This sounds interesting. Just one bit of additional information that doesn’t appear in this blog. According to the information on their donation page:
1. They are calling this product “Undercover Colors.”
2. This is a for-profit donation site. In other words, you can’t get a tax deduction for donating. But you do get the satisfaction of helping out should this product come to fruition.
Gender-Based Violence
Censure and Suspension of Judge Baugh
Stop Violence Against Women NOW
The Montana Supreme Court has just handed down their decision on the ethics complaints filed against Judge G. Todd Baugh in his mishandling of the rape case against Stacey Rambold. This is the case where Judge Baugh sentenced ex-teacher Stacey Rambold to thirty days in jail for raping one of his 14-year-old students.
In explaining this slap-on-the-wrist sentence, Baugh used several rape myths that showed gender and racial bias against Cherise Morales—the 14 year old, Hispanic girl whom Rambold raped. During the sentencing hearing, Baugh stated that the girl was “as much in control of the situation” as her rapist and that she was “older than her chronological age.” There were a total of eight verified complaints submitted to the Montana Judicial Standards Commission as a result of Judge Baugh’s actions; one of these complaints was filed by Montana NOW and Pennsylvania NOW (see our complaint here and blog summarizing our complaint here).
On April 30, the Montana Supreme Court vacated Rambold’s minimal sentence, largely based on the amicus brief we filed with the court. They remanded the Rambold case back to Yellowstone County District Court. Yesterday they denied Rambold’s request to reconsider. The new sentence will be imposed by the District Court by the end of this month.
Meanwhile, the Court has now followed up on their intent to censure Judge Baugh. Their intent to censure was originally announced in the April 30 decision in the Rambold case. In that opinion, the Court said of Baugh’s behavior:
In the present case, Judge Baugh’s statements reflected an improper basis for his decision and cast serious doubt on the appearance of justice. The idea that C.M. could have “control” of the situation is directly at odds with the law, which holds that a youth is incapable of consent and, therefore, lacks any control over the situation whatsoever. That statement also disregards the serious power disparity that exists between an adult teacher and his minor pupil. In addition, there is no basis in the law for the court’s distinction between the victim’s “chronological age” and the court’s perception of her maturity. Judge Baugh’s comments have given rise to several complaints before the Judicial Standards Commission, which has recommended disciplinary action by this Court. Those complaints will be addressed in a separate proceeding.
In their 4-1 decision today censuring Baugh, the Court indicated that Judge Baugh violated the “Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary” canon.
Here’s a copy of the full decision. Judicial Standards Commission v Judge G Todd Baugh decision 6-4-2014
And here’s an excerpt from that decision:
Violation of Rule 1.2: Promoting public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary and avoiding impropriety or the appearance of impropriety
Baugh’s comments in open court in this case disregarded longstanding Montana law that a person under the age of 16 is legally incapable of consenting to sexual intercourse. His assertion that the victim was “older than her chronological age” is inconsistent with Montana law categorizing child victims of sexual offenses based on their chronological age alone, rather than on subjective perceptions of physical maturity and situational control. In addition, Judge Baugh’s later attempt to retract his sentence and rationale was inconsistent with Montana law. Finally, Judge Baugh made additional inappropriate public statements attempting to justify his actions. Through his unlawful sentence, inappropriate rationale, and subsequent public comments, Judge Baugh has eroded public confidence in the judiciary and created an appearance of impropriety, therefore violating the Montana Code of Judicial Conduct….
There is no place in the Montana judiciary for perpetuating the stereotype that women and girls are responsible for sexual crimes committed against them [emphasis added].
Censure and Suspension
The Court has given Judge Baugh until June 19 to respond to their proposed suspension since he only agreed to public censure on violating this rule. If he does not withdraw his consent to discipline by that date, he will be required to appear before the Montana Supreme Court at 9:30 am on Monday July 1, 2014 for the delivery of public censure by the Court. Then on December 1, 2014, he will be given a 31-day suspension without pay from the bench, thus losing the last month’s pay of his salary before he retires. If he does withdraw his consent for censure, the case will be returned to the Montana Judicial Standards Commission for a formal proceeding.
I suspect that Judge Baugh will accept the censure and suspension. Rumor has it that Judge Baugh is considering stepping down from the bench on July 1 due to the general belief that he cannot fairly rule from the bench because of the public censure. If true, the only effect of the 31-day suspension will be a loss of one month’s salary based on his earlier announcement that he would retire from the bench on December 31.
And as a final food for thought… this 31-day suspension / “sentence” seems to me to be very similar to the 31-day sentence imposed by Judge Baugh on Stacey Rambold for raping a 14-year old. Did the Court have this in mind when they decided on the length of the suspension? Is this Tit for Tat for his use of rape myths? Who knows?
Share this:
Montana! Again! More Victim Blaming
Stop Violence Against Women NOW
In several earlier blogs, I’ve written about the minimal sentence given to convicted rapist Stacey Rambold. This sentence was overturned by the Montana Supreme Court at the end of April. The case was remanded back to Yellowstone County District Court to a new judge for resentencing for a minimum of two years. At the end of last week, Rambold’s attorney, Jay Lansing, appealed the decision calling for a rehearing in the case. And what was his argument? “It was her fault.” In other words, more victim-blaming.
Attorney Jay Lansing is appealing the MT Supreme Court’s decision to re-sentence Stacey Rambold for raping Cherise Morales, a 14 year old student he taught at the high school. She later died from suicide.
