europe

• SERBIA: ‘The political crisis will deepen as a large number of people lack representation’

  CIVICUS speaks with Ivana Teofilović about the causes of recent protests and the government’s reaction to them, as well as about the elections held in Serbia under the COVID-19 pandemic. Ivana is public policy programme coordinator at Civic Initiatives, a Serbian citizens’ association aimed at strengthening civil society through civic education, the promotion of democractic values and practices and the creation of opportunities for people’s participation.

  

  Why did protests erupt in Serbia during the COVID-19 pandemic, and how did the government react?

  The immediate reason for the mass and spontaneous gathering of citizens in July 2020 was the announcement of the introduction of a new curfew, that is, another 72-hour ban on movement. After the president’s press conference ended, dissatisfied people began to gather in front of the National Assembly in the capital, Belgrade. Although the immediate reason was dissatisfaction with the management of the COVID-19 crisis, people also wanted to express their unhappiness about numerous other government measures and their impacts, and particularly with the conditions in which the recent parliamentary elections were held.

  In response, the security forces used unjustified force in dozens of cases and exceeded the powers entrusted to them by law. Their violent response to spontaneous peaceful assemblies was a gross violation of the right to the freedom of peaceful assembly and an unwarranted threat to the physical integrity of a large number of protesters. The protests were marked by the use of a huge amount of teargas, which was indiscriminately thrown into the masses of peaceful demonstrators. As a result, many protesters had health issues for days afterwards. Apart from the fact that unjustifiably large quantities of teargas were used, the public's attention was captured by the fact that the teargas fired was past its expiry date.

  The media and citizens also reported and documented many cases of police brutality, including that of three young men who were sitting quietly on a bench and were repeatedly beaten by a gendarmerie officer with a baton. In another incident, a young man was knocked to the ground and hit with batons by 19 officers, even though two members of the Ombudsman’s Office were on duty near the scene, precisely to control the conduct of the police. Additional disturbances and acts of violence were perpetrated by a large number of individuals in civilian clothes. At the time it could not be determined whether they were police in civilian clothes, or members of parapolice forces or criminal groups, but many clues point to them being members of hooligan groups connected with the authorities and working on their orders.

  Media representatives also played a very important role in the protests. In this context, many media workers behaved professionally and reported objectively on the protests, often becoming victims of police brutality or attacks by members of hooligan groups infiltrated among protesters to incite rioting. According to the Association of Journalists of Serbia (NUNS), as many as 28 journalists were attacked while covering protests, and 14 suffered bodily injuries, which in six cases required urgent medical attention. According to a statement issued by NUNS, the most seriously injured was Zikica Stevanovic, a reporter of the Beta news agency.

  However, media outlets that are close to the government either ignored or distorted the real picture of the protests by disseminating lies about who organised, funded and participated in them and by ignoring or denying cases of obvious police brutality. Journalists, analysts and civil society activists who publicly supported the protests and spoke critically about the government and the president were often the target of tabloid campaigns, and were smeared by the holders of high political office in an attempt to discredit their work.

  Bureaucratic measures were also used against them, for example through their inclusion on a list compiled by the Ministry of Finance’s Directorate for Prevention of Money Laundering, which required banks to look into all the financial transactions they made over the past year. The associations and individuals who were targeted published a joint statement with over 270 signatures to call on the authorities to urgently make public the reasons for any suspicion that these organisations and individuals were involved in money laundering or terrorist financing. They also made clear that these pressures would not deter them from fighting for a democratic and free Serbia.

  Violent police reaction, indiscriminate brutality, non-objective reporting and government retaliation further motivated people to protest. As a result, people took to the streets in even greater numbers in the following days. Protests also began to take place in several other Serbian cities besides Belgrade, including Kragujevac, Nis, Novi Sad and Smederevo.

  Has civil society experienced additional challenges to continue doing its work under the pandemic?

  Under the state of emergency imposed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, but also after the state of emergency was lifted, civil society organisations (CSOs) faced numerous difficulties that greatly hindered their work. During the first weeks of the state of emergency, some CSOs that provide services to vulnerable people were unable to perform their activities due to the ban on movement, a difficulty that was only gradually and partly overcome over time as special permits were issued to certain categories of people.

  Another challenge was posed by the Regulation on Fiscal Benefits and Direct Benefits, adopted in response to the economic impacts of the pandemic. This regulation did not extend exemption from value-added tax (VAT) to food, consumer goods and services donated to the non-profit and humanitarian sector to support socially vulnerable groups. For this reason, a group of CSOs sent the Ministry of Finance a proposal to extend the VAT exemption.

  The biggest challenge for CSOs was financial sustainability, which was especially endangered by the suspension of the competition for co-financing projects of public importance, both at the national and local levels. In addition, while the provisions of the Regulation on Fiscal Benefits and Direct Benefits were insufficiently clear when it came to CSOs, they unequivocally excluded informal citizens’ initiatives, and thus jeopardised their survival.

  In addition, the right to the freedom of expression was especially endangered during the pandemic. Challenges included restrictions faced by the press to attend and ask questions at Crisis Staff press conferences, the disregard of media representatives by officials in government bodies and institutions, and the persecution of media outlets that pointed to negative consequences during the pandemic. These restrictions opened up opportunities for the dissemination of unverified information. The lack of timely and factual information led to the further spread of panic and it became clear that in addition to the pandemic, Serbia also faced an ‘infodemic’.

  What are the views of civil society about the government response to the pandemic, including the conditions under whichthe recent elections were held?

  Despite the very unfavourable position they found themselves in, CSOs played a significant role during the COVID-19 crisis. CSOs had a significant role to play in correcting government failings, as they put forward numerous quality proposals for overcoming the crisis. In many situations it was CSOs, due to better training, that took over the roles of certain civil services. The general impression is that the state was not ready for the crisis, and therefore did not have enough capacity to provide a better response. 

  Due to its closed nature, the government used the need of urgency and efficiency as a pretext to bypass dialogue. In adopting some measures, there were frequent violations of laws and the constitution, and of people’s rights, particularly the right of journalists to do their work. Economic measures were not adopted in a timely and effective manner, which endangered many CSOs and their activists, ultimately having their greatest impact on people as users of CSO services.

  Regarding the parliamentary elections, which were held on 21 June after being postponed from their original date of 26 April, there is still an unanswered question regarding the government’s responsibility for conducting an election process under the pandemic. There is suspicion that the decision to hold the election was politically motivated and irresponsible. This was reinforced by the fact that in the weeks following the election, the number of COVID-19 infections and deaths drastically increased. It seems that the efforts made by some CSOs to create conditions for free and democratic elections have not yielded the desired results.

  What were the main issues that got in the way of a free and fair election?

  Beyond the pandemic, the major concern about the elections was that they were dominated by the ruling party, including through pressure on critical journalists and media outlets and control of mainstream media, which lack a diversity of opinions and balanced coverage and are used for campaign purposes.

  Media coverage during the election campaign was slightly more balanced than in previous elections, because the government wanted to prove that complaints from the public and the political opposition regarding poor election conditions and the captivity of the media were baseless. In principle, candidates were treated equally by public media, although public officials campaigning on a daily basis also received a lot of additional coverage. On top of this, members of the opposition who had decided to boycott the elections and therefore did not present candidates did not have room to present their arguments on national television.

  The unequal treatment of candidates was especially visible in national commercial television channels, which provided logistical support to the ruling party and its coalition partners. This problem was exacerbated by the passive stance adopted by the Electronic Media Regulatory Body (REM), which played an almost imperceptible role during the election campaign. In May 2020, REM changed its methodology of monitoring the media representation of political actors, counting every mention of a political option as proof of media representation. This led to the conclusion that the opposition Alliance for Serbia was the most represented party. But in reality, the Alliance for Serbia, which boycotted the elections, did not receive any media coverage on national television; rather it was the most frequent target of attacks by the ruling party and its allied media. In this area, another problem is the uneven normative framework: REM’s regulations relating to public media services are legally binding, but those relating to commercial broadcasters are drafted in the form of recommendations and have no binding effect, and there are no effective safeguards against violations.

  What are the implications of the election results for human rights and democracy in Serbia?

  The ruling Serbian Progressive Party, truly a right-wing party, won over 60 per cent of the vote, claiming approximately 190 seats in the 250-seat parliament. Their coalition partner, the Socialist Party of Serbia, came second with about 10 per cent of the vote, adding approximately 30 seats to the coalition. As a result, the National Assembly was left without opposition representatives, opening additional space for unlimited and legally unhindered exercise of power by the ruling party. The past four years are proof that the mere presence of the opposition in parliament is not a sufficient barrier to arbitrariness, as the government has perfected mechanisms to make parliamentary procedures meaningless and restrict the freedom of speech of opposition representatives. But some opposition legislators, through their initiatives, public appearances and proposals, managed to draw attention to numerous scandals and violations of the law by state officials.

  The protests that came after the elections seem to point towards further political polarisation and a deepening of the political crisis, as a large number of people lack representation and feel deprived of the right to elect their representatives without fear through free and democratic elections. The latest attempts to deal with civil society, journalists and prominent critical individuals by promoting investigations of money laundering or terrorist financing speak about deepening polarisation. The development of human rights requires coordination and cooperation of CSOs and state bodies as well as social consensus and political will, so this is certainly not contributing to an improvement of the human rights situation in Serbia. On the contrary, it is leading to an increasingly serious crisis, the aggravation of inequalities and injustices and more frequent protests.

  Civic space in Serbia is rated as ‘obstructed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
  Get in touch with Civic Initiatives through itswebsite or itsFacebook page, and follow@gradjanske on Twitter.

• SERBIA: ‘We are not just fighting locally; we are sending a message to the world’

  CIVICUS speaks about the recent protests against the exploration and licensing of lithium mining – for use in batteries, including electric vehicle batteries – in Serbia with Miroslav Mijatović, activist and president of the Podrinje Anti-Corruption Team (PAKT). Founded in 2014, PAKT is a civil society organisation (CSO) working on anti-corruption and the promotion and protection of human rights and freedoms.

  

  What is the ongoing civil society campaign against lithium mining in Serbia?

  There are currently 172 mining exploration permits in Serbia, and lithium is being explored at 10 locations. The project that has progressed the most so far is the one in the Jadar river valley. The company in charge, Rio Tinto, certified the balance reserves of lithium and boron in late 2020, accounting for 158,647,256 tonnes – 1.7 per cent lithium and almost 14 per cent boron.

  Initial investigations are also taking place in other places across Serbia, so people all over have joined our fight in fear of what awaits them.

  The Law on Mining and Geological Explorations (2011-2015) declared lithium and boron to be strategic minerals, and therefore in the public interest, allowing land expropriation to be carried out for those mining projects. As a result, people are afraid that the state will confiscate their property at a very low price.

  Rio Tinto has spread the rumour that it pays a much better price and this has played very well on the field, but it is simply not true. The company has so far managed to buy about 150 of the 350 hectares required to obtain a building permit and approval for exploitation, but I think it won’t be able to get much more. Now everyone expects a move by the state. It is not easy for the government to move on with expropriations before an election, but after these take place in April, the situation will get worse.

  For now, the fight against Rio Tinto is taking place in the justice system. We have not yet entered the field of environmental protection because it is not yet clear which technological process will be used to separate lithium and boron. We have been told Jadar Valley is going to be experimental project, but we don’t want to be treated as lab rats. According to reputable experts and academics we have consulted with, it is almost impossible to extract lithium and boron without a severe environmental impact. Available data shows that over the estimated 60 years of the mine’s lifetime about 90 million tonnes of tailings – mining waste – will be deposited in the Jadar Valley.

  Our efforts are currently focused on the multiple proven violations of Serbian legislation and regulations involved in the state’s dealings with Rio Tinto. As well as violations of national legislation, including of the Environmental Protection Law, the Law on Planning and Construction, the Law on Agricultural Land, the Forest Law and the Law on Environmental Impact Assessment, among several others, there have been repeated violations of the Aarhus Convention, which guarantees the right of people to access timely and accurate environmental information held by the authorities.

  All Rio Tinto contracts are labelled as ‘trade secrets’. The local community knew almost nothing about the project until a special-purpose area spatial plan for Jadar came to light. There are no real controls on what the company is doing because, believe it or not, Serbia only has three mining inspectors.

  What has PAKT done to try to stop the project?

  We helped the local community register their association, ‘We won’t give up Jadar’, and soon decided to start an online petition. We were aware of the fact that a petition does not have any legal power but seized the opportunity to create wider awareness of the issue.

  We requested the help of experts and academics and activated as many public figures, including athletes and actors, as possible.

  We also cooperated with an opposition member of parliament who was able to secure a meeting with the prime minister. We showed her the 300,000 electronic signatures we had collected and explained to her why we were against the mine, but her response was that we were against progress and that was the end of the dialogue.

