A Call to Action: Women, Religion, Violence, and Power

by Jimmy Carter

  I was concerned when many Arab governments ordered their representatives to boycott any speech made by Jehan, because it would be difficult for women from Saudi Arabia, Oman, or the United Arab Emirates to disobey such directives. When her scheduled address approached, those women obeyed their orders to leave the assembly hall, though all of them shook hands with or embraced Jehan on the way out.

  The conference closed with a call for all people to:

  Involve more men in improving women’s roles in society.

  Let women exert more political will.

  Recognize crucial contributions women were already making to society.

  Permit women to participate in planning for the future in all aspects of life.

  Assess societal damage caused by a shortage of women in decision-making positions.

  Publicize the benefits of women’s leadership in cooperatives, day care centers, and credit facilities.

  Acknowledge the value of making even small financial resources available to women.

  Give women more access to information about their government and untapped opportunities available to them.

  The participants also reemphasized the beneficial contributions women could make in promoting peace, enhancing economic progress, ending colonialism and racism, and improving education and health care.

  The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women has now been ratified by all nations except Iran, Palau, Somalia, Sudan, Tonga, and the United States. Its key provision is to prevent “any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field.” Subsequently two other resolutions of the UN Security Council were adopted, without objection by the United States, and are therefore binding on our country. Resolution 1325 is an international law that requires UN member states to engage women on all levels of decision making on peace and security issues. Resolution 1820 officially links sexual violence as a tactic of war with the maintenance of international peace and security. It also requires that the UN secretary-general make an official report on its implementation and how additional steps can be taken to end sexual violence. Although the scope of CEDAW is much broader than the others, it is obvious that all three international mandates need to be implemented together, as they share a common acknowledgment of the benefits to all people of giving equal status to women and the commitment to strive for this goal.

  The issue of abortion is the major impediment to American approval of CEDAW and similar international agreements that protect women’s rights. If there is any possibility of encouraging sex education that might lead to the use of contraception or abortion, then Christian fundamentalists, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and fervent pro-life activists often join forces and can prevent the passage of otherwise acceptable legislation. There is a consensus within our Christian churches, liberal and conservative, that a developing fetus should be protected whenever possible. This is a difficult issue for me. In many ways, every abortion is an unplanned tragedy, brought about by a combination of human errors, and my Christian faith convinces me that a prospective parent should not make this decision unless the life of the mother is threatened or the pregnancy is caused by rape or incest. I accepted my obligation as president to enforce the Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade that authorized some abortions, but I attempted to minimize their number through sex education, making contraceptives more available, special economic assistance for women and infant children, and the promotion of foster parenthood.

  Many fervent pro-life activists do not extend their concern to the baby after it is born, ignoring the fact that two-thirds of women who interrupt their pregnancy assert that their primary reason is inability to pay the costs of raising the child. It has long been known that there are fewer abortions in nations where women have access to contraceptives, the assurance that they and their babies will have good health care, and at least enough income to meet their basic needs. And it has been proven that strict prohibitive laws have no significant effect on the number of abortions. The Lancet medical journal reported in 2012 that the rate of abortions per 1,000 pregnancies varies from 12 in Western Europe to 23 in the United States and 43 in Eastern Europe. The number exceeds 50 in some nations where there is abject poverty and the use of contraceptives (and abortion) is prohibited.

  Good education for women is a positive factor in any society. One of the well-meaning but counterproductive approaches to prevent abortion is to refrain from teaching young Americans how to avoid pregnancy, instruction that is given in many other nations. There is now adequate government funding for sex education, but unfortunately it is quite often tied to a legal prohibition against any mention of contraception, despite the fact that a strong majority of American teenagers report having sex before they are eighteen years old. The Associated Press reported in December 2010 that young people in Western Europe had equal levels of sexual activity, are about equally promiscuous, but, deprived of proper sex education, American girls are much more likely to become pregnant than girls in Western Europe. There were 33 births per 1,000 teenage girls in the United States in 2011, while in Italy the rate was 8, France 7, Germany 5, and in Switzerland 2.

  Regardless of how one feels about abortion, there is an inescapable fact in American politics: in order to secure U.S. congressional approval of CEDAW and other international agreements that guarantee women’s rights, a provision to preclude promotion or financing of abortions must be accepted. This does not include the prohibition of sex education or the use of contraceptives.

  I made one of the major speeches at the historic World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna in 1993, where sexual abuse was discussed at length, and was gratified when, a year later, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was adopted with bipartisan support in the U.S. Congress. The new law recognized that this was a basic premise of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and would encourage further economic and social progress by bringing more capable women into the mainstream of society. Unfortunately, although VAWA was reauthorized several times, it was allowed to expire in 2012 because of conservative opposition to amendments designed to extend protection to same-sex couples and undocumented immigrants.

