SWAZILAND STERILISATION – UN VIEW

The call from a UK-based NGO to allow some Swazi women and children of ‘unsound mind’ to be sterilised to stop them having babies breaks two United Nations' conventions.

Regular readers will know there has been controversy over a call by Linda Kanya of Skillshare International to give the guardians of women and children of ‘unsound mind’ the ‘option of sterilizing their child’.

Kanya made her comments in the Times Sunday of 11 May 2008. After I wrote about this, Kanya responded by saying my ‘blog entry is sensationalizing’ what she wrote.

I will return to the point of ‘sensationalising’ later in this blogpost, but first to the United Nations.

Kanya and Skillshare are clearly violating The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Mentally Retarded Persons (1971).

Article 1 of the convention states, ‘The mentally retarded person has, to the maximum degree of feasibility, the same rights as other human beings.’

Article 6 reads in part, ‘The mentally retarded person has the right to protection from exploitation, abuse and degrading treatment.’

It is clear to me that sterilising a person because they are of ‘unsound mind’ is abuse and degrading treatment under Article 6. Unless Kanya is also advocating that mothers of children who, shall we say are of ‘sound mind’, should have the option to have their children sterilised, then Kanya’s proposition also violates Article 1.

Kanya and Skillshare also violate the rights of the women and children of ‘unsound mind’ under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons (1975).

Article 4 reads in part, ‘Disabled persons have the same civil and political rights as other human beings.’

Clearly, sterilising women and children deprive them of their human rights under Article 4.

So, I think the case is against Kanya and Skillshare. This must lead us to ask why did Kanya write an article that so clearly contravenes two United Nations conventions?

Only Kanya can give us a definitive answer. I suspect that Kanya did not deliberately decide to contravene the conventions. I say this because I would like to respect Skillshare, which states that it is a non discriminatory organisation. So perhaps the answer is that Kanya is not aware of the existence of the two conventions.

This leads us rather neatly to the question of ‘sensationalising’ Kanya’s original article.

I have had a spirited email from Teresa Debly, who firstly defends the blog against the accusation of sensationalism and then goes on to question the ‘expertise’ of Kanya and her qualifications to make judgements about women of ‘unsound mind’.

Here is the email in full.

I do not believe "Your blog entry is sensationalizing the article."

On the contrary, Rooney is questioning the article and using critical thinking to understand "news" from the Swazi papers. As far as I can see, Rooney is employed at a university and generally academics do not shy away from debate.

Perhaps we should all shut up and just believe what this "expert" says?And who is this expert - a qualified medical officer, a trained "women's health reproductive" specialist?

Should one expert's opinion reign supreme over other opinions, for that is all this article truly is. There are no numbers, statistics or even studies mentioned to back up the opinion. Is this science or ethics?

In the article, Kanya wrote NGOs and government have responded to the epidemic with full force, educating on and providing prevention measures. This is not accurate, not at all!

I will not comment on NGOs but government, for over 20 years, has been the main contributor to the health crisis in Swaziland. Cabinet minister have talked about condoms being "unSwazi", they have felt it more important to have an international airport or jet for the king then getting rats out of the Mbabane hospital, and they continue to beg donors for assistance since they are chowing down every every god damn cent that is within sight.

The government has moved beyond being negligent and is enabling a "HIV genocide". Kanya also seems to avoid the core of this issue.

If we are concerned with the reproductive health of "unsound" people - or is it just girls - then it seems to me we should first ask, "what is available for patients with mental illness in Swaziland?"

Most reader will be able to answer "nothing, absolutely nothing." When the government feels no responsibility to the citizens, "sound or unsound", and let's the entire health system 'go to hell' what really is necessary for a "final solution"?

Personally, I would rather see Makosetive castrated then some teenage girls "sterilized"!

See also
CALL TO STERILISE SWAZI CHILDREN
SILENCE ON SWAZI CHILD STERILISATION
THE SWAZI STERILISATION ARTICLE
SWAZI CHILD STERILISATION - REPLY

SWAZI CHILD STERILISATION – REPLY

I wrote on 2 June 2008 that a representative of Skillshare International from the UK wrote in the Times Sunday that parents of Swazi children of ‘unsound mind’ should have the option to have the children sterilised to stop them having children of their own. The writer, Linda Kanya, has emailed to respond to my comments.

Here is Kanya’s reply in full. I have made a couple of comments at the end of the email.

I am also publishing the full text of Kanya’s Times Sunday article here.


Thank - you for your comments regarding the article featured in the Sunday Times on Sexual Health and Reproductive Rights. We apologize for the late response.

