They crisscross the demographics of age and style and include Miley Cyrus, Joan Baez, Jackson Browne, Elvis Costello, Lenny Kravitz, Sting, Patti Smith and Pete Seeger. The performers, as well as those on the production and tech side, worked pro-bono. Listening to all of the tracks, it is clear that each singer has brought their unique personality and stamp to the material. A prime example is Ziggy Marley’s interpretation of “Blowin’ in the Wind.”

It’s not the first time that Amnesty International has tapped into the music community to raise funds and bring awareness to human rights issues. For this initiative, they have created action links to specific individuals and their plights. One of the focal points of the campaign is Liu Xiaobo, scholar, human rights fighter, and Nobel Peace Prize laureate. Xiaobo has been imprisoned in China since 2009, for his critiques of the Chinese political system and for underscoring governmental corruption in his writing.

Helen Garrett, Director of Special Projects for Amnesty International USA (who was the key producer on the 2007 benefit album Instant Karma: The Amnesty International Campaign to Save Darfur) proposed in 2010 that Amnesty mark its half-century anniversary with a follow-up album. cultureID was able to interview her about the project via e-mail.

In 1961, British lawyer Peter Benenson published an article in The Observer titled, “The Forgotten Prisoners,” in response to the plight of two Portuguese students who had been imprisoned for toasting freedom. The action became the seeds of Amnesty International. 1962 was the year of Bob Dylan’s first album. He performed at the March on Washington the following year. Can you comment on the parallel paths and threads of commonality between the work of Dylan and Amnesty?

Certainly, for human rights activists, Dylan’s early music holds special meaning—he was the protest voice of the 1960s with songs like “Blowin’ In the Wind,” “I Shall be Released,” and “Chimes of Freedom.” During that time, there was a sense that if ordinary people joined together, they could have enormous impact to change the world.  And that is how Amnesty was born—one man’s belief that individuals together can make a difference. In fact, there is a direct line between Amnesty and Dylan through “I Shall be Released,” as the song became the movement’s “unofficial anthem” on the finale of each concert on Amnesty International’s 1986 Conspiracy of Hope U.S.A. concert tour. Dylan was among the performers.

Of course, Dylan never joined any specific organizations, but his uncanny ability to identify and articulate the temper of the 1960s–and the demands people were making for freedom, justice and dignity—led him to write powerful songs about the human impulses that propel causes like the human rights movement. Dylan’s incomparable artistry–his iconic status–is measured against the hope and achievements that I believe Amnesty International as an organization brings to humanity.

Historian Sean Wilentz, who wrote the album liner notes, sums up our thinking beautifully.  He observes that Amnesty for a half century has pressed to secure basic rights for the persecuted and imprisoned across the globe, while during the same time frame, Dylan’s art has explored and expressed the anguish and hope of the modern human condition.  “Mistrusting worldly authority,” Wilentz writes, “Dylan gives sympathetic voice to the countless confused, accused, misused” people he sings about in “Chimes of Freedom.”

Beyond raising funds from the sales of the CDs and individual songs, a primary goal stated by Amnesty is to bring visibility to the issue of free speech, censorship, and the imprisonment of dissidents. Do you expect that Amnesty will be reaching a new demographic about its goals and mission?

We’ve been engaged with the music community for a very long time– musicians literally helped us to build the human rights movement and increase awareness about the terrible threats that people around the world face as they try to live lives of dignity and attain freedom.

In 1986, as only one example, we launched a two-week U.S. concert tour to mark our 25^th anniversary, with stars like U2, Sting, Joan Baez and others.  Through this tour, Amnesty’s membership doubled. The albums are a small, but of course important, part of how we engage with musicians.  Bono invited Amnesty to be a part of the U2 360 concert tour and he promoted our work from the stage. We were in the stadiums signing up new supporters and asking them to take action (200,000 did).  Hans Zimmer wrote an anthem for Amnesty’s 50^th anniversary. After Green Day appeared on American Idol back in 2007 for Instant Karma (singing Lennon’s “Working Class Hero”) our web traffic spiked hugely, increasing our audience for human rights activism—as well as raising awareness about the atrocities in Darfur and supporting our work there.

Of course we want people to buy the album to support our life-saving advocacy. But we are getting so much more out of this than just album sales, such as the reach of the musicians. They are promoting our work through their fan bases, their Facebook pages, and their Tweets. They direct people to the Amnesty website or Facebook page, which for many becomes a journey of discovery and engagement with us. Miley Cyrus and Kesha both “liked” our Amnesty Facebook page on December 10, Human Rights Day, when we streamed the full Chimes of Freedom album, and more than 100,000 people went to the page. We’ve seen a spike in our web and social media activity since.

The recording industry is very different today, as is the way people buy and listen to music. But this is a plus for us. The digital music world lets us engage on a new level through social media.  We are promoting six cases of individuals whose rights are being denied through this album, to keep people engaged on the human rights front through social media—spurred by our music projects.

Writers, artists, musicians, and filmmakers are frequent targets of governmental crackdowns. Do you think that this is because of their power to capture the imagination of people through visceral mediums?

When oppressive regimes clamp down on their citizens, freedom of expression—free speech—is always the first thing to go. Dictators have a lot to fear from individuals speaking up—through their writings, through art and film and music.  Authoritarian leaders live in fear of dissent spreading —because if people can keep talking about new ideas, they can start to act on them.  And nothing captures the human need to be free as powerfully as music and art and literature. Isn’t that what art and music are at their core—expressing who we are, our individuality, our freedom? Wherever you find a repressive regime, you’ll find people writing dissent or satire or drawing cartoons or singing about freedom. As human rights activists, free speech is our main means of fighting oppression. Our power to change what governments and others do to repress rights comes from the voices of people speaking up for human rights—and art and music and film capture the imagination in, yes, the most visceral ways.

