LUZ MARINA TORRES, APRIL 23, 1998

This is a new law (203) here in Nicaragua now. That we did publicize a lot during the Campaign Against Violence against Women.

Q – What does the law say?

The law is a law which punishes physical and psychological violence. The law is also preventative. It is a very interesting law.

Q – Did their campaign have something to do with the passing of the law?

Yes. Here you have everything that we did during the campaign. We did almost 40 talks on this Law 230. We make flyers.

Q – Before the law was passed?

We did it during the Campaign Against Violence. We did the radio spots, banners in the streets, a Forum Debate on Violence and a Forum Debate on the application of Law 230. What happens is that the Network of Woman Against Violence we proposed publicizing the law in the campaign as a very important resource for women to be able to make the law have force.

Q –The three parts of the project were: radio publicity and announcements, newspaper articles, and twelve weekly radio programs. But I gather you added a training session.

Yes, we did some training. Instead of a weekly radio program we put on a permanent radio spot all of October and November.

Q – What type, what did it say, or was it long?

Yes, it said for example, it read like this. "I lived for a long time as a mistreated woman, abused. But I got out of that cycle of violence. Now things have changed. We women have laws that favor us. We demand our rights, say no to violence. To live life is to live without violence." That was one of them. The other one goes: "mistreatment against women is mistreatment of the family. Physical and psychological mistreatment is a crime punishable by the law. We women want and have the right to make decisions about our own lives. Let’s say no to violence. To live life is to live without violence." November 25, the day of no-violence against women, Colectivo 8 de Marzo, District 6, Managua.

Q – Was this one radio station?

One radio station. Radio Universidad. Radio Maggi, the one that is in first place in Nicaragua. It is well listened to by half of humanity and therefore it is much more expensive than any other one. It ran 4 times a day in the principle programs of the Maggie. And the radio spot we run daily. That means that we ran for 60 days, 4 times a day one spot, and the other spot ran 4 times a day, so that is 8 times a day.

Q – Would you tell me once again what the workshop was about.

The workshop, we proposed in the campaign publicize the effects and causes of violence. So what we did was a workshop with a lot of leaders, some 30 leaders, where we discussed the causes and the effects of violence against women.

Q – The leaders being leaders of what?

The leaders in the neighborhoods.

Q – Then would you expect them to go talk to women in the neighborhoods, or what?

In the end they are reproducers of the information. They always are women who reproduce through talks or individually what they are learning about.

Q – Were these women in organizations, or just individual women leaders of the neighborhood?

No, there were people from other organizations, from the Police, from FONIF offices, from the health centers and from the neighborhoods.

Q – I was interested in how you weighed the utility of the workshops versus the radio programs. Did you think this was more important to get to the local level, or what? You said you dropped the long program.

The workshop has nothing to do with the proposal for the radio programs. Let me explain. We had proposed there be one weekly radio program. OK? Then there had to have been 8 radio programs. So what we did was, do the spots so that the spots would run daily for a period of 60 days. So I think what the difference is is that in the programs you would have been able to talk about a number of smaller topics. And the spots are just one topic that the women are listening to every now and then or whenever they have their radio on, about how to deal with violence or to know that you have the right to complain. So I think between the program and the spots the difference was not in content, but in, maybe in, how can I say it, a bit about having changed the objective, I believe, but not the vision of what we wanted to do. Am I explaining it? I don’t have it exactly clear for you, but maybe more or less.

There is something that I want to explain to you about the campaign so that you can have a clear vision so you can explain it as well. That campaign is much larger than what we did. Because there are other organizations who also support that campaign. There are many other things we did during the 60 days. Also that slogan that "to live life is to live without violence." We in a discussion with women leaders came up with the slogan and it was used in the larger campaign and it was accepted as an attractive slogan. And that was in our Colectivo, with the women who come to our Colectivo. And this is an important thing for you to know.

Q – Now you said two months. I thought it was November. Is it October and November when the campaign runs?

Yes, October and November. And the campaign lasts two months. It ends the 25^th of November.

Q – Does Puntos de Encuentro work with..?

All the women’s groups work together.

Q - Now I think we have a little time left. We spoke a bit about the work of the Collective, so now I would like to talk about the scandal, the effects on the women’s movement. Basically I want you to talk to me about how you see it, how they in the Colectivo, what your perspective is, what your analysis is.

From the situation that we are facing in Nicaragua with the women’s movement, or

Q – Well I want you to talk about it in a way that you think is productive. But I wanted to hear her analysis of the phenomenon of the scandal and what her views are, because there are many different views. But I would like to hear your perspective.

