Amnesty International

At the October 2010 seminar on “traditional values and human rights”, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, said that there are values that underpin human rights and these are “some most basic markers of humanity, those fundamental, irreducible, … universal values that transcend geography and know no barriers of culture or gender, class or language.”  Values of dignity, freedom and equality often mark a “tradition of resistance” – resistance to abuse of power, injustice and lack of accountability.

For example, in response to state discriminatory acts that sought to undermine their traditions and way of life, indigenous peoples lobbied for and obtained a UN declaration that elaborates human rights for the protection of their traditional lands and institutions, the 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

For example, claims that victims of gender-based violence are to blame for that violence because of their alleged failure to adhere to dress codes considered as expressive of “female dignity” are one context in which invocation of “traditional values” can mask abuse of power and lack of accountability.  Blaming the victims for their failure to make their attire reflect “traditional values” allows perpetrators of violence to be left off the hook – and, insidiously – makes protection from violence conditional on conformity. Blaming the victim on the basis of purported dress codes is a way of reinforcing the social structures which, in many contexts, rely on gender stereotyping and discrimination and reflect a desire to control women, objectifying women and denying their personal autonomy.

Families, communities, educational and other institutions – and particularly those who hold positions of power and leadership within them – may use their authority to uphold and transmit values that underpin human rights.  But they may also use the language of values to seek to justify the denial of human rights.

For example, there are countries where “rights of the child” language is used to justify discrimination against people on the grounds of their marital status or sexual orientation and gender identity. So-called “family values” and the “rights of the child” are occasionally used to challenge the legitimacy of any concept of marriage other than the sanctified union of a man and a woman.
In your discussion and drafting of the study mandated by the Human Rights Council, it is important for you, as human rights experts, to be alert to the political use that some would make of traditional values and efforts to juxtapose traditional values against human rights. 

Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS)

Delivered by:  Ms. Laila Matar
Thank you Mr. Chairperson,
In a statement issued after the initial adoption of a resolution on “traditional values” at the 12th Session of the Human Rights Council, the Executive Director of the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS) warned that the concept of traditional values and the politicized manner it which it is being used by some member states of the Council “constitutes an… attack on the universality of international human rights standards by the very UN mechanism that is supposed to uphold and strengthen these standards. Such a concept has been used in the Arab region to justify treating women as second class citizens, female genital mutilation, honor crimes, child marriage and other practices that clearly contradict international human rights standards.” He went on to ask: “Does this resolution now mean that such practices are acceptable under international law?”

This is a question that is important in the context of the current deliberations of this Committee. We strongly urge the experts of this body to approach the concept of “traditional values” within the existing framework of international law, which protects traditional forms of expression, including freedom of religion, but anchors and circumscribes the observance of tradition within the larger context of rights protections for the individual. 

CIHRS maintains that the concept of “traditional values” often undermines the principle of non-discrimination and equality that underlie all human rights and, as such, should be strongly rejected as a basis of, or limiting factor within, the human rights framework. “Traditional values” as a concept often builds upon a particular group identity that excludes, denies or places subjective conditions on the granting of fundamental human rights protections to all people.

This type of exclusion of particular groups as recipients of fundamental human rights protections and standards, endangers the rights of minorities and marginalized groups, and is also destructive to the entire framework of international human rights, in that it justifies and propagates the selective application of human rights standards by a government or group according to its perceived political interests or ideological predisposition.

In the long-term, the use of the concept of “traditional values” by states as a conditioning element in the application of human rights standards threatens to fundamentally reinterpret the concept of universal human rights by ensuring they lack any legally binding content, and instead become subordinate to, and dependent on, the political will or dominant ideology of state authorities in any given country.

CIHRS fully supports the written statement submitted to this session of the Advisory Committee from NGOs around the world which addresses this issue, and urges the esteemed experts of this Committee to take due consideration of the analysis and concerns of civil society contained within it.
Thank you.

Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network

Statement to HRC Advisory Committee on Traditional Values

Thank you, Mr. Chairperson, distinguished members of the Advisory Committee.

We appreciate this opportunity to take the floor on behalf of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network.  Our Network shares the concerns about attempts to import concepts of “traditional values” into the international human rights framework, particularly because those most impacted by HIV/AIDS are often amongst the most marginalised in many societies.

