Monthly Archives: September 2022

I will now make a statement in my capacity as Frances Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs.

Secretary-General,Prime Minister,Ministers,Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court,Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is with the deepest concern that I address this Security Council meeting devoted to Ukraine, and more specifically, the crimes committed there.

The war of aggression that Russia alone decided to wage against Ukraine, a sovereign state whose only mistake was its desire to exist in freedom, flagrantly violates the basic norms of our shared charter, the Charter of the United Nations. The non-use of force, the peaceful resolution of disputes, and respect for other nations sovereignty and territorial integrity are principles that all of us around this Council table have all embraced. Each and every one of them has been openly violated.

The war that began on February 24 has been accompanied by abuses and the destruction of civilian targets. There must be accountability for the many violations of the rules of war and other acts. Unspeakable crimes have been committed in Bucha, Chernihiv and so many other places. The liberation of Izium led to the discovery of further atrocities carried out by torturers.So, Frances message today is simple: justice must be our shared priority. There will be no peace without justice.

Justice is obviously crucial for the victims, who are entitled to recognition and reparations for their suffering. For all of the suffering that each victim has experienced.

Justice is also an international security imperative, and I say this to all those who think that this war is simply yet another conflict. If everything is permitted here, that will hold true all the more elsewhere, making wars of aggression even more likely.And lastly, justice is a political imperative. We must ensure we will ensure that individuals are held accountable for their crimes, whether they committed them, ordered them or planned them. But it is the very idea that such crimes, such attacks on our shared humanity, are possible that we must fight with our words and actions.

A framework has been established for this purpose a professional, specialized judicial system. At its apex is the International Criminal Court. Forty-three nations including France have already referred this matter to the ICC. It is the first time that so many nations have done so, and it reflects the importance of what we collectively believe is at stake. As you know, the Court will work together with Ukrainian and other relevant judicial authorities, including those in France and in other countries represented here today.

In light of this, there must be justice. France is therefore working with many other partners to strengthen the ability of all of these judicial authorities to collect evidence and reliable information.

That is why France has taken concrete action. Last April, as soon as information surfaced about the crimes that were committed in Bucha, we sent two teams of investigators to Ukraine. Over the course of three months, they helped the Ukrainian judicial authorities to meticulously and patiently establish the facts. Additionally, we donated a mobile DNA-analysis laboratory. Now that the world has learned of the new atrocities committed in Izium, we have decided to send a new support mission to assist the investigators on the ground. Because where Russia employs disinformation and propaganda, justice must be grounded in facts.

Of course, our support extends to the International Criminal Court. This support takes the form of both funding and personnel, who have been made available to assist the ICC magistrates and investigators, with due deference for the courts independence.

Lastly, our support extends to all of the judicial authorities that need to cooperate effectively with one another. To this end, the Eurojust legal framework was amended under the French Presidency of the Council of the European Union in order to allow the International Criminal Court to take part in joint investigation teams that comprise judicial authorities from multiple countries, including Ukraine.

The actions we are taking have meaning. It is not only a matter of combating impunity but also defending the integrity of our international order.

The fact that Russia chose to go to war under false pretexts is deeply shocking, as is its gross manipulation of a concept as weighty as genocide, which constitutes the crime of crimes and which served as grounds for creating an international criminal justice system at the end of World War II. The International Criminal Court itself has pointed out the spuriousness of this false statement.

This same manipulation is at work when mention is made of referendums in territories that were taken by force and subjected to terror. This is likewise true in instances where certain individuals threaten us with the use of all possible means when we are the ones, alongside others, who refuse to take part in any form of escalation.

Faced with those who deprive words of their meaning, it is the mission, the obligation and the task of those of us seated around this Council table to restore the meaning of things.

I would like to conclude with a quote from a Russian author. We have to condemn publicly the very idea that some people have the right to repress others. In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future. When Solzhenitsyn wrote these lines, he was referring to the decades of crimes committed by the U.S.S.R. on its own territory. Unfortunately, not a word need be changed to describe the crimes that Russia is currently committing beyond its borders.

The ICC is investigating evidence that, according to its prosecutor, may be proof of war crimes and crimes against humanity. We will learn of his conclusions later on, but today, what we can and must say is that those responsible will be found, charged and, ultimately, judged. The wait may seem long for the victims and their families but they should rest assured that the perpetrators will not go unpunished. We owe it to them. Not only do we owe it to them but our very security is at stake, as are the universal principles that bind us together.

Thank you very much. I will now resume my duties as the Council Chair and give the floor to his Excellency, Jonas Gahr Stre, the Prime Minister of Norway.

Go here to read the rest:

"Ukraine's only mistake was its desire to exist in freedom" - France ONU

Following 20 years of delaysand red tape, the construction of the first state monument for African Americans is almost complete.

North Carolina Freedom Park is under constructionon a one-acre site on Lane Street, located between the state legislature and the governor's mansion. It is the first monument on or nearthe Capitol grounds to honor Black North Carolinians.

The centerpiece of the park, a 40-foot-tall metal structure dubbed the Beacon of Freedom, was installedthis week after traveling to Raleigh from Denver, Colorado,where it was built.

The beacon will stand at the intersection of five walkways, to be inscribed with quotes fromBlack North Carolinians who fought for freedom. Each night, a beam of light from the beacon will illuminatethe park.

The design is the work oflegendary late architect Phil Freelon, who also led the design team for theMuseum of African American History and Culture in Washington, DC. The park was one of Freelon's last designs before he died in 2019 from ALS.

NCFreedom Parkwas first conceived in 2002, but it took two decadesand a lot of fundraisingfor the $4 million project to become a reality. Construction finally began last year and is expected to be complete in the coming months. A grand opening is set for 2023.

Support independent local journalism. Join the INDY Press Club to help us keep fearless watchdog reporting and essential arts and culture coverage viable in the Triangle.

Follow Staff Writer Jasmine Gallup on Twitter or send an email to jgallup@indyweek.com.