You can record this. These are things that I have always said to people when they have asked me. I think that we feminists have been the most affected by this. And not because we have had a close relationship with Daniel Ortega, nor for a close relationship with Zoilamerica. But for the fact that at the beginning of the scandal, I felt that in some way there was a lot of manipulation. Manipulated in the sense that the communications media were like saying, "well what do you feminists think? You have to talk and say something about it." And I say manipulation because historically we feminists have been know to have a Sandinista history. In this country it is clear for a lot of people that we feminists have been or are of were Sandinistas. So from that perspective the media of the right as well as of the left, like saying that since you are feminists you need to be the first to speak out, to make pronouncements, to say something about the abuse and harassment.

So in that sense, being part of the Women’s Movement it seems like we were also manipulated in this. Nevertheless, I as a feminist, also a Sandinista, it seems to me that what Daniel got into was very damaging. And I believe Zoilamerica. And the day that I quit believing in a sexual abuse, I would be violating my internal feminism from within, from my heart. Just us women, I believe tend to believe and are sure that we women do not lie in this sense.

There is something else. I have also loved a lot this great leader for the country. And I feel sorry for him as well. But he is the abuser. And I am not of the criteria of giving [statements] to the communications media who ask me so much about what I think and what I don’t think. Because I know perfectly well that the media is playing their own role.

Q – You mean you don’t feel like you have to give your own personal opinion, is that it?

To the media. No I think that they give [their point of view]. I am saying that I personally am not very convinced that I have to say things and more things in the communication media. When I have talked or reflected or spoken about this case, I have done it with the people that come to the Collective, who ask me, who ask me what my criteria is, whether I believe her or not. When these things happen I communicate, and I communicate what I told you previously. I believe in it. I know it is true. There is no woman who would tell a lie of that nature, and Daniel could be the most recognized and most prestigious leader in this country, but he is a man. And he is made in this society, and the largest percentage of abuse happens within the family.

Q – Why would you not think it would be educational or useful to speak in the media or write in the media or whatever?

I think that it is helpful to talk in the media about the topic of abuse. But not for them to say, "So what do you think? Do you think it is possible for Daniel to have done such a thing? Like doubting whether it happened or not. Those types of things I don’t like to do. But If we are talking about going into more depth about the topic, who is doing this type of thing, how can they be identified, what are the effects, in that sense I am very willing anywhere I may be invited. But the truth is that no media has invited me to talk about this topic. Other women have gone, but I have not.

Q – So I interrupted your train of thought. So where were we. Oh, you were talking about the fact that you are a feminist but also a Sandinista.

Yes, I was saying that he could be a very prestigious man, but he comes from this society, and it is not by chance – and this also happens in all environment, they could be old men, young men, men with money or men without any money. And in that sense I think that logically the problem has grown, because there are a lot of women, men and young people who were very, very ideologized. We never thought that a leader of that nature could do something like this, to do such a barbarous act.

I personally am a Sandinista and I will continue to be one, but I will not forgive the sexual abuse. I do not have personal experience of that nature. But I do have a lot of work experience around this. And I know that the effects on the women or on girls are very serious, very damaging. And we feminists, I think, we have to be like the defenders that ensure that this type of crime be punished. And I think that as part of the women’s movement we are like in a dead end street. Because on the one hand it is said that the reason that those of us who are on Zoila’s side are there is because we are no longer Sandinistas. And because always since, I don’t know if you remember about when all of us women’s groups were part of a process of autonomy that was generated from AMNLAE. From that there was a campaign started that said that we were Contra-Sandinistas, that is we were no longer Sandinistas. That we were rather lesbians, do you remember that?

Q – Yes, I remember all of that.

That was a very big campaign in the 90s. So now that other part of the women’s movement, that even though it does work on gender, with women, do not want to believe this situation happened. They do not want to believe it. They are saying that it is a lie, it is a trap. Even Monica Baltodano said this.

Q – These are people in the feminist movement?

No they are from the women’s movement.

Q – They say it is a lie?

That it is a lie, that it is political trap. Yes, a lot of people and they are part of the women’s movement. The fact that they might not be feminists is something else. So all of a sudden we find ourselves dealing with both groups. So we want to explain the effects of sexual abuse, and we want to explain that if we are talking about punishing violence, all of those who do violence have to be punished, no matter where you are from or where you might be. So that is not understood.

People are also saying, well, why was it made public? Because Daniel is public. And why shouldn’t it be public when someone else does it? Because isn’t it public. So that is clear.

Q – I just need to clarify something. Did you say that there were feminists and members of the women’s movement who did not believe Zoilamerica?

Yes, do you want me to repeat that part. For me they are two different things. The feminists are part of the women’s movement, but the women’s movement many of them might not be feminists.

Q- So it is from those ranks that come the disbelief?

