A draft of a forthcoming UN Panel of Experts report has accused the Rwandan army and its allied rebel groups in the DRC (including the AFDL) of committing genocide against Great Lakes-region Hutus between 1993 and 2003. The findings are seminal for confirming the long-debated existence of a genocide against ethnic Hutus occurring at the same time as the Rwandan genocide, in which Hutus perpetrated mass killings and abuse of Tutsis.

About 20 human right officers have documented, through hundreds of pages, what they call widespread and systematic attacks by the Rwandan army and the Congolese AFDL rebel movement.

Those targeted were Rwandan Hutus who had fled into Congo after the genocide against ethnic Tutsis in Rwanda.

But the report says that attacks against Hutus who were not refugees seem to confirm that all Hutus were targeted.

In some regions, it says, checkpoints were used to identify people of Hutu origin and eliminate them – estimating that tens of thousands had been killed.

The report is expected to severely tarnish the international image of Rwandan president Paul Kagame, who led the Tutsi rebellion against the genocidal and predominantly Hutu government of Rwanda in 1994, which ended the Rwandan genocide. However, recent election results in Rwanda that saw Kagame win 93% of the vote with allegations of significant political oppression of opposition groups would suggest this is an image that needs tarnishing if the international community is serious about ending conflict and mass human rights abuses in Central Africa.

The big question is – will Kagame be indicted for war crimes and crimes against humanity??

Bookmark It

In a near-unanimous vote in the lower house yesterday, the Belgian parliament voted in favour of a ban on face veils, and any other item of clothing that conceals the identity of a person, being worn in public places. Though the law must still go through the Senate, the law is expected to pass within a month or two, which will make it the first of its kind in Europe. The vote saw 134 parliamentarians voting in favour, with two abstentions.

The law may seem unnecessary and even deliberately targeting, as apparently only 30 women in all of Belgium’s 500,000 or so Muslim population wear the full niqab.

The Muslim Executive of Belgium has criticised the move, saying it would lead to women who do wear the full veil to be trapped in their homes.

Amnesty International said a ban would set a “dangerous precedent”.

In a statement, the human rights group said it would “violate the rights to freedom of expression and religion of those women who wear the burqa or niqab as an expression of their identity and beliefs”.

The ban would be imposed in all buildings or grounds that are “meant for public use or to provide services”, including streets, parks and sports grounds.

Exceptions could be made for certain festivals.

It seems unlikely that the government means this law to be anything more than a statement against the full veiling of women mandated by Islamists, as the fine for wearing face-obscuring garments is 15-25 Euros.

Many people oppose the veil as an oppressive means of subjugating women, and legislation like this are meant both as a statement denouncing this subjugation and as a means of ‘liberating’ women from being forced by their families to cover themselves. However, as Amnesty International points out, it is unlikely to be the repressive political element in European Muslim societies that suffers from this legislation, and it will take more effort to educate women about their rights and social services available to them if they do feel forced.

My own feelings are split on the bill. On the one hand, I applaud any measures taken to combat the extremism of religious fanaticism that has been on the rise over the past decade. I applaud any attempts to ensure the full realization of one’s rights in the face of political and social oppression. But on the otherhand, I worry about unintended effects arising from such legislation, such as warned about by Amnesty International.

I guess we’ll have to wait and see what happens.

Bookmark It

Valentine’s Day is illegal in Saudi Arabia, and the police are out in full force to crackdown on shops selling anything red to ensure nobody in any way celebrates romance or love. Members of the religious police have been scouring shops for red roses, heart-shaped products or gifts wrapped in red.

Interestingly, these items are legal for purchase at other times during the year, but they are not allowed in the vicinity of Valentine’s Day. Apparently the Western notion of romantic love has been corrupting Muslim youth. A statement by the religious police posted in major media outlets read:

“Those who don’t comply will be punished,” the statement said, without spelling out what measures would befall the offenders.

