Introduction

Respect for human rights is owed to the courage of human rights defenders (HRDs), who face formidable challenges as they carry out their work. Among those HRDs are women who have overcome significant barriers to speak out in defense of human rights, and who face elevated risks because of their gender.

Women human rights defenders (WHRDs) come from all walks of life and include “activists, journalists, lawyers, health professionals, doctors, farmers, politicians and leaders of social movements.”[1] Not all WHRDs are paid professionals. Many have assumed their roles due to their lived experiences, a sense of obligation, or a desire to “prevent future human rights abuses from happening to others.”[2] WHRDs defend a wide array of human rights and are not limited to causes that might be perceived to be of specific interest to women.[3] The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights considers anyone, regardless of gender, “who engage[s] in promotion and protection of women’s rights and gender equality,” to be a WHRD.[4] However, it is clear that a woman’s gender, along with other aspects of her identity, can create a wide array of barriers and heightened risks. When women who challenge discriminatory social norms are shunned, harassed or harmed, it may seem impossible for them to affect change at all. These types of threats and barriers must be identified and removed in order for WHRDs to be able to achieve their goals and build a strong civil society.

For this reason, the Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development (the Subcommittee) examined the gender-specific challenges affecting WHRDs and their ability to advocate for rights. The Subcommittee heard from representatives from Canadian civil society, as well as politicians, grass-roots defenders, and community organizers who have worked in Bolivia, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia, the Philippines, and Tunisia. Despite their unique experiences and the deeply personal nature of their stories, witnesses shared similar lessons about the challenges of overcoming discrimination, threats and harassment. Some spoke of how intersecting forms of discrimination, such as those facing lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) persons or indigenous persons, can increase their risks and place additional barriers in their paths to equality.[5]

While a full review of all the challenges facing WHRDs is beyond the scope of this study, understanding their lived experiences is a key first step towards offering valuable support. This report begins with an overview of the gender-specific risks taken on by WHRDs, including the threat of sexual violence, threats to their families, and misogynistic harassment. Discussion then turns to institutional-level barriers to participation in public life: hostile political environments, the prospect of impunity for crimes committed against WHRDs, and threats against civil society in general. The final section of the report relays the ways in which the WHRDs who appeared before the Subcommittee hope to be supported: through protection for WHRDs and their families, support to civil society and women-led organizations, and diplomacy and advocacy at the national and international levels. The Subcommittee makes four recommendations on this basis, including the implementation of a comprehensive action plan, with the knowledge that this study should mark only the beginning of a sustained commitment to promoting women’s participation in public life.

Risks and Threats Facing Women Human Rights Defenders

Gender-Specific Risks and Threats

Simply stated:

The oppression of girls and women because they are girls and women is still far too common. Those who break gender and social norms and speak out against injustice face a wide range of violence, including intimidation, harassment, rape, sexual torture and of course even murder.[6]

Often, the work of WHRDs, or the fact that a woman or girl is taking up human rights work at all, violates social expectations.[7] In the words of Asiya Nasir, former member of the National Assembly of Pakistan, WHRDs “face challenges across the board and have to fight the status quo on all fronts: their families, the communities they work in and even fellow human rights defenders.”[8] Furthermore, WHRDs face threats from state actors such as members of the military or police, and “a wide range of other actors,” including militias, paramilitary groups, narco-traffickers as well as employees of private security firms working for resource extraction companies.[9]

These threats have real consequences on WHRDs’ work—for example, women might have to protect themselves from physical aggression by not working after dusk.[10] Fear can also create a chilling effect on entire communities of WHRDs. Threats have led WHRDs in the Philippines to be far more circumspect in their efforts:

There is a feeling that to do too much is to catch attention, and to catch attention at this time may be counterproductive and even dangerous, which is why many people are resorting to more subtle forms of protest, if you may call them that, such as simply refusing to laugh at [President Duterte’s] jokes.[11]

Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment

Sexual violence and sexual harassment are “often the weapon of choice” used against WHRDs to “put women in their place.”[12] Witnesses described sexual violence as a “medium for torture specifically directed against women.”[13] For example, in Saudi Arabia, sexual violence has been used along with other forms of torture against prominent WHRDs.[14] Joshua Cooper, Deputy Director, ALQST, cited the emergence of reports in October 2018 that female detainees had been sexually assaulted and left “unable to walk or stand properly and […] at least one of them attempted suicide.”[15] Gloria Chicaiza, Mining Justice Coordinator, Acción Ecológica, maintained that rates of sexual violence, as well as physical violence and harassment, are elevated where the mining industry is present.[16]

