europe

• SPAIN: ‘Democratic rules are being used to promote an anti-rights ideology’

  CIVICUS speaks about the recent election in Spain with Núria Valls, president of the Ibero-American League of Civil Society Organisations (Liga Iberoamericana), a platform that brings together 29 civil society organisations from 17 Ibero-American countries, specialising in human, social and community development. Legally incorporated in Spain, the Ibero-American League has worked on childhood, youth, education and labour issues from a human rights perspective for 20 years, by providing advice to governments, monitoring and evaluating programmes and building networks and doing public policy advocacy at the local, domestic and international levels.

  

  What were the causes of the political instability that required Spain to hold two elections in 2019?

  The widespread rejection of the political system that was established following the transition from dictatorship to democracy in the 1970s led to a significant deterioration of the two traditional parties: the Spanish Socialist Workers Party (PSOE) and the Popular Party (PP). These political parties were very used to bipartisanship and ruling with the support of large majorities. When other parties appeared on stage, pacts and coalitions became necessary, which until then had only been a feature of local politics. It became necessary to include more minority parties and nationalist parties from the country’s periphery, which does not always pay electorally.

  In addition, the political conflict in Catalonia had radicalised the positions of parties present at the state level, which entered into a sort of competition to show who was the most Spanish. Even leftist parties do not dare to speak in recognition of Spain’s national plurality because the media, and particularly those from the capital, Madrid, criticise them aggressively.

  In the first elections of 2019, held in May, the PSOE felt uncomfortable when negotiating with the leftist and independent parties that had supported the motion of censure leading to the replacement of the conservative government led by the PP. On top of this, the personal ambitions of the leaders of both the PSOE and Unidas Podemos, the left-wing coalition formed in 2016 by the Podemos political movement and several other political forces, made a pact impossible at that time.

  The PSOE misread the polls and believed that a second election would give them the majority, and therefore the possibility of governing alone. But ahead of the November elections, people were angry because, as they saw it, due to their leaders’ personal egos parties had not done their job, and instead had made us waste time and money. All of this further deepened dissatisfaction with politics.

  Would you say that the extreme right party Vox benefited from this?

  Vox was one of the parties that benefited the most from the second election. It doubled its number of votes and became the third most represented party, with 52 seats, right behind the two major parties.

  Traditionally in Spain it was considered that there was no extreme right because the PP encompassed the entire right wing. But Vox emerged with great force and with a Francoist, aggressive anti-human rights discourse, presenting itself as the guarantor of the unity of Spain against separatism. In fact, the way the situation in Catalonia has been handled has been a breeding ground for the acceptance of increasingly right-wing discourse, justified in the need to preserve the unity of Spain.

  Another electoral result worth mentioning is that of Ciudadanos, a seemingly liberal party, which not long ago thought it would soon be in government, but which practically disappeared given its meagre results. Ciudadanos had focused its discourse on territorial conflict and on the unity of Spain. Voters who prioritised this issue preferred Vox, which has a more radical stance.

  Despite the good results obtained by Vox, however, it was the left that won the elections and this time they worked fast. In just 24 hours a pact between the PSOE and Unidas Podemos was forged, which had previously been impossible to achieve. Citizens found it hard to understand why what a few months ago had been impossible was now possible. But what is important is that the formation of a government was prioritised against the feeling of instability and paralysis that has prevailed in recent years. Faced with this broad pact among leftist parties, the right wing reacted with a very aggressive discourse, strongly rooted in the Francoist tradition.

  Finally, due to the abstention of Catalan pro-independence parties, it was possible to form a government. Governing will not be easy, but it promises to be a very interesting experience, which offers the possibility of creating change. It will be a very broad government, with 22 ministerial portfolios, notably characterised by gender parity.

  How would you characterise Vox as a political force and ideological trend?

  Vox is a far-right party that does not hide its xenophobic anti-human rights discourse. It prioritises two major issues: the unity and centralisation of Spain, and the elimination of gender policies.

  This is a worrying phenomenon that is not only happening in Spain. Extreme right parties arise in times of citizen frustration in the face of economic and social inequalities in a globalised world. There is an international movement – which spans Brazil, France, Italy, Norway, the USA and many other countries – that focuses on stigmatising and criminalising migration and so-called ‘gender ideology’. The support for these speeches by some religious congregations should also be analysed.

  These parties use democracy’s rules to promote an anti-human rights ideology. It is paradoxical that democracy, which was born under the values ​​of participation and respect for rights, is currently being used to strengthen and foster an ideology that is totally opposed to those values.

  How did this right turn take place just a few years after so many people had taken part in protests for economic and social justice?

  An element of this turn has to do with the anger that a section of the population feels toward politics. Corruption of political parties has had a great impact on society, as people think that politicians are in politics only to enrich themselves. There is no idea of politics in the broader sense as linked to the common good.

  In particular, there is a bloc of young people who see a very difficult future for themselves. They have very low expectations and view a vote for Vox is an anti-system choice. This is the vote of those who think that migration will deprive them of jobs and state resources, and that gender policies are an exaggeration. Vox is very apt at using social media with direct messages often based on falsehoods but that are reaching the population.

  The territorial conflict between Spain and Catalonia has also functioned as a catalyst for this anger. The message of ‘we’ll go after them (‘A por ellos’) used to despatch police units from the rest of Spain towards Catalonia to try to prevent the referendum on 1 October 2017, later reinforced by a message from the King, aroused an anti-Catalan sentiment. The right bloc, and especially Vox, appropriated the defence of the monarchy against republican leftist parties.

  How is this process being experienced by civil society? Do you think that the space for civil society is being degraded in Spain?

  Organised civil society was caught a little off guard. On the one hand, we did not believe that electoral support for Vox would be so strong, and on the other hand, we had a debate about whether we should respond to them, and therefore give them more media coverage, or whether it was best to ignore them. The second option prevailed, among political parties as well. And the strategy of ignoring them contributed to the increase in votes for Vox. There was nobody left to respond to their expressions bluntly and with clear arguments.

  Now civil society debate revolves around the need to defend human rights clearly and forcefully and respond to any expression that hurts or stigmatises any population group.

  In the territories where it is governing together with the PP and Ciudadanos, such as Andalusia, Madrid and Murcia, one of Vox's first actions has been to press for the end of aid to organisations working with women or vulnerable groups.

  We are experiencing a risk of regression in freedoms and therefore it is necessary for us to work in a more united way than ever as civil society. A clear communication strategy must be developed to reach all people. Often we in civil society remain locked in our own spheres and find it hard to take our message beyond our circles.

  Another strategy used by the right wing, and especially by Vox and the PP, is to use the justice system to settle political disagreements. Much of the judiciary in Spain is still very ideological, since many conservative judges remain as heirs of the Franco regime. As a result, sentences have abounded against the freedom of expression on social media, including censorship of songs. And many people have also been convicted for protesting publicly, especially in Catalonia.

  How has the situation in Catalonia evolved since the 2017 referendum?

  The referendum of 1 October 2017 was an act of empowerment by a section of the Catalan population that participated very actively, with a collective sentiment of civil disobedience, to achieve a better future against a state that did all it could to prevent it from happening. The violent state repression unleashed during the referendum and afterwards increased the collective feeling of a big section of the population in favour of independence, and especially in favour of the right to decide through elections.

  After the referendum, repression against Catalan pro-independence groups increased, and the state put all its police and judicial machinery in motion. In addition, it launched article 155 of the Constitution, which provides the state with a coercive mechanism to bind the autonomous communities that breach constitutional or legal obligations or seriously undermine Spain’s ‘general interest’. Article 155 suspended the autonomy of Catalonia from 27 October 2017 until 2 June 2018, when new regional elections were held. It amounted to almost a year of political, financial and administrative paralysis in Catalonia.

  Previously, on 16 October 2017, the leaders of the two most representative Catalan pro-independence groups, Jordi Cuixart and Jordi Sánchez, had been imprisoned for mediating in a spontaneous and peaceful demonstration in front of a building of the Generalitat, the Catalan government, where the police were conducting a search. They were imprisoned preventively, with no possibility of release before their trial.

  Following these arrests, judicial repression against the government of Catalonia increased, culminating in the detention of the vice president and five government ministers plus the president of the parliament of Catalonia, all of whom were placed in pre-trial detention. For his part, the president of the Generalitat went into exile in Belgium along with four more ministers, and two other politicians went into exile in Switzerland. The government of Spain made statements affirming that it had decapitated the pro-independence movement.

  This entire judicial and repressive process further complicated the political situation in Catalonia. The ruling issued on 14 October 2019, which sentenced independence leaders to prison terms of between nine and 13 years, amounting to a total of 100 years, caused new street protests to break out.

  Unlike all previous pro-independence demonstrations since 2012, the latest protests caused many riots and faced police repression. In addition, young people were the protagonists and adopted a more radical attitude towards repression. In that context, the anonymous Democratic Tsunami movement emerged. Inspired by the Hong Kong protests, this movement uses social media to call for large peaceful mobilisations in various locations, such as the border or the airport. The police have tried to discover who is behind this movement, but it really is just an instance of collective empowerment by pro-independence civil society.

  At present, following the latest Spanish elections in which the PSOE and Unidas Podemos required the abstention of the pro-independence party Republican Left of Catalonia to be able to form a government, the picture has changed. The government has pledged to initiate a dialogue with the government of Catalonia and to bring any agreements reached through dialogue to a citizen vote. This will not be easy because right-wing parties, using any judicial remedy at their disposal, are trying to boycott the process. An effort must be made to find a solution for the situation of pro-independence prisoners that facilitates a peaceful and political way out and allows a process of real dialogue to begin.

  Civic space in Spain is rated as ‘narrowed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
  Get in touch with La Liga Iberoamericana through itswebsite andFacebook page, or follow@LigaIberoamOSC on Twitter.

   

• SPAIN: ‘Explicit manifestations of gender-based violence are just the tip of the iceberg’

  CIVICUS speaks with Isabel Abella Ruiz de Mendoza about the systemic macho violence faced by women in sport, evidenced in a recent case of abuse of power by the highest authority of the Spanish football federation.

  Isabel is a sportswoman and is responsible for the equality and children and adolescents in two handball clubs. She is a founding partner and director of Abella Legal, a law firm, and an equality consultant specialising in the field of work and sport. From 2018 to 2013 she led the Basque Service against sexual harassment and gender-based harassment in sport in the Basque Country.

  What were the public reactions to the non-consensual public kissing of female player Jenni Hermoso by the president of the football federation?

  The non-consensual kiss that Luis Rubiales, president of the Royal Spanish Football Federation, gave Jenni Hermoso during the celebration of the Spanish team’s victory in the Women’s World Cup was just one of the visible, and still normalised, faces of macho violence.

  In the typology of manifestations of male violence that women face on a daily basis in the workplace, or as in this case in sport, this is violence of a sexual nature. However, it is important to bear in mind that behind this expression of violence, there are likely other forms of psychological, economic and social violence, both against her and against her close environment, as well as against many people who have supported her, even in the virtual realm.

  In the face of this, public opinion has been divided. There are those of us who believe we have a responsibility to work for equality in sport and to eradicate all expressions of sexist violence. However, others have trivialised, minimised, denied, ignored and ridiculed this episode. This diversity of reactions reflects various levels of feminist awareness among people.

  Why did the sporting authorities take so long to condemn the episode?

  What training in equality do the people leading these organisations have? Being a highly masculinised sector, how many have become aware of and developed critical thinking against hegemonic masculinity and its practices? How many have listened to the players and professional women in the sector? How many have renounced their privileges? How many have committed themselves to a personal project of transformation? What instruments to tackle and eradicate discrimination against women in football have they designed and implemented? What effective measures have they adopted?

  All these questions could bring us closer to the causes of the timing of the reactions and the measures taken.

  Do you think that this incident is indicative of deeper problems?

  Indeed, a non-consensual kiss is a visible and explicit manifestation of male violence, a part of what is known as the tip of the iceberg, and hides the structural discrimination that women face in all areas of life, including sport and work.

  This event is not a one-off event. Discrimination and sexist violence against women in sport are present in all disciplines and in all areas of sport and work.

  We owe a big thankyou to the players of the national team because they are succeeding in prying open big cracks in the machismo of sport. Their struggle is yet another example of the long way we still have to go to achieve a fair and discrimination-free sport.

  ---

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

  Get in touch with Abella Legal through itswebsite and follow @AbellaLegal onTwitter andInstagram.

• SPAIN: ‘The LGBTQI+ community fears both legal and social backlash’

  CIVICUS speaks about the situation of LGBTQI+ people in the context of Spain’s election withEmilio de Benito, spokesperson for Health and Seniors of the LGTB+ Collective of Madrid (COGAM).

  Founded in 1986, COGAM is a civil society organisation (CSO) working for LGBTQI+ equality. It is one of the founding organisations of the Spanish State Federation of Lesbians, Gays, Transsexuals and Bisexuals and one of the promoters of equal marriage, legalised in 2005.

  What recent changes have occurred in the situation of LGBTQI+ people in Spain?

  Following the approval this March of the Trans Law, the situation in Spain is, at least on paper, one of the best in the world. The Trans Law allows free choice of registered sex based solely on each person’s will, prohibits conversion therapies and imposes measures for diversity in education and employment.

