“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”

 

More than 50,000 women gathered for another year to share experiences, update debates, express feelings and define policies that meet their needs, betting on collective work to advance the fight. Women approached from different parts of the country, but it is worth noting the presence of women from El Impenetrable Chaqueño, who made the difference in their first participation in an ENM.

The meeting was marked by a variety of workshops, including women and feminisms, sexual and reproductive rights, femicides, indigenous peoples, among others. Two new themes were added this year: “Women and Culture of Rape”, which developed the role of the media in the construction of the victim and the victimizer, institutional violence, sexual, affective and relational consent, among other axes . Also added “Activism Gordx”, workshop that dealt with the hegemonic medical model, cultural stigmatization of fat bodies and new forms of politicization. At the same time, women were able to enjoy numerous cultural activities, with 25 de Mayo Square being the epicenter of talks, handicrafts, music and mates “encounters”.

On Sunday, at 6:00 p.m., a multitudinous march was conducted that covered more than 35 blocks on the way to the Democracy Park, with the presence of women belonging to different social, political, trade union, civic organizations, indigenous communities, and so on. The march culminated with a great rock to the rhythm of good music, dance and several meals.

We can not fail to mention the lamentable assaults that were suffered by several women who attended the ENM on Monday by a group of people who, shouting “let them all go”, threw stones at them, chased them on motorcycles, hit with sticks, and threatened, corralated and intimidated violently. Once again, intolerance and violence played a part in the NME. We repudiate this episode of this anti-rights sector, which, far from respecting freedom of expression and democracy, once again tarnished an MNA. It is also worth noting that, unlike the previous ENM, the security forces did not repress and acted with respect for the rights of the attendees, safeguarding the security of the meeting.

We celebrate these 32 years of struggle that will not stop and we will meet again next year in Puerto Madryn, Chubut, headquarters of the 33rd ENM.

Sources

Incidents in the march of repudiation to the meeting of women | TN24

Violent demonstration of Resistance against the women of the Meeting | El Diario de la Región

Author

 Mariana Cabanillas

Contact

Virginia Pedraza, vir.pedraza@fundeps.org

“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”

The reality of women in Argentina, urges that organizations take action, organize and strengthen their links. It is essential to generate collective strategies that can generate impacts that make visible the faults that women suffer in our country, such as access to justice, participation, the rights to a life free from violence, health, freedom, equality of opportunity, among many others.

The organizations and individuals that form part of the Abogadxs Alliance for Women’s Human Rights are meeting to discuss the achievements in recent years, the achievements and advances in the recognition of rights and their implementation. But we also put on the table the risks in the implementation of regressive policies, of strategies that continue reproducing the logics of gender inequality, and everything for which we have always struggled and have not yet reached.

That is why we focus our exchanges on two central themes: sexual and reproductive rights, and violence against women. In both areas of discussion we reach starting points for collective strategies, and we generate dynamics of mutual strengthening for those measures and actions that necessarily have to be diagrammed locally.

The human rights of women must be guaranteed by the State, and when this is not manifested in reality, the organizations will continue to carry out collective advocacy to demand that all people, regardless of gender, enjoy all rights and can live their lives without fear and in full freedom.

Contact

Virginia Pedraza, vir.pedraza@fundeps.org

“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”

 

However, in order to start being elected the process was very different. Only through the Act of Women’s Occupation in 1991, the representation of women began to be guaranteed by the State. This law allowed the structures of gender inequality to begin to be overcome. The numbers speak for themselves: before the law, women elected to public office in Congress did not exceed 6% of all seats. Today women occupy 41.7% in the Senate and 38.5% in Deputies. However, there is still a long way to go.

At present, although women make up more than half of the population, female representation does not reach 50% in any decision-making space. According to an investigation carried out by the Latin American Justice and Gender Team (ELA) on the elections, in 2017, there are very few lists that do not comply with the Women’s Act. However, the parties’ interpretation of its application has begun to transform itself into a roof over participation, rather than a guarantee tool.