Lansing said in the appeal filed with the Court on May 14:
In the Opinion in this case … the Court held that Judge Baugh’s statements reflected an improper basis for his sentencing decision. Specifically, the Court stated that consideration of any control that C.M. could have had of the situation is directly at odds with the law which holds that a youth is incapable of consent and therefore lacks any control over the situation; and that there was no basis in the law for the District Court’s distinction between C.M.’s chronological age and the District Court’s perception of her maturity.
Mr. Rambold interprets this ruling by the Court to mean that a sentencing court may not consider the victim’s role in the offense, the victim’s level of participation in the offense, or the victim’s actual consent in determining a reasonable sentence for a defendant.
Mr. Rambold contends that such a decision is in direct conflict with [previous decisions] where the Court stated the established rule that a sentencing court may consider any relevant information relating to the nature and circumstances of the crime, the defendant’s character, background, history, and mental and physical condition, and any other information that the court considers to have probative force.
Lansing then goes on to say that his argument “is not ‘victim blaming.’”
I completely disagree with this. Lansing, just like Judge Baugh, minimizes the rape of C.M. He says that Cherise knew her teacher and accepted his advances, and that this isn’t as “bad” as stranger rape. He suggests that the court should consider a victim’s “role, level of participation, or consent” [emphasis added]- in a crime against the victim. This truly flies in the face of the law and absolutely is victim blaming. To compound this upside down view of the law, he then goes on to present two hypothetical situations — one between a 19 year old and his 14 year old “girlfriend” and a second one dealing with stranger rape.
Lansing then concludes that Rambold and Cherise share the blame for the rape. He seems to say that the circumstances surrounding this rape of a minor to her teacher’s advances isn’t all that bad and therefore no change in the original sentence should be made.
He states:
One point that must be clearly stated and emphasized is that there is a distinction between consideration of C.M.’s role and participation as a defense to the charge and consideration of C.M.’s role and participation in determining a reasonable and appropriate sentence. … C.M.’s role, level of participation, and consent are relevant information relating to the nature and circumstances of the offense and are to be considered in fashioning a reasonable sentence.
In justifying his victim blaming, Lansing uses this truly twisted argument that is nothing but victim blaming. Yes, a court may consider relevant evidence for purposes of determining guilt or sentencing. But then to say that the blame is shared and therefore the rape is, in some sense justifiable, is outrageous and appalling.
Judge Baugh’s original victim-blaming comments were bad enough. Just like Baugh, Lansing uses similar rape myths in his argument to the Court. He first blames the victim (while denying this in the same breath). Then he goes on with his hypothetical relationship and stranger rape examples to imply that this rape was non-violent—thus using the myth of the Nonviolent Rapist and Implied Consent to justify the minimal sentence given to Rambold last summer. Rambold’s lawyer’s attempt to use these myths to somehow justify both the rape and the minimal sentence originally handed down are, IMHO, stupendously horrendous.
In this case, both Judge Baugh and Attorney Lansing use outdated, victim-blaming myths about women and sexual assault in order to justify both their actions and the actions of the defendant. They both represent parts of the legal justice system. If they are representative of the Montana judicial system, our judicial system is failing our communities.
Gender bias in the courts is unacceptable. Whether that is in Montana, where this case is occurring; in Pennsylvania where I live and where the Gerry Sandusky child sexual assaults happened; or anywhere else in the country.
In Montana NOW’s and Pennsylvania NOW’s original complaint to the Montana Judicial Standards Commission, we asked that the Court implement a mandatory educational program for the judiciary. We stated in that complaint that we want the Montana Supreme Court to:
Implement a mandatory judicial education program for the judiciary on the fair adjudication of sexual assault cases to help the Montana justice system develop techniques to minimize victim re-traumatization while safeguarding the rights of the defendant. – See more at: http://www.legalmomentum.org/national-judicial-education-program#sthash.hxAEGz8p.dpuf.
I believe that this proposed mandatory educational program should be extended to all of the participants within the legal justice system – judges, lawyers, law enforcement and anyone else within the system that could impact the treatment of victims and survivors of sexual assault. Then and only then will we start addressing this problem of victim blaming. Let’s stop it now.
Share this:
When Men Murder Women: The Violence Policy Center 2013 Report
Joanne Tosti-Vasey “Refusing to be Silent” and calling for an end to gender-based violence
The following is a guest blog originally published here by Jerin Arifa, with an acknowledgement to Patricia Reuss for staying on top of this issue and sending the report to us.
Jerin serves with me on the board of directors for the National Organization for Women (NOW) and chairs NOW’s Young Feminist Task Force.
Patricia is the “godmother” of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), having worked very closely with now Vice-President Joe Biden when he authored the original VAWA back in 1994. She describes herself as “a longtime women’s rights activist pretending to be retired and currently serving as a policy adviser to NOW and the National Task Force [to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women].”
Earlier this year, Pat wrote a guest blog for me on the Violence Against Women Act. It focused on a watered-down version of VAWA introduced by Republican legislators that fortunately failed and was replaced by a strong re-authorization bill signed into law by President Obama on Women’s Equality Day last March. Thank you Pat for all you do for women’s lives.
Here’s Jerin’s guest blog:
The Violence Policy Center has released their annual report, When Men Murder Women, in advance of Domestic Violence Awareness Month. The study reports the statistics for females murdered by males, and includes a list of the top ten states with the highest homicide rates.
