The resort company in question, Barefoot India, operates a small tourist camp inside a 5km buffer zone designed to protect the Jarawa following outbreaks of disease that occurred when the government built a road through Jarawa territory. Barefoot India argued to the court that their commercial activity would not impact the Jarawa, but the court found that no tourists should be allowed to interact with the Jarawa and the buffer zone should be protected and enforced by the government.

The Andaman Islands are home to several threatened tribes, many of whom have inhabited the islands for millennia. The Bo civilization, whose last living member died in early February, is thought to date back 65,000 years; their destruction is largely attributed to disease brought by settlers followed by years of bad colonial and government policies that sought to civilize them. In contrast, the Jarawa were only recently contacted. So far, this has allowed them to avoid the fate of the Bo, but without further protection by the government it may just delay the inevitable.

The Supreme Court’s decision is a positive step towards protecting the human rights of uncontacted tribes even when they cannot participate in the process. But as modern populations expand, development continues, and commercial opportunities in tourism and natural resources exist, the fundamental issue of this case will need to be re-litigated time and time again. For all the talk about a right to develop, situations such as this suggest that the opposite must be true as well, where those who thrive without the knowledge of modern life must have the right to resist development in order to save themselves.

Fatos was then sentenced again, while incarcerated, for supposedly belonging to a pro-Soviet underground movement. Hoxha had been an admirer of Stalin but fell out with the Soviets once Khrushchev began to open up to the West. His visit with Nixon infuriated him.

Fatos spent the first five years working in a copper mine in Spac. He then went to a prison in Burrel and spent another 17 years  in a dingy concrete cell until his release in 1991.  It was while at Burrel he wrote, surreptitiously, his first novel.  On the back of cigarette packages no less.

This award winner author and journalist has lived through some of the most trying times during Albania’s isolation. Today, as a journalist, he is being persecuted by an oil tycoon and his paper is being sued for libel for 500.000 Euros.

But for someone who has endured so much, for someone who continues to fight against corruption, for someone who continues to expose those in power as frauds, Fatos remains a remarkable individual with a drive that inspires anyone who meets him.

After meeting him I read his book, The Second Sentence in which he recalls those terrifying moments of his trial and his ordeal to survive. When the judge handed him a 23 year sentence, he felt relief. Relief that at the very least he would live. It didn’t matter if he was innocent. It only mattered that he could still feel, breathe in the air, exhale and hope for a miracle. A striking read.

People marked International Women’s Day yesterday in a variety of ways. In Europe, the Commissioner for Human Rights for the Council of Europe, Thomas Hammarberg, made news with the publication of his Viewpoint that bans against the Islamic niqab or burqa would violate a woman’s privacy and could potential violate the European Convention on Human Rights. Such bans have been proposed in France and discussed in other European countries, nominally for the purposes of liberating Muslim women. But as Hammarberg pointed out, such bans could further marginalize Muslim women in European societies rather than free them.

One of the main reasons raised in the Viewpoint was similar to what I pointed out a month ago: women are not “freed” from the possible oppressive nature of veils in extremely repressive Muslim countries by banning the voluntary wearing of the veil in Europe. Instead, the ban results in the exact same outcome for women empowerment, only instead or forcing women to wear the veil, it prohibits women from ever wearing the veil. In the end, the state is still dressing women, which is not my idea of “liberation.” There may be reasons for this, but women empowerment and liberation should never sincerely be offered as justifications.

However Hammarberg did not stop there; he went further and compared such bans with the prospect of criminalizing the Mohammed cartoons that caused such a furor in 2005. Back then Europeans argued very passionately that there must remain room for freedom of expression regardless of the religious implications of some speech. Hammarberg agreed with this view:

The political challenge is to promote diversity and respect for the beliefs of others and at the same time protect freedom of speech. If the wearing of a full-face veil is understood as an expression of a certain opinion, we are talking here about similar or identical rights - though seen from two different angles.

A prohibition of the burqa and the niqab would in my opinion be as unfortunate as it would have been to criminalise the Danish cartoons. Such banning is alien to European values. Instead we should promote multicultural dialogue and respect for human rights.

