A/HRC/4/34 page 22 own power at minimal administrative cost. It is therefore ironic that the continued validity of gender discriminatory aspects of customary law is today often defended in the name of anti-colonialism, anti-imperialism and restoration of the “original” culture. 59. Indirect rule allowed male elders in a position of authority to manipulate customary law and improve their position at the expense of women and youth as it shifted authority structures and accountability patterns. In much of pre-colonial Africa, for instance, there were several layers of authorities based on age group, clans, women’s groups, religious groups, etc. and each defined custom in its own domain. However, the colonial authorities sanctified only one type of authority - chiefs - as a native authority under indirect-rule colonialism and thereby placed them in a privileged position to shape customary law and its codifications in accordance with their interests.41 Moreover, prior to the colonial conquest, the authority of traditional leaders had depended on support from the various groups within their own communities, whose diverse interests they had therefore to take into account. Yet, within indirect rule structures, traditional leaders now derived their authority largely from the colonial Power, which allowed them to advance and legally entrench their own interests without having to consider disenfranchised groups within the communities, including women. 60. Another common myth is that culture is homogenous and monolithic. Frequently a dominant, discriminatory paradigm is presented as the only legitimate interpretation, whereas the diverse voices existing within each culture are silenced, particularly if they are those of women or other already marginalized groups. The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam is a case in point (see paragraph 39 above). The Declaration pretends that there is one homogeneous Muslim view of Islamic values based on very intransigent human interpretations of the Koran. This monolithic representation of Islamic culture has been contested by many others including local human rights activists living in Islamic countries or in exile, reformist clerics and self-proclaimed Islamic feminists and women’s rights activists.42 61. Unfortunately, outsiders also buy into the myth of monolithic cultures. State authorities and donors, for instance, have a tendency to seek out so-called “gatekeepers” - the presumed authorities within a presumed monolithic community - when they try to enlist individual community members’ support for human rights initiatives or other purposes such as national security interests. Contrary to the original intention, this may further undermine the position of marginalized groups, specifically of women, because self-proclaimed leaders that represent radical views are empowered. In the Canadian province of Ontario, for example, a minority of religious leaders campaigned with considerable success on a cultural diversity platform for “their” communities’ rights to use Sharia law in civil arbitrations if both parties consent. The Ontario Arbitration Act in force at the time would have arguably allowed for such arbitrations. 41 M. Mamdani, “Political Identity, Citizenship and Ethnicity in Post-Colonial Africa” (2005). Available at: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/intranetsocialdevelopment/ Resources/revisedMamdani.pdf. 42 Cf. the report of my mission to the Islamic Republic of Iran (E/CN.4/2006/61/Add. 2).