Does Gender Equality Exist? by Sharon Dolan

The emotional, sexual, and psychological stereotyping of females begins when the doctor says, "It's a girl." ~Shirley Chisholm

Men and women are not equal and to my mind they never will be.

In June 1913 Emily Davison threw herself in front of the King of Great Britain and Ireland’s horse at the Epsom Derby. The moment was captured on film and for anyone who has seen it: it’s a gruesome visual nightmare. For she was, of course, killed by the horse.

Emily was a devoted, and some may say fanatical, member of the women’s suffrage movement in the UK. A movement that campaigned and protested for Universal Suffrage: basically it fought for the right of women to have the same voting privileges as men.

In 1928 Universal suffrage for all adults over 21 years of age was achieved.

The Pankhurst family, who have become an almost mythical family in the movement towards equal citizenship with men, led the movement.

You can imagine my excitement several years ago when I discovered that a friend’s great - grandmother had been in prison with one of the Pankhurst’s, during the suffragette’s infamous hunger strikes. She was not in prison for herself being a member of the suffragettes, but because being about to give birth, and being in an era before epidurals, she had drunk some alcohol to help numb the pain. Her payment for doing such a thing: Prison.

And perhaps therein lies the insurmountable obstacle to gender equality: childbirth. And that is one fact that can never be erased.

To be born female is to be born, in many respects, a commodity. From the smallest age we compliment little girls for being pretty, sweet, good around the house, and all things nice.

If a woman happens to be beautiful and also happens to be intelligent well then that is one of the most dangerous combinations alive. And it will not, in nearly all cases, ever make her happy. By contrast looks and brains in a man just make him more attractive and winsome to everybody.

For men are born with an advantage.

But what about when this ‘advantage’ is not just an advantage like any other: being beautiful; being intelligent; being talented, but one which is used to victimize those that were merely born the ‘the other sex’.

I sat down to write this blog entry and realized I don’t know what to say, do, or write. I don’t know what you can say about such an endemic human rights issue that crosses, culture, race and wealth.

Whether that is rape, acid – throwing, honor killings, female genital mutilation or domestic violence.

The image that it portrays of the culture we have created for ourselves shows itself very clearly. Some are clearly more equal than others: A whole 50% to be precise.

‘At least one out of every three women has been beaten, coerced into sex, or

otherwise abused in her lifetime’.

As a child many of us witness domestic violence.

We all know people whose childhood was blighted by this horrendous reality.

There is a culture of silence that surrounds domestic abuse, and I don’t think any statistic will ever truthfully tell us how big the actual problem is.

The very same boys who are outraged at the abuse inflicted on their Mother often go on to impose similar abuse in their own adult relationships. And the same is true of girls. Often times the daughters of domestic abuse victims grow up and become entrapped in abusive relationships.

Children, who have witnessed the sins of the fathers, can often too actively reject the family where such horrendous events occurred.

As adults we demand explanations for the past. We want to know why it happened, and why it was allowed to happen. We don’t understand why people stay and put up with it. We often place the blame on the original victims:

‘You stayed! You put up with it! I wouldn’t. I never would. Why did you do it? Don’t you know what it has done to me?’

"To the victor go the spoils" goes the war cry. In a world where over half the human beings, are made vulnerable by virtue of their very gender. There are no victors; only spoils. And we should be ashamed of ourselves.

Abandoned Again? Chad Forces the UN Out of the Country

Abeché, Eastern Chad

May 23, 2010

We have begun our work on the ground in eastern Chad and in early days much of our focus is on the impending decision of the UN Security Council about the future of the critical UN mission here. Under pressure from the Chadian government, and with the conspicuous absence of the usual strong influence of Chad’s former colonial power, France, the Security Council is poised to agree to begin a pull out of UN troops from the east of the country, to be completed by mid-October. It could very well prove disastrous for human rights protection, development projects and overall security. And at this point in time it seems near irreversible.

My friend Celine Narmandji, a remarkably tenacious women’s human rights defender who I’ve worked with on missions here in the past, put it very well when we met for lunch right after my arrival in Chad. She said: “We were abandoned before. We’re going to be abandoned again. The good news is that in between, for a short while, the world did care about the situation in eastern Chad.”

