archives

Limus At least, that is, according to the Turkish military. A recent report by the BBC (available here  in this link) highlights the ways in which sexuality across the world is largely a social construct. The article refers to the practice of military conscription in Turkey – an obligation which can only be avoided by proving yourself to be a homosexual, hence the questions. Failing to convince military officers of your sexuality by answering these questions incorrectly, the only other option is to present them with a photograph of yourself having sex with another man. Then and only then will you be presented with a pink (yes, really) form, officially identifying you as homosexual. Whilst perhaps an extreme example, the case highlights the ways in which different nations and cultures identify gays and lesbians.Only in Turkey? Well…no.Last year the much publicised case of Robert Segwanyi brought the issue to a British audience. Mr Segwanyi is a Ugandan refugee living in the United Kingdom. He fled his homeland to avoid being persecuted as a result of his sexuality. UK Border Agency rules regarding asylum claims state that: An asylum applicant will be granted asylum in the United Kingdom if the Secretary of State is satisfied that: (i) he is in the United Kingdom or has arrived at a port of entry in the United Kingdom; (ii) he is a refugee, as defined in regulation 2 of The Refugee or Person in Need of International Protection (Qualification) Regulations 2006; (iii) there are no reasonable grounds for regarding him as a danger to the security of the United Kingdom; (iv) he does not, having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, he does not constitute danger to the community of the United Kingdom; and (v) refusing his application would result in him being required to go (whether immediately or after the time limited by any existing leave to enter or remain) in breach of the Geneva Convention, to a country in which his life or freedom would threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group. Most would argue that Mr Segwanyi fit all of the above criteria for asylum. (Incidentally, extremist cleric Abu Hamza, who most would say contravenes point iii, is still in the UK). However, Mr Segwanyi was very nearly returned to Uganda as the British Home Office decided that he couldn’t prove that he was gay. (A link to the story can be found here https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-14579616 The end the decision was deferred while the Home Office considered representations put forward by Mr Segwanyi’s lawyers. He was eventually permitted to submit a fresh claim for asylum, and is still awaiting a final decision.So how exactly do people prove they are gay in the United Kingdom? Well, with regards to the Segwanyi case the Home Office was unusually quiet.Whilst awareness of gender constructs worldwide is increasing, constructs of sexuality (and the treatment of individuals who identify as gay or bisexual) remain largely untouched. The Turkish example mentioned above highlights one important point: for a man to avoid military conscription by presenting a photograph of himself engaging in intercourse with another man, he must be seen to be the passive member of that union. In other words, if he is playing the dominant role he will not necessarily be considered gay. This sentiment is echoed in many parts of South Asia and the Middle East. So next time a country announces it is to abolish laws that penalise homosexuals, don’t be fooled into thinking it has solved the problem.It will simply be the first of a great many steps.

Olympic Changers The London Olympics will be the first games to include women as well as men from every competing nation, including Brunei, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. The two Saudi women participants though they have not qualified have received special invitations from the International Olympics Committee (IOC), (politics trumps performance) who hope that they will put up a reasonable show. It will be rather interesting if either of them do brilliantly despite not qualifying? At least this may take the IOC’s mind off trying to disqualify women as women who have a habit of performing too well (testosterone trumps performance). (See gendercentric newsflash Olympic Confusion : Gender & the IOC, 02 July) It had earlier been speculated that the London Olympics would welcome the dashing Saudi equestrienne – Dalma Malhas- who won bronze at the 2010 Singapore Youth Olympics to which she was not nominated by her country but specially invited by the IOC. But it seems that her horse is sick. This is a case of horse trumps rider, though normally as noted (02 July) horses enable their riders to transcend gender barriers. The Olympic Games have often provided the forum for political and human rights statements. The question here is what happens after the games. Will the participation of Wodjan Ali Seraj Abdulrahim Shahrkhani (judo) and Sarah Attar (athletics) finally level the playing field for all Saudi women and girls who are banned from playing sports in school, and denied access to most sports facilities? Sarah Attar from her training base in the States has already said that she hopes to ‘make some really big strides for women over there’. Currently Saudi Arabia stands at 135 out of 146 countries on the Gender Development Index (2011) http://genderindex.org/country/saudi-arabia . Women have been granted theoretical rights to vote in future municipal elections, and also to become eligible for driving licenses a mere four years from now.
That having been said Saudi Arabia has beaten the USA to the ratification of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), by ratifying in 2000. The USA is still pondering the ratification of this most dangerous of international conventions but perhaps the President’s recent support for gay marriage is a sign of better things to come…but only if he wins of course. Check out some US objections to the ‘international bill of rights for women’: http://www.womensissues.about.com/od/feminismequalrights/a/CEDAWUS.htm And best of luck to Wodjan and Sarah, as game-changers if not medal winners.

