organization:r

  • Trump’s Iran policy is deepening mistrust in North Korea, experts say
    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/trump-s-iran-policy-deepening-mistrust-north-korea-experts-say-n1021901

    “From the North Koreans’ perspective, the Americans just can’t be trusted — full stop,” said Tom Plant, director of the Proliferation and Nuclear Policy at the Royal United Services Institute, a London think tank.

    “It is so bizarre to say this, but there’s just not the stability of policy in Washington that there is in Pyongyang,” Plant said. “They will always be worrying about how certain they could be that a deal made with one president would be honored by another.”

    #etats-unis

  • Cobra (Chinese band) - Wikipedia
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_(Chinese_band)


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUn3aJ1kN-Y

    Cobra (眼镜蛇乐队 Yanjingshe yuedui) was an all-female rock band from Beijing, China. The band formed in 1989, becoming the first all-female rock band in mainland China. With only one album out, they disbanded in the late 1990s. Their style was a gloomy, bluesy type of hard rock with slight touches of new wave and alternative metal. Cobra was very popular in the beginning of their career.

    Group members include Yang Ying, Yu Jin, Wang Xiaofang, and Xiao Nan. They have played at CBGB in New York City.

    Discography
    1994 - First released as Hypocrisy (Germany 1994, USA 1996) republished as Yanjingshe (China 1996)
    2000 - Cobra - Yangjingshe II (China)

    https://web.archive.org/web/20050521082042/http://www.niubi.com/cobra
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sXOjP7zsgg

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdY2LEY7O6w&list=PL9maXLmfUbuY7GIiCFrcULKcZk1jTsufJ

    #Chine #musique #femmes

  • The New York Times and its Uyghur “activist” - World Socialist Web Site
    https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/05/09/uygh-m09.html

    9 May 2019 - The New York Times has furnished a case study of the way in which it functions as the conduit for the utterly hypocritical “human rights” campaigns fashioned by the CIA and the State Department to prosecute the predatory interests of US imperialism.

    While turning a blind eye to the gross abuses of democratic rights by allies such as Saudi Arabia, the US has brazenly used “human rights” for decades as the pretext for wars, diplomatic intrigues and regime-change. The media is completely integrated into these operations.

    Another “human rights” campaign is now underway. The New York Times is part of the mounting chorus of condemnation of China over its treatment of the Turkic-speaking, Muslim Uyghur minority in the western Chinese province of Xinjiang.

    In an article on May 4 entitled “In push for trade deal, Trump administration shelves sanctions over China’s crackdown on Uyghurs,” the New York Times joined in criticism of the White House, particularly by the Democrats, for failing to impose punitive measures on Beijing.

    The strident denunciations of China involve unsubstantiated allegations that it is detaining millions of Uyghurs without charge or trial in what Beijing terms vocational training camps.

    The New York Times reported, without qualification, the lurid claims of US officials, such as Assistant Secretary of Defence Randall Schriver, who last Friday condemned “the mass imprisonment of Chinese Muslims in concentration camps” and boosted the commonly cited figure of up to a million to “up to three million” in detention. No evidence has been presented for either claim.

    The repression of the Uyghurs is completely bound up with the far broader oppression of the working class by the Chinese capitalist elites and the Chinese Communist Party regime that defends their interests. The US campaign on the Uyghurs, however, has nothing to do with securing the democratic rights of workers, but is aimed at stirring up reactionary separatist sentiment.

    The US has longstanding ties to right-wing separatist organisations based on Chinese minorities—Tibetans as well as the Uyghurs—that it helped create, fund and in some cases arm. As the US, first under President Obama and now Trump, has escalated its diplomatic, economic and military confrontation with China, the “human rights” of Uyghurs has been increasingly brought to the fore.

    Washington’s aim, at the very least, is to foment separatist opposition in Xinjiang, which is a crucial source of Chinese energy and raw materials as well as being pivotal to its key Belt and Road Initiative to integrate China more closely with Eurasia. Such unrest would not only weaken China but could lead to a bloody war and the fracturing of the country. Uyghur separatists, who trained in the US network of Islamist terrorist groups in Syria, openly told Radio Free Asia last year of their intention to return to China to wage an armed insurgency.

    The New York Times is completely in tune with the aims behind these intrigues—a fact that is confirmed by its promotion of Uyghur “activist” Rushan Abbas.

    Last weekend’s article highlighted Abbas as the organiser of a tiny demonstration in Washington to “pressure Treasury Department officials to take action against Chinese officials involved in the Xinjiang abuses.” She told the newspaper that the Uyghur issue should be included as part of the current US-China trade talks, and declared: “They are facing indoctrination, brainwashing and the elimination of their values as Muslims.”

    An article “Uyghur Americans speak against China’s internment camps” on October 18 last year cited her remarks at the right-wing think tank, the Hudson Institute, where she “spoke out” about the detention of her aunt and sister. As reported in the article: “I hope the Chinese ambassador here reads this,” she said, wiping away tears. “I will not stop. I will be everywhere and speak on this at every event from now on.”

    Presented with a tearful woman speaking about her family members, very few readers would have the slightest inkling of Abbas’s background, about which the New York Times quite deliberately says nothing. Abbas is a highly connected political operator with long standing ties to the Pentagon, the State Department and US intelligence agencies at the highest level as well as top Republican Party politicians. She is a key figure in the Uyghur organisations that the US has supported and funded.

    Currently, Abbas is Director of Business Development in ISI Consultants, which offers to assist “US companies to grow their businesses in Middle East and African markets.” Her credentials, according to the company website, include “over 15 years of experience in global business development, strategic business analysis, business consultancy and government affairs throughout the Middle East, Africa, CIS regions, Europe, Asia, Australia, North America and Latin America.”

    The website also notes: “She also has extensive experience working with US government agencies, including Homeland Security, Department of Defense, Department of State, Department of Justice, and various US intelligence agencies.” As “an active campaigner for human rights,” she “works closely with members of the US Senate, Congressional Committees, the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, the US Department of State and several other US government departments and agencies.”

    This brief summary makes clear that Abbas is well connected in the highest levels of the state apparatus and in political circles. It also underscores the very close ties between the Uyghur organisations, in which she and her family members are prominent, and the US intelligence and security agencies.

    A more extensive article and interview with Abbas appeared in the May 2019 edition of the magazine Bitter Winter, which is published by the Italian-based Center for Studies on New Religions. The magazine focuses on “religious liberty and human rights in China” and is part of a conservative, right-wing network in Europe and the United States. The journalist who interviewed Abbas, Marco Respinti, is a senior fellow at the Russell Kirk Centre for Cultural Renewal, and a board member of the Centre for European Renewal—both conservative think tanks.

    The article explains that Abbas was a student activist at Xinjiang University during the 1989 protests by students and workers against the oppressive Beijing regime, but left China prior to the brutal June 4 military crackdown that killed thousands in the capital and throughout the country. At the university, she collaborated with Dolkun Isa and “has worked closely with him ever since.”

    Dolkun Isa is currently president of the World Uyghur Congress, established in 2004 as an umbrella group for a plethora of Uyghur organisations. It receives funding from the National Endowment for Democracy—which is one of the fronts used by the CIA and the US State Department for fomenting opposition to Washington’s rivals, including so-called colour revolutions, around the world.

    Isa was the subject of an Interpol red notice after China accused him of having connections to the armed separatist group, the East Turkestan Liberation Organisation, a claim he denied. East Turkestan is the name given to Xinjiang by Uyghur separatists to denote its historic connections to Turkey. None of the Western countries in which he traveled moved to detain him and the red notice was subsequently removed, no doubt under pressure from Washington.

    Bitter Winter explained that after moving to the US, Abbas cofounded the first Uyghur organisation in the United States in 1993—the California-based Tengritagh Overseas Students and Scholars Association. She also played a key role in the formation of the Uyghur American Association in 1998, which receives funding from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). Last year its Uyghur Human Rights Project was awarded two NED grants totaling $320,000. Her brother Rishat Abbas was the association’s first vice-chairman and is currently the honorary chairman of the Uyghur Academy based in Turkey.

    When the US Congress funded a Uyghur language service for the Washington-based Radio Free Asia, Abbas became its first reporter and news anchor, broadcasting daily to China. Radio Free Asia, like its counterpart Radio Free Europe, began its existence in the 1950s as a CIA conduit for anti-communist propaganda. It was later transferred to the US Information Agency, then the US State Department and before being incorporated as an “independent,” government-funded body. Its essential purpose as a vehicle for US disinformation and lies has not changed, however.

    In a particularly revealing passage, Bitter Winter explained: “From 2002–2003, Ms. Abbas supported Operation Enduring Freedom as a language specialist at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.” In the course of the interview with the magazine, Abbas attempted to explain away her involvement with the notorious prison camp by saying that she was simply acting on behalf of 22 Uyghurs who were wrongfully detained and ultimately released—after being imprisoned for between four to 11 years!

    Given the denunciations of Chinese detention camps, one might expect that Abbas would have something critical to say about Guantanamo Bay, where inmates are held indefinitely without charge or trial and in many cases tortured. However, she makes no criticism of the prison or its procedures, nor for that matter of Operation Enduring Freedom—the illegal US-led invasion and occupation of Iraq that resulted in the deaths of a million civilians.

    It is clear why. Abbas is plugged into to the very top levels of the US state apparatus and political establishment in Washington. Her stints with Radio Free Asia and at Guantanamo Bay are undoubtedly not the only times that she has been directly on the payroll.

    As Bitter Winter continued: “She has frequently briefed members of the US Congress and officials at the State Department on the human rights situation of the Uyghur people, and their history and culture, and arranged testimonies before Congressional committees and Human Rights Commissions.

    “She provided her expertise to other federal and military agencies as well, and in 2007 she assisted during a meeting between then-President George W. Bush and Rebiya Kadeer, the world-famous moral leader of the Uyghurs, in Prague. Later that year she also briefed then First Lady Laura Bush in the White House on the Human Rights situation in Xinjiang.”

    It should be noted, Rebiya Kadeer is the “the world-famous moral leader of the Uyghurs,” only in the eyes of the CIA and the US State Department who have assiduously promoted her, and of the US-funded Uyghur organisations. She was one of the wealthiest businesswomen in China who attended the National People’s Congress before her husband left for the US and began broadcasting for Radio Free Asia and Voice of America. She subsequently fled China to the US and has served as president both of the World Uyghur Congress and the American Uyghur Association.

    The fact that Russan Abbas is repeatedly being featured in the New York Times is an indication that she is also being groomed to play a leading role in the mounting US propaganda offensive against China over the persecution of the Uyghurs. It is also a telling indictment of the New York Times which opens its pages to her without informing its readers of her background. Like Abbas, the paper of record is also plugged into the state apparatus and its intelligence agencies.

    #Chine #Xinjiang_Weiwuer_zizhiqu #USA #impérialisme #services_secretes

    新疆維吾爾自治區 / 新疆维吾尔自治区, Xīnjiāng Wéiwú’ěr zìzhìqū, englisch Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region

  • Beyond the Hype of Lab-Grown Diamonds
    https://earther.gizmodo.com/beyond-the-hype-of-lab-grown-diamonds-1834890351

    Billions of years ago when the world was still young, treasure began forming deep underground. As the edges of Earth’s tectonic plates plunged down into the upper mantle, bits of carbon, some likely hailing from long-dead life forms were melted and compressed into rigid lattices. Over millions of years, those lattices grew into the most durable, dazzling gems the planet had ever cooked up. And every so often, for reasons scientists still don’t fully understand, an eruption would send a stash of these stones rocketing to the surface inside a bubbly magma known as kimberlite.

    There, the diamonds would remain, nestled in the kimberlite volcanoes that delivered them from their fiery home, until humans evolved, learned of their existence, and began to dig them up.

    The epic origin of Earth’s diamonds has helped fuel a powerful marketing mythology around them: that they are objects of otherworldly strength and beauty; fitting symbols of eternal love. But while “diamonds are forever” may be the catchiest advertising slogan ever to bear some geologic truth, the supply of these stones in the Earth’s crust, in places we can readily reach them, is far from everlasting. And the scars we’ve inflicted on the land and ourselves in order to mine diamonds has cast a shadow that still lingers over the industry.

    Some diamond seekers, however, say we don’t need to scour the Earth any longer, because science now offers an alternative: diamonds grown in labs. These gems aren’t simulants or synthetic substitutes; they are optically, chemically, and physically identical to their Earth-mined counterparts. They’re also cheaper, and in theory, limitless. The arrival of lab-grown diamonds has rocked the jewelry world to its core and prompted fierce pushback from diamond miners. Claims abound on both sides.

    Growers often say that their diamonds are sustainable and ethical; miners and their industry allies counter that only gems plucked from the Earth can be considered “real” or “precious.” Some of these assertions are subjective, others are supported only by sparse, self-reported, or industry-backed data. But that’s not stopping everyone from making them.

    This is a fight over image, and when it comes to diamonds, image is everything.
    A variety of cut, polished Ada Diamonds created in a lab, including smaller melee stones and large center stones. 22.94 carats total. (2.60 ct. pear, 2.01 ct. asscher, 2.23 ct. cushion, 3.01 ct. radiant, 1.74 ct. princess, 2.11 ct. emerald, 3.11 ct. heart, 3.00 ct. oval, 3.13 ct. round.)
    Image: Sam Cannon (Earther)
    Same, but different

    The dream of lab-grown diamond dates back over a century. In 1911, science fiction author H.G. Wells described what would essentially become one of the key methods for making diamond—recreating the conditions inside Earth’s mantle on its surface—in his short story The Diamond Maker. As the Gemological Institute of America (GIA) notes, there were a handful of dubious attempts to create diamonds in labs in the late 19th and early 20th century, but the first commercial diamond production wouldn’t emerge until the mid-1950s, when scientists with General Electric worked out a method for creating small, brown stones. Others, including De Beers, soon developed their own methods for synthesizing the gems, and use of the lab-created diamond in industrial applications, from cutting tools to high power electronics, took off.

    According to the GIA’s James Shigley, the first experimental production of gem-quality diamond occurred in 1970. Yet by the early 2000s, gem-quality stones were still small, and often tinted yellow with impurities. It was only in the last five or so years that methods for growing diamonds advanced to the point that producers began churning out large, colorless stones consistently. That’s when the jewelry sector began to take a real interest.

    Today, that sector is taking off. The International Grown Diamond Association (IGDA), a trade group formed in 2016 by a dozen lab diamond growers and sellers, now has about 50 members, according to IGDA secretary general Dick Garard. When the IGDA first formed, lab-grown diamonds were estimated to represent about 1 percent of a $14 billion rough diamond market. This year, industry analyst Paul Zimnisky estimates they account for 2-3 percent of the market.

    He expects that share will only continue to grow as factories in China that already produce millions of carats a year for industrial purposes start to see an opportunity in jewelry.
    “I have a real problem with people claiming one is ethical and another is not.”

    “This year some [factories] will come up from 100,000 gem-quality diamonds to one to two million,” Zimnisky said. “They already have the infrastructure and equipment in place” and are in the process of upgrading it. (About 150 million carats of diamonds were mined last year, according to a global analysis of the industry conducted by Bain & Company.)

    Production ramp-up aside, 2018 saw some other major developments across the industry. In the summer, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) reversed decades of guidance when it expanded the definition of a diamond to include those created in labs and dropped ‘synthetic’ as a recommended descriptor for lab-grown stones. The decision came on the heels of the world’s top diamond producer, De Beers, announcing the launch of its own lab-grown diamond line, Lightbox, after having once vowed never to sell man-made stones as jewelry.

    “I would say shock,” Lightbox Chief Marketing Officer Sally Morrison told Earther when asked how the jewelry world responded to the company’s launch.

    While the majority of lab-grown diamonds on the market today are what’s known as melee (less than 0.18 carats), the tech for producing the biggest, most dazzling diamonds continues to improve. In 2016, lab-grown diamond company MiaDonna announced its partners had grown a 6.28 carat gem-quality diamond, claimed to be the largest created in the U.S. to that point. In 2017, a lab in Augsburg University, Germany that grows diamonds for industrial and scientific research applications produced what is thought to be the largest lab-grown diamond ever—a 155 carat behemoth that stretches nearly 4 inches across. Not gem quality, perhaps, but still impressive.

    “If you compare it with the Queen’s diamond, hers is four times heavier, it’s clearer” physicist Matthias Schreck, who leads the group that grew that beast of a jewel, told me. “But in area, our diamond is bigger. We were very proud of this.”

    Diamonds can be created in one of two ways: Similar to how they form inside the Earth, or similar to how scientists speculate they might form in outer space.

    The older, Earth-inspired method is known as “high temperature high pressure” (HPHT), and that’s exactly what it sounds like. A carbon source, like graphite, is placed in a giant, mechanical press where, in the presence of a catalyst, it’s subjected to temperatures of around 1,600 degrees Celsius and pressures of 5-6 Gigapascals in order to form diamond. (If you’re curious what that sort of pressure feels like, the GIA describes it as similar to the force exerted if you tried to balance a commercial jet on your fingertip.)

    The newer method, called chemical vapor deposition (CVD), is more akin to how diamonds might form in interstellar gas clouds (for which we have indirect, spectroscopic evidence, according to Shigley). A hydrocarbon gas, like methane, is pumped into a low-pressure reactor vessel alongside hydrogen. While maintaining near-vacuum conditions, the gases are heated very hot—typically 3,000 to 4,000 degrees Celsius, according to Lightbox CEO Steve Coe—causing carbon atoms to break free of their molecular bonds. Under the right conditions, those liberated bits of carbon will settle out onto a substrate—typically a flat, square plate of a synthetic diamond produced with the HPHT method—forming layer upon layer of diamond.

    “It’s like snow falling on a table on your back porch,” Jason Payne, the founder and CEO of lab-grown diamond jewelry company Ada Diamonds, told me.

    Scientists have been forging gem-quality diamonds with HPHT for longer, but today, CVD has become the method of choice for those selling larger bridal stones. That’s in part because it’s easier to control impurities and make diamonds with very high clarity, according to Coe. Still, each method has its advantages—Payne said that HPHT is faster and the diamonds typically have better color (which is to say, less of it)—and some companies, like Ada, purchase stones grown in both ways.

    However they’re made, lab-grown diamonds have the same exceptional hardness, stiffness, and thermal conductivity as their Earth-mined counterparts. Cut, they can dazzle with the same brilliance and fire—a technical term to describe how well the diamond scatters light like a prism. The GIA even grades them according to the same 4Cs—cut, clarity, color, and carat—that gemologists use to assess diamonds formed in the Earth, although it uses a slightly different terminology to report the color and clarity grades for lab-grown stones.

    They’re so similar, in fact, that lab-grown diamond entering the larger diamond supply without any disclosures has become a major concern across the jewelry industry, particularly when it comes to melee stones from Asia. It’s something major retailers are now investing thousands of dollars in sophisticated detection equipment to suss out by searching for minute differences in, say, their crystal shape or for impurities like nitrogen (much less common in lab-grown diamond, according to Shigley).

    Those differences may be a lifeline for retailers hoping to weed out lab-grown diamonds, but for companies focused on them, they can become another selling point. The lack of nitrogen in diamonds produced with the CVD method, for instance, gives them an exceptional chemical purity that allows them to be classified as type IIa; a rare and coveted breed that accounts for just 2 percent of those found in nature. Meanwhile, the ability to control everything about the growth process allows companies like Lightbox to adjust the formula and produce incredibly rare blue and pink diamonds as part of their standard product line. (In fact, these colored gemstones have made up over half of the company’s sales since launch, according to Coe.)

    And while lab-grown diamonds boast the same sparkle as their Earthly counterparts, they do so at a significant discount. Zimnisky said that today, your typical one carat, medium quality diamond grown in a lab will sell for about $3,600, compared with $6,100 for its Earth-mined counterpart—a discount of about 40 percent. Two years ago, that discount was only 18 percent. And while the price drop has “slightly tapered off” as Zimnisky put it, he expects it will fall further thanks in part to the aforementioned ramp up in Chinese production, as well as technological improvements. (The market is also shifting in response to Lightbox, which De Beers is using to position lab-grown diamonds as mass produced items for fashion jewelry, and which is selling its stones, ungraded, at the controversial low price of $800 per carat—a discount of nearly 90 percent.)

    Zimnisky said that if the price falls too fast, it could devalue lab-grown diamonds in the eyes of consumers. But for now, at least, paying less seems to be a selling point. A 2018 consumer research survey by MVI Marketing found that most of those polled would choose a larger lab-grown diamond over a smaller mined diamond of the same price.

    “The thing [consumers] seem most compelled by is the ability to trade up in size and quality at the same price,” Garard of IGDA said.

    Still, for buyers and sellers alike, price is only part of the story. Many in the lab-grown diamond world market their product as an ethical or eco-friendly alternative to mined diamonds.

    But those sales pitches aren’t without controversy.
    A variety of lab-grown diamond products arrayed on a desk at Ada Diamonds showroom in Manhattan. The stone in the upper left gets its blue color from boron. Diamonds tinted yellow (top center) usually get their color from small amounts of nitrogen.
    Photo: Sam Cannon (Earther)
    Dazzling promises

    As Anna-Mieke Anderson tells it, she didn’t enter the diamond world to become a corporate tycoon. She did it to try and fix a mistake.

    In 1999, Anderson purchased herself a diamond. Some years later, in 2005, her father asked her where it came from. Nonplussed, she told him it came from the jewelry store. But that wasn’t what he was asking: He wanted to know where it really came from.

    “I actually had no idea,” Anderson told Earther. “That led me to do a mountain of research.”

    That research eventually led Anderson to conclude that she had likely bought a diamond mined under horrific conditions. She couldn’t be sure, because the certificate of purchase included no place of origin. But around the time of her purchase, civil wars funded by diamond mining were raging across Angola, Sierra Leone, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Liberia, fueling “widespread devastation” as Global Witness put it in 2006. At the height of the diamond wars in the late ‘90s, the watchdog group estimates that as many as 15 percent of diamonds entering the market were conflict diamonds. Even those that weren’t actively fueling a war were often being mined in dirty, hazardous conditions; sometimes by children.

    “I couldn’t believe I’d bought into this,” Anderson said.

    To try and set things right, Anderson began sponsoring a boy living in a Liberian community impacted by the blood diamond trade. The experience was so eye-opening, she says, that she eventually felt compelled to sponsor more children. Selling conflict-free jewelry seemed like a fitting way to raise money to do so, but after a great deal more research, Anderson decided she couldn’t in good faith consider any diamond pulled from the Earth to be truly conflict-free in either the humanitarian or environmental sense. While diamond miners were, by the early 2000s, getting their gems certified “conflict free” according to the UN-backed Kimberley Process, the certification scheme’s definition of a conflict diamond—one sold by rebel groups to finance armed conflicts against governments—felt far too narrow.

    “That [conflict definition] eliminates anything to do with the environment, or eliminates a child mining it, or someone who was a slave, or beaten, or raped,” Anderson said.

    And so she started looking into science, and in 2007, launching MiaDonna as one of the world’s first lab-grown diamond jewelry companies. The business has been activism-oriented from the get-go, with at least five percent of its annual earnings—and more than 20 percent for the last three years—going into The Greener Diamond, Anderson’s charity foundation which has funded a wide range of projects, from training former child soldiers in Sierra Leone to grow food to sponsoring kids orphaned by the West African Ebola outbreak.

    MiaDonna isn’t the only company that positions itself as an ethical alternative to the traditional diamond industry. Brilliant Earth, which sells what it says are carefully-sourced mined and lab-created diamonds, also donates a small portion of its profits to supporting mining communities. Other lab-grown diamond companies market themselves as “ethical,” “conflict-free,” or “world positive.” Payne of Ada Diamonds sees, in lab-grown diamonds, not just shiny baubles, but a potential to improve medicine, clean up pollution, and advance society in countless other ways—and he thinks the growing interest in lab-grown diamond jewelry will help propel us toward that future.

    Others, however, say black-and-white characterizations when it comes to social impact of mined diamonds versus lab-grown stones are unfair. “I have a real problem with people claiming one is ethical and another is not,” Estelle Levin-Nally, founder and CEO of Levin Sources, which advocates for better governance in the mining sector, told Earther. “I think it’s always about your politics. And ethics are subjective.”

    Saleem Ali, an environmental researcher at the University of Delaware who serves on the board of the Diamonds and Development Initiative, agrees. He says the mining industry has, on the whole, worked hard to turn itself around since the height of the diamond wars and that governance is “much better today” than it used to be. Human rights watchdog Global Witness also says that “significant progress” has been made to curb the conflict diamond trade, although as Alice Harle, Senior Campaigner with Global Witness told Earther via email, diamonds do still fuel conflict, particularly in the Central African Republic and Zimbabwe.

    Most industry observers seems to agree that the Kimberley Process is outdated and inadequate, and that more work is needed to stamp out other abuses, including child labor and forced labor, in the artisanal and small-scale diamond mining sector. Today, large-scale mining operations don’t tend to see these kinds of problems, according to Julianne Kippenberg, associate director for children’s rights at Human Rights Watch, but she notes that there may be other community impacts surrounding land rights and forced resettlement.

    The flip side, Ali and Levin-Nally say, is that well-regulated mining operations can be an important source of economic development and livelihood. Ali cites Botswana and Russia as prime examples of places where large-scale mining operations have become “major contributors to the economy.” Dmitry Amelkin, head of strategic projects and analytics for Russian diamond mining giant Alrosa, echoed that sentiment in an email to Earther, noting that diamonds transformed Botswana “from one of the poorest [countries] in the world to a middle-income country” with revenues from mining representing almost a third of its GDP.

    In May, a report commissioned by the Diamond Producers Association (DPA), a trade organization representing the world’s largest diamond mining companies, estimated that worldwide, its members generate nearly $4 billion in direct revenue for employees and contractors, along with another $6.8 billion in benefits via “local procurement of goods and services.” DPA CEO Jean-Marc Lieberherr said this was a story diamond miners need to do a better job telling.

    “The industry has undergone such changes since the Blood Diamond movie,” he said, referring to the blockbuster 2006 film starring Leonardo DiCaprio that drew global attention to the problem of conflict diamonds. “And yet people’s’ perceptions haven’t evolved. I think the main reason is we have not had a voice, we haven’t communicated.”

    But conflict and human rights abuses aren’t the only issues that have plagued the diamond industry. There’s also the lasting environmental impact of the mining itself. In the case of large-scale commercial mines, this typically entails using heavy machinery and explosives to bore deep into those kimberlite tubes in search of precious stones.

    Some, like Maya Koplyova, a geologist at the University of British Columbia who studies diamonds and the rocks they’re found in, see this as far better than many other forms of mining. “The environmental footprint is the fThere’s also the question of just how representative the report’s energy consumption estimates for lab-grown diamonds are. While he wouldn’t offer a specific number, Coe said that De Beers’ Group diamond manufacturer Element Six—arguably the most advanced laboratory-grown diamond company in the world—has “substantially lower” per carat energy requirements than the headline figures found inside the new report. When asked why this was not included, Rick Lord, ESG analyst at Trucost, the S&P global group that conducted the analysis, said it chose to focus on energy estimates in the public record, but that after private consultation with Element Six it did not believe their data would “materially alter” the emissions estimates in the study.

