, ,

We should take a stand when there is a crisis

THERE is always a crisis somewhere, and when there is a crisis anywhere, there is a crisis everywhere. This is the nature of the world, given the way that the global economy, geopolitic, and interpersonal relationships work on their own and are connected with each other. Crises, however discreet they may appear to be, are also interconnected. Discussed as though they are about one issue or another, armed conflicts are usually started to gain control of resources, destabilise economies, and/or oppress and subjugate people. The latter two are usually connected to the desire to steal, control, and profit from resources.

Some crises make it to the news while others are ignored, deemed less important, impactful, or relevant. Sometimes it is about the direct effect of crisis in one or two countries on the rest of the world and how much we depend on them for necessities. Sometimes it is about the people involved and how human the rest of the world considers them to be.

Everyone knows that there is a conflict in Ukraine, though everyone who is aware of it may not understand and discuss it as a war being waged by Russia.

We have seen footage of the violence against people and destruction of property. We have heard from the people who fled of the absence of choice and the will to survive which led to the separation of families. Ukrainian people have been forced to go to other countries that, thankfully, rightfully, accept them as refugees. They, in many ways, have to learn new ways of life, and they face the difficulty of deciding in which ways they should assimilate and in which ways they can and should maintain their culture. They balance the maintenance of their collective identity with living as comfortably in community with a receiving country. Language and food, of course, are integral to cultural identity, and are both the easiest and most difficult aspects to maintain when a minority in another country. Many have pointed to the targeted destruction of museums, galleries, and other cultural sites — clear attempts to wipe out every trace of Ukrainian cultural. This — all of it— is genocide. This is a war on people, on their culture, and on their history.

Everyone knows that there is conflict in Palestine, and particularly in Gaza, and there are different narratives about it, so not everyone acknowledges that it is genocide.

Some understand that Israel has inflicted violence upon the Palestinian people for decades, displacing them, trapping them in open-air prisons, and killing them. Some are unaware, and maybe uninterested, in the history of this crisis and the human rights violations by Israel against Palestine.

The same must be said here:

We have seen footage of the violence against people and destruction of property. We have heard from the people who fled of the absence of choice and the will to survive which led to the separation of families. Palestinian people have been forced to go to other countries that, thankfully, rightfully, accept them as refugees. They, in many ways, have to learn new ways of life, and they face the difficulty of deciding in which ways they should assimilate and in which ways they can and should maintain their culture. They balance the maintenance of their collective identity with living as comfortably in community with a receiving country. Language and food, of course, are integral to cultural identity and are both the easiest and most difficult aspects to maintain when a minority in another country. Many have pointed to the targeted destruction of museums, galleries, and other cultural sites — clear attempts to wipe out every trace of Palestinian culture. This — all of it — is genocide. This is a war on people, on their culture, and on their history.

What does the repeated use of these tactics tell us about these wars and the people waging them? What do they say about the intent of the people behind them? What about the common suggestion that it is “just about land”?

It is easy to throw our hands up. We can come up with countless excuses that amount to:

  • We are too far away.

  • We do not understand.

  • We are suffering too.

Whatever the excuses we can find to absolve ourselves of any responsibility for each other, within and across borders, global solidarity is critical. This has been rather difficult to build, but it is happening. One of the main gaps is the low capacity to care.

It is not always that people do not care. Sometimes people do not want to care, so they choose to ignore. Sometimes people do not know why they should care, and they actively work against the human instinct to be interested in the welfare of others. So many of us are tired, struggling, and tired of struggling. Moving from one day to the next can sometimes feel as though we ourselves are turning the massive, heavy hands of time, and that our running feet are what make this planet spin. The burden heavy, the pressure tall, we press on in our daily lives, concerning ourselves with what is immediately in front of us. Sometimes, being asked to care is taken as an affront. It is not that we should be blamed for these circumstances, considering that we are operating within a system that has been designed and maintained for this purpose — self-destructive individualism, hyper-focus on survival, perpetual exhaustion, and a seemingly necessary disinterest in what takes place outside of our own bubbles.

