This paper explores the dilemmas faced by gender justice activists in Bangladesh regarding whether and how to engage with laws that conflict with fundamental freedoms and rights, while acknowledging the importance of a legal framework to regulate cyberspace. […]
Countering Backlash partner AIW wins prestigious award
We are excited to announce that our partner organisation the Arab Institute for Women (AIW) at the Lebanese America University (LAU) has won at the Times Higher Education (THE) Awards Arab World 2024.
Winning in the category of ‘Research Project of the Year: Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences’, judges of the THE Awards said that “some social science projects provide the knowledge a society needs at a vital moment in time. AIW’s entry is a great example – with solid academic research and a collaborative approach to engage with society, their work is having a real-world impact in an area of vital importance”.
Myriam Sfeir, executive director of AIW shared that “it’s very gratifying to receive this award, especially at such a critical time for our country and our region. It gives us greater visibility, opens more doors and highlights the Institute’s day-to-day efforts to develop a culture of change”.
This award comes at a pivotal moment as LAU celebrates 100 years of Education, Empowerment, and Innovation and AIW half a century of leading the charge to mainstream gender issues within the institution and bridging the gap between academia and activism to advance gender justice.
AIW was established in 1973, building upon the Lebanese American University’s rich history as a school for women. At that time, it was the first such institute in the Arab region, working at the intersection of academia and activism. It remains one of the first globally and one of the few in Lebanon. The Institute advances gender equality and advocates for gender justice concerns nationally, regionally and globally through research, education, development programmes, and outreach.
“It fills me with immense pride to belong to this institution, which has always been a strong supporter of AIW and continues to be,” adds Myriam. “AIW is a small but mighty institute, and we promise to always walk the walk.”
AIW’s research on the Countering Backlash programme focuses on improving the understanding of gender backlash in Lebanon, and strengthening strategies to counter. They have published research on ‘Backlash in the Lebanese Media’, ‘Understanding Backlash in Lebanon’ and ‘Deconstructing Anti-Feminist Backlash: The Lebanese Context’, as well as numerous opinion-pieces – all available on the Countering Backlash website.
Feminisms in Brazil: Confronting and Dismantling Backlash
This paper explores the research undertaken by the Nucleus of Interdisciplinary Studies on Women (NEIM), of the Federal University of Bahia (UFBA), Brazil, involving faculty and graduate and undergraduate students as part of the Countering Backlash programme. […]
Countering Backlash: Reclaiming Gender Justice in Uganda
This report engages with the following questions that have been explored over a period of four years: What is backlash? What is the origin, nature and motive of gender backlash? What drives gender backlash? […]
Analysis of Voice and Agency in Countering Backlash Against Gender Justice: Synthesis of Three Policy Cases in Bangladesh
This paper consolidates research conducted in Bangladesh on three policy cases to understand how gender justice movements formulate their demands on specific issues in response to the backlash they encounter from anti-rights actors. […]
Backlash and Beyond: Anti-LGBTQ Lawmaking and Existential Panic in Ghana, Kenya and Uganda
This paper is based on a discourse analysis of select anti-LGBTQ laws, draft laws and related parliamentary proceedings in 2023 in Ghana, Kenya and Uganda, and reveals how efforts at expanded criminalisation seek to further regulate, police and constrain sex, sexuality, gender, family, and African subjectivities and nationhood. […]
5 ways for journalists to talk about gender-based violence in Brazil
The Brazilian press has drawn attention to the dismantling and removal of women’s and other vulnerable groups’ rights in the country recently, especially during the far-right government of Jair Bolsonaro between 2019 to 2023.
There are many issues that encompass violence against women, by individuals and by the Brazilian State, much of which is now having to be re-addressed under the government of Lula. The criminalisation of abortion and violence against women activists – or those in political positions – have been a focus of the press, especially in recent times. The activities of feminist, black, indigenous and LGBTQIA+ movements have also elicited strong reactions from conservative forces.
There is, however, a concern about the way the press has constructed their news about this, the way in which it is framed, and which subjects are in the spotlight.
NEIM has produced a new toolkit as part of the Countering Backlash programme specifically for journalists and communications professionals. It emerged to tackle media coverage of gender-based political violence and reproductive rights in Brazil. Here are five ways the toolkit can be used for responsible media coverage.
