Showing posts with label Zoe Schlanger. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Zoe Schlanger. Show all posts

Kate Connolly in Berlin | The Guardian



Right to be forgotten advocates argue details online can be out-of-date, misleading and even downright wrong. Read this story on the Guardian here.



Viktor Mayer-Schönberger says the ability to forget our past, both on and offline, is an essential part of what makes us human


He describes himself as the "midwife" of the idea of the right to be forgotten. And for Viktor Mayer-Schönberger , it's not just about the legal, moral and technical arguments - but about what it is to be human.


"The more I've worked on data protection over the past 20 years, the more I've realised that at the heart of this, what matters as much as the privacy aspect is the issue of human decision-making," said Mayer-Schönberger, professor of internet governance at the Oxford Internet Institute. "Humans need to make decisions about the present and the future. The beauty of the human brain is that we forget, which enables us to think in the present. That is necessary to help us make decisions."


He cites the case of AJ, a woman from California, later identified as Jill Price, whose story came to light about six years ago. Price suffers from hyperthymesia, a neurological condition that means she cannot forget anything that has ever happened in her life. Mayer-Schönberger says that if everything about us is kept on internet databases, the effect, while not as drastic as in Price's case, is nevertheless similar.


"Our brains reconstruct the past based on our present values. Take the diary you wrote 15 years ago, and you see how your values have changed. There is a cognitive dissonance between now and then. The brain reconstructs the memory and deletes certain things. It is how we construct ourselves as human beings, rather than flagellating ourselves about things we've done.


"But digital memories will only remind us of the failures of our past, so that we have no ability to forget or reconstruct our past. Knowledge is based on forgetting. If we want to abstract things we need to forget the details to be able to see the forest and not the trees. If you have digital memories, you can only see the trees."


Digital memories, he said, are very different to analogue, photographic ones. "Photos, whether blurry or not, still leave a lot of room for interpretation, unlike, say, a high-definition video, where there's no escaping everything you said and did."


Mayer-Schönberger, who advises companies, governments and international organisations on the societal effects of the use of data, advocates an "expiration date" (a little like a supermarket use-by date) for all data so that it can be deleted once it has been used for its primary purpose. "Otherwise companies and governments will hold on to it for ever."


He cites surveys showing that people increasingly approve of the right to be forgotten. A survey by the University of Berkeley two years ago, he said, "clearly shows that people want the right to be forgotten to be legislated by US congress." He said the survey found 90% of the 60+ generation want this.


"There has hardly been a legislative issue in US history that has received such high acceptance," he said.


But what is of even more significance, he said, was the "84% of 18- to 24-year-olds - those born into the digital age - who want the right to be forgotten to be legislated. Their desire is not much less than that of the 60+ year-olds. There's a deep-seated concern in the population that the internet companies and data users have too much power."


Among the more refined arguments that the lobbyists use, he said, are that "right to-be-forgotten legislation violates and invalidates freedom of speech and expression. But this is bullshit. It's a ridiculous mis-statement" of what new EU legislative proposals set out.


Another lobbyist argument, he says, is that it is "technically impossible to implement the right to be forgotten, because of the many back-ups of back-ups of back-ups that take place".


"But if you can be deleted from Google's database, ie if you carry out a search on yourself and it no longer shows up , it might be in Google's back-up, but if 99% of the population don't have access to it you have effectively been deleted," he said.


guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


The Guardian is an independent, global news organisation that invests in original journalism and in-depth analysis. For more from the Guardian, visit http://www.guardiannews.com. © 2011 Guardian News And Media Limited.








via TPM News http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/04/right-to-internet-erasure-protects-freedom-to-forget-past.php

NEETZAN ZIMMERMAN | Gawker



Chick-fil-A and its president/COO Dan Cathy have gone out of their way several times to make it clear that they stand in direct opposition to the wave of equality sweeping the nation, namely in matters of marriage.


"We support Biblical families," Cathy said in his most recent statement on the issue, canceling out reports that he and his company had softened their stance on marriage equality.