Our pushback against this system, while we are in it, has to be intentional, collective, and unrelenting. We have to choose to be attentive —watching, reading, and listening to the news. This on its own, of course, is not enough. We have to be media literate, assessing the credibility of our sources of information and being critical of the way the information is a delivered. Does the source have a clear position on this issue? What does the source want us to believe? Who has been quoted, and what other sources have been mentioned? What do the people behind this piece want us to do, and why?

One source is not enough for us to be able to make a decision on an issue. It is important to go to multiple sources, draw comparisons, note the contrasts, and verify the information. Are the stories firsthand, coming directly from people who have directly experienced the event? Is it a retelling of someone else’s story? Is there evidence to support the secondary data? What do the photos, video, and audio indicate? Could they have been manipulated in any way? Separate the facts from the opinions and apply the evidence.

After accessing and assessing the information for credibility, it can be helpful to discuss it with others. What do other people think about the news? Have others found other sources of information or completed assessments that we have not yet done? Do people tend to take one side over another? Why?

There is often one side that gets more support, and this does not necessarily mean that it is the right side. In many cases, the conservative viewpoints get more attention, both from media and from the people around us, because their talking points are generally the same and their positions are often so divisive that the media wants to run multiple stories over a long period of time, if only for the shock value that leads to more purchases and clicks. The people who call for human rights, dignity, peace, and equality are often left to play catch-up, responding to the hateful rhetoric and misinformation spread by other people. It is important to pay attention to what is being said on all sides and to identify the intent behind all of the messages. It is not sufficient to know the opinions people hold. Find out why they think, say, and do whatever it is they do. Assume less. Ask questions, challenge positions, and determine why you stand where you do.

Where are people being valued, championed, and protected? Where are systems and institutions being held up as more important than human life? Who is expressing concern and demonstrating care for the people most vulnerable to violence, destruction, oppression, and murder? Who is dehumanising people, using gender, race, socio-economic status, age, and other identity markers to “excuse” what is happening to them?

With information, opinions, and the intent behind them, we are better equipped to find our own positions on issues. Once we do, in order for it to mean anything, we have to take action. This does not mean we need to enter conflict zones or become participants in wars. Being relatively safe, we are able to speak up. We can talk to family members and friends about what is happening elsewhere and help them to understand who the victims are and how we can support them. We can make donations to organisations that are activated, especially on the ground and in receiving countries, to meet immediate needs, including food, water, and medical care. We can engage political leaders and other people of influence, sharing our positions and our expectations of them as they participate in conversations and decision-making processes with regard to the crisis. We can use our platforms, including social media, to share information and encourage others to act. Small acts matter. What is most important is that we take action based on our own capacity, and that we seek to increase that capacity by challenging ourselves and the systems that limit our ability and willingness to participate.

Interested in learning more about Palestine? Check out the list of 40 books at https://lithub.com/40-books-to-understand-Palestine. 

Published in The Tribune on November 15, 2023

/0 Comments/by
, , ,

30 years since The Bahamas signed Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women

FRIDAY, October 6, marked the 30th anniversary of The Bahamas ratifying the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). It was marked by a proclamation, printed in both national newspapers, of October 6, 2023, as Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women Day. The Prime Minister called on organisations, businesses, and families to recognise the importance of women’s rights and the elimination of discrimination against women with relevant activities and programmes.

Follow three decades of work by the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), CEDAW was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1979. It came into force in 1981. Some may be familiar with CSW as it is a large annual event held at the United Nations in New York City, drawing not only Ministers with responsibility for gender and women’s affairs, but non-governmental organizations that advocate for the rights of women for two weeks of meetings.

In its official programming, CSW results in an outcome document that lays out the commitments made by member states. Side and parallel events give non-governmental organisations and individual advocates opportunities to share knowledge, network, and build solidarity across countries and regions, and they also present opportunities to meet with state representatives and international organisations. It was the cumulative outcome of many years of CSW meetings that made the case for the drafting of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, recognising discrimination against women as a specific issue that needed to be addressed.

