Is it Time for the U.S. to Revisit the CEDAW Treaty for the Rights of Women??

CEDAW: Treaty for the Rights of Women


The Treaty for the Rights of Women would amplify the U.S. voice in saving women's lives worldwide.


Why a Treaty? Why Now?

Americans are united in supporting basic human rights for women around the world. A global consensus is growing on the need to address the most pressing issues affecting women and girls, especially on providing access to education and health care and ending violence.

The Treaty for the Rights of Women, formally named the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), is the most comprehensive international agreement on basic rights of women. The treaty has been ratified by 182 nations and has become an important tool for partnerships among nations to end human rights abuses and promote the health and well-being of girls.


In many countries worldwide that have ratified the treaty, women have worked with their governments in partnership to change inequitable laws: to help girls receive a primary education; to enable women to get micro-loans to set up small businesses; to stop sex slavery; to improve health care services; to secure the right to own or inherit property; and to protect women and girls against violence. (See The Treaty at Work Worldwide in this kit for examples.)


The Treaty has always enjoyed bipartisan support in the United States, but has never come before the full Senate for a vote. This unfinished business puts the United States in the company of only a handful of nations that have not ratified the treaty, including Iran, Sudan, and Somalia. As a party to the treaty, the Untied States will have a seat at the table where decisions are made about


· Women’s lives around the world and, with all other ratifying nations, will file regular reports on our progress.


· U.S. law already complies with the treaty, and to ratify it will not require the passage of a single new law. The Treaty for the Rights of Women provides us with a useful framework for improving the human rights and the rule of law internationally.


The United States should strive to be a leader and set an example for the rest of the world in its commitment to women and expanding women’s rights. The Senate and President George W. Bush should lead the United States toward joining the overwhelming majority of other countries in ratifying the Treaty for the Rights of Women, adding our strength to the work of ensuring basic human rights for women everywhere.


What is the CEDAW Treaty for the Rights of Women?Exactly how does the treaty work? How would U.S. ratification help women around the world?What is the treaty's U.S. status?


What is CEDAW?


The Convention to End All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) is the most comprehensive international agreement on the basic human rights of women. Created in 1979, it is an important tool for all those who seek to end abuses of women and girls throughout the globe.


Because of the CEDAW Treaty, millions of girls are now receiving primary education who were previously denied access; measures have been taken against sex slavery, domestic violence and trafficking of women; women's health care services have improved, saving lives during pregnancy and childbirth; and millions of women have secured loans or the right to own or inherit property.


Exactly how does the treaty work?


Nations that ratify the treaty commit to overcoming barriers to discrimination against women in the areas of legal rights, education, employment, health care, politics and finance. Like all human rights treaties, the CEDAW Treaty sets benchmarks within traditional enforcement mechanisms that respect sovereignty and democracy. In many of the 182 countries that have ratified the treaty, it has guided the passage and enforcement of national laws. For example:


· Uganda, South Africa, Brazil, Australia and others have incorporated treaty provisions into their constitutions and domestic legal codes;


· Ukraine, Nepal, Thailand and the Philippines all passed laws to curb sexual trafficking;


· India developed national guidelines on workplace sexual assault after the Supreme Court, in ruling on a major rape case, found that CEDAW required such protections;


· Nicaragua, Jordan, Egypt and Guinea all saw significant increases in literacy rates after improving access to education for girls and women;


· Australia and Luxembourg created health campaigns promoting awareness and prevention of breast and cervical cancers; and


· After ratification, Colombia made domestic violence a crime and required legal protection for its victims.


Much remains to be done:


· Sex trafficking: 80% of the estimated 600,000 to 800,000 victims trafficked across international borders are female and nearly half are under the age of 18;


· Education: two-thirds of the world's 771 million illiterate adults are women;


· Maternal mortality: 500,000 women die each year from pregnancy-related complications;


· HIV/AIDS: women are four times more vulnerable than men, and 1.3 million die each year;


· Violence: an estimated 25 to 39 percent of all women experience domestic violence;


· Discrimination: millions of women lack full legal and political rights;


· Poverty: 70% of the world’s 1.3 billion people living in dire poverty are women; and


· Female genital mutilation: 130 million women are victims.