Though there has been no official word of any changes since that remark was made late last year, at least one Chick-fil-A franchisee has since decided to break ranks and express support for the marriage equality movement, while claiming to speak for the company as a whole.


"There were a lot of things said over the past year," said Corey Braun, who owns and operates a Chick-fil-A in Rancho Cucamonga, California. "I wanted to show that Chick-fil-A doesn't discriminate against anybody. We serve everyone. We're happy to serve the community and this was an opportunity to have this group come in and show them our hospitality regardless of their beliefs, sexual orientation, or whatever."


Bruan surprised demonstrators at a local same-sex marriage rally by handing out coupons for free meals to attendees. "Chick-fil-A has never been about hate," Braun said, insisting that whatever was said was "taken out of context."


And he told the crowd as much using a microphone and an amplifier.


"We got quiet and we were listening, and with some skepticism," said LGBT activist Eden Anderson. "But really, what I experienced with the community, is when people are open and apologetic and accepting, it's touching to us."


Anderson said that "overall," the protesters came away with the feeling that "Chick-fil-A in Rancho Cucamonga is welcoming to us."


Chick-fil-A has yet to confirm if Braun's views do indeed reflect those of the company at large.


For the record, one supporter of "the Biblical definition of marriage" claims she phoned up Braun and asked if her kind could also get free coupons and "he said absolutely -- just plan an 'event.'"


[H/T: Eater, screengrabs via Chick-fil-A, The Daily Bulletin ]


Gawker dishes the nation's most current and cutting gossip across media, entertainment, technology, and business. Founded in 2002 and namechecked frequently in mainstream publications, the site is essential reading for those who want big media hypocrisy debunked and faux-sincerity exposed, all with a healthy dose of snark.









via TPM News http://da.feedsportal.com/c/34753/f/640424/s/2a2903f4/l/0Ltalkingpointsmemo0N0Cnews0C20A130C0A30Cchick0Efil0Ea0Etries0Eto0Ebury0Ethe0Ehatchet0Eby0Egiving0Eaway0Efree0Efood0Eto0Esame0Esex0Emarriage0Esupporters0Bphp/ia1.htm

The Guardian



Nato helicopter fire reportedly kills two children along with nine suspected Taliban fighters near the town of Ghazni. Read this story on the Guardian here.

Nato helicopter fire reportedly kills two children along with nine suspected Taliban fighters near the town of Ghazni


A Nato helicopter has reportedly killed two children during an attack on Taliban fighters.The helicopter opened fire as it supported Afghan soldiers near the town of Ghazni in south-east Afghanistan, despite president Hamid Karzai forbidding troops to call for foreign air support.


Afghan police had been patrolling in Ghazni when they came under attack by insurgents, Nato spokesman Major Adam Wojack said.


"International Security Assistance Forces [ISAF] supported the Afghan unit in contact by engaging the insurgent forces with helicopter-delivered direct fire," he said, adding that ISAF was investigating reports of civilian casualties.


Nine Taliban fighters were killed and eight civilians were wounded, according to senior Afghan police detective Colonel Mohammad Hussain.


A Reuters reporter saw the bodies of two children, whom local people said had been killed in the air strike.


Last month Karzai forbade Afghan forces from calling for Nato air support and Nato from striking "in Afghan homes or villages" after an air strike that killed 10 civilians.


Civilian casualties caused by air strikes are a significant source of friction between Karzai and his international allies as Washington and Kabul negotiate over the size of a future US military presence after most international troops depart by the end of 2014.


Some Afghan officials say privately that limiting air strikes exposes the 352,000-strong Afghan security forces to greater danger as they take over the responsibilities of international forces.