Can you address Amnesty International’s commitment to recognizing the arts as a powerful vehicle to bring recognition to social and political issues?

Amnesty International is not in the music business, of course. We’re in the business of saving lives by standing up for human rights. And in this fight for justice and freedom and dignity, musicians have been our natural allies for decades.  We’ve also worked with filmmakers, cartoonists, actors and other artists as a powerful way to trumpet the message of human rights. The connection to musicians is one we pioneered—in concerts, albums and by working directly with musicians on issues.  For example, musicians like Big Boi and John Legend were tweeting about the Troy Davis case last September, which helped us enormously as we worked to try to stop his execution – an effort that failed but that has galvanized the movement to abolish the death penalty. Our alliance with musicians has existed for decades. Yoko Ono promotes our actions on her website; Sting spoke out for the mothers who lost loved ones in Argentina; State Radio, a young band, was so passionate about the Troy Davis case that they wrote a song about him. Decades ago, Joan Baez took a full year off to build Amnesty’s membership on the West Coast.

Our freedom to express ourselves–which musicians naturally feel in their bones—goes hand in hand with activism. Bono has said that when he first saw the show we pioneered, Secret Policeman’s Ball, “It became a part of me. It sowed a seed…”

Musicians want to support Amnesty–they’ve been behind us almost from the start. They care about human rights, and many are involved on a very deep level.  Pete Townshend was the first rock musician we worked with—back in the 70s, and he is still with us contributing to this album. So, an album like this is about engaging with the musicians who are our supporters–those who have been with us for decades, along with new ones.  They speak out for human rights, their fans listen, and the world listens.  Again, I look to Bono. He has been speaking out about the Burmese opposition leader Aung Sung Sui Kyi for decades—a situation he learned about from his work with Amnesty. And it’s not just rock musicians we work with. This year, we were so honored to have Hans Zimmer, the Oscar-winning Hollywood composer, write an anthem for Amnesty’s 50^th anniversary. How inspiring is that!

Album Cover Image by Mick Haggerty based on an original photograph by Jerry Schatzberg courtesy of Amnesty International

This article originally appeared on the website cultureID

Spearheading these activities is the National Religious Campaign Against Torture (NRCAT).  They have been at the forefront in reaching out to religious congregations to demand answerability for the American sponsored torture that became normalized after the events of September 11.  They operate under the banner, “Torture is a Moral Issue.” Although NRCAT began as a short-term campaign, it moved into building a long-term organization.  Currently, they work to: engage faith-based groups to end torture of U.S. held detainees; terminate torture in American prisons; encourage United States policies that persuade other countries to halt their use of torture; work to end anti-Muslim sentiment in the country.

I contacted their Executive Director, Rev. Richard L. Killmer, with a list of questions via e-mail.

Was United States sponsored torture an issue before 9/11?

NRCAT was created in January 2006. The use of prolonged solitary confinement was—and still is—common in our prisons.  Rendition for torture occurred.  And there were other areas of concern as well, like The School of the Americas. After 9/11, however, techniques, like water boarding, which everyone had previously agreed were torture, became an acknowledged part of U.S. interrogation policy.

There are people who come out of the military who maintain that torture is neither a moral nor viable way to secure information.  However, the capture of Osama bin Laden once again ignited the debate as to whether torture brings results.  In addition, General Petraeus, in his recent confirmation hearings to be the head of the CIA — when asked about “enhanced interrogation techniques” replied, “I do think there is a need at the very least to address the possibility.”  Why do you think the leaders of the nation continue to be off track on this?

Torture is wrong.  This is an absolute moral principle.  Our leaders sometimes forget this.  Further, we know that torture has direct negative effects–both on our ability to obtain good information and on our efforts to defeat Al Qaeda recruiting.  In their efforts to address unrealistic hypotheticals, our leaders sometimes forget these facts as well.

In the beginning of the month, NRCAT co-hosted a panel featuring Juan Méndez, torture survivor and the Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment for the United Nations, to discuss accountability under the law.  What were the takeaways?

The United States has a moral and legal obligation to address its past use of torture.  It is shocking that a former U.S. President has admitted to authorizing the use of torture, yet there has not been an independent, bipartisan investigation of our past use of torture.

Indefinite detention, solitary confinement, medical experiments involving torture, and closing down the Detention Center at Guantanamo Bay have been some of the malignancies NRCAT has been tackling.  How much traction do you feel has been achieved to date?

One of the high points of the Obama presidency came on his second day in office when he issued an Executive Order establishing the Army Field Manual as the standard for all interrogations and requiring that the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) be granted access to all detainees.  Unfortunately, since then we have not made permanent the ban on the use of torture or the requirement that the ICRC be given access to all detainees.  Further, we have not yet achieved any measure of accountability for the use of torture.

The group has also taken a stand about prolonged solitary confinement in prison, underscored by the reports about Bradley Manning‘s treatment.  Is torture in American prisons limited to the use of solitary confinement?

No, although it is a major, and particularly dangerous way that prisoners are mistreated.  Overzealous use of restraints, beatings, sexual abuse, and other forms of mistreatment also occur in U.S. prisons.

Are you disappointed with the performance of President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder on torture? How could they be doing things differently?

We are grateful that President Obama issued an Executive Order banning torture.  We wish he also would support accountability for torture, and would work more aggressively to pass legislation making permanent the steps he took to ban torture.

