Jenny’s Pennies

From the BBC.

A German citizen has gone to court in an attempt to force his government to seek the extradition of 13 suspected CIA agents who allegedly kidnapped him. Khaled al-Masri says he was abducted in December 2003, flown to a US detention centre in Afghanistan and tortured. Mr Masri was released in May 2004 after his captors allegedly told him he had been mistaken for someone else.

I wish him the best of luck - it’s absolutely appalling that you could be kidnapped and tortured “by mistake” and then receive no compensation what so ever.
And towards the end of the article:

Mr Masri says his case is an example of the US policy of “extraordinary rendition” - a practice whereby the US government flies foreign terror suspects to third countries without judicial process for interrogation or detention. He says he was kidnapped in the Macedonian capital, Skopje, in 2003, flown to a secret prison in Afghanistan, nicknamed the “salt pit” and tortured there. On his flight to Afghanistan, he says, he was stripped, beaten, shackled, made to wear nappies and drugged. Mr Masri says he was finally released in Albania five months later after the CIA realised they had got the wrong man. He told the BBC in February 2007 he had been “traumatised” by his experiences.

Why the hell do they put scare quotes around the word traumatised? Of course he was traumatised, he was freaking kidnapped, taken to a ghost prison and tortured. And then finally after five months of hell the Central Intelligence Agency - what kind of intelligence do they operate on?! - realized they had the wrong guy. Dear BBC “editor”, I think you would be traumatised by that too.

On International Women’s Day March 8th, a large number of local Amnesty groups in Sweden asked around 2600 persons about their attitudes towards rape. The results, released earlier this week, were pretty appalling. While 96 percent agree that rape is a large or fairly large problem in Swedish society, as many as one in five put at least some blame on the victim, based on for instance her looks, behavior, resistance and level of intoxication. The age groups most prone to victim blaming are young people between 15 and 25, and people over 66. When broke down by gender, the numbers reveal that men are more likely to blame the victim than women, and men are also more likely to believe that there can be extenuating circumstances to a rape.

While the study is not scientific, and thus shouldn’t be the basis of any broader conclusions, it does give a clue about peoples’ attitudes towards rape and sexual violence. Here are some of the general results:
- 62 percent has little or no trust in the Swedish justice system when it comes to the possibility of rape victims to get justice.
- about 20 percent put some blame on the victim if she dresses or acts “provocatively”.
- about 25 percent think that the woman is partly to blame if she flirted or made out with the rapist before the rape.
- about 20 percent believe that the woman bears some responsibility if she doesn’t resist or scream during the rape.
- about 20 percent put some blame on the victim if she was intoxicated by alcohol or drugs.
- less than one in ten believe that it is an extenuating circumstance if the rapist is intoxicated.
- about one in ten believe that it is an extenuating circumstance if the perpetrator and the victim are in a relationship.

That so many young people, and especially young men, are willing to blame the victim is horrifying but perhaps not surprising. What is needed is better sex ed in schools, with teachers who are honest and open and able to meet the young students at their level. Sex ed should be more than mere biology or risk awareness, it should also include discussions on such concepts as consent (which many people seem to have a problem understanding), respect, pleasure and how to know what you want and like (and how to understand what your partner wants and likes). We don’t need more “morality” or “purity” as some say, we need more openness, honesty, and better trained teachers. I absolutely agree with Amnesty that sex ed should be a mandatory course for those studying to become teachers.

That those over 66 are so willing to blame the victim is also disturbing. In the Swedish justice system, we don’t have juries but so called lay assessors who judge together with the judge (sorry, but I’m not versed in legal English - a description in English about the Swedish legal system can be found here). These lay assessors are appointed by the political parties, and due to the nature of this work and the experience/connections needed to be appointed, most of them are older men.

So given what Amnesty’s study tells us about the attitude towards rape among people aged 66 and older, maybe it’s not so surprising to hear about how rape victims are asked in court how many sex partners she have had previously and what she have done with them, or how far above the knee her skirt was. (For Swedish readers, if you haven’t read this book on that subject yet, do so immediately!).

