictions on protests?

  Climate Defiance has so far managed to protest effectively while minimising the risk of arrest for our activists. Avoiding arrest ensures the safety of our activists and conserves our resources and capacity.

  However, the broader protest landscape in the USA has seen concerning developments, particularly in relation to the Gaza and Palestine solidarity movements. Across university campuses in the USA and around the world, there has been a noticeable shift in how disruptive and confrontational protests are handled. Authorities have responded with excessive force and repression, seeking to silence criticism and dissent.

  While Climate Defiance focuses on confronting climate criminals, it is important to recognise and condemn any undemocratic actions taken by those in power to stifle legitimate dissent. Such behaviour reflects poorly on the democratic principles that should underpin society, and those responsible should be held to account.

  We stand in solidarity with all people protesting against genocide in Gaza. It is unconscionable that university administrations, police forces and politicians are brutalising and targeting student protesters instead of listening to their principled calls for justice and an end to massacres in our name and on our dime. Crackdowns on college campuses are a threat to us all and should alarm people even if they are not part of the Palestine solidarity movement in the USA.

  How has the public reacted to your protests?

  Public reaction to our protests has been mixed. While some people appreciate our direct approach and see the urgency of our cause, others are uncomfortable with our disruptive tactics. We build relationships with politicians who want them and whose values align with ours, but we are not afraid to criticise those in power who further the destruction of our planet, wherever they are on the political spectrum. Our priority is to be vocal, public and disruptive to drive home that our lives depend on transformative action now to end fossil fuels.

  Regardless of whether people agree with our methods, we have been able to achieve tangible results. Even those who don’t support us cannot ignore the impact we are having. We believe that discomfort can be a catalyst for change. We challenge people to confront uncomfortable truths to motivate them to act.

  Ultimately, our aim isn’t to win a popularity contest but to insist that everyone, regardless of their background, deserves a healthy and prosperous future. We see protest as a means of subversion, a way of challenging the status quo and demanding a better world for future generations and ourselves.

  ---

  Civic space in the USA is rated ‘narrowed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with Climate Defiance through itswebsite orFacebook page, and follow @ClimateDefiance onTwitter,Instagram andTikTok.

• USA: ‘The framers of the constitution envisioned an accountable president, not a king above the law’

  CIVICUS discusses the recent US Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity and its potential impact on the 5 November presidential election with Praveen Fernandes, Vice President at the Constitutional Accountability Center, a US think tank and public interest litigation organisation dedicated to studying and applying the constitution’s text, history and values.

  On 1 July, the US Supreme Courtruled that presidents have absolute immunity for the exercise of their core constitutional powers and are entitled to a presumption of immunity for other official acts, although they don’t enjoy immunity for unofficial acts. The decision comes as Donald Trump faces criminal charges for trying to overturn his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden. The question now is whether Trump’s actions will be considered official or unofficial. But it’s unlikely he’ll be tried before the election, and if he returns as president he could pardon himself. Critics claim the Supreme Court ruling violates the spirit of the US Constitution by placing the president above the law.

  What has the Supreme Court said about presidential immunity?

  In Trump v. United States, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority ruled that a former president can be granted a measure of immunity from criminal prosecution for acts committed while in office.

  The majority opinion held that there is absolute immunity from prosecution for acts within the president’s ‘exclusive and preclusive authority’ – powers the constitution specifically assigns to the president and no other branch of government. There is a presumption of immunity for official acts that are part of a president’s duties, although this can be rebutted if the government can show that prosecution would not threaten the powers and functions of the executive branch. There is no immunity for unofficial acts.

  As the dissenting opinions make clear, the court’s doctrine of presidential immunity departs not only from the text and history of the constitution, but also from the court’s own precedent.

  How does this ruling affect the criminal charges against Trump?

  While it’s impossible to know with certainty how this Supreme Court decision will affect all of the pending criminal cases against Trump, what we do know is that it will cause additional delays in prosecutions that have already been delayed far too long.

  For instance, the federal criminal case related to the 6 January 2021 attempted overturning of the 2020 election was paused for over 200 days until the Supreme Court issued its decision. Now the district court has to deal with issues such as which alleged crimes involve unofficial acts and can therefore be prosecuted.

  However, it is highly unlikely that the federal trial will reach a verdict before the presidential election in November. As a result, voters will likely be forced to cast their ballots without knowing whether one of the candidates is criminally responsible for attempting to overturn the results of the last election.