  We have a problem, however, namely the rise of hate speech propagated by the far right, represented by Vox, and even by the more traditional conservative party, the Popular Party (PP). This election campaign has been plagued by expressions of homophobia and transphobia. We have seen politicians refuse to address trans people in a manner consistent with their gender identity and threaten to abolish laws that have enshrined rights, such as the Equal Marriage Law and the Trans Law. This has reflected in an increase in harassment of LGBTQI+ people both in the classroom and on the streets. According to official data, last year hate crimes in Spain increased by 45 per cent, although real figures may be much higher, because people do not always report these crimes. The LGBTQI+ community fears both legal and social backlash.

  Why did LGBTQI+ rights become a campaign issue?

  Over the past year, there has been much debate about the Trans Law, which was only passed in February. That is why several political parties have the issue on their agenda. This law is possibly the most shocking for the far right and it affects very few people, so even if they don’t try to repeal it, they will certainly try to amend it. In other words, in the best-case scenario, a medical diagnosis pathologising transsexuality will again be required and minors will not receive treatment or will face many obstacles.

  As for the Equal Marriage Law, I doubt that the PP will be able to repeal it, although Vox calls for it. Instead, the party is more likely to seek to put obstacles in the way of adoption or registration of a partner’s child.

  Unfortunately, the Trans Law has also been very strongly rejected by a segment of left-wing feminism, which has given an additional advantage to the right. I believe, however, that this is a philosophical rather than a legal debate. We can debate as much as we like about what makes us identify as male or female, but we must still recognise the right of each person to express their identity.

  Did the LGBTQI+ movement align with any electoral choice?

  We do not align ourselves with any political party, but we do point out that there are parties, such as Vox, with messages and proposals that threaten our rights. This has not been without controversy. The State Federation of Lesbians, Gays, Transsexuals and Bisexuals of Spain has mounted a campaign calling on people not to vote for the right, but some have expressed disagreement with this because in principle one can be right-wing in economic matters without being homophobic. But in our case, the two things overlap.

  Pedro Zerolo, a very important gay activist who was at the forefront of the struggle for equal marriage, used to say that rights must not only be won and enjoyed, but also defended. Clearly we are now in the phase where we must defend our victories.

  So all LGBTQI+ collectives have been involved in the election campaign. We have done so during Madrid Pride, which is one of the most important in the world, because of its duration – it lasts four days – and the number of people it attracts, including many non-LGBTQI+ people, and also because of the many cultural and social activities it includes. We have also participated in debates with political parties: COGAM, for instance, held a debate with representatives of four parties. Not all of them were left-wing parties, although these are the ones who always want to meet with us, listen to us and learn our opinion. But we did not invite the far right, because there is no point in us giving them a voice.

  What are the possible post-election scenarios?

  The PP has opposed all laws that recognised rights for LGBTQI+ people as well as women’s rights, even taking them to the Constitutional Court. But when the Constitutional Court has concluded that these laws do not infringe any constitutional norms, PP governments have not repealed them. But they will likely attack the Trans Law. One of the great achievements of this law is that it listens to minors. When minors know perfectly well who they are and want to be, it makes no sense to repress them until they are of age. It’s the same with abortion: in the past, minors under 16 were required to have their parents’ permission, but then this requirement was removed because there are cases, such as incest, where it was highly problematic. I think they are going to try to go back on these rights as far as minors are concerned.

  They could also go back to requiring trans women to undergo two years of diagnostic psychological treatment. Transgender men have been erased from the debate altogether, as if they don’t exist. There is too much concern about what might happen if a trans woman enters a women’s locker room, but no one is concerned about what might happen to a trans man in the gym.

  In the field of education, very serious setbacks are likely to occur – for instance, we could lose the space that allows us to explain the reality of LGBTQI+ people in schools. For an LGBTQI+ adolescent or pre-adolescent it is essential that someone tells them that what is happening to them is not the usual thing, but it is not abnormal either, and that they can indeed be happy. But they are trying to erase this message.

  Even structures such as equality departments, the local and regional government’s equality bodies, are in many places disappearing or being diluted, renamed ‘family agencies’ when taken over by the far right. Obviously, when LGBTQI+ CSOs need state support for our campaigns, we will receive a very weak response, if any at all.

  The LGBTQI+ movement has pushed for important legal changes. How have you worked to build public support for these?

  Most LGBTQI+ organisations in Spain are political actors and not just welfare organisations. We advocate with parties, lawmakers and public officials. But in my opinion, our main work is about creating visibility.

  The Pride events that take place in Spain, particularly those in Barcelona, Madrid and Valencia, give us the kind of visibility that brings other people closer to us. There is now a trans senator. We campaign in the media. We use social media intensively because it allows us to do two things: reach out to LGBTQI+ teenagers and pre-teens and project a proactive and positive image to society as a whole.

  But we are aware that visibility also exposes us. Every year after Pride events there are cases of guys returning from Chueca, the neighbourhood where Madrid Pride events are concentrated, to their neighbourhoods on the outskirts and being beaten up as soon as they come out of the metro. It happens because they come back from the city centre feeling like the kings of the world. They have been happy, integrated, free. In that euphoria, they don’t realise that they have entered a dangerous zone, where hatred messaging has penetrated deep. And these days there are fewer qualms about insulting LGBTQI+ people. A few years ago, people wouldn’t do it or would do so in a whisper, but now they are emboldened so they are loud, as if they were showing off.

  What links do you maintain with LGBTQI+ organisations internationally?

  At the national level, Spanish CSOs are organised in the State Federation, which maintains relations with ILGA, the International LGBTI Association. Several Spanish organisations are also very focused on Latin America and other Spanish-speaking countries such as Equatorial Guinea. In this former Spanish colony in Africa, for instance, they have just launched a campaign.

  Another form of collaboration involves working with LGBTQI+ migrants from Latin America. The main foreign population groups in Spain are from Romania, Morocco and then Venezuela, Colombia and Ecuador. We are a place of refuge. It is culturally easy, and also many have a Spanish background, which makes it easier for them to stay and can even give them access to citizenship. We play a clear role in this. As our websites are in Spanish, they are very easily consulted by Latin American organisations and our messages reach them without any barrier.

  However, as the situation stands, it is more about us campaigning to support others, than about others supporting us. Within Europe, for instance, we are among the countries that are doing relatively well, so it seems logical that the focus should be on countries like Hungary and Poland. But in any case, working at the European level is the most effective way to resist the conservative backlash, so that countries that break laws or withdraw rights come under pressure from the European Union.

  How do you see the future?

  Right now, at this crossroads, I see it with fear. I was a teenager at the time of Franco’s dictatorship and I lived through it in fear. Now I fear the idea that we might be headed back to that.

  In recent decades many people have accepted us, but they have not all done it for the same reasons. Many people have done so because they did not dare to express their rejection, because it was frowned upon. But now the part of the population in which rejection is well regarded is growing.

  The other day in a public debate a trans girl who is a member of a party was called ‘chronically ill’. Members of regional parliaments insist on addressing trans women lawmakers in masculine terms. Until recently, those who thought these things kept quiet because they were frowned upon and feared social rejection. But now there is a public emboldened to express their hatred. And this will continue regardless of the outcome of the election, because the groups that promote hatred have a public presence that transcends parliament. So I fear for the fate of egalitarian laws, but I fear the streets even more.

  ---

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

  Get in touch with COGAM through itswebsite or itsFacebook andInstagram pages, and follow@COGAM and@emiliodebenito on Twitter.

• SPAIN: ‘The main challenge is to consolidate legally recognised rights and prevent backsliding’

  CIVICUS speaks with Carmen Miquel Acosta, gender lawyer at Amnesty International Spain, about the recently passed Organic Law on the Guarantee of Sexual Freedom, known as the ‘Only Yes is Yes Law’, and the role of civil society in advancing women’s rights.

  What was civil society’s role in the process leading to the approval of the ‘Only Yes is Yes Law’?

  The ‘Only Yes is Yes Law’ is a clear example of the joint work done by the women’s movement, and particularly the feminist movement, present in all spheres, including civil society and government, to respond to a situation.

  One of its triggers was the ‘La manada’ (‘The herd’) case, a case of gang rape that happened in Pamplona in 2016. The judicial response to that case was a perfect example of patriarchal justice, or rather injustice. It exhibited the way in which stereotypes operate and the principle of not believing the victim.

  In 2018 the court decided that what had happened had not been rape but just ‘sexual abuse’, and sentenced the five members of the ‘herd’ to nine years in prison for that crime. Outrage at the verdict triggered huge protests and the women’s movement grew in numbers. Many young women who were getting acquainted with feminism mobilised for the first time.

  It was also at that time that Amnesty published a report highlighting the lack of specific public policies on sexual violence, the lack of data and the absence of a legal framework to address this violation of fundamental human rights. We have called for a law to address the issue ever since.

  Participation in the legislative process was massive and civil society provided a great deal of input, as a result of which the draft was improved.

  The process took quite a long time, not only because it enabled participation, but also because in Spain the process of developing organic laws that deal with fundamental rights requires mandatory reports from the General Council of the Judiciary and the Council of State. All these reports informed the draft law and allowed for a more rigorous treatment of the issue.

  What were feminist organisations’ main issues of concern during the development of the law?

  The first issue was the lack of a diagnosis. This was an issue that concerned Amnesty because we see a tendency to deal with problems without a prior diagnosis and to skip an evaluation of the effectiveness of the public policies adopted.

  With this law the government sought, among other things, to implement the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence, known as the Istanbul Convention, which requires Spain to adopt public policies of prevention. This requires a diagnosis and systematic data.

  Another important issue was that of the judiciary. Spain received a judgment from the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women for a case of stereotyping by a female judge. In this process, a central discussion was how to deal with the use of stereotypes by the judiciary, what training should be given to judges and to what extent it should be compulsory, without being seen as interference in the independence of the judiciary.

  Another issue that was also of concern to us, but which was not included in the law, was that of the use of sexual violence as torture. In Spain sexual violence has been used this way in places of detention, especially against foreigners. The law does not go so far as to establish a crime of torture, which is not subject to a statute of limitations and entails a different type of investigation as it is a crime under international law.

  Another issue that in our opinion was not adequately addressed is that of foreign women in an irregular migratory situation. Although the Istanbul Convention establishes that it is not necessary to file a complaint in order to access gender-based violence services, in cases where women file a complaint, if for whatever reason no conviction ensues, their expulsion files can be reopened.

  Finally, there were some issues, such as sex work, that generated debates within feminist circles that remain unresolved. Amnesty’s position is that sex workers have human rights and the criminalisation of sex work not only does not help them, but exposes them to stigmatisation. Unfortunately, sex workers’ collectives were not consulted in the process.

  What difficulties will the implementation of the law face?

  This is a very ambitious law, the implementation of which requires a lot of resources. It will have to be implemented across the whole territory of Spain, which includes 17 autonomous communities, each with its own jurisdiction on social services and justice, among other areas involved in the implementation of the law. All this raises the question of how the text of the law will be translated into effective reality.

  What are the next challenges for women’s rights?

  The main challenge is to consolidate legally recognised rights and prevent backsliding. At the moment a reform of abortion legislation is on the table to remove barriers to access this right, and it is going to be a controversial issue in the parliamentary debate.

  Opinion is very polarised and there is a prevailing narrative that demonises the other, something that is very apparent in the use of the ‘gender ideology’ label. Freedom of expression enriches democracy and must be protected, especially when things are said that we do not like. But attacks on human rights defenders and hate speech, both of which are on the increase, are an entirely different thing.

  In relation to women’s rights we are seeing setbacks in nearby countries such as Hungary and Poland. Rights gains that we had come to take for granted are not being consolidated or are experiencing setbacks. Hence the importance of increasing human rights awareness and citizen participation. In the midst of this ideological battle, the democratisation of the language of rights is now more urgent than ever.

  ---

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

  Get in touch with Amnesty International Spain through itswebsite orFacebook page, and follow@amnistiaespana on Twitter.

• SPAIN: ‘We demand legal and safe channels for migration; attempts to stop it will only cause more suffering’

  CIVICUS speaks with Solidary Wheels about the deadly consequences of European governments’ anti-migrant policies, in light of the deaths of migrants at an attempted crossing of the Spain-Morocco border on 24 June.

• Suenan las alarmas mientras los gobiernos de la UE plantean financiar las ONG "políticas"

  Por Cathal Gilbert, Responsable del equipo de investigación sobre el espacio cívico de CIVICUS y por Giada Negri, Responsable de investigación e incidencia en el Foro Cívico Europeo

  Cada vez aparecen más figuras públicas por toda Europa que tergiversan el significado de la "actividad política". Afirman que las ONG se pasan de la raya cuando hacen campaña pública a favor de un cambio social o político, consideran que de alguna manera invaden un territorio reservado exclusivamente a los partidos políticos.

  Artículo disponible en inglés en: Diplomatic Courier 

   

• SUISSE : « Il était temps que tout le monde ait les mêmes droits, sans discrimination »

  CIVICUS s’entretient avec Reto Wyss, responsable desaffaires internationalesde Pink Cross, au sujet du récentréférendum sur le mariage homosexuelen Suisse et des défis à venir.