How would U.S. ratification help women around the world?


The United States has long been a world leader on human rights. But, U.S. failure to ratify the treaty allows other countries to divert attention away from their neglect of women and undermines the powerful principle that human rights of women are universal across all cultures, nations, and religions. Until the United States ratifies CEDAW, our country cannot credibly demand that others live up to their obligations under this treaty. Our failure to ratify puts us in the company of Sudan, Iran and Somalia; every other industrialized country has ratified the treaty.


Ratification does not require any change in U.S. law and would be a powerful statement of our continuing commitment to ending discrimination against women worldwide. It would allow us to join with other countries to work toward the common goal of women’s equality. The U.S. already has laws consistent with the CEDAW Treaty. Under the terms of the treaty, the U.S. would submit regular reports to an advisory committee, which would provide an important opportunity to spotlight our best practices and assess where we can do better.


The United States has a bipartisan tradition of support for international standards through human rights treaties. Presidents Reagan, Bush and Clinton ratified similar treaties on genocide, torture, race and civil and political rights. This treaty continues that proud tradition. What is the treaty's status in the U.S.?Treaty approval requires a two-thirds vote in the U.S. Senate, or 67 votes. Ratification does not require consideration by the House of Representatives.


The treaty is languishing in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee under Chairman Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN), who has indicated he is waiting for the Bush Administration to complete a review of the treaty. In 2002, the State Department notified the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the CEDAW Treaty for the Rights of Women was "generally desirable and should be ratified." Nevertheless, the Administration has not yet taken further action on the treaty; it awaits a Justice Department review about what Reservations, Understandings and Declarations may be necessary.


A coalition of over 190 U.S. religious, civic, and community organizations remain committed to supporting ratification. They include the AARP, American Nurses Association, National Education Association, National Coalition of Catholic Nuns, American Bar Association, The United Methodist Church, YWCA, and Amnesty International. In addition, a bipartisan consensus of U.S. voters has consistently supported human rights for women, showing overwhelming support for efforts to secure the rights of women and girls.

Women's Natural Individual Rights Must Be Recognized & Respected In Order For Them to Achieve Economic & Political Freedom

Women's Natural Individual Rights Must Be Recognized & Respected In Order For Them to Achieve Economic & Political Freedom


By Lawrence Kogan


June 2002


A survey of global trouble spots marked by internal civil war, civil unrest and/or foreign intervention, places such as Central Europe, Central Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Southeast Asia, where social order and the rule of law have broken down, is likely to reveal a myriad of human rights abuses suffered disproportionately by local women and children (especially girls). Studies prepared by the United Nations and human rights groups confirm that women are particularly vulnerable to violence, rape, famine, disease, poverty, unemployment, displacement, etc. in these situations because of their subordinate status in society and their dependence on men for their very livelihoods and survival, whether for historical, cultural and/or religious reasons. That these conditions still persist in a world as affluent and technologically advanced as the one in which we live today, should be repugnant to each and every person who considers himself or herself ‘civilized’. That they can be tolerated by a world led by the United States, in which a Universal Declaration of Human Rights is acclaimed as ‘the foundation of the human rights doctrine’ and a Convention on Elimination of Discrimination Against Women remains open for ratification, is morally reprehensible.


Based on the readings and Mr. O’Flattery’s lecture, it is possible to see how a ‘morally legitimate’ and ‘universal’ organization such as the United Nations can be both successful and unsuccessful in its efforts to arrest both the problem and the conditions that give rise to it. While women are indeed the primary victims of armed conflicts, they have yet to be fully accepted as meaningful participants in the processes that ultimately can lead to the resolution of the conflicts and to the subsequent rehabilitation, reconstruction and governance of their war-torn countries. The United Nations and its agencies have studied and recognized the contributions to civil society that women are capable of, and are currently pursuing, with the assistance of NGOs, a number of initiatives aimed at empowering women in peacemaking. Of the six principal organs established pursuant to Chapter III, Article 7 of the U.N. Charter, four of them are individually and collectively pursuing measures that should eventually lead to the full realization by women of their basic human rights and fundamental freedoms. As Mr. O’Flattery suggested, these measures represent a new phase in the implementation of previously developed human rights law.