Some key findings:
- For homicides in which the victim to offender relationship could be identified, 94 percent of female victims were murdered by someone they knew. Compared to a man, a woman is far more likely to be killed by her spouse, an intimate acquaintance, or a family member than by a stranger.
- For homicides in which the weapon used could be identified, 51 percent of female victims were shot and killed with guns. Of these, 73 percent were killed with handguns.
- The number of females shot and killed by their husband or intimate acquaintance was more than five times higher than the total number murdered by male strangers using all weapons combined in single victim/single offender incidents
- For homicides in which the circumstances could be identified, 87 percent were not related to the commission of any other felony, such as rape or robbery.
- Of these, 60 percent involved arguments between the victim and the offender.
- For homicides in which the age of the victim was reported, 8 percent were less than 18 years old and 10 percent were 65 years of age or older. The average age was 39 years old.
- Owning a gun doesn’t protect women. Females living with a gun in the home were nearly three times more likely to be murdered than females with no gun in the home.
- A gun in the home is a key factor in the escalation of nonfatal spousal abuse to homicide. In one study, firearm-associated family and intimate assaults were 12 times more likely to result in death than non-firearm associated assaults between family and intimates.
- Women who were murdered were more likely, not less likely, to have purchased a handgun in the three years prior to their deaths, again invalidating the idea that a handgun has a protective effect against homicide.
- While firearms are at times used by private citizens to kill criminals, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that the most common scenarios of lethal gun use in America in 2010, the most recent final data available, are suicide (19,392), homicide (11,078), or fatal unintentional injury (606).
- South Carolina was followed by Alaska and Oklahoma as the states with the highest homicide rates for women.
Share this:
An activist fights breast ironing, a ritual mutilation practice of girls in Cameroon
I SAY NO TO BREAST IRONING: Picture that appeared on the original article at The Grio.
This is part of the global violence that is occurring against women. Breast ironing is a form of torture and it must end. I’m glad Friends of UNPFA is helping to raise awareness about this torturous treatment of young women in Cameroon. For more background info, see Gender Danger’s posted videos on the problem at http://www.youtube.com/user/GenderDanger.
Share this:
Civil Rights Denied: PA’s Proposed Constitutional Same-Sex Marriage Ban
“working to win the freedom to marry in more states, grow the national majority for marriage, and end federal marriage discrimination. ” http://www.freedomtomarry.org/pages/about-us
A couple of days ago I posted a blog about the dueling marriage equality and same-sex marriage ban bills recently introduced into the Pennsylvania General Assembly. Today I thought I give a more detailed argument as to how discriminatory the same-sex marriage ban is to gays and straights alike.
As previously stated, on May 7, Pennsylvania State Representative Daryl Metcalfe (R-12 Butler County) introduced his legislation (HB 1349) to create a constitutional amendment defining marriage OR its “substantial equivalent” solely as a union between a man and a woman. That bill would amend Article I of the Pennsylvania state Constitution – the Declaration of Rights section – to take rights away from unmarried couples in Pennsylvania, whether they are same-sex or heterosexual couples. Here’s the constitutional amendment as written in HB 1349:
“Marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife and no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.”
Until the spring of 2012, 31 states across the country had created constitutional amendments to outlaw marriage or anything that looks like marriage between same-sex couples. The last successful attempt at this form of discrimination occurred by referendum in North Carolina in the spring of 2012; all other attempts since then to deny marriage equality have failed.
Marriage equality however has had many successes since then. Three states – Delaware, Rhode Island, and Washington – either passed a referendum OR legislation legalizing marriage equality following North Carolina’s referendum. One state – Minnesota—is expected to pass their marriage equality bill today; note, this is only 6 months after the voters in Minnesota by referendum killed their proposed same-sex marriage ban. And one state – Colorado – passed legislation recognizing civil unions even though they have a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.
Instead of moving forward, right-wing legislators would like to have Pennsylvania join the 31 other states that constitutionally ban-same sex marriages and/or other legal forms of relationships such as domestic partnerships and civil unions. These Pennsylvanian legislators are making their fourth attack on same-sex couples and on unmarried people – gay or straight. If HB 1349 passes, Pennsylvania for the first time in its history would enshrine and mandate discrimination into the state Constitution.
This amendment would take rights away from unmarried couples in Pennsylvania, whether they are same-sex or heterosexual couples. The way this amendment is written would affect all unmarried couples, victims of domestic violence if they are not married to their abuser, and could threaten Pennsylvania’s anti-discrimination laws
Effect on All Unmarried Couples – Gay or Straight
Currently, Pennsylvania statute recognizes only marriages between one man and one woman.
Pennsylvania does not recognize either (1) same-sex marriages or (2) civil unions, domestic partnerships, or any other coupled-household status—whether entered into by same-sex or opposite-sex couples. Those affected by this amendment would therefore, for example, include senior citizens who live together but are not married because of economic considerations, couples who believe they have a “common law marriage” (which is no longer recognized in Pennsylvania), and gay or straight couples who have any type of intimate relationship.
It could also threaten the lives of unmarried domestic violence victims and allow unmarried individuals to be discriminated against in housing, employment, and public accommodations.