  However, the media began had started to pay attention, and when foreign television channels began to arrive in the Jadar Valley, we knew that we were no longer alone.

  As for legal action, there are already three complaints filed against the company. The main one is related to large-scale environmental pollution.

  For months we toured the Rio Tinto wells in the Jadar Valley and found out that nothing grew around them, not even weeds. Inspection bodies did not react to our evidence, and then someone approached us with a compensation agreement drawn on behalf of Rio Tinto, in which the company recognised pollution from exploratory wells and offered to pay damages to the plot’s owner. We investigated and found five more such contracts, all classified as secret. There may be many more, because there are over 580 exploration wells in the Jadar Valley.

  We filed a complaint against the company with the Prosecutor’s Office in Loznica, attached the contracts, and requested an independent expert investigation to find out how many wells are leaking and what kind of pollution they produce.

  What did the campaign achieve?

  The campaign connected with the public, and in the second week of protests against the scandalous Expropriation Bill, which the government tried to push through the National Assembly by urgent procedure, there were over 120,000 people on the streets.

  In the face of many displeased people mobilised in an election year, the government reacted. It first withdrew the Expropriation Bill. Then it revoked the decree greenlighting Rio Tinto’s project and backtracked on the spatial plan for the special-purpose area designed for the project’s implementation, which had been illegally introduced.

  Since the beginning of the protests, PAKT has emphasised that these were citizen protests that did not involve the political opposition. This civil revolt achieved something that the weak opposition never achieved under nine years of rule – first as prime minister and now as president – by Aleksandar Vučić: the protests attracted a part of his electorate and gave him a signal to give in.

  It really was the fact that people mobilised in an election year that did the trick. In our last meeting, we asked the prime minister if she had withdrawn the decree on the spatial plan because of growing awareness of the environmental danger, and she replied that she did not yet have all the information on lithium exploitation. It became clear to us that they are afraid of people taking massively to the streets in an election year.

  This raises concerns that the government made what they view as a small temporary compromise to make demonstrators protesters happy but everything will return to normal after the April election.

  How has Rio Tinto reacted?

  We have not been in contact with Rio Tinto for over two years. We believe dialogue only benefits them because afterwards they claim they have engaged with civil society and have listened to our concerns. When we managed to convince other CSOs that this was the right approach, the company went on to found its own fake CSOs to go through the motions of civil society consultation.

  So far, we haven’t received any threats from the company. Threats typically come from domestic extremists who mostly support the Vučić government. We are annoying for many right-wing movements and associations, so they threaten and attack us. While so far we haven’t received serious threats, we have noticed an increased interest of security agencies in our work. But as we have been dealing with corruption for more than 10 years, we are used to this.

  What do you think will happen after the elections?

  It seems that President Vučić has emerged quite strongly from the protests. He seems to have galvanised his electorate, because the public appears to have been sold on his concessions, and now they wonder, what more do environmentalists want?

  In addition, some members of the opposition joined the protests in an attempt to score some political points, which only served to drive many people off the streets. As the opposition is divided, the majority will likely stick with Vučić for another term, and I am genuinely afraid that after the election we will see the real repressive face of this regime.

  Our main goal will be to achieve the adoption of a law banning lithium and boron research, the only thing that could reduce tensions to some extent. We have submitted a bill to that effect and even proposed to set up a working group with experts from government and civil society. We urged for this to happen before the election campaign is underway, because we do not believe the government’s intentions are sincere. It is highly unlikely it will agree to pass this law by urgent procedure before the elections, so protests will likely continue.

  What support could international civil society and the international community provide?

  Any help and support from international civil society will be welcome, particularly in terms of amplifying and internationalising environmental issues. We are not just fighting here locally to protect our environment; we are sending a message to the world about the dangers of extracting lithium from solid sediments, which are simply not acceptable anywhere in the world. We all need to be vigilant.

  As an organisation whose mission is to trace the flow of public resources and money, we have also made the connection between environmental and anti-corruption issues. This government is turning Serbia into a European landfill, and there are obvious reasons why it gives tacit approval for corporations to violate environmental standards to reduce production costs.

  European Union (EU) companies and civil society should deal with this issue, because the situation in Serbia will eventually affect the business of EU companies and distort competition, ultimately affecting the quality of life in the EU.

  Civic space in Serbia is rated ‘obstructed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
  Get in touch with PAKT through itswebsite or itsFacebook page. 

• SERBIE : « La crise politique va s’approfondir parce qu’une grande partie des citoyens n’est pas représentée »

  CIVICUS s’entretient avec Ivana Teofilović sur les causes des récentes manifestations et la réaction du gouvernement à celles-ci, ainsi que sur les élections tenues en Serbie pendant la pandémie de la COVID-19. Ivana est coordinatrice du programme de politique publique à Civic Initiatives, une association de citoyens serbes qui vise à renforcer la société civile par l’éducation civique, la promotion des valeurs et des pratiques démocratiques et la création d’opportunités de participation citoyenne.

• SLOVAKIA: ‘The election result may reinforce the country’s image as a problematic EU member’

  CIVICUS speaks with Michal Piško, Director of Transparency International Slovensko, about Slovakia’s recent first-round presidential election and the upcoming runoff.

  Transparency International Slovensko is a Slovak civil society organisation aimed at increasing institutional transparency and combatting corruption.

  What’s at stake in this presidential election?

  Slovakia’s presidency holds limited powers, although it has strong legitimacy arising from its direct popular election. Its most significant powers include vetoing laws – which a parliamentary majority can relatively easily overcome – and appointing some key state positions, such as constitutional judges.

  However, it can become a key player in critical junctures, as seen at the beginning of 2024. The governing coalition pushed for a harmful amendment to the Criminal Code in a fast-track legislative procedure. The new rules would have complicated the investigation and punishment of serious corruption cases by significantly shortening penalties and statutes of limitations. The current president, Zuzana Čaputová, challenged the amendment in the Constitutional Court, which partially suspended it coming into effect.

  The role of the president is also crucial beyond their formal competencies, particularly in significant public debates.

  What are the main campaign issues and the candidates’ positions? 

  The first round of the presidential election was held on 23 March. Čaputová decided not to run for re-election. Ivan Korčok, a pro-European former foreign minister who emerged as a civic candidate that was later backed by opposition parties, challenged Prime Minister Robert Fico’s ally and current speaker of parliament, Peter Pellegrini. Representing the opposition and the government coalition respectively, they will now compete in the runoff that will take place on 6 April.

  The central campaign Issue is the role of the president: whether they are meant to be closely aligned with the government or provide a counterbalance. Given that the current administration is led by a four-time Prime Minister known for his aggressive rhetoric and actions undermining the rule of law, it has been key to have a critical president playing an active role. If Pellegrini wins, it would bolster the government’s capacity to implement its controversial policies.

  How free and fair has the election process been so far?

  Transparency International Slovakia, a well-known anti-corruption organisation, has been actively monitoring the transparency and fairness of election campaigns and financing for a long time.

  Unfortunately, the current campaign cannot be considered transparent or fair, particularly because of Pellegrini’s failure to disclose donor information and the significant lack of information on his campaign expenses.

  The process has also been marred by negative campaigning orchestrated by politicians or hidden sources targeting Korčok, portraying him as a war promoter. It has also been distorted by the parallel election campaign for the European Parliament, in which both coalition and opposition parties indirectly support or criticise presidential candidates.

  What can we expect in the runoff?

  In the first round, pre-election opinion polls generally underestimated voter turnout and Korčok’s performance. Despite expectations, first-round voter turnout exceeded 50 per cent, a notable increase compared to previous years. Another surprise was Korčok’s relatively significant result, with more than 42 per cent of the vote and a 5.5-point lead over Pellegrini. Most pollsters expected more balanced results.

  However, the situation could still change in the runoff, as Pellegrini may receive the support of third-placed candidate Štefan Harabin’s anti-west and anti-system voters.

  Right now, both candidates seem to have fairly balanced chances of success. While Pellegrini is primarily targeting his messaging at anti-system voters, Korčok is attempting to mobilise pro-European voters.

  It is still unclear which candidate most Hungarian voters, who make up almost 10 per cent of Slovakia’s population, will support. Historically, they have leaned towards pro-European and democratic politicians, but their decision may also be influenced by the fact that Hungary’s authoritarian Prime Minister, Viktor Orbán, is aligned with the current Slovak government.

  Despite Pellegrini not being openly pro-Russia, his victory would strengthen the current government’s position and reinforce Slovakia’s image as a problematic country with anti-democratic tendencies within the European Union. It would also intensify the existing division within the Visegrad Group, a Central European alliance of four countries, two of which – the Czech Republic and Poland – would continue leaning towards the west, while Hungary and Slovakia would further lean towards Russia.

  ---

  Civic space in Slovakia is rated ‘narrowed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with Transparency International Slovensko through itswebsite orFacebook,Instagram andLinkedin pages, and follow@transparencysk on Twitter and@TISlovensko on Youtube.

• SLOVÉNIE : « Le gouvernement a profité de la pandémie pour limiter les manifestations »

  CIVICUS parle du récent glissement vers la droite en Slovénie avec Brankica Petković, chercheuse et chef de projet à l’Institut pour la paix de Ljubljana. Fondé en 1991, l’Institut pour la paix - Institut d’études sociales et politiques contemporaines - est un centre de recherche indépendant et à but non lucratif qui utilise la recherche et la défense des droits pour promouvoir les principes et les pratiques d’une société ouverte, la pensée critique, l’égalité, la responsabilité, la solidarité, les droits humains et l’État de droit. Il travaille en collaboration avec d’autres organisations et avec des citoyens aux niveaux local, régional et international.

• SPAIN: ‘Democratic rules are being used to promote an anti-rights ideology’

  CIVICUS speaks about the recent election in Spain with Núria Valls, president of the Ibero-American League of Civil Society Organisations (Liga Iberoamericana), a platform that brings together 29 civil society organisations from 17 Ibero-American countries, specialising in human, social and community development. Legally incorporated in Spain, the Ibero-American League has worked on childhood, youth, education and labour issues from a human rights perspective for 20 years, by providing advice to governments, monitoring and evaluating programmes and building networks and doing public policy advocacy at the local, domestic and international levels.

  

  What were the causes of the political instability that required Spain to hold two elections in 2019?

  The widespread rejection of the political system that was established following the transition from dictatorship to democracy in the 1970s led to a significant deterioration of the two traditional parties: the Spanish Socialist Workers Party (PSOE) and the Popular Party (PP). These political parties were very used to bipartisanship and ruling with the support of large majorities. When other parties appeared on stage, pacts and coalitions became necessary, which until then had only been a feature of local politics. It became necessary to include more minority parties and nationalist parties from the country’s periphery, which does not always pay electorally.

  In addition, the political conflict in Catalonia had radicalised the positions of parties present at the state level, which entered into a sort of competition to show who was the most Spanish. Even leftist parties do not dare to speak in recognition of Spain’s national plurality because the media, and particularly those from the capital, Madrid, criticise them aggressively.

  In the first elections of 2019, held in May, the PSOE felt uncomfortable when negotiating with the leftist and independent parties that had supported the motion of censure leading to the replacement of the conservative government led by the PP. On top of this, the personal ambitions of the leaders of both the PSOE and Unidas Podemos, the left-wing coalition formed in 2016 by the Podemos political movement and several other political forces, made a pact impossible at that time.

  The PSOE misread the polls and believed that a second election would give them the majority, and therefore the possibility of governing alone. But ahead of the November elections, people were angry because, as they saw it, due to their leaders’ personal egos parties had not done their job, and instead had made us waste time and money. All of this further deepened dissatisfaction with politics.

  Would you say that the extreme right party Vox benefited from this?

  Vox was one of the parties that benefited the most from the second election. It doubled its number of votes and became the third most represented party, with 52 seats, right behind the two major parties.

  Traditionally in Spain it was considered that there was no extreme right because the PP encompassed the entire right wing. But Vox emerged with great force and with a Francoist, aggressive anti-human rights discourse, presenting itself as the guarantor of the unity of Spain against separatism. In fact, the way the situation in Catalonia has been handled has been a breeding ground for the acceptance of increasingly right-wing discourse, justified in the need to preserve the unity of Spain.

  Another electoral result worth mentioning is that of Ciudadanos, a seemingly liberal party, which not long ago thought it would soon be in government, but which practically disappeared given its meagre results. Ciudadanos had focused its discourse on territorial conflict and on the unity of Spain. Voters who prioritised this issue preferred Vox, which has a more radical stance.

