Posts

, ,

It is Up to Citizens to Hold the Government Responsible on Human Rights Issues

Human rights are being discussed with more frequency in The Bahamas in recent years, due in no small part to the human rights violations taking place and the responses of non-governmental organisations and the general public. From reports of sexual violence and children becoming victims of gun violence to “police-involved incidents” and the destabilising effects of crisis after crisis, connections are being made between the atrocities we experience and the right to freedom and dignity without distinction on the basis of identity.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was published in 1948, has been translated into over 500 languages, and is the foundation of dozens of human rights treaties. In Article 2, it is clearly stated that everyone is entitled to the rights and freedoms set out in the Declaration. These include life, liberty, and security of person, recognition as a person before the law, equal protection of the law, freedom of movement, nationality, to work, and to education.

Human rights treaties build and expand on the human rights articulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, making them specific to particular groups of people who are frequently excluded and/or marginalised and who have/had experiences that make their ability access to human rights more difficult. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) — perhaps the most widely referenced human rights treaty referenced in The Bahamas — is an example of this as it built and continues to build on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to specifically articulate the rights of women and the obligation of States to promote, uphold, and expand them.

Take, for example, Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which is on marriage. It has three parts. The first part says, “Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.” The second part says it is only entered into with full consent of both parties. The third part says “the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society[…]” Article 16 of CEDAW is on marriage, and it has two parts with the first part having eight subsections. The Article focuses on eliminating discrimination against women in marriage and family relations. As such, one of the subsections affirms that women and men have “the same rights and responsibilities as parents[…]. Another states that women and men have “the same personal rights as husband and wife, including the right to choose a family name, a profession and an occupation”. While these rights could be assumed upon reading and understanding of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the human rights treaty specific to (eliminating discrimination against) women states them clearly. Other human rights treaties serve a similar function, putting human rights into the context of particular people and situations.

The Bahamas has ratified nine United Nations human rights treaties. These include the Convention of the Rights of the Child, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The most recent is the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of Punishment, ratified in May 2018, closely following the third cycle of the Universal Periodic Review during which several UN member states — including Italy, France, Sierra Leone, and Indonesia —recommended The Bahamas ratify it.

Ratification of human rights treaties is agreement with the content, acknowledgement of the State obligation to take specific actions to promote, protect, and provide access to human rights, and a commitment to take those actions. This is not limited to United Nations mechanisms, but includes regional agreements and those by other multilateral organizations such as the International Labour Organization (ILO). For example, The Bahamas ratified Convention 190 (C190) on the Elimination of Violence and Harassment in the World of Work on November 25, 2022, International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women — the first day of the Global 16 Days Campaign, also known as 16 Days of Activism Against Gender-Based Violence.

Many human rights treaties have committees of independent experts which are responsible for reviewing State reports and submissions from other stakeholders, posing questions, and facilitating constructive dialogues with States about their progress toward full compliance with the related treaties. One process that works differently is the Universal Periodic Review (UPR). It does not have a committee of experts. Instead, it is a peer review in which United Nations Member States review one another. Another unique element is that the UPR is attentive to other human rights treaties and State ratification of and compliance with them.

On Wednesday, May 3, The Bahamas was under review at the 43rd Session of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) at the United Nations in Geneva. This was part of the fourth cycle of reviews. The Bahamas submitted a written report and the Attorney General made a statement before the United Nations Member States. This was followed by 90-second contributions by Member States which includes commendations on the progress made up to that point and recommendations for The Bahamas to act on before its review in the fifth cycle, approximately five years later.

The Bahamas failed to take action on most of the recommendations made at its third cycle review. The Bahamas has not ratified the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of all migrant workers and members of their families. The Bahamas has not ratified the Optional Protocol to the same Convention. It has failed to establish the Office of the Ombudsman in accordance with the Paris Principles, and it has failed to establish a national human rights institution (NHRI) in accordance with the Paris Principles. Several Member States called for the criminalisation of marital rape, implementation of the Strategic Plan to Address Gender-Based Violence, comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation to protect the human rights of all, including LGBTQI+ people, amendments to the Bahamas Nationality Act for gender-equal nationality rights, and abolition of the death penalty.

Several countries expressed concern regarding human trafficking and recommended that The Bahamas provide training to law enforcement and judges to improve identification of trafficking victims, provide support to trafficking victims, provide financing for prevention of trafficking, and improve its coordination with non-governmental organisations and government departments to prevent trafficking. Recommendations related to trafficking were repeated in the fourth cycle review.

The Bahamas did, as previously mentioned, act on the recommendation to ratify the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), a recommendation repeated from the second cycle review.