Effect on Domestic Violence Victims
In 2004, Ohio passed their discriminatory anti-marriage constitutional amendment, which was quickly and unexpectedly used to deny protections to unmarried victims of domestic violence. Here’s what happened. Almost immediately, unmarried batterers argued that since they were not married, Ohio could not enforce their domestic violence law because that was treating their relationship with their partner as “equivalent to marriage.” The 2nd District Court of Appeals in Ohio agreed and ruled that the Ohio domestic violence law runs afoul of the “Defense of Marriage” amendment, passed by voters in 2004, and does not apply to “a person living as a spouse.” As a result, unmarried defendants, who could have faced felony domestic violence charges, only faced misdemeanor assault charges. It took several years for the Ohio Supreme Court to reverse this ruling. In the interim, unmarried women were at the mercy of their batterers in several counties in Ohio.
The Ohio amendment is very similar to that of the one proposed for Pennsylvania. In Ohio, by providing protection to “persons living as spouses,” the domestic violence statutes created a legal status for cohabiting relationships that is “equivalent to a marriage,” according to the appeals court. The appeals court decision in Ohio then denied protection from abuse to unmarried individuals – gay or straight – because the domestic violence law gave legal standing to an unconstitutional relationship – that of an unmarried couple. The courts argument overturning these domestic violence protections utilized similar language found in Pennsylvania’s HB 1439, which states that “no other legal union… or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.”
We have no way of knowing how the courts would rule on a similar argument should this amendment pass and become part of Pennsylvania’s Constitution. Who knows if Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court would protect the victim or allow batterers to circumvent Pennsylvania’s Protection From Abuse (PFA) law? We need to protect all people from domestic violence and sexual assault. Passage of this amendment could deny the protection offered by Pennsylvania’s domestic violence and protection from abuse laws; it could even risk the very lives of unmarried people–gay or straight–because this constitutional amendment denies the rights, privileges, and protections of law to people who are not legally married or who have a relationship that is “functionally equivalent” to traditional marriage.
Effects on Employment, Education, Housing, and Public Accommodations
It also looks like current and proposed employment, education, housing, and public accommodations anti-discrimination laws at both the state and local levels might be jeopardized for unmarried individuals. Discrimination based on marital status and family responsibilities is unlawful under a variety of existing laws. With a few exceptions, under current state and federal law, people who experience this form of discrimination must fit their claims into an appropriate legal theory—as discrimination based on gender, a violation of family and medical leave laws, or another legal theory. In addition, many municipalities throughout Pennsylvania have passed or are considering ordinances that would make it illegal to discriminate in employment, housing, and in some cases, public accommodations specifically based on sexual orientation, gender identity and marital status. Will the state courts, the PA Human Relations Commission, or local Human Relations Commissions be able to enforce these laws if Pennsylvania’s constitution has been amended to require unmarried couples to be treated differently from married couples? We do not know. Passage of HB 1439 as a constitutional amendment could put all of these protections at risk since any person, company, or school could argue that their business is mandated to deny employment, hiring, and benefits to any person who is not married.
Civil Rights Denied, Reiterated
Last, but not least, exclusion, discrimination and inequality are not the principles this state was founded upon. This discriminatory “Marriage Protection Amendment” denies unmarried heterosexual, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender families the protections and fairness they deserve. Heterosexual married couples and their families are afforded more than 1,000 legal protections and economic benefits provided through state and federal law, benefits and protections that are currently inaccessible to unmarried couples. Passage of this amendment would therefore subject same-sex couples and their families to exclusion, discrimination and inequality.
The proposed amendment could also take away existing legal protections for committed long-term couples and their children, such as second parent adoptions, cohabitation agreements, co-parenting agreements, wills, living wills, powers of attorney, etc., regardless of their sexual orientation.
Gay and lesbian Pennsylvanians are our neighbors, co-workers, friends, and family member. They pay taxes. LGBT people should not be bullied. They deserve the same rights, protections, and responsibilities that all residents desire and have.
Let’s all work to stop this bill now! So I’m once again recommending that you keep up-to-date on this horrible bill as well as other LGBTQ legislation at Equality Pennsylvania’s website.
Share this:
Powerful UN CSW57 Document on Ending Gender-Based Violence Created
On March 14, I wrote a blog entitled “The “Unholy Alliance” that May Defeat Comprehensive UN Call to End Gender-Based Violence.” I talked about an alliance between the Vatican, Iran, Russia and a couple of other countries that were attempting to eviscerate the comprehensive plan being created at the 57th session of the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women (CSW57) to end gender-based violence and fully comply with all of the universally agreed-upon agreements (treaties, resolutions, and statements). These previous agreements include the Women’s Rights Treaty (commonly known as CEDAW or the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (1993)) as well as the Beijing Platform for Action (1995), and UN Security Council Resolution 1325 (2000).
I am happy to say that this didn’t happen. Thanks to the bloggers, news media, Tweeters, NGO’s attending CSW57, and several official Member States, the amendments to the document were voted down on Friday during the final day of the 2-week convention.
Iran was the only country that voted against the final, comprehensive document. The Vatican did not get to vote because of its status as a “Permanent Observer State” rather than as a voting “Member State”. And Russia backed down and voted for the final document along with all of the remaining UN Member States.
People around the world heard about these attempts to deny women and girls safety from all forms of violence. We spoke out and acted.
As a result, unlike last year, we FINALLY have a strong document that
“condemns in the strongest terms the pervasive violence against women and girls, and calls for increased attention and accelerated action for prevention and response.” (Source)
This document has a strong prevention focus since the best way to end violence against women and children is to stop it BEFORE it happens. It also addresses inequalities in the political, economic, and social spheres that engender violence. And it takes action to provide services and justice for victims of violence around the world.
