Gender

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 3756
    [post_author] => 2
    [post_date] => 2022-01-27 21:13:29
    [post_date_gmt] => 2022-01-27 21:13:29
    [post_content] => Forced sterilizations on detained migrant women is in line with the US's long, sordid history of eugenics.

Last month, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) briefed House Democrats on allegations concerning several gynecological procedures, including hysterectomies, that a physician performed on migrant women in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody at the Irwin County Detention Center in Ocilla, Georgia—allegedly without their informed consent. The incidents became public knowledge in September 2020, after a consortium of human rights groups filed an explosive report on behalf of Nurse Dawn Wooten, a whistleblower who worked at the detention center.

In a December 3 letter signed by the chairmen of the House Committees on Homeland Security and Oversight and Reform, legislators wrote: “We are concerned that Dr. [Mahendra] Amin may have been performing unnecessary surgical procedures to defraud DHS and the Federal government without consequences.” The letter, which is addressed to DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, also requested information on the steps the Department has taken to review treatment Dr. Amin provided and ensure migrants receive proper medical care in the future.

The Conversationalist confirmed a December 15 DHS briefing with two committee staffers, both of whom declined to share additional details about the information presented. A staffer from the Committee on Homeland Security clarified that this was a DHS review of the Irwin County Detention Center and not a general review of migrant detention facilities, although Congress requested the Department to brief them on the matter months ago.

The December 3 letter says, “the Committee on Homeland Security requested a briefing on August 10, 2021, on DHS’s efforts to review the suitability of detention facilities. To date, DHS has not fulfilled this request. We ask that you ensure the Committees receive this briefing without further delay.”

On January 3, the DHS released a report that found “the facility’s chronic care, continuity of care, and medical policies and procedures to be inadequate” but did not find that unnecessary or unwanted hysterectomies had been performed. The report does, however, quote an ICE employee who alleges that there is a systemic issue in the ICE leadership that makes the agency “unwilling to listen to concerns or complaints about detention facilities.”

Nurse Dawn Wooten worked at the Irwin County Detention Center (ICDC) for three years. She says that Dr. Amin, who was referred to as the “uterus collector,” had performed hysterectomies on at least 20 women without their consent. Many of these women did not speak English well enough to consent to the procedures or understand what had been done to them. Thirty-five women are now suing ICE over Dr. Amin’s abuse.ICDC, run by a for-profit prison company called LaSalle Corrections, also came under harsh scrutiny for their botched COVID-19 response, which sparked hunger strikes and protests among detainees early in the pandemic.

The Georgia-based advocacy group Project South filed the complaint, which describes a filthy, insect-infested facility with inadequate COVID-19 safety precautions, where staff refused to test symptomatic detainees and fabricated medical records. Detainees who protested the conditions were punished with beatings, pepper spray, and solitary confinement. Nurse Wooten told The Intercept that she was demoted after raising concerns with her supervisors.

“It is deeply concerning that neither DHS nor the private prison company running Irwin have yet to face accountability for the medical abuse that migrant women faced at Irwin,” Azadeh Shahshahani, the Legal and Advocacy Director with Project South said in an email statement to The Conversationalist. “This is setting an awful precedent. Congress and the Biden Administration must act now.”

The joint committee investigation subpoenaed LaSalle Corrections in November 2020 after the company refused to turn over medical records on the procedures Dr. Amin performed. Dr. Tony Ogburn, Department Chair of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, reviewed those records. He concluded that Dr. Amin’s care “did not meet acceptable standards.”

“My concern is that he was not competent and simply did the same evaluation and treatment on most patients because that is what he knew how to do, and/or he did tests and treatments that generated a significant amount of reimbursement without benefitting most patients,” Dr. Ogburn concluded in a November 2021 letter to the Georgia Medical Board.

Following pressure from lawmakers, activists, and advocacy groups, DHS Secretary Mayorkas announced he would sever ties with LaSalle Corrections in May 2021, though migrants were not removed from the facilities until September 2021—a full year after Project South filed Nurse Wooten’s whistleblower complaint with the ICE administration.

While these abuses came to light during the Trump presidency the lack of accountability continues under the Biden Administration, with migrant arrests now at a 21-year high. The current administration has ramped up deportations under a Trump-era health policy that allows the government to expedite the process without giving migrants the opportunity to apply for asylum. The government claims the rushed deportations are a COVID-19 safety precaution.

Under Title 42, the Trump Administration expelled 444,000 migrants. Under Biden, this number has already reached 690,000. COVID-19 still runs rampant in migrant detention centers and in prisons such as New York City’s Rikers Island, where more than one-fifth of the incarcerated population has tested positive.

Immigration advocates have been disappointed with the new administration. Since taking office, Biden has filed 296 executive orders on immigration, 89 of which have reversed actions taken by the Trump administration such as the travel ban on Muslim majority nations and construction of the border wall.

When Dawn Wooten stepped forward to make a whistleblower complaint about the medical abuses at ICDC, international headlines about “mass hysterectomies” sparked outrage and comparisons to Nazi Germany. Others placed the story within a long history of American eugenics that targeted Black, brown, disabled, and indigenous women.

“People with Spanish surnames were disproportionately sterilized during the period of peak eugenics in the 1920s through the 1950s,” says Heather Dron, a Research Fellow at the Sterilization and Social Justice Lab at the University of Michigan.

During the twentieth century, U.S. states subjected over 60,000 people to sterilization without consent, with over 30 states establishing eugenics boards. State governments targeted minorities, the disabled, and others who did not fit into “social norms” for forced sterilization.

From 1929 to 1974 North Carolina ordered as many as 7,600 women sterilized— a majority of whom were Black women from low-income backgrounds. Margaret Sanger and Dr. Gregory Pincus exploited government birth control centers in Puerto Rico to subject one-third of the female population to sterilization procedures, often without their consent, purportedly to address “overpopulation” and poverty on the island. Under the Family Planning Services and Population Research Act of 1970 physicians sterilized an estimated 25 percent of Native American women of childbearing age in a six-year period.

Adolf Hitler writes admiringly in Mein Kampf of eugenics policies practiced in the U.S. “There is today one state in which at least weak beginnings toward a better conception [of immigration] are noticeable. Of course, it is not our model German Republic, but [the United States], in which an effort is made to consult reason at least partially. By refusing immigrants on principle to elements in poor health, by simply excluding certain races from naturalization, it professes in slow beginnings a view that is peculiar to the People's State.”

Heather Dron’s research focuses on eugenic sterilization in California, where roughly 20,000, or one-third, of U.S. sterilizations were performed starting from 1909.

“There was a law on the books between 1909 and 1979 that allowed for the sterilization of institutionalized people housed in psychiatric hospitals, or in homes for what was then called the ‘feeble-minded,’” Dron says. “Sterilization was seen as a solution to all these other social problems. They saw it as a way to keep these people out of institutions.”

While eugenics laws in California have been repealed, sterilizations have continued. A 2013 investigation by Mother Jones revealed that 148 women in two California prisons were sterilized from 2006 to 2010.

“You get a similar dynamic there,” says Dron, referring to the recent ICE cases. “There were a few people who were performing a lot of procedures who seemed like they didn’t have a great ethical practice in general.”

There is no evidence to suggest that Dr. Mahendra Amin was motivated to perform these surgeries for anything other than financial compensation. Last month's letter from House Democrats expressing concerns that Dr. Amin performed these surgeries to “defraud the government” further supports this theory.

“It sounds like there’s some sort of incentive to perform surgical interventions because you’re paid per intervention and some people took advantage of that,” Dron says of Dr. Amin’s case. “But you have to read that with a little bit of skepticism because often we point to these bad actors and say it’s just them as opposed to a system that systematically thinks that people who are incarcerated shouldn’t have kids.”

The breaking news of hysterectomies performed on migrant women in ICE custody barely made it through one news cycle before news of Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s death broke just days later. Her death was followed by a swift Republican push to nominate a third Supreme Court Justice under Trump just weeks ahead of the 2020 election.

The media might choose to remember the hysterectomies performed at the Georgia ICE facility as a particularly egregious act that happened under a uniquely evil administration. That would be a huge mistake.

According to a December 2021 article in The Texas Tribune, the number of immigrants held in ICE detention centers has increased by more than 50 percent since Biden took office. Moreover, the investigation into Dr. Amin’s medical practice has been conducted on Biden’s watch.

Detentions have been accompanied by a spike in border crossings in 2021. Biden has downplayed this as a seasonal phenomenon while Republicans have pointed to plans to offer 11 million migrants a path to citizenship as cause for the surge. Others say the migrants are motivated by growing instability in their home countries. With less attention on the issue of migration, Biden has gotten away with his continuation of the “remain in Mexico” policy by pointing to Title 42, which has been extended twice by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as a matter of public health.

Under the Biden Administration, we no longer hear overtly fascist rhetoric from the White House aimed at migrants, but detainees at ICE facilities continue to suffer from extreme medical neglect and abuse as COVID-19 cases soar.

In order to prevent us from reliving the past, we need to understand the circumstances that led us to where we are today. Ending Trump’s remain in Mexico policies, fulfilling a campaign promise to offer migrants a path to citizenship, and holding Dr. Amin and LaSalle Corrections responsible for their medical abuses would be a great place to start.

 
    [post_title] => The 'uterus collector': the surgeon who performed coerced hysterectomies on detained migrant women
    [post_excerpt] => The forced sterilizations are in line with the U.S.'s long, sordid, racist history of eugenics. 
    [post_status] => publish
    [comment_status] => closed
    [ping_status] => open
    [post_password] => 
    [post_name] => the-uterus-collector-the-scandal-of-the-surgeon-who-performed-coerced-hysterectomies-on-detained-migrant-women
    [to_ping] => 
    [pinged] => 
    [post_modified] => 2024-08-28 21:14:02
    [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-08-28 21:14:02
    [post_content_filtered] => 
    [post_parent] => 0
    [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=3756
    [menu_order] => 145
    [post_type] => post
    [post_mime_type] => 
    [comment_count] => 0
    [filter] => raw
)

The ‘uterus collector’: the surgeon who performed coerced hysterectomies on detained migrant women

by Indigo Olivier

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 3712
    [post_author] => 2
    [post_date] => 2022-01-13 21:30:06
    [post_date_gmt] => 2022-01-13 21:30:06
    [post_content] => The trials of the women, though on vastly different charges, demonstrate clearly that there are two classes of victims: those for whom the wheels of justice grind slowly; and those for whom they move quickly.

On the first weekday of the new year a California jury handed down a verdict in United States vs. Elizabeth Holmes, finding the Theranos founder guilty of four counts of wire fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud against investors. Just a few days earlier, a New York City jury found Ghislaine Maxwell, the disgraced British socialite who procured girls for Jeffrey Epstein to abuse sexually, guilty of sex-trafficking. The timing of the two decisions aimed at powerful women made them collectively feel like a good omen, as if 2022 was shaping up to be the Year of Accountability. 

According to the evidence presented by prosecutors in both cases, the verdicts seemed fair and the juries thoughtful. (John Carreyrou, the former Wall Street Journal reporter whose investigative series on Theranos brought down the company, said in the final episode of Bad Blood, his podcast series about the Elizabeth Holmes trial, that the jury had been “unusually thoughtful.”) Holmes was found guilty of defrauding investors but cleared of the charges against patients. Maxwell, for her part, was convicted of five of the six counts with which she was charged for aiding and abetting Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual abuse of minors in the 1990s. 

As different as the charges were, both trials raised uncomfortable questions about gender, underscoring how seriously our legal system takes protecting the interests of rich white men. Remember that Maxwell is the only person to have faced federal prosecution for her involvement in Epstein’s vast criminal enterprise—besides Epstein, who died in prison in what was ruled a suicide. Holmes is a “unicorn”—the first Silicon Valley CEO to be convicted of white collar crime, who also happens to also be a female founder, an under-represented demographic that receives just 11 percent of VC funding. “I wonder if [Holmes would] be going to prison if she didn’t have ovaries,” mused NYU marketing professor Scott Galloway on his podcast, Pivot. 

Like the last prominent female CEO convicted of white collar crime—Martha Stewart, who in 2004 was found guilty of obstruction of justice and sentenced to five months in prison—Holmes became a cautionary tale about a woman who flew too close to the sun, inspiring both a media frenzy and a content extravaganza. The rise and fall of Holmes, a billionaire (on paper) entrepreneur who was once heralded as the next Steve Jobs, has generated two prominent podcasts, a best-selling book, a documentary, a TV series on Hulu debuting March 3 that stars Amanda Seyfried, and a recently announced Apple Original Films adaptation of Carreyrou’s book, Bad Blood, starring Jennifer Lawrence. (Martha Stewart’s case, which took place before the podcast revolution, also inspired best-selling books—including a how-to guide written by Stewart herself while she was under house arrest—and a made-for-TV movie starring Cybill Shepherd.)    

Things get a bit more complicated—both with the Stewart comparisons and the idea that Holmes’s case contains broader lessons for the tech industry—when you consider the specifics of what she promised, and what Theranos actually delivered. As I have noted before, Theranos wasn’t a tech company, despite how it was pitched to investors. Holmes wasn’t trying to hawk a ride-sharing app or a social network or a coworking space. She was pitching a medical device that purported to diagnose diseases from a drop of blood with greater accuracy than traditional laboratory tests requiring larger samples. And unlike Martha Stewart, whose crime was relatively minor—she lied to investigators about a suspiciously well-timed sale of stock—Holmes lied to patients and investors, with life-altering implications.  