View original post here:

Construction on NC Freedom Park Wrapping Up - INDY Week

The Human Rights Council this afternoon held its annual discussion on the integration of a gender perspective, focusing on overcoming gender-based barriers to freedom of opinion and expression. It also continued its general debate under agenda item four on human rights situations that require the Councils attention.

Introducing the annual discussion, Peggy Hicks, Director of the Thematic Engagement, Special Procedures and Right to Development Division of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, said freedom of opinion and expression was essential for the protection of every human right; the realisation of achieving this right was essential for achieving gender equality. There were new and growing threats to women and girls who spoke out in defence of their rights. Gender equality needed to be achieved. Measures to achieve this should include eliminating repressive legislation, adopting special measures for social protection, and including womens rights in school education.

Irene Khan, Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, said the Internet had become the new battleground in the struggle for women's rights, amplifying the opportunities for women to access information and express themselves, but also creating new risks of repression and inequality. There was a clear link between the root causes of gender inequality, and the persistence of gendered censorship. Governments must abolish laws, policies, and practices of gendered censorship, and be more proactive in dismantling the structural and systemic roots of gender discrimination.

Mariana Duarte, Programme Officer, Gender Partnership Programme, Inter-Parliamentary Union, said that the main gender-based barrier observed by the Inter-Parliamentary Union on freedom of opinion and expression for women in politics was gendered violence. This violence was directed at women as a group, and aimed to eject them from the political arena. Eliminating gender-based violence in politics was essential for women to exercise their right to freedom of opinion and expression. It was also a guarantee for the effectiveness of parliament, for genuine democracy and for gender equality in society.

Julie Posetti, International Centre for Journalists, said gender-based online violence against journalists was one of the most serious contemporary threats to press freedom and the safety of women journalists internationally. It aided and abetted impunity for crimes against journalists, including physical assault and murder. It was designed to silence, humiliate, and discredit. The Human Rights Council could contribute to raising awareness of violence against women journalists by, among other points, ensuring that mechanisms and protocols to defend the safety of journalists and end impunity explicitly addressed violence against women journalists.

Mitzi Jonelle Tan, Convenor and International Spokesperson, Youth Advocates for Climate Action Philippines, said across the world the dangers against environmental defenders and activists were rising. Young girls, especially those most economically marginalised, who were ghting for human rights and climate justice were often belittled, pushed aside, and tokenised. Sexual violence was also used to silence women defenders, much of which was underreported. There should be more stringent rules on protecting human rights abuses against women.

In the ensuing discussion, speakers said overcoming gender-based barriers to freedom of opinion and expression could be extremely challenging, as these barriers were often rooted in social attitudes, cultural norms and patriarchal values, besides being imposed or integrated in discriminatory laws, policies and practices. Moreover, some harmful, implicit social norms often constituted root causes for gender-based discrimination and for undermining womens and girls rights, including freedom of opinion and expression, both online and offline. The international community needed to invest more to ensure that girls and young women could openly form their opinions in all spheres of public domain, including within this Council and other United Nations fora.

Speaking in the annual discussion were the European Union on behalf of a group of countries, Lithuania on behalf of a group of countries, Chile on behalf of a group of countries, Slovenia on behalf of a group of countries, Bahamas on behalf of a group of countries, Netherlands on behalf of a group of countries, Belgium on behalf of a group of countries, Australia on behalf of a group of countries, Israel, Egypt, International Development Law Organization, Timor-Leste on behalf of the Portuguese language countries, Ecuador, Luxembourg, Republic of Korea, Ireland, France, United Nations Childrens Fund, Colombia, United Nations Women, Afghanistan, Cyprus, and United States.

Also speaking were the Federation for Women and Family Planning, CHOICE for Youth and Sexuality, Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales Asociacin Civil, Indonesia, Plan International Inc, Stitching Global Human Rights Defense, and Asia-Pacific Resource and Research Centre for Women.

In the general debate on agenda item four, some speakers said accountability must be ensured for all violations of the rights of indigenous and minority peoples. Violence against human rights defenders must also come to an end. The High Commissioner had a mandate to report on violations of human rights and to oversee progress made. Upholding the rights to freedom of assembly and of peaceful expression was crucial for the protection of human rights. Human rights were indivisible and all inherent to the dignity of the human person, whether economic, social and cultural rights or civil and political rights, and required the equal treatment and observation of the Council. There was a wide repression of womens rights, with an erosion of their rights to be seen in many areas of the world, with a rise in gender apartheid, which required collective action against institutionalised discrimination. The Council should ensure utmost transparency when dealing with human rights matters and that the principles of the United Nations Charter were fully respected.

Speaking in the general debate were Iceland, Israel, Bahrain, Ireland, Russia Federation, Australia, Afghanistan, Austria, Cyprus, Norway, Lichtenstein, Estonia, South Sudan, Denmark, Azerbaijan, Canada, Uruguay, Belgium, Kenya, Sweden, Georgia, Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, Burundi, Kyrgyzstan, Barbados, Spain, Syria, Switzerland, Trinidad and Tobago, Iran, Nicaragua, Cambodia, Belarus, Algeria, Sri Lanka, Viet Nam and Egypt.

The webcast of the Human Rights Council meetings can be found here. All meeting summaries can be found here. Documents and reports related to the Human Rights Councils fifty-first regular session can be found here.

The next meeting of the Council will be at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 27 September when it will hold a panel discussion on the right to work in connection with climate change actions, followed by the continuation of the general debate under agenda item four.

General Debate on Human Rights Situations that Require the Councils Attention

The general debate on agenda item four on human rights situations that require the Councils attention started in the previous meeting and a summary can be found here.

Discussion

Some speakers said accountability must be ensured for all violations of the rights of indigenous and minority peoples. Violence against human rights defenders must also come to an end. The shrinking of civic space in many parts of the world was of grave concern. The High Commissioner had a mandate to report on violations of human rights and to oversee progress made. Upholding the rights to freedom of assembly and of peaceful expression was crucial for the protection of human rights. Human rights were indivisible and all inherent to the dignity of the human person, whether economic, social and cultural rights or civil and political rights, and required the equal treatment and observation of the Council.

