Why British Campus Sexual Assault Victims Can’t Get Justice From Their University- But Americans Can

titleix

First published on The Fifth Column, 2/10/17.

Students, sexual assault survivors and campaigners in the USA are riled up, and rightfully so: Education Secretary Betsy DeVos last week rescinded Obama-era guidance on universities’ duties to deal with campus sexual assault. But just because there’s a relative lack of public debate on the issue in Britain, doesn’t mean it’s not happening or that British universities and colleges are dealing well with campus sexual assault.

Let’s take a look at the legal situation in the USA first, then compare it to the UK.

 

The ‘Dear Colleague’ guidance

The 2011 guidance, known as the ‘Dear Colleague’ letter, didn’t create new responsibilities for colleges. It simply stated what they had to do in order to comply with Title IX (a law regarding gender discrimination in educational institutions which case law has held includes investigating sex crimes). Prior to ‘Dear Colleague’, many universities simply disregarded Title IX and ignored survivors, refusing to take reports of the incidents at all. The situation didn’t suddenly turn rosy afterwards, either- not all universities have systems for reporting sexual violence, and it’s easy enough for a university to claim there isn’t enough evidence. But empowering students to know their rights made it easier for them to report and follow up their cases instead of being told ‘We don’t deal with that.’ DeVos has turned the clock back to 2011.

 

DeVos’ current interim guidance

Universities used to use the USA’s civil court standard, the ‘preponderance of evidence’ (in the UK, that’s the ‘balance of probabilities’). Now, according to DeVos’ new interim guidelines, university administrators can choose between that standard, or the higher standard used in criminal courts. Let’s think about that for a minute. Why do student rape victims choose to report to their university? Usually, it’s because they’ve already reported to the police but the case wasn’t taken to court due to lack of evidence. Other reasons are that they don’t want the rapist to be jailed (most sexual assault victims in the US and UK know their assailant, especially in the case of campus sexual assault), or they don’t want to go through the added trauma of a court case that’ll take up most of their time at university, and instead choose to rely on their university for protection.

Most rape cases don’t reach court and most accused who are tried, are acquitted. (Universities usually aren’t allowed to investigate if the police are investigating, due to concerns of compromising the police investigation, meaning that all campus sexual assault cases were rejected or not reported to police).

In these circumstances, a student cannot reasonably be expected- especially without access to forensic science testing and CCTV footage- to prove that they were raped to a criminal court standard. This requirement is even more cruel to students who have already been rejected by the criminal courts on the basis that their evidence isn’t up to that standard. It’s telling these victims that any kind of recognition of their trauma or sense of justice is impossible. Universities have realised this- some had already abandoned the criminal standard pre-2011. This raises the possibility that DeVos’ interim guidelines are actually pushing the US back even further than the Noughties in terms of women’s rights and campus safety.

According to Abbey Childs, an advocacy organisation founder and campus rape survivor, the provision of residency changes and no-contact orders to protect victims from their rapists rests on universities’ ability to use the civil standard. By removing it, DeVos is removing survivors’ safety. Rapists will find it even easier to get away with their crimes, as expulsion and suspension will also be off the table.While it’s important to recognise the reality that, on campus as well as off it, most perpetrators are male and most victims female, it’s equally important to note that the new guidelines affect male victims just as badly.

 

UK universities

Many Americans are angry with DeVos. But the situation in the US is still better than it is in the UK. US campus rape survivors can sue universities under Title IX. Their universities know they may face real legal consequences if they mishandle sexual assault complaints.  British campus rape victims have no statutory protection. We don’t have any equivalent of Title IX, and no education laws more generally. Without national guidelines, students have no legal rights if they’re sexually assaulted on campus. Universities can literally do nothing, and even elite universities often do just that. While Oxford University has been subject to a legal challenge, its policy still allows it to avoid dealing with sexual assaultcomplaints. In 2014 Oxford reportedly did deal with a rape of an unconscious student- by giving the rapist “a minor reprimand”.

It’s not that campus sexual assault is less of a problem in UK. One in three female students and one in eight male students have been sexually assaulted at UK universities. It’s just that- unlike the US- there’s no law; so very few court cases; so no news- so no debate.

 

The Zellick guidance

The 1994 Zellick guidelines place no statutory duty on universities to investigate sexual offences. Instead, they suggest telling students to call the police. However, we now know that- on and off campus- rapists are usually known to their victims, most victims don’t report to the police, most reported rapes don’t reach trial, and those that do tend to result in acquittal. Therefore, the Zellick guidance, while possibly relevant to cases with strong evidence, and rare cases of stranger rape, isn’t suitable for what we now know about sexual assault. The Zellick guidelines were reviewed in 2016.

 

The 2016 guidance

The new guidelines, which pertain to all types of student crimes (not just sexual assault), suggest using the UK civil standard of the ‘balance of probabilities’ in ascertaining guilt. They are a significant improvement on Zellick. The new guidelines go far beyond merely telling victims to report to the police and encompass all of a victim’s (and accused’s) needs including mental health, safety, rights during the disciplinary process and dealing with the aftermath of a trial. Having a clear reporting mechanism, ensuring victims are supported to continue their education and (in cases of sexual violence) referring to external counselling agencies is recommended. However, these guidelines are also not statutory. Universities which fail to abide by them face no consequences.

 

Legal action against universities

The only way to ensure a UK university or college deals with sexual assault is to appeal a decision of no action or a finding that a complaint is not upheld. However, this is only possible if the university has accepted the complaint in the first place (some British universities don’t even take sexual assault reports) and where the disciplinary system allows appeals. As there are no statutory instruments, universities can only be sued under normal civil law. In Scotland, a delict case for causing emotional harm could be brought (this would be called ‘torts’ in England). Even then, universities cannot be legally compelled to deal with rape complaints. They can only be sued after the fact for causing harm by ignoring or mishandling complaints.