Theranos’s product never worked, which set Holmes apart from her Silicon Valley peers. Holmes told investors that Theranos’s “minilab” device could run thousands of blood tests, even though it never could run more than 12. She implied that it was being deployed on the battlefield and in Medevac helicopters, when she never had a deal with the Department of Defense beyond an exploratory conversation. One patient, Erin Tompkins, testified that she ordered a Theranos test at Walgreens, and was misdiagnosed as having HIV. “I was quite emotional about it,” she said, adding that she tried to call the company but never got beyond a customer service representative. Another patient, Brittany Gould, took the stand to say that a Theranos test result indicated that she was miscarrying, which would have been her fourth miscarriage in a row. Thankfully, a nurse practitioner encouraged her to get a second test, which confirmed that Gould’s baby was healthy. 

[caption id="attachment_3721" align="alignleft" width="640"] (l to r): Bill Clinton,
Elizabeth Holmes, and Jack Ma at the Clinton Global Initiative on September 29, 2015.[/caption]

As disturbing as that all sounds, it was the charges that stemmed from lying to the investors—not to the patients—that caused the jury to return a guilty verdict. To be sure, the defense successfully blocked testimony about the emotional impact of getting false test results, so it may have been harder to convince the jury to convict on those counts. Juror number six, a man named Wayne Katz, explained to ABC News that the jury ultimately felt that the CEO was “one step removed” from patient victims, so they weren’t directly defrauded in the same way as investors like the billionaire DeVos family, which put $100 million into Theranos; Daniel Mosley, a lawyer who invested $6 million; or PFM Health Sciences LP, a hedge fund that invested $96 million. For whistleblower Tyler Shultz—grandson of former Secretary of State George Shultz, who was on the company’s board—the verdict was mostly cause for celebration. But, as he told John Carreyrou on his Bad Blood podcast, he and his former colleague Erika Cheung were not motivated to put their “necks out on the line” so they could avenge aggrieved billionaires. They were trying “to save patients from potentially getting bad medical results.”  

It would be a travesty if Elizabeth Holmes were to wind up being the only Silicon Valley hype artist called to account for lying to investors or a range of other crimes. Elon Musk, for example, got a slap on the wrist for tweeting that he was taking Tesla public—a lie that sent the stock soaring—settling with the Securities and Exchange Commission for $40 million and agreeing to make some performative changes at the company. Travis Kalanick never faced criminal charges for any of the multiple scandals at Uber, which included price gouging, a culture of rampant sexual harassment and a failure to vet drivers, which led to high profile incidents of drivers committing sexual assault on female passengers. Neither has Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, even though his platform’s algorithm has weaponized disinformation, leading to disastrous outcomes ranging from a genocide in Myanmar, manipulation of the 2016 U.S. presidential election by a Russian troll farm, and the coordination of the assault on the Capitol by white nationalists on January 6, 2021.  

Holmes has yet to be sentenced. Each of her four fraud counts carries a 20-year maximum, but those sentences are likely to be served concurrently. She will probably get off with a much lighter sentence, as the judge takes into consideration factors such as her being the mother of an infant. Maxwell, who faces up to 65 years in prison, is awaiting sentencing, though her lawyers are currently trying to throw the whole verdict out on a technicality after a juror told a media outlet that he was a victim of sexual abuse. 


It has long been said that “the wheels of justice turn slowly,” but by looking at these two cases it’s clear that the relative slowness of that turning seems to depend on who the victims are. In the Maxwell case, where the victims were sexually abused underage girls, the crimes went uninvestigated for decades, until Julie K. Brown, a journalist with the Miami Herald, wrote a series that led to Epstein’s second arrest in 2019. (In 2008, Epstein famously cut a deal with prosecutors in Palm Beach, in which he pleaded guilty to soliciting a prostitute and served just 13 months in jail with extensive “work release.”) By contrast, Holmes was indicted for fraud more quickly–about three years after the first of John Carreyrou’s troubling reports were published in the Wall Street Journal. 

Ultimately, it is a good omen that Maxwell and Holmes, with their fleets of high-priced lawyers to match their unjustified entitlement, were both charged with crimes they obviously committed. But going forward, unless the complaints of teenage sex-trafficking victims and patients who got bad, potentially life-altering test results are treated with the same urgency as those of billionaire investors who lost money on a scam, the Year of Accountability will just have to wait. 
    [post_title] => The year started out well for justice, but less so for accountability
    [post_excerpt] => The trials and convictions of Ghislaine Maxwell and and Elizabeth Holmes show us that there are two classes of victims: those for whom the wheels of justice grind slowly; and those for whom they move quickly.
    [post_status] => publish
    [comment_status] => closed
    [ping_status] => open
    [post_password] => 
    [post_name] => the-year-started-out-well-for-justice-but-less-so-for-accountability
    [to_ping] => 
    [pinged] => 
https://conversationalist.org/2021/09/27/elizabeth-holmess-legal-strategy-part-svengali-part-cant-touch-this/
    [post_modified] => 2024-08-28 21:11:29
    [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-08-28 21:11:29
    [post_content_filtered] => 
    [post_parent] => 0
    [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=3712
    [menu_order] => 148
    [post_type] => post
    [post_mime_type] => 
    [comment_count] => 0
    [filter] => raw
)

The year started out well for justice, but less so for accountability

by Rachel Dodes

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 3689
    [post_author] => 2
    [post_date] => 2022-01-06 13:39:17
    [post_date_gmt] => 2022-01-06 13:39:17
    [post_content] => If Maxwell ends up being the only person involved in this vast criminal enterprise to do hard time, when so many prominent men have been named as 'guests' and associates of Epstein's, the reckoning will be very incomplete. 

On December 29, following five days of deliberations, a New York jury found the disgraced British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell guilty of recruiting and grooming underage girls for pedophile Jeffrey Epstein to abuse. The most serious of the charges—sex trafficking—carries a maximum sentence of 40 years. As 2021 drew to a close, the verdict felt like a giant exhale. But it was not powerful enough to bend the moral arc of the universe toward justice.

Maxwell turned 60 on Christmas and will likely be spending the rest of her life behind bars. This is good. For the victims, it is necessary—though, considering the scale and scope of Epstein’s criminal enterprise, it is not sufficient. 


Once the social media high-fiving subsided, there was something about the whole trial that left me feeling empty and bamboozled. It felt as if the incarceration of this one individual was supposed to satisfy the victims’ long quest for justice, and we observers should now move on, leave it alone. No further questions. It reminded me of what Maxwell’s lead attorney Bobbi Sternheim had said in her opening arguments, that “[e]ver since Eve was accused of tempting Adam with the apple, women have been blamed for the bad behavior of men.” While I disagree with the contention that Maxwell was just a scapegoat for Epstein, who died in 2019, it would be an incomplete reckoning—for the victims, and for the rule of law—if this woman were to end up being the only person involved in this vast criminal enterprise to do hard time. 

For more than two decades Jeffrey Epstein operated a child sex-trafficking ring allegedly patronized by some of the most powerful men in the world. Heads of state, billionaire businessmen, thought leaders, prominent academics, members of royal families, and philanthropists are accused of having partaken in, or having had knowledge of, what Epstein had on offer. One of those people is Prince Andrew, second son of Queen Elizabeth; he currently faces a civil suit brought by Virginia Giuffre, who has accused Andrew of assaulting her at the London home of Ghislaine Maxwell when she was 17. Another is Epstein’s former attorney Alan Dershowitz, who is also being sued by Guiffre; she alleges that he, too, raped her. (Dershowitz has countersued her for defamation.) 

[caption id="attachment_3693" align="alignleft" width="640"] Virginia Roberts Giuffre was 17 in this 2001 photo with Prince Andrew and Ghislaine Maxwell.[/caption]

There remain many questions left unanswered by the Maxwell trial, which focused narrowly on the testimony of four victims, none of which was Guiffre. The most critical question centers on the origins of Epstein’s obscene wealth. Was he really a financier, a math whiz with a rare ability to discover patterns in stock movements (as he was often described in the press), or just a very talented blackmailer? If the latter, then who was he blackmailing and with what?  

Here’s what we do know: In 1974, a 21-year-old college dropout from Coney Island named Jeffrey Epstein managed to get a job teaching math at Dalton, one of the most prestigious private schools in New York City. The outgoing headmaster at the time was one Donald Barr, father of former Attorney General Bill Barr; in what might just be a creepy coincidence, Donald Barr was also the author of a 1973 novel called Space Relations, which features the rape of teenage girls. Whether Barr was the person directly responsible for hiring Epstein is unknown, according to the New York Times. What is known is that being inside the Dalton orbit afforded Epstein the opportunity to schmooze with bigwigs like Bear Stearns chairman Ace Greenberg, whose daughter attended the school. So, when Epstein was eventually fired from his teaching job, those connections enabled him to do what he did best: fail upward. He scored a job working for Greenberg at Bear Stearns, where he was made a limited partner before departing in the early 1980s after allegedly violating securities laws, although the specifics are murky. Investigative journalist Vicky Ward has noted that the death last week of former Bear Stearns CEO Jimmy Cayne—whom Epstein once reported to—might help clarify the circumstances of his departure; she speculates that, amid an SEC investigation, Epstein might have taken the fall for the bank’s higher-ups in exchange for their loyalty. 

Several years after leaving Bear Stearns, once he glommed onto his first big client, Epstein reinvented himself as a globe-trotting philanthropist, rubbing shoulders with powerful people and building up an aura of mystery. That client was legendary retailer Leslie Wexner, the founder and Chief Executive of Limited Brands—later renamed L Brands—who boasted a net worth of $1.4 billion in 1986. For such a savvy businessman, Wexner made some strange financial moves in the 1990s, such as firing his longtime financial adviser and giving Epstein—a man with a revoked broker’s license and no experience—power of attorney over all his money. From Wexner, Epstein acquired his 51,000-square-foot New York City townhouse, in which he entertained rich men and abused young girls; he also obtained a private jet that was formerly owned by his client’s company. Epstein exploited his connections to the company, which owns now-embattled lingerie brand Victoria’s Secret, as a way to lure young girls with promises of modeling contracts. 

Wexner, now 84, has some explaining to do. It wasn’t until September 2019, after Epstein was arrested, that he spoke about Epstein, without naming him. “Being taken advantage of by someone who was so sick, so cunning, so depraved,” he said at an analysts’ meeting, “is something that I’m embarrassed that I was even close to, but that is in the past.” Is it really? Maria Farmer, a visual artist, was in her mid-20s when Ghislaine Maxwell invited her under false pretenses to Wexner’s sprawling Ohio compound, where she was held hostage and sexually assaulted by Epstein; she would probably disagree that this trauma, which she has said is the reason she chose not to have children, is all in the past. Farmer went to the FBI in 1996 to report Epstein, and nothing was done. It wasn’t until a shareholder lawsuit was filed last year that allegations emerged that Wexner and his wife, Abigail, were not only aware of Epstein’s conduct but allowed him to “use their home for liaisons with victims.” (Following internal investigations, the results of which have not been made public, Wexner has since resigned from his company and its board.) 

Only once we follow the money can we begin to understand why people like former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak was so tight with Epstein, why Bill Gates said Epstein’s “lifestyle is very different and kind of intriguing,” why ex-presidents Bill Clinton and Donald Trump frequently rode on his plane, nicknamed the Lolita Express, and attended his parties. At one point, there was a lawsuit filed in New York by a victim who alleged that when she was just 13, Trump violently raped her at one of Epstein’s soirees. But just days before the 2016 election, right as the victim was expected to hold a press conference at the office of her attorney, Lisa Bloom, the case was abruptly dropped. What happened there? Did it have anything to do with the reason why Trump said, following the arrest of Maxwell, “I wish her well”? Did it have anything to do with why,  according to a new book by journalist Michael Wolff, Trump advisor Steve Bannon told Epstein that he was “the only person we were afraid of during the [2016] campaign”? And where did all the videos of Epstein’s high level friends engaged in illegal sexual activity with minors go? Why was CCTV footage from the prison cell where Epstein killed himself mysteriously deleted? (In a supreme irony, the investigation into Epstein’s death was led by the former attorney general Bill Barr, who concluded, in the understatement of the century, that it stemmed from “a perfect storm of screw ups.”) 

Until the public can understand who was involved in Epstein’s crime ring, and see them held accountable for their involvement, the conviction of Ghislaine Maxwell will feel like a sad consolation prize, a cover up for the predations of extremely powerful men. Some legal experts have said that there’s a remote possibility that Maxwell could now negotiate a deal with prosecutors and name names in exchange for a more lenient prison sentence. But the fact that she’s the only person who has been prosecuted by the government for her role in this sprawling decades-long criminal conspiracy is just further evidence that a corrupt elite has captured our institutions and perverted the justice system to serve their own ends. 

Under such conditions, as it stands right now, Maxwell’s best bet is to keep her mouth shut and pray that Trump can win in 2024, at which time he can pardon her and wish her well in person. 
    [post_title] => Ghislaine Maxwell's conviction is just one step toward still-elusive justice for her victims
    [post_excerpt] => Maxwell will likely spend the rest of her life behind bars. This is good. For the victims, it is necessary—but insufficient. 
    [post_status] => publish
    [comment_status] => closed
    [ping_status] => open
    [post_password] => 
    [post_name] => ghislaine-maxwells-conviction-is-just-one-step-toward-still-elusive-justice-for-her-victims
    [to_ping] => 
    [pinged] => 
    [post_modified] => 2024-08-28 21:15:12
    [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-08-28 21:15:12
    [post_content_filtered] => 
    [post_parent] => 0
    [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=3689
    [menu_order] => 150
    [post_type] => post
    [post_mime_type] => 
    [comment_count] => 0
    [filter] => raw
)

Ghislaine Maxwell’s conviction is just one step toward still-elusive justice for her victims

by Rachel Dodes

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 3629
    [post_author] => 2
    [post_date] => 2021-12-21 19:53:03
    [post_date_gmt] => 2021-12-21 19:53:03
    [post_content] => Pro-choice Americans need to stop deferring to institutions that don't represent them and start organizing. 