Since April 2022, Equality Bahamas has been hosting the CEDAW (Convention) Speaker Series, inviting experts — mostly from the CEDAW Committee — to lead discussions on the Convention, one Article at a time. The series started with Swiss human rights lawyer and former CEDAW Committee member Patricia Schulz leading the discussion on Articles 1 and 2. Article 1 focuses on the definition of discrimination against women and Article 2 focuses on the policy measures that must be taken in order to come into compliance with CEDAW, so those two Articles are discussed together just as they are dealt with together in the constructive dialogue in Geneva. Article 3 on basic human rights and fundamental freedoms was presented by CEDAW Committee member Esther Eghobamien-Mshelia, and it was followed by Article 4 on special measures which was led by Bahamian human rights experts Gaynel Curry. The series continued this way, with one expert discussing one Article (or two when they are handled together by the Committee) each month, presenting the text of the Convention, the relevance of the Article to the rest of the Convention, and the application of the Article to the Bahamian context.

I facilitated the CEDAW Speaker Series sessions, and each one deepened my understanding of the individual Articles and the Convention. Each speaker took time to give context for the Article of discussion, grounding it in the purpose and overall content of the Convention. They also made clear connections to other Articles. We tend to understand almost all of the Articles of the Convention as specific to a thematic area, but the overlaps and the interdependent nature of the Articles became with each session, especially as we considered them within the context of the work we are doing at the national level. For example, Equality Bahamas is currently conducting research on parental leave, and while we considered Articles 11 on employment and 12 on health, we realised that we also need to integrate Article 16 on marriage and family life. Article 14 on rural women is particularly relevant and will feature prominently when, in our report, we delve into the specific experiences of women on the Family Islands and how their maternity leave is impacted by the requirement that they leave their home islands to give birth in a hospital.

I was on a radio talk show yesterday to talk about the 30th anniversary of the ratification of CEDAW by The Bahamas and a caller expressed his concern that women in Centreville and in Bain and Grants Towns do not know about CEDAW because they have a lot of children and would not understand what I was saying. My instinct was to respond to a number of implicit biases and incorrect assumptions. One is that women in townships or inner-city communities are all the same — more than the average number of children and less than the average education among other assumptions. This is, of course, not the case.

He also assumed that I am a “sophisticated” woman, whatever that means, who does not engage at the community level. Instead of responding to these assumptions, I listened to the rest of what he said. The point that he really seemed to want to make was that the people who are supposed to benefit from the international human rights mechanisms that the governments sign do not even know they exist, much less how to use them to their benefit. I can easily agree with that point, while making it clear that it is the responsibility of the government to educate the people, promote human rights, and meaningfully engage people on human rights, domestic law, and international law and obligations.

We have become accustomed to the government, with any administration at the helm, shirking its responsibility to the people. It has normalised and continued its withdrawal from social protection, refusing and/or failing to ensure that people’s basic needs are met. We continue to suffer the effects of structural adjustment programmes, even in the face of multiple crises in recent years.

Despite being urged to do so by advocates and the CEDAW Committee, the government has refused and/or failed to educate the public on human rights, the obligations of the government to promote and guarantee access to them, and the international mechanisms that monitor and hold the government accountable in addition to make clear recommendations that must be implemented. In its Concluding Observations following the sixth periodic review of The Bahamas, held in Geneva in 2018, the CEDAW Committee said it was “concerned that women in the State party, in particular those belonging to disadvantaged groups, are unaware of their rights under the Convention and thus lack the information necessary to claim them”. It called on the Government of The Bahamas to “enhance awareness among women and girls of their rights and the remedies available to them under the Convention, including through awareness – raising campaigns, in cooperation with civil society organisations and community-based women’s associations”.

