Immigration scare-mongering

Good article in the Grauniad by Gary Younge about how conservative rags & broadsheets mis-use unemployment & immigration statistics. I'm always surprised by how many people I otherwise think of as fairly progressive, clever, right-on, swallow these intentionally dodgy interpretations as fact.

I agree with Younge's conclusion:

Stopping immigration as a means of fighting unemployment makes about as much sense as banning ice-cream sales in a bid to reduce shark attacks. And it will do about as much good too.

On being wrong

I don't always agree with Johann Hari, but I really like this week's column about how we need to change our attitude towards mistakes.

Burqa bans

I just read this excellent piece by Kenan Malik on burqa bans. As a perceived human rights buff/feminist/politics loudmouth, people often ask me whether I'm for-or-against such policies , it being one of those issues that has 'crossed over' into the comment sections of both tabloid and broadsheets. My replies tended to be in the 'bans are bad' camp but located perilously close to the fence. The 2 factors tending to bring me closer to that fence are 1) the burqa strikes me as an unquestionable and grotesque symbol of female subjugation and 2) bans may help those women who don't have a choice in wearing the burqa. By this I mean not solely, or even principally, those who are literally forced against their expressed will to wear it, but those for whom their upbringing, education or socio-cultural milieu is such that a real, informed choice is impossible.

Malik has placed my feet much more firmly in the anti-ban camp. He doesn't tackle quite effectively enough why some women may 'choose' to wear the burqa, stating rather simplistically that evidence suggests that "in Europe most burqa-clad women do not act from a sense of compulsion" but instead "do so voluntarily, largely as an expression of identity and as an act of provocation". (I'm not denying that there is a possibility that a woman could make such a choice in a genuinely free way; but I would argue that many such apparently free choices are nothing of the sort.) However, otherwise his argument is very convincing. Amongst other insights, I like this (an obvious point but worth making):

What of the suggestion that women are forced to wear the burqa, and so need protection from the law? It is true that in countries such as Saudi Arabia or Yemen women have little choice but to cover up their face. That in itself is a good reason for liberal societies not to impose coercive dress codes.

and this:

The burqa is a symbol of the oppression of women, not its cause. If legislators really want to help Muslim women, they could begin not by banning the burqa, but by challenging the policies and processes that marginalize migrant communities: on the one hand, the racism, social discrimination and police harassment that all too often disfigure migrant lives, and, on the other, the multicultural policies that treat minorities as members of ethnic groups rather than as citizens. Both help sideline migrant communities, aid the standing of conservative ‘community leaders’ and make life more difficult for women and other disadvantaged groups within those communities.

Cristina...and the rest

Interesting article on the Guardian Global Health blog which uses the sad state of women's rights in Argentina to make the case for a strong UN women's agency.

Of the former, I can testify with limited experience. Argentina really is a strange place socially and politically: extremely liberal, cosmopolitan and modern in some ways (for example, gay marriage has just been legalised), it is still woefully backward in terms of female equality. Call it 'macho culture' if you will, but don't shrug your shoulders and grin in a 'all-the-Latinos-are-at-it' way - this is deeply-rooted sexism with profoundly harmful consequences, as the Human Rights Watch report quoted in the above article makes clear. Such a situation is not inevitable and the problem can be tackled, but it will take considerable time, effort and resources, none of which are being deployed effectively at the moment.

[I did however go to a rather good exhibition about women in Argentina 1810-2010 while in Buenos Aires. Of course things of this nature get the green light and plenty of publicity partly because of the political interest involved, the President being a woman n'all... at every rundown of brilliant women through the ages in Argentina (there's also a photographic display on the tour route in the Casa Rosada presidential palace) the conclusion, the pinnacle, is of course Cristina. Many Evita-Cristina comparisons shoe-horned in there too, naturally.]

As for the UN women's agency, I'm glad some effort is being made to streamline the UN's women's bodies (currently we have: the UN Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM), the Division for the Advancement of Women, the Office of the Special Adviser on Gender Issues AND the UN International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women) but I'm afraid I too am pessimistic about whether the political will exists to make the new agency sufficiently powerful or dynamic to make a real impact. I hope I'm wrong.


