Blogs

This interview was done by Elahe Amani and with special thanks to Gail James for transcription

Krishanti Dharmaraj is a human rights advocate and a practitioner dedicated to realizing safety, equity, and wellbeing within communities, institutions, cities and the wider world. As the founding executive director of Women’s Institute for Leadership Development for Human Rights, Ms. Dharmaraj co-founded the US Human Rights Network to ensure US government’s accountability to human rights standards within US borders; and with her leadership, San Francisco became the first city in the U.S. to pass legislation implementing an international human rights treaty. As a result of passing CEDAW in San Francisco, the city implemented a gender analysis in departments that impacted employment, programming and service delivery, and resource allocation. Currently, this public policy strategy is being implemented in cities across the United States.

Elahe Amani : Dear Krishanti, 2024 marks the 10th anniversary of the Cities for CEDAW campaign.  With your  dedicated leadership, San Francisco became the first city in the U.S. to pass legislation implementing an international human rights treaty and Women’s Intercultural Network was the founding civil society partner.  As a result of passing CEDAW in San Francisco, the city implemented a gender analysis in departments that impacted employment, programming and service delivery, and resource allocation.  What inspired you to embark on this journey? Is the Campaign where you had hoped would be a decade later? If not, why?

First of all, I want to thank you and WIN for doing this work. I want to separate the trajectories:

The passing and implementation of CEDAW, to make human rights, specifically women’s human rights, relevant within the US, post-Beijing. It began in 1996 with a human right training we organized in San Francisco.   The ordinance on CEDAW was a very bold move for us. I want to recognize Patti Chang, Women’s Foundation and Cossette Thompson, Amnesty International, because we could not have succeeded if we didn’t work collectively and supported one another to move forward the strategy to implement CEDAW at the local level. Within 10 years, we were able to witness the impact of CEDAW that contributed positively to the lives of women and girls in San Francisco.

For the 10 years of Cities for CEDAW: I should not get credit for it. Soon-Young Yoon, then of NGOCSW, brought her vision; she liked what we had done in San Francisco, even though at present, San Francisco is not keeping up implementation of the ordinance. The consistent way in which CEDAW was implemented has not happened in any other city. Cities for CEDAW was a brilliant idea.  Soon-Young was engaged with NGO CSW; she asked CSW to engage; they chose to work with Women’s Intercultural Network (WIN), and rightfully so. While Cities for CEDAW relies on the work I began, it has a life of its own. I want to credit to those who came together 10 years ago, specifically, with the commitment and intention to expand Cities for CEDAW.   While I didn’t conceptualize Cities for CEDAW, its beauty is close to my heart and I see its distinct characteristics.

Cities for CEDAW is set up to birth and grow; it doesn’t have a specific template.  When the ground is right, when there are women on the ground ready to ignite, they engage in entering CEDAW for its implementation at different points.  Currently there are pros & cons on how we are implementing CEDAW. The biggest drawback is the lack of understanding and implementation of the human rights framework. We live in a country where human rights are not culturally accepted.  Therefore, US exceptionalism deprives Americans of the recognition that human rights are inalienable and fundamental to our way of being.

The reason the San Francisco model not been picked up as it was done is because it is hard to set up implementable policy with a budget.  It can be considered a high-risk engagement.  It becomes low-risk, depending on if it is set up to be implemented. Soon-Young Yoon gets credit for this multi-sector, multi-dimensional way Cities for CEDAW is set up to go beyond NGO’s.   It is cross-sectored, which means different city governments, NGO’s, academics, private sector. These groups have different ways of engagement and diverse entry points to CEDAW. This keeps Cities for CEDAW relevant and fluid.

There are a couple of wins:  It is vibrant, growing, and multi-dimensional. Also, at the same time, there are very tactical things that are being put in place:  like reporting to the CEDAW Committee (Geneva), making sure it is part of NGO Commission on the Status of Women (NY).  Then, it has a very strong horizontal and vertical approach, so therefore, it is going to sustain itself for much longer than just one organization doing one thing. Therefore, it is thriving in different spaces.

To me, the challenge is a reflection, not on Cities for CEDAW; it is a reflection of our country: To do human rights work in the US, to get people to recognize the relevance, even for people of color, even woman, it is much harder.  Because when you think civil rights in the US, the perception is that it is about race or gender, but not together. Civil and political rights are one component of human rights, and most in the US don’t recognizes that. We still need to do much more work around human rights, because unless the ground really gets human rights, and its added value, the majority of the little fights we are reacting to, will exhaust us.  If we use a human rights framework, it will help us go beyond single issues and single identity.

You are a visionary leader, a human rights advocate and a practitioner. How critical is to clarify definitions and using inclusive language for women and girls, including sex, gender, gender identity, and/or gender expression in crafting ordinances in the current political climate?