In his address, the Attorney General, of course, highlighted even the smallest steps taken toward recommendations. He noted that the death penalty had not been carried out for many years and that there is no plan for a formal moratorium on the death penalty. He claimed there is a systemic approach to protecting the rights of children, that corporal punishment is not recommended in schools and that the last school administrators who used it was put on administrative leave, and that the Department of Social Services has a parent training program that includes information on different forms of discipline. Rather than admitting that The Bahamas has failed to establish a National Human Rights Institution, he talked about the Ombudsman Bill—tabled one week before the review, obviously for this purpose—and the laughable Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights, also introduced the week before, which is far from a National Human Rights Institution and does not come close to meeting the Paris Principles.

At the 43rd Session of the Universal Periodic Review last week, United Nations Member States repeated many of the same recommendations from 2018. There were also new recommendations, and recommendations that were repeated with more specificity. The recommendations included amendments to nationality law for women to pass on citizenship to their children and spouses, implementation of the Strategic Plan to Address Gender-Based Violence, criminalisation of marital rape, amendment of the definition of “discrimination” in Article 16 of the constitution, establishment of a National Human Rights Institution, ratification of various human rights treaties including the Convention on the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, discriminatory law review and reform with support from UN Women (which is in progress and we await the final report from UN Women Caribbean Multi-Country Office which is significantly delayed), improvement of prison and detention center conditions, inclusion of climate justice in civics curriculum, and elimination of discriminatory stereotypes against women and girls.

The report on the Universal Periodic Review of The Bahamas in the fourth cycle will be made available on the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights website this month. It will not only have the recommendations made to The Bahamas, organized by thematic area, but will have the response of the government. States can support (interpreted as accept) or note (interpreted as reject) recommendations. It is important to know the international human rights standards, how The Bahamas does or does not meet them, and how the government responds to the recommendations aimed at compliance with the international mechanisms with which it has chosen to participate. Recent news stories on the UPR process have chosen specific points to highlight for various reasons, obviously linked to the market for news, so it is especially important for those with interest in human rights to seek out, read, understand, and share complete information. Knowing our rights is critical, as is knowing the government’s perception of and response to its obligations. With this information, we are better equipped to make our demands and realise all of our human rights.

Published in The Tribune on May 10, 2023

/0 Comments/by
, , , ,

People and Human Rights Need To Be Honoured Over Votes and Power

International Women’s Day is two weeks away, and the celebration of The Bahamas’ 50th year of independence is 20 weeks away. Whenever there is talk about independence, I think about women’s rights.

I look for the progress that has been made and all that we still need to do, for the people of The Bahamas and, in particular, women.

It is sobering to think about the meaning of independence, the effects of colonisation, and the continued refusal to free ourselves of the discriminatory and violent laws – largely inflicted upon us by Britain – that continue to limit us in many ways.

Colonisation has long-lasting effects. In The Bahamas, we can see the influence it has had on every facet of life.

We drive on the left side of the road. Ideas about professional attire are inappropriate for our climate. There is still considerable distance between the government and the people, and little opportunity for people to actively engage in governance. Christianity is the dominant religion, whether or not the people who claim it actually practice it. The economy is prioritized over people. Racism and colorism are rampant, and people are still afraid to name them. Laws discriminate against women. Human rights are not valued. Positive changes, to increase access to human rights, are debated and few people are interested in, much less equipped to, advocate in the face of an opposition that has gained power through colonial means.

The criminalisation of marital rape has been discussed for years. In 2018, the then government drafted a bill to amend the Sexual Offences Act to criminalise marital rape without acknowledging it as rape. There were many unacceptable flaws in that bill, and it was rejected.

It was not until 2022 that we saw another amendment bill – the one that is currently being discussed to what seems to be no end. The government refuses to do what it knows must be done, pandering to the loud and wrong voices of church leaders who are, frankly, misogynists.

The church leaders who support the criminalisation of marital rape are not nearly as vocal or consistent as those who oppose the rights of women.

The Minister of Social Services and Urban Development, who has responsibility for the Department of Gender and Family Affairs, has said, without shame, that the government is waiting to hear for a meeting date from a particular church.

What? The bill is being held up because one church wants to have its say and has yet to even propose a meeting date? And this is after the government held a “symposium” that was specifically for church leaders?

Would the government wait to get a meeting date from a non-governmental organisation that promotes women’s rights? Would it stall on legislation regarding finance when the International Monetary Fund or Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development are making their demands? Who could delay its decision-making on such issues, and by calling for a meeting and offering no date?

The truth is that the position of the church should not matter when it comes to human rights and governance.

The church may be important to its members. It may be a useful network through which to reach people. It may be a guide for the people in it. It is not, however, the government and should not control the government. We, of course, know that the church wields its power regularly and is able to do this because political parties depend on them for votes. It is no secret that religious leaders use their pulpits politically, and in partisan ways.