    Finally, it’s important to consider the source of the carbon emissions. While the new report states that about 40 percent of the emissions associated with mining a diamond come from fossil fuel-powered vehicles and equipment, emissions associated with growing a diamond come mainly from electric power. Today, about 68 percent of lab-grown diamonds hail from China, Singapore, and India combined according to Zimnisky, where the power is drawn from largely fossil fuel-powered grids. But there is, at least, an opportunity to switch to renewables and drive that carbon footprint way down.
    “The reality is both mining and manufacturing consume energy and probably the best thing we could do is focus on reducing energy consumption.”

    And some companies do seem to be trying to do that. Anderson of MiaDonna says the company only sources its diamonds from facilities in the U.S., and that it’s increasingly trying to work with producers that use renewable energy. Lab-grown diamond company Diamond Foundry grows its stones inside plasma reactors running “as hot as the outer layer of the sun,” per its website, and while it wouldn’t offer any specific numbers, that presumably uses more energy than your typical operation running at lower temperatures. However, company spokesperson Ye-Hui Goldenson said its Washington State ‘megacarat factory’ was cited near a well-maintained hydropower source so that the diamonds could be produced with renewable energy. The company offsets other fossil fuel-driven parts of its operation by purchasing carbon credits.

    Lightbox’s diamonds currently come from Element Six’s UK-based facilities. The company is, however, building a $94-million facility near Portland, Oregon, that’s expected to come online by 2020. Coe said he estimates about 45 percent of its power will come from renewable sources.

    “The reality is both mining and manufacturing consume energy and probably the best thing we could do is focus on reducing energy consumption,” Coe said. “That’s something we’re focused on in Lightbox.”

    In spite of that, Lightbox is somewhat notable among lab-grown diamond jewelry brands in that, in the words of Morrison, it is “not claiming this to be an eco-friendly product.”

    “While it is true that we don’t dig holes in the ground, the energy consumption is not insignificant,” Morrison told Earther. “And I think we felt very uncomfortable promoting on that.”
    Various diamonds created in a lab, as seen at the Ada Diamonds showroom in Manhattan.
    Photo: Sam Cannon (Earther)
    The real real

    The fight over how lab-grown diamonds can and should market themselves is still heating up.

    On March 26, the FTC sent letters to eight lab-grown and diamond simulant companies warning them against making unsubstantiated assertions about the environmental benefits of their products—its first real enforcement action after updating its jewelry guides last year. The letters, first obtained by JCK news director Rob Bates under a Freedom of Information Act request, also warned companies that their advertising could falsely imply the products are mined diamonds, illustrating that, even though the agency now says a lab-grown diamond is a diamond, the specific origin remains critically important. A letter to Diamond Foundry, for instance, notes that the company has at times advertised its stones as “above-ground real” without the qualification of “laboratory-made.” It’s easy to see how a consumer might miss the implication.

    But in a sense, that’s what all of this is: A fight over what’s real.
    “It’s a nuanced reality that we’re in. They are a type of diamond.”

    Another letter, sent to FTC attorney Reenah Kim by the nonprofit trade organization Jewelers Vigilance Committee on April 2, makes it clear that many in the industry still believe that’s a term that should be reserved exclusively for gems formed inside the Earth. The letter, obtained by Earther under FOIA, urges the agency to continue restricting the use of the terms “real,” “genuine,” “natural,” “precious,” and “semi-precious” to Earth-mined diamonds and gemstones. Even the use of such terms in conjunction with “laboratory grown,” the letter argues, “will create even more confusion in an already confused and evolving marketplace.”

    JVC President Tiffany Stevens told Earther that the letter was a response to a footnote in an explanatory document about the FTC’s recent jewelry guide changes, which suggested the agency was considering removing a clause about real, precious, natural and genuine only being acceptable modifiers for gems mined from the Earth.

    “We felt that given the current commercial environment, that we didn’t think it was a good time to take that next step,” Stevens told Earther. As Stevens put it, the changes the FTC recently made, including expanding the definition of diamond and tweaking the descriptors companies can use to label laboratory-grown diamonds as such, have already been “wildly misinterpreted” by some lab-grown diamond sellers that are no longer making the “necessary disclosures.”

    Asked whether the JVC thinks lab-grown diamonds are, in fact, real diamonds, Stevens demurred.

    “It’s a nuanced reality that we’re in,” she said. “They are a type of diamond.”

    Change is afoot in the diamond world. Mined diamond production may have already peaked, according to the 2018 Bain & Company report. Lab diamonds are here to stay, although where they’re going isn’t entirely clear. Zimnisky expects that in a few years—as Lightbox’s new facility comes online and mass production of lab diamonds continues to ramp up overseas—the price industry-wide will fall to about 80 percent less than a mined diamond. At that point, he wonders whether lab-grown diamonds will start to lose their sparkle.

    Payne isn’t too worried about a price slide, which he says is happening across the diamond industry and which he expects will be “linear, not exponential” on the lab-grown side. He points out that lab-grown diamond market is still limited by supply, and that the largest lab-grown gems remain quite rare. Payne and Zimnisky both see the lab-grown diamond market bifurcating into cheaper, mass-produced gems and premium-quality stones sold by those that can maintain a strong brand. A sense that they’re selling something authentic and, well, real.

    “So much has to do with consumer psychology,” Zimnisky said.

    Some will only ever see diamonds as authentic if they formed inside the Earth. They’re drawn, as Kathryn Money, vice president of strategy and merchandising at Brilliant Earth put it, to “the history and romanticism” of diamonds; to a feeling that’s sparked by holding a piece of our ancient world. To an essence more than a function.

    Others, like Anderson, see lab-grown diamonds as the natural (to use a loaded word) evolution of diamond. “We’re actually running out of [mined] diamonds,” she said. “There is an end in sight.” Payne agreed, describing what he sees as a “looming death spiral” for diamond mining.

    Mined diamonds will never go away. We’ve been digging them up since antiquity, and they never seem to lose their sparkle. But most major mines are being exhausted. And with technology making it easier to grow diamonds just as they are getting more difficult to extract from the Earth, the lab-grown diamond industry’s grandstanding about its future doesn’t feel entirely unreasonable.

    There’s a reason why, as Payne said, “the mining industry as a whole is still quite scared of this product.” ootprint of digging the hole in the ground and crushing [the rock],” Koplyova said, noting that there’s no need to add strong acids or heavy metals like arsenic (used in gold mining) to liberate the gems.

    Still, those holes can be enormous. The Mir Mine, a now-abandoned open pit mine in Eastern Siberia, is so large—reportedly stretching 3,900 feet across and 1,700 feet deep—that the Russian government has declared it a no-fly zone owing to the pit’s ability to create dangerous air currents. It’s visible from space.

    While companies will often rehabilitate other land to offset the impact of mines, kimberlite mining itself typically leaves “a permanent dent in the earth’s surface,” as a 2014 report by market research company Frost & Sullivan put it.

    “It’s a huge impact as far as I’m concerned,” said Kevin Krajick, senior editor for science news at Columbia University’s Earth Institute who wrote a book on the discovery of diamonds in far northern Canada. Krajick noted that in remote mines, like those of the far north, it’s not just the physical hole to consider, but all the development required to reach a previously-untouched area, including roads and airstrips, roaring jets and diesel-powered trucks.

    Diamonds grown in factories clearly have a smaller physical footprint. According to the Frost & Sullivan report, they also use less water and create less waste. It’s for these reasons that Ali thinks diamond mining “will never be able to compete” with lab-grown diamonds from an environmental perspective.

    “The mining industry should not even by trying to do that,” he said.

    Of course, this is capitalism, so try to compete is exactly what the DPA is now doing. That same recent report that touted the mining industry’s economic benefits also asserts that mined diamonds have a carbon footprint three times lower than that of lab-grown diamonds, on average. The numbers behind that conclusion, however, don’t tell the full story.

    Growing diamonds does take considerable energy. The exact amount can vary greatly, however, depending on the specific nature of the growth process. These are details manufacturers are typically loathe to disclose, but Payne of Ada Diamonds says he estimates the most efficient players in the game today use about 250 kilowatt hour (kWh) of electricity per cut, polished carat of diamond; roughly what a U.S. household consumes in 9 days. Other estimates run higher. Citing unnamed sources, industry publication JCK Online reported that a modern HPHT run can use up to 700 kWh per carat, while CVD production can clock in north of 1,000 kWh per carat.

    Pulling these and several other public-record estimates, along with information on where in the world today’s lab diamonds are being grown and the energy mix powering the producer nations’ electric grids, the DPA-commissioned study estimated that your typical lab-grown diamond results in some 511 kg of carbon emissions per cut, polished carat. Using information provided by mining companies on fuel and electricity consumption, along with other greenhouse gas sources on the mine site, it found that the average mined carat was responsible for just 160 kg of carbon emissions.

    One limitation here is that the carbon footprint estimate for mining focused only on diamond production, not the years of work entailed in developing a mine. As Ali noted, developing a mine can take a lot of energy, particularly for those sited in remote locales where equipment needs to be hauled long distances by trucks or aircraft.

    There’s also the question of just how representative the report’s energy consumption estimates for lab-grown diamonds are. While he wouldn’t offer a specific number, Coe said that De Beers’ Group diamond manufacturer Element Six—arguably the most advanced laboratory-grown diamond company in the world—has “substantially lower” per carat energy requirements than the headline figures found inside the new report. When asked why this was not included, Rick Lord, ESG analyst at Trucost, the S&P global group that conducted the analysis, said it chose to focus on energy estimates in the public record, but that after private consultation with Element Six it did not believe their data would “materially alter” the emissions estimates in the study.

    Finally, it’s important to consider the source of the carbon emissions. While the new report states that about 40 percent of the emissions associated with mining a diamond come from fossil fuel-powered vehicles and equipment, emissions associated with growing a diamond come mainly from electric power. Today, about 68 percent of lab-grown diamonds hail from China, Singapore, and India combined according to Zimnisky, where the power is drawn from largely fossil fuel-powered grids. But there is, at least, an opportunity to switch to renewables and drive that carbon footprint way down.
    “The reality is both mining and manufacturing consume energy and probably the best thing we could do is focus on reducing energy consumption.”

    And some companies do seem to be trying to do that. Anderson of MiaDonna says the company only sources its diamonds from facilities in the U.S., and that it’s increasingly trying to work with producers that use renewable energy. Lab-grown diamond company Diamond Foundry grows its stones inside plasma reactors running “as hot as the outer layer of the sun,” per its website, and while it wouldn’t offer any specific numbers, that presumably uses more energy than your typical operation running at lower temperatures. However, company spokesperson Ye-Hui Goldenson said its Washington State ‘megacarat factory’ was cited near a well-maintained hydropower source so that the diamonds could be produced with renewable energy. The company offsets other fossil fuel-driven parts of its operation by purchasing carbon credits.

    Lightbox’s diamonds currently come from Element Six’s UK-based facilities. The company is, however, building a $94-million facility near Portland, Oregon, that’s expected to come online by 2020. Coe said he estimates about 45 percent of its power will come from renewable sources.

    “The reality is both mining and manufacturing consume energy and probably the best thing we could do is focus on reducing energy consumption,” Coe said. “That’s something we’re focused on in Lightbox.”

    In spite of that, Lightbox is somewhat notable among lab-grown diamond jewelry brands in that, in the words of Morrison, it is “not claiming this to be an eco-friendly product.”

    “While it is true that we don’t dig holes in the ground, the energy consumption is not insignificant,” Morrison told Earther. “And I think we felt very uncomfortable promoting on that.”
    Various diamonds created in a lab, as seen at the Ada Diamonds showroom in Manhattan.
    Photo: Sam Cannon (Earther)
    The real real

    The fight over how lab-grown diamonds can and should market themselves is still heating up.

    On March 26, the FTC sent letters to eight lab-grown and diamond simulant companies warning them against making unsubstantiated assertions about the environmental benefits of their products—its first real enforcement action after updating its jewelry guides last year. The letters, first obtained by JCK news director Rob Bates under a Freedom of Information Act request, also warned companies that their advertising could falsely imply the products are mined diamonds, illustrating that, even though the agency now says a lab-grown diamond is a diamond, the specific origin remains critically important. A letter to Diamond Foundry, for instance, notes that the company has at times advertised its stones as “above-ground real” without the qualification of “laboratory-made.” It’s easy to see how a consumer might miss the implication.

    But in a sense, that’s what all of this is: A fight over what’s real.
    “It’s a nuanced reality that we’re in. They are a type of diamond.”

    Another letter, sent to FTC attorney Reenah Kim by the nonprofit trade organization Jewelers Vigilance Committee on April 2, makes it clear that many in the industry still believe that’s a term that should be reserved exclusively for gems formed inside the Earth. The letter, obtained by Earther under FOIA, urges the agency to continue restricting the use of the terms “real,” “genuine,” “natural,” “precious,” and “semi-precious” to Earth-mined diamonds and gemstones. Even the use of such terms in conjunction with “laboratory grown,” the letter argues, “will create even more confusion in an already confused and evolving marketplace.”

    JVC President Tiffany Stevens told Earther that the letter was a response to a footnote in an explanatory document about the FTC’s recent jewelry guide changes, which suggested the agency was considering removing a clause about real, precious, natural and genuine only being acceptable modifiers for gems mined from the Earth.

    “We felt that given the current commercial environment, that we didn’t think it was a good time to take that next step,” Stevens told Earther. As Stevens put it, the changes the FTC recently made, including expanding the definition of diamond and tweaking the descriptors companies can use to label laboratory-grown diamonds as such, have already been “wildly misinterpreted” by some lab-grown diamond sellers that are no longer making the “necessary disclosures.”

    Asked whether the JVC thinks lab-grown diamonds are, in fact, real diamonds, Stevens demurred.

    “It’s a nuanced reality that we’re in,” she said. “They are a type of diamond.”

    Change is afoot in the diamond world. Mined diamond production may have already peaked, according to the 2018 Bain & Company report. Lab diamonds are here to stay, although where they’re going isn’t entirely clear. Zimnisky expects that in a few years—as Lightbox’s new facility comes online and mass production of lab diamonds continues to ramp up overseas—the price industry-wide will fall to about 80 percent less than a mined diamond. At that point, he wonders whether lab-grown diamonds will start to lose their sparkle.

    Payne isn’t too worried about a price slide, which he says is happening across the diamond industry and which he expects will be “linear, not exponential” on the lab-grown side. He points out that lab-grown diamond market is still limited by supply, and that the largest lab-grown gems remain quite rare. Payne and Zimnisky both see the lab-grown diamond market bifurcating into cheaper, mass-produced gems and premium-quality stones sold by those that can maintain a strong brand. A sense that they’re selling something authentic and, well, real.

    “So much has to do with consumer psychology,” Zimnisky said.

    Some will only ever see diamonds as authentic if they formed inside the Earth. They’re drawn, as Kathryn Money, vice president of strategy and merchandising at Brilliant Earth put it, to “the history and romanticism” of diamonds; to a feeling that’s sparked by holding a piece of our ancient world. To an essence more than a function.

    Others, like Anderson, see lab-grown diamonds as the natural (to use a loaded word) evolution of diamond. “We’re actually running out of [mined] diamonds,” she said. “There is an end in sight.” Payne agreed, describing what he sees as a “looming death spiral” for diamond mining.

    Mined diamonds will never go away. We’ve been digging them up since antiquity, and they never seem to lose their sparkle. But most major mines are being exhausted. And with technology making it easier to grow diamonds just as they are getting more difficult to extract from the Earth, the lab-grown diamond industry’s grandstanding about its future doesn’t feel entirely unreasonable.

    There’s a reason why, as Payne said, “the mining industry as a whole is still quite scared of this product.”

    #dimants #Afrique #technologie #capitalisme

  • Rasmea Odeh Breaking the Silence in Berlin: #RasmeaSpricht #RasmeaSpeaks
    https://samidoun.net/2019/03/rasmea-odeh-breaking-the-silence-in-berlin-rasmeaspricht-rasmeaspeaks

    29 March 2019 - On Wednesday evening, 27 March, Rasmea Odeh‘s voice and words were heard in Berlin, Germany, despite a harsh, repressive campaign that included yet another ban on her speaking in person issued by Berlin’s Senator for the Interior. The successful event at be’kech in Berlin’s Wedding district brought crowds to the space despite a large police presence; the space was so crowded that many people stayed outside to watch the event through glass windows.

    The evening marked a significant achievement for Rasmea Odeh and all those defending the right to organize and advocate for Palestine in Berlin. Despite all attempts to prevent it from taking place, Rasmea’s voice was heard in Berlin and celebrated by people of conscience.
    Photo: Public-solidarity

    Once again, as was the case on 15 March, when Rasmea was to join Palestinian poet and former prisoner Dareen Tatour for an evening of solidarity and celebration of Palestinian women’s struggle, the venue itself was subject to harassment and threats. Another media smear campaign was launched against Rasmea along with attempts to demand that she once again be prohibited from speaking.

    On Wednesday afternoon, only hours before the event, Berlin Interior Senator Andreas Geisel, an SPD politician who had earlier declared that speaking “against the state of Israel” crossed a “red line” that justified the violation of freedom of speech, once again banned Odeh from delivering a public speech at the event. However, organizers presented a video from Odeh, ensuring that her message and her story would be able to be heard by supporters in person and everyone around the world who supports her and the struggle for justice in Palestine.
    Photo: Salim Salim, Arabi21

    Once again, several vans of police filled the area (although a smaller presence than that surrounding the 15 March event). They searched the crowd for Rasmea, but left partway through the event after it was clear that she was not attending in person. A claimed counter-demonstration by pro-apartheid Zionist organizations was not immediately visible, but there may have been several participants at the corner of the street.

    The moderator of the evening opened the event with a stirring call against the silencing of oppressed and marginalized people, especially Palestinian women. She noted the growing support received by the event and the campaign to defend Odeh by a number of organizations, including the Internationale Liga für Menschenrechte, which sent a statement to the organization. The event was supported by Samidoun Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network, Berlin Muslim Feminists, Bündnis gegen Rassismus, HIRAK (Palestinian Youth Mobilization, Berlin), The Coalition Berlin, Bloque Latinoamericano Berlin, Brot und Rosen international socialist women’s organiation, Revolutionäre Internationalistische Organisation – Klasse Gegen Klasse, Berlin Against Pinkwashing, Jüdische Stimme für gerechten Frieden in Nahost (Jewish Voice for a Just Peace), RefrACTa Kollektiv Brasilien-Berlin, BDS Berlin and the Kali feminist collective.

    The event also included a speech by a Palestinian student on behalf of HIRAK, emphasizing that this week also marks the one-year anniversary of the Great March of Return in Gaza. Just this week, Israel has been shelling Gaza, causing further destruction after taking hundreds of lives in the past year as Palestinians participated in collective, popular protests for their right to return and break the siege. She urged people to get involved in struggles here in Berlin, including Palestinian community organizing, the solidarity movement and the BDS campaign.

    The organizers next showed a video from 2013 in which Rasmea speaks about her life as a Palestinian woman. The video was made when she received the 2013 Outstanding Community Leader award from the Chicago Cultural Alliance:

    The screening was followed by a 20-minute video presentation – the main speech of the night – in which Rasmea discussed her situation in Berlin as well as presenting more broadly on Palestinian women, Palestinian prisoners and the continuing struggle for liberation. Full video coming shortly!

    As Rasmea spoke, including discussing her personal experience of torture, people in the packed room were silent, watching and listening closely to the Arabic speech and the subtitles in German and English. The conclusion of her speech was met with loud and prolonged applause and cheers as the event’s moderator noted that “this is what they did not want you to hear.”

    The event continued with a cultural evening featuring anti-colonial poetry by Wind Ma, a silent theater sketch by Maher Draidi of Almadina Theater, a musical performance of songs and guitar by Nicolás Miquea and a closing dabkeh performance by the Yafa Dabkeh Troupe. The event concluded with a stirring moment as people chanted together, “Viva, viva Palestina! Free, free Palestine!”

    Rasmea Odeh, born in 1947, is a lifelong struggler for Palestine and a well-known feminist organizer and activist. After surviving torture and sexual assault under interrogation by occupation forces and serving 10 years in Israeli prison, she came to the United States, where she organized over 800 women in Chicago in the Arab Women’s Committee, a project of the Arab American Action Network. In 2013, she was targeted by the FBI and U.S. immigration authorities and accused of lying about her time in Israeli prison, despite the fact that it was publicly known; she even testified before a Special Committee of the United Nations about her experience under torture and imprisonment. After a years-long court battle that won widespread grassroots support, she was deported to Jordan in 2017. She was one of the initial signatories of the call for the International Women’s Strike.
    Photo: Public-solidarity

    After she was invited to speak in Berlin on 15 March, the U.S. ambassador (with ties to the German far right) Richard Grenell, Israeli Minister of Strategic Affairs Gilad Erdan, charged with fighting Palestine solidarity and the BDS movement internationally, and the Israeli ambassador in Germany launched calls to censor her. Media propaganda falsely labeled her an “anti-Semite,” when she is in reality a longtime anti-racist struggler who developed strong connections with other oppressed communities, particularly the Black liberation movement. In the U.S., Angela Davis and Jewish Voice for Peace were among her supporters. In this context, Berlin politicians yielded to the demands of Trump and Netanyahu, and when Rasmea arrived at the event location, she was given a sheaf of papers. Her Schengen visa was ordered cancelled and she was directed to leave the country; she was banned from speaking at the event.

    Most of the allegations in the documents simply restated attacks by pro-apartheid media publications, including labeling the BDS campaign “anti-Semitic”. The German authorities also claimed that allowing Rasmea to speak and retain her visa would “damage the relationship between Germany and Israel.” Thus, Rasmea Odeh’s voice, experience and analysis was ordered suppressed and silenced through the joint complicity of the German, U.S. and Israeli governments.

    Rasmea is committed to fighting back in court. Her lawyer, Nadija Samour, said that “cancelling a visa based on what has happened so far in the past is a completely new concept from a legal point of view.” However, she and her supporters are aware that this is not simply a legal question but a clear political battle that requires support from the broadest number of people in Germany and internationally.

    Supporters of Rasmea in the United States, including the US Palestinian Community Network, Committee to Stop FBI Repression, Rasmea Defense Committee and many other groups have worked to support the growing campaign in Germany, and more organizations have been adding their voices to express support for Rasmea. By cancelling her Schengen visa, German officials are not only attempting to silence Rasmea’s speech in Berlin but to prevent her from traveling elsewhere in Europe to speak about her experiences and her views – thus denying people across the continent the opportunity to hear from a leading transnational feminist and Palestinian organizer.

    Rasmea was ordered silenced based on a desire to stop her from sharing her words and her experience, telling her story and presenting her analysis. The U.S. government is apparently committed to chasing Rasmea around the world in order to persecute her wherever she goes; meanwhile, the Israeli state continues its intensive attack on people’s right to support Palestine everywhere in the world, which has included the promotion of anti-BDS laws and falsely labeling Palestinian human rights defenders and solidarity groups as “terrorists.” The German state and Berlin authorities also chose to join this campaign, issuing two separate bans in less than two weeks against Rasmea Odeh to prevent her from delivering a live speech about her experiences, her involvement in women’s organizing and her view of Palestine.

    In many ways, Rasmea’s case does not stand alone; in Germany, it comes alongside the Humboldt 3 case and the prosecution of activists for speaking up against war crimes, attempts to block Palestine events from taking place in any location and far-right campaigns particularly targeting migrant communities. It also comes alongside the pursuit of anti-BDS laws in the US, the use of “anti-terror” frameworks to criminalize Palestinian community work and the use of visa denial to suppress political and cultural expression, such as in Australia’s recent denial of a visa to Palestinian American poet Remi Kanazi.

    In a particularly disturbing media article containing propaganda against Kanazi, pro-apartheid groups demand that Kanazi is barred for, among other things, supporting Rasmea and other Palestinian political prisoners. They also use the recent far-right, white-supremacist massacre in Christchurch, New Zealand, as a justification for banning him, despite the fact that this was an attack targeting Muslims, linked to racist, anti-Muslim and anti-Arab propaganda, based on white supremacy, and which took the lives of a number of Palestinians specifically. It is clear that there is a global attack, backed by Erdan and the Israeli government, aimed at all Palestinians and supporters of Palestine – and especially aiming to isolate Palestinian prisoners from the international movements that continue to defend their rights.

    The campaign to defend Rasmea Odeh is not ending with this event – instead, it marks a strong beginning of a resurgent movement against the silencing of Palestinian women and for justice in Palestine. It also made it clear that Palestinian women, on the frontlines of struggle from inside Israeli prisons, to the Great Return March in Gaza to organizing for justice in Berlin, will not be silenced. Samidoun Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network urges people and organizations around the world to get involved and join this campaign by following the Facebook page, Rasmea spricht (Rasmea will speak) and sending statements of solidarity to samidoun@samidoun.net.

    #Palestine #femmes #résistance #zionisme #Allemagne

  • La Deutsche Bank va licencier jusqu’à 20 000 personnes : un poste à temps plein sur six (Zerohedge)
    https://www.crashdebug.fr/international/16195-la-deutsche-bank-va-licencier-jusqu-a-20-000-personnes-un-poste-a-t

    Ça avec la Bad bank de 50 milliards, ça sent le sapin quand même....

    Alors que la Deutsche Bank a finalement annoncé de bonnes nouvelles pour un changement à ses investisseurs qui souffrent depuis longtemps, lorsqu’elle a miraculeusement échoué au dernier test de résistance de la Fed, vendredi, la banque chroniquement malade est revenue à son niveau de référence de "réduction de muscle" lorsque le plus grand prêteur allemand avec les 45 billions € de dérivés notionnels s’est préparé "à réduire de moitié ses effectifs mondiaux en actions, dans le cadre d’une vaste restructuration pour accroître sa rentabilité", Selon Bloomberg, le WSJ a ajouté que le nombre total pourrait se situer entre 15 000 et 20 000 suppressions d’emplois, soit plus d’un poste à temps plein sur (...)

    #En_vedette #Actualités_internationales #Actualités_Internationales

  • Gilets jaunes péri-urbains et gilets jaunes du centre ville
    https://collectiflieuxcommuns.fr/?977-Gilets-jaunes-peri-urbains

    UNIVERSITE DES VA-NU-PIEDS DE HAUTE-NORMANDIESection : Rond-Point Des Vaches Rouen-Sud Laboratoire de recherche : philosophie-anthropologie THESE pour obtenir l’approbation DES GILETS JAUNES DU ROND-POINT DES VACHES présentée et soutenue par : Jean-Marie Le Lanno le 22 juin 2019 DES DIFFERENCES COMPORTEMENTALES, PSYCHOLOGIQUES, SOCIOLOGIQUES, FINANCIERES... ENTRE GILETS JAUNES PERI-URBAINS ET « GILETS JAUNES » DU CENTRE VILLE A ROUEN Première audition effectuée le mardi 18 juin en (...)

    #Anonymes

    / #Mémoire_universitaire, #Politique, #Sociologie, Gilets jaunes (2018-2019), #Électoralisme, #Gauchisme, #Récupération, #Assemblée, Organisation (...)