There was a wide repression of womens rights, with an erosion of their rights seen in many areas of the world, with a rise in gender apartheid, which required collective action against institutionalised discrimination. The response of the Human Rights Council and the Special Procedures could be further strengthened, commensurate to the situation on the ground, some speakers said. It was important to hold the perpetrators of gender-based violence to account. Countries that respected womens rights were generally more peaceful, with a more stable economy, and should therefore work to respect womens independence and protect their rights to a greater extent. Denying girls access to education impeded their social and economic development.

Human rights were a prerequisite for sustainable development, and human rights issues ought to be dealt with on the global stage through technical cooperation and assistance on the request of the country concerned, so that human rights projects could be supported, in full respect of the sovereignty of all countries, bearing in mind the cultural and historical specificities of each State, a speaker said. There should be greater international cooperation. The world was witnessing human rights violations and violations of fundamental freedoms, and a greater dialogue, including civil society, should be built throughout the world, ensuring States priorities were respected. One speaker said the inconsistent application of human rights standards was harmful to the agenda of the Council, which should engage in dialogue on contentious issues, in a balanced manner, as it sought to promote and protect human rights around the world.

One speaker said item four on human rights situations that required the Councils attention was one of the most divisive items on the agenda, as it was not always carried out in line with the principles and values that should lead the Council. The principles of impartiality and non-selectivity should be maintained. The Council was founded on the conviction that the promotion and protection of human rights throughout the world should be carried out through dialogue and with the participation of the country concerned, and this would serve the interests of the international community. The Council should ensure utmost transparency when dealing with human rights matters and that the principles of the United Nations Charter were fully respected. The independence and sovereign integrity of States were the fundamental norms governing international cooperation. One speaker expressed concern that the Council could be used to investigate matters that had not been confirmed or even authenticated.

A speaker said that while it was the weighty responsibility and sacred duty of the international community to intervene in situations of egregious violations of human rights, which had been corroborated by appropriate bodies following the requisite investigations, the untrammelled ability of individual States to conduct their internal affairs independently must not be proscribed, as it was counterproductive to the promotion and protection of human rights, and only increased polarisation among the Member States of the Council. Environments conducive to the fullest enjoyment of the rights of citizens of a country would be engendered with the cooperation of the international community through non-interference in the internal administration of the affairs of that country, and no State should impose its norms and standards upon others.

The global food security crisis and its concomitant impact on human rights was of concern to many speakers. Governments should ensure accountability and maintain stable peace. Violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms occurred in too many countries, and too many Governments used disinformation to hide their actions from the world at large: media freedom and reporting were essential to combat disinformation.

Annual Discussion on the Integration of a Gender Perspective Throughout the Work of the Human Rights Council, Focusing on Overcoming Gender-Based Barriers to Freedom of Opinion and Expression

Opening Statement

PEGGY HICKS, Director of the Thematic Engagement, Special Procedures and Right to Development Division of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights , said freedom of opinion and expression was essential for the protection of every human right; the realisation of achieving this right was essential for achieving gender equality. Movements such as Me Too had swept the globe, with women taking a public stance against the sexual violence against women and girls both online and offline. Women played a crucial role in fighting systemic racial discrimination. Today, as the struggle for gender equality continued, there were new and growing threats to women and girls who spoke out in defence of their rights. Gender stereotypes and the patriarchal structure continued to keep women into lesser and submissive roles. There were many ways in which women were silenced and excluded from the public and private spaces, including repressive and discriminatory legislation, policies and practices, and religious and cultural norms which fuelled the violations of rights. Too often attacks against women were amplified and encouraged by public figures, with those engaging the attacks rarely being held accountable.

Ms. Hicks said that the digital world still offered immense possibilities of engagement and ability to drive social change, however, it was increasingly better known for the offline world where women were subject to misogynistic attacks. There had been a five per cent increase in the number of women human rights defenders and journalists who had been killed in 2021. These attacks were exacerbated for women subjected to intersecting discrimination. Barriers contributed to the progressive exclusion of women and girls from the public sphere; this urgently needed to change. Gender equality needed to be achieved. Measures to achieve this should include eliminating repressive legislation, adopting special measures for social protection, and including womens rights in school education. It was crucial to create an enabling environment for civil society to ensure advances in achieving womens human rights were upheld. The Human Rights Council had drawn attention to the violations and risks and had made recommendations to address these. The Council had an essential role to play in addressing gender-based barriers and ensuring all could contribute to society regardless of their gender.

Statements by the Panellists

IRENE KHAN, Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression , said her first thematic report had found that while there had been achievements on gender equality, expression was not free for many women and girls. The Internet had become the new battleground in the struggle for women's rights, amplifying the opportunities for women to access information and express themselves, but also creating new risks of repression and inequality. Gendered censorship was pervasive, and the monitoring, censoring, and criminalisation of women's social behaviour by States was concerning. Under the guise of protecting public morals, as seen recently in the case of Mahsa Amini, a young Kurdish woman in Iran, it could lead to serious violations of human rights, with tragic consequences. Women also played a disproportionate price for speaking out, with sexual and gender-based violence used as a weapon to silence women. While all women faced such threats, female politicians, journalists, human rights defenders, and feminist activists were particularly targeted. Unequal access to information and the Internet were major impediments to women's empowerment. Only about half of all women worldwide had access to the Internet, and that figure fell dramatically in the poorer and more remote locations of the world. Information of particular interest to women, such as data on workplace inequalities or on sexual and reproductive health, were often unavailable, outdated, or blocked.

Ms. Khan said there was a clear link between the root causes of gender inequality, and the persistence of gendered censorship. Governments must abolish laws, policies, and practices of gendered censorship, and be more proactive in dismantling the structural and systemic roots of gender discrimination. Social media platforms played a vital role in women's empowerment by enabling them to communicate, advocate, organise and access information. States must not use efforts to eradicate online violence, gendered hate speech and disinformation as a pretext to restrict freedom of expression. There could be no trade-off between women's right to be free from violence and the right to freedom of opinion and expression. The report recommended a threefold approach to avoid a trade-off, including a gender-sensitive interpretation of the right to freedom; an internationally accepted standard on what constituted online gender-based violence, hate speech and disinformation; and a calibrated approach to ensure that responses by States and companies were aligned with the level of harm. Ms. Khan encouraged the Office of the High Commissioner to explore these issues through multi-stakeholder consultations.