  Pink Cross est l’organisation faîtière nationale des hommes homosexuels et bisexuels de Suisse. Depuis 28 ans, elle défend leurs droits dans les quatre régions linguistiques du pays. Elle s’oppose à la discrimination, aux préjugés et à la violence fondés sur l’orientation sexuelle, l’identité de genre et la séropositivité, et se bat pour l’acceptation et l’égalité des droits de toutes les personnes homosexuelles, tant au niveau national qu’international. Elle mène son action par le biais d’une présence médiatique active, d’un plaidoyer, de campagnes et d’efforts visant à renforcer la communauté LGBTQI+.

  Quel a été le processus menant à la légalisation du mariage homosexuel en Suisse, et quels rôles Pink Cross a-t-elle joués ?

  Le projet de loi sur le mariage homosexuel a été soumis au parlement en 2013 et il a fait plusieurs allers-retours entre les deux chambres législatives jusqu’à ce qu’il soit finalement adopté en décembre 2020. Pink Cross a mené un travail intensif et assez traditionnel de plaidoyer, de lobbying et de campagne publique tout au long du processus.

  Nous avons beaucoup discuté avec des politiciens du Parti démocratique libre de Suisse (conservateur-libéral) ainsi que du Parti démocrate-chrétien. Nous avons commandé un avis juridique qui indiquait clairement que, contrairement à ce que disaient les opposants à la loi, il n’était pas nécessaire de modifier la Constitution suisse pour ouvrir le mariage à toutes et tous. Si tel avait été le cas, la légalisation du mariage homosexuel aurait nécessité un vote populaire positif dans la majorité des cantons suisses, ce qui aurait rendu les choses beaucoup plus compliquées.

  Pour consacrer le mariage homosexuel, il suffisait d’une loi comme celle que le Parlement a votée, modifiant le code civil pour étendre le mariage à tous les couples au-delà de ceux composés d’un homme et d’une femme.

  Aucun référendum n’était nécessaire : celui du 26 septembre était un référendum facultatif lancé par les opposants à la loi, qui entendaient montrer que la décision du Parlement n’était pas bien accueillie par le peuple suisse, et l’annuler. Pour que ce référendum soit lancé, ils ont mené une campagne active pour réunir les 50 000 signatures requises. Les organisations LGBTQI+ auraient été largement satisfaites de laisser la décision prise par le Parlement s’appliquer, plutôt que de demander à tout le monde son accord pour nous accorder les mêmes droits qu’aux autres.

  La campagne de la société civile a été officiellement lancée le 27 juin, avec des événements dans 23 villes et villages de Suisse. Au cours des 100 jours suivants, la communauté queer s’est mobilisée dans tout le pays avec des dizaines d’actions pour réclamer le droit à l’égalité. La campagne a été soutenue par plusieurs organisations LGBTQI+, dont Pink Cross, l’Organisation Suisse des Lesbiennes - LOS, Network-Gay Leadership, WyberNet gay professionnal women, l’association faîtière Familles arc-en-ciel et la Fédération romande des associations LGBTIQ.

  Nous voulions gagner autant de visibilité que possible, nous avons donc fait campagne avec des milliers de drapeaux arc-en-ciel accrochés aux balcons dans tout le pays et nous avons mis en ligne de nombreuses vidéos formidables. Il s’agissait d’une campagne de base très large, à laquelle de nombreux militants ont participé, en ligne et en personne. Notre message principal était que les mêmes droits doivent être reconnus à tous, sans discrimination, et qu’en Suisse, il était temps que cela arrive.

  Qui a fait campagne pour et contre le mariage homosexuel pendant la période précédant le vote ? Comment les groupes opposés au mariage entre personnes de même sexe se sont-ils mobilisés ?

  Les partis et organisations de gauche et libéraux ont fait campagne en faveur de la loi, tandis que l’Union démocratique du centre (UDC), populiste et de droite - mais pas tous ses représentants élus - a fait campagne contre la loi, ainsi que toute une série d’organisations conservatrices et ecclésiastiques, y compris le Parti populaire évangélique, plutôt petit. L’Église catholique était contre la loi, mais tous ses représentants ou institutions n’avaient pas la même position. L’Église protestante a soutenu la loi, mais pas à l’unanimité.

  La mobilisation contre la loi a eu lieu principalement dans les campagnes et - évidemment - en ligne. Leurs arguments portaient essentiellement sur le prétendu bien-être des enfants, et se concentraient sur le fait que la loi permettait aux couples mariés de même sexe d’accéder à l’adoption et à la conception par don de sperme.

  Quels seront les effets immédiats de la nouvelle loi ?

  Le 26 septembre, par 64 % des voix, le peuple suisse a exprimé son accord avec la loi accordant le mariage égal pour tous. La loi entrera en vigueur le 1er juillet 2022 et aura des effets pratiques très importants et immédiats, car le statut juridique du mariage présente plusieurs différences importantes par rapport au régime du partenariat enregistré (PE) dont bénéficient déjà les couples de même sexe.

  La reconnaissance du mariage à tous les couples éliminera les inégalités de traitement juridique qui existent encore en matière de naturalisation facilitée, d’adoption conjointe, de propriété conjointe, d’accès à la procréation médicalement assistée et de reconnaissance légale des relations parents-enfants dans les cas de procréation médicalement assistée.

  S’ils veulent être reconnus comme légalement mariés, les couples de même sexe actuellement en PE devront demander la conversion de leur PE en mariage légal à l’office d’état civil au moyen d’une « déclaration simplifiée », qui n’entraînera pas de coûts excessifs, bien que la procédure exacte reste à déterminer et puisse varier d’un canton à l’autre.

  Les personnes qui se sont mariées à l’étranger mais dont le mariage a été reconnu en Suisse comme PE verront leur PE automatiquement et rétroactivement converti en mariage. 

  Quels sont les autres défis auxquels sont confrontées les personnes LGBTQI+ en Suisse, et qu’est-ce qui doit encore changer pour faire progresser les droits des LGBTQI+ ?

  Il reste encore beaucoup à faire en termes de prévention, d’enregistrement et de condamnation des crimes de haine de manière adéquate. Pink Cross fait actuellement avancer cette question dans tous les cantons, car cela relève de leur compétence. De même, nous préparons un premier « précédent » pour obtenir une décision sur le paragraphe « agitation anti-LGBT » qui a été introduit dans le droit pénal l’année dernière.

  Enfin, l’ancrage institutionnel de la défense des droits des LGBTQI+ doit certainement encore être renforcé au niveau national, notamment au sein de l’administration fédérale, soit par le biais d’une commission spécifique, soit par l’extension du mandat du Bureau fédéral de l’égalité entre les femmes et les hommes. Nous travaillons donc également pour avancer sur ce point.

  L’espace civique en Suisse est classé « ouvert » par leCIVICUS Monitor.
  Prenez contact avec Pink Cross via sonsite web ou ses pagesFacebook etInstagram, et suivez@pinkcross_ch sur Twitter. 

• SUISSE : « La victoire du mariage entre personnes de même sexe va stimuler nos efforts pour les prochaines étapes »

  CIVICUS s’entretient avec Jessica Zuber, coleader de la campagne « mariage pour tous » d’Opération Libero, à propos du récentréférendum sur le mariage homosexuelen Suisse. Opération Libero est un mouvement de la société civile non partisan fondé pour faire campagne contre les initiatives populistes. Son travail se concentre sur la préservation et le développement de la démocratie libérale, la promotion de relations fortes entre la Suisse et l’Europe, la promotion d’une loi libérale sur la citoyenneté, le soutien d’une transformation numérique renforçant la démocratie et la promotion d’une politique plus transparente, responsable et inclusive.

  Quel rôle Opération Libero a-t-il joué dans le processus qui a conduit à la récente légalisation du mariage homosexuel ?

  Depuis sa fondation, Opération Libero se bat pour l’égalité de traitement juridique. Nous avons accompagné le processus parlementaire et fait du lobbying pour que la loi soit adoptée, ce qui est arrivé en décembre 2020, après presque sept ans. Quelques jours avant que les opposants à la loi ne déposent leur demande de référendum, nous avons lancé notre pétition, qui est devenue virale et a reçu plus de 60 000 signatures en ligne en un seul week-end. Pour nous, c’était un signal très fort sur l’état de l’opinion publique.

  Nous avons lancé notre campagne six semaines avant le vote. Elle était axée sur la devise « même amour, mêmes droits ». Notre campagne a complété celle du comité « officiel » mené par la communauté LGBTQI+, qui montrait de vrais couples de même sexe sur leurs affiches. Pour nous démarquer et attirer une cible plus conservatrice, nous avons montré des couples de même sexe aux côtés de couples hétérosexuels.

  Pour le lancement de notre campagne, nous avons mis en scène un mariage et les images de cette cérémonie ont servi de supports visuels pour la couverture médiatique de la campagne. Certains de nos principaux concepts étaient que les droits fondamentaux doivent s’appliquer à tous, et que personne ne perd lorsque l’amour gagne. Il s’agissait d’une campagne de bien-être, car nous nous sommes volontairement abstenus de susciter trop de controverse - par exemple, en soulignant que l’homophobie est encore un phénomène très présent dans la société suisse.

  Pendant la campagne, environ 150 000 de nos dépliants ont été distribués, 13 000 sous-verres ont été commandés et 10 000 autocollants ont été distribués. Notre principale source de financement a été la vente de nos chaussettes spéciales, dont nous avons vendu près de 10 000 paires. Nous avons organisé des ateliers d’entraînement pour préparer les électeurs aux débats et lancé une campagne d’affichage dans les gares et les bus publics. L'événement conjoint de distribution de tracts avec des membres du parti populiste de droite - qui, contre la ligne officielle du parti, soutenaient le mariage pour tous - a attiré l’attention des médias et a réussi à montrer l’ampleur du soutien à la loi.

  Enfin et surtout, une semaine avant le vote, nous avons organisé un événement au cours duquel 400 personnes se sont alignées de part et d’autre pour applaudir les couples de jeunes mariés - de même sexe ou non - lors de leur passage. C’était un événement très inspirant, le plus grand de ce type en Suisse.

  Nous sommes très heureux d’avoir remporté le référendum, 64 % des électeurs ayant soutenu la loi. Le 26 septembre marque un grand pas pour la Suisse : après une attente bien trop longue, l’accès au mariage s’applique enfin à tous les couples, indépendamment du sexe ou de l’orientation sexuelle. Cela élimine les principales inégalités juridiques dont souffrent les couples de même sexe, par exemple en matière de naturalisation facilitée, de perception des pensions de veuve, d’adoption et de médecine reproductive.

  Pourquoi un référendum a-t-il été organisé alors que le Parlement avait déjà légalisé le mariage homosexuel ?

  Les opposants à la loi ont lancé le référendum pour tenter de l’annuler. Leurs arguments étaient centrés sur la vision traditionnelle du mariage en tant qu’union « naturelle » entre un homme et une femme, et sur son rôle central dans la société. Selon eux, l’introduction du mariage universel constitue une rupture sociale et politique qui annule la définition historique du mariage, entendu comme une union durable entre un homme et une femme. Ils ont été particulièrement choqués par le fait que la loi permette l’accès au don de sperme pour les couples de femmes, car ils estiment que cela prive l’enfant de son intérêt supérieur. Ils craignent également que ces changements ne conduisent à la légalisation de la maternité de substitution.

  Sur un plan plus technique, ils ont fait valoir que le mariage universel ne pouvait être introduit par un simple amendement législatif, mais nécessitait une modification de la Constitution.

  Qui était dans le camp du « oui » et du « non » lors du référendum ?

  Après l’adoption de la loi par le Parlement, un comité interpartis - composé principalement de représentants de l’Union démocratique du centre, un parti de droite, et de l’Union démocratique fédérale, un parti chrétien ultra-conservateur - a lancé une pétition en faveur d’un référendum. Ils ont réussi à réunir plus de 50 000 signatures nécessaires pour faire passer leur proposition et obtenir un vote national. Le droit d’opposer son veto à une décision parlementaire fait partie du système suisse de démocratie directe.

  Pendant la campagne, ces groupes ont diffusé des affiches et des publicités en ligne et ont participé à des débats publics dans les médias. Leur principal argument était que le bien-être des enfants était en danger. Ils ont donc placé le débat public sous le signe de l’adoption et des droits reproductifs.

  Heureusement, le mariage civil pour les couples de même sexe bénéficie d’un large soutien politique, comme on a pu le constater le 26 septembre. À l’exception de l’Union démocratique du centre, tous les partis au pouvoir ont soutenu le projet de loi, de même que les Verts et les Verts libéraux, qui ne font pas partie du gouvernement.

  Les groupes religieux ont même fait preuve d’une certaine ouverture. En novembre 2019, la Fédération des Églises protestantes de Suisse s’est prononcée en faveur du mariage civil entre personnes de même sexe ; en revanche, la Conférence des évêques suisses et le Réseau évangélique suisse y restent opposés.