British civil suits are more likely to fail and more difficult to litigate, due to the absence of a clear Title IX statutory duty. All students can argue on is the university’s failure of its basic duty of care. Add to this the fact that all civil cases are long and expensive, and students are very unlikely to be able to bring them (less chance of winning a case means a greater likelihood that the student has to pay all the legal fees, and a much lower probability of a lawyer doing the case on a no win no fee basis). Universities know this and therefore there is little motivation for them to change. The cycle of few civil suits, little press coverage and no awareness of the issue of campus sexual assault seems set to continue.

Advertisements

Motivational meme

I don’t think I’ve ever done a short ‘n sweet blog post. I’m usually into analysis of news stories or commenting on gender equality or human rights issues. The most light-hearted post was probably that last one about archetypes of women in Game of Thrones. So, here it is:

 

I’m prone to long and vivid dreams. Gunfights, car chases, interminably boring conversations with friends, driving around central Scotland and the Highlands, and run-ins with bitchy strangers…my dreams have it all. Anyhoo, a few weeks ago I dreamt I was writing. That’s not all that unusual for me- I can dream about writing poetry and use the fragments to compose a real poem after waking. But this time, I was writing a motivational meme. This one:

 

Care for yourself as tenderly as you would a child

Guide yourself as surely as a parent

Stay as true to your originality as a spouse

Adore your talents as completely as a lover

Don’t take yourself too seriously, just like with a friend

Focus on your strategies as fiercely as if against an enemy

Worship yourself as ardently as an acolyte

Determine your own path as resolutely as a god

Be your own child, your own parent, your own spouse, your own lover, your friend, your enemy, your devotee and your god.

 

I tried putting it on a purple background:

motivationmemefinal

It’s probably too long to go viral. I think it’s pretty good for someone who was asleep when they wrote it, though!

How Game of Thrones Debunks Archetypes of Women

It wasn’t so long ago that Game of Thrones was widely criticised for its initial portrayal of female characters as powerless victims. In my view, the disconnect between the books and TV series was the main factor in these concerns: scenes such as Sansa’s (Jeyne Poole in the books) abuse was shot for TV in a way which emphasised a male character’s (Theon Greyjoy’s) reaction; scenes critical of male-on-female violence were cut. Perhaps just as importantly, the books’ presentation of systemic oppression of the poor, disabled and even children- not just women- was not as apparent onscreen.

Obviously, all that changed during Season 6. Now, with Sansa as acting ruler of the North, all the contestants for the Iron Throne are women. (Unless Gendry shows up to stake a claim as Robert Baratheon’s bastard). However, Game of Thrones has gone further than simply having powerful female characters. Intentionally or not, both the show and the books take down classical archetypes of women which have existed in the west for centuries.

Game-of-Thrones-Season-7-Daenerys-1

 

The Mother Archetype

The Westerosi seven gods include the Mother, Maiden and Crone- a reference to goddess triads typical of Norse and other ancient religions. The Mother exemplifies traditional notions of feminity:

HIGH SPARROW: Ah, “As water rounds the stones, smoothing- -”

MARGAERY: “Smoothing what was jagged, so does a woman’s love calm a man’s brute nature. A wife salves her husband’s wounds, a mother sings her son to sleep.”

-Game of Thrones Season 6, Episode 7: The Broken Man

Game of Thrones explores this traditional ideal of motherhood and pushes it to its extreme. Cersei’s love for her children leads to mass-murder by blowing up the Sept. She walked through King’s Landing naked to protect her children, fearful that a trial would expose their bastardy. And she protects them despite them being born from a decidedly non-traditional relationship with her brother. The more a mother loves her children, the more she must do to keep them safe. A mother’s love means she must kill to protect. She has to violate the very norms of feminine modesty (by being naked in public) to protect them. And she has to love her children even if she created them out of nonconforming relationships. Cersei is the mother archetype’s logical conclusion. The maternal love that religion (personified by the High Sparrow) valued necessitates brutality. Game of Thrones proves that gender norms make no sense because following the norm contradicts it.

The religion reflects societal values of women as destined only for marriage and motherhood, as is revealed in the same conversation:

HIGH SPARROW: You have a duty, Your Grace. To your husband, your king, your country, to the gods themselves.

MARGAERY: It’s just…the desires that once drove me no longer do.

HIGH SPARROW: Congress does not require desire on the woman’s part, only patience. The king must have an heir if we are to continue our good work.

In earlier episodes, Ned Stark explains to Arya that she won’t do any great deeds but will marry a great man. Cersei tells Sansa that unlike her twin Jaime whose destiny was glory, she was sold off to Robert Baratheon “like a horse, to be beaten whenever he wanted, ridden whenever he wanted”. In the show, she implies the domestic violence by saying “And you will be [cruel, abusive] Joffrey’s [queen]. Enjoy.”

However, most of the female characters violate these norms.

Margolenna game thrones

 

Deviant Women

Most of George R.R. Martin’s female characters are deviant in some way from the Westerosi/patriarchal norm of the passive, appearance-valuing, chaste woman.

In Westeros, as in patriarchal societies, women don’t fight. In the A Song of Ice and Fire books, it is only the deviant women (Molestown whores) who take up crossbows to defend the Wall from Wildlings. However, some characters get around this to avenge friends and family.

game-of-thrones_640x480_81464688743.jpg

Arya is a killer, taking revenge for her family just like a man would. Her reply to Ned Stark in Season 1 that marriage “isn’t me” is echoed in Season 7 when her direwolf Nymeria chooses to continue to lead her pack instead of resuming a life as Arya’s pet. Arya forges her own destiny; like her wolf, she can’t be tamed. Understanding this, Arya whispers “That’s not you” as Nymeria walks away.