  Despite the good results obtained by Vox, however, it was the left that won the elections and this time they worked fast. In just 24 hours a pact between the PSOE and Unidas Podemos was forged, which had previously been impossible to achieve. Citizens found it hard to understand why what a few months ago had been impossible was now possible. But what is important is that the formation of a government was prioritised against the feeling of instability and paralysis that has prevailed in recent years. Faced with this broad pact among leftist parties, the right wing reacted with a very aggressive discourse, strongly rooted in the Francoist tradition.

  Finally, due to the abstention of Catalan pro-independence parties, it was possible to form a government. Governing will not be easy, but it promises to be a very interesting experience, which offers the possibility of creating change. It will be a very broad government, with 22 ministerial portfolios, notably characterised by gender parity.

  How would you characterise Vox as a political force and ideological trend?

  Vox is a far-right party that does not hide its xenophobic anti-human rights discourse. It prioritises two major issues: the unity and centralisation of Spain, and the elimination of gender policies.

  This is a worrying phenomenon that is not only happening in Spain. Extreme right parties arise in times of citizen frustration in the face of economic and social inequalities in a globalised world. There is an international movement – which spans Brazil, France, Italy, Norway, the USA and many other countries – that focuses on stigmatising and criminalising migration and so-called ‘gender ideology’. The support for these speeches by some religious congregations should also be analysed.

  These parties use democracy’s rules to promote an anti-human rights ideology. It is paradoxical that democracy, which was born under the values ​​of participation and respect for rights, is currently being used to strengthen and foster an ideology that is totally opposed to those values.

  How did this right turn take place just a few years after so many people had taken part in protests for economic and social justice?

  An element of this turn has to do with the anger that a section of the population feels toward politics. Corruption of political parties has had a great impact on society, as people think that politicians are in politics only to enrich themselves. There is no idea of politics in the broader sense as linked to the common good.

  In particular, there is a bloc of young people who see a very difficult future for themselves. They have very low expectations and view a vote for Vox is an anti-system choice. This is the vote of those who think that migration will deprive them of jobs and state resources, and that gender policies are an exaggeration. Vox is very apt at using social media with direct messages often based on falsehoods but that are reaching the population.

  The territorial conflict between Spain and Catalonia has also functioned as a catalyst for this anger. The message of ‘we’ll go after them (‘A por ellos’) used to despatch police units from the rest of Spain towards Catalonia to try to prevent the referendum on 1 October 2017, later reinforced by a message from the King, aroused an anti-Catalan sentiment. The right bloc, and especially Vox, appropriated the defence of the monarchy against republican leftist parties.

  How is this process being experienced by civil society? Do you think that the space for civil society is being degraded in Spain?

  Organised civil society was caught a little off guard. On the one hand, we did not believe that electoral support for Vox would be so strong, and on the other hand, we had a debate about whether we should respond to them, and therefore give them more media coverage, or whether it was best to ignore them. The second option prevailed, among political parties as well. And the strategy of ignoring them contributed to the increase in votes for Vox. There was nobody left to respond to their expressions bluntly and with clear arguments.

  Now civil society debate revolves around the need to defend human rights clearly and forcefully and respond to any expression that hurts or stigmatises any population group.

  In the territories where it is governing together with the PP and Ciudadanos, such as Andalusia, Madrid and Murcia, one of Vox's first actions has been to press for the end of aid to organisations working with women or vulnerable groups.

  We are experiencing a risk of regression in freedoms and therefore it is necessary for us to work in a more united way than ever as civil society. A clear communication strategy must be developed to reach all people. Often we in civil society remain locked in our own spheres and find it hard to take our message beyond our circles.

  Another strategy used by the right wing, and especially by Vox and the PP, is to use the justice system to settle political disagreements. Much of the judiciary in Spain is still very ideological, since many conservative judges remain as heirs of the Franco regime. As a result, sentences have abounded against the freedom of expression on social media, including censorship of songs. And many people have also been convicted for protesting publicly, especially in Catalonia.

  How has the situation in Catalonia evolved since the 2017 referendum?

  The referendum of 1 October 2017 was an act of empowerment by a section of the Catalan population that participated very actively, with a collective sentiment of civil disobedience, to achieve a better future against a state that did all it could to prevent it from happening. The violent state repression unleashed during the referendum and afterwards increased the collective feeling of a big section of the population in favour of independence, and especially in favour of the right to decide through elections.

  After the referendum, repression against Catalan pro-independence groups increased, and the state put all its police and judicial machinery in motion. In addition, it launched article 155 of the Constitution, which provides the state with a coercive mechanism to bind the autonomous communities that breach constitutional or legal obligations or seriously undermine Spain’s ‘general interest’. Article 155 suspended the autonomy of Catalonia from 27 October 2017 until 2 June 2018, when new regional elections were held. It amounted to almost a year of political, financial and administrative paralysis in Catalonia.

  Previously, on 16 October 2017, the leaders of the two most representative Catalan pro-independence groups, Jordi Cuixart and Jordi Sánchez, had been imprisoned for mediating in a spontaneous and peaceful demonstration in front of a building of the Generalitat, the Catalan government, where the police were conducting a search. They were imprisoned preventively, with no possibility of release before their trial.

  Following these arrests, judicial repression against the government of Catalonia increased, culminating in the detention of the vice president and five government ministers plus the president of the parliament of Catalonia, all of whom were placed in pre-trial detention. For his part, the president of the Generalitat went into exile in Belgium along with four more ministers, and two other politicians went into exile in Switzerland. The government of Spain made statements affirming that it had decapitated the pro-independence movement.

  This entire judicial and repressive process further complicated the political situation in Catalonia. The ruling issued on 14 October 2019, which sentenced independence leaders to prison terms of between nine and 13 years, amounting to a total of 100 years, caused new street protests to break out.

  Unlike all previous pro-independence demonstrations since 2012, the latest protests caused many riots and faced police repression. In addition, young people were the protagonists and adopted a more radical attitude towards repression. In that context, the anonymous Democratic Tsunami movement emerged. Inspired by the Hong Kong protests, this movement uses social media to call for large peaceful mobilisations in various locations, such as the border or the airport. The police have tried to discover who is behind this movement, but it really is just an instance of collective empowerment by pro-independence civil society.

  At present, following the latest Spanish elections in which the PSOE and Unidas Podemos required the abstention of the pro-independence party Republican Left of Catalonia to be able to form a government, the picture has changed. The government has pledged to initiate a dialogue with the government of Catalonia and to bring any agreements reached through dialogue to a citizen vote. This will not be easy because right-wing parties, using any judicial remedy at their disposal, are trying to boycott the process. An effort must be made to find a solution for the situation of pro-independence prisoners that facilitates a peaceful and political way out and allows a process of real dialogue to begin.

  Civic space in Spain is rated as ‘narrowed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
  Get in touch with La Liga Iberoamericana through itswebsite andFacebook page, or follow@LigaIberoamOSC on Twitter.

   

• SPAIN: ‘Explicit manifestations of gender-based violence are just the tip of the iceberg’

  CIVICUS speaks with Isabel Abella Ruiz de Mendoza about the systemic macho violence faced by women in sport, evidenced in a recent case of abuse of power by the highest authority of the Spanish football federation.

  Isabel is a sportswoman and is responsible for the equality and children and adolescents in two handball clubs. She is a founding partner and director of Abella Legal, a law firm, and an equality consultant specialising in the field of work and sport. From 2018 to 2013 she led the Basque Service against sexual harassment and gender-based harassment in sport in the Basque Country.

  What were the public reactions to the non-consensual public kissing of female player Jenni Hermoso by the president of the football federation?

  The non-consensual kiss that Luis Rubiales, president of the Royal Spanish Football Federation, gave Jenni Hermoso during the celebration of the Spanish team’s victory in the Women’s World Cup was just one of the visible, and still normalised, faces of macho violence.

  In the typology of manifestations of male violence that women face on a daily basis in the workplace, or as in this case in sport, this is violence of a sexual nature. However, it is important to bear in mind that behind this expression of violence, there are likely other forms of psychological, economic and social violence, both against her and against her close environment, as well as against many people who have supported her, even in the virtual realm.

  In the face of this, public opinion has been divided. There are those of us who believe we have a responsibility to work for equality in sport and to eradicate all expressions of sexist violence. However, others have trivialised, minimised, denied, ignored and ridiculed this episode. This diversity of reactions reflects various levels of feminist awareness among people.

  Why did the sporting authorities take so long to condemn the episode?

  What training in equality do the people leading these organisations have? Being a highly masculinised sector, how many have become aware of and developed critical thinking against hegemonic masculinity and its practices? How many have listened to the players and professional women in the sector? How many have renounced their privileges? How many have committed themselves to a personal project of transformation? What instruments to tackle and eradicate discrimination against women in football have they designed and implemented? What effective measures have they adopted?

  All these questions could bring us closer to the causes of the timing of the reactions and the measures taken.

  Do you think that this incident is indicative of deeper problems?

  Indeed, a non-consensual kiss is a visible and explicit manifestation of male violence, a part of what is known as the tip of the iceberg, and hides the structural discrimination that women face in all areas of life, including sport and work.

  This event is not a one-off event. Discrimination and sexist violence against women in sport are present in all disciplines and in all areas of sport and work.

  We owe a big thankyou to the players of the national team because they are succeeding in prying open big cracks in the machismo of sport. Their struggle is yet another example of the long way we still have to go to achieve a fair and discrimination-free sport.

  ---

  Civic space in Spain is rated ‘narrowed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with Abella Legal through itswebsite and follow @AbellaLegal onTwitter andInstagram.

• SPAIN: ‘The LGBTQI+ community fears both legal and social backlash’

  CIVICUS speaks about the situation of LGBTQI+ people in the context of Spain’s election withEmilio de Benito, spokesperson for Health and Seniors of the LGTB+ Collective of Madrid (COGAM).

  Founded in 1986, COGAM is a civil society organisation (CSO) working for LGBTQI+ equality. It is one of the founding organisations of the Spanish State Federation of Lesbians, Gays, Transsexuals and Bisexuals and one of the promoters of equal marriage, legalised in 2005.

  What recent changes have occurred in the situation of LGBTQI+ people in Spain?

  Following the approval this March of the Trans Law, the situation in Spain is, at least on paper, one of the best in the world. The Trans Law allows free choice of registered sex based solely on each person’s will, prohibits conversion therapies and imposes measures for diversity in education and employment.

  We have a problem, however, namely the rise of hate speech propagated by the far right, represented by Vox, and even by the more traditional conservative party, the Popular Party (PP). This election campaign has been plagued by expressions of homophobia and transphobia. We have seen politicians refuse to address trans people in a manner consistent with their gender identity and threaten to abolish laws that have enshrined rights, such as the Equal Marriage Law and the Trans Law. This has reflected in an increase in harassment of LGBTQI+ people both in the classroom and on the streets. According to official data, last year hate crimes in Spain increased by 45 per cent, although real figures may be much higher, because people do not always report these crimes. The LGBTQI+ community fears both legal and social backlash.

  Why did LGBTQI+ rights become a campaign issue?

  Over the past year, there has been much debate about the Trans Law, which was only passed in February. That is why several political parties have the issue on their agenda. This law is possibly the most shocking for the far right and it affects very few people, so even if they don’t try to repeal it, they will certainly try to amend it. In other words, in the best-case scenario, a medical diagnosis pathologising transsexuality will again be required and minors will not receive treatment or will face many obstacles.

  As for the Equal Marriage Law, I doubt that the PP will be able to repeal it, although Vox calls for it. Instead, the party is more likely to seek to put obstacles in the way of adoption or registration of a partner’s child.

  Unfortunately, the Trans Law has also been very strongly rejected by a segment of left-wing feminism, which has given an additional advantage to the right. I believe, however, that this is a philosophical rather than a legal debate. We can debate as much as we like about what makes us identify as male or female, but we must still recognise the right of each person to express their identity.

  Did the LGBTQI+ movement align with any electoral choice?

  We do not align ourselves with any political party, but we do point out that there are parties, such as Vox, with messages and proposals that threaten our rights. This has not been without controversy. The State Federation of Lesbians, Gays, Transsexuals and Bisexuals of Spain has mounted a campaign calling on people not to vote for the right, but some have expressed disagreement with this because in principle one can be right-wing in economic matters without being homophobic. But in our case, the two things overlap.

  Pedro Zerolo, a very important gay activist who was at the forefront of the struggle for equal marriage, used to say that rights must not only be won and enjoyed, but also defended. Clearly we are now in the phase where we must defend our victories.

  So all LGBTQI+ collectives have been involved in the election campaign. We have done so during Madrid Pride, which is one of the most important in the world, because of its duration – it lasts four days – and the number of people it attracts, including many non-LGBTQI+ people, and also because of the many cultural and social activities it includes. We have also participated in debates with political parties: COGAM, for instance, held a debate with representatives of four parties. Not all of them were left-wing parties, although these are the ones who always want to meet with us, listen to us and learn our opinion. But we did not invite the far right, because there is no point in us giving them a voice.