As a follow-up, I talked to Killmer by telephone.  Despite his packed schedule, he took the time to drill down deeper on his answers.  My first inquiry was to get more clarification on his thoughts about Obama’s efforts to create a different climate on torture.  Killmer reiterated his belief that Obama’s actions in 2009 had altered the landscape.  He said, “From everything that we can tell, the policy has changed.”  He continued, “We are disappointed that Guantánamo hasn’t been closed.  It’s an awful symbol to the world.” Killmer opined that Obama had tried, and that the fault was with Congress.

Killmer mentioned that NRCAT has repeatedly called for a commission of inquiry to bring back recommendations for safeguards, which he believes to be very important.  “How did a good nation go to the dark side?” he asked,  “How did it happen?”  He continued, “We want the President to give us leadership and laws.  An Executive Order can be changed.”  Despite his appreciation and acknowledgement of Obama’s efforts in 2009, when we discussed the President’s stated desire to “look forward, not back,” Killmer’s response was a flat out, “That’s naïve.  You have to look at past behavior.  He’s wrong.  Repairing the brokenness, redemption, healing—you need the accountability.”

In discussing Bradley Manning, who has been in solitary confinement for nine months, Killmer spoke about the work that NRCAT is doing in prisons across the country “where at any given time there are 32,000 prisoners in solitary confinement.”  They are engaged in changing this situation via legislation.  In Maine, their activist campaigns have reduced those institutional numbers by 50 percent.

The NRCAT site is set up with model e-mails for action steps.  On the home page there are calls for both a “Commission of Inquiry” and an investigation into the use of solitary confinement.  Five days after General Petraeus stated that enhanced techniques could be considered in a “ticking bomb” scenario—NRCAT sent out a letter asking people to write to the President, asking that he and General Petraeus immediately reaffirm their opposition to torture and abusive interrogation techniques.

With their nationwide network, the National Religious Campaign Against Torture has taken away the excuse for being silent in the face of injustice.

Photo Courtesy of the NRCAT

This past October, I was invited to moderate a panel at the Pages and Places book festival in Scranton, Pennsylvania.  The talk was titled, The Remains of Death: Society in the Wake of Catastrophe.  Although the dialogue covered ground that included genocide, war, and natural catastrophe—it was in fact a hopeful conversation.  The human capacity to rebuild what has been devastated by cruelty and destruction is indomitable.

One of the presenting speakers was Joseph Sebarenzi.  I was previously not familiar with his story of survival during the 1994 Rwandan genocide.  My introduction to him came through his memoir, God Sleeps in Rwanda: A Journey of Transformation.  As I turned the pages, I came to know him.  I felt as if I were with him from the moment in 1973 when his mother first explained that hatred existed between the Hutu and Tutsi, to his final departure from Rwanda. He returned to his country, where he served as the Speaker of the Rwandan Parliament, from 1997 to 2000.  That final year, he was forced to leave his homeland to escape an assassination plot.  The reason? He spoke the truth to power.

When we met the night preceding the event, I told him how profoundly his book had affected me.  His quiet demeanor belied the internal strength of a man who had lost so many to the mass killing—including his parents and seven siblings.  Yet, as he often says, “No suffering should derail us from who we are.”

Social justice is his mission. Part of the work that Sebarenzi is currently doing concentrates on “moving toward forgiveness and reconciliation.” Armed with numerous degrees including a Ph.D. in Law and a Masters in International and Intercultural Management, Sebarenzi is on the faculty of the School for International Training, where he teaches conflict transformation across cultures. His personal experience informs his teaching on cyclical violence borne from enmity, and victimization based on race, religion, and ethnicity.

Sebarenzi outlines reconciliation as involving several components. They encompass acknowledgment, apology, restorative justice, empathy, reparation, and forgiveness.  He points out that in addition to dealing with the past, all insights must be accompanied by “forward-thinking vision.”  He envisions a new model of leadership where peace education and understanding “nonviolent conflict management” is essential to the worldwide community.  He writes,

People do not awake one morning and say, “I am going to kill my  neighbor because he is a different color from me” (or practices a different religion from me, or belongs to a different ethnic group).  The path to genocide begins long before the first shot is fired or the first machete is swung.  It builds slowly, first by categorizing people.  One group becomes “us”; the other becomes “them.”

Embracing forgiveness on a personal level, as well as a national and community level, is integral to Sebarenzi’s philosophy.  He writes, “I was once asked by a student, ‘Can you forgive the people who killed your parents?’”  He responded that it “was the genocide that was unforgivable, not those who perpetrated it.”

Traveling his singularly difficult road, Sebarenzi learned about letting go of his own anger and bitterness. While visiting prisons where Hutus accused of murder were being held in horrendous conditions, he came face to face with the mayor of his village—previously a close friend of his family.  The man had been accused of instigating the order to kill all the Tutsis of the community, so that none would remain retaining a legal claim to their land.  Witnessing the depth of the mayor’s suffering, he was able to acknowledge him as a person in need.  He gave him money for food. Seberenzi pinpoints this pivotal experience as the moment when everything changed and crystallized for him.

Sebarenzi recognizes that forgiveness doesn’t replace justice.  He states, “It does not let the perpetrator ‘off the hook.’”  Rather, it lets you off the hook because your life is no longer governed by the injustices you have suffered.”  As he concludes, “We all have the power to set ourselves free.”

Moving into 2011, it is a valuable concept to consider.