In the provinces where a parity law has been implemented (Salta, Buenos Aires), the female representation has been higher, but this is not evident in the rest of the country. That is why it is necessary to generate mechanisms that can promote a real commitment to gender equality in political parties, as well as the implementation of a national law of parity that guarantees a representation of women that is in accordance with the social configuration of gender.

The CSW is a body under the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations (UN), which began its functions in 1946 as the “main international intergovernmental body dedicated exclusively to the promotion of gender equality and empowerment of the woman”.

It meets annually, and in this event are the UN member states, civil society organizations and bodies of the UN Human Rights System. In this space, the actions of States to meet the commitments made at the 1995 Beijing World Conference on Women, its Declaration and Platform for Action, and the 23rd Special Session of the General Assembly in 2000 (Beijing +5). It also addresses relevant issues on the situation of women worldwide

From these sessions, the discussions and agreements that arise and the reports presented, the CSW generates conclusions and recommendations, which are then sent to the Economic and Social Council for follow-up.

The review theme for the 62nd session of the CSW, to be held in March 2018, focuses on “Participation and access of women to the media and information and communication technologies, as well as their impact and Use as an instrument for the advancement and empowerment of women”

Our Report

More than three years ago, along with Communicating Equality, we have monitored the organs of the State that must apply the protective norms of women in the media.

Our first research was crystallized in the publication “Gender Violence and Public Communication Policies“. Subsequently, policies related to gender and communication suffered regressive measures, which, far from improving what has already been achieved, have regressed in the role of guarantor of State rights.

In the report that we presented to the CSW, such measures were presented, as well as recommendations to achieve greater protection for women and the hearings of Argentina.

Among the regressive measures mentioned in the report are:

– Public Defender: Despite the efficient and participative management of the organization, this has been interrupted since November last year, when the Bicameral Commission, which should appoint the maximum authority of the Ombudsman’s Office, decided not to appoint anyone at the end of the term Of the first Public Defender, Lic. Cyntia Ottaviano. At present, the DPSCA is in an irregular situation and without capacity to carry out activities that go beyond mere formal and administrative communications. This limits the taking of comprehensive measures in cases of media violence based on gender or any other. This situation further aggravates Argentina’s failure to comply with the recommendations made by the CEDAW Committee in its Concluding Observations on the seventh periodic report of Argentina in 20167, especially paragraph 19, item “d”, in which Urges that “Law 26,522 of 10 October 2009 on Audiovisual Communication Services be amended in order to empower the Ombudsman to punish violations of provisions relating to gender stereotypes and sexism in the media Communication”.

– ENACOM: Since the dictates of the Decrees of Necessity and Urgency No. 13/2015, 236/2015 and 267/2015, a new body was created, ENACOM, which displaced the AFSCA, being the same subsumed in that body, Along with their faculties and functions. In flagrant violation of international commitments, and by taking regressive actions regarding the protection of the rights of the hearings, the law was ignored, and the protective scaffold created was dismantled.

These actions by the new government overlapped with the decrease in the budget of ENACOM, and a worrying uncertainty about how the new public regulatory policy for the media will become available. As of the end of 2015, there were no sanctions regarding violent content issued in the media, nor any formal response to requests for information made by civil society organizations in this regard.

– Observatory on Discrimination in Radio and Television: The Observatory as a tripartite body was dissolved in 2017, although apparently did not carry out its usual functions since January 2016, adding to the widespread disruption of public policies protecting gender and communication.

– National Women’s Council: Since 2016, the National Council of Women has taken a more active role in dealing with cases of symbolic and media violence and in early 2017 the Observatory for Symbolic and Media Violence – A bipartite body composed of the National Council of Women and the National Entity for Communications (ENACOM). So far in 2017, the Observatory intervened in 17 cases of media violence ex officio or at the request of whistleblowers. The intervention in most of them was carrying out a report of analysis of the situation discriminating and stigmatizing and sending the same to the mass media.