  Do you think this ruling could allow for an unfettered second Trump presidency?

  The danger seems great in a possible future Trump presidency where the fear of prosecution has been largely removed. But this goes far beyond Trump – it’s a danger that extends to anyone who holds such a powerful role without being held accountable to the same criminal laws that bind all other individuals.

  But there are still safeguards. Prosecutors can still pursue crimes related to unofficial acts, and there are still political accountability mechanisms, such as the ability to impeach a president for high crimes and misdemeanours by a vote in the House of Representatives and conviction in a trial in the Senate.

  What are the broader implications of this ruling for US democracy?

  The conservative majority opinion in Trump v. United States challenges the accountability envisioned by the framers of the constitution and moves the nation closer to the monarchical systems they sought to avoid. The framers envisioned a president accountable to the governed, not a king above the law.

  Immunising such a powerful position in the federal government from criminal accountability poses a significant risk and should be sobering to all Americans.

  This ruling is the latest reminder that even when the constitution is clear, we depend on judges to interpret it fairly. Judicial nominations matter. Electing presidents who will nominate fair and principled judges is important. Electing senators who will rigorously scrutinise those nominations is important. Let’s not forget that.

  Civic space in the USA is rated ‘narrowed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with the Constitutional Accountability Center through itswebsite and follow@MyConstitution on Twitter.

• USA: ‘The stakes in the 2024 election are incredibly high for the fate of US democracy’

  CIVICUS discusses the recent US Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity and its potential impact on the 5 November presidential election with Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, a professor of Law at Stetson University College of Law.

  On 1 July, the US Supreme Courtruled that presidents have absolute immunity for the exercise of their core constitutional powers and are entitled to a presumption of immunity for other official acts, although they don't enjoy immunity for unofficial acts. The decision comes as Donald Trump faces criminal charges for trying to overturn his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden. The question now is whether Trump's actions will be considered official or unofficial. But it's unlikely he'll be tried before the election, and if he returns as president he could pardon himself. Critics claim the Supreme Court ruling violates the spirit of the US Constitution by placing the president above the law.

  What are the main points of theSupreme Court ruling on presidential immunity?

  This is a ruling in the federal case against Trump for trying to overturn his loss to Biden in the 2020 election. He is accused of pressuring state officials to overturn the results, spreading lies about voter fraud and using the Capitol riot of 6 January 2021 to delay Biden’s certification and stay in power. Trump pleaded not guilty and asked the US Supreme Court to dismiss the entire case, arguing that he was acting in his role as president and was therefore immune from prosecution.

  The Supreme Court didn’t do that, but instead created three new categories of presidential immunity: complete immunity for official acts involving core constitutional powers, potential immunity for acts within the ‘outer perimeter’ of official duties and no immunity for private, unofficial acts.

  The key question now is whether Trump’s actions will be deemed official, giving him immunity, or unofficial, leaving him open to prosecution. This is the first case of its kind, as Trump is the first American president to be prosecuted.

  How does this ruling affect Trump's other criminal cases?

  This immunity ruling is likely to delay all four of his criminal cases, as judges will have to apply these new rules and drop any charges that involve the use of core presidential powers, as these can no longer be used as evidence against him.

  As well as being accused of trying to overturn his 2020 defeat, Trump is also accused of paying adult film actress Stormy Daniels hush money during the 2016 election and not properly accounting for it in his business records. This case is unlikely to be affected by the ruling, as his actions don't involve either core or peripheral presidential powers. Judge Merchan will have to decide whether any of his 34 felony business fraud convictions will stand or be thrown out.

  But some of his other crimes occurred during his time in the Oval Office. Trump is accused of conspiring to overturn his 2020 loss in Georgia by asking the state's top election official to ‘find 11,780 votes’. Trump has pleaded not guilty and could be prosecuted in his personal capacity, as presidents have no role in administering US elections. As in the Capitol case, this was a private action he took as a candidate and it would be difficult to fit into the category of presidential immunity.