Brienne fails to conform to feminine ideals due to her height, body type and appearance. She responds by rejecting all aspects of gender norms, dressing as a man and fighting like a knight. She’s mocked for it, but succeeds in avenging Renly. Having found a home in Winterfell as Sansa’s sworn sword, she’s also found respect and a worthy role. And she won’t stick out so much now that all the girls are training to fight. Brienne also confounds gender norms: she rejects them, but she is a maternal protector to Sansa and Arya. So she fulfils gender norms while simultaneously violating them. Similarly, the wildling Ygritte participates in warfare and presumably would not be considered pretty or chaste south of the Wall, but is a loyal lover to Jon Snow. Female love and protection are not limited to strict gender roles.

There are other ways of deviating from the imposed norm: by gaining and wielding power. Danaerys and Cersei rule over people and kingdoms which have never had a female Khal or queen. Lyanna Mormont rules Bear Island and supports Jon Snow’s command that girls must train to fight for the first time. Sansa helps Jon in war councils and the leadership of the North, and is now a temporary ruler during Jon’s absence. Ellaria of Dorne and the Sand Snakes fight as well as or better than men, as does Yara Greyjoy, who leads some of the ironborn and aspired to be their queen.

Even in the first seasons when female characters were often abused, the female characters Cersei and Sansa and the good male characters Tyrion and Bran acknowledged domestic violence and marital rape instead of accepting it, despite its legality. Danaerys and Jaime prevent sexual violence even more in the books than in the show. Though the female characters were born into a world where violence against women was rife, they were capable of assessing their situation and deciding it wasn’t right. It’s also a notable point that Westeros is not as dissimilar from our reality as we like to think; rape was legal in the UK until the early 1990s if it occurred within marriage, as seems to be the case in Westeros. Domestic abuse was not recognised or dealt with by police until the 1970s in the US. Husbands continue to be able to abuse wives in other jurisdictions.

cersei-on-the-throne game

The Madonna-Whore Complex

Game of Thrones also has a lot of fun with the Madonna-Whore complex, also called the virgin-whore complex. According to Thought Catalog,

The term “Madonna-Whore Complex” was first coined by – you guessed it – the father of Psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud. Though much of Freud’s work has either been disproven or is widely regarded as invalid (to put it nicely), his archetype-based complexes live on. The Madonna-Whore Complex is known as the distinction men draw between the women they desire and the women they respect – with the implication that those two categories are mutually exclusive.

The idea is that women are either mother-figures/virgin figures- innocent and nurturing. Or they’re sexually empowered- which is incompatible with being, in modern terms, “girlfriend material”. You might have heard of the complex as  ‘good girl vs bad girl’ or ‘nice girl vs slut’. It lives on in our own time, despite being at least as old as the Medieval era Game of Thrones is based on.

Sansa vs Shae

In Game of Thrones, the Madonna-Whore complex/Virgin-Whore Complex is centred on Tyrion. He’s literally in a love triangle with a virgin and a whore. His wife Sansa Stark is a virgin and remains such for the duration of their marriage. His secret lover Shae was a sex worker and is often referred to and self-describes as “a whore”. However, the relevance and importance of the concept of sexual innocence is interrogated in the books: Tyrion decides he can’t trust his wife as “[Sansa] might be maiden between the legs, but she was hardly innocent of betrayal”. Her supposed ‘purity’ is therefore pointless. According to the Madonna-Whore complex, Tyrion should love and respect Sansa while desiring and disrespecting Shae. Instead, he respects them both, loves Shae and has a limited and self-controlled desire for Sansa (in the books) or no feelings toward her (in the show).

samnsa game thrones

Tysha

Game of Thrones further turns the complex on its head by revealing that aged 13, Tyrion married a 13 year old girl, Tysha, then was told by his father Tywin that she was a whore Jaime had paid to take his virginity and make a man of him. In the books Tywin further makes his point by forcing Tyrion to watch and participate in her gang-rape and pay her for the “sex work”. After freeing Tyrion from prison in Season 5, Jaime confesses that Tywin lied: Tysha was never a whore, but Tywin believed she married Tyrion for the family’s wealth so she was therefore a “whore”. Tyrion then goes to confront his father and, heartbroken at finding Shae has slept with him, he kills her. He asks Tywin where Tysha went after the gang-rape and murders his father for calling her a whore.

Tysha’s story questions the “whore”/”slut” label and its validity. Tywin called Tysha a whore when it suited him. She wasn’t the wealthy, titled wife he wanted for his son, so she had to be disposed of. For Tywin, she wasn’t even a person- he didn’t think he was punishing her, but instead teaching his son a lesson. Tywin also had his late father’s girlfriend whipped through the streets naked “never dreaming that the same fate awaited his own golden daughter” – Cersei, who was also called a whore by detractors. The take-away here is that “whore” is a label applied by men, and arbitrarily. Cersei was Tywin’s daughter so she wasn’t a whore to him, but women he didn’t know (Tysha, his father’s girlfriend and Shae) were. The men who slept with the “whores”- his father, his son, and Tywin himself- were not labelled.

Game of Thrones also pushes the “slut” trope to its breaking point with Pia. In the books, Pia is a servant at Harrenhal who uses her beauty to get Lannister soldiers into bed…or cupboard. Some of Gregor Clegane’s equally unsavoury companions decide that this means she’s always available to them- whether she wants to or not. Jaime Lannister executes them for rape, with the last rapist protesting that Pia had consented at other times. This scene seems to be asking, ‘OK- if someone is a ‘slut’, then, well, so what?’ The idea of a “slut” seems to be that the woman is always available (sexist ideas pose women as passive, so ‘sluts’ are “available for sex” instead of “pursuing sex”) and for some reason, this is interesting or scandalous. As the Pia story shows, however, ‘sluts’ don’t actually exist in this way as nobody is consenting all the time to everyone. They aren’t “always available”. And so if someone is more interested in sex than average, well, so what? George R.R. Martin was ahead of his time with this one, as rape victims’ sexual history was allowed as evidence in rape cases until the early 2000s in the UK. The last rapist’s comments would therefore actually have been accepted as evidence!

game thrones

Manic Pixie Dream Girls

Though Game of Thrones hasn’t completely avoided using violence against women to show how bad a villain is or elicit emotion from a man, it has at least steered clear of manic pixie dream girl syndrome- when a relationship or friendship with a two-dimensional female character leads a male character to an epiphany or self-improvement. For example, foster sister Sansa’s abuse and birth sister Yara’s capture did not motivate Theon to shed his torture-induced cowardice and help them. He fails to help Sansa by signalling and though he murders Myranda, he doesn’t save Sansa. They escape together. Later, he flees from battle instead of saving Yara.

