feminismo

 

  • Advocating for women’s sexual and reproductive rights in Peru, a risky fight against powerful enemies

    Spanish

    CIVICUS speaks to María Ysabel Cedano, Director of DEMUS –Study for the Defense of Women’s Rights, a Peruvian feminist organisation that since 1987 defends human rights, and particularly women’s sexual and reproductive rights, by promoting their free exercise and questioning the hegemonic cultural paradigm on women and their sexuality. DEMUS carries out public opinion campaigns and advocacy work with the three branches of government; it conducts strategic litigation and promotes mobilisation on issues related to the promotion of equality and non-discrimination, a life free from gender-based violence, access to justice, and sexual and reproductive rights.

    1. How would you describe the context for the exercise of feminist activism in Peru?
    Generally speaking, conditions for activism greatly depend on the ideology, programme and nature of the organisation and movement in question - on its stance regarding the state and the incumbent government, and on its relationship with political forces and the powers that be.

    Due to our agenda, we feminists are antagonists of Fujimorism, the political movement founded by Alberto Fujimori, who ruled Peru between 1990 and 2000. Our organisation has criticised and opposed them since the 1990s, as we have fought for justice and reparations for the thousands of victims of the Fujimori administration’s policy of systematic forced sterilisation. Its victims were mostly peasant, indigenous and poor women who underwent irreversible surgical contraception without being able to give their free and informed consent, in a context of widespread violence.

    On this issue, in 2003 we reached a Friendly Settlement Agreement (FSA) in the Mamérita Mestanza case. As a result, the Peruvian state acknowledged its responsibility for human rights violations in the context of the forced sterilisation policy and committed to providing justice and reparation to victims. We also obtained favourable statements by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights that have boosted our work to defend the right to access justice and to promote a policy of integral reparations. That made us a target of Fujimorist attacks, in the form of defamation in the national media as well as in social media. We have in fact sued former congressman Alejandro Aguinaga, under investigation in the preliminary examination of forced sterilisations as a crime against humanity and other serious violations of human rights, which the Public Ministry opened in 2004 in compliance with the already mentioned FSA. The case still remains in its preliminary stages due to political interference, which we have publically denounced. For more than fourteen years, the Public Ministry has failed to accuse former President Fujimori and his former Health Ministers, including Aguinaga, and no prosecution has taken place. In the meantime, Fujimorism has not undergone any renovation whatsoever: it still does not believe in human rights and cannot fathom the right of women to decide on their own. In fact they all remain very convinced that it is the state that has to decide for them.

    The other antagonists we have as a result of our feminist agenda are the Catholic and Evangelical ecclesial hierarchies, as well as other conservative and fundamentalist religious groups such as Opus Dei, Sodalitium and Bethel. These are the leaders of an anti- sexual and reproductive rights agenda and seek to legislate and implement public policies to strengthen the institutions that guarantee their political, economic, social and cultural dominance, thereby ignoring the secular character of the state that the authorities in turn fail to enforce. For decades they have run a strong campaign against what they call “gender ideology”, not just in Peru but throughout Latin America and the Caribbean, and beyond. These are multimillion-dollar campaigns that maintain that “gender ideology” attacks life, marriage and family. The funding they poured into the fear campaign against the peace accords in Colombia is a good example of this. They have also promoted a campaign called "Don't mess with my children" in several countries in the region.

    While these actors have questioned the scientific and legal validity of the gender perspective, the concept of gender has been adopted in the Beijing Platform for Action (1995) and in standards such as CEDAW, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and the Convention of Belém do Pará. In Peru it was included into several laws, public policies and institutions, as a result of which conservative sectors are currently trying, for instance, to eliminate the gender perspective from the school curriculum, including all allusions to sexual orientation and gender identity. They have done so by means of both street actions and lawsuits. These however have not yielded the desired results: the overwhelming response from the Ministry of Justice’s Attorney General even covered them in ridicule. As a result, they had no alternative left other than using their power in Congress, where there are currently two bills that have been submitted by Fujimorism towards that aim.

    Lastly, in addition to harassing us through their press, as they have always done, these sectors now also attack us for our funding sources. They say we are the instruments of great powers seeking to impose Western models of family and sexuality in our country.