MARIANA DUARTE, Programme Officer, Gender Partnership Programme, Inter-Parliamentary Union , said that the main gender-based barrier observed by the Inter-Parliamentary Union on freedom of opinion and expression for women in politics was gendered violence. This violence was directed at women as a group, and aimed to eject them from the political arena. Three studies had been conducted, which highlighted percentages of psychological violence against women parliamentarians (over 80 per cent). The most common manifestation of psychological violence was sexist attitudes and remarks aiming to ignore or degrade women in politics, or to judge their physical appearance. Other emblematic examples of psychological violence included threats of death, rape, beating or abduction. The levels of such threats ranged from 42 per cent in Africa to 47 per cent in Europe. Online sexist attacks were also highly prevalent according to the three studies, especially in Europe, where 58 per cent of respondents had experienced such attacks. The studies also brought to light how multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination such as age, disability, minority group status, and marital status could lead to an exponential increase in gender-based violence against certain women parliamentarians.

Violence against women in politics required greater accountability and an urgent coordinated response from key actors at international and national levels.

Ms. Durante highlighted the importance of using existing international human rights mechanisms for addressing violence against women in politics. United Nations

mechanisms such as Special Procedures and treaty bodies could serve as important avenues for addressing individual cases. Women needed to be encouraged to use such mechanisms, and more must be done to open human rights mechanisms to cases of violence against women in politics. National reports under the fourth Universal Periodic Review cycle starting in November 2022 were due to focus more strongly on the role of parliaments in the promotion and protection of human rights.

This offered a unique opportunity for reporting States to provide information on the obstacles women faced to take part in politics without fear of reprisals, and what was being done, to address those challenges. Ms. Durante said that eliminating gender-based violence in politics was essential for women to exercise their right to freedom of opinion and expression. It was also a guarantee for the effectiveness of parliament, for genuine democracy and for gender equality in society.

JULIE POSETTI, International Centre for Journalists , said gender-based online violence against journalists was one of the most serious contemporary threats to press freedom and the safety of women journalists internationally. It aided and abetted impunity for crimes against journalists, including physical assault and murder. It was designed to silence, humiliate, and discredit. Additionally, there was a dangerous trend that correlated online violence with offline attacks, harassment and abuse. Targeted online attacks on women journalists were also increasingly networked, sophisticated, and at times State-linked.

While States were the main duty-bearers regarding the protection of journalists, with a responsibility to legislate accordingly and ensure law enforcement agencies responded appropriately, a number of governments stood accused of not only failing to fulfil their responsibility to protect women journalists, but of being actively part of the crisis endangering them. In many countries, individual political actors and parties had been identified as perpetrators, instigators and amplifiers of online violence targeting women journalists.

The Human Rights Council and its mechanisms could contribute to raising awareness of violence against women journalists by, among other points, ensuring that mechanisms and protocols to defend the safety of journalists and end impunity explicitly addressed violence against women journalists (online and offline), including the United Nations Plan of Action on the Safety of Journalists currently under review. The Council and its mechanisms could also consider a United Nations-level conduit to channel complaints against State actors engaged in targeted online violence campaigns, and social media companies which facilitated attacks on women journalists with impunity.

MITZI JONELLE TAN, Convenor and International Spokesperson, Youth Advocates for Climate Action Philippines , said across the world the dangers affecting environmental defenders and activists were rising. Existing socio-economic crises at hand led to young girls being more afraid to speak up. The lack of access to quality education added to the fear caused by societal prejudice and discrimination. Everyone should have proper access to education if there were to be solutions to the climate crisis that were led by the most marginalised and those most impacted. Young girls, especially those most economically marginalised, who were ghting for human rights and climate justice were often belittled, pushed aside, and tokenised at best, becoming a photo opportunity for world leaders and policymakers instead of actually listening to their demands for equity, and at worst being physically harassed and silenced. Sexual violence was also used to silence women defenders, much of which was underreported.

Across the world, States and human rights councils needed to actively consult women, and not just women from a certain class but those from the most marginalised classes. Marginalised women needed to be empowered with education and information, and given space in order to be active members of society, so girls education must be a priority. There should be more stringent rules on protecting human rights abuses against women, especially because in times of distress which the climate crisis would exacerbate, women and children were more prone to harassment and violence. The ght for climate justice included gender justice; it included the ght for womens liberation.

Discussion

In the ensuing discussion, a number of speakers said overcoming gender-based barriers to freedom of opinion and expression could be extremely challenging, as these barriers were often rooted in social attitudes, cultural norms and patriarchal values, besides being imposed or integrated in discriminatory laws, policies and practices. Moreover, some harmful, implicit social norms often constituted root causes for gender-based discrimination and for undermining womens and girls rights, including freedom of opinion and expression, both online and offline. It was therefore crucial to break the cycle of reproduction of gender stereotypes which ultimately impacted entire societies. Restrictions to freedom of opinion and expression could have wider impacts on human rights, and where women and girls were hindered in their expression, all were deprived of their valuable opinions. Sexual and gender-based violence, including abuse and harassment through digital technologies, was often used as a deliberate tactic to silence women and girls.

Despite the impressive and inspirational gains made by women and girls, as well as people with diverse gender identities, expression and opinion were still not equally free and protected for all persons. Currently many women and girls from diverse backgrounds faced endemic discrimination, and it was essential to establish good practice norms in the Council that aimed at the full eradication of gender-based discrimination. The Council had a mandate to ensure that this was a principle for all, ensuring the respect and guarantee of human rights for all. It was also vital to take an inclusive approach and engage men and boys when taking measures to address the safety of all journalists and other media workers. This was particularly important to effectively tackle gender-based violence, discrimination, abuse and harassment, including sexual harassment, threats and intimidation, as well as inequality, negative social norms and gender-stereotypes.

