Archive for the ‘Gender and Sexuality’ Category

A registry to prevent crime, not domestic violence

Wednesday, September 29th, 2010

By Claire Tremblay at rabble.ca,  September 28, 2010.

We suspected it and now it is confirmed. The Conservatives don’t think domestic violence is a crime.

MP Candace Hoeppner said as much on CBC Radio, no less, in Toronto last week. At the tail-end of her long, failed crusade against the long-gun registry, she distinguished use of the registry in domestic violence from fighting crime.

She said: “if the only defence of it [the gun registry] right now is domestic violence” then that means “nobody is saying that it [the registry] stops crime anymore.” It’s hard to interpret that any other way than it expressing the thought that domestic violence is not a crime.

Conservatives appear to think preventing suicides is a bit of a waste of time too. Apparently, the only lives the gun registry is worth saving are those that are caused by “criminal” activity. Or, as Hoeppner puts it: “I’m kind of watching with interest the pro argument that’s being made. It doesn’t even have to do with stopping crime in the sense of criminal activity. It has to do with domestic violence and suicide.”

So, as this reasoning would appear to suggest: if someone wants to go ahead and kill themselves, fine — it ain’t a crime is it? And the gun registry is supposed to be there to prevent crimes, like duh. In this argument, Ms Hoeppner appears to be working with a different definition of crime on behalf of her Conservative colleagues. A definition that defies the Criminal Code of Canada that says a murder is a murder no matter who commits it. One that says when a woman is killed by her husband it’s not a crime, but if she’s killed by a stranger on the street, it is a crime. A definition that in a nutshell that diminishes the nature and impact of a husband killing his wife, because a man’s home is his castle.

Or perhaps Hoeppner isn’t aware that most murders are not committed by strangers. The fact is, women are more often than not murdered by the intimate males in their lives. In the seven-year period from 2000 to 2006, more than 500 women in Canada were shot, stabbed, strangled or beaten to death by the intimate males in their lives. To provide perspective on these figures: 101 Canadian soldiers and police officers were killed here at home and in Afghanistan during a seven-year period of war in the same decade(Figures are from The War on Women: Elly Amour, Jane Hurshman and Criminal Violence in Canadian Homes, by Brian Vallée.)

In Hoeppner’s view, it would appear that the gun registry is a dud because it doesn’t prevent deaths cause by crime, you know, the Conservative’s definition of a “real” crime. But for those of us who are an uneducated lot who call a tragedy a tragedy no matter how it occurs, the gun registry really does seem to have something going for it. Gun deaths have dropped by a third since implementation. And for those even less uneducated of us who think that a murder is a crime — whether it happens on the street or behind closed doors, it is great value. Police use this tool more than 13,000 times a day. There is a reason for that. That’s because unlike Hoeppner, police treat an attempted murder as a crime — where it happens or by whom and to whom doesn’t matter. But, then again, the police and the Conservatives haven’t been agreeing on much lately.

“Uneducated” policemen, who wouldn’t know a crime if it hit them, know that a woman is 12 times more likely to be murdered if a gun is involved in domestic violence. They know that they need to remove a gun from someone who is beating up another person. They know if they remove a gun from a premises where a woman and or her children are at risk, they might save their lives. There is a reason for that: statistics from the Domestic Violence Death Review Committee found firearms to be present in 47 per cent of domestic homicides in 2007. They also know that 88 per cent of women shot in domestic violence are shot by a long gun. If police know a registered long gun is on the premises and someone is at risk, it needs to be removed. Guns can kill, period.

At $4 million a year, the gun registry costs two times the price tag of the G8/G20 Fake Lake pavillion. Or if you really want to knuckle down to it — it costs 10 cents per Canadian per year to operate. Better still, it costs nothing to register a gun and is a simple on-line “operation” (so it won’t hurt a bit) that takes no longer than booking a hotel. So let’s all pry those two nickels from our cold, cold hands and get on with the business of protecting public safety.

Claire Tremblay is the Co-ordinator of the Ad Hoc Coalition for Women’s Equality and Human Rights.

Tags:, ,
Posted in Featured, Gender and Sexuality, The Real Issues | No Comments »

Avoiding “Controversy”? In-Between the Silences on Abortion and Family Planning at the G8 and Beyond

Thursday, September 9th, 2010

Unfortunately, when women’s health and bodily autonomy are at stake in public policy, silences can speak louder than words. 

