Michael Solis

Setting It Straight: Why Gays Won't Win

2012-10-19T23:12:00-04:00

I recently attended a baby shower for a male colleague and his wife in Bogotá, Colombia. Thanks to the abundance of wine, it wasn't long before the event turned into a matchmaking fest for the scattered singles in the room.

"So who are we going to match Michael with?" a colleague named Gloria asked. The room grew quiet as all eyes fixated on me.

"Yeah, what are you looking for in a woman?" the father-to-be asked, his arm wrapped around his wife. "Blonde? Tall? Dark-skinned? Colombian?" He spoke using only feminine adjectives (we were speaking Spanish), meaning that there was no other choice but for my "type" to be a woman.

"I like unique people," I said, remaining as gender-neutral as possible.

"Unique?" Gloria asked. "But what makes them unique?"

If only I had had the cojones to respond the way Lady Gaga did when she was asked a similar question.

Instead, I sat up straight, crossed one leg over the other, and took a deep breath.

"I love women, but I don't make love to women."

If a roomful of people could collectively deflate, that was what happened. Gloria let out a tremendous sigh and said, "What a waste!" I searched the room for signs of solace, but the partygoers' eyes had either shifted to the floor or remained partially hidden behind their wine glasses.

This story of being backed into the corner by a roomful of people who should have known better isn't a unique one. Many lesbian and gay people living in a straight world experience a moment where they are forced to lie, pretending to be something they're not, or to like something that they don't just to blend in with the heterosexual norm. Sometimes, for the "closeted," this chameleon-like act is perpetual. Other times it's circumstantial, a one-off sort of thing that is performed to avoid dealing with the awkwardness that ensues once a straight person is corrected for making assumptions. The alternative is to rupture the moment with truth. It's a simple-sounding act but one that tends to shock, disappoint or inspire self-directed guilt among all parties.

That these types of situations continue to transpire in the 21st century seems like a mystery. Why, after all the media coverage of the "comings out" of Ellen DeGeneres, Ricky Martin and Anderson Cooper, after all the LGBT-oriented songs by Lady Gaga, and after all the fad television romances, do people continue to be shocked by the revelation that someone is gay? A part of the answer lies in the contextual. We all live in a straight world where being heterosexual is the norm and being gay isn't. This is why gay people are still expected, and essentially required, to declare their sexuality to the straight masses in a way that straight people aren't. The lives of gay people are defined by this public act of self-identification, an expected step for assimilation into a heteronormative and inegalitarian context.

How did it come to be that lesbians and gays still have to contort themselves to fit into some straight mold? While the reasons are both varied and complex, an undeniable factor is leadership. The LGBT community lives in a world that has been designed by and for straight people -- or straight white males, as is the case in the United States. Deflections from the path of straightness are often the cause of identity crises, efforts to reject the self and conform to the norm, or tragedy, as observed in the cyclical suicides of gay teens that take U.S. media by storm every few months or so. Of course, sexual orientation is not something that can be forcibly changed, as hard as some might try by zapping themselves with electro-shocks or carrying out numerous soul-wrenching conversations with God.

Some straight leaders who have helped maintain this system have offered concessions. The occasional conservative or moderate might mumble something about allowing gays the right to things like hospital visits. But the truth of the matter is that there is a whole lot of life that happens before a gay person's partner dies that most world leaders aren't discussing.

The United States is a country where sodomy was criminalized in many states until 2003. Until just last year, you couldn't be openly gay and fight for our country. Even today, we still hear stories about anti-gay bullying and gay teens who take their lives just to escape the torment. Many people don't realize that widespread discrimination in the workplace still exists. According to a 2012 report by the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA), in 29 out of 50 U.S. states, a homophobic employer can still legally fire an employee on the basis of sexual orientation.

The persistence of this type of discrimination boils down to leadership. There has been a readily apparent incapacity, mixed with unwillingness, of leaders across the world to acknowledge or positively address equality. In many instances this is because leaders are unable to separate their political leadership from interpretations of their religious faith. Instead of honoring the timeless principle of separation between Church and State -- or, as Thomas Jefferson worded it, making "no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" -- they turn to policies inspired by religious dogmatism that incite and legitimize actions of intolerance.

Perhaps U.S. vice-presidential hopeful Paul Ryan summarized the Republican ticket's political philosophy best in the vice-presidential debate when he said, "I don't see how a person can separate their public life from their private life or from their faith." While the statement was made in justification of Ryan's hostilities toward women's right to control their bodies, it also speaks to Ryan's intolerant record toward LGBT rights and his unjustified need to control gay people's bodies and their privacy. As acknowledged by the Human Rights Campaign, in the House of Representatives, Ryan voted against hate crimes protections for LGBT people on two occasions. He voted in favor of banning same-sex couples from adopting children in Washington, D.C., and he voted against repealing "don't ask, don't tell" in an effort to prevent openly gay people from serving in the nation's armed forces, consequently dishonoring the service of LGBT veterans.

Needless to say, Ryan does not support marriage equality. He has supported the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would amend the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex couples from marrying, as well as a similar constitutional amendment in Wisconsin. Ryan has even referred to "traditional marriage" as a "universal human value." With this rhetoric, he not only invisibilizes the gay community but monstrifies it.

Mitt Romney's record on LGBT rights rivals Ryan's in its closed-mindedness and intolerance. Romney opposes same-sex marriage, and he has referred to a federal employment nondiscrimination act as a burden that would "unfairly penalize" employers. With respect to civil unions, Romney said, "If the question is: 'Do you support gay marriage or civil unions?' I'd say neither; if they said you have to have one or the other, that Massachusetts is going to have one or the other, then I'd rather have civil unions than gay marriage."

At the same time, Romney recognizes the power of the gay community, which, if channeled properly, can lend much more to prominent figures than mere votes or Facebook "likes." That's why Romney veils his disregard for the gay community by pandering, claiming to "advance the, if you will, the efforts not to discriminate against people who are gay." But the sentence is a contradiction. Romney is willing to uphold an institution for the majority sector of the population while supposedly supporting a separate-but-equal alternative. The political posturing is transparent, but even if Romney would support a separate-but-equal alternative across states as president (which he wouldn't), its second-class categorization would be inherently discriminatory by nature.

Romney provides no justified reasoning for his wanting to maintain or legalize discrimination. In an interview with Piers Morgan, he dodged saying whether or not homosexuality was a sin and claimed, "You don't begin to apply the doctrines of a religion to responsibility for guiding a nation or guiding a state," a belief that runs in direct opposition to what Ryan stated at the VP debate. But if Romney's decision to discriminate is not based on religious belief, then he has left no viable alternative other than pandering to conservative voters.

Or perhaps Romney still harbors resentment toward gay people from his prep school bullying days.

Straight male leaders come in all forms, with some "evolving" to understand the vital nature of true equality in a society that touts the word "freedom" while never truly enabling its full realization. While Obama took longer to evolve than most would have hoped, his changed stance toward the LGBT community and same-sex marriage has come about nonetheless. His position on equality is louder and clearer than ever, and he has done more than any other U.S. president in history to advocate on behalf of the gay population.

Lesbian and gay people are not destined to lose in the political struggle to achieve true equality. The reason they do is because of people in positions of power who are fundamentally opposed to gay people's existence and seek to ensure that this existence remains subhuman. These leaders rule in societies that haven't been structured to operate in the LGBT community's favor, let alone allow LGBT people to lead a dignified and equal existence.

The blame falls upon leaders -- past, actual and hopeful -- who establish and maintain the consequences for being born gay in a straight world. These are ostensibly heterosexual men of an undistinguished breed, leaders who want to set society "straight" by punishing supposed sinners for their crimes and denying certain values that would make gay people just as human under the law as their heterosexual counterparts. Whether these men realize it or not, the implications of their leadership trickle down to the masses, influencing perceptions and behavior.