I could do that analogy to the wealthy guy getting robbed of this big fat wallet and shiny gold Rolex watch here, but I won’t. I’m just sad, and I don’t know how we, as a society, should begin to address this problem. I do hope that the young people will wise up in the future as they mature and actually start thinking. But maybe that’s too optimistic.

Amnesty writes about the study in Swedish here (where you can also find all the results in pdf-format), SvD writes here, and the Local writes in English here.

On April 7th, two women journalists were brutally killed in the state of Oaxaca, Mexico. Teresa Bautista Flores, 24, and Felicitas Martínez, 20 worked for the community radio station La Voz que Rompe el Silencio (“The Voice that Breaks the Silence”), serving the Trique indigenous community.

From El Enemigo Común:

The Triqui indigenous people of San Juan Copala in southern Oaxaca, saw their first radio station, La Voz que Rompe el Silencio, as a major victory of their struggle. When the community declared itself an autonomous region on January 21, 2007, it vowed to stay independent from any party affiliation or influence, creating even a Police of the Community (Policia Comunitaria) to replace government armed forces in the region. The radio was to serve the Triquis people to promote unity, overcome conflicts, and encourage communication among communities, including those that are not formally members of the autonomous region. The radio stressed from the beginning the importance of promoting diversity within the station with the participation of women and particularly, the youth.

Oaxaca suffers from political tensions and attacks from paramilitary forces on the indigenous communities are common. The state of press freedom is very poor. According to the Mexican branch of the World Association of Community Radio Broadcasters (AMARC) there have been acts of violence against other small radio stations belonging to indigenous groups in Oaxaca, such as Radio Nandia in 2006 and Radio Calenda in 2007.
Reporters Without Borders has more. Mexico was ranked as number 136 in their annual press freedom index (2007), and declared the most dangerous country on the continent for the press.

AMARC has released an action alert asking for prompt clarification of the murders, punishment of those responsible, and protection for the witnesses and their children. The whole urgent action appeal with contact information to relevant persons and authorities can be found here.

Via A Womyn’s Ecdysis who says:

So, while some of us contemplate the silence that makes us uncomfortable and squirmy in our easy chairs, chew on this: These womyn died on their way to give and because of their voice.

Are you, am I, are any of us western feminists anywhere close to filling even a thimble’s worth of significance and relevance with respect to what is happening to womyn around the world?

The immensely tragic and terrible murder of a 10 year old girl is all over the news here. Understandably people are scared, angry and sad. But besides the empathy and solidarity with the girl’s family and friends, there is also a darker side to it, fueled by sometimes speculative and vulturelike media reporting. People talk about torture, death penalty and mob justice. Karin Thunberg, reporter at Svenska Dagbladet had to close the comments section of her blog because it totally got out of hand. She has written a very good column that you can read here, where she says:

We can’t begin to look at every stranger, especially if it happens to be a man, as a potential criminal.
What happened to Engla lies beyond what we, at least as outsiders, can feel or understand. For real.

But we win nothing if we start to see the exceptions as the normal. In the society where everybody is scared of each other and expects hell to lie behind the next turn, there it becomes even more dangerous to live.

For all of us.

Now media researcher and professor Stig Hedenius, has proposed that media should be less cautious about publishing names of criminals and of suspects in crime investigations (see also SvD here).
He argues that by publishing names of suspects, we can avoid tragedies such as this one. That if people had known the name of the 42 year old who has admitted to murdering Engla (and also to another murder years ago), then Engla could have been alive today.
That is of course a purely theoretical argument which relies on a lot of “ifs”.

The media and the public should not be a substitute for courts and the rule of law. I agree there are a lot of problems with our criminal justice system, but the solution must never be to dismantle the legal rights of the individual (yes, even if that individual is a murderer and pedophile of the most heinous and awful kind) and to let the profit driven media and revenge hungry public act as the prosecutor and the judge. There are other ways to make our criminal justice system better.