Chief among these initiatives is Security Council Resolution 1325, which is “the first Resolution to give political legitimacy to women’s struggle for a seat at the negotiating table, to provide a political frame-work within which women’s protection and their role in peace-building can be addressed, and to be supported by a vibrant women’s movement”. (See “Women, Peace and Security, Progress on UN Security Council Resolution 1325” October 31, 2001, UNIFEM website). Res. 1325 is considered more than a statement of intention. It is viewed, rather, as a process that requires implementation. “It powerfully called for women’s full access to power structures and their central role in all efforts to resolve conflict. It also illustrates the vital importance of bringing gender perspectives to the center of attention to all U.N. peacekeeping, peace-building , rehabilitation and reconstruction efforts…There is a dynamic need for women to be adequately and fairly represented in peace processes and in UN peace operations. A woman’s participation in U.N. missions empowers local women and may inspire them to organize for the achievement of a democratic society.” (See Introductory Remarks of Brian Cowen, Pres. Of Security Council, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ireland, at First Anniversary of S.C. Res. 1325, U.N. Inter-Agency Panel on Women, Peace and Security, 10/31/01, at http://www.un.org/womenwatch/IAMWGE/activities/res1325/intro_cowen.html ).


S.C. Res. 1325 imposes a duty upon both Member States and the United Nations system to fulfill these mandates. The Secretary General, furthermore, is charged with two critical assignments. First, he is obliged to provide to Member States training guidelines and materials on the protection, rights and the particular needs of women, as well as on the importance of involving women in all peacekeeping and peace building measures. (par.#6). Second, he must carry out a study on the impact of armed conflict on women and girls, the role of women in peace-building and the gender dimensions of peace processes and conflict resolution. The results of the study are to reported and submitted to the Security Council and to be made available to all Member States. (par.#16).


S.C. Res. 1325 is based, in part, upon the commitments of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, which is an agenda for women’s empowerment that called upon governments to remove all obstacles to women’s active participation in all spheres of public and private life through a full and equal share in economic, social, cultural and political decision-making. Its main premise was that equality between women and men is not only a matter of human rights and a condition for social justice, but is also a necessary and fundamental prerequisite for equality, development and peace. The Platform for Action identified twelve critical areas of concern, including ‘the effects of armed or other kinds of conflict on women (e.g,, those living under foreign occupation)’. (See “Fourth World Conference on Women, Platform for Action”, held in Beijing, China, September 1995, pars.# 1;44;). The recommendations contained within the “Report of the Ad Hoc Committee of the Whole of the 23rd Special Session of the General Assembly” entitled, “Women 2000: Gender Equality, Development and Peace for the 21st Century” (A/S-23/10/Rev.1) were also incorporated into Res. 1325. This report identified actions needed to be taken by the United Nations system, international and regional organizations and governments to implement the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action.


The Platform for Action upheld the goals set forth within the Nairobi Forward-Looking Strategies for the Advancement of Women, adopted by the World Conference to Review and Appraise the Achievements of the United Nations Decade for Women: Equality, Development and Peace”, held in Nairobi, Kenya, July 15-26, 1985. (See G.A. Res. 44/77, Dec. 8, 1989, endorsing and reaffirming the importance of the Nairobi Forward-Looking Strategies for the period up to 2000; G.A. 48/108, Feb. 28, 1994, adopted on the report of the 3rd Committee on the “Implementation of the Nairobi Forward-Looking Strategies for the Advancement of Women”). The Forward-Looking Strategies recognized the interdependence and inseparability of the goals of equality, development and peace as regards the advancement of women and their full integration in economic, political, social and cultural development. They prescribed long-term measures for global action, including the elimination of sex-based stereotyping, which is at the root of continuing discrimination. The strategies and measures were to be implemented according to the nature of the political process and the administrative capabilities of each country, and were to serve as guidelines for a process of continuous adaptation to diverse and changing national situations. Particular attention was given to especially vulnerable and underprivileged groups of women, including women in areas affected by armed conflicts, foreign intervention and international threats to peace. (Nairobi Forward-Looking Strategies, par.# 41).