I’m sure there are more than a few Western men that wouldn’t mind seeing such a draconian ban in their own cities. And while the commercialism surrounding any calendar date that can now be commercialised is enough to make anyone react in disgust, it’s clearly an arbitrary violation of basic rights. I could only imagine the reaction should, as happens in so many other Western countries at this time of year, a production of The Vagina Monologues was to open in Riyadh.

Bookmark It

Somewhat good news story of the week: small and stable Central American country, Costa Rica, has elected its first female president and apparently she won by an overwhelming majority, more than 20-points ahead of her nearest contender. The new president, Laura Chinchilla, apparently won on a campaign of continuing economic liberalisation that analysts believe is responsible for the stability of the country that has relatively high standard of living and the longest life expectancy of any country in Latin America.

The 50-year-old protege of the current president, Nobel Peace Prize laureate Oscar Arias, promised to pursue the same economic policies that recently brought the country into a trade pact with the U.S. and opened commerce with China.

“Today we are making history,” said Chinchilla, who will be the fifth Latin American woman to be elected president when she takes office in May. “The Costa Rican people have given me their confidence, and I will not betray it.”

The not so good news? Chincilla is a social conservative who opposes abortion and gay marriage. She’s not a woman who represents women or women’s rights. She’s a continuation of the same-old same-old power structures entrenched in Costa Rican society. The Christian Science Monitor mistakenly calls this election evidence of women’s rise in Latin America. But is it really the case if women are only electorally viable if they espouse more conservative values than their male counterparts?

Though there is a growing trend across Latin America of increased representation of women, largely due to affirmative action quotas implemented in more than a dozen countries in the region, I can’t help but feel that if it were up to these women, there would be no quotas or affirmative action. These women sound to me like the Sarah Palins of the Latin region. Is it really progress if, although she’s a woman, she supports and implements more socially conservative laws than we might get from a progressive like Morales or Chavez?

Bookmark It

Trust superbowl Sunday to construct a celebration of all that is mainstream misogynist, hyper-masculine with the ads that the world has been abuzz about. In case anyone still harboured romantic ideals that our culture had become more equal and respectful, here’s a mash-up via Feministing:

The ads that don’t make the cut? The ads too unpalatable for CBS? Man with head up own ass, and ‘the gay kiss’ ad:

For great analysis of the above and other ads, check out this piece in the Washington City Paper by Amanda Hess.

Bookmark It

In a promotional push to become the restaurant for V-Day, Mildred’s Temple Kitchen in Toronto is marketing itself via it’s toilets – encouraging patrons to consider having sex in its bathrooms. According to the promotion, the restaurant hopes to make it to the list of “101 places to have sex before you die.”

On its website, Mildred’s asks: “Have you given any thought to moving beyond the bedroom? “Check out Mildred’s Sexy Bathrooms throughout the weekend of Big Love. You get the picture.”

According to staff:

“We’ve always had little trysts in our bathrooms,” says chef/co-owner Donna Dooher, pointing to lingering weekday lunches as a popular time. “We’re taking it to the next level on Valentine’s weekend.”

Apparently the restaurant has also hired a “French maid” to be stationed in the restroom and ensure things are kept clean (“She’ll be there with her feather duster and cleaning supplies.”). As for those of us whose first thoughts were to health code violations:

Toronto’s Public Health food safety program manager said the restaurant wasn’t breaking any laws as long as there’s no intercourse in the kitchen and the bathrooms are kept clean.

“As far as bodily fluids, it’s pretty much similar to the other human functions going on in there,” said Chan, slightly undercutting the erotic value of the venture.

Apparently the place is totally booked out for Valentine’s Day and CANFAR is donating more than 900 condoms to the restaurant to promote safe sex.

Bookmark It

In what has to be described as one of the most authoritarian moves of the decade, the South Australian government has passed a new law requires anyone making an online comment about next month’s state election to publish their real name and postcode. This blanket law applies to any website in which anyone posts a comment relating to the election, including online news sources, Facebook, and Twitter. It could also be applied to talkback radio shows.