– Monitoring Office for Publication of Sexual Trade Offer Notices: Since its creation in 2011, until December 2015, OM has achieved that 85% of the media monitored (110 of the entire national territory, with national coverage, Regional and local) to comply with the current legislation, leaving notices of sexual offer with expressions degrading and discriminatory towards women by all media surveyed. He also conducted trainings and conferences throughout the country to raise awareness of media violence through specific media support and collaborated with the judiciary by providing data on individuals and networks that publish notices on trafficking in persons for Sexual exploitation.

Since December 2015, he has not published any reports on his actions.

Contact

Virginia Pedraza – vir.pedraza@fundeps.org

“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”

 

The social movements that face the environmental problems and the gender inequality are due to a historical link to promote solutions that are integral and from a perspective that generates spaces of debate for equality and care.

Both environmentalism and feminism have championed their struggles against forms and logic of dominance that have engendered deep cracks in society and the world. Both spaces share the need to generate healthy forms of collective care, and their activism has always been female.

The Workshop Ecologist of Rosario has made the proposal to enter into little-known views, such as ecofeminism, to be able to continue making progress in the search for better alternatives to achieve a better relationship between communities, and society and the environment.

In this context, we participated in the Encounter “Women and Ecology. Weaving networks to rethink the present and build the future “that allowed us to generate links between organizations that work with environmental issues from a human rights perspective, with a special focus on gender inequality. In this way, and weaving networks between organizations, we start a path so that our actions are not isolated, and that each experience can nourish the activities we do, and thus empower and organize to generate greater and better impact.

Contact

Virginia Pedraza – vir.pedraza@fundeps.org

“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”

 

We note with concern the urgency and selectivity with which we are dealing with the problematic bill submitted by the National Executive Branch on June 12 under number 0010/PE/2017. This project, aiming to regulate religious freedom, incorporates the questionable figure of the institutional conscientious objection and generates mechanisms of institutional violence and violation of human rights.

This proposal not only jeopardizes the legitimacy of the legal system by proposing as a rule the possibility of excepting compliance with the law, but also seriously compromises the international obligations assumed by the Argentine State. This is so insofar as there is a great potential to obstruct the fulfillment and guarantee of many human rights, such as health, identity, non-discrimination and life free of violence, as well as to affect vulnerable groups such as children and adolescents , And people with disabilities.

Although the draft mentions several human rights treaties, it is widely misunderstood in their interpretation, in view of the many jurisprudential precedents given by our country’s courts in this area, as well as the recommendations of the corresponding human rights committees. In this way, it aims to erect as a guarantor standard, but in its drafting institutes mechanisms that preclude access to basic rights that must be guaranteed by the State.

Institutional conscientious objection, in practice, makes it possible to carry out generalized discriminatory acts against certain groups, historically relegated. Imagine a person who is in a position to request surgical intervention for genital reassignment, before institutions that by religious belief may violate their right to identity and psychophysical health in an institutionalized way.

The presumption of good faith granted by the project to the person exercising the conscientious objection reverses the burden of proof to the detriment of citizenship, making each person to judge each case, since the final interpretation of the constitutionality corresponds to the Power Judicial. This would generate serious mechanisms of institutional violence, and our State has acquired international commitments for the purpose of eradicating such violence. Let us not forget: in what democratic state can a person evade compliance with the law because his faith dictates it?

It also legitimizes the risk of children and adolescents, as well as persons with disabilities, when it enables its representatives to exercise conscientious objection on their behalf. This could lead to denial of certain medical treatments by representation, which has been widely rejected by our courts.

Likewise, in order to safeguard the rights of non-Catholic religious communities, churches and other denominations, it does not regressively recognize sexual and non-reproductive rights and international standards in this regard. In this regard, it should be recalled that conscientious objection is not recognized as a human right, and that the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (General Comment No. 22 March 2016) stated that, should States regulate it , This must be done in a way that does not impact on access to sexual and reproductive health. This recommendation is not observed in the project, much less in the hermetic treatment that is being given.

On the other hand, and what is not less, it is possible to rescue that by definition legal persons and / or entities do not possess the consciousness or subjectivity that seeks to protect the notion of conscientious objection. What religion or belief can a legal entity claim?