That the general public, and that women and girls themselves, are not aware of and do not understand CEDAW and its implications for all of our lives is not a failure of the public, women and girls, non-governmental organizations, or advocates. It is not due to an inability to gain new knowledge or to understand the content and application of the Convention. It has been thirty years since The Bahamas ratified CEDAW. The government is well aware of what CEDAW is and what it means for women and girls in The Bahamas. It voluntarily ratified it and it has presented its reports to the CEDAW Committee, the most recent being in 2018 and one in progress now. It has decided that women and girls knowing their rights is either unimportant or disadvantageous to the government and the institutions and people who benefit from the oppression, marginalisation, discrimination, and violence against women and girls. Thirty years is far too long for any excuse to hold.

Equality Bahamas has, with limited resources, run a speaker series in the lead-up to the thirties anniversary of the ratification of CEDAW. The recordings of past sessions are available on its Youtube channel and can be accessed at tiny.cc/cssplaylist. The series will continue during the Global 16 Days Campaign which runs from November 25 to December 10. In those sessions, experts will lead discussion on General Recommendations which elaborate on the Convention and address issues that are not articulated in it.

If you are interested in learning more about CEDAW or you would like to organise a session for a group, contact the Equality Bahamas team at equalitybahamas@gmail.com. If you would like to see the government step up to the plate and do the promotion and education part of its job as it pertains to human rights, say so. Contact the Department of Gender and Family Affairs to find out what it is doing, and contact the Office of the Prime Minister to urge the Prime Minister to properly resource the Department and transition it to the Ministry so that it can function as a national gender machinery and to build a national human rights institute which would monitor human rights, receive complaints, make recommendations, and provide education on human rights to the public. These have already been recommended by the CEDAW Committee and by member states through the Universal Periodic Review, so it will not be news to them. What would be news, however, is that members of the public are paying attention and have the demand, if not the expectation, that human rights be fulfilled.

Published in The Tribune on October 11, 2023

/0 Comments/by
,

Commonwealth People’s Forum 2022 Closing Panel: A Commonwealth for All

In June, I attended #CHOGM2022 in Kigali, Rwanda. I attended in the Commonwealth Women’s Forum, moderating a panel organizations by The Commonwealth Equality Network (TCEN) on LGBTQI+ rights, and was on the closing panel at the Commonwealth People’s Forum which was focused on building upon the ideas shared during the two-day forum and looking toward the future.

Later in the week, I participated in the Commonwealth Foreign Ministers Roundtable where I spoke about the relationship between governments and civil society and why it needs to change. We, members of civil society, know our communities. We work with and within them every day, we can reach them with ease, we know the pressing issues, and our access cannot be matched by the government. Non-governmental organizations cannot be skipped over and ignored when services and programs are being developed to benefit the people in the communities we serve.

If I come across a recording of the Roundtable, I’ll be sure to share it. I’m happy to see the Commonwealth Foundation has shared the recordings from the Commonwealth People’s Forum, and it was great to revisit the closing panel. Check it out.

/0 Comments/by
, ,

Commonwealth Equality Network at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting

I was invited as a part of the delegation of The Commonwealth Equality Network (TCEN) to attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in Kigali Rwanda from from 19 to 25 June 2022.

I shared my experience with TCEN, which you can take a look at from 10:45 in the video below.

/0 Comments/by
, ,

GBV Talk at Rotary Club of South East Nassau

March is always packed with speaking engagements due to International Women’s Day. I’m always happy to see the conversations continue well past March 8, so I’m looking forward to attending this week’s Rotary Club of South East Nassau meeting to talk about gender-based violence. Last week was full of terrible news, so there are many examples to use in this sessions and, more importantly, put in the context of structural gender-based violence and the reform we need.

/0 Comments/by
, ,

Gender-based Violence Training for University of The Bahamas Greek Life and Student Leadership

Click to increase size.

As a part of the activities planned by Equality Bahamas, I’m looking forward to facilitating gender-based violence training for student at University of The Bahamas over the next few days. These sessions will cover the basics of gender, sex, and sexuality, look at domestic violence, intimate partner violence, and structural violence, review a selection international mechanisms and laws of The Bahamas, and guide participants through development of responses and interventions.