The law, one of many amendments to the Electoral Act, also requires media organisations to keep a person’s real name and full address on file for six months, and they face fines of $5000 if they do not hand over this information to the Electoral Commissioner.

According to Attorney-General Michael Atkinson, this new law is not an attack on free speech:

“The AdelaideNow website is not just a sewer of criminal defamation, it is a sewer of identity theft and fraud,” Mr Atkinson said.

“There is no impinging on freedom of speech, people are free to say what they wish as themselves, not as somebody else.”

Mr Atkinson also said he expected The Advertiser to target him for sponsoring the law.

“I am also certain that Advertiser Newspapers and News Limited will punish me personally, viciously for being the attorney-general responsible for this law,” he said.

“You will publish false stories about me, invent things about me to punish me.”

Right, sounds like a case of someone with serious insecurity issues. Really, one shouldn’t be in public office if one cannot handle public criticism. What is the reason that Mr. Atkinson would insist on getting the full names and addresses of anyone writing shit about the election, if not to track them down and threaten them in some way? From his quotation above, it would seem he plans on filing defamation suits against anyone with an opinion.

This South Australian law differs from federal legislation, which preserves the right of internet users to blog under a pseudonym. Apparently the law expires at 6pm on polling day, but its brevity is not the issue. The precedent is the issue. That Australia lacks constitutionally entrenched rights, such as the right to free speech, is the issue, as there is apparently no legal footing by which to challenge this ridiculous restriction of freedoms.

Bookmark It

In the wake of all the kerfuffle in France about the veil of late, the French government is putting its money where its mouth is and has denied the citizenship application of a Moroccan man who forces his wife to wear the veil on the basis that the practice is incompatible with France’s values.

According to French immigration Minister, Eric Besson, the man’s application was denied because of the behaviour he displayed towards his French wife, which Besson argues contravenes secularism and women’s rights:

“It emerged during the inquiry and the interview process that this person forced his wife to wear the full veil, deprived her of freedom of movement with her face exposed and rejected the principles of secularism and equality between men and women,” Besson said in a statement.

According to the transcript of his ruling:

“Monsieur X displays in an everyday manner a discriminatory attitude towards women, going as far as refusing to shake their hands and advocating the separation of boys and girls including, at home, of brothers and sisters,” the ruling read.

“The lifestyle he has chosen may be justified by religious precepts but is incompatible with the values of the Republic, notably the principle of equality of the sexes.”

For anyone following the French veil debate or my position on it, this statement may come as a bit of a surprise, but I actually commend France for this move. While I have said before that I believe their obsession with this particular cultural practice is misdirected, paternalistic, and punishing the very women they claim to be liberating, I actually commend legal sanctions against the men/institutions/power structures behind such cultural practices. It is not as though the man has been deported or lost his legal status in the country – he presumably retains his permanent residency status. I see this decision akin to putting a petulant child in a three-minute time-out. It is formally recognizing and condemning behaviour that the country hopes to change, or encourage change.

Don’t take this as my final say on the matter, but my gut reaction is: good on you, France. Let’s take more measures to make the oppression of women less appealling to men/institutions/power structures.

Bookmark It

I couldn’t believe my eyes when I came across this editorial at the National Post on the decline of Women’s Studies programs at Canadian universities, authored by “the editorial board.” In what I can only call one of the most inflammatory pieces to be published in a national paper, the editorial board says:

Forgive us for being skeptical. We would wave good-bye without shedding a tear, but we are pretty sure these angry, divisive and dubious programs are simply being renamed to make them appear less controversial.

The radical feminism behind these courses has done untold damage to families, our court systems, labour laws, constitutional freedoms and even the ordinary relations between men and women.

Forgive me if this post is not so articulate as I’d like it to be as my head feels on the verge of exploding. All I can wonder is if this editorial board at the National Post made up of pre-historic neanderthal jackasses? Or just a bunch of Tony Abbotts? The article essentially argues that these programs, whether they be named Women’s Studies or the more inclusive Gender Studies, are evil.