Until this essential element is addressed, gay people will continue to live unequally in a straight man's world, denied human value, rights and all the opportunities those ideas afford.

Insanity at the 2012 Nexus Global Youth Summit

2012-09-25T14:00:55-04:00

The 2012 Nexus Global Youth Summit in New York City wasn't just a gathering of hundreds leaders from the business world, the nonprofit sector, and philanthropic circles. It also happened to be a reunion of what seemed like the world's most insane minds -- visionaries of Generation Y who seek to fix all of the problems inherited from Generation X.

Insanity is a loaded word with a variety of interpretations. The dictionary defines it as the state of being seriously mentally ill. Other definitions include "madness," "extreme foolishness," or "irrationality," which seem to be more appropriate applications to describe those in the world of entrepreneurship.

Hundreds of these visionaries attended the summit, some in search of resources and contacts, others with access to those resources -- the scent of which was enough to cause many of the nonprofit leaders to salivate. The foci of the event -- empowering and bringing resources to the world's youth, ending poverty, creating economic opportunity, and saving the world, among other lofty goals -- were the driving forces that inspired the presence of nearly all of the summit goers. The trick for most of the participants was highlighting one's cause in a direct but modest way while forging relationships with others who might serve as useful contacts or partners.

Many speakers came from country contexts that haven't adopted a culture of philanthropic giving. This contrasts greatly with the United States, where people donate $300 billion annually, an amount that exceeds 2 percent of the country's GDP. In many cases where philanthropy is not embraced, this is because the governments have not created tax incentives, or because the public has a negative view of philanthropists who openly donate their resources.

In light of this reality, one of the takeaway messages of the summit rang through, spoken most articulately by the pearl-donning Dame Stephanie Shirley, U.N. ambassador of philanthropy.

"We must give philanthropists a voice," Shirley said. "Philanthropists must be vocal about inverting in charity and social enterprise."

The idea is that if more cultures learn to respect philanthropy and philanthropists, pulling them from the shadows of anonymity into the light, more resources can be directed to address the world's most pressing issues.

Similar commentary extended across speakers, many of whom enjoyed saying things like, "Be the change you want to see in the world," "unpacking" (issues, not suitcases), and "giving voices to the voiceless." The wide-eyed and bushy-tailed were abundant and vocal, with some sharing stories of the college spring break trips and service projects that had inspired them to enter philanthropy and the social sector. Others, like Juliette Gimon, daughter of one of the five Hewlett children, spoke of family foundations that tackle global poverty with millions of dollars in grants per year.

The entrepreneurs were numerous, with some serial entrepreneurs casually mentioning how they have created not one or two, but three, four, or more multi-million dollar generating companies before the age of 40. Some of their ideas and accomplishments were jaw-dropping, while others left many with the simple but lingering question, "Are you for real?"

One young woman, Rebecca Kantar, hit the stage like it was her runway, sporting a white blazer and a pair of form-fitting leather pants. She is the CEO of Minga, an organization that addresses the global sex trade by harnessing the power of teens. She was open about the organization's growing pains as Minga shifted its strategy from one focusing on speaking to youth in schools to finding ways to deter potential exploiters. Kantar's work helped land her a spot at Harvard University, but she ended up dropping out when she became frustrated with the opportunities available to her in the context of traditional education. She is now designing a university of her own that she hopes to graduate from that will respond to the practical needs of students and future entrepreneurs.

Another memorable summit-goer, Philip Joseph Restine III (also known as PjOE), is a vibrational scientist who wears an Om pendant around his neck. One of his inventions includes a laser harp -- an instrument so amazingly bizarre and innovative that would hardly be surprising to find it in Lady Gaga's hands one day. Among PjOE's many goals is expanding sound, utilizing trance rhythms from a shamanic standpoint to impact people's perceptions of their unified and individual realities.

Perhaps shockingly, PjOE wasn't the only summit attendee with an interest in shamanism. One middle-aged woman with glasses and long, peppery hair informed me of her desire to produce a film on human-plant relations. The film will feature shamans who speak to plants and how this speech affects the plants' development and movements.

"I'm not sure if I should go to the jewelry exhibit," the woman told me, referring to a James de Givenchy exhibit Nexus had organized that evening. "I'm exhausted... but it would be great for networking."

Who exactly she would be networking with remained a mystery to me. But my faith in the summit was restored when I thought about PjOE, a likely candidate to take over the film's sound production.

Derek Handley, founder of the Hyperfactory, was one of the more effective speakers. He illustrated by example how people can change the course of capitalism through entrepreneurship and philanthropy.

"The purpose of business isn't just generating income," Handley said. "It's about maximizing social and environmental impact in a profitable way."

The thought challenges the traditional, self-directed notion of business and investment. In addition to making money, business leaders can transform themselves into philanthropists who can effectively address and solve some of the world's biggest problems.

Of course there are challenges to confront once philanthropists assume this responsibility. Finding the right organizations, as speaker Cindy McCain pointed out, is one. She emphasized to several eyebrow-raising attendees that human rights organizations should be a primary focus.

Once the right organizations are found, philanthropists have to make sure that these organizations are properly channeling resources to causes that respond to the realities on the ground. Several speakers brought up the desire to "celebritize" entrepreneurs, but philanthropists have to ensure that the needs of beneficiaries are met before the needs of nonprofit leaders who want to fill their pockets or wind up on Ellen Degeneres' couch. Another challenge is corruption, not only among governments in developing contexts where the practice is rife, but also among non-governmental organizations where questionable financial and ethical practices can and do arise and must be actively be avoided.

Themes of the conference were many. Among the fluffier topics were "Why Does Doing Good Feel So Good," "Finding Your Purpose," and "Fundraising and Friendraising." Others, such as "Trafficking and Violence Through a Gender-Based Lens," brought together global actors who have made serious efforts to change perceptions of masculinity and to reduce gender and sexual orientation-based violence through capacity building, story telling, and mentorship. In "Media for Social Good," Stephanie Brownlee spoke of the creation of Social Impact TV, a new media outlet that will focus on the substantive, impact-based news that is often left out of traditional media. In "Social Impact in Latin America," Lorena Guille highlighted the work of Fundación Cinépolis, the foundation of Mexico's largest ciniplex chain, which offers thousands of cataract surgeries to the poor each year and runs an annual human rights film festival.

The ideas were abundant, with many existing only as unrealized dreams while others are in the process of entering or have fully entered concrete reality. Almost all were inspired by the straight-faced, articulate entrepreneurs whose eyes tend to shift skyward when they reflect on how they can be the change they want to see in a complex world.

There were silly moments, of course -- when a former Nigerian president spoke for far too long when all the audience wanted to do was eat the lunch that was growing cold in the back of the room; Cindy McCain ending her speech on philanthropy by saying that "Social media is simply marvelous!" and coaxing the audience to tweet more; and pretty much whenever Nexus president Jonah Wittkamper got up to speak. But the summit was a success in doing what it sought to do -- connecting actors from the business, philanthropic, and social sectors to generate positive change through partnership and innovation.

Though the extent of the speakers' and participants' sanity remains to be determined, the element of insanity seems to be a necessary one in the world of social entrepreneurship. After all, it was Einstein who said, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Perhaps if the Nexus summit continues year after year, in different locations across the globe, it will be able to achieve its goal: forcing dreams into reality that might never have had the opportunity to do so otherwise. If realized, this vision has the potential to impact the world in way that might seem unfeasible to the rational of thought, ultimately proving all of the naysayers wrong.

Routing Peace Towards Central America

2012-06-25T11:25:07-04:00

At the second annual Central American Donors Forum in Seattle, Julieta Castellanos spoke about the threats facing Central America. Among them, she cited rising homicide rates in what is now considered to be the most dangerous region on earth outside of a warzone. She focused on Honduras, a nation "in crisis" that currently ranks first among the world's most violent countries.

Castellanos, President of the National Autonomous University of Honduras, understands Central America's security situation from a deeply personal perspective. In October 2011, her 22-year-old son died after having been kidnapped and murdered in Tegucigalpa.