Game of Thrones might seem a totally different series (regarding its female characters) from its first couple of seasons, but its current empowerment of them was always there in the background. Like most TV shows it’s far from unproblematic, but hopefully the series will continue to improve in the way it deals with gender issues.

 

How the political correctness debate is being manufactured

silenced

Has political correctness gone mad?

That was the title of Trevor Phillip’s latest Channel 4 documentary which aired a few days ago. The docco contends that Brexit and Trump happened as a result of the ‘hard left’ refusing to engage in debate and using political correctness to silence opponents. And you’d be forgiven for thinking that it’s topical. That there’s suddenly a Liberal-versus-Conservative divide imported from across the Atlantic threatening to disenchant the ‘ordinary people’ who will rebel against their feminist, LGBTQ and POC oppressors by voting in a British version of Trump.

But that’s just not true.

This PC Gone Mad/Liberal Elites Oppressing The Masses trope is a myth created and endlessly cycled by the media. Just days after Has PC Gone Mad? aired, another version of this self-created debate- though at least this segment was an actual debate- was shown on BBC Newsnight. With each iteration of this myth, no new information or current event is added. Instead, the same incidents are recycled over and over- mostly Germaine Greer and Julie Bindel being no-platformed (refusal to be invited as a guest speaker to student societies or clubs) by certain student unions.

Now, student unions are not all-powerful holdfasts of the “liberal elite” (or the Establishment, for that matter). They’re, well, groups of young people elected by other young people at the same university who could be bothered to vote. They do not have “agendas” which are meaningful forces at the national level (in the case of no-platforming someone). Their compositions change with each new influx of students, making it very difficult to deploy a consistent political agenda across decades to change an entire country.  The ‘PC Gone Mad’ myth has simply borrowed from America’s over-hyping of a few incidents of students asking for trigger warnings* on course material (which have existed for decades at US and UK universities; even TV has trigger warnings before certain programmes). In any case, a union or two no-platforming a speaker does not equate to a liberal elite oppressing the masses. Governments owe their citizens and residents free speech. Universities are not governments and neither are student unions. Student unions are groups of people who can no-platform if they feel like it. no-one has an inalienable right to speak to any group of people, any more than I have the right to demand that you continue to read this.

The myth of political correctness gone mad also assumes that ‘ordinary people’ desperately crave the freedom to say sexist, racist and homophobic statements. Most of us would disagree with that assessment of ourselves and our loved ones.

And while proponents of the myth claim that we suddenly aren’t allowed to say racist, sexist or homophobic things any more, in reality these laws have been in effect for decades. The Race Relations Act came into effect in the 1970s. It wasn’t invented by the liberal elite a couple of months ago. The Channel 4 documentary used the punishments dished out to online trolls who targeted the feminist campaigner Caroline Criado-Perez  as an example of political correctness gone mad. Prosecutions for online trolling may seem new to those who’ve barely heard of the internet, but harassment has always been a crime whether it’s committed to your face, in a letter, through a third party, over the phone or indeed online. This is similar to how conspiracy, slander or extortion are actionable whether they’re committed face to face or not. Or how murder is still a crime even if you don’t kill the person face to face.

Prosecutions for online harassment did happen before Caroline Criado-Perez. They just didn’t make the national news because the victims were not famous enough (Criado-Perez was fronting a national campaign at the time). It’s not uncommon for those who profess their activism online to be the targets of abuse. It’s just that people who aren’t middle-class, who aren’t deemed respectable, who are seen as deserving of their abuse because they’re sex worker activists or queer activists or kinksters, won’t be newsworthy. Just because something isn’t on the news doesn’t mean it’s not happening. Kind of like how people are dying of cancer every day but their families’ grief won’t make the headlines, while celebrities who survive cancer do.

Trevor Phillips did raise important points: virtue-signalling can and does lead to harmful overreactions against powerless individuals, leaving systemic oppression intact. And shutting down debate is not a solution. But overall, the message of Has PC Gone Mad is not simply wrong, it’s mostly irrelevant.

The fact is, “liberal elites” and “ordinary people” are not in conflict. Brexit was not caused by harassment prosecutions or students no-platforming. It was caused by widespread ignorance of what the EU is and the benefits it offers as well as UKIP’s conflation of the unrelated issues of EU immigration, non-EU immigration, benefits ‘scrounging’, and illegal immigration. The only recent UK political clashes have been about Brexit, austerity, and so on- mostly against the Conservative government and certainly not against liberal elites. While these very real protests are sometimes played down in the news, these same news agencies are only too happy to regurgitate years-old incidents and inflate incidents which appeared in student newspapers into a fake national debate on political correctness. If a liberal versus conservative divide does ever happen, it was manufactured by the media.

*’The Coddling of the American Mind‘, which very eloquently criticises these students, is actually one of my favourite online articles due to the structure of its arguments and the important points it touches on. However, even this gem cites just a handful of very low-key, non-newsworthy incidents across the entire US. This proves that the ‘PC debate’ is an overhyping of unrelated trivial events. It’s a very well-written piece though and I’d recommend reading it.

Qatar to host World Cup despite appalling human rights record

First published on Mint Press News on 27/6/16

 

Recently, Qatar jailed a Dutch tourist for having sex after she reported her rape. The case revealed to the West how rape victims are treated in Qatar.

As Qatar will be the host of the 2022 World Cup, this raises the question of the risks faced by soccer fans if they are sexually assaulted during the World Cup. However, another pressing issue is that of how locals are treated. As MyMPN reported, local women and men who suffer sexual assault are likely to be at even more risk of prosecution than tourists.