1) Pay attention to what is on the agenda
Media outlets have an agenda, often politicised, for the construction of their news. However, it is not always possible to create a strategic and detailed agenda, particularly when a ‘hot topic’ suddenly comes into the news, without the opportunity for a good investigation. However, this should not mean that the agenda cannot have a humanised approach to women’s lives and rights.
For journalists, this means paying close attention to the choice of sources, framing, and how we approach the topics. On one hand, abortion, although in some cases illegal in Brazil, is a public health issue. On the other hand, the coverage of women with political representation should be about their actions, not their bodies. Journalists and those working in news media should always choose not to re-victimise and/or criminalise women who are fighting for their rights or whose decisions over their bodies are prohibited.
2) Enquire about the topic you are covering
Ask yourself, what are the best ways to communicate about sensitive and potentially controversial topics? The persecution of those who seek and obtain abortions granted by law and or who face political gender violence is frequent in Brazil.
The ‘facts’ are not isolated. Always enquire about previous events as well as gender issues. In our toolkit, we conceptually address gender-based political violence and reproductive rights, as well as breaking them down.
3) Pay attention to the language used
It is important to know the main terms and understand the best way to talk about and approach topics that can be distressing for some people. Whenever possible, choose to add a content warning to your article or report. In the toolkit, we explain the most suitable concepts and terms to deal with gender-based political violence and reproductive rights. This will help to pass on crucial methods and information for countering backlash and contribute to creating knowledge and empathy on the subject.
A key, and important, example of this is that people who have abortions are not only cisgender women but also trans men and non-binary people, so avoid using the word ‘women’. When applicable, use the expression ‘people who menstruate’ or ‘people who get pregnant’. Clothing, hair, body shape: none of this is news. Coverage of people with political representation should be about their actions, not their bodies.
4) Contact trustworthy sources in the field
In the toolkit, you will have access to some reporting channels and reliable sources with information on gender-based political violence and reproductive rights. It is extremely important to check them before publishing your materials, as well as making periodic updates, particularly if these are topics that you often deal with. When in doubt, always question, and don’t hesitate to ask experts for help or clarification.
If one of your sources is a person who suffers political gender violence or who has had an abortion, guard them and protect their identities. Those who experience political gender violence may be at constant risk and, due to the illegality of most abortions, the protection of their identities is essential. Do not share their names, images, voice, location, or any other potentially identifiable features, and consider doing so even when you have been given permission.
5) Beware of the risk of re-victimisation
The exposure of victims’ identities should never be done, and their anonymity and privacy must be valued at all times when broadcasting news about it. When we talk about issues that are related, directly or indirectly, to violence – such as political gender violence and reproductive rights – especially related to groups that are already vulnerable, we must be extra careful with how we refer to the victims.
Do not exploit their suffering; the news should never be prioritised in favour of unnecessary exposure to the person who has suffered some type of violence, neglect or abuse.
Resource Pack: Online Safety For Activists
Resource Pack: Online Safety for Activists aims to share knowledge and learning about online gender-based violence (OGBV). It provides a comprehensive list of strategies and existing protection mechanisms to create safety for online activists and others. […]
Backlash in the Lebanese Media
This research report from the Arab Institute for Women explores the presence of backlash in Lebanese media, and how it is used. […]
Twisting Gender Justice in the Cause of Backlash: The Case of Turkey
Anti-gender discourses, a growing opposition to gender analysis, and a specific interpretation of ‘gender justice’ replacing ‘gender equality’ have gained visibility in Turkey following the rise of the Islamist de-democratisation approach of the ruling party Justice and Development Party (AKP). The party initiated a re-patriarchalisation process, pressuring women’s and LGBTQI+ activism.
AKP’s approach to gender presents an intriguing case. In its initial years, during Turkey’s European Union (EU) candidacy, the Islamist government, attempted to make legislative changes that would actually improve women’s position in society. However, with their consolidation of power and the end of Turkey’s candidacy, AKP gradually and more pointedly moved toward women’s traditional roles in the family as mothers and wives.
Signing the Istanbul Convention
When Turkey signed the Istanbul Convention in 2011 there was an emphasis on the empowerment of women. Professor Feride Acar, the first president of the monitoring body of the Istanbul Convention of the Council of Europe, Group of Experts on Action Against Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (GREVIO), was in a pivotal position in finalising the treaty, also playing a part in naming the agreement after Istanbul.