But Castellanos did not bring herself to mention that fact before an audience of leaders from the private, public, and civic sectors, all of whom had been brought together by the Seattle International Foundation (SIF) to find innovative ways to tackle the most pressing problems in Central America. Instead, she focused on the facts.

Over the past six years, insecurity has increased at frightening levels, especially in Honduras. The trafficking of drugs from Colombia through Central America towards the North American market has stimulated violence. Drug trafficking is related to a range of other criminal activities, particularly when drug lords neutralize or undermine the work of the police through corruption and even the infiltration of government forces -- as happens throughout Central America.

When discussing what governments, NGOs, private foundations, and businesses need to do to address the issue, Castellanos turned to one of the forum's central themes: youth.

"We have to invite youth into this discussion because they are the most at risk," Castellanos stated. "In Honduras in 2011, 7,000 youth between 15 and 34 were murdered. Of those about 4,000 were men and about 3,000 were women. Once found, many of their bodies showed signs of having been tortured."

Castellanos held her ground before the audience -- eyes dry, voice unwavering, spirit numbed -- as she shared the statistics that encompassed her son's tragedy.

Castellanos was not the only person at the forum to highlight the dismal reality that Central American youth confront. Geoff Thale of the Washington Office on Latin America spoke of the numerous threats that affect the region's expanding youth population. These include long-standing patterns of poverty and inequality, the disruption of traditional family structures due to migration, reduced access to education, and few opportunities in the labor market. Consequently, youth turn to gangs in their search of identity, stability, and family structure, which adds to the growing problems of street and organized crime.

While representatives of the public and civic sectors in attendance at the forum painted a grim image of Central America's reality, members of the private sector were more apt to offer pragmatic ideas for engagement. Leonardo Ortiz Villacorta Ramirez from Microsoft, for instance, stressed the need to spark interest in young people to forge the way towards a better future.

"By channeling investments and partnerships to provide technology, skills training, and specific programs that foster employability and entrepreneurship among youth, business leaders can help youth realize their goals in productive and impactful ways," said Villacorta Ramirez.

The focus on youth in Central America is critical as the region's youth population continues to grow. By 2015, an estimated one-third of Latin America's population will be between the ages of 15 and 34. Currently, one out of every five youth between the ages of 12 and 24 in Central America neither works nor studies. The situation is gravest in Honduras, where nearly one out of every four youth in this age bracket neither works nor studies.

Driving regional growth requires educations and jobs for Central American youth. As Julieta Castellanos stated, "Education is the one unquestionable element of social mobility." If left uneducated and unemployed, the booming youth generation will not produce drivers of economic growth and regional development. Instead, youth will continue to become the region's chief generators crime and violence.

Several women's rights groups at the forum shared ideas for helping Central Americans -- particularly young men -- reduce levels of violence in their countries, starting with gender-based violence. In a region where violence against women is rife, societal interpretations and cultural representations of what it means to be male and macho require integrated transformation. As the Inter-American Bank highlighted, an estimated 20 to 50 percent of women suffer intimate partner violence during the course of their lives. According to Amnesty International, one out of every six women who attempts crossing the U.S.-Mexican border becomes a victim of rape. This is but one example that highlights the need for specialized training programs, especially for boys. Such programs will foster cultural awareness of gender equality and more widespread acceptance of the notion that violence against women and violence, more generally, is intolerable.

Seattle International Foundation Breaking Ground

Central America is at a critical moment in its history due to crime, drugs, poverty, and violence. The reality is one where Central America's governments, often characterized by inefficiency and corruption, cannot succeed in operating solo to address the region's web of escalating problems. The geographic positioning of the drug trafficking route through Central America is unlikely to change in the short-term, nor are the levels of poverty or socioeconomic vulnerability likely to diminish.

Despite these seemingly dire circumstances, there is a prominent role to be played by members of the private and civic sectors.

"The U.S., including U.S. philanthropy, should do more in the region," said Mauricio Vivero, Executive Director of the Seattle International Foundation (SIF). "What happens there affects the U.S., through trade, immigration, and violence caused by the drug wars and gangs."

SIF is a small foundation that is paving the way forward in this dialogue, with the goal of increasing and improving development in Central America through better donor coordination. SIF organized the Central American Donors Forum as a response and an opportunity for foundations, corporations, government actors, and NGOs to establish partnerships that will direct more resources to initiatives that address the region's chief concerns. In this sense, SIF's work helps reverse the U.S.' Cold War legacy of supporting violent regimes and civil conflicts in Central America that claimed tens of thousands of lives.

Ultimately, the aim is to transform the landscape of global philanthropy so that all sectors -- private, public, civic -- become more effective changemakers.

"The magnitude of the problems we face is so profound, so immense," Julieta Castellanos offered. "This limits our hope a bit every day. But if we want to see results, then integrated, coordinated, and sustainable actions are necessary."

The Ethics of Storytelling: Documenting Change in Honduran Youth

2012-04-02T11:13:50-04:00

It's no secret that NGOs, while considered "non-profit," require successful business strategies to survive. With most NGOs relying on the generosity of individuals, foundations, and businesses to keep their operations afloat, they must master the art of appealing to their supporters. One way of doing this is through the timeless practice of storytelling.

In light of the "Kony 2012" saga -- the story of one valiant white hero who was ready to take down Central Africa's Lord's Resistance Army... until a mental breakdown of the naked variety brought about his tragic downfall -- more NGOs are contemplating the ethics of utilizing social and digital media to promote their causes.

Cue Richard Lakin. Lakin is a freelance digital producer and co-founder of 18 rabbits digital media. While Lakin has spent his career filming things like professional sports events and short films for the education industry, he has carried out his most rewarding work in the developing world.

Inspired by the Arab Spring, WikiLeaks, and the Occupy movement, Richard decided to return to the developing world, specifically Honduras, to help promote economic and political change through digital media. His pet project is the Organization for Youth Empowerment (OYE), a Honduran-based NGO that seeks to break the nation's poverty, insecurity, and school dropout cycles through education, capacity building, leadership training, and skills development.

Lakin, a 60-year-old with a graying mustache and eyebrows that are etched in a perpetual V, arrived to Honduras with a clunky camera bag in one hand and his tripod in another. He had been to Honduras six years earlier to work with OYE, and he knew what to expect -- perpetual heat, 24/7 sweatiness, and inevitable sunburn.

Lakin was unsurprised that so little had changed since his last visit. A military coup may have ousted the country's democratically elected president in 2009, but he found that the politically restored Honduras was still struggling. The country has the highest homicide rate in the world at 82 people per 100,000 (compared to New York City's 7 people per 100,000) and is plagued by gangs, narco-trafficking and corruption. Last month 360 inmates burned to death in a prison in Comayagua where nearly half of the prisoners had never even been brought to trial.

Yet Lakin wanted to come back to Honduras to work in El Progreso, Honduras's third largest city, which sits in the shadow of San Pedro Sula, the world's most dangerous city.

"I wanted to work with OYE again," Lakin said. "OYE is the most effective NGO I have seen in operation -- and believe me, I've worked with a lot of them."

Lakin wasted no time during his three-week stay in Honduras before filming. He began interviewing the OYE kids -- middle school, high school, and college-aged youth who were once at risk of not completing their educations due to economic hardship and family problems.

Lakin's journey brought him to the home of Rosa Sevilla, a 19-year-old with a Snow White spirit and parents who nearly had to choose between sending either Rosa or her brother to school. Then he met Gerald Velasquez -- a 19-year-old artist whose mother nearly forced him to drop out of school so he could work to support his family instead. Later, Lakin found himself on a bumpy, 1.5-hour ride through the banana plantations to the home of Neris Avila, a 4'8" high school student who has transformed from "the quiet girl" into a star on OYE's online radio program.