WHRDs must also contend with sexual harassment within their workplaces. Sara Hossain, Honorary Executive Director, Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust, recounted the story of “serial sexual harassment” by a male colleague. Victims remained silent because “they were afraid that if they spoke out, they would be stigmatized, because most of them were single women, unmarried or divorced.”[17] Ms. Hossain explained that:

[t]his incident illustrated well for us how women human rights defenders are impacted upon by prevailing social norms and attitudes, including moral judgments based on sexuality and the enormous emphasis on marriage as a mark of respectability and worth.[18]

Impact on the Families of Women Human Rights Defenders

Those wishing to silence WHRDs target their families to a greater extent than those of male HRDs.[19] Aura Lolita Chavez Ixcaquic, Council of K'iche Peoples for the Defense of Life, Mother Nature, Land and Territory (CPK) in Guatemala described such threats as “permanent psychological torture.”[20] She told the Subcommittee: individuals threatened “to rape my daughter in front of me.”[21] Ana Quirós Víquez, Director of the Center of Information and Advisory Services in Health in Nicaragua told the Subcommittee that “[p]aramilitary groups went to the school and the university where my children studied to ask for them and to ask if I was going to be there to pick them up.”[22] For others, threats have been realized, such as the case of Rizwana Hasan, a Bangladeshi environmental lawyer whose husband was abducted over a period of two days before being found alive by police.[23]

Whether threats against family are realized or not, WHRDs must contend with the reality that their personal lives can be altered beyond recognition. Ms. Quirós Víquez had to withdraw her children from their school.[24] Ms. Chavez Ixcaquic has fled the country and has limited contact with her children.[25] Stigmatization and criminalization have left Ms. Chavez Ixcaquic unable to find work as a teacher, and therefore unable to care for her family.[26] Likewise, Arbia Jebali, President, Free Sight Association was disciplined by her employer—the Tunisian public service—for her activism.[27]

Attacks on the Character of Women Human Rights Defenders

A common refrain heard by the Subcommittee was that witnesses endured attacks on their reputation based on pejorative gender stereotypes. Stigmatization takes various forms and has many sources—including individuals, local leaders, private sector actors and the government.[28] Ms. Hossain’s female staff, for example, face “continuous commentary about themselves—about their clothing, their appearance.”[29] They are also confronted with questions about their own personal lives. Ms. Hossain noted:

They're interrogated about their own personal situations: whether they're married; if they're not married, why they're not married; how many children they have and so on. They are generally made to feel that their marital state is more relevant than their capacities and abilities to work.[30]

Ms. Chicaiza observed that women are stigmatized by local leaders either for working at home, or conversely, outside the home. She noted that indigenous and rural women are particularly exposed to harassment when they bring their children to participate in protests.[31]

Detractors often accuse WHRDs of being prostitutes, and refer to their sexual preferences—something that almost never happens to their male colleagues.[32] As one example, Teresita Quintos Deles, Chairperson of the Board of Trustees, International Center for Innovation, Transformation and Excellence in Governance (INCITEGov), told the Subcommittee that in the Philippines, President Rodrigo Duterte has labelled supporters of Senator Leila De Lima, a female political opposition figure, as “bitter,” “dried up” “old hags.”[33]

Harassment is amplified online. Rachel Vincent, Director, Advocacy and Media, Nobel Women's Initiative, stated that, online, WHRDs face “hypersexualized smear campaigns and defamation that aim to limit their activism and erode their support.”[34] The internet fosters “more explicit attacks on a woman's sexuality, her alleged failure as a mother, a wife, a daughter.”[35] In Saudi Arabia, the trolling of WHRDs is “particularly intense,” spiking when pro-government media publish unflattering news coverage.[36] Ms. Hossain explained that Bangladeshi WHRDs face “cyber-threats again in relation to their sexuality, their behaviour and their dress.”[37] With respect to the Philippines, Ms. Deles, noted, “the trolling is terrible.”[38] She recounted how quickly a fake pornographic video of Senator Leila De Lima was circulated online, permanently damaging her reputation.[39]

Ms. Chavez Ixcaquic highlighted the severe psychological repercussions of constant harassment:

It completely affects the work, because it creates a lot of fear, a lot of terror among our other female colleagues, and it revictimizes them. We've had to go through healing processes, because all of this has psychological repercussions on our day-to-day activities. There are deep effects when it comes to our work—our political work, our social work, our economic well-being, our cultural well-being.[40]

Identity and Impact

Just as WHRDs face additional obstacles based on their gender, other elements of a women’s identity can put them at further risk. Indigenous women, women working in rural areas, poor women, young women and displaced women all face additional barriers to their human rights work. WHRDs working on certain sensitive social issues, such as land rights or sexual and reproductive rights, are also at risk of facing additional resistance and harassment.[41]

According to Ms. Hossain, in Bangladesh, WHRDs who work on LGBTI rights face “a particularly severe” threat of violence, regardless of their identity. She noted that, as in many former colonies, in Bangladesh, “there are very few safe spaces to talk about LGBT[I] issues.”[42] In Nicaragua, LGBTI groups are particularly targeted when they participate in protests. Ms. Quirós Víquez noted that three transgender colleagues have been detained in the men’s jail, where they have been ordered to undress or do humiliating exercises in front of men.[43]

According to Ms. Chavez Ixcaquic, a Mayan anti-deforestation activist from Guatemala, land rights defenders face “the most significant attacks” because they work against the interests of powerful transnational firms who are supported by government actors.[44] Indigenous communities, whose way of life is strongly linked to the environment, are the most prominent group of land rights defenders.[45] Ms. Chavez Ixcaquic told the Subcommittee, an “atmosphere of racism, discrimination, violence, impunity and human rights violations has put at risk my integrity and my ability to defend human rights.”[46] Her gender attracts racism that her male indigenous counterparts do not face. She noted, “I have been stigmatized as a witch, as a prostitute, as someone who is crazy, as a stupid Indian—none of which they call my male counterparts.”[47] She observed that indigenous women “have a link or a connection with Mother Earth,”[48] and that “[their oppressors] don’t believe in the collective wisdom that women have.”[49] She noted that her traditional dress also made her a target.[50]

Changing Mindsets

In the words of Ms. Nasir, the task at hand is “to change the mindset of the people.”[51] According to Beth Woroniuk, Policy Lead, MATCH International Women’s Fund, the type of change required to empower WHRDs goes beyond more skills training or access to credit for women and WHRDs. It calls for reflection on the relationship between men and women.[52] It also calls for public education initiatives to further develop the pool of “male allies.”[53] This type of change, Ms. Woroniuk stated, happens “over generations.”[54]

Even within the world of HRDs, raising issues specific to WHRDs or HRDs from marginalized groups requires “an education process.”[55] Ms. Vincent told the Subcommittee that even the United Nations (UN) “can be a hostile environment” for WHRDs.[56] Ms. Nasir described being discriminated against by fellow WHRDs because of how she expressed her religion.[57] In Bolivia, men have contributed to making “qualitative advancements in women’s rights,”[58] but ultimately, Fernanda Elena San Martin Carrasco, Deputy, Chamber of Deputies, Bolivia, said, “it really is a masculine enclave. There is patriarchy that comes with masculine values, and that is throughout society.”[59]

Institutional Obstacles Facing Women Human Rights Defenders

Some of the most enduring obstacles facing WHRDs permeate the law, politics and state institutions, silencing WHRDs and dissuading aspiring WHRDs from participating in public life. WHRDs in many locations have reason to believe that acts committed against them will be met with impunity, particularly if they come from marginalized groups. Furthermore, many civil society organizations, and particularly those led by WHRDs, face increasing persecution from the state.

Barriers to Political Participation

The Subcommittee heard from several WHRDs who hold or who have held public office. Their testimony leads to the conclusion that even where legal protections and formal equality exist, WHRDs often continue to struggle for substantive equality in public life. Furthermore, in the political arena, misogyny can be weaponized to diminish a perceived opponent without engaging in the substance of debate.