Yes, but there is also another matter in some very few. There are feminists who believe her, believe in the scandal, but they do not agree with the role that Zoilamerica played. In the sense of using the media, of using resources, let’s say, of the communications media and of having using resources of Sandinism and of Daniel himself, and that now, and for a long time back, has told about this thing, this abuse. So in that sense there are some feminists, very few, who we don’t like very much that type of attitude that Zoila had. That is not my case, but there are others.

Q – I would like to ask about something totally different. I was browsing through MS magazine and there was an article by Donna [Vukelich] on women’s rights under threat in Nicaragua. I wanted to ask you because it was just a matter of fact whether the Ministry of the Family was going to come through or it has been created?

Not yet, not yet.

Q – The other thing was something that Hazel [Fonseca] spoke about today, and my understanding was, when I was here last April, and when I was reading stuff in May that Aleman’s efforts to control the NGOs had failed. And Hazel was saying that her foundation and other NGOs were having a lot of problems with international funding because of the government’s efforts to control them. Is that true?

That is true. I agree with Hazel in that sense. The government with the Tax Law, the Law for the Regulation of Taxes, in this law the government legalized the control of the NGOs. To say it more clearly, now funders, in order to finance a large project, have to be accepted by the Foreign Ministry. So the Foreign Ministry is not an organization that is in sympathy with the NGOs. That is a problem. It does not have an office that has the responsibility of gender, to say that they might have a little bit of sensitivity. In other words, they are doing a lot to make civil society disappear. Logically they don’t say this openly.

Starting last year we NGOs are reporting the money that comes in to the Ministry of the Interior. So now we have to say what we spent the money on and over what period of time. All receipts on purchases larger than 500 cordobas we have to pay tax on.

There is something else that strikes more at the heart of it all. For example now they are saying that any funding has to be self-sustaining. The funds that we receive have to be self-sustaining. That means that if they provide funding of say $10,000, we have to have matching funds for that, another internal project, that belongs to the organization that generates funds. So I give you $10,000, you have put up another $10,000. Or let’s say, I will fund you for three years, and then you have to be able to maintain yourself. So how can the AIDS projects, for example, maintain themselves? Domestic violence? This cannot be done.

Q – Now if you cannot come up with the matching funds, what happens?

They don’t give you the money, the funding does not come in. So these are changes that happened since the Aleman government came into power. Those changes did not exist previously.

Q – That is horrible. That is as bad as what he had originally intended, isn’t it?

Exactly.

Q – Do you think that the NGOs are going to dry up and die?

No, I don’t think we NGOs are going to die. What happens is that this is already being worked on. There are a lot of NGOs, those who are purely non-governmental, we are like in continual coordination to discuss the possibility that the government would understand that it is legal for these organizations to donate to groups that are doing social work. Because who else is going to contribute to social work? The government has not improved any health center in any neighborhood in Managua. It has not improved any school, there are things that it has done, but they have nothing to do with the changes in people’s lives.

Q – I thought that the impetus behind this attack was an anti-Sandinista one. So since it is a political matter, so what? Do they really expect to win over the government on this?

Look what happens is, I don’t think this government sees itself as being completely is supreme either. It is not going to be so brutish. Everyone of the NGOs in this country, as many NGOs as there are, there are that many funders, who are helping these groups, even though it might be with little amounts of income for these groups, all the women’s groups, the youth groups. And the government knows perfectly well that we form part of a community leadership, and so it is not easy for them to say that we are going to disappear overnight.

Q – When did this tax law go through?

The law was approved in November 1997. And there is another law that is worse yet, that about the Ministry of the Family.

Q – Do you think that will be approved?

Yes, it will be approved. Of course they will approve it. With the Law of the Ministry of the Family, according to them, we are going to be controlled as a NGO by that Ministry. One of the sections of that law say that they are going to go to the Centers to look at the records and to see what we are doing internally.

Q – Last year we talked a little bit about the Ministry of the Family, and what I need to know is an example of the practical import of this new definition of the family. In other words, the family is a married couple with children. I need an example as to what effect this definition will have on the ground, in terms of social policy.

For example, there is a woman let’s say that has 5 children. And those children have 2 fathers. She is not married to either one of them. So she does not fit in the social status of a family.

Q – OK but does that mean that she does not receive assistance?

This means that in order to register her children for school, she is not going to be able to present herself as the head of the family, because she is alone, but she does not have a man in her house, and she is a woman who has had two men and her children have two different fathers. So she, in the school, when they have parent’s meetings, she is going to have problems. That is a very small example.

Q – That is to say that the rights that a head of family has, she will not have.

She won’t have them. Exactly. She is not going to be able to obtain legal control over her house.