There are 2 things I’d like to speak to:

1. Language is power, so people in power define language, then we get to react to it.  And there are moments In history when those in the margins have been able to claim language: “Human rights are women’s rights,” “Dalit rights are human rights,” and “no human is illegal.” So, that is power. But the narrative has been dominated by people in power.  So it is very important to recognize different groups, different identities.
2. At the same time, I go back to human rights are about diversity, inclusion, belonging, accessibility and justice. That’s what human rights are about.So when you use human rights, I think it is inherent to understand that the definition of human rights is “constructing conditions in society for people to be fully human.”  Therefore, those whose humanity is threatened must decide what it means to be fully human. Therefore, the language and framework allow us to  speak to inclusivity.

Patriarchy wants us to fit into a box; we are pushing boundaries of that box.

We should not become hostages to that. I think it is important to unpack that gender includes women and men and non-binary persons; you cannot exclude humans. This is where again human rights comes into play, because it means enjoyment of our inherent right to dignity.  Nobody can argue with the right to dignity of a human being.  As a human, there is a fundamental space in which we hold our intersecting, multiple forms of identity.

Fighting language is a massive privilege, actually. So our job as advocates is to figure out how these most vulnerable groups are covered in the CEDAW ordinance you put forward.   That is our obligation. If you can’t include those in the margins, we shouldn’t do it. It is a disservice to human rights.  It is OK to not pass an ordinance, if it is not right. We cannot compromise human dignity.  That is what we need to keep in mind. It is beyond language, It is about human dignity.

San Francisco CEDAW came under attack. It wasn’t easy.  We had to really make a case.  That is why ensuring a public hearing helps support that. The most important strategic solution is to be on the offensive, not the defensive.

You are the founder of the Dignity IndeX, a human rights measurement tool utilized to ensure equity and inclusion to reduce identity-based discrimination. A crucial aspect of identity-based discrimination against women and girls is racial identity. How vital is it to craft the language of the ordinances through an intersectional lens, recognizing the interconnected nature of gender, race, and other identities? 

It is essential and is non-negotiable within CEDAW.  Because race is always there. Race doesn’t mean black or people of color; race is a social construct.   Ethnicity is our roots, it’s what connects us to place, what we consider tradition, culture, rituals, experiences.

Race is always present in CEDAW; when you don’t mention it, then the race presented is whiteness.  That is why it is very important to equalize that space, to ensure to include the intersection of identity, recognize both privilege and oppression.  Intersectionality is about multiple types of oppression based on identity.

Race and gender are two identities and can also be two types of oppressions that come together. But we are more than that. I created the Dignity Index to go beyond intersectionality, to go beyond identity, to recognize we can and do hold both privilege and oppression. Therefore is important to ensure we don’t engage in “othering,” other forms of oppression or create a hierarchy of oppression.

So, it is crucial that in CEDAW we recognize, at multiple intersections of identities, where we carry both privilege and oppression; we have responsibility, we are accountable to the privilege, and we seek justice for oppression. It is not one or the other, it is both. CEDAW speaks to just that.

Because CEDAW shows women are discriminated against because of our gender.  It’s systemic and structural. To which we integrate diverse experiences: rural, war zone, disability, previously Incarcerated, indigenous etc.. These identities shape our lived experiences. CEDAW speaks to these multiple spaces through the General Recommendations added to CEDAW through the years.   I want to bring up if we look to the future of CEDAW, if  we are looking at the past and beyond, Cities for CEDAW will have to have other measurements, other treaties included.

Women’s labor is critical. So, we have to recognize why CEDAW talks about economics, about employment, it doesn’t specifically speak to labor.  But women’s labor is included all the articles, because it looks to discriminate, because we are women. To really strengthen CEDAW at the local level, recognizing that women have both paid and unpaid, formal, and informal labor; jobs are connected, but it is not it.  We have brought in labor, ideally the International Labor Organization Convention 190 – addressing violence and harassment against women and men in the world of work.

We cannot have gender equality if we don’t pay attention to recognizing and elevating the value of women’s labor.  We as women are not recognized or valued for who we are. Discrimination is a result of this devaluation.   This is why it is important to have women of color and those who understand intersectionality are in leadership when CEDAW is designed. Women in leadership must recognize that diverse women have diverse lived experiences. CEDAW speaks to the inherent dignity all women, regardless of identity.  The passing of CEDAW at the local level must include this diversity.

Looking ahead, what innovations or changes do you envision to further align the Cities for CEDAW campaign with its goal of championing women’s rights?

What I would add is : not to forget Human Rights.  We need to assert that human rights is non-negotiable, because dignity is non-negotiable.  We must recognize that everyone has human rights. White supremacists have the same fundamental human rights, as you and I do. This is hard to digest, yet the recognition of one’s humanity allows us to sustain and deepen the work. We as a country are used to ‘ othering ’, making undocumented persons, the incarcerated, people of color, Muslims and women less than human. Yet, we must remember and embrace that we all are born free and equal in dignity and rights.