A/HRC/52/35 53. In that respect, the Special Rapporteur welcomes the measures taken by States to teach migrants the national language, cultural references and history,44 but wishes to learn more about the measures taken to teach local groups about the history, cultural resources and languages of migrants. The participation of migrants in the inception, establishment and delivery of such measures is key for an interconnected, intercultural society. Illiberal practices 54. Concerns are frequently expressed that the cultural norms and practices of migrants sometimes restrict individual human rights, including sexual freedom, gender equality, freedom of speech and individuality.45 In Europe, the exercise of cultural rights by migrants coming from more traditional societies is particularly seen as potentially compromising women’s and children’s rights. 55. On the one hand, the assumption that certain forms of violence against women are cultural practices that cannot or should not be questioned is deeply flawed. For example, practices such as forced or early marriages and lack of education are based on imbalances concerning gender and sexuality, rather than simply being a reflection of cultural values, and are practices that have to be challenged on the basis of human rights. Brave Iranian women are currently showing the world that their oppression cannot be justified in the name of culture. Migrant women do not have to confirm forcibly to the cultural expressions of the majority of the host State.46 On the other hand, simplistic and populist kneejerk reactions have the opposite effect of what they claim to serve: instead of promoting their rights, they treat migrant women as minors, take away their voices in the name of liberation and deprive them of other rights, such as education and financial independence. A number of States have prohibited women from wearing specific religious items in public services, educational settings or anywhere in public spaces.47 Such prohibitions continue to divide international human rights bodies and need to be reflected upon, bearing in mind a wide range of considerations.48 Migrant women’s efforts to enable themselves in their new societies and fight intersectional injustice and stereotyping from both the host society and from within their communities must not be undermined by ready-made solutions imposed by others. In the European context, in order to be heard, migrant women often feel that they have to adopt Western thought, reasoning and language 49 and use the given formal language and vocabulary to express their concerns and wishes. 56. International law is clear about possible illiberal practices. The universality of human rights is non-negotiable. Human rights apply everywhere, irrespective of geography. Cultural diversity and cultural rights cannot be used to justify the oppression of individuals. 50 Importantly, both in assessing whether there is a violation and in devising measures to eliminate such a possible violation, States have the obligation to be guided by the free and informed opinions of the individuals concerned. Otherwise, there is a risk that an assessment of whether something is a violation or not is informed by national perspectives or interpretations of both the practices and their meaning. States have an important role to play in ensuring that women have the possibility of a free and informed opinion, as well as real choices to opt out of any given practice. That can only happen if they have their right to 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 12 See submission by Azerbaijan. The Special Rapporteur has heard State officials equating the process of integration to free language lessons for migrants. See Marc de Leeuw and Sonja van Wichelen, “Civilizing migrants: integration, culture and citizenship”, European Journal of Cultural Studies, vol. 15, No. 2 (March 2012). See submission by the Women’s Rehabilitation Centre, Nepal. See submission by Maat for Peace, Development and Human Rights Association. See European Court of Human Rights, S.A.S. v. France, Application no 43835/11, Judgment of 1 July 2014, as compared to Yaker v. France (CCPR/C/123/D/2747/2016) and Hebbadj v. France, (CCPR/C/123/D/2807/2016). See Joanne P. Sharp, Geographies of Postcolonialism (London, Sage Publications, 2009), p. 111. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, art. 30; Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, para. 5; Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity, art. 4; Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, art. 2; Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, general comment No. 21 (2009), para. 18. See also A/73/227. GE.23-01011