This may seem like an obvious point, but one that has often been lost in the debate over Islam in Europe. Hopefully Hammarberg’s remarks will remind a few people of the actual values that they are claiming to protect. Such reminders are good for society’s soul and help start the community dialogue that many places in Europe could really use on this issue.

Every year, the UN puts out a theme for IWD; this year it is “Equal Rights, Equal Opportunity: Progress for All.” This is incredibly appropriate given that the Commission on the Status of Women is currently meeting in New York to review the progress (or lack thereof) made on the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action that was adopted in 1995. Cassandra Clifford over on the FPB Children Blog has more background and links on the “Beijing + 15″ conference going on, and I encourage you to check out her post on IWD for more information.

This year’s theme is also more fitting than previous years because it captures what the day is supposed to be about.  In the beginning, IWD was linked to the labor rights and suffrage movement in the US and Europe. While women have since earned the right to vote in those countries, equality gaps still exist. In other countries, women still face socially accepted abuse and marginalization from their governments and within their families.

Women’s rights organizations around the world have planned plenty of events to mark the day and the struggles they still face. One of the most talked about events this year is the bridge demonstrations hosted by Women for Women International on more than 70 bridges throughout the world to highlight the need for peace and the disproportionate effect that war has on women. Plenty of journalists and bloggers have also used the occasion to reflect on women’s rights, from Nicholas Kristof at the New York Times to the feminist blog Gender Across Borders who is hosting a live-blog directory for those participating in blogging on IWD.

Many local communities are hosting their own IWD events today, and I encourage you to get involved. If that isn’t possible, still take a moment to read about some of the IWD activities going on and reflect on how much better we would all be if the goals of equality and egalitarianism sought by the first IWD planners 100 years ago were achieved in our lifetime. Although IWD is only one day, it is a day that highlights our best ambitions and aspirations for women, and should galvanize us to act year-round towards the goal of full and unqualified gender equality.

We are a country with an Aboriginal heritage. A growing number of states have given qualified recognition to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Our Government will take steps to endorse this aspirational document in a manner fully consistent with Canada’s Constitution and laws.

It may not seem like much, but it is what many indigenous rights groups have been fighting for since the Declaration was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2007. Back then, there were only four countries that voted against the non-binding Declaration - Australia, New Zealand, the US, and Canada. Now, Australia has adopted the Declaration and New Zealand has stated that it might endorse it soon. Canada’s pledge brings the world one step closer to near-universal recognition of the importance of indigenous rights, though of course the US still holding out.

The effect of the African Commission’s ruling last month on indigenous land rights in Kenya is an important ruling, not only for the recognition of land rights among indigenous populations in Africa, but for a wide-scale acknowledgment of indigenous people and their marginalization. The ruling could also potentially help other marginalized groups in Africa, including women, because the Commission found that the discrimination against Kenya’s Endorois people violated the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights because the discrimination emanated from colonial law and attitudes.

The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights is mandated to promote and protect human rights throughout Africa by ruling on cases which require it to interpret the Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, a regional human rights instrument. On February 4, 2010, the African Commission found that Kenya violated the rights of the Endorois people when it threw them off of their land in order to develop the area for tourism.  The Kenyan government had relied on laws from its colonial British past to prevent the Endorois people from outright owning their land and instead gave the power to local authorities whom could remove them from their land at any time.

The Commission ruled that the Kenyan government could not rely on colonial British law to marginalize its people.  One of the foundational purposes of the African Charter, which the African Commission interprets in its rulings, is to eradicate all former roots and remnants of colonialism from the African continent.  The Commission found that this marginalization of indigenous people was another harmful dark residue of colonialism.

While this ruling is a landmark ruling, enforcement is always a challenge.  While, land reform has been attempted in Kenya and other parts of Africa, it is not always done with success.  Even when the government reforms rule of law to allow for example women to own or inherit land, the law often does not affect the ground because tribal elders still call the shots in their communities (This is only one in a myriad of reasons legislation doesn’t always affect the ground).  While enforcement in the short and long term is of course a significant issue, the ruling by itself is an important recognition of indigenous people in Africa, which have long been discriminated against.