This is the only reason the government panders to it while undervaluing and, in many cases, ignoring the positions of and evidence provided by people who represent – not control – people, especially those in situations of vulnerability.

The government has allowed the church to cement the narrative, easily disproven by reading the constitution, that The Bahamas is a “Christian nation”, that this was the intent of the framers of the constitution, and that this is the way it must be.

Among our tasks, 50 years into independence, is to gain a clear understanding of the constitution.

It has been, for far too long, a mysterious document whose actual contents are deemed irrelevant or unimportant. It has been treated as though it can only be read and understood by a particular class of people.

One of the only things most people ever hear about the constitution is a lie — that it states that The Bahamas is a “Christian nation”.

Let’s be clear. The Bahamas is not a Christian nation. Not constitutionally, and certainly not in practice. The violence and corruption that people actively participate in every day is evidence of that this is not a Christian nation, unless Christianity is violent and supports corruption.

First, we need to know that the part of the constitution that people reference when they declare that The Bahamas is a “Christian nation” is the preamble.

The prefix “pre” means before, or prior to. The root word “amble” means to walk at a slow pace. A preamble “walks before”. It leads to something else. It is an introductory statement that precedes, or comes before, a law. The preamble, then, is not the constitution.

The preamble, which is not an Article of the constitution, says, “founded on Spiritual Values”. It does not say “Christian nation.” It states “the preservation of [our] Freedom will be guaranteed by a national commitment to Self-discipline, Industry, Loyalty, Unity and an abiding respect for Christian values and the Rule of Law.”

Interestingly, when the preamble is brought up, reference is not often made to the rule of law, despite its proximity to the misquoted term “Christian values.” The rule of law means that everyone is accountable under the law, that the law which ensures human rights, is applied evenly, that laws are adopted and administered in a fair process, and that adequate resources allow for timely access to justice.

This, obviously needs more attention. We know that the rule of law is severely lacking in The Bahamas. Say “human rights” and see what happens. Look at the way laws are written and who is protected by them. Pay attention to the ways laws are passed, and which laws are put to the public for “discussion” which may as well call what it really is – delay. Read and watch the news to find out how the court system (dys) functions.

The preamble states that the nation is “founded on Spiritual Values” and “spiritual” is not specific to any religion. The constitution itself, in fact, entitles every person to freedom of religion and to “propagate his religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance.” It even states no person attending any place of education shall be required to receive religious instruction or to take part in or attend any religious ceremony or observance[…].” Why, then, would our laws be based upon any religion?

Individuals have freedom of religion in The Bahamas. Declaring it to be a Christian nation would be incongruent with that right, so this did not happen in the constitution. The Bahamas is not bound to any religious text or interpretations thereof. It is a secular nation.

Chapter three of the constitution is titled “Protection of fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual. Importantly, Article 15 entitles everyone, regardless of race, place of origin, political opinions, colour, creed, or sex, to a set of freedoms including life, liberty, security of person, protection of the law, and freedom of expression.

How has the right to security of person been made accessible to women? How has the right to protection of the law been made accessible to women? In what ways have these rights been denied?

We can start, of course, with gender-based violence against women which includes marital rape. If the definition of rape in the Sexual Offences Act excludes spouses, what does that mean for women who are raped by their husbands? They are denied, by Section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act, the right to security of person which includes the right to be free from all forms of violence.

They are also denied the right to protection of the law. The Sexual Offences Act does not protect married women from sexual violence inflicted by their spouses. It must be amended. Marital rape must be criminalised.

We need to understand our laws and how they impact people. We need to know what the constitution actually says, and not rely on what people say about the constitution. We need civic education, and not limited to school-age children.

Far too many of us left school with little or no knowledge about the role of the government, the constitution and legislation, and citizens of the country. A public civic education campaign is desperately needed in this country. Without it, independence means very little.

We can have a flag and other symbols, sing a national anthem, and put the faces of Bahamians on the national currency, but none of that makes us free. None of that secures our rights. None of that makes this country a better place.

Independence ought to be about the people – our rights and freedoms, our ability to set and progress toward national goals, and our realisation of this place as a home that we would and could actively choose for ourselves.

Independence has little meaning for most of us, not because we do not understand it, but because we do not feel it or access the freedom and pride it promises. We will not get there without gender equality.

Ending gender-based violence against women and girls must be a national priority, and one that is aggressively actioned, even in the face of opposition.

People and their human rights have to be more important than votes, concentrated power, and the lure of money from corruption and collusion.

The colonisers did not see it that way before 1973. Does the government of today?

Published in The Tribune on February 22, 2023

/0 Comments/by