Qatar has an appalling human rights record more generally — especially when it comes to women and migrant workers. The workers building the World Cup projects are being exploited by the Qatar state and corporations.

Migrant workers from Asia and Africa make up 99% percent of Qatar’s workforce but are forbidden to unionize. They are unable to leave Qatar as employers routinely seize their passports. Workers who lack official documentation are at risk of deportation and further exploitation. As wages are not paid on time — or at all — many employees live a life of de facto slavery in unsuitable housing conditions. Exorbitant recruitment fees further increase the financial strain.

In 2014 Qatar promised to update its labor laws. However, in 2015 Amnesty International criticized Qatar for not delivering on its promise to initiate reforms. Even if the reforms were made, Human Rights Watch believes that they “will not adequately protect migrant workers from human trafficking, forced labor, and other rights violations. It is unclear whether they will provide some protection for migrant domestic workers, mostly women, who are especially vulnerable to exploitation and abuse.”

Women walk through an airport in Doha, Qatar on June 30, 2010. Two of the women are wearing niqab. (Flickr / Juanedc.com)

Migrant domestic workers are overwhelmingly female and face sexual abuse in addition to the physical and verbal abuse suffered by workers of all genders. Under current law, no protection is afforded to them. However, the legal protection available to non-migrant women in cases of sex crimes is likewise questionable; for example marital rape is not a criminal offence.

According to Amnesty International’s website, “Migrants from Bangladesh, India and Nepal working on the refurbishment of the showcase Khalifa Stadium and landscaping the surrounding gardens and sporting facilities known as the “Aspire Zone” are being exploited. Some are being subjected to forced labour. They can’t change jobs, they can’t leave the country and they often wait months to get paid. Meanwhile, FIFA (football’s global governing body), its sponsors and the construction companies involved are set to make massive financial gains from the tournament.”

FIFA president Gianni Infantino has promised to create a panel to ensure “decent working conditions” for laborers working on the stadium. However, the effectiveness of these measures against Qatar’s “Kafala” (sponsorship) system, which bonds the employee to the employer in an unequal relationship, is still in question.

The 2022 World Cup’s corporate sponsors include McDonalds, Budweiser, Hyundai, Adidas, Visa and Coca-Cola. In 2015, the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre contacted the companies with a list of questions regarding their FIFA sponsorship, human rights, and workers’ rights. None responded to the questions asked.

However, in a statement Adidas admitted “everyone recognizes that more needs to be done in a collective effort with all stakeholders involved.”

Coca-Cola said it was encouraging FIFA to respect human rights and that “We believe that through our partnership and continued involvement with FIFA we can help foster optimism and unity, while making a positive difference in the communities we serve. The Coca-Cola Company does not condone human rights abuses anywhere in the world.”

Adidas has a Human Rights Charter. Its website states, “The adidas Group recognises its corporate responsibility to respect human rights and the importance of showing that we are taking the necessary steps to fulfill this social obligation.

Adidas’ Policy on Forced Labour and Human Trafficking prohibits forced labor “in all company operations and in our global supply chain.”

This stance is bound to raise questions about why Adidas feels that sponsorship of the 2022 World Cup is appropriate. However McDonald’s sponsorship is perhaps less surprising. In 2013, police investigated McDonald’s for violation of labor laws in Brazil, following a 17-year-old’s complaint that she had not been paid in eight months. Belizean migrant workers in Canada claimed they were treated as slaves when the corporation forced them to share an expensive penthouse apartment then deducted huge amounts from their salaries to cover the rent.

https://imgur.com/6WHbsFa/embed?ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mintpressnews.com%2FMyMPN%2Fqatar-to-host-world-cup-despite-horrific-human-rights-record-mistreatment-of-women%2F&w=540

The multinationals’ involvement has been satirized with the creation of “anti-logos” criticizing their support for human rights abuses. This questioning of why these sponsors have not pulled their funding is likely to carry on as human rights abuses continue to be perpetrated in the building of World Cup projects.

Vote remain: how EU human, women’s and labour rights protect us from the Tories

 

While the Brexit vs Bremain debate has been- and will continue to be- argued and analysed to death, one very important issue has escaped mainstream attention: human rights. The EU’s European Court of Justice, its laws and its Charter of Fundamental Rights safeguards our human rights more than the European Court of Human Rights. What’s more, the EU’s justice is much easier to access than that available through the ECHR. A case can only be heard by the ECHR once a case has gone through all the domestic courts- which is usually costly and very time-consuming. However, EU law can be applied directly by even the lowest level domestic courts; so if an EU law would mean you’d win your case at the District Court in Glasgow, then win it you shall, and immediately.

EU law protects Britons from age, race, sex, belief, disability and sexuality discrimination (see overview of EU discrimination law here).

 

The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights further safeguards our rights to privacy, education, being fairly dealt with by the police, and practising our religion/belief amongst many others.

If Britain leaves the EU, we forfeit all of this protection, forever.

 

 

Privacy

The EU’s European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled that Europeans have a “right to be forgotten”- i.e. that we can request Google to take down information about us. This gives us an important right that nobody else in the world yet enjoys, and could very well open doors to employment for those of us who have been maligned on the internet.

The ECJ is also in the process of deciding whether the UK’s DRIPA (Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act) contravenes EU human rights law. If the UK leaves the EU, in future such cases will have no legal remedy if UK courts uphold the legality of DRIPA-esque legislation, or will have to be referred to the European Court of Human Rights- which is much less likely to safeguard the rights of citizens.

 

Welfare

The EU has struck a happy medium on the contentious issue of welfare. Its rules stipulate that after three months’ residency in another EU country, any EU citizen or long-term resident can claim the same welfare benefits as a citizen of that country. However, this doesn’t mean you’ll be handing over your taxes to benefits tourists- the ECJ has recently cracked down on immigrants who exploit the system.