Cultural norms, gender stereotypes and ensuing discrimination online and offline continued to suppress, censor and mute the voices of women and girls. Unfortunately, women activists, politicians, human rights defenders, journalists and media workers were disproportionately targeted by State and non-State actors, including hate speech, bullying and acts of violence. Womens and girls leadership was essential to advancing gender equality. Respect, protection and promotion of the right to freedom of opinion and expression was a powerful tool to confront any form of gender-based discrimination, and lay at the heart of the international legal framework on political and civil rights. The effective exercise of the right of freedom of opinion and expression was essential for the enjoyment of other human rights and constituted a fundamental pillar for democracy. The international community needed to invest more to ensure that girls and young women could openly form their opinions in all spheres of public domain, including within this Council and other United Nations fora.

Concluding Remarks

MARIANA DUARTE, Programme Officer, Gender Partnership Programme, Inter-Parliamentary Union , said that violence against women politicians did not happen in a vacuum. By assuming a position of power, women were defying patriarchal norms and were particularly at risk. Many of the root causes were related to gender-based violence against women. A sound legal framework free from discrimination against women was required, as well as specific provisions in the law against violence against women in politics. It was important to educate men and boys from an early age. It was vital to understand and acknowledge the problem to address the issue. Perpetrators committing violence against female parliamentarians came from everywhere; their families, their party, or members of their staff. The more women there were in parliament, the more it would be accepted that they belonged where they were. If women in parliament were no longer a minority, they would be stronger. It was also important to have an institutional commitment to protect women in parliament.

JULIE POSETTI, Global Director of Research at the International Centre for Journalists , said impunity for crimes against journalists was a concerning issue; women journalists were targeted online, and were being threatened with cases of journalists who had been murdered with impunity within their own countries. Gender disinformation and gendered hate speech were key issues. These could be combatted by addressing the root causes, including structural inequality; however, these circumstances were often used to justify inaction. A book would be published in November with a 25-step plan to aid States in their responses to gender-based violence. The United Nations could not stay silent, when despots were targeting women in such ways, there needed to be a reckoning to allow women to be defended.

MITZI JONELLE TAN, Convenor and International Spokesperson, Youth Advocates for Climate Action Philippines , said gender injustices were still rising. It was not enough to have women lead - States had to go to the most marginalised lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer persons and women. States must play a role in the empowerment of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer persons and women. Gender injustice could not be discussed in a vacuum - it had to be looked at in the context of all those who were discriminated against. Young people needed to be educated at a young age in gender injustice. Everything heard today was appreciated, but work needed to be done.

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer persons and young women were becoming ever more vulnerable to climate injustice. In every aspect of work, gender injustice needed to be discussed - it had to penetrate every aspect. It could not be seen just as being perpetrated by outside forces. In some countries the threats to women were not just threats to expression or opinion, but also to their rights to exist. Human rights defenders were often at the forefront of this, threatened sexually, and their families being turned away from them. These panels could not be the end - the system that was being created should not just empower women, but all people across all forms of life. Women needed to not just feel protected, but actually be safe, and to do this, there had to be a holistic approach, from communities, and in all aspects of work.

Link: https://www.ungeneva.org/en/news-media/meeting-summary/2022/09/afternoon-human-rights-council-holds-annual-discussion

Go here to read the rest:

Human Rights Council Holds Annual Discussion on the Integration of the Gender Perspective, Focusing on Overcoming Gender-Based Barriers to Freedom of...

Image source: Getty Images

Don't assume that buying a home will lead to financial security.

"You're throwing your money away." "All you're doing is paying your landlord's mortgage." These are the phrases you'll often hear thrown at renters by those who are convinced that homeownership is the true ticket to financial security.

Now in reality, there are certainly some financial benefits to homeownership. Not only can you enjoy certain tax breaks, like the ability to deduct mortgage interest, but the equity you build in your home can be tapped and used as a cash source. In fact, many retirees who own homes find that those properties are their greatest financial asset.

But while there are advantages to owning a home, that's not necessarily the key to financial freedom. And if you're not convinced, you should know that financial guru Suze Orman says the same.

When you rent a home, you don't get to build equity in a place of your own. But that doesn't mean you can't reach a financially stable place as a renter.

In fact, Orman has been quoted as saying, "Homeownership is not the lock and key to financial freedom. I know some seriously wealthy people who have never owned a home in their lives."

Renting a home could mean spending less money on housing than if you were to own a place. That's because you won't face the numerous costs homeowners face, like maintenance, property taxes, and repairs (all of which have the potential to climb over time).

In fact, if you're renting and therefore spending less on housing, you can take your extra money and invest it, either in a brokerage account, retirement savings plan, or both. And that way, you can make it grow over time.

You'll often hear that renting a home is a waste of money because you don't get anything out of it in the long run. But you get something in the near term -- a roof over your head. And there's nothing wrong with that.

When you buy groceries at the supermarket, you're not making an investment -- you're satisfying the biological need of being nourished. And just as it's okay to spend money on food, it's also okay to spend money on rent, even if you don't get anything in return. But if you also make a point to save and invest some of your money, you can reach a place of financial freedom where your housing costs aren't a burden and you're able to live a comfortable lifestyle.

All told, Orman says, "The true financial dream isn't about owning a home; it's about being secure with whatever you're doing with the money that you have." So think about what your goals are. If owning a home is important to you, then by all means, save up a down payment and go out and buy one.

But don't stress out over renting a home or push yourself financially to buy one because you've been told that's the ticket to financial security. It's more than possible to land in a financially stable place as a lifelong renter.

Mortgage rates are at their highest level in years and expected to keep rising. It is more important than ever to check your rates with multiple lenders to secure the best rate possible while minimizing fees. Even a small difference in your rate could shave hundreds off your monthly payment.

That is where Better Mortgagecomes in.

You can get pre-approved in as little as 3 minutes, with no hard credit check, and lock your rate at any time. Another plus? They dont charge origination or lender fees (which can be as high as 2% of the loan amount for some lenders).