Turkey was the first country to sign the convention. However, double-dealing was visible in the government’s policy making even then, as in the same year, AKP transformed the Ministry of State for Women and Family to the Ministry of Family and Social Policies. This was a red flag for the women’s movements, particularly about conservative attempts of the government to consolidate women’s domesticised status and rights within the framework of family.
Later in 2019, the government nominated another candidate to replace Prof Acar in contradiction with GREVIO’s candidacy criteria. After taking control of the convention’s monitoring mechanism, the AKP regime started to promote Islamic notions of ‘fıtrat’ (‘natural’ attributes of sexes) as the basis of their controversial definition of ‘gender justice’ more explicitly in public affairs.
With fıtrat, gender justice is celebrated as an Islamist alternative to the perspectives of equality advocated by ‘the Western imposed gender ideology’ in an increasingly authoritarian atmosphere. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan emphasised women’s ‘delicate nature’ in his speeches several times, insisting that ‘women and men could not be treated equally because it goes against the laws of nature’, and he blamed feminists for not understanding ‘the special status attributed to mothers by Islam’.
Turkey’s Withdrawal from the Istanbul Convention
Turkey withdrew from the Istanbul Convention ten years after signing it, announced by a presidential decree at midnight on March 19, 2021. Ironically, the first country that signed the convention also became the first to withdraw. Under the pressures of the Covid-19 pandemic, massive protests by women’s and LGBTQI+ organisations took place in the streets and on social media challenging the government’s decision.
Women’s rights organisations and bar associations filed lawsuits against the decision to withdraw with a solid argument that Turkey ratified the Istanbul Convention via its National Assembly and thus withdrawal by a presidential decree is highly disputable. Despite this,the decision was declared final.
While the protests and challenges to the decision were continuing, President Erdoğan answered questions about the withdrawal in a live broadcast with university students. He argued that the convention does not bring an added value to the protection of women’s rights in Turkey, as national law No. 6284 already offers the required protection. He further presented Islam’s condemnation of violence against women as a formal reassurance.
Attempts to rationalise the withdrawal from the convention contributed to increased awareness of the backlash. The convention was declared a threat against Turkish family values in several speeches by government officials and was targeted as an untrustworthy tool of European cultural expansionism. This backlash gradually reached Law No. 6284, which was passed in 2012 for regulating the prevention of gender-based violence, as some members of the parliament asked for its annulment, with similar arguments of it being Western-centric. Özlem Zengin, a female attorney and vice president of AKP even found herself as the target of backlash actors, including her fellow party members, and received threats for stating that Law No. 6284 should continue to be the red line in Turkey against the violence targeting women.
Women’s movements have a long history of pressuring policymakers and amending laws in Turkey. Revisions in the Turkish Civil Code such as on article 159, which required women to have the permission of their husbands to be able to work (abolished in July 1992) and article 153, which entailed the sole use of the surname of the husband (changed in May 1997) were products of women’s movements. These amendments came as Turkish laws harmonised with European codes as part of the country’s accession to the EU. When the accession negotiations came to a standstill in 2018, gender backlash gained more currency, significantly weakening the rights and freedoms of women and increasing violence against women and gender minorities.
The ‘New Turkey’
With his latest election victory in June 2023, President Erdoğan has now initiated the discussion for a new constitution, which is expected to bring further regressive revisions to gender equality. Immediately following the election victory, President Erdoğan addressed his electorate in Istanbul from the top of his campaign bus, referring to every member of the opposition as ‘LGBT supporters [LGBT+]’ and he joined his supporters as they booed the opposition, continuing the tradition he started in his rallies before the election. LGBTQI+ has now become a shorthand that labels diverse strands of political opposition in the ‘New Turkey’ as a threat to the ‘sacredness of family’, and the ‘future of the nation’.
AKP refrains from using the term ‘gender’ in official documents, which is adopted by the new Turkish state in its authoritarian turn toward anti-gender directions. With Islamist nuances added to reverse its international use, ‘gender justice’ is turned in the state-sponsored lexicon and into a tool of backlash. In this lexicon, women are defined as ‘extensions’ of men; as mothers, wives and daughters.