At a February 2010 news conference, Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon made it clear that Harper’s G8 pledge to “harness funds and resources from G8 countries and non-government organizations to reduce millions of preventable maternal and child deaths in the developing world” would exclude any discussion of abortion, contraception or funding for women’s reproductive choice. Cannon stated that the G8 initiative “does not deal in any way, shape or form with family planning.”

Jane Cawthorne characterized this position on maternal health succinctly, writing, ”the Conservative government is effectively saying only women who become mothers are worthy of complete health care. They are expressing a deep disregard for women who don’t conform to their image of the ‘good’ woman and doing so in a public policy initiative that will negatively affect women globally.”

In the following Op-Ed, Marcy Bloom explains how, when it comes to womens’ rights,  ”‘neutrality’ leaves no choice”.

Image via photobucket.com

Health Inequality: Gates Foundation Bans Abortion

By Marcy Bloom, On the Issues Magazine, Summer 2010

Melinda French Gates, philanthropist, co-founder and co-chair of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, was greeted with great applause on the first day of the Women Deliver conference in Washington, D.C. earlier this summer. But the hand clapping was temporary. As a reproductive health advocate, I was not the only one who began to raise questions about her comments and her foundation’s capacity  to set the worldwide agenda for global health priorities. Gates announced that the foundation with her name on it, known for its important work on the prevention of poverty and the development of vaccines for HIV/AIDS and malaria, will designate $1.5 billion over the next five years to assist developing nations with integrated women’s health care services.

She explained that this new priority will add to the empowerment, education and equality of women and girls. She described the services: nutrition, pre- and post-natal care, infant care, the training of women’s health workers and obstetrical services.

Yes, this is impressive, and will do much good to help women and girls, and to save their lives. But it is silent on a central and fundamental issue for women: access to safe abortion and protection from unsafe abortion.

This is so despite the fact that access to safe abortion was one of “three core strategies to save women’s lives” on the agenda of the Women Deliver conference, which was titled Invest in Women. It Pays. In attendance were 3,500 advocates from 140 countries. The goal was to seek out strategies to prevent maternal mortality so that “no person should die giving life.” It’s critical to note that if you believe in investing in women and girls, no woman or girl should ever die preventing life either. The statistics are stark: approximately 350,000 women lose their lives each year giving birth, from childbirth complications and injuries, and from illegal and unsafe abortions. All are preventable tragedies.

Let Women Live

At the conference, the Guttmacher Institute shared the significance of emphasizing the need for both family planning and maternal and newborn health services.

Tragically, only one-half of the 123 million women and girls each year who give birth receive the full range of prenatal, delivery and post-natal care that they need. If women’s equality were recognized, and this care were prioritized and funded, women’s lives would be vastly improved. Unintended pregnancies around the world would decrease by more than two-thirds, dropping from 75 million (2008) to 22 million per year (still disgracefully high, but certainly an improvement). Seventy per cent of maternal deaths would be avoided. Unsafe abortion rates would decline by 73 percent.

The reality is that these critical needs cannot — and should not — be separated. All represent a continuum of women’s lives and their reproductive health concerns. Women who have abortions become mothers; mothers have abortions. Safe abortion can help women become better mothers in the future. These are the same women making different choices at different times in their lives.

Illegal, unsafe abortion is a reproductive health crime and a form of violence against women. Ignoring abortion, siloizing abortion, denying its significance as a fundamental public health need for women, is absurd and unrealistic.

As reported in 2006 in the public health journal, The Lancet, abortion is “a pandemic — an urgent public health and human rights imperative.” Nearly 68,000 women and girls die as a result of botched abortions — this is 13 percent of all maternal deaths. Twenty times that number of women and girls will experience abortion-related complications that threaten their lives. Nearly all (97 percent) of these preventable deaths and injuries are in developing nations. “Access to safe abortion improves women’s health,” according to The Lancet authors. “Access to competent care” is a critical need, they state.

While the Gates Foundation said that it is interested in funding access to contraception for the 200 million women and girls around the world who are unable to obtain birth control, The Lancet authors underscored: “(T)he availability of modern contraception can reduce but never eliminate the need for abortion.”

“Neutrality” Leaves no Choice

So why is the Gates Foundation ignoring the abortion care needs of women?

When asked on NPR by reporter Michele Norris, Melinda Gates said, “We don’t want to be part of the controversy.”