EU law also provides for guaranteed criminal compensation if you are the victim of a crime while travelling within the EU.

The EU’s Europe 2020 strategy aims to “eradicate child poverty, promote the active inclusion in society and the labour market of the most vulnerable groups and overcome discrimination and increase the integration of people with disabilities, ethnic minorities, immigrants and other vulnerable groups.” The EU Commission’s PROGRESS programme supports policy development work relating to employment, working conditions, gender equality, social inclusion and social protection, non-discrimination and diversity. NGOs and charities- including British ones- can apply for funding. The Citizens for Europe programme provides civil society organisations and think tanks at European level with operating grants covering part of their running costs.

Economic security encompasses unemployment and persistent poverty- things which Iain Duncan Smith, as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, should have been concerned about. However, he and our current and previous governments caused widespread poverty, an increase in mental health problems and the creation of over 1,000 foodbanks (free food donated by the public for the hungry). The DWP recently announced it will cut benefits for people in work. Clearly economic security is not the UK’s forte.

And what about other security threats? If we’re debating Britain’s security, let’s not leave some concepts of security out of the debate. Take the concept of human security. According to the UN, human security threats include food security (hunger), and political security (political repression, human rights abuses). Although of course we have it very good in the UK compared to a lot of other places, the recent rise of the relevance of economic security, food security and the human rights abuses aspect of political security is hard to ignore.

Recently, in addition to the several suicides and deaths- including of a former soldier who died starving and penniless after missing an appointment at the Job Centre- directly caused by his policies, he was found by researchers to have caused at least 590 suicides which were not previously known. His welfare reforms are currently being investigated by the UN for breaching the human rights of disabled persons. The latest debacle, as of this week, involves a child who has had all four limbs amputated. Under Iain Duncan Smith’s reforms, the boy has been required to prove he is disabled or the family’s benefits will be taken away. Previous examples of disabled people being found “fit to work” and having their disability benefits stopped include a man with peeling bones, a man who is kept alive by a machine, and a kidney dialysis patient who has suffered 14 heart attacks. Thousands of people who were dying have been found fit to work, as have those who were already deceased when the notification was made.

The DWP’s decision to deprive people of enough money to survive (and barely enough to survive in the best scenario- £73 a week to pay bills and buy food with) will adversely impact the economy. Without enough money to buy consumer goods, there is less demand for products and so less jobs. Less jobs mean more people are unemployed and have to depend on benefits, which means the vicious cycle continues. Duncan Smith’s workfare (a mandatory six months of working for free, avoidance of which results in withdrawal of benefits for up to three years) snatches precious jobs away from the waiting jobless. Meanwhile the government shells out millions on corporate welfare (in-work benefits for employees whose employers refuse to pay them enough to survive, such as Housing Benefit and Work Tax Credit).

toryworldmap2.png

Tory World Map

 

National security

Brits are now much more likely to die from a benefits sanction than they are to die from a terrorist attack. No terrorist attack in Britain has killed over 590 people. The public’s security is threatened by Iain Duncan Smith more than our security is threatened by terrorists.

Iain Duncan Smith has warned that the UK faces security threats if it doesn’t leave the EU. “This open border does not allow us to check and control people that may come and spend time,” he told the BBC on 20th February. However, a key fact which seems to have escaped Mr Duncan Smith is that the EU is obligated to protect its own borders. If Britain leaves the EU, it’ll be on its own. The UK coastline will become our frontier. Terrorists have to pass through the EU border before they get to Britain, meaning there are at least two and perhaps several (if every EU country they pass through checks them) chances to detect them. If Britain leaves the EU, the terrorists would only have to pass one border- our coast.

 

But it’s not just border control that membership of the EU has to offer. As Lucy Thomas, deputy director of Britain Stronger In Europe, told the Daily Mail: “In recent weeks we have heard from a wide range of experts with frontline experience of the fight against terrorism that Britain’s streets are safer in Europe.

Though Iain Duncan Smith may wish to ignore them, the message is clear from the head of Europol, Army chiefs and Home Secretaries past and present, that co-operating with our European allies is crucial to keeping British people safe.

The European Arrest Warrant lets us deport terrorist suspects back to their country of origin, Europol helps our police co-operate with their European counterparts, and EU data-sharing measures allow our security services to access information on threats from anywhere in Europe within minutes.”

In fact, Britain benefits from EU intelligence sharing between all member states, and from the intelligence analysis conducted by INTCEN (the EU Intelligence and Situation Centre). Intelligence is also shared through the European Police Organization (Europol), the Joint Situation Center (SitCen), the Intelligence Division of the European Union Military Staff (INTDIVEUMS), and the European Union Satellite Center (EUSC). This is done for counterterrorism purposes.

The Tories’ policies are also having a knock-on effect for national security. If a country is to be a great power, it needs a healthy economy, educated citizens who can compete in the global job marketplace and in a globalised business world, and a strong or at least adequate military. Austerity (and tuition fee rises- which  he voted for-, the destruction of higher education grants, cuts in education spending etc) will not achieve that. Children need to have enough food to learn. A hungry child or unhealthy, malnourished teen won’t be as likely to do well in school (especially as lack of nutrition can stunt growth including brain growth). They are also less likely to forgo the instant gratification of work aged 16 for two more years of school and then a four-year university stint, during which they’ll continue to be on the poverty line and dependent on the whims of university hardship funds to pay rent- and then be tens of thousands in debt at the end of it. Bottom line: health comes first. People need to be healthy to get an education. The taxpayer can throw all the money they want to at the NHS but when the problem is malnutrition there’s not much the doctors can do about it. Everything- technology, science, business, even tourism, depend on skilled people running the show and (in some cases) competing with foreign rival institutions. If we don’t have a healthy, educated, able to work populace then all of these industries and more will suffer. The military is self-explanatory; the weak can’t fight. And the same rules apply to military technology as they do to technology generally.

