In a recent hearing in the US Supreme Court, the Justices made a mockery of stalking victims, according to the analysis of Mary Anne Franks who observes, among others:

The justices’ message was clear: Stalking is not the problem; sensitivity is. To them, stalking is quite literally a state of mind: If the stalker didn’t mean for his conduct to be frightening, then it isn’t. All the target has to do is understand that; she just needs to lighten up, take a joke, accept the compliment, grasp the lesson. Just because someone has made objectively terrifying statements is no reason to overreact and get law enforcement involved; victims should wait for the stalker to do something really frightening before they jump to conclusions.

Slate, Mary Anne Franks

On July 15 I will discuss supported decision-making at IASSIDD, here is the abstract:

With the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) in force in a majority of the world’s countries, the necessity to frame human rights inclusively and accessibly is firmly established. The move from wanting to “fix” people by focusing on perceived deficits and medical aspects of impairment to needing to “fix” societies by reducing attitudinal barriers is underway, still haltingly in many places.

Enabling and empowering persons with disabilities is comparatively easily done on an individual basis. The negotiation of the Convention itself is a case in point on how processes can shift quite dramatically, when the meaningful participation of persons with disabilities is made possible. Importantly, a lot can be learned generally from this and related processes in how marginalized groups can and should contribute to mainstream policy and law development.

The profound challenges of the Convention’s implementation arise at the law and policy level and in its application to larger institutions. How does one shift from well-tested routines and carefully planned and well-intentioned procedures to an approach that empowers people to live independently? How does one move from cotton-wooling people to embracing their need – and right – to make mistakes, go overboard and transgress?

A core expression of the right of all persons with disabilities to equally enjoy all human rights is the right to act their legal capacity. The application of this provision (Article 12 CRPD) raises some profound challenges in enabling the decision-making of persons with disabilities.

But does it really?

Granted: there is a need for more assistance, increased support and added resources. But is there really such a difference in what we describe as supported decision-making for persons with disabilities to what people in the so-called mainstream practice every day? How, exactly, is the process of a prime minister being advised by an army of advisers different from supporting the decision-making of someone who has an intellectual impairment?

Not wanting to diminish the responsibilities of prime ministers and the complexity of some of the issues placed before them: it appears that we are all too easily pushing the decision-making of persons with disabilities into a special realm with separate rules and different standards, which are also linked to status and its attached economic might.

The idea of inclusion is not just that we enable persons with disabilities to be equal, to enjoy the same rights and freedoms – as they should have already for a long time. The challenge lies in questioning the ways in which the mainstream operates routinely and how persons with disabilities – due to being labeled “different” and “special” and “needy” – are missing out.

None of the representatives in mainstream society and leadership positions would ever think that they have support in decision-making. But very few people actually make bigger purchases or investments without consulting “someone.” The social and cultural codes that are applied here, are frequently denied to persons with disabilities, particularly in those settings where they are separated and treated “differently.”

Persons who have guardians point to the impact of their guardianship on their social and societal standing. They report feeling stigmatized and sensing the effect of their guardianship in areas of life beyond their guardianship’s scope. While well intentioned and often reasonably applied, guardianship creates and reinforces stigma. The CRPD provides an opportunity to revisit engrained routines and calls into question the most well meaning of policies.

Revising such policies, including some important legal questions that require thorough examination, a core obligation of the CRPD has to be upheld and implemented: ensuring the meaningful participation of persons with disabilities at every stage (Article 4 (3) CRPD). As the first experiences prove, meaningful participation fundamentally changes the conversation; it also improves the quality of the outcome in immeasurable ways.

Inclusion also means that we keep in mind that the Conventions is not a special set of provisions for persons with disabilities: it is firmly grounded in the human rights obligations that precede it. Importantly, the right to act legal capacity is also enshrined in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women: Article 15 thereof. If one ponders the significant changes that women’s liberation has brought across the globe – and not withstanding the manifold gaps that still mar the road to gender equality – one gleans the profoundness of the paradigm shift that is encapsulated in the right to act legal capacity.

In going forward it is in everyone’s interest to ensure the meaningful participation of persons with disabilities. The obligation of the CRPD should be used to advance the quality of the debate rather than be viewed as a cumbersome obstacle. It is equally important to remember the ways in which society can push itself, e.g. changes and ongoing challenges in gender equality. The support for decision-making of those in power, e.g. prime ministers, should be our guiding light in ensuring the empowerment of persons with disabilities to make their own decisions – including: mistakes!

A campaign by UNFPA from 2007, still holds very true

A helpful illustration on the health impact of violence against women by the World Health Organization: women exposed to violence are amongst others twice as likely to suffer from mental health problems and also twice as likely to abuse substances such as alcohol, among others. Note that more than a third of incidents of violence – 38% – are reportedly committed by intimate partners.

On the occasion of Women’s Day, a series of graphic graphics by the UK’s DFID on the situation of women and girls in developing countries focusing on obstacles to personal and corresponding overall economic & societal development:

In her message in celebration of Women’s Day, Michelle Bachelet, UN Women Executive Director states:

My message today is simple and straightforward. This year on International Women’s Day, we say enough is enough. Discrimination and violence against women and girls has no place in the 21^st century. It is time for Governments to keep their promises and protect human rights in line with the international conventions and agreements that they signed onto. A promise is a promise.