At least one U.N. agency is working to assist the Secretary General in conducting the study on the impact of armed conflict on women and children, and to implement the mandates of Res. 1325. The United Nations Population Fund (UNPF) organized and convened a meeting on the “Impact of Conflict on Women and Girls” during November 2001, which led to a set of recommendations to ensure that refugee care and peace building efforts consistently addressed reproductive health concerns and gender based violence, and that gender concerns become an integral part of U.N. agencies and international NGOs. (See “Refugee and Peace-Building Efforts Must Address Women’s Needs, Meeting Stresses”, United Nations Population Fund, (11/15/01, at www.unfpa.org/news/pressroom/2001/bratislava.htm). In fact, the keynote speaker of the meeting, Ms. Elisabeth Rehn of Finland, was appointed by the United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) to study conflicts and post-conflict situations throughout the world in order to recommend ways to enhance women’s role in peace processes. Although Ms. Rehn found in her missions to ten countries ranging from East Timor to Macedonia, that lack of education, rape and domestic violence were common in each of the conflicts she studied, she also found positive signs that “all over the world, women have the strong will to take responsibility for the future of their countries”. (See “Peace Process Must Include Women, UN Expert Tells Meeting”, 11/13/01, at http://www.unfpa.org/news/features/womenpeace.htm ).


UNIFEM, which has for many years assisted and educated women in conflict and reconstruction situations and supported their participation in peace processes and law-making, is also working in the field within different countries to mitigate the impact of conflict on women and to facilitate their participation in peace building. UNIFEM, part of the U.N. Development Program (UNDP), operates at the country level as a U.N. Resident Coordinator, which is the Secretary General’s designated representative for development cooperation at the country level and the leader of the U.N. country team. UNIFEM’s successful activities in Rwanda, Burundi, the Democratic Republic of Congo, East Timor and Latin America, for example, have been well documented. (See: “UNIFEM at Work Around the World”).


Recently, UNIFEM sponsored two historic consultations that provided Afghan women from different backgrounds and political beliefs with a forum to discuss how Afghan women could participate in rebuilding their country. An international roundtable consisting of Afghan women from within and outside Afghanistan was organized and convened in Brussels, Belgium. It resulted in the Brussels Action Plan, which outlines 47 concrete recommendations to protect women’s rights in the rehabilitation and reconstruction of Afghanistan, and requests support from the international community, donors, the United Nations, and NGOs to implement them (See Brussels Action Plan, “Roundtable on Building Women’s Leadership in Afghanistan”, convened by UNIFEM and the Government of Belgium, December 10-11, 2001).


UNIFEM also facilitated the first National Afghan Women’s Consultation in Kabul, during March 5-7, 2002, which consisted of 60 indigenous Afghan women who developed a list of needs and priorities that called for a 25% female representation in the Loya Jirga, women’s participation in the drafting of the new constitution and women’s access to healthcare and education. In response to these dialogues, UNIFEM formulated an agenda that will assist the Afghan Ministry of Women’s Affairs in focusing on re-integrating Afghan refugee and displaced women into mainstream society, raising awareness of Afghan women’s issues and empowering Afghan women to participate in the political process. (See “Women’s Leadership Role in the Reconstruction of Afghanistan”, at http://www.unifem.undp.org/afghanistan ; “Afghan Women’s Minister Envisions Active Role for Women in Upcoming Loyal Jirga”, UNIFEM Press Release, April 25, 2002) at http://www.unifem.undp.org/press/pr_afghan_minister.html .


