26 In Their Capacity as Human Rights Defenders: Women – have therefore had to work extra hard to dispel perceptions that their male counterparts are more strategic, more organised, more active and more intelligent. In several instances, they have had to ward off unwarranted competition, duplication of their work, and undermining of their efforts and leadership in contributing to democracy, rights and governance work that is already successfully underway. A small number of men, however, have recognised and supported the efforts of women HRDs in the democracy sphere, and have actively championed women’s rights and the right for women to participate and be at the forefront of such battles, both within their communities and at the national level. The interventions, successes and challenges of women HRDs since the turn of the millennium, particularly those who assert their right to be heard on broader human rights issues, those who seek to hold state institutions and actors to account, and those who exercise their other participation rights, are highlighted – although not all efforts may be conclusively documented in this chapter. 3.2 Women HRDs and participation Freedom of assembly Women HRDs who have asserted their participation rights (freedom of assembly, association, expression and the right to participate in the government of the country) have been on the receiving end of retributive action by state and non-state actors alike. By far one of most turblents periods to exercise the the right to freedom of assembly for women HRDs was the period March to September 2006, when ZLHR represented over 550 women HRDs. These women, often as a result of organising and participating in public gatherings and demonstrations to voice their governance and socio-economic concerns, were charged with various offences ranging from obstruction of traffic, to conduct conducive to public disorder. Not a single successful prosecution of these 550 women HRDs was recorded. Some of the documented incidents appear below. 10 May 2003: Forty-six women were arrested during a march to commemorate Mothers’ Day in Bulawayo. They were detained at Bulawayo Central and Nkulumane Police Stations. ZLHR lawyers attended at both stations but were told that the Law and Order Section at Bulawayo Central was “closed” and that nobody knew where the women were being held. The lawyers were not allowed to have sight of the detention book, and the duty inspector advised them to see a senior police officer, who was equally unhelpful. As their right to lawyers of their choice was denied, and in order to avoid spending the night in custody in filthy cells, the women were forced to pay fines for contravening section 7(b) of the Miscellaneous Offence Act, essentially buying their freedom. The payment of the fines was subsequently successfully challenged in court, and overturned. 14 June 2004: Forty-three women, including some with breastfeeding babies, were arrested at a community hall in Bulawayo while discussing potential self-help projects. They were detained overnight at Bulawayo Central Police Station for contravening section 24 of the Public Order and Security Act, that criminalises the holding of public meetings without notifying the regulating authority. This, despite the fact that the meeting held was a private one for members only. The women were released after the magistrate ruled that meetings such as the one in which the women had participated were exempt from notification – an