Protection of the Family
The Issue
Over the past few years, a troubling new trend at the international human rights level is being observed, where discourses on ‘protecting the family’ are being employed to defend violations committed against family members, to bolster and justify impunity, and to restrict equal rights within and to family life.
The campaign to "Protect the Family" is driven by ultra-conservative efforts to impose "traditional" and patriarchal interpretations of the family, and to move rights out of the hands of family members and into the institution of ‘the family’.
“Protection of the Family” efforts stem from:
- rising traditionalism,
- rising cultural, social and religious conservatism and
- sentiment hostile to women’s human rights, sexual rights, child rights and the rights of persons with non-normative gender identities and sexual orientations.
Since 2014, a group of states have been operating as a bloc in human rights spaces under the name “Group of Friends of the Family”, and resolutions on “Protection of the Family” have been successfully passed every year since 2014.
This agenda has spread beyond the Human Rights Council. We have seen regressive language on “the family” being introduced at the Commission on the Status of Women, and attempts made to introduce it in negotiations on the Sustainable Development Goals.
Our Approach
AWID works with partners and allies to jointly resist “Protection of the Family” and other regressive agendas, and to uphold the universality of human rights.
In response to the increased influence of regressive actors in human rights spaces, AWID joined allies to form the Observatory on the Universality of Rights (OURs). OURs is a collaborative project that monitors, analyzes, and shares information on anti-rights initiatives like “Protection of the Family”.
Rights at Risk, the first OURs report, charts a map of the actors making up the global anti-rights lobby, identifies their key discourses and strategies, and the effect they are having on our human rights.
The report outlines “Protection of the Family” as an agenda that has fostered collaboration across a broad range of regressive actors at the UN. It describes it as: “a strategic framework that houses “multiple patriarchal and anti-rights positions, where the framework, in turn, aims to justify and institutionalize these positions.”
Related Content
Snippet - CSW69 - OURs & friends - FR
OURs et ses ami·es à l’Espace de Solidarité Féministe
✉️ Sur invitation uniquement
📅 Mardi 11 mars 2025
🕒 14.00h-16.00h EST
🏢 Chef's Kitchen Loft with Terrace, 216 East 45th St 13th Floor New York
Organisé par : Consortium de l’Observatoire sur l'universalité des droits (OURs)
Snippet FEA collaborator and allies Photo 2 (EN)
Key opposition discourses
Ultra conservative actors have developed a number of discourses at the international human rights level that call on arguments manipulating religion, culture, tradition, and national sovereignty in order to undermine rights related to gender and sexuality.
Anti-rights actors have increasingly moved away from explicitly religious language. Increasingly, we see regressive actors - who may previously have derided human rights concepts - instead manipulating and co-opting these very concepts to further their objectives.
Protection of the family
This emerging and successful discourse appears innocuous, but it functions as a useful umbrella theme to house multiple patriarchal and anti-rights positions. The ‘protection of the family’ theme is thus a key example of regressive actors’ move towards holistic and integrated advocacy.
The language of ‘protection of the family’ works to shift the subject of human rights from the individual and onto already powerful institutions.
It also affirms a unitary, hierarchical, and patriarchal conception of the family that discriminates against family forms outside of these rigid boundaries. It also attempts to change the focus from recognition and protection of the rights of vulnerable family members to non-discrimination, autonomy, and freedom from violence in the context of family relations.
The Right to Life
The Holy See and a number of Christian Right groups seek to appropriate the right to life in service of an anti-abortion mission. Infusing human rights language with conservative religious doctrine, they argue that the right to life, as set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, applies at the moment of conception.
The discourse has no support in any universal human rights instrument. Yet this is an appealing tactic for anti-rights actors, because the right to life cannot be violated under any circumstances and is a binding legal standard.
Sexual rights
Anti-rights actors use a number of rhetorical devices in their campaign to undermine sexual rights: they argue that sexual rights do not exist or are ‘new rights,’ that they cause harm to children and society, and/or that these rights stand in opposition to culture, tradition or national laws.
Conservative actors engaged in advocacy at the UN attack the right to comprehensive sexuality education from several directions. They claim that CSE violates ‘parental rights’, harms children, and that it is not education but ideological indoctrination. They also claim that comprehensive sexuality education is pushed on children, parents, and the United Nations by powerful lobbyists seeking to profit from services they provide to children and youth.