Ms. Michelle Bachelet, United Nations Under-Secretary-General and Executive Director of UN Women summarized the comprehensive coverage of this powerful statement to end this type of human rights violation in her closing statement of the conference:
During the past two weeks, discussions centred on matters of urgency to people around the world — eliminating all forms of violence against women and girls, ending impunity for perpetrators, fully engaging men and boys, and advancing women’s empowerment and gender equality to prevent and end these human rights violations….
Important and timely matters were addressed — ending child and early forced marriage, protecting the rights of persons with disabilities, and providing justice and critical services for survivors of violence.
There were debates on ending sexual violence in conflict, tackling human trafficking, protecting sexual and reproductive rights, and on the role of culture, religion and the family.
You had many intense late-night negotiations, going over every single word and paragraph, debating long and hard in order to come to [this] strong agreement.
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, immediately after CSW57, released a statement showing the commitment of the United Nations to fully implement this new document. It says, in part:
Violence against women is a heinous human rights violation, global menace, a public health threat and a moral outrage. No matter where she lives, no matter what her culture, no matter what her society, every woman and girl is entitled to live free of fear. She has the universal human right to be free from all forms of violence so as to fulfill her full potential and dreams for the future.
States have a corresponding responsibility to turn that right into reality. The Secretary-General hopes that all the partners who came together at this historic session and others around the world will now translate this agreement into concrete action to prevent and end violence against women and girls. The United Nations system is fully committed to leading this global effort.
So now I say, THANK YOU! Thank you for creating this statement. It is one more step towards realizing the rights, dignity, and humanity of girls and women throughout the world.
Joanne Tosti-Vasey “Refusing to be Silent” and calling for an end to gender-based violence
Share this:
The “Unholy Alliance” that May Defeat Comprehensive UN Call to End Gender-Based Violence
Last week, on International Women’s Day (March 8), I participated in the 24-hour Global Tweet-a-Thon to end gender-based violence. This event was held in conjunction with the 57th session of the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women (CSW57) that is being held in New York City. The theme of this year’s session is the “Elimination and prevention of all forms of violence against women and girls.”
I participated as a host for one hour of this event to facilitate the global conversation between people around the world and those attending the unofficial Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) programs at the UN as well as to send a message to the official UN delegation. Our message was that advocates around the world are looking for a strong draft statement calling for the full elimination and prevention of all forms of violence against women and girls as directed by the theme of this two-week conference.
Here are a few of the many tweets I sent out that either addresses the situation of violence in countries around the world OR that calls on governments, including the UN, to create best practices to end gender-based violence:
@JoeBiden “40% of all mass shootings started with the murderer targeting their girlfriend, or their wife, or their ex-wife.” #EndVAW #CSW57 #IWD2013
The first sexual experience for 24% of women in rural Peru was forced. #EndVAW #CSW57 #IWD2013
In Latin America & the Caribbean, abused women reported higher incidents of miscarriage and induced abortion. #EndVAW #CSW57 #IWD2013 (Source)
In South Africa, women who were abused by their partners are 48% more likely to be infected with HIV than those who were not. #EndVAW #CSW57 #IWD2013
To #EndVAW, governments must enact legislation that addresses violence based on sexual orientation and gender identity. #CSW57 #IWD2013
To #EndVAW governments must fully fund health services for survivors of violence, including #HIV screening & emergency contraception. #CSW57 #IWD2013
To #EndVAW, governments must ensure girls and women have access to abortion in cases of rape and incest. #CSW57 #IWD2013
Providing young people with human rights-based, comprehensive sexual and reproductive health services and information helps #EndVAW. #CSW57 #IWD2013
Respecting, protecting, and fulfilling girls’ and women’s sexual rights can minimize the violence they face. #EndVAW #CSW57 #IWD2013
Promoting girls’ and women’s sexual rights is a key tool to #EndVAW, address women’s inequality, and achieve sustainable development. #CSW57 #IWD2013
Domestic laws to #EndVAW should align with international best practice and reinforce the protections found in #humanrights treaties. #CSW57 #IWD2013
And
There is no country where women and men are equal in all spheres of life. You have the power to can change that! #EndVAW #CSW57 #IWD2013
That last tweet is a call for individuals, organizations, countries, and the United Nations to pull together to create and execute a comprehensive plan to end gender-based violence and fully comply with all of the universally agreed-upon agreements (treaties, resolutions, and statements), including the Women’s Rights Treaty (commonly known as CEDAW or the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (1993)) as well as the Beijing Platform for Action (1995), and UN Security Council Resolution 1325 (2000)
I had hoped the draft document that is supposed to be finalized and signed on March 15 – the final day of the two-week deliberation – would help strengthen these treaties. Instead on Tuesday, March 12, 2013, I received an email from two NGOs – the Center for Women’s Global Leadership (CWGL) at Rutger’s University and International Women’s Rights Action Watch Asia Pacific (IWRAW Asia Pacific)—indicating that
“the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) is wavering in its commitment to advance women’s human rights as demonstrated in the constant negotiation of the language in the outcome document.”
