Jenny’s Pennies

Today’s oh-dear-God-should-I-laugh-or-cry is found at Sadly, No! by way of Fistful of Euros. It’s the halp-halp-the-scary-Muslims-are-coming-BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA-blog Gates of Vienna* who presents us with a map of what Europe will look like in 2067, unless we start deporting/converting/killing/rounding up/turning away Muslims and produce more white babies. Where is Europe headed? they ask (in trembling voices). Well, apparently towards this:

So, we’ll have the Muslim states (with funny names like Al-Lemania and Al-Italia!), the Russian federation and the Russian protectorates, a demilitarized zone and some “neutral” states, which besides seemingly ever-neutral Switzerland also includes the Czech Republic (huh?!?). Germany will for some inexplicable reason be divided along the old iron curtain borders and Yugoslavia will magically reunite. Also, Turkey seems to have disappeared from the face of the earth.
This map is like one of those “find five faults” picture games times a million.

And as Alex Harrowell at a Fistful of Euros aptly points out: if this whole thing is about demography, do they really think that Russia doesn’t have a demographics problem?

Yeah, I need to stop laughing now, my stomach hurts.

*I ain’t linking, but click on the Sadly, No! link and continue from there.

Usually I’m glad to be Swedish. Not proud, because I don’t understand why I should be proud of a coincidence, but yeah, glad. And we have a pretty good reputation around the world. It’s the inheritance of the Olof Palme years - that solidarity with the poor, the oppressed, the hungry and the exploited. Many still view Sweden as a country which stands for those values.

And among our own population, many still believe that we are the good-hearted, although they don’t see it as a good thing. “We can’t take care of everyone!” they whine. But those of us who are based in reality, we know that we aren’t taking care of everyone. We aren’t even taking care of those who we are obliged to take care of.

But for those who still lives with the delusion that Sweden is a compassionate country who cares about the less fortunate, we are getting ready to “send out new signals” and take that belief out of them. This is one of those times when I’m not happy to be Swedish. I’m ashamed and sad.

The subject is health care for asylum seekers and undocumented migrants. New proposed legislation says that the only health care they have a right to is emergency treatment, maternal care, abortion care and contraceptive advice. (Unless they are under 18, in which case they have the same rights as Swedish citizens does). And even if they have a “right” to this health care, they still have to pay full price for it: a delivery will cost 21.000 SEK, a broken leg 63.000. In the future, your rights as a patient will depend on what criteria you fulfill. Some will be able to get maternal care, some don’t. If you fall under paragraph four you will get your heart medication, otherwise you’re on your own.

Maciej Zaremba writes about this shameful legislation in today’s Dagens Nyheter. It’s a long article, and for once, I’m completely with him - every single word along the way. A piece (my translation):

In August 1920, my father stood in a tent outside Warsaw. He stitched abdomens together, applied bandages and amputated legs. Narcosis was unheard of, so both doctors and patients had to do with alcohol. The summer was hot, flies were feasting in the open wounds, corpses turned black before they were buried.
It was, you need to say, horrible sights. But in one respect less offensive than what is going on in Rosenbad*.
Most of the bodies that my father tended to were illegally in the country. They had neither visa, nor the four digits**. Soldiers in an invading army are as undocumented as anyone can be. But they were tended to in the same way as those people that they had just tried to kill.
Because for a doctor, meant my father, there are no fellow countrymen or enemies, legals or illegals. There are only patients.

That is the principle that minister for migration Tobias Billström now wants to change. It is impractical, according to Billström. “Sends the wrong signals”, he has said. By which he means that if a pregnant Iranian who has been denied asylum are given maternal care, she will immediately start to think that she is welcome to Sweden. Wrong signal! But if she is denied help and has a miscarriage, the voice of Sweden will sound clearly. Won’t be able to misunderstand. Same thing with a hidden Afghan who will see his cancer grow freely. The tumour becomes the right signal: that a no from the Migration Board really is a no.

Read read read!

Sweden is, together with Austria, the worst offender in Europe when it comes to equal treatment in health care. This according to PICUM, The Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants. No other countries have come up with the idea of using illness and injuries as a political signal, of thinking that sickness and maybe death is a proper punishment for failing to adhere to the authorities’ request that you should leave the country.