Attempts to invalidate rights related to sexual orientation and gender identity have proliferated. Ultra conservative actors argue that application of long-standing human rights principles and law on this issue constitutes the creation of ‘new rights’; and that the meaning of rights should vary radically because they should be interpreted through the lens of ‘culture’ or ‘national particularities.’
Reproductive Rights
Christian Right organizations have been mobilizing against reproductive rights alongside the Holy See and other anti-rights allies for several years. They often argue that reproductive rights are at heart a form of Western-imposed population control over countries in the global South. Ironically, this claim often originates from U.S. and Western Europe-affiliated actors, many of whom actively work to export their fundamentalist discourses and policies.
Regressive actors also cite to ‘scientific’ arguments from ultra-conservative think tanks, and from sources that rely on unsound research methodologies, to suggest that abortion causes an array of psychological, sexual, physical, and relational side effects.
Protection of children and parental rights
Just as anti-rights actors aim to construct a new category of ‘protection of the family,’ they are attempting to construct a new category of ‘parental rights,’ which has no support in existing human rights standards.
This discourse paradoxically endeavours to use the rights protections with which children are endowed, as articulated in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, to support the rights of parents to control their children and limit their rights.
Violence against women
Increasingly, anti-rights actors are attempting to infiltrate and subvert standards and discourses developed by women human rights defenders, such as violence against women (VAW).
At the Commission on the Status of Women and other spaces, one rhetorical move is to treat VAW as a concept in which to embed anti-reproductive rights and patriarchal arguments. Ultra conservative actors, for example, have argued that non-heteronormative or traditional intimate partner relationships are a risk factor for violence, and emphasize that fathers are necessary to protect families from violence.
Gender and ‘gender ideology’
The Holy See has set off a sustained critique of gender, ‘gender ideology’, ‘gender radicals,’ and gender theory, and anti-rights actors often read the term as code for LGBTQ rights. Gender is used by the religious right as a cross-cutting concept that links together many of their discourses. Increasingly, the hysteria on this subject fixates on gender identity and trans rights.
Complementarity and human dignity
Complementarity of the sexes is a discourse employed by a number of ultra-conservative actors today. Its rhetoric is structured around an assumption of difference: men and women are meant to have differing but complementary roles in marriage and family life, and with respect to their engagement in the community and political and economic life.
Reference to ‘natural’ roles is meant to fundamentally reject universal human rights to equality and non-discrimination.
It is also used to justify State and non-State violations of these rights, and non-compliance with respect to State obligations to eliminate prejudices and practices based on stereotyped roles for men or women.
National sovereignty and anti-imperialism
This discourse suggests that national governments are being unjustly targeted by UN bodies, or by other States acting through the UN. This is an attempt to shift the subject of human rights from the individual or marginalized community suffering a rights violation to a powerful and/or regressive institution - i.e. the state, in order to justify national exceptions from universal rights or to support state impunity.
Religious freedom
Anti-rights actors have taken up the discourse of freedom of religion in order to justify violations of human rights. Yet, ultra-conservative actors refer to religious freedom in a way that directly contradicts the purpose of this human right and fundamentally conflicts with the principle of the universality of rights. The inference is that religious liberty is threatened and undermined by the protection of human rights, particularly those related to gender and sexuality.
The central move is to suggest that the right to freedom of religion is intended to protect a religion rather than those who are free to hold or not hold different religious beliefs.
Yet under international human rights law, the right protects believers rather than beliefs, and the right to freedom of religion, thought and conscience includes the right not to profess any religion or belief or to change one’s religion or belief.
Cultural rights and traditional values
The deployment of references to culture and tradition to undermine human rights, including the right to equality, is a common tactic amongst anti-rights actors. Culture is presented as monolithic, static, and immutable, and it is is often presented in opposition to ‘Western norms.’
Allusions to culture by anti-rights actors in international policy debates aim to undermine the universality of rights, arguing for cultural relativism that trumps or limits rights claims. Regressive actors’ use of cultural rights is founded on a purposeful misrepresentation of the human right. States must ensure that traditional or cultural attitudes are not used to justify violations of equality, and human rights law calls for equal access, participation and contribution in all aspects of cultural life for all, including women, religious, and racial minorities, and those with non-conforming genders and sexualities.