  What are the possible post-election scenarios?

  The PP has opposed all laws that recognised rights for LGBTQI+ people as well as women’s rights, even taking them to the Constitutional Court. But when the Constitutional Court has concluded that these laws do not infringe any constitutional norms, PP governments have not repealed them. But they will likely attack the Trans Law. One of the great achievements of this law is that it listens to minors. When minors know perfectly well who they are and want to be, it makes no sense to repress them until they are of age. It’s the same with abortion: in the past, minors under 16 were required to have their parents’ permission, but then this requirement was removed because there are cases, such as incest, where it was highly problematic. I think they are going to try to go back on these rights as far as minors are concerned.

  They could also go back to requiring trans women to undergo two years of diagnostic psychological treatment. Transgender men have been erased from the debate altogether, as if they don’t exist. There is too much concern about what might happen if a trans woman enters a women’s locker room, but no one is concerned about what might happen to a trans man in the gym.

  In the field of education, very serious setbacks are likely to occur – for instance, we could lose the space that allows us to explain the reality of LGBTQI+ people in schools. For an LGBTQI+ adolescent or pre-adolescent it is essential that someone tells them that what is happening to them is not the usual thing, but it is not abnormal either, and that they can indeed be happy. But they are trying to erase this message.

  Even structures such as equality departments, the local and regional government’s equality bodies, are in many places disappearing or being diluted, renamed ‘family agencies’ when taken over by the far right. Obviously, when LGBTQI+ CSOs need state support for our campaigns, we will receive a very weak response, if any at all.

  The LGBTQI+ movement has pushed for important legal changes. How have you worked to build public support for these?

  Most LGBTQI+ organisations in Spain are political actors and not just welfare organisations. We advocate with parties, lawmakers and public officials. But in my opinion, our main work is about creating visibility.

  The Pride events that take place in Spain, particularly those in Barcelona, Madrid and Valencia, give us the kind of visibility that brings other people closer to us. There is now a trans senator. We campaign in the media. We use social media intensively because it allows us to do two things: reach out to LGBTQI+ teenagers and pre-teens and project a proactive and positive image to society as a whole.

  But we are aware that visibility also exposes us. Every year after Pride events there are cases of guys returning from Chueca, the neighbourhood where Madrid Pride events are concentrated, to their neighbourhoods on the outskirts and being beaten up as soon as they come out of the metro. It happens because they come back from the city centre feeling like the kings of the world. They have been happy, integrated, free. In that euphoria, they don’t realise that they have entered a dangerous zone, where hatred messaging has penetrated deep. And these days there are fewer qualms about insulting LGBTQI+ people. A few years ago, people wouldn’t do it or would do so in a whisper, but now they are emboldened so they are loud, as if they were showing off.

  What links do you maintain with LGBTQI+ organisations internationally?

  At the national level, Spanish CSOs are organised in the State Federation, which maintains relations with ILGA, the International LGBTI Association. Several Spanish organisations are also very focused on Latin America and other Spanish-speaking countries such as Equatorial Guinea. In this former Spanish colony in Africa, for instance, they have just launched a campaign.

  Another form of collaboration involves working with LGBTQI+ migrants from Latin America. The main foreign population groups in Spain are from Romania, Morocco and then Venezuela, Colombia and Ecuador. We are a place of refuge. It is culturally easy, and also many have a Spanish background, which makes it easier for them to stay and can even give them access to citizenship. We play a clear role in this. As our websites are in Spanish, they are very easily consulted by Latin American organisations and our messages reach them without any barrier.

  However, as the situation stands, it is more about us campaigning to support others, than about others supporting us. Within Europe, for instance, we are among the countries that are doing relatively well, so it seems logical that the focus should be on countries like Hungary and Poland. But in any case, working at the European level is the most effective way to resist the conservative backlash, so that countries that break laws or withdraw rights come under pressure from the European Union.

  How do you see the future?

  Right now, at this crossroads, I see it with fear. I was a teenager at the time of Franco’s dictatorship and I lived through it in fear. Now I fear the idea that we might be headed back to that.

  In recent decades many people have accepted us, but they have not all done it for the same reasons. Many people have done so because they did not dare to express their rejection, because it was frowned upon. But now the part of the population in which rejection is well regarded is growing.

  The other day in a public debate a trans girl who is a member of a party was called ‘chronically ill’. Members of regional parliaments insist on addressing trans women lawmakers in masculine terms. Until recently, those who thought these things kept quiet because they were frowned upon and feared social rejection. But now there is a public emboldened to express their hatred. And this will continue regardless of the outcome of the election, because the groups that promote hatred have a public presence that transcends parliament. So I fear for the fate of egalitarian laws, but I fear the streets even more.

  ---

  Civic space in Spain is rated ‘narrowed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with COGAM through itswebsite or itsFacebook andInstagram pages, and follow@COGAM and@emiliodebenito on Twitter.

• SPAIN: ‘The main challenge is to consolidate legally recognised rights and prevent backsliding’

  CIVICUS speaks with Carmen Miquel Acosta, gender lawyer at Amnesty International Spain, about the recently passed Organic Law on the Guarantee of Sexual Freedom, known as the ‘Only Yes is Yes Law’, and the role of civil society in advancing women’s rights.

  What was civil society’s role in the process leading to the approval of the ‘Only Yes is Yes Law’?

  The ‘Only Yes is Yes Law’ is a clear example of the joint work done by the women’s movement, and particularly the feminist movement, present in all spheres, including civil society and government, to respond to a situation.

  One of its triggers was the ‘La manada’ (‘The herd’) case, a case of gang rape that happened in Pamplona in 2016. The judicial response to that case was a perfect example of patriarchal justice, or rather injustice. It exhibited the way in which stereotypes operate and the principle of not believing the victim.

  In 2018 the court decided that what had happened had not been rape but just ‘sexual abuse’, and sentenced the five members of the ‘herd’ to nine years in prison for that crime. Outrage at the verdict triggered huge protests and the women’s movement grew in numbers. Many young women who were getting acquainted with feminism mobilised for the first time.

  It was also at that time that Amnesty published a report highlighting the lack of specific public policies on sexual violence, the lack of data and the absence of a legal framework to address this violation of fundamental human rights. We have called for a law to address the issue ever since.

  Participation in the legislative process was massive and civil society provided a great deal of input, as a result of which the draft was improved.

  The process took quite a long time, not only because it enabled participation, but also because in Spain the process of developing organic laws that deal with fundamental rights requires mandatory reports from the General Council of the Judiciary and the Council of State. All these reports informed the draft law and allowed for a more rigorous treatment of the issue.

  What were feminist organisations’ main issues of concern during the development of the law?

  The first issue was the lack of a diagnosis. This was an issue that concerned Amnesty because we see a tendency to deal with problems without a prior diagnosis and to skip an evaluation of the effectiveness of the public policies adopted.

  With this law the government sought, among other things, to implement the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence, known as the Istanbul Convention, which requires Spain to adopt public policies of prevention. This requires a diagnosis and systematic data.

  Another important issue was that of the judiciary. Spain received a judgment from the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women for a case of stereotyping by a female judge. In this process, a central discussion was how to deal with the use of stereotypes by the judiciary, what training should be given to judges and to what extent it should be compulsory, without being seen as interference in the independence of the judiciary.

  Another issue that was also of concern to us, but which was not included in the law, was that of the use of sexual violence as torture. In Spain sexual violence has been used this way in places of detention, especially against foreigners. The law does not go so far as to establish a crime of torture, which is not subject to a statute of limitations and entails a different type of investigation as it is a crime under international law.

  Another issue that in our opinion was not adequately addressed is that of foreign women in an irregular migratory situation. Although the Istanbul Convention establishes that it is not necessary to file a complaint in order to access gender-based violence services, in cases where women file a complaint, if for whatever reason no conviction ensues, their expulsion files can be reopened.

  Finally, there were some issues, such as sex work, that generated debates within feminist circles that remain unresolved. Amnesty’s position is that sex workers have human rights and the criminalisation of sex work not only does not help them, but exposes them to stigmatisation. Unfortunately, sex workers’ collectives were not consulted in the process.

  What difficulties will the implementation of the law face?

  This is a very ambitious law, the implementation of which requires a lot of resources. It will have to be implemented across the whole territory of Spain, which includes 17 autonomous communities, each with its own jurisdiction on social services and justice, among other areas involved in the implementation of the law. All this raises the question of how the text of the law will be translated into effective reality.

  What are the next challenges for women’s rights?

  The main challenge is to consolidate legally recognised rights and prevent backsliding. At the moment a reform of abortion legislation is on the table to remove barriers to access this right, and it is going to be a controversial issue in the parliamentary debate.

  Opinion is very polarised and there is a prevailing narrative that demonises the other, something that is very apparent in the use of the ‘gender ideology’ label. Freedom of expression enriches democracy and must be protected, especially when things are said that we do not like. But attacks on human rights defenders and hate speech, both of which are on the increase, are an entirely different thing.

  In relation to women’s rights we are seeing setbacks in nearby countries such as Hungary and Poland. Rights gains that we had come to take for granted are not being consolidated or are experiencing setbacks. Hence the importance of increasing human rights awareness and citizen participation. In the midst of this ideological battle, the democratisation of the language of rights is now more urgent than ever.

  ---

  Civic space in Spain is rated ‘narrowed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with Amnesty International Spain through itswebsite orFacebook page, and follow@amnistiaespana on Twitter.

• SPAIN: ‘We demand legal and safe channels for migration; attempts to stop it will only cause more suffering’

  CIVICUS speaks with Solidary Wheels about the deadly consequences of European governments’ anti-migrant policies, in light of the deaths of migrants at an attempted crossing of the Spain-Morocco border on 24 June.

• Suenan las alarmas mientras los gobiernos de la UE plantean financiar las ONG "políticas"

  Por Cathal Gilbert, Responsable del equipo de investigación sobre el espacio cívico de CIVICUS y por Giada Negri, Responsable de investigación e incidencia en el Foro Cívico Europeo

  Cada vez aparecen más figuras públicas por toda Europa que tergiversan el significado de la "actividad política". Afirman que las ONG se pasan de la raya cuando hacen campaña pública a favor de un cambio social o político, consideran que de alguna manera invaden un territorio reservado exclusivamente a los partidos políticos.

  Artículo disponible en inglés en: Diplomatic Courier 

   

• SUISSE : « Il était temps que tout le monde ait les mêmes droits, sans discrimination »

  CIVICUS s’entretient avec Reto Wyss, responsable desaffaires internationalesde Pink Cross, au sujet du récentréférendum sur le mariage homosexuelen Suisse et des défis à venir.

  Pink Cross est l’organisation faîtière nationale des hommes homosexuels et bisexuels de Suisse. Depuis 28 ans, elle défend leurs droits dans les quatre régions linguistiques du pays. Elle s’oppose à la discrimination, aux préjugés et à la violence fondés sur l’orientation sexuelle, l’identité de genre et la séropositivité, et se bat pour l’acceptation et l’égalité des droits de toutes les personnes homosexuelles, tant au niveau national qu’international. Elle mène son action par le biais d’une présence médiatique active, d’un plaidoyer, de campagnes et d’efforts visant à renforcer la communauté LGBTQI+.

  Quel a été le processus menant à la légalisation du mariage homosexuel en Suisse, et quels rôles Pink Cross a-t-elle joués ?

  Le projet de loi sur le mariage homosexuel a été soumis au parlement en 2013 et il a fait plusieurs allers-retours entre les deux chambres législatives jusqu’à ce qu’il soit finalement adopté en décembre 2020. Pink Cross a mené un travail intensif et assez traditionnel de plaidoyer, de lobbying et de campagne publique tout au long du processus.

  Nous avons beaucoup discuté avec des politiciens du Parti démocratique libre de Suisse (conservateur-libéral) ainsi que du Parti démocrate-chrétien. Nous avons commandé un avis juridique qui indiquait clairement que, contrairement à ce que disaient les opposants à la loi, il n’était pas nécessaire de modifier la Constitution suisse pour ouvrir le mariage à toutes et tous. Si tel avait été le cas, la légalisation du mariage homosexuel aurait nécessité un vote populaire positif dans la majorité des cantons suisses, ce qui aurait rendu les choses beaucoup plus compliquées.

  Pour consacrer le mariage homosexuel, il suffisait d’une loi comme celle que le Parlement a votée, modifiant le code civil pour étendre le mariage à tous les couples au-delà de ceux composés d’un homme et d’une femme.