Over 53% of parliamentarians in Bolivia’s lower house of parliament are women, due, at least in part, to electoral quotas established during the 1990s.[60] Despite this high degree of representation, female parliamentarians “are relegated to secondary status.”[61] Ms. San Martin Carrasco estimated that only about one quarter of female parliamentarians have genuine decision-making authority. No national political parties are led by women.[62] She believes that female parliamentarians face the same patriarchal culture facing women in the private sphere, where violence against women is prevalent.[63] Ms. Nasir, a former parliamentarian in Pakistan’s National Assembly also described a culture of “non-acceptance.” She noted:

When I joined politics, it was an environment where it was very hard for men to accept women leaders. They always objected, asking why they should appease a woman political leader, or why they should follow a woman leader.[64]

This statement was echoed by Ms. Jebali and by Ms. Hend Bouziri, Vice-President, Tounissiet Association, of Tunisia. Though legislation is in place to promote female political participation, women face an “aggressive” political climate.[65] Elected women do not hold decision-making roles within government or their parties, and receive less positive media coverage than male politicians.[66] Ms. Bouziri called for gender parity at the executive level and for more female participation in union leadership.[67] Women are similarly excluded from decision-making roles during the course of negotiations leading to national peace processes, despite their involvement in negotiating local ceasefires, their roles as first responders in conflict, and research indicating that WHRDs are pivotal to achieving and sustaining peace.[68]

Ms. Deles spoke with a “sense of urgency,” stating that the Philippine government “has weaponized the degradation of women to delegitimize their [agenda].”[69] Past advances in women’s rights—including broader political and economic participation[70] and “a very strong architecture of legal protection”[71]—gave WHRDs a sense of “confidence, even complacence,” that left them “unprepared for and still unable to understand” a resurgence of misogynistic attacks.[72] “The law is important,” Ms. Deles stated, “but the dilemma is that we now have leaders…who seem to think they can get away with it, and we do allow them to for a while.”[73]

Ms. Deles provided examples of President Duterte’s use of gendered slurs against female political opposition figures and trivialization of sexual violence,[74] as well as the orchestrated “slut-shaming” of several members of congress.[75] Several politically-motivated attacks against high profile female leaders, including judges, senators, UN officials and media leaders have occurred.[76]

Ms. Deles asked the Subcommittee to consider a question that no doubt runs through the minds of all WHRDs or aspiring WHRDs:

If this can be done to powerful and prominent women who already have a platform, resources and political and legal acumen, not just to defend others but also themselves, then can it be done to others with greater ease?[77]

Impunity

The rule of law, justice and enforcement “come up time and time again” as key factors enabling WHRDs to claim rights.[78] High levels of impunity prevail, silencing and demotivating WHRDs, while strengthening perpetrators.[79] Witnesses from the Americas were particularly emphatic on this point.[80] Ms. Chavez Ixcaquic and Ms. Quirós Víquez are both beneficiaries of “precautionary measures,” which are decisions of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to urgently request that governments take steps to prevent irreparable harm to the people in question. Neither feel that their governments have respected these requests.[81]

Ms. Bouziri observed that the most common forms of violence against women—harassment and sexual violence— are difficult to prove in court, particularly when there are no witnesses. Sometimes procedural rules add additional hurdles, either implicitly or explicitly.[82] Ms. Vincent agreed, stating:

Almost no survivors of sexual violence get their day in court. When they do, rarely do they see true justice as a result of that judicial process.[83]

In a similar vein, Ms. Bouziri shared that Tunisia’s transitional justice mechanisms, which had made strides to recognize the differentiated impact of past human rights violations against women, ultimately failed to sufficiently capture the extent of sexual violence or make recommendations for rehabilitation.[84]

Witnesses resoundingly called for greater enforcement of existing laws, remarking that legislation ostensibly meant to protect women from gender-based violence or to protect their rights was often not implemented, in the absence of political will.[85] Ms. Bouziri remarked that a large proportion of Tunisian women do not benefit from the country’s relatively progressive laws.[86]

Ms. San Martin Carrasco illustrated this phenomenon using the example of Bolivian legislation criminalizing political violence against women. This law, laudable as it may be, is simply not enforced. She cited a study stating that 75% of women in the Bolivian legislative assembly—herself included—have suffered harassment or violence. They do not come forward, she observed, due to fear of reprisals and politicization of their accusations, and because of a general perception that the judiciary does not sufficiently protect victims.[87] She concluded that legislation protecting women can “end up as dead letters on paper without enforcement.”[88] Ms. Quirós Víquez highlighted that in Nicaragua, legislation pertaining to violence against women was in fact being used to distract from the reality that “[p]olice departments dedicated exclusively to preventing violence against women were actually closed.”[89]