Christine Lagarde, the French Minister of Economy who was influenced by her mother and grandmother, gave the advice, “Never imitate the boys.  Be yourself.”  Anchee Min, author of The Red Azalea – which is banned in China, gave an animated account of her life, which included a stint in the Red Guard and years in a labor camp.  She told the audience that she became a feminist from looking at the bound feet of her grandmother, who warned her, “Women are grass.  Born to be stepped on.”

During “Changing the Equation: How Technology Can Change Women’s Lives,” Ann Livermore and Cherie Blair gave encouraging news for the 21^st century.  Livermore, Executive Vice-President of HP, believes that “power is now in information.”  Blair, who has placed technology at the center of the Cherie Blair Foundation, maintains that women need economic power to make their own life changes.  She pointed out that “women in remote areas are starting to get their hands on the mobile phone,” and it is their first entry into the tech world.

Blair discussed the gender gap as it related to access to technology in south East Asia.  The disparity reaches 40%.  She issued a call to action to “get 10 million dollars from industry to get phones to 100,000 women.”  Cell phones are being used to send messages on health and domestic violence, and to carry money via “a tech card.” Livermore sees all services as being deliverable via the Internet. Currently, NGOs are giving literacy classes in national languages, teaching reading and writing via cell phones.

Queen Rania of Jordan has made women’s education her signature cause.  In conversation with Katie Couric, she shared her belief that secondary education is essential to prevent “the loss of potential.”  She said, “We’re making progress, but not fast enough.”  In her view, the crucial first step is to create awareness for the need for girls to be educated.  “The dividends would cascade throughout society,” she said.  She stated, “Arab women do not fit into a single model,” insisting that stereotypes needed to be challenged.  She added, “Western women can help women in the Arab world, but women there need to chart their own course.”

Part of the conversation about education led into the topic of female genital mutilation (FGM). Again, it was a personal narrative that underscored the theme.  Kakenya Ntaiya, Founder of the Kakenya Center for Excellence, told about the bargain she made with her father to undergo “circumcision” in exchange for the opportunity to finish high school.  Upon graduation, Ntaiya sat down with the village elders and negotiated to leave her Kenyan village to attend college in the United States – with the promise of returning to help her community.  Since 2006, she has undertaken the goal of building a girls’ school in Enoosaen.

“Toppling Traditions,” moderated by Diane Sawyer, began with Edna Adan Ismail, former Foreign Affairs Minister of Somaliland.  She spoke about FGM using the descriptive phrase, “Little girls are still being chopped up.” The procedure is performed on a continuum, from cutting the labia to sewing up the vaginal opening to “the size of a match stick.” Ismail told the horrific story of an 11-year-old girl with Down Syndrome who “had been cut to the bone,” because her Mother thought it was “the right thing.”  Ismail is working to recruit religious figures to speak out against the practice.

Maria Otero, U.S. Under Secretary for Democracy and Global Affairs noted, “Change comes from the bottom-up and top-down.”  She said, “Women’s access to health is essential to end cutting.”  Otero suggested that the West shouldn’t be coming in with “a mandate.”  During the conversation, which included Molly Melching, Founder of Tostan and Marietou Diarra, who discussed the loss of her two young daughters to FGM, the terms Female Genital Cutting (FGC) and “the tradition” were used interchangeably. Wondering if there was a reason that the verbiage had been sanitized, I called Taina Bien-Aimé, Executive Director of Equality Now.  She told me unequivocally, “Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) is established and accepted human rights terminology across Africa and around the world.  FGM is recognized as a human rights violation – which trumps any culture. For government and U.N. officials to use the term ‘genital cutting’ unacceptably waters down the gravity of FGM and its impact on girls’ rights.”

The first panel on “Solutions Sunday” was “Change Makers and Innovators: Women/Tools/Technology.”  Lorie Jackson, Director of the Women’s Economic Opportunity Initiative at ExxonMobil, spoke about how technology can best improve women’s lives – and the barriers that currently exist. Jackson posited, “We need women at the table of power – and that includes technology.”  She also expressed the need for women to “see themselves as innovators.”  That wasn’t a problem for Katherine Lucey, Ashoka Challenge contestant and founded of Solar Sister.  Focusing on a solution that harnesses the power of solar energy – which is uniformly available – Lucey emphasized that it was important to let women take their own initiatives within their respective environments.

There was palpable anticipation for the interview with Valerie Jarrett, which followed.  Lesley Stahl’s questions were primarily amiable, spotlighting Jarrett’s background and relationship to the Obamas.  She did ask Jarrett to comment on the President’s first year and the “disillusionment” that many supporters have expressed.  Jarrett immediately pointed to the “inherited” problems that Obama had coming in, and the unrealistic expectation that all would be well in twelve months.

Moving to funding and aid initiatives, Campbell Brown spoke with Jacqueline Novogratz, the Founder of the Acumen Fund, who has been working between the market and traditional aid.  The fund, which has 40 million dollars invested, reinvests its profits.  The subsequent panel looked at reinventing aid and featured one of the most interesting speakers of the weekend, Dambisa Moyo. Born and raised in Zambia, Moyo has a PhD in Economics and is the author of Dead Aid: Why Aid is Not Working and How There Is A Better Way For Africa.  I first heard her speak on Fareed Zakaria GPS, where she reflected on the detrimental effects the standard development aid models have.  She told the summit audience how “dependency aid erodes the relationship between government and the individual,” yielding a system in Africa that has evolved to where “the monies come from aid.”  Moyo clarified that the current model was built on a 1950s mind-set, which evolved from the cold war and political motives.  In defining her vision of aid, Moyo maintained, “The goal should be to create economic growth.  She added succinctly, “We must have governments we can hold accountable.”