Subverting ‘universal’
Anti-rights actors in international policy spaces increasingly manipulate references to universal or fundamental human rights to reverse the meaning of the universality of rights.
Rather than using the term universal to describe the full set of indivisible and interrelated human rights, ultra conservative actors employ this term to instead delineate and describe a subset of human rights as ‘truly fundamental.’ Other rights would thus be subject to State discretion, ‘new’ rights or optional. This discourse is especially powerful as their category of the truly universal remains unarticulated and hence open to shifting interpretation.
Other Chapters
Fannyann Viola Eddy
Roxana Reyes Rivas
Roxana Reyes Rivas, était une philosophe, féministe, lesbienne, poétesse, politicienne et activiste pour les droits des personnes LGBT et des femmes du Costa Rica. Auteure à la plume acérée et à l’humour incisif, elle était irrésistiblement drôle. Née en 1960 et élevée à San Ramón dans la province d’Alajuela, qui était encore une localité rurale à l’époque, elle a toute sa vie refusé d’adhérer aux attentes envers « les femmes ».
Avec le groupe de lesbiennes costariciennes El Reguero, Roxana a organisé pendant plus de dix ans des festivals lesbiens, de joyeux espaces de formation où se rassembler à une époque où le gouvernement du Costa Rica et la société persécutaient et pénalisaient l’existence des lesbiennes. Ces festivals lesbiens étaient, pour des centaines de femmes, le seul endroit où elles pouvaient être elles-mêmes et se regrouper avec leurs semblables.
Roxana aimait répéter que la formation de partis politiques comptait parmi ses passe-temps. « Il est important que les gens comprennent qu’il y a d’autres manières de faire de la politique, et que de nombreuses questions doivent être résolues collectivement. » Elle fut également l’une des fondatrices des partis Nueva Liga Feminista et VAMOS, centrés sur les droits humains.
« La philosophie est faite pour bousculer, pour aider les gens à se poser des questions. Une philosophe qui n’irrite personne ne fait pas son travail. » Pendant 30 ans, Roxana a enseigné la philosophie dans plusieurs universités publiques du Costa Rica. Des générations d’étudiant·e·ss ont suivi ses directives et réfléchi aux dilemmes éthiques que posent la science et les technologies.
L’outil de prédilection de Roxana était l’humour. Elle a créé le prix de l’ignorance La Citrouille étincelante, qu’elle décernait à des personnalités publiques sur ses réseaux sociaux, tournant en dérision leurs expressions et déclarations anti-droits.
Roxana a été emportée par un cancer agressif fin 2019, avant qu’elle ne puisse publier son recueil de poèmes, qu’elle aurait voulu être le cadeau de départ de l’esprit créatif d’une féministe qui a toujours élevé sa voix contre l’injustice.
Snippet - CSW69 On feminist resourcing today - EN
On feminist resourcing today
- Take the Where is the Money Quiz here!
- Our Resource
- How Can Activists Resource Our Own Activism?
- What we can learn from feminists who fund themselves
Snippet FEA Workers demonstrations in Georgia 3 (ES)
Rachel Bhagwan
Dorothy Masuka
“I didn’t plan to be a singer, singing planned to be in me.” - Dorothy Masuka (interview with Mail & Guardian)
Dorothy Masuka, born 1935 in Bulawayo (then Southern Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe), grew up in South Africa to become a well-known songwriter, composer, jazz singer and activist, a fervent advocate of the struggle against apartheid. Called “an architect of the discourse of popular African liberation music”, Dorothy often sang about politics in indigenous African languages and throughout her work she confronted the racist policies of the South African government.
One such song titled “Dr. Malan” (named after the pro-apartheid politician D.F. Malan) was banned. She went on to record “Lumumba” (1961), a song about the assassination of the anti-colonial leader Patrice Lumumba. Dorothy’s work and activism attracted the attention of the Special Branch of the South African police and she was forced into a political exile that would span over three decades. Throughout this time, she worked with pro-independence groups including the African National Congress. In 1992, as apartheid started to crumble and Nelson Mandela was released from prison, she returned to South Africa.