Foreign air power is especially critical to cover the mountainous regions near the Pakistani border.


guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


The Guardian is an independent, global news organisation that invests in original journalism and in-depth analysis. For more from the Guardian, visit http://www.guardiannews.com. © 2011 Guardian News And Media Limited.








via TPM News http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2013/03/nato-air-strike-reportedly-kills-two-children-nine-taliban-in-south-eastern-afghanistan.php

The Guardian



Turkey responds following an apology by Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on Friday for a raid on a Turkish flotilla bound for the Gaza strip in May 2010





The Guardian is an independent, global news organisation that invests in original journalism and in-depth analysis. For more from the Guardian, visit http://www.guardiannews.com. © 2011 Guardian News And Media Limited.








via TPM News http://da.feedsportal.com/c/34753/f/640424/s/29e79b58/l/0Ltalkingpointsmemo0N0Cnews0C20A130C0A30Cvideo0Eturkey0Eresponds0Eto0Eisraels0Eapology0Eflotilla0Eraid0Bphp/ia1.htm

JAMIE CONDLIFFE | Gizmodo



Twitter has finally patented the unique style of communication that its messaging service provides. The patent, issued yesterday, describes a system where users follow each other and messages don't have specific recipients.


Which is exactly how Twitter works! In fact, the patent--which lists Twitter founders Jack Dorsey and Biz Stone as inventors--makes a big fuss about the fact that senders needn't know where their messages will end up. From USPTO:



The system beneficially allows for device independent point to multipoint communication. The destination endpoints are independent of the source entry points, and the message sender does not need to have knowledge of the endpoints, or endpoint-specific user addresses.



But now its got its hand on the patent--originally filed way back in 2007!--don't expect to see it doggedly pursuing litigation against competitors. In fact, Twitter has publicly promised to only use patents defensively. In a statement, Twitter explained:



"Like many companies, we apply for patents on a bunch of our inventions. We also think a lot about how those patents may be used in the future, which is why we introduced the Innovator's Patent Agreement to keep control of those patents in the hands of engineers and designers."



Which, in this modern world of trolling, is a refreshing and heartening thing to hear indeed. [USPTO via Verge]



Gizmodo is dedicated to gadgets, gizmos, and cutting-edge consumer electronics. Its tech-hungry audience stops by frequently to check out the newest products and recommendations for laptops, cell phones, PDAs, digital cameras, home entertainment, and other shiny new toys. Widely viewed as an authority in tech media, Gizmodo publishes breaking news and reviews 60 times per weekday.








via TPM News http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2013/03/twitter-just-patented-itself.php

RUTH SPENCER | The Guardian



Ten years after the Iraq war, we asked veterans to tell us how they feel looking back at the time they spent serving abroad. To read this story at the Guardian, click here.

Ten years after the Iraq war, we asked veterans to tell us how they feel looking back at the time they spent serving abroad


Today marks the 10th anniversary of the start of the Iraq War. As a part of our ongoing effort to open up the topics discussed on Cif to readers with common experiences, we asked Iraq and Afghanistan veterans from all over the world to weigh in on the issues that have arisen in our series Iraq war: 10 years on. In a call out on the Guardian, we asked them to reflect on their time serving in the Middle East. Their stories show the diversity of experiences - in the field and coming home - of those who served:


Steve, US Army Reserves Sergeant in Iraq


I don't regret my time there - I regret that the US government decided to go to war. I asked a Shiite Iraqi Colonel, who I helped train and who later died in an assassination, whether he was for or against the US-led invasion. He said that under Saddam Hussein, most people were afraid to express political opinions in public for fear of arrest or worse, but they had regular water and electricity; now, he noted, free expression or even wearing a military uniform makes Iraqis targets in their own homes. Water and electricity aren't reliable services in urban centers. For me, after witnessing the destruction of Iraq's infrastructure and political institutions, it became abundantly clear that the war hurt scores more than it saved.


Marcus, Australian Colonel in HQ Multi-National Forces in Iraq


I am very proud of being part of the multi-national forces in Iraq. I did not meet one Iraqi who was sorry to see the back of Saddam Hussein. I think the challenge of reforming and rebuilding the deeply fractious and traumatised state that Saddam had created was enormous. Sure there may have been flaws in the post-occupation plan to return to normalcy but let's not fail to place the blame for the descent into violence at al-Qaida's feet (where it remains to this day) and to some degree those Iraqi's who chose to participate in sectarian violence. While there remains much to be done, I still believe that Iraq will be a better place in the future had there not been an intervention.