In response to a request for comment to the Gates Foundation, a response was emailed from “Deborah Lacy (Independent Contractor)” who said: “While the foundation is making new investments in maternal and child health, our position on funding abortion services has not changed. Specifically, the foundation does not fund abortion and does not take a stance on the issue. We focus on improving access to the tools women need to prevent unintended pregnancy, by supporting organizations that provide voluntary family planning information and services for women in developing countries. Family planning services are critical to prevent unintended pregnancy and reduce abortions.”

Does she fear that the image of the foundation will be affected? Fear anti-choice boycotts of Microsoft products? Does she have security concerns? Fret about the moral complexity of women’s decision-making? Or does she view women’s lives as controversial?

Gates seems unable to understand that the true moral issue is allowing women and girls to die because of lack of access to a safe medical procedure. By trying to avoid the “controversy” surrounding abortion, Gates has created another: it is impossible to work on maternal mortality issues and ignore abortion.

The clear and well-documented reality — one I have witnessed and experienced for 40 years in my work as an abortion counselor, feminist clinic director and fundraiser for international reproductive rights — is that safe and legal abortion preserves the dignity and saves the lives of women and girls. Contraception fails. Women change their minds about their pregnancies. Sexual activity is often unexpected, involuntary and unprotected. The misogyny and control demonstrated in sexual violence are part of the lives of far too many women and girls in the world. Without access to safe abortion, women suffer.

Bill and Melinda Gates are undoubtedly aware of these realities of women’s unequal lives. The end result of their “neutrality” is but one choice for women and girls who become pregnant. That one choice equals no choice.

Allowing the further stigmatization of abortion validates and strengthens the belligerent anti-choice movement.

But the power and influence of the foundation go further. Because of its prestige, size and assets, the foundation is central to “setting the sexual and reproductive health and rights agenda around the world,” in the words of policy researcher and writer Brook Elliott-Buettner in Gender Across Borders.

Whatever the intent, the Gates Foundation is establishing, even distorting, the direction of investments by other foundations, individuals and even governments. Although Bill and Melinda Gates have the right to spend their money as they wish, it is also true that their inordinate power in determining universal health agendas demands accountability.

When they slam the doors to safe abortion initiatives, the impact is felt around the world. The result? These reproductive health crimes against women are permitted to continue, unchecked. The Gates Foundation has chosen to sweep abortion off the charts of women’s health and lives. And that is yet another crime against women.

Marcy Bloom worked as an abortion counselor and clinic director in New York, and for more than 18 years served as the executive director of Aradia Women’s Health Center in Seattle. In 2006, she received the William O. Douglas Award, the Washington State ACLU’s lifetime achievement award. She is currently the U.S representative for the Mexico City-based GIRE~Grupo de Informaci?n en Reproducci?n Elegida (The Information Group on Reproductive Choice), Mexico’s leading for for reproductive justice and access to legal abortion. 

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Featured, Gender and Sexuality, Health, The Real Issues | 9 Comments »

Power Dynamics, Abuse, and Violence, Inside Relationships and Inside our Movements

Thursday, August 12th, 2010

 In the aftermath of the G8/G20 protests, there has been much discussion in the mainstream and independent media about police brutality and the state’s flouting of democracy and civil liberties.  Amidst these ongoing conversations, it is important for activists to remain cognizant of the power dynamics and the potential for abuse and marginalization within their movements.

Citing an essay by Courtney Desiree Morris, Stephanie Ernst of Animal Rights & AntiOppression argues that not only are inter-movement violence, abuse, and repression fundamentally wrong, but that movements plagued by these problems are more vulnerable to infiltration by informants and police provocateurs.  She was motivated to write the article below after growing increasingly frustrated by vegans’ - purportedly involved in an anti-oppression movement - failure to recognize their own and others’ oppressive and abusive attitudes towards other humans, including their fellow activists.  Ernst draws from her experiences in animal advocacy, but she raises issues that could pertain to any of the movements represented in the G8/G20 protests.