A rule that seeks to incorporate, in a generalized, discretionary and presumptive manner, the exception to the fulfillment of legal obligations, seriously compromises legal certainty, the bases of our rule of law, and the exercise and guarantee of human rights. Religious freedom is already guaranteed by our National Constitution, and by human rights treaties with constitutional hierarchy. This bill only undermines its exercise, and in turn implies an express and serious acceptance that not all of us have the same duty of obedience before the law.

The pronouncement of the organizations

We adhere to the rejection letter to Bill 0010 / PE / 2017, prepared by the Abogadxs National Alliance for Women’s Human Rights, which is joined by more than 100 recognized organizations and institutions from all over the country, and more than 400 experts and law specialists.

This letter will be presented to the Commissions for Foreign Affairs and Worship, Penal Legislation and Budget and Finance, of the Chamber of Deputies of the National Congress, in order to make known the institutional gravity that matters the consideration of this project, and the concern for its Selective treatment.

Author

María Julieta Cena

More information

Virginia Pedraza – vir.pedraza@fundeps.org

“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”

 

The recent resolution officially ruled by the federal judge with electoral competence in Santa Fe, Reinaldo Rubén Rodríguez, who is challenging the list of 15 national deputy candidates, presented by the Ciudad Futura political space, is in debate. The magistrate ordered that Law 24,012 guaranteed equality of opportunity and treatment for women, which also has to be guaranteed for men. This statement generates an immediate question: What is the lack of access opportunities that men have in political spaces, in relation to women?

Unfortunately, in the wake of the interpretation of our Constitution, and in particular Art. 37, the provisions of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) continue to be ignored. English), which enjoys a constitutional hierarchy and must be mandatory as a current and complementary norm of our Charter.

Article 4 (1) of the CEDAW states: “The adoption by States Parties of temporary special measures to accelerate de facto equality between men and women shall not be considered discrimination in the manner defined in the Convention. This Convention shall not, however, entail, as a consequence, the maintenance of unequal or separate standards; These measures shall cease when the objectives of equality of opportunity and treatment have been achieved”.

Female quota laws are nothing more than these “special temporary measures” established in this body of legislation, which must cease when the objectives of equality of opportunity and treatment have been achieved. From there comes the question: Have we already achieved such equality between men and women?

Recently, after the ruling in Santa Fe, some newspaper articles have branded Law No. 24,012 as “discriminatory for men.” But, although women are more than half the population, how is it possible that in no space for decision-making in our country we have reached 50% representation?

Gender inequality is manifest in all spaces, and the political is clearly included. Even more so when speeches that de-legitimize quota laws are tirelessly reproduced. Mandatory female representation by quota is the first step to ensure equal opportunities. Political parties must find female representatives, with sufficient qualifications and qualifications to fill these representative positions, so that they truly speak for women who are part of such spaces.

It is not the quota laws that compel the parties to make the candidates the “wives of” or “figures of the spectacle or sport without vocation for politics and fictional candidates or testimonials who “smiles smiling”, as some notes Journalism. It is the machista mechanisms themselves that do not recognize women with sufficient autonomy and merit, as apt to occupy such positions of fundamental democratic importance.
It remains difficult to understand the debate around quota laws, when no alternative proposals have been heard or read that guarantee real spaces for women, who have historically been relegated to the private, far from politics. Let us not forget that it was only 69 years ago that women have acceded to the right to vote, and that Law 24,012 was enacted only in 1991.

Before the validity of the Act on Women, the women representatives of their parties in Congress did not exceed 6% of the total number of seats. After its promulgation, in 2005, the female participation reached 36% in the Chamber of Deputies and 42% in the Senate. At present, women occupy 41.7% in the Senate and 38.5% in Deputies.

The quota laws are necessary, and society and the Argentine political community remain indebted to democracy, because parity is not yet real. Let us not go back, and move forward to make room for equal opportunities and treatment between women and men.

Antes de la vigencia de la Ley de Cupo Femenino, las mujeres representantes de sus partidos en el Congreso no superaban el 6% del total de las bancas. Luego de su promulgación, en el año 2005, la participación femenina alcanzó el 36% en la Cámara de Diputados y el 42% en el Senado. En la actualidad, las mujeres ocupan el 41,7% en la Cámara de Senadores y el 38,5% en Diputados.