  Aucun référendum n’était nécessaire : celui du 26 septembre était un référendum facultatif lancé par les opposants à la loi, qui entendaient montrer que la décision du Parlement n’était pas bien accueillie par le peuple suisse, et l’annuler. Pour que ce référendum soit lancé, ils ont mené une campagne active pour réunir les 50 000 signatures requises. Les organisations LGBTQI+ auraient été largement satisfaites de laisser la décision prise par le Parlement s’appliquer, plutôt que de demander à tout le monde son accord pour nous accorder les mêmes droits qu’aux autres.

  La campagne de la société civile a été officiellement lancée le 27 juin, avec des événements dans 23 villes et villages de Suisse. Au cours des 100 jours suivants, la communauté queer s’est mobilisée dans tout le pays avec des dizaines d’actions pour réclamer le droit à l’égalité. La campagne a été soutenue par plusieurs organisations LGBTQI+, dont Pink Cross, l’Organisation Suisse des Lesbiennes - LOS, Network-Gay Leadership, WyberNet gay professionnal women, l’association faîtière Familles arc-en-ciel et la Fédération romande des associations LGBTIQ.

  Nous voulions gagner autant de visibilité que possible, nous avons donc fait campagne avec des milliers de drapeaux arc-en-ciel accrochés aux balcons dans tout le pays et nous avons mis en ligne de nombreuses vidéos formidables. Il s’agissait d’une campagne de base très large, à laquelle de nombreux militants ont participé, en ligne et en personne. Notre message principal était que les mêmes droits doivent être reconnus à tous, sans discrimination, et qu’en Suisse, il était temps que cela arrive.

  Qui a fait campagne pour et contre le mariage homosexuel pendant la période précédant le vote ? Comment les groupes opposés au mariage entre personnes de même sexe se sont-ils mobilisés ?

  Les partis et organisations de gauche et libéraux ont fait campagne en faveur de la loi, tandis que l’Union démocratique du centre (UDC), populiste et de droite - mais pas tous ses représentants élus - a fait campagne contre la loi, ainsi que toute une série d’organisations conservatrices et ecclésiastiques, y compris le Parti populaire évangélique, plutôt petit. L’Église catholique était contre la loi, mais tous ses représentants ou institutions n’avaient pas la même position. L’Église protestante a soutenu la loi, mais pas à l’unanimité.

  La mobilisation contre la loi a eu lieu principalement dans les campagnes et - évidemment - en ligne. Leurs arguments portaient essentiellement sur le prétendu bien-être des enfants, et se concentraient sur le fait que la loi permettait aux couples mariés de même sexe d’accéder à l’adoption et à la conception par don de sperme.

  Quels seront les effets immédiats de la nouvelle loi ?

  Le 26 septembre, par 64 % des voix, le peuple suisse a exprimé son accord avec la loi accordant le mariage égal pour tous. La loi entrera en vigueur le 1er juillet 2022 et aura des effets pratiques très importants et immédiats, car le statut juridique du mariage présente plusieurs différences importantes par rapport au régime du partenariat enregistré (PE) dont bénéficient déjà les couples de même sexe.

  La reconnaissance du mariage à tous les couples éliminera les inégalités de traitement juridique qui existent encore en matière de naturalisation facilitée, d’adoption conjointe, de propriété conjointe, d’accès à la procréation médicalement assistée et de reconnaissance légale des relations parents-enfants dans les cas de procréation médicalement assistée.

  S’ils veulent être reconnus comme légalement mariés, les couples de même sexe actuellement en PE devront demander la conversion de leur PE en mariage légal à l’office d’état civil au moyen d’une « déclaration simplifiée », qui n’entraînera pas de coûts excessifs, bien que la procédure exacte reste à déterminer et puisse varier d’un canton à l’autre.

  Les personnes qui se sont mariées à l’étranger mais dont le mariage a été reconnu en Suisse comme PE verront leur PE automatiquement et rétroactivement converti en mariage. 

  Quels sont les autres défis auxquels sont confrontées les personnes LGBTQI+ en Suisse, et qu’est-ce qui doit encore changer pour faire progresser les droits des LGBTQI+ ?

  Il reste encore beaucoup à faire en termes de prévention, d’enregistrement et de condamnation des crimes de haine de manière adéquate. Pink Cross fait actuellement avancer cette question dans tous les cantons, car cela relève de leur compétence. De même, nous préparons un premier « précédent » pour obtenir une décision sur le paragraphe « agitation anti-LGBT » qui a été introduit dans le droit pénal l’année dernière.

  Enfin, l’ancrage institutionnel de la défense des droits des LGBTQI+ doit certainement encore être renforcé au niveau national, notamment au sein de l’administration fédérale, soit par le biais d’une commission spécifique, soit par l’extension du mandat du Bureau fédéral de l’égalité entre les femmes et les hommes. Nous travaillons donc également pour avancer sur ce point.

  L’espace civique en Suisse est classé « ouvert » par leCIVICUS Monitor.
  Prenez contact avec Pink Cross via sonsite web ou ses pagesFacebook etInstagram, et suivez@pinkcross_ch sur Twitter. 

• SUISSE : « La victoire du mariage entre personnes de même sexe va stimuler nos efforts pour les prochaines étapes »

  CIVICUS s’entretient avec Jessica Zuber, coleader de la campagne « mariage pour tous » d’Opération Libero, à propos du récentréférendum sur le mariage homosexuelen Suisse. Opération Libero est un mouvement de la société civile non partisan fondé pour faire campagne contre les initiatives populistes. Son travail se concentre sur la préservation et le développement de la démocratie libérale, la promotion de relations fortes entre la Suisse et l’Europe, la promotion d’une loi libérale sur la citoyenneté, le soutien d’une transformation numérique renforçant la démocratie et la promotion d’une politique plus transparente, responsable et inclusive.

  Quel rôle Opération Libero a-t-il joué dans le processus qui a conduit à la récente légalisation du mariage homosexuel ?

  Depuis sa fondation, Opération Libero se bat pour l’égalité de traitement juridique. Nous avons accompagné le processus parlementaire et fait du lobbying pour que la loi soit adoptée, ce qui est arrivé en décembre 2020, après presque sept ans. Quelques jours avant que les opposants à la loi ne déposent leur demande de référendum, nous avons lancé notre pétition, qui est devenue virale et a reçu plus de 60 000 signatures en ligne en un seul week-end. Pour nous, c’était un signal très fort sur l’état de l’opinion publique.

  Nous avons lancé notre campagne six semaines avant le vote. Elle était axée sur la devise « même amour, mêmes droits ». Notre campagne a complété celle du comité « officiel » mené par la communauté LGBTQI+, qui montrait de vrais couples de même sexe sur leurs affiches. Pour nous démarquer et attirer une cible plus conservatrice, nous avons montré des couples de même sexe aux côtés de couples hétérosexuels.

  Pour le lancement de notre campagne, nous avons mis en scène un mariage et les images de cette cérémonie ont servi de supports visuels pour la couverture médiatique de la campagne. Certains de nos principaux concepts étaient que les droits fondamentaux doivent s’appliquer à tous, et que personne ne perd lorsque l’amour gagne. Il s’agissait d’une campagne de bien-être, car nous nous sommes volontairement abstenus de susciter trop de controverse - par exemple, en soulignant que l’homophobie est encore un phénomène très présent dans la société suisse.

  Pendant la campagne, environ 150 000 de nos dépliants ont été distribués, 13 000 sous-verres ont été commandés et 10 000 autocollants ont été distribués. Notre principale source de financement a été la vente de nos chaussettes spéciales, dont nous avons vendu près de 10 000 paires. Nous avons organisé des ateliers d’entraînement pour préparer les électeurs aux débats et lancé une campagne d’affichage dans les gares et les bus publics. L'événement conjoint de distribution de tracts avec des membres du parti populiste de droite - qui, contre la ligne officielle du parti, soutenaient le mariage pour tous - a attiré l’attention des médias et a réussi à montrer l’ampleur du soutien à la loi.

  Enfin et surtout, une semaine avant le vote, nous avons organisé un événement au cours duquel 400 personnes se sont alignées de part et d’autre pour applaudir les couples de jeunes mariés - de même sexe ou non - lors de leur passage. C’était un événement très inspirant, le plus grand de ce type en Suisse.

  Nous sommes très heureux d’avoir remporté le référendum, 64 % des électeurs ayant soutenu la loi. Le 26 septembre marque un grand pas pour la Suisse : après une attente bien trop longue, l’accès au mariage s’applique enfin à tous les couples, indépendamment du sexe ou de l’orientation sexuelle. Cela élimine les principales inégalités juridiques dont souffrent les couples de même sexe, par exemple en matière de naturalisation facilitée, de perception des pensions de veuve, d’adoption et de médecine reproductive.

  Pourquoi un référendum a-t-il été organisé alors que le Parlement avait déjà légalisé le mariage homosexuel ?

  Les opposants à la loi ont lancé le référendum pour tenter de l’annuler. Leurs arguments étaient centrés sur la vision traditionnelle du mariage en tant qu’union « naturelle » entre un homme et une femme, et sur son rôle central dans la société. Selon eux, l’introduction du mariage universel constitue une rupture sociale et politique qui annule la définition historique du mariage, entendu comme une union durable entre un homme et une femme. Ils ont été particulièrement choqués par le fait que la loi permette l’accès au don de sperme pour les couples de femmes, car ils estiment que cela prive l’enfant de son intérêt supérieur. Ils craignent également que ces changements ne conduisent à la légalisation de la maternité de substitution.

  Sur un plan plus technique, ils ont fait valoir que le mariage universel ne pouvait être introduit par un simple amendement législatif, mais nécessitait une modification de la Constitution.

  Qui était dans le camp du « oui » et du « non » lors du référendum ?

  Après l’adoption de la loi par le Parlement, un comité interpartis - composé principalement de représentants de l’Union démocratique du centre, un parti de droite, et de l’Union démocratique fédérale, un parti chrétien ultra-conservateur - a lancé une pétition en faveur d’un référendum. Ils ont réussi à réunir plus de 50 000 signatures nécessaires pour faire passer leur proposition et obtenir un vote national. Le droit d’opposer son veto à une décision parlementaire fait partie du système suisse de démocratie directe.

  Pendant la campagne, ces groupes ont diffusé des affiches et des publicités en ligne et ont participé à des débats publics dans les médias. Leur principal argument était que le bien-être des enfants était en danger. Ils ont donc placé le débat public sous le signe de l’adoption et des droits reproductifs.

  Heureusement, le mariage civil pour les couples de même sexe bénéficie d’un large soutien politique, comme on a pu le constater le 26 septembre. À l’exception de l’Union démocratique du centre, tous les partis au pouvoir ont soutenu le projet de loi, de même que les Verts et les Verts libéraux, qui ne font pas partie du gouvernement.

  Les groupes religieux ont même fait preuve d’une certaine ouverture. En novembre 2019, la Fédération des Églises protestantes de Suisse s’est prononcée en faveur du mariage civil entre personnes de même sexe ; en revanche, la Conférence des évêques suisses et le Réseau évangélique suisse y restent opposés.

  L’agressivité avec laquelle la loi accordant le mariage pour tous a été combattue et le fait qu’environ un tiers des électeurs l’ont rejetée, en partie pour des raisons homophobes, montre que l’homophobie est encore très répandue et encore bien trop largement acceptée.

  Nous avons également dû relever le défi suivant : les sondages prévoyant une victoire relativement nette dès le départ, il nous a été plus difficile de mobiliser les gens. Nous craignions que les gens considèrent la victoire comme acquise et ne se rendent pas aux urnes. Mais nous avons réussi à faire passer le message qu’une victoire plus large était un signe encore plus fort pour l’égalité en Suisse.

  Quels sont les autres défis auxquels les personnes LGBTQI+ sont confrontées en Suisse, et que faut-il encore changer pour faire progresser l’égalité des droits ?

  Les groupes LGBTQI+ continueront à se battre, notamment contre les crimes haineux. Le mariage pour tous n’offre pas une égalité absolue aux couples de femmes qui reçoivent un don de sperme d’un ami ou choisissent une banque de sperme à l’étranger, auquel cas seule la mère biologique sera reconnue. Ces débats auront toujours lieu, et la communauté LGBTQI+ continuera à se battre pour l’égalité.

  Le « oui » clair au mariage pour tous est un signal fort indiquant que la majorité de notre société est beaucoup plus progressiste et ouverte à des choix de vie diversifiés que notre système juridique, fortement fondé sur un modèle familial conservateur, pourrait le suggérer. En effet, le mariage pour tous n’est qu’un petit pas vers l’adaptation des conditions politiques et juridiques aux réalités sociales dans lesquelles nous vivons. Le « oui » au mariage entre personnes de même sexe stimulera nos efforts pour les étapes suivantes.