Power Dynamics, Abuse, and Violence, Inside Relationships and Inside our Movements

By Stephanie Ernst
Published in Animal Rights & AntiOppression, August 10, 2010 

I’ve been planning for a bit to share the link to this important article, by Courtney Desiree Morris and originally published at make/shift. I know that some of you have seen it shared previously, as have I, multiple times and from multiple continents and by people inside various movements — because the issue is that important and the problem is that common (even if not known to many of us, even if hidden, even if not talked about). Abuse — emotional, physical, and/or sexual — is a horrendous, debilitating experience for so many people on a personal level, whoever they are, whatever their background is, regardless of whether they ever open up about it, and regardless of whether they’re part of some kind of activist community. But as the in-depth make/shift article points out, there are also problems with the handling and dynamics of abuse that are specific to radical movements and the power structures within them. Inside branches of the animal rights movement at the moment, this is not a theoretical problem; it’s a real one. And the same is true for other movements as well.

Over at Vegans of Color today, Johanna published “Abuse Isn’t Vegan,” related to a situation in a publishing/zine community. I recommend reading her post, as well as clicking on the links within (such as this one); her post is the impetus for my finally publishing this.

I wrote the remarks that follow a few weeks ago, and because of personal emotional exhaustion, I’d been considering not publishing them — instead just posting the link to the first article and letting it speak for itself. But upon seeing Johanna’s post and commentary too and the posts to which she links, I’m going to put the words out there:

It is inexcusable that not only in society at large but also within anti-oppression movements, we continue to place the burden of proof on victims, that we continue to instinctively disbelieve and dismiss the victim because we want to believe the person whom we’ve placed on a pedestal, that we expect that survivor to repeat the traumatic story (or stories) over and over and over again in order to convince us that it is not a lie.

And it is inexcusable for anyone to suggest that we should ignore abuse and violence perpetrated by some members of movements and communities against other members supposedly because to acknowledge that abuse and violence would be “distracting” from the movement’s chief focus, supposedly because what is “personal” is not our concern. In AR specifically, either we are an anti-oppression movement, or we are not.

And I’m going to interrupt the flow of my original commentary here to insert a relevant extract from Johanna’s post. Her remarks are specific to the particular situation she is discussing, but just replace names and “zines” and “zinester” with the names and forms of activism and movements/communities of your choice; the same points, the same problems, the same responses come up everywhere:

People say, have said, will say: who cares, they [do] good [work]! We can’t boycott everybody! Every company[or person] has something bad about them! The good done by these [instances of activism] outweighs any bad done by [Abuser/Activist]! He said he’s sorry! Are we really sure [Victim] is telling the truth? It’s one person’s word against another! (& why, why should we believe women who say they have been abused?) She’s just jealous! It’s just blown-up [movement] drama! Blah blah blah ad nauseum.

It is difficult to come forward about abuse. It is more difficult when the person who has abused you is in a position of power, and you are vulnerable — which is, of course, a dynamic typical in abusive situations. It is more difficult when you know that people will not want to believe you. It is more difficult when the people who are supposed to be your community disbelieve you, dismiss you, and essentially victimize you again. We owe each other more than that; we owe more than that to the people who, despite all this, still find the courage to come forward. If those in an anti-oppression movement are not prepared to defend the vulnerable against the powerful within their own movement, if they are not prepared to do the difficult work of looking at situations objectively, if they are not prepared to defend the victim against the abuser when the victim is even one of their own, then they are hypocrites. And they are not part of an anti-oppression movement.

Finally, an extract from the make/shift article by Morris:

Time and again heterosexual men in radical movements have been allowed to assert their privilege and subordinate others. Despite all that we say to the contrary, the fact is that radical social movements and organizations in the United States have refused to seriously address gender violence [1] as a threat to the survival of our struggles. We’ve treated misogyny, homophobia, and heterosexism as lesser evils—secondary issues—that will eventually take care of themselves or fade into the background once the “real” issues—racism, the police, class inequality, U.S. wars of aggression [or in the AR case, speciesism]—are resolved. There are serious consequences for choosing ignorance. Misogyny and homophobia are central to the reproduction of violence in radical activist communities. Scratch a misogynist and you’ll find a homophobe. Scratch a little deeper and you might find the makings of a future informant (or someone who just destabilizes movements like informants do).

And later:

We must develop a model for collective accountability that truly treats the personal as political and helps us to begin practicing justice in our communities. When we allow women/queer organizers to leave activist spaces and protect people whose violence provoked their departure, we are saying we value these de facto state agents who disrupt the work more than we value people whose labor builds and sustains movements.

There is much more. Read it all here.