When WHRDs face intersecting forms of discrimination, those who threaten them benefit from “very high” rates of impunity.[90] The Subcommittee heard that, from Guatemala to Bangladesh, impunity is particularly rampant for crimes against indigenous WHRDs,[91] an example being the unsolved case of a 1996 abduction of a leading indigenous WHRD from Bangladesh, Kalpana Chakma.[92] Ms. Hossain explained that:

Now, more than 20 years later, the case remains under investigation. A third investigation has begun, and sees no sign of ending. It is a clear, demonstrable example of total impunity, in a particularly egregious case, and it's had a very chilling effect on women activists in that region, as well as across the country.[93]

Further, the 2016 murder of two prominent LGBTI activists remains unsolved, while authorities continue to assert that same-sex relationships are “against Bangladesh culture.”[94] Ms. Hossain explained, that the LGBTI community “can’t claim its rights under the law,” because they themselves are criminalized.[95]

Ms. Chicaiza highlighted the role of other countries in promoting access to justice, singling out countries “from which the mining companies come” and adding that:

Canada's laws need to be stricter on the compliance with human rights and ensure that companies that are operating in our territories will respect human rights and not carry out these violations due to their mining interventions, for example, by Canada, in our territory.[96]

She stated that, “without a doubt,” effective intervention is needed to put an end to the sexual and physical violence related to the presence of the mining industry.[97]

Threats Against Civil Society

In Ms. Vincent and Ms. Woroniuk’s assessment, one of the best ways to establish strong, functional judicial systems—and to combat impunity—is to support civil society. Local organizations are best placed to address their own governments, to propose solutions, and to ensure justice for human rights violations.[98] Unfortunately, “space for civil society and women’s organizations is closing,” threatening gains achieved by WHRDs as well as their own security.[99] Ms. Vincent believes this is due to rising authoritarianism, populism, and fundamentalism around the world, as well as civil strife and conflict.[100] The Subcommittee heard that threats to civil society come in many forms—hostile rhetoric, restrictions on the rights of free speech and free assembly, as well as legal and administrative obstacles. Ms. San Martin Carrasco echoed the assessment of Ms. Vincent and Ms. Woroniuk in her support for a strengthened civil society:

I think the most important thing to do is to strengthen civil society and to have a truly independent civil society. This requires mechanisms to monitor state bodies and those who carry out justice. This is very important. I think that what Canada can do is to help strengthen civil society and generate monitoring and information generating mechanisms. That will strengthen leadership by women and defenders of women's human rights who work on the ground.[101]

In the case of Saudi Arabia, since 2017, a crackdown on dissent has escalated, mainly targeting prominent WHRDs. Space for WHRDs is “at an all-time low.”[102] In Pakistan, human rights organizations “have been silenced and have been asked to leave” the country.[103] In Nicaragua, a “systematic persecution of organizations, particularly women’s organizations” is underfoot.[104] Ms. Chicaiza described two attempts to close her organization—Ecuador’s oldest environmental defense organization— through administrative measures.[105] Human rights defenders in Bangladesh contend with laws restricting foreign donations to non-governmental organizations (NGOs), as well as overly-broad laws that criminalize speech deemed to criticize the national image or offend religious sentiment.[106]

Often, restrictive laws are accompanied by official harassment and hostile rhetoric. Ms. Quirós Víquez described an online campaign qualifying her public health advocacy NGO as a terrorist organization backed by the United States (US).[107] Pro-government Saudi media also portray WHRDs as traitors.[108] Witnesses also experienced measures designed to increase levels of stigmatization and harassment, such as displaying their faces on public billboards,[109] or being directly named and criticized by politicians.[110]

Supporting a Strong, Secure and Independent Civil Society

It is essential to enable all WHRDs and women-led civil society organizations to act from a position of strength, security and independence.[111] Given the social attitudes and structural barriers that combine to create heightened risks for WHRDs, supporting their participation in public life is a complex, multi-layered endeavor. Witnesses considered how to protect individual WHRDs, how to support civil society organizations through funding, which diplomatic initiatives would be beneficial, and how the conduct of states such as Canada on the world stage impacts WHRDs’ ability to participate in public life. Each of these interconnected issues are discussed in turn below.