Furthermore, efforts have been made by a number of U.N. departments and agencies related to peacekeeping to implement the mandates of Res. 1325 within their internal operations and activities. These efforts were reported during a recent Inter-Agency Meeting on Women and Gender Equality, convened by the U.N. Interagency Panel of Women, Peace and Security. The Inter-Agency Meeting works actively to promote gender mainstreaming throughout the work of the United Nations. The heads of four U.N. departments reported to the panel. The Meeting’s chairperson is Ms. Angela King, Special Advisor to the Secretary General on Gender Issues and the Advancement of Women. Ms. King also heads the Taskforce on Women, Peace and Security that is responsible for the implementation of the study and report that the Secretary General must prepare pursuant to S.C. Res. 1325. (See Statements by Mr. Kieran Prendergast, Under-Secretary General, Department of Political Affairs, Statement by Mr. Jayantha Dhanapala, Under-Secretary, Department of Disarmament Affairs, Statement by Mr. Jean-Marie Guehenno, Under-Secretary General, Department of Peacekeeping Operations, Statement by Mr. Kenzo Oshima, UnderSecretary General, Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, at the First Anniversary of Security Council Resolution 1325, U.N. Inter-Agency Panel on Women, Peace and Security, 10/31/01, at http://www.un.org/womenwatch/IAMWGE/html ).


The Inter-Agency Meeting also established a taskforce chaired by Ms. King that successfully facilitated the incorporation of relevant gender perspectives in each of the areas that were prepared for the International Conference on Financing for Development. For obvious reasons, it is believed that the protection of women in areas of armed conflict and their inclusion in the reconciliation and reconstruction processes can only further a country’s development objectives, since conflicts deter development. (See par.#s 8, 11,12,16, and 18 of the Draft Outcome of the International Conference on Financing for Development, ‘The Monterrey Consensus’, March 1, 2002; Inter-Agency Task Force for Development, of the Inter-Agency Meeting on Women and Gender Equality, at http://www.un.org/womenwatch/IAMWGE/activities/tf_fin_dev.html ).


In an attempt to eliminate the root causes (attitudes) that give rise to the poor treatment of women, S.C. Res. 1325 also calls upon Member States which are parties to armed conflict “to respect fully international law applicable to the basic rights and protection of women, especially as civilians”, including the obligations contained within the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), adopted by the U.N. General Assembly in 1979. (par.#9). The CEDAW, which is often described as an international bill of rights for women, defines what constitutes discrimination against women and sets up an agenda for national action to eliminate such discrimination. By accepting the convention, Member States commit themselves to undertake a series of measures to end discrimination against women in all forms, including legislation and temporary special measures so that women can enjoy all their human rights and fundamental freedoms.


The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women was established pursuant to Article 17 of the CEDAW, and operates under the auspices of the General Assembly. It acts as a monitoring system to oversee the implementation of the Convention by those States that have ratified or acceded to it. On June 17-21, the Committee convened a meeting to address a number of women’s issues. (See Press Release, “Country Reports of Seven States Parties Considered; Provisional Agenda for Extraordinary August Session, 28th Regular Session Adopted. Committee on Elimination of Discrimination Against Women Concludes 27th Session”, at http://www.unhchr.ch/ ). The U.S.’ failure to ratify the CEDAW, in the view of some members of Congress, is cause for embarrassment. U.S. Representative Connie Morella (R.Md) recently testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, urging the Senate to ratify the treaty known as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Agnst Women (CEDAW):


“The Senate has already agreed to the ratification of several important human rights treaties, including…CEDAW. Yet the U.S. has neglected our responsibility to participate. The U.S. is among a small minority of countries which have not ratified or acceded to CEDAW…Our overdue ratification of CEDAW would allow the U.S. to finally nominate a representative to the CEDAW oversight committee. Our vocal support for the human rights of every individual and our role as a world leader, should mandate our support for CEDAW, and our lack of action is nothing short of embarrassing …Women are not only victims. They are taking the initiative to reach across the conflict divide and foster peace. In some countries they join together to collect arms. In others they create joint community development projects. Yet despite women’s positive roles in fostering peace, they are excluded from most peace negotiations. The U.S. should actively engage in ways to eliminate the brutality women face around the world. One of the first and most basic steps is to adopt the objectives of CEDAW.” (See “Morella Asks Senate to Ratify Treaty on Discrimination Agnst Women” [1100], Washington File, June 14, 2002, at http://usinfo.state.gov/ ) .


Several other U.N. bodies which are responsible for promoting women’s rights and gender mainstreaming throughout the U.N. system are assisting countries to implement the mandates of S.C. Res. 1325. The Division for the Advancement of Women (DAW) operates within the U.N. Secretariat and advocates the improvement of the status of women throughout the world and their equality with men. It aims to ensure the participation of women as equal partners with men in all respects of human endeavor. It conducts research and develops policy options, fosters interaction between governments and civil society and provides substantive servicing for UN intergovernmental and expert bodies.


