The United Nations “voted” Saudi Arabia 47/54 into the “Women’s Rights Commission.”
Saudi Arabia is a rancid stain on humanity and has no business “sitting” on the United Nations “Human Rights Council.”
It’s “preposterous” that a country that “beheads” people with the same “gusto” as Islamic State for crimes such as “atheism, apostasy, blasphemy, idolatry, sodomy and sorcery,” as well as condemning millions of women to a “miserable existence as subservient slaves,” is lecturing the world on “human rights.”
Now, in a “move” that marks the UN as beyond “parody,” the Saudis have been “elected” to a body charged with “advancing“ the rights of women.
It’s akin to “selecting” a known “pedophile” to run the police’s ”child safety” unit.
Indeed, it’s hard to think of an “analogy” that is as farcical as the “despot” kingdom being elected to the UN “Women’s Commission” which is “exclusively dedicated to the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of women”.
It may be 2017 in the “civilized” world but the Saudis continue to “conduct their affairs with a backward brutality that’s reminiscent of the Dark Ages.”
Women are treated “worse” than second-class citizens from the “cradle to the grave” in a country where the “legal” system is based on “medieval” religious texts.
Saudi Arabia’s “Women in Society Conference 2012,” consisting of only men.
Sharia or Islamic law is used to “subjugate” women in every facet of life with a form of “institutionalized discrimination” that is unrelenting.
Saudi Arabia’s “gender-based” laws and customs are among the “harshest” in the world.
It is the only country where women are not “allowed” to leave the house “alone or to drive” because it will apparently “corrupt society” and even lead to the female driver’s “ovaries” malfunctioning.
Sheikh Saleh bin Saad al-Lohaidan “explained” in an interview in 2013 why allowing women behind the wheel was “deeply” problematic:
“If a woman drives a car that could have negative physiological impacts as functional and physiological medical studies show that it automatically affects the ovaries and pushes the pelvis upwards. That is why we find those who regularly drive have children with clinical problems of varying degrees.”
More recently, Grand Mufti Abdul-Aziz ibn Abdullah Al ash-Sheikh has said that “permitting” women to drive was a “dangerous matter that should not be permitted and that driving would expose women to evil.”
The Saudis “embrace” a strict brand of Sunni Islam known as “Wahhabism” and use their enormous wealth to export that “abhorrent” ideology to the world.
Their money buys “influence” among academics, politicians and activists. It also sees them “proudly” sitting on the UNHRC and now the UN Women’s Commission, but their “riches” should not make them “immune” from criticism and sanctions.
Saudi Arabia’s disdain for “decency and equality” is not restricted to the “treatment” of women; they also “persecute” non-Muslims, which in Saudi eyes include “Shiite” Muslims, with religious “intolerance” enshrined in law.
In Saudi Arabia, a woman’s life is “controlled” by a man from “birth until death.” Every Saudi woman must have a “male” guardian, normally a father or husband, but in some cases a “brother or even a son,” who has the power to make a range of “critical” decisions on her behalf.
As dozens of Saudi women told “Human Rights Watch,” the male guardianship system is the most significant “impediment” to realizing women’s rights in the country, effectively “rendering” adult women as legal minors who “cannot make key decisions for themselves.”
Rania, a 34-year-old Saudi woman, said, “We are entrusted with raising the next generation but you can’t trust us with ourselves. It doesn’t make any sense.”
Every Saudi woman, regardless of her “economic or social class,” is adversely affected by “guardianship” policies.
Adult women must obtain “permission” from a male guardian to “travel, marry, or exit prison.” They may be required to “provide” guardian consent in order to “work or access healthcare.”
Women regularly face “difficulty” conducting a range of transactions without a male relative, from “renting an apartment to filing legal claims.”
The impact these “restrictive” policies have on a woman’s ability to “pursue” a career or make life “decisions” varies, but is largely “dependent” on the good will of her male guardian.
In some cases, men use the “authority” that the male guardianship system grants them to “extort” female dependents. Guardians have conditioned their “consent” for women to work or to travel on her “paying” him large sums of money.
Women’s rights “activists” in Saudi Arabia have repeatedly called on the government to “abolish” the male guardianship system, which the government “agreed” to do in 2009 and again in 2013 after its “Universal Periodic Review” (UPR) at the United Nations Human Rights Council.
Following both “hearings,” Saudi Arabia took limited steps to “reform” certain aspects of the guardianship system. But, these changes remain “insufficient, incomplete, and ineffective;” today, the guardianship system “remains” mostly intact.