Protecting Women Human Rights Defenders in Peril

Witnesses repeatedly drew the Subcommittee’s attention to WHRDs who have relocated to escape threats to their lives or those of their family members. Witnesses also spoke about initiatives that have been developed to protect those at greatest risk. For example, regional networks currently facilitate the relocation of WHRDs to a second country to avoid immediate danger, provide support during temporary displacement, and facilitate their return.[112] Ms. Chavez Ixcaquic benefitted from such a program and addressed the Subcommittee from outside her native Guatemala.[113]

Ms. Woroniuk considered the potential positive impact of providing swift assistance to imperilled WHRDs by issuing emergency visas. This type of measure is contemplated in the European Union’s guidelines on HRDs and has been implemented in the Netherlands.[114] Through a written brief to the Subcommittee, Sisters in Trust, a Canadian NGO dedicated to protecting WHRDs, called on the Government Canada to create a “fast-track” for asylum claims made by WHRDs.[115] Reflecting on the high-profile case of Rahaf Mohammad, a young Saudi woman granted asylum in Canada, Mr. Cooper noted that her application was successful “thanks to a prominent media campaign and advocacy efforts,” but that others “have not been so lucky.”[116]

The Subcommittee also heard about the importance of supporting WHRDs who have already relocated or who have been forcibly displaced. Displacement deprives WHRDs of much-needed networks and resources, including funding.[117] Ms. Woroniuk pointed to a Dutch initiative to establish a network of shelter cities where HRDs could stay for a period of up to three months.[118] In the Netherlands, 12 shelter cities have been identified to allow HRDs to “refresh, do further training and build their network of contacts with other human rights defenders.”[119] Similar initiatives have been established in the Americas and in Africa, and are at various stages of development elsewhere in Europe. However, it is unclear to what extent shelter cities have programs tailored specifically to WHRDs.[120] Sisters Trust Canada emphasized the importance of professional integration initiatives and better access to services, among other measures.[121]

Funding and Capacity Building for Women’s Organizations

Ms. Woroniuk told the Subcommittee, that “[w]e have heard over and over again from front-line defenders that their best protection is a strong movement behind them.”[122] When WHRDs can rely on strong organizations, they can develop and implement self‑protection strategies, train for leadership and network effectively with others.[123] Ms. Deles highlighted the importance of transferring knowledge to a new generation of WHRDs, and to benefit from the skills of young WHRDs, particularly with respect to the online world.[124] Ms. Deles also emphasized the need to engage with like-minded organizations across Asia to form a common front, because, in her view, the situation in her country is “a cautionary tale for other women.”[125] In light of the crackdown on civil society in Saudi Arabia, Mr. Cooper also highlighted the importance of maintaining an international network to link people in the country to members of the diaspora to perform the crucial task of documenting human rights violations.[126]

To succeed, organizations led by WHRDs need financial and practical resources in the form of long-term and predictable core funding, as well as program funding.[127] Core funding could address issues of staffing—a problem raised by Ms. Deles, whose organization does not have enough full-time employees to accomplish its goals.[128] Witnesses discussed training programs to enhance WHRD skillsets, particularly related to support and legal redress for survivors of violence.[129] WHRDs also discussed training for self-protection. Digital security was identified as being “of prime importance.”[130] Women’s organizations have been “highly creative in dealing with digital threats.”[131] For example, in response to the circulation of a fake pornographic video purporting to depict a female opposition leader, a social media campaign emerged wherein large numbers of women claimed to be the woman in the video. The campaign began with posts by fifty women but ultimately received millions of reposts.[132]

Ms. Woroniuk told the Subcommittee:

Local organizations of defenders usually know what they need, the skills they're lacking and where to get them, and are often best placed to design their own training…but what they often lack is the resources to put their plans into action.[133]

As such, Ms. Woroniuk emphasized that instead of designing made-in-Canada training programs, “supporting these organizations is the best way to go.”[134]

Ms. Woroniuk expressed optimism about two of the Government of Canada’s funding initiatives that provide direct funding to local women’s organizations under Canada’s 2017 International Assistance Policy – the Women's Voice and Leadership Initiative and the Partnership for Gender Equality. However, she noted, more could be done.[135] She observed that bureaucratic obstacles are compromising the ability of groups on the ground to actually receive the support they need.[136] In response to a question about whether funding from a foreign government could compromise an organization’s perceived legitimacy, Ms. San Martin Carrasco noted that, in the case of Bolivia, Canadian funding would not carry the same “imperialist” connotations as funding from other countries such as the US.[137]

