Silence, because not everyone feels able to speak up.

Cross posted from my home blog.

Today is the National day of silence.
This is a piece written by an ally for allys, it is very 101 level, please keep this in mind.

“The National Day of Silence is a day of action in which students acrossthe country vow to take a form of silence to call attention to the silencingeffect of homophobic, biphobic and transphobic bullying, name-calling andharassment in schools. The goal of the Day of Silence is to make schools saferfor all students, regardless of sexual orientation and genderidentity/expression. Students across the country participate in the Day ofSilence to bring attention to this problem, let students who experience suchbullying know that they are not alone and ask schools to take action to addressthe problem. There is no single way to participate, and students are encouragedto take part in the way that is the most positive and uplifting for theirschool.”

I often worry about feminism on NZ twitter being an echo chamber, but I haven’t seen much this week about today’s call to action, which made me think that if I’m in an echo chamber, surely this message should be coming through?

Perhaps enough people aren’t sharing the issues that rainbow youth are struggling with…
It seems counter intuitive that a day of silence should empower voices, but the aim is not simply to not speak up. It is to share the cause, using a multitude of ways.

Selfies for silence is one of those non-verbal ways; take a look at the great messages coming through.

Often those who are in a position where they feel unsafe don’t or can’t speak up to enable their cause. The people who are on the frontlines of Rainbow youth are immobilised in a variety of ways.

Of the students who had been bullied in NZ, FIVE TIMES AS MANY (33%) had been bullied because they were gay or because of perceived sexuality compared to their heterosexual peers (6%).
The Youth 12 report on transgender students shows that nearly 20% had attempted suicide in the previous year and nearly 50% had been physically abused. I sure as hell wouldn’t feel strong enough to speak up on the little stuff in those circumstances let alone advocate vocally for the rights of my peers.

Often those who are in support are afraid to speak up because they don’t want to become targets for bullies themselves. I’ve been in that trap myself, even as an adult. There are days when I don’t have the mental capacity or I’m too afraid of repercussions to speak up on my beliefs outside of my twitter bubble.

The Day of silence is a timely reminder that there are more ways to show our friends, family and community that we are allies, and for those who don’t feel able to speak up, to be able to do it in a variety of ways.
Being the person shouting at the front line isn’t for everyone, and shouldn’t have to be.

Ways I can lift the silence.

Wear a set of 100% OK coloured bracelets. Give them away to the people in your life who also want to be allies.

Display a 100% OK sticker, rainbow sticker or other symbol prominently at your café / shop / church / marae / place of work, you might be surprised at how many people come out as an ally, or part of the rainbow community.

Don’t let slurs or derogatory jokes slide at work or school.

“Can you use a different term to mean bad please” is all you need to say.
Or “I don’t understand the joke”. And then walk away.
You don’t owe an explanation, the expectation of not demeaning other people is entirely reasonable.

Read, research and learn and keep lines of communication open. If you feel “attacked” for your lack of understanding, take a breath, learn some more and apologise if you realise you were wrong.

The NZ day of Silence has made it to the mainstream media but only in small pieces, and much like all activism, it needs amplifying and sharing in order to help the message get out to a wider audience. Below are two links you could share on Facebook.

TV 3 news - Day of Silence sweeps schools

TVNZ day of silence - student's tape mouths.

UN 'Family' Resolution Raises Concern

A letter of concern (see below) is being shared across a few networks about a proposed UN Human Rights Council Resolution on "Protection of the Family". Dame Margaret Sparrow, for one, has written to our Ministry of Foreign Affairs' contact for Human Rights (unhc@mfat.govt.nz) expressing her disquiet about the impact this resolution could have not just on reproductive health and rights, but on LGBTI people, indeed anyone who doesn't fit into a "traditional family" mould.

NZ is not currently a member of the HRC, but the Women's UN Report Network suggests people contact their country's foreign ministry, and also their permanent mission in Geneva. WUNRN reports that there is a group of NGOs working in Geneva to address this. (A copy of the resolution itself can be downloaded from this UN site, just search for "Protection of the Family"):

Proposed UN Human Rights Council Resolution on 'Protection of the Family'

On Friday March 15^th, at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, a cross-regional group of nine Member States (Bangladesh, Egypt, Mauritania, Morocco, Qatar, Russian Federation, Tunisia, Uganda and Zimbabwe) tabled a Draft Resolution (A/HRC/22/L.25) entitled “Protection of the Family”. On Friday March 22nd this resolution is expected to be debated. 

This resolution tries to cement the traditional family as a subject of human rights protection in and of itself.  From this initiative may stem further efforts to oppose the protection and promotion of sexual and reproductive rights, and in particular issues of sexual orientation and gender identity, abortion, adolescents’ access to sexual and reproductive health services and comprehensive sexuality education.  All of these issues have been highly contested issues in the context of recent and prior negotiations at the Human Rights Council.

This is the first resolution of its kind at the UN Human Rights Council and as such could be the start of what will likely be a long-term incremental agenda at the Council. It is unlikely that many delegations will vote against this resolution, given that most delegations do not want to be depicted as anti-family.  So, the realistic hope that we have is for concerns with the text to be fixed in whatever version is adopted by the Council.

In the single negotiation session that has taken place so far, a number of key delegations have spoken to address the problematic aspects of this resolution, including Uruguay, Mexico, the Netherlands (on behalf of the EU), and the United States.  However, it is critical that further delegations voice their concerns with this text.

What makes the draft resolution problematic?

The focus on “protection of the family” in the Resolution is not consistent with the Council’s mandate which is to promote and protect human rights.  International human rights law is primarily about the entitlements and freedoms of individuals; the family in and of itself is not a subject of human rights protection.  Within the Resolution, there is no recognition of the need to protect and promote the human rights of individuals within family contexts.  It is the individuals who have human rights entitlements, which can be violated within the family context.  For example, it is well known that families are often a site of violence, especially towards women, children, and the elderly.  According to the Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, domestic violence is the most pervasive form of violence against women. Hence, the focus of this resolution must be the protection of the human rights of members of families.

There is no recognition in the Resolution of the fact that various forms of the family exist in all contexts.  This includes single-parent households, same-sex-parented households,  joint families, extended families, families without children, families of divorced individuals, intergenerational families, etc.