  L’agressivité avec laquelle la loi accordant le mariage pour tous a été combattue et le fait qu’environ un tiers des électeurs l’ont rejetée, en partie pour des raisons homophobes, montre que l’homophobie est encore très répandue et encore bien trop largement acceptée.

  Nous avons également dû relever le défi suivant : les sondages prévoyant une victoire relativement nette dès le départ, il nous a été plus difficile de mobiliser les gens. Nous craignions que les gens considèrent la victoire comme acquise et ne se rendent pas aux urnes. Mais nous avons réussi à faire passer le message qu’une victoire plus large était un signe encore plus fort pour l’égalité en Suisse.

  Quels sont les autres défis auxquels les personnes LGBTQI+ sont confrontées en Suisse, et que faut-il encore changer pour faire progresser l’égalité des droits ?

  Les groupes LGBTQI+ continueront à se battre, notamment contre les crimes haineux. Le mariage pour tous n’offre pas une égalité absolue aux couples de femmes qui reçoivent un don de sperme d’un ami ou choisissent une banque de sperme à l’étranger, auquel cas seule la mère biologique sera reconnue. Ces débats auront toujours lieu, et la communauté LGBTQI+ continuera à se battre pour l’égalité.

  Le « oui » clair au mariage pour tous est un signal fort indiquant que la majorité de notre société est beaucoup plus progressiste et ouverte à des choix de vie diversifiés que notre système juridique, fortement fondé sur un modèle familial conservateur, pourrait le suggérer. En effet, le mariage pour tous n’est qu’un petit pas vers l’adaptation des conditions politiques et juridiques aux réalités sociales dans lesquelles nous vivons. Le « oui » au mariage entre personnes de même sexe stimulera nos efforts pour les étapes suivantes.

  Nous demandons que toutes les formes consensuelles de relations et de modèles familiaux - qu’ils soient de même sexe ou de sexe opposé, mariés ou non - soient reconnues de manière égale. Le mariage, avec sa longue histoire en tant qu’instrument central du pouvoir patriarcal, ne doit plus être considéré comme le modèle standard. Il ne doit pas être privilégié, ni juridiquement ni financièrement, par rapport aux autres formes de cohabitation. Dans les mois et les années à venir, Opération Libero fera campagne pour l’imposition individuelle, la cohabitation réglementée, la parentalité simplifiée et un droit pénal sexuel moderne.

  L’espace civique en Suisse est classé « ouvert » par leCIVICUS Monitor.
  Entrez en contact avec Opération Libero via sonsite web ou ses pagesFacebook,Tik Tok etInstagram, et suivez@operationlibero et@jessicazuber sur Twitter.

   

• SWEDEN: ‘Swedish civil society needs to defend democracy at the grassroots level on a daily basis’

  As part of our 2018 report on the theme of reimagining democracy, we are interviewing civil society activists and leaders about their work to promote democratic practices and principles, the challenges they encounter and the victories they score. Following Sweden’s September election, CIVICUS speaks to Anna-Carin Hall, press officer at Kvinna till Kvinna (Woman to Woman), a Swedish civil society foundation that seeks to strengthenthe role of women in conflict regions by collaborating with women’s organisations and supporting their work to promote women’s rights and peace. Its advocacy focuses on six thematic areas: safe meeting places, the empowerment of women’s rights defenders, increasing women’s power, women’s participation in peace processes, power over one’s body and security for all.

  Sweden’s September election saw support fall for the established centre-left and centre-right parties and rise for the far-right Sweden Democrats. What factors lie behind this result, and what broader trends do you think it points to?

  First, I must emphasise that my answers reflect my own personal opinions rather than those of the organisation I work for. Kvinna till Kvinna is a politically and ideologically independent organisation and has only taken one single standpoint regarding the elections – against what we see as the Sweden Democrats’ anti-feminist policy.

  That said, the drop in support for social democratic parties, for example, is an ongoing trend all over Europe, and not just in Sweden, so one answer could be that this global trend towards a more traditional, nationalist and authoritarian climate finally got hold of Sweden, too.

  Part of the explanation is, as always, fear of globalisation, as traditional jobs move out of Sweden as a result of cost-efficiency thinking, and a large influx of migrants over a short time span, particularly in 2015, create a heavy pressure on the Swedish welfare system, including education and health services, as well as housing shortages.

  Before the election there was also public discussion about the gap between urban and rural areas in Sweden, and around health services shutting down in remote areas. Support for the Sweden Democrats is more common in regions with low education, low income and high unemployment.

  Nevertheless, the Swedish economy is still very strong, and Swedes are in no way suffering economically because of heavy immigration. But large migration centres set up in the countryside have altered the makeup of the population very quickly, causing tension in these places. Additionally, long-term studies in Sweden have shown that for many decades public opinion has been less pro-immigrant than the policies of the dominant parties, and the Sweden Democrats are now being able to capitalise on this.

  Apart from the economy, insecurity issues have also been used to stir anti-immigrant sentiment. A rising level of spectacular shootings among criminal gangs in some immigrant-dominated suburbs has attracted the attention of both Swedish and international media – one of those events was even mentioned by US President Donald Trump, who incorrectly implied that it had been a terrorist attack – and alt-right websites have used these politically a lot.

  Longer term, do you expect support for far-right causes to continue rise, or do you think it has peaked?

  There are different views on this. Some analysts say that the Sweden Democrats have become popular because the other parties in parliament have tried to shut them out. As a result, the Sweden Democrats and their supporters have been able to play the role of victims and claim that the political elite does not care for the views of the common people. Some therefore argue that the Sweden Democrats should be included in the government, and refer to the case of Finland, where Sannfinnlandarna, a nationalist party, reached the government and showed themselves unfit to govern, as a result of which support for them rapidly dropped. This is suggested as one potentially easy way to get the Sweden Democrats off the agenda.

  Several analysts have predicted that the Sweden Democrats will rise a bit more in the next election and will then start to lose popularity. The explanation for this would be that the right turn in the Western world will eventually fade out - but this is really just an assumption, with not much in terms of facts to support it.

  Are these trends indicative of rising currents of xenophobia and racism? If so, how have the more mainstream political parties responded to these and how have they impacted on rights-oriented civil society?

  There is a discussion in Swedish media right now regarding whether support for the Sweden Democrats is driven mainly by xenophobia and racism. Some opinion-makers claim this is the case, but there are surveys pointing towards the fact that Swedes think that the problem is failed integration, rather than immigration itself. Swedish society hasn´t been able to provide immigrant groups with proper education in Swedish, guidance about the Swedish community, decent jobs and so on.

  The change in the political climate manifests itself in, for example, more outspoken discussion of the costs of immigration and its impact on the Swedish welfare system. We can also see a more vivid discussion around cultural or traditional behaviour, such as honour crimes, with some claiming that for too long Sweden has not taken a strong stand against this and avoided several conflictive issues around immigration and integration that were considered culturally sensitive.

  The normalisation of the Sweden Democrats, a party that originated in the Neo-Nazi movement of the 1970s and 1980s, has also led to a louder alt-right Neo-Nazi movement in Sweden, which though still low in numbers, gets a lot of media attention. Several alt-right media outlets are spreading fake news about crime rates among immigrants. Alt-right groups are also making threats, spreading hatred and running smear campaigns in social media. This climate may very well lead to self-censorship among pro-immigration, feminist and LGBTQI groups.

  Mainstream parties have responded to all of this by moving towards a more moderate immigration policy and placing higher demands on immigrants – for instance, by introducing new requirements that they must meet in order to receive social aid and subsidies. Rights-oriented civil society groups are still trying to raise their voices in favour of a generous immigration policy based on humanitarian values, but they aren’t getting much attention these days.

  How is civil society working to combat xenophobia, racism and right-wing populism in Sweden, and what else could it do to build support for human rights and social justice?

  Open racism and xenophobia are in no way tolerated by the vast majority of Swedes, and several local rallies have been staged against racism and the Neo-Nazi movement both before and after the elections. Rights-oriented civil society has prepared for a long time to counter these trends, but stills needs the support of large groups of everyday people to have an impact on official discourse and the public conversation.

  Swedes take great pride in their open society and will likely defend the free press, the freedom of speech and gender equality, among other values. Threats and hatred against immigrants, journalists, feminists and LGBTQI activists get much attention in the media and several political actions have been organised to prevent them from happening. So, if a right-wing government forms with silent or open parliamentary support from the Sweden Democrats, we will likely see a lot of strong reactions from the political and cultural establishment as well as from civil society.

  In the long run, Swedish civil society needs to work to defend democracy at the grassroots level on a daily basis, and maybe it also needs to go to the barricades to build opinion and change what could turn out to be a dangerous course of history.

  Civic space in Sweden is rated as ‘open’ by the CIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with Kvinna till Kvinna through its website and Facebook page or follow@Kvinna_t_Kvinna on Twitter.

• SWITZERLAND: ‘It was about time for everybody to have the same rights, with no discrimination’

  CIVICUS speaks with Reto Wyss,International Affairs Officer of Pink Cross, about the recentreferendum on same-sex marriage in Switzerland and the challenges ahead.

  Pink Cross is Switzerland’s national umbrella organisation of gay and bisexual men, and for 28 years it has advocated for their rights in the country’s four language regions. It stands against discrimination, prejudice and violence based on sexual orientation, gender identity and HIV status, and strives for acceptance and equal rights for all queer people on both a national and international level. It conducts its work through an active media presence, advocacy, campaigning and efforts to strengthen the LGBTQI+ community.

  What was the process leading to the legalisation of same-sex marriage in Switzerland, and what roles did Pink Cross play?

  The same-sex marriage bill was submitted to parliament in 2013 and it went back and forth several times between the two legislative chambers until it was finally passed in December 2020. Pink Cross did intensive and quite traditional advocacy, lobbying and public campaigning all along the process.

  We talked a lot with politicians of the conservative-liberal Free Democratic Party of Switzerland as well as the Christian Democratic People’s Party of Switzerland. We ordered a legal opinion that clearly stated that, contrary to what opponents of the law said, there was no need to change the Swiss Constitution to open marriage to all people. If that had been the case, the legalisation of same-sex marriage would have required a positive popular vote in the majority of the Swiss cantons, which would have made things a lot more complicated.

  To enshrine same-sex marriage, all that was needed was a law like the one parliament had passed, amending the Civil Code to extend marriage to all couples beyond those of a man and a woman.

  No referendum was necessary: the one held on 26 September was an optional referendum launched by opponents of the law, who intended to show that parliament’s decision was not welcome by the Swiss people and overturn it. To have this referendum called, they campaigned actively to gather the 50,000 signatures required. LGBTQI+ organisations would have been largely pleased with letting the decision made by parliament stand, rather than asking everybody whether they agreed with granting us the same rights as everyone else.

  The civil society campaign was officially launched on 27 June, with events in 23 towns and villages across Switzerland. Over the following 100 days, the queer community mobilised around the country with dozens of actions to demand the right to equality. The campaign was supported by several LGBTQI+ organisations, including Pink Cross, the Swiss Organisation of Lesbians-LOS, Network-Gay Leadership, WyberNet-Gay Professional Women, Rainbow Families and Fédération Romande des Associations LGBTIQ+.

  We wanted to gain as much visibility as possible, so we campaigned with thousands of rainbow flags hanging out of balconies throughout the country and posted many great videos online. This was a very broad grassroots campaign with many activists taking part in it, both online and in person. Our main message was that the same rights must be recognised for everybody, with no discrimination, and that in Switzerland it was about time.

  Who campaigned for and against same-sex marriage in the run-up to the vote? How did groups opposed to same-sex marriage mobilise?

  Leftist and liberal parties and organisations campaigned in favour of the law, while the right-wing populist Swiss People’s Party – although not all of its elected representatives – campaigned against it, along with a whole bunch of conservative and clerical organisations, including the rather small Evangelical People’s Party. The Catholic Church was against the law, although not all of its representatives or institutions had the same position. The Protestant Church backed the law, although not unanimously.

  Mobilisation against the law took place mainly in the countryside and – obviously – online. Their arguments were mostly about the alleged well-being of children, and focused on the fact that the law allowed same-sex married couples access to adoption and conception through sperm donation.

  What will be the immediate effects of the new law?

  On 26 September, by 64 per cent of the vote, the Swiss people expressed their agreement with the law granting equal marriage for all. The law will come into force on 1 July 2022 and will have very important and immediate practical effects, because the legal status of marriage has several important differences from the registered partnership (RP) regime already available to same-sex couples.

  The recognition of marriage to all couples will eliminate the inequalities in legal treatment that still exist regarding facilitated naturalisation, joint adoption, joint property, access to medically assisted reproduction and legal recognition of parent-child relationships in cases of medically assisted reproduction.

  If they want to be recognised as legally married, same-sex couples currently in RPs will have to apply for the conversion of their RP into legal marriage at the registry office by means of a so-called ‘simplified declaration’, which won’t carry excessive costs, although the exact procedure is yet to be determined and may vary from one canton to the next.

  Those who were married abroad but whose marriage was recognised in Switzerland as an RP will have their RP automatically and retroactively converted into marriage. 

  What other challenges do LGBTQI+ people in Switzerland face, and what else needs to change to advance LGBTQI+ rights?