Interview with Thavrith Chhuon Gendercentric’s interview with Thavrith Chhuon, Gender Mainstreaming Officer, UNDP Partnership for Gender Equity with the Ministry of Women’s Affairs, Cambodia. Expertise: Gender Affairs, Electoral Affairs, and Research. Gendercentric: Although ‘gender’ is a field that by definition concerns both women & men, the prevailing stereotype of gender experts world-wide is female. I have therefore been very impressed & surprised to find so many men working in this field in Cambodia? Does this situation indicate that Cambodia is ‘ahead of the game’? Or does it reflect a gender gap in educational opportunity & achievement between girls & boys? Thavrith: I personally do not think Cambodia is ‘ahead of the game’. Traditional practice in Cambodia is that parents prefer to support their sons to get higher education than their daughters. Girls will be kept at home to assist in household chores. This results in the gap in educational opportunity of girls. The Royal Government of Cambodia has been working hard to promote more women into leadership roles and we can see more of them are taking these positions. Of course, can see more of them are taking these positions. Of course, it is impressive that men are working in the gender field, but I’m sure that in the near future all these positions will be filled by girls. Gendercentric: could you tell us something about the personal & professional interests that drew you into this career path? And do you see this as a ‘job for life’ or as a transitional phase that will provide a good basis for other kinds of development work. Thavrith: Education and my international experiences working within a multi-cultural context have shaped my perceptions differently in terms of social values, belief and attitude. I believe women can do things as men do, especially in income- generation for the household. And this matters very much in terms of power relations. So, I think working in this area would be very interesting. But I don’t think I will take it as a life-time job. Because of this work, I have learned a lot from different sectors, which will build myself for the future career. Gendercentric: do you regard it as an advantage or a disadvantage to be male in a female dominated field either here in Cambodia or in the outside world? Thavrith: I think it is advantageous. I don’t think it is wise if a group of women just come up and talk about their own issues, while those issues are very much related to men. However, people think differently. When they talk about ‘gender work’, it is women’s work and in most cases it is true here in Cambodia. This is why I’m not very much optimistic for the future of my work in this area. It is an interesting area though, but I have to prepare the exit strategy. Haha! Gendercentric: And finally could you share some of your thoughts about the main challenges of this work in your own country context. Thavrith: Many things, but the most challenging issue is that we are working to change the perceptions, behaviors and attitudes of the society on gender. And it will take decades just to do this work. As I mentioned earlier, people think this is women’s work. So, most men who are in leadership positions, do not get involved in this work. The promotion of gender equality will not be successful unless there is full participation, supports, and commitment from men. I am working with 27 line ministries & institutions and I can say this is a real challenge. There are many other challenges, but I am just picking up the few main ones. Cambodia has been working hard to promote gender equality once the government of the first mandate was established in 1993 with the assistance of the United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia (UNTAC). And this is not very long at all. However, we have achieved very significant results, among others, women’s political participation, women in leadership positions, women’s economic empowerment, women’s health, education, We are also taking serious measures to deal with domestic violence, sexual harassment etc. So, we should not expect more than this. It is not a rocket science! Gendercentric: Many thanks for your views & time, Thavrith. We are watching that space!