  Phyllis Schlafly and other women leaders and a number of devout Catholics and Mormons who had opposed the Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution were in the forefront of opposition to VAWA, denouncing the legislation as “creating an ideology that all men are guilty and all women are victims” and claiming it was “designed to promote divorce, breakup of marriage and hatred of men.” The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops opposed the act because it addressed sexual orientation and gender identity. However, with aroused support from other women’s organizations and human rights organizations, an expanded bill finally passed both houses of Congress by a 2:1 majority and was signed into law in March 2013.

  The language of the new law provides only a partial victory. The international version of this legislation includes required action by nations and international organizations that will put additional economic and political pressure on countries known to be especially abusive to women, but this provision has not yet been adopted by the United States. The much more incisive international version of the bill has been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by a bipartisan group of members of Congress, and there are indications of similar support from both parties in the Senate. Its primary sponsor, Representative Jan Schakowsky, Democrat of Illinois, says:

  Violence against women is a humanitarian tragedy, a vicious crime, a global health catastrophe, a roadblock to social and economic development and a threat to national security. . . . Sexual violence has been systematically used to destroy communities and to instill a sense of despair and hopelessnes
s within a population. IVAWA would make ending violence against women a U.S. foreign policy priority, promote health programs and survivor services, civil and criminal legal protections, educational opportunities and economic opportunities for women and girls. Passage of IVAWA would give us critical tools in the fight against gender-based violence around the world.

  This is an impasse that needs to be resolved, which could make the United States the preeminent driving force in reducing sexual violence of all kinds.

  For many centuries there has been a debate about the best way to reduce the extent of prostitution and the forced female slavery and spread of sexually transmitted diseases it precipitates. During the past few years I have spoken with the ministers of health in two European countries that have taken opposite approaches. One of these approaches seems to be having a beneficial effect.

  The Dutch government decided in 2000 that the best way to control prostitution, reduce the rate of sexually transmitted diseases, and protect women and girls from abuse was to legalize prostitution and the operation of brothels while regulating the trade. I remember how surprised I was to walk down the street on my first visit to Amsterdam and pass windows in which attractive women were displaying themselves. The intent of the law was to give the prostitutes some protection by issuing work permits and mandatory health inspections. A sex tourism boom resulted, and in 2008 there were 142 licensed brothels in Amsterdam and about five hundred window displays. However, a former mayor of the city has stated that the enormous business of more than $100 million annually has been largely taken over by Eastern European crime syndicates that are trafficking women and illegal drugs. So, although prostitution remains legal, there is now a government move to rescue these women and help them find other trades.

  Sweden tried for a hundred years to pass legislation making illegal the purchase of sex by men, and when new legislation was drafted and debated in 1999 this was the key issue. There was a strong sentiment that the women themselves should not be punished, since it was believed that many were improperly enticed or actually forced into prostitution. Although Sweden has the highest proportion of women parliamentarians in Europe, they were divided on the key issues. The final legislation made it illegal to buy sexual services, to act as a pimp, or to operate a brothel, but the prostitutes were not considered to be acting illegally. The number of sex workers in Sweden dropped more than 40 percent during the next five years, and their prices have also fallen.

  Other European countries watched these two experiments closely, and both Norway and Iceland passed laws similar to Sweden’s. Nick Kristof reports, “Customers can easily find an underage Eastern European girl working as a prostitute in Amsterdam, but not in Stockholm.” Germany adopted the Dutch model in dealing with prostitution and found that the trade increased by 70 percent in its larger cities. As I write this, in December 2013, the most intense public debate in France is whether to adopt a law similar to that in Sweden. The legislation has passed the Assembly and is expected to be approved by the Senate in June 2014. At the same time, the Supreme Court of Canada voted unanimously to strike down the country’s three basic laws governing the sex trade: prohibiting the operation of a brothel, banning pimping and preventing prostitutes from hiring security guards, and making soliciting or communicating to clients illegal. The Parliament was given a year to devise alternative legislation.

  The key to the relative success of Sweden’s approach is to prescribe punishment for those who own and operate the brothels and control the women, as well as the male customers who provide the profit motive. This was the strong recommendation of participants in our Human Rights Defenders Forum who are trying to control the trafficking of women in Atlanta and other places where sexual slavery is rampant. There is little doubt that public exposure in a trial and the imposition of a heavy fine or jail time for prominent male citizens or police officers who patronize or profit from the sex trade would be extremely effective. The opposite policy still exists in the United States, where there are fifty times as many female prostitutes arrested as their male customers and handlers.