/0 Comments/by
, ,

Innovating for Climate Justice: Feminist Responses and Solution-Building

I moderated a conversation with Phylicia Alexander from RedRoot SVG in St. Vincent and the Grenadines and Joseph-Zane Sikulu from 350 Pacific in Tonga. We talked about recent experiences of climate disaster, ways to meet the needs of people in situations of vulnerability, and feminist approaches for disaster relief in the future.

/0 Comments/by
,

Intersectionality at the Nexus of Climate, Human Mobility, Loss and Damage: Regional Perspectives

I attended COP26 and, on November 8, I was on a panel, Intersectionality at the Nexus of Climate, Human Mobility, Loss and Damage: Regional Perspectives, organized by Hubo Observatory, Islamic Relief Worldwide, and Unitarian Universalist Service Committee. This event was held in the Derwentwater Room in the Blue Zone which had capacity for 44 in-person attendees. The room was full with quite a few people watching on screens outside. It was also livestreamed, and I am happy to share the recording here.

/0 Comments/by
,

Critical Conversations: Young Leaders Speak

Last week, I moderated Young Leaders Speak—the second event in the Critical Conversation series hosted by the Commonwealth Foundation. A collaboration with the Queen’s Commonwealth Trust and the Commonwealth Youth Council, this conversation was a space for young people to talk about what they need from Commonwealth institutions in order to expand their work and increase its impact. Darrion Narine from Trinidad & Tobago, Kakembo Galabuzi Brian from Uganda, Kavindya Thennakoon from Sri Lanka, and Emmanuelle Andrews from the UK were the main speakers. They talked about the past atrocities and lingering effects of colonialism in Commonwealth countries, the importance of recognizing one own privilege, rejecting tokenism and recognizing young people’s expertise, and the questions and comments from viewers were just as interesting. Check out the 90 minute conversation.

/0 Comments/by
,

When Activists Shut Conversations Down

Over the past few months, I have been facilitator and participant in scores of conversations. In most cases, they were informal, but generative. They gave attention to issues and root causes, but also invited participants to explore different ways of addressing them that could lead to solutions. Still, it was not unusual for someone to point out that “all we’re doing is talking” or “we need to do more than talk”.

It seems as though people are not only interested in seeing someone else drive action — because they are not taking it upon themselves to do it — but they want to skip the important exercise that is conversation. It is not just about spewing words. Through conversations about human rights, justice, equality and creating change, we are able to build community, learn about each other’s interests and skills, establish trust, share ideas, identify the nonnegotiable matters and collaborate on direct action.

Even in movements that begin with rapid response, conversation plays an important role. Its usefulness is often underestimated and people tire of it quickly. This may be a signal that we need to move toward a different, more fluid form of organising that allows conversations to happen while action is underway, even in the early stages.

There is always frustration about the amount of time change seems to require. It is possible the “change takes time” rhetoric has been a tool to keep us complacent. Maybe it has been an excuse for us to take it easy and do the minimum, thinking that more effort would not bring more reward.

Change can take less time if we have more of the other ingredients. More people, more energy, more action, more dedication, more willingness to be uncomfortable and unpopular. Our desire for change has to be great enough for us to commit to doing the work and our commitment has to be greater than the competing desire for comfort. We have to be more uncomfortable with injustice and inequality than we are with the sacrifice required to wipe them out.

Among our unfortunate comforts is ignorance. Far too many people would rather pretend to know than ask a question, read an article, or watch a video to get to the answer.

Another damaging comfort is what can be termed oppositional contempt. This is the pessimistic view of all people who are not clearly and decidedly on the same side, whether or not they are in the moveable middle — the people who hold a position loosely and can be persuaded to move toward either side. Oppositional contempt leads people to shut conversations down right before a transformational engagement can take place. An example of this is fresh in my mind because I saw what could have been an unfortunate exchange on Monday.