    #Gilets_jaunes_2018-2019_ #Organisation_politique

  • Next online battle will play on fear of bots, says Facebook official
    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jun/25/next-online-battle-will-play-on-fear-of-bots-says-facebook-official

    New ‘influence operations’ will openly advertise participation in debate instead of hiding it The next wave of “influence operations” like those that Russia used to target the 2016 US election will aim to destabilise debate by making voters think bots are everywhere, Facebook’s head of cybersecurity policy has said. Nathaniel Gleicher, who runs the company’s response to politically motivated malfeasance on its platform, said groups such as Russia’s Internet Research Agency (IRA) were (...)

    #IRA #bot #manipulation #élections #publicité

    ##publicité
    https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/ebecdef2c418ada51be59c66b4601a1d54a90c76/6_0_3433_2060/master/3433.jpg

  • Le parti d’Erdogan perd l’élection municipale d’Istanbul
    https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/international/230619/le-parti-d-erdogan-perd-l-election-municipale-d-istanbul

    Le candidat de l’opposition, Ekrem Imamoglu, a emporté la municipalité d’Istanbul avec 54% des voix contre 45% pour le candidat du président turc. Cette victoire marque un terme à vingt-cinq ans de pouvoir du parti Recep Tayyip Erdogan dans la principale ville du pays. Ce résultat s’avère décisif pour l’avenir du pays.

    #MOYEN-ORIENT #Recep_Tayyip_Erdogan,_Ekrem_Imamoglu,_Binali_Yildirim,_Istanbul,_turquie

  • Russia Squeezing Embattled Venezuela for Tax-Free Gas Expansion - Bloomberg
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-20/russia-squeezing-embattled-venezuela-for-tax-free-gas-expansion


    Photographer: Wil Riera/Bloomberg

    • Venezuela offers Rosneft path to amplify natural gas dominance
    • Expropriation clause gives Moscow-based company a hedge

    Russia’s state-controlled oil giant, Rosneft PJSC, is extracting concessions from crisis-ridden Venezuela to enter the offshore natural gas market on the cheap, a potential headache for the U.S. and Europe.

    An accord signed by both Russia and Venezuela earlier this month will give Rosneft tax breaks to produce and export gas from the Patao and Mejillones fields off Venezuela’s east coast. The document, which also includes a “fair market price” in the event of an expropriation, makes changes to a bilateral agreement reached in 2009, according to a filing by the Russian government.

    The deal underscores how Russia is both propping up and gaining from the Nicolas Maduro regime at a time when the U.S. is sanctioning Maduro and China has cut its support. Venezuelan gas could eventually offer Russia new entry points into both Asia and Europe.

    China is backing away in terms of its financial exposure,” Andrew Stanley, an associate fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said in a telephone interview. “Whereas the Russians, over the past few years, they’ve gone in the opposite direction, they’ve kind of doubled down and seen this as an opportunistic plan.

    Since 2014, Rosneft has loaned about $6.5 billion to Venezuela in exchange for oil, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Petroleos de Venezuela SA, or PDVSA, has been repaying the loans by delivering barrels to Rosneft, and had an outstanding debt of about $1.8 billion in the first quarter, according to a company presentation.

    As a result of the changes signed by Russian President Vladimir Putin, Rosneft and its suppliers will be exempt from value added and import taxes to develop the two gas fields, which are near to where Exxon Mobil Corp. is rushing to extract oil in neighboring Guyana. The agreement was filed online by the Russian legal information website, which publishes orders by the president and applied international treaties.

  • En quatre articles, comment simplifier ta compréhension du monde (tldr : à la fin ça s’explique « en un tweet »).

    18 juin : les prix du baril de pétrole s’envolent, et c’est à cause de la BCE :
    Pétrole : la BCE fait décoller les prix du baril !
    https://www.capital.fr/entreprises-marches/le-petrole-beneficie-du-retour-de-lappetit-pour-le-risque-1342303

    Le pétrole relève la tête. Les cours du baril rebondissent nettement ce mardi, le prix du baril de WTI progressant de 4,28% à 54,10 dollars tandis que son homologue européen, le Brent de la mer du Nord, s’adjuge 2,77% à 62,62 dollars. L’or noir, comme la plupart des actifs jugés à risque (tels les actions), bénéficie de la perspective d’une possible baisse des taux de la BCE. Ce matin, le président de la banque centrale, Mario Draghi, a indiqué qu’il n’excluait aucune option pour soutenir une économie européenne vacillante. Cette annonce fait d’autant plus d’effet qu’elle intervient à la veille des conclusions de la réunion de la Fed.

    20 juin : ah non, en fait c’est à cause de l’accord de l’OPEP, de la baisse de stocks américains et de la détente commerciale entre la Chine et les États-Unis :
    Pétrole brent : L’Opep et ses partenaires ont fixé leur prochaine réunion, le prix du pétrole décolle
    https://www.tradingsat.com/petrole-brent-MP0000000BRN/actualites/petrole-brent-l-opep-et-ses-partenaires-ont-fixe-leur-prochaine-reunion-

    Le net rebond du jour est porté par plusieurs actualités concomitantes. Premièrement, les investisseurs ont appris mercredi après-midi que les pays membres de l’Opep et leurs partenaires parmi lesquels la Russie se sont accordés sur la date de leur prochaine réunion. Initialement prévue les 25 et 26 juin à Vienne, celle-ci a été décalée aux 1er et 2 juillet après plusieurs semaines de tractations, notamment entre la Russie, l’Arabie saoudite et l’Iran.

    L’indécision de Téhéran avait auparavant provoqué quelques remous sur les marchés pétroliers, les opérateurs craignant que l’Opep+ ne parvienne à se mettre d’accord sur une prolongation de leur accord de limitation de la production. Depuis fin 2016, en effet, l’Opep+ s’accorde tous les six mois pour renouveler cet accord afin de compenser la hausse continue de la production américaine et de peser à la hausse sur les cours. De nombreux observateurs considèrent cet accord comme le principal facteur de stabilisation du marché de l’or noir.

    Autre facteur haussier, la publication hebdomadaire des stocks US a de nouveau réservé une surprise, mercredi, avec une baisse plus forte que prévu des réserves commerciales de brut. Au cours de la semaine achevée vendredi 14 juin, celle-ci ont en effet diminué de 3,1 millions de barils pour s’établir à 482,4 millions, là où les analystes interrogés par Bloomberg tablaient sur une baisse plus modeste, de l’ordre de 1,2 million de barils.

    Dernier élément mais pas des moindres, les cours de l’or noir profitent également des derniers propos du président américain, qui a annoncé mardi avoir eu « une très bonne conversation téléphonique » avec son homologue chinois Xi Jinping. Donald Trump a par ailleurs confirmé qu’il s’entretiendrait longuement avec le dirigeant chinois, en marge du G20 qui se tiendra à Osaka les 28 et 29 juin prochain. De fait, la guerre commerciale fait peser des craintes sur l’économie mondiale et conduit les économistes à réviser à la baisse leurs perspectives de croissance mondiale, donc de demande de pétrole. Une détente commerciale et des espoirs de règlement du différend commercial est donc porteur d’espoirs, à la fois sur la bonne tenue de l’économie mondiale, et sur la demande en hydrocarbures, ce qui pèse à la hausse sur les prix.

    Le 20 juin toujours : en fait c’est à cause de la possible baisse des taux d’intérêt par la FED :
    L’or au plus haut depuis 2014, le pétrole s’envole !
    https://www.capital.fr/entreprises-marches/le-petrole-en-forte-hausse-1342480

    Or, pétrole... Ces deux matières premières phares sont à la fête. Les cours du baril ont bondi ce matin, soutenus par l’appétit pour le risque. Hier soir, la Fed (Réserve fédérale, banque centrale des Etats-Unis) a laissé grande ouverte la porte à une baisse des taux dès le mois prochain, ce qui est positif pour la croissance économique et les actifs risqués. L’or noir est également soutenu par le regain de tensions au Moyen-Orient et l’évolution des stocks. […]

    Par ailleurs, le prix de l’or flambe de près de 3%, à 1.380 dollars, soit un plus haut de 5 ans. Une dynamique attribuable, ici aussi, aux espoirs d’une baisse des taux de la Fed. En effet, l’or est un placement qui ne génère pas de revenu et bénéficie ainsi d’arbitrages favorables quand les taux d’intérêt réels - c’est-à-dire nets d’inflation - chutent...

    Le 20 au soir, c’est plus simple : c’est « en un tweet » :
    Iran : en un tweet, Donald Trump fait bondir le cours du pétrole
    http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-eco/iran-en-un-tweet-donald-trump-fait-bondir-le-cours-du-petrole-20190620

    Alors que les tensions entre Washington et Téhéran ne cessent de s’accroître et inquiètent les marchés, un message menaçant du président américain a suffi pour que le cours du baril prenne plus de 6%.

  • La menace terroriste en France n’est pas seulement islamiste

    « #Terrorisme d’Etat, cyber, ultradroite, ultragauche, radicaux régionaux et même animalistes : pour les services de renseignement, d’autres menaces s’ajoutent à la principale, celle des jihadistes »

    https://www.lopinion.fr/edition/politique/menace-terroriste-en-france-n-est-pas-seulement-islamiste-189864

    Y’en aura pour tout le monde, au supermarché de la construction des terreurs d’Etat !

    Au risque d’une confusion entre les violences dans les manifestations – #NDDL #GiletsJaunes – et le terrorisme

    Ha bon ?!

    Les services français redoutent notamment les membres de l’ultragauche qui ont été formés militairement en allant combattre avec les Kurdes syriens de l’YPG ou en Colombie avec les Farc ou l’ELN. Plusieurs gendarmeries ont bien été incendiées en 2017, comme à Grenoble, mais la justice n’a pas ouvert d’enquêtes pour terrorisme. Une certaine prudence semble de mise depuis le fiasco judiciaire de l’affaire du « Groupe de Tarnac », qualifié de « terroriste » en 2008 avant d’être définitivement blanchi en 2018.

    De quoi faire ironiser @davduf sur twitter ?
    https://twitter.com/davduf/status/1140525200406175745

    Au demeurant l’article prouve surtout que les seuls qui passent à l’acte, sauf geste suicidaire de solitaire fragile psychologiquement, ce sont les groupuscules d’ultra-droite, armés, et fréquemment militarisés...

  • « Ubérisation », taxi et capitalisme | L’Humanité
    https://www.humanite.fr/uberisation-taxi-et-capitalisme-629816

    Jeudi, 5 Janvier, 2017

    Une tribune de Jean-Marc Domart, retraité CGT, ancien secrétaire de la Chambre Syndicale des Cochers-Chauffeurs (CGT-Taxis Paris), de 1993 à 2003.

    La question du salaire et de la protection sociale du salarié est, depuis qu’existe le salariat, le point d’achoppement entre l’employé qui rend le service rémunéré et l’employeur qui y a recours, le bénéfice pour ce dernier étant d’autant plus important que la rémunération du premier est faible. La plus-value, dit-on...

    Le terme d’ « ubérisation » est mis à la mode tel une « marque »(comme celui de « frigidaire » pour les réfrigérateurs) par l’apparition de cette société U.S. UBER qui « rationalise » la chose - et non seulement dans le Taxi (voir AirBNB en ce qui s’agit de l’immobilier, Deliveroo et Foodora dans le portage de repas) - par l’artifice juridique de la « mise en relation », via l’utilisation des nouvelles technologies (les « plateformes » numériques) et du camouflage qui permet au patronat de se défausser de ses responsabilités sociales, (salaire, protection sociale et fiscalité). Cependant, il ne faut pas croire que cette société soit pionnière en la matière. Car, dans le Taxi, le patronat n’a du reste jamais manqué d’imagination pour exploiter ses employés de cette manière, cela depuis plus d’un siècle, avec bien souvent, il faut l’avouer, l’assentiment des autorités officielles pour qui la délinquance en col blanc constitue un moindre mal en matière d’ordre public. Ce processus de désengagement de la puissance publique au profit du patronat est, dans ce registre, intéressant à décrire.

    Le Taxi - en termes administratifs « voiture publique de 2ème classe » -, comme ses ancêtres les fiacres à chevaux, a quand même sa spécificité, c’est que, concessionnaire d’une autorisation délivrée par la puissance publique pour son exercice sur la voie publique, les tarifs de « louage » (par la clientèle, s’entend) sont fixés par l’autorité publique et non par le patronat, ce depuis fort longtemps (18ème siècle !), ce qui fait que les préfets contrôlent en partie la rémunération, notamment si le chauffeur (autrefois cocher) ose réclamer à son passager plus qu’il n’est dû…

    De ce fait, l’employeur ne peut plus exploiter son employé que sur la part de la rémunération qu’il lui doit, à savoir sur le salaire net et différé (ou socialisé, = sa protection sociale). C’est ce qui se pratique toujours à l’heure actuelle dans les sociétés de Taxi – parisiens et autres - et peu importe la société et le mode de transport concurrentiel institué avec ce système (voitures de remise, VTC), le principe est le même : faire du profit en supprimant le salaire et la protection sociale, considérés comme des « coûts » et non comme des investissements, que cela s’appelle UBER, HEETCH ou autres d’autres domaines, avec des « travailleurs indépendants » ou « auto-entrepreneurs » (Deliveroo, « tuk-tuks » et « rickshaws » pour touristes...). C’est finalement, en fait de « progrès », le retour du tâcheron du 19ème siècle, le pétrole, la chaîne de vélo et les smartphones en plus (aux frais du travailleur, s’entend !).

    Pourquoi cela s’est-il d’abord passé dans l’industrie du Taxi, « voiture de Place de 2ème classe » ? Le progrès technique ? Que nenni, car le radio-taxi, apparu dès 1956, n’avait pas entraîné pour ça un changement de statut des chauffeurs ! Simplement parce que le chauffeur (« cocher » autrefois,,,), dont l’exercice du métier est individuel, remet la recette à l’employeur, ou plutôt la part de la recette collectée qui lui revient (dans le cas, aujourd’hui plutôt rare, du salariat, c’est avec les cotisations sociales incluses), Cela a permis à une époque aux employeurs de proclamer que les chauffeurs ne sont pas des salariés, mais des « associés ». Mais cette apparence ne résiste pas à la réalité de la subordination, plusieurs arrêts de la Cour de Cassation l’ont attesté.

    Deux choses sont venues changer la donne dans un sens de progrès pour cette profession, à savoir l’apparition du compteur horokilométrique, puis les débuts du syndicalisme et de la protection sociale,

    Les tâcherons travaillent à la tâche, par définition rémunérée forfaitairement, mais au 19ème siècle, le besoin se faisait sentir de rémunération à la mesure de celle-ci, Différentes formes de rémunération existaient alors dans le « fiacre », toutes forfaitaires, mais vu que les patrons fixaient les forfaits trop hauts, donc laissant des rémunérations trop faibles, de nombreux conflits avaient lieu sur la voie publique, indisposant un régime (le Second Empire) où l’ordre public revêtait une importance primordiale, On peut lire dans une thèse sur la Voiture de Place soutenue en juin 1912 à l’Université de Dijon l’idée que tenta alors d’imposer le Conseil Municipal de Paris en 1867 :

    Cela changeait effectivement beaucoup de choses, car un tel appareil permettait d’évaluer la somme à partager selon le travail effectué, dans un sens plus juste, D’autre part, Paris avait été agrandi en 1860 donc les distances allongées, la « loi sur les coalitions » (droit de grève) avait été votée le 25 mai 1864, et des grèves de cochers avaient eu lieu en 1865. D’autre part, la faisabilité d’un compteur étant établie, cela impliquait à terme le salariat, et on comprend que ce progrès-là n’arrangeait évidemment pas les affaires du patronat, Si des compteurs furent agréés et équipèrent des véhicules dès 1905, ils ne purent effectivement rendus obligatoires sur toutes les « voitures de place » qu’en 1912.

    La loi Waldeck-Rousseau du 21 mars 1884 autorisa la constitution des syndicats professionnels, et le Syndicat des Cochers déposa ses statuts dès juillet 1884, fut membre fondateur de la CGT au congrès de Limoges de septembre 1895, et réclama vite le statut salarial.

    Le 9 avril 1898 fut votée la loi sur les accidents de travail prévoyant la couverture par les soins de l’employeur de ses employés en cas d’accident du travail. Ce qui n’est cependant pas révolutionnaire dans sa logique, s’agissant en fin de compte de la responsabilité civile du propriétaire d’un outil pour les torts qu’il peut causer, Malheureusement, dès 1909, le patronat, pour se dégager de ses responsabilités, ne voulut pas, pour des questions de cautionnement, reconnaître la qualité de salariés de ses employés (« associés en parts » !), mais perdit la procédure. En 1928 et 1930, furent promulguées les lois sur les Assurances Sociales, où les employeurs et les employés devaient cotiser à des caisses d’assurance-maladie et maternité, et ce fut de nouveau l’occasion pour le patronat, qui régentait la profession depuis 1866, de sortir un règlement préludant à l’état de fait qui prévaut à l’heure actuelle, celui du « locataire », faux travailleur indépendant. Le Code Civil fut alors mis à contribution, par les articles 1709 (« louage de choses »), et 1713 qui permet de « louer toutes sortes de biens meubles ou immeubles ». De nombreuses manifestations eurent lieu contre cette forme d’exploitation, qui cessa lorsque sous le Front Populaire fut promulguée la loi du 13 mars 1937 reprenant l’économie de la Convention Collective du 24 juin 1936, puis l’ arrêté ministériel (Ministère du Travail dont dépendait le Taxi) du 31.12.1938. Entre temps, était paru au « J.O. » du 31 octobre 1935 un décret affiliant aux Assurances Sociales les chauffeurs de Taxi non-propriétaires des véhicules qu’ils conduisent, l’actuel article 311-3-7 du Code de la Sécurité Sociale . Mais si le patronat, sentant la guerre s’approcher, renia la Convention Collective, suivi de peu par les décrets-lois Daladier augmentant d’une heure quotidienne le temps de travail (26/8/1939) puis interdisant la CGT avec le PCF par le décret-loi du 26/9/1939, les textes originaux furent rétablis en 1945 lors du rétablissement du Taxi à Paris.

    La recherche de rentabilité patronale s’accommode mal du progrès social, et ce n’est pas par hasard que c’est après 1968 que ce système du « locataire » fut remis sur le tapis, A la Commission (alors) Paritaire du 20 novembre 1969 fut déposée par la Société G7 la proposition du « Statut du travailleur indépendant », rejetée le jour-même par une motion de la CGT.

    Cette société n’est pas non plus n’importe laquelle. Fondée en 1905 sous la dénomination de Compagnie Française des Automobiles de Places par le comte André Walewski, arrière-petit-fils de la comtesse polonaise Maria Walewska et d’un certain Napoléon 1er, très impliqué dans la haute finance et (déjà !) les pétroles, elle fut très tôt dans la sphère du pouvoir. Les Taxis de la Marne furent une bonne affaire pour elle, car les courses furent toutes payées au compteur, avec le carburant et même l’usure des pneus, par le ministère de la Guerre. Elle ne fut pas des dernières à pratiquer dans les années 30 le système du « locataire ». Passée dans l’après-guerre sous la coupe du constructeur automobile SIMCA - où, dans les années 60, il ne faisait pas bon d’être à la CGT du fait des milices patronales (pseudo-« syndicat » CFT) - elle fut reprise en 1962 par feu André Rousselet (ancien chef de cabinet du ministre Fr. Mitterrand entre 1954 et 1958) qui y travaillait, avec l’aide financière de F. Serfati, un riche rapatrié d’Algérie.

    La Préfecture de Police, en charge depuis le décret du 12 mars 1970 de la réglementation du Taxi Parisien, allait donner en 1973 satisfaction au « lobbying » patronal, suivie d’un mois par le Ministère de l’Intérieur dirigé par l’ultra-droitier R. Marcellin. L’ordonnance n° 73-16079 du 1er février 1973 autorisa le rétablissement de ce mode d’exploitation des autorisations (les « licences »)…et des chauffeurs ! Avec toujours comme base juridique le Code Napoléon, articles 1708 (choix entre le louage de choses et du louage de services), et bien sûr le 1709 (« louage de choses »).

    Les nombreuses manifestations et procédures organisées par la CGT n’aboutirent pas, mais les chauffeurs engagés dans ce système obtinrent par l’A. M. du 4 octobre 1976 la couverture sociale du Régime Général, cotisant sur la base forfaitaire de 70 % du plafond de la Sécurité Sociale, se référant, précisément, pour l ’affiliation à l’article du décret du 30.10.1935 concernant alors cette situation (actuellement nominé 311-3-7 du Code de la Sécurité Sociale, ci-dessous).

    Sans le dire expressément, mais quand même, une responsablilité est de ce fait reconnue au propriétaire et loueur du véhicule Taxi. De plus, un courrier du Ministère des Affaires Sociales du 26 janvier 1995 reconnaissait que « les locataires étaient soumis à un lien de subordination très fort » et qu’ « au titre de l’article 241-8 du Code de la Sécurité Sociale, les cotisations sociales étaient à la seule charge de l’entreprise, toute convention contraire étant nulle de plein droit »,

    Cela tombait fort bien, car la CGT-Taxis avait changé de tactique. Vu l’échec – jusqu’en Conseil d’État – des procédures du Syndicat contre l’autorité préfectorale, l’idée a été de s’en prendre, non plus à l’exécutant administratif qu’était la Préfecture de Police, mais au bénéficiaire qu’était le patronat. En conséquence, dès 1995, le Syndicat engagea des procédures en requalification des contrats de location en contrats de travail. Les bâtons dans les roues ne manquèrent pas, notamment de la part de la G7, mais le 19 décembre 2000, la décision tant attendue tomba : les contrats de locations Hatem et Labanne étaient reconnus comme des contrats de travail par la Cour de Cassation. De nombreux chauffeurs profitèrent alors de cette jurisprudence pour se faire rembourser les cotisations patronales induement payées, Cependant le Ministère s’arcboutait sur le maintien de ce système, précisant qu’« une Cassation n’était pas une loi » !

    Une autre chose à remarquer, c’est que le Régime Général, à la différence du Régime Artisanal, comprend la couverture accident du travail, l’article 412-2 du Code de la Sécurité Sociale s’appliquant « aux travailleurs concernés par l’article 311-3 ». Et aussi que l’article R 312-5 du même code précise dans son alinéa 2 que : [en ce qui concerne les travailleurs concernés par l’art, 311-3, les obligations incombant à l’employeur sont mises : [§1…] - §2 : dans les cas prévus au 7° et 8° dudit article, à la charge des personnes et sociétés qui fournissent les voitures, des exploitations et des concessionnaires. Par conséquent la reconnaissance de la responsabilité du propriétaire de l’outil de travail quelque soit la personne morale !

    Suite à cela, nouvelle offensive du patronat qui, sous l’influence de plusieurs rapports (Attali, Cahuc-Kramarz, Chassigneux), fit, malgré de nombreuses manifestations de Taxis, adopter par les pouvoirs publics en mai 2008 avec la signature des seules organisations patronales et sans la participation de celles des chauffeurs, un Protocole instaurant certains transports concurrentiels non-taxis - très prisés des médias (les motos- « taxis ») -, le rallongement d’une heure du temps de travail quotidien dans les entreprises, et la « sécurisation des relations juridiques entre loueurs et locataires », à savoir que – est-il précisé dans le rapport Chassigneux (§G (1) p. 22, du 20 mars 2008 - sont prévues des dispositions « afin d’éviter que le juge requalifie les contrats de locations en contrats de travail », Visiblement les arrêts de Cassation du 19 décembre 2000 avaient fortement traumatisé les « Loueurs »…

    L’affaire n’allait pas s’arrêter là, car le 1.10.2014 fut promulguée la Loi Thévenoud qui, rajoutant des concurrences supplémentaires légales (VTC), instituait dans le Taxi les « locataires-gérants » (art 5-I, §2), précisant au III du même article que l’article 311-3-7 du Code de la Sécurité Sociale ne s’appliquait pas audit locataire gérant ! Cela, comme l’a dit Thévenoud lui-même, pour « humaniser le système de la location » !

    Comme « humanisation », on pouvait trouver mieux. Ce système reste inhumain, car forfaitaire, indépendamment de la fluctation de la clientèle, et se base en réalité sur une forte dégradation de la protection sociale. Car si les cotisations sociales artisanales peuvent être (légèrement) moins chères que celles du Régime Général, elles ne comportent pas celles de l’accident de travail, ni le seul avantage final (cher payé) du système locatif « normal », celui de bonnes cotisations pour la retraite, Cela revient, en fin de compte, exactement à la proposition de la société G7 en 1969 ! Finalement, l’ « humanisation » en question sera pour le patronat, qui n’aura même plus à s’occuper du reversement des cotisations à l’URSSAF ni de la détaxation du carburant, et sera déresponsabilisé de l’accident de travail. Quant au public, le statut échappant toujours au contrat de travail, donc sans embauche de chauffeurs de relais dans les sociétés, le problème éternel de l’absence de taxis aux heures de pointe restera non résolu, avec la seule alternative du transport esclavagiste et sans garanties publiques du VTC. Car il faut savoir ce qu’implique le salariat conventionnel : 2 jours de repos consécutifs à 6 jours de travail, comblés par l’emploi d’un chauffeur de relais, par conséquent l’emploi de 4 chauffeurs pour 3 voitures, dans les sociétés, afin d’assurer la continuité du service Taxi. Ce qui, sur les plans de l’emploi (+ 2500) et du service, rend inutiles les VTC. Preuve que l’intérêt du patronat passe bien avant celui du service au public et des chauffeurs !

    Enfin, dernière chose, et non des moindres, sur le plan des principes républicains. En plus de ce « statut » de tâcheron, au même titre que celui de l’auto-entrepreneur, s’ajoute la négation de la spécificité du Taxi, « voiture publique de 2ème classe ». L’autorisation de Taxi (improprement nommée « licence »), ne l’oublions pas, est un bien public, Depuis la loi du 13 mars 1937, il était précisé que la location de l’autorisation de Taxi était interdite sous peine de son retrait, Normal, depuis l’Abolition des Privilèges de 1789 (La « Nuit du 4 Août » 1789), les biens publics étaient devenus inaliénables, et à ce propos, pour ce qui s’agit de la profession, le privilège Perreau de la Voiture de Place avait été de ce fait résilié par l’Assemblée Nationale Constituante le 19 novembre 1790, et racheté par la Ville de Paris pour 420,000 livres, une somme importante à l’époque. En 1866, cela a a coûté bien plus cher encore, et pour la même raison (47 annuités de 360.000 francs/or) ! Curieux qu’une telle énormité ait échappé au législateur et à nombre d’organisations de la profession. Mais « plus c’est gros, plus ça passe » !

    Cela va de pair avec la concurrence des VTC - d’ailleurs approuvée par J.-J. Augier, l’ex-PDG de la G7 et trésorier de campagne de F. Hollande (Paris-Match,19.6.2014) - la casse d’une profession de service au public, en tant que transport à garanties publiques, dont l’État démissionnaire se défausse par paliers, pour nous livrer à la voracité des multinationales, pour lesquelles la démocratie n’existe pas.