We followed this issue closely at the Human Rights Council, from the 12th session through to the present, participated in the OHCHR experts’ seminar, and were pleased to join the written statement submitted to this Committee by more than 65 NGOs from countries around the world, including Sri Lanka, Rwanda, Italy, Sudan, Fiji, Japan, Egypt, Canada, Russia, Germany, Saint Lucia, Turkey, Mongolia and elsewhere.

The Russian Federation, as lead sponsor of the resolution, suggests that placing emphasis on traditional values is designed to enhance respect for human rights. If that is the case, one might expect civil society would embrace the resolution as a valuable tool to assist our efforts to advance human rights.  Instead, NGOs from all regions of the world have joined together to express to you our serious concerns. 

While virtually all panellists at the OHCHR experts’ seminar expressed caution and concern at a traditional values approach, we were admittedly not reassured by the comments of the distinguished panellist from the Russian Federation. She stated that traditional values are needed to thwart:

“extreme leftist feminists [who] with totalitarian zeal are damning traditional concepts of morality … No democracy allows the minority to insult everything sacred for the majority”. 

So you can perhaps understand our concern at the potential of a traditional values approach to erode minority rights and international standards, and by attempts to position tradition as static, monolithic and a reflection of majority values.

Personally, I have never heard a State invoke traditional values to advance human rights. It is in the nature of those in power to resist change.  Those who benefit most from the status quo are more likely to appeal to tradition to maintain their power and privilege.  Those most marginalised, disenfranchised, whose needs are most vulnerable to being overlooked by the State – in short those most susceptible to human rights violations - have the most to lose from a traditional values approach.

Whereas traditional values are often invoked to justify past practice or resist change, human rights norms frequently do require changes to past practice to ensure conformity with international human rights standards. Indeed, as international Covenants and Declarations have recognised, States have a positive obligation – indeed a responsibility - to work towards the elimination of harmful stereotypes, values, traditions and practices that are inconsistent with international human rights law. For example, paragraph 38 of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action calls upon States to work towards the elimination of “the harmful effects of certain traditional or customary practices, cultural prejudices and religious extremism” and the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women similarly affirms that “a change in the traditional role of men as well as the role of women in society and in the family is needed to achieve full equality between men and women”.

How may the Advisory Committee take these concerns into account in the preparation of its report? 

• Firstly, we welcome the proposal to create a drafting group, reflecting appropriate regional and gender balance. We also encourage production of a draft at an early stage to ensure adequate opportunities for consultation and input by all stakeholders.
• Secondly, we encourage the Committee to be explicit from the outset in affirming the importance of integration of a gender perspective throughout its report.  As Committee-Members will be aware, this is required by HRC resolution 6/30, and nowhere is gender integration more important than in the context of an area that impacts on the human rights of women as much as traditional values. In similar vein, we encourage the Committee to treat equality and non-discrimination as cross-cutting issues relevant to all aspects of the report.
• Thirdly, we feel it is important that the Committee in its report clearly articulate the serious risks inherent in a traditional values approach.
• While we acknowledge that the resolution calls for you to consider how a better understanding of traditional values can contribute to human rights, this can only be achieved by also understanding and articulating the risks and challenges of such an approach. The understanding will be incomplete if we only consider half the picture.  The HRC resolution itself in a preambular paragraph stresses that traditional values may not be invoked to justify harmful practices violating human rights, and we believe it is important that this also be reflected in the Committee’s report.
• Fourthly, care must be taken not to elevate “responsibility” to a norm equivalent to equality and dignity.  As Mr. Kartashkin noted, the first article of the UDHR outlines the values underpinning international human rights law: all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. Freedom, equality, dignity, rights. There is no mention of responsibility. In international law, individuals are rights-holders; States are duty-bearers.  In the current context, therefore, responsibility can only be understood in light of the responsibility of States to promote and protect the human rights of all persons, and the responsibility of States to work to eliminate harmful and discriminatory values, stereotypes and attitudes.
• Fifthly, as many Advisory Committee members have noted, there is no need to reinvent the wheel.  Many of these issues have already been explored in the OHCHR experts’ seminar, the conclusions of which are available to you.
• These conclusions reinforce many of the concerns you have heard today, including the fact that traditions change, are often contested within societies, and that those in authority often have very different understandings of tradition than members of marginalised groups.  In similar vein, we would encourage the Committee to proactively consult with stakeholders including the Independent Expert on Cultural Rights and the Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women, both of whom have also done much work in this area.
• Finally, the answer to the question of “how” certain values enhance understanding of human rights can, in our view, best be found in human rights education. We concur with Ms. Zulficar that the focus must be on implementation of existing standards. States are already free to promote existing human rights norms within their own cultural contexts in ways that resonate with the populace, but the starting and ending point, and the key challenge which faces you as a Committee, is to safeguard the human rights framework and ensure that in promoting human rights in diverse contexts there is no erosion of international norms and standards.
  

