Tunisian women's rights activist Hmida warns against decline in gains

2009-04-21

Advocate Bochra Bel Haj Hmida shares her opinions on what is left to accomplish in the field of women's rights and the threats to existing advancements.

By Jamel Arfaoui for Magharebia in Tunis – 21/04/09

[Jamel Arfaoui] Activist Bochra Bel Haj Hmida discusses women's rights in Tunisia.

Bochra Bel Haj Hmida is a lawyer, women's rights activist, and former president of the Tunisian Association of Democratic Women. She has been one of the fiercest opponents of she regards as the oppression of Tunisian women regarding inheritance.

Hmida is also responsible for saving dozens of young people from the gallows in 1984, when she met former president Habib Bourguiba and his wife Wassila and convinced the president to issue a pardon.

Magharebia: In statements earlier this year, you warned against the risk of a decline in Tunisian women's gains. Do you still maintain those ideas? Can you tell us about the nature and source of that risk?

Hmida: Like many human rights activists, I believe that we managed to secure significant gains, starting with the Personal Status Code issued half a century ago, as well as all the supporting and complementing laws, along with the rise in the number of educated girls and family planning policies, in addition to all other measures aimed at enhancing women's position in society.

Nonetheless, those gains remain retractable for a number of reasons.

One: the political and cultural position in the region, wherein women are looked at as second-class citizens. Until 2003 (with the Moroccan Moudawana), Tunisia was the only country where women lived under a law that ensured their political rights. Although many Arab laws were amended with regard to personal status or political rights, and though many countries (e.g. Algeria, Egypt, Kuwait, Jordan, Saudi Arabia) ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), laws continued to rely on flagrant discrimination between both genders. As such, Tunisian women enjoy a distinctive, almost unique status, which does not exactly serve to reinforce their rights.

Two: Western policies versus the Arab region, the oppression sustained by the Palestinian people at the hands of the occupation, the US invasion of Iraq, the Western stance toward democratisation, are all factors that breed closed-mindedness among Tunisian men and women, and their chauvinist national sense of belonging at the expense of human values. Women's rights are used as a tool of political and national conflict, as well as a tool to impose identity and disseminate backward thinking within society. Women are always first to pay the price.

Three: the state also has a central role in this regard. It has taken key decisions to improve women's conditions, in response to their developing needs across the numerous domains. Yet, women are still used as a marketing tool abroad, while domestically, the cause of women remains dependent on political agendas and relations with religious groups. Further, when the state harps on the issue of women, it is always by way of propaganda. The state therefore never admits to the discrimination faced by women. On the contrary, the state brags that it has given women their full rights. As such, they take measures discreetly.

Also, there is the state's inconsistent and unsuccessful manner of handling Islam on the political, social and cultural levels, in terms of banning the Hijab (veil), followed by the pulling-the-rug policy (all the concessions along the years from the eighties until recently, like allowing a religious radio station and receiving Sheikh Qaradawi as a religious and political icon). All such policies open the door before further retractions and cast doubts over the legitimacy of women's rights.

Four: the Tunisian media, for more than half a century, has never been a venue for discussing matters and changes of interest to society (such as Radio Mosaique or the Internet). Thus, it cannot hold a candle to the impact of Arab satellite channels, which, though diverse, do not play a positive role in entrenching human values, or a free, multilateral, and calm dialogue.

Magharebia: Tell us about the ground you have gained in the battle for equality in inheritance.

Hmida: The campaign was launched back in 1999. We were aware of the difficulty of the situation. However, we've gained a lot of ground. Most importantly, discussing equality in inheritance is no longer a taboo, but a topic often discussed in newspapers, many public institutions as well as within families, many of whom have chosen to take precautionary measures in order to ensure wives and girls dodge damages. Some books were also released on the topic, such as those by Ali Al Mazghani and by Kalthoum Mazio, conducted by the Association of Tunisian Women for Research and Development (AFTURD).

A law was also passed to exempt endowment contracts from registration fees, to the benefit of husbands, ancestors, and descendents. This had an immediate impact on Tunisians; the state can provide us with the relevant figures. We have also given women in Morocco, Algeria and, to some extent, Egypt the green light to discuss the issue.