The only additional related matter I want to address right now, very briefly, is the focus on male-on-female abuse and violence. This article obviously looks at misogyny and gender violence and related current issues within radical movements specifically, but on the more general subject, I want to point out that it would be a mistake to assume or characterize all abuse in general to be a result only of misogyny, to assume that only men can be abusers, or to assume that abuse is unique to the heterosexual world. Despite the specific focus of this discussion, it’s important that we remember this, to avoid doing to one set of victims/survivors what we’re striving not to do to others — that is, marginalize, dismiss, and question the validity of their experiences, simply because they and/or their abusers do not look like what we would expect. (Indeed, we could have a conversation here regarding the much broader issues surrounding and underlying power dynamics, domination, othering, and so on, but that will have to wait for another time.)

Photo: Thomas Hawk; Edited: Jared Rodriguez / t r u t h o u t

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Gender and Sexuality, The Real Issues | 1 Comment »

G20 Convergence: To its success and looking ahead

Thursday, July 29th, 2010

We used the fleeting moment of the G8/G20 summit to further organize Toronto’s community struggles against the impact of colonial, capitalist policies that seek to weaken us everyday. And we succeeded.

July 27, 2010,
One month after the G20 Convergence.

Since September 2009, we’ve worked to challenge, disrupt and abolish the G8/G20. We used the fleeting moment of the G8/G20 summit to further organize Toronto’s community struggles against the impact of colonial, capitalist policies that seek to weaken us everyday.

And we succeeded.

From June 21 to 27, 2010, nearly 40,000 people took to the streets, gathered in discussion, watched movies, set up a tent city, danced and fought. This in itself is a victory.

For the first time, an economic summit saw a march of thousands against colonization and for Indigenous sovereignty (on June 24). This in itself is a victory.

Instead of simplifying our diverse struggles in to one issue, we supported actions for Queer and Trans Rights (22 June), for Environmental Justice (23 June), for Income Equity and Community Control Over Resources (21/24/25 June) , for Gender Justice and Disability Rights (22/25 June), for Migrant Justice and an End to War and Occupation (25 June). We created the conditions for over 100 grassroots organizations to come together, to build relations, to grow stronger together. This in itself is a victory.

For the first time at a G8/G20 Summit (on June 25), we saw communities in ongoing resistance, people of color, poor people, Indigenous people, women, disabled folk, queer folk and others leading the Days of Action (25-27 June). This in itself is a victory.

Knowing that our freedom will rise from an attack at all fronts, respectful of the traditions and needs of safety and efficacy of all our friends; we ensured that actions with conflicting tactics took place separately. This in itself is a victory.

For months, we were followed, intimidated, arrested, our meetings infiltrated by state thugs. Many of us were snatched in pre-dawn and early morning raids on the day of the G20 meeting, yet we were not swayed. We came together, gathered strength and continued to support the demonstrations. This in itself is a victory.

So while 1,090 people have been arrested, thousands beaten, illegally detained, searched, harassed and abused. While over 300 people face criminal prosecutions for their ideological and political actions, and while multiple instances of so-called conspiracy trials and politically motivated targeting continues, we insist, this June 2010, on the streets of Toronto, the people won.

One phase of our work is complete. A new one must begin.

Many of us are organizers in community groups and will be returning to them, we urge you to join us.

Many of us are activists inspired by our collective power these last few months, we intend to form new spaces and organizations for justice, we urge you to do the same.

Many of us will continue to fight for freedom for our friends facing repression, we urge you to support us.

The organized resistance in Toronto has emerged stronger, unified, connected. We take this moment to send our solidarity to the organizations and groups across the world to continue their struggles. Take action in your communities. Build lasting movements for justice free of state violence.

=======

Have an inspiring story, picture or video, email them to
community.mobilize@resist.ca. It is imperative that we remember the joys
with the pain.

This message has been released by the Toronto Community Mobilization Network on July 28, 2010.

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Animal Rights, Assault on Democracy, Corporate Globalization, Disability rights, Economic policies, Environment, Gender and Sexuality, Immigration/Refugee/Migrant Justice, Indigenous Rights, Labour, The Real Issues, War and Occupation | No Comments »

“Shame on Canada”: Jessica Yee on G8/G20 and the ongoing activism that fights its policies

Wednesday, July 21st, 2010

A self described indigenous feminist reproductive justice freedom fighter, Jessica Yee gives a powerful talk at the Opening Night Launch of the 2010 People’s Summit which took place in Toronto in the week leading up to the G20 Summit. More speeches from the opening can be found at B Channel News.