Islamist women’s government organised and non-governmental organisation (NGOs and GONGOs) such as KADEM, normalise the neopatriarchal culture that limits women’s social presence with their participation in the labour market, as they collude by putting an added emphasis on women’s association with motherhood. Such pro-family discourses work to justify conservative neoliberal versions of masculinities in Turkey. It also shows that anti-gender approaches in AKP policies are rooted in their Islamist challenge to the universal notions produced by a long tradition of struggle for gender equality.
In the current period of backlash in Turkey, anti-gender politics plays a critical role in the strengthening of an authoritarian regime . The executive presidency regime bypassed the National Assembly in the process of withdrawal from the Istanbul Convention. The neopatriarchal state under the Islamist AKP, creates new hegemonic perspectives via pro-family and anti-gender nationalism, and the Islamist biopolitics in civil society in the ‘New Turkey’ demands the emergence of a new patriarchal bargain with the complex power relations around gender.
5 ways funding is crucial for organising and defeating gender backlash
Backlash from conservative, patriarchal, religious and political forces is often seen as ‘the cost of doing business’ by feminist or LGBTQ+ activists. Yet how do philanthropic institutions who support gender justice respond to the scaled-up, well-financed and globally coordinated anti-gender ideology backlash today? How do they support and collaborate with activists and civil society organisations to expose and win against the ‘opposition’?
Lisa VeneKlasen explores this in Countering Backlash’s latest working paper ‘Anti-Gender Backlash: Where Is Philanthropy?’. It is written primarily for gender justice and women’s rights activists and researchers in the global South who struggle to make sense of the philanthropy ecosystem, and to gain a partial view of the map of actors most closely aligned with their agenda.
With the focus of UN Women’s 68th Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) 2024 around ‘financing with a gender perspective’, here are five takeaways from the paper.
1. Gender is the ‘canary in the coalmine’
Coordinated attacks on gender rights and activists are part of a larger authoritarian agenda that includes the targeting of ethnic and racial minorities, immigrants, environmentalists and more. The backlash against gender justice is a central pillar of the orchestrated rollback of democratic and progressive rights, politics and movements. Important collaborations between LGBTQ+ and feminist donors through the Global Philanthropy Project (GPP) and between women’s funds, such as the On the Right Track initiative, are funding research that tracks who’s behind the anti-gender movement and makes the connection between anti-gender, anti-democracy and authoritarian discourse and strategies, in addition to resourcing increased power and protection of activists.
2. Anti-gender funding is a juggernaut
Global anti-gender backlash is a juggernaut, stifling and reversing advances in racial, gender, and reproductive rights and justice, and attacking defenders in dozens of countries, and globally. As shown in the paper, research by the Global Philanthropy Project (GPP) finds that the anti-gender movement spent over USD$1 billion between 2008 and 2017, from organisations based in the United States alone while new anti-gender networks are emerging in Europe. These are the networks behind the passing of ‘anti-gay’ laws in Uganda and Ghana, for example. In 2023, research by the Institute for Journalism and Social Change (IJSC) found that the UK Government had been directly funding anti-LGBTQ+ churches in Uganda.
“Actors in the UK are now a ‘key producer and exporter of anti-gender narratives”
In contrast, justice philanthropy has been slow to respond, and many steps behind the anti-gender opposition with regard to coordination, amounts and ways of funding.
3. Donors are not making the connection between gender backlash and threats to democracy
Too few donors recognise how patriarchy and gender are ‘critical to the forces characterised by rising authoritarianism’, according to interviews for this research.
Trump’s election in 2016 and subsequent assaults on reproductive and gender-related rights have been a ‘wake-up call’ focusing philanthropic attention on the urgency of anti-gender backlash. But feminists in philanthropy suggest that it remains an uphill battle, and that women’s rights funding is generally decreasing.
They point to the different ways that characterising anti-gender backlash prevents donors from sharing a common understanding of the problem. The distinct frames donors use include: fundamentalist backlash, democratic backsliding, rising authoritarianism, anti-gender, anti-feminist, anti-‘gender ideology’, anti-rights, anti-abortion, anti-democracy, the far right, religious nationalism, and the opposition.
A report published in September 2023 from the Astraea Lesbian Fund for Justice, ‘Global Resistance to Anti-Gender Opposition’ explores this issue. It recommends that donors’ responses ‘keep it simple’ (e.g. use words like ‘conservative’ or ‘fundamentalist’) to help forge a shared narrative and communicate to the general public.