    Thanks to a journalistic investigation that then became a criminal investigation, we currently know of child sexual abuse perpetrated by members of the Sodalitium, one of the most conservative and powerful groups within the Catholic Church. The scandal contributed to weakening the attacks coming from the ecclesial hierarchy. We are also beginning to know about the unholy business the Church does with education, health and even cemeteries within the framework of the Concordat between the Peruvian state and the Vatican. The very same priests who have spent years fighting us on the decriminalisation of abortion for rape cases, and who have said the worst things about us because they consider themselves to be the “defenders of life”, have allegedly covered for rapists of children and adolescents in their congregations and communities. This has helped people overcome their fear of denouncing the Catholic Church’s hypocrisy and double standards, and has limited the church’s ability to demand the government implement specific policies. For instance, the government has recently obeyed a court order to resume the distribution of emergency oral contraception despite pressures from Cardinal Cipriani.

    Given that our struggles for transitional justice have led us to seek justice and integral reparations for the victims of sexual violence during the internal armed conflict (1980-2000), we face not only Fujimorism but also APRA, a traditional party that ruled during a part of this period. They both seek to divide Peruvians between terrorists and non-terrorists and associate the left and human rights with terrorism. They never get tired of asserting that those who attack the military are terrorists - or ungrateful to say the least, for persecuting those who freed us from terrorism. If we strive for the legalisation of abortion we are abortionists, and if we defend human rights we are terrorists.

    2. How does DEMUS work to overcome these obstacles?
    We combine organisational and mobilisation strategies to strengthen the feminist and women’s diversity movement, public and political advocacy for legislation, public policies and access to justice measures, and strategic litigation. Among the latter were for instance the Manta y Vilca trial on rape during the internal armed conflict, which established that this was a crime against humanity; the case of forced sterilisations during the Fujimori administration; and other cases that have allowed us to move forward in terms of the recognition and guarantee of the human right to therapeutic abortion, among other sexual and reproductive rights.

    Ours is not just a lawyers’ struggle: we work in multidisciplinary teams and in alliances and within networks including other feminist, women’s, LGBTIQ and human rights NGOs, groups and platforms. Experience has taught us that it is not enough to obtain jurisprudence, standards, laws and public policies if there are no social movements and citizens defending them, that is, if there is no social base accompanying and empathising with the victims. Strategic litigation, legal defence and psycho-legal and therapeutic help are therefore always to be accompanied with mobilisation and campaigning.

    3. Is the Peruvian women’s movement integrated into regional or global networks, so as to face an adversary that is?
    There are indeed very important global and regional networks. In Latin America, the level of articulation reached by indigenous, peasant and environmental women human rights defenders is astonishing in contrast with the weakening of some feminist networks. New technologies have revolutionised communications, and we now have various alternative means to organise ourselves in networks.

    We must think about how to strengthen our thematic networks, for instance in the field of sexual and reproductive rights, in order to resist together. This is facilitated by a number of conceptual convergences, but complicated by the scarcity of resources reaching Latin America, competition around which affects alliances and articulations. Neoliberalism has also had an impact on inter-subjective relations: conflicts and rivalries arise due to scarce funding. It is impossible to understand the degree of difficulties we face without analysing the changes in and the new rules of international cooperation and funding mechanisms.
    On the other hand, we must not forget that Peru’s is a post-conflict society, with open wounds and an abundance of distrust, which has not yet learned to resolve differences without violence. We need to be aware of these limitations, so as not to reproduce what we criticise. But we are certainly still very strong: with much greater organisation and resources than we have, Catholics and evangelicals have not yet managed to create enough pressure in the streets and on public opinion to remove sex education from the school curriculum. Their only hope is now placed on authoritarian conservative forces in Congress.

    4. What progress or setbacks do you perceive in the struggle for women’s rights in Peru?
    Taking stock of the forty years of contemporary feminism in Peru, there has been net progress in terms of the legal-institutional framework. Advances have been the result of constant struggle and permanent dispute, and are neither ideal nor stable: they need to be continuously defended and perfected.

    For instance, in late 2015 a substantial amendment to Law No. 26260 (1993) on domestic violence was finally passed. The new legislation, Law No. 30394, is a law against gender-based violence. Shortly after, in July 2016, the Third National Plan against Gender Violence (2016-2021) was passed. In both cases there was a dispute over the diversity of the women to be protected. There was much resistance against the possibility that legislation would also protect lesbian, bisexual and transgender women. In fact, recognition of the variety of forms that gender violence can take was not as resisted as the extension and recognition of the objects of protection. The women’s movement succeeded in getting some previously unacknowledged forms of gender violence recognised as such, including gender-based violence in the context of social conflicts. We wanted the new law to protect women human rights defenders of land, the environment, and natural resources, that is, indigenous and peasant women who are currently criminalised and on whom conflicts have a differential impact on the basis of gender. This we achieved. We had also proposed that the violation of sexual and reproductive rights be recognised as gender violence. And while we achieved recognition of forced sterilisation, rape in the context of internal armed conflict, violence due to sexual orientation, and obstetric violence as forms of gender-based violence, such recognition was not expressed in the language of sexual and reproductive rights. In additional, sexual orientation-based violence was recognised but gender identity-based violence was not.