We already know that the media is driven by selling papers (or getting viewers) and making money, and that their track record of respect for truth and decency is less than perfect. A few weeks ago, we had another tragic murder case, where two little girls were killed and their mother seriously injured. Before long, media had pointed out the father/husband as the perpetrator. But oups, turns out he was innocent, and the suspect is now a German woman. And when foreign minister Anna Lindh was murdered in 2003, a man called “the 35 year old” was pointed out as the killer. No name was published in that case, but enough details to identify him anyway if you cared to. He was innocent too. Being at the wrong place at the wrong time should not get you plastered all over placards and front pages. That isn’t something we as citizens should have to live in fear of.

I’m not saying that names and pictures of suspects should never be published. If the police investigation is seriously stuck and a name/picture publishing would move it forward, then yes, it can be okay. But only in close cooperation with the police, and not without serious consideration of the consequences. Unfortunately, I don’t trust the media to make that call. Today one one tabloid screams “How he became a murderer”. As if they have the answers to that.

And they see their circulation go up when tragedies happen. Grieving mothers, monstrous killers, those thing sell. What is really public interest here? Do we need close ups of crying neighbours, do we need nosy interviews with people who went to school with the suspect 30 years ago? In whose interest are those things published? Not in the victims’ and not in the public’s anyway.

I’m sick, feeling like crap and have a book review to work on. I direct you to read this:

Sources: Top Bush Advisors Approved ‘Enhanced Interrogation’
Detailed Discussions Were Held About Techniques to Use on al Qaeda Suspects

It’s a sad world we’re living in. But I’m just an onlooker from an insignificant country whose cowardly prime minister didn’t dare to raise the question of Guantanamo and other human rights abuses when meeting with Bush because it could “damage relations”.

Wolfrum of Shakesville said:

So is impeachment still off the table? Because the U.S. has been hijacked by bloodthirsty ghouls and cowards. Of course, this report is not unexpected, and will be cheered by the right wing. It actually wouldn’t be that surprising if the White House allowed this story to get out. They’ve softened up the public enough to the idea of torture, after all.

Can someone please explain: a consensual blow-job is grounds for impeachment, war crimes and lies that has killed hundreds of thousands are not? A sad world indeed.

A 23 year old man hung himself in a bathroom in the jail in Mariestad. When the personnel found the man, they left him hanging there, locked the door and then called an ambulance. The paramedics managed to restore cardiac activity, but the man died two days later in a hospital. During the nine minutes that it took for the ambulance to arrive, the jail personnel did nothing, they merely let the man hang.

What the hell were they thinking? That he would escape? That someone else would try to save him (and that would be a bad thing)? That it wasn’t their job to do anything about it? That he obviously wanted to kill himself, so they did him a service by leaving him there? That only trained medical personnel would be able to take him down? The incompetence and negligence is so frightening.

This is only the latest of a series of examples of how bad our correctional treatment system is working. Only in the last few days, it was exposed that in 2005, a seriously ill man with pneumonia were left to slowly die in a jail cell in Nyköping. The guards thought that the man had drug abstinence so they did nothing about it, although several doctors say that his symptoms were nothing like those typically associated with abstinence. They guards documented the man’s condition in a protocol, but they didn’t care enough to call a doctor and explain the symptoms, or to take him to a hospital.

Both these men could be alive today had the personnel done their job properly. And the main responsibility lies with the director-general of the Swedish Prisons and Probations Administration, Lars Nylén. Some of his staff is clearly untrained on what to do in an emergency; the policies and protocols on how to handle suicide attempts, ill detainees and other such situation are clearly lacking or not communicated down to the personnel; and some personnel seems to have a frightening disregard for human life, which means they are unfit for their job. Or maybe they though that this was a proper punishment for the jailed person, in which case they are also unfit for their job.