  The fourth case Trump faces is the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case. Trump is accused of mishandling classified documents by taking them to his Mar-a-Lago residence after leaving office and refusing to return them to the National Archives when he could no longer lawfully possess them. As his alleged crimes took place when he was no longer president, this case shouldn’t be affected by the immunity ruling. However, he could argue he possessed the documents while in office and ask that his case be treated differently from other defendants. This case was dismissed by Judge Cannon. However, the Mar-a-Lago criminal case could come back to life if the 11^th Circuit reverses her dismissal.

  What are the broader implications of this case for the presidential election?

  After this decision, the American public should think about the consequences of who they elect as president, because the presidency can become a wellspring of crime.

  An honest president wouldn't be affected by the Trump v. US decision, because an honest person doesn’t need criminal immunity. Only time will tell whether the Supreme Court has invited future presidents to go on a crime spree. But what is certain is that only US voters can keep criminals out of the White House. So, as I write in my new book, Corporatocracy, the stakes in the 2024 election are incredibly high for the fate of US democracy.

  ---

  Civic space in the USA is rated ‘narrowed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with Ciara Torres-Spelliscy through herLinkedIn page and follow@ProfCiara on Twitter and Bluesky.

• USA: ‘We cannot trust that increased anti-Asian hate will disappear once the pandemic is over’

  CIVICUS speaks with Marita Etcubañez, senior director of strategic initiatives with Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC (Advancing Justice | AAJC), about the recent wave of anti-Asian racism and violence in the USA, and mobilisations by Asian Americans in response. Advancing Justice | AAJC’S mission is to advance civil rights and other human rights for Asian Americans and to build and promote a fair and equitable society for all communities.

  In which ways does anti-Asian racism manifest in the USA? How is it similar or different from the discrimination experienced by other groups?

  In many ways the racism and discrimination that are experienced by the Asian American community are similar to those experienced by other people of colour and immigrants generally. But there are two things that are different for Asian Americans. One is our image as perpetual foreigners: no matter how long we have been in the USA, even if we have been born here, Asian Americans are often perceived as foreigners, alien others, not fully American. If you pause to think, you immediately realise that is a stereotype, yet it continues to be hard to shake off. Obviously, there are many Asian Americans whose families have been in the country for generations, but at first glance people still don’t see us as Americans.

  Another difference is the myth that we are a model minority, that is, the perception of Asian Americans as being universally well-educated and affluent. While on average the Asian American population is better educated and more affluent than the general population, those are just averages that don’t reflect the reality of the lives of countless Asian Americans. If you look at disaggregated data about our communities, you’ll see that some ethnic groups within the Asian American community are doing quite well, but others continue to struggle. It is incorrect to assume that everyone in our community is thriving. There are segments of the Asian American population that have lower education attainment and lower income and continue to live in poverty. It’s important not to focus exclusively on averages and to look at more detailed information about our community and continue to push for more disaggregated data to be available.

  Not only is the model minority myth not accurate; it is also hurtful. In many ways, these ideas have been brought forward and continue to persist in connection with white supremacy, because holding up Asian Americans as a model minority, a ‘good’ minority, is often held against other communities of colour. By claiming that Asian American minorities are doing so well, they imply that other communities of colour must not be ‘as good’. This stereotype seeks to divide communities of colour, pitting us against each other, so we must resist it.

  Whenever we refer to the concept of the ‘model minority’, we are careful to clarify that it is a myth and not an idea we should embrace and take pride in. It’s something we must push back against because it’s harmful to all communities.

  Have discrimination and hate expressions intensified under the pandemic?

  There’s been an increase in hate and harassment to the Asian American community during the COVID-19 pandemic, out of misplaced blame for the spread of the virus. Because the virus is thought to have originated in China, many people were quick to point the finger and blame Chinese people. And because many people don’t understand the diversity of the Asian American community, that blame quickly extended to Chinese Americans, other Asian Americans and other people who were perceived as Asian. Logically, it doesn’t make sense.

  This has been in addition to the standard ways in which our people were already experiencing harassment and discrimination. Racism and xenophobia are not new to us: our community has always had to deal with them. But racial slurs, verbal abuse, bullying and even physical attacks increased during the pandemic.

  Did anything change as restrictions were lifted and the country reopened?

  I would say that what has changed is that at the beginning of the pandemic I’m not sure that everyone took us as seriously as they should have when we raised concerns about increased hate and harassment towards Asian Americans. As the pandemic continued, more and more people have reported hate incidents and crimes that they have experienced. We need to create greater awareness around the issue so more people understand what is happening, so we will continue to work to address it.