Thank you.
 

International Commission of Jurists

As the Advisory Committee takes up the study mandated by Human Rights Council Resolution 16/3, the International Commission of Jurists would urge you to keep the following fundamental principles of human rights law firmly in mind.

The content of human rights is determined by international law, not traditional values.  Human rights are enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the international human rights treaties.  Our understanding of the content of specific rights is enriched by the work of the treaty bodies charged with determining State compliance with their international obligations, and by the decisions of national courts interpreting international human rights law.  Traditional values do not determine the content of human rights norms and obligations.

Traditional values can entail both positive and negative elements.  The world is so diverse and rich in terms of traditions, cultures, and religions, that it is impossible to assert that traditional values, as an abstract concept, contribute to the promotion and protection of human rights.  Some traditional values may do so, but history has shown us that many traditional practices, which are shaped by traditional values, do not.  In particular the traditional value of responsibility may be subject to abuse, as individual rights have often been violated in the name of responsibility to the family or the community.

The values of humankind, as expressed in international human rights law, are the universality of all human rights, equality and non-discrimination.  These values are especially important in protecting those who have “traditionally” been denied the enjoyment of their human rights.

In preparing this study, the International Commission of Jurists urges the Advisory Committee to reaffirm the primacy of international human rights law and to recognize that traditional values may need to change in order to conform with international human rights standards.

International Service for Human Rights

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a statement of values common to all humankind.  Drawing on a range of traditions, the UDHR captures values common to these traditions, values that derive from the fundamental status of being human. It is because those values have their basis in our common humanity that they can be presented in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in isolation from any particular tradition.

The promotion and protection of those universal values, our human rights, is something we all strive for. The traditions within which people live and which frame their understanding of the world are a useful, essential even, conduit for promoting understanding of and respect for these universal values. Exploring the ways in which tradition and culture could be a vehicle for promoting, protecting, and implementing human rights is an important exercise. This is therefore a key aspect of the Advisory Committee’s task in preparing the study requested from the Human Rights Council under resolution 16/3. 

However, the resolution also stresses that ‘traditions shall not be invoked to justify harmful practices violating universal human rights norms and standards’. As a member of the Women Human Rights Defenders International Coalition, ISHR is especially concerned that in their study, the members of the Advisory Committee should distinguish clearly between the ways in which tradition can be used to promote human rights, and the ways in which tradition or its invocation, can stand in opposition to human rights. We have seen such harmful traditions in all societies, from the colonial understanding of some races as inferior to others, to the exclusion of women from full participation in society.

The goal of the study, as set out in the resolution is to explore ‘how a better understanding of traditional values . . . can contribute to the promotion and protection of human rights’. Failure to set out clearly both the positive and negative aspects of tradition in this regard, risks granting legitimacy to values that are used to exclude and discriminate against those who do not form part of the perceived mainstream society. Those marginalised in this way include women, racial, ethnic, or religious minorities, lesbian, gay bisexual, transgender, intersex people, or persons with disabilities. In turn, such negative traditional values are used to justify attacks on those who work to defend the rights of those groups and individuals, such as women human rights defenders, who through their legitimate human rights activities often challenge traditional concepts of gender. The very people working to fulfil the aspiration of a world where ‘all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights’ can find themselves the target of attack and constraint. 

Women human rights defenders in particular often work at the grassroots level in communities where they are immediately confronted with traditional practices and values that challenge both the rights they promote and their own role as human rights defenders. The failure on the part of States and international bodies to speak out and condemn values and practices that violate universal human rights standards places these already particularly vulnerable defenders in an even more dangerous position. The work of these defenders is critical in directly confronting attitudes and values that undermine universal human rights. We must ensure that international human rights law remains the benchmark in articulating key common principles of humankind, and must guard against the legitimisation of terms such as ‘traditional values’, which can undermine the universal protection promised by human rights law.

To this end we encourage the Advisory Committee, to ensure that an early copy of the draft is circulated to human rights defenders and other stakeholders for their input, and that regular and transparent consultations are set up with human rights defenders at each stage of the drafting process.