'Gender apartheid' - risks and benefits

[ArabellaScott]

Recent calls for 'gender apartheid' to be made a crime against humanity.

https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/02/gender-apartheid-must-be-recognised-crime-against-humanity-un-experts-say

“State laws, policies and practices that relegate women to conditions of extreme inequality and oppression, with the intent of effectively extinguishing their human rights, reflect the very core of apartheid systems,” the experts said.

'existing forms of gender-specific crimes, including gender persecution, while useful and relevant, do not fully capture the institutionalised and widespread nature of the deprivation of rights involved in systems of gender apartheid. “Only the apartheid framework can fully grasp the role of intent, ideology and institutionalisation in gender apartheid regimes as seen in Afghanistan,” they said.'

The idea is that this would make it easier to criticise Afghanistan.

Are there any potential downsides? Will it actually help the situation?

On 26 June 2024, the International Criminal Court (ICC) convicted Mr Al Hassan Ag Abdoul Aziz Ag Mohamed Ag Mahmoud (‘Al Hassan’) on eight counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Timbuktu, Mali in 2012 – 2013. While a welcome verdict for many, Al Hassan was not convicted of any gender-based crimes, including gender persecution. This was the first time in the Court’s history that gender persecution had been litigated at trial, and this recent judgment is the first by a Trial Chamber to adjudicate the crime.

Over the 18 months of the OTP’s case at trial, women gave powerful evidence of being targeted based on their gender: of being arrested and forced into a car by armed men because of a fallen veil; of being flogged for being greeted by a man other than their husband; of being taken from their homes, forcibly married, and held as sexual slaves. Al Hassan’s defence lawyers strongly contested the charge, characterising the allegations as possible human rights violations which fall far short of gender persecution, while heavily cross-examining the credit of victim

Well that's good, thanks. Shame he wasn't convicted - failure to value women and take MVAWAG seriously, but at least he was prosecuted.

So one wonders even more why we need a new law to cover the same sort of behaviour.

So one wonders even more why we need a new law to cover the same sort of behaviour.

It answers that in the article on the OP:

They noted that existing forms of gender-specific crimes, including gender persecution, while useful and relevant, do not fully capture the institutionalised and widespread nature of the deprivation of rights involved in systems of gender apartheid. “Only the apartheid framework can fully grasp the role of intent, ideology and institutionalisation in gender apartheid regimes as seen in Afghanistan,”

I'm hoping it would focus on the systemic nature. Apartheid as parallel justice systems etc a separation running through all society enforced in the home as well as the public space with persecution being a means to enforce compliance.
I want to strike at the heart of the ideology.

I think that is a valid way to analyse it but I don't see what difference it will make to the victims, or how it will benefit them more than the current crime. Would it have made it more likely that Hassan would have been convicted, I wonder?

I would also worry that if you make the crime about the system then individuals might escape responsibility.

It's about the international community acting together. Members of the Taliban could be arrested if they leave the country. Any member of the morality police travelling abroad, maybe here looking for asylum could be arrested and prosecuted. It's a line in the sand.
You can't give justice to all the women of Afghanistan individually but we could at least make an effort to give it back to their daughters.

Yes, I see that. But you could do the same with gender persecution (gp) - arresting and prosecuting the morality police for their part in the campaign to subjugate women, as well as for specific acts, surely?

What's really missing is the will in the international community to do more than an occasional bit of hand-wringing.

What's really missing is the will in the international community to do more than an occasional bit of hand-wringing.

Exactly. Using gender apartheid would prevent the backsliding on recognition of the Taliban government at the UN.

See this recent meeting which women were excluded from

Will women be included in the talks?
No. The meeting’s organisers have been criticised for not inviting women, with the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women saying it is “deeply concerned” about the exclusion.
“Failure to ensure participation will only further silence Afghan women and girls already facing escalating violations of their rights,” it said in a statement earlier this week.
Human Rights Watch described the decision to exclude women as “shocking”.

www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/7/1/what-to-expect-as-taliban-joins-third-un-held-talks-on-afghanistan-in-qatar

How would using "gender apartheid" make the world more inclined to act against Afghanistan? This is very close to my previous suspicion that "apartheid" is being used because it is seen as a more emotive term, not because it is an accurate description of what the victims have suffered. Changing the legal definition of apartheid - already a well understood word to which has at its core the notion of separateness - strikes me as bad drafting.
Even if it's the case that apartheid is a more powerful and serious sounding word than persecution, this may be counterproductive. You will notice that in the report you posted, it says that the defence argued that Hassan's treatment of women while possible "human rights violations", "fell far short of gender persecution". This argument was put forward about what you think is a less weighty offence.
It also shows how little women are valued - the lawyers were basically saying, come on, rape isn't that bad.