Rp578, UK Infantry Corporal, Afghanistan and Iraq


I served on both Iraq and Afghanistan as an Infantry NCO, being called up as a reservist on both occasions. I do believe that on a local level we did bring some measure of good, in the form of security, to the people of Sangin where I was based in Afghanistan (2009), although nationally I did struggle to see any kind of coherent strategy. Iraq by contrast was more disillusioning. I'd been sceptical about the reasons for the invasion, but by the time I deployed there (2005-2006), I believed that now we were there, we could engineer some good for that country. I believe that removing Saddam Hussein was in itself a good thing to do and perhaps something that the 'west' might actually have been obliged to do, given that his dictatorship had in part, at certain periods, been supported by us. There is a tendency amongst military men to blame politicians for our shortcomings, but I think our recent experiences have caused many to start looking within. During my Iraq tour, I was exposed to the environment of the Brigade HQ on a regular basis and was stunned at how much heat and noise was generated by the massed ranks of a bloated HQ formation rather than any light. During my Afghan tour, I was far removed from any level of HQ element, but transiting in and out of the country you did glimpse the mini-cities that had sprouted up. I think that their very existence was at some level a part of our problem.


Liz, US Army Captain, Iraq


I served in the US Army, and anyone who has will tell you there are no individual efforts. No one person won (or lost) the war in Iraq. I cannot say that I personally made the country better or worse for the Iraqis. I truly feel that I assisted in making the country safer for American troops, though I know the vast population would not say that's reason to send soldiers to war. And yes I agree it sounds contradictory. I think that as an Army, it taught us we need to train better. That having the best technology does not necessarily mean you won the war.


Darren, UK Radio Operator, Iraq


My experiences in Iraq changed my life dramatically. Having served 2 tours in Iraq (firstly in the initial invasion, and secondly in 2005), I have very differing feelings resulting from each tour. My feelings after both tours were mixed, I made a number of Iraqi friends, one I will never forget called Ibrahim, he was our air conditioning engineer, and a former soldier in Saddam's Army. He would tell me stories of how he and his family were treated under Saddam, the beatings he would receive as a Shiite soldier and the oppression of the people of Basra. He said he would take Coalition troops over Saddam's troops any day. For this I felt a small bit of pride, yet looking at the bigger picture, I do not. I feel embarrassment for the way we may have behaved towards some Iraqi civilians, we were after all outsiders in their nation, and also I feel betrayal on the forces by our political masters. The British Army I joined put a big focus on hearts and minds and had acted professionally in more recent conflict prior to Iraq; however the quagmire of Iraq (and the way a certain few UK troops behaved during the conflict) has damaged that image greatly, I do not think this is reflective of the Armed Forces as a whole.


Jennifer Pacanowski, US Army medic, Iraq


My time in Iraq during the year of 2004 was the best and worst time of my life. I met some of the best friends I will ever have. However, the leadership was concerned primarily with their own agenda of promotion. The missions were unnecessarily and consistently dangerous hardly ever having the lives and moral health of the soldiers and marines as their priority. I live in dream called life, where nothing good seems real or sustainable. I live in a nightmare of Iraq and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder that never runs out of fuel. I also learned that creating community and healing holistically is the best way to transition from war. The military is not addressing the suicide rate of its active duty because they refuse to approach mental health as a priority when returning. It is treated like a stigma and the soldier or marine is treated as damaged goods.


Siv, US Army, Sergeant in Iraq


I am proud of the work we did helping the local populace and the stability we provided, but I don't feel we did anything that will have a lasting impact. I would love to be proven wrong though. If Iraq and Afghanistan survive with some democratic functionality, it could have a huge beneficial impact on history. It was grueling and a relentless deployment, but it was an experience I will never forget, but at times wish I could. We did some good and dealt with the terrible. I am not down-trodden or overly prideful. I did what I was ordered to do and served my country, but I hope my children do not. I hope my children enjoy their freedom and do right by themselves and their family. Ground-force occupations are a dated and absurd strategy to use in today's era of warfare. Big Army is as dated of a strategy as colonial warfare was with standing lines. Politicians like to take pictures with us, but very few actually care about anything but enhancing their talking points. A soldier at the very least deserves to be spoken to, not used as an idle prop or in some display of North Korean-like parade propaganda.