But there is opposition. To treat people differently depending on their legal status is not in adherence with the medical oath, and the Swedish Association of Health Professionals have said that their members will act according to the UN Convention: they will do their job no matter what background the patient has. A spokesperson for the Swedish Medical Association has called the law “disgraceful” and states that doctors won’t be able to adhere to it. And Region Skåne (the region in southern Sweden) decided almost unanimously (only xenophobic party Sverigedemokraterna were against) that asylum seekers who are hiding and other undocumented/uninsured patients have a right to health care, no matter their ability to pay for it.

The “Right to health care“-initiative is started by a large number of organizations who thinks that Sweden shouldn’t break the human rights conventions that we have signed by denying health care to undocumented immigrants.
There is also a Facebook group for the initiative (requires login).

The proposed law is supported by the Moderates, the Social Democrats and the Center Party. The Left Party and the Greens are against it, the Christian Democrats and the Liberals are undecided. On the regional/local level, Sverigedemokraterna (populist xenophobes) are of course for it - they also think that undocumented children should be denied health care, unless they have some contagious disease that could affect a real Swede.

If this goes through, it shatters the last shivering remains of the image of Sweden as a just society, where people are of equal value. But what does that matter, as long as we are sending out strong signals, right?

It’s truly sickening. Luckily, I’m a citizen with all my papers in order, so I can go see a doctor for my nausea.

*The Swedish government building in Stockholm.
** The four unique digits in the personal number given to every Swedish citizen.

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?

As an illustration to the previous post, go read this great interview in Dagens Arbete from last year, with Sverigedemokraterna’s spokesperson for labour market policy, Per Björklund. It’s illustrates perfectly how undeveloped SD’s politics are.
The first question, to their spokesperson for labour market policy, is: Can you summarize SD’s politics on labour market issues?. The answer: Nah, I don’t know..
Surprisingly, he can’t explain their primary political goal, to “restore a common national identity”, either. A snippet (my translation):

Define what it is to be “Swedish”.
No, I don’t want to do that.
Why not?
I don’t think I know enough to do that.
Your entire program is full of expressions about “the Swedish” and being Swedish. You’re a member of the party executive, and you don’t know enough to answer what that means?
Why don’t you say what you think, and I will tell you if I agree.
Ok… A person who lives in Sweden and/or feels Swedish him/herself is Swedish.
Right. No, I don’t want to enter that discussion, you have to take it with someone at the party’s press service, Mattias, for instance.
Your program says that “The primary goal of the politics of Sverigedemokraterna is to restore a common national identity”. What should that common identity be?
I don’t want to talk about that.
The primary goal. You need to be able to discuss the primary goal of your party’s politics.
The primary goal.
The most important, the overall goal.
Yes, I know what primary means. No I won’t enter that. I don’t want to discuss the program on immigration policy.
Why not?
I haven’t participated in writing the program. I’m the spokesperson for labour market policy.
Immigration is your most important political issue. You have been active in SD since 2002. You have a lot of functions and are in the party executive. And you can’t talk about the primary goal of your own party’s politics.
No.

I laugh because it’s so unbelievably stupid, but I also cry because some people think that this country would be a better place if run by people like this. Read the whole interview!

Edit: I had mistakenly written that the interview was in Arbetaren, which is wrong, it should be Dagens Arbete. I have corrected that now, and realize that it is time to go to bed…

Right wing populist party Sverigedemokraterna (SD) is having problems. They can’t fill their seats in municipal assemblies; out of their about 140 elected representatives in assemblies around Sweden, 39 have quit since the election in 2006. And their representatives are not participating fully in the political process: they produce very few bills, don’t participate in debates and so on.

Of course this is because SD is a one-issue party: their platform is totally built around the immigration question, over which municipal assemblies have very little influence since it is a state parliamentary issue. To add to that, the party program of SD is really undeveloped - I haven’t heard them say anything about defense policy, or higher education, or monetary policy, or cultural policy, or bilateral relations (unless it’s tied to immigration, of course). And when their municipal representatives are people with little if any political experience and with only one thing to work for - less immigration and more “Swedishness” - well, of course they won’t have anything to say. What do they think about zoning plans, traffic issues, tourism, daycare, public art, housing and other such issues that municipal level politicians are dealing with? They don’t know, cause there’s no party line.