The next morning, I saw a New York Times editorial called “Unholy Alliance.” This article clearly lays out what was going on in the official deliberations. Apparently, the Vatican (which, btw, is a “Permanent Observer,” not a “Member State”), Iran, Russia, and a few other Member States have spent the their entire time at CSW57 trying to eliminate language in the draft communiqué to “duck” their obligations – and thus the obligations agreed to by most of the world – to eliminate all gender-based violence.
Their excuses? Religion. Custom. Tradition.
What are they objecting to specifically? Any reference to abortions or contraception. Any mention of reproductive or sexual health. Any reference to forced sex as rape by either a spouse or other intimate partner. And even any reference to women’s rights in general from the aforementioned international agreements; in this case, they claim that either religious or cultural traditions must take precedence over ending any form of gender-based violence.
These “reservations,” by the way, are the same reservations raised by essentially the same countries at the 56th session of the CSW conference in 2012. As a result, that session ended without any agreement and women, once again, were left without a comprehensive UN plan to help improve their lives.
I am appalled. Gender-based violence is a crime against humanity. Whether that crime is perpetrated by a government (for example, when military units carry out gang rapes and other gender-based war crimes for ethnic intimidation, ethnic cleansing and terrorizing a community). Or when that crime of violence is perpetrated by individuals.
After learning all of this, I contacted the National Organization for Women (NOW) chapters in Pennsylvania. Within 24 hours, Pennsylvania NOW along with South Hills NOW (Pittsburgh area), East End NOW (part of Allegheny County just east of Pittsburgh), Northeast Williamsport NOW, Ni-Ta-Nee NOW (my chapter here in Centre County), and Montgomery County NOW all co-signed the letter created by CWGL and IWRAW Asia Pacific.
This letter was signed by 281 organizations from 57 countries and 129 people from around the world and delivered to the conference on March 14. FYI, since some of the organizations do not include the country of origin in their names, there may be — and probably are — more than 57 countries represented on this letter.
Here’s the letter that we signed.
I along with all of these organizations and individuals want to see a comprehensive UN program to end violence against women and girls. We want to strong enforcement of all international agreements.
Patriarchy has no right to quash human rights. Let’s hope that the official delegates hear our voice and stop this “unholy alliance.” If allowed, the result will be more, not less gender-based violence.
If not, then I believe that like last year there should be no UN document signed by the United States or any other Member State participating in the 57th CSW conference. Going forward with a strong plan to end all forms of violence is the best plan. Going backwards is appalling and should not be condoned. Better nothing than something that moves us backwards.
Let’s just hope they hear our voice and “do the right thing.”
Share this:
How Can Research be a Catalyst for Change to End Gender-Based Violence (in English y españoles)
From March 4-15, advocates are gathering at the 57th session of the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) in New York City to urge governments to fulfill commitments to eliminate violence against women and girls.
Over the next week and a half, advocates are supporting this conference via the use of social media—including blogs, tweets, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Pinterest to name a few—to spread the word about both the CSW meeting and to call for an end to gender-based violence.
Since today is International Women’s Day, thousands, if not millions of people are participating in this call to eliminate global gender-based violence by participating in a global Tweet-a-Thon.
Advocates who are Tweeting and who are participating at the 57th CSW session are documenting the incidence and impact of all forms of violence against women and children to “[bear] witness to the human rights abuses that far too many women experience daily worldwide,…” This documentation “also helps to understand the prevalence, nature, and root causes of such abuses so that [countries, advocates, and service providers] may be more effective in stemming [all forms of violence] through laws, policies, and prevention and response programs.“
Blogs are also focusing on this issue. One of them, originally published by IPPF/Western Hemisphere Region, states that documentation and research on violence is all its forms can then be a catalyst for change.
As a policy analyst and advocate for civil and women’s rights with a research background in work and family issues I fully agree. So I thought you, my reader, would like to see what Jimena Valades, Program Officer – Safe Abortion at IPPF/WHR has to say.
In an effort to make this as accessible as possible, I am presenting this blog in both English and Spanish. First, here’s the reblog of the English version:
How Can Research be a Catalyst for Change?
Jimena Valades, Program Officer – Safe Abortion
If an act of violence is perpetrated, but is never reported or documented, did it happen at all?
Of course the answer is a resounding ‘yes’. There are many reasons why survivors may not report incidents of violence, including fear of retaliation, stigma, or disillusion with law enforcement. Surveys from Costa Rica, Paraguay, and Peru show that up to 20% of women experience sexual assault, yet few to none report it to police. Many of the survivors who do report incidents of violence are met with ineffective judicial systems that parlay impunity or data monitoring systems that act like black holes, swallowing up the evidence of the tragedy they have endured. Either way, we know that whatever statistics we do have about gender-based violence reflect just a fraction of its harsh reality.
Yet, the larger point remains: there is critical importance in documenting acts of violence against women and girls – systematically, carefully, and over time. Collecting data on the issue not only bears witness to the human rights abuses that far too many women experience daily worldwide, but also helps to understand the prevalence, nature, and root causes of such abuses so that we may be more effective in stemming it through laws, policies, and prevention and response programs.
While numerous country-level studies on gender-based violence in Latin America and the Caribbean exist, there is a need for more current and comprehensive national prevalence data, as well as qualitative research into causes, and risk and protection factors. In short, we need to do a better job uncovering the full picture of gender-based violence in order to most effectively address it. Further, a persistent lack of comparability between national studies in the region has hampered the ability to draw broader, meaningful conclusions.