"I'm focusing on the positive stories... stories of transformation," Richard commented. "I don't want to be one of those people who uses suffering children in the developing world to elicit funding. Look at Neris's story. She loves her home in the plantations. She has a beautiful, intact family. And it's completely worth sharing."

The first project Richard ever worked on abroad was in Kenya. There he met a young boy named Safari, who was found in his home sitting next to the bodies of his parents, who had died of AIDS. Later, Safari discovered that he too had AIDS.

"I found it difficult to use that clip to promote the program," Lakin said. "But it was a real testimonial and it illustrated how vital the NGO is that I was profiling."

Lakin believes that content and community are key to sustaining any social media platform, with NGOs being no exception. To him, community does not necessitate creating outlandish Manichean struggles, filming starving street-children, or telling stories of disaster.

"Interacting with the audience is what generates the most traffic on the site," Richard said. "And you don't have to make things up or make people cry to do it."

Now that Lakin has completed filming, he has begun editing the footage for the creation of several short videos and one longer documentary that OYE can use to share its work in youth empowerment with a more global audience. He also hopes to create a template for other small organizations to use by chronicling his process with OYE.

"This whole experience has made me very aware of daily Honduran life," Lakin said. "This country is facing a lot of issues, but I've come to love Honduras and always miss it when I leave."

Despite Honduras's current reality, seeing the energy of the youth at OYE has filled Lakin with the hope that change, even if it only begins on a small scale, is possible.

"These are going to be some impressive and very formidable leaders," Lakin commented. "Some of the young women especially. They are going to have a huge impact on the future of this country. I hope I can come back to document it in ten years."

China's One Child Policy in 2010

2010-10-10T09:55:45-04:00

On the surface Liu Dan's life had the makings of a perfect love story. She fell in love with her fiancé Song Qingshan while they were working together in a firecracker factory in China's Hunan Province. Liu and Song wanted to get married but could not as Liu was not old enough to legally wed. They had a traditional engagement ceremony and shortly thereafter learned that Liu was pregnant.

In China, that's the part of the story where things get ugly.

Just days before Liu Dan's due date in February 2009, workers from China's Population and Family Planning Commission, which regulates the nation's One Child Policy, abducted Liu from her home. They transported Liu to their local center where they injected a toxic serum through her abdomen and killed her nearly nine-month-old fetus. They forced Liu to abort the dead fetus, even though Liu's high blood pressure made her unfit for such a procedure. A few hours later, Song broke into the operating area to find his fiancé alive but bleeding from her mouth, nose, eyes, and ears. She soon died from severe hemorrhaging.

Liu Dan's story is one of many that reveal the implications of China's One Child Policy on the lives of mothers and their babies. Other stories involve doctors cutting up full-term fetuses inside of the mother's wombs, beating "out of plan babies" to death who manage to survive forced abortion, failing to use anesthesia or other sanitary measures while operating on pregnant mothers, and tossing the fetus's remains to the mother in a plastic bag if she cannot pay for its disposal.

The Chinese Communist Party formally instituted the One Child Policy in 1980. The policy began as a response to China's population growth and the relative lack of food, employment and education. The resource shortage stemmed partially from Mao Zedong's failed Great Leap Forward economic policies, which contributed to approximately 30 million deaths from starvation. The One Child Policy was meant to be temporary, but 30 years after its implementation it remains in effect and is being strictly enforced throughout China.

The Chinese government boasts that the One Child Policy has successfully prevented over 400 million births (the entire population of the United States + 100 million) during the past 30 years. The statistic is owed to the approximately 35,000 abortions and sterilizations that occur in China each day, many of which are forced.

Gendercide, or the deliberate extermination of persons of a particular sex, has resulted in a ratio of male to female births of 120:100 in China. It is estimated that by 2020, China will have 40 million more men than women under the age of 20.

In China it is illegal for a woman to give birth without a birth permit. Many second children or children born prior to marriage are classified as "illegal" or "out of plan." There are some exceptions to the rule in certain regions of China where ethnic minorities, parents who are both only children, and couples whose first child is a girl may be legally permitted to have a second child.

If officials from the Population and Family Planning Commission learn of an illegitimate birth or illegal pregnancy, they will carry out measures to terminate the fetus's life regardless of the stage of pregnancy. Commission workers operate on a quota system, which requires them to actively seek out uncertified women for forced abortion and sterilization.

Given China's traditional preference for male children, it is common for Chinese couples to determine the gender of their fetuses through ultrasound and take abortion in their own hands if they discover the gender to be female. In other cases, midwives have strangled baby girls to death with their umbilical chords, subsequently reporting the babies as "stillborn" so the couples will have another chance to have a male son.

A common alternative to aborting or killing newborn children is abandonment. In China, 1 million baby girls are abandoned each year, with many couples never officially registering their newborn daughters. Many of the abandoned girls have been trafficked to supply the excess of single Chinese men with future partners.

One of China's staunchest advocates against the One Child Policy is Chai Ling, a woman who was exiled from China for her involvement as a student leader during the Tiananmen Square Movement. Ling is the founder of All Girls Allowed, an organization that seeks to restore life, value, and dignity to girls and mothers while revealing the injustices of China's One-Child Policy. The organization's work involves easing the "burden" of having a baby girl with monthly stipends to Chinese families and baby shower gifts, providing legal defense and asylum to mothers who are in danger of forced pregnancy or involuntary sterilization, and raising funds for orphanages.

A devout Christian and staunch believer in people's freedom of choice, Ling finds merit in preserving the sanctity of life as well as the idea that women and mothers are ultimately those who should choose whether or not they want to have a baby.

"In China the woman's choice is not allowed and the baby's right to life is not granted," says Ling. "This process can teach us a lot about the debate in the United States and how both sides can find common ground."

Despite the fact that Ling has not been to China in twenty years and cannot return in the foreseeable future, she remains hopeful that the work of All Girls Allowed and activists in China will help bring about the end of what she views to be an inherently flawed policy.

"I believe that the end of the One Child Policy will be the work of God," she says. "I know we are all people who try to do good in the world. In the end I believe that China will be free, leaders' hearts will be changed, and people's voices will finally be heard."

Much of the information came from the report below compiled by All Girls Allowed, as well as different sources cited on the All Girls Allowed webpage (see for example http://www.allgirlsallowed.org/expose/gendercide).

One-Child Policy General Info Packet

Colombia's Internally Displaced People

2010-09-13T16:20:03-04:00

According to the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, approximately 26 million people worldwide have had to flee their homes for different locations within their countries as a result of conflicts, government policies, or human rights violations. In Colombia, the number of internally displaced people is approximately 4.9 million -- nearly the population of Colorado. This makes Colombia the second largest internal displacement country in the world next to Sudan.

Internally displaced people in Colombia account for 11 percent of the nation's population and 19 percent of all internally displaced people globally. Once displaced, they are exposed to violence, rights abuses, and limited access to food, education, and health care.

The driving cause of displacement in Colombia is the ongoing civil war, which began in 1964 when the leftist Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and National Liberation Army (ELN) guerrillas rose up in arms. Government-backed paramilitary groups emerged in the 1980s to combat the insurgents. Paramilitary forces remain active despite failed demobilization tactics between 2002 and 2006, and they continue to commit rights abuses.

Such abuses do not stop with the State-sponsored expulsion of people from their land. Human Rights Watch's 2010 report on Colombian paramilitaries documents the widespread abuses of successor military groups to the paramilitary coalition that regularly commit massacres, killings, forced displacement, rape, and extortion. They often target human rights defenders, trade unionists, victims seeking justice, and community members who do not follow paramilitary orders.

According to women's rights activist Ana Teresa Lozada, at the core of the Colombian conflict is deep social inequality. Half of the country's population of 45 million people live in poverty. The territorial dispute has caused the dispossession and displacement of the poor and marginalized to the benefit of the powerful -- the State and multinational corporations -- who gain minerals, oil, and other natural wealth as a result of exploitation.