I would like to reemphasize that at the core of the CEDAW project are the individual's human rights. Infringing on any one person's freedoms is not the objective of the project or Skillshare International as a whole. I do believe there was a misinterpretation of the article in regards to women and girls of unsound mind.

I will quote the full section touching on the subject so that I may address all your concerns.

"Women and girls of unsound mind are also touched by the laws governing sexual health and reproductive rights, they are greatly at risk of being taken advantage of sexually. The guardians of this population should have the option of sterilizing their child. The process again is a lengthy one for these parents/guardians. Essentially, government needs to change law and policy, and thereafter ensure that the laws are supported by proper services."

The point of the article was to discuss women's access to sexual and reproductive health services. In this particular section I refer to women and girls of unsound mind, specifically women with profound mental retardation, those who have the very little intellectual or cognitive ability.

I refer to parents or guardians of the women or girls of unsound mind being able to access this option, with the belief that they would be able to assess the child's ability to consent to sex; go through pregnancy; and care for a child from birth to adulthood. The reality is there are women and girls in this country that are profoundly retarded and they tend to be victims of rape.

The article does not speak of compulsory or forced sterilisation. I would like to emphasize that I was not calling for mass sterilization of women with mental disability. Your blog entry is sensationalizing the article.

I realize that I might have expanded on my definition of women and girls of unsound mind and further explained why the parents should have the option of sterilization.

Skillshare is dedicated to promoting full respect for human rights across the world and of course does not support the forced sterilization of women or children. It recognizes that the responsibility for abuse in all cases remains with the perpetrators and never, ever the victims or their families.

We appreciate your comments on our article, and hope you will continue to read our column.

Sincerely,
Linda Kanya

I have a couple of points. If a woman or child who is considered to be of ‘unsound mind’ does not give permission to be sterilised, that is ‘forced sterilisation’.

Kanya did not respond to the point about whether Skillshare is also advocating that what is good enough for the Swazi child is also good enough for children who live in the UK.

See also
CALL TO STERILISE SWAZI CHILDREN
SILENCE ON SWAZI CHILD STERILISATION
THE SWAZI STERILISATION ARTICLE

THE SWAZI STERILISATION ARTICLE

For those who are following the debate over Skillshare International’s call for the parents of Swazi children with ‘unsound minds’ to be allowed to have them sterilised, here is the original article that started the interest. The show the writer refers to is a regular Sunday evening broadcast on Swazi TV.

The article was published on page 21 of the Times Sunday on 11 May 2008.

Ematfuba Lalingene: Sexual Health and Reproductive Rights
By Linda Kanya

The show this week will be focusing on Sexual Health and Reproductive Rights. Let us I reemphasize that women's rights are the basis of the show, and the right to self-determination, especially regarding her body, is a vital part of discus­sions on women's rights.

There are areas in health that are applica­ble to all. However because of our physi­ological differences there are those areas that are particular to women. The right to health should be available to all men and women, particularly in the areas of treatment, pre­vention, family planning, sterilization.

But others such as maternal health and reproductive health are particular to women. Men generally are not very knowledgeable about women's health. Ideally women, sin­gle or married, should be able to have access to health care freely. Yet this is not the case. There are numerous factors that hinder their ability to determine what happens with their bodies. Some are the laws of the land and others are social norms, both need to be re­viewed.

Laws that govern civil marriage with mari­tal power do not allow women to go into contracts without their husbands' consent, even though marital power should only be confined to contracts it has spilled over to the wife's health.

A change in laws governing marriage with marital power is necessary, it has to occur in the health policy of government to allow prac­titioners to get consent directly from their patient not the husband of their patient

The right to removing your uterus is one that is supported by law, but it is reported that accessing the form for the procedure is tedious and even upon receiving it, if you are married it requires your husband's consent

Abortion in Swaziland is illegal, and only allowed in certain circumstances. It is allowed if a woman is at risk of dying due to the pregnancy, if it will disturb her mental state (she is depressed or suicidal), if the child will be born abnormal or if the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest. Abortions can only be executed within a certain period, expediency of the procedure is tantamount to getting a legal abortion. One wonders if there is expe­diency in getting the required documents to have the procedure, and the decision ultimately lies with the doctor of the woman.

Women and girls of unsound mind are also touched by the laws governing sexual health and reproductive rights; they are greatly at risk of being taken advantage of sexually.

The guardians of this population should have the option of sterilizing their child. The process again is a lengthy one for these par­ents/guardians. Essentially, government needs to change law and policy, and thereafter en­sure that the laws are supported by proper services.

Another factor that infringes on women's sexual and reproductive rights is their chosen sexual partner. Marital power does not only affect contracts it extends to everyday life. The power of males in relationships (married or not) is part of our socialization as individu­als in Swazi society. At times this power might be unspoken but it exists. Requesting the partner wear a condom during sex can be denied by the partner and the woman feels that she cannot say no to unprotected sex due to this imagined authority. Women essen­tially need permission from their partners to use condoms.