Another reason why people are dropping out is because being a politician in a municipal assembly is lots of hard, and mostly unpaid, work. Most politicians on that level have other ordinary jobs and are doing the political work on their free time. Some, not all, of those who have filled SD:s seats in municipal assemblies around Sweden have been recruited because their were no other candidates. In at least one case, someone had written his own name on the ballot and was then elected because he was the only candidate. And for these people, it now becomes clear that the “I could straighten this place up”-attitude wasn’t quite enough and that it takes more than a strong stance on one issue to actually make an impact and be taken seriously. When faced when the harsh realities of everyday politics, it becomes clear that SD is a very immature party. Hopefully the voters will see that also.

Dutch politician Geert Wilders has released his anti-Islam film “Fitna”. It was quite comical today when editorial writer Per Gudmundsson (Svenska Dagbladet) on page 4 in the paper questions whether the movie really exists and complains how it has been stopped by politicians, the media and companies like Google, and then in the same paper, on page 21, there is an article about how the movie is available on the internet. And it’s very Google-able. Per Gudmundsson has noted his mistake.

From what I have read about the movie (I’m sorry, but I’m not going to watch it. Scold me all you want for it, but I’m not) it doesn’t really seem like an insightful work of art. Selected quotes from the Quran blended with pictures of the terrorist attacks on New York, London and Madrid, of executions and stonings and other such terrifying things. More pictures of the Quran, and then in the end the sound of a page being ripped out, said to be a page from a phone book, and then a call to the Muslims themselves to rip the “evil pages” out of the Quran.

Some commenters I have read are of course hailing Wilders’ film as a very important wake up call to us in the west. How? What does the movie accomplish? To me, it seems to add nothing new - any one can pick up a Quran at a book store (albeit translated unless you read Arabic) and the movie clips are of the same kind readily available on the internet, and in many cases, on our TV screens during the evening news. An internet documentary, of which there are twenty a dozen. A tired provocation.

It seems as if the right wing populist parties and the extremist islamists are living in some kind of symbiosis - they can’t exist without each other. For the extremist islamists, the movie is yet another reason to preach their hate, and for the anti-Islam populists, the protests become yet another reason to preach their hate and make yet another movie or caricature. And on and on it goes. Sigh.

What I want to know is - if the anti-Islam crowd are so hell-bent on defending our freedom and our way of life against the said onslaught of scary scary Muslims, what is their proposed solution to the “Islam problem”? Because all of the solutions which comes to my mind run quite contrary to that beloved freedom and democracy they so want to defend. So, what do they propose? Deporting all Muslims? Converting them to another religion by force? Forbid all expressions of Islam (however that one will work)? Invade all Muslim countries, kill their leaders and forcibly convert the population to Christianity (the Ann Coulter solution)? Make being a Muslim a punishable crime (and what should be the punishment? re-education? death? prison?)? Round up all Muslims and put them in special camps? What is the idea?

I haven’t heard anyone in the right wing populist anti-Islam crowd actually propose a solution to the perceived problem. It’s like when pro-choicers ask the pro-life crowd what the punishment for having an abortion should be. The answer is — crickets. Or some mumbling about “but that’s not what I meant”. It’s easy to rail and chant and make movies and provoke, but when they are called on the consequences of their ideas, they are mostly speechless.

PS. nowhere in this post have I questioned the right of Geert Wilders to make the movie and to show it. He has every right to do that, no matter how stupid it is. That is not the point.

Outsourcing is normal in today’s globalized economy. But now the global south are not only offering services such as customer support and low skilled assembly work to their wealthier counterparts. From the New York Times:

An enterprise known as reproductive outsourcing is a new but rapidly expanding business in India. Clinics that provide surrogate mothers for foreigners say they have recently been inundated with requests from the United States and Europe, as word spreads of India’s mix of skilled medical professionals, relatively liberal laws and low prices.

Yes, it’s wombs for rent. For about 25.000 US dollars, you get payments for the surrogate mother, medical procedures, plus plane tickets and hotel nights for two trips to India, one for the fertilization and one for collecting the baby. The egg donor and the surrogate are different women, as it is said to be less likely for the surrogate to bond with the baby if there is no genetic connection.

The surrogacy business in India has made a sharp upturn in the last years, and people in the business are afraid that less scrupulous providers will smell the money and leave ethics aside.