The quota laws are necessary, and society and the Argentine political community remain indebted to democracy, because parity is not yet real. Let us not go back, and move forward to make room for equal opportunities and treatment between women and men.

Sources

Journalists and women politicians, a boom in list building. Editorial. Diario Clarin. Buenos Aires, 25/06/2017.

– Female quotas are not necessary. Editorial. Diario La Nacion. Buenos Aires, 09/07/2017.

Gabriel Sued. Women unite in Congress for an increase in the female quota. Diario La Nación, Buenos Aires, 16/08/2016.

Marcela Ríos Tobar. Woman and politics. The impact of gender quotas in Latin America. Catalonia. Santiago, Chile, 2008.

More information

Virginia Pedraza – vir.pedraza@fundeps.org

“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”

 

In the most vulnerable areas of our country, women are traced by the most serious violence. The rights we have conquered and the laws that we must protect often take time to come in their application, and communities are not always properly informed about how to make effective the guarantees offered by the State.

In the area of ​​collaboration and accompaniment that we built together with Las Omas, we also understand that it is important to strengthen the ties and ties between the women who make it up, since the networks of containment between women are the first that help to overcome those who face to the worst situations of violence.

The activities and mechanisms generated through Las Omas, with the women who make it up, are an essential tool for the follow-up actions that can be started and can be reinforced over time. That is why we have proposed to carry out workshops on gender violence, its types and the mechanisms of protection provided by the State. But this would be little if it is not complemented with tools that strengthen the bonds between those who are part of the community.

The first Gender Violence Workshop we conducted focused on promoting the development of ties and links that could serve to reinforce support mechanisms among women, so that confronting situations of violence can be collective, with the support of those who have overcome the obstacles, from those who can understand each other, and that in this way, women continue to take care of us in the fight against gender violence.

Contact

Virginia Pedraza – vir.pedraza@fundeps.org

“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”

The Office of the Public Defender, the agency responsible for receiving complaints from active hearings in cases of rights violations, has previously received international awards. Among them, is the one granted by the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression of the OAS. On this occasion, he was awarded the “Inter-American Award for Innovation for Effective Public Management”. This award

“…is an initiative of the Department for Effective Public Management of the OAS, whose main objective is to recognize, encourage, systematize and promote the innovations in public management that are being carried out in the region with the purpose of contributing to institutions Increasingly transparent, effective and have mechanisms for citizen participation.”

The institution was one of the main actors in public policy mapping to protect women against symbolic and media violence, in addition to protecting the general public. Through complaints, or acting on their own initiative, they issued opinions against content that exercised media violence and carried out activities, such as meetings and training, or instances of mediation, with the producers of said contents in order to raise awareness and give guidelines for producing content Not sexist.

However, this efficient and participative management of the organization has been interrupted since November last year when the Bicameral Commission, which should appoint the maximum authority of the Ombudsman’s Office, decided not to appoint anyone at the end of the mandate of Ms. Cyntia Ottaviano . As we mentioned in previous notes, the agency is still in an irregular situation and unable to carry out activities that go beyond mere formal and administrative communications. This limits that measures are taken in cases of media violence for reasons of gender or any other, and it does not allow the Ombudsman to make pronouncements on the quality of the contents denounced.

There is still no certainty about what will happen to the Ombudsman. In this context, it is important to remember that CEDAW, in its concluding observations to Argentina, recommended:

“To amend Act No. 26.522 (2009) on audiovisual media services, in order to provide the Public Defender with the power to sanction violations of provisions to regulate gender stereotypes and sexism in the media.”

In this sense, the institutional situation is detrimental to what is recommended according to international standards.

More information

The OAS will distinguish the Ombudsman’s task for the promotion of gender equity | Defensoría del Público

– Worrying situation of the Public Defender’s Office | FUNDEPS

Contact

Carolina Tamagnini – carotamagnini@fundeps.org