  There was one encouraging case in Atlanta in September 2013, when a pimp was sentenced to life imprisonment for abusing a fifteen-year-old girl. He was found guilty by a jury on charges including human trafficking, pimping, aggravated sodomy, child molestation, statutory rape, and false imprisonment. The convicted man had contacted the teenager online before meeting her in person the previous November, imprisoned her in his home, raped her, and then set up appointments for male customers in various hotels and took all the money she collected. This teenager was one of the more fortunate: she was able to obtain a cell phone from one of her customers and called her parents; they notified the police, and she was rescued after a relatively short period in captivity.

  Pastor Paul Palmer is the founder of the Atlanta Dream Center, whose mission is to serve and rescue minors held in sexual slavery in that city, and during our conference he was asked what religious leaders could do to address this terrible crime. He responded with some emotion, “Buyers do not wake up and think that they want to go out and buy children. They start with something else, pornography or perhaps they were abused as young boys, and tend to struggle with abusive expressions of masculinity. We have not taught men that we need to honor these women as our sisters. . . . We have failed in religious leadership because we have assumed that this is just what young men are going to go through. We must take a stand and say ‘No more!’ ”

  Morocco has provided a sterling example of what can be done to enhance women’s rights in a political environment where Islamic law is a powerful factor. The first time we visited the country, more than thirty years ago, Rosalynn and I traveled to Fez, Marrakech, and other cities before returning to Rabat to meet with King Hassan II. He had become a good friend of my mother; he told me they engaged in surprisingly personal banter. As his guest on an earlier visit to Morocco, she had declined a gift of several bottles of expensive perfume, claiming that she had no room in her luggage. He promised to deliver the gift in person, and when he and his two sons came to the White House on a state visit, the king asked that Mama attend the official ceremonies. That first night he knocked on her door and with a broad smile presented her with an enormous bottle of Chanel #5 perfume. She exclaimed, “You’re just like every other man off on a trip without his wife!” I doubt that anyone had ever spoken to His Majesty in this way.

  We laughed about my mother’s comment when we had supper later as the king’s guests in the palace and had a delightful conversation about family affairs. He commented that he was trying to find a wife for his oldest son, Mohammed, and explained that it was the custom in Morocco for a prince to marry the daughter of a nonrelated desert chieftain, who was believed to have strains of independence and vigor in her genes. Prospective brides would be presented at the palace and “tried before selection” by the prince. His Majesty complained that Mohammed had decided to do his own choosing. In the end the Crown Prince married Salma Bennani, who is the daughter of a schoolteacher and has a degree in engineering. As Princess Lalla Salma, she is the first wife of a Moroccan king to receive a royal title; others had been known simply as “mother of the king’s children” or something equivalent.

  King Mohammed VI now rules the kingdom, and, over substantial opposition, including massive public demonstrations, he proposed improvements in the status of Moroccan women. In 2004 the Parliament finally accepted his proposals. The new laws raised the minimum age of marriage to eighteen unless exceptions are made by a judge, prescribed husband and wife equal and with joint responsibility for their family, granted women more rights in setting the terms of marriage contracts, and did away with mandatory male guardians when a girl comes of age. Women can no longer be married against their will, nor are they subservient to their husband in child-rearing decisions, and any marriage disputes must be settled within a month. Whichever parent cares for the children owns the house. Both daughters and sons have the right to inherit propert
y, and children born out of wedlock can acknowledge their own paternity. King Hassan II had two wives, but the new law permits a second marriage only if a judge determines that there are exceptional reasons for it, if the first wife gives her approval, and if the husband proves that he can support two families. A divorce can be granted only in a secular court, with no religious involvement, and attempts at reconciliation must first be exhausted. If spouses have independent incomes, they can negotiate a contract separate from the marriage vows concerning the management and ownership of assets.

  Other Islamic kingdoms, and all Western nations, should implement these reforms.

  A partnership between a political leader and an actress provides another example of rapid progress in resolving a serious problem. The abuse of women in the Bosnian war was the subject of a dramatic motion picture, In the Land of Blood and Honey, produced and directed by Angelina Jolie. British foreign secretary William Hague was encouraged by one of his assistants to watch an advance screening of the film, and it convinced him to launch a major diplomatic effort to publicize the problem of rape in war zones and marshal as much international support as possible for corrective actions by governments. In May 2012 he announced an alliance with Jolie, who was special envoy to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, pledging to establish a seventy-member team from the United Kingdom that would be deployed to war zones to gather evidence and testimony for use in the prosecution of those involved in sexual violence in conflict zones, to encourage individual nations to adopt more effective laws, and to utilize doctors, lawyers, police, and others to protect and care for rape victims. Secretary Hague and Ms. Jolie declared that more than twenty thousand women were raped in Bosnia and Herzegovina, more than fifty thousand in Sierra Leone, and at least 250,000 were raped during the one hundred days of genocide in Rwanda in 1994. Only a few men have ever been brought to justice for these crimes. Similar reports are now emerging from the civil conflict in Syria.