I was 15 in October 1998 when an anti-abortion zealot murdered Dr. Barnett Slepian, a doctor who performed abortions in my hometown of Buffalo, New York. A married father of four, Dr. Slepian had just returned home from his synagogue, where he’d attended a memorial service for his father. It was a Friday evening and he was standing in his kitchen heating split-pea soup in the microwave when the sniper hiding in his backyard shot him in the chest.

I did not know Dr. Slepian, but my family knew people who did. I also knew that two of his young sons were in the room when he was shot. That detail haunted me the most. My father is not a doctor, but he is a kind, caring, socially conscious Jewish man who believes strongly in a pregnant person’s right to end a pregnancy. I adore my father and the thought of two children younger than I was at the time witnessing the sudden, violent death of theirs was hard to bear. Even at 15 I knew that Dr. Slepian’s life had been a full one cut brutally short—one on which many other people, including his children, had depended. What he did with it helped fully formed adult women live theirs. It was the first time I realized that caring for vulnerable women could get you killed.

The U.S. Supreme Court is, following its December 1 hearing about the legality of Mississippi’s most recent abortion ban, widely expected to overturn or gut Roe vs. Wade, the landmark 1973 ruling that formalized a pregnant woman’s human right to end her pregnancy. For nearly 50 years, Roe has prevented states from banning abortion at any time before fetal viability outside the womb. This suggests (a) that a woman has more rights than an incubator; and (b) that a person who exists—one with hopes, dreams, relationships, and obligations—matters more than one who does not.

Reversing or substantially weakening Roe would flip that formula and reduce women from fully fledged people to single-purpose objects. It would make obtaining an abortion a dangerous, degrading, and difficult-to-impossible undertaking for millions of women. At least 21 states will ban or severely restrict abortion virtually overnight if the Court dismantles Roe. Those who believe that forcing a woman to undergo pregnancy and labor against her will is a uniquely misogynistic form of torture are understandably alarmed. A right that’s been under threat for decades is still a right. Abortion bans harm women and their children and terrorize anyone who tries to help them. Overturning Roe would restructure American society for decades to come by forcing into existence millions of children, many of whom will not be adequately cared for.

As a result of laws and policies that limit or ban access to medical terminations, women in the U.S. and parts of Europe are today in greater danger of being prosecuted, punished, or allowed to die horribly from being denied an abortion than they are of being harmed by the procedure itself.

Shockingly, the prevailing response from legacy media outlets in the U.S. has been terrifyingly passive and fatalistic—heavy on doom and gloom and light on practical solutions. Pro-choice voters are being told what we have been told in every election cycle since at least the 1980s: that our most fundamental rights are hanging in the balance and voting has never mattered more. Rarely do liberal columnists remind faithful Democratic voters that our loyalty has been rewarded with the most reactionary Court and the direst threat to Roe in decades. House Democrats did manage to pass a bill in late September that would enshrine the protections guaranteed by Roe in federal law. But thanks to antiquated procedural rules like the filibuster, which President Biden and Democratic senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema have been reluctant to eliminate, there’s virtually no chance of passing it in the Senate. Despairing references to The Handmaid’s Tale and the fact that women will soon be legally reduced to “vessels” abound.

This despair is often cloaked in gallows humor, and there is a dark comedy to the whole situation: imagine living in a country where women can do anything—vote, live alone, drive a car, buy a house, get a divorce, become a Supreme Court justice—and still be forced to carry a pregnancy to term, despite the availability of pills that can safely and easily end an early pregnancy in the privacy of one’s home. The most privileged women are the least likely to be denied this right. Women of means, who are used to living freely, will continue to do so. Those who lack money, child care, the ability to travel, supportive partners or family, understanding bosses, and/or other forms of support will suffer even more. But what can we do? First Trump, then the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh, then COVID, then Amy Coney Barrett, and now this. Given that the right controls the Court, we’re basically doomed, the thinking seems to go. Now get out there and vote Democratic in the midterms!

It’s time to acknowledge that this playbook has failed women for decades. If I were a theist I would consider freedom from forced pregnancy and labor a God-given right, as many deeply religious people do. Just as Black people have always been full human beings with inalienable rights to life and liberty, regardless of what the Court has, at various times, decreed, those with the power to bring forth life have an inherent right to decide whether and under what circumstances to use it. These rights cannot be revoked by judicial fiat; we should stop behaving as if they can. Six judges cannot strip us of a right that exists whether or not they recognize it.

Anyone serious about defending the rights and dignity of all women needs to stop mourning and start confronting state power, as Irish women did in 2017 and Polish and Mexican women did in 2020, and as women in Chile, Colombia, El Salvador, and other Latin American countries did in 2021—in response to far graver threats to their humanity. Even in the U.S., where abortion is restricted but legal, women have been prosecuted for ending pregnancies and having miscarriages. Latin American women, particularly in El Salvador, have served decades-long prison sentences for having miscarriages the authorities claimed were self-induced. Over the last decade or so Marea Verde (Green Wave), a Latin American women’s movement, has helped liberalize abortion laws throughout the region “with aggressive campaigns and mass popular protests organized around legal action and legislative demands that center broadly on women’s autonomy and rights,” as reproductive rights litigation expert Ximena Casas recently explained in The New York Times.

The pro-choice movement in the United States is comparatively piecemeal and diffuse, given the country’s size and diversity, and far less effective than it should be. The 2017 Women’s March, which was described at the time as the largest single-day demonstration in U.S. history, was the last time U.S. women protested sexist oppression en masse. But while I saw plenty of signs referring to abortion rights, the women’s march was not specifically or exclusively about reproductive justice; it was a general expression of rage at Trump’s election. The largest abortion rights demonstration in the U.S. in the last 20 years was the April 2004 March for Women’s Lives, which drew hundreds of thousands of people (organizers put the number at over a million).

There will almost certainly be large street protests in June, when the Court is expected to issue its response. But we cannot wait until then to defend these rights. “I think it's going to mobilize people to go to the polls,” Democratic Rep. Pramila Jayapal recently said, referring to the impact the Court’s expected ruling could have on the 2022 midterms. “You will see an outcry like you've never seen before.” About seven months after the 2004 march, George W. Bush, whose policies had prompted it, was reelected by a clear margin, winning with over three million votes more than his Democratic rival, John Kerry.

In other words, while anger motivated American women to show up for a large demonstration, it did not drive them to sweep Bush out of office or defend abortion rights against further attack. This is partly because U.S. women’s attitudes toward abortion do not differ substantially from men’s; pro-choice Americans, including men, need to defend these rights more vigorously. Voting is not enough. U.S. voters swept Trump out of office in 2020, but only after he had packed the Court with far-right ideologues. And in the absence of major structural reforms—expanding or abolishing the Supreme Court, eliminating the filibuster and passing federal voting rights legislation, amending the Constitution, abolishing the Senate—which many organizers are demanding but the Democratic Party has so far been unwilling to do, we cannot vote our way out of the devastation that will result if Roe is gutted.

There are a number of ways to help:


Although medication abortion has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for over 20 years, the agency continues to restrict one of the medications, mifepristone, for reasons that have more to do with politics than safety. According to Carrie N. Baker, who chairs the American Studies department and teaches courses on gender, law and public policy at Smith College, abortion medications are “safer than Tylenol” and “six times safer than Viagra,” which is commonly prescribed and easy to purchase online.

“The Supreme Court doesn’t get the last word on this,” Brown told me by phone. She mentioned the abortion rights bill Democrats passed in the House and could, in theory, pass in the Senate. “Technology has outstripped the anti-abortion strategy,” she added. Women in countries that criminalize abortion have known for years how to end pregnancies safely; according to Brown, pharmacy techs in Brazil discovered that misoprostol could be used to induce abortion when they were warned not to handle the drug while pregnant. “There’s never been a better time to have an at-home abortion than now,” Brown said. “In the 1960s we faced butchery, and that is completely unnecessary at this stage because the pills are widely available overseas.” The FDA suspended rules barring doctors from mailing the abortion pill to patients due to COVID.

On December 16 the agency announced that it would allow doctors to send the pill by mail on a permanent basis—a victory for groups like the American Civil Liberties Union, which challenged the restrictions in court, and one that will enable many more doctors to prescribe the drugs and many more women to order them online and receive them by mail. But over a dozen Republican-controlled states have already passed laws restricting access to the pills, including by outlawing delivery by mail. A Texas law that went into effect on December 2 bans prescribing abortion pills online and mailing them to patients in the state. Providers who break it could be jailed or fined up to $10,000.

Regardless of how the Court rules, women will keep getting abortions, as they did before and after abortion was criminalized in the U.S. and before Roe. There will be protests and marches and underground networks and sympathetic providers willing to break what they know to be unjust laws. Those who refuse to be bullied into abandoning their patients will be threatened, prosecuted, jailed, or worse.

That is why we cannot afford resignation or childlike deference to institutions that have outlived their usefulness, like the Supreme Court. An unelected, unrepresentative, and thoroughly politicized entity willing to endanger pregnant women, their children, and abortion providers has no moral authority. We are not vessels or chattel; we are people, with lives as real and complicated and meaningful to our families and communities as those of any other human being. Reactionary judges are not just threatening choice or women’s health care or a specific medical procedure; they are calling into question our fundamental humanity. There is no reason, especially in the age of the abortion pill, to sit back and let them. There will always be disagreement on the morality of abortion. But the personhood of women and those who care for them is not up for debate.
    [post_title] => Women are people, no matter what the Supreme Court says
    [post_excerpt] => Anyone serious about defending the rights and dignity of all women needs to stop mourning and start organizing.
    [post_status] => publish
    [comment_status] => closed
    [ping_status] => open
    [post_password] => 
    [post_name] => women-are-people-no-matter-what-the-supreme-court-says
    [to_ping] => 
    [pinged] => 
    [post_modified] => 2024-08-28 21:14:02
    [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-08-28 21:14:02
    [post_content_filtered] => 
    [post_parent] => 0
    [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=3629
    [menu_order] => 153
    [post_type] => post
    [post_mime_type] => 
    [comment_count] => 0
    [filter] => raw
)

Women are people, no matter what the Supreme Court says

by Raina Lipsitz

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 3615
    [post_author] => 2
    [post_date] => 2021-12-16 14:15:36
    [post_date_gmt] => 2021-12-16 14:15:36
    [post_content] => Maxwell's defense team is expected to claim her accusers have faulty memories and that they are money-grubbing whores. 

When Ghislaine Maxwell was arrested by the FBI in the summer of 2020, the victims of Jeffrey Epstein rejoiced: “[I]t truly means that the justice system didn’t forget about us,” one of them, Jennifer Araoz, said at the time.

The victims were forgotten in 2008, when Epstein was granted a sweetheart non-prosecution deal without the knowledge of their attorneys. They were forgotten again a year later when Epstein got out of jail after serving just 13 months and quickly resumed his activities as a philanthropist, surrounded by the world’s most powerful people and institutions. They were forgotten yet again when Epstein was left alone and unmonitored in his prison cell, a situation which led to his death. Now, the trial of Epstein’s longtime companion and accused co-conspirator represented a chance for these women, abused as teens, to finally witness some semblance of accountability for crimes which have been downplayed or downright ignored by authorities for more than a decade. 

A 59-year-old Oxford-educated former British socialite, daughter of disgraced and deceased media mogul Robert Maxwell, Ghislaine has been charged with recruiting and grooming underage girls for Epstein to sexually abuse. She is accused of participating in the abuse herself. Arrested on sex-trafficking charges in July 2019, Epstein died in his cell in the Metropolitan Correction Center of New York City on August 19, 2019; the death was officially ruled a suicide, but some people, including me, still have questions. Whatever the cause, his death was a tough break for Maxwell: She was widely expected to flip on him in exchange for leniency. Now she has absolutely no leverage, and faces up to 70 years in prison if convicted on all counts. She has pleaded not guilty to all of them. 


Originally scheduled for the summer of 2021, the Maxwell trial was pushed into the fall after the prosecution filed a superseding indictment in April containing more serious charges and adding an additional victim. So, after so many delays and false starts, it’s fair to say that as Maxwell entered the federal courtroom in downtown Manhattan on November 29 wearing a cream cashmere sweater, there was plenty of pent-up anticipation about what was going to transpire. I fully expected that this story, involving obscene wealth, power and a child sex-trafficking ring, would dominate the headlines, and that the trial would contain shocking revelations. But neither of those predictions has come to pass.  

Things started out on an exciting note, when Maxwell had the audacity to sketch the sketch artist who was sketching her, a visual metaphor for the defense team’s defiant DARVO (deny, attack, reverse victim and offender) strategy. Power lawyer Bobbi Sternheim came out guns blazing, stating in her opening arguments that her client was being used as a scapegoat to pay for the crimes of her dead boss: “Ever since Eve was accused of tempting Adam with the apple, women have been blamed for the bad behavior of men,” she said, ignoring the fact that there is plenty of bad behavior here to go around. Over the course of the next 10 days in court, the prosecution called about 20 witnesses—including four victims who told harrowing stories of being befriended as teens by Maxwell and Epstein, who promised mentorship and financial support, only to betray them with unwanted and traumatic sexual encounters. Then on Friday, the prosecution summoned their star witness: Annie Farmer, whose sister–also an Epstein victim–went to the FBI back in 1996 to report Epstein’s abuse. A full 25 years later, Annie, a self-possessed 42-year-old psychologist, took the stand and told jurors of a nightmarish visit to Epstein’s New Mexico ranch, where he and Maxwell molested her. “I felt sick to my stomach,” she told Assistant U.S. Attorney Lara Pomerantz.   