The wrap up 90-minute dialogue was titled “Seize the Spotlight, Harness the Power!”  Tina Brown engaged six women, including Lauren Zalaznick, President of NBC Universal Women and Lifestyle Entertainment Networks.  Zalaznick offered the comments, “Do as much good in the world as you can and make money doing it,” and “You have to know what you have been hired to do.”  She probably has achieved that at the helm of Bravo media, which features the “Real Housewives” series.  Nora Ephron, writer and filmmaker, said pragmatically, “The mainstream media doesn’t want to hear it if it isn’t sexy.”  She suggested using the web as an alternative platform.  Not a bad suggestion considering “earnest topics” were defined as being problematic.

I couldn’t help thinking that Saturday’s finale should have been scheduled at the culmination of the conference’s close.  It featured Zainab Salbi, author and founder of Women for Women International.  Salbi led a tribute, “Women Are the Peacemakers.”  She addressed the crowd with passion saying, “The road ahead of us still is long.  We are still a marginalized majority.  We have 18% of political representation in the world.” She continued, “It’s time to build a women’s global movement.  With every crisis there is opportunity.  We have data for the first time that [shows] there is no growth without women.  When you invest in women, you always win!”  Building to a crescendo, Salbi insisted, “It’s time to speak to leaders who have not heard us before.  It’s time for sisters to get together and change the world.”  Salbi ended with, “We need to roar as one voice.”

It’s a goal worth pursuing.

All Photos by Marc Bryan Brown and Kevin Tachman for The Daily Beast/Women in the World

This article originally appeared on the website Women Make News.

The Unheard Truth: Poverty and Human Rights

As the first woman, Muslim, and Asian to take over the reins of leadership as Amnesty International Secretary General (2001–2009), Khan has plenty of accolades and on-the-ground experience.  She spent twenty years at the United Nations as the High Commissioner for Refugees, is a graduate of Harvard Law School, and was named as one of the 100 Most Influential Asians in the United Kingdom.

The book features a foreword by Kofi Annan, former Secretary-General of the United Nations (1997–2006) who speaks to the plight of approximately 3 million people who live in poverty and “are unable to meet their daily needs for adequate shelter, food, health care, clean water, or education for their children.”  Mary Robinson, former President of Ireland and United Nations High Commissioner for Human rights (1997–2002) writes in a blurb, “Poverty is the world’s worst human rights crisis and this book make a powerful statement about not only why but how we can turn the tide.”

Khan’s contention is that poverty is a human rights issue, and therefore defending those rights must be at the core of efforts to end poverty. Recognized human rights abuses include “discrimination, state repression, corruption, insecurity, and violence.”

In ten chapters Khan breaks down issues ranging from “The Right to Safe Motherhood” to employing the path of “legal empowerment to end poverty.”  Disenfranchised groups including the Roma communities of Europe, indigenous populations, and women are pointed to by Khan as those whose concerns are ignored by governmental authorities.

Khan qualifies this marginalization as being based on gender, race, language, and caste.  A United Nations sponsored commission found that tens of millions of people lacked a legal identity.  Khan believes that the state fails poor people, and maintains that they are affected in far greater numbers by police brutality and corruption, in the courts and educational system, and through gender violence.

Referencing an example of the latter, she examines the plight of the women of cuidad Juárez, who gravitate to the urban setting of factory life to escape the crushing poverty of their rural environs.  Hundreds of young women have been raped and murdered while returning from their jobs or night school.  Despite their economic contributions, as women of limited financial means they have no power or political capital.  Therefore, no substantial police work was done on their deaths and disappearances.

The figures on world poverty are daunting.  Currently, over 1 billion people inhabit slums. In 2030, this number will double.  Khan quotes the World Bank assertion that those earning under two dollars per day are considered “poor,” and those earning less than $1.25 per day are in “extreme poverty.”  Based on those statistics, 2 billion people are poor and 1 billion people live in extreme poverty.

Throughout the book Khan addresses the disconnect between the mind-set of numerous economists and the human rights point of view.  She does not believe that material benefits equate to political power, nor does she recognize economic growth, as a response to poverty, as the magic bullet.  She quotes Nobel Peace Prize recipient (2000) Professor Muhammad Yunus who states, “Because poverty denies people any semblance of control over their destiny, it is the ultimate denial of human rights.”  Yunus, a Bangladeshi banker and economist, developed microcredit as a vehicle to empower the poor.

Khan emphasizes that economic solutions alone cannot end poverty.  By way of example she explains, “Building new schools doesn’t guarantee that girls will have the same access to education as boys.” With access to food, shelter, clean water, health care, and education being defined as basic human rights, working to defend these rights will expedite the fight to end poverty. Khan illustrates the societal structure as a pyramid.  It starts at the bottom with an individual’s domestic situation and builds upwards to community, employer, and then to government. Khan points to legal empowerment and defines how laws that are supposed to protect can in fact be a “source of oppression.”

The book ties in with Amnesty International’s global campaign, “Demand Dignity,” which calls for ending the human rights violations that “drive and deepen poverty.”  The Demand Dignity initiative was launched in June 2009 in the slums of Kenya, with the goal of ending forced evictions.  Three months later, it focused on maternal mortality in Sierra Leone.

Khan is a champion of women’s rights, and is consistently sensitive to a gender perspective.  She includes a full chapter on maternal mortality, seeing it not solely as a health problem, but reframing it as ”reflecting the powerlessness of women.”  She notes that violence against women is central to the experience of poverty.