Update 24 September: 'Super-agency' UN Women is now semi-operational. Encouraging signs: Michelle Bachelet, former President of Chile (so a significant political figure with real gravitas and good contacts), has been appointed as its Head; the body has starting budget of US$500 million, more than twice the current combined resources of the 4 agencies it is replacing.

Show them the money

Cash transfer programmes are the sexy new gadget in the poverty reduction toolbox. They're spreading so quickly partly because a lot of evidence shows that they work, and also because as gadgets go they're pretty damn easy to operate - the government just hands over money to the poor. Well, it's almost that simple - some of the most successful programmes are conditional, so people get given their money in return for the fulfillment of some sort of socially desirable goal; commonly, a child's school attendance.

The Economist ran a feature on CCTPs last issue [thanks ST for alerting me]; read the leader here and the Brazil case-study here. Incidentally, the UN independent expert on human rights and extreme poverty, who also happens to be research director at my new workplace, has been focusing on CTPs too; the website for her mandate has some interesting resources, including detailed information submitted by various countries regarding their own CTPs.

Back on the blog

Greetings. After a long hiatus, I'm resurrecting this blog.

So, what's changed? Well, I have: travelled a fair bit (Nepal, India, Singapore, Australia, Argentina, Uruguay, Mexico, USA); lived in Buenos Aires where I learnt Spanish*, soaked up the city and ate a lot of steak; become vegetarian; attended a few weddings; moved to Geneva and adjusted to 5 days per week in an office again.

Blogging again is one happy side-effect of more time sat at a desk. As I'm working on human rights full-time now, there will continue to be an emphasis in that direction in my posts. So, to kick things off, and in acknowledgement of the fact that another big change during my radio silence is a new UK government, there's this. The UN General Assembly declared access to clean water and sanitation to be human rights last week, against fierce oppposition from the UK; a notable change in tack, as Labour minister Hilary Benn was happy to acknowledge the right to water back in 2006. I'm concerned and slightly mystified by this development.

Although I never wanted to see David Cameron walk into Number 10, I'll admit to thinking that the coalition government has done a reasonable job so far, all things considered, but its stance on human rights (see here and Conor Gearty here) and sustainable development (for example, shutting down the Sustainable Development Commission, claiming that SD has been 'mainstreamed' into government policy - see Jonathan Porritt on this here) I do find troubling.

*Mostly just as a challenge to myself, at some point I aim to start translating these posts into Spanish. Watch this space for an URL if you're interested, and feel free to whip out the red biro...

BLOG SABBATICAL

This blog has been 'paused' for quite some time, mainly due to lack of time rather than inclination, I'm about to take off on my travels, so I imagine it will remain defunct for a while, but I do plan to revive it at some point in the future. In the meantime, please feel free to browse older posts to your heart's content.

Decide what to worship

A tweet from my friend Antonia reminded me of the brilliance of this David Foster Wallace essay, which I first read just after he died. I'm a big fan of DFW, although his writing can be fairly patchy, because when he gets it right he really blows your socks off, in a 'deconstructing-the-little-things-that-you've-only-ever-noticed-subconsciously-and-rendering-them-profound-and-funny-at-the-same-time' kind of way.

I had a tedious, frustrating day yesterday (including very nearly getting squashed by a truck on my cycle journey home) but it was alleviated somewhat by reminding myself constantly "This is water, this is water..."

Fistula Foundation

Have a listen to this feature from Radio 4, about the Fistula Foundation hospital in Ethiopa; an excellent, rather moving report.

And by the way, The Fistula Foundation is one of the most worthwhile causes you could donate to - the treatment they give really does rebuild broken lives, so please think about helping them out.

The crazy tree blooms in America

This article in the Washington Post is excellent in putting all this absurd hyperbolic nonsense about healthcare reform, the 'Stalinist' NHS and 'death panels', into context. (My favourite right-wing gold so far: the claim that "if" Stephen Hawking was British he would have been left to die.)

It reminds me a bit of this classic essay, 'The Paranoid Style in American Politics' by Richard Hofstadter, which I have come back to time and time again since my A Level history teacher told me to read it (thanks JDM!).

Votes are not enough

The Times leader on Afghanistan yesterday was pretty spot-on I think, in labelling the heinous law on conjugal rights (see post below) "a defiance of what a democratic culture must mean", and this:

Democracy is a living process, measured in the culture of daily life, not counted periodically in votes cast in elections and the appearance of a representative government.