I also felt sick to my stomach, fearing yet another miscarriage of justice when, following Farmer’s emotional testimony, the government shocked everyone—including Judge Alison Nathan—by resting its case two weeks earlier than anticipated. An early wrap-up would have been exciting if the prosecution, led by 32-year-old Assistant U.S. Attorney Maurene Comey—daughter of former FBI director James Comey—had nailed its case. By all accounts, however, it did not. 



Despite the strong testimony from the victims, the government’s case was weaker than expected, their young lawyers outmatched by Maxwell’s high-priced, seasoned team and unprepared for their counterarguments, according to media reports. For example, Maxwell’s lawyers tried to undermine the claims of one victim, Jane Doe, who said that she had flown with Maxwell on Epstein’s plane, arguing that Epstein had an assistant with the same first name—even thought that particular assistant didn’t work for Epstein at the same time, or even in the same decade. The prosecution took days to provide an adequate rebuttal, underscoring its lack of nimbleness.

But it’s possible that all is not lost. Cameras and recording devices are not permitted in federal court, so all the information about the Maxwell trial is filtered through the media’s lens. Expectations are high and impressions can be distorted, particularly since it feels as though this case got overshadowed by a mountain of other equally disturbing news, ranging from the Supreme Court’s abortion decision to the steady drumbeat of information about the January 6 insurrection, and the trial of another high-profile woman, Elizabeth Holmes. Many have noted the similarities between Maxwell’s and Holmes’s defenses, in which they lay the blame for their alleged misdeeds on powerful men, as if “women simply don't have the agency to be true criminal masterminds,” as Salon put it.

Starting on Thursday, December 16, Maxwell’s defense team gets its chance to make their client’s case, casting doubt on the victims’ recollections. Based on their questioning of the witnesses under cross-examination, it’s clear that they will continue to paint the accusers as money-grubbing whores who are being manipulated by a platoon of greedy lawyers. It’s truly a disgusting argument, but the defense must realize that Maxwell does not have any other cards to play. One promising sign: witnesses for the defense are so embarrassed at being associated with Maxwell and Epstein that they have requested to testify under pseudonyms, a highly unusual move. The request was denied, but the sheer chutzpah of putting it in writing is rich given that an attorney for the defense “accidentally” name-checked two of the anonymous victims last week.

On Friday December 10, lawyers for Maxwell said that the defense would take just four days, possibly fewer, to present its case. That’s probably because they want to wrap up before the holidays so the jury won’t be stuck in court, resentment spilling over into their deliberations. Ghislaine’s 60th birthday happens to fall on Christmas. We will soon find out if her victims will finally be remembered, or if this lifelong bottom feeder will be given the gift of impunity. 
    [post_title] => The trial of Ghislaine Maxwell: justice delayed—and possibly denied
    [post_excerpt] => An early wrap-up of the trial would have been exciting if the prosecution, led by 32-year-old Assistant US Attorney Maurene Comey—daughter of former FBI director James Comey—had nailed its case. By all accounts, however, it did not. 
    [post_status] => publish
    [comment_status] => closed
    [ping_status] => open
    [post_password] => 
    [post_name] => the-trial-of-ghislaine-maxwell-justice-delayed-and-possibly-denied
    [to_ping] => 
    [pinged] => 
    [post_modified] => 2024-08-28 21:15:12
    [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-08-28 21:15:12
    [post_content_filtered] => 
    [post_parent] => 0
    [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=3615
    [menu_order] => 155
    [post_type] => post
    [post_mime_type] => 
    [comment_count] => 0
    [filter] => raw
)

The trial of Ghislaine Maxwell: justice delayed—and possibly denied

by Rachel Dodes

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 3583
    [post_author] => 2
    [post_date] => 2021-12-09 23:56:55
    [post_date_gmt] => 2021-12-09 23:56:55
    [post_content] => Famous for its delicious honey, Kashmir has seen a decline in artisanal apiculture due to a confluence of political and environmental factors.

GANDERBAL, KASHMIR –Clusters of beehives dot the sprawling lawns outside the Rizvi family home in the Kashmiri village of Shalhar. Bees swarm the flowers and suck the marrow out of colorful petals. Towseefa Rizvi, 49, clad in protective gear, walks toward her hives; she manages 200 colonies of Apis mellifera, often referred to as the European or western honeybee. This district, located about a half-hour’s drive from Srinagar, boasts diverse flora, sprawling apple orchards, and extensive forests that are the reason Kashmir is famous for its uniquely delicious honey.

“I had never thought of doing something like this,” she says, gently opening a hive. “But this unusual job has both challenged and fascinated me.”

A mother of three, Rizvi has been beekeeping for more than a decade. She taught herself the necessary skills by researching online, watching and consulting with local apiarists, and through trial and error. In addition to running her own honey production busines, she now trains and supports new apiarists, especially women in her community. Beekeeping is a popular enterprise, she explained, because startup costs are low.

The average annual turnover from Rizvi’s 200 colonies is about $10,698 (monthly income in rural Kashmir is between $66 and $133). She retains an income of about $4,012 and puts the difference back into the business.

This part of Kashmir is deeply conservative. Women typically look down while walking outdoors; they do not speak in public or visit the homes of strangers unless accompanied by a male family member. Rizvi’s decision to become the first women in her district to launch her own business, let alone in this traditionally male-dominated occupation, was thus deeply unusual. But her husband, Syed Parvaz, 42, has supported her from the beginning; he is now a production manager in Kashmir Valley Agro Industry, which includes their honey-making business (Jammu and Kashmir is the only place in India that produces a rare variety of wild bush honey, he explained.) The couple are committed to releasing the untapped potential of the honey production industry in their region.

Inspired by Rizvi’s example, an increasing number of women from poor families are starting their own apiaries. They look up to her for showing them an income-earning business that they can run from home, a fact that was particularly relevant during the pandemic lockdown. Rizvi and her husband have registered around 500 beekeepers and have trained thousands of beekeepers in neighboring districts.

“I tell them if I can be an entrepreneur with limited education and skills, why can’t they,” says Rizvi. “I started beekeeping when there were hardly any women in the trade, but now we have so many around and if we cannot inspire and support each other then it would be our collective failure.”

The pandemic provided Rizvi with unexpected opportunities. During the lockdown she launched an online school to teach beekeeping, and then a website to sell a variety of products ranging from honey to herbal tea mixtures. She also renewed her commitment to sustainable farming practices, starting with cultivating her own vegetables to compensate for soaring prices and spotty access to markets. Bees, she pointed out, play “a major role” in sustainable agriculture.

[caption id="attachment_3585" align="aligncenter" width="840"] Towseefa Rizvi and Syed Parvez at their honey production facility.[/caption]

Some hope that, with an infusion of knowledge and skills, beekeeping could help revitalize Kashmir’s economy.

Unemployment in the territory is the highest in India, a fact that has particularly hurt people younger than 35, who are 70 percent of the population, and women—72.6 percent of whom are without work. More than two years of political upheaval, military curfews, the longest internet blackout in history, and then the pandemic lockdown, have had a devastating impact. The Kashmir Chamber of Commerce and Industries estimates that the regional economy has lost $7bn since 2019.

But the road to expanding beekeeping into a lucrative business is littered with obstacles, explained Sajad Hussain Parey, professor of entomology at Baba Ghulam Shah Badshah University. The government provides no social security to beekeepers—i.e, they are not insured—or training in modern methods. Most traditional beekeepers are unaware of critical  skills like seasonal hive management and bee pollen collection. As a result, honey production is low; a lack of marketing opportunities further undermines the earning potential of beekeeping. Quality control is also a problem, said Parey, because there is no central institution to monitor and test the honey for purity.

But an infusion of government funding could unleash the potential of Kashmir’s honey industry. What’s needed are training and market access to allow sustainable exploitation of Kashmir’s climate and natural vegetation. With honeybees around the world becoming increasingly vulnerable to climate change and the chemicals used in industrial apiaries, training local people in artisanal beekeeping and modern scientific methodology could create significant employment opportunities. A return to sustainable beekeeping methods would also encourage ecological awareness and rural development, promote small village industry, increase biodiversity —and could double farmers’ income from fruit and vegetable cultivation by complementing it with beekeeping.

Since almost everyone in Kashmir has a house and land, they have the space and means to engage in small and medium scale beekeeping at home, with minimal financial investment.

The regional government is working to generate new business opportunities in the production of bee byproducts like beeswax, propolis, bee venom, and royal jelly. In addition, it is attempting to expand the apiculture sector by increasing the number of beekeeping units, obtaining a GI tag for the region’s honey, and helping farmers increase their incomes by introducing modern technological methods.

Parvez and Rizvi have begun working on Integrated Pest Management to train apiarists in protecting their bees from pests and predators.

“A person should be confident to take care of bees,” says Syed, adding that the couple is in constant touch with institutions, research departments, and independent beekeepers across the world. Through their networks they are learning about skill training, trust building measures, and procurement of plants and machinery, as well as how to diversify their honey products and expand their market opportunities. By setting up sales outlets, they are also learning how to improve the income and employment of the beekeepers, assure sustainability and inspire more young unemployed people to take up the craft.

Rizvi explains that her ambition goes beyond just growing her own business. “The participation of more and more women in this field is my dream,” she said, adding that she is working to create “a sustainable revenue opportunity” for local people.

As Rizvi prepares to inspect her hives, which she does during the evenings, when the bees are less aggressive, she puts on her protective cap and coat. “A blooming garden is my office,” says Rizvi as bees buzz and hum in the hive. “And bees are like my family.”
    [post_title] => ‘Bees are like my family’: A female beekeeper is reviving honey production in Kashmir
    [post_excerpt] => After years of political upheaval, military curfews, months-long communications blockades, and then the devastating pandemic, Kashmir's economy is on its knees. Could beekeeping save it?
    [post_status] => publish
    [comment_status] => closed
    [ping_status] => open
    [post_password] => 
    [post_name] => bees-are-like-my-family-how-a-female-beekeeper-is-redefining-honey-production-in-kashmir
    [to_ping] => 
    [pinged] => 
    [post_modified] => 2024-08-28 21:08:26
    [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-08-28 21:08:26
    [post_content_filtered] => 
    [post_parent] => 0
    [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=3583
    [menu_order] => 157
    [post_type] => post
    [post_mime_type] => 
    [comment_count] => 0
    [filter] => raw
)

‘Bees are like my family’: A female beekeeper is reviving honey production in Kashmir

by Aliya Bashir

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 3402
    [post_author] => 2
    [post_date] => 2021-11-04 11:58:57
    [post_date_gmt] => 2021-11-04 11:58:57
    [post_content] => Chappelle knew that claiming he had been 'canceled' would be the equivalent of dangling red meat in front of the Joe Rogan set.

Last week, Dave Chappelle posted a video to Instagram in which he addressed “the transgender community.” Many of its members, as well as members of several other communities, were upset by “The Closer,” Chappelle’s new Netflix special; and it’s not hard to understand why. In his one-hour monologue, Chappelle compares the genitalia of trans women to plant-derived meat. He proclaims that, like Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling, he’s “Team TERF” (trans-exclusionary radical feminist). He states that “gender is a fact.” He calls women “bitches,” drops the n-word with abandon and pitches a movie called “Space Jews” about powerful aliens who try to conquer the earth. Those are not even the most offensive parts of his act.

The show was met with a yawn from critics. In his review for The New York Times, Jason Zinoman wrote that the “fallout from ‘The Closer’ is in some ways the most interesting thing about the special.” The fallout to which he was referring included a walkout by Netflix employees, one of whom was fired for allegedly leaking internal documents to the press. It also resulted in an online feud between Chappelle and an unlikely adversary: Australian lesbian comedian Hannah Gadsby.

How this situation came about has less to do with Gadsby or Chappelle and more to do with Netflix’s increasingly untenable objective to balance its reputation for unfettered creative freedom with building an inclusive workplace. In response to the widespread criticism coming from within his company, Netflix’s chief content officer Ted Sarandos wrote a long, defensive memo to employees in which he stressed that the streaming platform is committed to airing diverse perspectives: “We are working hard to ensure marginalized communities aren’t defined by a single story. So we have Sex Education, Orange is the New Black, Control Z, Hannah Gadsby and Dave Chappelle all on Netflix.” So there was Gadsby, trotted out as a token for all Netflix employees to see.

Chappelle responded by offering trans people—all of them, everywhere—the opportunity to meet with him and air their grievances, but only under certain conditions, which he laid out in a video clip that is posted to his Instagram account. They couldn’t come unless they had watched “The Closer” in its entirety. Chappelle would determine where and when this meeting would take place. And finally, he said, all prospective attendees “must admit that Hannah Gadsby is not funny.”

You could almost hear Chappelle’s 2.4 million Instagram followers nervously laughing while asking themselves: Who? 

Hannah Gadsby, an Australian from a conservative small town in Tasmania, rose to international prominence in 2018 with “Nanette,” a Netflix special that contained atypical standup fare: In it, she described being badly beaten by a homophobic man. She spoke about suffering from mental illness and revealed that because standup comedy demanded constant self-deprecation it was killing her soul. She does an extended set on art history to take down its role in amplifying and perpetuating misogyny—or, as she puts it, “to needle the patriarchy.”