The fall-out from gendercide continues as the Washington Post reports of the Middle Class’ preference for boys. The growing gap is compensated with yet another human rights violation: trafficking. As the BBC reports there is a growing trend to kidnap girls and young women to bring them to other parts of the country to “stand in” for the girls and women missing due to gendercide.

A group of women who participated in the suffragettes celebration of the Olympic opening ceremony plan to become activists and march to the UK parliament in October to stand up for women’s equality, reports the Guardian.

The Australian portraits Professor Mary Crock who has painted a portray of her husband, Senior Australian of the Year 2011, Ron McCallum for the upcoming Archibald Prize. Professor Crock, a renown public law professor at the University of Sydney specialized on migration law – see her recent book on immigration – took up her painting brush after more than two decades to paint her husband of 25 years, who was the first blind person to become a professor of law – industrial law is his speciality – and subsequently dean of the University of Sydney’s Law School.

(c) The Australian

On the occasion of women’s day, an indepth look by the NYTimes at the challenges women in Egypt face as the movement for a change of government makes its way.

In a piece on high-impact advertisement the BBC highlights the overrated value that diamonds have based on  – the admittedly brilliant (sic!) – marketing strategies. The human rights, gender and value implications of that industry are a long time favourite of mine.

As the red carpet rolls out ahead of women’s day and briefly also for the Academy Awards, Kim Elsesser – a research scholar at the Center for Study of Women at the University of California – highlights the separation of the best actor and best actress in an Op-Ed in the NYTimes.

Picture credit Kelly Blair/NYTimes

The Economist is focusing on the disappearance of women, in particular girls, in its latest issue, asking: “what happened to the 100 million baby girls?” The article explains how declining fertility and prejudices are major factors in a radical shift of gender balance in many societies.

The lack of gender-perspective punctuates all areas of society, some revelations are more brutal than others. As Frances Crook highlights in the Guardian the failure to acknowledge gender in the British justice and prison system leads to the violation of women’s rights as many women prisoners get engulfed in a vicious cycle of male violence, crime and imprisonment.

Time and again the consequences of female infanticide – the preference for boys leading to sex-selective abortions – are discussed in the media. The latest report comes from China where the combination of the one-child policy mixed with a preference for males has created a gap of 32 million in the generation of under 20-year-olds.

The European Parliament just came up with required reading for the BIPA’s and Tele2’s of this world: the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equality has produced a Report on how marketing and advertising affect equality between women and men; English & German versions are available.

The United Nations has a special Convention on the Rights of Women. It is applicable in most countries around the world. One of its many important provisions states that “States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, with a view to achieving the elimination of prejudices and customary and all other practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes or on stereotyped roles for men and women.” 

Basic information on the Convention’s features has now been made available by the Austrian Ministry for Women’s Affairs, in German, Turkish, Bosnian, Serbian & Croatian. The booklet may be ordered here.

One of the many potential readers is the marketing department of Austrian telecommunication provider Tele2. In response to criticism of their overtly sexist EURO 2008^TM campaign, which may be found here, the marketing department declared inter alia that because they are all women it could not be sexist and undignified. Go figure!

BIPA, a cosmetic and household goods chain – BIPA is short for BIllige PArfümerie, literally: cheap perfumer – celebrated father’s day during the ongoing soccer frenzy. Customers received a set of cards plus whistle. To play “the” game. At home. 

The equivalent of soccer’s red says on the front “quiet!” and on the back “DARLING! Your lips are so sensual and beautiful. But did you know that they are most beautiful when you keep them closed?” A pink card reads “sex” on one side and on the other: “DARLING! You have distracted me for 90 minutes with your good looks. I’d be happy if we could declare the soccer game as foreplay and could get to it straight.” Finally, a yellow card with “beer!” on the front, states on the backside: “You have beautifully soigné legs: be so kind and fetch me a cool drink from the fridge, so I can see your elegant running style.” 

BIPA dubbed the package “Championship-Anti-Misunderstanding-Set.” 

Critical commentary by Austrian journalists Sibylle Hamann & Doris Knecht has apparently already yielded regret by BIPA’s all female marketing departmenton over possible “misunderstandings.”

Valentine’s Day is behind us. International Women’s Day – celebrated in the formerly Communist ruled countries of Eastern Europe – just ahead of us: 8 March. Time to reflect on the sparkle of pebble stones, commonly referred to as ‘diamonds’. Why? The marketing campaign surrounding them is the picture-perfect-finish to utilizing gender roles.

The slogan “Diamond’s are a girls best friend” are the epitome of women being passive recipients of the value that the patriarchal system sees fit and taking care of these goods – be they gems or children – for ever after. As has been demonstrated by Edward Jay Epstein the goal is that the supply of diamonds is to be solely on the diamond “producers”; women are thus to hold onto their jewelry and not bring it back into the market. The price is set solely by the “producers.” 

Obviously, there are numerous human rights and exploitation issues involved in the selection of mines – endangering indigenous tribes, the mining process and the cutting of diamonds. To top it off, there are also press freedom concerns related to the books (e.g. Janine Roberts, Tom Zoellner) that have been published about the diamond industry, which tend to not be written up in media dependent on advertising by diamond dealers.