Following a flurry of comments to the contrary, the National Post then published an editorial from the anti-woman woman Barbara Kay, who claims that these courses are “political activism, not academic scholarship.” Kay claims:

And if there is any nook or cranny in this nation where equality of opportunity is not available to women, I would welcome the enlightenment and be the first to insist that be rectified. On the other hand I can certainly show Ms Stewart and Ms Giroux-Bougard many instances of inequality of opportunity for men, such as university appointments, where equity codes privilege the hiring of women. It is not equality of opportunity that Women’s Studies is championing, though, it is equality of outcomes. In other words, Women’s Studies is merely the politically activist arm of the feminist movement, which is nothing more today than a lobby group for women’s interests, not at all a movement interested in true equality between the genders.

Perhaps even WORSE than the Post’s article is the response from Canada’s liberal magazine Macleans, in which the author identifies herself as a female, but “I don’t call myself a feminist; I believe that most of the work on that front is done and I feel alienated by extremists who continue to decry the inherent chauvinism at the basis of our society.” To that, I have to say, Erin Millar, you are a saboteur, with your misguided adherence to liberalism. You undermine and trivialize the challenges still facing women. Liberals deny that the root of the problem is the very structure of our society, built on patriarchy, reinforcing men’s domination of women, other men, and all of nature.

Allow me to turn to Denise Thompson, author of Radical Feminism Today, who, in her book, articulates the argument for the necessity of this “political activism” thus:

“Feminism aims to expose the reality of male domination, while struggling for a world where women are recognized as human beings in their own right…. …it is through exposing male domination as domination that feminism poses its major challenge, since social domination operates most efficiently to the extent that it ensures compliance by being disguised as something else, and not domination at all. It has been the task of feminism to tear away the masks behind which male domination hides its true nature, and expose it for the dehumanizing system it really is.”

The more that liberal feminists and self-proclaimed “liberated women” deny the effects of this structure, the more undermined women’s rights are. Women’s Studies/Gender Studies courses are important because nowhere else does are we encouraged to question the structure of our society. Equality under the law is not the same as equality. According to Catherine Mackinnon:

“We’re now in a stage where people want to believe that there is equality. They’d rather deny inequality than face it down so that they can actually live it. My task is to support their belief in that equality while at the same time unmasking everything around them that is making it impossible for them actually to live in it.”

She goes on to answer the question of “Are Women Human”:

“If women were human, would we be a cash crop shipped from Thailand in containers into New York’s brothels? Would we be sexual and reproductive slaves? Would we be bred, worked without pay our whole lives, burned when our dowry money wasn’t enough or when men tired of us, starved as widows when our husbands died (if we survived his funeral pyre)? …”

So don’t tell me that feminism has done it’s job and Women’s Studies programs have no place in Canadian universities. The misogyny espoused by the National Post has no place in such a self-professed and self-congratulating liberal country.

Bookmark It

An Australian banker was caught on live television looking up pornography, not realizing a newscaster was broadcasting live just a few feet away. This is classic:

The man in question works at Macquarie Bank in Sydney and had his back to the camera when Channel 7′s morning Sunrise program cut live to their business analyst giving a live update on interest rates. One of the topless images has been identified as girlfriend of Orlando Bloom, Miranda Kerr.

The video footage shows the man in question appear behind the reporter, sit down at his computer and immediately he brings up the photos in question. As a colleague chats to him from the other side of his screen, he flicks between photos of girls and financial news, before turning and finally seeing the camera behind him.

Allegedly, the photos came from an email of Kerr’s recent GQ photo shoot. Macquarie Bank is in clean-up mode and has released the following statement:

Macquarie takes matters such as the unacceptable use of technology extremely seriously,” the bank said.

“Macquarie has strict policies in place surrounding the use of technology and the issue arising from today’s live cross on 7 News is being dealt with internally.”

Bookmark It