    Raison intrinsèque qui a motivé les imposantes manifestations de la profession en février dernier, car c’était le prélude à ce qui était planifié pour le reste du monde du travail, à savoir permettre par les lois Macron et El Khomri le règne sans partage d’un patronat esclavagiste, accumulant des profits sans avoir aucun compte à rendre.

    En guise de « transition énergétique », on peut toujours, en hauts lieux, se donner bonne conscience à dire aux travailleurs (surtout à eux !) de circuler à vélo, et à piétonniser des voies rapides. Mais quelle logique écologique y a-t-il de rajouter sur la voie publique sans véritable besoin - sinon idéologique - des transports non limités en nombre ni en heures de circulation ? « Y ’a comme un défaut ! » …

    On n’arrête pas le « progrès », car nous avons actuellement un gouvernement – aux dires des médias - qui est contre « l’immobilisme ». Et qui bouge, c’est vrai ... mais en marche arrière accélérée !

    Une publicité de la SNCF disait jadis que « le progrès ne vaut que s’il est partagé par tous »,

    La lutte n’est donc pas terminée,..
    Jean-Marc Dommart, retraité CGT

    #Frankreich #Taxi #Uber #Uberisation #Gewerkschaft

  • Pollution de l’air : l’Etat jugé pour « carence fautive », une première
    https://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2019/05/28/pollution-de-l-air-le-premier-proces-d-une-mere-et-de-sa-fille-contre-l-etat

    Le tribunal administratif de Montreuil examine mardi un recours déposé par une mère et sa fille. Souffrant de problèmes respiratoires, elles réclament 160 000 euros d’indemnisation.

    [...] Le mémoire en défense de la Préfecture de police, de son côté, reporte la faute sur la victime, estimant que le dommage qu’elle a subi est « la conséquence directe et exclusive d’un choix strictement personnel ». A savoir, ne pas avoir quitté une ville polluée [Saint-Ouen (Seine-Saint-Denis)] alors qu’elle savait sa santé fragile. « La requérante n’a pas pris toute diligence pour éviter son préjudice et a laissé son état s’aggraver, sachant que le choix d’habiter la région parisienne lui est exclusivement imputable, faisant en conséquence preuve d’une imprudence caractérisée. »

    Selon la logique des services de l’Etat, la requérante serait coupable de ne pas avoir déménagé. Ce qui se traduit dans le jargon administratif : « Dès lors que [Farida] n’expose aucune circonstance impérieuse à demeurer à #Paris, celle-ci a commis une faute de nature à exonérer l’administration de sa responsabilité. »

    Une argumentation qui laisse pantois Olivier Blond, le président de l’association Respire. « Si on en croit la préfecture, il faudrait donc évacuer les 10 millions d’imprudents qui vivent en Ile-de-France. C’est très inquiétant, venant d’une institution censée nous protéger, commente Olivier Blond. D’un autre côté, c’est un aveu extraordinaire que la #pollution de l’#air fait planer un danger sérieux sur les Franciliens. »

  • Opposition mayor bans Syrians from beach in western Turkey

    Syrians have been barred from public beaches by the mayor of Mudanya, a coastal district in the western Turkish province of Bursa, who said that he would not allow Syrians disturb Turkey’s own people, Karar newspaper reported on Saturday.

    Hayri Türkyılmaz from the Republican People’s Party (CHP), who was elected for a second term as Mudanya’s mayor on March 31, also attempted to ban Syrians from using beaches in 2014, Karar said.

    “Nobody has the right to bother others or restrict their freedoms”, tweeted Türkyılmaz. “While our children are dying (in Syria), our mothers are crying, our economy is going downhill, we won’t tolerate our people being annoyed as they live a life of comfort”.

    Turkey hosts some 3.6 million registered refugees from Syria, according to the latest United Nations figures published in May. Many in Turkey object to their presence, and the tensions have been fuelled in part by viral reports – often fake – of misdeeds by refugees, as well as inaccurate reports on the benefits offered them by the Turkish government.

    Turkish news site Gazete ABC reported that a high number of Syrians had been a fixture on the beaches in Mudanya for months, likening them to an “invasion”.

    The Syrians had been moved off the beaches and municipal police posted to ensure they did not return, Gazete ABC said.

    “They can either conform to us or they can go back to their own country”, Türkyılmaz said.

    With a reported 79 percent of Turks holding unfavourable views of the refugees, nationalist politicians have brought the issue to the agenda over recent years. This year another newly elected CHP mayor, Tanju Özcan of the north western Turkish province of Bolu, announced that he was cutting aid to Syrian refugees.


    https://ahvalnews.com/syrian-refugees/opposition-mayor-bans-syrians-beach-western-turkey
    #ségrégation #racisme #réfugiés_syriens #asile #migrations #réfugiés #Turquie #plage

    Ajouté à cette métaliste :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/773978

  • La préfecture de #paris se prononce pour l’évacuation immédiate des 10 millions de Franciliens
    http://carfree.fr/index.php/2019/06/12/la-prefecture-de-paris-se-prononce-pour-levacuation-immediate-des-10-million

    Incroyable aveu de la préfecture de police de Paris qui, dans le cadre d’un procès relatif à la #pollution de l’air, ne veut pas reconnaître la responsabilité de l’Etat français Lire la suite...

    #Pollution_automobile #air #justice #santé

    • Le mémoire en défense de la Préfecture de police reporte la faute sur la victime, estimant que le dommage qu’elle a subi est « la conséquence directe et exclusive d’un choix strictement personnel ». A savoir, ne pas avoir quitté une ville polluée alors qu’elle savait sa santé fragile. « La requérante n’a pas pris toute diligence pour éviter son préjudice et a laissé son état s’aggraver, sachant que le choix d’habiter la région parisienne lui est exclusivement imputable, faisant en conséquence preuve d’une imprudence caractérisée. »

      Selon la logique des services de l’Etat, la requérante serait coupable de ne pas avoir déménagé. Ce qui se traduit dans le jargon administratif : « Dès lors que la plaignante n’expose aucune circonstance impérieuse à demeurer à Paris, celle-ci a commis une faute de nature à exonérer l’administration de sa responsabilité. »

      Une argumentation qui laisse pantois Olivier Blond, le président de l’association Respire. « Si on en croit la préfecture, il faudrait donc évacuer les 10 millions d’imprudents qui vivent en Ile-de-France. C’est très inquiétant, venant d’une institution censée nous protéger, commente Olivier Blond. D’un autre côté, c’est un aveu extraordinaire que la pollution de l’air fait planer un danger sérieux sur les Franciliens. »

      Quel cynisme, quand on sait que tout ce qui est hors des métropoles est abandonné.

  • Russian biologist plans more CRISPR-edited babies
    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01770-x

    Je n’ai pas réussi à extraire une simple partie de ce texte, tant l’ensemble me semble complètement hors-jeu. Je partage l’avis de l’auteur de l’article : la folie et l’hubris scientifiques se serrent la main dans le dos de l’humanité. Choisir de surcroit des femmes en difficulté (HIV positive) est bien dans la lignée machiste d’une science qui impose plus qu’elle ne propose.

    La guerre internationale à la réputation, la course à « être le premier » (ici le masculin s’impose), la science sans conscience ne peuvent que provoquer ce genre de dérives. Il faudra réfléchir à une « slow science » et à un réel partage des découvertes, qui permettrait de prendre le temps du recul, et qui pourrait associer la société civile (ici au sens de celle qui n’est pas engagée dans la guerre des sciences).

    The proposal follows a Chinese scientist who claimed to have created twins from edited embryos last year.
    David Cyranoski

    Denis Rebrikov

    Molecular biologist Denis Rebrikov is planning controversial gene-editing experiments in HIV-positive women.

    A Russian scientist says he is planning to produce gene-edited babies, an act that would make him only the second person known to have done this. It would also fly in the face of the scientific consensus that such experiments should be banned until an international ethical framework has agreed on the circumstances and safety measures that would justify them.

    Molecular biologist Denis Rebrikov has told Nature he is considering implanting gene-edited embryos into women, possibly before the end of the year if he can get approval by then. Chinese scientist He Jiankui prompted an international outcry when he announced last November that he had made the world’s first gene-edited babies — twin girls.

    The experiment will target the same gene, called CCR5, that He did, but Rebrikov claims his technique will offer greater benefits, pose fewer risks and be more ethically justifiable and acceptable to the public. Rebrikov plans to disable the gene, which encodes a protein that allows HIV to enter cells, in embryos that will be implanted into HIV-positive mothers, reducing the risk of them passing on the virus to the baby in utero. By contrast, He modified the gene in embryos created from fathers with HIV, which many geneticists said provided little clinical benefit because the risk of a father passing on HIV to his children is minimal.

    Rebrikov heads a genome-editing laboratory at Russia’s largest fertility clinic, the Kulakov National Medical Research Center for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology in Moscow and is a researcher at the Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University, also in Moscow.

    According to Rebrikov he already has an agreement with an HIV centre in the city to recruit women infected with HIV who want to take part in the experiment.

    But scientists and bioethicists contacted by Nature are troubled by Rebrikov’s plans.

    “The technology is not ready,” says Jennifer Doudna, a University of California Berkeley molecular biologist who pioneered the CRISPR-Cas9 genome-editing system that Rebrikov plans to use. “It is not surprising, but it is very disappointing and unsettling.”

    Alta Charo, a researcher in bioethics and law at the University of Wisconsin-Madison says Rebrikov’s plans are not an ethical use of the technology. “It is irresponsible to proceed with this protocol at this time,” adds Charo, who sits on a World Health Organization committee that is formulating ethical governance policies for human genome editing.
    Rules and regulations

    Implanting gene-edited embryos is banned in many countries. Russia has a law that prohibits genetic engineering in most circumstances, but it is unclear whether or how the rules would be enforced in relation to gene editing in an embryo. And Russia’s regulations on assisted reproduction do not explicitly refer to gene editing, according to a 2017 analysis of such regulations in a range of countries. (The law in China is also ambiguous: in 2003, the health ministry banned genetically modifying human embryos for reproduction but the ban carried no penalties and He’s legal status was and still is not clear).

    Rebrikov expects the health ministry to clarify the rules on the clinical use of gene-editing of embryos in the next nine months. Rebrikov says he feels a sense of urgency to help women with HIV, and is tempted to proceed with his experiments even before Russia hashes out regulations.

    To reduce the chance he would be punished for the experiments, Rebrikov plans to first seek approval from three government agencies, including the health ministry. That could take anywhere from one month to two years, he says.

    Konstantin Severinov, a molecular geneticist who recently helped the government design a funding program for gene-editing research, says such approvals might be difficult. Russia’s powerful Orthodox church opposes gene editing, says Severinov, who splits his time between Rutgers University in Piscataway, New Jersey, and the Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology near Moscow.

    Before any scientist attempts to implant gene-edited embryos into women there needs to be a transparent, open debate about the scientific feasibility and ethical permissibility, says geneticist George Daley at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, who also heard about Rebrikov’s plans from Nature.

    One reason that gene-edited embryos have created a huge global debate is that, if allowed to grow into babies, the edits can be passed on to future generations — a far-reaching intervention known as altering the germ line. Researchers agree that the technology might, one day, help to eliminate genetic diseases such as sickle-cell anaemia and cystic fibrosis, but much more testing is needed before it is used in the alteration of human beings.

    In the wake of He’s announcement, many scientists renewed calls for an international moratorium on germline editing. Although that has yet to happen, the World Health Organization, the US National Academy of Sciences, the UK’s Royal Society and other prominent organizations have all discussed how to stop unethical and dangerous uses — often defined as ones that pose unnecessary or excessive risk — of genome editing in humans.
    HIV-positive mothers

    Although He was widely criticized for conducting his experiments using sperm from HIV-positive fathers, his argument was that he just wanted to protect people against ever getting the infection. But scientists and ethicists countered that there are other ways to decrease the risk of infection, such as contraceptives. There are also reasonable alternatives, such as drugs, for preventing maternal transmission of HIV, says Charo.

    Rebrikov agrees, and so plans to implant embryos only into a subset of HIV-positive mothers who do not respond to standard anti-HIV drugs. Their risk of transmitting the infection to the child is higher. If editing successfully disables the CCR5 gene, that risk would be greatly reduced, Rebrikov says. “This is a clinical situation which calls for this type of therapy,” he says.

    Most scientists say there is no justification for editing the CCR5 gene in embryos, even so, because the risks don’t outweigh the benefits. Even if the therapy goes as planned, and both copies of the CCR5 gene in cells are disabled, there is still a chance that such babies could become infected with HIV. The cell-surface protein encoded by CCR5 is thought to be the gateway for some 90% of HIV infections, but getting rid of it won’t affect other routes of HIV infection. There are still many unknowns about the safety of gene editing in embryos, says Gaetan Burgio at the Australian National University in Canberra. And what are the benefits of editing this gene, he asks. “I don’t see them.”
    Hitting the target

    There are also concerns about the safety of gene editing in embryos more generally. Rebrikov claims that his experiment — which, like He’s, will use the CRISPR-Cas9 genome-editing tool — will be safe.

    One big concern with He’s experiment — and with gene-editing in embryos more generally — is that CRISPR-Cas9 can cause unintended ‘off-target’ mutations away from the target gene, and that these could be dangerous if they, for instance, switched off a tumour-suppressor gene. But Rebrikov says that he is developing a technique that can ensure that there are no ‘off-target’ mutations; he plans to post preliminary findings online within a month, possibly on bioRxiv or in a peer-reviewed journal.

    Scientists contacted by Nature were sceptical that such assurances could be made about off-target mutations, or about another known challenge of using CRISPR-Cas 9 — so-called ‘on-target mutations’, in which the correct gene is edited, but not in the way intended.

    Rebrikov writes, in a paper published last year in the Bulletin of the RSMU, of which he is the editor in chief, that his technique disables both copies of the CCR5 gene (by deleting a section of 32 bases) more than 50% of the time. He says publishing in this journal was not a conflict of interest because reviewers and editors are blinded to a paper’s authors.

    But Doudna is sceptical of those results. “The data I have seen say it’s not that easy to control the way the DNA repair works.” Burgio, too, thinks that the edits probably led to other deletions or insertions that are difficult to detect, as is often the case with gene editing.

    Misplaced edits could mean that the gene isn’t properly disabled, and so the cell is still accessible to HIV, or that the mutated gene could function in a completely different and unpredictable way. “It can be a real mess,” says Burgio.

    What’s more, the unmutated CCR5 has many functions that are not yet well understood, but which offer some benefits, say scientists critical of Rebrikov’s plans. For instance, it seems to offer some protection against major complications following infection by the West Nile virus or influenza. “We know a lot about its [CCR5’s] role in HIV entry [to cells], but we don’t know much about its other effects,” says Burgio. A study published last week also suggested that people without a working copy of CCR5 might have a shortened lifespan.

    Rebrikov understands that if he proceeds with his experiment before Russia’s updated regulations are in place, he might be considered a second He Jiankui. But he says he would only do so if he’s sure of the safety of the procedure. “I think I’m crazy enough to do it,” he says.

    Nature 570, 145-146 (2019)
    doi: 10.1038/d41586-019-01770-x

    • Ces réfugiés dans leur propre pays

      En 2018, il y a eu autant de nouveaux « déplacés internes » dans 55 pays que de réfugiés en séjour dans le monde entier.

      A voir le nombre de personnes exilées à l’intérieur de leur propre pays, celui des réfugiés paraît faire moins problème. A fin 2018, le nombre de réfugiés recensés dans le monde entier atteignait 28,5 millions, soit autant que celui des « déplacés internes » supplémentaires enregistrés au cours de la seule année dernière.

      Selon le Rapport global 2019 de l’Observatoire des situations de déplacement interne (IDMC) du Conseil norvégien des réfugiés, dont le siège se trouve à Genève, on comptait, à fin 2018, 41,3 millions de personnes vivant en situation de déplacés internes dans 55 pays, suite à des catastrophes naturelles ou à des conflits. Il s’agit d’un effectif record de personnes déplacées dans leur propre pays du fait de conflits, de violence généralisée ou de catastrophes naturelles.
      Catastrophes naturelles

      Parmi les désastres qui ont provoqué l’an dernier quelque 17,2 millions de nouveaux déplacements, certains sont très probablement dus au changement climatique. Ainsi, les incendies qui ont détruit une grande partie de la forêt californienne et qui ont contraint 1,2 million d’Américains – sans compter les morts – à abandonner leur domicile et à s’installer ailleurs peuvent probablement être attribués au réchauffement climatique et à la sécheresse.

      Au contraire, le Bangladesh n’a enregistré l’an dernier « que » 78’000 déplacements de personnes en raison des inondations. C’est presque l’équivalent de la population de la ville de Lucerne qu’il faut recaser sur des terrains sûrs dans un pays comptant 1’100 habitants au kilomètre carré. Le Bangladesh prévoit de construire trois villes de taille moyenne pour accueillir les déplacés récents et ceux qui ne vont pas manquer d’affluer dans les années à venir. Mais que pourra-t-on faire lorsque le niveau de la mer montera ?

      Au Nigeria, cet immense pays de plus de 100 millions d’habitants, 80% des terres ont été inondées par des pluies torrentielles, causant 541’000 déplacements internes.

      Problème : les personnes qui, en raison d’inondations ou de conflits locaux, doivent chercher refuge ailleurs dans leur propre pays se rendent systématiquement dans les villes, souvent déjà surpeuplées. Comment imaginer que Dhaka, la capitale du Bangladesh récemment devenue une mégapole approchant les 17 millions d’habitants, puisse encore grandir ?
      Violences et conflits

      En 2018 toujours, 10,8 millions de personnes ont connu le sort des déplacés internes en raison des violences ou des conflits qui ont sévi surtout dans les pays suivants : Ethiopie, République démocratique du Congo (RDC), Syrie, Nigeria, Somalie, Afghanistan, République centrafricaine, Cameroun et Soudan du Sud. Outre ces mouvements internes, des personnes sont allées chercher secours et refuge notamment en Turquie (3,5 millions), en Ouganda (1,4 million) ou au Pakistan (1,4 million).

      Les trois pays qui comptent le plus de déplacés internes dus à la violence sont la Syrie, (6,1 millions de personnes), la Colombie (5,8 millions) et la RDC (3,1 millions). S’agissant de la Syrie, nous savons que la guerre civile n’est pas terminée et qu’il faudra faire des efforts gigantesques pour reconstruire les villes bombardées.

      Mais que savons-nous de la Colombie, depuis l’accord de paix entre le gouvernement de Santos et les Farc ? En 2018, il y a eu 145’000 nouveaux déplacés internes et de nombreux leaders sociaux assassinés : 105 en 2017, 172 en 2018 et 7, soit une personne par jour, dans la première semaine de janvier 2019.

      L’Assemblée nationale colombienne ne veut pas mettre en œuvre les accords de paix, encore moins rendre des terres aux paysans et accomplir la réforme agraire inscrite à l’article premier de l’accord de paix. Les Farc ont fait ce qu’elles avaient promis, mais pas le gouvernement. Ivan Duque, qui a remplacé Manuel Santos, s’est révélé incapable de reprendre le contrôle des terrains abandonnés par les Farc – et repris par d’autres bandes armées, paramilitaires ou multinationales, ou par des trafiquants de drogue. Triste évolution marquée par une insécurité grandissante.

      Et que dire de la RDC ? C’est au Kivu, Nord et Sud, véritable grotte d’Ali Baba de la planète, que les populations sont victimes de bandes armées s’appuyant sur diverses tribus pour conserver ou prendre le contrôle des mines riches en coltan, diamant, or, cuivre, cobalt, étain, manganèse, etc. Grands responsables de ces graves troubles : les téléphones portables et autres appareils connectés à l’échelle mondiale ainsi que les multinationales minières.

      Il y a probablement bien d’autres pays de la planète où les violences sont commises par des multinationales qui obligent les habitants locaux à fuir devant la destruction de leurs villages et de leurs terres. Où vont-ils se réfugier ? Dans les villes bien sûr, où ils espèrent trouver un toit. Mais un toit ne suffit pas, ni l’éventuelle aide humanitaire apportée par la Croix-Rouge et les Etats occidentaux. Quand débarquent des dizaines de milliers de déplacés, les municipalités doivent aussi construire des écoles, des hôpitaux, assurer la distribution d’eau potable et l’évacuation des eaux usées.

      Dans les pays africains où il arrive que moins de la moitié des habitants aient accès à l’eau potable, un déplacement important risque fort de remettre en cause tout le programme gouvernemental. Le rapport de l’Observatoire des situations de déplacement interne va même jusqu’à prévoir que certains des Objectifs de développement durable fixés par les Nations unies en 2015 ne pourront jamais être atteints.


      https://www.domainepublic.ch/articles/35077

    • Displaced people: Why are more fleeing home than ever before?

      More than 35,000 people were forced to flee their homes every day in 2018 - nearly one every two seconds - taking the world’s displaced population to a record 71 million.

      A total of 26 million people have fled across borders, 41 million are displaced within their home countries and 3.5 million have sought asylum - the highest numbers ever, according to UN refugee agency (UNHCR) figures.

      Why are so many people being driven away from their families, friends and neighbourhoods?
      Devastating wars have contributed to the rise

      Conflict and violence, persecution and human rights violations are driving more and more men, women and children from their homes.

      In fact, the number of displaced people has doubled in the last 10 years, the UNHCR’s figures show, with the devastating wars in Iraq and Syria causing many families to leave their communities.

      Conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Yemen and South Sudan, as well as the flow of Rohingya refugees from Myanmar to Bangladesh, have also had a significant impact.

      Most do not become refugees

      While much of the focus has been on refugees - that’s people forced to flee across borders because of conflict or persecution - the majority of those uprooted across the world actually end up staying in their own countries.

      These people, who have left their homes but not their homeland, are referred to as “internally displaced people”, or IDPs, rather than refugees.

      IDPs often decide not to travel very far, either because they want to stay close to their homes and family, or because they don’t have the funds to cross borders.

      But many internally displaced people end up stuck in areas that are difficult for aid agencies to reach - such as conflict zones - and continue to rely on their own governments to keep them safe. Those governments are sometimes the reason people have fled, or - because of war - have become incapable of providing their own citizens with a safe place to stay.

      For this reason, the UN describes IDPs as “among the most vulnerable in the world”.

      Colombia, Syria and the DRC have the highest numbers of IDPs.

      However, increasing numbers are also leaving home because of natural disasters, mainly “extreme weather events”, according to the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC), which monitors the global IDP population only.

      The next biggest group of displaced people are refugees. There were 25.9 million by the end of 2018, of whom about half were children.

      One in four refugees came from Syria.

      The smallest group of displaced people is asylum seekers - those who have applied for sanctuary in another country but whose claim has not been granted. There were 3.5 million in 2018 - fewer than one in 10 of those forced to flee.
      Places hit by conflict and violence are most affected

      At the end of 2018, Syrians were the largest forcibly displaced population. Adding up IDPs, refugees and asylum seekers, there were 13 million Syrians driven from their homes.

      Colombians were the second largest group, with 8m forcibly displaced according to UNHCR figures, while 5.4 million Congolese were also uprooted.

      If we just look at figures for last year, a massive 13.6 million people were forced to abandon their homes - again mostly because of conflict. That’s more than the population of Mumbai - the most populous city in India.

      Of those on the move in 2018 alone, 10.8 million ended up internally displaced within their home countries - that’s four out of every five people.

      A further 2.8 million people sought safety abroad as newly-registered refugees or asylum seekers.

      Just 2.9 million people who had previously fled their homes returned to their areas or countries of origin in 2018 - fewer than those who became displaced in the same period.

      The world’s largest new population of internally displaced people are Ethiopians. Almost three million abandoned their homes last year - many escaping violence between ethnic groups.

      The conflict in the DRC also forced 1.8 million to flee but remain in their home country in 2018.

      In war-torn Syria, more than 1.6 million became IDPs.

      Venezuelans topped the list of those seeking asylum abroad in 2018, with 341,800 new claims. That’s more than one in five claims submitted last year.

      Hyperinflation, food shortages, political turmoil, violence and persecution, have forced hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans to leave their homeland.

      Most left for Peru, while others moved to Brazil, the US or Spain. More than 7,000 applied for asylum in neighbouring Trinidad and Tobago - just seven miles off Venezuela’s coast - last year alone.

      Annielis Ramirez, 30, is among the thousands of Venezuelans seeking a better life on the islands.

      “All my family is in Venezuela, I had to come here to work and help them,” she says. "I couldn’t even buy a pair of shoes for my daughter. The reality is that the minimum salary is not enough over there.

      “I’m here in Trinidad now. I don’t have a job, I just try to sell empanadas [filled pastries]. The most important thing is to put my daughter through school.”
      Those driven from their homelands mostly remain close by

      Almost 70% of the world’s refugees come from just five countries: Syria, Afghanistan, South Sudan, Myanmar and Somalia, according to the UNHCR. And their neighbouring nations host the most.

      Most Syrians have escaped to Turkey and more than half of Afghan refugees are in Pakistan.

      Many South Sudanese go to nearby Sudan or Uganda. Those from Myanmar - the majority Rohingya refugees displaced at the end of 2017 - mainly fled to Bangladesh.

      Germany, which doesn’t border any of those countries with the largest outflows, is home to more than half a million Syrian and 190,000 Afghan refugees - the result of its “welcome culture” towards refugees established in 2015. It has since toughened up refugee requirements.

      When assessing the burden placed on the host countries, Lebanon holds the largest number of refugees relative to its population. One in every six people living in the country is a refugee, the vast majority from across the border in Syria.

      The exodus from Syria has also seen refugee numbers in neighbouring Jordan swell, putting pressure on resources. About 85% of the Syrians currently settled in Jordan live below the poverty line, according to the UN.

      Overall, one third of the global refugee population (6.7 million people) live in the least developed countries of the world.
      Many go to live in massive temporary camps

      Large numbers of those driven from their home countries end up in cramped, temporary tent cities that spring up in places of need.

      The biggest in the world is in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh, where half a million Rohingya now live, having fled violence in neighbouring Myanmar.

      The second largest is Bidi Bidi in northern Uganda, home to a quarter of a million people. The camp has seen many arrivals of South Sudanese fleeing civil war just a few hours north.

      Bidi Bidi, once a small village, has grown in size since 2016 and now covers 250 sq km (97 sq miles) - a third of the size of New York City.

      But what makes Bidi Bidi different from most other refugee camps, is that its residents are free to move around and work and have access to education and healthcare.

      The Ugandan government, recognised for its generous approach to refugees, also provides Bidi Bidi’s residents with plots of land, so they can farm and construct shelters, enabling them to become economically self-sufficient.

      The camp authorities are also aiming to build schools, health centres and other infrastructure out of more resilient materials, with the ultimate aim of creating a working city.

      Among those living in Bidi Bidi are Herbat Wani, a refugee from South Sudan, and Lucy, a Ugandan, who were married last year.

      Herbat is grateful for the welcome he has received in Uganda since fleeing violence in his home country.

      “The moment you reach the boundary, you’re still scared but there are these people who welcome you - and it was really amazing,” he says. “Truly I can say Uganda at this point is home to us.”

      Lucy says she doesn’t see Herbat as a refugee at all. “He’s a human being, like me,” she says.