Fittingly, Khan dedicates her book to the women of Bangladesh “whose courageous struggle for equality and dignity inspires, encourages, and energizes me.”

I had been hearing stories about women demonstrators being raped before their executions, since it was against Islamic law to execute a virgin. I tracked the information back to an article in The Jerusalem Post (7/19/09) by reporter Sabina Amidi, which recounted an interview with a member of the Basiji militia.

That same weekend, I learned of a video posted on YouTube about the rape of a young Iranian demonstrator. The person who put it up apologized for the graphic and brutal footage, but defended his choice with a plea for help from the rest of the world.

On July 17, 2009, The National Council of Resistance of Iran headlined the story, “Iran: The burnt corpse of of female demonstrator found after a month of captivity.” This is related to the practice of burning corpses post-rape/torture to cover up the crime.

Most of the people who responded to this information asked me why they hadn’t heard anything about these incidents in the main stream media.

I didn’t have an answer … other than main stream media is not the only place to get news.

©Marcia G. Yerman 2009

]]> http://www.mgyerman.com/2009/07/20/the-rape-of-iranian-women-under-reported/feed/ 0 http://www.mgyerman.com/2009/03/05/a-powerful-noise-a-film-taps-the-power-of-many/ http://www.mgyerman.com/2009/03/05/a-powerful-noise-a-film-taps-the-power-of-many/#comments Thu, 05 Mar 2009 22:24:48 +0000 Marcia G. Yerman http://www.mgyerman.com/?p=400 On March 5th, in honor of International Women’s Day, there was a call to action on behalf of women and girls – who comprise the most impoverished demographic around the globe. Discrimination, marginalization, exploitation, and disempowerment are at the root of the problem.

While women produce two-thirds of the world’s working hours, they only earn 10 per cent of the income. Two-thirds of the 876 million adults worldwide who are illiterate, are women. Expectant mothers die daily, from predominately preventable causes. Perhaps the most frightening fact is that at least one out of every three women and girls will be harshly beaten in her lifetime.

In an effort to rouse the global women’s empowerment movement by connecting supporters in developed nations with women and girls who are destitute, a team of organizations and presenting partners rallied around the documentary
“ A Powerful Noise,” showcased in a live event.

Executive Producer Sheila C. Johnson invited participation at 450 movie theatres around the country, where the film was screened. Simulcast at the end of the documentary, live from Hunter College in New York City, was a town hall discussion. The panel included: Madeline K. Albright, the first female Secretary of State in American history; Dr. Helene Gayle, president and CEO of CARE USA; Nicholas D. Kristof, advocating columnist for The New York Times; Christy Turlington, CARE’s Advocate for Maternal Health; Natalie Portman, actress and activist.

NCM Fathom and CARE presented the evening, in collaboration with ONE and the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women. CARE has programs in close to 70 countries where women are the target. Their efforts are based on the premise that “equipped with the proper resources, women have the power to help whole families and entire communities escape poverty.” ONE has an online petition directing people to ask American leaders to allocate an additional one per cent of the national budget toward fighting global poverty. The UN Commission advocates for gender equality and women’s rights.

With a nod to the power of new media, NCM Fathom sponsored a Tweet-a-thon. During the four-day action, a Tweet message with the hash tag #apowerfulnoise racked up a 10 cent donation from NCM Fathom to CARE (with a 50,000 Tweet cap). Dan Diamond, vice-president of NCM Fathom, said via e-mail, “We chose to sponsor the recent Tweet-a-thon to raise awareness and funds for CARE by reaching out to an active, energized on-line community, making it easier for them join us as part of the movement showcased in our theatre event.”

There was a lot to Tweet about. The film interweaves the stories of three women who are each transforming the world through individual actions. One is changing the way that people think. The other two are building understanding and relationships, impelled by the pain of their personal experiences.

Jacqueline Dembele, “Madame Urbain,” is impacting the traditional mind set in Bamako, Mali. Through her organization, APAF, she is providing village girls who come to the city looking for work with an education, vocational skills, and job placement. She is forging a change in the perception about educating girls, as well as the outlook on the role of women in her nation’s society. The girls who are interviewed do not know their ages. Mali is one of the three poorest countries in the world. With an 80% illiteracy rate, Madam Urbain has maintained, “If you educate a woman, you educate a village and a nation.” She has also been active in the fight against female circumcision.

A survivor of the Bosnian War, Nada Markovic has created a women’s association, Maya Kravica, with the aim of ameliorating tensions between Serbs and Bosniaks (Muslims). During the conflict, 100,000 people were killed and 1 million were displaced. Markovic is working to help widowed women improve their economic status in an economy where unemployment is fifty per cent. To this end, Markovic has set up co-operatives with the goal of “Returning Trust through Agriculture.” She described a venture between thirteen Bosnian families and thirteen Serb families, noting that “nationalistic groups don’t support” these efforts.” However, as Markovic explained, with an economy in ruins, “women have the opportunity to choose.” The point is driven home with unsettling scenes of verdant landscape intercut with the excavation of mass graves.

HIV-positive Bui My Hanh has struggled to bring acceptance to those in North Vietnam, who have been ostracized by their families and society for their illness. Hanh, who lost a husband and 5-year-old daughter to AIDS, started a self-help support group for those struggling with the physical and emotional ramifications of HIV/AIDS. Immortal Flower provides health care, counseling, and education, while fighting the perception of the disease as “a social evil” because of its connection to drug use and prostitution. It started with a base of six people, and grew to 130 in one year’s time. Being shunned by neighbors and relatives prevents women from seeking testing and treatment. Hanh has built inroads against isolation and ignorance. “Community groups led by women tend to more effective and last longer,” she says.