Readour free review

Original post:

Suze Orman Says Homeownership Is Not the Key to Financial Freedom. Here's Why She's Right - The Motley Fool

Russias war on Ukraine makes the effort known as the Three Seas Initiative even more urgent, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said in a recent speech via video to a related summit meeting in Riga, Latvia.

The urgency is not only for the initiatives member nations and partners, Blinken said during his June 24 remarks, but for its focus areas of energy, transportation, and digital communications.

Indeed, the issue of making the Three Seas Initiative, launched in 2015, more practically operational has gained greater urgency and necessity.

The Three Seas Initiative, also known as 3SI, is a joint regional effort in Central and Eastern Europe to expand cross-border energy, transportation, and digital infrastructure and boost economic development in the countries around the Adriatic Sea, Baltic Sea, and Black Sea.

The goal has been to implement a development initiative that would operate on commercial terms and redress the regions chronic connectivity shortcomings.

Twelve countries, all members of the European Union, participate in the Three Seas Initiative along with the United States. They are Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia.

This years gathering at the Three Seas Initiative Summit and Business Forum in Latvia reaffirmed that the initiative still has potential to address transatlantic economic, energy, and security issues. Yet the combination of crosscutting challenges in the region and a lackluster commitment from Washington keeps the overall progress far slower and smaller than what many have hoped for.

At the summit, officials announced that the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation and the Three Seas Initiative Investment Fund had reached an agreement under which the U.S. agency will provide up to $300 million of financing to the investment fund.

According to the Development Finance Corporation, the investment strategy of the Three Seas Initiative Investment Fund would incorporate the agencys value-driven approach. It would focus on sustainable development as well as advancing environmental and social objectives, and the Development Finance Corporation will play an important role.

However, if Washington and its transatlantic partners in the Three Seas Initiative genuinely are serious about the initiative, they should not turn it and its investment fund into another conduit for advancing an environmental, social, and governance agenda. Such an agenda often is called simply ESG a buzzword both heavily circulated and rightfully debated for its legitimacy in the investment community.

From Washingtons foreign policy perspective, the Three Seas Initiative is one of the most notable political and economic policy initiatives to emerge in Central and Eastern Europe.

Fundamentally, 3SI is and should be a practical platform for private sector investors to initiate and pursue infrastructure development projects. The initiatives success ultimately hinges on building private-public partnerships driven by concrete business interaction, not a feel-good political agenda such as ESG.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk bluntly described ESG as a scam that is weaponized by phony social justice warriors.

Indeed, under the tent of ESG activism, a good number of corporations around the globe have become woke. They have weaponized capital, promoting a left-wing policy agenda in the name of good, desirable, preferred investment.

The unfortunate yet perhaps not so surprising reality, though, is that the environmental, social, and governance agenda largely is failing to produce what it claims in terms of investment returns and positive impact.

In the current geopolitical context, building secure, robust supply chains and greater connectivity while ensuring resilient growth means shifting trade from adversarial regimes to dependable friends and partners. In addition to traditional trade relationships, the United States needs to offer credible, concrete alternatives to the Three Seas Initiative economies to combat malicious influence from adversarial powers.

However, ill-guided, shortsighted, politically driven policies such as ESG often result in a clear and present danger. And its people who seem to get lost in all of this.

For instance, consumers and producers across the United States and Europe are getting hurt from high energy prices that have been a result of bad choices about climate policy. Such policy should put people and their economic livelihoods first, but that hasnt been the case.

From a broader yet critical perspective, it should be noted that economic freedom not the environmental, social, and governance agenda makes the world cleaner, safer, and better governed. Its not hard to find the economic damage inflicted by heavy-handed and misguided government policies, which result in lingering uncertainty, deteriorating entrepreneurial environments, and lower employment growth.

The true path to ensuring environmental, social, and governance improvements lies in focusing on policies that enhance economic freedom. As documented in The Heritage Foundations annual Index of Economic Freedom, the linkage between economic freedom, liberty, and prosperity around the world is unambiguous.

Regardless of how the calamity in Ukraine plays out, its undeniably clear that Russias autocratic dominance as an energy source for most of Europe has given Moscow outsize political and economic leverage. Russia has weaponized its energy resources against many of Americas transatlantic allies and partners.

In facilitating much-needed, greater cooperation in energy and connectivity independent of Russias influence, the Three Seas Initiative can and should play a vital role. The effort must be enhanced accordingly, particularly with Americas becoming a more proactive anchor investor in the initiative.

The coming months likely will be the crucial period when America and its allies will decide whether the Three Seas Initiative remains just a diplomatic agenda driven and shaped by the Lefts environmental, social, and governance standards, or can become a serious, pragmatic project.

This article originally appeared in the Daily Signal and is reprinted with kind permission from the Heritage Foundation.

Read the original:

Three Seas Initiative should be America's transatlantic partnership for economic freedom, not another woke agenda - Washington Examiner

The Forest Park Public Library joined with the Forest Park Arts Alliance to celebrate the freedom to read and the freedom to use your voice as America marks what is its most consequential Banned Books Week.

The American Library Association tracks efforts across the country to have books removed from public and school libraries. It has been tracking this number for 20 years. Not a surprise that 2022 in on course for the highest number of challenges ever.

The library and arts alliance asked the Forest Park Review to publish a number of essays they collected over the past month from Forest Parkers expressing their views on these essential freedoms which we have largely taken for granted.

Here are six of those essays.

By PAT WILLIAMS

Many years ago, in 1975, I graduated high school. As I was preparing to go off to college, my sister (11 years my senior) asked me what I could use, and I asked for a collegiate dictionary. Not only did she give me a collegiate dictionary, but she also gave me a thesaurus, bedding for my dorm and the book Our Bodies, Ourselves. The dictionary and thesaurus were mainstays on my lap whenever I needed to do any writing as it was long before computers were common in homes or dorms.

However, when the school work was over and classmates would gather in my room, we would talk about everything under the sun. The book Our Bodies, Ourselves was always laying around in my room, and often people would pick it up. When they did, what transpired was rich, wonderful discussion about womens issues. That book was a resource for all the women on my floor of the dorm.