How do we zoom out to the bigger picture to understand violence regionally? How can we share successful prevention and response strategies across countries and globally?
A new study released in January by the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) attempts to answer these questions by re-analyzing studies from 12 countries in the region. For the first time, data reveals a broader and more in-depth picture of both the prevalence and nature of violence region-wide.
While globally it is estimated that one in three women will experience physical, sexual, or psychological violence in her lifetime, this rate is both higher and lower across different areas of Latin America and the Caribbean. For instance, more than half of women who have been married in Bolivia reported having experienced some type of violence by their intimate partner during their lifetime. This rate of intimate partner violence reported was lower, just 17%, in the Dominican Republic. Emotional abuse of women by intimate partners is also common in the region, and is closely linked to the incidence physically abuse. Nearly half of women in Nicaragua reported experiencing emotional abuse by a partner in their lifetime.
While more information is needed, we are just now beginning to uncover a picture of the complex root causes and risk factors for violence against women in the region. After controlling for a number of factors, PAHO researchers found that the risk factors most closely associated with violence by a partner include being divorced or separated, having a high number of children, and if a woman’s father was abusive to her mother. This seems like an odd grouping, but it’s a key finding because it can help direct our attention father up the causal chain of violence, to focus our programming efforts on critical risk factors.
Documenting the stories of women who experience various forms of violence, qualitatively, is also important. Last year, the Nobel Women’s Initiative led a fact-finding mission to Mexico, Honduras, and Guatemala to document violence against women – in particular sexual violence perpetrated by the state and the mining industry against women’s human rights defenders. Women from these countries stepped forward courageously to provide testimony, oftentimes at their own peril, of their experiences of violence – with their sisters bearing witness – enabling new nuanced documentation of this epidemic.
There have also been other efforts across Latin America to support increased reporting of violence among survivors, such as through the increased establishment of all-women police forces and courts specialized to address violence against women issues.
There are many reasons to be hopeful that increased data can help catalyze meaningful change, though there are reality checks left and right. While 97% of countries in the region have laws on domestic violence, fewer than half include explicit references to marital rape. In November, after decades of advocacy, the Law Against Violence Against Women was passed in Nicaragua. Yet, the country recorded 85 femicides in 2012, and new instances of sexual violence across the region make the news every day.
Despite the persistence of these abuses, the importance of documenting violence against women and collecting sound data remains. As data collection improves and more studies are done about this epidemic at the country and regional level, we may actually see something that seems like an uptick in violence against women. This may or may not actually be the case. Since gender-based violence is so hidden and often under-reported, the more we dig, the more we will find. An accurate picture is essential and pivotal to the achievement of our end goal: eliminating all forms of violence against women and girls in Latin America and the Caribbean.
********************************************************************************************************
A partir de marzo 4-15, defensores se reúnen en la 57 sesión de la Comisión de la Condición Jurídica y Social de la Mujer (CSW) en Nueva York para instar a los gobiernos a cumplir los compromisos de eliminar la violencia contra las mujeres y las niñas.
Durante la siguiente semana y media, los defensores están apoyando esta conferencia a través del uso de medios sociales, incluyendo blogs, tweets, Facebook, LinkedIn y Pinterest para nombrar unos pocos, para difundir la palabra acerca tanto a la reunión de la CSW y para pedir el poner fin a la violencia de género.
Como hoy es el Día Internacional de la Mujer, miles, si no millones de personas están participando en esta convocatoria mundial para eliminar la violencia de género mediante la participación en un mundial Tweet-a-Thon.
Los defensores que son Tweeting y que están participando en la 57 ª sesión de la CSW se documenta la incidencia y el impacto de todas las formas de violencia contra las mujeres y los niños “testigos ante los abusos de derechos humanos que demasiadas mujeres experimentan en el mundo todos los días, sino también para entender la prevalencia, naturaleza y raíces de estos abusos para poder lograr una mayor efectividad en detenerlos – a través de leyes y políticas y a través de la prevención y programas de respuesta.”.
Los blogs también se centra en el tema. Uno de ellos, publicado por la IPPF / Región del Hemisferio Occidental, afirma que la documentación y la investigación sobre la violencia en todas sus formas es entonces puede ser un catalizador para el cambio.
Como analista político y defensor de los derechos civiles y los derechos de las mujeres con antecedentes de investigación en el trabajo y la familia estoy totalmente de acuerdo. Así que usted cree, querido lector, le gusta ver lo que Jimena Valadés, Oficial de Programas – Aborto Seguro en la IPPF / RHO tiene que decir.
En un esfuerzo para hacer esto lo más accesible posible, les presento este blog en Inglés y Español. La siguiente es la versión en español de este blog.
¿Cómo puede la investigación ser un catalizador para el cambio?
Jimena Valades, Oficial de Programas – Aborto Seguro
Si un acto de violencia es perpetrado pero nunca reportado ni documentado, ¿pasó en realidad?
Desde luego que la respuesta es sí. Hay muchas razones por las cuales los sobrevivientes pueden no reportar incidentes de violencia, incluyendo el miedo a las represalias, estigma, o desilusión con los agentes del orden. Encuestas de Costa Rica, Paraguay y Perú muestran que hasta el 20% de mujeres han sufrido un ataque de índole sexual, pero pocas a ninguna lo reporta a la policía. Y muchos sobrevivientes que reportan incidentes de violencia, se enfrentan con sistemas judiciales ineficaces que apuestan a la impunidad o sistemas de monitoreo de datos que actúan como agujeros negros, tragándose la evidencia de la tragedia sucedida. De todas maneras, sabemos que las estadísticas con las que contamos en términos de violencia basada en género representa solo una fracción de la dura realidad.