Forced displacement continues in countryside towns and cities, with indigenous and Afro-Colombians being the main target groups. Nearly half of the displacements that occurred in 2009 took place in Nariño, where paramilitary forces have assassinated indigenous peoples. An estimated 300,000 people were displaced in Colombia in 2009 alone.

Paramilitary organizations have helped facilitate the entry of multinational corporations in Colombia by doing the "dirty work" of removing farmers and their families from their land. Internally displaced people are excluded from the enjoyment of their economic and social rights, including the right to work. Approximately 11 percent of internally displaced people earned Colombia's minimum wage of $260 per month, while the rest rely on informal work such as rummaging and selling things like cell phone minutes or tamales.

Recently, a delegation of Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT) visited Colombia to meet with Colombian officials and activists about the internal displacement issue. The group visited the people of Las Pavas who have been displaced from their land by a former drug lord.

Stacey Carmichael, one of CPTs delegates, expressed her concerns with what the Colombian corporation Daabon that now resides in Las Pavas has done to the 123 local families and their land. "This corporation has disrupted a native burial ground and bulldozed the Las Pavas community's crops to plant palm. The palm oil being harvested is mainly being sold to...get this...the Body Shop."

The revelation is telling. The Body Shop is a corporation that claims to commit itself to defending human rights and campaigning against social injustice. According to its website, the Body Shop commits itself to "respect local, cultural, and political differences" and insists that their business activities adhere to basic human rights standards. Yet the corporation is profiting directly from policies that displace Colombians, extract resources, and deprive locals.

Unlike refugees, internally displaced people are not afforded the same protections as refugees under international law such as the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 protocol. Instead, the government is chiefly responsible for addressing their rights. This is problematic when the Colombian State is largely responsible for the infringement of its people's rights.

Hope for change exists, as a recent Constitutional Court ruling has deemed the government's response to internally displaced people as unconstitutional. The Colombian government has begun a discussion process to address the dispossession of land. While the government of the former president Alvaro Uribe increased funding for programs to benefit displaced people, the initiatives did not result in improvements in their quality of life, nor did they seek to right the wrongs of the past by holding people accountable for rights abuses. It remains to be seen what the newly elected president, Juan Manuel Santos, will do to address this humanitarian concern.

Until then, it would not hurt to contact multinational corporations like the Body Shop to question them about the implications their business agreements have on Colombian people and native lands.

UPDATE: The Body Shop's Shelley Simmons has responded here

Arizona's Immigration Bill and Korea: Adopting a failed precedent

2010-04-24T11:33:15-04:00

When I was living in Korea, a Korean police officer pulled a Sikh-Canadian friend of mine over and demanded to see his documentation. My friend Joh, who was teaching English legally in Seoul, had the necessary visa to prove it. However, it was only after the incident that Joh understood why the officer wanted to see his documentation: the officer thought that Joh was an undocumented migrant worker.

Lesson number 1: Not all people who look like Joh are undocumented migrant workers.

The Korean police officer's targeting of Joh was part of a greater immigration strategy to deport people who looked like Joh from Korea. Korean immigration has carried out this strategy for years in Pocheon, where many undocumented migrant workers from the Sikh community live.

Though most Sikh members are undocumented, many are living in Korea legally. A few community members have received F2 visas through marriages, some of which are contract marriages, and some have business visas.

Lesson number 2: Not all migrant workers are undocumented.

The Gurdwara, or the Sikh Temple, in Pocheon was built 10 years ago and serves as the locus for the Sikh community. The temple welcomes all people and provides many on-site services unavailable to undocumented migrant workers, including banking and money transfers, health care, legal counseling, refuge for the jobless, homemade Indian food, and fundraising to cover transportation costs for those facing deportation.

While the Gurdwara serves as a type of asylum for the Sikh community, especially on Sikh holidays when it attracts over 500 visitors, it is also an easy target for Korean immigration officials. Korean immigration agents do not raid the Gurdwara directly, as it is a known religious center, but they do hide in plainclothes and vans outside the temple as they wait for Sikh community members to exit.

Upon confrontation, the immigration agents demand documentation, which many of the workers do not have. An estimated 10 to 30 Sikh people from Pocheon are captured each weekend and deported. Consequently, many Sikh community members fear going outside during the day. To avoid immigration raids, they work late night hours, and some live in tiny, industrial crates to reduce their chances of being captured.

Immigrants come to Korea in search of opportunity and higher paying jobs. A clear need for cheap labor exists in Korean factories, and undocumented migrant workers are willing to provide that labor in order to sustain themselves and their families.

Sikhs with legitimate businesses are suffering because of their customers' limited freedom of movement during the day. The practices also pose a threat to the Sikh family unit, even breaking up families with children who were born in Korea.

Targeting Arizona's Latinos

The bill that Arizona Governor Jan Brewer recently signed into law would create the kind of atmosphere that already exists in Korea. Police officers would be required to act on "reasonable suspicions" to determine people's immigration status and turn them over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

In the Arizonan context, the targets of such immigration policies are Latinos, or persons of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central and South American, Dominican, and Spanish descent. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, people of Latino origin comprise approximately 30.1 percent of Arizona's population of over 6.5 million.

Supporters of the bill believe that it will deter undocumented Latinos from coming to the United States. Others, like Arizona Senator John McCain, who believes that illegal immigrants in vehicles are "intentionally causing accidents," think the bill will strengthen U.S. security.

The question remains as to how Arizonan police officers will be able to identify undocumented workers without resorting to discriminatory measures. According to California Congressman Brian Bilbray, police officers will do so by looking at people's clothes.

Lesson number 3: Not all Latinos wear sombreros.

The next question that arises is what Arizonan officials will do with Latinos who have adopted a more mainstream form of dress in the United States. When ethnic profiling fails, Arizonan police officers will inevitably follow in the footsteps of Korean immigration officials by racially profiling and making judgments based on skin color.

Lesson number 4: U.S. citizens may be of any race or skin color. Latinos may be of any race or skin color.

Another determining factor may be non-fluency in English.

Lesson number 5: Not all U.S. citizens are fluent in English. Many Latinos are fluent in English.

Whether police officers resort to ethnic, racial, or linguistic profiling, or perhaps a combination of three, their implementation of Arizona's new law will result in an expansive list of egregious human rights violations. Primarily, the immigration procedures would lead to arbitrary arrest without due process. Further, the bill poses a threat to the family unit with the potential of separating children from parents, compromising children's rights to education, and compromising special protections provided to pregnant women and mothers.

In terms of day-to-day living, undocumented Latinos would live much like the Sikh community does in Korea. Latinos would fear going out in pubic, with many hiding during the day to avoid contact with police officers or purposefully working late night hours to reduce their chances of falling victim to police interrogations and/or raids.

The policy would also affect the psyche of Latino Americans, who may come to feel like second-class citizens. Racial tensions could mount as targeted Latino Americans grow tired of having to prove their citizenship to police officers.

Fifteen years ago, a voter-approved initiative in California required proof of legal status to access virtually all public services. The policy created rifts in schools and communities and made fear and suspicion pervasive. California wasted tens of millions of dollars defending a law ultimately struck down as unconstitutional, thanks to the efforts of the Mexican American Legal Defense & Educational Fund (MALDEF).

MALDEF, Latinos, and civil rights advocates are mobilizing against Arizona's bill, which threatens the welfare and inherent freedoms of the people of Arizona. Governor Jan Brewer is only one influential voice that believes that the United States' broken approach to immigration can be fixed with fundamentally flawed and discriminatory practices. But if there is one lesson that can be drawn from any of this, it is that voices like Brewer's can and should be overpowered.

Lesson number 6: Hay que seguir luchando.

Uganda's Anti-Homosexuality Bill

2010-02-18T13:34:00-05:00

Recently I forwarded the global Avaaz petition to encourage more people to speak out against Uganda's Anti-Homosexuality Bill. I thought I was doing a good thing by spreading the word and giving people an opportunity to stand up against a bill that would impose the death penalty on members of Uganda's LGBT community.