The Ministry of Women and Child Development said in February that it was weighing recommending legislation to govern surrogacy, but it is not imminent.

An article published in The Times of India in February questioned how such a law would be enforced: “In a country crippled by abject poverty,” it asked, “how will the government body guarantee that women will not agree to surrogacy just to be able to eat two square meals a day?”

Some people might argue that we should view this as any business transaction, but I’m not at all comfortable with the idea of viewing reproduction as a commodity, especially when there is such huge power differentials in play.

“Surrogates do it to give their children a better education, to buy a home, to start up a small business, a shop,” Dr. Kadam said. “This is as much money as they could earn in maybe three years. I really don’t think that this is exploiting the women. I feel it is two people who are helping out each other.”

Mr. Gher agreed. “You cannot ignore the discrepancies between Indian poverty and Western wealth,” he said. “We try our best not to abuse this power. Part of our choice to come here was the idea that there was an opportunity to help someone in India.”

In the Mumbai clinic, it is clear that an exchange between rich and poor is under way. On some contracts, the thumbprint of an illiterate surrogate stands out against the clients’ signature.

This kind of globalization makes me very uncomfortable, and I think the practice should be examined with a critical eye. That does not mean that we should pass judgment on the persons on either side of the transaction - the couple who can’t conceive for whatever reason (Mr. Gher and his partner who are featured in the article are gay), and the woman who by carrying someone else’s baby can make a lot more money than she would on a normal job.

But there are so many issues here: what if the surrogate changes her mind? What if the couple changes their mind? What if the surrogate mother wants out? In India, this is regulated with contracts, but once again we have to look at the wealth and power differential here. As far as I can tell from quickly researching the subject, in the US, while surrogacy may not be illegal, contracts relating to it have been declared unenforceable. In Sweden, surrogacy is illegal, while in neighboring Finland, it’s legal. However, no money is allowed - the surrogate is doing it for altruistic reasons.

One thing which also makes me uncomfortable about the whole thing is that one reason why Indian surrogates are increasingly popular (besides the relatively cheap costs, good medical professionals and favorable legislation) is that Indian women are easier to “police”. As it says in the article:

Dr. Naina Patel, who runs the Anand clinic, said that even Americans who could afford to hire surrogates at home were coming to her for women “free of vices like alcohol, smoking and drugs.” She said she gets about 10 e-mailed inquiries a day from couples abroad.

Just how much say should the couple using the surrogate have to say over what the surrogate mother does to her body? You’re using her womb, yes, but the whole body is affected by the pregnancy, and so is the mind. No drinking, smoking or drugs during pregnancy - perfectly fine and reasonable of course, but what else can you compel the surrogate to do? I think with this international reproductive outsourcing there is more potential for abuse and for using the power/money leverage to make unreasonable demands.

Sorry about the lack of posts lately (to my approximately two readers); here’s a clue to what I’ve been doing.

So, remember this? Now, the investigation is apparently finished and…

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. - A bailiff who forgot about a woman locked in a courthouse holding cell and left her there for four days without food, water or access to a bathroom has been suspended for 30 days but will keep his job, officials said Wednesday.

Washington County Cpl. Jarrod Hankins acted without “intentional misconduct” when he left Adriana Torres-Flores in the 9 1/2-by-10 1/2-foot cell, Sheriff Tim Helder said.

Hankins “became busy and simply forgot” about the woman last Thursday, leaving her in the cell with only a jacket until Monday morning. (full story here)

Yep, that’s right. He’s getting off with a slap on the wrist. No criminal charges, no loss of job. For doing something that could have left a person dead.
Oh, no sorry, not a person, an “illegal immigrant from Mexico”. I’ll just second what Vox ex Machina said:

Just because someone has broken the law by crossing a border does not mean that it is okay to deprive them of basic human rights. If Adriana Torres-Flores had been Nancy Worthington, Nice White Lady Born and Raised in Little Rock, that bailiff would be facing charges right now. But immigrants are only people if they have the documents to prove it in today’s America, I guess.

The reason Adriana Torres-Flores appeared in court was because she was charged with selling pirated CDs. Oh yes, the terrible terrible crime of selling pirated CDs. So let’s compare here: Selling pirated CDs plus being an undocumented brown woman = okay to be deprived of basic human rights. “Forgetting” someone in a cell for four days without food, water or access to the bathroom = nah, not so bad, just suspension without pay and then back to business.