The DAW also provides substantive servicing to the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), the functional commission of the ECOSOC with the mandate to elaborate policies, and the expert treaty body that monitors the implementation of legal standards in the CEDAW. And, it assists the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Agnst Women to achieve equality btwn women and men. The mandate of the CSW has been expanded to integrate into its program a follow-up process to the Beijing Platform for Action, regularly reviewing the critical areas of concern in the Platform for Action and to develop its catalytic role in mainstreaming a gender perspective in the U.N.’s activities.


The Commission on Human Rights, as well, operates under the auspices of the ECOSOC. It is charged, as stated by the U.N. Charter, with the enforcement of the human rights conventions, including CEDAW. It also has the important task of elaborating human rights standards. Since it concluded work on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, it has developed standards relating, inter alia, to the right of development, civil and political rights, economic, social and cultural rights, the elimination of racial discrimination, torture, the rights of the child and the rights of human rights defenders.


The Commission devotes much of its time to examining issues of implementation. Its network of mechanisms – experts, representatives and rapporteurs (persons who make reports) plays an important role in reporting to the Commission annually. The Special Rapporteur on Violence Agnst Women, Its Causes and Consequences, falls under the Commission on Human Rights. (See Report of Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, Its Cause and Consequences, “Integration of the Human Rights of Women and the Gender Perspective Violence Against Women”, April 10, 2002, at http://www.unhchr.ch/ ).


The Commission of Human Rights can take action to address identified problems. It regularly answers requests from the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights, a part of the U.N. Secretariat, to provide assistance to governments through its program of advisory services and technical cooperation in the field of human rights. This assistance takes the form of expert advice, human rights seminars, national and regional training courses and workshops, fellowships and scholarships, and other activities aimed at strengthening national capacities for the protection and promotion of human rights. (Ibid).

Women Sadly Do Not Have 'Property in Their Rights' in Saudi Arabia

[Property means] that dominion which one man [woman] claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual. . . . [I]t embraces everything to which a man [woman] may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage. In the former sense, a man’s [woman's] land, or merchandize, or money is called his [her] property. In the latter sense, a man [woman] has a property in his [her] opinions and the free communication of them. . . . He [she] has a property very dear to him [her] in the safety and liberty of his [her] person. He [she] has an equal property in the free use of his [her] faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them. In a word, as a man [woman] is said to have a right to his [her] property, he [she] may be equally said to have a property in his [her] rights.


JAMES MADISON, Property, THE NAT’L GAZETTE, Mar. 29, 1792, reprinted in 14 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON 266-67 (Robert A. Rutland et al. eds., 1983)


************************************************************************************
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3321637.ece


Religious police in Saudi Arabia arrest mother for sitting with a man


TIMES ONLINE


February 7, 2008


Sonia Verma in Dubai


A 37-year-old American businesswoman and married mother of three is seeking justice after she was thrown in jail by Saudi Arabia's religious police for sitting with a male colleague at a Starbucks coffee shop in Riyadh.


Yara, who does not want her last name published for fear of retribution, was bruised and crying when she was freed from a day in prison after she was strip-searched, threatened and forced to sign false confessions by the Kingdom's “Mutaween” police.


Her story offers a rare first-hand glimpse of the discrimination faced by women living in Saudi Arabia. In her first interview with the foreign press, Yara told The Times that she would remain in Saudi Arabia to challenge its harsh enforcement of conservative Islam rather than return to America.


“If I want to make a difference I have to stick around. If I leave they win. I can't just surrender to the terrorist acts of these people,” said Yara, who moved to Jeddah eight years ago with her husband, a prominent businessman.


Her ordeal began with a routine visit to the new Riyadh offices of her finance company, where she is a managing partner.


The electricity temporarily cut out, so Yara and her colleagues — who are all men — went to a nearby Starbucks to use its wireless internet.


She sat in a curtained booth with her business partner in the cafe's “family” area, the only seats where men and women are allowed to mix.