However, I received a disconcerting reply from a Ugandan friend who told me that I had no idea what Uganda was. He informed me that Uganda has one of the most religiously tolerant cultures, but is incredibly rigid when it comes to "behavior." He said that demanding rights for LGBT people is perceived as "western" and as "a sign of selfishness and greed." He also felt that any lobbying on behalf of the LGBT community would only make matters worse.

Though I have never been to Uganda, it has been possible to follow the Anti-Homosexuality Bill closely through the media and statements from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Sylvia Tamale (the dean in the Law Faculty at Makerere University in Kampala), and other human rights bodies.

Admittedly these sources have all spoken out against the bill, but most have helped debunk Ugandan parliamentarian David Bahati's argument in favor of prohibiting the "promotion or recognition of homosexuality and to protect children and the youth who are vulnerable to sexual abuse and deviation." Bahati frames homosexuality as something that is inherently wrong and predatory, a flawed notion upon which he bases the entirety of the bill's discriminatory provisions.

The reason that Ugandan and foreign activists have taken a stand against the Anti-Homosexuality Bill is that it is full of blatant human rights violations that run counter to the Ugandan Constitution and the international human rights treaties that Uganda has ratified. While it is arguable whether or not these treaties are representative of the Western vs. non-Western world, Uganda has ratified the African Charter on Human and People's Rights, which guarantees the rights in the charter to all people "without distinction of any kind such as race, ethnic group, colour, sex, language, religion, political or any other opinion, national or social origin, fortune, birth or any status." The African Commission on Human and People's Rights has interpreted the clause to encompass sexual orientation.

Looking at the provisions (including the prohibition on consensual sex between same-sex individuals, criminalizing the failure to disclose offenses of people suspected of being LGBT or HIV positive, subjection to arbitrary arrest that could lead to torture, cruel, inhuman and other ill-treatment, and capital punishment for "aggravated homosexuality") in the context of the Ugandan constitution and international human rights law, it is apparent that the bill compromises an abundance of rights, including the rights to life, health, privacy, liberty, security of person, freedom of expression, and freedom of thought, conscious, and religion.

From a public health perspective, the Anti-Homosexuality Bill is perilous in that it lumps homosexuality with HIV/AIDS and essentially seeks to carry out a witch-hunt against people living with HIV/AIDS. The provisions would make it so that no one in Uganda would have an incentive to determine his or her HIV status through testing. Likewise, it would be nearly impossible for those living with HIV/AIDS to seek out treatment.

With respect to Clause 3 of the bill, which makes "aggravated homosexuality" a capital offense, the bill runs counter to the international trend towards the elimination of capital punishment. According to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Uganda has ratified, countries that currently practice capital punishment can do so only for the "most serious crimes." Yet in a world characterized by the progressive realization of LGBT rights, including the decriminalization of homosexuality, can Uganda really qualify homosexuality as a serious crime that merits capital punishment?

If the Anti-Homosexuality Bill were to go into effect now, the lives of an estimated 500,000 to 3.2 million people (not to mention anyone wrongly accused of being LGBT or HIV positive) would be compromised. As defined in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, any widespread and systematic instances of murder, extermination, imprisonment, torture, or persecution would qualify as crimes against humanity for which Ugandan lawmakers could be held accountable.

I understand the frustrations some Ugandans may have with the idea of foreign human rights activists ostracizing the Anti-Homosexuality Bill. However, as Avaaz has stated, most of the opposition to the bill comes from Ugandan civil society and the Anglican Church. What both Ugandan and foreign activists are upset with is the possibility of seeing so many people negatively affected by inherently violent policies.

I also understand that Uganda is a conservative country in the midst of a Christian revival and that a public discourse on homosexuality has never occurred before this bill. However, is that to say we cannot question or condemn those who seek to realize the bill's provisions? And is it truly "selfish" or "greedy" to criticize discriminatory, abusive, and life threatening state policies when the majority of the populous is not necessarily ready to address the issue?

These questions bring to mind the abolition movement in the United States, during which many white people viewed the rights and lives of black people as inferior to their own. Yet black and white abolitionists alike rose up to criticize slavery long before it was ever defined as a crime by state Constitutions around the world or international human rights treaties.

Many argue that there is still a considerable way to go in terms of promoting civil rights for all minorities in the US, including LGBT people. But just as I do not underestimate the United States' capacity to bring an end to social injustice, nor do I underestimate that of Uganda. Progress is possible, especially when we come to understand that it is in no one's interest to condemn an innocent portion of the population to the shadows or gallows.

Korea Maintains Mandatory HIV Testing Despite Lifting Travel Ban

2010-01-31T18:19:25-05:00

January 2010 has seen the travel bans for HIV-positive people lifted in two countries: the United States and South Korea. Barack Obama referred to the ban in the US as a "step that will encourage people to get tested and get treatment. It's a step that will keep families together, and it's a step that will save lives."

In South Korea, however, the lifting of the HIV-travel ban appears more like an empty gesture. While the government has announced a change in "internal policy" that allows HIV-positive foreigners to enter the country, there have been no actual legislative changes that make the decision legally binding.

The mixed message becomes especially apparent in the government's refusal to end the practice of mandatory HIV-testing of many of the country's foreign workers. What's more, because the Ministry of Justice retains its right to assess whether or not foreigners living with HIV pose a "health risk," such people may still be subjected to threats of job loss, deportation and lack of treatment.

According to Myung-Hwan Cho, Immediate Past President of the AIDS Society of Asia and the Pacific, "Mandatory testing every year is not fair with respect to human rights. Why do foreign workers here have to be treated in a different way? If Koreans get tested in other countries, it isn't fair either."

Cho also argues that the South Korean government never exercised its prior right to ban individuals living with HIV from entering Korea. Instead, since December 2007 the Korean government has carried out a policy of deporting foreigners already residing in Korea who were found HIV-positive after compulsory testing.

That translates to little change for foreigners hoping to teach in Korea. Because the E-2 visa does not require foreigners to get tested for HIV prior to coming to Korea, the visa has essentially always allowed HIV-positive instructors into the country.

Foreigners on other visas, such as the E-6 (artistic performers) and E-9 (non-professional employment), may be tested for HIV in their home countries, but they have to be tested again in Korea after they have entered.

Kyung Hee University Law Professor Ben Wagner argues that because mandatory testing constitutes a "residency requirement," it violates foreign residents' right to equality under the Korean Constitution.

According to Wagner, "The Korean government should recognize that it is discriminating against foreigners who legally reside on Korean territory. These medical tests aren't some kind of 'entry requirement' to determine who gets in. They are being done in-country, and in many cases they are being done repeatedly."

"Foreign residents are under the protection of the Constitution of Korea," Wagner adds. "Many of them have lived and worked in Korea for years, and some of them are married to Korean nationals. But they are being required to report to national hospitals to receive medical tests that their Korean co-workers are exempt from."

Amnesty International has repeatedly called on the South Korean government to put an end to mandatory HIV-testing, arguing that "[s]creening of foreigners for AIDS or HIV status is among the prohibited discriminatory grounds in international law and has long been considered ineffective in preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS."

Bill 3356: the threat of mandatory testing for all foreigners

From this point forward, the practice of compulsory testing in Korea may only intensify. In February, drafters will present Bill 3356 to the National Assembly calling for the mandatory testing of all foreigners who hope to work in Korea on a visa.

According to Seo Bokun, spokesperson for Assemblyman Lee Sang-jun, a drafter of the bill, "the government should prioritize the safety of our citizens amongst any other matters, so we think it was wrong for the Ministry of Justice to alleviate their regulations on allowing HIV positive foreigners from entering Korea."