Backlash is nothing new, and many feminists and gender justice activists are frustrated by a perceived lack of donor urgency. One donor advisor shared that some activists in the Middle East, feel like the recent framing of ‘anti-gender-Backlash’ is a Western export by Northern donors who are only now realising the extent of the problem because of Trump.
Several philanthropic foundations, such as Ford Foundation, Oak Foundation, and Wellspring, are prioritising global South-led research and other strategies to fill knowledge gaps. GPP plays a central role in gathering analysis and coordinating the growing interest across the philanthropic sector.
4. Donors must also fund collaboration among feminist activists and organisers directly
The fact that philanthropic organisations are investing time and funding to coordinate and scale up their responses is promising. For example, GPP’s ‘Shimmering Solidarity Summit’ in 2021 led to the establishment of the ‘Responding to Anti-Gender Initiatives’ (RAGI) to ‘energise and coordinate donor responses.’ According to GPP staff, there has been a significant increase in funding to LGBTQI+ groups and improved coordination since the summit, but new challenges are always emerging.
At the same time, funders recognize that prevalent funding siloes can create competition and prevent urgently needed collaboration. Improved donor collaboration is welcome, but it doesn’t substitute for more unconditional funding to enable activists and organisers to create their own spaces that are essential to power-building and aligning creative multi-sectoral strategies and unusual alliances to tackle and expose who’s behind backlash on multiple fronts. With more opportunities to strategise together, they would also have meaningful advice for their donor partners. Both a donor and activist approach to collaboration is essential.
5. Funders in search of ‘innovation’ while managing a heightened sense of risk
The philanthropic sector tends to seek out innovation and ‘big bets’. At times, the search for the new and better is at the expense of tried and tested strategies that are not as visible or exciting.
Not infrequently, new large-scale funding is directed toward the creation of new funding structures like collaborative and pooled funds to move money more quickly to groups and mitigate risk to the donors involved. Two new promising collaborative funds that have emerged in response to GPP’s analysis are Numun and Nebula. Both of these funds direct resources toward energised movement-driven collaboration to address important gaps.
Risk is not new to donors, though, in such a volatile political moment, donors are naturally concerned, especially as philanthropic foundations have faced attacks from governments. How to balance the risk of not funding movements at the scale needed to win against the risk of donor-directed political and legal attacks is a significant dilemma.
The seemingly contradictory push and pull of heightened risk vs a ‘moonshot’ mindset impacts how quickly and flexibly funding flows. This is particularly true for the less flashy organising and infrastructure-building necessary to resist and win against an ever-morphing foe in the long run.
Anti-Gender Backlash: Where is Philanthropy?
This working paper explores how philanthropic institutions with a history of supporting women’s and LGBTQI+ rights and democracy are seeing and responding to anti-gender backlash, and the background dynamics shaping the struggle. […]
Understanding gender backlash through Southern perspectives
Global progress on gender justice is under threat. We are living in an age where major political and social shifts are resulting in new forces that are visibly pushing back to reverse the many gains made for women’s and LGBTQ+ rights and to shrink civic space.
The focus of this year’s UN Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) calls for ‘accelerating the achievement of gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls…’. This ‘acceleration’ would be welcome indeed. We are not so much worried about slow progress but rather by the regress in a tidal wave of patriarchal – or gender – backlash, with major rollbacks of earlier advances for women’s equality and rights, as well as by a plethora of attacks on feminist, social justice and LGBTQ+ activists, civic space and vulnerable groups of many stripes.
The Countering Backlash programme explores this backlash against rights in a timely and important IDS Bulletin titled ‘Understanding Gender Backlash: Southern Perspectives’. In it, we ask ‘how can we better understand the contemporary swell of anti-feminist (or patriarchal) backlash across diverse settings?’. We present a range of perspectives and emerging evidence from our programme partners from Bangladesh, Brazil, India, Kenya, Lebanon, Uganda, and the United Kingdom.
Here’s what you can find in our special issue of the IDS Bulletin.
Why we need to understand gender backlash
‘Anti-gender backlash’, at its simplest, it refers to strong negative reactions against gender justice and those seeking it. Two widely known contemporary examples, from different contexts, are Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill (passed in 2023), and the United States Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe vs Wade (which gave women the constitutional right to abortion) in 2022.
