Good morning and thank you for the invitation. I appreciate the opportunity to come here this morning and speak on this important issue.
The importance of the change in the language, whether it be deemed semantics or policy change within DFAIT and the Government of Canada, is useful to visit, as both have a pronounced impact on women and children and other vulnerable populations in the global south.
I'll try to be brief and not repeat what Kate has said, knowing that there are a lot of things we can't cover in this 10-minute time period.
To illustrate the importance of words.... I feel a bit odd quoting an American male in a Status of Women committee, but Barack Obama connotes the importance of words. He said:
Don’t tell me words don’t matter. 'I have a dream'--just words? 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal'--just words? 'We have nothing to fear but fear itself'--just words? Just speeches?
I think this underlies the importance of words in terms of aspirations of a people. People's political or philosophical values undergird what words we use.
I think the corollary of that is also that words have the power to render people invisible, to exclude people, to retain or sustain an untenable status quo. So I think it's really important that we unpack the meaning of words and also of the policy change.
I'd like to make three points on the language changes as they pertain to why we're here this morning. The first is the issue of the word “impunity” around sexual violence in the DRC and the lack of congruence with the UN Convention known as CEDAW, the convention on the elimination of discrimination against Women--resolution 1820.
Resolution 1325 notes that Canada urges the government of the DRC to take concerted measures to do whatever is necessary “to put an end to impunity” for sexual violence. It's changed to: “Canada urges the government of the DRC to take concerted measures to prevent sexual violence”. It's a major paradigm shift.
I'll read for you the specific portion of CEDAW that is a much more robust, inclusive, comprehensive notion of women's protection in terms of sexual violence. But I think what's important, too, is the lack of congruence and coherent alignment with international conventions to which Canada is a signatory.
CEDAW's section 10 “[c]alls on all parties to armed conflict to take special measures to protect women and girls from gender-based violence, particularly rape and other forms of sexual abuse, and all other forms of violence in situations of armed conflict”. Section 11 “[e]mphasizes the responsibility of all States to put an end to impunity and to prosecute those responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes including those relating to sexual violence against women and girls, and in this regard, stresses the need to exclude these crimes, where feasible from amnesty provisions”.
I think to relegate it to the prevention of sexual violence really is a major shift. It lowers the threshold of our commitments on the international front. As I say, if we want to have congruence and philosophical alignment with other protocols, conventions, and things we are signatory to, we need to ensure that our language and our policy statements are congruent with that.
Another concern is that it creates a double standard. We heard this in connection with the maternal health issues around the G-8 and G-20, where women in the global south were very concerned and said they were being treated differently and to a double standard: that their rights in the south were different from what women in the global north experience. If we have the rights and protections of the judiciary as that relates to sexual violence, why wouldn't we extend that--quote--“generosity” to them? I think there's a whole double standard.
Third, and this undergirds the whole thing, these language changes weaken our reputation on the world stage. If we are to regain our international status as a global leader in terms of gender equality, we really need to be unequivocal in our principles. We've been unequivocal in other aspects as they pertain to international activities and development, whether it be trade with China or human rights violations with China and other countries. So why wouldn't we be congruent and unequivocal about protecting women's rights and allowing them the robust spectrum of support, from prevention to judicial measures, to deal with people who have perpetrated violence against women?
On the whole issue of gender equality, I think Kate spoke to the issue of power relations, the social and cultural context of that terminology, and how it has evolved from talking about equality between men and women. Again, who's excluded? Who's rendered invisible? Who's not able to participate in capacity development funding decisions? Look at gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered individuals and their experience in certain countries, where they're sentenced to death or imprisoned for their sexual identity. I think this is about making sure that we have an inclusive paradigm and inclusive terminology so that all people are included.
This is a bit of an aside, but I know that MATCH applied for funding, and we were told that women cannot lead any proposal. So it does.... Everybody's open to apply—it's like saying that everybody's open to going to the Ritz—but the criteria certainly do exclude people. And the people we're excluding are the people most in need of protection, support, and capacity development to raise awareness and to change the experience of oppression in the world.
The third thing that really struck me is the removal and the uncoupling of “child soldier” and wanting to basically render children as equivalent to mini-adults. I think this is so regressive. We've spent almost a century talking about child development and about Piaget's milestones in a child's development in abstract thinking notions and other developmental milestones. To go back and treat them like they have the autonomy and independence to make the decisions of adults I think is a major step backwards. I think there's a context when you say “child soldier”, and it is the context of being forced into war, into doing acts that wouldn't happen if they weren't within the context of war.
If it's “voluntary”--I'll put that in quotes too--it may be about survival or about avenging people who have committed atrocities upon their families. So I think there's a whole context you see with the two words “child soldier”. To delink these two words really looks at them within a vacuum and not within the context of war as a determinant of some of these other activities that happen. For young women, too, participating in conflict could be to escape domestic servitude, or violence within the home, and/or being forced to engage in these activities. I think semantics matter, if we kind of unpack what's beneath the intent.
The policy changes I think are doing Canada a disservice in terms of reputation. Also, for the vulnerable groups, whether it be women, children, or other populations impacted by these changes, I think it's really a step backward. I think this is an opportunity. I'm grateful that the committee is taking a look at some of these language changes to revisit what some of these mean, who they impact, and who's being harmed, and to move forth from that. I think Kate gave some great recommendations.
I know that we didn't come here to talk just about the issues of human protection and human security and some of those other language shifts. I'll leave it there. I thank people for the opportunity to speak.