Right she is, but we need better news than that.

I have been going back in my own mind, repeatedly, to the many women, men and young people I met during my first Amnesty mission to eastern Chad, in late 2006. They too talked about abandonment: in the face of a relentless wave of violence, much of it orchestrated from across the border in Darfur, hundreds of villages were razed, thousands of people killed, untold numbers of women and girls raped, and close to 200,000 Chadian chased from their homes.

They felt abandoned by their own government and the rest of the world. And they were – there was no UN mission on the ground at that time. And Chadian authorities, who have long neglected and played politics with the east of the country, did nothing to prevent or respond to the devastating human rights violations. Abandonment was the right word.

Amnesty and others worked hard to end that abandonment. AI members wrote letters, signed petitions and spoke out. And in March 2008 a UN mission, complete with military troops, began to fan out across this isolated and troubled region with a strong Security Council mandate to protect civilians. It was not easy. The UN mission faced numerous challenges and shortcomings – many of which Amnesty publicized, including after a mission I was part of back to the east last year. But now, just as the mission has begun to solidify and truly make a difference – the Chadian government has pulled the plug and the Security Council has meekly gone along for the ride.

The mandate of the current mission is set to expire on Wednesday of this week – May 26th; just 72 hours from when I’m recording this message. The writing is on the wall – a draft of the new resolution is circulating widely now, laying out a timetable for the UN’s quick withdrawal and taking away from the reduced numbers of UN troops that will remain for the next several months their mandate to take action to protect civilians. It is expected to be adopted before Wednesday.

Even as the hours draw to a close we must continue to press key governments – particularly France – to step back from the brink and refuse to go ahead with a precipitous UN pull out from a country that is, at best, beginning to enjoy fragile and very tentative improvements in human rights protection and security on the ground. I hope you will respond to AI’s email action targeting French president Nicolas Sarkozy.

It does appear that minds are made up.

But we are activists.

We certainly do not believe in abandonment.

And we do not remain silent – whatever the odds.

Climate Justice and Human Rights – Can’t See the Wood for the Trees by Ciarán O’Carroll

Amnesty International prides itself on being impartial. It promotes, always, the idea that there are two sides to every story. It takes a calm, logical and rational approach to the reporting of human rights violations.

During the period 1976 -1983 the South American Country of Argentina endured a period of military rule. A period that has become known as the: ‘dirty war’ (Guerra Sucia). It was, in effect, a Junta.

During this time the right wing government were responsible for the disappearance of several thousand left – wing militants. This included revolutionaries, trade – unionists, students, journalists, and all out leftist guerrillas and sympathisers.

In 1976 Amnesty International released its report on Argentina, a breakthrough account of the ‘dirty – war’ atrocities that were being carried out by the state.

Amnesty went on to win the Nobel Peace Prize the following year.

While this report gives an accurate and unbiased report on the atrocities. It fails, to my mind, to ask the other big questions. No light was shed on ‘why’ the mass arrests and murders were actually occurring.

The 92 page report fails to mention that the military dictatorship were in the process of radically remaking the economy. That they were planning on lowering wages and increasing prices in direct contradiction of the right to food and shelter, as it is enshrined in the UN charter of human rights.

So while Amnesty’s report accounted for the Argentinean junta laws and decrees that violated civil liberties, it made no mention of why the junta needed them. Which was in order to suppress the population so they couldn't revolt at their economic decrees.

Over thirty years later, in 2009, Amnesty International began campaigning on economic, cultural and social rights with the launch of the ‘Demand Dignity’ campaign.

The mantra and aim of this campaign is to “to end global poverty by working to strengthen recognition and protection of the rights of the poor.” It rightly acknowledges that the global economic crisis is driving millions more people into poverty and placing them at increased risk of human rights violations such as food insecurity or forced eviction.

Is there not a key part of the picture missing?

In 1976 Amnesty failed to mention economic injustice as a cause of the human rights violations.

In 2010 are we failing to mention climate injustice?

There is an icon of climate change: The image in the distance of the polar bear on the melting glacier. We all have seen it at some point or other, and think to ourselves: What will happen to our planet in the future?