  Nous demandons que toutes les formes consensuelles de relations et de modèles familiaux - qu’ils soient de même sexe ou de sexe opposé, mariés ou non - soient reconnues de manière égale. Le mariage, avec sa longue histoire en tant qu’instrument central du pouvoir patriarcal, ne doit plus être considéré comme le modèle standard. Il ne doit pas être privilégié, ni juridiquement ni financièrement, par rapport aux autres formes de cohabitation. Dans les mois et les années à venir, Opération Libero fera campagne pour l’imposition individuelle, la cohabitation réglementée, la parentalité simplifiée et un droit pénal sexuel moderne.

  L’espace civique en Suisse est classé « ouvert » par leCIVICUS Monitor.
  Entrez en contact avec Opération Libero via sonsite web ou ses pagesFacebook,Tik Tok etInstagram, et suivez@operationlibero et@jessicazuber sur Twitter.

   

• SWEDEN: ‘Swedish civil society needs to defend democracy at the grassroots level on a daily basis’

  As part of our 2018 report on the theme of reimagining democracy, we are interviewing civil society activists and leaders about their work to promote democratic practices and principles, the challenges they encounter and the victories they score. Following Sweden’s September election, CIVICUS speaks to Anna-Carin Hall, press officer at Kvinna till Kvinna (Woman to Woman), a Swedish civil society foundation that seeks to strengthenthe role of women in conflict regions by collaborating with women’s organisations and supporting their work to promote women’s rights and peace. Its advocacy focuses on six thematic areas: safe meeting places, the empowerment of women’s rights defenders, increasing women’s power, women’s participation in peace processes, power over one’s body and security for all.

  Sweden’s September election saw support fall for the established centre-left and centre-right parties and rise for the far-right Sweden Democrats. What factors lie behind this result, and what broader trends do you think it points to?

  First, I must emphasise that my answers reflect my own personal opinions rather than those of the organisation I work for. Kvinna till Kvinna is a politically and ideologically independent organisation and has only taken one single standpoint regarding the elections – against what we see as the Sweden Democrats’ anti-feminist policy.

  That said, the drop in support for social democratic parties, for example, is an ongoing trend all over Europe, and not just in Sweden, so one answer could be that this global trend towards a more traditional, nationalist and authoritarian climate finally got hold of Sweden, too.

  Part of the explanation is, as always, fear of globalisation, as traditional jobs move out of Sweden as a result of cost-efficiency thinking, and a large influx of migrants over a short time span, particularly in 2015, create a heavy pressure on the Swedish welfare system, including education and health services, as well as housing shortages.

  Before the election there was also public discussion about the gap between urban and rural areas in Sweden, and around health services shutting down in remote areas. Support for the Sweden Democrats is more common in regions with low education, low income and high unemployment.

  Nevertheless, the Swedish economy is still very strong, and Swedes are in no way suffering economically because of heavy immigration. But large migration centres set up in the countryside have altered the makeup of the population very quickly, causing tension in these places. Additionally, long-term studies in Sweden have shown that for many decades public opinion has been less pro-immigrant than the policies of the dominant parties, and the Sweden Democrats are now being able to capitalise on this.

  Apart from the economy, insecurity issues have also been used to stir anti-immigrant sentiment. A rising level of spectacular shootings among criminal gangs in some immigrant-dominated suburbs has attracted the attention of both Swedish and international media – one of those events was even mentioned by US President Donald Trump, who incorrectly implied that it had been a terrorist attack – and alt-right websites have used these politically a lot.

  Longer term, do you expect support for far-right causes to continue rise, or do you think it has peaked?

  There are different views on this. Some analysts say that the Sweden Democrats have become popular because the other parties in parliament have tried to shut them out. As a result, the Sweden Democrats and their supporters have been able to play the role of victims and claim that the political elite does not care for the views of the common people. Some therefore argue that the Sweden Democrats should be included in the government, and refer to the case of Finland, where Sannfinnlandarna, a nationalist party, reached the government and showed themselves unfit to govern, as a result of which support for them rapidly dropped. This is suggested as one potentially easy way to get the Sweden Democrats off the agenda.

  Several analysts have predicted that the Sweden Democrats will rise a bit more in the next election and will then start to lose popularity. The explanation for this would be that the right turn in the Western world will eventually fade out - but this is really just an assumption, with not much in terms of facts to support it.

  Are these trends indicative of rising currents of xenophobia and racism? If so, how have the more mainstream political parties responded to these and how have they impacted on rights-oriented civil society?

  There is a discussion in Swedish media right now regarding whether support for the Sweden Democrats is driven mainly by xenophobia and racism. Some opinion-makers claim this is the case, but there are surveys pointing towards the fact that Swedes think that the problem is failed integration, rather than immigration itself. Swedish society hasn´t been able to provide immigrant groups with proper education in Swedish, guidance about the Swedish community, decent jobs and so on.

  The change in the political climate manifests itself in, for example, more outspoken discussion of the costs of immigration and its impact on the Swedish welfare system. We can also see a more vivid discussion around cultural or traditional behaviour, such as honour crimes, with some claiming that for too long Sweden has not taken a strong stand against this and avoided several conflictive issues around immigration and integration that were considered culturally sensitive.

  The normalisation of the Sweden Democrats, a party that originated in the Neo-Nazi movement of the 1970s and 1980s, has also led to a louder alt-right Neo-Nazi movement in Sweden, which though still low in numbers, gets a lot of media attention. Several alt-right media outlets are spreading fake news about crime rates among immigrants. Alt-right groups are also making threats, spreading hatred and running smear campaigns in social media. This climate may very well lead to self-censorship among pro-immigration, feminist and LGBTQI groups.

  Mainstream parties have responded to all of this by moving towards a more moderate immigration policy and placing higher demands on immigrants – for instance, by introducing new requirements that they must meet in order to receive social aid and subsidies. Rights-oriented civil society groups are still trying to raise their voices in favour of a generous immigration policy based on humanitarian values, but they aren’t getting much attention these days.

  How is civil society working to combat xenophobia, racism and right-wing populism in Sweden, and what else could it do to build support for human rights and social justice?

  Open racism and xenophobia are in no way tolerated by the vast majority of Swedes, and several local rallies have been staged against racism and the Neo-Nazi movement both before and after the elections. Rights-oriented civil society has prepared for a long time to counter these trends, but stills needs the support of large groups of everyday people to have an impact on official discourse and the public conversation.

  Swedes take great pride in their open society and will likely defend the free press, the freedom of speech and gender equality, among other values. Threats and hatred against immigrants, journalists, feminists and LGBTQI activists get much attention in the media and several political actions have been organised to prevent them from happening. So, if a right-wing government forms with silent or open parliamentary support from the Sweden Democrats, we will likely see a lot of strong reactions from the political and cultural establishment as well as from civil society.

  In the long run, Swedish civil society needs to work to defend democracy at the grassroots level on a daily basis, and maybe it also needs to go to the barricades to build opinion and change what could turn out to be a dangerous course of history.

  Civic space in Sweden is rated as ‘open’ by the CIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with Kvinna till Kvinna through its website and Facebook page or follow@Kvinna_t_Kvinna on Twitter.

• SWITZERLAND: ‘It was about time for everybody to have the same rights, with no discrimination’

  CIVICUS speaks with Reto Wyss,International Affairs Officer of Pink Cross, about the recentreferendum on same-sex marriage in Switzerland and the challenges ahead.

  Pink Cross is Switzerland’s national umbrella organisation of gay and bisexual men, and for 28 years it has advocated for their rights in the country’s four language regions. It stands against discrimination, prejudice and violence based on sexual orientation, gender identity and HIV status, and strives for acceptance and equal rights for all queer people on both a national and international level. It conducts its work through an active media presence, advocacy, campaigning and efforts to strengthen the LGBTQI+ community.

  What was the process leading to the legalisation of same-sex marriage in Switzerland, and what roles did Pink Cross play?

  The same-sex marriage bill was submitted to parliament in 2013 and it went back and forth several times between the two legislative chambers until it was finally passed in December 2020. Pink Cross did intensive and quite traditional advocacy, lobbying and public campaigning all along the process.

  We talked a lot with politicians of the conservative-liberal Free Democratic Party of Switzerland as well as the Christian Democratic People’s Party of Switzerland. We ordered a legal opinion that clearly stated that, contrary to what opponents of the law said, there was no need to change the Swiss Constitution to open marriage to all people. If that had been the case, the legalisation of same-sex marriage would have required a positive popular vote in the majority of the Swiss cantons, which would have made things a lot more complicated.

  To enshrine same-sex marriage, all that was needed was a law like the one parliament had passed, amending the Civil Code to extend marriage to all couples beyond those of a man and a woman.

  No referendum was necessary: the one held on 26 September was an optional referendum launched by opponents of the law, who intended to show that parliament’s decision was not welcome by the Swiss people and overturn it. To have this referendum called, they campaigned actively to gather the 50,000 signatures required. LGBTQI+ organisations would have been largely pleased with letting the decision made by parliament stand, rather than asking everybody whether they agreed with granting us the same rights as everyone else.

  The civil society campaign was officially launched on 27 June, with events in 23 towns and villages across Switzerland. Over the following 100 days, the queer community mobilised around the country with dozens of actions to demand the right to equality. The campaign was supported by several LGBTQI+ organisations, including Pink Cross, the Swiss Organisation of Lesbians-LOS, Network-Gay Leadership, WyberNet-Gay Professional Women, Rainbow Families and Fédération Romande des Associations LGBTIQ+.

  We wanted to gain as much visibility as possible, so we campaigned with thousands of rainbow flags hanging out of balconies throughout the country and posted many great videos online. This was a very broad grassroots campaign with many activists taking part in it, both online and in person. Our main message was that the same rights must be recognised for everybody, with no discrimination, and that in Switzerland it was about time.

  Who campaigned for and against same-sex marriage in the run-up to the vote? How did groups opposed to same-sex marriage mobilise?

  Leftist and liberal parties and organisations campaigned in favour of the law, while the right-wing populist Swiss People’s Party – although not all of its elected representatives – campaigned against it, along with a whole bunch of conservative and clerical organisations, including the rather small Evangelical People’s Party. The Catholic Church was against the law, although not all of its representatives or institutions had the same position. The Protestant Church backed the law, although not unanimously.

  Mobilisation against the law took place mainly in the countryside and – obviously – online. Their arguments were mostly about the alleged well-being of children, and focused on the fact that the law allowed same-sex married couples access to adoption and conception through sperm donation.

  What will be the immediate effects of the new law?

  On 26 September, by 64 per cent of the vote, the Swiss people expressed their agreement with the law granting equal marriage for all. The law will come into force on 1 July 2022 and will have very important and immediate practical effects, because the legal status of marriage has several important differences from the registered partnership (RP) regime already available to same-sex couples.

  The recognition of marriage to all couples will eliminate the inequalities in legal treatment that still exist regarding facilitated naturalisation, joint adoption, joint property, access to medically assisted reproduction and legal recognition of parent-child relationships in cases of medically assisted reproduction.

  If they want to be recognised as legally married, same-sex couples currently in RPs will have to apply for the conversion of their RP into legal marriage at the registry office by means of a so-called ‘simplified declaration’, which won’t carry excessive costs, although the exact procedure is yet to be determined and may vary from one canton to the next.

  Those who were married abroad but whose marriage was recognised in Switzerland as an RP will have their RP automatically and retroactively converted into marriage. 

  What other challenges do LGBTQI+ people in Switzerland face, and what else needs to change to advance LGBTQI+ rights?

  A lot remains to be done in terms of preventing, registering and convicting hate crimes adequately. Pink Cross is currently advancing this issue in all cantons, because this is within their jurisdiction. Likewise, we are preparing a first ‘precedent’ to get a ruling on the ‘anti-LGBT agitation’ paragraph that was introduced into criminal law last year.

  Finally, institutional anchorage of LGBTQI+ advocacy definitely still needs to be strengthened on a national level, specifically within the federal administration, either through a specific commission or by extending the mandate of the Federal Office for Gender Equality. So we are also working to move ahead on this.

  Civic space in Switzerland is rated ‘open’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
  Get in touch with Pink Cross through itswebsite or itsFacebook andInstagram pages, and follow@pinkcross_ch on Twitter. 

• SWITZERLAND: ‘Right-wing populists pose a true threat when other parties meet their demands’

  CIVICUS speaks withLea Schlenker, board member of Operation Libero,about the rise of right-wing populism in Switzerland’s recent elections.

  Founded in 2014, Operation Libero is a Swiss civil society organisation working to preserve and advance liberal democracy by campaigning against populist initiatives and advocating for an open, progressive and just society.