The term “indigenous” has often been ignored in Africa because the vast majority of the African population is considered indigenous, unlike in other countries such as Australia, the United States, and Latin America. African populations that are considered indigenous are most often those that have ties to the land through their cultural, economic, and traditional livelihoods.  They are often nomadic pastoralists, hunters and gatherers, or practice traditional forms of dry-land horticulture.  Additionally, groups such as the San and Pygmy people have unique physical features which make them stand out from other local populations.  Governments and society have de facto discriminated against these indigenous groups in terms of access to land, education, and healthcare.  Their lifestyles or in the case of the San and Pygmy people, their physical characteristics, have made them the target of de factor state and social discrimination.  In conflict, these groups are specifically targeted.  During the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, not only were Tutsi’s victims, but Hutu militias specifically targeted Pygmies as well.

The discrimination of indigenous peoples is a problem around the world.  However, in Africa it has been hard to lay the foundation for recognition of indigenous peoples, never mind promoting the human rights of such populations. The African Commission’s ruling is important as it recognizes indigenous populations in Africa and also the rights of these individuals.  Furthermore, it sets precedence that the marginalization of these populations within Africa evolved from colonialism.  It is therefore the duty of the state to eradicate such laws which allow for discrimination because Africa seeks to root out colonialism.  While the African Commission’s or even Kenya’s ability to enforce its ruling is of course an issue, this interpretation of the African Charter is important.  It at least gives some precedence of the recognition of indigenous people and their rights to land, which could be a starting point for claiming other important rights, such as education and healthcare.  It also gives other marginalized people a basis to attack unjust rules based in colonialism.  This could be an important strategy for women, especially for those cultures that lived in matriarchal societies prior to colonialism.  This ruling has the potential to open a lot of doors, but it is also an important first step to recognizing the indigenous people in Africa and their rights to land.  Hopefully, this ruling will make some difference in the lives of indigenous African people.

Miranda Jolicoeur is an International Liaison/ Research Analyst at the National Institute of Justice/U.S. Dept. of Justice (contractor).  She is also an Associate Professor at the American Military University. She graduated with a J.D./M.A. in International Affairs from American University in Washington, DC. Please note that the views she expresses in this piece are her views alone and are not to be construed as the views of her employers.

——

Dear Nikolaj

Greetings

Read your article on Depilex Smileagain Foundation. I am one of the main complainants.

After months of hardwork i finally managed to track down Najaf Sultana, the much publicised patient of Masarrat Misbah’s Depilex Smileagain Foundation.

If u google Najaf Sultana, you can read so many articles about her. Most of them mention how at the age of 5 her father set her on fire as he did not want a girl. Photo journalists have been awarded prizes for their photographic work on her.

I recently interviewed Najaf and her family, here is what they have to say:-

Depilex Smileagain only invited Najaf to fundraisers which were attended by press and foreign doctors.

Not a single penny was ever spent on her by Depilex Smileagain ( see her recent photo , along with one published in high profile mags by Masarrat with the God Talk. WARNING…THE PHOTOGRAPHS ARE VERY DISTURBING)

Her father was murdered when she was 6 months old…and therefore obviously there is no possibility of him doing any harm to her. Najaf had accidently set her frock on fire at age 5 when she was playing around a kerosene stove. The matter got worse when a neighbour put a pail of water to put off the fire.

Najaf is 19 now.

I have interviewed many patients and all have a story to tell. Barring two who said they recd some limited medical attention, the rest have major complaints. Even their real stories were distorted by Depilex Smileagain to gain empathy.

Arooj Akbar tried to commit suicide but Masarrat told her that you have to tell everybody that ur inlaws and husband set u on fire. This will help us to raise funds and these funds shall immensely help other victims besides you.

It is tragic that the misery of such girls has been exploited by Depilex smileagain Foundation.

If its Ok with you, I shall keep you posted with my efforts to expose Depilex smileagain.