  A lot remains to be done in terms of preventing, registering and convicting hate crimes adequately. Pink Cross is currently advancing this issue in all cantons, because this is within their jurisdiction. Likewise, we are preparing a first ‘precedent’ to get a ruling on the ‘anti-LGBT agitation’ paragraph that was introduced into criminal law last year.

  Finally, institutional anchorage of LGBTQI+ advocacy definitely still needs to be strengthened on a national level, specifically within the federal administration, either through a specific commission or by extending the mandate of the Federal Office for Gender Equality. So we are also working to move ahead on this.

  Civic space in Switzerland is rated ‘open’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
  Get in touch with Pink Cross through itswebsite or itsFacebook andInstagram pages, and follow@pinkcross_ch on Twitter. 

• SWITZERLAND: ‘Right-wing populists pose a true threat when other parties meet their demands’

  CIVICUS speaks withLea Schlenker, board member of Operation Libero,about the rise of right-wing populism in Switzerland’s recent elections.

  Founded in 2014, Operation Libero is a Swiss civil society organisation working to preserve and advance liberal democracy by campaigning against populist initiatives and advocating for an open, progressive and just society.

  How concerning are the results of the 22 October Swiss federal election?

  On 22 October, the right-wing Swiss People’s Party (SVP) came first, securing 62 out of 200 parliamentary seats, nine more than it previously had. The SVP is becoming increasingly extremist, and its election victory shouldn’t lead us to trivialise the racism and hatred they stoked during the campaign. We shouldn’t normalise the fact that they called queer people ‘sick’ and let far-right extremists manage their campaign accounts on social media. We shouldn’t endorse them by posing in photos at the Federal Palace with the leader of Switzerland’s largest party.

  The outcome of this election leaves us deeply concerned about issues such as climate change and asylum policies and the treatment of refugees.

  The trend of the rising far right is not exclusive to Switzerland – it is being observed globally. Right-wing parties instrumentalise legitimate citizen concerns, such as inflation or the ongoing war in Europe, to spread misinformation and target minorities. Under the guise of what they call a ‘culture war’, right-wing populists stoke unfounded fears of ‘cancel culture’ and ‘foreign infiltration’. This is very worrying. As a political movement that defends fundamental rights and combats right-wing populism from a liberal perspective, we believe our work is now more necessary than ever.

  How did Operation Libero engage with the election?

  We launched a campaign called ‘Du hast die Wahl’ (‘It’s your Choice’). Our goal was to persuade as many progressive people as possible to participate in the elections and stand up for their values by emphasising the importance of their voice. The SVP is attacking our liberal achievements, including the freedom of religion, the right to abortion, women’s bodily autonomy and equal rights. Some SVP members deny climate change, while others flirt with autocrats like Vladimir Putin. It is our mission to thwart these attacks on democratic values.

  During the campaign, we distributed stickers and used billboards across Switzerland. The design incorporated a white background on the left side and a black background on the right side, symbolising a clear choice. The design, resembling voting ballots, visually reinforced the choice people faced in the election: equal rights or sexism, populism or democracy, isolation or openness, SVP or the future. We deliberately wrote ‘future’ in white lettering on a black background, sparking a lot of public debate and challenging either black or white stereotypes. Our campaign was funded exclusively by donations from members and supporters.

  

  Another important element of our campaign was the petition ‘Wahlen ohne Hass’ (‘Elections without Hate’), which we ran in collaboration with the National Coalition Building Institute. We advocated for elections free from hate speech targeting any minority group. This petition was primarily a response to the racist and xenophobic rhetoric employed by right-wing populists during the campaign. The SVP manipulated police reports to refer to isolated incidents as widespread trends. The impact of our petition was further amplified by the Federal Commission against Racism, which described the SVP campaign as ‘racist, xenophobic, and inflammatory’.

  On election day, we rented a truck and drove it to the capital, Bern. The truck displayed the message we wanted to convey to the public: that we reject the normalisation of the SVP’s discourse and its effect of shifting the whole political spectrum rightwards.

  

  What can be done to prevent further advances of the Swiss far right?

  Right-wing populists pose a true threat when other parties meet their demands, a trend already observed in countries such as Germany. It would be a great mistake for conservative parties to respond to the election results by aligning even more closely with the SVP. The SVP must be treated as a radical outsider so that it remains a minority – albeit a large one that received 28 per cent of the vote. Swiss liberals must distance themselves from the SVP, which often conceals its populist and extremist nature behind a conservative facade.

  Non-extremist parties must urgently form a coalition for an open and progressive Switzerland even if they maintain fundamental differences on specific issues. To counter the SVP’s initiatives on immigration, downsizing public media and promoting ‘neutrality’, Switzerland requires a robust progressive coalition. This is feasible, despite the SVP’s electoral advances, if conservative parties refuse to become their allies.

  With a mostly conservative and right-wing parliament, it will be challenging to implement progressive reforms for a more open and equal society. But we remain hopeful because there are numerous political activists and forces aligned with our democratic vision.

  How does Operation Libero work to protect human rights and safeguard democracy?

  Since its foundation in 2014, Operation Libero has been dedicated to defending liberal and inclusive democracy, advocating for equal rights and fostering European collaboration. We scale up our campaigning every time our liberal democracy or its underlying values come under attack, which unfortunately occurs with regularity.

  Operation Libero was founded to stop right-wing populist advances but we have expanded our mission to actively shape the country through two current initiatives. Firstly, we are working to build a broad alliance to break deadlocks in relations between Switzerland and the European Union (EU) by promoting a popular initiative to embed the objectives of cooperation with the EU in the Swiss Federal Constitution. We want to have close ties with the unique peace and freedom project that is the EU. The Europe Initiative already has the support of 11 organisations.

  And in May we started collecting signatures for the Democracy Initiative, which addresses a fundamental democratic challenge: the fact that Switzerland currently excludes from citizenship, and therefore from the political decision-making process, around a quarter of its permanent resident population. Including all these people as fellow citizens with equal political rights is essential for Switzerland to become a democracy worthy of the name.

  ---

  Civic space in Switzerland is rated ‘open’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with Operation Libero through itswebsite or itsFacebook page, and follow@operationlibero onTwitter.

• SWITZERLAND: ‘The victory of marriage equality will boost our efforts towards the next steps’

  CIVICUS speaks with Jessica Zuber, co-leader of Operation Libero’s marriage for all campaign, about the recentreferendum on same-sex marriage in Switzerland. Operation Libero is a non-partisan civil society movement founded to campaign against populist initiatives. Its work focuses on preserving and developing liberal democracy, fostering strong relations between Switzerland and Europe, promoting a liberal citizenship law, supporting a democracy-strengthening digital transformation and encouraging more transparent, accountable and inclusive politics.

  What role did Operation Libero play in the process leading to the recent legalisation of same-sex marriage?

  Since its foundation, Operation Libero has fought for equal legal treatment. We accompanied the parliamentary process and lobbied so that the law was passed, which happened in December 2020, after almost seven years. A couple of days before the opponents of the law handed in their referendum request, we pushed our ongoing petition, which went viral and received over 60,000 online signatures within a single weekend. To us, that was a very strong signal on the state of public opinion.

  We launched our campaign six weeks before the vote. It focused on the motto ‘same love, same rights’. Our campaign complemented that of the ‘official’ committee led by the LGBTQI+ community, showing real same-sex couples on their posters. To set ourselves apart and appeal to a more conservative target, we showed same-sex couples alongside heterosexual couples.

  For the launch of our campaign, we staged a marriage and the pictures of this ceremony provided the visuals for media coverage during the campaign. Some of our main concepts were that fundamental rights must apply to all people, and that no one loses when love wins. It was a feel-good campaign, as we intentionally refrained from being too controversial – for instance, by highlighting that homophobia is still a phenomenon very present in Swiss society.

  During the campaign, around 150,000 of our flyers were handed out, 13,000 coasters ordered and 10,000 stickers distributed. Our main financial income to pay for this was the sale of our special socks, of which we sold almost 10,000 pairs. We organised boot camps to prepare voters for debates and launched a poster campaign in train stations and public buses. The joint flyer distribution event with members of the right-wing populist party – who, against the official party line, supported marriage for all – attracted media attention and succeeded in showing how broad support for the law was.

  Last but not least, a week before the vote we held an event where 400 people lined up on either side to applaud newlywed couples – same-sex and different-sex – as they ran through. This was a very inspiring event, the biggest of its kind in Switzerland.

  We are very happy that we won the referendum with 64 per cent of voters supporting the law. September 26th marks a big step for Switzerland: after far too long a wait, access to marriage finally applies to all couples, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. This eliminates key legal inequalities for same-sex couples, for example in facilitated naturalisation, the receipt of widows’ pensions, adoption and reproductive medicine.

  Why was a referendum called after parliament had already legalised same-sex marriage?

  Opponents of the law launched the referendum to try to overturn it. Their arguments were centred on the traditional view of marriage as a ‘natural’ union between a man and a woman and its centrality in society. They said that ‘introducing universal marriage is a social and political rupture that nullifies the historic definition of marriage, understood as a lasting union between a man and a woman’. They were particularly upset by the fact that the law enables access to sperm donation for female couples, as they believe this forfeits the best interests of the child. They also feared that these changes would lead to the legalisation of surrogacy.

  On a more technical level, they argued that universal marriage could not be introduced through a simple legislative amendment, but required a change to the constitution.

  Who were on the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ sides in the referendum?

  After parliament passed the law, a cross-party committee – mainly comprising representatives of the right-wing Swiss People’s Party and the Federal Democratic Union, an ultra-conservative Christian party – launched a petition for a referendum. They successfully gathered more than 50,000 signatures necessary to push their proposal through and get a national vote. The right to veto a parliamentary decision is part of the Swiss system of direct democracy.

  During the campaign, these groups put out campaign posters and online ads and participated in public media discussions. Their main argument was that children’s well-being was in danger, so they put the focus of the public debate on adoption and reproductive rights.

  Fortunately, civil marriage for same-sex couples enjoys widespread political support, as seen on 26 September. With the exception of the Swiss People’s Party, all the governing parties supported the bill, as did the Greens and Liberal Greens, who are not in the government.

  There was even some openness from religious groups. In November 2019 the Federation of Swiss Protestant Churches spoke out in favour of same-sex civil marriage; however, the Conference of Swiss Bishops and the Swiss Evangelical Network remain opposed to it.

  The aggressiveness with which the law granting marriage for all was fought and the fact that about a third of voters rejected it, partly for homophobic reasons, shows that homophobia is still widespread and still far too widely accepted.

  We also faced the challenge that as the polls projected a relatively clear victory from the outset, it made it harder for us to mobilise people. Our fear was that people might take victory for granted and not go out to vote. But we were able to reach people with the message that a victory by a wider margin was an even stronger sign for equality in Switzerland.

  What other challenges do LGBTQI+ people face in Switzerland, and what else needs to be changed to advance equal rights?

  LGBTQI+ groups will continue to fight, notably against hate crimes. Marriage for all does not deliver absolute equality for female couples who receive a sperm donation from a friend or choose a sperm bank abroad, in which cases only the biological mother will be recognised. These debates will still occur, and the LGBTQI+ community will continue to fight for equality.

  The clear ‘yes’ to marriage for all is a strong signal that the majority of our society is much more progressive and open towards diverse life choices than our legal system, strongly based on a conservative family model, might suggest. Indeed, marriage for all is just a small step towards adapting the political and legal conditions to the social realities we live in. The ‘yes’ to marriage equality will boost our efforts towards the next steps.

  We demand that all consensual forms of relationships and family models – whether same-sex or opposite-sex, married or not – become equally recognised. Marriage, with its long history as a central instrument of patriarchal power, must no longer be considered the standard model. It must not be privileged, either legally or financially, over other forms of cohabitation. In the coming months and years, Operation Libero will campaign for individual taxation, regulated cohabitation, simplified parenthood and a modern sexual criminal law.

  Civic space in Switzerland is rated ‘open’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
  Get in touch with Operation Libero through itswebsite or itsFacebook, Tik Tok, andInstagram pages, and follow@operationlibero and@jessicazuber on Twitter.

• THE NETHERLANDS: ‘People are beginning to realise that we need real and systemic change’

  CIVICUS speaks with Sieger Sloot, an actor and climate activist from a Dutch branch of Extinction Rebellion (XR), about climate protests and the criminalisation of climate activism in the Netherlands.

  XR is a global decentralised network of climate activists working to compel governments to address climate change and prevent biodiversity loss and ecological collapse through the use of non-violent civil disobedience tactics.

  What forms of protests has XR deployed in the Netherlands, and what have you achieved?

  In the Netherlands, XR organised over 300 protests in 2022 alone. One of the most successful was a blockade of the A12 highway in The Hague city centre. We were 30 people when we started blocking the road last June, and since then, the number of participants doubled or tripled every time, so we grew exponentially. On 11 March 2023, around 4,000 protesters blocked the same spot.

  It is XR’s strategy to use non-violent disruptive actions like blockades to draw attention to the climate crisis, and especially to the €30 billion (approx. US$32.9 billion) annual fossil fuel subsidies provided by the government. These attract way more media coverage than regular protests. The Dutch law allows a great deal of protesting and XR is actively investigating the limits of what is allowed.

