The CEDAW People's Tribunal (Part 1)

By Gita Sahgal, a founder of the Centre for Secular Space, which opposes fundamentalism, amplifies secular voices and promotes universality in human rights.

The CEDAW Peoples Tribunal, a fine-sounding, but rather mysterious event is taking place over three days from today, June 21st to June 23rd. You can watch it here: https://www.cedawpt.com/

Witnesses will give evidence on the implementation of CEDAW, a UN treaty whose full title is the Convention on the Elimination of All  Discrimination against Women.

CEDAW is also known as an International Bill of Rights for Women. The purpose of the Tribunal which has a number of eminent human rights lawyers sitting as ‘Judges’ is to examine the implementation of CEDAW in Britain and argue for CEDAW to be legislated into law as a  Women’s Bill of Rights. The conclusion of the Tribunal then, has been pre-determined. But other than that, it is completely opaque.

Forty-nine legal assistants are listed on the website of the tribunal. Yes, that is not a mistake, there are 49 people assisting, as are 6 barristers from the prominent legal chambers, Garden Court, who have proudly announced their pro-bono service to the Tribunal, and a solicitor. There is also a steering group, and various advisers all of whom are listed at length. Although the Tribunal is lawyer-heavy – it is supremely law lite. None of the advisors or barristers have produced a single, legal paper arguing for a Bill of Rights. No one has produced a policy document on the political landscape and the risks and opportunities of making such a demand on a government profoundly hostile to human rights. Had I been in charge of the process, I would have instructed all those legal assistants who are using the tribunal to burnish their CVs, to examine existing legislation, law, policy and practice for compliance with CEDAW.

You might think that this is the job of the hearings of the tribunal. Since CEDAW covers all areas of life (of which more in a further blog), that is a huge task which cannot be sufficiently addressed in just three days of verbal testimony, without supporting evidence.  In sharp contrast to the extensive CVs, huge photographs  and social media trumpeting of all the lawyers involved in the tribunal, the witnesses are anonymous.

I am absolutely certain that, none of the women I know, who are participating, chose anonymity. They are seasoned and dedicated feminist professionals used to producing evidence-based research and speaking publicly at campaigning meetings and parliamentary committees. For them, this tribunal is another precious chance to have a platform to air the serious threat to the human rights and lives of women and girls that they serve. They have produced written evidence, none of which has been uploaded either, so that it can be read prior to hearing their verbal testimony.

No doubt, anyone watching the hearings will find out who the witnesses are as the hearings progress. But it is really quite extraordinary, that the people whose brainchild was the tribunal – who appear to the Backto60 campaign on women’s pension rights – have failed to publish and publicise a list of those due to speak, along with their CVs, supporting statements and the topics that they will address. Such secrecy is hardly the way to gather public support. Support which is vital for the ambitious undertaking that is the tribunal.

Is this simply monumental incompetence? Or is it to prevent the public and witnesses from working together to draw the attention of the tribunal to what is known as the Shadow CEDAW process – the report signed and agreed by over 70 grassroots women's organisations. Dr Davina Lloyd is the only individual name and she is listed as (CEDAW Peoples Tribunal).

The lead organisation that co-ordinates NGO evidence to CEDAW is the Women’s Resource Centre. They were not approached by the CEDAW Peoples Tribunal and are not participating. This surely cannot be right. This flawed process has suppressed the collective findings of leading women’s organisations in the frontline and the demands that they have agreed to put before the governments of the nations of the United Kingdom. But could there be something even more troubling going on, which goes to the heart of the question of our times – one never before defined in international human rights law – what is a woman?

(In the next article for this series I am writing for FiLiA, I will address why CEDAW does matter, explain the Shadow process and why we should all be promoting its findings regardless of what the tribunal does. I will also ask whether some aspects of the tribunal’s process and demands and personnel could be a threat to women’s human rights.)