Media: SvD, HD, Sydsvenskan, SR Ekot
Fellow bloggers: Jinge

I often wish I knew more about the law and legal matters. Because then I could understand things like this:

A pregnant teenager detained in jail only to make sure she’ll testify in court this week, according to her lawyer, is due to deliver any minute.
Noelly Mowatt, 19, who is not facing any criminal charges, and has been living in a jail cell at Vanier Women’s Centre in Milton since she was denied bail last Thursday, is worried the stress of her surroundings is affecting her health.
Expected to give birth to her second child April 15, Mowatt won’t be let out of prison until after she testifies at the April 11 assault trial of her boyfriend Christopher Harbin.
Harbin is charged with eight offences, including assault with a weapon, forcible confinement and breaching probation.
“She’s contracted the flu since she’s been in jail. She already had to seek medical attention,” defence lawyer Lydia Riva said yesterday. “She’s obviously stressed out and concerned about her pregnancy. She’s afraid to have her baby in custody.”
On March 20, a judge issued a material warrant for Mowatt’s arrest when she wasn’t in court for Harbin’s trial.
Riva said a judge can issue such a warrant if there is evidence someone won’t respond to a subpoena or is evading subpoena.
The Crown argued that after Mowatt called police in December to report that Harbin was abusing her, she refused to pick up her summons to appear at trial.

(From Canadian newspaper TheStar.com)

So, do I get this right:
The pregnant 19 year old, due to deliver any time now, is not facing any criminal charges but is detained solely to make sure she testifies against her boyfriend, who is on trial for abusing her? As I said, I’m not versed on the workings of the law, especially in Canada, but this seems too fucked up for me. Can you imagine being confined to a jail cell knowing that you basically can go into labour any minute (the expected delivery date is four days after the trial, but since when are babies always on the clock?), and to add to that stress, the reason you are in that cell is to make sure that you will testify against the man who has abused you. I understand that it’s important to make sure witnesses appear, but this just seems… cruel and unnecessary.

Landskrona in southern Sweden will be the the first municipality to randomly drug test 8th and 9th graders. 20 percent of the students will be randomly selected for the testing. The tests will be administered by the school nurse, and the student’s parents or guardian has too consent as well before the test is administered. The student is allowed to say no, but then a letter will be sent home to the parents. That’s how “voluntary” this is. Of course students who say no will be pointed out as potential drug users and/or troublemakers, disrespectful of authority and refusing to buy the “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to be afraid of”-rhetoric.

Many people are critical, including the Swedish National Agency for Education. Although they are saying that the tests are not against the law, one of their lawyers asks whether it is really the school who should administer these kinds of tests, and also questions how the tests results will be handled with regards to confidentiality.

You know, drugs are definitely a societal problem which should be taken seriously. But blanket testing, disguised under some false voluntariness, is not the solution. I don’t think treating everyone as potential drug users, cheaters (not the sexual kind), criminals etc. are the way of creating a just, equal and thriving society. But what do I know, I’m just a bleeding-heart, terrorist-loving, Sweden-hating, tree-hugging communist.

Due to budgetary cuts, many schools nowadays do not have school nurses or counselors, or only have them very few hours weekly. In total, the number of adults in schools per student has gone down. And now the school nurse’s time will be clogged up from administering and following up and and filing drug tests. Is this wise use of seriously constrained budgets? I ask, wouldn’t it be better to spend the money on real preventive measures instead? (And by that I don’t mean the ridiculous scare-mongering propaganda that I was subjected to in school, the “if you smoke pot once you will end up a heroin-injecting homeless criminal”-kind, which was so easily debunked.)

I haven’t heard a single word about what kind of support would be given to the student who have given a positive drug test - it’s like this that I wrote about screening for partner violence among pregnant women: when you get the results, exactly what are you going to do with it? Report the student to the police? Kick them out of school? Offer them counseling? Enforce mandatory counseling? No-one has said anything about that. Probably they don’t know.

This is another of those measures which sounds good (making sure kids don’t get caught up in drugs, I’m all for that), but which merely paints over the real problems and doesn’t solve anything in the long run. It seems the preferred way of conducting politics nowadays, and I guess anything else would require quite a revolutionary remake of society. And we can’t have that. But now at least the politicians can pat each others backs and say that they are “tough on drugs”.