Gadsby’s audience has virtually no overlap with Chappelle’s. He is a straight, Black, American man with a storied reputation for scalding political satire that focuses primarily on race and racism. And yet, his name and Gadsby's are now linked in an angry controversy.

Once Sarandos’s email was leaked to the press, Gadsby was irate, not so much at Chappelle but at Netflix. She took the unusual step of firing back at her distribution partner, describing the company as an “amoral algorithm cult” in a public letter she posted on Instagram. “Hey Ted Sarandos!” she began, “Just a quick note to let you know that I would prefer if you didn’t drag my name into your mess. Now I have to deal with even more of the hate and anger that Dave Chappelle’s fans like to unleash on me every time Dave gets 20 million dollars to process his emotionally stunted partial world view.”

That could have been the end of Gadsby’s involvement in this narrative. But Chappelle is a guy who never will miss an opportunity to capitalize on controversy. He knew better than anyone that invoking Gadsby in his response would both signal solidarity with Sarandos—"He’s the only one who didn’t cancel me yet,” he said his Instagram video—with the added benefit of dangling more red meat in front of the alpha-male Joe Rogan set. And once again, he was right: Shortly after the video was posted, Gadsby and Chappelle appeared in dozens of headlines together, including a New York Times obituary for another, unrelated, comedian. Right-wing troll Ben Shapiro tweeted, “Admitting that Hannah Gadsby is unfunny shouldn't just be a precondition for meeting with Dave Chappelle. It should be a precondition for being considered a sentient human.” Chappelle supporters posted attacks to Gadsby’s Instagram account, flooding the comments with insults from Chappelle supporters, just as she predicted.

I decided to watch “The Closer” last week in its entirety, followed by “Nanette.” Neither special could be considered a laugh riot. Many of the jokes in “The Closer” reflect Chappelle’s frustration and bewilderment at society’s having evolved to accommodate diversity in gender and sexuality faster than it has ever risen to deal with racism. It’s an interesting point, but also problematic because the construction of Chappelle’s us-versus-them jokes rest on the fallacy that the Black and LGBTQ communities are mutually exclusive. In reality, as Netflix employee Terra Field pointed out in in a viral Twitter thread, Black trans people are the ones who bear the brunt of the real-world consequences of Chappelle’s jokes: 27 of the 43 trans people who are known to have been murdered in 2021 were Black, according to the Human Rights Campaign.

What I found most fascinating about watching these two specials back-to-back was that both Gadsby and Chappelle tell almost the exact same “joke”—I use this term loosely—about anti-trans violence, though from opposite points of view. In “Nanette,” Gadsby describes taking a beating from a straight man who thought she was hitting on his girlfriend. This story was intentionally unfunny. In “The Closer,” Chappelle brags about beating up a butch lesbian after she took a swing at him because she thought that Chappelle was hitting on her girlfriend. This story was unintentionally unfunny.

While watching “The Closer,” I got the sense that not only did Chappelle anticipate the firestorm over its content, but, lacking any relevant new material, he structured the special—ending with a tragic story of a trans comedian friend who died by suicide—precisely so he would be able to cast himself as a victim of “cancel culture” after it was released. “If this is what being canceled is like, I love it!” he said at a sold-out show at LA’s Hollywood Bowl on October 7, as he received a standing ovation.

In the special, Chappelle once again comes to the defense of people like Kevin Hart, one of the highest grossing movie stars of all time, because he lost his job hosting the Oscars four years ago due to the latter’s homophobic tweets. He defends the Grammy-nominated rapper DaBaby, who made jokes about AIDS at a music festival last summer and was subsequently dropped from Lollapalooza. Now Chappelle believes himself to be among the Canceled because, in the wake of the Netflix-Gadsby furor, he was disinvited to film festivals. Film festivals! Has there ever been a more bougie complaint? The man is a multi-millionaire, widely acknowledged even by his critics as a brilliant comedian, who fills stadiums all over the country.

Dave Chappelle has not been canceled. Awash in fame and money, he has simply lost his edge. In “The Closer,” Chappelle states that this is going to be his last comedy special for a very long time. For this, everyone—including Ted Sarandos—can be grateful.

 
    [post_title] => 'If this is what being canceled is like, I love it!': Dave Chappelle plays the culture war game
    [post_excerpt] => The comedian deliberately manufactured a controversy by gratuitously name-checking Hannah Gadsby, a comedian who has no overlap with his fan base, in order to amplify his latest Netflix special. 
    [post_status] => publish
    [comment_status] => closed
    [ping_status] => open
    [post_password] => 
    [post_name] => if-this-is-what-being-canceled-is-like-i-love-it-dave-chappelle-plays-the-culture-war-game
    [to_ping] => 
    [pinged] => 
    [post_modified] => 2024-08-28 21:15:12
    [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-08-28 21:15:12
    [post_content_filtered] => 
    [post_parent] => 0
    [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=3402
    [menu_order] => 166
    [post_type] => post
    [post_mime_type] => 
    [comment_count] => 0
    [filter] => raw
)

‘If this is what being canceled is like, I love it!’: Dave Chappelle plays the culture war game

by Rachel Dodes

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 3368
    [post_author] => 2
    [post_date] => 2021-10-28 15:19:50
    [post_date_gmt] => 2021-10-28 15:19:50
    [post_content] => No one is forbidding anyone from using the term 'woman' or 'mother.'

On October 15 Rosie DiManno, a Canadian journalist, wrote a contentious column for the Toronto Star, in which she claimed that women were being “erased” because British health care providers were introducing gender-inclusive language to accommodate nonbinary people and transgender men. The practice of referring to a menstruating or pregnant person instead of a menstruating or pregnant woman was, DiManno asserted, tantamount to “blotting women out” and bore a “whiff of misogyny.” DiManno’s grievance mongering, with her anger directed at transgender people, follows a pattern we have come to expect from TERFs—the acronym stands for “trans exclusionary radical feminist”—and their enablers. Almost invariably, they invoke problems that do not exist as a means of preempting the expansion of rights and reasonable accommodations for trans people.

Whether the imaginary problem du jour is “men in dresses” invading public bathrooms or, as in DiManno’s op-ed, the supposed erasure of language that captures quintessentially female experiences, this tactic embodies reactionary politics of grievance and scapegoating. The subtext is that transgender women are “really” men, transgender men are “really” women, and nonbinary people don’t exist. DiManno’s views are widely known to Canadian newspaper readers, and rarely elicit a response, but this particular column received international attention because Margaret Atwood promoted it approvingly on Twitter. This is indeed disappointing. Even more disappointing is that Atwood refused to listen to those who alerted her to the trans-antagonistic nature of DiManno’s commentary. Instead, she doubled down.

Before exploring these developments and the key issue of inclusive language in more detail, let me get a couple of things out of the way. First, no one is forbidding anyone from using the term “woman” or “mother.” Secondly, I’m not here to “cancel” an 81-year-old literary icon, even if I had the power to do so. I taught The Handmaid’s Tale in 2018 for an arts and humanities theme course on apocalypse and dystopia in the University of South Florida’s Honors College; and, while I am not planning a return to the classroom, I would teach that book again. Atwood’s novel is an immensely important exploration of what can happen when religious extremism runs amok, with the harm disproportionately falling on women and queer people (“gender traitors” in the terminology of Gilead), and for that reason it is painfully relevant in our time.

As a trans woman, I have no trouble discussing access to abortion care as a woman’s issue, although it doesn’t fit exclusively under that rubric because it also affects trans men and some nonbinary individuals, which makes it also an LGBTQ issue. Nor is access to abortion an issue that affects all women. Cisgender women who are unable to conceive, have had hysterectomies, have gone through menopause, or who have certain intersex conditions, are not personally affected by abortion access issues, but no one would get defensive about applying the word “woman” to people in most of those categories.

I would like to pause here to point out that I unabashedly typed “woman” or “women” five times in the above paragraph, because in each case that was the most fitting term. In addition, in my recent commentary on Brittney Poolaw’s horrific manslaughter conviction in Oklahoma for suffering a miscarriage, I used the word “women” 10 times; by contrast, I used the inclusive phrase “anyone who can get pregnant” just once.

To the second point above— i.e., the issue of “cancel culture”— it should go without saying that criticizing the views of a public figure is not censorship. A highly visible public figure should expect that the expression of their opinion on political concerns will elicit a variety of responses and should be prepared for criticism. Even if one is not a public figure, the right to free speech is not the same as an exemption from consequences for expressing hateful or bigoted views.

In addition to the degree of offense, power dynamics should be taken into consideration. This should be axiomatic for feminists. And yet, when it comes to these issues and “cancel culture,” anti-trans self-described feminists are suddenly unable to understand that women (see what I did there?) like Atwood, gazillionaire Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling, and DiManno are not vulnerable people who have to worry about financial insecurity or access to healthcare. They all have white and cis privilege, and they have far more power than the average woman. Trans people, by contrast, are disproportionately poor, highly vulnerable to “cancellation” via scapegoating, likely to face barriers to healthcare access, and, especially in the case of Black trans women, disproportionately subjected to violence up to and including murder.

There is one issue DiManno raised on which I agree with her and, by extension, Atwood: the anatomy of the female reproductive system has historically been erased due to patriarchy and puritanism. Encouraging girls and, indeed, all of us to have a better understanding of the vulva, the clitoris, the cervix, the uterus, and so forth is something our society needs. Jennifer Gunter’s 2019 bestseller The Vagina Bible was a much needed intervention, and I am very glad it exists. At the same time, there is something very odd about women who identify with feminism, a movement that has sought to decouple a woman’s value from reproduction and childrearing, to suddenly wish to define women precisely in those terms so long as it means not having to accommodate “those people.”

Regarding inclusive language, I disagree with DiManno and Atwood’s claim that using it as a means of accommodating some people who can get pregnant undermines the goal of increasing literacy about female anatomy and reproduction. DiManno completely misrepresented the facts to make her case, by referring to an article in The Lancet about UK hospitals using gender-neutral language to accommodate transgender men and nonbinary people. As Stacy Lee Kong points out, rather than prescribe that language across the board, “What did happen is Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust announced in February that it would be adding new trans-friendly terms including ‘birthing people’ and ‘chestfeeding’ to its existing vocabulary as a way to become more inclusive. The hospital was careful to note that it would only be using gender-neutral language in its internal communications and meetings, and that staff would use patients’ correct pronouns while caring for them.”

Intentionally or not, there is a great deal of dishonesty among the handwringing “why can’t we say woman anymore” crowd. That Atwood would throw in her lot with them is more disappointing than surprising to those who have been paying attention, since, as Kong also highlighted in her commentary on the current dustup, Atwood has previously reveled in being a self-described “bad feminist.”

The evolution of language, which is often pushed along by activists and advocates for marginalized communities, is understandably something that can make people uncomfortable. And indeed, activists sometimes go to excesses, though trans rights activists have so little power that the issue is mostly a red herring. Meanwhile, discomfort is sometimes necessary in order to learn and grow. And there is simply no excuse for distorting, exaggerating, and lying about what is really happening when healthcare systems, which often discriminate against trans people, begin to move toward understanding and accommodation. That thoroughly reactionary response is antithetical to the spirit of feminism as I understand it. Atwood seems uninterested in addressing her critics in a serious way, but if she should happen to read this column, I would ask her to look at the actual facts rather than the distorted version found in DiManno’s column, to sit for a while with her discomfort, and to consider leaving the politics of fear, scapegoating, and scarcity to the reactionary Right.
    [post_title] => Margaret Atwood's opposition to gender-inclusive language is disappointing, but not surprising
    [post_excerpt] => Self described feminists who oppose the expansion of rights and reasonable accommodations for trans people are ddisregarding the facts in favor of a position predicated on fears and biases.
    [post_status] => publish
    [comment_status] => closed
    [ping_status] => open
    [post_password] => 
    [post_name] => margaret-atwoods-opposition-to-gender-inclusive-language-is-disappointing-but-not-surprising
    [to_ping] => 
    [pinged] => 
    [post_modified] => 2024-08-28 21:15:12
    [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-08-28 21:15:12
    [post_content_filtered] => 
    [post_parent] => 0
    [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=3368
    [menu_order] => 168
    [post_type] => post
    [post_mime_type] => 
    [comment_count] => 0
    [filter] => raw
)

Margaret Atwood’s opposition to gender-inclusive language is disappointing, but not surprising

by Chrissy Stroop

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 3356
    [post_author] => 2
    [post_date] => 2021-10-20 13:47:51
    [post_date_gmt] => 2021-10-20 13:47:51
    [post_content] => Why white, cis feminists must not be the ‘default’ version of tech critique, or anything else.

In 2021 two former Facebook employees stepped forward as whistleblowers. One became an international media star, while the other is virtually unknown. Frances Haugen garnered global headlines after her 60 Minutes interview on October 3, during which she revealed that she was the anonymous whistleblower who supplied the internal documents for the Wall Street Journal’s investigative series, which showed that Facebook knew Instagram harms many teenage girls and that it was fully aware of the damage caused by its for-profit disinformation. Two days later, she testified at a Senate subcommittee hearing that was watched around the world.

In September 2020 Sophie Zhang blew the whistle on Facebook’s refusal to act against dictators who were creating fake accounts on a vast scale to manipulate their own citizens and steal elections. Facebook’s response was to fire her. Zhang promptly published a nearly 8,000-word memo detailing her concerns on her personal website, parts of which Buzzfeed excerpted —before Facebook pressured the company that hosted her website to delete both the site and her domain name.