Diplomacy and Advocacy

Witnesses were in resounding agreement: to protect WHRDs, international pressure is both necessary and effective.[138] Mr. Cooper noted, when HRDs cannot speak for themselves, “it really falls upon the international community” to speak on their behalf.[139] Witnesses hoped that international efforts would “break the climate of fear and impunity.”[140]

A Role for Canadian Diplomatic Missions: From Guidelines to Action

Witnesses discussed the role of Canadian diplomatic missions in protecting WHRDs and civil society space. The Subcommittee heard that, in this regard, “Canada is making some advances.”[141] In 2017, the Government of Canada published Voices at risk: Canada’s guidelines on supporting human rights defenders, intended “to complement and support the ongoing work of Canada’s diplomatic corps.”[142] The Subcommittee learned that, as of Spring 2019, this document was being revised by Global Affairs Canada (GAC) to reflect the specific experiences of WHRDs.[143]

However, Ms. Vincent spoke frankly, stating, “if Canada is serious about human rights and women human rights defenders, we need much more than a set of guidelines.”[144] Witnesses proposed more active roles for Canadian diplomatic missions, including proactive monitoring, increased responsiveness to hostile rhetoric against WHRDs, and more effective partnership-building with local civil society and, particularly, WHRDs. Both Ms. Chavez Ixcaquic and Ms. San Martin Carrasco urged the Government of Canada to establish a monitoring and information-gathering capacity, and to use Canada’s HRD guidelines as a baseline for evaluation.[145] Ms. Chavez Ixcaquic hoped that Canadian diplomatic officials could verify the situation of specific WHRDs through dialogues and through monitoring Canadian businesses operating in Guatemalan territory.[146]

In the specific case of the Philippines, Ms. Deles recommended that Canadian representatives respond more directly to local political discourse in addition to supporting programming. She stated, “we are aware of your programs for women and their livelihoods, but there’s a bigger assault now.”[147] Ms. Deles also highlighted that the Canadian mission needs to regain the trust of civil society and NGOs as true partners.[148] Ms. Nasir issued a strikingly similar call, with respect to Pakistan:

We need to see the Canadian government and the Canadian high commission in Pakistan working more on the political side, with political representations to review governmental policies regarding the [international non-governmental organizations] working in the human rights sector.[149]

Mainstreaming Support for Women Human Rights Defenders Throughout Canada’s Foreign Policy

Protecting individuals and strengthening civil society organizations may not be sufficient to empower WHRDs and aspiring WHRDs. Ms. Woroniuk highlighted that “it is important to ensure that all lines of Canadian policy and all international actions create and expand the space for civil society activists to operate.”[150] Mr. Cooper noted “the pressure must be sustained. It must be extended beyond the release of [detained WHRDs], but also call for comprehensive reform.”[151] Witnesses expressed hope for a variety of bilateral and multilateral diplomatic interventions. They called for the Government of Canada to make public statements and engage in bilateral dialogue to push for respect for civil and political rights, including free speech and freedom of association.[152] This includes urging governments to lift restrictions on NGO funding.[153] In the case of Saudi Arabia, this would also mean calling for an end to the male guardianship system.[154] Ms. Woroniuk suggested that trade deals are also an important opportunity to draw attention to issues impacting WHRDs.[155]

In this context, witnesses also called on the Government of Canada to use multilateral fora to amplify women’s voices. Ms. Woroniuk called on the Government of Canada to continue to advocate for women’s participation within the UN system, including  in peacekeeping operations.[156] She also advocated for increased and more meaningful inclusion for WHRDs in peace negotiations.[157] Ms. Vincent highlighted Canada’s important role in advocating for women's inclusion in peace processes, noting that “Canada has played a good behind-the-scenes role in the past.”[158]

To combat impunity, witnesses called on the Government of Canada to make the most of its role in the Organization of American States,[159] to support bodies fighting corruption and impunity, such as the International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala,[160] and to insist on justice for perpetrators of crimes against humanity, including by imposing sanctions on those engaged in gross violations of internationally recognized human rights.[161]

Likewise, the Government of Canada has a role in ensuring that Canadian businesses respect human rights and environmental standards.[162] Ms. Chicaiza believes that the intervention of an ombudsperson, such as the newly created office of the Canadian Ombudsperson for Responsible Enterprise, is essential. Any investigator, she added, must be independent of the mining industry. She also hoped for greater access to Canadian courts.[163]