      However, despite the authorities’ best efforts, a number of challenges remain at Bidi Bidi.

      The latest report from the UNHCR notes there are inadequate food and water supplies, health facilities still operating under tarpaulins and not enough accommodation or schools for the large families arriving.
      Displacement could get worse

      Alongside conflict and violence, persecution and human rights violations, natural disasters are increasingly responsible for forcing people from their homes.

      Looking at data for IDPs only, collected separately by the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC), natural disasters caused most new internal displacement cases last year, outpacing conflict as the main reason for people fleeing.

      On top of the 10.8 million internally displaced by conflict last year, there were 17.2 million people who were forced to abandon their homes because of disasters, mainly “extreme weather events” such as storms and floods, the IDMC says.

      The IDMC expects the number of people uprooted because of natural disasters to rise to 22 million this year, based on data for the first half of 2019.

      Mass displacement by extreme weather events is “becoming the norm”, its report says, and IDMC’s director Alexandra Bilak has urged global leaders to invest more in ways of mitigating the effects of climate change.

      Tropical cyclones and monsoon floods forced many in India and Bangladesh from their homes earlier this year, while Cyclone Idai wreaked havoc in southern Africa, killing more than 1,000 people and uprooting millions in Mozambique, Zimbabwe and Malawi.

      Idai was “one of the deadliest weather-related disasters to hit the southern hemisphere”, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said.

      Although linking any single event to global warming is complicated, climate change is expected to increase the frequency of such extreme weather events.

      The WMO warns that the physical and financial impacts of global warming are already on the rise.

      Phan Thi Hang, a farmer in Vietnam’s Ben Tre province, has told the BBC his country’s changing climate has already had a “huge impact” on rice yields.

      “There has been less rain than in previous years,” he says. "As a result, farming is much more difficult.

      “We can now only harvest two crops instead of three each year, and the success of these is not a sure thing.”

      He says he and his fellow farmers now have to work as labourers or diversify into breeding cattle to make extra cash, while others have left the countryside for the city.

      Like Phan’s fellow farmers, many IDPs head to cities in search of safety from weather-related events as well as better lives.

      But many of the world’s urban areas may not offer people the sanctuary they are seeking.

      Displaced people in cities often end up seeking shelter in unfinished or abandoned buildings and are short of food, water and basic services, making them vulnerable to illness and disease, the IDMC says. They are also difficult to identify and track, mingling with resident populations.

      On top of this, some of the world’s biggest cities are also at risk from rising global temperatures.

      Almost all (95%) cities facing extreme climate risks are in Africa or Asia, a report by risk analysts Verisk Maplecroft has found.

      And it’s the faster-growing cities that are most at risk, including megacities like Lagos in Nigeria and Kinshasa in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

      Some 84 of the world’s 100 fastest-growing cities face “extreme” risks from rising temperatures and extreme weather brought on by climate change.

      This means that those fleeing to urban areas to escape the impact of a warming world may well end up having their lives disrupted again by the effects of rising temperatures.

      https://www.bbc.com/news/world-49638793
      #conflits #violence #Bidi-Bidi #camps_de_réfugiés #bidi_bidi #vulnérabilité #changement_climatique #climat #villes #infographie #visualisation

  • Call immigrant detention centers what they really are: concentration camps

    If you were paying close attention last week, you might have spotted a pattern in the news. Peeking out from behind the breathless coverage of the Trump family’s tuxedoed trip to London was a spate of deaths of immigrants in U.S. custody: Johana Medina Léon, a 25-year-old transgender asylum seeker; an unnamed 33-year-old Salvadoran man; and a 40-year-old woman from Honduras.

    Photos from a Border Patrol processing center in El Paso showed people herded so tightly into cells that they had to stand on toilets to breathe. Memos surfaced by journalist Ken Klippenstein revealed that Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s failure to provide medical care was responsible for suicides and other deaths of detainees. These followed another report that showed that thousands of detainees are being brutally held in isolation cells just for being transgender or mentally ill.

    Also last week, the Trump administration cut funding for classes, recreation and legal aid at detention centers holding minors — which were likened to “summer camps” by a senior ICE official last year. And there was the revelation that months after being torn from their parents’ arms, 37 children were locked in vans for up to 39 hours in the parking lot of a detention center outside Port Isabel, Texas. In the last year, at least seven migrant children have died in federal custody.

    Preventing mass outrage at a system like this takes work. Certainly it helps that the news media covers these horrors intermittently rather than as snowballing proof of a racist, lawless administration. But most of all, authorities prevail when the places where people are being tortured and left to die stay hidden, misleadingly named and far from prying eyes.

    There’s a name for that kind of system. They’re called concentration camps. You might balk at my use of the term. That’s good — it’s something to be balked at.

    The goal of concentration camps has always been to be ignored. The German-Jewish political theorist Hannah Arendt, who was imprisoned by the Gestapo and interned in a French camp, wrote a few years afterward about the different levels of concentration camps. Extermination camps were the most extreme; others were just about getting “undesirable elements … out of the way.” All had one thing in common: “The human masses sealed off in them are treated as if they no longer existed, as if what happened to them were no longer of interest to anybody, as if they were already dead.”

    Euphemisms play a big role in that forgetting. The term “concentration camp” is itself a euphemism. It was invented by a Spanish official to paper over his relocation of millions of rural families into squalid garrison towns where they would starve during Cuba’s 1895 independence war. When President Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered Japanese Americans into prisons during World War II, he initially called them concentration camps. Americans ended up using more benign names, like “Manzanar Relocation Center.”

    Even the Nazis’ camps started out small, housing criminals, Communists and opponents of the regime. It took five years to begin the mass detention of Jews. It took eight, and the outbreak of a world war, for the first extermination camps to open. Even then, the Nazis had to keep lying to distract attention, claiming Jews were merely being resettled to remote work sites. That’s what the famous signs — Arbeit Macht Frei, or “Work Sets You Free” — were about.

    Subterfuge doesn’t always work. A year ago, Americans accidentally became aware that the Trump administration had adopted (and lied about) a policy of ripping families apart at the border. The flurry of attention was thanks to the viral conflation of two separate but related stories: the family-separation order and bureaucrats’ admission that they’d been unable to locate thousands of migrant children who’d been placed with sponsors after crossing the border alone.

    Trump shoved that easily down the memory hole. He dragged his heels a bit, then agreed to a new policy: throwing whole families into camps together. Political reporters posed irrelevant questions, like whether President Obama had been just as bad, and what it meant for the midterms. Then they moved on.

    It is important to note that Trump’s aides have built this system of racist terror on something that has existed for a long time. Several camps opened under Obama, and as president he deported millions of people.

    But Trump’s game is different. It certainly isn’t about negotiating immigration reform with Congress. Trump has made it clear that he wants to stifle all non-white immigration, period. His mass arrests, iceboxes and dog cages are part of an explicitly nationalist project to put the country under the control of the right kind of white people.

    As a Republican National Committee report noted in 2013: “The nation’s demographic changes add to the urgency of recognizing how precarious our position has become.” The Trump administration’s attempt to put a citizenship question on the 2020 census was also just revealed to have been a plot to disadvantage political opponents and boost “Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites” all along.

    That’s why this isn’t just a crisis facing immigrants. When a leader puts people in camps to stay in power, history shows that he doesn’t usually stop with the first group he detains.

    There are now at least 48,000 people detained in ICE facilities, which a former official told BuzzFeed News “could swell indefinitely.” Customs and Border Protection officials apprehended more than 144,000 people on the Southwest border last month. (The New York Times dutifully reported this as evidence of a “dramatic surge in border crossings,” rather than what it was: The administration using its own surge of arrests to justify the rest of its policies.)

    If we call them what they are — a growing system of American concentration camps — we will be more likely to give them the attention they deserve. We need to know their names: Port Isabel, Dilley, Adelanto, Hutto and on and on. With constant, unrelenting attention, it is possible we might alleviate the plight of the people inside, and stop the crisis from getting worse. Maybe people won’t be able to disappear so easily into the iceboxes. Maybe it will be harder for authorities to lie about children’s deaths.

    Maybe Trump’s concentration camps will be the first thing we think of when we see him scowling on TV.

    The only other option is to leave it up to those in power to decide what’s next. That’s a calculated risk. As Andrea Pitzer, author of “One Long Night,” one of the most comprehensive books on the history of concentration camps, recently noted: “Every country has said their camps are humane and will be different. Trump is instinctively an authoritarian. He’ll take them as far as he’s allowed to.”

    https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-katz-immigrant-concentration-camps-20190609-story.html
    #terminologie #vocabulaire #mots #camps #camps_de_concentration #centres_de_détention #détention_administrative #rétention #USA #Etats-Unis
    #cpa_camps

    • ‘Some Suburb of Hell’: America’s New Concentration Camp System

      On Monday, New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez referred to US border detention facilities as “concentration camps,” spurring a backlash in which critics accused her of demeaning the memory of those who died in the Holocaust. Debates raged over a label for what is happening along the southern border and grew louder as the week rolled on. But even this back-and-forth over naming the camps has been a recurrent feature in the mass detention of civilians ever since its inception, a history that long predates the Holocaust.

      At the heart of such policy is a question: What does a country owe desperate people whom it does not consider to be its citizens? The twentieth century posed this question to the world just as the shadow of global conflict threatened for the second time in less than three decades. The dominant response was silence, and the doctrine of absolute national sovereignty meant that what a state did to people under its control, within its borders, was nobody else’s business. After the harrowing toll of the Holocaust with the murder of millions, the world revisited its answer, deciding that perhaps something was owed to those in mortal danger. From the Fourth Geneva Convention protecting civilians in 1949 to the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child, the international community established humanitarian obligations toward the most vulnerable that apply, at least in theory, to all nations.

      The twenty-first century is unraveling that response. Countries are rejecting existing obligations and meeting asylum seekers with walls and fences, from detainees fleeing persecution who were sent by Australia to third-party detention in the brutal offshore camps of Manus and Nauru to razor-wire barriers blocking Syrian refugees from entering Hungary. While some nations, such as Germany, wrestle with how to integrate refugees into their labor force—more and more have become resistant to letting them in at all. The latest location of this unwinding is along the southern border of the United States.

      So far, American citizens have gotten only glimpses of the conditions in the border camps that have been opened in their name. In the month of May, Customs and Border Protection reported a total of 132,887 migrants who were apprehended or turned themselves in between ports of entry along the southwest border, an increase of 34 percent from April alone. Upon apprehension, these migrants are temporarily detained by Border Patrol, and once their claims are processed, they are either released or handed over to ICE for longer-term detention. Yet Border Patrol itself is currently holding about 15,000 people, nearly four times what government officials consider to be this enforcement arm’s detention capacity.

      On June 12, the Department of Health and Human Services announced that Fort Sill, an Army post that hosted a World War II internment camp for detainees of Japanese descent, will now be repurposed to detain migrant children. In total, HHS reports that it is currently holding some 12,000 minors. Current law limits detention of minors to twenty days, though Senator Lindsey Graham has proposed expanding the court-ordered limit to 100 days. Since the post is on federal land, it will be exempt from state child welfare inspections.

      In addition to the total of detainees held by Border Patrol, an even higher number is detained at centers around the country by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency: on a typical day at the beginning of this month, ICE was detaining more than 52,500 migrants. The family separation policy outraged the public in the 2018, but despite legal challenges, it never fully ended. Less publicized have been the deaths of twenty-four adults in ICE custody since the beginning of the Trump administration; in addition, six children between the ages of two and sixteen have died in federal custody over the last several months. It’s not clear whether there have been other deaths that have gone unreported.

      Conditions for detainees have not been improving. At the end of May, a Department of Homeland Security inspector general found nearly 900 migrants at a Texas shelter built for a capacity of 125 people. On June 11, a university professor spotted at least 100 men behind chain-link fences near the Paso del Norte Bridge in El Paso, Texas. Those detainees reported sitting outside for weeks in temperatures that soared above 100 degrees. Taylor Levy, an El Paso immigration lawyer, described going into one facility and finding “a suicidal four-year-old whose face was covered in bloody, self-inflicted scratches… Another young child had to be restrained by his mother because he kept running full-speed into metal lockers. He was covered in bruises.”

      If deciding what to do about the growing numbers of adults and children seeking refuge in the US relies on complex humanitarian policies and international laws, in which most Americans don’t take a deep interest, a simpler question also presents itself: What exactly are these camps that the Trump administration has opened, and where is this program of mass detention headed?

      Even with incomplete information about what’s happening along the border today and what the government plans for these camps, history points to some conclusions about their future. Mass detention without trial earned a new name and a specific identity at the end of the nineteenth century. The labels then adopted for the practice were “reconcentración” and “concentration camps”—places of forced relocation of civilians into detention on the basis of group identity.

      Other kinds of group detention had appeared much earlier in North American history. The US government drove Native Americans from their homelands into prescribed exile, with death and detention in transit camps along the way. Some Spanish mission systems in the Americas had accomplished similar ends by seizing land and pressing indigenous people into forced labor. During the 245 years when slavery was legal in the US, detention was one of its essential features.

      Concentration camps, however, don’t typically result from the theft of land, as happened with Native Americans, or owning human beings in a system of forced labor, as in the slave trade. Exile, theft, and forced labor can come later, but in the beginning, detention itself is usually the point of concentration camps. By the end of the nineteenth century, the mass production of barbed wire and machines guns made this kind of detention possible and practical in ways it never had been before.

      Under Spanish rule in 1896, the governor-general of Cuba instituted camps in order to clear rebel-held regions during an uprising, despite his predecessor’s written refusal “as the representative of a civilized nation, to be the first to give the example of cruelty and intransigence” that such detention would represent. After women and children began dying in vast numbers behind barbed wire because there had been little planning for shelter and even less for food, US President William McKinley made his call to war before Congress. He spoke against the policy of reconcentración, calling it warfare by uncivilized means. “It was extermination,” McKinley said. “The only peace it could beget was that of the wilderness and the grave.” Without full records, the Cuban death toll can only be estimated, but a consensus puts it in the neighborhood of 150,000, more than 10 percent of the island’s prewar population.

      Today, we remember the sinking of the USS Maine as the spark that ignited the Spanish-American War. But war correspondent George Kennan (cousin of the more famous diplomat) believed that “it was the suffering of the reconcentrados, more, perhaps, than any other one thing that brought about the intervention of the United States.” On April 25, 1898, Congress declared war. Two weeks later, US Marines landed at Fisherman’s Point on the windward side of the entrance to Guantánamo Bay in Cuba. After a grim, week-long fight, the Marines took the hill. It became a naval base, and the United States has never left that patch of land.

      As part of the larger victory, the US inherited the Philippines. The world’s newest imperial power also inherited a rebellion. Following a massacre of American troops at Balangiga in September 1901, during the third year of the conflict, the US established its own concentration camp system. Detainees, mostly women and children, were forced into squalid conditions that one American soldier described in a letter to a US senator as “some suburb of hell.” In the space of only four months, more than 11,000 Filipinos are believed to have died in these noxious camps.

      Meanwhile, in southern Africa in 1900, the British had opened their own camps during their battle with descendants of Dutch settlers in the second Boer War. British soldiers filled tent cities with Boer women and children, and the military authorities called them refugee camps. Future Prime Minister David Lloyd George took offense at that name, noting in Parliament: “There is no greater delusion in the mind of any man than to apply the term ‘refugee’ to these camps. They are not refugee camps. They are camps of concentration.” Contemporary observers compared them to the Cuban camps, and criticized their deliberate cruelty. The Bishop of Hereford wrote to The Times of London in 1901, asking: “Are we reduced to such a depth of impotence that our Government can do nothing to stop such a holocaust of child-life?”

      Maggoty meat rations and polluted water supplies joined outbreaks of contagious diseases amid crowded and unhealthy conditions in the Boer camps. More than 27,000 detainees are thought to have died there, nearly 80 percent of them children. The British had opened camps for black Africans as well, in which at least 14,000 detainees died—the real number is probably much higher. Aside from protests made by some missionaries, the deaths of indigenous black Africans did not inspire much public outrage. Much of the history of the suffering in these camps has been lost.

      These early experiments with concentration camps took place on the periphery of imperial power, but accounts of them nevertheless made their way into newspapers and reports in many nations. As a result, the very idea of them came to be seen as barbaric. By the end of the first decade of the twentieth century, the first camp systems had all been closed, and concentration camps had nearly vanished as an institution. Within months of the outbreak of World War I, though, they would be resurrected—this time rising not at the margins but in the centers of power. Between 1914 and 1918, camps were constructed on an unprecedented scale across six continents. In their time, these camps were commonly called concentration camps, though today they are often referred to by the more anodyne term “internment.”

      Those World War I detainees were, for the most part, foreigners—or, in legalese, aliens—and recent anti-immigration legislation in several countries had deliberately limited their rights. The Daily Mail denounced aliens left at liberty once they had registered with their local police department, demanding, “Does signing his name take the malice out of a man?” The Scottish Field was more direct, asking, “Do Germans have souls?” That these civilian detainees were no threat to Britain did not keep them from being demonized, shouted at, and spat upon as they were paraded past hostile crowds in cities like London.

      Though a small number of people were shot in riots in these camps, and hunger became a serious issue as the conflict dragged on, World War I internment would present a new, non-lethal face for the camps, normalizing detention. Even after the war, new camps sprang up from Spain to Hungary and Cuba, providing an improvised “solution” for everything from vagrancy to anxieties over the presence of Jewish foreigners.

      Some of these camps were clearly not safe for those interned. Local camps appeared in Tulsa, Oklahoma, in 1921, after a white mob burned down a black neighborhood and detained African-American survivors. In Bolshevik Russia, the first concentration camps preceded the formation of the Soviet Union in 1922 and planted seeds for the brutal Gulag system that became official near the end of the USSR’s first decade. While some kinds of camps were understood to be harsher, after World War I their proliferation did not initially disturb public opinion. They had yet to take on their worst incarnations.

      In 1933, barely more than a month after Hitler was appointed chancellor, the Nazis’ first, impromptu camp opened in the town of Nohra in central Germany to hold political opponents. Detainees at Nohra were allowed to vote at a local precinct in the elections of March 5, 1933, resulting in a surge of Communist ballots in the tiny town. Locking up groups of civilians without trial had become accepted. Only the later realization of the horrors of the Nazi death camps would break the default assumption by governments and the public that concentration camps could and should be a simple way to manage populations seen as a threat.

      However, the staggering death toll of the Nazi extermination camp system—which was created mid-war and stood almost entirely separate from the concentration camps in existence since 1933—led to another result: a strange kind of erasure. In the decades that followed World War II, the term “concentration camp” came to stand only for Auschwitz and other extermination camps. It was no longer applied to the kind of extrajudicial detention it had denoted for generations. The many earlier camps that had made the rise of Auschwitz possible largely vanished from public memory.

      It is not necessary, however, to step back a full century in American history to find camps with links to what is happening on the US border today. Detention at Guantánamo began in the 1990s, when Haitian and Cuban immigrants whom the government wanted to keep out of the United States were housed there in waves over a four-year period—years before the “war on terror” and the US policy of rendition of suspected “enemy combatants” made Camps Delta, X-Ray, and Echo notorious. Tens of thousands of Haitians fleeing instability at home were picked up at sea and diverted to the Cuban base, to limit their legal right to apply for asylum. The court cases and battles over the suffering of those detainees ended up setting the stage for what Guantánamo would become after September 11, 2001.

      In one case, a federal court ruled that it did have jurisdiction over the base, but the government agreed to release the Haitians who were part of the lawsuit in exchange for keeping that ruling off the books. A ruling in a second case would assert that the courts did not have jurisdiction. Absent the prior case, the latter stood on its own as precedent. Leaving Guantánamo in this gray area made it an ideal site for extrajudicial detention and torture after the twin towers fell.

      This process of normalization, when a bad camp becomes much more dangerous, is not unusual. Today’s border camps are a crueler reflection of long-term policies—some challenged in court—that earlier presidents had enacted. Prior administrations own a share of the responsibility for today’s harsh practices, but the policies in place today are also accompanied by a shameless willingness to publicly target a vulnerable population in increasingly dangerous ways.

      I visited Guantánamo twice in 2015, sitting in the courtroom for pretrial hearings and touring the medical facility, the library, and all the old abandoned detention sites, as well as newly built ones, open to the media—from the kennel-style cages of Camp X-Ray rotting to ruin in the damp heat to the modern jailhouse facilities of Camp 6. Seeing all this in person made clear to me how vast the architecture of detention had become, how entrenched it was, and how hard it would be to close.

      Without a significant government effort to reverse direction, conditions in every camp system tend to deteriorate over time. Governments rarely make that kind of effort on behalf of people they are willing to lock up without trial in the first place. And history shows that legislatures do not close camps against the will of an executive.

      Just a few years ago there might have been more potential for change spurred by the judicial branch of our democracy, but this Supreme Court is inclined toward deference to executive power, even, it appears, if that power is abused. It seems unlikely this Court will intervene to end the new border camp system; indeed, the justices are far more likely to institutionalize it by half-measures, as happened with Guantánamo. The Korematsu case, in which the Supreme Court upheld Japanese-American internment (a ruling only rescinded last year), relied on the suppression of evidence by the solicitor general. Americans today can have little confidence that this administration would behave any more scrupulously when defending its detention policy.

      What kind of conditions can we expect to develop in these border camps? The longer a camp system stays open, the more likely it is that vital things will go wrong: detainees will contract contagious diseases and suffer from malnutrition and mental illness. We have already seen that current detention practices have resulted in children and adults succumbing to influenza, staph infections, and sepsis. The US is now poised to inflict harm on tens of thousands more, perhaps hundreds of thousands more.

      Along with such inevitable consequences, every significant camp system has introduced new horrors of its own, crises that were unforeseen when that system was opened. We have yet to discover what those will be for these American border camps. But they will happen. Every country thinks it can do detention better when it starts these projects. But no good way to conduct mass indefinite detention has yet been devised; the system always degrades.

      When, in 1940, Margarete Buber-Neumann was transferred from the Soviet Gulag at Karaganda to the camp for women at Ravensbrück (in an exchange enabled by the Nazi–Soviet Pact), she came from near-starvation conditions in the USSR and was amazed at the cleanliness and order of the Nazi camp. New arrivals were issued clothing, bedding, and silverware, and given fresh porridge, fruit, sausage, and jam to eat. Although the Nazi camps were already punitive, order-obsessed monstrosities, the wartime overcrowding that would soon overtake them had not yet made daily life a thing of constant suffering and squalor. The death camps were still two years away.

      The United States now has a vast and growing camp system. It is starting out with gruesome overcrowding and inadequate healthcare, and because of budget restrictions, has already taken steps to cut services to juvenile detainees. The US Office of Refugee Resettlement says that the mounting number of children arriving unaccompanied is forcing it to use military bases and other sites that it prefers to avoid, and that establishing these camps is a temporary measure. But without oversight from state child welfare inspectors, the possibilities for neglect and abuse are alarming. And without any knowledge of how many asylum-seekers are coming in the future, federal administrators are likely to find themselves boxed in to managing detention on military sites permanently.

      President Trump and senior White House adviser Stephen Miller appear to have purged the Department of Homeland Security of most internal opposition to their anti-immigrant policies. In doing so, that have removed even those sympathetic to the general approach taken by the White House, such as former Chief of Staff John Kelly and former Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, in order to escalate the militarization of the border and expand irregular detention in more systematic and punitive ways. This kind of power struggle or purge in the early years of a camp system is typical.

      The disbanding of the Cheka, the Soviet secret police, in February 1922 and the transfer of its commander, Felix Dzerzhinsky, to head up an agency with control over only two prisons offered a hint of an alternate future in which extrajudicial detention would not play a central role in the fledgling Soviet republic. But Dzerzhinsky managed to keep control over the “special camps” in his new position, paving the way for the emergence of a camp-centered police state. In pre-war Germany in the mid-1930s, Himmler’s struggle to consolidate power from rivals eventually led him to make camps central to Nazi strategy. When the hardliners win, as they appear to have in the US, conditions tend to worsen significantly.

      Is it possible this growth in the camp system will be temporary and the improvised border camps will soon close? In theory, yes. But the longer they remain open, the less likely they are to vanish. When I visited the camps for Rohingya Muslims a year before the large-scale campaign of ethnic cleansing began, many observers appeared to be confusing the possible and the probable. It was possible that the party of Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi would sweep into office in free elections and begin making changes. It was possible that full democracy would come to all the residents of Myanmar, even though the government had stripped the Rohingya of the last vestiges of their citizenship. These hopes proved to be misplaced. Once there are concentration camps, it is always probable that things will get worse.

      The Philippines, Japanese-American internment, Guantánamo… we can consider the fine points of how the current border camps evoke past US systems, and we can see how the arc of camp history reveals the likelihood that the suffering we’re currently inflicting will be multiplied exponentially. But we can also simply look at what we’re doing right now, shoving bodies into “dog pound”-style detention pens, “iceboxes,” and standing room-only spaces. We can look at young children in custody who have become suicidal. How much more historical awareness do we really need?

      https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2019/06/21/some-suburb-of-hell-americas-new-concentration-camp-system

    • #Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez engage le bras de fer avec la politique migratoire de Donald Trump

      L’élue de New York a qualifié les camps de rétention pour migrants érigés à la frontière sud des Etats-Unis de « camps de concentration ».

      https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2019/06/19/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-engage-le-bras-de-fer-avec-la-politique-migratoire-

  • Increasing child poverty in the Danish welfare state

    Denmark is internationally known for its highly developed welfare state and for having low levels of inequality and poverty. However, since the millennium, both inequality and poverty have increased, and within the last couple of years, child poverty has increased dramatically – from 42,500 poor children in 2016 to 64,500 in 2017. This has created a growing divide between the vast majority of the Danish population and those on the margins, mainly lone mothers, and refugee and immigrant families.

    One of the main reasons for this is that during the last two decades, social assistance benefits have been reduced for certain groups. These changes have specifically affected (and were intended to affect) newly arrived refugees and immigrants, as well as other vulnerable groups, such as minority ethnic Danes. Justifying these cutbacks, the Liberal-Conservative government, elected in 2001, argued that this would increase their incentive to find work. The explicit intention of the new policy was therefore to send a signal to refugees and immigrants that they could not expect to be treated equally by the Danish welfare system before they had earned this right by working in the mainstream labour market.

    Employment or poverty?
    An important question in evaluating the effects of the reduced social assistance benefits for immigrants and refugees – known as Start Aid – is what the intention behind this change of policy was and if it did indeed ‘motivate’ recipients to seek out and take up employment. If rates of unemployment did not get reduced, then, alongside a reduction in the monetary value of the benefits – rates of poverty would necessarily increase. In the short-term, a few years after the policy change (which began in 2002), there appeared to be a small increase in employment rates among these groups. However, employment rates have been monitored for a longer time period now and the results suggest that employment outcomes after 9-10 years of the policy change are very close to zero (Andersen et al., 2019). Another study has shown that there are several explanations for the lack of long-term employment effects – for example a low level of education and poor mastery of the Danish language makes sustaining employment more difficult too. However, the single most important factor has been found to be claimants’ poor health (Müller et al., 2015).