When Zhang went public with her identity in mid-2021, journalist Julie Carrie Wong wrote a long feature report about her for The Guardian, while Karen Hao’s deep dive interview with the whistleblower was published by MIT Tech Review . But the Senate did not invite Zhang to a special Senate hearing; nor, until a recent outcry over the disparate treatment, did any high- profile television news shows ask to interview her. As Wong tweeted on October 12, “I’m glad people are paying attention to her now but it’s weird to retcon her into a secondary player in Haugen’s narrative.”

Why is Frances Haugen the default whistleblower to whom all others are compared—even those that came before her?

Zhang might have been shunted into a secondary role partly because she is “not charismatic”  and “not good at attracting or receiving attention,” as she told CNN reporter Donnie O’Sullivan in an interview broadcast on October 12.  “I am an introvert who wants to stay home and pet my cats,” Zhang said. Another factor that might be partly responsible for Zhang’s relative anonymity: Americans who work for the Wall Street Journal and convene Senate sub-committee hearings care more about Instagram’s possible effects on their adolescent daughters’ self-image than about stolen elections and human rights abuses in Honduras and Azerbaijan.

A year after Zhang published her memo, the claims and documentation that both she and Haugen provided are now central to a new push in the US to regulate Facebook. And yet Haugen is “the Facebook whistleblower” while, to some, Zhang is just “an ex-employee.” (The unspoken “disgruntled” in that last sentence is silent, but powerful.)

In this tale of two American whistleblowers, one was given the role of the princess, commanding attention and praise, inspiring king-makers in Washington D.C. to insist the time has finally come for regulation. And the other? I’m not going to say she played the step-sister, because I hope we’ve all come a long way from denigrating blended families, but Zhang’s reception made it clear she’s expected to be part of a different and much smaller story. If it were a house-party, she’d be the help, not the host. Meanwhile, the significant ongoing work to document, explain, and stop the systematic harms of tech companies has been carried out by women of color; and they have gone almost completely unnoticed.

The Facebook fiasco inadvertently shines a light on different strains of feminism, and the wildly disparate varieties of attention and support they receive both from the media and from policymakers.

At the top of the status game sits Sheryl Sandberg, a key inspiration for girlboss feminists, for whom victory simply means winning power, not challenging it. Corporate feminism, often the reserve of privileged white women, celebrates women who “lean in” to a man’s world, not those who insist it needs to change so that everyone has a fair chance. It’s about “diversity and inclusion”— i.e., same values, different faces. It’s about having a nanny taking care of your children in a private, dedicated playroom next to your C-suite office, rather than building an on-site daycare center for all the employees’ children—let alone mandating parental leave and ending discrimination against parents and caregivers at every socioeconomic level. It’s about the magazines covers, nonfiction bestseller lists, and keynote slots at conferences. It is about the stranglehold of soft-spoken, acceptable female power, everywhere.

When it comes to criticism of big tech, corporate feminists are OK with data-extraction and surveillance, so long as the women doing it earn almost as much as the men. Those with misgivings tend to be “reformist” critics who lament what they see as unintended consequences of the business model; and they suggest only the gentlest of nudges. As Meredith Whittaker, Faculty Director of the AI Now Institute at NYU, puts it, " ‘nuance’ is also a term heard increasingly from tech reformists, in reference to their prescriptions— usually adding oversight, transparency, accountability to the status quo. …more structural approaches like bans, breakups, redistribution, they imply, lack nuance.” In theory, not all corporate feminists are also tech apologists or, at best, reformists, but they all share a basic political stance that things are mostly OK, and just need a little tweaking at the edges. Call it “nudge criticism”; executives are just good people doing their best, and we just need a few rules changes to optimize the incentives of corporations. Nudge criticism gives establishment journalists and policymakers material for articles and legislative bills, but doesn’t change anything fundamental.

When Frances Haugen came forward as a whistleblower, she slipped smoothly into the role of the acceptable girlboss face of reformist tech criticism. This is not a criticism of Haugen, or her considerable PR resources, but of how media, policymakers and so many of us respond to her. Haugen is doing everything she can, and with all she’s got, but she’s never going to suggest lawmakers change the real rules of the game. And that, more than anything, is why she is center stage.

Sophie Zhang is a trans woman, and, echoing how trans feminists are forced to fight simply for their right to exist, she has sacrificed her physical and mental health, her relationships, her livelihood, status and peace of mind—just to be heard. None of this came easily to her, yet she has persisted far more than what is rational or reasonable, simply because she felt she must. Karen Hao’s painstakingly researched profile documents the physical and emotional abuse Zhang suffered as a teenager when she came out, and contains the quietly devastating reason why Zhang first tried so hard to change Facebook from within: “Ultimately, I decided that I was the person who stayed in imperfect situations to try and fix them.” Facebook fired Zhang for under-performance because, despite the company’s refusal to act against dictators who used the platform for political and electoral fraud, she kept on trying to fix it, in addition to doing the job she was officially paid to do, as a data scientist. Zhang knew from a previous experience of sexual harassment that she would be downplayed, discredited and disbelieved, so she documented every single claim she made.

It still wasn’t enough.

In July 2021, after almost a year doing everything she could think of to keep blowing the whistle, Zhang was disappointed by the lack of public and political response. Yet she couldn’t regret what she had done. It simply wasn’t in her character to do otherwise.

Zhang’s drive to broadcast the truth and protect people she’ll never meet, despite the high price she knew she would pay, is powerfully reminiscent of Chelsea Manning, who blew the whistle on the US military. Manning leaked videos and documentation of US abuse of detainees in Guantanamo and killing of civilians in Iraq to Wikileaks, amongst other materials, and was sentenced to 35 years in prison. (President Obama, icon of gradualists and nuance-lovers everywhere, locked up more whistleblowers in eight years than all the presidents, cumulatively, before him. He commuted Manning’s sentence just before he left office, and she was finally able to transition.)

It cannot be a coincidence that two American trans women have been at the forefront of speaking truth to intensely coercive power. Holding fast to the truth despite the gaslighting denials of those who wield authority over them is integral to who they are. And knowing the truth was insufficient, they were compelled to act on it. Not all trans women are heroic truth-tellers, sure, but a surprising number of trans women I have known in public and private life are more courageous than anyone should need to be. I don’t know why trans sisters have been moved to risk and sacrifice so much, in different fields. I do know that the changes their revelations demand are not milquetoast solutions like “better oversight” or “more transparency.” The barriers and costs to these whistleblowers of speaking out are so much greater, and their critiques are indifferent to whether you like them or not.  These sisters know what power truly looks like before it dons a pantsuit, pussy-hat, and professional smile.

Zhang’s criticisms of Facebook stick to her area of specialist knowledge, cutting narrow but deep. Unlike Haugen, she doesn’t claim “Mark” (Zuckerberg) is doing his best but is in over his head. Zhang says that Facebook systematically downgrades the priority of poorer, less prominent countries, refusing to spend the resources necessary to stop dictators from exploiting the platform’s baked-in elements to manipulate their own citizens. This is a far more devastating criticism, affecting many millions of people around the world. It goes to the heart of the business model; if Facebook can afford to be present globally, it can afford to invest in protecting the world’s most fragile democracies.

People are finally catching on. A UK parliamentary committee just invited Zhang to give evidence. I hope they look further than the incremental solutions so beloved of the management class, and instead open their minds to the possibilities that appear when you understand that progress will only happen when you tear down its quiet coercion and unequal distribution, instead of merely changing its face. To truly understand the vindictive, velvet-gloved power wielded by Facebook, we all need to understand that the harms women like Zhang and Haugen have exposed as whistleblowers are not exceptional. They’re not “abuses” of the platform, but simply what happens when third parties use it as it was designed to be used. And it won’t be fixed by asking nicely, because asking nicely never brought down a rotten system.

If we roll with the obvious narrative, that acceptable tech critique is defined around a “default whistleblower”—a white, cis, middle management American woman who was fine with it all until one day she wasn’t— we choose to avert our eyes from the worst, most systemic harms. We choose to pretend that it’s just “too hard” to find structural solutions that would stop the slow violence of for-profit hate, which is precisely Facebook’s business model. By centering white, corporate feminism in all questions that affect all kinds of women and girls, we’ll make exactly the same, systemic error Facebook does: prioritize fixing more prominent but much less serious harms.

Zhang did what she had to do because she knew that power lies. Power lies, above all, to and through those who covet it the most. To honor Zhang’s courage, we should do as she has done: see things exactly as they are, and do what truth demands.
    [post_title] => Two Facebook whistleblowers leaned in, but only one became a media star
    [post_excerpt] => Why is Frances Haugen the default whistleblower to whom all others are compared—even those that came before her?
    [post_status] => publish
    [comment_status] => closed
    [ping_status] => open
    [post_password] => 
    [post_name] => two-facebook-whistleblowers-leaned-in-but-only-one-became-a-media-star
    [to_ping] => 
    [pinged] => 
https://conversationalist.org/2021/10/05/blowing-the-whistle-on-facebook-is-just-the-first-step/
    [post_modified] => 2024-08-28 21:08:26
    [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-08-28 21:08:26
    [post_content_filtered] => 
    [post_parent] => 0
    [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=3356
    [menu_order] => 169
    [post_type] => post
    [post_mime_type] => 
    [comment_count] => 0
    [filter] => raw
)

Two Facebook whistleblowers leaned in, but only one became a media star

by Maria Farrell

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 3287
    [post_author] => 2
    [post_date] => 2021-10-14 14:28:27
    [post_date_gmt] => 2021-10-14 14:28:27
    [post_content] => Women shouldn’t need a 'good' reason to end a pregnancy.

Texas’s shockingly cruel new abortion law bars abortion once cardiac activity can be detected in the embryo, typically around the sixth week of pregnancy. Notably, it also allows any US citizen to sue any person who performs or otherwise “aids and abets” a prohibited abortion. The law has few defenders in the mainstream press. Jennifer Rubin, a conservative columnist for The Washington Post noted its “viciousness.” The New York Times’ Michelle Goldberg described its “sinister brilliance.” Rebecca Traister of New York Magazine decried its “ugliness.”

By deploying private citizens to subjugate the vulnerable, the law evokes the worst of the United States’ not-so-distant past. In the mid-nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, for example, doctors and police officers demanded that women dying of botched abortions name the provider. During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, mercenaries made their living by hunting down escaped slaves and returning them to bondage in exchange for a bounty. Some Americans have always been willing to work for or in lieu of law enforcement to catch, punish, and profit from those they or the state deem criminals based on deeply ingrained notions, rooted in systemic racism and sexism, of who is and isn’t a rational, capable human being.

Abortion was common in the United States throughout the nineteenth century. It was only in the latter half of the century, when medicine became a respected profession and the American Medical Association was established, that physicians lobbied to have abortion banned. Their concern was not about abortion’s morality, but about the financial and professional implications of being forced to compete with midwives and purveyors of home abortion remedies.

As ugly as the Texas law is on its own, many of its opponents are attempting to fight it by invoking the worst-case scenarios. A number of commentators have cited the case of a 13-year-old Texas girl who became pregnant after her grandfather raped her; the law grants no exceptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. Few would argue that a 13-year-old rape victim should be forced to carry and give birth to her grandfather’s baby; that is why, even in Texas, the girl in question was able to end her pregnancy, albeit only after traveling hours from her small town to a clinic in Houston (this was a few months before the new law went into effect). People in extreme circumstances related to pregnancy—victims of rape and incest, women carrying fetuses with severe abnormalities, those who might die if they give birth—deserve support, compassion, and access to modern medicine, including abortion. But only a small minority of women seek abortion for those reasons.

The most common reasons women give for seeking abortions in the United States are the least shocking. According to data gathered from 2008 to 2010, 40 percent said they were “not financially prepared” to have a child. Thirty-six percent cited “bad timing,” “unplanned,” or “not ready.” Nearly a third (31 percent) cited reasons related to the person who caused the pregnancy—e.g., he was unsupportive, abusive, and/or didn’t want to be involved. Twenty-nine percent of abortion patients said they needed to focus on caring for the children they already had. Most gave not just one but several reasons for ending their pregnancy. By evoking only the extremes, activists risk creating a sense that some women are more or less “deserving” than others of abortion access.

Americans, including those who believe abortion should remain legal, are accustomed to weighing the relative moral acceptability of these reasons. They might sympathize with a terrified 15-year-old who gets pregnant the first time she has sex, but think a 36-year-old woman who didn’t use birth control and got pregnant from a one-night stand should have known better. Most rights are not absolute; they can be and often are restricted. But once a society recognizes that a right exists, it is not contingent on whether others approve of how it is exercised. That’s why proponents of free speech, particularly in the United States, often cite biographer Evelyn Hall’s summary of Voltaire’s philosophy: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Katie Watson, a lawyer and bioethicist who teaches at Northwestern University, sympathizes with advocates who focus on extraordinary cases. “Legally, you always pick the most sympathetic plaintiff for your case, and rhetorically, we often want to lead with our strongest examples,” she explained over the phone. “That’s narrative structure and that’s storytelling and that's litigation.” What concerns her is “the repetition damage…when those become the only stories that we tell, they skew our vision and our understanding of what life is really like. And starting with bad facts leads to bad policy.”

The result, said Watson, is that “the cases we discuss the most are the cases that happen the least.” She added: “When we focus exclusively on those—we unwittingly contribute to that dichotomy between good abortions and bad abortions—or deserved abortions and shameful abortions.”

Shifting attitudes toward divorce and the liberalization of divorce laws are a useful comparison. Divorce was once a very controversial issue in the United States. Until “no fault” divorce became the norm in the 1970s, the laws of most states required a woman petitioning for a legal end to her marriage to prove that her husband had committed adultery, abused her, or abandoned her. As of 2017 most Americans (73 percent), including a slim majority (51 percent) of the “very religious,” considered divorce morally acceptable. This, despite the fact that between 22 and 50 percent of people who obtain a divorce, regret having done so.  By comparison, 84 percent of women polled five years after having an abortion report feeling either positive or neutral about their decision. Few Americans, however, would advocate forcing people to stay married.