  The way a lot of people talked about COVID-19, following in the footsteps of some elected leaders, contributed to an overall environment that was hostile to Asian Americans and to heightening the racism that people already experienced. Some people thought it was okay to act on their instincts because they were following the actions of President Trump and his administration.

  Social media also worked as an echo chamber to a lot of people who surrounded themselves only with the information, ideas, and news coverage consistent with their beliefs. A lot of people use social media platforms in their native languages, so a lot of the same information gets circulated and it’s very hard to address misinformation and disinformation.

  I would love to say that hopefully hate and harassment will go away as the pandemic recedes, but unfortunately, the experiences of Middle Eastern and South Asian communities who have experienced heightened and persistent hate following 9/11 alert us to the fact that this may not be the case. Twenty years after 9/11, we are still dealing with anti-Muslim hate and discrimination. I don’t think we can trust that increased anti-Asian hate will disappear once the pandemic is over.

  How is your organisation working to address this problem?

  We strive for recognition and equity for Asian American communities while taking care to demonstrate solidarity with ally communities, including other communities of color, by supporting and hopefully not undermining their demands. With respect to anti-Asian hate, we focus on education by building awareness and understanding of the harassment that our communities have always faced but that has heightened under the pandemic and encouraging people to talk about these issues and to report hate crimes and hate incidents. But I recognise that this is going to be an uphill battle because people will continue to be reluctant to report when they are targeted; not just because of stigma, but also because our systems aren’t yet properly set up to give people the assistance and the support they need to do so.

  We are also involved in bystander intervention training. We have partnered with an organisation called Hollaback!, which works to end all forms of harassment, to create a training series to give people practical and actionable strategies that they can use to intervene if they witness harassment or experience it themselves. We started this training in early 2020 and the demand for the training really intensified this year on account of the recent increase in harassment and physical assaults against Asian Americans. Later this year we will have reached over 120,000 people with our training activities and we continue to hold them to reach even wider audiences.

  Our main focus is on advocacy and policymaking because we strive for policy change, particularly at the federal level. In May 2021 we saw some progress with the passage of the COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act, which places specific emphasis on the increase in violence against Asian Americans and seeks to facilitate the reporting of hate at the local and state levels. This is progress, but we recognise that a single bill is not going to fix everything. There is more work that we must do, so we will continue to advocate for the things we feel our community needs to feel safe so we create the conditions under which we are able to thrive.

  How do you connect with the wider movement for racial equality?

  We demonstrate solidarity and work hand in hand with other communities, and we do our best to avoid taking any position that would harm other communities. We work closely with other U.S. civil society organisations to make sure that we are supporting one another and advocate for solutions that will lift all our communities, and not one at the expense of another.

  Many of us took inspiration from the Black Lives Matter movement in 2020 and we have since seen more and more people engaging in conversation about anti-racism and the need to be actively anti-racist, and engaging in struggles for broader social justice. We have seen so many people pouring into the streets and taking action to become actively anti-racist in their own lives. 

  We have all been speaking out in support of Black Lives Matter and part of that includes speaking out against violence. One message that we have been pushing out that we hope will resonate with Asian American communities and beyond is this idea that we want all of our communities to feel safe and protected.

  Civic space in the USA is rated ‘obstructed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
  Get in touch with Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC through itswebsite orFacebook page,and follow@AAAJ_AAJC and@maritaetc on Twitter.

• USA: ‘We should shift away from overreliance on policing and promote community-based solutions’

  CIVICUS speaks about police violence in the USA with Abdul Nasser Rad, Managing Director of Research and Data at Campaign Zero (CZ).

  Launched in 2015, CZ is an activist-led and research-driven civil society organisation that works to end police violence and promote public safety beyond policing.

  What factors affect the level of police brutality in the USA?

  Police violence remains a threat in some parts of the country, and particularly to some communities. In 2022, US law enforcement officers killed 1,251 people. While this number is the highest to date since our data tracking began in 2013, it’s crucial to note that trends vary across regions. Some cities have witnessed an increase in such incidents, while others have seen improvements.

  Several factors help explain variations in police violence and use of force across the USA. Racial segregation and socio-economic neighbourhood indicators, for instance, have been found to predict police violence, along with individual-level demographic factors such as the race of the officer involved.