  How concerning are the results of the 22 October Swiss federal election?

  On 22 October, the right-wing Swiss People’s Party (SVP) came first, securing 62 out of 200 parliamentary seats, nine more than it previously had. The SVP is becoming increasingly extremist, and its election victory shouldn’t lead us to trivialise the racism and hatred they stoked during the campaign. We shouldn’t normalise the fact that they called queer people ‘sick’ and let far-right extremists manage their campaign accounts on social media. We shouldn’t endorse them by posing in photos at the Federal Palace with the leader of Switzerland’s largest party.

  The outcome of this election leaves us deeply concerned about issues such as climate change and asylum policies and the treatment of refugees.

  The trend of the rising far right is not exclusive to Switzerland – it is being observed globally. Right-wing parties instrumentalise legitimate citizen concerns, such as inflation or the ongoing war in Europe, to spread misinformation and target minorities. Under the guise of what they call a ‘culture war’, right-wing populists stoke unfounded fears of ‘cancel culture’ and ‘foreign infiltration’. This is very worrying. As a political movement that defends fundamental rights and combats right-wing populism from a liberal perspective, we believe our work is now more necessary than ever.

  How did Operation Libero engage with the election?

  We launched a campaign called ‘Du hast die Wahl’ (‘It’s your Choice’). Our goal was to persuade as many progressive people as possible to participate in the elections and stand up for their values by emphasising the importance of their voice. The SVP is attacking our liberal achievements, including the freedom of religion, the right to abortion, women’s bodily autonomy and equal rights. Some SVP members deny climate change, while others flirt with autocrats like Vladimir Putin. It is our mission to thwart these attacks on democratic values.

  During the campaign, we distributed stickers and used billboards across Switzerland. The design incorporated a white background on the left side and a black background on the right side, symbolising a clear choice. The design, resembling voting ballots, visually reinforced the choice people faced in the election: equal rights or sexism, populism or democracy, isolation or openness, SVP or the future. We deliberately wrote ‘future’ in white lettering on a black background, sparking a lot of public debate and challenging either black or white stereotypes. Our campaign was funded exclusively by donations from members and supporters.

  

  Another important element of our campaign was the petition ‘Wahlen ohne Hass’ (‘Elections without Hate’), which we ran in collaboration with the National Coalition Building Institute. We advocated for elections free from hate speech targeting any minority group. This petition was primarily a response to the racist and xenophobic rhetoric employed by right-wing populists during the campaign. The SVP manipulated police reports to refer to isolated incidents as widespread trends. The impact of our petition was further amplified by the Federal Commission against Racism, which described the SVP campaign as ‘racist, xenophobic, and inflammatory’.

  On election day, we rented a truck and drove it to the capital, Bern. The truck displayed the message we wanted to convey to the public: that we reject the normalisation of the SVP’s discourse and its effect of shifting the whole political spectrum rightwards.

  

  What can be done to prevent further advances of the Swiss far right?

  Right-wing populists pose a true threat when other parties meet their demands, a trend already observed in countries such as Germany. It would be a great mistake for conservative parties to respond to the election results by aligning even more closely with the SVP. The SVP must be treated as a radical outsider so that it remains a minority – albeit a large one that received 28 per cent of the vote. Swiss liberals must distance themselves from the SVP, which often conceals its populist and extremist nature behind a conservative facade.

  Non-extremist parties must urgently form a coalition for an open and progressive Switzerland even if they maintain fundamental differences on specific issues. To counter the SVP’s initiatives on immigration, downsizing public media and promoting ‘neutrality’, Switzerland requires a robust progressive coalition. This is feasible, despite the SVP’s electoral advances, if conservative parties refuse to become their allies.

  With a mostly conservative and right-wing parliament, it will be challenging to implement progressive reforms for a more open and equal society. But we remain hopeful because there are numerous political activists and forces aligned with our democratic vision.

  How does Operation Libero work to protect human rights and safeguard democracy?

  Since its foundation in 2014, Operation Libero has been dedicated to defending liberal and inclusive democracy, advocating for equal rights and fostering European collaboration. We scale up our campaigning every time our liberal democracy or its underlying values come under attack, which unfortunately occurs with regularity.

  Operation Libero was founded to stop right-wing populist advances but we have expanded our mission to actively shape the country through two current initiatives. Firstly, we are working to build a broad alliance to break deadlocks in relations between Switzerland and the European Union (EU) by promoting a popular initiative to embed the objectives of cooperation with the EU in the Swiss Federal Constitution. We want to have close ties with the unique peace and freedom project that is the EU. The Europe Initiative already has the support of 11 organisations.

  And in May we started collecting signatures for the Democracy Initiative, which addresses a fundamental democratic challenge: the fact that Switzerland currently excludes from citizenship, and therefore from the political decision-making process, around a quarter of its permanent resident population. Including all these people as fellow citizens with equal political rights is essential for Switzerland to become a democracy worthy of the name.

  ---

  Civic space in Switzerland is rated ‘open’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with Operation Libero through itswebsite or itsFacebook page, and follow@operationlibero onTwitter.

• SWITZERLAND: ‘The victory of marriage equality will boost our efforts towards the next steps’

  CIVICUS speaks with Jessica Zuber, co-leader of Operation Libero’s marriage for all campaign, about the recentreferendum on same-sex marriage in Switzerland. Operation Libero is a non-partisan civil society movement founded to campaign against populist initiatives. Its work focuses on preserving and developing liberal democracy, fostering strong relations between Switzerland and Europe, promoting a liberal citizenship law, supporting a democracy-strengthening digital transformation and encouraging more transparent, accountable and inclusive politics.

  What role did Operation Libero play in the process leading to the recent legalisation of same-sex marriage?

  Since its foundation, Operation Libero has fought for equal legal treatment. We accompanied the parliamentary process and lobbied so that the law was passed, which happened in December 2020, after almost seven years. A couple of days before the opponents of the law handed in their referendum request, we pushed our ongoing petition, which went viral and received over 60,000 online signatures within a single weekend. To us, that was a very strong signal on the state of public opinion.

  We launched our campaign six weeks before the vote. It focused on the motto ‘same love, same rights’. Our campaign complemented that of the ‘official’ committee led by the LGBTQI+ community, showing real same-sex couples on their posters. To set ourselves apart and appeal to a more conservative target, we showed same-sex couples alongside heterosexual couples.

  For the launch of our campaign, we staged a marriage and the pictures of this ceremony provided the visuals for media coverage during the campaign. Some of our main concepts were that fundamental rights must apply to all people, and that no one loses when love wins. It was a feel-good campaign, as we intentionally refrained from being too controversial – for instance, by highlighting that homophobia is still a phenomenon very present in Swiss society.

  During the campaign, around 150,000 of our flyers were handed out, 13,000 coasters ordered and 10,000 stickers distributed. Our main financial income to pay for this was the sale of our special socks, of which we sold almost 10,000 pairs. We organised boot camps to prepare voters for debates and launched a poster campaign in train stations and public buses. The joint flyer distribution event with members of the right-wing populist party – who, against the official party line, supported marriage for all – attracted media attention and succeeded in showing how broad support for the law was.

  Last but not least, a week before the vote we held an event where 400 people lined up on either side to applaud newlywed couples – same-sex and different-sex – as they ran through. This was a very inspiring event, the biggest of its kind in Switzerland.

  We are very happy that we won the referendum with 64 per cent of voters supporting the law. September 26th marks a big step for Switzerland: after far too long a wait, access to marriage finally applies to all couples, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. This eliminates key legal inequalities for same-sex couples, for example in facilitated naturalisation, the receipt of widows’ pensions, adoption and reproductive medicine.

  Why was a referendum called after parliament had already legalised same-sex marriage?

  Opponents of the law launched the referendum to try to overturn it. Their arguments were centred on the traditional view of marriage as a ‘natural’ union between a man and a woman and its centrality in society. They said that ‘introducing universal marriage is a social and political rupture that nullifies the historic definition of marriage, understood as a lasting union between a man and a woman’. They were particularly upset by the fact that the law enables access to sperm donation for female couples, as they believe this forfeits the best interests of the child. They also feared that these changes would lead to the legalisation of surrogacy.

  On a more technical level, they argued that universal marriage could not be introduced through a simple legislative amendment, but required a change to the constitution.

  Who were on the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ sides in the referendum?

  After parliament passed the law, a cross-party committee – mainly comprising representatives of the right-wing Swiss People’s Party and the Federal Democratic Union, an ultra-conservative Christian party – launched a petition for a referendum. They successfully gathered more than 50,000 signatures necessary to push their proposal through and get a national vote. The right to veto a parliamentary decision is part of the Swiss system of direct democracy.

  During the campaign, these groups put out campaign posters and online ads and participated in public media discussions. Their main argument was that children’s well-being was in danger, so they put the focus of the public debate on adoption and reproductive rights.

  Fortunately, civil marriage for same-sex couples enjoys widespread political support, as seen on 26 September. With the exception of the Swiss People’s Party, all the governing parties supported the bill, as did the Greens and Liberal Greens, who are not in the government.

  There was even some openness from religious groups. In November 2019 the Federation of Swiss Protestant Churches spoke out in favour of same-sex civil marriage; however, the Conference of Swiss Bishops and the Swiss Evangelical Network remain opposed to it.

  The aggressiveness with which the law granting marriage for all was fought and the fact that about a third of voters rejected it, partly for homophobic reasons, shows that homophobia is still widespread and still far too widely accepted.

  We also faced the challenge that as the polls projected a relatively clear victory from the outset, it made it harder for us to mobilise people. Our fear was that people might take victory for granted and not go out to vote. But we were able to reach people with the message that a victory by a wider margin was an even stronger sign for equality in Switzerland.

  What other challenges do LGBTQI+ people face in Switzerland, and what else needs to be changed to advance equal rights?

  LGBTQI+ groups will continue to fight, notably against hate crimes. Marriage for all does not deliver absolute equality for female couples who receive a sperm donation from a friend or choose a sperm bank abroad, in which cases only the biological mother will be recognised. These debates will still occur, and the LGBTQI+ community will continue to fight for equality.

  The clear ‘yes’ to marriage for all is a strong signal that the majority of our society is much more progressive and open towards diverse life choices than our legal system, strongly based on a conservative family model, might suggest. Indeed, marriage for all is just a small step towards adapting the political and legal conditions to the social realities we live in. The ‘yes’ to marriage equality will boost our efforts towards the next steps.

  We demand that all consensual forms of relationships and family models – whether same-sex or opposite-sex, married or not – become equally recognised. Marriage, with its long history as a central instrument of patriarchal power, must no longer be considered the standard model. It must not be privileged, either legally or financially, over other forms of cohabitation. In the coming months and years, Operation Libero will campaign for individual taxation, regulated cohabitation, simplified parenthood and a modern sexual criminal law.

  Civic space in Switzerland is rated ‘open’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
  Get in touch with Operation Libero through itswebsite or itsFacebook, Tik Tok, andInstagram pages, and follow@operationlibero and@jessicazuber on Twitter.

• THE NETHERLANDS: ‘People are beginning to realise that we need real and systemic change’

  CIVICUS speaks with Sieger Sloot, an actor and climate activist from a Dutch branch of Extinction Rebellion (XR), about climate protests and the criminalisation of climate activism in the Netherlands.

  XR is a global decentralised network of climate activists working to compel governments to address climate change and prevent biodiversity loss and ecological collapse through the use of non-violent civil disobedience tactics.

  What forms of protests has XR deployed in the Netherlands, and what have you achieved?

  In the Netherlands, XR organised over 300 protests in 2022 alone. One of the most successful was a blockade of the A12 highway in The Hague city centre. We were 30 people when we started blocking the road last June, and since then, the number of participants doubled or tripled every time, so we grew exponentially. On 11 March 2023, around 4,000 protesters blocked the same spot.

  It is XR’s strategy to use non-violent disruptive actions like blockades to draw attention to the climate crisis, and especially to the €30 billion (approx. US$32.9 billion) annual fossil fuel subsidies provided by the government. These attract way more media coverage than regular protests. The Dutch law allows a great deal of protesting and XR is actively investigating the limits of what is allowed.

  These forms of protest have had a huge effect on Dutch society. For the first time we witness mainstream media talking about fossil fuel subsidies. Some 400 Dutch economists wrote an op-ed on why and how fossil fuel subsidies should be terminated. Members of parliament are making proposals for ending fossil fuel subsidies. The Dutch Secretary for Climate has announced a press conference on the climate crisis. A wave of famous musicians, actors, writers and directors are joining the XR movement. So our tactics are proving to be quite effective.

  What are your demands to the Dutch government, and how has the government reacted?