Despite the popular stereotype of those who get abortions as young, immature, and/or careless, most people who undergo terminations in the United States are not only adults, but parents. In 2014, 59 percent of abortions were obtained by women who already had at least one child. Only 12 percent were teenagers; those younger than 15 accounted for only 0.2 percent. The vast majority of people who undergo an abortion procedure are neither tricked nor pressured into ending their pregnancies. Only about 1 percent reported seeking a termination because somebody else, usually a parent or a partner, wanted them to. Most people who seek abortions know their own needs, desires, and limitations, and can imagine—or are already well aware of—the physical, psychological, and literal cost of bringing a child into being.

If a woman can choose to join the military, get married, or end a marriage—all potentially life-changing decisions—she can decide to end a pregnancy. As Watson argued in her 2018 book Scarlet A: The Ethics, Law and Politics of Ordinary Abortion, “We should be able to acknowledge the complexity of private decision making without threatening the right of private decision making.”

According to Watson, it’s no surprise, and no problem, for members of a large, diverse, and pluralistic society to have a range of views on abortion. That’s why, in defending abortion rights, she thinks it’s crucial to rely on the politics of respect rather than the politics of sympathy. “The politics of sympathy say, ‘You get to have that abortion because I feel sympathetic to you,’” she explained. “It puts the listener or the voter in the position of judge.” By contrast, “the politics of respect say, ‘I may or may not agree with her decision or like it, but she is a moral agent with a brain and a heart and she is the one who's going to live with the consequences of whatever decision she makes, whether to have a child or not…I respect her decision-making rights and her decision-making capacity and her decision-making authority, even if her moral frameworks are different than mine.’” The latter, Watson said, focuses on the pregnant person, whereas the former focuses on “the person offering the opinion or the vote.”

There are places in the world where abortion is not only safe, legal, and unremarkable, but also considered a basic human right. Five years ago, when my mother was on a group tour of Iceland, another American woman on the tour referred to then President Obama as a “baby killer.” My mother defended Obama and asked the Icelandic tour guide what she thought. “In this country,” the guide replied carefully, “Women are considered equal citizens, so abortion is not really an issue.”

That attitude is not limited to Nordic countries. People in many industrialized nations around the world see abortion rights as inseparable from the human right to self-determination. In Ireland, which legalized abortion by a wide margin following a 2018 referendum, the government heralded the right to abortion as a welcome sign that the country had finally joined modern society. “The people have spoken,” declared then Prime Minister Leo Varadkar. “They have said we need a modern constitution for a modern country.”

Meanwhile, when the Polish government implemented draconian abortion restrictions last year, they sparked the country’s largest protests since the fall of communism. As one protester told Reuters, “I want us to have our basic rights…the right to decide what we want to do and if we want to bear children and in what circumstances to have children.”

Melissa Upreti, a human rights lawyer tasked by the United Nations Human Rights Council with fighting to end discrimination against women and girls, characterized Texas’s law as “sex and gender-based discrimination at its worst” and a clear violation of international law, adding that it has “not only taken Texas backward, but in the eyes of the international community, it has taken the entire country backward.”

Based on the means many abortion opponents have employed to limit access to the procedure—e.g., picketing clinics and shaming women as they enter, murdering and threatening abortion providers, and now passing a law that empowers ordinary citizens to be vigilantes and bounty hunters—it seems obvious that their concerns are not about the sanctity of “life” but about controlling and humiliating pregnant people.

Abortion opponents detest the slogan, “My body, my choice.” So do I—not because it invokes bodily autonomy, but because the “choice” framework is trivializing, and falsely implies that all choices are equal. The choice to bring a human being into existence is far graver and more permanently life-altering than the decision not to. Forcing a woman to endure pregnancy and labor against her will is an act of brutality with lifelong consequences for her and any children for whom she is responsible. In defending the Texas law, Ohio Republican Senate candidate J.D. Vance falsely asserted that it’s about “whether a child should be allowed to live” and “not whether a woman should be forced to bring a child to term.” But that’s precisely what it is. And that kind of torture cannot be justified by the victim’s capacity to bring into being a child who doesn’t yet exist.
    [post_title] => In defense of ordinary abortion
    [post_excerpt] => People in extreme circumstances related to pregnancy—victims of rape and incest, women carrying fetuses with severe abnormalities, those who might die if they give birth—deserve support, compassion, and access to modern medicine, including abortion. But only a small minority of women seek abortion for those reasons.
    [post_status] => publish
    [comment_status] => closed
    [ping_status] => open
    [post_password] => 
    [post_name] => in-defense-of-ordinary-abortion
    [to_ping] => 
    [pinged] => 
    [post_modified] => 2024-08-28 21:11:29
    [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-08-28 21:11:29
    [post_content_filtered] => 
    [post_parent] => 0
    [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=3287
    [menu_order] => 170
    [post_type] => post
    [post_mime_type] => 
    [comment_count] => 0
    [filter] => raw
)

In defense of ordinary abortion

by Raina Lipsitz

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 3247
    [post_author] => 2
    [post_date] => 2021-10-07 22:29:15
    [post_date_gmt] => 2021-10-07 22:29:15
    [post_content] => Abuse turns your world into a kind of sadistic haunted house setting—frightening but also extremely disorienting

A police officer’s body cam captured a young woman standing on the side of the road, sad and sheepish, the sun in her eyes. Her relationship was on the rocks, but she was earnestly telling the officer that she wanted things to work out, she wanted them to be OK. It looked like an unfortunate incident, a stumble on the way to a great adventure, that would soon be behind her. A few weeks later, however, the pretty woman in the footage would be dead.

The tragedy of 22-year-old Gabby Petito seemed, at first glance, to be entirely preventable. Before she disappeared while on a cross country trip with her fiancé, Brian Laundrie, witnesses saw him slap Petito. This is how the police became involved. 

Petito was an ambitious young woman, originally from New York State, who dreamed about being a travel influencer. To that end, she set out on a cross-country trip alongside her fiancé, documenting their journey along the way. Not all seemed well in their relationship, however, and her family grew suspicious when Petito stopped communicating with them. When Laundrie returned to his home in Florida without Petito, but still in possession of her travel van, it became clear that something horrible had happened.

Petito’s body was found in Wyoming a few weeks after Laundrie returned. Police have ruled her death a homicide; as of this writing, her fiancé remains missing. It is unclear whether he has harmed himself or is simply on the run from the authorities. 

The footage of the police encounter that took place in Moab, Utah, weeks before Petito went missing, gives us plenty of clues as to what may have transpired between the young woman and her fiancé. It is a tragically familiar sight to anyone with experience in domestic violence, but it is even more heartbreaking in hindsight:




 

Laundrie is calm and pleasant when speaking with the officers. Petito looks like she is emotionally unstable, but she is clearly heartbroken and dying of shame—the typical response of a woman who is used to being belittled and told that everything that happens to her is her fault.

The police are courteous, polite, and clearly sympathetic, but they don’t see the need to put anyone in handcuffs. No one is giving them an explicit reason to do so. The police are focusing on de-escalating the situation, and appear to be succeeding. They believe that what is happening before them is a mental health crisis first and foremost—especially because Petito, at one point, admits to slapping Laundrie—and their actions are consistent with that.

In light of what ultimately happened to Petito, the internet cried foul over the police encounter. If only the cops had taken the situation more seriously, the wisdom went, Petito would still be alive. 

It’s a noble and understandable sentiment, but as someone who surveyed her own hellish, seven-year-long abusive relationship, I am not sure if it is the correct one. 

Human beings have always loved our stories of good and evil to be uncomplicated, and by increasing both the speed and frequency of communication, social media has in particular amplified demand for the simplest of narratives. In the case of tragic stories like Petito’s, it feels only natural to say that what happened to her could have easily been prevented. This narrative is bolstered by the fact that Petito was young, attractive, and white — which is why her case immediately received national attention. 

“Missing white woman syndrome” is very much a real phenomenon, particularly when the white woman happens to be young, attractive, and from the sort of background that, while not necessarily wealthy, can be described as “good” or “upstanding.” Some have wondered whether the incident with the police would have gone down differently if Petito and/or her fiancé had been, for example, Black. 

Would both of them have been criminalized? Would there have been a chance of the officers being more harsh on the fiancé, hence preventing a murder? The history of policing with regard to domestic violence tells us that a tougher response by officers would not have necessarily saved anyone.

In general, policing alone does not appear to be sufficient to solve the problem of domestic violence, and frequently, much depends on luck. The idea that domestic violence outcomes can sometimes depend on blind luck alone is, of course, completely detestable to us. Why should Petito — or any woman, or any abuse victim — have to depend on luck? Why couldn’t her horrifying trajectory have just been stopped?

When reviewing the body cam footage, I was struck by the fact that at one point, Petito told a police officer that her boyfriend didn’t really believe she could pull off her dream of building a website and becoming a well-known travel influencer. “He doesn’t really believe I can do any of it,” she says at one point, looking both desperate and desperate to please, an expression I have caught on my own face in videos and pictures that documented my highly volatile past.

Two things stuck out: Petito was far away from home, and essentially under Laundrie’s full control. Yet she was also embarking on an ambitious project, which must have made Laundrie feel as though his control was slipping. 

The night my husband almost killed me, I too was far away from home, on vacation on the island of Crete, one of my favorite places on earth. That day, I had submitted a new play to a festival, a piece of work my director husband had praised highly. Yet the mere fact that I had written and submitted it resulted in dark feelings of jealousy and resentment in my husband, who felt that I was growing too successful, too fast. 

A few drinks into a moonlit summer night, he grew more and more furious with me, until he could no longer contain his anger and he attacked me physically. The hotel owner called the police, an act that almost certainly saved my life that night.

When the police interviewed me, they could see the bruises already blooming on my body and had eyewitness accounts to go on. But, much like Petito, I was too mortified to press charges. The fact that my then husband had bruises himself — from when I had, very unsuccessfully, tried to defend myself, much as Petito had apparently done — made the situation murkier. In the light of day, my guilt overwhelmed me, and I was ready to believe that I had provoked the entire incident, in spite of people who were ready to testify on my behalf.

That’s the funny thing about abuse—it turns your world into a kind of sadistic haunted house setting, frightening but also extremely disorienting. Up is down and down is up. You are so demoralized and humiliated, that you stop seeing yourself as a full person deserving of the most basic of rights. The Greek police urged me to press charges, but they couldn’t force me to. In the Petito case, the Utah police had even less to go on. 

My friend Joy Ziegeweid has spent nearly a decade working with domestic violence victims and is currently the supervising immigration attorney at the Urban Justice Center’s Domestic Violence Project. Haunted by the body cam footage of Petito, I called her for an opinion on the case. 

Joy reminded me that police involvement “does not always guarantee a good outcome” in a domestic violence situation. Again, we often like to think that it does, but even the most fair-minded officer can only respond in cases when the abuser takes specific actions. If a chillingly manipulative man like Laundrie is not physically attacking a woman in front of the police, and the woman herself does not say that she is in danger, there isn’t much law enforcement officers can do. 

Of course, as Joy reminded me, there are some jurisdictions in which a victim does not need to press charges in order for the cops to move to make an arrest. “But that can have its own downsides,” Joy explained. A victim residing in such a jurisdiction may be less likely to seek help in the first place — because victims are gradually taught to place the abuser’s needs ahead of their own, they may not want to see them arrested at all. 

According to available data, one in four women and one in nine men experience what is termed to be severe abuse—including physical violence, sexual violence, and/or stalking—in the United States. There has been widespread evidence that the Covid-19 pandemic has greatly exacerbated the problem. For most of us, domestic violence is a problem hidden from view, only spilling out into the public sphere when it is already too late, which is what appears to have happened in the Petito case. 

 Because of the nuanced and complex nature of domestic violence, solutions not involving law enforcement can be helpful, especially when the victim is not yet able to fully articulate or even realize the problem, which is a phenomenon I have experienced myself. Again, much depends on jurisdiction. 

As Joy reminded me, in New York State one can obtain a protective order through family court without involving the police. “But the police can then be called to enforce it,” she said. Availability of beds in women’s shelters and other resources for victims struggling to break free is another important part of the equation, according to Joy. 

Simply put, in many cases, a battered spouse or partner has nowhere to go. A battered spouse or partner is also under intense psychological stress. Both economic and psychological factors are cited as very important in determining good outcomes for domestic abuse situations. Without financial support and very specific, targeted counseling, victims frequently cannot be saved by cops alone, no matter how heroic or well-trained. 

Hybrid solutions are required to tackle the problem of domestic violence because the problem itself is hybrid, with a victim’s reality constantly shifting. In the first months after I was able to leave my husband—only with the help of friends and family, I could never have done it on my own—I struggled with feelings of guilt, wanting to go back, and wondering if I had made a terrible mistake. 

Only by slowly learning how to experience life without constant control—the same control plainly visible to me as I watched the Petito footage years later—did I begin to understand what I had been missing for all of those years: a full life as an adult woman, with her boundaries intact, and her physical safety no longer dependent on someone else’s moods. 

The fact that I escaped is extremely lucky. Many things could have gone wrong for me, and simply didn’t. Sometimes, there are no clear cut answers to the question as to why one victim makes it and another one doesn’t, and decisions that seem right in the moment don’t necessarily withstand the test of time. 