Although some of us had sex education starting in middle school, sex ed was still in its early stages, and many things that were not discussed in classrooms. Our Bodies, Ourselves enriched and filled in the gaps of our education. It was invaluable. We learned about things our mothers didnt share, or didnt even know. Our lives were richer and more informed because of that book.

After graduating college, I worked in rural South Dakota. The minister of the church that I attended in town had a wife who was on the school board. One day she was sitting in the gym at our school, and was looking over the book Our Bodies, Ourselves. I shared that it had been a great resource for me for years. She told me the school board was considering banning the book. I showed dismay at the thought of it not being available to other young women in the area and let her know how I felt. I never knew the outcome, but hope that the book was not banned in that district, as it apparently had been in other areas.

Recently I asked my sister how in the world she decided to give me that book at that time. She was working at a local community college, and the nursing staff there highly recommended the book. I told her how much of a resource it was, especially in the dorm room, when young women were finding their way and trying to understand their bodies at a time when it was still taboo.

Of all the banned books I have read, Our Bodies, Ourselves has been the most influential to me in understanding myself as a woman. However, every banned book I have ever read has been rich in one way or another. Banning a book seems similar to taking an enriching treasure and locking it away for no one to be able grow from or enjoy.

By KAREN ROZMUS

I am a voracious reader no particular genre. I read science fiction, biographies, fantasy, mysteries, thrillers, contemporary novels and history. I tell my grandchildren that if they like to read, they can learn anything in the world. My grandsons like to show me their new books and have me read with them. My 10-year-old granddaughter, who lives in Pennsylvania, calls me on Facetime every night to read to me for 30 minutes, as she has for the past three years. What precious memories we are creating.

It is hard for me to accept that some narrow-minded (Im projecting) people would ban a book for whatever reason they may cite. I cant imagine squelching the stories and verbal pictures created by Steinbeck, Dickens, Hemingway, Vonnegut, Asimov, Herbert, Heinlein, London, Doyle, Twain, Harper Lee, J.K. Rowling and so many others. I believe you could just list every author and it would be the length of a book perhaps a heavy book or even an encyclopedia.

A book can give insight into anothers point of view or provide understanding of anothers life experience totally different from your own. A good book will provide historical knowledge hopefully the truth of history, both good and bad. A good book will inspire a dreamer, provoke thought, support an opinion, provide an escape to another place or time. A good book will help you grow and expand the library of your mind.

To those who are offended by some written words, I would not chastise you or wish to silence your voice in opposition. I would, however, ask you to accept that others should not be denied what you would deny yourself. I would ask you to change the channel and read what is acceptable to you without any interference or prohibition from others. Do you have a favorite book or story? Imagine how you would feel if some unknown person somewhere in the world thought to deny you the opportunity to read your favorite book.

Of course, some books are not appropriate for everyone, especially young readers. If you wish to oversee your childs reading choices, read with them. The time spent will give so much pleasure and create a wonderful bond. As they grow older, you will have interesting conversations and you will appreciate the person you have helped develop. You will understand their interests by talking about the books they like. You will be happy that you assisted in the development of their intellect and knowledge. Read. Help others to enjoy reading. You can wear the T-shirt that states, I read, and I know things. Read. Read some more.

You can learn anything in the world!

By ANITA JACKSON-HALL

My beloved 92-year-old mother, Daisy Jackson, passed away nine months ago. An avid reader throughout her life, she instilled that same joy of reading in me and my siblings at an early age. As I process my grief, I have fond memories of the various books Mama lined our home bookshelf with during my childhood. My favorite and most treasured book on the shelf was Culinary Arts Institute Encyclopedic Cookbook, published in 1948 and edited by Ruth Berolzheimer.

This cookbook was Mama Daisys and our connection to one another. Its how I earned my training wheels in the kitchen as she passed down her love for baking to me at the age of 10. Mama always said, You can give someone a recipe, but if they dont know what to do with it, its still just a recipe on a piece of paper. So through the hundreds of recipes in this bulky book, she taught me reading comprehension, how to follow directions, and math through ingredient measurements. I also learned food science while marveling at the culinary magic of seeing a liquid batter transform into a perfectly baked cake.

I attempted to make cookies, cakes and even doughnuts when Mama gave me free reign of the kitchen to practice following recipes in the cookbook without her assistance. My tiny 10-year-old hands dropped the heavy cookbook and broke the binding. I looked like the Pillsbury Doughboy with a mess of flour on my clothes and the kitchen table, and I was often disappointed that not all the recipes turned out the way they should. However, Mama was patient and said practice was the only way I would learn.

Although the original cookbook was published in 1948, I bought the revised 1976 edition when I became an adult and moved out on my own. My sister owns a copy of the revised edition, too, as Mama also taught her and my niece how to bake and cook many of our favorite family recipes. There are some changes in the new edition but so much of the information and recipes are still relevant today.

Now the updated version sits on the bookshelf in my home. After Mama passed, I found her 1948 version tucked away on a shelf in one of the bedrooms at my childhood home, where my dad still resides. The pages are yellowing, the hardback cover is missing and the loosened binding is a humorous reminder of my clumsy hands.

I still visit home a few days each week to help my sister care for Dad. I bake for him favorite treats that Mama used to make. I use her mixer to whip up a pound cake, or chocolate cake. I use my hands to knead and hug dough to make her famous yeast rolls.

Baking in Mamas kitchen is my grief therapy as I celebrate her legacy of love flowing from each recipe. I smile, knowing the aromas permeating the walls are her blowing kisses from heaven.

By LESLIE SINGEL

Her very first year of teaching, her hands would not stop shaking at the beginning of each class. The syllabi and worksheets and assignments would flutter through her hands.

She had no experience. Many of the students were older. She tried her best to establish authority by speaking loudly, by maintaining good posture, by rarely smiling. On one dire occasion, she actually had to directly ask for their bare minimum respect. She barely survived. On the last day of class, she celebrated with a good dinner and many drinks.