Aun así el punto más importante sigue vigente: hay una importancia crítica en documentar los actos de violencia contra las mujeres –sistemáticamente, con cuidado, y con continuidad en el tiempo. Esto es necesario no solo para actuar como testigos ante los abusos de derechos humanos que demasiadas mujeres experimentan en el mundo todos los días, sino también para entender la prevalencia, naturaleza y raíces de estos abusos para poder lograr una mayor efectividad en detenerlos – a través de leyes y políticas y a través de la prevención y programas de respuesta.
A pesar de que existen numerosos estudios sobre VBG a nivel país en Latinoamérica y el Caribe, hay una necesidad de obtener datos más actuales y de prevalencia nacional, así como investigaciones cualitativas en las causas, los riesgos y los factores de protección. En suma, necesitamos hacer un mejor trabajo para tener un panorama más claro y amplio de la VBG para poder responder mejor ante ella. A su vez, la falta persistente de comparabilidad entre estudios nacionales en la región ha disminuido la capacidad de sacar conclusiones más amplias y significativas. ¿Cómo alejamos el zoom para poder ver todo el panorama completo y entender la violencia a nivel regional –sus causas, lo que ha sido efectivo en prevenirla, sus costos, etc.? ¿Cómo compartimos estrategias de prevención y respuesta entre países?
Un nuevo estudio publicado este mes por la Organización Panamericana de Salud (PAHO) ha intentado re analizar investigaciones de 12 países de la región, y, por primera vez, revela un panorama más amplio y profundo sobre la prevalencia y naturaleza de la violencia en esa parte del mundo.
Globalmente se estima que una de tres mujeres experimentará violencia física, sexual o psicológica en su vida, pero este número es –al mismo tiempo- alto y bajo en las diferentes áreas de Latinoamérica y el Caribe. Por ejemplo, más de la mitad de mujeres que nunca contrajeron matrimonio en Bolivia reportaron haber experimentado algún tipo de violencia de parte de sus parejas en el curso de sus vidas. Este mismo índice es más bajo, un 17%, en la República Dominicana. El abuso emocional por parte de la pareja es endémico en la región y está estrechamente vinculado con el abuso físico. Casi la mitad de las mujeres en Nicaragua han reportado abuso emocional de parte de sus parejas durante sus vidas.
Aunque es necesaria más información al respecto, recién ahora estamos desentrañando un marco de las raíces y los factores de riesgo de violencia contra las mujeres en la región. Después de controlar un número de factores en la región, investigadores de PAHO encontraron que los factores que se asocian a la violencia de parte de una pareja incluye estar divorciado o separado, tener muchos hijos, o si el padre de la mujer era abusivo con su madre. Esto puede parecer como una mezcla rara de factores, pero es un hallazgo clave porque nos ayuda a dirigir nuestra atención más arriba en la cadena de causales de violencia, y enfocar nuestros esfuerzos programáticos en los factores de riesgo críticos.
Es también importante el documentar las historias de las mujeres que experimentan las varias formas de violencia de manera cualitativa. El año pasado, la Iniciativa Nobel de Mujeres lideró una investigación en México, Honduras y Guatemala para documentar la violencia contra las mujeres y en particular la violencia sexual perpetrada por el Estado y la industria minera en contra de las defensoras de los derechos de las mujeres. Mujeres provenientes de estos países se acercaron con mucho coraje a dar su testimonio – la mayoría de las veces bajo riesgo de vida- de sus experiencias de violencia, con sus hermanas como testigos, desarrollando nueva documentación sobre esta epidemia.
Ha habido otros esfuerzos en América Latina para apoyar el incremento de reporte de violencia entre sobrevivientes, a través de un aumento de fuerzas de policía exclusivamente compuestas por mujeres y cortes especializadas para atender los temas de violencia contra las mujeres.
Hay varias razones para mantener la esperanza que al incrementar los datos estadísticos podamos ayudar a catalizar un cambio significativo, aunque seguimos teniendo chequeos de realidad en todos lados. Mientras que 97% de los países de la región tienen leyes contra la violencia doméstica, menos de la mitad hace referencia explícita a la violación dentro del matrimonio. En noviembre, luego de décadas de trabajo de incidencia, la Ley de Violencia contra las Mujeres fue promulgada en Nicaragua. Sin embargo, el país mantiene un record de 85 femicidios en 2012, y nuevas instancias de violencia sexual salen en las noticias de la región todos los días.
A pesar de la persistencia de estos abusos, sigue siendo de vital importancia el documentar la violencia contra las mujeres y compilar datos de solidez estadística. A medida que la recolección de datos mejora y se incrementa el número de investigaciones que documentan esta epidemia a nivel nacional y regional, podríamos suponer el estar frente a un aumento de la violencia contra las mujeres. Esto puede, o no, ser así. Como la VBG es usualmente escondida y con bajo nivel de reporte, cuanto más escarbemos más vamos a encontrar. Pero el tener un panorama completo es esencial y crucial para llegar a nuestro objetivo final: prevenir y eliminar todas las formas de violencia contra las mujeres y niñas en Latinoamérica y el Caribe.
Civil Rights Advocacy 