When a question is really a quest for knowledge

Darren shared a post about discrimination against Haitian migrants regarding access to Bahamian citizenship. The post made Darren’s position clear — that children born in The Bahamas should be able to apply for Bahamian citizenship. Whatever your views on the issue, put them aside for now so that you don’t miss the point. Janae replied with questions about what this might look like in practical terms and how we would establish boundaries. Her questions boiled down to:

  1. If you designed the system, how would it work?

  2. What would be the requirements and restrictions?

Janae was seeking understanding. She could not picture a version of The Bahamas in which the children of Haitian migrants could access Bahamian citizenship. It is likely that, when she tried, she envisioned crowded classrooms and public clinics which is a predictable picture because education and healthcare are the two services Bahamians frequently cry are being monopolised by Haitian people.

She wanted to know how, if we extend these human rights, we would manage our resources in a way that allows us to continue to function at the same level. This basic question is one that governments have to answer all the time. Our government contended with this issue when it implemented a lockdown. With so many people unable to work and receive pay – and with the government’s obligation to provide for its people – how would it be able to meet its other obligations when money has to be spent differently because of the unexpected situation?

These kinds of changes to budget, legislation and policy are infrequent at this scale and level of visibility, but not unheard of. The public is not typically involved in these processes, so Janae’s questions, while possibly frustrating, are not invalid.

Some interruptions are fissures, meant to disconnect

Myrtle came along and decided to intervene with what we like to call “attitude”. She asked a rhetorical question meant to make Janae feel embarrassed for asking a question Myrtle obviously considered offensive. Janae stayed the course, however, and clearly stated that she was not seeking to cause offence, but to get a better understanding of Darren’s point of view.

Myrtle had already successfully derailed the conversation and the next few responses were to questions Janae did not ask. Janae then said that she had seen these conversations before and has never seen anyone propose a solution. She wanted to support Haitian migrants in their fight for human rights, but needed to understand the end goal. She added that, given the limited resources of the country, she would like to know if and how The Bahamas, if it grants access to citizenship, could reasonably state that it can no longer accept applications for citizenship.

Janae’s engagement remained respectful in the face of a toxic politeness — the skillful use of careful tone and wording adopted by someone who knows they are being aggressive and do not want anyone to be able to call them out on it — even when Myrtle came back to tell her she was unfairly burdening Darren with her questions and should seek out an organisation, activist, policymaker or academic instead.

Interestingly, Darren is an activist, personally known to Myrtle and perfectly capable of saying he was not interested in having the conversation. He, however, is a consistent and active participant in these conversations, often starting them on his own. Myrtle noted that she knows Darren and would prefer to engage him and understand his perspective.

Some interruptions are bridges, meant to (re)connect

At this point, Darren stated there was no simple answer and pointed to systemic issues of political and economic exploitation which directly impacts migration, the need for migrant labor and the usefulness of a focus on controlling migration rather than attempting to stop it completely.

These are valid points, but did not quite answer the questions, so it was a relief to see Rufina enter the conversation and deliver seven helpful points which included action steps including regularisation of people already here and a direct challenge to the idea that migrants are a strain on resources. If a standing ovation was possible on Facebook, it would have happened at this moment. Someone read the conversation, saw the questions asked in sincerity, chose not to lambaste or embarrass anyone, and provided thoughtful responses.

We like to believe we are ready for change. That change should not take such a long time. That we spend too much time talking. That we need to get to the action. Somehow, however, we prove every single day that we are not on the same page. We are not prepared to engage one another with respect and share knowledge, even when it is to the benefit of the communities we care about.

The issue of immigration is one example, but there are many other issues on which we do not agree. There have been thousands of conversations that could have resulted in conversation, but participants gave in to oppositional contempt or toxic politeness rather than doing the work — the action — of sharing information and ideas with a person in the middle who could be moved by what they said.

If we are not prepared to properly engage even the moveable middle, then no action we take will be successful. We cannot rush to move when we leave behind the people who make a movement. Conversation matters — the content, the tone and the motivations of the people in it.

To be the smartest, the loudest, or the one with the hardest shutdown should never be the goal. We have to move the middle.

/0 Comments/by