The term ‘backlash’ was first used in Susan Faludi’s (1991) analysis of the pushback against feminist ideas in 1980s in the United States, and historically, understandings of anti-gender backlash have been predominantly based on experiences and theorising about developments in the global north. More recent scholarship has afforded insights on and from Latin America and Eastern Europe.
Much explanatory work to date, if it does not implicitly generalise from global north experience, often fails to adequately engage with the ways these locally specific phenomena operate transnationally, including across the global south, and with its complex imbrication in a broader dismantling of democracy.
New ways of analysing gender backlash
The Issue presents new ways of analysing backlash relevant to diverse development contexts, grounded examples, and evidence of anti-gender dynamics. It aims to push this topic out of the ‘gender corner’ to connect it to contemporary shifts in relationships between faith, identity and state, governance, and the broader politics of democracy and economics, as seen from across the global south.
The articles in this special issue are grouped into three themes: one, on ‘voice and tactics’, including whose voices are being heard, and what tactics are being used?; two, on ‘framings and direction’, including how are ideologies spread, and how can we understand attitudes to change? and; three, on ‘temporality and structure’, including what is ‘back’ about backlash? What and who drives it, and how is it imbricated in broader trends and crises? Additionally, most articles proffer some thoughts and recommendations on the implications for directions to counter backlash, whether specifically for feminist movements, for other gender and social justice defenders, or for researchers and students.
Southern Perspectives
This Issue fundamentally challenges simple and reductive understandings of gender backlash. Diverse examples of politicised backlash are ‘mapped’ across geographies and viewpoints. This can help to build a more granular and multi-perspectival understanding of backlash, of its more subtle processes of co-optation and division, its connected across borders, regions, and continents, and the contextual and different strategies of resistance.
Understanding Gender Backlash: Southern Perspectives
The 30th anniversary of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action in 1995, and the 10th anniversary of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), are fast approaching. And with global progress on gender justice being attacked around the world, we must find ways to combat gender backlash now.
The Countering Backlash programme has produced timely research and analysis on gender backlash, presenting a range of perspectives and emerging evidence on backlash against gender justice and equality, as such phenomena manifest locally, nationally, and internationally.
‘Understanding Gender Backlash: Southern Perspectives’ is our iteration of the IDS Bulletin, including contributions, insights, expert knowledge from a range of actors in diverse locations across South Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, Brazil, Lebanon and the UK – and all part of the Countering Backlash programme.
The IDS Bulletin addresses the urgent question of how we can better understand the recent swell of anti-gender backlash across different regions, exploring different types of actors, interests, narratives, and tactics for backlash in different places, policy areas, and processes.
The IDS Bulletin will be launched by a hybrid event on 07 March 2024, ahead of the programme’s attendance at UN Women’s Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) 2024.
Articles
Jerker Edström; Jennifer Edwards; Chloe Skinner; Tessa Lewin; Sohela Nazneen
Institute of Development Studies (IDS)
Sohela Nazneen
Institute of Development Studies (IDS)
Cecília Sardenberg; Teresa Sacchet; Maíra Kubík Mano; Luire Campelo; Camila Daltro; Talita Melgaço Fernandes; Heloisa Bandeira;
Nucleus of Interdisciplinary Women’s Studies of the Federal University of Bahia (NEIM)
Maheen Sultan; Pragyna Mahpara
BRAC BIGD
Adeepto Intisar Ahmed; Ishrat Jahan; Israr Hasan; Sabina Faiz Rashid; Sharin Shajahan Naomi
BRAC James P Grant School of Public Health
Jerker Edström
Institute of Development Studies (IDS)
Abhijit Das; Jashodhara Dasgupta; Maitrayee Mukhopadhyay; Sana Contractor; Satish Kumar Singh
Centre for Health and Social Justice (CHSJ)
Shraddha Chigateri; Sudarsana Kundu
Gender at Work Consulting – India
Phil Erick Otieno; Alfred Makabira
Advocates for Social Change Kenya (ADSOCK)
Amon A. Mwiine; Josephine Ahikire
Centre for Basic Research
Tessa Lewin
Institute of Development Studies (IDS)
Nay El Rahi; Fatima Antar
Arab Institute for Women (AIW)
Jerker Edström, Jenny Edwards, Tessa Lewin, Rosie McGee, Sohela Nazneen, Chloe Skinner
Institute of Development Studies (IDS)
Online violence against women is real violence
The campaign for 16 Days of Activism Against Gender-Based Violence this year encourages citizens to share the actions they are taking to create a world free from violence towards women. But what is being done about the online misogyny and violence encountered by gender justice activists, individuals, and organisations fighting for women’s rights and creating awareness online? Do our laws, the state, and its citizens consider an action to be gender-based violence only when it results in physical harm, rape, sexual assault, murder, or something severe?