Under traditional marriages, there is the added pressure from in-laws that affects the wom­an's right to determine the number of children she has.

There are instances when the woman is un­der pressure to produce a male child, if this does not occur then the woman might con­tinue to bear children until a boy is born. Tra­ditionally there is also the danger of your hus­band taking a second wife, or an 'inhlanti' (a younger female relative of the wife) to bear the male child for the family. Of course this is not only relegated to traditional marriages, it might occur in civil marriages where instead of taking a second wife or an 'inhlanti' he requests a divorce or has an affair.

We cannot speak of sexual health and re­productive rights without speaking of HIV and AIDS. The epidemic has affected all of us in Swaziland. NGOs and government have responded to the epidemic with full force, educating on and providing preven­tion measures. However, how do we change the individual male's ability to accept their partners' request for a condom? Married women are at an even greater risk as they may be met with accusations of adultery if they make the request.

CEDAW, in article 12, states that nations should take all necessary measures to en­sure equal access to health care. Women shall have appropriate services in connection to pregnancy, confinement and the post-natal period. In the constitution the sexual health and reproductive rights are not in the Bill of Rights instead they fall under socio-economic rights, which are addressed in the Directives of State Policy and Duties of the Citizen which are not binding or justiciable.

It cannot be emphasized enough that there should be law and policy that allows women to live full and healthy lives, this means ac­cess, with the ability to take maternity leave and have time with their children.

Today we will be discussing the topic of Sexual health and reproduction with mem­bers from the government, traditional struc­tures and NGOs. Please write to us at cedaw@skillshare.org

See also
SWAZI CHILD STERILISATION - REPLY

SILENCE ON SWAZI CHILD STERILISATION

I’m still waiting for a response from Skillshare about its proposal that Swazi children of ‘unsound mind’ should be sterilised to stop them from breeding.

I sent Skillshare a copy of the blogpost on Monday (2 June 2008) in which I criticised its representative Linda Kanya for writing the comments in the Times Sunday, so there is no reason for them to deny knowledge of the controversy.

Meanwhile a blogsite reader Chris Lowe has responded to my original post.

‘This is indeed appalling. In the United States I believe that sterilization laws persisted after World War II in a number of states. And of course eugenics, of which this is a species, had many self-identified progressive proponents before Nazism put it in bad odor, including Gunnar and Alva Myrdal, Margaret Sanger, and the first president of the small liberal arts college in the U.S. where I was an undergraduate (for some fairly random examples). It is bizarre and disturbing to see this recrudescence. In the U.S. there were strong racial and ethnic elements to the actual practice of sterilization -- I wonder if Skillshare advocates the same policies in the UK.’

When – or do I mean if – Skillshare responds, I’ll let you know.

See also
CALL TO STERILISE SWAZI CHILDREN

First published 5 June 2008.

CALL TO STERILISE SWAZI CHILDREN

A representative of an international aid agency working in Swaziland has called for some Swazi children to be sterilised to stop them having children of their own.

Linda Kanya, of Skillshare International, a UK-based agency, says, ‘women and girls of unsound mind’ are ‘greatly at risk of being taken advantage of sexually’.

Kanya goes on to say, ‘The guardians of this population should have the option of sterilizing their child.’

Kanya leaves the vile suggestion there and goes on to list a whole number of what Skillshare calls ‘Reproductive Rights’ that need to be addressed in Swaziland.

I stand to be corrected here, but I thought the idea of forced sterilisation of people of ‘unsound mind’ went out with Nazi Germany.

The suggestion, which was published in the Times Sunday (11 May 2008), is as crass as it is appalling.

Kanya was writing in a column in the newspaper that each week previews what can be seen that week on a television programme Skillshare does for Swazi TV.

When Kanya wrote this she was clearly the spokesperson for Skillshare.

For those who don’t know Skillshare, it is a UK-government funded organisation that sends ‘professional’ people as volunteers to countries in Africa and Asia.

It claims to have a vision of a world without ‘injustice and inequality’. It also claims to ‘promote and protect the rights of disadvantaged communities’ and not to discriminate against the disabled.

Quite how forced sterilisation of people Skillshare considers are of ‘unsound mind’ fits in with its supposed fight against injustice and support for the disabled is beyond me.

Would Skillshare tell us whether forced sterilisation is its official policy in Swaziland?

If it is, then we also need to know what plan Skillshare has to fulfil this policy in the kingdom.

Also, can Skillshare tell us whether this policy is supported by its paymasters, the UK Government?