Have governments forgotten they agreed to protect the human rights of men and boys?
Men’s well-being is a complex mix of interactions between personal characteristics, family and community, and institutional policies and practices. A country’s law and institutional policies impact men’s circumstances and ability to address any issues they face.
Intimate partner violence
For example, New Zealand’s family violence screening guidelines for doctors do not recommend routine screening for men. Instead, the guidelines recommend asking men about family violence only if there are indications that it has occurred. For women, routine screening is recommended. This decision creates barriers for male victims and makes them vulnerable to further abuse. Men are less likely to be injured by family violence. In general, when men are injured, they are less likely to seek help. They often do not have a regular relationship with a GP. This means that doctors are less likely to see signs of family violence in male victims. This makes routine screening for family violence more important for men, but alas, the policy recommends routine screening for women only.
“This makes routine screening for family violence more important for men, but alas, the policy recommends routine screening for women only.”
Similarly, the UK government’s classification of male victims of rape, sexual violence, domestic abuse, etc. as victims of ‘violence against women’ has created difficulties for male victims even to be recognized, let alone helped. However, at the time of writing this article there has been some important progress: a bill requiring the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a separate strategy to tackle violence against men and boys has passed its first reading.[1]
“Article 3 of the convention requires equal rights between women and men, however, New Zealand’s reports on article 3 only address women’s situation. […] Presenting half of the picture is not comprehensive coverage.”
Addressing policy oversights that negatively impact men’s well-being requires political will. Sadly, political will to address men’s issues is scarce. The UK All-Party Parliamentary Group on Issues Affecting Men and Boys’ report on male suicide states: “Given the scale of male suicide, and like on so many other issues from boys’ educational underachievement to male cancers and the number of men in prison, there seems to be a lack of urgency and depth in terms of political and public policy action.”
Stereotypical assumptions and beliefs about men and boys can hamper the development and implementation of policy to improve men’s well-being. Many people assume that ‘equal rights’ between women and men only concerns women. Somehow, men’s human rights are magically taken care of. For example, New Zealand reports to the United Nations on their implementation the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Article 3 of the convention requires equal rights between women and men, however, New Zealand’s reports on article 3 only address women’s situation. In fact, on several occasions, the authors of the reports say that the situation concerning equal rights between women and men is “comprehensively covered” by New Zealand’s reports on the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women. Presenting half of the picture is not comprehensive coverage, but this did not occur to the authors of these reports.
“advocating for men and boys using these human rights conventions simply means asking the government to do what they have already agreed to.”
Advocacy for men often focusses on highlighting men’s unmet needs but misses the government’s human rights obligations. In 1976, the UK ratified both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)[2] and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)[3]. Ratification means that the government agreed to be legally bound by the conventions. Therefore, advocating for men and boys using these human rights conventions simply means asking the government to do what they have already agreed to.
So, what has the government agreed to do for men and boys? Human rights obligations are divided into three broad categories. Respect, protect, and fulfil. The obligation to respect, means that the government must not violate the rights of men and boys. The obligation to protect, means that the government must put laws and policies in place to prevent violations of human rights by non-government actors. For example, laws prohibiting domestic violence. The obligation to fulfil, means that the government must take positive steps to ensure that men and boys enjoy their rights in practice. This includes considering “factors that impede” men’s enjoyment of their rights and the removal of those obstacles.[4]
“The government cannot be passive in meeting its obligations to men and boys. The conventions require the government to ‘take the necessary steps’ to ensure that men and boys are granted all of their rights.”
The government cannot be passive in meeting its obligations to men and boys. The conventions require the government to ‘take the necessary steps’ to ensure that men and boys are granted all of their rights.
The conventions also have articles that give the government specific obligations to men and boys. Both the ICCPR and the ICESCR prohibit discrimination in the application of the convention. Article 2 of both conventions requires that the government ensures that all rights are given to everyone without discrimination or distinction based on sex. Prohibition of discrimination is not limited to intentional acts, but also anything that has the effect of ‘nullifying or impairing’ the ‘enjoyment or recognition’ of men’s human rights. Article 26 of the ICCPR requires that the government to provide ‘equal and effective’ protection against discrimination.
Article 3 of both the ICCPR and the ICESCR explicitly state that men should enjoy their rights equally with women.
The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to ensure the equal right of men and women to the enjoyment of all …rights set forth in the present Covenant.
The United Nations human rights committee expands on what article 3 means:
Article 3 implies that all human beings should enjoy the rights provided for in the Covenant, on an equal basis and in their totality. The full effect of this provision is impaired whenever any person is denied the full and equal enjoyment of any right. Consequently, States should ensure to men and women equally the enjoyment of all rights provided for in the Covenant.[5]
Relationships and divorce
Other articles relate to specific rights are especially relevant to men and boys, such as article 23.4 of the ICCPR, which requires the government to “ensure equality of rights and responsibilities of spouses as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.” Research into men’s experiences of family mediation found issues with the “mediator’s bias against fathers” and “the devaluation of fatherhood”.[6] It is likely that this discrimination extends to family court as well. Although this disparity exists because of gender norms around the primacy of motherhood, rather than because of anything written in law, articles 2, 3, and 23.4 require the government to ensure this discrimination does not occur.