The next year, she figured it out, as most teachers do: Show them whats out there. Show them the world in words and let them explore. Then they gravitate toward what they couldnt learn before. Slavery. Discrimination. War. Bodies of poetry. Bodies in poetry. The ache of human life, captured in words, in images. Like falling down a rabbit hole. It worked. They read it all and wrote about poverty. And nooses on trees. And misogyny. And loving someone for their soul and not their biology.

On the last day of class, a student approaches. He says she reminds him of his favorite teacher from his youth in his home country. The same enthusiasm, the same hungry urgency to help students learn. What a nice thing to say, she says. What subject does he teach? Oh, the student blithely says, he also taught literature but he doesnt teach anymore. They shot him for it.

Her hands go back to shaking. Every day she teaches, she thinks of this man. What did he hope his students would read? Did he want them to learn enough to become discontented with the life they were handed? Did he lend them books secretly after class in the hopes that they too would be inspired by the wider world? Did he know he had planted seeds even as they raised the gun?

The years pass and she cannot shake him loose. For him, she teaches books from dangerous authors. She teaches books banned in prison. She teaches books banned in the South. For him, she asks to teach banned subjects. She asks to teach what her colleagues in other states are fired for. This nameless, faceless man, cremated and scattered somewhere hot and dry. In the wrong time and place. She wakes up to carry him forward, lecture by lecture, page by page. And as each student reads, she feels a little more at peace.

Never at rest, just at peace.

By MARY MORITZ

When I was 8, I read a book about Harriet Tubman. Id only been reading for about a year, but I was madly in love with the new worlds it opened for me. I can remember lying on my bottom bunk bed, so absorbed in a story my whole world drifted away.

My father would knock on my door at times, worried about my isolating, but the last thing I felt was alone: I was with Madeline, In an old house in Paris covered in vines (1) one of twelve little girls in two straight lines (2) or hanging with Emily Elizabeth and Clifford, her big red dog. I traveled to new worlds voraciously.

When I read Runaway Slave: The Story of Harriet Tubman, by Ann McGovern, I experienced a place I never could have imagined on my own: the South before the Civil War when slavery was thriving. I learned how millions of Black people were kidnapped in Africa, shipped to America and sold as slaves. I read as Harriet learned about the Underground Railway, conductors leading slaves to freedom by following the North Star, and decided that she would be free, and she would return and lead other people to freedom.

This wouldve been around 1966, when Martin Luther King Jr. and his family moved to the South Side of Chicago to show that racism and lack of opportunity wasnt unique to the South. I lived on the Southwest Side, among people who worshipped every Sunday and sent their kids to Catholic schools. But many of the people in my neighborhood were also very prejudiced. I could feel the hatred they had toward Black people, and I didnt understand it.

The only exposure I had to the Black community came through Harriet. I admired her. She was strong and brave, and helped people escape horrible, soul-crushing lives. She wasnt lazy, or ignorant, or selfish, so I never understood the racism that I was hearing. Her people believed in God and sang His praise even while they were being horribly mistreated. I knew Martin Luther King Jr., like Harriet, was trying to free his people, free them from poverty and oppression.

Reading Runaway Slave gave me an opportunity to oppose the racism so prevalent in society simply because Harriet wasnt like that. Her people werent like that. I wasnt morally superior. I was just a girl who loved to read and, through reading, met people I admired, and learned lessons that otherwise would not have been available to me. Im forever grateful to Ann McGovern for the lessons she taught me. And Im grateful for whoever it was that chose Runaway Slave for the Scholastic book sale. It wouldnt have been an obvious choice in my school, and it changed my life.

1 Madeline, Bemelmans, Ludwig, 1939, Page 1

2 Madeline, Bemelmans, Ludwig, 1939, Page 2

By DAVID HUDSON

September 9

Principal: Hey, just a heads up, Ive gotten a couple of concerned emails from parents about your first book selection this year.

Teacher: Shadow and Bone?

Principal: Yeah, they have some concerns about the supernatural elements, etc., conflicting with their religious faith.

Teacher: Okay um, Id rather not pull it. Its a great story and really resonates with this age. They actually read it.

Principal: No, no, I dont think we should pull it. Maybe just offer an alternative. What about Tuck Everlasting.

Teacher: Probably not, last time I taught that I had parents put together a petition that, since Tuck is actually 107 years old, it is an inappropriate relationship between Tuck and Winnie.

Principal: I wasnt around for that one.

Teacher: Oh, it was real.

Principal: How about The Outsiders?

Teacher: Possible, though Ive gotten pushback before for the abusive elements and the violence.

Principal: Any other suggestions?

Teacher: Well, I would suggest that parents allow their children to think for themselves and let them form their beliefs after being exposed to a variety of sources and to express to their kids that fiction is just that fiction.

Principal: If only it were that easy.

Teacher: I remember I had a golden two years where I had the kids read Harry Potter and the Sorcerers Stone. That was before some satirical news article from Canada got picked up: out of context on a lot of Christian channels and the books were suddenly devil worship.

Principal: Yeah, and with Rowlings comments about trans rights a while back, I dont see that flying.

Teacher: Yeah, its a bit frustrating. I dont agree with her, but the books are still just riveting and amazing. I hope we can find a way past that one. Of course, Im not a great person to talk to. Those books were my childhood.

Principal: I know hang on a second. Lets put Sorcers Stone out there as the alternate title.

Teacher: Wait, what?

Principal: Trust me on this.

September 12

Principal: Happy Monday, how was your weekend?

Teacher: Not long enough, lol. But what else is new?

Principal: I hear you there. So, good news, Harry Potter has full support as the alternate title.

Teacher: Shut up. From the same parents who objected to Leigh Bardugo because of the magical elements?

Principal: Yep, each and every one of them.

Teacher: I dont understand Wait do you think its because of the kerfuffle around Rowlings comments?

Principal: All Im saying is, we now have two books on the list and no parents saying their kids cant at least read one of them.

Teacher: Isnt this kind of a deal with the devil?

Principal: Or the Wizard.

Teacher: I can live with it.

Here is the original post:

Using their voices to speak up for books and freedom - Forest Park Review