Lady Turning Do these look like two people who’ve just kicked their convictions under the table? Tony Blair, and Liberian President, Ellen Johnson –Sirleaf met during Blair’s visit to Liberia for the charity the African Governance Initiative (AGI) which, in Blair’s own words aims to “strengthen African governments and help them move to aid independence”. Ms Johnson-Sirleaf, a Harvard economist and alumna of the World Bank and UNDP became President of Liberia in 2005 and is a Nobel Laureate woman praised for her position on human rights and gender equality. So it came as something of a surprise to hear her defend during this meeting Liberian legislation which penalises gay people. (The current law would sentence anyone convicted of sodomy to a year in jail. New laws are being considered which would send anyone seducing a person of the same sex to jail for five years, and anyone attempting to marry someone of the same sex to ten years.) One only has to read the comments under the YouTube videos of the meeting, to see how polarised the response has been: from some (mostly claiming to be Liberians) in full support of Sirleaf’s “moral” stance, to others calling for her to forfeit her Nobel Prize. So what is Johnson-Sirleaf’s true position on this matter? The Guardian article reports that on the one hand she will not veto the current law which penalises sodomy; and on the other that she will not sign into effect the proposed bills to impose tougher sentences on gay relationships. This places her in something of a gay grey area. We wait for a straight-to-the-point statement from the Presidential office, confirming Johnson- Sirleaf’s positio one way or the other. Why is it that Sirleaf is refusing to veto the current law? Whom she is trying to please? Some of her Presidential neighbours perhaps? She says Liberians like themselves “just the way [they] are”, yet her presidential campaign (the first time) was mounted on a promise of change, including more government transparency, human rights, gender equality, a ‘war’ in poverty, and an improvement in education. The current sodomy law arguably leads to violence and repression, yet she does not wish to see any change in this area. This is unusual for someone who, in the words of the Nobel Prize committee “has contributed to securing peace in Liberia”. And what of Mr. Blair who seems so unwilling to tackle the deeper issues in the African continent, in his new role? In his own words he gets to “choose the issues [he] gets into and the ones he [doesn’t]”. The ones he has chosen include tackling malaria (but not HIV/AIDS), strengthening African economies, and creating more infrastructure. Important issues and rather safe ones. As UK Prime Minister he became known for his pro-gay stance, by taking steps such as lowering the age of sexual consent for homosexuals to 16, and introducing the Civil Partnership Act in 2004. Has the controversy of other areas of his UK leadership finally overtaken him, leaving him averse to wading into anything too provocative? (By contrast, both the current UK Prime Minister David Cameron, and US President Barack Obama have made tackling the issues of human rights overseas (including those of gay and lesbian people) something of a priority (even threatening to reduce or withdraw foreign aid to nations which refuse to clean up their rights records)). The threat of a jail term will not change a gay person’s sexual orientation. It will simply serve to force gays and lesbians into hiding, and have them living in fear and oppression. This is surely not the kind of society that Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf had in mind, when she swore her first presidential oath in 2005. It is all so ironic for a nation whose name means “the country of the free”…

Leading Women Shamima Pervin is a Women Rights activist from Bangladesh. Professionally she has worked with national and international NGOs, United Nations organizations, DFID and Government of Bangladesh. She has carried out extensive work in planning, managing projects, capacity development and M&E activities in the field of extreme poverty, gender mainstreaming, diversity, violence against women, reproductive health and livelihood issues. She studied MA in Gender Analysis in Development at University of East Anglia and in Economics at University of Chittagong. She is a regular contributor to the English and Bengali dailies in Bangladesh. Gendercentric: In the Asian region it seems that many women in political power have inherited positions from husbands or fathers. One wonders in such cases whether having more women in decision-making positions makes a real difference to lives of ordinary women, or is the effect largely cosmetic? And how does this phenomenon of ‘inherited’ leadership affect the impact upon the image of women in public life? Shamima: Yes, the Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and the opposition leader, Khaleda Zia both acquired their positions through inheritance. However, they both also made critical contribution by saving their political parties through uniting party members, as well as by sparing the country another military dictatorship. Both of them were the key persons in organizing the democratic movement in 90s. The people of Bangladesh consider them as the state leaders, not as mere women. Even the religious fundamentalist group publicly cannot protest against female leadership. In Bangladesh, even in rural area illiterate village people, both men and women’ do not protest against women’s leadership. They argue that as Hasina and Khaleda Zia can run the state, so women of grassroots level can run their Community Based Organizations. Because of their leadership at state level, nobody opposes female leadership publicly. Gendercentric: Can you tell us something about Bangladesh’s experience with quotas & other ‘special measures’ to increase the presence of women in political life? Shamima: Quotas and special measures helped to increase the presence of women in political life. Actually quotas were introduced in Bangladesh to face political realities of women’s life. It’s not easy for women to compete with men as the latter have more property through inheritance, muscle power, mobility and fame. In Bangladesh, money, muscle and male identity dominates politics. So, without quotas increasing women’s presence is difficult both at local level and national level. To combat the inadequate representation of women in the Union Parishad (lowest level administrative hierarchy), 3 seats are reserved for women, which are called reserved seats for women. However, women are directly elected to these seats. Women’s acquisition of non-reserved seats is very negligible. Not even one percent. On the other hand women elected from reserved seats increased women’s representation at the local level. The same is true at the national level with the exception of the 2008 national election. From 1973 -2001 less than 4 percent women were elected in the general seats. The women who were elected were from the reserved seats they which gave them a springboard to the non-reserved seats.