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

Last week, the US Senate passed the Wall Street Reform Bill, embedded wherein lay provisions for the tracing and monitoring of conflict minerals. This provision was prompted by recent media attention and global outcry relating to the ongoing war in the Democratic Republic of Congo – the deadliest war since WWII. Waged since 1998, the war in the DRC has seen nearly six million people killed and hundreds of thousands of women raped.

The war is entirely caused and supported by the illegal trade in ridiculously valuable minerals. Minerals needed for the production of consumer goods, electronics, mobile phones, and, of course, military technology and weapons.

Since the enactment of the Bill, some have expressed concern for the future of Congo’s fragile economy if murdering rebels can’t illegally sell these precious minerals to major Western corporations. In the lead-up to the legislation, Motorola spent $880,000 to lobby the government in relation to the regulation of conflict minerals.

I think fragile economy is a misnomer. Non-existent is probably a more accurate portrayal. Congo’s current debt sits at $10.9 billion. Just last month, at Canada’s request, The World Bank postponed a meeting that was set to forgive nearly $8 billion of that debt.

Yet, according to the naysayers of the bill, hundreds of Congolese civilians may be left vulnerable with the closure of these illegal mining operations should the bill be effective in limiting the purchase of illegal conflict minerals. This is a plainly false argument.

Firstly, Western corporations and governments are so desperately dependent on these minerals that no law will affect that demand. More likely, innovative new solutions will arise to hide the true source of the minerals, or, preferably, the law will have its intended effect of ending short-term purchase from illegal mining sources and encourage more legal, above-the-board development, perhaps putting an end to the brutal war in DRC.

Secondly, those working in the illegal, rebel-controlled mines of eastern DRC are not just poor, hard-working peasants. Often, they are slave-labourers, kidnapped from neighbouring communities and forced to work without reward by the armed group in control of that mine.

Given the extent and pervasiveness of the networks of power with interest in the conflict minerals of the DRC, there is heavy vested interest in the maintenance of the conflict for cheap and steady access to resources that have otherwise been promised to China in a multi-billion dollar bilateral deal between the governments of both countries. Addressing the demand for illegal minerals may be the only available mechanism for actually ending this long and bloody war.

Bookmark It

I’ve wrote about the issue a few times already and still haven’t quite settled my position. Still, I won’t deny the rush of pleasure I felt when hearing that France’s lower house has passed a bill banning the burqa.

In a near-unanimous decision, the National Assembly voted 335-1 to ban the Islamic face coverings in public.

The legislation imposed a $185 fine or citizenship lessons — or both — on women caught outside their homes wearing the full-face coverings known as a burqa in Afghanistan and a niqab in North Africa. It set a fine of $38,000 and a one-year prison term for anyone convicted of forcing women and girls to wear such veils, reflecting a widely shared conviction here that Muslim women are forced to cover their faces by their fathers or husbands.

The bill is supposed to also pass easily through the upper house, but before being enacted into law, the bill will also be submitted to the Constitutional Council to ensure it meets commitments to human rights outlined in France’s constitution.

Surveys have shown overwhelming support for the ban, as well. A survey by the Pew Research Center conducted in April and May showed 82 percent of those questioned support the prohibition. In addition, the survey found that 71 percent of Germans, 62 percent of Britons and 59 percent of Spaniards would back similar bans in their own countries.

While I think that law can have an important educational effect on changing norms in a society, there will be enforcement issues, as noted by a BBC article on the ban:

Initially there will be a six-month period where women who wear the full-face veil are stopped and told about French laws and the reasons behind them. But after that period a police officer could tell her to remove the veil or risk a fine.

Clearly, in some suburbs of Paris with strong Muslim communities it would be very sensitive to order a woman to remove her veil. It will also be hard to prove that a woman is wearing a veil against her wishes.

Another risk is that the ban will create martyrs. Frederic Lagache of the police union said to me today: “Our concern is that some people will be manipulated by extremists and cause trouble on the streets when we stop them.”

Already a businessman has offered to set up a fund to pay any fines incurred by women.

There are also likely to be a series of legal challenges.