    Child poverty
    As employment has not risen among recipients of the reduced social assistance benefits such as Start Aid, but the monetary value of the benefit has remained low – poverty among arguably the most vulnerable members of Danish society has risen. In Denmark, a commonly used poverty line defines poverty as those living on an income below 50% of the median income (the middle of the income distribution). In measuring whether someone lives in poverty – adjustments are made to this poverty line for those living in households with two or more persons, including children.

    In 2002, about 27, 000 children (aged less than 18 years) were living in poverty. In 2011, the figure increased to more than 40,000. In the period from 2012 to 2015 where the lower levels of benefits were temporally abolished by a new government, the figure decreased slightly to about 35,000. Since the reintroduction of the lower levels of benefits in 2015, the figure has increased to 64,500 in 2017. This figure represents 5.5 % of all children in Denmark. Comparative figures from Eurostat for the proportion of children living in poverty in the United Kingdom and Denmark are 11.1 % and 5.4 % in 2017 respectively. This figure is an indictment for Denmark, giving its commitment to, and reputation for a strong, inclusive welfare state model, which is justified through its relatively high taxation rate.

    Short and long-term consequences of child poverty
    In the short term, the reduced social assistance benefits lead to different types of deprivations. Children, whose parents receive reduced social assistance benefits, were, for example, about 20-30 times less likely than children of employed parents to get new clothes and shoes, and be able to participate in leisure time activities, school trips, or enjoy celebrations of their birthday.

    Research has examined how children living in poverty cope with this. Often they have to work hard to hit the fact. Take Alexander as an example. When his classmates sometimes buy pizza for lunch, he most often tells them that his is not hungry or does not fancy pizza right now. Instead, he often chooses not to have lunch or he goes home to make a sandwich. He thinks it is embarrassing to talk with his friends about not having enough money to do the same things as they do. He says:

    “I don´t think it is cool to talk about. When other people can see that you are poor, then they can tease you about it. But I actually think I am good at hiding it” (quoted in Larsen & Müller, 2015).

    Start Aid (re-named the Integration benefit) was so low that some families lived in absolute poverty – that is, below the subsistence level. Families and single mothers, on benefits, with two or more children are those most likely to have a disposable income below the calculated budgetary minimum poverty line. One of the unintended effects of the Start Aid has been a sharp rise in crime especially among women who were found shoplifting in supermarkets (Andersen et al., 2019).

    Long-term experiences of poverty in childhood affects children’s health and behavior both in the short and long run. Furthermore, studies confirm that growing up in poverty in Denmark leads to lower educational level, a weaker attachment to the labour market, a lower wage, and at the age of 30, one is less likely to have a partner and children (Lesner, 2017).

    Conclusion
    While compared to many other countries, Denmark has relatively low levels of inequality and poverty, this has been changing over the last twenty years. In particular, the recent and dramatic growth in child poverty is likely to have grave consequences longer term – impacting possibilities for social mobility and the promotion of well-being. Given that politicians from all parties continue to, at least in public, support the Danish welfare model – reduced social assistance benefits must be understood as being driven by immigration policy rather than social and labour market policies. Here – a ‘hard line’ on immigration actually has a longer history of broad public support, where the aim is to encourage or even force refugees and asylum seekers to return to their country of origin as quickly as possible.

    In fact, in 2018, the social assistance benefit for refugees and immigrants was actually renamed the Self-Sufficiency and Repatriation benefit, and the monetary value of this allocation reduced even further. Such a split between social welfare policy and immigration policy all point to a country that is keen to ensure Danish national citizens (the majority of whom are ethnically white and of Nordic origin) are able to grow up in a fairly equal society, while simultaneously limiting the opportunity for Denmark to becoming more multi-cultural and -ethnic, where all members of society are adequately protected by a welfare state.

    References
    Andersen, L.H., Dustmann, C., and Landersø, R. (2019): Lowering welfare benefits: Intended and unintended consequences for migrants and their families. Copenhagen: The Rockwool Foundation Research Unit.
    Larsen, J.E. and Müller, M. (2015): Børnefattigdom (Child Poverty). In Erlandsen, T. m.fl.: Udsatte børn og unge. København: Hans Reitzels Forlag.
    Lesner, R.V. (2017): The long-term effect of childhood poverty. Journal of Population Economics.
    Müller, M., Hussain, M.A., Larsen, J.E., Hansen, H., Hansen, F.K, and Ejrnæs, M. (2015): Fattigdom, afsavn og coping (Poverty, deprivation and coping). København: Hans Reitzels Forlag.


    https://discoversociety.org/2019/06/05/increasing-child-poverty-in-the-danish-welfare-state

    #pauvreté #enfants #enfance #enfants_pauvres #statistiques #chiffres #Danemark

  • The woman fighting back against India’s rape culture

    When a man tried to rape #Usha_Vishwakarma she decided to fight back by setting up self-defence classes for women and girls.

    At first, people accused her of being a sex worker. But now she runs an award-winning organisation and has won the community’s respect.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-asia-48474708/the-woman-fighting-back-against-india-s-rape-culture
    #Inde #résistance #femmes #culture_du_viol

    • In China, a Viral Video Sets Off a Challenge to Rape Culture

      The images were meant to exonerate #Richard_Liu, the e-commerce mogul. They have also helped fuel a nascent #NoPerfectVictim movement.

      Richard Liu, the Chinese e-commerce billionaire, walked into an apartment building around 10 p.m., a young woman on his arm and his assistant in tow. Leaving the assistant behind, the young woman took Mr. Liu to an elevator. Then, she showed him into her apartment.

      His entrance was captured by the apartment building’s surveillance cameras and wound up on the Chinese internet. Titled “Proof of a Gold Digger Trap?,” the heavily edited video aimed to show that the young woman was inviting him up for sex — and that he was therefore innocent of her rape allegations against him.

      For many people in China, it worked. Online public opinion quickly dismissed her allegations. In a country where discussion of rape has been muted and the #MeToo movement has been held back by cultural mores and government censorship, that could have been the end of the story.

      But some in China have pushed back. Using hashtags like #NoPerfectVictim, they are questioning widely held ideas about rape culture and consent.

      The video has become part of that debate, which some feminism scholars believe is a first for the country. The government has clamped down on discussion of gender issues like the #MeToo movement because of its distrust of independent social movements. Officials banned the #MeToo hashtag last year. In 2015, they seized gender rights activists known as the Feminist Five. Some online petitions supporting Mr. Liu’s accuser were deleted.

      But on Weibo, the popular Chinese social media service, the #NoPerfectVictim hashtag has drawn more than 17 million page views, with over 22,000 posts and comments. Dozens at least have shared their stories of sexual assault.

      “Nobody should ask an individual to be perfect,” wrote Zhou Xiaoxuan, who has become the face of China’s #MeToo movement after she sued a famous TV anchor on allegations that he sexually assaulted her in 2014 when she was an intern. “But the public is asking this of the victims of sexual assault, who happen to be in the least favorable position to prove their tragedies.” Her lawsuit is pending.

      The allegations against Mr. Liu, the founder and chairman of the online retailer JD.com, riveted China. He was arrested last year in Minneapolis after the young woman accused him of raping her after a business dinner. The prosecutors in Minnesota declined to charge Mr. Liu. The woman, Liu Jingyao, a 21-year-old student at the University of Minnesota, sued Mr. Liu and is seeking damages of more than $50,000. (Liu is a common surname in China.)

      Debate about the incident has raged online in China. When the “Gold Digger” video emerged, it shifted sentiment toward Mr. Liu.
      Editors’ Picks
      Preparing My Family for Life Without Me
      Naomi Wolf’s Career of Blunders Continues in ‘Outrages’
      The Man Who Told America the Truth About D-Day

      Mr. Liu’s attorney in Beijing, who shared the video on Weibo under her verified account, said that according to her client the video was authentic.

      “The surveillance video speaks for itself, as does the prosecutor’s decision not to bring charges against our client,” Jill Brisbois, Mr. Liu’s attorney in the United States, said in a statement. “We believe in his innocence, which is firmly supported by all of the evidence, and we will continue to vigorously defend his reputation in court.”

      The video is silent, but subtitles make the point so nobody will miss it. “The woman showed Richard Liu into the elevator,” says one. “The woman pushed the floor button voluntarily,” says another. “Once again,” says a third, “the woman gestured an invitation.”

      Still, the video does not show the most crucial moment, which is what happened between Mr. Liu and Ms. Liu after the apartment door closed.

      “The full video depicts a young woman unable to locate her own apartment and a billionaire instructing her to take his arm to steady her gait,” said Wil Florin, Ms. Liu’s attorney, who accused Mr. Liu’s representatives of releasing the video. “The release of an incomplete video and the forceful silencing of Jingyao’s many social media supporters will not stop a Minnesota civil jury from hearing the truth.”

      JD.com declined to comment on the origin of the video.

      In the eyes of many, it contradicted the narrative in Ms. Liu’s lawsuit of an innocent, helpless victim. In my WeChat groups, men and women alike said the video confirmed their suspicions that Ms. Liu was asking for sex and was only after Mr. Liu’s money. A young woman from a good family would never socialize on a business occasion like that, some men said. A businesswoman asked why Ms. Liu didn’t say no to drinks.

      At first, I saw the video as a setback for China’s #MeToo movement, which was already facing insurmountable obstacles from a deeply misogynistic society, internet censors and a patriarchal government. Already, my “no means no” arguments with acquaintances had been met with groans.
      Subscribe to With Interest

      Catch up and prep for the week ahead with this newsletter of the most important business insights, delivered Sundays.

      The rare people of prominence who spoke in support of Ms. Liu were getting vicious criticism. Zhao Hejuan, chief executive of the technology media company TMTPost, had to disable comments on her Weibo account after she received death threats. She had criticized Mr. Liu, a married man with a young daughter, for not living up to the expectations of a public figure.

      Then I came across a seven-minute video titled “I’m also a victim of sexual assault,” in which four women and a man spoke to the camera about their stories. The video, produced by organizers of the hashtag #HereForUs, tried to clearly define sexual assault to viewers, explaining that it can take place between people who know each other and under complex circumstances.

      The man was molested by an older boy in his childhood. One of the women was raped by a classmate when she was sick in bed. One was assaulted by a powerful man at work but did not dare speak out because she thought nobody would believe her. One was raped after consuming too much alcohol on a date.

      “Slut-shaming doesn’t come from others,” she said in the video. “I’ll be the first one to slut-shame myself.”

      One woman with a red cross tattooed on her throat said an older boy in her neighborhood had assaulted her when she was 10. When she ran home, her parents scolded her for being late after school.

      “My childhood ended then and there,” she said in the video. “I haven’t died because I toughed it out all these years.”

      The video has been viewed nearly 700,000 times on Weibo. But creators of the video still have a hard time speaking out further, reflecting the obstacles faced by feminists in China.

      It was produced by a group of people who started the #HereForUs hashtag in China as a way to support victims of sexual harassment and assault. They were excited when I reached out to interview them. One of them postponed her visit to her parents for the interview.

      Then the day before our meeting, they messaged me that they no longer wanted to be interviewed. They worried that their appearance in The New York Times could anger the Chinese government and get their hashtag censored. I got a similar response from the organizer of the #NoPerfectVictim hashtag. Another woman begged me not to connect her name to the Chinese government for fear of losing her job.

      Their reluctance is understandable. They believe their hashtags have brought women together and given them the courage to share their stories. Some victims say that simply telling someone about their experiences is therapeutic, making the hashtags too valuable to be lost, the organizers said.

      “The world is full of things that hurt women,” said Liang Xiaowen, a 27-year-old lawyer now living in New York City. She wrote online that she had been molested by a family acquaintance when she was 11 and had lived with shame and guilt ever since. “I want to expand the boundaries of safe space by sharing my story.”

      A decentralized, behind-the-scenes approach is essential if the #MeToo movement is to grow in China, said Lü Pin, founding editor of Feminist Voices, an advocacy platform for women’s rights in China.

      “It’s amazing that they created such a phenomenon under such difficult circumstances,” Ms. Lü said.

      https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/05/business/china-richard-liu-rape-video-metoo.html
      #Chine #vidéo

  • Info sur la refonte de la #Directive_Retour et les futurs projets de réforme du #régime_d'asile_européen_commun

    info sur la prochaine étape européenne en matière de politique migratoire. Plus précisément sur la refonte de la Directive Retour qui va passer au vote en #LIBE et aussi des infos sur l’évolution du Régime d’Asile Européen Commun (#RAEC), histoire d’informer de ce vers quoi l’on tend probablement pour la prochaine législature (donc le prochain mandat).

    Dans un effort pour réformer le Régime d’Asile Européen Commun (RAEC) et tendre vers une #uniformisation du droit d’asile au niveau européen, les directives sont revues une à une depuis quelques années (Directive Accueil, Procédure, Qualification et Retour + le règlement Dublin qui est au point mort depuis 2017 à cause du Conseil Européen).
    Ces #révisions rentrent dans le cadre de l’#agenda_européen_pour_les_migrations qui a été élaboré en 2015 par la Commission sous ordre du Conseil Européen.

    Le package est en état d’avancement prochain et l’étape la plus proche semble concerner la refonte de la Directive Retour.
    Néanmoins, il y a également un nombre assez important de dispositifs prévus dont il est peut-être pas inintéressant d’évoquer dans le sillage de l’analyse sur cette Directive.

    Il y a donc deux parties dans ce mail d’info : la première sur le Régime d’Asile Européen Commun (RAEC) et ce qu’il préfigure ; la seconde sur le texte de la Directive Retour plus précisément.

    Le Régime d’Asile Européen Commun :

    Il y a de nombreux discours actuellement autour de la mise en place d’un droit d’asile "harmonisé" au niveau européen.

    C’est une obsession de Macron depuis son élection. Il a réaffirmé, lors de la restitution du Grand Débat, sa volonté d’une Europe au régime d’asile commun : "c’est aussi une Europe qui tient ses frontières, qui les protège. C’est une Europe qui a un droit d’asile refondé et commun et où la #responsabilité va avec la #solidarité."
    https://www.elysee.fr/emmanuel-macron/2019/04/25/conference-de-presse-grand-debat-national

    La confusion est telle que les journalistes ne semblent pas toujours comprendre si ce régime d’asile commun existe ou non.

    Sur france inter par exemple :
    "Cela fait plusieurs années que l’on parle de la mise en place d’un régime d’asile européen commun. Nous en sommes encore très loin mais plusieurs textes sont actuellement en discussion, sur les procédures, sur l’accueil, les qualifications, les réinstallations, la création d’une agence européenne pour l’asile "
    https://www.franceinter.fr/emissions/cafe-europe/cafe-europe-24-fevrier-2018

    Et non... ça ne fait pas plusieurs années qu’on en parle... ça fait plusieurs années qu’il existe !

    Historique :

    En vérité, cette tentative d’harmonisation des législations est ancienne et date à peu près du Conseil Européen de #Tampere en 1999 qui donna les premières impulsions pour la mise en place du Régime d’Asile Européen Commun avec tout ce que l’on connait maintenant à savoir par exemple, le #règlement_Dublin.
    Ici le résumé des orientations du Conseil sont claires :
    "il faut, pour les domaines distincts, mais étroitement liés, de l’#asile et des #migrations, élaborer une politique européenne commune (...) Il est convenu de travailler à la mise en place d’un régime d’asile européen commun, fondé sur l’application intégrale et globale de la Convention de Genève. (...) Ce régime devrait comporter, à court terme, une méthode claire et opérationnelle pour déterminer l’Etat responsable de l’examen d’une demande d’asile, des normes communes pour une procédure d’asile équitable et efficace, des conditions communes minimales d’#accueil des demandeurs d’asile, et le rapprochement des règles sur la reconnaissance et le contenu du statut de réfugié."
    http://www.europarl.europa.eu/summits/tam_fr.htm#a

    Vous avez ici les bases du RAEC et notamment du règlement Dublin qui vise justement à la détermination de l’#Etat_responsable de l’asile afin de lutter contre le "#shopping_de_l'asile", un """"fléau""""" qui avait déjà touché l’Europe durant les années 90 avec la crise des Balkans (en 1992, 700 000 personnes environ ont demandé l’asile en Europe, ce qui signifie par ailleurs que non... 2015 n’est pas une situation si inédite. La situation s’est stabilisée après 1993 où 500 000 personnes ont demandé l’asile, puis 300 000 dans les années qui ont suivi, mais pas au point de ne pas "forcer" les pays à réagir au niveau européen).
    https://www.persee.fr/doc/homig_1142-852x_1996_num_1198_1_2686

    Cet acte fondateur du #Conseil_de_Tampere est corroboré par plusieurs documents et on peut en trouver aussi confirmation par exemple dans le rapport sur la #politique_européenne_de_Retour (rédigé tous les trois ans) qui commence par :
    "L’Union européenne s’efforce depuis 1999 de mettre au point une approche globale sur la question des migrations, qui couvre l’#harmonisation des conditions d’admission, les droits des ressortissants de pays tiers en séjour régulier ainsi que l’élaboration de mesures juridiques et le renforcement d’une coopération pratique en matière de prévention des flux migratoires irréguliers."
    https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/TXT/?uri=celex:52014DC0199

    Bref, à partir de 1999 et donc du Conseil de Tampere, la direction est prise de mener une politique migratoire à l’échelle européenne pour renforcer le contrôle des frontières extérieures.

    Les Textes du RAEC, l’échec de l’harmonisation et les règlements qui nous attendent en conséquence :

    Le Conseil (donc les États) ordonné à Tampere et donc la Commission exécute en proposant plusieurs textes qui vont dessiner le paysage actuel du droit d’asile européen commun.

    Un ensemble de textes est donc créé et adopté :

    Le règlement Dublin succède donc à la convention de Dublin en 2003
    https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A8glement_Dublin_II
    Avec son frère le règlement #Eurodac qui permet la mise en oeuvre de #Dublin aussi en 2003 (logique) :
    https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurodac

    #Frontex est lancé en 2004 :
    https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agence_europ%C3%A9enne_pour_la_gestion_de_la_coop%C3%A9ration_op%C3%A9

    Et les directives qui constituent le coeur du Régime d’Asile Européen Commun avec le règlement Dublin sont lancées dans la foulée :

    La #Directive_Accueil en 2003 (puis réformée en 2013)
    https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32013L0033

    La #Directive_Procédure en 2005 (réformée aussi en 2013)
    https://www.easo.europa.eu/sites/default/files/public/Procedures-FR.pdf

    La #Directive_Qualification en 2004 (réformée en 2011)
    https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32011L0095

    La Directive Retour en 2008 (qui va être réformée maintenant)
    https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM%3Ajl0014

    L’ensemble de ces textes avait pour but d’harmoniser les législations nationales européennes (pour le meilleur et pour le pire d’ailleurs).
    Le problème concerne donc, non pas l’absence de législations européennes communes, mais plutôt les marges de manoeuvres des Etats dans l’interprétation des Directives et leur transposition dans les législations nationales. Cette marge de manoeuvre est telle qu’elle permet aux Etats de retenir ce qui les arrange dans tel ou tel texte, de sorte que toute tentative d’harmonisation est impossible.

    Dès lors, la diversité des procédures est toujours la norme d’un pays à l’autre ; un pays comme les Pays-Bas donne 4 ans de protection subsidiaire, tandis que la France avant la loi Asile n’en donnait qu’une ; la liste des pays sûrs n’est pas la même selon les Etats .... etc etc etc

    Les Etats ont tellement la main que finalement, on peut assez facilement conclure à l’#échec total des tentatives d’harmonisation et donc du RAEC, tant les Etats ont, du début à la fin, fait un peu près ce qu’ils voulaient avec les textes.
    (voir également Sarah Lamort : https://www.amazon.fr/Europe-terre-dasile-Sarah-Lamort/dp/2130734669)

    La Commission a elle-même très bien compris ces faiblesses.

    Exaspérée elle déclare en 2016 que malgré ses efforts pour la mise en place effective du RAEC : " il existe encore des différences notables entre les États membres dans les types de procédures utilisés, les conditions d’accueil offertes aux demandeurs, les #taux_de_reconnaissance et le type de protection octroyé aux bénéficiaires d’une protection internationale. Ces #divergences contribuent à des #mouvements_secondaires et à une course à l’asile (« #asylum_shopping »), créent des facteurs d’attraction et conduisent en définitive à une répartition inégale entre les États membres de la responsabilité d’offrir une protection à ceux qui en ont besoin.(...) Ces #disparités résultent en partie des dispositions souvent discrétionnaires qui figurent dans la version actuelle de la directive relative aux procédures d’asile et de celle relative aux conditions d’accueil." et de toutes les autres en vérité pouvons-nous ajouter...
    L’objectif est donc de "renforcer et harmoniser davantage les règles du régime d’asile européen commun, de façon à assurer une plus grande égalité de traitement dans l’ensemble de l’Union et à réduire les facteurs d’attraction injustifiés qui encouragent les départs vers l’UE" (les facteurs d’attraction étant le "shopping de l’asile")

    Et pour cela la Commission propose de transformer quasiment toutes les Directives citées plus haut en Règlement... :
    " la Commission proposera un nouveau règlement instituant une procédure d’asile commune unique dans l’Union et remplaçant la directive relative aux procédures d’asile ; un nouveau règlement relatif aux conditions que doivent remplir les demandeurs d’asile remplaçant l’actuelle directive du même nom, et des modifications ciblées de la directive relative aux conditions d’accueil."
    https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2016/FR/1-2016-197-FR-F1-1.PDF

    La différence entre la Directive et le Règlement étant que justement la Directive est soumise à une interprétation des Etats dans la transposition au sein des législations nationales de la dite Directive (dont on voit qu’elle est large), tandis qu’un Règlement est contraignant et s’applique sans interprétation, ni marge de manoeuvre whatsoever à tous les Etats (comme le règlement Dublin).
    Ici par exemple, la Commission propose de changer la Directive Procédure en un Règlement, histoire par exemple, que tous les pays aient la même liste de pays d’origine sûrs une bonne fois pour toute : https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52016PC0467

    Ce processus d’abrogation des #directives pour en faire des #règlements est en cours et il est très important puisque cela signifie qu’il va falloir surveiller de très près les dispositions qui vont apparaitre dans ces nouveaux textes qui vont TOUS s’appliquer stricto sensu.
    Ce n’est pas forcément une bonne nouvelle.

    Reste que les Etats pourraient s’opposer à l’imposition de textes aussi coercitifs et d’ailleurs, ils ont eux-mêmes bloqué la révision du règlement Dublin. Cela pose la question de l’Etat d’avancement.

    Etat d’avancement :
    Depuis l’annonce de la transformation des Directives en Règlements en 2016, les dossiers ne semblent pas avoir tant avancés que cela pour autant que je sache sauf concernant quelques dossiers majeurs, notamment la Directive Retour.

    Concernant la mise en place des règlements, la Commission est très vague dans sa dernière communication sur l’état d’avancement de l’agenda européen matière de migrations de mars 2019 : https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2019:0126:FIN:FR:PDF
    En décembre 2017, elle disait :
    "Présentées il y a un an et demi, ces propositions en sont à des stades d’avancement différents dans le processus législatif. Certaines, comme la proposition concernant l’Agence de l’Union européenne pour l’asile et la réforme d’Eurodac, sont sur le point d’être adoptées. D’autres, à savoir le cadre de l’Union pour la réinstallation, le règlement relatif aux conditions que doivent remplir les demandeurs d’asile et la directive relative aux conditions d’accueil, progressent. En revanche, la proposition de règlement sur les procédures d’asile et, comme pierre angulaire, la proposition de révision du règlement de Dublin, nécessitent encore un travail considérable. Dans ce contexte, il convient aussi de progresser dans les travaux sur la notion de pays tiers sûr au sens de l’UE, en tenant compte des conclusions du Conseil européen de juin"
    https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2017/FR/COM-2017-820-F1-FR-MAIN-PART-1.PDF

    Il y a donc fort à parier qu’en à peine 1 an et demi, les choses n’aient pas beaucoup avancées concernant les règlements.
    Bref, comme il était assez attendu, ce qui ne contraint pas totalement les Etats avancent et le reste piétine pour le moment.

    Par contre, elles avancent concernant la politique des retours et donc la Directive Retour !

    Politique des retours et externalisation de l’asile :

    Après le Conseil de Tampere en 1999, vient la "crise des migrants" en 2015, qui ne fera qu’accélérer les constatations de l’échec du RAEC.

    Le Conseil européen lance donc une réunion spéciale en avril 2015 qui annonce un changement de stratégie vers l’extérieur avec notamment un renforcement de la coopération avec les pays tiers pour le "contrôle de l’immigration". Ordre est donné à la Commission de mobiliser tous les moyens nécessaires pour mettre cette nouvelle stratégie en oeuvre.
    Ce n’est pas le lancement officiel de l’externalisation de l’Asile puisque le processus de Khartoum et de Rabat sont antérieurs et déjà lancés.
    Néanmoins, il me parait assez évident personnellement qu’un coup d’accélérateur à la stratégie d’externalisation sera donné à partir de ce Conseil qui sera entièrement tourné vers la coopération internationale :
    https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2015/04/23/special-euco-statement

    Dans le prolongement logique des décisions prises lors du Conseil d’avril 2015 et de l’orientation stratégique vers l’extérieur, le Conseil Européen lancera le Sommet de la Valette en novembre où il invitera un nombre conséquent de pays africains.
    Ainsi le Sommet de la Valette, "fut l’occasion de reconnaître que la gestion des migrations relève de la responsabilité commune des pays d’origine, de transit et de destination. L’UE et l’Afrique ont travaillé dans un esprit de partenariat afin de trouver des solutions communes aux défis d’intérêt commun."
    https://www.consilium.europa.eu/fr/meetings/international-summit/2015/11/11-12

    C’est après ce Sommet que seront initiés le Fond Fiduciaire, les accords avec la Turquie, la Libye, les garde-côtes, la transformation de Frontex etc
    Bien que tout cela ait été préparé en amont.