For Yara, it was a matter of convenience. But in Saudi Arabia, public contact between unrelated men and women is strictly prohibited.


“Some men came up to us with very long beards and white dresses. They asked ‘Why are you here together?'. I explained about the power being out in our office. They got very angry and told me what I was doing was a great sin,” recalled Yara, who wears an abaya and headscarf, like most Saudi women.


The men were from Saudi Arabia's Commission for Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, a police force of several thousand men charged with enforcing dress codes, sex segregation and the observance of prayers.


Yara, whose parents are Jordanian and grew up in Salt Lake City, once believed that life in Saudi Arabia was becoming more liberal. But on Monday the religious police took her mobile phone, pushed her into a cab and drove her to Malaz prison in Riyadh. She was interrogated, strip-searched and forced to sign and fingerprint a series of confessions pleading guilty to her “crime”.


“They took me into a filthy bathroom, full of water and dirt. They made me take off my clothes and squat and they threw my clothes in this slush and made me put them back on,” she said. Eventually she was taken before a judge.


“He said 'You are sinful and you are going to burn in hell'. I told him I was sorry. I was very submissive. I had given up. I felt hopeless,” she said.


Yara's husband, Hatim, used his political contacts in Jeddah to track her whereabouts. He was able to secure her release.


“I was lucky. I met other women in that prison who don't have the connections I did,” she said. Her story has received rare coverage in Saudi Arabia, where the press has been sharply critical of the police.


Yara was visited yesterday by officials from the American Embassy, who promised they would file a report.


An embassy official told The Times that it was being treated as “an internal Saudi matter” and refused to comment on her case.


Tough justice


— Saudi Arabia’s Mutaween has 10,000 members in almost 500 offices

— Ahmad al-Bluwi, 50, died in custody in 2007 in the city of Tabuk after he invited a woman outside his immediate family into his car

— In 2007 the victim of a gang rape was sentenced to 200 lashes and six years in jail for having been in an unrelated man’s car at the time. She was pardoned by King Abdullah, although he maintained the sentence had been fair

Women Benefit From Microcredit Lending as Do Small Lenders: Big Payback

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/economy/microcredit.html


Microcredit lending: Small loans; big payback


CBS News (Nov. 10, 2006)


While not a strict requirement, the reality is that most of the loan programs are targeted to women. The Microcredit Summit Campaign says it's found that women are more likely to repay their loans in full and are more likely to use the money to improve their families' lives. They are, in the words of the Grameen Bank, "the best poverty fighters."


...A 2005 progress report noted that more than 66 million poor families had been helped as of the end of 2004, representing more than 330 million people. The summit campaign believes the 100-million goal will be reached by the end of 2006 or 2007.


Microcredit lending is now carried out by more than 3,200 organizations in dozens of countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The longest-running microlending enterprise — that of Grameen Bank — has loaned $6 billion US to 6.6 million borrowers in more than 71,000 Bangladeshi villages since 1976 (96 per cent of the clients are women).


... What is microcredit?

The Microcredit Summit of 1997 defined microcredit as any program that extends small loans to very poor people for self-employment projects that generate income. Definitions of what constitutes a "small loan" may vary from one country to the next, but many of the loans are as small as the equivalent of $30. Most loans are under $200.

A typical loan might see a woman borrow $50 to buy chickens. The chickens would produce eggs and, eventually, more chickens — all of which she could sell in the marketplace. Every week, she and other local loan recipients will gather to make loan payments — tiny weekly installments that makes repayment much easier for the borrower. The clients also share success stories. Peer support is an integral part of the microfinance system. The loan will be fully repaid in six to 12 months and the money will then be re-lent to someone else in the community.

The loans are usually fronted by non-profit groups that are typically owned by the borrowers themselves. One becomes an owner simply by borrowing. The loans granted by microfinance institutions (MFIs) usually carry an annual interest rate of 15 to 35 per cent (although some loans are interest-free). That may seem high to Western borrowers, but it reflects the high costs they face in running their programs and meeting every week with their clients in the clients' home villages. For most of the borrowers, the only alternative to a microloan is the local moneylender and interest rates that can quadruple the cost of a loan in just one year.

