Gender-Based Violence: Motion
Wednesday, 26 October 2011
Senator Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after “That” and substitute the following:
“Seanad Éireann, condemning in the strongest terms female infanticide and all other violations of the rights of women and girls,
commends the Government’s firm opposition to such practices and its efforts to combat all forms of gender-based violence;
endorses the Government’s strong support for gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls through its Official Development Assistance Programme.”.
I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Perry, to the House and the opportunity to debate this important issue. The Government’s amendment to the motion encapsulates the sentiments and motivation behind the motion by Senators Mullen and Quinn while addressing some of the reservations we had about aspects of the wording.
It is important to stress the Government amendment, like the motion tabled by the university Senators, condemns in the strongest terms female infanticide and all other violations of the rights of women and girls, while commending the Government’s opposition to such practices and its efforts to combat all forms of gender-based violence and endorsing its strong support for gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls through its official development assistance programme. This support for gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls goes to the heart of the matter and the reason this issue is as important as it is.
I will deal with some of the reservations the Government has with the wording of the motion. The term “gendercide” has had some usage in the media and was first coined in 1985, but its definition is not yet fully accepted and it is not used in mainstream development terminology. There are questions as to what the word applies to and interesting work has been done on the idea that the term is gender neutral and, therefore, does not apply specifically to the infanticide of girls. The most common occurrence of gender-based mass killings involves young battle-aged men. Throughout history state-directed gender-selective mass killings have overwhelmingly involved men. There is, therefore, an interesting debate about the meaning of “gendercide”.
Leaving the definitional point aside, we agree with the sentiments expressed in the motion. However, we have other reservations about certain elements of the motion. It would be wrong to single out China and India and suggest problems covered by what could be meant by gendercide are to be found solely in these countries. It would also be wrong to suggest the governments of these countries somehow tolerate or promote, as the motion states, this practice. That is not the case. Senator Feargal Quinn fairly accepted that certain practices were illegal in India. The Government also points out that during the years Ireland has had a strong record of advocacy in EU and UN frameworks on issues relating to the rights of women and girls. Our official development co-operation programme has a strong emphasis on gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls. The Irish Aid bilateral programme is strongly concentrated, as Senator Rónán Mullen knows, in sub-Saharan Africa which is not an area in which problems associated with the term have arisen.
As I stated, the Government amendment is preferable, as while encapsulating the sentiments of the motion, it does not limit condemnation of female infanticide to a particular state and does not suggest a particular state promotes or tolerate it. However, a bigger issue arises which we should debate, that is, the status of women and girls in societies in which girls are singled out for inferior treatment, even extending to killing.
An article headlined “Gendercide” in The Economist of 4 March 2010, to which Senator Rónán Mullen referred, stated the status of women was critical to the issue and pointed out that baby girls had been victims of a malign combination of ancient prejudice and modern preferences for small families. It also expressed hope this could change. The Economist suggested significant change had taken place in South Korea:
In the 1990s South Korea had a sex ratio almost as skewed as China’s. Now, it is heading towards normality. It has achieved this not deliberately, but because the culture changed. Female education, anti-discrimination suits and equal-rights rulings made son preference [a preference for boys] seem old-fashioned and unnecessary. The forces of modernity first exacerbated prejudice — then overwhelmed it.
The Economist continued to state China should scrap its one child policy. I absolutely agree with this. I visited China with the British Council and one of the issues on which we worked was the empowerment of women and the ending of the coercive one child policy. TheEconomist points out that to tackle these issues all countries need to raise the value of girls and encourage female education, abolish laws and customs that prevent daughters from inheriting property and get women engaged in public life. This is critical.
The need to empower women and girls is recognised in Irish policy on overseas development aid. Earlier today, at the launch of the UNFPA state of the world population report for 2011, the Minister of State, Deputy Jan O’Sullivan, spoke about the challenge to break the vicious cycle of poverty in the developing world through empowering girls and women. She spoke about the need to invest in health, particularly sexual and reproductive health, and education services for women and girls. She also stated — this is absolutely uncontested — that in country after country women and girls who had completed at least primary school education choose to have fewer children. This can lead to a more prosperous society and a society in which women and men are more equal. The Minister of State pointed out that the 2011 UNFPA report clearly stated that governments serious about eradicating poverty should also be serious about providing the services, supplies and information that women, men and young people needed to exercise their reproductive rights. The Minister of State’s speech at the launch of the report expressed very clearly the Government’s commitment to tackling the disempowerment and disadvantage of women and girls throughout the world.
In my work for many years I have always sought to ensure women and girls are empowered and that we see reproductive choices made available to women and girls. It is in this context that I very much oppose the coercive one child policy in China. I have worked with Plan Ireland which conducts a very effective “Because I am a Girl” campaign aimed at tackling, in particular, female poverty in developing countries and empowering women to break the vicious cycle of poverty for families and children. For me, the issues expressed in the motion and the Government amendment are about empowering women and girls. Many societies, including our own, have for far too long been repressive of women and sought to control women’s bodily integrity. In Ireland we forced women who had children outside marriage into Magdalene institutions and children born outside marriage into institutions in which terrible abuses occurred. What changed this was a change in culture. As happened in South Korea, we changed the culture to value women and girls more and give them rights; to give women reproductive choices; to introduce the unmarried mother allowance as it was then known, which had a hugely empowering effect on women; and to legalise contraception and access to information on abortion. All of these have helped to empower women and children in our society.
We must continue our work. I entirely agree that we must condemn in the strongest possible terms any practices which violate the rights of women and girls. I see my legislation on female genital mutilation in this context. It seeks to express utter condemnation of practices of female genital mutilation carried out in Ireland or other countries. As we know, it is estimated that there are approximately 2,500 women and girls in Ireland who have been subject to female genital mutilation. It is a very important issue to do with women’s reproductive rights and their right to health and bodily integrity. In this context, I am delighted to propose the Government amendment.