K regds

Manzar Mian.

Homosexuality is already criminalized in Uganda but the Anti-Homosexuality Bill currently on the table would drastically make things worse for gays in Uganda. Strongly supported and shaped by American Christian evangelicals, some of the more distressing changes to the current laws would make homosexuality punishable with life imprisonment (up from the current 14 year prison sentence), and would make repeat offenses punishable by death. The bill also proposes prison sentences for people who do not report the homosexual nature of others to the authorities. This means that family or friends who do not out someone who is gay to the police could wind up in jail themselves, thereby encouraging people to turn on each other in order to spare themselves. It also criminalizes the “intent to commit a homosexual act,” something that no one seems to quite understand, leaving many worried about how such a crime could be used against the gay community.

The bill was introduced last year and has been widely debated online since then. Now that it is before Parliament, the fight against the bill is gaining new momentum as more international attention is given to the situation. Today the campaign group Avaaz delivered a petition with 450,000 signatures to Parliament urging them to reject the bill. However most of the signatures on the petition are from outside Uganda, giving supporters of the bill a clear talking point on Western versus African values.

To be sure, there are some in Uganda who have raised concerns about the horrible ramifications that the bill could have in the country, and some LGBT rights groups have boldly spoken out against the bill. But so far their opinions have been drowned out by the inflammatory rantings of the anti-gay movement. With Ugandan president Museveni distancing himself from the bill in January, it is not clear whether the current bill will actually pass. However even if it doesn’t, it could set a new tone for LGBT rights in Africa, and not one that favors equality.

The IACHR and its counterpart, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, hold a special place in the human rights world for the situations it has been willing to tackle and the subsequent judicial decisions and reports they released. Unlike the European regional human rights system, the IACHR has dealt with some extremely contentious issues including enforced disappearances, indigenous rights, the liability of non-state actors in conflict, police abuse, and political amnesties. Governments in Latin America have sometimes been reluctant to cooperate with IACHR, but in the end normally do because the investigations and reports issued by IACHR were part of the means to get to a stable, democratic end in Latin America. Because of this, while some may disagree with the outcome of specific cases there is no doubt that the respect bestowed upon the IACHR has been hard earned. In that light, Chávez’s ire is not just a slap in the face to the OAS and IACHR, but to the progress that Latin America has made as well.

The interesting thing about this situation is that the IACHR report did not point out anything we did not already know. Judicial independence has been increasingly questioned in Venezuela, as has Chávez’s disdain for media outlets critical of the government.  Last month David Sussman on the FPB Venezuela Blog wrote on the closure of another six TV stations by Chávez, nominally for not abiding by regulations. But as Sussman pointed out, there are reasons to question this justification:

The government’s action appears to be yet another effort to restrict critics, a timeworn pattern under Hugo Chávez. He has a history of silencing those who do not agree with him, whether through selective licensing of media outlets, the disqualification of opposing politicians, or the dismissal of leading members of his own government. These moves to limit dissent are often lightly veiled under the guise of bureaucratic negligence (e.g. stating that a radio station is closed because it does not have the appropriate paperwork). If all were true, though, this would show a great ineptitude on the part of the opposition in terms of attaining necessary registration and licenses.

This was the behavior outlined by the IACHR report. Though congratulating Venezuela for its improvement in the field of economic, social, and cultural rights, the report called for a balance with decreasing protections for civil and political rights. Though this is just the start of this particular saga between IACHR and Venezuela, one can only hope that fairer minds prevail and the IACHR stands its ground.

By Miranda Jolicoeur (Guest Contributor)

The International Violence Against Women Act, commonly referred to as I-VAWA, is the first attempt of its kind to call attention to violence against women in the public and private spheres around the world.  For the most part international law focuses on the state, known as the public sphere, rather than the community, family, or individual, known as the private sphere. I-VAWA is a piece of U.S. legislation which follows United Nations’ policies, guidelines, and protocols which address the rights of women and girls, but it incorporates U.S. foreign policy and an international aid focus on violence against women and civil society and grassroots solutions.