  These forms of protest have had a huge effect on Dutch society. For the first time we witness mainstream media talking about fossil fuel subsidies. Some 400 Dutch economists wrote an op-ed on why and how fossil fuel subsidies should be terminated. Members of parliament are making proposals for ending fossil fuel subsidies. The Dutch Secretary for Climate has announced a press conference on the climate crisis. A wave of famous musicians, actors, writers and directors are joining the XR movement. So our tactics are proving to be quite effective.

  What are your demands to the Dutch government, and how has the government reacted?

  The Dutch government promised to end fossil fuel subsidies in 2020 but still hasn’t done it, so with every blockade XR demands it end all fossil fuel subsidies immediately, or otherwise the protesters won’t leave. Until now, the government hasn’t complied with our demand. Instead, police have arrested protesters who weren’t willing to leave and fined others. They also used water cannon to disperse crowds and tried to infiltrate XR.

  Over the past months, between 40 and 50 climate activists have been prosecuted in the Netherlands. The accusations vary from vandalism, which can be just about spray paint, to not following police orders and trespassing, all the way to sedition.

  This included eight activists arrested for sedition because they posted on social media about their intention to go to the protest and block the highway. This had never happened before: it is a totally unprecedented attack on free speech and freedom of assembly. This provoked a lot of anger among Dutch people, since according to both Dutch and European Union law it’s allowed to block roads while protesting. Over 70 civil society organisations showed their solidarity with XR following the arrest of those eight activists by joining the A12 protest.

  I think the Dutch government is criminalising climate activists just to ‘restore law and order’, but it has totally backfired on them. The District Attorney (DA) is prosecuting the eight activists, probably to make a case that not all ways of protesting are allowed – even though XR’s actions are always non-violent. We’ve had some quite violent farmers’ protests in recent years, but it seems that the DA didn’t dare to make a case against them. Of course they have tractors and aren’t as easy to target as climate activists.

  What kind of support are your receiving from international allies?

  We get a lot of international support online, which is absolutely awesome. Right now, I think we’re really thriving and growing rapidly. It feels as if XR is becoming more and more accepted and mainstream every day. Along with other activists I’ve started giving ‘Headed for Extinction’ talks to all kinds of people, which translated into more attention for our story from people in power and in the media. More and more people are now joining us because they see it’s the logical thing to do. A lot of powerful and smart people are beginning to realise that we need change, real and systemic change.

  ---

  Civic space in the Netherlands is rated ‘open’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with XR through itswebsite orFacebook page, and follow@ExtinctionR onTwitter.

• TURKEY: ‘We continue to organise and demonstrate so that no voice is left unheard’

  CIVICUS speaks about International Women’s Day and Turkish civil society’s role in eliminating gender inequality with the team of the We Will Stop Femicide Platform, a Turkish civil society organisation (CSO) aimed at ending femicide and ensuring women are protected from violence.

  We Will Stop Femicide was founded in response to rising levels of femicide in Turkey. It provides assistance to women exposed to GBV and promotes legal action against perpetrators. It contributes to raising awareness about GBV by collecting data on femicides and sharing it with the public, organising meetings and holding protests, and assists families of femicide victims in their quest for justice.

   

  How has the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated GBV in Turkey?

  The COVID-19 pandemic made many pre-existing inequalities more visible. It had a negative impact in terms of social inequalities, GBV and ultimately femicide. Especially during lockdown, many women had to stay at home with their perpetrators for a long time.

  While in many countries extra measures were taken when this happened, we never saw them in Turkey. Even the announcement of the official hotline, KADES, was made too late. All of this has had an impact on femicide rates. In addition, there’s been an increase in suspicious deaths of women – cases in which murder is suspected but it cannot be determined conclusively whether there’s been a natural death, a suicide or a murder. These are another face of femicide.

  In sum, since we coexist with so many inequalities, we cannot be completely sure when we attribute these changes exclusively to the pandemic, but everything points to the pandemic having made things worse. We will definitely continue to follow the data to understand this better.

  What role has Turkish civil society played in advocating against femicide, both before and during the pandemic?

  There has been a growing movement against femicides in Turkey. As a result of this pandemic - that we do not know when it will end – our struggle will grow even larger and the voice against femicide will spread louder and further.

  Precisely under the pandemic, when GBV was denounced by many as a pandemic of its own, our government withdrew Turkey from the Istanbul Convention, the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence. This is a regional human rights instrument aimed at protecting women against GBV and holding perpetrators accountable, and with this withdrawal we have lost an important tool to hold our own government accountable for what it is doing – or not doing – to protect women.

  The process of withdrawal from the Istanbul Convention was shameful. It happened overnight and was the result of the arbitrary decision of one person, President Erdoğan. He announced his decision in March 2021, and the withdrawal took effect in July. A legal instrument that recognised women as free and equal and sought to ensure us a life free of violence was dismissed at a single stroke. This marked an incredible regression for Turkish women.

  But it also provoked a welcome progressive reaction. On top of the pandemic conditions that disproportionately affected women and the government’s increasingly misogynistic policies, the termination of the Istanbul Convention galvanised society against femicide and GBV. People demonstrated in streets, public squares, schools and workplaces to stand up for the Istanbul Convention and women’s right to be treated as free and equals. Nothing will ever be the same after that.

  We continue to organise for our right to be recognised as free and equal and to live a life free of violence. We keep telling more and more women about their rights and freedoms. We continue to organise meetings and mass protests so that no voice is left unheard.

  What else is the We Will Stop Femicide Platform doing?

  As members of the We Will Stop Femicide Platform, we organise mass demonstrations in various places such as streets or squares, schools and factories and other workplaces, depending on the topic on the agenda. This is one of the most important ways in which we can make our voices heard.

  In addition, we use social media for our campaigns. In this way, we not only follow the agenda, we also inform the public about our work and invite people to take part in our struggle. Our YouTube channel, Yaşasın Kadınlar, which we have just started, has made an important contribution in that regard and we think it will become even more effective in the future. We use it to share the current women’s rights agenda, answer questions and make our own assessment of political developments.

  In addition, we have Women Assemblies in many of Turkey’s provinces, so our struggle continues there through meetings, mass demonstrations and social media work. We have also launched a publication, Eşitlikçi Feminizm, to advance our struggle.

  Of course, the pandemic has had an impact on our work, and our face-to-face work has decreased. However, technological progress has enabled us to carry out much of our work from home. Our YouTube channel and new publication have been important steps forward during the pandemic.

  What should the Turkish government do to curb femicide?

  The Turkish government knows what it should do, because the Istanbul Convention explains, one by one, each of the steps that need to be followed to prevent femicides.

  First, it needs to create an environment that is not conducive to GBV. All the anti-women and anti-LGBTQI+ rhetoric needs to end – but unfortunately it continues.

  Second, it needs to protect women in environments where various forms of violence occur. However, we see that protection measures are not actively and fully implemented.

  Third, incidents of violence need to be prosecuted and punished effectively. And of course, it is necessary to have a policy based on the principle of gender equality to guide all these. 

  All state institutions should be doing all this. While the Istanbul Convention was in force, we took to the courts and protested in the streets to demand the enforcement of each and every article of the Convention. Many women’s lives were saved thanks to the Istanbul Convention. Now that the Istanbul Convention is not in force in Turkey any more, what we have left is Law No. 6284 of 2012, the Law to Protect Family and Prevent Violence against Women. We will continue to fight for the implementation of the contents of the Istanbul Convention, whether the Convention itself is in force or not.

  The International Women’s Day theme for 2022 is #BreakTheBias. How are you organising around it in the communities you work with?

  On 8 March we are holding mass demonstrations all over Turkey with the slogan ‘We will not live in the grip of poverty and in the shadow of violence, you will never walk alone’. Recently, we have been going through a serious economic crisis with increasing inflation. Rising violence against women and growing poverty are interconnected. We will be in streets and squares all over the country looking at the issue as a whole and demanding integrated solutions.

  Civic space in Turkey is rated ‘repressed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
  Get in touch with the We Will Stop Femicide Platform through itswebsite orFacebook page and follow@kadincinayeti on Twitter.

• UK: ‘Education can equip the next generation to disrupt the culture of gender-based violence’

  CIVICUS speaks about the upcoming International Women’s Day and UK civil society’s role in eliminating gender inequality with the team of Bold Voices, a social enterprise that seeks to create spaces for young people to discuss and share experiences of gender inequality and gender-based violence.

  Bold Voices advocates for young people’s right to receive education without being hindered by gender inequality and gender-based violence and works to equip the next generation with the knowledge and tools that will enable it to recognise inequalities in society and find new ways to tackle them. It does so through workshops, talks, digital sessions and online resources for young people and their teachers and parents.

  Do you think COVID-19 has had a disproportionate impact on women and girls in the UK? What has civil society done to support them?

  COVID-19 has not only impacted on women and girls worse than the rest of the population: it has also exacerbated pre-existing inequalities. Since the pandemic began in 2020, we have seen an unprecedented increase in violence against women and girls, from public street harassment to domestic violence and femicide, as well as the deepening of other pre-existing issues such as the gender gap in unpaid labour.

  As lockdown orders came in, women took up the brunt of childcare, household chores and home-schooling. Civil society expressed concerns that the pandemic might turn back the clock on gender equality. Women of colour were specifically impacted on, as they are overrepresented among ‘essential’ and frontline workers. This meant they were disproportionately exposed to the virus and, due to factors linked to structural racism, at higher risk of serious illness if they contracted it.

  Civil society’s response has been to strengthen support services, including financial, mental health and medical support, as well as to turn to the digital sphere to raise awareness of these issues. We have seen online campaigns gain unprecedented traction in the past two years, paving the way for civil society to put more pressure on the government to respond and enact change.

  Two noteworthy campaigns were the one sparked by outrage over Sarah Everard’s murder and Everyone’s Invited, which provided a virtual space for survivors of sexual violence to share their stories to help expose and eradicate rape culture with empathy, compassion and understanding. This campaign had viral success at a time when public life was almost exclusively online.

  How did you continue doing your work during the pandemic?

  When the pandemic began and schools shut down, as in the rest of the world, Bold Voices’ work had to shift online. Our workshops involve highly trained facilitators who lead students in critical discussion about sensitive topics around gender inequality. Unable to ensure a safe online space to facilitate these difficult conversations, we were unfortunately forced to suspend our workshop programme.

  Instead, we focused on delivering our talks over Zoom, reaching as many students as we could and adapting our work to make it as engaging and far-reaching as possible. Over the pandemic, we have hosted online talks, published blog posts and reached out to our community via social media to stay connected and to continue facilitating conversations around gender-based violence and inequality.

  What are the main women’s rights issues in the UK?

  At Bold Voices we view all women’s rights issues as interconnected. To illustrate this, we refer to Liz Kelly’s idea of a ‘continuum’ of gender-based violence. At the bedrock of gender inequality are the stereotypes that are still widely held in the UK: ideas about masculinity and femininity based on the gender binary that feed into our expectations of how women and men ‘should’ behave. Besides erasing the existence of people who don’t fit into that binary, these stereotypes set up cultural expectations that create a culture of gender-based violence rife with victim-blaming, silencing, objectification of women and slut-shaming.

  These attitudes then feed and shape the structures and institutions that perpetuate these ideas. As a result, our legal system continues to fail survivors of sexual violence, the gender pay gap persists, women continue to be underrepresented in sectors such as business, politics and STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) disciplines and the media we consume continue to fuel misogyny and glorify violence against women and girls.

  These layers of stereotypes, attitudes and structural inequalities all create a culture in which sexual violence not only exists but thrives and goes unpunished. Looking at this continuum of violence through an intersectional lens, we see that women of colour and minorities are more vulnerable to these experiences because of the way gender inequality overlaps with other forms of oppression.

  How is civil society advocating for change?

  Civil society in the UK is campaigning for legal reform, to shift cultural attitudes and work on change through education. At Bold Voices we believe education is key to dismantling the culture that enables not only violence against women but all forms of inequality that affect women and those who don’t fit into the gender binary.

  In the past few years, we have seen inspiring grassroots campaigns successfully criminalise some acts of sexual violence. Other areas of legal reform such as the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 show progress being made in terms of legal protections for women.

  Public campaigns such as the recent Transport for London campaign to raise awareness of sexual harassment are trying to shift public attitudes. Grassroots social media campaigns exposing the problem of sexual violence in education, such as Everyone’s Invited, have come at the same time as the introduction of new relationships and sex education curriculum in UK schools, meaning all students must learn about consent, among other issues.

  We know this is not enough. None of these actions will close the gender gap, but we believe education can spark the change we need, and the more we facilitate these conversations between young people, the better equipped the next generation will be to disrupt and reshape the culture of gender-based violence that exists all around us.

  The International Women’s Day (IWD) theme for 2022 is #BreakTheBias. How are you organising around it in the communities you work with?

  At Bold Voices we bring the message of IWD to our conversations with young people every day. Disrupting bias, stereotypes and discrimination against women, trans and non-binary people is at the heart of our work, and is the key to challenging gender-based violence. For IWD 2022 we are focusing on reaching out to the Bold Voices community to celebrate and thank our partners for working with us and for being part of the change.