    Fifteen years after the First National Plan was launched, and more than twenty after the first law against then-called “domestic” or “intra-family” violence was passed, tension between women’s rights and family protection persists. Although Law No. 30364 has in many respects aligned legislation with the Belém do Pará Convention, violence based on gender identity discrimination has not yet been recognised. Public debate continues to focus on nature as a determinant of sexuality, reproduction and family.

    Why is it that feminists and LGBT people perceive “family protection” as contrary to our rights? First, because not all families are protected. Family rights of the LGBT population are not recognised. Secondly, because why protect the existing family – a traditional, hierarchical, violent family based on sexual division of labour and the exclusive recognition of heterosexual sexuality? A family organisation free of discrimination and gender-based violence should be promoted instead. In other words, measures should be taken to dismantle the patriarchal family, which functions as the very first place of normalisation and control, particularly for women and LGBT persons. The family has become a space in which physical, psychological and sexual violence remain unpunished: in fact, Peru has the second highest rate of denunciation of sexual offences against girls and adolescents in the region, and these are in many cases perpetrated by family members. Finally, a person’s (and in this case a woman’s) rights can never be subordinated, conditioned or reduced to a by-product of family welfare, in the same way as the rights of an actual person cannot be subordinated to the rights of being yet to be born.

    In sum, in historical perspective there has been progress in the recognition and guarantee of rights, but these have been the product of constant struggle. We face strong resistance, and if we had not permanently defended our conquests, we would certainly have seen them retreat long ago.

    5. In this context, how has DEMUS’ agenda changed since its beginnings in 1987?
    DEMUS is an organisation well known for its work for the right to a life free of gender-based violence. We specialise in prevention, care, denunciation, therapeutic and psycho-legal accompaniment, litigation, advocacy with legislative, policymaking and justice administration bodies, and campaigning and mobilisation on gender-based violence. For instance, we developed the “Not one more death” campaign, which placed femicide on the public agenda, and the “A man doesn't rape” campaign, which contributed to call attention on the problem of sexual violence, impunity and the culture of rape.

    In the beginning we had to dispute about the very concept of what was then called “intra-family violence”, which we designated as “violence against women” and today we call “gender-based violence”. We saw violence against women as a problem of power inequality, sexual discrimination and impunity, so we advocated for equality and access to justice. However, as years passed and the first laws and policies on the issue were passed, we realised that we were not obtaining the results we expected.

    The fight against violence against women had gained consensus as part of the state agenda and had occupied a space in the institutional structure of the state (commissions, ministries, etc.), and even ultraconservatives had begun to accept equal opportunities between men and women (which was enshrined in Law No. 28983 of 2007) all the while resisting the recognition of other sexual orientations and gender identities. So we began a conceptual revision and concluded that if we wanted to combat gender-based violence, our central strategic battle had to revolve around women’s autonomy and self-determination in the field of sexuality and reproduction, the recognition of and the provision of guarantees for sexual and reproductive rights understood as fundamental human rights, and access to justice in cases where these were violated. The perspective of sexual and reproductive rights came to enrich the equality and non-discrimination approach in addressing the problems of gender-based violence and impunity.

    Thus, although the defence of LGBT rights and the legalisation of abortion were already in DEMUS’ agenda, they have since become more central to it. And our strategies became richer in the process, because besides strategic litigation and therapeutic and psycho-legal accompaniment we started to focus as well on organisation and mobilisation, public advocacy and communication. We have used the whole toolbox in our search for justice and reparations for the victims of forced sterilisations, and also in our campaigns for emergency oral contraception and the legalisation of abortion (first of all for reasons of rape, foetal malformations incompatible with extra-uterine life, and unconsented artificial insemination and egg transfers, and eventually on the basis of women’s dignity and right to decide).