  A combination of historical disinvestment and a societal tendency to respond to social issues with enforcement and prison-related measures rather than restorative or human-centred solutions are leading drivers of the disproportionate impact police violence has on communities of colour. A book by Khalil Gibran Muhammad, The Condemnation of Blackness, provides a comprehensive analysis of the myth of Black criminality and the use of the carceral state in perpetuating the second-class treatment of Black people in the USA.

  How are you working to end police violence?

  Our approach is to work both on immediate harm reduction and long-term transformational change, aiming to reshape the way society approaches public safety.

  CZ provides robust, accurate and up-to-date data on police violence in the USA, which is critical given the absence of such efforts by the federal government. We develop comprehensive datasets that help identify where harm is being caused and pilot solutions to remove the harm. We prioritise transparency and make all our work public. The campaigns we develop are meant to be accessible so other organisations and activists can take the lead in implementing similar initiatives.

  We align with the transformational change perspective. We recognise that the current system is deeply flawed and requires radical rethinking. At the same time, we see the value in harm reduction as a necessary parallel strategy in the short term.

  Our efforts are concentrated in two main areas. First, we engage in harm reduction initiatives through several campaigns. For example, ‘8 Can't Wait’ focuses on reducing police killings by advocating for the adoption of eight policies that restrict the use of force. Since the launch of the campaign in June 2020, over 340 cities have restricted the use of force and 19 states have changed their policies. Some changes include the banning of chokeholds, implementing a duty to intervene, requiring de-escalation and exhausting all alternatives before using deadly force.

  A campaign aimed at reducing unnecessary police deployment, ‘Cancel ShotSpotter’, achieved the cancellation of contracts or the prevention of the expansion of contracts in several large metropolitan centres. ShotSpotter’s technology often mistakes loud noises for gunshots, leading to more police encounters with civilians, sometimes resulting in fatal outcomes. Another campaign, ‘End All No Knocks’, was launched after the tragic police killing of Breonna Taylor, and seeks the cessation of no-knock warrants. It has resulted in six states restricting their use.

  While running these campaigns, we also actively work towards systemic change, consisting of the dismantling and transformation of the policing system. Beyond harm reduction, our goal is to fundamentally transform public safety strategies. We advocate for a shift away from overreliance on policing and instead promote holistic, community-based solutions that prioritise safety and wellbeing for everyone.

  What challenges have you faced in doing your work?

  A common challenge relates to data inconsistencies, lack of data transparency and ensuring the accuracy of our data platforms and analyses.

  But one of the most severe challenges lies not in the data but in the ways it can promote harm rather than foster more thoughtful approaches. For example, when the crime rate increases, the system responds with enforcement and incarceration rather than human and restorative solutions. It’s devastating to see the same punitive strategies over and over again. Combating fear and punitive social responses deters us from our long-term work of dismantling oppressive systems, creating frustration and a sense of moving backward.

  At its core, the problem is that society doesn’t treat or view every individual as a human being of equal value. If it did, it wouldn’t support punitive responses to people experiencing crises. It can be frustrating to work towards dismantling this system while simultaneously mitigating harm from the same system we’re trying to dismantle.

  We confront challenges and failures daily, often facing more obstacles than successes. This is the nature of social justice and liberation work. So building resilience is critical. It’s vital to maintain faith and keep engaging in restorative practices. The commitment and joy in the work endure as long as hope is kept alive and a vibrant community surrounds you.

  How do you collaborate with other local and international stakeholders?

  Our work is with and for communities most impacted on by the US carceral system. Domestically, we collaborate with any stakeholder willing to advance solutions aligned with our values. Direct engagement with stakeholders of diverse ideologies is necessary for policy change. As noted by the intersectional feminist writer Audre Lorde, it is not our differences that divide us, but our inability to recognise, accept and celebrate those differences.

  We are just beginning to build international relationships. Over the past year, we’ve engaged with the international community through sharing our research and expertise in building robust data systems and contributed to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights’ efforts to develop best practices on fatality counts and in-custody deaths.

  To achieve our mission, we need to keep building trust, and we do this by making our work as transparent, robust and easily accessible as possible. Partnerships will help us secure resources to sustain the work and gather the feedback we need to continuously improve.

  ---

  Civic space in the USA is rated ‘narrowed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with Campaign Zero through itswebsite orFacebook page, and follow@CampaignZero on Twitter.