  The Dutch government promised to end fossil fuel subsidies in 2020 but still hasn’t done it, so with every blockade XR demands it end all fossil fuel subsidies immediately, or otherwise the protesters won’t leave. Until now, the government hasn’t complied with our demand. Instead, police have arrested protesters who weren’t willing to leave and fined others. They also used water cannon to disperse crowds and tried to infiltrate XR.

  Over the past months, between 40 and 50 climate activists have been prosecuted in the Netherlands. The accusations vary from vandalism, which can be just about spray paint, to not following police orders and trespassing, all the way to sedition.

  This included eight activists arrested for sedition because they posted on social media about their intention to go to the protest and block the highway. This had never happened before: it is a totally unprecedented attack on free speech and freedom of assembly. This provoked a lot of anger among Dutch people, since according to both Dutch and European Union law it’s allowed to block roads while protesting. Over 70 civil society organisations showed their solidarity with XR following the arrest of those eight activists by joining the A12 protest.

  I think the Dutch government is criminalising climate activists just to ‘restore law and order’, but it has totally backfired on them. The District Attorney (DA) is prosecuting the eight activists, probably to make a case that not all ways of protesting are allowed – even though XR’s actions are always non-violent. We’ve had some quite violent farmers’ protests in recent years, but it seems that the DA didn’t dare to make a case against them. Of course they have tractors and aren’t as easy to target as climate activists.

  What kind of support are your receiving from international allies?

  We get a lot of international support online, which is absolutely awesome. Right now, I think we’re really thriving and growing rapidly. It feels as if XR is becoming more and more accepted and mainstream every day. Along with other activists I’ve started giving ‘Headed for Extinction’ talks to all kinds of people, which translated into more attention for our story from people in power and in the media. More and more people are now joining us because they see it’s the logical thing to do. A lot of powerful and smart people are beginning to realise that we need change, real and systemic change.

  ---

  Civic space in the Netherlands is rated ‘open’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with XR through itswebsite orFacebook page, and follow@ExtinctionR onTwitter.

• TURKEY: ‘We continue to organise and demonstrate so that no voice is left unheard’

  CIVICUS speaks about International Women’s Day and Turkish civil society’s role in eliminating gender inequality with the team of the We Will Stop Femicide Platform, a Turkish civil society organisation (CSO) aimed at ending femicide and ensuring women are protected from violence.

  We Will Stop Femicide was founded in response to rising levels of femicide in Turkey. It provides assistance to women exposed to GBV and promotes legal action against perpetrators. It contributes to raising awareness about GBV by collecting data on femicides and sharing it with the public, organising meetings and holding protests, and assists families of femicide victims in their quest for justice.

   

  How has the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated GBV in Turkey?

  The COVID-19 pandemic made many pre-existing inequalities more visible. It had a negative impact in terms of social inequalities, GBV and ultimately femicide. Especially during lockdown, many women had to stay at home with their perpetrators for a long time.

  While in many countries extra measures were taken when this happened, we never saw them in Turkey. Even the announcement of the official hotline, KADES, was made too late. All of this has had an impact on femicide rates. In addition, there’s been an increase in suspicious deaths of women – cases in which murder is suspected but it cannot be determined conclusively whether there’s been a natural death, a suicide or a murder. These are another face of femicide.

  In sum, since we coexist with so many inequalities, we cannot be completely sure when we attribute these changes exclusively to the pandemic, but everything points to the pandemic having made things worse. We will definitely continue to follow the data to understand this better.

  What role has Turkish civil society played in advocating against femicide, both before and during the pandemic?

  There has been a growing movement against femicides in Turkey. As a result of this pandemic - that we do not know when it will end – our struggle will grow even larger and the voice against femicide will spread louder and further.

  Precisely under the pandemic, when GBV was denounced by many as a pandemic of its own, our government withdrew Turkey from the Istanbul Convention, the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence. This is a regional human rights instrument aimed at protecting women against GBV and holding perpetrators accountable, and with this withdrawal we have lost an important tool to hold our own government accountable for what it is doing – or not doing – to protect women.

  The process of withdrawal from the Istanbul Convention was shameful. It happened overnight and was the result of the arbitrary decision of one person, President Erdoğan. He announced his decision in March 2021, and the withdrawal took effect in July. A legal instrument that recognised women as free and equal and sought to ensure us a life free of violence was dismissed at a single stroke. This marked an incredible regression for Turkish women.

  But it also provoked a welcome progressive reaction. On top of the pandemic conditions that disproportionately affected women and the government’s increasingly misogynistic policies, the termination of the Istanbul Convention galvanised society against femicide and GBV. People demonstrated in streets, public squares, schools and workplaces to stand up for the Istanbul Convention and women’s right to be treated as free and equals. Nothing will ever be the same after that.

  We continue to organise for our right to be recognised as free and equal and to live a life free of violence. We keep telling more and more women about their rights and freedoms. We continue to organise meetings and mass protests so that no voice is left unheard.

  What else is the We Will Stop Femicide Platform doing?

  As members of the We Will Stop Femicide Platform, we organise mass demonstrations in various places such as streets or squares, schools and factories and other workplaces, depending on the topic on the agenda. This is one of the most important ways in which we can make our voices heard.

  In addition, we use social media for our campaigns. In this way, we not only follow the agenda, we also inform the public about our work and invite people to take part in our struggle. Our YouTube channel, Yaşasın Kadınlar, which we have just started, has made an important contribution in that regard and we think it will become even more effective in the future. We use it to share the current women’s rights agenda, answer questions and make our own assessment of political developments.

  In addition, we have Women Assemblies in many of Turkey’s provinces, so our struggle continues there through meetings, mass demonstrations and social media work. We have also launched a publication, Eşitlikçi Feminizm, to advance our struggle.

  Of course, the pandemic has had an impact on our work, and our face-to-face work has decreased. However, technological progress has enabled us to carry out much of our work from home. Our YouTube channel and new publication have been important steps forward during the pandemic.

  What should the Turkish government do to curb femicide?

  The Turkish government knows what it should do, because the Istanbul Convention explains, one by one, each of the steps that need to be followed to prevent femicides.

  First, it needs to create an environment that is not conducive to GBV. All the anti-women and anti-LGBTQI+ rhetoric needs to end – but unfortunately it continues.

  Second, it needs to protect women in environments where various forms of violence occur. However, we see that protection measures are not actively and fully implemented.

  Third, incidents of violence need to be prosecuted and punished effectively. And of course, it is necessary to have a policy based on the principle of gender equality to guide all these. 

  All state institutions should be doing all this. While the Istanbul Convention was in force, we took to the courts and protested in the streets to demand the enforcement of each and every article of the Convention. Many women’s lives were saved thanks to the Istanbul Convention. Now that the Istanbul Convention is not in force in Turkey any more, what we have left is Law No. 6284 of 2012, the Law to Protect Family and Prevent Violence against Women. We will continue to fight for the implementation of the contents of the Istanbul Convention, whether the Convention itself is in force or not.

  The International Women’s Day theme for 2022 is #BreakTheBias. How are you organising around it in the communities you work with?

  On 8 March we are holding mass demonstrations all over Turkey with the slogan ‘We will not live in the grip of poverty and in the shadow of violence, you will never walk alone’. Recently, we have been going through a serious economic crisis with increasing inflation. Rising violence against women and growing poverty are interconnected. We will be in streets and squares all over the country looking at the issue as a whole and demanding integrated solutions.

  Civic space in Turkey is rated ‘repressed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
  Get in touch with the We Will Stop Femicide Platform through itswebsite orFacebook page and follow@kadincinayeti on Twitter.

• UK: ‘Education can equip the next generation to disrupt the culture of gender-based violence’

  CIVICUS speaks about the upcoming International Women’s Day and UK civil society’s role in eliminating gender inequality with the team of Bold Voices, a social enterprise that seeks to create spaces for young people to discuss and share experiences of gender inequality and gender-based violence.

  Bold Voices advocates for young people’s right to receive education without being hindered by gender inequality and gender-based violence and works to equip the next generation with the knowledge and tools that will enable it to recognise inequalities in society and find new ways to tackle them. It does so through workshops, talks, digital sessions and online resources for young people and their teachers and parents.

  Do you think COVID-19 has had a disproportionate impact on women and girls in the UK? What has civil society done to support them?

  COVID-19 has not only impacted on women and girls worse than the rest of the population: it has also exacerbated pre-existing inequalities. Since the pandemic began in 2020, we have seen an unprecedented increase in violence against women and girls, from public street harassment to domestic violence and femicide, as well as the deepening of other pre-existing issues such as the gender gap in unpaid labour.

  As lockdown orders came in, women took up the brunt of childcare, household chores and home-schooling. Civil society expressed concerns that the pandemic might turn back the clock on gender equality. Women of colour were specifically impacted on, as they are overrepresented among ‘essential’ and frontline workers. This meant they were disproportionately exposed to the virus and, due to factors linked to structural racism, at higher risk of serious illness if they contracted it.

  Civil society’s response has been to strengthen support services, including financial, mental health and medical support, as well as to turn to the digital sphere to raise awareness of these issues. We have seen online campaigns gain unprecedented traction in the past two years, paving the way for civil society to put more pressure on the government to respond and enact change.

  Two noteworthy campaigns were the one sparked by outrage over Sarah Everard’s murder and Everyone’s Invited, which provided a virtual space for survivors of sexual violence to share their stories to help expose and eradicate rape culture with empathy, compassion and understanding. This campaign had viral success at a time when public life was almost exclusively online.

  How did you continue doing your work during the pandemic?

  When the pandemic began and schools shut down, as in the rest of the world, Bold Voices’ work had to shift online. Our workshops involve highly trained facilitators who lead students in critical discussion about sensitive topics around gender inequality. Unable to ensure a safe online space to facilitate these difficult conversations, we were unfortunately forced to suspend our workshop programme.

  Instead, we focused on delivering our talks over Zoom, reaching as many students as we could and adapting our work to make it as engaging and far-reaching as possible. Over the pandemic, we have hosted online talks, published blog posts and reached out to our community via social media to stay connected and to continue facilitating conversations around gender-based violence and inequality.

  What are the main women’s rights issues in the UK?

  At Bold Voices we view all women’s rights issues as interconnected. To illustrate this, we refer to Liz Kelly’s idea of a ‘continuum’ of gender-based violence. At the bedrock of gender inequality are the stereotypes that are still widely held in the UK: ideas about masculinity and femininity based on the gender binary that feed into our expectations of how women and men ‘should’ behave. Besides erasing the existence of people who don’t fit into that binary, these stereotypes set up cultural expectations that create a culture of gender-based violence rife with victim-blaming, silencing, objectification of women and slut-shaming.

  These attitudes then feed and shape the structures and institutions that perpetuate these ideas. As a result, our legal system continues to fail survivors of sexual violence, the gender pay gap persists, women continue to be underrepresented in sectors such as business, politics and STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) disciplines and the media we consume continue to fuel misogyny and glorify violence against women and girls.

  These layers of stereotypes, attitudes and structural inequalities all create a culture in which sexual violence not only exists but thrives and goes unpunished. Looking at this continuum of violence through an intersectional lens, we see that women of colour and minorities are more vulnerable to these experiences because of the way gender inequality overlaps with other forms of oppression.

  How is civil society advocating for change?

  Civil society in the UK is campaigning for legal reform, to shift cultural attitudes and work on change through education. At Bold Voices we believe education is key to dismantling the culture that enables not only violence against women but all forms of inequality that affect women and those who don’t fit into the gender binary.

  In the past few years, we have seen inspiring grassroots campaigns successfully criminalise some acts of sexual violence. Other areas of legal reform such as the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 show progress being made in terms of legal protections for women.

  Public campaigns such as the recent Transport for London campaign to raise awareness of sexual harassment are trying to shift public attitudes. Grassroots social media campaigns exposing the problem of sexual violence in education, such as Everyone’s Invited, have come at the same time as the introduction of new relationships and sex education curriculum in UK schools, meaning all students must learn about consent, among other issues.

  We know this is not enough. None of these actions will close the gender gap, but we believe education can spark the change we need, and the more we facilitate these conversations between young people, the better equipped the next generation will be to disrupt and reshape the culture of gender-based violence that exists all around us.

  The International Women’s Day (IWD) theme for 2022 is #BreakTheBias. How are you organising around it in the communities you work with?

  At Bold Voices we bring the message of IWD to our conversations with young people every day. Disrupting bias, stereotypes and discrimination against women, trans and non-binary people is at the heart of our work, and is the key to challenging gender-based violence. For IWD 2022 we are focusing on reaching out to the Bold Voices community to celebrate and thank our partners for working with us and for being part of the change.

  Civic space in the UK is rated ‘narrowed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
  Get in touch with Bold Voices through itswebsite orFacebook page, and follow them onInstagram andTwitter.