    Most recently, in our work to defend victims of sexual violence and impunity, we have learned from the indigenous and peasant women defenders of land and water that women human rights defenders are being differently affected by the extractivist economy due to their gender, and are being specifically criminalised by corporations such as the Yanacocha mining company and by the state itself. In their struggle to defend lakes and resist mining projects such as Conga, women are having a hard time, since gender-based violence is being used against them. In the actions of the police and the Armed Forces we are currently seeing a criminalisation of social protest, threats and violations of women’s rights echoing those that took place during armed conflict. In order to avoid the repetition of serious violations of human rights and crimes against humanity, we are using the new legislation, which now enables it, to denounce Yanacocha and make it clear that there is gender-based violence behind situations of harassment like that suffered by women human rights defenders such as Máxima Acuña.

    The other agenda that we increasingly adopted as central is the defence against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, in order to achieve recognition of and guarantees for the right to gender identity and lesbians’ right to maternity. We choose the issues we fight for on the basis of several criteria. One of them is that of revolutionising whatever the system resists the most, so that if we win, we will not only have obtained a law, public policy or jurisprudence, but we will also have conquered people’s common sense. And what the system most resists today is transgender identity and the right of LGBT persons to love and family. The system condemns us to civil death, poverty, marginalisation, murder, harassment and rape.

    6. In Peru, there have recently been major mobilisations with the motto #NiUnaMenos. How was the issue placed on the public agenda in such a way that mobilisation turned out to be so massive? What roles did regional networks play in the process?

    The marches in Argentina, Mexico and other countries inspired many of us: we wanted to do something similarly massive in our own country. But mobilisation did not occur in Peru as a response to a regional call, or as a result of prior coordination within a regional network.

    A year prior to this mobilisation there was a high profile case in Peru, in which a woman was savagely attacked in a hotel in Ayacucho, dragged by the hair and almost raped and murdered. The episode had been recorded on video, and everyone followed the case in the media and expected the attacker to be convicted. The ruling came out a few months before the demonstration, and it acquitted the accused. It denied that an attempted rape and femicide had taken place, and it even ruled that the injuries on the victim had been minor. This generated a social phenomenon of indignation that spread throughout the national territory and in social media. Women who were in the ideological and social antipodes from one another agreed that something had to be done, and feminists started talking about a mobilisation meant to make it clear that “if they touch one of us, they are touching us all”. The #NiUnaMenos (#NotOneLess) slogan was adopted out of the belief that the time had finally come and that this would be a mobilisation of a magnitude similar to those that had taken place in other countries.

    In Peru, the idea persists that if you do not obtain justice it is because you cannot prove what has happened to you. You only have your word and that is not enough for justice administrators. Now, if even in a case where there is a video like that, the aggressor is eventually absolved, what kind of security and justice is left for the rest of us? This created an unprecedented feeling of helplessness. Fear quickly turned into indignation, and this in turn into mobilisation. I was invited to join a Facebook chat a few hours after the video was made public. There were ten of us to start with, and a little while later we were over sixty, and the next day we were meeting at a comrade’s place. Within a few hours, the closed group formed in Facebook went from a few women testifying to the various forms of violence in their daily lives to 20 thousand, 40 thousand women reporting on their own stories of violence: at home, in the streets, at work, in school. Terrible stories, and everybody was telling them and keeping each other company.

    Thus, in Peru citizens went out into the streets to reject impunity and defend the right to justice. People began to wonder why violence against women persists despite all the laws and policies to combat it. The media started talking about patriarchy and machismo as its causes. There was some recognition of the importance of the feminist struggle, at least in that particular context. Much of the leadership and organisational work towards mobilisation was done by various organised and unorganised female citizens, leaders of feminist groups in neighbourhoods, universities, trade unions, NGOs. Women of a wide diversity of movements, colours, desires, education, professions and talents, in alliance and dialogue with the survivors whose emblematic cases united diverse sectors of society. Conservative sectors have still not managed to obtain similar success in defence of their agenda.

    7. Did the mobilisation have any positive effect in terms of public policy?
    The mobilisation resulted in some concrete measures, although these were too narrowly focused and involved little public investment. A Circle of Protection program was created, thereby extending attention to 24/7 in five out of over 200 Emergency Women’s Centres (EWC). Coverage of the emergency line Línea 600 was extended to all days of the week. This contributed to an increase in addressed complaints. Also, cases of femicide and rape were subsequently included into the rewards programme to stop offenders.