We won’t see these effects for a long time. If Iain Duncan Smith’s policies continue now that he is gone- as it seems they are- Britain will gradually become poorer as a nation. The talented few, born or sponsored into greatness, will leave for a more comfortable existence in more prosperous countries. Universities will slip down the rankings as fewer people apply to them and they take all comers- or perhaps they’ll retain rankings but mostly consist of international students. Without enough educated Brits, the same thing will happen to other professions which we currently see with medical professionals: they’ll consist disproportionately of immigrants because British people don’t have the qualifications. Again, this will take several years if not a few decades.

These changes will affect national security. The security services and the upper echelons of law enforcement and the armed forces need the best, not the best from among the mediocre rich kids who scraped into desperate universities.

Our own government, not the EU, is a threat to the UK’s economic, human and national security. NATO is more of a threat to our sovereignty than the EU, as we are required to go to war if another NATO state is attacked.

 

Strategy

Brexit may therefore make the UK more vulnerable to terrorism as we will lack valuable intelligence from the EU. An isolated UK dependent on the US might also be exactly what Putin wants. Brexiters can talk about NATO and the Commonwealth, but it’s, well, talk. At the very least, firm and detailed agreements should be negotiated with Commonwealth States before we leave the EU. They must be specific and binding enough (e.g. they only become void in the event a Brexit is avoided) that those States can’t just back out or water down the agreements. The downside to this is that perhaps States don’t want to waste time negotiating over a situation which might be averted; however there are many Commonwealth nations and if the benefits of trade agreements are made clear, and if the contracts are no more detailed than necessary to secure cooperation, surely a few would be interested. However, though the Commonwealth could- in theory- fulfil the needs of economic security, the relevance of Commonwealth States’ intelligence to terrorist threats against the UK is not clear.

The closest (and most obvious to the British public and the rest of the world) tie remains our ‘special relationship’ with America, which has brought us the joys of unwanted and illegal war, increased terrorism partly as a result of the aforesaid wars, and…er…

As of the time of writing there is absolutely nothing to suggest any concrete steps have been taken to ensure EU-equivalent benefits from the Commonwealth should the Brexit occur. Therefore, assuming that the Commonwealth fails to provide a viable alternative, if the UK leaves the EU it will have to get more cosy with the US to replace all of the lost economic and security benefits. Not only will this be likely to lead to increased resentment of Britain by those who already have a hatred of the west, particularly America, it will also polarise the northern hemisphere- not on a scale approaching anything like the Cold War, of course, but oddly reminiscent: As we know, US-Russia relations and US-China relations are not warm. The UK is a little different as demonstrated with the Chinese President’s visit in 2015, but that may change if the US is the UK’s only ally instead of ‘merely’ the UK’s main and most powerful ally. The UK and US will be on one side, Russia and China on the other.

Relying more heavily on the US is not a good strategic move. One of the basic rules of strategy is to give oneself as many options, as many paths toward one’s goals and as much influence as possible. In the context of the international playground this means forming multiple alliances with States (and non-State actors) who have influence in different regions, provide different economic benefits, and so on. In this way things like a wide sphere of influence and a stable supply of produce are guaranteed, because even if one ally breaks a trade agreement for an essential product, the State is not solely dependent on that ally and so its position will not be much affected. Another example would be if a State used two other States for diplomatic support about intervening in a fourth State. If one ally suddenly decided that no, they weren’t going to try to convince the UN the intervention was necessary, there is still another ally to rely on. (I’m not suggesting this is something any State should be doing, these are simply realistic examples). Throwing most of our eggs in the US basket is bad strategy.

how america sees the world.

American Government World Map

There is also economic security to consider. The Brexit backers appear to believe that if the UK leaves the EU, we will then be able- somehow- to negotiate better deals with the EU. However it is difficult to see why the EU would care about Britain when it’s no longer part of the team. It appears much more likely that the remaining EU states will simply continue to trade with each other within the parameters they voted for long ago. Even if this scheme worked, it’s not so much a Brexit as a Stomping Off In A Huff And Sulking Until They Play My Way. Or, perhaps, a Brexit-And-(re)Brentry.

 

 

Women’s Rights

The EU has been promoting gender equality since 1957. The Strategy for Equality Between Women and Men represents the European Commission’s work program on gender equality for the period 2010-2015. In 2012 the Gender Equality Directive stopped insurers using gender as a risk factor. Currently it combats violence and discrimination. The EU’s Women, Peace and Security agenda works to prevent violence against women and girls in conflict zones. The European Social Fund (ESF) has introduced a gender-mainstreaming approach and the EQUAL initiative was launched in 2000 to develop new ways of tackling discrimination and exclusion in the labour market including that which is based on gender.

The EU has also created an Institute for Gender Equality and a Fundamental Rights Agency. Winnet, a network of European Women Resource Centres was created to improve efficiency and transparency of women’s rights NGOs and therefore improve gender equality policies and tools.

Impact assessments on the effect of EU policy on women are carried out by each of the Commission’s Directorate-Generals.

 

The ECJ has previously interpreted “family life” to protect the rights of children of unmarried and lone parents to enable the children to remain living with their parents. Cases include Johnston v Ireland (1986), Eur. Ct. H.R., Ser. A, No. 112, Marckx v Belgium (1979) 2 EHRR 330:342, Berehab v Netherlands (App. 10730/84) 21 June 1988 Series A No. 138, (1989) 11 EHRR 322 S21 and Keegan v. Ireland (App.16969/90) 26 May 1994, Series A No. 290 (1994) 18 EHRR 342 S44.

The Fundamental Rights Agency devotes one of the chapters of its Annual Report on Fundamental Rights to the rights of the child. In 2009 the FRA published a report on “Developing indicators for the protection, respect and promotion of the rights of the child in the European Union.”

The Audiovisual Media Services Directive binds Member States to ensure that audiovisual media services provided by media service providers under their jurisdiction do not contain any incitement to hatred or sex discrimination.

 

The ECJ has ruled on age discrimination in employment, pensions and the retirement age.