We all hear scientists and environmentalists talk about Caron Dioxide and global warming. But the truth is we don’t really understand much about what is being said?

However if we open our eyes, and take a look at the world around us, the effects of climate change are everywhere. It is all too easy to see that climate change and human rights are inextricably linked.

In Africa human rights issues that impact the population on a daily basis: health, food security, work issues and women’s leadership. It is clear that most, if not all, of these are linked to climate change.

The stories of what people have had to endure, are literally heart breaking:

Mukelabai, 25, is still stunned as she looks at what remains of her home. ‘We put all our children in the canoe and paddled about 25km. We could not save our crops, so we have no food. We are eating nothing.’

Mukelabai Liywalii, whose family was driven out of their home by floods, Zambia, April 2009.

‘Especially when harvests are not good, girls are used to generate income. Some are forced to get married very young so the in-laws will bring bread and butter to their homes.’

Jacqueline Ng’ambi, project officer for the Maphunziro Foundation, Malawi, 2008.

How are we as human rights activists supposed to effectively campaign for justice on housing or education for people like Mukelabai or Jacqueline, without addressing climate change as a key factor?

Mary Robinson, a leader in the climate justice movement says:

“The starting point for climate justice is to acknowledge the clear injustice of the fact that many decades of carbon emissions in richer parts of the world have led to global warming and caused severe climate impacts in the poorest countries”.

So as Amnesty now looks to the future with its exciting new Demand Dignity campaign. We must be careful not to repeat the mistakes of the Argentinean report of 1976. See the whole picture. Don’t just ask ‘what’, but also remember to ask ‘why’.

Climate justice, and human rights organisations share the same principals and must work together, if either is to achieve their goals.

The beginning of that long and winding path, to success, is for human rights groups to acknowledge that climate change is a fundamental cause of human rights violations across the globe.

We as members of Amnesty International need to call for this acknowledgement.

Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely

"Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it" William Pitt

Power corrupts. I have no doubt about it. Absolute power is so corrupting that it can result in the deaths of numerous, often nameless, faceless individuals. History tells us this. Millions of people have lost their lives under totalitarian regimes: France’s reign of terror; Hitler’s Germany; Stalin’s purges.

None of us are perfect; we all make mistakes. By extension no country or political regime is perfect. The political regime, which we in the west unanimously refer to as freedom, democracy, is after all far from being a perfect construct.

As we jumble through life making mistake after mistake, we are often reminded of the wisdom that states: don’t worry you will learn from this. Yet we don’t. As the old saying goes ‘history repeats itself’. And it repeats itself over and over again.

There is no doubt in my mind that this very minute, somewhere in the world, a baby has been born who is destined to loose their life under a totalitarian regime.

And next week another baby will be born who is destined for the same path; and next month, and next year. If we as humans understand ourselves, in any way, we know this to be true.

During each time in history, there are regimes that represent to us everything that is repressing, domineering, inhuman and violating. Everything utterly repulsive, to the five senses, of those who wish to promote everything Amnesty International’s candle stands for: hope, love, tolerance, kindness.

Since the Islamic revolution of the late seventies, Iran has been a theocracy. A theocracy intolerant of, any and all, criticism; one that restricts the freedom of thought, action, religion, and life style of its citizens.

When it comes to the death penalty Iran leads the violators.

Iran executed the most juvenile defenders of any country in the world last year.

When Amnesty launched its annual report on the death penalty a few months ago, it revealed that Iran executed the second highest number of people, in total.

On the 9th of May 2010 they added five more people to their death toll. And I for one do not want them to be the nameless, faceless victims, of intolerance.

Those executed are:

1. Farzad Kamangar
2. Ali Heydariyan
3. Farhad Vakili
4. Ms. Shirin Alam-Hooli
5. Mehdi Eslamiyan

It is shocking to be aware of the fact that Ms. Shirin Alam Hooli’s case was still in the process of appeal and no judgement had been given.

Each one had a voice worth hearing, each one loved and was loved, and today those they held nearest and dearest are mourning. However the even more shocking truth is that their families were not even made aware that they were going to be executed.