    Additionally, there were announcements regarding the expansion of temporary shelters, the provision of gender training to justice operators, and in particular to the National Police, and the creation of at least 50 new EWCs in various police stations across the country. The Public Ministry adapted its guidelines to Law No. 30364 and announced the creation of prosecution offices specialised in femicide. The Judiciary established a National Gender Commission.

    Nonetheless, femicidal violence persists as a savage daily occurrence; there is in fact a patriarchal and male chauvinist counteroffensive underway. They continue to kill us and rape us, and the femicide and rape culture keeps blaming us for it. And the measures adopted by the state in defence of the gender approach and gender equality fall short: they are basically reactions and responses to public pressure. We women do the reporting and monitoring job that the state should be doing. The state and the government always give in when it comes to the sexual and reproductive rights of women and LGBTIQ people. Which makes it clear that unless it becomes feminist, public policy will yield no results. If public policy priorities do not change, women will continue to die.

    The most important changes have occurred in the realms of common sense. #NiUnaMenos has shown that there is widespread rejection of violence against women, and that women have become empowered to talk about sexual violence in the same way that we first learned to talk about partner and domestic violence. There is no longer shame in having been a victim: it is clear that the other party is the one at fault. Women now know that there are things that are not right, and that if they happen to them it is not their fault, or God’s will, or the work of nature: it is a violation of rights and a matter of justice, and those responsible have to be punished.

    Civic space in Peru is rated as ‘obstructed’ in the CIVICUS Monitor.
    Get in touch with DEMUS through their website, visit their Facebook page, or follow ‪@DEMUS_f‬ and ‪@MYCfeminista‬ on Twitter.‬‬‬‬

    Image ©Peru21

     

  • ARGENTINA: ‘El cambio es inevitable, es solo una cuestión de tiempo’

     

    Twitter: Edurne Cárdenas

    En 2018, tras años de esfuerzos de la sociedad civil, el Congreso argentino por primera vez debatió un proyecto de legalización del aborto. Aunque la prohibición, excepto en algunas circunstancias específicas, sigue en pie, los actores pro-legalización consideran que el debate ha progresado.CIVICUSconversa sobre la campaña con Edurne Cárdenas, abogada del equipo internacional del Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales (CELS),una organización de derechos humanos de Argentina. El CELS fue fundado en 1979, durante la dictadura militar, para promover los derechos humanos, la justicia y la inclusión social. En sus primeros años, el CELS luchó por la verdad y la justicia ante los crímenes del terrorismo de estado, para luego ampliar su agenda para incluir las violaciones de derechos humanos cometidas bajo la democracia, sus causas estructurales y su relación con la desigualdad social. CELS promueve su agenda a través de investigaciones, campañas, alianzas con otros actores de la sociedad civil, incidencia y políticas públicas y litigio estratégico en foros nacionales e internacionales.

    ¿Cuándo comenzó el CELS, una organización clásica de derechos humanos, a trabajar sobre derechos sexuales y reproductivos, y por qué?

    El CELS ha tenido una gran capacidad para trabajar en la época que le ha tocado y, en consecuencia, para enriquecer su agenda, siempre actúa en alianza con movimientos sociales y otras organizaciones. En la Conferencia de Viena sobre Derechos Humanos, en 1993, se articuló explícitamente la idea los derechos de las mujeres como derechos humanos. A mediados de los ’90, creo que más precisamente en 1996, el informe anual del CELS incluyó contribuciones de activistas del movimiento de mujeres acerca de los derechos reproductivos. En los años siguientes, muchas veces en alianza con otras organizaciones, el CELS participó en presentaciones ante órganos internacionales de protección: por ejemplo, en 2004 contribuyó a un informe sombra ante el Comité de las Naciones Unidas para la eliminación de la discriminación contra la mujer (CEDAW). La Campaña Nacional por el Derecho al Aborto Legal, Seguro y Gratuito se formó en 2005 y el CELS pasó a integrarla en 2012. Poco después de esos primeros artículos en el informe anual, se incorporó de forma paulatina a nuestras preocupaciones sobre las violaciones de derechos humanos el acceso a los abortos no punibles, como los denomina el Código Penal, es decir, abortos que son legales si peligra la vida o la salud de la mujer o si el embarazo es producto de una violación. La temática también se instaló a partir del gran trabajo militante de activistas feministas al interior de la organización.