I-VAWA, is an international version of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), a piece of domestic legislation designed to combat violence against women in the United States.  Former Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) and Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) drafted and introduced the I-VAWA legislation in 2007. Last year, Congress adjourned before voting on it. On February 4, 2010, Senators John Kerry (D-MA); Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Olympia Snowe (R-ME); and Susan Collins (R-ME); and Representatives Bill Delahunt (D-MA), Ted Poe (R-TX) and Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) re-introduced the legislation to the current Congress.

What is unique about this piece of legislation is that while it focuses on elevating the international status of women and protecting them from violence, it also outlines a comprehensive strategy to combat violence against women.  If implemented, I-VAWA would centralize and elevate departments handling women’s issues within the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) allowing for greater cooperation, focus, and funding.  The bill also outlines a five-year strategic plan aimed at combating violence against women in ten to twenty countries through federal funding.  These funds would go to local and indigenous model programs working on issues related to violence against women.

The purpose of I-VAWA is not to pressure other countries to view feminism from a Western perspective, but rather to fund effective local programs in the country of choice.  Types of programs which may receive funding through I-VAWA, although this list is not by any means exclusive, include: empowering women through microfinance; rule of law reform; training assistance programs; military and police trainings; programs focusing on changing norms about gender; and programs in the health sector.

I-VAWA is important and unique because it tackles not only public sphere violence against women, but also highlights private sphere violence against women which is often hard to call attention to around the world because of the personal nature of the family.  The public sphere pushes the issue of violence against women into the private sphere where it is not publically condemned or criminalized and without punishment or shame it becomes condoned by both the state and society.  While there are debates as to whether feminism is universal around the world, one thing is true: violence against women is always a human rights violation and physical and mental violence against women should be condemned in all countries.

Violence against women has larger links to the progress and fate of the world.  It is a health epidemic and has links to the spread of infectious diseases, including HIV/AIDS.  Governments and researchers have drawn links between nations with poor women’s rights records and terrorism. Additionally, violence against women affects generations of both women and men that bear witness to the beatings and mental abuse of their grandmothers, mothers, aunts, and sisters.  It slows economic development and harms families and communities because females and males cannot progress to their full potential when surrounded by violence against more than half of the population.

I-VAWA is very important in the global fight against gender-based violence.  However, some have argued that I-VAWA discriminates against men because it does not include their gender in the legislation.  In response to this it is important to understand why I-VAWA does not and can not include men.  It is not because men do not also suffer from violence, but because the violence women experience is rampant and often ignored.  Furthermore, women are targeted and violated solely because they are women. Extreme inequality between males and females continues to exist around the world because the institution of patriarchy continues to thrive world-wide. While it is important to recognize violence against men and boys, violence against women and girls deserves its own special recognition and it warrants the acknowledgment that it is a widespread and serious issue which states and the international community cannot ignore.  Therefore to try to group violence against women into a category with all other violence against human beings only seeks to dilute the problems that are unique to females around the world.

I-VAWA is special because it advocates for the use of holistic community programming which can have an affect on society’s view of women and violence against them.  This may not happen within a five-year timeframe, but it is a start.  Additionally, the creation of important high-level offices which focus on women and the discrimination they face world-wide is an important recognition of the problems women face around the world from such horrors as acid attacks, sexual slavery, domestic violence, and genocidal rape.

I-VAWA should pass because recognizing and combating violence against women is not only an important human rights issue, but it is also a health issue and an economic development issue.  Maybe by explaining that violence against women not only harms the minds and bodies of women and those that bear witness to the violence, but also depletes the global wallet, more ears will listen.

More information and background on I-VAWA can be found here.

Miranda Jolicoeur is an International Liaison/ Research Analyst at the National Institute of Justice/U.S. Dept. of Justice (contractor).  She is also an Associate Professor at the American Military University. She graduated with a J.D./M.A. in International Affairs from American University in Washington, DC in 2008.  She has worked extensively on human rights issues addressing violence against women in Asia, East Africa, and the Middle East.  Please note that the views she expresses in this piece are her views alone and are not to be construed as the views of her employers.