As stated in Adam Walsh's article in the Korea Herald, included within Bill 3356 is a flawed statistic that originates from Anti-English Spectrum, an anti-foreigner hate group that admittedly tries to catch foreign teachers doing drugs and other "unwanted" behavior. The group submitted a petition to the Ministry of Justice claiming that an AIDS clinic in Itaewon, the foreigner's district, performed 80 percent of its tests in 2007 on foreign teachers and foreign white-collar workers.

The Korea HIV/AIDS Prevention and Support Center responded by saying the 80 percent statistic was false. Moreover, the clinic moved its location from Itaewon to Seongbuk-gu in 2006, thus proving the misguided nature of Anti-English Spectrum's claim.

When the Korea Herald asked Assemblyman Lee where he acquired the statistic, Lee said that he could not remember. "I do go over statistics at times. But in this case, since they are not the vital issue here, but rather a reference, I didn't check the facts."

Critics of the bill, like Wagner, take issue with its purpose statement that reads, "Nowadays, the number of foreigners working in Korea is increasing, but a good many have previous convictions for drug and sexual crimes or carry infectious diseases." Wagner traces the statement's origin to Anti-English Spectrum's efforts to stigmatize foreigners as AIDS-infected, sexually abusive predators. To this day, no foreigner has ever been found guilty of infecting a Korean child with HIV, and in 2008 the native English teacher crime rate was more than five times lower than the Korean crime rate.

Korea and the world

Falsities aside, former AIDS Society of Asia and the Pacific president Cho views Bill 3356 as illogical, especially since the Korean government is striving to make the nation a global leader.

In 2011, Korea plans to host the International Congress on AIDS in Asia and the Pacific in Busan. If Korea does not change its practice of mandatory HIV-testing, it may face the threat of losing its position as host of the conference.

The global response to Korea's continued practice of discriminatory measures to keep HIV-positive foreigners from residing within its borders will be telling. If the international community commits to denying Korea the opportunity to host the 2011 conference, then perhaps Korea's policies will undergo a genuine change that honors its constitutional commitment to equality.

This article has been written in collaboration with Adam Walsh from the Korea Herald.

Surviving "Comfort Women" Rally at 900th Protest

2010-01-13T16:12:59-05:00

Bundled up against the frigid winds and a temperature of 3°F, survivors of Japanese military sexual slavery, also known as the "comfort women," gathered on Jan. 13 for their 900th Wednesday protest held outside of the Japanese Embassy in Seoul, South Korea.

The women (or halmoni, the word for grandmother in Korean, as the woman are euphemistically called) have been protesting every Wednesday since Jan. 8, 1992. At the 900th protest, Kang Il Chul, Yi Ok Seon, Pak Ok Seon, and Gil Won Ok were the four surviving halmoni to attend.

Also in attendance were representatives from Amnesty International, the Korean Women's Association United, the House of Sharing, and people from Korea, Japan, and other nations who came to lend support to the halmoni.

Hiromi Ui, a Japanese woman in attendance, protests weekly with the halmoni and volunteers at the House of Sharing, a home for 9 of the surviving comfort women.

"Whether or not it's the 900th protest it doesn't matter to me," Ui stated. "It's important as a Japanese woman to be here week after week. I come here every week. Today is no different."

In a speech, Jude Lee from the House of Sharing called for the punishment of surviving war criminals, compensation for the halmoni, and education to prevent the recurrence of gender-based crimes in Asia and other regions of the world. She expressed her particular concern with the human trafficking of Filipina women, who are being sexually subjugated in US military zones in Korea.

Japanese military sexual slavery had its roots as early as 1932 during the conflict between Japan and China in Shanghai. The estimated 50,000 to 200,000 comfort women who served as sex slaves came from territories occupied by Japan prior to and during World War II, but most came from Korea, which Japan officially annexed in 1910.

Japanese soldiers seized many of the women forcibly through violence or coercion. At the numerous comfort stations scattered throughout Asia, soldiers and officers raped the women from 10 to 30 times per day. Physical abuse was rampant, with soldiers often beating the women to the point of unconsciousness, branding them with hot irons, or cutting them with swords.

On top of the physical abuse, the majority of the women acquired infections and sexually transmitted diseases. Those who became pregnant were administered arsenic-based drugs to abort the fetuses, a process that rendered many of the women infertile.

In 1991, Kim Hak-sun became the first of the comfort women to share her story with the world. Shortly thereafter, 35 war victims from Korea, including Kim and two other comfort women, filed a class action lawsuit demanding reparations from the Japanese government. Japan denied responsibility for the occurrence of military sexual slavery.

Following Kim Hak-sun's courageous decision to "come out," many more former comfort women stepped up to share their stories publically. One of the women, Yi Ok-Sun, was snatched off of the street as a young girl and taken to China to work as a laborer before being forced to serve in a comfort station. She spent 58 years of her life in China and returned to Korea in 2000. Soon after she offered her testimonial and has participated in the Wednesday protests ever since.

At the 900th demonstration, Yi-Ok Sun expressed her frustrations with the Japanese government.

"We think that the Japanese government should just apologize as soon as possible because we were so young when we were drafted. We didn't know anything, but who took our dignity? Who took our honor? Who stole a 15-year-old girl's chastity?"

"Even today the Japanese government keeps denying its involvement," Yi-Ok Sun added. "It's just common sense. When someone commits a crime, they should apologize for it if they are human beings. But the Japanese government keeps denying their involvement in setting up this system. I think it's really unfair, and I feel very wronged."

Yi-Ok Sun is optimistic that an apology will come this year, in light of recently passed ordinances in 15 cities and localities calling for the Japanese government to support the women.

Another halmoni, Kang-Il Chul, was abducted at the age of 16 and was forced to serve in a comfort station in Manchuria. After contracting typhoid, the Japanese military sent her to be cremated with the bodies of fallen war victims. She was subsequently saved by Korean independent fighters.

An energetic woman in her early eighties, Kang-Il Chul was adamant in her demand for an apology and reparations from the Japanese government.

"I delivered my testimony at the Women's International Tribunal on Japanese Military Sexual Slavery in 2000 and two former Japanese soldiers gave testimony that there were comfort stations," Kang-Il Chul stated. "Those soldiers said that they took part in this too and that they went to the comfort stations. Yet the Japanese government still denies it and calls us liars. We don't lie!"

When asked about what Korea's current conservative government is doing to address the issue, Kang Il-Chul responded with a frustrated moan. "What the hell are they doing? The parties are doing nothing but fighting among themselves in the national assembly. They are wasting time when they should be setting history straight."

"The president (Lee Myung-bak) is voted for by the people," Kang Il-Chul added. "He should be working for us. If he can't settle this issue, he should step down."

Today there are only 89 registered survivors of Japanese Military sexual slavery in South Korea. In 2009, five halmoni passed away without receiving a direct, formal apology or reparations.

The international community has called on Japan several times to resolve the comfort women issue. A United Nations report in 1996 highlighted Japan's numerous violations of customary international law in establishing the comfort stations. In 2007 House Resolution 121 from the United States called for a formal, clear, and unequivocal apology. In 2008 the United Nations Human Rights Committee called upon the Japanese to accept legal responsibility and apologize for its system of military sexual slavery in an acceptable way that restores the dignity of the women.

Angela Lytle, a volunteer at the House of Sharing and a feminist research associate at the Centre for Women's Studies in Education at the University of Toronto, offered her words of encouragement and admiration to the halmoni during the demonstration.

"Halmoni, your strength, zest and humor inspires women around the world to know their own strength. You are not alone - women throughout time and place have endured what you endured. It is time for the world to change, and you are helping make that happen."

The aspiration of Lytle and so many of the halmoni's supporters is that Japan's stance will shift before the remaining halmoni pass away with their wishes for justice unrealized and their hopes for humanity shattered. Until then, they will continue to demonstrate every Wednesday.

Lady Gaga and Obama for Gay America

2009-10-12T21:16:49-04:00

A few weeks ago a friend asked me who I would rather meet in person, Lady Gaga or Barack Obama. My head tipped backwards with an unexpected laugh, surprised as I was by the nature of the question.