Every day, women of all ages and socioeconomic backgrounds become victims of online harassment and abuse in the form of trolling, bullying, hacking, cyber pornography, etc. Although there is no nationally representative data on victims of online gender-based violence, according to Police Cyber Support for Women, 8,715 women reported being subjected to hacking, impersonation, and online sexual harassment from January to November 2022.
Read the full op-ed by Countering Backlash partner BRAC BIGD on ‘The Daily Star’ website.
বাংলাদেশের পারিবারিক সহিংসতা আইন বাস্তবায়নে নেতিবাচক প্রতিক্রিয়া (ব্যাকল্যাশ) প্রতিরোধ
নারী ও শিশু নির্যাতন দমন আইন এবং পারিবারিক সহিংসতা (প্রতিরোধ ও সুরক্ষা) আইন ২০১০- এর মতো আইন থাকা সত্ত্বেও বাংলাদেশে পারিবারিক সহিংসতার হার অনেক বেশি। বাংলাদেশ পরিসংখ্যান ব্যুরোর তথ্য অনুযায়ী, প্রতি পাঁচজন নারীর মধ্যে প্রায় তিনজন (৫৭.৭%) তাদের জীবদ্দশায় কোনো না কোনো ধরনের শারীরিক, যৌন বা মানসিক সহিংসতার শিকার হয়েছেন। […]
Countering Backlash in the Implementation of Bangladesh’s Domestic Violence Act
Domestic violence rates are high in Bangladesh in spite of laws such as the Nari o Shishu Nirjatan Domon Ain and the DVPPA 2010. According to data from the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, almost three in every five women (57.7%) have experienced some form of physical, sexual, or emotional violence in their lifetime. […]
Anti-Gender Discourse in Serbian Media
This paper seeks to lay out a critical feminist analysis of anti-gender discourse in 843 media texts published in Serbia from January 1, 2019 to October 31, 2022. A database with the largest coverage of mainstream news was selected. […]
Patriarchal (Dis)orders: Backlash as Crisis Management
This article examines more global dynamics of backlash, exploring the question of why and how it has emerged with greater intensity in recent years, and how we can better understand it. […]
Marriage equality in India: still miles to go
The queer community in India has been continuously fighting for social equality over the last few decades, given the colonial era laws like Section 377 that criminalised same sex relationships and the Criminal Tribes law that outlawed entire transgender community. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer and asexual (LGBTQ+) groups have struggled in police stations, courtrooms and on the streets to access their rights as equal citizens of the country, given the widespread stigma and discrimination faced daily, not only within homes and neighbourhoods, but within private and state institutions.
The long-standing fight for equal rights
After many challenges and setbacks, the LGBTQ+ community was able to gain a few significant victories. These include landmark cases such as National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) v. Union of India (2014) where the Court held that the state must recognize persons who fall outside the male-female binary as ‘third gender persons’ and that they are entitled to all constitutionally guaranteed rights. This was followed by Justice KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) in which the court held that the Constitution protects the right of a person to exercise their sexual orientation. The most recent judgement was Navtej Singh Johar and Ors v. Union of India (2018) in which the court held that Section 377 is unconstitutional to the extent that it criminalizes consensual sexual activities by the LGBTQ+ community. In 2019, the government of India enacted the Transgender Persons (protection of Rights) Act that recognized the right of transgender persons to have a self-perceived gender identity, prohibited discrimination and upheld their rights to residence, healthcare, education and employment.
However, there were still a lot of areas of struggle for the LGBTQ+ community in India, for example, in recognising relationship status for same sex couples. This was met with stiff opposition that led to coercive therapies, forced separation or forced marriages and state custody. In the absence of any legal recognition of long-term LGBTQ+ relationships, surviving partners were disregarded when it came to claiming insurance or employment-related benefits, nominee rights for healthcare or even share of property.
