Gender apartheid

The article was published on inGenere il 10 gennaio 2025

Crimes against humanity. Just the sound of these words makes the soul crack, creates fissures, widens those gaps too thin to allow the atrocities of injustices committed elsewhere to reach “here”. Yet, at the level of international law there is still no specific treaty that prevents and sanctions crimes against humanity.

Now the sixth commission of the United Nations is pushing on the accelerator, also to counter countries like Russia that were hindering the work. The finish line can be glimpsed between 2028 and 2029, and the first steps to reach it must be taken now and well. By immediately inserting gender apartheid into the definition of crime against humanity. It is not something we can take for granted or postpone, but it must appear with the exact details that can transform this action into an effective lever of the legal world to change the real world.

Together with a group of jurists, the Italian Coordination for the Support of Afghan Women (CISDA) has tried to systematize the crime of gender apartheid with a definition, launching the campaign Stop fundamentalisms – Stop gender apartheid. What we can do, as citizens, is to try to give faces, meanings, power and sense to the intent, by reading, adhering to the campaign of CISDA, or simply dedicating time to understand the reasons and create an independent but conscious opinion. We talked about it with Patrizia Fabbri, an activist of the association.

What definition do you suggest to identify gender apartheid?

We ask to define the crime of gender apartheid as “any act, policy, practice or omission that, in a systematic and institutionalized manner, is committed by an individual, state, organization, entity or group, with the purpose or effect of establishing, maintaining or perpetuating the domination of one gender over another, through institutionalized segregation, oppression or discrimination in the political, economic, social, cultural, educational, professional or any other area of ​​public and private life”.

Why did you choose this one?

It is essential to underline that these acts can also be committed by non-state actors, first of all, because there are many situations where the state officially fights gender apartheid, but lets non-institutional, but organized groups commit this crime. The idea is therefore to include the crime of omission: as a guarantor of human rights, the state is prosecutable even when it fails to prosecute criminal conduct in this area. The other important aspect for us to clarify concerns the passive subject of this crime: we have included any group of people identified by their gender and gender non-conforming individuals. This means recognizing all violent acts of discrimination also against Lgbtqia+ people.

With what intent did you launch the Stop fundamentalisms – Stop gender apartheid campaign and who is it aimed at?

We started with a signature collection to ask the Italian government to support three main objectives and to promote them with international institutions. The first is the recognition of gender apartheid as a crime against humanity, adopting our definition. The second is the non-recognition, neither legal nor de facto, of the fundamentalist Taliban regime in Afghanistan: in fact, if no state officially recognizes the de facto Taliban government, in reality many countries have relations with the regime, for logistical, geographical and economic reasons.

What is happening in Afghanistan?

Afghanistan is a country very rich in rare earths, but it is also the one in which the Taliban regime is suppressing the most basic rights, especially those of women. Women are not allowed to attend school beyond elementary school, work, or leave the house unless accompanied by a male member of the family. They cannot go to parks, gardens or public toilets, their faces must be completely covered, they cannot sing or pray out loud. Now the Taliban have gone so far as to prohibit them from “ticking” when they wear heels: we are truly at the denial of the person as such. The third request concerns in fact the support for the anti-fundamentalist and democratic Afghan forces: it is particularly important that this happens, hand in hand with the condemnation of fundamentalism. The support of secularism represents the only true and possible barrier to the barbarities committed.

From what risks can this action protect us?

From that of letting our governments support a reality that is considered the lesser evil, as could happen in Syria, for example. While we welcome Assad’s departure, we must not overlook the fact that the forces of the group that took power, the HTS, are fundamentalist forces that were allied with Al Qaeda. Even if they have “cleaned themselves up”, the origin remains the same, and the fear is that they will be cleared, allowing a society based on the principles of new fundamentalism to form.

Can you give us some other examples?

It is a delicate issue and, for this very reason, it should not be overlooked. The West, in my opinion, in most cases is in bad faith and supports certain groups because they are powerful, but even when it is not, it does not pay attention to the origin of certain people, groups or associations. And in certain contexts you cannot be superficial, you cannot think of helping certain entities regardless of who is behind them, also due to a risk of corruption. An extreme but explanatory example is the fact that at the beginning of 2024 the UN accepted the Taliban diktat against the presence of Afghan associations opposed to their government, “because you have to talk to the enemy”. Some compromises may be necessary, but other aspects cannot be accepted.

Cisda insists on speaking of fundamentalisms, in the plural.

It serves to reiterate and remember that there is not only Islamic fundamentalism and that, in general, the concept of fundamentalism does not necessarily have to be linked to religion. We are often accustomed to and consider gender apartheid, any oppression and discrimination based on a person’s gender, as a direct consequence of an approach typical only of Islamic fundamentalism, when in reality this is not the case.

What does this choice mean?

For us it is important to always speak of fundamentalisms in general, because all phenomena that lead to a conservative interpretation and a rigid and uncompromising implementation of a religion, as well as of a political, scientific, philosophical thought, etc. are fundamentalisms. The problem lies in the ways in which an idea is believed and carried forward, not so much in the idea itself. There is an insurmountable limit that divides deep inner convictions, an “individual fundamentalism”, from the true fundamentalism with which one can impose one’s vision on an entire society, with actions at the state level or by power groups. A “Western” example are the American anti-abortionists, who kill doctors who perform abortions.

There are fundamentalisms in different parts of the world; the “i” is an indispensable detail to keep one’s eyes open on every crime against humanity, to open cracks, to not close one’s eyes and the door in front of those who are suffering violence.