Magharebia: Is it true that women were the fiercest opponents of the call for equality in inheritance?

Hmida: This is not an easy question to answer. However, we can just say that reactions are not governed by the conventional intellectual and political criteria. In fact, reactions show that inheritance is purely a matter of interests. We have seen secularists, opponents, and women refuse to sign the petition. We have also seen devout men and constitutional individuals eagerly sign the Democratic Women petition.

Magharebia: What arguments do your opponents cite? How do you respond?

Hmida: The arguments are many. The most significant are Sharia and the clarity of Qur'anic verse, which are always cited by the majority of opponents, who share either political or religious views. Others who rely on wrong and unfruitful political calculations claim that the issue is not a priority and that society is not prepared. The truth is that they know nothing about society or its requirements and aspirations. The argument that I personally see as evidence of ill will is the one that pleads that as long as man is responsible for supporting his family, we cannot call for equality in inheritance. The fact of the matter is that women take part in supporting their families, and that changing the law of inheritance presupposes changes in other laws.

[AFTURD] responded to all those arguments in a booklet entitled "Fifteen Proofs in Support of Gender Equality in Inheritance". Magharebia: Although the Personal Status Code was passed more than fifty years ago, women in Tunisia still suffer from violence. Does that mean that the Code, which sought to modernise society, was a failure?

Hmida: The Code was not a failure. The problem of violence extends far beyond the Code and all laws, which, though important, cannot solve all problems, especially violence against women, a global problem present in all countries, even in those that eliminated all forms of legal and political discrimination, such as Finland. Violence is based on the theory of gender discrimination.

A man is entitled to harass a woman. If a woman harasses a man, she is called "shameless". A man, on the other hand, can attack his wife violently to teach her manners. The opposite would be regarded as strange or disdainful. Society is built on discrimination. Abolishing all forms of discrimination, especially in mentalities, is the only way to end the phenomenon of violence. Women all over the world still have a long way to go.

Magharebia: Why aren't there more Tunisian women in leadership positions in politics, unions, and NGOs, which support your call for gender equality?

Hmida: Tunisia has not made much progress in this area, despite progress in the law. It can be traced back to mentalities, to what we ask of women, and to rivalry in the field of politics. The feminist movement itself was not settled through a feminist perspective, but rather through a political, state-like vision. In my opinion, that situation requires adopting bold measures, such as the principle of quota. Also, enhancing discussions even within women's organisations and within society is important so that women's candidacy and voting for women would not be different from men's candidacy and voting for men. In other words, women are not required to be perfect.

Magharebia: In 2003, you encountered vehement censure from conservatives for taking part in a seminar on the rights of homosexuals. You were accused of defending them while turning a blind eye to women's right to wear the hijab. Would you be prepared at present to take part in a similar seminar? Is it true that you do not support women's right to wear whatever they want, including hijab?

Hmida: First of all, I did not take part in a seminar on the rights of homosexuals. I took part in the European Social Forum, which discussed topics including sexual rights. I participated on the issue of gay rights in the Arab region – law and reality. I explained that the law criminalises sexual relationships between individuals of the same gender, and that Arab societies handle this case very hypocritically. This is indeed similar to those who launched a campaign against me then and on other occasions before, and those who support them.

I further explained my position saying that this choice is part of human rights, and is a question of personal choice and individual freedom. We ought to discuss sex-related questions more openly and scientifically so as to confront sexual violence against women and children, achieve justice in that domain, define what one's rights are, and identify the aggressor and the victim. I am prepared to attend such seminars and to fight in order to put an end to criminalising the voluntary sexual relations between adults and abolish all forms of sexual violence.

Hijab is directly related to this topic since it has to do with a woman's body and society's and man's views of it. In that regard, I am completely against all forms of suppression even if practiced against my opponents. I believe that wearing or rejecting the hijab is a matter of personal freedom. This is how I am basically different from zealous proponents of hijab and those who apply human rights unilaterally, and take advantage of the hijab to serve a political agenda that is totally divorced from a woman's individual rights. Also, the hijab is a sign of disdain of women, who it is believed should be hidden.