The film begins with the Margaret Mead quote,

“It has been a woman’s task throughout history to go on believing in life where there was almost no hope.”

I spoke with director Tom Cappello by phone about his role in “A Powerful Noise.” “It was an important project that needed to be accomplished,” he said. He told me he had jumped at the chance to be involved because he was excited about the “creative opportunity to bring visibility to global poverty.” Discussing the difference between nameless statistics and a personal narrative, Cappello said, “Film is the best way to get people emotionally connected to a cause…to get a discussion started.” With the sellout attendance in theatres nationwide and follow-up panel discussion that outlined concrete ways to become engaged (Kiva and CARE’s national conference in May which organizes citizen engagement), Cappello referenced the event’s success as reaching a “critical mass.”

The documentary was fortunate to have philanthropist Sheila C. Johnson, whom Cappello characterizes as “the Al Gore of women’s empowerment,” on board as the Executive Director. Cappello believes there is an underestimation of “what audiences are looking for.” In “A Powerful Noise,” Cappello sees the “real characters and the right stories” as intrinsically intertwined with the significance of the message.” The film,” he added, “will be a lasting piece of activism.”

This article previously appeared at the website CultureID.

With Barack Obama poised to take office in January 2009, one of the major lessons his  candidacy has offered is that movements are built from individuals taking action. In an effort to rally attention to the 60th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Amnesty International, working in cooperation with Link TV: Television Without Borders, is releasing the international song and video The Price of Silence.

I first saw The Price of Silence at its New York City premiere, which was part of an evening hosted at the New York Society for Ethical Culture entitled “Every Human Has Rights: Hope for Human Rights in an Era of New Leadership.” Larry Cox, Executive Director of Amnesty International USA, shared the stage with Mary Robinson, former President of Ireland and United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (1997 – 2002); Dr. Blanche Wiesen Cook, biographer of Eleanor Roosevelt; and Samuel Kofi Woods, Labor Minister of Liberia.

All of the speakers referenced the window of opportunity at hand for the nation and the world to focus on a recommitment to the original tenets of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Robinson said, “We have a moment now. 9/11 was a precursor of difficulty for human rights.” She related how “it was quite lonely in those early days,” after the Patriot Act went through. “It [Patriot Act] was not an appropriate way to respond to very real threats,” she said. Several times Robinson repeated the phrase, “There can be no ambivalence about torture.”

Dr. Cook, who has written extensively about Eleanor Roosevelt and spoke on her leadership role in moving the UDHR forward commented, “On November 4th, we stepped off the bitter road to fascism.” Challenging the audience she said, “What follows is up to us. It doesn’t matter who occupies the White House, it matters who pickets the White House.”

Woods, previously imprisoned and banned from employment in his country, pointed to what he termed “the moment of opportunity,” moving from “mere declaration to accountability.” Robinson crystallized it as “the responsibility of each of us.” Cox concurred, “Everybody can do something, and doing it together we can change the world.”

It was in that spirit that the creative team behind The Price of Silence galvanized. They drew on the talents of accomplished musicians from around the globe, several of whom have experienced the ordeal of human rights violations. Emmanuel Jal, the rapper from Sudan who was a “child soldier,” recorded his track the day after appearing in front of the United Nations General Assembly – to bear witness to the horrific experiences of his youth.

Steven Lawrence, Vice President of Music and Cultural Programming at Link TV, conversed with me about the evolution and production of the video. “It took over three, months,” he said. They worked around the availability of the different artists, who all donated their time. They used sixty actors, making five wardrobe changes, to portray the hundreds of UN delegates. Using the “magic of visual effects,” they intercut the close-up shots with real footage from the United Nations. “We filmed the opening of the UN in September of ’08,” Lawrence said, adding, “When people see the video, they assume we took over the UN for a few days!” Creating a “digital General Assembly” and shooting the artists on stage in front of a green screen, the production team hit locations that included Bogotá, Paris, and the Tibet House in New York City.

The vision for the video’s concept came from director Joshua Atesh Litle, who sees hip-hop as the protest music of the new generation. The producer, Andres Levin, is a Grammy-nominated artist and the co-founder of Music Has No Enemies, which is based on the premise that “music as an art speaks to everyone.” Lawrence stressed, “The most important thing is that the video and music connects billions of people who don’t have these rights. By downloading the song [at iTunes, with all net proceeds benefiting Amnesty International], you are supporting human rights.”

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the United Nations on December 10th, 1948. World War II was the catalyst. The aim was to create a doctrine that would guide the international community on how to achieve political, social, economic, civil, and cultural human rights. It was a two-year process, and Eleanor Roosevelt was instrumental in its drafting, later serving as the first chairperson of the United Nations Human Rights Commission. She called the Declaration “the international Magna Carta of all mankind.”

Which brings us full circle to the present. Amnesty International USA has requested a meeting with Obama to discuss the human rights agenda of his new administration. In the first 100 days, they have called for a plan and date for the closure of Guantánamo, an executive order to ban torture as defined under international law, and an independent commission to investigate abuses committed by the United States in its “war on terror.”

When I spoke to Cox by telephone to ask him what he would like to see The Price of Silence accomplish he said, “I hope the video will help spark a large movement to take action and to mobilize people.”

Poet Alicia Partnoy, who survived two years in prison during Argentina’s Dirty War (where 30,000 Argentineans “disappeared”), contributed the prologue delivered by actor Laurence Fishburne at the beginning of the video. She wrote:

Listen:
These are not just words tattooed on paper

No prison cell, no border fence, no torture will stop our plea

No stone, no stain will mar the river of our dignity

My child, for you today our voice befriends the winds-

Listen….