A Coordinated Response

Governments can act as key players in building public awareness by recognizing “the legitimacy and credibility of women defenders and a need to focus on them, in particular, for protection and support.”[164] In order for the Government of Canada to support WHRDs, “their work and their challenges must be visible and understood,” particularly by policy-makers and diplomats.[165] Policies will fail WHRDs unless their needs are specifically taken into account.[166] Indeed, a 2013 UN General Assembly resolution on WHRDs calls on states not only to put in place laws and policies for the protection of WHRDs and their families, but to include WHRDs in these measures’ design and implementation.[167] In this regard, the Subcommittee believes that the Parliament of Canada is well-positioned to amplify the voices of WHRDs, and to call attention to the extraordinary risks which they take to champion their causes. In light of the testimony, the Subcommittee makes the following recommendations:

Recommendation 1 – Building an Action Plan to Support Women Human Rights Defenders

That the Government of Canada develop an action plan to:

• establish processes and procedures for expediting emergency visas for women human rights defenders and their families when they are in imminent danger;
• ensure that infrastructure and resources are in place to be ready to assist in temporarily relocating women human rights defenders and their families into Canada or other countries;
• study and report on international best practices regarding the temporary or permanent relocation of women human rights defenders and their families when they are under threat or in imminent danger;
• enhance measures to support women human rights defenders and their organizations abroad, including through core funding and funding for locally-developed training programs;
• establish indicators for evaluating women-led civil society organizations’ ability to operate freely, proactively monitor their status, and raise the cases of at-risk individuals or organizations with governments and other partners, as appropriate;
• enhance, through diplomatic missions, efforts to identify and partner with women’s human rights organizations that can use Canadian support through measures such as funding or advocacy; and
• develop an information campaign to raise international awareness about the programs and assistance that Canada offers to support women human rights defenders.

In developing and implementing this action plan, the Government of Canada should continually consult and coordinate with the international community, including but not limited to, the United Nations, regional organizations, like-minded states and other partners.

Recommendation 2—Combatting Impunity

That Global Affairs Canada engage bilaterally and multilaterally to combat impunity for human rights violations against women human rights defenders.

Recommendation 3—Promoting Respect for Human Rights in the Private Sector

That Global Affairs Canada act decisively to ensure that Canadian businesses respect human rights abroad, particularly through the office of the Canadian Ombudsperson for Responsible Enterprise.

Recommendation 4—Seizing All Opportunities to Support Women Human Rights Defenders through Canadian Diplomacy

That the Government of Canada ensure that all foreign policy choices are consistent with the goal of facilitating women human rights defenders’ participation in public discourse, political processes including conflict resolution, as well as national and international institutions.

Conclusion

The Subcommittee listened carefully to witnesses from all walks of life—from indigenous land rights defenders to parliamentarians, lawyers to public health workers. They came from the Americas, from South and Southeast Asia and from the Middle East and North Africa. They shared profoundly personal, often tragic stories. In doing so, they entrusted the Subcommittee, and the Canadian public, with the task of amplifying their voices.

They told us that WHRDs “have to fight the status quo on all fronts.”[168] They face resistance from their families, community and even fellow HRDs.[169] Those who are not silenced by threats of sexual violence, threats to their family, or the prospect of smear campaigns are often failed by their national institutions. National politics remains an unwelcoming arena for women, even where the law provides measures to enhance women’s participation. Judicial institutions are often ill-equipped to address the most common forms of violence against WHRDs. In many places, the space for civil society is closing, with WHRD-led organizations particularly vulnerable to state interference.

What should  be done? Changing attitudes about women happens “over generations.”[170] Ms. Deles warned us not to rest on past victories for the rights of women—complacency, she noted, has left her community of WHRDs unprepared to deal with resurgent misogyny.[171] In that spirit, the Subcommittee has made recommendations to the Government of Canada based on the priorities identified by witnesses: supporting a strong, secure and independent civil society through funding and strengthened partnerships; empowering diplomatic missions and giving them the tools to defend WHRDs; providing immediate protection to WHRDs in peril through expedited and well-resourced immigration arrangements; and mainstreaming concern for civil society space and WHRDs across Canada’s foreign policy initiatives—in bilateral settings and across a variety of multinational forums.

Through this study, the Subcommittee attempted to call attention to the challenges facing WHRDs, as well as their resilience. Too many aspiring WHRDs are forced to remain silent. We should continue to ask ourselves how to empower more women to participate in public life.