When Belgium attempted to deny residence permits for two French nationals on the ground that they were suspected to be engaged in sex work, the ECJ ruled that as Belgium allowed its own citizens to do sex work, denying free movement to French citizens was a contravention of EU law.

More intersectional and specific forms of discrimination haven’t escaped EU notice, either. In 2007, the Monitoring and Evaluation Unit of the Employment and Training Corporation (ETC) published a study on lone mothers in poverty, which found that the mothers “experienced stigma and prejudice at the workplace and they felt as if they were looked down upon by their co-workers[14]”. The European Working Conditions Observatory concluded that “A respectful environment at work…would also help more lone mothers to enter or return to the labour market.”

The EU’s ECJ court, its Commission, its laws and its many agencies and platforms do much more to safeguard our rights than the European Court. They also pump money into impoverished areas of the UK to improve the lives of Brits in rural and deprived areas.  If Britain leaves, there will be nothing to stop the Tories doing whatever they please. We will lose the EU’s European Social Fund funding for services (including internet provision) and projects in deprived communities, and though we won’t have to give funding to the EU, it is not likely we will see a penny of the money saved. A government which is dismantling the NHS and destroying our welfare state is not suddenly going to change and pump the saved resources into welfare, education or health.. The scale and scope of the EU’s human rights protection is unique in the world. If Britain leaves the EU, we must be prepared to give up all of the EU’s human rights protections- for which we will find no replacement. 

US Government lost woman’s citizenship records, condemning her to live as an illegal alien

First published on Mint Press News, 10/11/15.

 

Citizenship-felicito-rustique-jr-CC-Flickr-e1447206570577-800x553

Photo credit: Flickr / U.S. Navy / Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class (SW/AW) Felicito Rustique

 

Sally Anne is a US citizen. She came to the US as an 18-month-old when she was adopted from India by her American parents and became a naturalized US citizen. But U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement lost her documentation during the switch-over from paper files to a digital system.

Sally Anne didn’t even know it until 2012, when she had to prove her citizenship status to renew her driver’s license as a result of a new law — the Real ID Act of 2005.

According to Sally Anne’s blog, Paperless Existence, her previous attorney. Tracie Klinke, told her that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) “has only been using computerized databases as recently as the 1980s. I was adopted several years before then, and the switchover from hardcopy / paper files backed up by microfilm data to digitally uploaded records took place sometime in the early 80’s. It is altogether possible, she clarified, for the agency to have misplaced my hardcopy file during this procedure, in fact it has happened before with other immigrants.”

At first, sorting it out looked easy. Sally Anne’s attorney at the time made a demand for her file via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) procedure.

Sally Anne told MyMPN, “they made a formal declaration via a letter affirming that they have checked their ‘centralized index system’ and my name is not contained therein. However: this completely gainsays the reality that somewhere there exists a physical paper file. USCIS is required by law to maintain those paper files as backup, irrespective of whether the records are contained in their electronic database or not. But they flat out refuse to research any further into this.”

The A-no, or alien registration number, is the identifying serial number to track the records of every legal immigrant — other than those holding tourist visas — who has ever entered the United States. Because Sally Anne doesn’t know her alien registration number, they are refusing to research the matter any further and have stated she has no further grounds to file an appeal. Because she is permanently estranged from her adoptive parents due to childhood mistreatment, obtaining documentation from them isn’t possible.

Being undocumented affects every aspect of Sally Anne’s life. She can’t get a driver’s license — even for a scooter. For years she couldn’t even rent a property and stayed in motels until a landlord finally agreed to let out an apartment to her on the basis that she paid several months’ rent as a deposit and produced affidavits from friends. Without proof that she isn’t an illegal alien, she cannot find employment and is now self-employed as a sex worker. It even means she can’t collect medical prescriptions.

Some of her mental health prescriptions are classified as narcotics, so an ID is required to be presented when receiving them. As Sally Anne doesn’t have ID, no pharmacy would release them to her.

“I spent three days running around to different drugstores and, with the weather in the 90’s, I got heat exhaustion. I began having panic attacks from being off of my meds and also injured my foot walking.”

She finally got the medication by asking an acquaintance to accompany her to a pharmacy. “An acquaintance who would verify they knew me, present their own ID, and then the pharmacist released it to him, and told him he was free to turn around and give it to me.”

Sally Anne’s attorney, Kristy White, is now attempting to get a copy of her US passport or other consular paperwork from India from the Department of State by doing a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request and a Privacy Act request. White is also working with Sally Anne’s representative in Congress, trying to get them to work with the State Department. If the State Department does not produce documents, they will have to file a suit in a federal court and ask a U.S. district court judge to compel production of the records. This is when a court order is issued directing the agency to research their archive center or storage facility and search for the physical paper file.

An email from Klinke revealed that she believed Sally Anne’s physical files are located in Missouri.

White, said “The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services have thus far produced nothing in response to Sally’s requests … Sally’s case is very frustrating because it seems so “simple.” Just a get a copy of her ID from USCIS or from the Department of State. No one, citizen or non-citizen should have to live without an ID or any way to prove who they are. It is very dehumanizing, and I don’t understand people who just shrug their shoulders and walk away from the problem.”

Sally Anne says her Christian faith has become stronger during this travesty and she credits that with the will and determination to fight for her rights. She’s also grateful to all the fans of her blog for their support.

Once everything is behind her, Sally Anne wants to make a positive impact in the life of others. Specifically, she wishes to become an ambassador for foreign adoption, especially that of children from India & South Asia. She will also work to decriminalize sex work in the U.S. because she doesn’t want other women to be treated like a criminal, as she has been.

Sally Anne said, “All I need is for USCIS to dig into their repository where the physical paper files are stored … to get them to look and then they’ll find my file and I turn it over and I can then renew my ID — and life will be back to where it was.”

You can follow Sally Anne on Twitter at @paperless_me and LIKE her Facebook page.

%d bloggers like this: