20 Minority Rights tag:www.imadr.org,2012:/minority//34 2012-01-25T02:10:01Z Movable Type 3.33 CAT Adopts Recommendations for Sri Lankan Government tag:www.imadr.org,2011:/minority//34.1168 2011-12-14T08:01:42Z 2012-01-25T02:10:01Z here. ]]> Human Rights Day Photo Exhibition in Tokyo and Osaka on the Roma tag:www.imadr.org,2011:/minority//34.1165 2011-12-14T06:33:40Z 2012-01-25T02:11:10Z ]]> A Common Agenda to work against Enforced Disappearances in Sri Lanka tag:www.imadr.org,2011:/minority//34.1137 2011-10-06T06:24:17Z 2011-11-28T07:53:31Z A COMMON AGENDA TO WORK AGAINST ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCES IN SRI LANKA In commemorating the International Day against Disappearances on August 30, 2011, civil society organizations, human rights activists and family members gathered at the National Trade Union conference hall in Rajagiriya to propose a common agenda to work against all forms of disappearances taking place in Sri Lanka. The proceedings started with a one-minute moment of silence in honor of the disappeared, and the lighting of candles around an effigy that was a replica of one erected at Raddoluwa Junction in Seeduwa in memory of the disappeared. The gathering was addressed by Bishop Kumara Illangasinghe, Tamil National Alliance MP M. Sumanthiran, lawyers and human rights activists Nimalka Fernando and Sudarshana Gunawardena, Brito Fernando, President of the Families of the Disappeared, and family members representing the disappeared persons from the North, East and South of the country. The Ambassador of Sweden, representatives from the UN and representatives from other foreign missions were present. A group discussion was held to prepare a common agenda against enforced disappearances. The participants were divided into three groups, with the family members of the disappeared comprising one, and the civil society and human rights activists in the other two. The family members of the disappeared discussed the steps that can be taken in regard to the disappeared, while the civil society activists discussed what is meant by disappearances - why it happens and how can we can activate ourselves to stop enforced disappearances. A number of long-term and short-term suggestions for stopping enforced disappearances were presented by the three groups. Reaching a consensus, the group agreed to the following proposals: 1) to force the government to produce a list of persons who are imprisoned, 2) to pressurize the Human Rights Commission to produce a list of disappeared persons ,3) to document all the available information of the cases of the disappeared, 4) to file a Habeas corpus write or legal action for selected cases of disappearances, 5) to enlighten the UN Human Rights Council about disappearance cases in Sri Lanka, and 6) to create a voice in civil society against all forms of disappearances. It was also suggested to use the latest technology to achieve these objectives. ]]> IMADR Statement on Segregation and Exclusion of Sinti and Roma in Europe tag:www.imadr.org,2011:/minority//34.1136 2011-10-06T06:13:55Z 2011-11-28T07:54:14Z During the IMADR Board of Directors Meeting held in Tokyo on September 11 and 12, 2011, the Board adopted the following statement concerning the segregation and exclusion of Sinti and Roma in Europe. On September 14, a copy of the statement was given to Ms. Angela Dorothea Merkel, Federal Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, through the courtesy of Dr. Volker Stanzel, Ambassador of the German Embassy in Japan. IMADR welcomes the European Union’s Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020, which the European Council adopted on the 19th of May, 2011. The Council invites the Member States to improve the social and economic situation of Roma in Europe and stresses that combating discrimination and segregation is essential for any national and European policy. The European Union (EU) is aware of the situation of the Roma and Sinti from a variety of documentations; The EU makes numerous possible sources of funding available on a legal basis, as well as provides special EU-Funds and programmes. The EU also knows the problems of implementation, especially that the programmes hardly show any impact at the local level. IMADR underlines that this deficient execution of national strategies must not result in attempts where individual countries try to pass their direct responsibility onto the EU while portraying the Roma as a “European problem” and demanding a “European solution.” IMADR understands that the Roma are not a “European minority”, but a national minority in their native countries respectively. They have to be acknowledged not only by law but also by political and social praxis as national minorities in their native countries, and like other national minorities, should receive the protection and support of the responsible governments. The labelling of Roma and Sinti as a “European minority” even in official statements of European institutions and organisations is questioning the responsibility of the respective home states. At the same time, the members of IMADR are deeply concerned about on-going racial discrimination against Roma minorities in Europe. For years now, there has been an increase in racism and right-wing extremism, especially directed at the Roma, and this is widely spread across Europe. In several countries, the Roma have become victims of racially-motivated murder attempts. Right-wing political parties conduct campaigns against Jews and Roma, culminating in racist violence and murderous attacks against members of the Roma. It is most disturbing that such racist positions have been adopted by representatives of a number of European states and, therefore, are being accepted again in the broader society. In a multitude of countries of the European community, there are frequent discriminations by public authorities. We are alarmed to note public statements made by ministers of various states establishing a connection between ethnic affiliation and criminality. To guarantee effective protection and for necessary suitable injunctive relief (and recovery of damages) against actions of state authorities and offices, an extension of the existing guidelines would be necessary. An adequate extension of the existing guidelines would oblige the states to work out legal regulations, to protect the persons concerned against discriminatory or racial state practices of any kind – including protection against discriminatory statements made by government agencies, police and other authorities. Furthermore, protection against discrimination is necessary regarding racial propaganda spread via the Internet. Neo-Nazis are using the Internet platform extensively to spread racial propaganda about Roma and Sinti, and Jews. EU-member states have to commit themselves more resolutely against this and agree within the international guidelines to do whatever possible to control the Internet to prevent the dissemination of racial propaganda. Therefore, IMADR emphasises the need to take immediate action in establishing supporting autonomous structures on the side of the Roma minorities in Europe in order to enable effective and direct participation in the development and implementation of national and local strategies. This includes the option for NGOs to apply for and participate in EU-programmes for the improvement of the situation of Roma in Europe.]]> Calling for an Effective Human Rights Mechanism in South Asia tag:www.imadr.org,2011:/minority//34.1119 2011-08-17T02:59:17Z 2011-10-06T06:22:25Z Rights Activists Call for Effective Human Rights Mechanism in South Asia and Civil Society Participation in SAARC FORUM-ASIA The Second Sub-Regional Workshop on Human Rights Mechanism in South Asia concluded with calls for the South Asia Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) to establish an effective regional human rights mechanism, enhance civil society’s participation in the SAARC process and address challenges faced by the region from the human rights-based approach. The two-day regional workshop discussed human rights challenges faced by the region and the prospects and opportunities for the path towards the creation of South Asian Human Rights Mechanism for the promotion and protection of human rights within the framework of SAARC. It concluded to establish an informal working group comprising of eminent human rights experts from South Asia to initiate dialogue and engagement with SAARC on the promotion and protection of human rights in South Asia. The two-day workshop was organized by the Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA) and Informal Sector Service Centre (INSEC) on 25-26 July 2011. Speaking in the workshop, Chairperson of FORUM-ASIA and INSEC, Mr. Subodh Raj Pyakurel stated that South Asia needs a strong human rights body to address the situation of gross human rights violations and abuses attributing to the culture of impunity. He further elaborated that the workshop has played a significant role in bringing prominent civil society leaders, academia, and national human rights institutions (NHRIs) to work together towards the strong advocacy for a regional human rights mechanism in South Asia. Mr. Pyakurel reiterated the need for continuous engagement for the development of suitable human rights mechanisms and institutions in South Asian countries. Ms. Hina Jilani, former UN special Rapporteur of the Secretary-General on Human Rights Defenders and Chair of the South Asians for Human Rights (SAHR), delivering key note remarks, expressed grave concern towards the deteriorating human rights situation due to anti-terrorism measures adopted in South Asian countries. She further pointed out the lack of rule of law in different countries of South Asian region. Speaking in the workshop, Chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission of Bangladesh, Dr. Mizanur Rahman, stated that civil society organizations should collaborate and cooperate for the establishment of a regional human rights mechanism that can complement the role of the NHRIs. Similarly Mr. Gauri Pradhan, Commissioner of the National Human Rights Commission of Nepal, shared the experiences for the protection and promotion of human rights and expressed the commitment of the National Human Rights Commission of Nepal to work with civil society organizations for the establishment of a regional human rights mechanism in South Asia. Justice J.S. Verma, former Chief Justice and Chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission of India, stressed that judiciary in the SAARC should play a vital role for the protection of human rights in adhering to justice and human dignity. Mr. Miloon Kothari, former UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Housing, stressed that a regional human rights mechanism could be a useful platform for South Asian countries to utilize opportunities under the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) which is a new and unique monitoring mechanism of the members of UN countries’ human rights mechanism. Delivering keynote remarks, former Assistant Secretary General of the UN Mr. Kul Chandra Gautam, pointed out that despite the national human rights mechanism being the most important and effective mechanism for recognition and respect of human rights, the regional mechanism can complement the national mechanism, especially in addressing cross border issues. Mr. Rafendi Djamin, Chairperson and Representative from Indonesia for the ASEAN Inter-Governmental Commission for Human Rights (AICHR), expressed that the vibrant civil society organizations of South Asia can constructively engage with the SAARC process for the advocacy of regional human rights mechanism as civil society had played a significant role in the establishment of the regional human rights body in the ASEAN. Speaking in the workshop, Ms. Jyoti Sanghera, Representative of the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in Nepal, expressed that OHCHR will cooperate with initiatives towards a regional human rights mechanism in South Asia. The workshop was inaugurated by Constituent Assembly Chairman Mr. Subas Chandra Nemwang. The two-day workshop was attended by the prominent members of civil society, human rights defenders, national human rights institutions and academicians from India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. The meeting was also attended by the Indonesian representative to the ASEAN Inter-Governmental Commission for Human Rights (AICHR), Rafendi Djamin, who also serves as the Chair of the AICHR and other regional organizations.]]> Spotlighting the widespread discrimination against Roma and victims of caste systems tag:www.imadr.org,2011:/minority//34.1100 2011-07-07T01:54:15Z 2011-11-28T07:56:19Z IMADR welcomes the report of the Special Rapporteur and his thorough analysis and recommendations. Concerning the situation of Roma, we also welcome the efforts made at a regional level in Europe. However, as the Special Rapporteur indicates, there is still persisting and wide spread discrimination against Roma in different countries where Roma communities and individuals are facing various issues on the ground. While regional initiatives can play a role in creating solutions, each State has its own responsibility to take concrete actions and create tangible outcomes in the society in order to eliminate discrimination against Roma and protect their human rights. Effective involvement of affected communities must be ensured, too. Furthermore, one of the emergent issues to be addressed is racial violence, hate speech and hate crimes against Roma and incitement thereto. Unfortunately, we are observing negative trends in Europe. There are more and more right-wing extremist and nationalist groups targeting Roma. The situation is more alarming in some countries, where even public officials and politicians are using anti-Roma rhetoric and making racial statements. The issue is quite serious and urgent, and we would like to ask the Special Rapporteur to suggest how State and non-State actors, including the affected community, should deal with this. In Hungary, for example, there have been several incidents of racist attacks and killings of Roma since 2008; people including children have been harassed and murdered, and property destroyed. The tension between Roma and non-Roma populations in Gyöngyöspata is still high. While noting measures taken by the State, a more comprehensive, active and firm approach is necessary to stop the escalation of the situation, address root causes, prevent and eliminate racial violence and create a peaceful co-existence in the society. In this context, we welcome the recent visit of the Special Rapporteur to the country and look forward to his report. We would also appreciate any suggestions he can make now. Regarding discrimination based on work and descent, we highly appreciate the continuing efforts of the Special Rapporteur to address this issue and would like to express our sincere support. Finally, we also urge the government of Sri Lanka to accept the request of the Special Rapporteur to visit the country in order for him to study the racial dimension of the conflict and to facilitate the reconciliation and sustainable peace building. ]]> Accountability in Sri Lanka tag:www.imadr.org,2011:/minority//34.1069 2011-06-02T07:02:18Z 2011-06-02T09:36:10Z Report of Panel of Experts appointed by ... Report of Panel of Experts appointed by UN Secretary-General and Interview with IMADR President “determination of credible allegations reveals a very different version of the final stages of the war than that maintained to this day by the Government of Sri Lanka”. While the Government of Sri Lanka says it pursued a “humanitarian rescue operation” with a policy of “zero civilian casualties,” “the Panel found credible allegations, which if proven, indicate that a wide range of serious violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law was committed both by the Government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE.” In conclusion, the Panel reports that it “found credible allegations that comprise five core categories of potential serious violations committed by the Government of Sri Lanka: (i) killing of civilians through widespread shelling; (ii) shelling of hospitals and humanitarian objects; (iii) denial of humanitarian assistance; (iv) human rights violations suffered by victims and survivors of the conflict, including both IDPs and suspected LTTE cadre; and (v) human rights violations outside the conflict zone including against the media and other critics of the Government.” At the same time the Panel also found credible allegations against the LTTE that include: “(i) using civilians as a human buffer; (ii) killing civilians attempting to flee LTTE control; (iii) using military equipment in the proximity of civilians; (iv) forced recruitment of children; (v) forced labour; and (vi) killing of civilians through suicide attacks.” Regarding accountability, the Panel states that “it is a duty under domestic and international law. These credibly alleged violations demand a serious investigation and the prosecution of those responsible. If proven, those most responsible, including Sri Lanka Army commanders and senior Government officials, as well as military and civilian LTTE leaders, would bear criminal liability for international crimes.” The Panel further “concluded that the Government’s notion of accountability is not in accordance with international standards. Unless the Government genuinely addresses the allegations of violations committed by both sides and places the rights and dignity of the victims of the conflict at the centre of its approach to accountability, its measures will fall dramatically short of international expectations.” The Panel also analysed existing domestic mechanisms which “could” address the accountability. Among others, it found that from the ceasefire agreement in 2002 to the end of the conflict, the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission, established by the Government as the cornerstone of its policy to address the past, “is deeply flawed, does not meet international standards for an effective accountability mechanism and, therefore, does not and cannot satisfy the joint commitment of the President of Sri Lanka and the Secretary-General to an accountability process.” In addition, the Panel observed five obstacles to accountability, which if left unaddressed, will deter efforts towards genuine accountability and may undermine prospects for durable peace in consequence. These obstacles are: (i) triumphalism on the part of the Government, expressed through its discourse on having developed the means and will to defeat “terrorism”, thus ending Tamil aspirations for political autonomy and recognition, and its denial regarding the human cost of its military strategy; (ii) on-going exclusionary policies, which are particularly deleterious as political, social and economic exclusion based on ethnicity, perceived or real, have been at the heart of the conflict; (iii) the continuation of wartime measures, including not only the Emergency Regulations and the Prevention of Terrorism Act, but also the continued militarization of the former conflict zone and the use of paramilitary proxies, all of which perpetuate a climate of fear, intimidation and violence; (iv) restrictions on the media, which are contrary to democratic governance and limit basic citizens’ rights; and (v) the role of the Tamil diaspora. Furthermore, the Panel observed the failure of UN organs and bodies. It states that during “the final stages of the war, the United Nations political organs and bodies failed to take actions that might have protected civilians. … the public use of casualty figures would have strengthened the call for the protection of civilians” and “following the end of the war, the Human Rights Council may have been acting on incomplete information when it passed its May 2009 resolution on Sri Lanka.” Based on such analysis, recommendations were made by the Panel regarding: 1. Investigations, 2. Other immediate measures to advance accountability, 3. Longer term accountability measures, and 4. United Nations. The Panel delivered its report to the Secretary-General during their meeting on April 12 and the report was officially made public on April 25. Concerning the meaning of this report, roles to be played by the Secretary-General as well as other stakeholders, and issues involved in the whole process of accountability, IMADR president, Nimalka Fernando, gave an interview to the Sunday RAVAYA, a Sri Lankan Newspaper on April 24. Below are some of her observations. The main challenge before this committee (the Panel) was to arrive at an understanding regarding the incidents that took place during the last stages of the war in Sri Lanka since there were confusing reports and information. Both the government and the LTTE had declared war. It was no longer guerilla warfare - both parties were engaged in a conventional war. During this period, allegations were brought against the government by members of the Sri Lankan diaspora, as well as several humanitarian agencies. Many spoke about efforts related to humanitarian work being hampered, hospitals being bombed, and areas inhabited by civilians being shelled and/or bombed. There were many reports of such incidents. Since this is now a conventional war, it has to come under rules like the Geneva Convention. Therefore, if such an inquiry is being held as to whether there was compliance with the Geneva Convention, this is not interference into sovereignty. Such laws were passed after the 2nd World War. This arose with initiatives taken to give a commitment to the people of the world that nobody will be allowed to repeat what happened during the 2nd World War. In other words, it was a commitment given that the world will not see such a barbaric and genocidal war again. There is also the issue of one’s conscience. The UN Secretary General is primarily responsible for keeping up international commitments, and upholding such principles. If those who are tasked with high responsibilities fail to respond effectively, the very existence of such institutions comes under question. The very essence of the existence of the United Nations is so linked to the accountability and responsibility of its members. It creates civilized standards of behavior both within governments and inside member states. This is that forum for not only member states but also for the people of member states. I do not wish to whitewash the UN. It is situated in New York in the United States of America. Maybe most decisions taken by the UN has the shadow of American interests at large. But those who are in the government like Mahinda and Vasudeva now criticizing the UN as a forum of imperialists took their complaint against the disappearances in 1989 to this same forum. We should not forget that history. The Ministry of Defense ordered all humanitarian agencies to move out of the conflict zone. No media was allowed into this area. The war in Sri Lanka was widely discussed as a “War without witnesses.” Not even the local and national media were permitted to enter these areas. Even though the war ended without witnesses, the government failed to address the many problems arising out of this conflict. When we asked the government how many inhabitants are living in Kilinochchi or Vanni, they stated that it is a small population amounting to about 70,000. But when the exodus took place, over 300,000 people left Vanni. The government went into crisis with this revelation. Issues arose as to why the government was hiding actual information, and why they gave wrong statistics also raised tremendous suspicion. Then, those displaced started searching for their family members. Many who had surrendered their husbands or sons to various army check points started asking for their whereabouts. In addition, there was a big discussion about the killing of people who came to surrender carrying white flags. Of course, these renderings of incidents mainly come from the diaspora and IDPs. Maybe the LTTE would have killed those coming to surrender carrying white flags from behind. Even if this happened, the government of Sri Lanka has a responsibility to provide the necessary evidence to prove the truth of this, since they were present on the ground. But the government did not do so. In such circumstances, criticisms were also leveled against the UN system for not taking effective steps to address the violations. It is these circumstances, in my view, that have compelled the UN to take such measures now. To read the whole interview, please click here. (by Nimalka Fernando President, IMADR) feasture%20story%20small%E3%81%AE%E3%82%B3%E3%83%94%E3%83%BC.jpg ]]> The Roma Among Us: Women's Voices from the Grassroots tag:www.imadr.org,2011:/minority//34.1039 2011-02-28T02:31:27Z 2011-02-28T06:59:17Z Two dark silhouettes seen from behind while a voice says: “Which one of the two is a Roma?" the voice continues: "When it rains, the Roma uses an umbrella…" "When the Roma is hungry, the Roma eats" "When the Roma is thirsty, the Roma drinks" "When it’s cold, the Roma wears warm clothes" Romania was carrying out an awareness-raising campaign to show to ordinary Romanians that a people who had lived among them for centuries was just like them, simply human. The same message is equally relevant in practically any other part of Europe, although it may have to be adapted to the context. There are many myths about the Roma, and just as many fantasies, both positive and negative, and many expert theories. They are both envied for their supposed freedom and reviled for not conforming to the written and unwritten norms of European societies. This brief article isn’t meant to go into the historical background of an ethnic group as diversified as the Roma - even their name, language and religious affiliations vary from one region to another. In France, they are officially called “Les gens du voyage,” meaning “The Travelling People,” but this is simply a convenient administrative term with no ethnic connotation. They are more commonly called “Gitans”or Gypsies. A few things are certain: they have lived among Europeans for millennia, have been and still are, with depressing constancy, the target of various forms of discriminations, often brutal, the Holocaust being one of its best known manifestations. I originally wanted to speak with the Roma among us in Geneva and neighbouring France and was struck by their diversity. It quickly became clear that having meaningful interviews would take a lot of preparation. I needed to get to know them better, to ensure that they trusted me, that I could ask the right questions and that they felt sufficiently comfortable to answer them honestly. I met with them several times, we shared drinks and food, but I still felt that I could not do justice to any message they may wish to convey. Instead, I began getting acquainted with a grassroots organization that has known them for a long time and a French historian who, over the years, had collected testimonies from Roma women. These testimonies reflect their present concerns and their own perception of the lives they lead now, in a Europe trying so hard to be unified and where Roma still remain the ultimate “others” and outsiders. Following are brief glimpses of what two of these women living in Europe have to say. These narrow windows into their lives were opened by Claire Auzias in her book “Choeur de femmes Tsiganes”(1). I have summarized and translated the original French text. If anything Ms Auzias’ book illustrates that when searching for ways of helping Roma help themselves, one size will never fit all. DANA Dana is 26 and had been living in Geneva for four years at the time she met the author. She is Romanian but speaks French fluently. She is studying education sciences at Geneva University. She ended up in Geneva because when she was young, she always liked the French language and wanted to go to France. Geneva was the next best thing. She has a high school diploma from Romania and studied library sciences for two years at Bucharest University while she worked at Romani CRISS, a Roma human rights association. At the time, she admitted identifying more with the Romanian culture than with the Roma. She has no memory of discrimination from her childhood, except one, although it may not exactly qualify as discrimination and certainly wasn’t traumatising: when she was in elementary school, she always tried to work hard on things to avoid having people say, “Oh, she is Roma, she won’t be able to manage in school. She won’t make it.” “I just didn’t want to fit the stereotype, and that explains perhaps my interest in the French language. It helped me avoid the usual label. I realized it much later. I tried hard to be part of the majority culture of Romania. For similar reasons, probably, when I was young, I refused to learn the Roma language my family spoke at home. The only time I was made conscious of the fact I was Roma was in class when I was 12 and there was a census in the country. A man came in and asked ‘How many Roma are there in this class?’ The teacher said, ‘One, over there at the end’; the man repeated, ‘Are there any Roma over there?’ I said ‘No’ and he just left.” Dana points out that her parents didn’t seem to have any interest in her going to school. She realizes that it was one of the benefits of the Communist system. “The Communist system also provided work for my parents, in a factory. This insertion into the world of work led to their slowly losing a connection with their Roma culture, they spoke the language less and less frequently at home.” She feels that Communism is based on equality and solidarity, although she admits that in Romania, it wasn’t exactly like that. It was when she began working with Romani CRISS that she began to value her own culture. “They gave me a position of Coordinator and that gave me confidence. It’s what you call ‘positive discrimination.’” There, she worked on a UNICEF project to ensure children go to school. She worked with parents as much as with children and regrets that insufficient attention was paid to the introduction of Roma culture in the children’s school curriculum. Because of her education, Dana had a foot in both the Western Romanian culture and her own Roma culture. As a result, she had difficulties in adolescence in finding the right balance as a woman, and after a very painful experience, decided to leave Romania. She went to India recently and found an incredible connection with the culture there. She is now at an age when she would like to get married, have her own family, and she knows that she could not possibly spend her life with a man from the Roma community, nor with one from the Western world. She thinks that perhaps India is the answer. Meanwhile she is studying here, in Geneva, and likes what she is doing. She knows, deep down, that she over-idealizes India. When all is said and done, she knows full well that she could never accept the traditional Indian life of the married woman with her mother-in-law… At 26, she now lives alone in Geneva. It’s a choice she assumes fully. ANGELIQUE My name is Angélique and I am 38. I was born in Nancy while my family was travelling. Now, we are all in Arles(2), in this neighbourhood. We are all Gypsies in the family. I speak French, the Gypsy language and Catalan. Even though I am of Catalan origin, I don’t know Spain at all. I don’t even know the Spanish Gypsy language. My children were born here - they’re all French. I used to like travelling. It was much better than staying here. We had some 20 caravans; we went from one place to another. We stayed longer if business was good, and if not, we just left. We went to sell things from door to door and at markets. A caravan is easier to take care of than a house. I have done a lot of travelling since I was born… I am not married, I live with a man. I still had a gypsy wedding when I was 17, with a white dress, a handsome husband and guitars. Some girls are younger than that. My daughter got married at 16. I chose my own husband, he is very nice, a real piece of cake! He runs around, like everyone else. I said to him ‘You don’t have to need me…’ The old woman had come to make sure I was a virgin when I got married. We all liked the caravans much more, the men, my husband, all of us. When we earned 600 Euros, it was all for us. Here, if you earn that much you have a lot of things to pay, there is nothing left. You have to pay for water, electricity, everything. Before, we only paid for plugging into the electric current. It was great! It hasn’t been the same for the past 3 years. I don’t know how to read or write. It’s a problem when I have to fill out papers. And my youngest, a girl, she is sick, she has asthma, normally, she should go to school in September. They put her in school all by herself. All the others are elsewhere. They tried to put her with the others, but it didn’t work. What do I do when they take everything from me? If I don’t want her to go to school and if she has an asthma attack, what do I do? I am willing to put her in school with the others. I don’t like to have her all alone. When she has to go she always cries. We went to the Town hall and ask that they let her go with the others. All alone, she’ll go crazy! They just said,’ if we can we’ll put her with the others, if not we won’t’. That’s what they said. Seen from behind as silhouettes, Dana and Angélique might very well be undistinguishable from any of us; they both drink when they are thirsty and eat when they are hungry. They are human… And although they’re worlds apart from each other, Dana may hold some answers for Angélique.
(1) Published in 2009 by Egrégoires öditions. Claire Auzias is a French historian who has carried out extensive research on the Roma.
(2) Nancy is a large industrial city in North-eastern France; Arles is an old smaller city in South-eastern France. for more works of photographer Eric Roset Here (Hélène Sackstein IMADR Advisor)]]> Report of the 48th Session of CEDAW tag:www.imadr.org,2011:/minority//34.1036 2011-02-28T01:47:03Z 2011-02-28T02:00:15Z Details Here Among these States, this article concerns the consideration of the combined fifth, sixth and seventh periodic reports of Sri Lanka (CEDAW/C/LKA/5-7) that took place on January 26. Prior to the CEDAW consideration, three reports from NGOs were submitted to the CEDAW Pre-Sessional Working Group, which took place in August 2010 in New York, and another five reports to the current session (available at the CEDAW website for the 48th session, see the link above). This consideration by CEDAW was the third Treaty Body session for Sri Lanka in four months, following the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) in September 2010 and the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) in November 2010. Following the presentation by the State delegation of Sri Lanka, Committee members entered into a very critical dialog with the delegation where the State’s level of commitment to uphold its obligations under CEDAW and its seriousness when composing the state report were called into question. The interactive dialogue between CEDAW and the delegation followed the chronology of the articles in the Convention respectively, with the State’s response and Follow-up questions by CEDAW. Numerous important issues were touched upon, often addressed under multiple Articles. Articles 1-3 One Committee member immediately inquired about the status of the domestication of CEDAW through its incorporation into the Sri Lankan Constitution concerning that there is no specific law in the Constitution explicitly prohibiting discrimination against women. Further topics questioned by CEDAW included: national policies, legislation and action plan on women; the implementation of previous CEDAW recommendations; land issues, including women’s equality before the law when claiming ownership of land; the resettlement of IDPs, especially minority women; militarisation; the situation of rehabilitation camps run by the military; sexual violence and its process of investigation, as well as prosecution; and the criminalisation of same sex relationships. In light of the discrepancies between the Government’s report of the IDP situation and those from alternative sources, CEDAW asked if the Government would be favorable to a visit by Committee members to assess the situation. Articles 4-6 CEDAW commented on women’s political and social participation in Sri Lanka being one of the lowest in the world - considerably below the world’s average - and asked if affirmative action measures were being taken to improve the situation. The issue of IDPs was addressed again, with one CEDAW member asking if Sri Lanka planned to ratify the Geneva Convention on Refugees, and further inquiring as to why this had not yet been done considering the large number of IDPs there. Furthermore, sexual and domestic violence was again discussed under Article 5 when CEDAW referred to reports indicating that the 2005 Domestic Violence Act was followed by a 2006 Domestic Violence Plan of Action that had not been implemented, and requested clarification on this. The Rape Law was brought up, specifically the 1995 amendment that introduced statutory rape and increased the minimum age of consent from 12 to 16 years. CEDAW sought information on what was being done to criminalize all instances of rape and if there was a plan to make a comprehensive sexual offence law to deal with all offences. One member took the discussion a step further, asking the delegation if it thought Sri Lanka’s system was structurally and functionally capable of meeting international standards of law when precise standards of rape, gender crimes and violence could be classified as crimes against humanity. The expert further asked if there was the political will to revise and revamp the judicial structure if they wanted justice done. The Government of Sri Lanka was also asked why it had not yet ratified the 2000 UN Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, concerning reports that women who were trafficked from other countries were deported without legal assistance or appropriate protection, and that some were arrested and fined for acts done as a result of being trafficked. Some of the women who were arrested were also required to testify against traffickers without being given protection against retribution, and a CEDAW member asked if there was a witness protection program in place. Articles 7-9 Women’s low political participation and unequal rights in public life were the main topics under this category. CEDAW pointed out the lack of commitment from political parties to nominate women at national and provincial levels and said that a big effort needed to be made so that women could organize themselves to get elected in larger numbers. One Committee member criticized the passive approach of authorities to the low number of women in politics, and emphasized the Government’s responsibility to encourage women to go beyond stereotypes, beyond the high costs associated with politics, and beyond their lack of confidence. A point of contention arose between the Committee and the delegation when a member brought up a Supreme Court judgment that limited temporary special measures in the case of children, women and women with disabilities under Article 12.4 of the Constitution, so as not to allow affirmative action in the area of political representation. She wanted to know if it was possible to challenge this judgment and if it was actually forbidding affirmative action in the use of political representation. Articles 10-14 Regarding the education of women, CEDAW requested desegregated data on minority women in different levels of education. The issue of gender stereotyping was raised and CEDAW wanted to know if any efforts had been made to cleanse books of gender-specific stereotypes and if there was a focus on teacher training, particularly women teachers. The Committee also asked to what extent women were involved in decision-making positions in academia, and how many female directors or deans of Universities there were. The high unemployment rate among women was found to be a bit surprising considering the reports of women being well educated. The women who were employed typically had low-skilled and low-paid jobs. The Committee inquired if there were measures in place to protect women in the female-dominated informal sector or provide them with maternity leave. A high incidence of sexual harassment was being reported in the private sector, and CEDAW wanted to know what the government was doing about this. Other topics addressed here included: family planning, sexual education and early pregnancies, particularly regarding abortion rates and the impact on maternal mortality; IDP health care; the head of household issue and female land ownership; and the 10-year development framework and integration of gender perspective. Articles 15 and 16 No question was asked under Article 15. Under Article 16, a member asked about religious, customary and general law regarding marriage and divorce. The member also wanted to know the status of female judges in various courts or in one court, depending on the structure of the court system.

CEDAW Concluding Observations

The advanced unedited version of CEDAW’s concluding observations was published on February 8, 2011 and is available at here Recommendations were made concerning the following topics: Parliament (para. 11); the legal status of the Convention (para. 12 &13); prohibition of discrimination against women (para. 14 & 15); discriminatory laws (para. 16 & 17); national machinery for the advancement of women (para. 18 & 19); temporary special measures (para. 20 & 21); stereotypes and discriminatory practices (22 & 23); violence against women (para 24 & 25); trafficking and exploitation of prostitution (para. 26, 27, 28 & 29); participation in political and public life (para. 30 & 31); education (para 32 & 33); employment (para. 34 & 35); health (para. 36 & 37); rural women (para. 38 & 39); impact of conflict on women (para. 40 & 41); migrant women (para. 42 & 43); marriage and family relations (para. 44 & 45); data collection and analysis (para. 46 & 47); amendment to article 20, paragraph 1 of the Convention (para. 48); Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action (para. 49); dissemination (para. 50 & 51); follow-up to concluding observations (para. 52); financial and technical assistance (para. 53); and the preparation and date of next report (para. 54, 55 & 56). (IMADR Geneva Office)]]> The plight of African refugees in South Africa. tag:www.imadr.org,2010:/minority//34.992 2010-12-22T02:04:38Z 2011-03-28T06:00:51Z ~An emergency response from IMADR and th... IMADR ~An emergency response from IMADR and the International Alliance of Women. PDF File) which was submitted on December 15, 2010. This is all the more relevant since already, in 2006, a Shadow Report filed by the South African Human Rights Commission raised the issue of refugees and that CERD had asked for the adoption of specific measures and an update on the progress of their implementation. Finally, South Africa’s report is being examined by CEDAW in January 2011. Although it is too late to file an official report, I noted that the issue had been taken up by the South African Women Legal Centre, and mailed the report with a summary analysis to two of the CEDAW experts, asking that this be used as complementary evidence. The good news in this depressing tale of woes is that South Africa has one of the best legal frameworks in the world, granting non-citizens all the rights of citizens without reservation. So, we are all hopeful. In conclusion, to those who often despairingly question the usefulness of the UN Human rights mechanisms, we would like to say that these tools are only effective if we use them. In practical terms, the immediate impact of our efforts might be minimal, but we are certain that they contributed, albeit modestly, to refocus the light on a crisis that has been eclipsed by innumerable new, fresh ones, all deserving equal attention. States need to know that with the passing of time, civil society will simply forget to look over their shoulders. Supplementary documents:The decision /choice to conceal or disclose is linked to the characteristics of both the sexual assault and the victim. *The article "CERD Early Warning System Works" Article Here South%20Africa%202.jpg South%20Africa%203.jpg (Photos by "Our Voice") (Report by Hélène Sackstein IMADR Advisor)]]> Request to President Nicolas Sarkozy to stop mass deportation of Roma people tag:www.imadr.org,2010:/minority//34.919 2010-09-08T09:34:10Z 2010-11-02T07:24:17Z IMADR sent a request to President Sarkozy to reconsider the recent discriminatory policies and measures of the French government regarding Roma people, travellers and migrants. IMADR also sent its copy to the Ambassy of France in Japan. IMADR Request to President Nicolas Sarkozy to stop mass deportation of Roma people[PDF80KB]]]> Open Letter to Japanese Foreign Minister regarding Sri Lanka tag:www.imadr.org,2009:/minority//34.835 2009-10-23T09:50:49Z 2009-10-30T02:29:35Z IMADR IMADR submitted a joint letter to Japanese Foreign Minister regarding the situation in Sri Lanka tag:www.imadr.org,2009:/minority//34.841 2009-10-22T09:25:05Z 2010-11-18T07:36:42Z The war between Sri Lankan government and the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) ended in May, 2009 through arguable usage of armed forces by the government. However, serious human rights violations have not been diminished in Sri Lanka. Given this concern, IMADR, together with other international and Japanese NGOs, submitted a joint letter to Mr. Katsuya Okada, the new foreign minister of Japan, to make the promotion and protection of human rights a central priority in Japan’s relations with Sri Lanka. IMADR The war between Sri Lankan government and the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) ended in May, 2009 through arguable usage of armed forces by the government. However, serious human rights violations have not been diminished in Sri Lanka. here. A press release is also available here. ]]> Deploring the “Military Solution” of the War in Sri Lanka tag:www.imadr.org,2009:/minority//34.798 2009-05-23T03:12:17Z 2010-11-18T08:00:17Z The war in Sri Lanka which lasted for more than 25 years has reached an end by the use of forces and not through peaceful means. IMADR issued a statement, deploring the "military solution" and calling for the Sri Lankan government and the international community to take actions to realize peace and reconciliation in the true sense. Urgent appeal on Sri Lanka’s human rights and humanitarian situation tag:www.imadr.org,2009:/minority//34.791 2009-05-14T11:13:44Z 2009-10-27T09:35:45Z