Using human rights conventions to advocate for policy that improves men’s well-being can feel like stating the obvious. It seems reductive to explain that human rights apply to men and boys, too. However, it is important to highlight the government’s human rights obligations and what the government has already agreed to under international human rights conventions when advocating for men and boys.
“Men should not be denied the benefit of rehabilitation programmes, rather than prison, simply because they are men.”
Unfortunately, public servants, including human rights ‘experts’, do not understand their human rights obligations to men and boys. I think most people would agree that the government has human rights obligations to men and boys if explicitly asked about it. Part of the problem is that the thought does not occur to them when making policy decisions that affect men and boys.
Criminal justice
Earlier this year I wrote to the Equality and Human Rights Commission asking them to inform the prison minister of the government’s human rights obligations to men under the ICCPR.
The justice system creates challenges for men’s and women’s well-being. Many men in the justice system have significant mental health problems that need to be addressed. Unfortunately, mental health issues and social deprivation are more readily recognized by criminologists when they impact women than when they impact men[7].
A prison sentence is rarely the best way to address these issues so the UK government plans to divert women from prison and reduce the number of women’s prisons.[8] Addressing the issues women face in the justice system does not negate the government’s obligations to men and boys. Men’s human rights do not evaporate when women are suffering. Men should not be denied the benefit of rehabilitation programmes, rather than prison, simply because they are men.
In addition to the equality and non-discrimination articles mentioned above (articles 2 and 3), several articles in the ICCPR relate to the justice system. Article 9.1 prohibits arbitrary detention. Article 10 requires all persons deprived of their liberty to be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. Article 14 requires everyone to be equal before the courts and tribunals. Article 26 requires governments to ensure that everyone is equal before the law, provide equal protection of the law, and guarantee equal and effective protection against discrimination.
“Differential treatment of men in the justice system often relies on paternalistic stereotypes that see women as vulnerable, victims of circumstances, and in need of care and rehabilitation, while men are seen as responsible for their bad behaviour and more deserving of punishment.”
Arbitrary detention includes imprisoning someone based on their sex. Men receive longer sentences for the same crimes compared to women, so there are men in prison who would not be if they were women. This discrimination against men is a long-term problem. A review of judicial decisions found “persistent gender gaps favoring females in jury convictions and judges’ sentences in nearly 200 years of London trials, which are unexplained by case characteristics”.[9] Differential treatment of men in the justice system often relies on paternalistic stereotypes that see women as vulnerable, victims of circumstances, and in need of care and rehabilitation, while men are seen as responsible for their bad behaviour and more deserving of punishment.[10]
I received a boilerplate response from the Equality and Human Rights Commission stating that they cannot respond to every letter, and have to choose what they focus on. However, my goal, as with this article, is to be explicit about and promote awareness of the government’s human rights obligations to men and boys.
Good law and policy are important ways to improve men’s well-being. Unfortunately, stereotypical beliefs, the lack of political will, and other issues hamper its development. Highlighting the government’s human rights obligations to men and boys and what they have already agreed to do, can help overcome these barriers.
References
[1]https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/59-01/0224/240224.pdf
[2]https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights
[3]https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-economic-social-and-cultural-rights
[4]ICCPR General Comment 28
[5]ICCPR General Comment 28 – Paragraph 2
[6] Nurit Zubery. How Men Experience Family Dispute Resolution Mediation. Ph.D. thesis, ResearchSpace@ Auckland, 2021.
[7] Liddon & Barry (2021). Perspectives in Male Psychology. NJ: Wiley.
[8] https://theweek.com/politics/the-case-for-abolishing-womens-prisons
[9]Bindler, Anna and Hjalmarsson, Randi, (2020), The Persistence of the Criminal Justice Gender Gap: Evidence from 200 Years of Judicial Decisions, Journal of Law and Economics, 63, issue 2, p. 297-339
[10]Jeffries, Samantha. (2002). Does gender really matter? Criminal court decision-making in New Zealand. New Zealand Sociology. 17.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you want to deepen your understanding of men and masculinity, take one of the Centre for Male Psychology online courses.
Scroll down to join the discussion
Disclaimer: This article is for information purposes only and is not a substitute for therapy, legal advice, or other professional opinion. Never disregard such advice because of this article or anything else you have read from the Centre for Male Psychology. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of, or are endorsed by, The Centre for Male Psychology, and we cannot be held responsible for these views. Read our full disclaimer here.
Like our articles?
Click here to subscribe to our FREE newsletter and be first
to hear about news, events, and publications.
Have you got something to say?
Check out our submissions page to find out how to write for us.
.
