I would say first that in many countries around the world there is some space to publicize the work of human rights defenders. I think what is critical is to demonstrate the difference and the impact they make in the lives of people so that it does not stay at the level of very broad concepts and ideas, but actually leads to very concrete results. I think there are many examples we can use in terms of their work in communities and how it can change the lives of people—through laws, through the involvement of people, through making sure that the voices of the voiceless are heard and taken into consideration in developing policies or programs.
That's the space where it is.
On the more controversial issues, I think it is critical to work with the people from the country, from the place itself, who are much better placed to see what the space is, what message can resonate. I'll give an example. We are working on the LGBT rights in different countries of the world, and there is some space to publicize and to put the issue on the table. The better strategy in terms of finding the balance in creating some space to put that on the table without creating harm to the human rights defenders is with the people in the countries themselves, who are better placed. I'm thinking of Haiti, for example. In those cases we are very clear about not putting Equitas on the front line, because it is viewed then as an external imposition.
I think this is really the work, with the defenders themselves, and looking at what space exists in a country. It depends on how you frame the issue. You can sometimes frame it as a social issue rather than a human rights issue, depending on the space that exists and how the movement wants to position itself.
There is definitely some space, but it's often not taken, or it's viewed as a western imposition on the country, so how do you balance that?