Paul Collier talks about this in his book Wars, Guns and Votes: Democracy in Dangerous Places: elections on their own are not enough without security, accountability and strong institutions.

Sometimes I despair

Nothing I can say will do justice to how deeply depressing this is...

Trousers in Sudan

Alright, I know I'm being very female-centric (Harriet Harman must have inspired me) but this woman is my new hero...

Maternal mortality

It's a sad and infuriating fact that pregnancy and childbirth remain hugely risky, life-threatening activities for many women in the developing world. These are largely preventable deaths, allowed to happen because of a chronic lack of resources, a result of systematic gender discrimination when it comes to reproductive healthcare. William Kristof's column highlights the issue; the White Ribbon Alliance do excellent work in terms of raising funds and awareness for this cause.

Penance and population

There's been a HUGE hiatus, I'm sorry. Exams then holiday got me out of the habit, and now I'm bogged down in dissertation writing (although I have been posting some article links on Twitter - see bottom left of this page). However, I'm going to try and start posting again occasionally, although most content will be related to my dissertation subject-matter - an analysis of the relationship between human rights and climate change. Speaking of which:

Population control is a very controversial issue in development and environmental circles, even though over-population is undoubtedly hugely exacerbating a number of undisputed social, economic and environmental evils. Of particular concern to me is the way human rights rhetoric is wheeled out to make any form of population control seem like a draconian infringement of liberty. This reveals a privileged Western bias - there are millions of women throughout the world who would dearly love to be given the option and the means to have less children. To see the way this issue is tiptoed round, one would think that population control inevitably means mass forced sterilisation. In reality, a good strategy is far more positive and has all sorts of desirable side effects. Outgoing chair of the SDC Jonathon Porritt is bravely iconoclastic in this piece, which Greepeace rejected as too controversial.

Every single one of the multiple socio-economic issues that preoccupy campaigns today would be eased by full-on, government-led interventions to help reduce average fertility – especially in the world’s poorest countries. And we know exactly how to generate that double dividend: massively increase funding for education for girls, for improved reproductive and other health interventions for women, and for ensuring access for women to a choice of reliable and cheap (preferably free) contraceptives. That's what successful family planning looks like.

I suppose this just confirms my view that educating girls is the foolproof way to solve all the world's ills...

Shameless Chavez

I'm full of righteous anger now thanks to the HRC (see below) and the revision I'm mired in on mass sexual violence (cheery). But this gave me some light relief* - Chavez has taken over the Venezualan airwaves for a whole 4 days. You've got to admire his bravado, if nothing else...

*(although obviously in Venezuala you might get locked up for openly laughing at the President)

A sick joke

The UN Human Rights Council has really disgraced itself now, in failing to call for an investigation into the clear and large-scale human rights abuses committed in Sri Lanka (by both sides). In doing so, it ignored an impassioned but very reasonable plea submitted by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. In contrast, the resulting resolution reads like a hearty slap on the back for the Sri Lankan government:

Acknowledging the continued engagement of the Government of Sri Lanka in regularly and transparently briefing and updating the Council on the human rights situation on the ground and the measures taken in that regard [This is the same government that has denied full access to aid agencies and journalists, and has accused The Times of faking photos taken above the combat zone].

...Welcomes the continued commitment of Sri Lanka to the promotion and protection of all human rights and encourages it to continue to uphold its human rights obligations and the norms of international human rights law...

As Amnesty International has said, it genuinely makes a mockery of the HRC.

Good article on this from former UK ambassador to the UN David Hannay. [The UK voted against the resolution, thankfully.]

On cultural relativism

I'm up to my ears in theories of cultural relativism, thanks to revision for my upcoming 'Human Rights of Women' and 'International Political Theory' exams.

Anyway, here are a couple of interesting (albeit not necessarily ground-breaking) recent contributions to the debate:

• Oliver Kamm in The Times
• Clive James' Point of View on Radio 4. You can read or listen.
• The Pamela Bone article he refers to is here. I love the cartoon that accompanies it:

A damn shame

Vaclav Havel op-ed on the supposedly 'reformed' Human Rights Council...

Bilderberg

Excellent gonzo dispatches from Charlie Skelton in Bilderberg (allegedly the site of secret annual meeting of the world's puppetmasters...and George Osborne).