In 2022, several Writ Petitions seeking marriage equality for LGBTQ+ couples were submitted in the High Courts and the Supreme Court of India. The key asks were that LGBTQ+ persons should have a “Right to Marry” the person of their choosing, regardless of religion, gender and sexual orientation; and that the Special Marriage Act (1954), which enabled two people of different religions or castes to marry, should also include LGBTQ+ couples by using gender-neutral terminology; likewise, the petitions called for changing the Foreign Marriages Act (1969). In addition, the petitions also called for changes in the Child Adoption laws and regulations to enable LGBTQ+ couples to adopt children together; one petition asked for the right to ‘chosen families’. The final ask was for preventive and protective measures by district and police authorities to ensure the safety of adult consenting LGBTQ+ couples from the violence they faced from their birth families.
The Supreme Court ruling and its impact
The petitions were all clubbed together and came up before a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court that gave its verdict on the 17th of October 2023 (Supriyo@Supriya Chakrabarty and Ors vs Union of India), denying the claim for marriage equality. Although all five judges accepted that any two people have the right to live and build a life together and that such relationships should be protected from violence and discrimination by the State, they failed to reach a consensus on giving queer couples the status of a legally recognised “civil union”. Three of the judges argued that any legal status to such unions can only be granted through enacted legislation. Disappointingly, all five judges unanimously found that there is no “fundamental right to marry” within the Constitutional framework, a position that is in contradiction with Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) that recognizes the right to marry and start a family. The court refused to propose any change to the Special Marriage Act (1954) or Foreign Marriage Act (1969) to make the terms gender-neutral, on the grounds that this would be intruding into the legislative domain.
On the issue of transgender persons, all five judges agreed with the proposition that a transgender man has the right to marry a cisgender woman under current laws; similarly, a transgender woman has the right to marry a cisgender man. A transgender man and a transgender woman can also marry. Intersex persons who identify as a man or a woman and seek to enter into a heterosexual marriage would also have a right to marry.
The minority opinion said the LGBTQ+ community has a fundamental right to form relationships and that the state was obligated to recognise and grant legal status to such unions, so that same-sex couples could avail the material benefits provided under the law. The right to choose a partner was the most important life decision. This right goes to the root of the right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The minority judgement went ahead to declare that not granting the same rights as those that accrue within marriage to those in civil unions would be violative of the Constitutional promise of no discrimination on the basis of sex. Regarding the Child Adoption issue, the minority opinion was that adoption Regulations discriminate against unmarried couples.
In terms of protection from harassment by families and the police, the Chief Justice of India made very compelling directions to the State to protect the rights of LGBTQ+ couples against discrimination and harassment, especially by the police. Even in the absence of formal marriage rights, this specific instruction for law enforcement agencies could go a long way in easing the problems faced by couples exercising their choice of intimate partner, especially lesbian, bisexual, intersex and trans women. This is something that needs to be widely spoken about.
What will the future look like for the LGBTQ+ community in India?
Despite not granting new rights to the LGBTQ+ community, the judicial discourse has certainly moved ahead in terms of recognizing the various forms of discrimination acknowledged earlier in NALSA and Navtej Johar. The Constitution Bench firmly countered the government’s claims that queerness was an alien, urban or elite phenomenon, asserting “pluralistic social fabric” and an “integral part of Indian culture”. All judges acknowledged the inequity and intolerance faced by the LGBTQ+ community, as well as the denial of access to certain benefits and privileges that are available to heterosexual married couples.
In other gains, the State had volunteered to set up a committee chaired by the Cabinet Secretary for the purpose of defining the scope of entitlement of queer couples who are in unions. They may pass an Act creating civil unions, or a domestic partnership legislation, or perhaps, rather than the Union Government, the State legislatures could take action and enact laws or frameworks. The possibilities are not encouraging, however, given the government has already expressed that same-sex marriages are not “comparable with the Indian family unit concept of a husband, a wife and children”.
The split verdict is a clear setback to the long struggle for equal rights of the LGBTQ+ communities, who remain unsure about how far the conservative forces will take up the directions of the Court to bring about the much-needed changes. It is imperative to continue to discuss and engage with familiar and unfamiliar groups and social institutions. This fight shall continue until no one can deny the rights that are due to the LGBTQ+ community as equal citizens of the country.