What surprised me even more, though, was how long it took for me to respond.

Lady Gaga, the ruling princess of pop, and Barack Obama, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate, are two figures whose stardom has spread worldwide in a relatively short period of time. With three Video Music Awards, including best new artist, a recent Saturday Night Live cat fight with Madonna, and hit songs that have Ellen DeGeneres "just dancing" like mad, Lady Gaga has risen to the pinnacle of pop culture without ever looking down. And with his Peace Prize, America's first black president has proven that he is still capable of both shock and captivation.

For America's LGBT community last weekend, another welcoming shock was seeing both Lady Gaga and Obama teaming up to address the community's struggle for civil rights and equality.

The gay community, a sector of American society that suffered a huge blow on Obama's election day when a vote in California repealed gay couples' right to marry, has been disappointed with the Obama administration's overall passivity regarding LGBT issues. LGBT Americans were disappointed that Obama, whose electoral campaign was based on change, remained quiet on issues like Proposition 8 and same-sex marriage. Currently, same-sex marriage is allowed in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, and Vermont, and it is pending in New Hampshire and Maine.

While the gay community grew jaded with Obama, it wasted no time in adopting another star, Lady Gaga, as one of its unofficial icons. Lady Gaga embraced the gesture with more gusto than any other woman in recent memory to hold the rainbow-colored spotlight. On numerous occasions, she has expressed thanks to her gay fans for their loyalty and their love for "sexual, strong women who speak their mind."

Last weekend, Lady Gaga spoke at the National Equality March in Washington DC. She referred to the speech as "the single most important moment of my career."

In her speech Lady Gaga addressed the president directly. "Obama, we know you're listening." She took a breath before continuing in a scratchy yet powerful scream. "ARE YOU LISTENING?"

Lady Gaga told Obama that "[w]e will continue to push you and your administration to bring your words of promise to a reality. We need change now. We demand actions now." She also declared her commitment to combat misogyny and homophobia in the music industry.

And it seemed as though Obama truly was listening. During his speech before the Human Rights Campaign, Obama began with a direct appeal to a speculative yet hopeful audience of LGBT individuals.

"It is a privilege to be here tonight to open for Lady Gaga," Obama stated, a comment that was followed by resounding laughter.

Obama proceeded to share his renewed commitment to fight for the LGBT community. He highlighted what his administration is currently doing to protect the rights of LGBT individuals, including passing the long awaited and inclusive hate crimes bill named after Matthew Shepard, a victim of hate crime who was killed in 1998 at the age of 21.

Obama also stated that he has called upon Congress to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, a policy that defines marriage as a legal union specifically between one man and one woman, and mentioned that his administration is crafting a national strategy for the elimination of HIV-related travel restrictions. Moreover, he promised to eliminate the nation's controversial "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, which prohibits openly gay and lesbian people from serving in the US military.

Lady Gaga followed Obama's speech with her own comments on equality, as well as a modified performance of John Lennon's "Imagine", during which she sang: "People of the nation, are you listening? It isn't equal if it's sometimes. I want a real democracy. Imagine all the people could love equally."

The performances and speeches were stunning reminders of how far the United States has come since the Stonewall Riots of 1969, not to mention how far the nation has yet to go in terms of treating its entire population with dignity and respect.

Fortunately for the LGBT community, Lady Gaga is using her star power as a means to bring national attention to unresolved human rights issues. She has committed herself to being a staunch advocate, and she plans to become a representative for gay youth.

As for Obama, who was recently awarded the Peace Prize for his contributions to "climatic change," teaming up with Lady Gaga is a sure way to take America's social climate by storm. Working together, the superstars are bringing the nation one step closer to a new reality that embraces the fundamental ideals of equal opportunity and protections for all people, regardless of sexual orientation.

So in the end who was it that I chose to meet, you may find yourself asking. Gaga or Obama?

For now that will remain my little secret - at least until the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy gets repealed.

Infected, Detected, Rejected in South Korea

2009-10-06T18:47:05-04:00

With a Masters in Education, Andrea Vandom went to Korea to teach university-level English. Since early 2006 she created textbooks and curriculum, taught English to university and adult students, and invented a class where her students learned English by playing sports. She loved her students and co-workers enough to renew her two-year contract in 2008. Needless to say, not someone Korea would do well to threaten with expulsion.

But that's precisely what happened, because Andrea, who had been in Korea for three years without such a requirement, refused to take an HIV test in order to continue working there. She was subsequently threatened with deportation.

As of December 2007 (when the Korean Ministry of Justice established the policy in a memo), foreign workers are required to take HIV tests within three months of arriving in Korea, and if they are found positive, are deported. Foreigners who acquire HIV while in Korea, if found out, will be deported, usually within a week. Hospital policy is to submit testing results to immigration offices to expedite the expulsion of HIV-positive expats. Foreigners with HIV have no options for seeking out medical treatment; the best they can do is get tested at the one anonymous testing center and fly to places like Thailand in search of medicine.

Andrea writes:

My visa renewal came up in March 2008. I heard of the new regulations through the grapevine. I thought surely they wouldn't be targeted towards me - I'd been living and working there for 2 years. I cleared immigration the first time, had good standing with my university, and my job in no way was related to the transmission of AIDS.

Given how long I was in the country already, it was illogical to require me to submit these documents. I was being pinpointed as a disease carrier simply because I am not of Korean blood. Suddenly they saw me as morally suspect and a threat to the community because I was a foreigner. These rules attach a stigma to HIV carriers, discourage voluntary testing, and spread the disease.

Immigration would contact Andrea or her employer in some way about once a week. They threatened deportation several times if paperwork was not submitted by a certain date. "They had invited me here, allowed me to work and live," Andrea writes. "Then the next day, I am an AIDS risk and a criminal. Really?"

It Gets Judicial

United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, arguably Korea's most powerful leader, has called for an end to HIV-related travel restrictions. Korea remains one of the few countries that ban HIV-positive persons for entry, residence, or migration, alongside Brunei, China, Namibia, Oman, Qatar, Sudan, the United Arab Emirates, the United States, and Yemen. Both the US and China are in the process of removing travel restrictions for people living with HIV/AIDS.

In reference to Korea's testing policies, Korean Ministry of Justice official Lee Bok-nam states, "Foreigners do not have the right to demand that a country guarantees equal rights with the nationals of the country regarding entry into the country."

What Lee overlooks are the binding international human rights treaties that Korea has signed: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which binds it to guarantee the right to equal protection of the law to all people, regardless of race, ethnicity, nationality, sex, or any other status; and Korea's 2006 renewal of the 2001 Declaration of Commitment on HIV/AIDS, which seeks to eliminate all forms of discrimination against people living with HIV/AIDS by ensuring their privacy and access to health services, prevention, support, treatment, and legal protection.

Last May, Attorney Suh-yeon Chang, with the public interest law firm Gonggam, filed a case on behalf of foreign instructors like Andrea Vandom who hold E-2 visas. The Constitutional Court accepted the case. According to Kyung Hee University Law Professor Ben Wagner:

The Constitutional Court's acceptance of the Vandom case is mind-blowing considering that pretty much everybody thought it would be rejected. The Court has sent a very positive message to the foreign community by showing its willingness to address issues of foreigners' rights.

Prominent international organizations like Human Rights Watch, who lent their support to a complaint that Prof. Wagner lodged with Korea's Human Rights Commission concerning the tests, argue that the forced testing of foreigners and deportation based on HIV-positive status are ineffective and counterproductive measures for protecting a populous from the AIDS pandemic.

Vandom echoes that:

Detection is the first step. All people should be encouraged to get tested on a regular basis. To do this, testing should be accessible, confidential and without threat of negative consequences. The alternative is to make threats and ruin the credibility, careers and lives of people living with HIV, which discourages testing and allows undiagnosed people to continue spreading HIV. This seems to be the approach the Korean Ministry of Justice has taken.