Quakers urge recognition of Palestine

Quakers in Britain urge the UK Government to recognise Palestine as a nation state; they call for a comprehensive arms embargo on all sides in the conflict and for an end to Israel’s blockade of Gaza and occupation of Palestine.

http://www.quaker.org.uk/news/quakers-urge-recognition-palestine

News Release

08 August 2014

Quakers urge recognition of Palestine

Amid faltering ceasefires and talks, Quakers in Britain are calling for urgent action on Gaza. They urge the UK Government to recognise Palestine as a nation state; they call for a comprehensive arms embargo on all sides in the conflict and for an end to Israel’s blockade of Gaza and occupation of Palestine.

The calls for action come in a statement made by the decision making body of Quakers in Britain, the Yearly Meeting, attended by 2,000 Quakers in Bath.  As part of their commitment to peacemaking, Quakers continue to challenge anti-Semitism and Islamophobia.

The Yearly Meeting heard essential steps towards full and fair negotiations:

•     Palestine to be recognised as a nation state
•     An end to indiscriminate fire by all sides
•     A comprehensive arms embargo
•     An end to Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory and blockade of Gaza
•     Freeing elected Palestinian leaders now held as political prisoners
•     The use of international law to hold all parties to account for their actions.

The Yearly Meeting heard that this week that Quakers were invited to meet Foreign Office ministers on the crisis. Teresa Parker, programme manager for Israel and Palestine for Quakers in Britain, was among representatives from faith and secular agencies who went to share views and experience of the region.

A key motivation for Yearly Meeting is valuing all life. The Yearly Meeting statement says:

“As we among other Nobel Peace Laureates have said, ‘The conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis will only be resolved when Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territory is ended and the inherent equality, worth, and dignity of all is realised.’  Peacebuilding is a long and demanding path to take… We long for – and will work for – a time when the fear experienced on all sides is replaced by a sense of security.”

The Yearly Meeting statement in full reads:

A statement on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict made by Quakers in Britain at their Yearly Meeting in Bath, 8 August 2014

“At this time of sombre anniversaries, as we observe the centenary of the outbreak of World War I and the anniversaries of nuclear bombs dropped on the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki we find our Quaker testimonies to peace and equality again compel us to speak out.

“The hostilities in Gaza are the latest eruption of the deep and long-running conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. Root causes of this conflict, including the structural violence of occupation, must be addressed. Such violence damages all the people of the region. The present time, with its faltering ceasefires and talks, is a time of both crisis and opportunity. 

“From our long-standing Quaker experience of working on this issue in Palestine, Israel and Britain, and from listening to the testimony of Quakers in Ramallah, we are convinced that the UK Government has a real role to play.  A starting place would be for the UK to recognise Palestine as a nation state on the same basis as it recognises Israel.  We note that 134 states have already recognised the State of Palestine. The UK Government should also play its part in creating a real opportunity for peace by drawing groups such as Hamas into the political process and thus away from violent resistance to the occupation. We have seen around the world how those once labelled as terrorists can come to be recognised for their statesmanship.   It is our view that freeing elected Palestinian leaders now held as political prisoners would help Palestine to develop as a flourishing economic, political and civil society.

“The international community remains complicit in the conflict for as long as it fails to make full use of the mechanisms provided by international law, to hold all parties to account for their actions.  Under international law, at all times, all parties should distinguish between civilians and combatants, though as Quakers we place equal value on every human life. The Israeli Government's ongoing blockade of Gaza and its apparent collective punishment of the people must end, as must indiscriminate fire by all sides.

“Amid the present crisis, we are reminded that the people of the West Bank, living under Israeli occupation face restrictions on movement; loss of land and water; demolitions; the continuing building of settlements; detention without trial and violence by settlers and the Israeli military. Such suffering often sows seeds of future violence.

“The anniversary of World War I reminds us how easily militarised societies can slide into armed conflict and become blind to the alternatives to war. At such times, the international community has a responsibility to avoid fuelling the conflict. We join others in asking for a comprehensive arms embargo on Israel, Hamas and armed Palestinian groups. Quakers in Britain ask the UK Government to take a lead on this by halting arms exports to Israel.

“As we, among other Nobel Peace Laureates, have said, 'The conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis will only be resolved when Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territory is ended and the inherent equality, worth, and dignity of all is realised’. Peacebuilding is a long and demanding path to take, but an essential one.

“Quakers in Britain feel called to act alongside others to address the roots of violence. We continue to uphold Quakers in the region and those working nonviolently for peace and human rights within Israel and Palestine. Quakers will continue to challenge anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, as we oppose all forms of prejudice. We long for – and will work for – a time when the deep fear experienced on all sides is replaced by security and a just peace.

Signed

Chris Skidmore

Clerk of the Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) in Britain

Quakers in Britain send human rights monitors to the West Bank, East Jerusalem, but not Gaza. On behalf of Churches Together in Britain and Ireland and other Christian agencies Quakers in Britain runs the Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel (EAPPI). Ecumenical accompaniers focus global attention on Israeli and Palestinian peace and human rights groups. EAPPI uses the standards of human rights and international law to work for an end to the occupation and for a just peace with security and dignity for all.

Ends

Notes to editors

•     134 nations have already recognised the State of Palestine (source: Palestinian Mission UK).
•     The Nobel Peace Laureates’ statement is here http://www.quaker.org.uk/news/nobel-peace-laureates-call-real-peace-between-israelis-and-palestinians
•     The Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel (EAPPI) is a World Council of Churches (WCC) initiative which was established in 2002 in response to a call made by the Heads of Churches in Jerusalem, and Palestinian and Israeli NGOs. Since August 2002, about 1,000 ecumenical accompaniers from more than 20 countries have served in Israel and Palestinian territories. More than 160 of these EAs were from Britain and Ireland. See www.quaker.org.uk/eappi
•     Quakers are known formally as the Religious Society of Friends.
•     Around 23,000 people attend 478 Quaker meetings in Britain. Their commitment to equality, justice, peace, simplicity and truth challenges them to seek positive social and legislative change.
•     At the Yearly Meeting Gathering, 2,000 Quakers, including 300 young people, have been at the University of Bath campus for a mixture of worship, business, interest groups, and significant lectures, exploring ‘What it means to be a Quaker today’. Junior Yearly Meeting, for 14 to 18 year olds, has run alongside YMG.

Media Information

Anne van Staveren

0207 663 1048

07958 009703

annev@quaker.org.uk

www.quaker.org.uk

Gratitude: Nelson Mandela

How many of us are sad to learn of Nelson Mandela's death is likely not countable.

We all die. Death is part of life.  Mandela died at the end of a long and amazing life.  He gave South Africa and the rest of the world the gift of his life and his service, and we are tremendously enriched by that.  His death in the fullness of time is sad, yes -- but it is not tragic.  His death cannot make us poorer, cannot take away all he has done for his people and many peoples, cannot take away what he has given us.  His legacy goes on.  Who is remembered, lives; may his memory be a blessing.

And a goad to work for justice.

Gratitude: Nelson Mandela

What is something you have learned from Nelson Mandela?

Friends (Quakers) for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Concerns Endorses Friend of the Court Briefs in Two US Supreme Court Cases -- Details

[UPDATE: Briefs are available to read here.]

I recently attended the Mid-Winter Gathering of Friends for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Concerns (FLGBTQC).

During our first Meeting for Worship with Attention to Business, one of our co-clerks brought a two-fold request to us from the law firm Kramer Levin, regarding friend of the court (amicus) briefs they were preparing to file in two civil same-sex marriage cases:

• One, could we provide them with information on any policies from the Quaker equivalents of, for example, dioceses, supporting equal marriage for same-sex couples?
• Two, would we endorse the briefs (become a signatory to the friend of the court briefs), with the understanding that they were not sure that, if we said yes, they would be able to use our name, that our name might not appear after all?

I agreed to serve on the committee looking at both these issues and bringing a recommendation back to Meeting for Worship with Attention to Business.

Co-Clerk had, I believe, already explained about Quakers' lack of dioceses, and so we set about finding information on the Yearly Meeting level -- much of which FLGBTQC already has compiled in our Collection of Marriage Minutes. Without disclosing why, I also posted electronic requests for information from other Yearly Meetings, to which a number of Friends who were not at Mid-Winter Gathering responded with resources.

When our committee met, several of us sat down to work our way through the draft brief to make sure we understood it before making a recommendation. Thankfully, it was very readable.

It was also, simply, a pleasure to read. The authors went through through many of the arguments set forth in briefs already filed in the cases in opposition to same-sex civil marriage, and just demolished them, simply and clearly, without ever being insulting; I was impressed.

You can read an outline of these arguments in this announcement, and you can read the originals of the briefs here and here. I highly recommend doing both -- as I said, the briefs are very readable -- but do read at least the announcement.

(It turns out I kept sending many people at the committee table into gales of laughter by blurting out, "Oh my gosh! This is brilliant!" over and over while I was reading.)

The law firm had also clearly done some good background research on Friends; we had a few factual corrections we asked them to make, but by and large they "got it right."

We took a summary and a recommendation for endorsement to Meeting for Worship with Attention to Business, where it was approved.

However, no matter how excited or happy I was, or how brilliant the draft brief, I couldn't talk about it, because until the brief was filed, it was client confidential.

Kramer Levin filed the briefs Thursday, 28 February, 2013 (yesterday)!

Here's Kramer Levin's announcement:

• Kramer Levin Files Briefs in Historic Supreme Court LGBT Rights Cases

http://www.kramerlevin.com/Kramer-Levin-Files-Briefs-in-Historic-Supreme-Court-LGBT-Rights-Cases-02-27-2013/

I highly recommend reading the announcement itself for a nice summary of the briefs' arguments.

I was also struck very much at the time by the parallels to the arguments of Friends in Britain regarding same-sex marriage, particularly General Meeting for Scotland's response in November of 2011 to the Scottish Government's Consultation on same-sex marriage. General Meeting for Scotland's statement is here; Britain Yearly Meeting's statements on same-sex marriage in general are here.

• The brief for Hollingsworth v Perry (the CA Prop 8 case)

http://www.kramerlevin.com/files/Publication/909bbf32-d359-4545-8429-062418acf8ac/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/5ba021d4-1733-417e-acc3-077dd49888e3/Perry%20Religion%20Brief.pdf

• The brief for US v Windsor (the DOMA case from NY State)

http://www.kramerlevin.com/files/Publication/909bbf32-d359-4545-8429-062418acf8ac/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/e9b8e654-0b45-474c-bc64-079710fa0583/Windsor%20Religion%20Brief.pdf

There are so many reasons I'm excited about these two briefs, but here are a few:

1. I had a very small but direct impact on some of the content of the brief. (I mean, holy shit.)
2. It's a bunch of religious groups saying not only do DOMA and Prop 8 infringe on our religious freedom, but marriage equality does not infringe on any other religious groups' religious freedom, in spite of all their arguments.
3. It demolishes all those arguments just brilliantly.
4. A religious group I'm part of is a signatory / amicus curiae.

More briefs

If you'd like an amazing experience, grab a hankie and do a news search in your favorite search engine for "marriage briefs" or "DOMA briefs."

You will find reports of briefs supporting same-sex marriage from a huge array of groups and individuals -- religious groups, employers, unions, NFL players, advocacy groups, US states, doctors and psychologists, the Department of Justice, Democrats, Republicans, and more.

That's just not something I ever thought I'd see in my lifetime.


Following the cases

Here are a couple of places to follow the cases:

• SCOTUSblog on US v Windsor (DOMA): http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/windsor-v-united-states-2/

• SCOTUSblog on Hollingsworth et al v Perry et al: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/hollingsworth-v-perry/

• GLAD (Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders): http://www.glad.org/doma/documents

(Please note they're still catching up on linking all the briefs on all of these pages.)


Related announcement

Please see related post "Friends (Quakers) for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Concerns Endorses Friend of the Court Briefs in Two Supreme Court Cases -- Announcement" at http://aquakerwitch.blogspot.com/2013/03/friends-quakers-for-lesbian-gay_4.html.

International Humanitarian Law and the Rules of War

With the Israeli bombardment of Gaza right now, I have been seeing a lot of misinformation in social networking media and the news, and hearing a lot of misinformation in conversation, about humanitarian law and ethics in such situations.

Here are some resources.  It can be very helpful to familiarize yourself with some of these, especially the first two, rather than simply repeating what "everyone knows" about the ethics or legality of the current situation. 

War & Law: Conduct of Hostilities
http://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/conduct-hostilities/index.jsp

International Humanitarian Law and Terrorism: Questions and Answers
http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/faq/terrorism-faq-050504.htm

The Rules of War: What Do We Really Know?
http://live.washingtonpost.com/rules-of-war-american-red-cross.html

Red Cross Survey on the Rules of War
80% of Young Americans Believe More Education Is Needed on Rules of War
http://www.redcross.org/portal/site/en/menuitem.94aae335470e233f6cf911df43181aa0/?vgnextoid=801dbe9f0e64f210VgnVCM10000089f0870aRCRD

Exploring Humanitarian Law: A Guide for Teachers
http://ehl.redcross.org/

War and International Humanitarian Law, International Committee of the Red Cross/Red Crescent
http://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/index.jsp


Some additional resources, if you'd like to do something positive:

afghans for Afghans
a humanitarian project in partnership with the American Friends Service Committee (http://www.afsc.org/), and in the Red Cross Knitting Tradition (http://www.afghansforafghans.org/red_cross.html)
http://www.afghansforafghans.org/

Christian Peacemaker Teams
"Getting in the way of violence"
http://cpt.org/

Recommended article: "Open Letter to the Editors of The Cambridge Student"

This is so awesome, I just want to quote you the whole article.  Not realistic, alas.

"Open Letter to the Editors of The Cambridge Student"
http://www.tcs.cam.ac.uk/issue/comment/open-letter-to-the-editors-of-the-cambridge-student/

If you think women and girls should take specific steps to avoid rape, please read this article. 

If you've ever sat or stood there wondering how to respond when someone tells you that you should take specific steps to avoid rape / what specific steps to take to avoid rape, you'll likely want to read this, too. 

Recommended article: Judith Butler's ‘I affirm a Judaism that is not associated with state violence’

Judith Butler: ‘I affirm a Judaism that is not associated with state violence’ 
http://criticallegalthinking.com/2012/08/29/9979/

Strongly recommended.  A particularly good read if you are concerned that people who criticize Israel or endorse BDS (the boycott, divestment, sanctions movement against Israel and/or the Israeli Occupation of the Palestinian Territories) are anti-Semitic (or, if Jewish, self-hating) or automatically support Hamas or Hezbollah.  

It is untrue, absurd, and pain­ful for any­one to argue that those who for­mu­late a cri­ti­cism of the State of Israel is anti- Semitic or, if Jew­ish, self- hating. Such charges seek to demon­ize the per­son who is artic­u­lat­ing a crit­ical point of view and so dis­qual­ify the view­point in advance. It is a silen­cing tac­tic: this per­son is unspeak­able, and whatever they speak is to be dis­missed in advance or twis­ted in such a way that it neg­ates the valid­ity of the act of speech. The charge refuses to con­sider the view, debate its valid­ity, con­sider its forms of evid­ence, and derive a sound con­clu­sion on the basis of listen­ing to reason. The charge is not only an attack on per­sons who hold views that some find objec­tion­able, but it is an attack on reas­on­able exchange, on the very pos­sib­il­ity of listen­ing and speak­ing in a con­text where one might actu­ally con­sider what another has to say. When one set of Jews labels another set of Jews “anti- Semitic”, they are try­ing to mono­pol­ize the right to speak in the name of the Jews. So the alleg­a­tion of anti- Semitism is actu­ally a cover for an intra- Jewish quarrel.

In the United States, I have been alarmed by the num­ber of Jews who, dis­mayed by Israeli polit­ics, includ­ing the occu­pa­tion, the prac­tices of indef­in­ite deten­tion, the bomb­ing of civil­ian pop­u­la­tions in Gaza, seek to dis­avow their Jew­ish­ness. They make the mis­take of think­ing that the State of Israel rep­res­ents Jew­ish­ness for our times, and that if one iden­ti­fies as a Jew, one sup­ports Israel and its actions. And yet, there have always been Jew­ish tra­di­tions that oppose state viol­ence, that affirm multi- cultural co- habitation, and defend prin­ciples of equal­ity, and this vital eth­ical tra­di­tion is for­got­ten or side­lined when any of us accept Israel as the basis of Jew­ish iden­ti­fic­a­tion or val­ues. 

Read more...

Recommended article: "How is rape defined?"

[Trigger warnings for explicit discussion of sexually assaultive behaviors.] 

This includes a brief but excellent table comparing the laws regarding sexual assault and rape in Sweden, England and Wales, Scotland, the US, and Germany. 


Includes:

• What is the legal definition of rape?
• How is consent understood?
• What is meant by incapacity?
• Can a woman be charged with rape?
• Spousal rape
• What is the maximum penalty?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19333439

Recommended article: "A response to George Galloway, and what we mean by consent"

-- Note: Content and trigger warnings for rape culture and rape.

The very short version, in case you've missed it in the news: George Galloway, Respect Party MP for  Bradford West in the UK, claimed that if a man has sex with a woman while she is asleep, it is not rape:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/aug/20/george-galloway-julian-assange-rape

This response post is one of the best I've seen -- much better than ones which are getting much more play on teh interwebs -- and I invite you to read it, for oh so many reasons.

"A response to George Galloway, and what we mean by consent"
http://sianandcrookedrib.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/a-letter-to-george-galloway.html?m=1

A few points:  

Because the way I read [your remarks], my body, as the common parlance would suggest, is ‘fair game’ to anyone who has ever had sexual access to it. If those people tried to have sex with me without my consent, it seems you believe they would merely be guilty of ‘bad sexual etiquette’, rather than rape. 

I love the way the author puts this plainly and calls it out -- the dangerous idea, which so many persist in clinging to, that sex without consent is no big deal, rather than something life-threatening and life-changing -- that sex without consent equals "bad sexual etiquette’, rather than rape." 

The recognition that women are not the sexual property of their partners is one reason why marital rape was made a crime in this country in 1991. And why we don’t have laws that recognise degrees of rape. Such degrees don’t exist.

Yes.  

 

Consent is not an absence of ‘no’. It is not a permanent state of being. It is the presence of an enthusiastic, mutual ‘yes’. It’s present, for example, when your partner is responding enthusiastically. It is NOT present when your partner is asleep, or when it’s dependent on using a condom and no condom is used, or when you’re trying to fight off a man pushing your legs apart (the other allegation made against Assange) and that woman is trying not to cry, or when, out of fear, you’ve frozen and can’t speak that ‘no’. Those are just a few examples of when consent is absent.

 

Consent is not a permanent state of being.   Consent once does not mean consent two times, three times, or an infinite number of times.  

Read the full article here.  It's short and a (relatively) easy read.

President Obama: "I think same-sex couples should be able to get married"

from the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/us/politics/obama-says-same-sex-marriage-should-be-legal.html

WASHINGTON — President Obama on Wednesday ended nearly two years of “evolving” on the issue of same-sex marriage by publicly endorsing it in a television interview, taking a definitive stand on one of the most contentious and politically charged social issues of the day.

“At a certain point, I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married,” Mr. Obama told ABC News in an interview that came after the president faced mounting pressure to clarify his position.

Read more... 

Quote of the day

Without the context of a political movement, it has never been possible to advance the study of psychological trauma. The fate of this field of knowledge depends on the fate of the same political movement that has inspired and sustained it over the last century. In the late nineteenth century the goal of that movement was the establishment of secular democracy. In the early twentieth century its goal was the abolition of war. In the late twentieth century its goal was the liberation of women. All of these goals remain. All are, in the end, inseparably connected.

-- Judith Lewis Herman, M.D., in Trauma and Recovery

The 1 in 3 Campaign

1in3Campaign.org: Deb from Advocates for Youth on Vimeo.

Did you know that 1 in 3 women in the US has had an abortion?

Think of nine of your female friends, especially if you're a woman.  How likely are you to know which three among them has had an abortion?  Perhaps not very, because of how we've stigmatized abortion in the US.

The 1 in 3 Campaign (http://1in3campaign.org/) is working to counteract that stigmatization, bring women together, and ensure access to basic health care. 

"I had an abortion..."

The 1 in 3 campaign is a grassroots movement to start a new conversation about abortion — telling our stories, on our own terms. Together, we can end the stigma women face each and every day and assure access to basic health care. As we tell our stories and support our family and friends as they come forward with theirs, we begin build a culture of compassion, empathy, and support. No one should be made to feel ashamed or alone. It's time for us to come out in support of each other and in support of access to legal and safe abortion care in our communities.

Share the 1 in 3 Campaign videos — or your own story — with three other people. And click here to find out how you can bring the campaign to your campus or your community. 

It's time to start the conversation.

I think a lot of women who've grown up post-Roe v. Wade -- which is a great number of us in our reproductive years -- have forgotten the stories some of us grew up on of what it was like pre-Roe.  This is one of them, one which has stayed with the teller for more than 40 years, and is a potent reminder of why we need access to safe and legal abortion. 

Restricting access to safe, legal abortions doesn't stop abortions; it just increases abortions like this one, which involved ingesting turpentine:




1in3Campaign.org: Deborah from Advocates for Youth on Vimeo.

Making abortion illegal does not make abortion go away.  It just makes it more dangerous. 

Upcoming CPT aboriginal justice delegations to northwestern Ontario, Canada

Here's an opportunity for peace witness work here in North America.  - sm

http://cpt.org/cptnet/2011/01/25/cpt-international-christian-peacemaker-teams-announces-aboriginal-justice-delegati

CPTnet
25 January 2011
CPT INTERNATIONAL: Christian Peacemaker Teams announces Aboriginal Justice Delegations to Treaty #3 Territory (Northwestern Ontario) March 31-April 11, August 12-22 and September 24-October 5, 2011.

Corporate clear-cut logging of Asubpeeschoseewagong traditional territory has destroyed hunting, trapping, and food and medicine gathering activities.  The legacy of  Indian Residential Schools have deeply impacted families and communities.  Mercury contamination discovered over forty years ago continues to poison residents.  Explore what it means to live in right relationship with the earth and each other.  Find out what it means to be an ally to indigenous communities engaged in healing, resisting colonialism, and struggling for sovereignty.

From a base in the city of Kenora, and visits to Asubpeeschoseewagong traditional lands, the delegation will meet with Indigenous and non-Indigenous community leaders and residents.  Delegates will develop an analysis of colonialism, participate in undoing racism training and plan a public witness/nonviolent action as appropriate to confront issues of structural violence. Some physical rigors may be involved, such as camping in basic conditions, and stretches of time outside in unpredictable weather.

Fundraising expectation: $525 Canadian or US.  Delegates make and pay for their own travel arrangements to Winnipeg, Manitoba or to Kenora, Ontario.

CPT is a faith-based group that seeks participants who are interested in human rights work, committed to nonviolence and to undoing racism, and willing to participate in team worship and reflection.  Delegates should have plans to share about the trip upon return to their home communities and congregations.  All on-ground travel, two to three meals a day, simple accommodations, and all honorariums and delegation fees are covered.  Most CPT delegations involve some physical rigors.

English language fluency is required for full participation.

Funding support: CPT has limited funds available to assist applicants who otherwise could not participate.  CPT is committed to undoing racism and will give preference for funding support to applicants from communities that have been disadvantaged by racism.

For more information or to apply, contact CPT, PO Box 6508, Chicago, IL 60680; phone 773-376-0550; fax 773-376-0549; e-mail delegations@cpt.org, or see CPT's website at: http://cpt.org/participate/delegation.

from CPT: ABORIGINAL JUSTICE: USA and Canada sign UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples | Christian Peacemaker Teams

from Christian Peacemaker Teams

ABORIGINAL JUSTICE: USA and Canada sign UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples | Christian Peacemaker Teams

CPTnet

5 January 2011

ABORIGINAL JUSTICE: USA and Canada sign UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples

by Peter Haresnape

“We owe a very great debt of gratitude to those who remember the old ways to live and honor the earth. And yet, we have ignored them, oppressed them, and even stripped them of the land that is their life. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is an important step toward protecting these vulnerable members of our human family, of giving them the dignity and the respect that they so richly deserve.”
- Archbishop Desmond Tutu

On 12 November 2010, Canada endorsed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The U.S. followed suit on 16 December. Both countries, along with Australia and New Zealand, initially voted against the Declaration when the UN General Assembly adopted it on 13 September 2007, but with these recent endorsements, the Declaration is now unanimously recognized by the international community.

The Declaration is the result of more than twenty years of discussions and negotiations, making it one of the most carefully designed instruments to support human rights on an international level. According to Amnesty International, “The Declaration does not create new or special rights. Instead, the Declaration provides urgently needed guidance in applying existing international human rights standards to the specific circumstances and needs of Indigenous Peoples.”

It remains to be seen how the Declaration will affect the attitudes and actions of the U.S. and Canada towards Indigenous Peoples. Prior to his announcement of support for the Declaration at the White House Tribal Nations Conference, President Obama gave many examples of recent endeavours to amend past wrongs and improve current conditions for Indigenous communities in the United States. He did not refer to specific articles of the Declaration that would connect to such endeavours, but he did say, “What matters far more than words […] are actions to match those words. And that’s what this conference is about.”

The Declaration sets out minimum standards expected of governments towards Indigenous Peoples. Canada has yet to move toward meeting these standards, but the Declaration provides a tool for Indigenous communities seeking justice in Canada. On Monday 13 December 2010, Barriere Lake First Nation delivered a copy to Prime Minister Stephen Harper as part of their campaign against Canadian interference in their traditional governance.

Implementation, not endorsement, will be the true test of the Declaration’s value. Canada and the U.S. must demonstrate respect for Indigenous knowledge and law, and understanding of their nations’ colonial history and present. “Only through continued use will its provisions become our reality,” writes aboriginal and human rights law expert Robert T. Coulter. We must start citing the Declaration at every opportunity as we call our governments to account for their actions across the world, and as we—both as individuals and as nations—build relationships with Indigenous peoples.

Text of the Declaration

Robert T. Coulter’s analysis of the new U.S. position

PALESTINE: CPT-Palestine endorses Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement

Wow. - sm

CPTnet
19 April 2010
PALESTINE: CPT-Palestine endorses Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement

CPT-Palestine has decided to endorse formally the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, as called for by Palestinian NGOs, because sixty years of negotiations and diplomacy have only enabled Israel to solidify its military occupation of Palestine. The international community has long called for Palestinian society to resist the violence of the Occupation nonviolently, so we, as members of an international peace organization, believe that when Palestinians mount nonviolent campaigns against the Occupation, we are morally obligated to support them.

We affirm the words of Palestinian Christian leaders in their Kairos Document: "These advocacy campaigns must be carried out with courage, openly and sincerely proclaiming that their object is not revenge but rather to put an end to the existing evil, liberating both the perpetrators and the victims of injustice. The aim is to free both peoples from extremist positions of the different Israeli governments, bringing both to justice and reconciliation. In this spirit and with this dedication we will eventually reach the longed-for resolution to our problems, as indeed happened in South Africa and with many other liberation movements in the world.

We recommend that members of our constituency review the following resources, so they can better understand the context from which the BDS movement has arisen:

1) The Kairos Palestine Document, "A moment of truth: A word of faith, hope and love from the heart of Palestinian suffering."

The document is available as a PDF file in seven languages at http://www.kairospalestine.ps/?q=node/2 and at http://www.oikoumene.org/gr/resources/documents/other-ecumenical-bodies/kairos-palestine-document.html

2) "Palestinian Civil Society Calls for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against Israel Until it Complies with International Law and Universal Principles of Human Rights 9 July 2005": http://www.bdsmovement.net/?q=node/52

3) "Who Profits from the Occupation?" http://www.whoprofits.org/

4) A 2009 report by a fact-finding committee of South African social scientists, which notes that "three pillars of apartheid in South Africa" are all practiced by Israel in the Occupied Territories: demarcating people into racial groups and allotting superior rights, privileges and services to the dominant racial group; segregating people into different geographic areas and restricting their movements, and suppressing any opposition to the regime using administrative detention, torture, censorship, banning, and assassination." http://www.hsrc.ac.za/Media_Release-378.phtml#

5) Dr. Neve Gordon's reflection, "Boycott Israel: An Israeli comes to the painful conclusion that it's the only way to save his country," http://articles.latimes.com/2009/aug/20/opinion /oe-gordon20.

See also "Palestinians, Jews, citizens of Israel, join the Palestinian call for a BDS campaign against Israel and video clip by Israeli-American rap artist, Invincible, in support of the BDS movement: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MepX0PcjzfA

After Gordon's piece appeared in the Los Angeles Times, he nearly lost his job at Ben Gurion University. See the critique of Gordon's position by famed peace and human rights activist Uri Avnery: http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1251547904 (which contains Archbishop Tutu's thoughts on the efficacy of boycotts)

and subsequent critiques of Avnery's position by South African Ran Greenstein ("I agree more with Gordon than Avnery"): http://gush-shalom.org.toibillboard.info/RanGreen.htm

Abraham Simhony http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/archive/1251974606/

and Alternative Information Center director, Michel Warschawsky "Yes to BDS!" http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1733

Miep Gies, the Last of Those Who Hid Anne Frank, Dies at 100 - Obituary (Obit) - NYTimes.com

For Jewish families everywhere, the question, "If the killing started again, would I know a Gentile family to shelter us / our children?" is never an unreasonable one. I celebrate and honor the life of Miep Gies. - sm

Miep Gies, the Last of Those Who Hid Anne Frank, Dies at 100 - Obituary (Obit) - NYTimes.com

“I am not a hero,” Mrs. Gies wrote in her memoir, “Anne Frank Remembered,” published in 1987. “I stand at the end of the long, long line of good Dutch people who did what I did and more — much more — during those dark and terrible times years ago, but always like yesterday in the heart of those of us who bear witness.”

Mrs. Gies sought no accolades for joining with her husband and three others in hiding Anne Frank, her father, mother and older sister and four other Dutch Jews for 25 months in Nazi-occupied Amsterdam. But she came to be viewed as a courageous figure when her role in sheltering Anne Frank was revealed with the publication of her memoir. She then traveled the world while in her 80s, speaking against intolerance.

PRAYERS FOR PEACEMAKERS, Weds. Oct. 28, 2009 | Christian Peacemaker Teams

I get CPT's Prayers for Peacemakers every Wednesday. Because of some conversations I'm having, I felt like sharing this one.

PRAYERS FOR PEACEMAKERS, Weds. Oct. 28, 2009 | Christian Peacemaker Teams:

Pray for the Palestinian children who walk to school from Tuba to At-Tuwani in the South Hebron Hills. Earlier this week they were threatened by Israeli settlers when the Israeli government-mandated military escort failed to appear to accompany them.

A call to moral accounting -- chicagotribune.com

Great article with an unusual perspective. h/t Lisa G!

A call to moral accounting -- chicagotribune.com:

But though the rituals are ancient, they're never far removed from modern life. Between our prayers, American Jews are sure also to discuss the current events that touch our community most deeply: the prospects for Israeli-Palestinian peace, President Barack Obama's recent meetings with the leaders of Israel and the Palestinian Authority, and the United Nations' recent Goldstone Report, in which both Israel and the Hamas government are accused of war crimes. To my great sorrow, however, many in the Jewish community have already rejected the latter out of hand.

British government apology to Alan Turing

I read today of the British government's apology to Alan Turing.

I visited the Turing memorial in Manchester, England, last year, as well as the Turing Building at the University of Manchester; pictures, and a little of Turing's story, here. Note the apple in the sculpture's hand...

The growth of political violence in the United States

I have been working on this entry for several days. Today I learned of the murders of most of the members of the Flores family in a home invasion by members of an anti-immmigration vigilante group. - sm

When I was an undergraduate, in the late 80s and early 90s, I rather unexpectedly did a lot of research on terrorism.

At UMBC, I started to understand not only what a loaded word "terrorism" is, but how culturally programmed. The professors who team-taught my political science class in Third World Politics challenged us to pay attention whenever we heard or read the word "terrorism" being used -- to notice who was using it, and whom they were describing. In addition, they challenged us to replace the term "terrorism" with the term "political violence" whenever we read it or heard it, and see what that did to our thinking and perceptions.

When I got back to Bryn Mawr, I took social psychology with Clark McCauley, one of whose specialties is the study of terrorism/political violence. Also an eye-opening experience.

You have to understand, this was before September 11, 2001. The majority of what Americans called "terrorism" back then was divided into two kinds: "terrorism from above," or state-sponsored terrorism, and "terrorism from below," or guerilla warfare/terrorism. The places Americans talked about this happening in were in the "First World" and the "Third World" -- the Middle East, Africa, Europe, South and Central America. Not the US -- not yet.

But my point is that we talked about both kinds. The political violence of guerrilla groups in Lebanon, Nicaragua, Iran, El Salvador, and the Occupied Palestinian Territories populated the news, as terrorism-from-below. But state-sponsored political violence -- particularly from repressive regimes and military governments such as the Soviet Union, East Germany, and El Salvador -- was recognized as terrorism-from-above back then. The massacre in Tiananmen Square made huge news in the West. The terrorism of the Soviet Union was still active in the news through the late 80s. Even the shootings at Kent State were still understood as state-sponsored terrorism. I could go on.

Nowadays, when we talk about "terrorism," we talk primarily about violence-from-below, rather than about state-sponsored terrorism. And we very often talk about religious extremists. But they're usually people who are either far away or from far away, whose skin is not white, and who are not Christians.

We rarely talk about people right here in the US whose political violence should rightly be called terrorism -- especially not if they are are white, right-wing, or supposedly Christian.

In the summer of 1992, I worked with McCauley doing preliminary research that was part of a larger project of his, on the question of what helps prevent violence-from-below in political movements. Many political movements start out espousing non-violence, but many of them come to resort to violent tactics -- against first property, and then people. What makes that change acceptable to some groups but not others? What factors protect or insulate a movement against that change?

He wanted me to study a group that, unlike the New Left and the environmental movement, was still non-violent, and had an unprecedented paper trail -- the ecofeminist movement.

(I pretty much said to him: I'm a feminist, and I'm a Witch, and you want me to spend three months reading eco-feminism and related material, writing about it, and talking with you about it. Twist. My. Arm.)

So I read a lot of primary materials from the New Left, the anti-nuclear movement, different aspects of the environmental movement, the women's spirituality movement, and eco-feminism.

The ecofeminist movement, it turned out, didn't meet all of the requirements for McCauley's larger project -- for one thing, a great many of the movers and shakers of the ecofeminist movement had been previously involved in the New Left, and many ecofeminists were part of the anti-nuclear movement.

(Reading Robin Morgan's accounts of her time in the New Left was... illustrative. Interestingly, she also went on to write about terrorism and political violence.)

But, the ecofeminist movement did provide some useful insights. As, in a way, did the New Left, by contrast.

In all the material I read, one thing stood out over and over as a protective against the development of violence in a political movement:

Refusing to dehumanize the enemy.

Not only did the eco-feminist movement consistently refuse to demonize the enemy, its adherents insisted on finding ways to see opponents as human, as real people -- and even as an embodiment of the Divine. It could be something as simple as going around a circle at the end of the day in an action, each participant naming something that emphasized the human quality of someone with whom they'd come into conflict that day. It could be making sure to address a police officer or soldier by name, not merely title or rank. It could be making a practice of asking opponents about their families. It often included ritual and magic, and could be as intimate and formal as taking time in circle to name "enemies" and affirm, "Sergeant Jones, thou art God," "Jane Smith, thou art Goddess," as well as naming allies and those present, affirming, "Sara, thou art Goddess," "Tom, thou art God."

Why am I writing about this now?

A Friend of mine shared a link to an interview with David Neiwert about violence in political movements and about his new book, The Eliminationists: How Hate Talk Radicalized the American Right. (Click here for publisher's web site.)

Neiwert discusses recent terrorism in the United States: in the wake of the suppression of a Department of Homeland Security report warning about a potential upsurge of right-wing political violence, we have the assassination of an abortion provider, the uncovering of a plot to assassinate President Obama, and a killing at the Holocaust Museum. [And now, the murder of a family of Hispanic immigrants.]

And Neiwert also talks about the factors that encourage that political violence/terrorism, and some ways to resist it.

As I've been reading the interview, I've found myself saying to myself, Yes, yes, yes.

Some things that have stood out to me:

Joshua Holland: There is a lot of ugly discourse in this country, and there always has been. What makes eliminationist rhetoric different from the kind of run-of-the-mill nasty stuff that we see on all sides of the political spectrum?

David Neiwert: Right -- there is a lot of hateful rhetoric that floats around on both sides. What's unique about eliminationist rhetoric is that it talks about eliminating whole blocs of people from the body politic, whereas most of the hateful rhetoric, in the case of people on the left, is directed at an individual -- George Bush or Dick Cheney and various characters on the right. That's one of the key differences -- when right-wing people talk hatefully, it often is directed at entire groups of people: Latinos, African Americans, gays and lesbians or liberals.
JH: People they deem to be inferior.

DN: Deemed inferior, or not even human. That is a critical aspect of eliminationist rhetoric. It often depicts the opposition as subhuman -- comparing them with vermin, diseases or carriers of diseases. I think for me the classic historical expression of eliminationism in America was Col. [John] Chivington's remarks prior to the Sand Creek Massacre, where he urged the white Colorado militiamen to kill all the Indians they encountered, including women and children. He said, "nits make lice." That to me is pretty much a classic eliminationist statement.

Something I saw over and over in my research for McCauley's project was that when groups start seeing opponents or members of other groups as not-human, that's when violence becomes acceptable. And starting to lump opponents together into groups, rather than seeing individuals, contributes to this.

This is one reason I react strongly whenever I hear anyone refer to cops as "pigs." I grew up in a large city that had problems with police violence; it's not naivete on my part. I've also worked with amazing people in law enforcement during my humanitarian work. But calling cops "pigs" -- or calling union-busters, or even anti-choice murderers or anti-immigrant murderers "pigs" -- is not okay with me, because it's dehumanization. Seeing cops, even security guards, as "pigs" is part of what sent the New Left down the slippery slope from non-violence to violence. Dehumanization opens a door in the psyche to violence.

One of the things that I learned while studying hate crimes is that the vast majority of hate crimes are committed by ordinary people, not by members of hate groups. Yet it's also the case that the vast majority of hate crimes are accompanied by hate-group rhetoric. So in a lot of ways hate crimes are a manifestation of the way right-wing extremism has permeated the broader culture. But more than that, these ordinary people also believe -- and I might add this includes the white supremacists -- that what they are doing reflects the secret desires, the unspoken wishes of the community that they believe they are defending.
When you stand up to them, when you engage in the act of standing up to them, that knocks that plank right out from under them, because when the community stands up and says, "No, these are not our values, this is not what we believe in, what you are doing is wrong," that takes that belief away.

I am reminded of the power of collective action. I am reminded of a recent article in the New York Times, "At Last, Facing Down Bullies (And Their Enablers)," which talks about the pioneering and successful work of Dr. Dan Olweus in mobilizing bystanders to counteract and prevent bullying.

I am reminded of the collective response of the San Francisco gay community on the night of the murders of Harvey Milk and George Moscone, and of Holly Near's song "Gentle Angry People":

We are a gentle, angry people
And we are singing, singing for our lives...

I am reminded of my peace witness trip to the Middle East. I am reminded of successful reconciliation work I've witnessed and learned of, in the US and abroad, between family members, political enemies, and survivors and perpetrators of violence.

Neiwert talks about the importance of engagement, of not demonizing the enemy -- and of not heroizing one's self:

So when we engage them, I think it is fundamentally important that we try not to see ourselves as heroes, that we don't turn them into the enemy but rather people like us, human beings who have frailties and have flaws and engage them in a real way, because that is how we are going to pull them over.
We are not going to change people's minds by pointing at them and calling them bad people. We are going to change people's minds by taking care to honestly engage them as one human being to another. That is the only way I think that we really can succeed.

The kind of engagement that Neiwert and other activists for peace, justice, and non-violence are talking about is hard work. It requires a particular combination, of an open heart and self-protection, and that does not necessarily come easily.

But it can be learned, it can be supported, it can be done -- and it can create change.

What are we going to do -- you, and I -- to contribute towards this kind of engagement, this kind of change?

How are we creating magic?

How are we nourishing openings to grace?

How are we nourishing That-of-God and That-of-the-Goddess in each other?

What are we doing to prevent violence?