Joe Glenton, UK Lance Corporal, in Afghanistan


I learned that I am not willing to just go along with thing because "it's my job". That position, often repeated, is a contender for the biggest cop-out statement in history. The war made me political and made me realize that imperialism is not a thing which used to happen; it did not end when pith helmets went out of vogue.


Isaac Sherman, US Air Force, Staff Sergeant, Security Forces, Iraq


I feel like I was able to witness first hand the souring of good intentions. I was stationed at Camp Bucca, the leading internment facility in Iraq, and I got to see the constant attempts to win hearts and minds go south because of cultural rifts. I have no doubt in my mind that the intentions, at least in the lower echelons, were pure; we were really trying to help these people, to educate them, to feed their families, to provide health care. But our success had minimal impact. On the whole, they may be a little bit better off for our efforts, but it wasn't worth the cost in lives or coffers.


Tom Fenwick, US Michigan Army National Guard, E-5 Sergeant, Iraq


Our mission was to train the Iraqi Police officers in Baghdad and Sadr City. They loved seeing us every day, it meant they were getting training and equipment that they severely needed. Even more importantly, however, were the civilian Iraqi people with whom we interacted daily. You could see in their eyes how grateful they were for us being there. Whether we accomplished it or not can be debated, but these civilians were given hope for a better life by us being there. I learned the mainstream media was quick to point out any mishaps, injured/killed soldiers and civilian casualties. They were much more reluctant to post the positives such as when my unit helped secure polling places in Baghdad during the elections of January 2005. The stories about the Iraqi people taking democracy into their own hands were able to be found but they were generally buried beneath stories of a surprisingly few insurgent attacks on the polling places.


Ray Facund, US Army, Specialist/Sergeant, Iraq:


After returning from Iraq and separating from active duty service, I learned that it isn't easy to make the transition to civilian life. I didn't want to go to the VA, and I didn't want to talk about the things I'd experienced, and it took a long time to get over my post-traumatic stress. I heard someone say that there is a boot camp to break you down and submit to a life of orders, but no "reverse boot camp" to build you back up and give you the confidence to move forward after your service has ended. Some may find it easy, but most combat vets need more support.




guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


The Guardian is an independent, global news organisation that invests in original journalism and in-depth analysis. For more from the Guardian, visit http://www.guardiannews.com. © 2011 Guardian News And Media Limited.








via TPM News http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2013/03/iraq-veterans-around-the-world-reflect-the-best-and-worst-time-of-my-life.php

ADRIAN CHEN | Gawker



News that Reuters deputy social media editor Matthew Keys had been indicted for allegedly conspiring with Anonymous shocked his colleagues in online media. Keys has always seemed like a normal guy who constantly tweets news links. But in the wake of his arrest, details about his online past have emerged that make his entanglement with Anonymous seem less out of character.


Yesterday Keys was charged with conspiring with Anonymous members to hack an ex-employer in December, 2010. Keys was suspended from Reuters today.


It turns out Keys has had a history of unusual internet behavior, as pointed out by BuzzFeed. The troll knowledgebase Encyclopedia Dramatica outlines a long list (NSFW) of his alleged internet escapades, which he carried out under a number of handles including madrigalskylark, angelofadia and sunriseagain. Encyclopedia Dramatica is far from a reliable source, but the fact that he has such a long and detailed entry suggests he was mixed up in a seedy online crowd.