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Gender and Sexuality, The Real Issues, Video | No Comments »

What we struggle for on a daily basis: The fundmentals of G20 resistance

Monday, July 19th, 2010

Harsha Walia from No One is Illegal touches on economic disparity and exploitation, the absence of a democratic process and the illegitimacy of borders. She urges people to find out more about why people are resisting the G8/G20.

Tags:, ,
Posted in Animal Rights, Corporate Globalization, Disability rights, Economic policies, Environment, Gender and Sexuality, Immigration/Refugee/Migrant Justice, Indigenous Rights, Labour, The Real Issues, Video, War and Occupation | 1 Comment »

Voices for migrant justice from South Korea, the location for the next G20 summit

Monday, July 19th, 2010


A letter from the Migrant Trade Union of South Korea asks for support and solidarity in face of repression and abuse wrought by the South Korean government, preparing to host the next G20 summit in November 2010.

Dear friends and allies

Migrants Trade Union (MTU) sends you warm greetings and solidarity. We are writing to inform you of very upsetting events taking place in South Korea and to ask for your support.

South Koreais currently preparing to host the G20 Summit in November. The government of Lee Myung-bak is using the upcoming event as an excuse to enforce policies that trample on basic democratic rights. In particular, the Lee administration is using the G20 Summit as a pretext for carrying out a massive crackdown against undocumented migrant workers currently residing in the country.

For many years now, migrant workers have worked in South Korea’s small and medium-size factories, playing an important role by supporting South Korean industry. Undocumented migrant workers, who have often lived in Korea longer than their documented colleagues, have become especially accustom to Korean culture and lived together with Korean citizens as part of Korean society.

Despite the fact that the Korean government brings thousands of migrantworkers to Korea to fill labor shortages in small and medium-size companies, it will not allow them to legally settle or invite their families to live with them. Refusing to sight the UN Convention on the Protect of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Family, which promises basic protections for migrant workers’ human rights, the South Korean government treats migrant workers only as cheap and disposable labor. The government’s sole policy towards undocumented migrant workers has been one of viscous raids, detention and deportation, which has lead to countless injuries and deaths. Every year, migrant workers lose their lives in the course of the government’s crackdown.

This year, the government is using the G20 Summit as an excuse to openly strengthening the policy of raids, detention and deportation. Since May, the police have been carrying out a ‘crackdown on foreigner crime’, stopping people on the street for no reason other than that they appear to be foreign. The government has said it plans to get rid of South Korea’s 180,000 undocumented migrant workers by the end of August.

In response, labor and social justice organizations are joining forces to oppose this anti-human rights, anti-labor policy, and carry out a united struggle to protect migrant workers’ rights.

We ask for your support and solidarity as we move forward with our struggle. Please send letters of protest to the South Korean government expressing your grave concern about its repression against migrant workers. A sample letter is attached for your reference.

Your solidarity is an important part of a wider effort to protect the rights of South Korea’s migrant workers. We will work hard to keep you informed of the situation here in Korea. We ask for your sincere attention and support.

Sincerely,

July 4th, 2010

You may fill in your organizations name and sign the letter below, or use it as reference to draft your own letter.

Please fax letters to: President Lee Myung-bak

Ministry of Justice, Republic of Korea
Building 1, Gwacheon Government Complex,
Jungang-dong 1, Gwacheon-si, Gyeonggi-do
Republicof Korea
Fax: 82-2-2110-3079

Commissioner of Korean Immigration Service
Fax: 82-2-500-9059, 82-2-500-9128, 82-2-500-9026

When you do so, please also send a copy to us a mtuintl@jinbo.net or
82-2-2269-6166 (fax)

<Sample Protest Letter>

We at  *(fill in organization name) * wish to express our deep-felt anger and concern about South Korea’s policy towards undocumented migrant workers. It has come to our attention that your administration is pursuing a massive crackdown against South Korea’s 180,000 undocumented migrant workers in preparation for the G20 Summit to be held in November this year. While you seek to advance your country’s international standing by hosting the Summit, this blatant attack on basic rights only demonstrates the backwardness of your government and its stance towards migrants.

We are aware that migrant workers have played an important role in turning South Korea from a underdeveloped to a highly developed nation. Even now, migrant workers are supporting the Korean economy by filling labor shortages in small and medium-size companies.

