Discrimination: There’s what we say, and there’s how we act

The results of the National Survey on Gender Equality carried out by the National Office of Statistics and Information (ONEI) in November 2016 are now available. As was noted in the preliminary presentation, the data corroborates progress in gender equity in Cuba, in comparison with the Latin American region and with domestic studies at the end of the 80s of the last century. At the same time, though, these developments do not have the expected scope in terms of the total elimination of discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

The figures, says the ONEI, are statistically representative of the assessment of Cuban citizens between the ages of 15 and 74, who opined on issues that would later be considered when Cuba’s new Constitution was being discussed. However, the complete results of this National Survey were published when the process of discussing the current Cuban Constitution, approved in a referendum on February 24, had already concluded.

The Center for Studies on Women wanted to “study whether there were cases of discrimination in the population, for different reasons, in the past five years.” They inquired about the rights of homosexuals and whether or not the population had evolved in its conceptions and prejudices about this group.

Of those surveyed, 77 percent said that persons who have sex with same-sex partners should have the same rights as everyone else. (The favorable results were 80.5 percent of women, and 73.3 percent of men.) When inquiring about the rights to marriage and adoption, these percentages dropped. Nevertheless, the survey confirms that “almost half of those polled (49.1 percent of the total), and more women than men (52.7 to 45.5 percent respectively), felt that same sex couples should be allowed to marry.” Only 28.3 percent of women and 36.7 percent of men declared themselves “openly opposed,” while 5.7 percent had “doubts.”

In other words, the legalization of same sex marriage was approved by almost half of the respondents. Based on results from the last survey of this type, conducted between 1988 and 1989, we could say then that policies of inclusion in Cuba would have succeeded in establishing values of non-discrimination during the last six decades. But is that really true?

About one half of people surveyed still disagree, for whatever the reason, in recognizing the right of a legal union between homosexual persons. When it comes to adoption the survey reveals that not even a third of those consulted favored the idea of homo-parental couples. Almost half was in “disagreement” if the applicants were two men. According to the ONEI, there were no differences between the answers when taking into account rural or urban areas — the opinions were sufficiently homogeneous to discard relevant nuances depending on where they lived.

Equity for all

A couple of years after the National Survey on Gender Equality, Cuban society faced the rights of homosexuals differently. The changes proposed by the project of the new Constitution moved the issue from one that was purely an opinion to a practical one. People were faced with the challenge of transforming into a reality the discourse of respect for diversity that, it seemed, was embraced by the majority. That change was definitive.

The first consultation was of 192,408 people questioned on the issue of equal marriage (24.57 percent of the total), collected in a first version of Article 68. It was one of the issues that generated the most controversy in the process of discussion amongst the population. According to the website Cubadebate, regarding what is now currently Article 82, “the majority chose to substitute the wording from the union between two people and return it to between a man and a woman,” as it was in the old Constitution.

The National Assembly of People’s Power took what was seen as a sideways step by citing what they considered the absence of the necessary social consensus and therefore removing the phrase “between two people” from the constitutional text submitted for referendum. It left the responsibility to the next ‘Family Code‘ (that covers marriage, divorce, marital property relationships, recognition of children, obligations for children’s care and education, adoption, and tutelage) to define the rest, and included a temporary provision that this final law also be subject to a referendum in the country.

It initially stated:

“Marriage is the voluntarily union between two people with the legal capacity to do so, in order to live life in common. It rests on the absolute equality of rights and duties of the spouses, who are obliged to maintain the home and to the integral formation of the children through their common effort so that it be compatible with the development of their social activities.

“The law regulates the formalization, recognition, dissolution of marriage and the rights and obligations that derive from said acts.”

It was changed to this:

“Marriage is a social and legal institution. It is one of the organizational forms for families. It is based on free consent and equality of rights, obligations and the legal capacity of the spouses.

“The law determines the way it is constituted and its effects.

“It also recognizes a stable and unique union with legal capacity, which in fact forms a common life project, which under the conditions and circumstances stipulated by law, generates the rights and obligations that this provides.”

*****

Seen in retrospect and contrasted with the return of the national consultation, this survey by ONEI reveals serious contradictions in the interpretation of a large part of the public’s feeling on non-discrimination.

Both the survey and consultation coincided in opposing discrimination for any reason harmful to the dignity of persons, including their sexual orientation or gender identity. This is true. However, “there still persist, at subjective levels and collective practices, traditional perceptions and stereotypes of the patriarchal culture,” concluded the survey’s authors. Adding that “some of the social changes experienced by women and men fail to fully counteract beliefs and myths of this hegemonic culture, which then occur in different places.”

Sadly the data indicates that still today many people possess only half-rights — which is a self-denial. It is also alarming that these opinions persist when it comes to updating the current Family Code.

So the result is that we have two years. It is the window of time available for activism, discussion of public policies, and campaigning to raise public awareness that rights must be exercised for all, or they are not rights, but privileges.