Until the guardianship system is “removed” entirely, Saudi Arabia will remain in “violation” of its human rights “obligations” and unable to realize its “Vision 2030,” the country’s “vision for the future,” that declares women—half of the country’s population—to be a “great asset” whose talents will be “developed” for the good of the country’s “society and economy.”
Women’s Council Meeting, all men.
Saudi Arabia has made a series of “limited” changes over the last 10 years to “ease” restrictions on women. Notable examples include allowing women to “participate” in the country’s limited “political” activities, actively “encouraging” women to enter the “labor” market, and taking steps to better respond to “domestic violence.”
For example, in 2013, then-King Abdullah appointed 30 women to the “Shura Council,” his highest advisory body. On December 12, 2015, authorities “allowed” women to participate in municipal council elections, and women “voting” and running as candidates for the “first time” in the country’s history.
The elections were a significant, “symbolic” victory for women, particularly as many women had “campaigned” for this right for more than a “decade.”
In recent years, Saudi Arabia has also “issued” a range of decisions significantly “increasing” women’s access to the labor market, as part of a broader “economic reform” program aimed at decreasing the country’s “reliance” on oil.
These include removing language in the “labor law” that previously restricted women’s work to certain fields “suitable to their nature,” and no longer requiring that woman have “guardian permission to work.”
Authorities have provided “incentives” to employers to hire women and “earmarked” certain positions for women and provided thousands of “scholarships” for women to study in universities abroad.
Saudi Arabia has also taken steps to better respond to “violence” against women and to provide women with better “access” to government services. In 2013, it passed a law criminalizing “domestic abuse” and, in 2016, established a center specifically tasked with “receiving and responding” to reports of family violence.
Saudi Arabia has also worked to “improve” women’s access to government services, including enabling women to “secure” their own ID cards; issuing to “divorced and widowed” women family cards, which specify “familial” relationships and are required to “conduct” a number of bureaucratic tasks; and “removing” requirements that a woman bring a male relative to “identify” them in court.
While the “reforms” are a step in the right direction, they “remain” partial and incomplete. The male “guardianship” system remains largely in place, “hindering” and in some cases “nullifying” the efficacy of these reforms.
As Hayat, 44, said, “I don’t believe we can change this in small steps. It is what is happening right now. We need a very brave call from the government to remove this guardianship and make it equal.”
While women now “serve” on the Shura Council and on municipal councils, these victories remain “limited” and authorities continue to curb women’s “ability” to participate in public life. Women made up less than 10 percent of the final list of “registered” voters for the December 15, 2015 elections.
Many women faced “barriers” linked to the guardianship system when “registering” to vote, such as a requirement to prove “residency” in their voting district—“a difficult or impossible task for many women whose names are not generally listed on housing deeds or rental agreements”—or a requirement to “present” a family card, often held by a male guardian.
In the end, only 21 women were “elected” to the municipal councils out of 2,106 “contested” seats. Municipal councils themselves have limited “authority” and, in January 2016, the government “decreed” council meetings would be “sex” segregated—women councilors must participate via “video” link. Following the announcement, a woman councilor “stepped” down.
The guardianship system also “impacts” women’s ability to seek work “inside” Saudi Arabia and to pursue opportunities “abroad” that might advance their careers.
Specifically, women may not “apply” for a passport without male guardian “approval” and require permission to “travel” outside the country.
Women also cannot “study” abroad on a government scholarship without “guardian” approval and, while not always “enforced,” officially require a male relative to “accompany” them throughout the course of their studies.
Zahra, 25, whose father “refused” to allow her to study abroad, said, “Whenever someone tells me, ‘You should have a five-year plan,’ I say I can’t. I’ll have a five-year plan and then my dad would disagree. Why have a plan?”
If the Saudi government intends to end “discrimination” against women as it has “promised” and to further the “reforms” it has already begun to undertake, it cannot allow “restrictions inherent within the guardianship system to continue. “
For example, the government does not “require” guardian permission for women to work, but does not “penalize” employers who do require this permission.
The government does encourage employers to “hire” women, but requires employers to establish “separate” office spaces for men and women and to enforce a “strict dress” code on women, policies which create “disincentives” to hiring women.
The need for “substantial,” systemic reform is perhaps “starkest” with regard to the state’s response to “violence” against women. Saudi Arabia has taken steps to better respond to “abuse,” but has done so within the “framework” of guardianship.