In March of 2008, I interviewed a senior State Department Official who discussed efforts to highlight awareness of the link between sex trafficking and HIV/AIDS.  He related statistics showing that as customers seek out increasingly younger girls, the rate of infection for HIV/AIDS for 15-year-olds and under has jumped to over 60%.  The official supported a victim-centered approach, with the training of “forensic nurses” to be alert to the HIV/AIDS and sex trafficking connection.  He believed there was “a false dichotomy” between the goals of the anti-trafficking activists and the health community.

Yet, several NGOs have been accused of “turning a blind eye to trafficking in brothels.”  Anti-trafficking supporters believe the public health perspective reflects the given, “This is going to be happening anyway, so there should be protection.”  They pose the rhetorical questions,  “In an effort to distribute condoms, is the result a form of “collusion” between public health officials and brothel owners that sends mixed messages? If a child is in a brothel, can the only concern be if this child gets AIDS?  Can you fight the spread of HIV/AIDS without on some level contributing to the problem of forced sexual servitude?”

For health workers, the core matter is saving lives through the prevention of spreading AIDS.  Anti-trafficking activists are goal-driven to free women and children from conditions where they may be forced to have sex 10 to 30 times per day.  Katherine Chon, President and Co-Founder of Polaris Project, sees the “harm reduction” methodology as a narrow policy. She stresses the need for “finding a way to protect the health of women and girls that also address the systemic issues.”  She observed, “If you are not asking the right questions, you are not going to get the full picture.”

Taina Ben-Aimé, Executive Director of Equality Now, believes that many in the HIV/AIDS sector don’t “have a gender perspective” and are seeing circumstances strictly as “a medical situation.”  She pointed out that distribution of condoms is not foolproof.  “Clients are willing to pay a higher price in order to avoid use, and women can be beaten if they insist on use.”

Professor of Women’s Studies at the University of Rhode Island, Donna M. Hughes, PhD., told me, “The sex trade is a form of contemporary slavery.  Legal reforms need to create solutions that assist victims and prosecute perpetrators, and are based on the premise that prostitution is a form of violence against women — an extreme form of gender discrimination.”   Hughes feels the burden is “on the policy makers of the NGOs and their funders.”  She is concerned with HIV/AIDS programs solely targeting disease prevention without pointing to sexual slavery and trafficking as a primary factor in the spread of HIV/AIDS, and sees short-term solutions for the AIDS epidemic as outstripping the examination of how to confront the human rights violations that characterize the slavery of women and children.  Hughes suggested NGOs “take their budget, and split it between condom based programming and providing assistance to get out.”

Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), was pinpointed in a February 27, 2003 column by Hughes in the Wall Street Journal. “Aiding and Abetting The Slave Trade” questioned why the MSF goal was “not to get the women or girls out of slavery, (but) only to provide HIV/AIDS prevention education.”  Hughes asserted, “It’s a sad reality that many seemingly well intentioned NGOs aren’t really about helping victims of abuse.”

Michael R. Goldfarb, Press Officer in the New York City office of MSF, forwarded me a letter from the Asian Wall Street Journal (February 2003) in reply to Hughes’s allegations. Written by the Head of Mission MSF, in Cambodia, Richard Veerman disputed the claim that MSF had turned “its back on the horrible plight of women and young girls forced into commercial sex work.” “Nothing could be further from the truth,” he said. Veerman wrote that MSF was cognizant of groups handling advocacy and rescue for those enslaved in brothels, but was also aware that the women and girls had no access to medical care.  Based on that rationale, MSF opened a free clinic in an attempt to “alleviate some of the suffering of the sex workers.”  Veerman maintained, “MSF firmly condemns the trafficking of women and children.”

Jerome Oberreit, Director of Operations based in Belgium, explained the two primary concerns of MSF are to provide emergency medical care and to use their medical activities to “witness” the plight of the people it assists. Their foremost responsibility, without judgment, is to the individual.  The mandate of “witnessing” is constructed to pass on information to local networks, creating outreach through data.  I received, via e-mail, the names of the groups that MSF had passed their information on to.

Director of the Center For Battered Women’s Legal Services at Sanctuary For Families, Dorchen Leiderholdt, believes “when health care workers encounter trafficking victims they have an obligation to take measures to protect those people from abuse.”  Holly J. Burkhalter, Vice-President of Governmental Relations for International Justice Mission, sees it differently. “It’s asking health workers to also play the role of law enforcement,” she said. Burkhalter believes those in the health movement do understand the importance of the anti-traffickers concerns, and that the two advocacy interests must work together.

Wenchi Yu Perkins, former Vice President of the Human Rights Program at Vital Voices Global Partnership, does not want to see “harm elimination” and “harm reduction” as mutually exclusive. “Everything comes down to reality…what works and what doesn’t.  People are finding the common ground is much bigger than we thought.”  Yu Perkins said unequivocally, “There is no such issue as consent for girls under eighteen in brothels. The priority is to get them out.” Young girls, with immature immune systems who experience vaginal bleeding and forced abortions, are more vulnerable to higher rates of HIV.

Currently, the United States Government has taken a stand that they will not give funding or support to any NGO that says prostitution is a form of work. When the Obama team presents their approach to eradicating the crime of modern-day slavery while fighting HIV/AIDS, it will set the tone for the rest of the world.  Hopefully, they will be at the forefront of building a global coalition to mobilize a comprehensive approach to the problem.

This article originally appeared on the website RH Reality Check.