I saw the explanation about the need for a new crime in the original document, I read it again in your post and I still can't see what "apartheid" adds which would make it easier to arrest, prosecute and convict people for a crime against humanity against women. The concept of persecution can also encompass systemic injustice.

But even more to the point, the ICC, which is independent from the UN, tries individuals. That is what it was set up to do. It's not a court for governments, or to judge ideologies. It's to make people face justice which they would otherwise elude.
From the booklet Understanding the International Criminal Court:
"The primary mission of the International Criminal Court is to help to put an end to impunity for the perpetrators of the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole and thus contribute to the prevention of such crimes."
And also:
"The ICC is an independent body whose mission is to try individuals for crimes within its jurisdiction..."

To get people in front of the ICC judges, you need commitment from the international community. We already have a crime against humanity which can be used to get justice for women. What needs to change is the value we put on women. We need to make a lot more noise, more consistently, about the Afghan and Iranian women. And also about the way women's rights are being eroded worldwide.

The word apartheid has come to be used as a part of a wider adherence to what some may call a 'woke' intersectionalist/identity type of politics, by which its actual meaning and practice in the world is lost. Same with the word 'genocide' and with the over-use of the word 'fascist' . In this context so too is the word 'gender' and as such is used in place of 'Sex' to further blur distinctions and muddy the waters.

The UN is fully signed up to all of the above ( when it suits certain parties).....and in no way can be considered a neutral or even handed body.

Unfortunately the sense is now that many people have accepted that women's rights are culturally relative, and fade in comparison to rights around race, ethnicity and religion.

If you go after the Taliban then you will also need to go after Saudi Arabia, Iran and other other country or regime in which women are subject to such obvious double standards and lack of legal recourse.

If you go after the Taliban then you will also need to go after Saudi Arabia, Iran and other other country or regime in which women are subject to such obvious double standards and lack of legal recourse.

Let's hope so! Wouldn't it be amazing if the women of Iran or Saudi took their countries to court for Gender Apartheid?

How? If they could be charged with gender persecution what difference does it make to call I gender apartheid? Other than perhaps slow it all down while we pontificate.

The crime exists. We could act now.

I'm sorry but that just.sounds like waffle. The whole push seems more likely to avoid taking action now using existing law while everyone handwrings.

Systemic institutionalised gender persecution is happening now.

It's been happening for years and the Taliban have been given a loud clear signal that nobody powerful or influential in the world cares. A cricket boycott is more likely to be effective than anything the ICC does.

It looks like action is going to be taken, although it should have been taken a while ago but these recent announcements have made action imperative.

It's just a discussion about the law, that's all. Which law to implement in order to fully cover the atrocities taking place.

I believe Gender Apartheid is the right move as it fully encompasses the institutionalised mechanisms in place to oppress women. Many have been calling the systems in Iran, Afghanistan and other places Gender Apartheid for years.

However, Gender Persecution would be equally as effective when taking them to court. Both are crimes against humanity.

When I saw the word gender my heart sank.

Yes of course we need to make it a crime against humanity and subject to prosecution by the UN if a man is not allowed into the little girls toilets.

I agree with this. One of the reasons I favour 'gender apartheid' is because Afghan women are using the term to define the actions of the Taliban and it's effect on them.
It also sets a benchmark to measure other fundamentalist regimes like Iran and their proxies across the Middle East. It could also support the more liberal actors in Sunni regimes.

The world needs to come together in condemning this.

If we do not place a red line to what is happening to women and girls in Afghanistan and in Iran, we are also sending a message to the rest of the world and to these hardliners in other countries.

Dorothy Estrada-Tanck, Chair of the United Nations Working Group on Discrimination Against Women

The world does need to come together and it's taken far too long to act. I believe that Gender Apartheid would be a great way to define these oppressive regimes.

These aren't just acts of persecution, they are whole countries structurally oppressing women in every aspect of their lives. The oppression is instilled at every level of society.

Let's hope it makes a difference to our sisters.

Let’s say what it really is. In the past I believe that some Afghani tribes used to brand the women along with the cattle - because that’s what they regard them as being - beasts / animals. We’re back to that mindset.

In time, it should cease to be an issue. Women will die in childbirth and the population will decline. I suspect that, like many mammals, female humans won’t breed well in captivity.