    En suma, si el CELS trabaja sobre este tema es porque entiende que la penalización del aborto impacta de forma negativa en el goce de las mujeres de sus derechos humanos. El aporte central del CELS fue inscribir el debate del aborto dentro del paradigma de los derechos humanos y poner en circulación argumentos de derechos humanos para alimentar el cuerpo argumental de la cuestión. El CELS no se especializa en salud, pero trabaja en alianza con otras que examinan el problema desde ese ángulo. Desde nuestro punto de vista, se trata de un tema en el que está en juego la libertad y la igualdad, cruzado por otras cuestiones que históricamente han sido centrales en nuestro trabajo: la violencia institucional.

     

    El debate por la legalización del aborto avanzó más que nunca en Argentina durante 2018, pero no alcanzó para que la ley se aprobara. ¿Qué lecciones extraes de esta experiencia?

    En 2018 por primera vez se trató en el Congreso una iniciativa para legalizar el aborto. Fue la séptima vez que se presentó una iniciativa de estas características y se trató de un proyecto promovido y redactado por la Campaña Nacional por el Derecho al Aborto Legal, Seguro y Gratuito, que nuclea a más de 500 organizaciones del movimiento de mujeres, articulada, horizontal y con 13 años en esta lucha. Antes de 2018, los proyectos no habían avanzado ni siquiera en las comisiones que deben dar dictamen para que se trate en el recinto. La Argentina tiene ya una tradición de feminismo muy movilizado y, desde 2015, con mucha presencia en las calles y una demanda clara de aborto legal. Este año empezó con una novedad: en su discurso de apertura de las sesiones legislativas, el presidente de la Nación hizo mención al tema, con lo cual, gracias a la presión de la agenda feminista, habilitó el debate parlamentario. Fue algo absolutamente inédito. Lamentablemente, luego de recibir media sanción en Diputados en junio de 2018, la iniciativa fue rechazada por el Senado en agosto.

    El proceso estuvo liderado por el movimiento de mujeres. Todos los otros movimientos y organizaciones nos integramos detrás de ese liderazgo. En Diputados la estrategia fue exitosa porque fue multipartidaria y diversa, la participación de los movimientos fue fuerte y la influencia de la calle se hizo sentir. En el Senado, la cámara más conservadora, hizo falta más trabajo. Allí nos fallaron las alianzas, que no lograron replicar la transversalidad que hubo en Diputados. Una pregunta que quedó planteada, entonces, fue cómo llegar a la cámara más conservadora con un reclamo que necesariamente debe pasar por allí.

    Además, lo que la derrota en el Senado dejó en evidencia fue que tenemos que trabajar más para entender y contrarrestar el discurso de posverdad nuestros adversarios. Estamos viendo una avanzada conservadora que pone en riesgo la calidad institucional y, en última instancia, la institucionalidad democrática. Lo que fue interesante es que toda la ciudadanía pudo enterarse y tomar nota de qué piensan y cómo votan sus representantes.

    Podría decirse que los resultados de esta batalla han sido agridulces. ¿Cuánto hubo en ellos de derrota y cuánto de victoria, y por qué?

    La postal de desilusión del 9 de agosto, cuando el Senado votó en contra, es una imagen muy parcial del proceso. En nuestro balance, la lista de lo que ganamos es mucho más larga que la lista de lo que perdimos. Entre lo perdido está por supuesto esta oportunidad -pero solo esta, la de 2018, porque realmente creo que el cambio es inevitable y es solo una cuestión de tiempo. No sé si el año en 2019, pero en algún momento va a ocurrir. Y lo que sí creo que tiene que pasar en 2019 es que, tratándose de un año electoral, todos los temas que se pusieron sobre la mesa durante este proceso deben ser parte de la agenda de la campaña presidencial.

    Lo que ganamos, sin duda, fue masividad y presencia en el espacio público –tanto en la calle como en la opinión. Este año se discutió sobre el aborto como nunca antes, se quebraron silencios y tabúes. Pero el proceso tuvo un subproducto negativo: al poner en la agenda un tema divisivo, al volverse la movilización tan masiva y adquirir tal centralidad en la escena política, generó una fuerte reacción de los sectores más conservadores. Estos sectores se organizaron y también ganaron una visibilidad que antes no tenían.

    Con la emergencia de estos actores, el debate por el derecho al aborto puso en discusión algunas cosas que creíamos que eran consensos básicos intocables. Pero algunos sectores comenzaron a decir en voz alta cosas que hace pocos años no estaban bien vistas. Así, por ejemplo, la campaña “Con mis hijos no te metas”, contra la ley de educación sexual integral, puso en cuestión el rol del Estado en la educación.