    Après les ordres du Conseil, la Commission s’exécute avec l’Agenda Européen en Matière de Migrations et la focale sur les retours :
    Devant la stratégie d’orientation du Conseil qui demande des réformes fortes et des actions pour transformer la politique européenne d’asile, la Commission s’exécute en mai 2015 avec l’Agenda Européen des migrations :https://ec.europa.eu/france/node/859_fr

    Cet agenda met l’emphase sur un nombre impressionnant de points, mais une large part est également réservée aux retours page 11 et 12 (puisqu’il faudrait s’assurer que les retours soient efficaces et effectifs d’après la Commission).
    https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/what-we-do/policies/european-agenda-migration/background-information/docs/communication_on_the_european_agenda_on_migration_fr.pdf

    Dans la foulée la Commission lance donc une réflexion sur la politique des retours qui culminera la même année en 2015 avec The Action Plan of Return.
    L’action plan partira d’un principe assez simple, si les migrants viennent, c’est parce qu’on ne les renvoie pas...
    "The European Agenda on Migration, adopted by the European Commission on 13 May 2015, highlighted that one of the incentives for irregular migration is the knowledge that the EU’s system to return irregular migrants is not sufficiently effective"
    https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52015DC0453

    Ce plan est censé résoudre ce problème.
    Mais il sera aussi un relatif échec, ce qui n’empêchera pas la Commission d’insister en lançant un nouveau plan en 2017, The Renewed Action Plan on return :
    "Despite this, the overall impact on the return track record across the European Union remained limited, showing that more resolute action is needed to bring measurable results in returning irregular migrants. "
    https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/what-we-do/policies/european-agenda-migration/20170302_a_more_effective_return_policy_in_the_european_union_-_a_renewed_

    Toujours dans la foulée d’une politique d’expulsion efficace, il sera discuté plus tard (en mars 2019 sur l’évaluation de l’application de l’agenda européen) de la meilleure façon d’exécuter les retours en Europe. C’est là où nous en sommes.
    Pour la mise en place d’une politique de retour efficace, il y a donc deux stratégies :

    1) renforcer les accords de réadmission avec des accords bilatéraux ou par le biais des accords de Cotonou (qui vont être révisés et qui ont beaucoup tourné autour des migrations justement...on en reparlera un jour).
    "Concernant donc "les retours et la réadmission, l’UE continue d’œuvrer à la conclusion d’accords et d’arrangements en matière de réadmission avec les pays partenaires, 23 accords et arrangements ayant été conclus jusqu’à présent. Les États membres doivent maintenant tirer pleinement parti des accords existants."
    http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-19-1496_fr.htm

    2) renforcer les procédures de retour depuis l’Europe.
    La Commission espère en conséquence que "le Parlement européen et le Conseil devraient adopter rapidement la proposition de la Commission en matière de retour, qui vise à limiter les abus et la fuite des personnes faisant l’objet d’un retour au sein de l’Union"
    http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-19-1496_fr.htm

    C’est pourquoi la Commission propose de revoir la Directive Retour.

    La Directive Retour :
    La directive retour est donc la prochaine directive sur la liste des refontes.
    Ce sera un gros sujet a priori puisque la prochaine étape c’est le vote en Commission LIBE avant donc le vote en plénière.
    L’échéance est donc proche et les discussions bien avancées.

    Un texte problématique :

    Article 6 et 16
    En gros, les problèmes qui se posent avec ce texte ont surtout à voir avec l’article 6 qui décrit une liste de 16 critères de "risque de fuites", les derniers étant particulièrement dangereux puisqu’il semblerait que "résister aux procédures de retour" ou "refuser de donner ses empreintes" peuvent représenter des risques de fuites....
    Cet élargissement des critères est à mettre en lien avec l’article 18 qui permet la détention de toutes les personnes qui représentent un risque de fuite. Avec un élargissement pareil des critères de "fuites", je crains que l’on ne se donne le droit d’enfermer tout le monde.

    Article 7
    L’article 7 oblige les Etats tiers à coopérer dans les procédures de retour.
    L’application de cet article me semblait complexe mais le Brief du Parlement sur la Directive au paragraphe "Council" (donc sur les discussions au Conseil) ajoute que les Etats réfléchissent à la possibilité de sanctions pour les pays tiers en cas de non-respect de cette obligation de coopération.
    Et à ce moment-là j’ai compris.... Ma théorie c’est qu’un chantage quelconque pourra être mis en place pour établir une pression forçant les Etats tiers à coopérer.
    Tout le problème tient sur l’amplitude des sanctions possibles. Je n’en vois pas beaucoup, sauf à menacer de rompre des accords commerciaux ou de développement.

    C’est déjà plus ou moins le cas via le Fond Fiduciaire ou les fonds d’aide au dvp puisque l’on voit parfois que l’aide au dvp dépend de la mise en place d’accords de réadmission.
    Par exemple : l’UE et l’Afghanistan ont signé un accord de réadmission en Octobre 2016 : https://eeas.europa.eu/sites/eeas/files/eu_afghanistan_joint_way_forward_on_migration_issues.pdf
    Et dans la foulée d’octobre, 5 milliards d’aide au dvp étaient débloqués pour la période 2016-2020 à la conférence de Bruxelles (https://eeas.europa.eu/sites/eeas/files/eu-afghanistan_march_2019.pdf).

    Avec une opération pareille, des soupçons de chantage à l’aide au dvp me paraissent tout à fait légitime.
    Cependant, ils existaient une séparation dans la forme. C’est-à-dire que même si les liens peuvent sembler évidents, les accords de réadmission n’établissaient pas directement de chantage entre l’un et l’autre. Il n’était pas écrit que des "sanctions" étaient possibles (du moins pas dans l’exemple de l’Afghanistan ni même dans l’accord de Cotonou - exception faite de ce qui concerne l’article 96 et le respect des droits—et dans aucun autre texte à ma connaissance).
    Ici le Conseil veut faire un pas de plus dans la direction d’une politique assumée de pressions via des sanctions et donc, indirectement semble-t-il, de chantage.

    Les Pays Tiers-Sûrs
    Un autre élément dangereux dans ce paragraphe sur le Conseil dans le Brief du Parlement : c’est que les Etats de leur côté réfléchissent aussi à la possibilité de renvoyer une personne dans un pays tiers considéré comme sûr qui ne soit pas le pays d’origine.
    En d’autres termes, renvoyer les soudanais par exemple, en Egypte par exemple légalement.

    Cela rejoint a priori les discussions sur la notion de pays tiers sûrs que la Commission et le Conseil continuent de vouloir développer depuis très longtemps malgré les oppositions franches des ONG (http://www.forumrefugies.org/s-informer/actualites/le-concept-de-pays-tiers-sur-une-remise-en-cause-profonde-de-l-acces-) ou même l’avis défavorable de la Commission Nationale Consultative des Droits de l’Homme en 2017 (https://www.cncdh.fr/sites/default/files/171219_avis_concept_pays_tiers_sur_5.pdf)
    On ferait ici un pas de plus au sein du creuset initié par la politique des "pays d’origine sûrs" et on s’offrirait le droit de renvoyer des personnes dans des pays qui n’auraient pas les conditions pour les accueillir dignement (tant matériellement que du point de vue du respect des droits...).

    Article 22
    L’article 22 est aussi très problématique puisque les dispositions aux frontières devraient changer :
    Les migrants en zone d’attente devraient recevoir une décision de retour simplifiée plutôt qu’une explication motivée.
    Il ne devrait plus y avoir aucune chance de départ volontaire, sauf si le migrant possède un document de voyage en cours de validité (remis aux autorités) et coopère pleinement (car s’il ne coopère pas, on l’a vu, il peut être déclaré en "tentative de fuite" ou en "fuite").
    Concernant les recours, les migrants ne disposeront que de 48 heures pour faire appel d’une décision de retour fondée sur un rejet de l’asile à la frontière, et l’effet suspensif ne s’appliquera qu’à la présentation de nouvelles conclusions importantes (type CNDA) ou qu’il n’y a pas déjà eu de contrôle juridictionnel effectif.

    Article 16
    D’ailleurs, les recours peuvent subir un changement relativement dramatique à cause de l’article 16. Selon le brief de la Commission :
    " Proposed Article 16(4) imposes a general obligation on Member States to establish ‘reasonable’ time limits. In relation to appeals lodged against return decisions adopted as a consequence of a decision rejecting an application for international protection, Member States would have to establish a time limit for lodging an appeal of a maximum of five days, but would be free to fix a shorter period."
    http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2019/637901/EPRS_BRI(2019)637901_EN.pdf
    Une manière de réduire encore plus les possibilités de recours.

    Article 13
    L’article 13 apporte aussi des changements aux refus d’entrée : " the proposal would allow Member States to impose an isolated entry ban, not accompanied by a corresponding return decision, if the irregularity of a stay is detected when the third-country national is exiting the territory of a Member State"
    http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2019/637901/EPRS_BRI(2019)637901_EN.pdf

    Néanmoins, j’ai pour le moment du mal à évaluer l’étendue de cette proposition à l’article 13 et il faudrait peut-être en discuter avec l’anafé par exemple.

    #procédure_d'asile #réforme

    Reçu par email via la mailing-list Migreurop, le 06.06.2019

    • New EU deportation law breaches fundamental rights standards and should be rejected

      A proposed new EU law governing standards and procedures for deportations would breach fundamental rights standards, massively expand the use of detention, limit appeal rights and undermine ’voluntary’ return initiatives. It should be rejected by the European Parliament and the Council, argues a new analysis published today by Statewatch. [1]

      The original Returns Directive was agreed in 2008, but a proposal for a ’recast’ version was published by the European Commission in September 2018 as one a number of measures aiming to crack down on “illegally staying third-country nationals” in the EU. [2]

      The proposal aims to increase the number of deportations from the EU by reducing or eliminating existing safeguards for those facing deportation proceedings - but even if such a method could be considered legitimate, there is no evidence to suggest that the proposed measures will have the intended effect.

      For example, the proposal introduces numerous new grounds for placing migrants in detention and would introduce a new ’minimum maximum’ period of detention of at least three months. [3]

      However, in 2017, Spain (with a maximum detention period of 60 days) had a ’return rate’ of 37%, while the return rate from countries with a detention limit of 18 months (the maximum period permitted under the current Returns Directive) differed significantly: 11% in the Czech Republic, 18% in Belgium, 40% in Greece and 46% in Germany. [4]

      The report urges EU lawmakers to discard the proposal and focus on alternative measures that would be less harmful to individuals. It includes an article-by-article analysis of the Commission’s proposal and the positions of the European Parliament and the Council, as they were prior to the EU institutions’ summer break.

      The European Parliament and the Council of the EU will begin discussing the proposal again in the coming weeks.

      Quotes

      Statewatch researcher Jane Kilpatrick said:

      “The proposed recast prioritises detention for more people and for longer durations - the physical and mental harms of which are well-known, especially for people with prior traumatic experiences - over any collaborative measures. The recast would remove the option for states to adopt measures more respectful of human rights and health. The fact that it hasn’t relied on any evidence that these will even work suggests it is a political exercise to appease anti-migrant rhetoric.”

      Chris Jones, a researcher at Statewatch, added:

      “The EU cannot claim to be a bastion of human rights at the same time as trying to undermine or eliminate existing safeguards for third-country nationals subject to deportation proceedings. Given that there is no evidence to suggest the proposed measures would actually work, it seems that lawmakers are dealing with a proposal that would be both harmful and ineffective. The previous MEP responsible for the proposal did a good job of trying to improve it - but it would be better to reject it altogether.”

      http://www.statewatch.org/news/2019/sep/eu-returns-directive.htm

    • New EU deportation law breaches fundamental rights standards and should be rejected

      A proposed new EU law governing standards and procedures for deportations would breach fundamental rights standards, massively expand the use of detention, limit appeal rights and undermine ’voluntary’ return initiatives. It should be rejected by the European Parliament and the Council, argues a new analysis published today by Statewatch. [1]

      The original Returns Directive was agreed in 2008, but a proposal for a ’recast’ version was published by the European Commission in September 2018 as one a number of measures aiming to crack down on “illegally staying third-country nationals” in the EU. [2]

      The proposal aims to increase the number of deportations from the EU by reducing or eliminating existing safeguards for those facing deportation proceedings - but even if such a method could be considered legitimate, there is no evidence to suggest that the proposed measures will have the intended effect.

      For example, the proposal introduces numerous new grounds for placing migrants in detention and would introduce a new ’minimum maximum’ period of detention of at least three months. [3]

      However, in 2017, Spain (with a maximum detention period of 60 days) had a ’return rate’ of 37%, while the return rate from countries with a detention limit of 18 months (the maximum period permitted under the current Returns Directive) differed significantly: 11% in the Czech Republic, 18% in Belgium, 40% in Greece and 46% in Germany. [4]

      The report urges EU lawmakers to discard the proposal and focus on alternative measures that would be less harmful to individuals. It includes an article-by-article analysis of the Commission’s proposal and the positions of the European Parliament and the Council, as they were prior to the EU institutions’ summer break.

      The European Parliament and the Council of the EU will begin discussing the proposal again in the coming weeks.

      Quotes

      Statewatch researcher Jane Kilpatrick said:

      “The proposed recast prioritises detention for more people and for longer durations - the physical and mental harms of which are well-known, especially for people with prior traumatic experiences - over any collaborative measures. The recast would remove the option for states to adopt measures more respectful of human rights and health. The fact that it hasn’t relied on any evidence that these will even work suggests it is a political exercise to appease anti-migrant rhetoric.”

      Chris Jones, a researcher at Statewatch, added:

      “The EU cannot claim to be a bastion of human rights at the same time as trying to undermine or eliminate existing safeguards for third-country nationals subject to deportation proceedings. Given that there is no evidence to suggest the proposed measures would actually work, it seems that lawmakers are dealing with a proposal that would be both harmful and ineffective. The previous MEP responsible for the proposal did a good job of trying to improve it - but it would be better to reject it altogether.”

      http://www.statewatch.org/news/2019/sep/eu-returns-directive.htm

  • In memoriam Malcolm Menzies

    Claudio Albertani, Malcolm Menzies

    https://lavoiedujaguar.net/In-memoriam-Malcolm-Menzies

    En 2010, Malcolm Menzies (1934-2019) acceptait de répondre aux questions de Claudio Albertani. En hommage à l’ami disparu en mai 2019 à Paris, nous republions cet entretien.

    Vous êtes l’auteur de quatre romans et d’un livre de contes. Vous écrivez dans votre langue natale, l’anglais, mais vos ouvrages ont été publiés en traduction française et, pour l’un d’eux, espagnole. Dans vos travaux, vous combinez la plus rigoureuse recherche historique avec un travail passionné d’imagination littéraire et un souci constant de perfection esthétique. Le résultat est un univers riche et intense avec des personnages que vous arrachez aux mensonges qui les entourent et que vous nous restituez avec leurs idéaux, leurs passions et aussi leurs contradictions. Quels auteurs classiques ont inspiré votre travail ?

    La littérature est la passion de ma vie, mais il est clair que mes livres trouvent leur inspiration dans l’histoire de ce qui est connu sous le nom d’« anarchisme ». Suis-je anarchiste ? Je ne sais pas. Qu’est-ce qu’un anarchiste ? Je déteste toutes les étiquettes et je ne me sens pas à l’aise dans le monde des doctrines. Disons que mon concept d’individu ressemble à celui de l’anarchisme individualiste. J’admire beaucoup d’écrivains. En Amérique latine, j’aime José Eustasio Rivera, Borges, Rulfo, Sarmiento et les Brésiliens Guimaraes Rosa et Euclides da Cunha, parmi d’autres. (...)

    #Malcolm_Menzies #littérature #anarchie #Makhno #Bonnot #Victor_Serge #Darien #Cayenne #Clément_Duval #Colombie #FARC #Marulanda #Costa_Rica

  • #Mir_Streiked !

    „Mir Streiked!“ ist die Hymne für der Schweizerischen Frauen*streiktag 2019. SASA, KimBo, Mer Ayang und Sascha Rijkeboer komponieren in ihrer musikalischen Unterschiedlichkeit ein Lied, das gleichzeitig bewegt, anklagt und mobilisiert.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m001Efj0ymI&feature=share


    #grève_féministe #14_juin #femmes #grève #Suisse #chanson #14_juin_2019 #hymne
    #musique_et_politique (ping @sinehebdo)

    v. aussi le #manifeste académique de la grève :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/777511

    et une tribune sur le #féminicide, tribune publiée en lien avec la grève :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/780868

    • "Les femmes gagnent 108 milliards de moins que les hommes"

      Alors que l’égalité salariale est au coeur de la grève des femmes prévue le 14 juin, Manuela Honegger, politologue et politicienne indépendante, relève qu’en une année « les femmes gagnent 108 milliards de moins que les hommes ».

      « L’écart de revenu entre l’homme et la femme reste notre préoccupation première », a affirmé dans La Matinale Manuela Honegger, membre du collectif genevois pour la grève des femmes. De plus, le travail domestique effectué par les femmes n’est toujours pas reconnu.

      « On estime aujourd’hui que faire à manger a plus de valeur en Suisse que ce que le secteur financier produit, la valeur que les femmes produisent tous les jours gratuitement et qui péjore leur vie est énorme. A la fin de l’année, les femmes gagnent 108 milliards de moins que les hommes », a précisé la politicienne.

      De plus, « sur la base des différences salariales, les femmes devraient seulement travailler jusqu’à 57 ans et pas jusqu’à 64 ans », a-t-elle encore indiqué.
      Chiffre pas connu

      « La politique ne nous prend pas au sérieux, nous les femmes, et ne met pas nos préoccupations au centre », a encore souligné la politicienne. Alors que tout le monde connaît le nombre d’étrangers vivant en Suisse, « cela fait 25 ans que l’UDC martèle ces chiffres », combien de personnes connaissent le pourcentage des femmes qui font la lessive ou qui assument l’éducation des enfants ?

      « Les femmes accomplissent 80% de la lessive faite en Suisse et assument 70% de l’éducation des enfants. Ce sont des réalités à mettre sur l’agenda politique, c’est pourquoi nous avons choisi la grève. La grève est un moyen de pression pour dire stop », a conclu #Manuela_Honegger.

      https://www.rts.ch/info/suisse/10179694--les-femmes-gagnent-108-milliards-de-moins-que-les-hommes-.html

      #salaire

    • Vers la grève féministe en Suisse

      Dans cet entretien, Anouk (étudiante, investie dans les mouvements étudiants et de l’immigration coloniale et post-coloniale) et Maimouna (militante queer antiraciste « qui penche du côté marxiste de la force » et qui travaille dans un syndicat interprofessionnel du secteur public) nous livrent un récit du processus qui va porter nombreuses femmes* en Suisse à se mettre en grève pour la journée du 14 juin 2019. Nous saissons l’occasion pour relayer le manifeste de la grève, dont il est beaucoup question dans l’interview, et une émission radio sur cette lutte, dont le titre annonce : Ne changeons pas les femmes, changeons la société !

      – PEM : Le 14 juin se tiendra en Suisse une grève des femmes et féministe : Quel a été votre rapport à cette grève ?

      M : J’ai participé à cette grève surtout par l’organisation des travailleuses au sein de mon syndicat, mais également pendant une période par le biais de la coordination romande et du collectif genevois. Pour des raisons de santé, je n’ai pas pu participer à tout l’aspect collectif et de coordination des six derniers mois. Cette grève m’a accompagnée durant toute l’année et le fait de participer à sa construction sur les lieux de travail a sûrement été une des expériences militantes les plus intéressantes de ma vie.

      A : De mon côté, j’ai une position assez ambiguë par rapport à la grève. Rationnellement et politiquement, je suis super emballée par le processus. Je suis convaincue de la nécessité de s’y investir, et de la justesse d’organiser une grève générale à partir d’une position féministe. Mais d’un point de vue subjectif, j’arrive pas à me sentir concernée ou impliquée d’une quelconque manière. Pour plusieurs raisons, je n’arrive plus du tout à m’identifier aux discours du type “nous les femmes”, même si j’ai une compréhension du monde et des manières de me comporter profondément féministes. Du coup, je me suis tenue un peu à l’écart de tout le processus d’organisation de la grève, et j’ai juste participé aux débuts de la rédaction du manifeste, et j’ai été co-organisatrice de la journée du 10 février.

      – PEM : Pouvez-vous nous dire comment en Suisse on en est arrivé à organiser une grève féministe ? Quels ont été les éléments déclencheurs ?

      M : En Suisse, cette grève a été impulsée par des femmes syndicalistes après une énième discussion au parlement sur un projet de loi sur l’égalité salariale qui n’a abouti à rien. Je pense que c’est un aspect assez intéressant, notamment par rapport à d’autres endroits où ce genre de mobilisation a eu lieu, comme dans l’Etat espagnol, où le rôle des syndicats était beaucoup moins fort, voire un frein à l’organisation de cette mobilisation. Néanmoins, l’impulsion ne vient pas des directions syndicales mais plutôt de la base. Elles ont d’ailleurs plutôt été forcées à rejoindre le mouvement sous pression de leurs militantes. Je trouves aussi assez intéressant que ça vienne pas forcément de femmes très jeunes à la base, mais plutôt de militantes assez expérimentées, même si ça a très vite pris chez les femmes plus jeunes. Certaines étaient déjà là en 1991, lors de la première grève des femmes en Suisse d’ailleurs.

      A : Il y a une autre particularité par rapport à la Suisse. Ici, la construction de la grève s’appuie sur un réseau militant de syndicalistes féministes, de féministes organisées dans des partis de gauche radicale, et aussi de féministes autonomes, qui s’étaient toutes mobilisées contre cette loi sur l’augmentation de l’âge de la retraite - soutenue par les centrales syndicales au niveau national. Il y a donc une filiation entre cette opposition référendaire dans le champ institutionnel et l’impulsion de la grève féministe.

      – PEM : Pouvez-vous préciser quel a été le rôle des syndicats par rapport au mouvement ?

      M : Il faut bien comprendre que ce mouvement vient de la base. Il y a eu cette énorme manifestation à Berne qui a réuni 22 000 personnes en septembre 2018. Pour la petite histoire, chaque deux ans la plus grande organisation syndicale, l’USS [1], organise une manifestation nationale. Il s’agit avant tout d’une démonstration de force mais souvent avec un contenu politique très institutionnel. Donc du coup, comme chaque deux ans, l’USS a choisi un thème, et cette année-là c’était l’égalité salariale. Il n’y avait pas la volonté de parler de la grève qui se prépare aujourd’hui mais l’idée c’était simplement de mettre en avant cette revendication qui pouvait plaire à tout le monde. Le mouvement a fini par presque troller cette manifestation en créant un tronçon appelant à la grève féministe en 2019, ce qui a fait apparaître clairement nos revendications comme bien plus larges et radicales. Ça s’est fait littéralement aux nez et à la barbe des centrales syndicales qui ne voulaient parler que d’égalité salariale.

      A : Dès le début, et en raison de la manière dont le mouvement s’est structuré, il a appelé à aller plus loin qu’une grève « classique », qui reste contenue à un cadre de rapport salarié uniquement. Tout ceci ouvre des perspectives beaucoup plus larges, et ça remue le mouvement ouvrier dans son ensemble, notamment sur la question du travail reproductif, et de la grève politique (qui est d’ailleurs implicitement interdite par notre Constitution [2]).

      M : C’est vraiment important cette question de grève politique en Suisse. On a réussi à la rendre licite grâce à des mécanismes assez alambiqués, sachant que le droit de grève bien qu’inscrit dans notre constitution, est très limité.

      – PEM : Comment s’est organisé et structuré le mouvement pour la grève ? Quelles sont les formes d’organisation que vous vous êtes données et est-ce qu’elles sont présentes sur l’ensemble du territoire suisse (les différents cantons, dans les villes ou en campagne, etc.) ?

      M : En fait, le mouvement est né en Suisse romande et Suisse italienne et la Suisse allemande a rejoint le mouvement un peu plus tard. Actuellement, quasiment tous les cantons suisses et les grandes villes ont un collectif organisant la grève. Honnêtement, quand ça a commencé, ça aurait pu être ce genre d’initiatives super sympas lancées par dix meufs motivées qui aboutit à 5000 femmes dans la rue un an plus tard. Mais là, ça a pris bien plus d’ampleur ! Je pense que la manière dont le mouvement s’est construit, notamment la démocratie interne, la décentralisation, et surtout la totale liberté laissée aux collectifs - avec juste le Manifeste comme garde-fou - font que c’est un mouvement à la fois très large et radical.

      A : Oui, j’ai le souvenir d’une militante syndicale qui disait que ça avait impulsé la formation de collectifs sur plein de lieux de travail, ce qui en Suisse, est dingue ! En tous cas, je pensais pas que ça serait un truc aussi énorme, et que ça lancerait autant de personnes à s’organiser sur leur lieu de travail, de formation, etc. Au-delà même du 14 juin, ça ouvre des perspectives d’organisation beaucoup plus larges.

      M : La décentralisation du mouvement est très particulière mais aussi très adaptée à notre contexte fédéral. C’est vraiment une organisation décentralisée, qui part des collectifs locaux. C’est très difficile pour moi de parler de ce qui passe dans les cantons suisses alémaniques. Ce que je vois sur les réseaux sociaux (car le mouvement y est assez actif), c’est qu’en fait, finalement, dans des endroits où j’aurais pas pensé, il y a des choses qui se construisent.

      A : Le caractère de radicalité du mouvement est aussi lié au fait qu’il se construit au niveau national, au-delà des barrières linguistiques, mais d’une manière décentralisée comme tu l’as dit. C’est quand même très rare en Suisse. Mais l’organisation ne se fait pas uniquement selon des bases purement géographiques (ville, canton, etc.), mais aussi en fonction des lieux d’activité, sur les lieux de travail et de formation, etc.

      M : Je pense que c’est grâce aux organisatrices qui ont vraiment tout mis en place pour permettre la plus grande démocratie possible, ce qui est hallucinant et qui a représenté un travail phénoménal. S’assurer toujours qu’il existe des espaces de dialogues où les questions de contenu mais aussi de forme peuvent être entendues et discutées, ce qui a notamment permis de créer ce Manifeste avec une adhésion très large, a, d’après moi permis cette construction très large d’un mouvement.

      – PEM : Qu’est-ce qu’a apporté au mouvement la rédaction d’un manifeste ? Quels thèmes principaux en sont ressorti ?

      M : Alors, le manifeste regroupe dix-neuf revendications. Elles concernent tout : le rapport au corps, le rapport au travail, notamment l’inégalité salariale, mais la question du travail reproductif est également très développée. Je pense qu’on trouve pas le terme “anti-capitalisme” dans le texte (même si le terme capitalisme doit y apparaître), mais dans le fond, on est dans des revendications vraiment en rupture. Beaucoup de revendications tournent autour du monde du travail. Déjà parce que ce mouvement est très syndical mais aussi parce que les enjeux autour des inégalités sur les lieux de travail sont encore loin d’être résolus. Il n’y a pas de réelles protections contre les inégalités salariales, les protections contre le sexisme sur le lieu de travail sont peu ou mal mis en place, et la dévalorisation sociale et salariale des métiers typiquement féminins existe. On est quand même un pays où les personnes travaillant dans l’économie domestique ne sont même pas soumises à la loi sur le travail dont le texte est censé protéger les travailleuses et travailleurs.