Power corrupts. Power also fears. If you were all powerful, and ruled over perhaps millions of people what do you fear most?

That is will be taken from you!

And in this fear and in this uncertainly we aim to instil likewise emotions into those that we perceive as a threat: into those who wish for, and fight for, freedom and democracy.

Democracy is far from perfect, but there is a reason that it is: the worst form of government except all the others. Power, in the hands of any unquestioned person, or any unquestioned regime, ends in bloodshed.

The Election and The Pope by Sharon Dolan

“We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another” – Jonathan Swift

Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

There is a hung parliament in Great Britain. If ever there was a walking advertisement for proportional representation, well people now we have it. The election has dominated the news coverage, on both sides of the channel, over the past number of weeks. Something else has also appeared in the news over the last number of weeks, which had my ears prick up.

This autumn, Pope Benedict is popping by Britain’s way. And as with all official visits, the foreign office has been busy out planning the meet and greets, the kissing of the babies, and the Queen.

A memo that was released told of the British foreign affairs department ‘ideas’ for this upcoming event. It contained a list that would, not only be offensive to the Pope himself, but to many practicing Catholics. Among the ideas, that were tooted, where references to the opening of an abortion clinic, and the blessing of a gay marriage.

I wish I could say I was completely appalled by this memo, but to be honest I wasn’t. Vaguely amused? Yes.

Everyone under the sun could see that no one was, in any way seriously, thinking about making these ‘ideas’ a reality. The ‘grave’ error was that civil servants saw fit to write down what had obviously been a moment of fun.

Civil Servants serve their country. They are employees of the state. Whatever the make up of the new British government, the country will in effect be run, as is every country, by the self same people who wrote that memo. As such they represent over 60 million British citizens, whether they be catholic, protestant, muslim, hindu, agnostic, or atheist.

We all know that these times are not the Catholic churches finest. Abuse scandals loom large on a global scale, and the church, in general, has taken more then a few knocks and attacks. Not least here in our own fair island.

That civil servants should display such a dismissive attitude towards a religion, that is the chosen faith of millions of ‘their’ citizens, is to me something that is regrettable, ill thought out, and inappropriate.

The Catholic religion is not the only religion that has had its name in the news. The Islamic fate has made an appearance as well.

Last Friday I read that Belgium has banned the wearing of the burqa in public.

The law was passed unanimously in the politically fragmented country. It outlaws appearing in public "with the face fully or partly covered so as to render them no longer recognisable."

If you are caught wearing the burqa you could be fined between €15 and €20, and possibly be jailed for up to a week.

France is also to begin considering a similar draft law in May.

Amnesty International, attacked the bill saying that it set "a dangerous precedent."

"A complete ban on the covering of the face would violate the rights to freedom of expression and religion of those women who wear the burqa or the niqab,”.

This has brought out conflicting emotions in me. On one hand I do not believe that the state has the right to interfere in either the private life, or indeed the religions views, of any citizen.

My belief in this aside I have questioned, many times, the existence of the burqa and the niqab. Whether it is indeed a choice made by each woman, willingly and of her complete free will. But I will be the first to freely admit that, as someone raised an Irish Catholic, it is not something I know enough about, or possess enough experience of, to give a definite opinion. I will continue to remain in my state of ambivalence, but the passing of this law has troubled me.

Everyone has the freedom to choose to belief in a god, or not; or choose to worship in an organised religion of their choice, or not.

I, for my part, am an agnostic. I respect the views of anyone who believes in a faith. I just choose to not partake.

Whatever our personal opinions and feelings on a topic, the choices made by others, as long as they are made freely, should be respected.

What we don’t know frightens us. It makes us uncertain and as a result breeds prejudice. And nothing, ever, shows the dark side of human nature more than our views on another’s religion.

The Beautiful Game – by Ciarán O’Carroll

Every four years, football fans, and foes, gather together to cheer, shed tears, and no doubt drink, to one of the greatest sporting events around: the FIFA Football World Cup.

This year, this most magical of events, will be held in South Africa.

Preparations have been underway, for a number of years now, and the South African government, has lavished an estimated €1.3bn on the building of world-class venues. The most spectacular of all is apparently to be, the stadium itself.