    ¿Qué rol desempeñó el CELS en la campaña por la legalización del aborto?

    El liderazgo indiscutido en todo el proceso fue del movimiento de mujeres, y específicamente de la Campaña Nacional por el Derecho al Aborto Legal, Seguro y Gratuito. El CELS es parte de la Campaña, pero junto a otras organizaciones de derechos humanos hicimos específicamente un aporte importante de organización, articulación y argumentación.

    Por su trayectoria, el CELS es una organización con mucha legitimidad. Que el CELS hable de aborto puede marcar la diferencia a la hora de llegar a audiencias más amplias. Ya desde 2014, cuando pareció que el proyecto de legalización podía tratarse en comisión, el CELS comenzó a elaborar insumos para el debate legislativo, con una revisión de la jurisprudencia y los estándares vigentes y, en suma, la justificación de por qué el debate sobre el aborto tenía que darse en clave de derechos humanos.

    Al mismo tiempo, el CELS ha participado en distintas causas judiciales en calidad de amigo del tribunal. Aunque consideramos que el objetivo último, y el único compatible con el reconocimiento de la autonomía de las mujeres como sujetos plenos de derecho, es la legalización del aborto, hemos considerado necesario entretanto asegurar que puedan realizarse los abortos que ya son legales, según las causales para abortos no punibles. En 2012, en su fallo en el caso F.A.L., la Corte Suprema clarificó sin lugar a dudas las causas permitidas para acceder a un aborto de forma legal y las obligaciones del Estado en consecuencia. Este hecho reflejó el gran trabajo realizado por los movimientos de mujeres y de derechos humanos en las calles, en los hospitales, en la academia, en los tribunales. Pero el acceso es muy desigual, y aún en provincias “de avanzada” sigue habiendo barreras para el acceso a abortos legales. En gran medida eso refleja la limitación estructural del sistema de causales, que fracasa porque depende de que alguien certifique esas causales. Además de que el sistema de causales descarta de entre las posibles causales a la más importante: la voluntad de la persona embarazada. Esto es lo que puso en primer plano el proyecto de ley que aprobó la Cámara de Diputados.

    Durante el debate de 2018, el CELS hizo varias presentaciones en las audiencias públicas en ambas cámaras del Congreso, en apoyo del proyecto. El director ejecutivo y yo expusimos en Diputados – significativamente, tanto en la apertura como en el cierre del debate – y nuestro director de litigio expuso en el Senado. Editamos al momento del comienzo del debate una publicación que suscribió gran parte del arco del movimiento de mujeres, feminista y organizaciones con argumentos, legislación y jurisprudencia, para acercar información clara a los y las representantes de ambas cámaras.

    También estuvimos presentes en las calles, no solamente en las vigilias durante las sesiones de votación, sino también en la organización, dando apoyo y coordinando con el movimiento de mujeres, las otras organizaciones de la Campaña por el Aborto Legal, las estudiantes secundarias, profesionales de la salud y otros actores movilizados. Esta articulación y la presencia sostenida del movimiento en las calles fueron lo que marcó la diferencia durante 2018. Finalmente, nos manifestamos enérgicamente por la libertad de expresión y el derecho de manifestación, ya que a lo largo de este proceso se produjeron diversos actos de violencia contra activistas por la legalización por parte de grupos movilizados en contra.

     

    Has mencionado varias veces la oposición de los grupos anti-derechos ¿Crees que estos grupos están en ascenso? De ser así, ¿qué debería hacer la sociedad civil progresista para proteger los derechos ganados y seguir avanzando?

    Los grupos anti-derechos efectivamente han crecido y se organizan bajo un paraguas en común contra lo que llaman “ideología de género”. Este debate fue para ellos una oportunidad para organizarse como nunca antes. Ahora son más: antes eran solamente grupos vinculados con la Iglesia católica, y ahora hay también numerosos grupos de iglesias evangélicas, bien organizados y bien financiados, así como otros grupos no necesariamente religiosos. Su presencia nos demanda atención porque sus objetivos van contra los derechos de buena parte de la población, ya que buscan limitar el acceso a derechos de la infancia, de mujeres, lesbianas, gays, travestis, personas trans. Están aterrizando en toda América Latina y su presencia nos plantea interrogantes sobre sus alianzas y fines. ¿Cómo y cuándo llegaron a la Argentina? ¿Cuáles son sus demandas, hasta dónde están dispuestos a llegar? Hemos visto que detrás del “no al aborto” traen una agenda más amplia, relacionada con el rechazo de lo que llaman “ideología de género”, de la educación sexual en las escuelas, hasta de las vacunas, y quién sabe de qué más.

