SUNDAY, December 10, was Human Rights Day, with the theme of Freedom, Equality, and Justice for All (with italics indicating the emphasis on “all”). It marked 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The most translated text in the world, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights consists of 30 articles and serves as “a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society[…] shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance[…]”
It is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that states that we are all born free and equal in dignity in rights, that everyone, without distinction, is entitled to all of the human rights and freedoms outlined, that we all have the right to life, liberty, and security of person, and that no one is to be held in slavery or servitude among many other rights.
The Human Rights 75 Initiative was launched to bring attention to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and a High-Level event was organised to promote universality and indivisibility, look to the next 25 years, and bolster the human rights ecosystem. At the event, the Attorney General delivered pledges on behalf of The Bahamas at the High-Level event to commemorate the 75th anniversary by contributing to “change and concrete progress on the ground on the promise of freedom, equality and justice and accountability[…]” The Ministry of Foreign Affairs website describes the pledges made as:
(1) Strengthening and development of national human rights mechanisms and institutions in alignment with international standards, including the establishment of the Parliamentary Human Rights Committee, the Office of the Ombudsman and strengthening the National Reporting Cooperation Mechanism;
(2) Strengthening cooperation with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) as host country for the proposed regional office of OHCHR for the Caribbean Community (CARICOM);
(3) Ensuring equality in nationality rights and
(4) Taking concrete measures to address the existential threat of climate change and its adverse effect on human rights.
These pledges are without much meaning when we consider the complete and decided inaction of the Government of The Bahamas to protect, promote, uphold, and guarantee access to human rights. In April 2023, mere weeks before the appearing before the Human Rights Council for the Universal Periodic Review, the government passed a resolution in the House of Assembly to form a “Human Rights Committee.”
At the Universal Periodic Review, 17 Member States recommended that the Government of The Bahamas establish a national human rights institution (NHRI), many of them specifying that it be in line with the Paris Principles which outline specific responsibilities and modes of operation and gives a specific composition to guarantee independence.
A national human rights institution is not a committee, and it is certainly not a parliamentary committee. It is to have pluralist representation to include civil society and universities and qualified experts. It is to have funding and its own staff to support its independence from the government. It is expected to have a broad mandate including the promotion of the harmonization of legislation with international human rights instruments, encourage ratification and implementation of human rights instruments, contribute to reports to human rights mechanisms including treaty bodies, and to publicly advocate for and increase public education on human rights.
The Government of The Bahamas has not acted in alignment with its purported commitment to human rights. It readily participates in talk shops and makes statements and pledges in international spaces, but fails to follow through on commitments or even acknowledge that commitments have been made at the national level. It is inconsistent even in its international acknowledgement of commitments.
For example, The Bahamas noted (meaning rejected) the recommendation to “ensure the full applicability of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women,” but supported (meaning accepted) the recommendation to “continue its efforts to harmonise its national legislation to match its international human rights obligations and commitments.” The 1993 ratification of Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women is, in fact, a human rights commitment. It does not make sense for The Bahamas to accept a recommendation to harmonise legislation with international human rights commitments while refusing to fully comply with the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.
Several member states recommended that the government of The Bahamas take measures to ensure the equal participation of women in political and public life. The government of The Bahamas noted, rather than supported, all of the recommendations in this area that obligates it to take specific action. Its nonsensical and false responses were, “There are a very high percentage of women having leadership in public and political life,” and “Women in The Bahamas are already participating equally in public life with their male counterparts.” It is important to note that the second response conveniently excludes political life. The first response is especially concerning as it is absurd to suggest that less than 20 percent is high representation when women are more than 50 percent of the population.
The Government of The Bahamas is not only content with its own mediocrity, but is consistent in its attempts to mislead multilateral organisations and the general public with regard to its position on issues and progress (or stagnation). It continues to reference the human rights committee as though it meets international standards. It does not. It is not in line with the Paris Principles. It is not a national human rights institution. No amount of pomp and pageantry around it will make it any more substantial or bring it any closer to the international standard. That the same government would suggest that 18 percent of parliamentarians being women is a high percentage is cause for great concern. Either the people submitting responses to the recommendations received in the Universal Periodic Review do not have a basic understanding of mathematics and, in particular, proportions, fractions, and percentages, or they have no commitment to gender equality or women’s equal participation and have set a devastatingly low bar that it does not intend to raise.
It remains to be seen whether or not the government will follow through on its commitment to address the issue of gender inequality in nationality law. When asked about the persisting inequality which prevent women from conferring Bahamian citizenship to their children and spouses, the government said it would take action upon the decision from the Privy Council. That decision was delivered in May 2023, more than seven months ago. Just days ago, the pledge was made to ensure equality in nationality rights. The pledges made by The Bahamas are not concrete and have no timeline, making them difficult to measure which was likely the point. The Government of The Bahamas participates in international events and processes in this marginal way, and perhaps its peers fail to call it out. We need not fail it and ourselves in the same way.
Published in The Tribune on December 13, 2023.
Leave a Reply
Want to join the discussion?Feel free to contribute!