In an age when migration is taking place around the globe, governments need new forward-looking policies on migrants. Recognizing this, many nations have signed the International Convention on the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families and are seeking to reduce discrimination against migrants. Some governments have provided pathways for undocumented migrants who have resided in their borders for a long time to settle and attain the same rights as nationals. This is because they recognize that even without legal visa status, these migrant and their families have contributed to and become part of the society in which they live. It is also because these government recognize that undocumented migrant workers play an important role in supporting national economies.

In comparison, the South Korean government’s policy towards migrant workers lags far behind international standards. Amnesty international has documented Amnesty International has documented and expressed concern about cases of, “arbitrary arrests, collective expulsions and violations of law enforcement
procedures, including in some cases, excessive use of force,” during raids by South Korean immigration officials and police. The international NGO has also noted that, *”mass crackdowns have… put pressure on detention facilities, contributing to**
**problems of overcrowding, poor living conditions and delayed access to medical**
** treatment”*(Amnesty International, *Disposable Labor: Rights of Migrant Workers in South Korea*, 33).

In his 2008 report to the Human Right Council, the UN Special Rapporteur noted that states *have, “the obligation to respect and protect the human rights of all those within its territory, nationals and non-nationals alike, regardless of mode of entry or migratory status” *(A/HRC/7/12, para 14). He also noted that a high degree of discretion given immigration authorities to detain migrants and the use of mass raids can lead to human rights violations  and collective expulsion, which is illegal in international law (A/HRC/7/12, para 48-49). He recommended that states find alternatives to detention, as a means for avoiding the abuses undocumented migrants face (A/HRC/7/12, para 65).

We are gravely concerned that South Korea is doing nothing to address these issues and it instead, only strengthening policies which violate migrant workers rights. We therefore make the following demands:

1. That the South Korean government and, in particular the Ministry of Justice and the Immigration Service, immediately stop the viscous crackdown, which is threatening the human rights and very lives of migrant workers.

2. That the South Korean government stop using the goals of a successful G20 Summit and advancement of its international standing as an excuse to arrest and deport migrant workers, and instead put forth a realistic solution to the problems of undocumented migrant workers, such as a plan for legalization.

We will be keeping an eye on the measures the government implements with regard to migrant workers and the efforts it makes to protect their rights. We hope that you will do your best to put forth a positive policy concerning the rights of undocumented migrant workers and their families.

Sincerely,

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Animal Rights, Corporate Globalization, Disability rights, Economic policies, Environment, Featured, Gender and Sexuality, Immigration/Refugee/Migrant Justice, Indigenous Rights, Labour, The Real Issues, War and Occupation | 1 Comment »

Protesting with baby: A mom’s G20 experience

Tuesday, July 13th, 2010

Anne Marshal brings along Simon, her toddler, to the G20 protests in Toronto. She describes her experience and speaks of the support she received at the protest.

Thanks to Anne and Simon Marshall, and Ann Russell

Protesting at G20 with a baby from Josh Harrower on Vimeo.

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Featured Video, Gender and Sexuality, The Real Issues, Video | No Comments »

Queering the G20 – With kiss-ins, billionaires and sexy Mr.Harper

Sunday, July 11th, 2010

With a kiss-in, a sketch called “Queer Billionaires for the G20″ and a song and dance number centered around the sexy Mr. Harper, The Creative Queer Resistance brought  much needed lovin’ to the streets of Toronto.  This  fierce and creative action was part of the activities for the themed day of resistance for gender justice, queer rights and disability rights. Starting from the week leading up the summit, each day was assigned a theme around which the protests were organized. Other themed days include: Environment and Climate Justice, Indigenous Sovereignty, Migrant Justice, End to War and Occupation; Income Equity and Community Control Over Resources.

Video by torontogenderjustice

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Corporate Globalization, Economic policies, Featured Video, Gender and Sexuality, Political Art, The Real Issues, Video | 1 Comment »

10 Reasons to Oppose the G8/G20: Press Conference – Toronto Community Mobilization Network. 2 of 2

Monday, July 5th, 2010

The Toronto Community Mobilization Network (TCMN) is a collection of  Toronto-based organizers and allies. They held a press conference on May  20th 2010, prior to the summits, to outline their concerns for which  they mobilized against the G8 and G20.

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Animal Rights, Corporate Globalization, Disability rights, Economic policies, Environment, Gender and Sexuality, Immigration/Refugee/Migrant Justice, Indigenous Rights, Labour, Poverty, The Real Issues, Video, War and Occupation | No Comments »