Wow. This is appalling.

A woman was locked for four days in a tiny holding cell in a northern Arkansas courthouse, forgotten by the authorities and left without food or water, the local Sheriff’s Department said Tuesday.

The woman, Adriana Torres-Flores, 38, a longtime illegal immigrant from Mexico, slept on the floor with only a shoe for a pillow, and with nothing to drink except her own urine, The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported. There was no bathroom in the cell.

The chief deputy of the county’s sheriff’s department, Jay Cantrell, says there will be an investigation, but assures that the incident was an “honest mistake” without any malicious intent.

Honest mistake? Well, that may be true, but it’s still a mistake that should get your ass thoroughly fired. But there’s no mention of that idea in the article. Only that there will be an “investigation”. What’s there to investigate? The procedures and policies of the department, yes. But the fact that his gross negligence make the employee in question unfit for his job? That seems pretty clear to me. But of course, the victim was only an undocumented brown woman, so it wasn’t all that serious, right.

While we’re into the immigration issue in the USA:
You really should read this article in the New Yorker about Hutto, a former prison in Texas which is being used to detain immigrants and asylum seekers. Note: immigrants and asylum seekers. Not criminals. About half of the detainees in Hutto are children, many of them born in the USA. Hutto is run by CCA, the Correction Corporation of America, a huge private prison corporation. Their deal with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement division of Homeland Security pays them approximately $2.8 million dollars monthly for Hutto. There’s good money to be made from keeping unwanted noncriminal brown people locked up. Feministe has more on the subject.

My gut feeling is to agree with Per Gudmundson in today’s Svenska Dagbladet (and it doesn’t happen often that I agree with their editorials).

Background for non-Swedish readers: a few days ago, the Swedish police performed searches at members of Svenska Motståndsrörelsen, SMR (the Swedish Resistance Movement). Weapons and explosives were found, and three men are detained for illegal possession of weapons and preparation to inflict serious damage (I guess that means blowing stuff up).

SMR is a neo-nazi organization which wants to abolish democracy and create an authoritarian national socialist society, hates Jews, Muslims and homosexuals, and struggles for the ultimate victory of the national socialist ideology and the creation of a new world order. (More in Swedish at Expo here.)

They have organized paramilitary training camps for their members, they idolize people like Hitler (obviously) and William Pierce, they want racial war, obviously store weapons and explosives, and their leader, Klas Lund, has been convicted of bank robbery, assault, illegal possession of firearms and manslaughter.

So, my gut feeling is to agree with Per Gudmundson when he says that the SMR members should be charged using the law on terrorist crime. Because that law says that terrorism is (big disclaimer about me not being a legal expert and knowing how to translate legal text accurately) to seek to “instill grave fear in a population” or “to seriously destabilize basic political, constitutional, economical or social structures in a state”. And that seems to fit pretty nicely with a movement that wants to destroy our society and install a dictatorship.

But.
Just as Svensson, Christian Engström and Mårten Schultz, I think that we should be careful to use the terrorism rubber stamp. Individuals can be guilty of acts of terrorism, but to label a whole movement or organization as “terrorist” is problematic. Especially when the organization or group is incoherent and multifaceted - that may not be the case with SMR, but it is certainly true of other organizations that we, in the era of the “war on terror” have put the terrorist label on.

And, as Christian Engström writes - the law on terrorism has mostly been used against non-Swedish citizens. It has allowed the state to deport them to torture and to freeze their assets, all in breach of human rights and rule of law. Even though it is tempting to put an equal opportunity spin on it and for once use the terrorism law against shiny white very Swedish people, we’d better not. Terrorism can and should be addressed using our perfectly fine “normal” laws.

And I really don’t want something like this in Sweden - The law HR.1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007, which is being passed in the USA. It defines “homegrown terrorism” as: the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

This is what the American Civil Liberties Union have to say about it (they’re not too excited, as you can imagine). A snippet:

“Law enforcement should focus on action, not thought. We need to worry about the people who are committing crimes rather than those who harbor beliefs that the government may consider to be extreme.”

So true. So even though my gut feeling tells me that of course the SMR members should be tried as terrorists, the implications, real and possible, makes me think that it might not be such a good idea after all.