For most men, and quite a few women, the events will be the highlight of the summer festivities 2010.

However there is one place where it will not be greeted with euphoria.
The people of Tin Can Town (or Blikkiesdorp), South Africa, are boycotting the world cup. And no it’s not because they are outraged that Henry’s handball went unpunished.

In 2008 the South African Government built Tin Can Town. It was built for an estimated €3.25m. Its sole purpose: to provide “emergency housing” for about 650 people. The re – housing took place because those people had been occupying buildings, in the way of a world cup development: The N2 Gateway Project.

As was the case with the Chinese Olympics in 2008, the poor and vulnerable locals were viciously suppressed and evicted from their homes, so that there can be an uninterrupted view of the ‘beautiful game’.

Today there are not 650 people in the settlement; there is more like 15,000. They all struggle to live, in around 3,000 wood and iron structures. More are arriving all the time. At the time of its construction city officials said the site was designed to cater for, at most, 1,667 families.

The reality of life in Tin Can Town can often be brutal. Families of six or seven people are crammed into tiny living spaces. There are no shower facilities; illnesses such as HIV and Aids are rampant. Toilets are found inside grim concrete cubicles, so small, the locked door presses against the user’s knees.

Police and Apartheid era riot vehicles are stationed permanently at the only
entrance.

The testimony from the locals is damning:


Badronessa Morris, 47, complained: “The police treat us like animals. They swear at us, pepper spray us, search us in public, even children. At 10 o’clock you must be inside”

Blikkiesdorp resident Samsam Ahmad, a Somali refugee, who has two small children fears death and cannot sleep. “We were told we’re going to get protection but our lives are in danger. Every night people knock on our doors and say they want to burn us. My children’s lives are at risk. We don’t sleep at night and don’t know how long we will stay here,” says Ahmad.

This June, down the road from where Basronessa and Samsam live, football players will be relaxing in their training resort with all weather pitches and a spa.

Henry, and that handball, is annoying. But if there is ever a reason to be angry it is because 2,500 people living with AIDS, have no medical care. Be angry because parents send their children to school starving because they can’t afford to feed them; and because people are treated like animals just for being poor.

In solidarity with the residents of Tin Can Town I’m boycotting the world cup. Injustice cannot be worldwide sporting entertainment on TV, not in China, not in South Africa, not anywhere.

He who does not weep, does not see

Chad is in Africa. It is a former French colony. According to the United Nations, it has been affected by a humanitarian crisis since at least 2001.

Right now there are almost 500,000 people living in camps in eastern Chad, including a quarter of a million refugees who fled violence and ethnic cleansing in neighbouring Darfur.

They are under regular attack from armed groups, Chadian rebels and bandits. Rape, murder and the recruitment of child soldiers happen every day.

But the Chadian Government is unable and unwilling to protect the camps. Without protection humanitarian agencies cannot work in the camps and they are open to attack. Refugees will have no aid and could be forced to flee again.

The only protection these people have is a small force of almost 4,000 UN peacekeepers, among them around 400 Irish troops.

Their UN Security Council mandate to be there runs out on the 15^th of May and the government of Chad does not want the mandate renewed.

Without this protection, we face the possibility of a humanitarian crisis involving hundreds of thousands of people with the potential to engulf Chad and Darfur.

All too often we act too late. In everything we do. A catastrophe happens, and we think: oh we have to do something about this. Obviously we, they, it are failing; lets fix the failings. And that is what we are good at as humans! Mopping up after the big explosion, whether that is in our personal life, or on a much larger global scale.

But every now and then we can intercept. It can be: what can I do to prevent ANY suffering, rather than what can I do to prevent MORE suffering.

We need the UN Security Council to stand up to the Chadian Government, demand the peacekeepers stay and ensure they are given the troops and the equipment they need to protect the camps.

France is the lead member of the UN Security Council on this. It was France that argued for troops to be deployed to Chad in the first place and it is France that holds the key to persuading Chad to accept the peacekeepers.

We need your help. We need you to take action.

Go to http://www.amnesty.org/actforchad/ to write to French President Nicholas Sarkozy.

We have 20 days to save hundreds of thousands of lives.