    El movimiento progresista necesita pensar una estrategia para enfrentarlos. La fortaleza del movimiento de derechos humanos es el uso de la creatividad y de la estrategia de la razón. En cambio, lo que hacen los movimientos anti-derechos es copiar en espejo las estrategias del movimiento de derechos humanos. Ahora bien, aunque corremos con la ventaja de la creatividad y la innovación, el movimiento anti-derechos nos está haciendo perder el tiempo discutiendo cosas que creíamos que estaban saldadas. Para colmo no es ni siquiera una discusión honesta, ya que las afirmaciones que hacen e incluso los datos que utilizan no resisten el menor chequeo. Lo que resulta de esto no es un debate, es decir, un auténtico intercambio de argumentos y razones. Pero así y todo no tenemos otra alternativa que responder. De modo que cuando “debatimos”, en realidad no debatimos con ellos ni para tratar de convencerlos a ellos, sino que lo hacemos ante una audiencia, para convencer a esa audiencia. Usamos ese simulacro de debate para levantar nuestros principios ante la opinión pública. En esto, las redes sociales han sido clave, aunque también han sido un arma de doble filo. De hecho, fue en este debate donde pudimos ver de primera mano el funcionamiento de las “fake news” (noticias falsas), sobre todo cuando las recogen actores de peso fuera de las redes y las llevan a otros terrenos. Pasó, por ejemplo, que datos totalmente falsos tomados de las redes fueron citados por legisladores en el debate parlamentario. En ese terreno tenemos mucho por hacer.

    Un desafío para nuestros movimientos es liderar la agenda de los debates. Esto nos plantea la necesidad de estar un paso adelante en la discusión. Nosotros no debemos “debatir” con los grupos anti-derechos, sino hablar para las grandes audiencias y debatir con los representantes elegidos por el pueblo, que son quienes tienen la obligación de sancionar leyes en nuestro beneficio y de cumplir con la obligación del Estado de garantizar al goce de los derechos humanos. El debate por la legalización del aborto fue una punta de lanza para pensar otras cuestiones. El sistema de causales para el aborto legal, similar al que se acaba de aprobar en Chile, existe en Argentina desde 1921. El paso de un sistema de causales a un sistema de plazos requiere de una simple decisión legislativa de modificación del Código Penal. ¿Por qué tanto revuelo entonces? Porque este debate pone en primer plano otras discusiones: cuál creemos que deba ser el rol de las mujeres y las personas gestantes, cuál debe ser el rol del Estado, hasta dónde y en qué cosas se mete… y ahí es donde saltan las contradicciones de los sectores conservadores, que quieren que el Estado se meta hasta en tu cama para penalizar, pero que a la hora de educar o de vacunar mejor no se meta.

    No podemos quedarnos a la defensiva, tenemos que ir a la ofensiva e instalar la cuestión de la laicidad y plantear el rol del Estado. Y debemos hacerlo en un contexto subregional regresivo. Brasil, nuestro gran vecino y principal socio, acaba de elegir un presidente que está alineado con la agenda de su poderosa bancada evangélica y que acaba de designar como Ministra de Derechos Humanos a una pastora evangélica que dice que la mujer nace para ser madre.

    El espacio cívico en Argentina es clasificado como ‘estrecho’ por elCIVICUS Monitor.

    Contáctese con CELS a través de supágina web o su perfil deFacebook, o siga a@CELS_Argentina y a@EdurneC en Twitter.

     

  • El Salvador es uno de los pocos países que aún no han decidido que la vida de las mujeres importa

    English

    CIVICUS conversa con Sara García Gross, Coordinadora Ejecutiva de la Agrupación Ciudadana por la Despenalización del Aborto Terapéutico, Ético y Eugenésico de El Salvador e integrante de la Red Salvadoreña de Defensoras de Derechos Humanos. Fundada en 2009, Agrupación Ciudadana es una organización de la sociedad civil multidisciplinaria que busca generar conciencia para cambiar la legislación sobre la interrupción del embarazo en el país; defender legalmente a las mujeres que han sido acusadas o condenadas o por abortos o delitos relacionados; y promover la educación en materia de salud sexual y reproductiva.