In far less controversial legislation, Ottawa may soon consider adding honour killings to its Criminal Code. Yesterday, Canada’s federal government affirmed its position against the practice, declaring such “barbaric cultural practices” as “heinous abuses” with “no place in Canadian society.”

Rona Ambrose, Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for the Status of Women referred to:

“honour crimes and to the subjugation, oppression and repression of women and girls wherever it happens.

“Repression, oppression and violence to maintain a family’s honour may even happen because a girl wants to wear westernized clothing, date a boy who may not be from her own religion or culture or simply wanting to wear make-up.”

These comments come on the heels of a report by the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, which documented at least 15 honour killings in Canada since 2002, and issued 14 policy recommendations to the Canadian government to stop the crime.

Here’s hoping.

Bookmark It

In 1995, Sweden passed a law requiring fathers to take parental leave following the birth of their child. While the law did not actually force the father to stay home, the family lost one month of subsidies if he did not. What Sweden found from this social experiment was that very soon afterward, more than 8 in 10 men took leave. In 2002, a second nontransferable month was assigned to the fathers, which only marginally increased the number of men taking leave, but more than doubled the amount of time men did take off to parent. Now 85 percent of Swedish men take parental leave.

An interesting NYT piece from a couple of weeks ago discusses this law and the amazing social impact it had on the country, including: lower rates of divorce, higher likeliness of joint custody in the case of divorce, and men reprioritizing their lives to work/life balance as opposed to being focused primarily on their career.

Companies have come to expect employees to take leave irrespective of gender, and not to penalize fathers at promotion time. Women’s paychecks are benefiting and the shift in fathers’ roles is perceived as playing a part in lower divorce rates and increasing joint custody of children.

In perhaps the most striking example of social engineering, a new definition of masculinity is emerging.

“Many men no longer want to be identified just by their jobs,” said Bengt Westerberg, who long opposed quotas but as deputy prime minister phased in a first month of paternity leave in 1995. “Many women now expect their husbands to take at least some time off with the children.”

What is more, a study published by the Swedish Institute of Labor Market Policy Evaluation in March showed a direct link between the gender pay gap and mandatory parental leave. The study indicated that a mother’s future earnings increase on average 7 percent for every month the father takes leave.

Not only is the paternity leave making families happier (or at least appear to be happier on what indicators are available), it also appears to be challenging hegemonic masculinity:

Birgitta Ohlsson, European affairs minister, put it this way: “Machos with dinosaur values don’t make the top-10 lists of attractive men in women’s magazines anymore.”
…
In Sodermalm, Stockholm’s trendy south island, the days of fathers taking only two months are clearly over. Men with strollers walk in the park, chat in cafes, stock up at the supermarket or weigh their babies at walk-in daycare centers.

Claes Boklund, a 35-year-old Web designer taking 10 months off with 19-month-old Harry, admits he was scared at first: the baby, the cooking, the cleaning, the sleepless nights. Six months into his leave, he says, he is confident around Harry (and cuts his nails).

“It’s both harder and easier than you think,” he said.

Another father talked of how few men cut their own children’s fingernails, as one of the many parenting duties most often left to the mother by default because women are usually the primary caregiver. If men are forced into the role (or at least strongly encouraged), there seems to be benefit for all. I’d now like a study done relating the development of children whose fathers took a significant amount of leave to stereotypical views held of gender roles and maybe even to misogyny. But I’m no psychologist… will have to wait to see what the next several decades mean for Sweden’s social development.

Bookmark It

Now I know sub-Saharan African countries aren’t really known for their respect of human rights, but I was shocked out of hibernation by this story. Apparently doctors in Namibia are forcing HIV-positive women to be sterilized after they receive the positive diagnosis.

While the ‘forced’ part of that description may conjur images of the women being pinned down, kicking and screaming, but the allegations are actually that the doctors are not seeking informed consent for the procedure. According to the rights group representing three of the women who claim to have been sterilized against their wishes, at least 15 cases of forced sterilization have been reported in Namibian hospitals since 2008.

“We want a health system based on human rights which promotes equality for all,” the LAC’s Amon Ngavetene told the BBC News website.

He explained that when HIV-positive women go to hospital they are sometimes, at the discretion of the doctors, advised to undergo a sterilisation operation.