When I refused to press charges against my husband, all of those years ago, I thought I was doing the right thing. Sometimes, the true nature of a crime emerges only in hindsight. At the same time, I don’t know how criminal charges would have affected my situation. What if my husband had been released pending trial and been sufficiently enraged to kill me? What if financial and psychological resources hadn’t been available to me at the time, forcing me into an even worse situation with a man who had one more reason to hate and to dispose of me?

While I believe that it is only natural to say that a murder was preventable, the truth is, what happened to Petito, and what is happening to countless other victims, many of them ignored by the press, requires the build up of a decent preventative infrastructure. Otherwise, we are only offering platitudes. 
    [post_title] => As a survivor of domestic abuse, I recognized my own face in Gabby Petito's
    [post_excerpt] => The history of policing with regard to domestic violence tells us that a tougher response by law enforcement officers would not necessarily have saved her.
    [post_status] => publish
    [comment_status] => closed
    [ping_status] => open
    [post_password] => 
    [post_name] => as-a-survivor-of-domestic-abuse-i-recognized-my-own-face-in-gabby-petitos
    [to_ping] => 
    [pinged] => 
    [post_modified] => 2024-08-28 21:14:02
    [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-08-28 21:14:02
    [post_content_filtered] => 
    [post_parent] => 0
    [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=3247
    [menu_order] => 172
    [post_type] => post
    [post_mime_type] => 
    [comment_count] => 0
    [filter] => raw
)

As a survivor of domestic abuse, I recognized my own face in Gabby Petito’s

by Natalia Antonova

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 3193
    [post_author] => 2
    [post_date] => 2021-09-22 03:32:26
    [post_date_gmt] => 2021-09-22 03:32:26
    [post_content] => Her message to the world: please don't forget the refugee children.

A little girl is walking alone from Syria to England. She is 11 feet and 6 inches tall.

Little Amal (Arabic for “hope”) is actually a giant puppet. She represents the thousands of refugee children who have been displaced from their home countries. This nine-year-old Syrian girl is now journeying from Turkey, across Europe, and to the U.K., as part of an 8,000 kilometer (5,000 mile)  travelling festival titled The Walk.

At the end of July, Amal began her journey as a “refugee” in Gaziantep, Turkey, home to half a million Syrians. People holding lanterns aloft surrounded her, lighting up the night. As she moved through the streets, Amal reached out to balconies where children stood watching, and gently touched their hands as they smiled down at her. Orbs of light sparkled overhead, and a choir welcomed her with song. Many of the people participating in the street theater were themselves refugees.

Amal is now halfway through this theatrical journey created by Good Chance, a theater company founded in the Calais refugee camps in 2015, in collaboration with the Handspring Puppet Company. Communities in Turkey, Greece, and Italy, where she’s continued her journey, have found different ways to welcome her — sometimes with love, and sometimes with hostility. But how close is Amal’s experience to that of real refugee children?

Setting off in Turkey

The rest of Amal’s journey through Turkey was likewise filled with celebration and theatrical wonder.

In Adana, a flock of model birds accompanied her across the Taşköprü stone bridge, held up proudly on long sticks by both children and adults in the local community. She played with the children of Tarsus, who crowded in together for a chance to touch her hands. In the Kaleiçi Bazaar in Denizli, portraits of refugees who had journeyed through Turkey were projected onto walls as she appeared.

“I think the most common reaction is wonderment, followed by curiosity. People have been receiving her very warmly in many places,” says Amir Nizar Zuabi, artistic director of The Walk and Good Chance.

“One of the most astonishing things for me as artistic director on this project, was the true generosity and creativity that this evoked from people,” he says. “This project is only possible because of a network of thousands of people that have devoted time, energy, and their creativity to create these welcoming events along the way.”


Turkey is a poignant place for this journey to begin. It hosts the biggest population of refugees in the world. The “best interests of the child” principle, part of the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child, is enshrined into law here, which means that all unaccompanied young refugees must, in theory, be given suitable accommodation and a guardian. But according to the Asylum Information Database (AIDA), many children are in fact abandoned by the state which doesn’t offer the protections they are promised. AIDA has also pointed out the state sometimes appoints inappropriate guardians, such as people without the right qualifications, or who aren’t a relative, leaving refugee children with no other choice but to beg in the street.

Were Amal settling in Turkey, accessing education could also be a real problem. Approximately 400,000 Syrian children residing in the country are not receiving an education, according to Human Rights Watch and Turkey’s Ministry of Education,

Amal, however, is not settling in Turkey. On her last day in the country, she stood on the shores of Çesme as the sun set, ready to take a boat to Greece. In these waters, many refugees like her have lost their lives. Zuabi commented on the potency of that moment, as Amal looked into the horizon, almost motionless.

Hostility in Greece

Little Amal’s journey in Greece was, at times, quite tumultuous. It began with music, with a whole community arriving to meet her off the boat in Chios and welcome her with song. But in other towns, she faced fury.

“In a city called Larissa in Greece, she became a symbol of the refugee problem, she was shouted at and even violently attacked,” says Zuabi. Protesters threw stones at Amal. And in Meteora, people voted to ban Amal from walking through their village, because they did not want a Muslim child walking through a Greek Orthodox space. More violence was threatened against Amal in other towns and villages along her route.

“From that moment, her appearances in Greece created a strong sense of solidarity. I think the reaction she induces is specific to the context of the country we are in, and even more specific to the city and the population we meet,” Zuabi says. “One thing I know for sure is that nobody stays indifferent.” 


In spite of the threats against Amal, people still came together to welcome her in Athens. While some events had to be cancelled, Amal took to a rooftop in Athens to meet locals. From this vantage point, Zuabi says, he could see people wiping tears from their eyes. On the Walk With Amal Instagram account people responded to the video of the violence with an outpouring of love and solidarity—more than double the number of comments than their other popular videos. There were messages like, “I'm so proud that I walked with you Amal, hand in hand with my children!” and “We want to welcome you, celebrate you and keep you safe.” 

In Ioannina, Amal walked between the Katsikas refugee camp and the city centre. In the camp, Zuabi says there was a sense of pride; people felt celebrated. As she walked on, the local community presented lightboxes filled with messages of hope: “You are our rainbow” and “Step by step,” they said. 

When unaccompanied minors arrive in Greece, they are detained in reception centres until they’ve been processed and a place in a shelter found for them, but backlogs mean they can be left waiting for months. Their accommodation is often unsuitable, and spaces are limited. Human Rights Watch has witnessed young people living amongst the general population of Greece’s Moria Camp, because the areas designated for children are beyond capacity. Some children have to fend for themselves, sometimes sleeping in the open despite the fact that, under Greek law, unaccompanied children should be placed in safe accommodations and placed under guardianship.

Irida Pandiri is responsible for shelters for unaccompanied minors through her work with the Association for the Social Support of Youth (ARSIS), a Greek NGO that assists young people in difficulty or danger. She says the larger reception centres in which people are detained are simply not appropriate for children, in part because they cannot leave the facilities to go to school. Meanwhile, the guardianship promised to these young people is not provided. 

“Guardianship, it is almost a joke in Greece,” she says. “When they are in the detention facilities, there are no guardians.” This, for ARSIS, is a crucial issue. Education is also a major problem, with Greek schools often reluctant to register refugee children; even in cases where registration is possible, Covid restrictions often prevent them from leaving the camp to attend.

In order to make it to these reception centres, young refugees must come face-to-face with authorities hoping to send them back to Turkey. Their “welcome” to Greece is full of violence: their belongings are confiscated and they are frequently turned away, in clear violation of their human rights. Many such experiences have been documented by organizations like the Border Violence Monitoring Network and Refugee Rights Europe.

Just as the response to Amal’s reception in Greece was mixed, so has ARSIS found its ability to do its work challenged by uneven support in various communities.

“In the years since 2017-2018, in the areas where we are trying to establish shelters, unfortunately, the communities weren’t so welcoming,” Pandiri says.

But ARSIS continues to support young refugees as best it can. The organization has eight centres for unaccompanied children across Greece, and they operate safe zones in some of the larger camps. Other NGOs also offer child protection services, legal advice, and recreational activities.

As Amal took her final steps in Greece toward Piraeus Port, she was guided by more singing and live music. The protests in Greece were loud, but the welcome was louder.

Walking through Italy

Little Amal is now walking through Italy. She arrived in Bari, where an Italian nonna, or grandmother, arrived to give her guidance. This nonna, a puppet just a few inches shy of Amal’s height, pulled her for a hug and imparted upon her some words of wisdom.

[caption id="attachment_3195" align="aligncenter" width="640"] Little Amal greeted by an Italian nonna, or grandmother, in Bari, Italy.[/caption]

Italy has welcomed Amal warmly, but this experience might be far from the reality for actual young refugees. Andrea Costa is president of Baobab Experience, an organization supporting displaced people who have arrived in Italy. The organization is also a humanitarian partner of The Walk.

“Italy—and I’m very sad to say this, because I love my country—is changing,” Costa said. Although it has traditionally welcomed foreigners, negative media coverage of migration and the rise of far-right politicians have led to a changed country, he said, adding: “It's pretty difficult for unaccompanied minors to make their way in Italy.”

In Italy, solidarity with refugees has now been criminalized in a number of ways. In June 2019, Italy banned NGOs from carrying out search and rescue operations. In the area of Ventimiglia, several people have been charged for giving food to refugees, after a municipal decree outlawed the practice.

“Before, people felt ashamed to be racist,” said Costa. But now, people who want to help refugees must do so surreptitiously. 

Like Turkey and Greece, Italy has policies and procedures in place that are designed to protect unaccompanied children. They are given a permit to remain until they are 18 years old. They can’t be pushed back to other countries, they must be accommodated, and they cannot be detained. 

But in practice, these rights aren’t always respected. As the coronavirus pandemic swept through Italy, the government used private ships to quarantine incoming refugees. According to a report from the Italian Association for Juridical Studies on Immigration (ASGI), some children were held on these ships for 10-15 days (although some people report this is far longer) before their ages were assessed. Human Rights Watch reported that children were being illegally pushed back from Italy to Greece, another abuse of rights. These are young people who have most likely already faced tremendous trauma.

Costa describes Italy as a transit country for refugees. While many young people choose to move through the country rather than claim asylum, they are at risk.

“We have an extremely high number of unaccompanied minors who don't want to stay in Italy, but want to go directly to France, to Germany, to Holland, to Belgium, because they know that even for minors, just like for all the other migrants, it's much better organized in other European countries,” Costa said.

According to Human Rights Watch, many young refugees cite a lack of access to education and poor reception upon arrival in Italy as influencing them to move onto other countries instead.

Baobab Experience is an organization composed of volunteers who care for young people at risk of falling into the hands of smugglers or human traffickers while they’re in Italy. They make sure these refugees have somewhere to sleep, something to eat, and are clothed. Recently, they joined a network of organizations helping to create safe passages so that, if those young people do choose to cross borders, trusted organizations can help on the other side, including in finding travel tickets at the best prices, rather than turning to smugglers.

But there is another problem for unaccompanied minors in Italy—a cruel gift on their 18th birthday. As they make the difficult transition into adulthood, far from their home country and family, they are no longer guaranteed accommodation. Many of them lack the skills to make their way safely in the world, with no access to language or professional skills.

“There are a lot of young people that really lose important years of their lives,” Costa says. This is why Baobab Experience provides English and Italian courses for young people.

Despite all this, Costa remains optimistic about the future of refugees in Italy. He’s seen a change in younger Italians, who seem to be more understanding about their plight. Perhaps a new, more welcoming Italy is on the horizon.

Meanwhile, Amal is continuing her journey through Italy, before she crosses into France. She’s just finished exploring the ancient landmarks of Rome; in Vatican City Pope Francis met with Amal, along with the children accompanying her on this leg of the journey. 


Amal’s welcome across Turkey, Greece, and Italy varied from country to country and village to village. Like the refugees whose experiences she’s enacting, Amal’s journey has only begun. Her last stop is the U.K., where the government is currently pushing through legislation called the borders and nationalities bill, which would deny asylum or aid to any refugee who enters the country through an unofficial port of entry—for example, by crossing the channel in a small boat. Under the provisions of the bill, Afghan refugees forced to escape from the Taliban could be jailed in the U.K. because they reached the country by routes that the U.K. government has decided are “illegal”—although, according to international law, there is no such thing as an illegal asylum seeker. What kind of welcome can Amal expect when she arrives in October?

In spite of the government proposals, many British communities promise a warm welcome to Amal and to refugee children. Camden Town has planned a birthday party for Amal, while several choirs will sing for her in the port town of Folkestone on the day she arrives in the U.K.. Anti-refugee sentiment has become more pronounced since Brexit, but many people have also become more vocal about their support for refugees. In the face of racism, changing government policy, and dehumanizing tabloid headlines, compassionate communities are needed more than ever.
    [post_title] => This is Little Amal, the puppet refugee girl on a European odyssey
    [post_excerpt] => Ferried from country to country by volunteer puppeteers, Little Amal has been greeted by choirs and dancers. In Vatican City, she was greeted by Pope Francis. 
    [post_status] => publish
    [comment_status] => closed
    [ping_status] => open
    [post_password] => 
    [post_name] => this-is-little-amal-the-puppet-refugee-girl-walking-8000-kilometers-across-europe
    [to_ping] => 
    [pinged] => 
    [post_modified] => 2024-08-28 21:15:12
    [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-08-28 21:15:12
    [post_content_filtered] => 
    [post_parent] => 0
    [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=3193
    [menu_order] => 177
    [post_type] => post
    [post_mime_type] => 
    [comment_count] => 0
    [filter] => raw
)

This is Little Amal, the puppet refugee girl on a European odyssey

by Katie Dancey-Downs

Sign up for our newsletter