  Civic space in the UK is rated ‘narrowed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
  Get in touch with Bold Voices through itswebsite orFacebook page, and follow them onInstagram andTwitter.

• UK: ‘For women to be respected, police reform is necessary but not sufficient’

  CIVICUS speaks with Anna Birley, co-founder of Reclaim These Streets, policy lead at the Co-operative Party and councillor in the London borough of Lambeth. 

  Reclaim These Streets was formed in March 2021 to speak up against street harassment of women and girls, educate boys and men to take responsibility for the problem of violence against women and girls, and challenge the misogyny embedded in the ways laws are written and enforced.

  

  What prompted you to organise and how did Reclaim These Streets get started?

  I live in south London, close to the place where Sarah Everard was last seen before going missing on 3 March 2021. Over the following week, posters appeared on every bus stop, lamppost, tree – her face was everywhere. We were in lockdown, activities were very limited, so when you went for a lunchtime walk with the one friend you were allowed to meet under lockdown regulations, you would see her face everywhere.

  My friends and I realised we all felt scared. New details about Sarah’s disappearance were coming out every day and we put ourselves in her shoes, tried to imagine where she could have been, what she could have done, what could have happened to her. In our lunchtime walks, we found ourselves trying to retrace her steps. As we spoke with other local women, we realised we were all thinking twice about everything we did, changing our lives simply because we didn’t feel safe in public spaces.

  For a couple of days, the police were door-knocking all over the area, not just trying to get information about Sarah but also giving women advice to stay safe. They were not telling men not to be predators – they were telling women not to go out after dark, not go out alone, to take extra precautions. That’s when our worry and our fear turned into anger.

  On 10 March I texted my friends – we needed to do something together in solidarity, but also in defiance. We wanted to challenge the idea that we had to lock ourselves down, impose curfews on ourselves because male violence made it unsafe for us to be out there, because if we didn’t take enough precautions, we – not our aggressors – would be the ones to blame.

  I set up a Zoom call in which we organised a Facebook event and looked up the regulations on COVID-19 and assemblies. We initially wanted to do a walk along the route Sarah had taken, but you need to get permission to march, but not for a stationary protest. We didn’t have time to request a permit, and we also didn’t like the idea of having to ask for permission for us as women to express our anger together, so we went for the stationary vigil. We chose Clapham Common because it is a huge open space allowing for social distancing, and also because it was one of the last places where Sarah had been seen alive. We did it at sunset so women could take back the park after dark.

  We let both the police and the council know – I and another organiser are local councillors – because we wanted the event to be safe. We wanted to be sure that it wouldn’t be hijacked by anti-vaxxers or counter protests, and that women would be able to feel safe walking back home after the vigil.

  The name, Reclaim These Streets, echoed that of the Reclaim the Night movement, which formed in Leeds in the late 1970s when the ‘Yorkshire Ripper’ was at large and the police told women the same things they were telling us now – to stay home for our own good and take extra precautions. We felt angry that we still had to fight the same battles over and over. Several decades had passed but the culture and the victim-blaming approach had not changed.

  What obstacles did you face in organising and mobilising?

  In March 2021, when we planned the vigil for Sarah, the UK was subjected to COVID-19-related public health regulations, and the police used these to try to prevent us mobilising. They said that we needed their permission, which wasn’t true. They threatened us, as organisers, with a £10,000 (approx. US$13,600) fine each, and with arrest under the Serious Crimes Act, on the basis that we would be inciting others to break the law. The Serious Crime Act is used against terrorists. Being charged under it would, among other things, prevent me holding public office again, effectively ending my career.

  The police did nothing to facilitate our human right to protest. We tried to engage with them, because we wanted to know if they had intelligence that would help us keep women safe. We wanted to make sure that the policing would be sensitive to the need to build trust after a serving police officer was arrested for Sarah’s rape and murder, and to know that it would be proportional – for example, ensuring women wouldn’t be kettled or pushed into a close crowd when there were social distancing measures in place.

  We started organising on a Wednesday, and by Thursday night, after receiving threatening emails and having a series of pointless meetings with police, we instructed lawyers and crowdfunded for a judicial review. The police insisted that there was a blanket ban on all gatherings; they couldn’t seem to differentiate between a birthday picnic and a protest. From what we could tell, they declared our vigil unlawful without conducting any risk assessment in which they considered our human rights under articles 10 and 11 of the UK’s Human Rights Act concerning freedoms of expression and peaceful assembly.

  The judge agreed with us that a risk assessment be done and that it should take human rights into account, but the police said they had done it and the judge took them at face value. We met with police straight out of the judgment and proposed to do a staggered event over a longer period of time, and asked if we could make any changes to make the event more acceptable. But they wouldn’t budge, and while we were still at the meeting they issued a press release warning people it was unlawful to attend.

  The vigil was supposed to be happening the next day, and nobody was able to confirm whether we would still be liable for a £10,000 fine if someone turned up even if we cancelled it. On top of this, at least 34 additional vigils had been organised all over the country. We felt responsible because we had told those wishing to replicate the event that the law allowed for ‘reasonable excuse’, and that this included our human right to protest. Now they could be subjected to significant fines and life-changing judicial processes for organising these events.

  Despite the event being cancelled, women kept coming in throughout the day, bringing flowers, paying their respects. Even the Duchess of Cambridge came. Crowds grew in the evening, and right after sunset police moved in, pushing women together, manhandling some and pinning them to the ground.

  We went back to court and now expect the judgment. We demanded to see the risk assessment that was supposedly conducted and insisted on the priority of human rights and the principle of proportionality. We hope our case sets a precedent and helps other people challenge arbitrary police decisions. For instance, there is a nurse in Manchester who was given a £10,000 fine for holding a solo protest – we hope this can help people like her too.

  What do you think are the root causes of misogynistic policing?

  Misogyny is not just a policing problem; it is a societal problem. Misogynists are the product of a society that sees women and girls as less. This manifests in countless structural inequalities: unequal pay, women doing more menial jobs, women being seen as home keepers and not being able to go back to the workplace, women being seen as objects and sexualised from a young age. 

  The institutions that are doing better at shaking these views are those that are more diverse, transparent and accountable, that welcome whistleblowing and reward those who call out bad behaviour. But the police force is simply not set up that way. It is not diverse enough so it has a distinct white male culture and so it is perhaps less open to and tolerant of difference. It is the kind of profession in which comradeship is important for staying safe – but this can also result in police officers protecting each other at the expense of women, victims or the public. It can promote a defensive attitude and an unwillingness to confront problems.

  Take the case of Dr Konstancja Duff, who was strip searched and humiliated in a police station in 2013 – this was basically state-sanctioned sexual assault. The officers involved were assessed by a tribunal of their peers that found them to have behaved in an exemplary manner; some were even promoted. Dr Duff didn’t give up despite being gaslit by the police for eight years: she went to court and was able to access the CCTV and demonstrate the appalling treatment she had experienced. That’s the only reason she got an apology or any recognition at all.

  What changes are needed in police culture and policing practices?

  Because it turned out that it was a police officer who was responsible for Sarah’s death, and because so many revelations of police misconduct and impunity followed, the police ended up occupying a more central place in our work than we had anticipated. But our focus is on women’s safety rather than on police reform. We know that for women to be respected and treated as equals, police reform is necessary, but it is not sufficient. What we need is to change the culture that sends girls to take self-defence classes instead of teaching boys to respect women.

  This partly requires changing the law, because it currently does not give enough importance to crimes that specifically affect women. For instance, if you drop litter or a cigarette butt, or you leave your car idling, you will be fined. But if you follow a girl in her school uniform walking home from school, pull your car up next to her, drive at the same speed as she’s walking and make sexually explicit comments at her, as long as you don’t solicit sex from her you are not breaking any laws – unless you idle your car for too long, that is. The law should take more seriously some supposedly ‘minor’ crimes, such as flashing, which is a predatory power move that can also be a stepping stone towards more serious behaviour.

  Part of the work is about changing culture, which is very hard to do. We are doing some work in schools for boys and girls to have conversations about consent and respect, reach an understanding of what misogyny is and think about ways in which they can champion gender equality. We campaign for women’s safety, mostly on social media, on a regular basis, not just when the ‘perfect victim’ captures the headlines.

  As part of that, we have reflected a lot about the fact that we mobilised about a white woman – because she has kidnapped and murdered in our neighbourhood, but still, we were not aware at the time of other women whose cases had been treated differently because they were Black. We made a conscious decision to use our platform and privilege to raise the voices of women who would otherwise not get the same support and attention from the media and public institutions.

  What concerns do you have about the police, crime, sentencing and courts bill currently in the UK parliament?

  Our experience is a cautionary tale about police powers. Police are being allowed to make judgement calls that they are ill-equipped to make. They shouldn’t be given as much power to interpret the law – it isn’t their role. They should have less power than they currently have, not more. 

  The police, crime, sentencing and courts bill goes in the wrong direction. It’s a draconian piece of legislation that will grant the police even more powers and will restrict the right to protest. It appears to be aimed at placating people who were annoyed at climate protests for slowing down traffic or at Black Lives Matter protesters for defacing statues. It prioritises the circulation of traffic and the integrity of statues over the human right to express dissent, which is very dangerous.

  What’s your reaction to the resignation of Cressida Dick as Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police?

  Our first reaction was of surprise – I don’t think even the Home Secretary knew she was resigning. But we were pleased she stepped down, because she had failed to tackle the culture problem of the Metropolitan Police. At the end of the day, leaders need to be held accountable for the organisations they run, and the buck stops there. When you are unwilling to even admit there’s a problem, let alone put together a plan to fix it, you become part of the problem.

  Of course, this is a problem for many police forces across the UK, and other police leaders should also reflect on whether they are part of the solution or part of the problem.

  But Cressida’s resignation shouldn’t allow the rest of the police force off the hook. Fixing an institutional problem requires more than one person to leave. I hope her successor is not only a feminist but also someone who comes in ready to admit that there is a problem, is willing to ask for help and develops a robust approach to tackle the various forms of bullying and discrimination – misogyny and sexism, racism and homophobia – that are pervasive and create a nasty working environment that prevents others from calling it out.

  We also hope that this will pave the way for the Angiolini Inquiry – a review into the investigation and prosecution of rape in London – to widen its scope and look into institutional misogyny instead of writing the problem off as a ‘bad apples’ issue. The inquiry needs to be made statutory too – so that it is led by a judge rather than a politically appointed chair, so that the police are required to comply and cannot close ranks, so that victims are at the heart of the inquiry and get legal support to contribute, and so that the recommendations have to be taken on board.

  It's been almost a year since Sarah went missing, and at the time everyone – politicians, police, the media – said ‘never again’. It was supposed to be watershed moment. And then nothing. I can barely point to a single tangible improvement that has happened since. Safety hasn’t improved; nor has police culture. We are disappointed in the last 12 months, but we expect institutions to do better over the next 12 months.

  Civic space inthe UK is rated ‘narrowed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
  Get in touch with Reclaim These Streets through itswebsite and follow@ReclaimTS on Twitter. 

• UK: ‘The anti-boycott bill is the latest government attempt to stifle civil liberties’

  CIVICUS speaks with Daniel Lubin, co-founder of Na’amod (British Jews Against Occupation), about the UK government’s proposed anti-boycott bill that would prevent public bodies from using divestment as a strategy to meet human rights responsibilities and obligations.

  Na’amod is a movement of British Jews seeking to end its community’s support for apartheid and occupation and mobilising for dignity, freedom and democracy for all Israelis and Palestinians.

  What are the goals and contents of the proposed anti-boycott bill?

  The Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill, also known as the anti-boycott bill, would ban public institutions from participating in boycotts or divesting from companies or countries that are committing, or are complicit in committing, human rights abuses when such actions would diverge from current British foreign policy. Although the bill would affect many international issues, such as the situation of the Uyghur minority in China or fossil fuel divestment, Israel is the only country explicitly mentioned in the bill, and most government statements so far have justified the bill as a tool to tackle anti-Israel sentiment and even antisemitism.

  Further, the bill doesn’t differentiate between Israel proper and the Occupied Palestinian Territories – East Jerusalem, Gaza and the West Bank – which conflates Israel’s sovereign territory with the land it occupies illegally under international law.

  And domestically, this bill is just the latest UK government attempt to stifle civil liberties, following the Nationality and Borders Act, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act and the Public Order Act.

  The Nationality and Borders Bill 2022 contains provisions about nationality, asylum, immigration, victims of slavery and human trafficking. The government claimed its goal was to save lives and stop people smuggling, but it introduces a treatment of refugees that is incompatible with international law.

  The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, also known as the ‘policing bill’, expanded police access to private education and healthcare records and gave police sweeping powers, such as the authority to conduct ‘stop and searches’ without suspicion and criminalise trespassing. This expansion of powers further targets groups already disproportionately affected by over-policing, such as young Black men. Similarly, the trespassing provisions, which make ‘residing on land without consent in or with a vehicle’ a criminal offence, effectively criminalises Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities.