In the mid-2000s, under the handle MadrigalSkylark on Livejournal, Keys was apparently a notorious troll, known for starting drama. Encyclopedia Dramatica contends that MadrigalSkylark was "known for his attention whore antics, leaving phony suicide notes, passive-aggressive bitchiness," and more. Some of the allegations on Encyclopedia Dramatic include that he was obsessed with the Los Angeles radio station KLLC, to the point that the station had to publicly declare he was not an employee. Keys was also apparently banned from Daviswiki, community-powered news and information resource on Davis, California after trolling the site with a number of sockpuppet accounts.


"I don't believe *anyone else* has ever been nominated for a ban on the wiki except for Matthew Keys who started purposefully vandalizing it and trying to get banned," wrote a poster on Davis Wiki


At the same time, it seems Keys was struggling with personal issues. In 2005 he posted to Livejournal a post post called "A Cry for Help," in which he wrote: "I'm really not deserving of anyone's love. No wonder I don't have any friends. Look at how I act! I need help. What's wrong with me?!"


Others have alleged creepy behavior on gay dating sites from the time. Gawker commenter dogmaticequation says he knew Keys online "years ago" and wrote that Keys, who is openly gay:



Would make life hell for people who refused to date him. He would stalk and use his tenuous grasp of early social networking to create shitty websites and Craigslist posts full of lies and material created to defame people he didn't like.


He did this to me, he kept trying to get me to go out with him. I refused. Instead of attacking me he went after one of my friends (who he thought was my Boyfriend). He posted fake profiles on dating sights, and posts on Craigslist with his image, with copy that stated that he had herpes, HIV and other diseases.



Juding from posts on his various blogs he seemed to have kept relatively online from 2006 until late 2010. It was then that he reached out to Anonymous hackers, in a move that ultimately led to his indictment. Keys told me at the time that he sought out an Anonymous IRC chat room, and offered to use his journalistic experience as a press liaison for them, after reading about the group's attacks on credit card companies that had cut off Wikileaks in December, 2010. He was then brought into the fold by a group of elite hackers.


Here is how he described his infiltration to me in a phone interview in December, 2010:



"The day that the decentralized group started hacking Visa's and Mastercard's websites with DDoS attacks, I went into their IRC room and wound up befriending someone who belonged to this higher ranking group called the Internet Feds. I identified myself as a former journalist, which was why they allowed me in that group. [to act as a press liaison.] It was me and about 14 people, mostly hackers."



(Keys reached out to me after Gawker was hacked by a team of hackers made up of Internet Feds members.)


But Keys said he'd always planned on exposing the group. Over the course of the next few months, he did provide Gawker with inside information and chat transcripts relating to the so-called Internet Feds, an Anonymous subgroup out of which the notorious Lulzsec gang emerged. His defense claims he was acting solely as an undercover journalist. "He's being prosecuted for that, for going to get the story," one of Keys' attorneys, told the Huffington Post.


Prosecutors say he went much further than that. Under the handle AESCracked, he allegedly gave hackers the login credentials related to his job at a radio station owned by the Tribune Company, which owns the Los Angeles Times, after he was fired. The hackers allegedly used the logins to deface a Los Angeles Times story among other hacks. Now Keys faces 25 years in prison.


Although he's suspended from Reuters, Keys has been keeping his 22,000 followers up to date on his case on Twitter. On Twitter he announced that he's tapped lawyers Jay Leiderman, who has been involved in a number of high-profile Anonymous cases, and Tor Ekelund, who defended the notorious internet troll Andrew "Weev" Auernheimer, to represent him. When a Twitter user named Rob Engelsman tweeted that he'd been discussing Keys' at the bar with friends, Keys tweeted, "where's the bar?"


Gawker dishes the nation's most current and cutting gossip across media, entertainment, technology, and business. Founded in 2002 and namechecked frequently in mainstream publications, the site is essential reading for those who want big media hypocrisy debunked and faux-sincerity exposed, all with a healthy dose of snark.








via TPM News http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2013/03/reuters-social-media-editor-anonymous-strange-internet-past.php

LIZ FORD | The Guardian




Negotiations end with agreement on ending violence against women at the Commission on the Status of Women, but civil society groups express concerns


UN officials and activists expressed relief and delight over news that an agreement had been reached at this year's Commission on the Status of Women (CSW).