Mr Ngavetene said these women are not always given a clear idea of what the procedure involves and dangerous pre-existing conditions are not always taken into account.

There may also be a language barrier in a country where there are 11 indigenous languages, he said.

Deplorable. That’s about all I have to say on the topic.

Bookmark It

Well, that’s what the headline should say. Instead, we’re choosing to call this man’s paying $100,000 for a 13 year old girl “marriage”. Did I mention he’s 49?

Ahmad Sani Yerima, former governor of the state of Zamfara, is responsible for the introduction of Sharia law into the state. Though he denies that the girl is 13, he also refuses to disclose her actual age, claiming:

“I consider all those complaining about this issue as detractors, because since 1999… many people have been waging different kind of wars against me,” he told the BBC’s Hausa Service by telephone from Egypt.

The senator said he had followed “standard rules for marriage in Islam”.

“I don’t care about the issue of age since I have not violated any rule as far as Islam is concerned,” he said.

“History tells us that Prophet Muhammad did marry a young girl as well. Therefore I have not contravened any law. Even if she is 13, as it is being falsely peddled around.

“If I state the age, they will still use it to smear Islam,” he said.

Luckily, some women’s groups in Nigeria are protesting the marriage and demanding to see Sani taken to court to face a jail sentence for contravening the 2003 Child Right’s Act.

But apparently this politician does not believe in the laws of men and his peers, preferring the self-selected “laws” of his fanatical version of spiritual beliefs that somehow justify buying and raping children. In his own defense, Sani claims:

“As a Muslim, as I always say, I consider God’s law and that of his prophet above any other law,” Mr Sani said.

“I will not respect any law that contradicts that and whoever wants to sanction me for that is free to do that.”

Apparently this one was not his first child “bride.”

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

Four years into its mandate, the International Criminal Court has yet to secure a conviction for those accused of committing horrific war crimes since 2002. Yet again, the court has decided to drop charges against an accused war criminal due to lack of evidence. The latest war criminal to escape justice is Abu Garda of Darfur, who was accused of killing 12 African Union peacekeepers in 2007, and voluntarily turned himself in to authorities last year. However, ICC judges have ruled that there is not enough evidence against Abu Garda to support a trial.

According to the press release, the pre-trial Chamber:

“was not satisfied that there was sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe that Bahar Idriss Abu Garda could be held criminally responsible either as a direct or as an indirect co-perpetrator for the commission of the crimes”

This is on the heels of the dropped charges against the Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, the first case to go to trial at the ICC, for the same reason – lack of evidence. I had such high hopes for this institution, created as a permanent international court with the power to punish the most serious violations of human rights. The purpose of the court was to take away the ‘ad hoc’ nature of prosecutions of war crimes, which until the establishment of the ICC relied upon the political will of the international community to agree to the establishment of an international criminal tribunal, like the ones for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda.

The situation of Darfur was unique for the ICC as it was the first situation to be referred by the Security Council of the United Nations. Other cases have been referred to the Special Prosecutor, Luis Moreno Ocampo, by the countries themselves affected. So given the lack of cooperation by the government in Sudan, I can understand the limitations with gathering evidence. However, this is a problem that appears to be plaguing the court.

Understandably, witnesses and evidence is a difficult thing to collect in a guerilla conflict. But is it the case that Mr. Ocampo is just not trying hard enough to gather the necessary evidence to secure a conviction? Or is it that Western legal standards are just unsuitable to trialling international war crimes? We clearly will never get a Law and Order: War Crimes and Atrocities Unit, in which teams of highly specialized forensic technologists scour desert and jungle floors for evidence that this particular armed rebel commited this particular atrocity. I would like to be able to say it should be enough that there is overwhelming evidence proving that you are a person of a particular rank within a particular armed group and that that armed group has been witnessed committing war crimes to convict that person of war crimes. Perhaps there is too much individual agency attributed to violators of international law. But clearly this would be problematic.

I don’t know what solution to offer the ICC and I’m sure their much more qualified legal experts are working hard to address their lack of success. I do hope for a win for the ICC sometime soon, as the institution is quickly losing credibility in the eyes of the international community.

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