  The Public Order Act 2023, also referred to as the anti-protest bill, stifled the right to protest by giving law enforcement agencies greater powers against protests deemed ‘disruptive’ such as those used by climate protesters.

  The anti-boycott bill follows in the footsteps of these draconian pieces of legislation. It clearly does nothing to combat antisemitism. This claim is merely a fig leaf to shroud the government’s long-term campaign against civil rights in the UK.

  What will be the consequences of the anti-boycott bill?

  Public institutions – including councils and universities – will not be able to boycott or withdraw funds from countries or companies complicit in human rights violations. It will also bind their financial decisions to the policy of the government of the time and impede public sector workers’ right to freedom of expression.

  In less tangible terms, the fact that the bill and rhetoric around it conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism will contribute to the chilling effect that makes rights advocates feel less able to criticise Israel for fear of being labelled antisemitic. In the long term, by setting up Jews and Jewish safety in opposition to other civil and human rights struggles, this bill will end up pitting minority communities against each other.

  What is civil society, including your organisation, doing to prevent the bill’s approval?

  Civil rights groups and multiple Jewish organisations, including Na’amod, have voiced their opposition to the anti-boycott bill. Na’amod started campaigning it in May 2022, when it was first announced in the Queen’s Speech and the legislative process began. Last October we protested against the bill at the Conservative Party Conference and have since been raising awareness through direct action and campaigning as a part of the Right to Boycott coalition, formed by trade unions, charities and faith, climate justice, human rights, cultural, campaigning and solidarity organisations.

  The coalition advocates for the right of public bodies to decide not to purchase or procure from, or invest in, companies involved in human rights abuses, abuses of workers’ rights, destruction of our planet, or any other harmful or illegal acts. We highlight the key historical role that boycott, divestment and sanctions campaigns have played in applying economic, cultural and political pressure that has led to changes in abusive, discriminatory or illegal policies. This includes the bus boycotts of the US civil rights movement, the arms embargoes used against apartheid in South Africa and divestment from fossil fuel companies to advance climate action.

  As the bill returns to the House of Commons this month and faces a series of amendments, we will continue to speak out and mobilise our community against it. We cannot lose such powerful tool for progressive change.

  ---

  Civic space in the UK is rated ‘obstructed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with Na’amod through itswebpage orFacebook page, and follow @naamoduk onTwitter andInstagram.

• UK: ‘The government continues to scapegoat migrants and fuel racist rhetoric to cover its policy failures’

  CIVICUS speaks with Aria Danaparamita, Advocacy Director of theJoint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI),about the UK’s new migration treaty with Rwanda, aimed at sending asylum seekers arriving unlawfully in the UK to Rwanda for processing.

  The JCWI has been challenging policies that lead to discrimination, destitution and the denial of rights in the UK for more than 50 years. It provides legal and advice services to immigrants and asylum-seekers.

   

  How different is the new treaty that the UK signed with Rwanda from its predecessor?

  The new agreement is different from the previous one because it’s a treaty between the governments of the UK and Rwanda, while the previous one was only a memorandum of understanding. A treaty is legally binding under international law and requires scrutiny by the UK parliament, while the previous agreement was simply signed by the UK Home Secretary.

  The new treaty is accompanied by draft ‘emergency legislation’ seeking to provide the legal basis for maintaining that Rwanda is a safe country, which is a prerequisite for the treaty to be implemented without the UK breaching its international obligations towards asylum seekers.

  The treaty includes provisions aimed at addressing the concerns raised by the UK Supreme Court about the systemic risks of human rights violations if people were to be sent to Rwanda. However, these provisions – which are at this point just words on paper – will be wholly inadequate. The Supreme Court was unanimous and unequivocal in its evidence-based finding that Rwanda is not a safe country, and the risks are systemic and cannot be improved in a matter of months, despite the government’s wishes. Because of this, the treaty and the provisions in the Rwanda Bill are nothing more than an attempt to legislate the fiction that Rwanda is safe, despite overwhelming evidence on the contrary.

  Many people across the UK and across civil society are united in their strong rejection of the Rwanda plan. We have told the government ever since the first Rwanda flight was planned that this is a cruel and inhumane plan, and that it risks breaching the UK’s obligations under international law as well as our moral duty to protect people in search of safety. We continue to resist the government’s failed and inhumane Rwanda plan because we should not be sending people to places where their lives are at risk – whether Rwanda or anywhere else.

  Do you view this as part of a wider trend?

  We are seeing more and more policies that are hostile towards people on the move, particularly in western, former colonial countries. It is both ironic and unjust that the countries that have historically benefited, and continue to benefit, most from migration are now turning people away at their borders, often with high levels of violence. Across European lands and seas, we have seen lives taken away by cruel border regimes that do not value migrants as people. We urge the UK government to stop making policies driven by hate and hostility, and instead protect the rights of everyone to move, work and live freely.

  Migration is a fact of life. We as humans have always moved, whether to the next town or to another country across the world. In fact, the most recent immigration statistics show that the UK urgently needs migrant workers to increase its labour force.

  But instead of recognising the genuine need to welcome migrants in this country, or acknowledging the ways people contribute to our communities, the government continues to scapegoat migrants and fuel racist rhetoric to cover its policy failures – to address the deepening cost-of-living crisis, to reform our crippled healthcare sector, or to provide adequate public services after years of austerity.

  What would the impact if the Rwanda plan were to be implemented?

  The Rwanda plan has always been cruel, inhumane and, as the Supreme Court’s judgement unequivocally shows, unlawful. We cannot send people away to places where their lives might be at risk. It is against international law, our domestic law and our moral compass as a society.

  If the Rwanda Bill is passed, it will almost certainly breach international law. The Home Secretary himself has acknowledged that he cannot guarantee it will comply with the European Convention on Human Rights. It will also stand to breach numerous conventions, from the Refugee Convention to the Convention against Torture.

  The human cost of this bill will be catastrophic. Even before it has passed, we have seen the prospect of being sent to Rwanda drive the people we support into extreme anxiety and mental distress, and we continue to see alarming rates of self-harm and suicides. We cannot let this bill pass or be implemented. By implementing it, the government will be forcing people to face certain and irreversible harm.

   How is UK civil society, and your organisation in particular, working to help migrants?

  JCWI support migrants in various ways, including by providing legal representation and high-quality legal advice. We also campaign alongside migrants and grassroots communities for migrant justice.

  For doing this work, in recent years we have faced increasingly hostile and racist rhetoric led by those in power and enabled by the media. However, we will not let this stop us. We know that most people are kind and compassionate and believe that we all have the right to live safe, thriving lives regardless of where we are from. Together we can build the world we want to live in, free from harm and border violence.

  ---

  Civic space in the UK is rated ‘obstructed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with the JCWI through itswebpage orFacebook page, and follow @JCWI_UK onTwitter andInstagram.

• UK: ‘We engage in disruptive protest to keep the climate catastrophe in people’s minds’

  CIVICUS speaks with Mitch Rose, a volunteer activist with Just Stop Oil, about climate activism and its criminalisation in the UK. Just Stop Oil is a nonviolent civil resistance group demanding that the UK government stop licensing all new oil, gas and coal projects. It was founded on the footsteps ofExtinction Rebellion andInsulate Britain and has organisers from both at the helm. It first came under the spotlight in March 2022, following a series of protests that interrupted various high-profile sporting events.

  What forms of protest have you undertaken in the past few months, and why?

  In the last few months, we have staged a series of high-profile non-violent protests to demand that the UK government immediately stop licensing all new oil, gas and coal projects. We blocked the M25 motorway with non-violent actions, threw orange-coloured confetti to stop a game at Wimbledon and threw soup at Vincent van Gogh’s Sunflowers, at the National Gallery in London, to name just a few.

  We engage in peaceful disruptive civil disobedience to push and maintain the climate catastrophe in people’s minds and in the news cycle. They put pressure on the UK government to fulfil the legally binding promises of the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement to reduce deadly emissions from burning oil, gas and coal, which they have so far systematically broken.

• UK: ‘Women in ethnic minority communities are often treated like second-class citizens’

  As part of the #16DaysOfActivism campaign, CIVICUS speaks about gender-based violence and civil society efforts to eradicate it with Halaleh Taheri, founder and Executive Director of the Middle Eastern Women and Society Organisation (MEWSo).

  Founded in 2010, MEWSo is a London-based civil society organisation (CSO) run by and for women from ethnic minority communities of mostly Middle Eastern, North African and Asian backgrounds.

  The 16 Days of Activism against Gender-Based Violence is an annual international campaign that kicks off on 25 November, the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, and runs until 10 December, Human Rights Day.

  What work does MEWSo do?

  MEWSo was founded with the aim of supporting women, especially those displaced from the Middle East, Asia and North Africa, in London. We help women who are vulnerable and have no access to resources that will help them. Our services include advice and support on issues of domestic abuse and violence. We offer women assistance to navigate court procedures and help them seek refuge. Over the past few years we have worked a lot with migrant women because their situation is very hard. When they are faced with domestic violence and want to leave their homes, we support them emotionally, with accommodation and with their status with Home Office.

  We also offer free workshops to help improve women’s skills and empower them. We bring in specialists to give talks about mental and physical wellbeing so women can gain the confidence to leave the abusive spaces they find themselves in. Every year we tackle about 300 cases of domestic violence. We have five advisors working in different languages to accommodate those who struggle with English.

  We have created three campaigns. One is Polygamy Matters, which we run jointly with Greenwich University. It is aimed at empowering women to be independent. Another one is End Virginity Myth. We first formed a coalition against virginity testing; now both virginity testing and hymenoplasty have been banned, but the reality is that communities still continue practising it, so the campaign continues.

  A third campaign focused on the rights of LGBTQI+ people. LGBTQI+ issues are a big taboo in our communities and people suffer a lot of abuse from their families and community members. We have a range of projects to support them and ensure that they remain safe in their communities and live the life they deserve.

  Finally, we are part of two coalitions,Solidarity Knows No Borders Network andStep Up Migrant Women, advocating for the rights of migrant women and providing protection to those in abusive situations.

  What challenges have you faced in your work?

  We have faced several challenges. One of them is that in our communities the government has for years left people in the hands of community leaders. These leaders do not have a proper connection with women and children because they are driven by patriarchal values. They tend to lead people based on the most oppressive traits of their culture and enforce religious practices that exclude women and children. Women are often treated like second-class citizens and find it difficult to exercise their freedom. We have seen women trying to get out of abusive marriages being denied their request by their communities’ leadership. Community leaders should not have that much power over people because they are misusing it.

  Because of the nature of our work, community leaders have tried to make it difficult for us to reach certain vulnerable women and girls. They very rarely encounter someone who challenges them and if they see you as a threat, they immediately start making your work difficult. Nonetheless, we have been able to continue doing our work, finding ways to bring safety to women and children.

  Another challenge is that some of the women we help end up going back to their abusive partners because they are under pressure or have been abandoned by family and community. Sometimes there is no support with accommodation available and they worry they may end up in the street. Despite all our efforts, loyalty to family and fear of punishment makes them want to stay in abusive relationships. When faced with these situations, we continue creating spaces so that women can gradually gain the confidence to be free.

  Finally, we don’t have enough access to resources to help us carry out our work. Unfortunately, we can only offer limited support to women seeking safety.

  What are you doing for the #16DaysOfActivism campaign?

  This year, our efforts to raise awareness about women’s rights are focused on showing solidarity to the women’s liberation movement in Iran. Over the past two months Iranian women havespoken up andprotested against the oppression they face, sacrificing their life for freedom. I am originally a Kurdish freedom fighter from the 1979 revolution in Iran. I have lived four decades in exile and rebuilt my life in different countries. I am passionate about and active in the women’s liberation movement, following all the news and analysis of the recent uprising in Iran. For this reason, we have organised an international event,Raise Your Voice International Women's Conference, that will be held on 28 November and will feature speakers from Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Palestine, where women face similar issues as a result of religious restrictions.

  What should the international community do to contribute to eradicating gender-based violence?

  Countless women around the world are being discriminated against socially, economically and politically. Cases of abuse and femicide are on the rise and there are few mechanisms in place to stop them. Unaddressed issues range from forced marriage and female genital mutilation to unemployment and lack of health and educational resources.

  We cannot stand it anymore; we need governments and international bodies to take action. The United Nations has many member states who are mistreating their citizens. These states attend meetings and are given a global platform although they are doing a miserable job at home. They shouldn’t have such privileges when they are torturing and executing women.

  The protests in Iran and the actions of resistance in Afghanistan and elsewhere are showing that people, and specifically women, are taking charge and fighting for their freedom. Women in many places are connected because they carry the same pain and so it is only natural for them to unite to fight against their common oppressor. Women’s liberation movements are making it globally known that freedom is women’s natural right and they are willing to claim it. They are fed up with the empty promises that governments and international bodies have repeatedly made to fight against gender-based violence. This year cannot be one of further promises – it has to be one of action.

  https://myanmar-now.org/en/news/election-officials-censor-parties-campaign-speeches-like-the-dictatorship-did

  ---

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

  Get in touch with MEWSo through itswebsite or itsFacebook andInstagram pages, and follow@MewsOrg on Twitter.