Some of her other work includes the first song she recorded in 1953 entitled “Hamba Notsokolo”, a hit in the 1950s and a valued classic. She also wrote “El Yow Phata Phata”, a song that was adapted by Miriam Makeba, making “Pata, Pata” popular internationally.
Rooted in resistance, Dorothy’s music and activism were intertwined, leaving a magnificent and inspiring legacy. She was also widely known as “Auntie Dot”.
On 23 February 2019 at the age of 83, Dorothy passed away in Johannesburg due to ill health.
Watch Dorothy Masuka in an interview with Mail & Guardian
Listen to some of her music:
Snippet - CSW69 - Other events - EN
Find AWID staff at these partners' events!
Snippet FEA Workers Persecution S4 (FR)
LA PERSÉCUTION DES TRAVAILLEUR·EUSES
Bureau administratif
Pour toute question administrative, vous pouvez contacter notre bureau :
- +1 416 594 3773
- 192 Spadina Avenue, Suite 300 | Toronto, ON, M5T 2C2 | Canada
Le magazine des Réalités féministes
Le magazine des Réalités féministes
Nous vous présentons une sélection motivante de puissantes histoires et d’images de transformations et de résistances créées par des activistes, des écrivain·e·s et des artistes du monde entier.
Ana Lucia Herrera Aguirre
Esther Mwikali
El hogar de Esther Mwikali estaba en la aldea de Mithini, en el condado de Murang'a, Kenya. Esther fue una defensora del derecho a la tierra destacada y valorada que investigó los abusos contra okupas de tierras reclamadas por magnates. La investigación de la que participó Esther incluyó también violaciones del derecho a la tierra cometidas por personas con poder en Makuyu.
Luego de que Esther faltara a una de las reuniones de la aldea, un grupo de búsqueda salió a rastrear a Esther. El 27 de agosto de 2019, dos días después de su desaparición, el cuerpo de Esther fue encontrado en una granja cerca de su casa, con signos de tortura. Esther había sido brutalmente asesinada.
"El trabajo de Esther por evitar el desalojo de lxs integrantes de las comunidades de las tierras reclamadas por magnates era conocido por todxs. Para lxs activistas locales no existía ninguna duda de que su asesinato estaba relacionado con las luchas en la zona por el acceso a la tierra; un trágico recordatorio de la alarmante frecuencia con que se llevan a cabo las ejecuciones extrajudiciales en Kenia."- Global Wittness Report, Julio 2020
"Asociamos la muerte de Mwikali con las luchas locales por el derecho a la tierra, y exigimos al Gobierno que investigue el asunto sin demora." - James Mburu, portavoz de lxs okupas.
"Es necesario tomar medidas con respecto a las personas que presuntamente han amenazado a lxs ocupantes ilegales, incluida la familia de Mwikali". - Alice Karanja, Coalición Nacional de Defensorxs de Derechos Humanos
"El impacto de su trabajo y su tenacidad permanecerán vivos en Kenia durante décadas. El CJGEA consuela a las personas afligidas y pide justicia". - Comunicado de prensa del Centro para la Justicia y la Acción Gubernamental (CJGEA, por sus siglas en inglés), 13 de septiembre de 2019
Snippet - WCFM type of funder - EN
Type of funder:
Filter your search by funders from different sectors i.e., philanthropic foundations, multilateral funders, women’s and feminist funds
Snippet FEA Sopo Japaridze (EN)
Meet Sopo Japaridze, fierce feminist, union leader and chair of the independent service trade union at the Solidarity Network.
She left the country when she was very young to go to the United States where she first became very politically active as a labor organizer. She kept Georgia in the back of her mind all that time, until one day, two decades later, she decided to return.
The existing Georgian union confederation back then was less than ideal. So, equipped with her skills, knowledge and labor organizing experience, Sopo went back to Georgia and built her own union.
Sopo is a passionate researcher and writer. She studies labor and social relations, writes for various publications and is the contributing editor of LeftEast, an Eastern European analytical platform. She also co-founded the political history initiative and podcast, Reimagining Soviet Georgia, where she explores the complexities and nuances of the country's experiences under the Soviet Union, to better understand its past in order to shed light on how to build a better future.