(Read more in Swedish: SvD; HD)

Intimate partner violence and violence against women is an area where crimes are underreported. Shame, guilt and societal responses (shaming, trivializing, blaming) makes it hard for women to speak out about being abused by their partners.

Research from year 2000 found that about 2000 women each year in Sweden are subjected to violence by their partners during pregnancy and the first year thereafter. This is of course 2000 too many. Many antenatal clinics have therefore made the habit of routinely asking pregnant women if they have been abused by their partner, even when there are no indications of abuse. But is routine screening really a good way to address the problem?

Hanne Kjöller, editorial writer for Dagens Nyheter, Sweden’s largest newspaper, thinks that routine screening isn’t a good idea. For once, I am agreeing with her.

Three researchers have written a letter to the editor in Läkartidningen, newspaper for the Medical Association of Sweden, regarding the screening for partner violence. They are critical of the process and calls for an ethical analysis of the practice, which takes into account both positive and negative aspects, for women who are subjected to violence as well as for those who aren’t.

Studies have shown that many women find it uncomfortable to be asked about partner violence. I understand them. I was asked the question, seemingly out of the blue, during a visit to get my prescription for the pill refilled, and my reaction was like “what? no!”. The doctor simply looked at me, ticked the box in her questionnaire and got to the next question. I often wondered what her reaction would have been if I had answered yes (I have never been a victim of intimate partner violence, but let’s say that I was). Should she have taken time out of her busy schedule to have that long and hard conversation? Simply ticked “yes” in her questionnaire and moved on? Handed me some brochures and the phone number of a women’s shelter and thought that was it?

That’s my second objection to this routine screening thing. What should be the ob/gyn’s response? If the woman answers yes and explains that the father of her child is abusing her, what should the ob/gyn do? It places them in a very difficult situation. As expressed by a midwife in a survey on the subject by the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare (Socialstyrelsen): “It takes too long time to ask. You need time to listen to their response. You find those who have already gotten out of the relationship. It’s hard to catch those who are in it right now”. If the woman answers yes and then comes to the next visit with her partner with her, what does the doctor do? Legally they are obliged to report the abuse to the police, but it may put the abused woman in a much more dangerous situation. Without clear policies on how to handle “yes”-answers, it is quite contra productive to have ob/gyns and midwives ask the question.

The article in Läkartidningen also raises the issue that routine screenings for partner violence can make women skip their appointments at the antenatal clinic. There is a risk that women who are subjected to violence will face even more violence if their partner finds out that they have told someone about it, or that they have even been asked.

Obviously the ob/gyns and midwives try to ask the question on a visit when the partner is not present (in Sweden it is increasingly normal for the father to be present during the antenatal clinic visits). In the article, a midwife explains her strategy for keeping the partner away for one or more visits (apparently if a woman answers “no” to the question the first time, she is to be asked again), like saying that “he is not needed”. That just seems really dishonest to me.

And after hearing a radio program yesterday about the heteronormativity within our health care system, I can’t imagine what the response would be if a woman confessed to having been abused by her same sex partner.

As Hanne Kjöller points out, you’re always in a subordinate position when you seek health care and therefore it is the moral obligation of your caregiver to explain to you why they are doing or asking one thing or another and what relevance it has. If the reason for routine screenings of pregnant women regarding partner violence is to get statistics (which aren’t very reliable - reliability would increase somewhat if the woman was given a totally anonymous questionnaire), then I think that is a quite cynical way to treat these women - ask them about something so personal and then really offer nothing in return (e.g. counseling and legal advice). If the reason is to truly help women to get out of abusive relationships, then the state should instead put money into shelters, counseling, legal advice, education and so on, instead of, as it is today, rely on volunteers, charities and idealistic forces to provide those services.

Decriminalization, ending demand, and choice: Feministe interviews the Sex Workers Project
- a very interesting post over at Feministe, where Sienna Baskin of the New York City based organization Sex Workers Project is interviewed. The interview deals with the societal response to prostitution, a question which is very much in the focus in the US right now due to the Spitzer scandal. It also discusses the “Swedish model” i.e. the criminalization of the buyer, not the seller.
Go read!