MFIs also don't just loan money. They also offer entrepreneurship and life-skills training, such as literacy and nutrition counselling.

...What are the lending criteria?

The typical recipient of a microloan is very poor. They struggle to survive every day, often living on less than the equivalent of $1 US a day.

Unlike other types of loans, microcredit loans never require collateral. Being desperately poor is all it takes to qualify. Formal contracts are usually not drawn up. The loans are based on the premise that credit is a human right and that everyone has skills that can be harnessed. Even beggars can get loans.

"Conventional banks look at what has already been acquired by a person," Yunus wrote. "Grameen looks at the potential that is waiting to be unleashed."

Micro-Loans Alleviate the Pressure to Emigrate

http://www.limitstogrowth.org/WEB-text/alleviating-pressure.html


Alleviating the Pressure to Emigrate: Microloans Help the Poor in their Home Countries


By Brenda Walker


Limits to Growth


While much of the liberal establishment regards immigration as an excellent example of its noble missionary work, the efficacy of immigration as rescue is limited. Like much about the issue, it boils down to basic numbers. Simply put, there are entirely too many poor people on earth to be rescued by immigration to the United States. Do-gooders should study better ways to help the poor where they live, since those billions cannot all come here.


One important answer already exists and has had the kinks worked out through years of trial and error in many small communities throughout the Third World. Microloans have been shown to be an effective way to improve the living standard of the poor where they live. This approach for aiding the world's poor is clearly superior to the rescue fantasy underlying liberal support for current immigration policy. Microlending is inexpensive and it works.


Microloans are very small loans made to women so that they can start their own businesses. It was started by an economics professor, Muhammed Yunus, who believed that the poor needed credit, not charity. Starting in 1976, Yunus created the Grameen Bank and secured donations to fund its lending programs. (Grameen is a Bangladeshi word that means rural.) Today the bank is self-supporting from the interest paid on its loans to the poor. Repayment rates are very high because Grameen has learned how to structure its program for maximum success.


Microloans are aimed at women, since across most cultures women consistently deal more responsibly with the loans than men. An individual woman might buy a sewing machine or a loom, or perhaps a simple handcart to start a delivery business. Although the money is loaned to individual women, every loan must be repaid in order for others in the local group to get any additional loans. In addition, there is a social contract to which every participant must agree. Among other things, members pledge to drink only safe water, limit the size of their families, educate their children, grow vegetables and refuse any participation in dowry customs (which are the source of much violence against women).


This is a prescription that should be welcomed by all political persuasions. Conservatives appreciate that microloans take little or no government involvement and become self-supporting in a very short time. Feminists like the “women's empowerment” in cultures where women have been subjugated by customs like purdah for centuries. In running their own small enterprises, the women gain more standing in the home and community.


For environmentalists, the emphasis on small, sustainable development is a welcome change from the large, often ecologically destructive engineering projects that the World Bank has promoted. In addition, the organizational structure promotes democratic involvement in the village. Women involved in microloans often vote in higher numbers and run for public office themselves. In countries like Bangladesh, this civic involvement is a far cry from the lives of their mothers, who may never have left their home compounds in their lifetimes.


It is also notable that the basic strategy carries over across cultural differences. A Grameen newsletter article announced the successful launch of a microloan program in Sonora Mexico in March 2000. Another branch has been started in Chiapas. The initial reports are very positive, showing that Mexicans do not need to relocate en masse to the U.S. in order to attain a better life. Now will someone tell Mexican President Fox that an open border is not necessary? Of course, Mr. Fox has a more complicated agenda than merely improving the lives of poor Mexicans, which is a minor sidebar to his globalist goals.


In his book, “Banker to the Poor,” microloan creator Yunus makes an astounding statement (pg. 221), “In Bangladesh, there is no reason why people should remain poor.” If the poster country for poverty is seen as a likely candidate for successful self-help, then any country can be.


The remarkable success of the Grameen Bank shows that appropriate self-help programs for the people of impoverished countries can effectively lessen Third World poverty. The poor do not need to be rescued by means of immigration to the United States in a paternalistic display of American elitism.