The guardianship system allows men to “control” many aspects of women’s lives and makes it difficult for “survivors” of family violence to avail themselves of “protection or redress mechanisms.”
The extreme difficulty of “transferring” male guardianship from one male to another and the severe “inequality” in divorce rules make it difficult for women to “escape” abuse.
Men “remain” women’s guardians, with all the associated “levers of control,” during court proceedings, and until a “divorce” is finalized.
There is deeply entrenched “discrimination” within the legal system, and courts recognize “legal claims” brought by guardians against female dependents that “restrict” women’s movement or “enforce” a guardian’s authority over them.
Women who have escaped “abuse” in shelters and in prisons require a male relative to “agree” to their release before they may “exit” state facilities.
Dr. Heba, a women’s rights activist, explained, “The authorities keep a woman in jail until her legal guardian comes and gets her, even if he is the one who put her in jail.”
Several days before the vote, Mariam al-Oteibi, 29, fled “abusive” family members in al-Qassim Province for Riyadh, only to be “captured” by authorities and “jailed” for having the temerity to “dream of making her own life decisions.” She currently sits in “Buraida Prison” back in al-Qassim.
Mariam chafed for years under the “oppressive” male guardianship system which forbids women from obtaining a “passport, marrying, or traveling” abroad without the approval of a “male” guardian, usually a husband, father, brother, or son.
Authorities previously arrested Mariam briefly in November 2016, after she “attempted” to file an abuse “claim” against her brother, but her family “pre-empted” her and had her jailed on a counter “disobedience” complaint. Following a brief “detention,” authorities returned her to her family and the “abuse” continued.
Failing to “abolish” these and other tools available to male guardians to “control and extort” female dependents will guarantee that women continue to “face” tremendous obstacles when trying to seek “help or flee” abuse by violent guardians or simply to “pursue” paths different than the ones their “guardians” have determined best.
Saudi officials often argue that the failure to end “discrimination” against women is not due to “state” policy, but due to difficulties in “implementation,” and that the country must move slowly as the government’s “hands are tied” by a conservative culture and a powerful “clerical” establishment’s interpretation of “Islamic law.”
Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman told the Economist that women’s “travel” was not entirely restricted, and pointed to “social and religious” criteria to explain the “restrictions” that he believed existed. When asked why women’s labor force “participation” was so low, he said, “The culture of women in Saudi Arabia. The woman herself.”
Saudi Arabia’s “imposition” of the guardianship system is grounded in the most restrictive “interpretation” of an ambiguous Qur’anic verse—an interpretation “challenged” by dozens of Saudi women, including “professors and Islamic feminists,” who spoke to Human Rights Watch.
Religious scholars also “challenge” the interpretation, including a former Saudi “judge” who told Human Rights Watch that the country’s “imposition of guardianship is not required by Sharia” and the former head of the “religious police,” also a respected religious scholar, said “Saudi Arabia’s ban on women driving is not mandated by Islamic law in 2013.”
The state clearly and directly “enforces” guardianship requirements in certain areas, including restricting women’s ability to “travel” and requiring guardian consent for a woman to “marry.”
In other areas, there appear to be no “written legal provisions or official decrees” explicitly mandating a guardian’s “consent or presence,” but public officials and private businesses “ask women for either without fear of sanction.”
Saudi Arabia, which acceded to the “United Nations Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women” (CEDAW) in 2000, is “legally” obligated to end “discrimination against women without delay, including by abolishing the male guardianship system.”
As long as it “fails” to take steps to eliminate the discriminatory practices of “male guardianship and sex segregation,” the government is undermining the “ability of women to enjoy even the most basic rights.”
In April 2016, Saudi Arabia announced “Vision 2030,” which declares that the government will “continue to develop women’s talents, invest in their productive capabilities and enable them to strengthen their future and contribute to the development of our society and economy.”
The government cannot “achieve this vision“ if it does not “abolish” the male guardianship system, which severely “restricts” women’s ability to participate meaningfully in Saudi “society” and its economy.
In discussing the “role of women” in Saudi Arabia and the “pace of change,” Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman said in his Economist interview, “It just takes time.”
That time is now.
How was Saudi Arabia Voted onto a UN Women’s Panel?
No room for girls at a ‘women’s conference’ in Saudi: Is this ridiculous spectacle real?
First Meeting of Saudi Arabia’s ‘Women’s Council’ Features All Men