Greeted with cheers, the agreed outcome document of the 57th CSW, which was announced on Friday evening, was hailed as an "important step" to end violence against women and girls.


After months of behind the scenes lobbying and two weeks of difficult negotiations in New York, the outcome document included strong agreements to promote gender equality, women's empowerment, and ensure women's reproductive rights and access to sexual and reproductive health services - an area of particular contention. It reaffirmed previous international agreements on women's rights, such as those made in Cairo in 1994.


But the agreement was hard fought and civil society groups expressed "deep concern" over attempts by some conservative member states and groups to derail the process and undermine previous agreements.


Disagreements over the language of the text continued throughout Friday.


NGO ActionAid welcomed news that the CSW had managed to reach an agreement, following the failure of members to do so last year. The commission took up the topic of ending violence against women in 2003.


"This reflects the increased efforts of a number of countries who were determined that the process should not fail again and is to their credit," ActionAid said.


"That said, the process has raised some clear red flags about the state of global thinking on women's rights. A small but significant number of countries, led by Iran, Russia, Syria and the Vatican, have pushed hard to roll back language on women's rights to where we were decades ago. In a world in which a third of women will experience violence in their lifetime, the backlash against women we have seen at this year's CSW should send a strong message to all governments that we must redouble our efforts and investment in these issues."


Vivian Thabet, women's rights programme director at CARE-Egypt, said: "It has been sad to see some governments at the CSW attempting to unravel longstanding international commitments to protecting women and girls. Women's rights have become a kind of bartering chip to be traded away for political agendas that have little or nothing to do with the interests and wellbeing of women and girls."


But Françoise Girard, president of the International Women's Health Coalition (IWHC), added: "Once again, we women have shown we're an irresistible force. We will not be denied our rights. In the context of these difficult negotiations, we have made gains that we can use to protect women and girls from violence when we all go home."


The IWHC welcomed the explicit call in the agreed conclusions for accessible and affordable healthcare services, including sexual and reproductive health services, such as emergency contraception and safe abortion for victims of violence - another highly contested issue over the past two weeks. For the first time, the CSW has urged governments to procure and supply female condoms.


The outcome document emphasised the need to end harmful traditional practices, including child marriage, and called on member states to ensure services were focused on marginalised groups, such as indigenous women, older women, female migrant workers, women with disabilities, women living with HIV, and women held in custody. Protection for sex workers was understood to have been dropped.


The links between HIV and violence against women were also noted. The agreement condemned and called for action to prevent violence against women in healthcare settings, including forced sterilisation.


UN Women said: "By adopting this document, governments have made clear that discrimination and violence against women and girls has no place in the 21st century. There is no turning back."


UN Women's executive director, Michelle Bachelet, said she was "particularly heartened" that an agreement was reached this year.


"We will keep moving forward to the day when women and girls can live free of fear, violence and discrimination. The 21st century is the century of inclusion and women's full and equal rights and participation," said Bachelet.


Following the conclusion of the CSW, Bachelet announced her resignation as head of UN Women. She plans to return to Chile, where it is rumoured she is considering running again for president.


The spokesman for the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, urged governments to act on the 17-page outcome document.


"The secretary general hopes that all the partners who came together at this historic session and others around the world will now translate this agreement into concrete action to prevent and end violence against women and girls," said the spokesman.


Justine Greening, Britain's international development secretary, said: "I'm delighted that the CSW has reached an agreement after last year's shocking result. It sends a clear and unified message to the world that there is no place in any society for acts of violence against girls and women. Britain has never stood on the sidelines when it comes to women's rights and we must now use this momentum to help push for international action on preventing and eliminating these appalling crimes."






The Guardian is an independent, global news organisation that invests in original journalism and in-depth analysis. For more from the Guardian, visit http://www.guardiannews.com. © 2011 Guardian News And Media Limited.








via TPM News http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2013/03/activists-welcome-hard-fought-un-agreement-on-womens-rights.php