      A : Oui, notamment celle de réduction du temps de travail ! Et la question des violences sexistes est aussi importante pour nous. C’est vrai qu’avec le Manifeste, on donne une vision d’unité, comme si tout le monde était d’accord sur tout, mais il y a quand même eu des grosses contradictions internes. D’ailleurs, la force du cas suisse, c’est d’avoir pu dépasser ces contradictions et de ne pas s’être scindé. C’est peut-être lié à la culture du compromis suisse [rires]. Dans tous les cas, il y a eu un travail politique phénoménal sur les sujets de dissension, pour aboutir à une orientation d’un féminisme de classe et anticapitaliste, et aussi sur la question de la pénalisation des violences de genre. À la première séance de rédaction du Manifeste en août passé, les nombreuses personnes présentes étaient réparties en groupes de travail « par thématique », où on discutait de nos revendications et leur articulation. Il se trouve que j’ai eu la bonne idée d’aller au groupe sur les violences faites aux femmes. C’était assez difficile, et il a fallu un travail important (que des camarades ont mené tout au long de l’année) pour éviter une orientation pro-punitive, et amener une vision globale sur les conséquences de ces orientations en termes de rapports sociaux de race, et plus largement de répression. Mais c’est une position qui est extrêmement ambivalente et compliquée à trouver et défendre, entre d’un côté dire que les violences de genre sont un sujet politique fondamental (et qu’on ne va pas s’en occuper « après » pour le dire vite), mais de l’autre, se demander comment on peut y répondre sans converger avec l’appareil répressif d’Etat. Il y a donc eu tout un travail : déjà, sur le moment même, et avec les relectures et amendements successifs du Manifeste. Plus largement, et dans un deuxième temps, on a organisé avec SolidaritéS [3] une journée d’étude qui a réuni des personnes actives dans les organisations qui luttent concrètement contre les violences de genre, pour essayer d’élaborer des pistes d’actions anti-punitives, mais concrètes et ancrées dans notre réalité. Il y avait beaucoup de personnes impliquées dans l’organisation de la grève, et l’idée était de revenir ensuite dans les différents collectifs et mettre ça en avant. Au final, quand on regarde le Manifeste maintenant, on remarque que ce travail collectif (qui prend différentes formes) a porté ses fruits.

      – PEM : Du coup, est-ce que vous diriez que le Manifeste, rédigé en août dernier, rend bien compte de la pluralité des composantes du mouvement tel qu’il est aujourd’hui ?

      M : Le mouvement s’est organisé en mixité choisie, sans hommes cisgenres. Pour la composante sociale, dans les collectifs que je connais, principalement en Suisse romande, on compte majoritairement des femmes* déjà militantes, peu de femmes non blanches, par contre plutôt très intergénérationnelle. Néanmoins, quelques femmes ayant un parcours migratoire ont été très actives, ce qui a permis d’amener des revendications concrètes et précises sur les questions d’asile et d’accueil. L’exemple qu’a donné Anouk, et il y en aurait d’autres, montre bien qu’en tant que minorités dans la minorité, c’est très dur de réussir à mettre en avant ses revendications s’il n’y a pas un vrai travail d’organisation en interne. On l’a notamment vu pour les questions LBTIQ, où finalement des revendications spécifiques n’ont pas été visibilisées et ce alors qu’en Suisse on serait dans un contexte assez propice à la mise en avant de revendications par exemple liées à la parentalité, aux parcours trans* ou encore d’égalité juridique. De ce que j’ai perçu, en tout cas en Romandie, il nous a été difficile de nous organiser entre nous pour faire émerger ces revendications. Par contre, le travail fait par les femmes migrantes et leurs alliées ont réussi à imposer des revendications puissantes sur cette question, autant dans le manifeste que dans l’organisation collective. Ces questions, par exemple le fait de ne pas avoir de permis de séjour ou juste un permis provisoire en tant que travailleuse – en lien avec tout le travail syndical qui est mené sur ce front depuis des années - sont bien comprises et intégrées. Par contre, on n’a pas constaté la même chose sur les questions de race. Pour être bien claire, quand on parle de femmes migrantes en Suisse, on parle de femmes qui viennent du troisième cercle (le Sud global) comme on dit, mais aussi d’Europe du Sud.

      A : C’est vrai qu’il y a eu un travail politique pour orienter ces revendications dans un sens émancipateur pour tout le monde. Donc le Manifeste n’est bien sûr pas parfait, mais c’est le fruit d’un travail politique de longue haleine, parfois éreintant, mené par un grand nombre de personnes. Au début, il y avait carrément des propositions islamophobes, ou abolitionnistes (du travail du sexe)… Le fait que ce genre de choses ne soient pas passées (même si le Manifeste n’est pas explicite sur ces questions), c’est aussi le fruit d’un travail. Ça permet de le garder ouvert à une organisation politique sur les rapports coloniaux, sur le travail du sexe, etc.

      M : Sur ces questions, on constate qu’il y avait cette peur au début, comme dans tout mouvement unitaire : « que vont faire les femmes qui ne sont pas organisées à gauche, et comment elles vont pouvoir adhérer à ce manifeste ? ». Finalement, on se rend compte que plus il y a de revendications, plus elles sont larges, plus elles sont radicales, et - c’est assez contre-intuitif - plus elles sont rassembleuses. En fait, ça a permis de créer un mouvement ultra large. La question des “femmes de droites” - doit-on les intégrer,, comment leur parler, est-ce qu’on les effraient ou pas - a souvent été posé, surtout au début dans les collectifs locaux. Je me souviens très clairement d’une femme qui disait « si les femmes de droite se reconnaissent dans le manifeste, elles viendront, et sinon tant pis ». Il faut juste imaginer que lors de l’appel de la première coordination nationale à Bienne, il devait y avoir 500 à 600 personnes, qui sont des personnes qui organisent activement cette grève.

      –PEM : Pourquoi est-il important de faire grève pour faire valoir ces raisons ?

      M : Il y a un truc que je trouve intéressant dans le droit suisse, la grève est considérée comme l’ultima ratio. Donc c’est le dernier outil que les travailleurs et travailleuses mettent en place pour obtenir leurs revendications, après que tout a échoué. Là, ça fait 38 ans qu’on a une égalité dans la constitution qui n’est pas appliquée, et tout part quand même de là ! On peut se dire que c’est très réformiste et partiel, mais littéralement, ça veut dire qu’en Suisse, il y a aucune possibilité de sanction ni de contrainte pour vraiment combattre l’égalité salariale même dans son sens le plus strict. Tu peux faire reconnaître - mais c’est très compliqué – que tu n’es pas payée la même chose que ton collègue masculin et toucher le différentiel ainsi qu’une indemnité représentant six mois de salaire et c’est la seule sanction que tu auras en tant qu’employeur. En gros, une mise en conformité plus une petite amende. De plus, ce n’est pas soumis à un contrôle régulier, sauf pour les entreprises de plus de 100 employé-e-s, ce qui représente environ 2% des employeurs en Suisse. On en est là. Donc c’est pour ça que c’est important de faire grève, c’est pour montrer qu’on en a marre du système suisse de la négociation et de la « paix du travail » et que oui, en tant que femmes ont a tout essayé mais que là ça suffit et que donc on utilise l’outil de l’ultima ratio.

      A : Pour moi, cette grève a permis de montrer, dans ce système suisse, qui est officiellement « pacifié » et qui jure que par cette fameuse « paix du travail », que la conflictualité sociale, elle existe ; que les antagonismes de classe, ils existent. La conflictualité, c’est pas nous qui l’inventons, elle est réelle. Du coup, l’analyse qu’on fait en étant marxistes et féministes, c’est de lier les raisons larges pour lesquelles on fait grève (qui ne concernent pas uniquement les inégalités dans le travail salarié), à ce mode de production particulier. Donc une fois qu’on a dit ça, notre mode d’action doit rendre compte de ça.

      M : Sur la question de la grève, ça a pas été sans tension, vraiment ! Évidemment, faire grève en Suisse en 2019, c’est aussi le rappel de la grève de 1991 [4], qui a été un des plus beaux moments de luttes en Suisse. C’est aussi le rappel de ces femmes qui se sont battues en 1971 pour obtenir le droit de vote [5]. Il y a des femmes qui ont fait grève en 1991, et nous en 2019, on lutte aussi !

      A : Il faut préciser que cette grève s’inscrit dans un renouveau de perspectives de luttes de la gauche politique et syndicale. Il faut rappeler brièvement que le système suisse permet de s’opposer à des projets du parlement (et d’en proposer) en récoltant un certain nombre de signatures. Les initiatives ou référendum sont ensuite soumises au vote de la population suisse. Je précise, car j’ai vu beaucoup de discussions sur ce système de démocratie semi-directe en France, en lien avec la revendication du RIC défendues par certain·es Gilets Jaunes. Or, un élément pour moi central est à chaque fois laissé de côté : le système suisse est fondé sur l’exclusion politique d’une partie importante (environ un cinquième) de la population et des classes populaires, à savoir la population “d’origine étrangère”. En effet, les droits politiques sont conditionnés à la possession de la nationalité suisse, qui est extrêmement difficile à obtenir. En l’espace d’un an, la gauche politique est parvenue à faire refuser un projet d’augmenter l’âge de la retraite des femmes (appelé PV2020), et une autre loi (appelée RIE3) sur la défiscalisation massive du capital des multinationales implantées en Suisse (ce qui représente un transfert massif de richesses des collectivités publiques, notamment du Sud global, vers les actionnaires de Nestlé, Glencore, etc.). J’ai l’impression que ça a vraiment créé une dynamique de gauche qui est de nouveau capable d’arracher des grandes victoires. En même temps, on a lancé tout récemment un référendum contre la soeur jumelle de la RIE3 , donc contre une loi qui prévoyait exactement les mêmes dispositifs fiscaux ; on a fait aboutir le référendum, mais on l’a perdu en votation car la réforme a été massivement approuvée. Et on a certes refusé l’augmentation de l’âge de la retraite des femmes, mais il y a déjà un projet au Parlement pour l’augmenter à nouveau. Cette question des initiatives et référendums constitue un grand débat au sein de nos organisations, et pour ma part, je ne crois pas qu’il faille rejeter une lutte institutionnelle par référendum en bloc, parce que comme on l’a vu, ça permet de lancer des dynamiques d’opposition substantielle. Par contre, sur la base de cette séquence politique, on voit que si on les considère comme une fin en soi, on n’a pas fini de s’opposer aux mêmes projets de loi, et on passe notre temps à récolter des signatures.

      M : Oui, au bout d’un moment, à ce jeu, ils gagnent en fait ! C’est d’ailleurs pour ça qu’il y a ce dessin qui tourne et qui montre une femme avec une batte de base-ball disant “j’ai décidé de changer de méthode”.

      – PEM : Quelles autres expériences de lutte à l’échelle globale ou dans l’histoire suisse sont importantes pour vous ?

      M : La grève générale de 1918 ! Parce que j’ai découvert cette grève il y a un an et demi au moment du centenaire, et parce que l’organisation des syndicats au niveau national, l’USS (Union syndicale suisse) qui a organisé une super journée de conférence [rires] avec des historien·nes où, littéralement, leur conclusion c’était que c’était pas si bien parce qu’au final, on n’a rien gagné. C’est les syndicats qui disent ça ! Ça m’a donné envie de creuser, j’ai découvert plein de trucs, notamment que c’était pas tant un échec que ça, et je pense que ça montre aussi à quel point en Suisse, on ne connaît pas l’histoire des luttes.

      A : Au centre des revendications de la grève générale de 1918, il y avait celle du droit de vote des femmes ! Cette revendication dont on dit souvent qu’elle apparaît beaucoup plus tard, a été portée par le mouvement ouvrier dès 1918. Face aux frappadingues pour qui la grève féministe divise la classe ouvrière – ce qui est une analyse complètement hors sol quand on voit le développement massif de collectifs sur les lieux de travail – on se rend compte que dès le début, il y a un lien organique entre les luttes féministes et le mouvement ouvrier, simplement parce que les femmes font partie du mouvement ouvrier ! Après personnellement, l’histoire des luttes des travailleurs immigrés, et notamment italiens est importante politiquement pour moi.

      M : Ce qui est terrible, c’est qu’on est hyper à la ramasse et qu’on ne connaît presque pas notre histoire, parce qu’on a vraiment un roman national très fort : en Suisse, on dit qu’on est riche parce qu’on sait faire des compromis, que les valeurs paysannes et protestantes sont celles qui assurent notre prospérité et qu’on obtient jamais rien par la force. Par exemple, sur l’obtention du droit de vote des femmes en 1971, ce que tout le monde croit, c’est que le gentil parlement a décidé d’autoriser les femmes à voter parce que c’était quand même un peu la honte d’avoir attendu si longtemps. Or j’ai appris cette année, en creusant un peu, qu’il y avait eu une énorme mobilisation populaire, notamment des femmes autour de cette question.

      – PEM : Les institutions semblent réagir de manière plutôt bienveillante voire encourager certaines initiatives qui vont se tenir à l’occasion du 14 Juin : comment expliquez-vous cette bienveillance (paternaliste ?), et comment, dans ce contexte, garantir une certaine offensivité lors de cette journée de grève ?

      M : On constate effectivement une offensive massive du Parti socialiste (gauche gouvernementale) et des directions syndicales pour essayer de récupérer et pacifier cette grève en en retirant les aspects les plus combatifs. En même temps, c’est vrai qu’en Suisse , où qu’on soit sur l’échiquier politique il devient compliqué de dire qu’on est contre l’égalité. Les solutions choisies, comme dans beaucoup d’autres endroits, c’est de dire qu’on utilise pas la bonne méthode ou que l’on a mal compris l’égalité. On l’a vu syndicalement avec la réaction des employeurs. D’abord, il y a eu une offensive pour dire que cette grève n’était pas licite. Puis, sous la pression des collectifs, les employeurs du publics - sur Genève et sur Vaud, en tout cas - ont fini par dire qu’il n’y aurait pas de sanction pour cette grève, tout en sous-entendant que ça en était pas vraiment une. Une conseillère d’état PLR [6] à Genève a même affirmé que le mot grève n’avait qu’une valeur historique, et qu’en réalité il s’agissait d’une grande fête. On passe évidemment notre temps à rappeler que nous avons des revendications de ruptures et que oui c’est bien une grève. Le problème c’est qu’on n’est pas toujours entendu, face au discours dominant, notamment des médias. C’est ce qui permet à des meufs de l’exécutif ou de droite de participer aux mobilisations, qu’elles essaient de vider de leur sens...

      A : Oui, mais en même temps, elles vont marcher derrière des syndicalistes et des féministes qui revendiquent la réduction générale du temps de travail, et qui refusent catégoriquement l’augmentation de l’âge de la retraite des femmes ! D’une certaine manière, c’est bon signe, ça veut dire que les collectifs ont réussi à imposer un rapport de force qui fait que les autorités se sentent obligées d’y participer. Surtout, les dynamiques d’organisation que cette grève a impulsées sur les lieux de travail, de vie et de formation, c’est pas quelque chose qui est “récupérable”. Pour moi c’est ça le plus important : le 14 juin n’est pas une fin en soi, c’est un but qui permet à des collectifs d’essaimer un peu partout, et de développer ou renforcer notre organisation collective.

      M : Ce qui est complètement dingue avec cette grève, c’est que malgré la radicalité du Manifeste (et même grâce à cette radicalité), des dizaines de milliers de femmes vont se mobiliser ce 14 juin. Ça permet de contrer cette idée très répandue, selon laquelle il faudrait pas être trop radicale, ou faire trop de bruit, pour pouvoir mobiliser largement. Or ce qu’on a constaté c’est qu’en permettant aux femmes de s’exprimer et en ancrant les revendications dans une réalité, ça marche, et c’est énorme !❞


      http://www.platenqmil.com/blog/2019/06/13/vers-la-greve-feministe-en-suisse

    • Un « ras-le-bol général » : vendredi, c’est la grève des femmes en Suisse

      Vingt-huit ans après une première mobilisation nationale, syndicats et collectifs féministes appellent à la mobilisation pour mettre fin aux inégalités femmes/hommes.

      Le reste du monde a le 8 mars. La Suisse a son 14 juin. Vendredi 14 juin 2019, collectifs féministes et syndicats organisent une « grève des femmes », pour l’égalité avec les hommes, 28 ans après la première du nom, en 1991.

      Une grève que les organisateurs espèrent nationale et globale. « Il ne s’agit pas seulement d’une grève du travail rémunéré, explique au Parisien Anne Fritz, coordinatrice de la mobilisation à l’Union syndicale suisse, à l’origine de la mobilisation. Il y aura aussi une grève du ménage, du prendre soin, de la consommation… » De toutes ses tâches, encore majoritairement effectuée au quotidien par des femmes, peu reconnues et non rémunérées.
      Une date symbolique

      Un mot d’ordre, l’égalité, et plusieurs déclinaisons : égalité des salaires, fin des violences sexistes, fin de la précarité des femmes… Plusieurs manifestations seront organisées ce jour-là, dans tout le pays. « Le plus important, c’est que chaque femme puisse participer à son niveau, là où elle est », poursuit Anne Fritz.

      La date du 14 juin est hautement symbolique en Suisse. En 1981, était introduit dans la Constitution un article concernant l’égalité entre les femmes et les hommes. Dix ans plus tard, près de 500 000 personnes - pour un pays de 3,46 millions d’habitants - se mobilisaient pour dénoncer les inégalités toujours persistantes.

      Près de trois décennies plus tard, les femmes continuent de toucher 20 % de moins que les hommes, il n’existe pas de congé paternité et les places en crèche sont rares et chères, freinant la participation des femmes à la vie active.

      L’année dernière, une loi sur l’égalité salariale a été votée dans le pays. Mais la version adoptée en définitive était nettement édulcorée, par rapport au texte initial. La dernière version ne prévoit pas, par exemple, de sanction pour les entreprises discriminantes.
      Le patronat suisse grince des dents

      Un sentiment de trop peu, qui fait germer l’idée d’une nouvelle grève, à l’image de celle de 1991, dans les milieux féministes, et au sein de l’Union syndicale suisse. Le mouvement #MeToo, ainsi que diverses mobilisations internationales, pour défendre l’avortement ou critiquer certains dirigeants comme le président américain Donald Trump ou Jair Bolsonaro, le président brésilien, sont aussi passés par là.

      Pour Anne Fritz, c’est un « ras-le-bol général des femmes » qui a permis de concrétiser cette grève anniversaire. Elle est née en cette année symbolique de 1991. Aujourd’hui, elle estime que les femmes ne sont « pas entendues en manifestation. C’est la raison pour laquelle il faut faire grève ».

      Plusieurs entreprises et administrations ont affiché leur soutien à cette grève des femmes. À Genève par exemple, la ville fermera des crèches. Mais l’Union patronale essaie de contrer le mouvement. Le syndicat le considère comme « illicite », car ne visant « pas uniquement les conditions de travail », selon les propos Marco Taddei, un de ses représentants, à l’AFP.

      Difficile de prévoir l’ampleur du mouvement de vendredi, la grève ne faisant pas partie de la culture suisse. Depuis l’instauration en 1937 de la « paix du travail », une convention signée entre patronats et syndicats, la négociation est souvent préférée à la grève. Anne Fritz espère « énormément » de personnes. Ou au moins autant qu’en 1991.

      http://m.leparisien.fr/societe/un-ras-le-bol-general-vendredi-c-est-la-greve-des-femmes-en-suisse-13-0

    • Les guettes ont appelé Lausanne à une nuit mauve

      Du haut de la cathédrale, quatre femmes ont lancé la mobilisation du 14 juin. Un cri inédit, relayé une bonne partie de la nuit avant la grande journée de vendredi.

      l faut « garder le dos bien droit, mettre les mains en porte-voix et s’adresser à Lausanne ». Un rapide conseil, glissé par Renato Häusler, guet de la cathédrale de Lausanne, à celles qui s’apprêtent à prendre sa place. Pour la première fois depuis 614 ans, la voix d’une femme va donner l’heure à la ville. A 23 heures, ce jeudi 13 juin en guise d’échauffement, puis à minuit, 1 heure et 2 heures, avec en prime un appel à la grève des femmes, à la grève féministe.

      C’est ainsi qu’à minuit, Nadia Lamamra, représentante du collectif vaudois pour la grève, Nicole Christe, cheffe du Service de l’architecture de la Ville de Lausanne, Joëlle Moret, déléguée à l’égalité et la chanteuse Billie Bird crient de concert « C’est la grève, c’est la grève ! ». Et après un bref silence, les acclamations montent de l’esplanade où plusieurs centaines de personnes affluent depuis 22 heures. « Il y a enfin un peu de reconnaissance, même dans les professions très atypiques les bastions masculins finissent par tomber », apprécient les guettes en chœur. La grève nationale du 14 juin est lancée à Lausanne, la cathédrale peut s’enflammer et briller en mauve dans la nuit.

      « C’était un moment fou, j’en ai eu des frissons. Il y avait un grand silence, on entendait juste les tambours, il y avait quelque chose de mystique et, tout à coup, tout le monde a hurlé. J’ai failli pleurer », raconte Anne-Julie.

      Au pied de la cathédrale, en continu, il y a les banderoles et les pancartes, les danses et les accolades, les chants et les slogans comme autant de cris du cœur. Entres autres : « Fortes, fières et pas prêtes de se taire » ou « Patriarcat t’es foutu, les femmes sont dans la rue ». « Ça me rend euphorique cet engouement, j’espère que ce sera le début d’un vrai mouvement. Il faut que les gens comprennent ce que l’on vit, commente Charlotte. Je pense aussi à celles qui ont de grandes difficultés, les travailleuses pauvres, les mères isolées ou celles qui ne peuvent pas être là parce qu’elles sont empêchées par quelque chose ou quelqu’un. »

      Puis comme la cathédrale, la place de la Riponne s’embrase. Autour d’un feu de camp, la foule donne de la voix tandis que quelques objets volent au milieu des flammes. Du carton, un tee-shirt ou un soutien-gorge, avalés par les flammes sous les applaudissements. « Symboliquement c’est déjà très fort ce que l’on voit ce soir, observe Yesmine. J’ai vécu près de la cathédrale et tous les jours j’ai entendu un homme crier. Alors aujourd’hui c’est beaucoup d’émotions, quelque chose se concrétise. »


      Beaucoup d’émotions et pas mal d’actions, au moment de se disperser dans la ville aux alentours d’1h30. Un peu partout, l’eau des fontaines devient violette, comme la cheminée de Pierre-de-Plan. Les stickers militants fleurissent sur les murs et 56 rues sont même rebaptisées. C’est l’oeuvre du collectif ruElles, parti arpenter la ville toute la nuit avec de la colle et de faux panneaux en papier. « Une soixantaine de rues lausannoises portent le nom de personnes illustres ayant marqué l’histoire suisse. Trois d’entre elles seulement sont des femmes, explique les membres. Ce soir, les femmes sortent de l’ombre de l’Histoire et vont dans les rues. » Elles feront de même ce vendredi 14 juin, dès 8 heures et pour toute la journée.

      https://www.24heures.ch/vaud-regions/guettes-appele-lausanne-nuit-mauve/story/13485264

    • Toutes les femmes du Courrier…

      … se joignent aux revendications de la grève féministe / grève des femmes*. Toutes, nous croiserons les bras en ce vendredi 14 juin, vingt-huit ans après la journée historique qui avait vu 500 000 femmes s’unir à travers toute la Suisse pour exiger, enfin, l’égalité dans les faits.

      Car nous observons chaque jour l’ampleur du fossé qui nous sépare de l’égalité. Aujourd’hui comme hier, nous exigeons une meilleure reconnaissance de toutes les tâches que nous exécutons au quotidien ainsi que le respect de notre personne et de notre individualité. Par notre refus de travailler ou d’exécuter des travaux domestiques durant vingt-quatre heures, nous posons nos limites. 91-19… Et cette impression de tourner en rond.

      C’est ce que ressentent aussi les femmes du Courrier, qui se sont réunies pour énoncer leurs doléances. Notre cahier de revendications en cinq axes complète celles du manifeste de la grève et, surtout, rejoint l’expérience d’innombrables femmes, par-delà la branche économique du journalisme. Les problèmes soulevés touchent des facettes très différentes de nos vies et, pourtant, s’imbriquent pour former un continuum sexiste.

      Nous demandons la valorisation du travail des femmes. Comme tant de pairs, nous portons une immense partie de la charge émotionnelle au travail. Est attendu de nous que nous soyons patientes, à l’écoute, gestionnaires du quotidien. Quand on se tournera vers les hommes pour ce qui relève de compétences jugées plus techniques et mesurables. Invisibilisé, notre travail est pourtant essentiel à la bonne marche de toute entreprise.

      Nous attendons que notre parole soit écoutée, notre légitimité reconnue comme celle de nos collègues masculins.

      Nous voulons concilier vie privée et professionnelle sans nous épuiser dans de doubles journées, que nous soyons mères ou proches-aidantes. Cela passe par le respect de notre temps de repos, des congés (parentaux notamment) suffisants et la possibilité d’aménager notre temps de travail selon nos besoins. Il n’existe pas de recette magique applicable à toutes. Et nous méritons d’être considérées au-delà des stéréotypes de genre.

      Nous exigeons la parité à tous les niveaux de l’entreprise, de la base aux instances dirigeantes.

      Enfin, la lutte contre le sexisme doit s’appliquer à chacune de nos pages. Elle passe par la généralisation du langage épicène, des images non stéréotypées, des formulations s’abstenant de ramener les femmes à leur seul statut de mère, de fille ou d’épouse, sans cliché machiste.

      Le chantier ne fait que commencer. Et nous aurons toutes et tous à gagner de ce monde plus égalitaire. Solidaires, les hommes du Courrier nous soutiennent d’ailleurs dans notre lutte. Nous leur confions, l’espace d’une journée, la tâche de confectionner un journal spécial dédié à la grève, qui paraîtra samedi. Cette édition ancrera la date du 14 juin 2019 dans les mémoires. Pour qu’elle ne devienne pas une date anniversaire, mais une date charnière, le marqueur d’un changement de société dans toute sa profondeur.

      https://lecourrier.ch/2019/06/13/toutes-les-femmes-du-courrier

    • Swiss women strike for more money, time and respect

      Women across Switzerland are preparing for a nationwide strike in protest against what they say is the country’s unacceptably slow pace to equality.

      Friday’s protest comes 28 years after similar action saw half a million women take to the streets in 1991.

      Swiss women have long campaigned to accelerate the pace of gender equality.

      They joined millions of other women in Europe after World War One ended in 1918 in demanding the right to vote - but did not get it until 1971.

      At the time of the 1991 strike there were no women in the Swiss government, and there was no statutory maternity leave.

      Appenzell, the last Swiss canton to refuse women the right to vote, had just been ordered to change its policy by Switzerland’s Supreme Court.


      https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-48615911

    • Les journaux romands se mettent au violet

      Que ce soit sur un mode humoristique, ironique ou sérieux, la presse romande relate largement la grève des femmes vendredi.

      Les quotidiens romands parlent abondamment de la grève des femmes dans leurs éditions de vendredi. La plupart se sont parés de violet, la couleur du mouvement.

      « Suissesses en colère », écrit « 24 heures » en une. Le quotidien vaudois illustre sa première page avec le dessin d’une femme en violet sur fond jaune, poing dressé en l’air. Plus sobre, la « Tribune de Genève » titre « Une journée de grève pour exiger l’égalité » avec la photo de manifestantes vêtues en violet.

      « 20 Minutes » titre « Hall of femmes » en référence à l’expression anglophone « Hall of fame », temple de la renommée en français. Du côté de Neuchâtel, « Arcinfo » propose la photo d’une foule de femmes en première page avec le titre « Respect ».

      Le « Journal du Jura » opte lui pour un dessin de presse humoristique, montrant une mère en train d’accoucher à 15h24, heure symbolique à laquelle les femmes ne sont plus payées par rapport aux hommes. « L’étoffe des héroïnes » lance quant à lui le « Quotidien jurassien ».

      Un dessin orne également la une de « La Liberté », celui d’une femme en gants de boxe. « Pour que la lutte porte ses fruits », titre le journal fribourgeois. « Grève féministe Jour G », renchérit Le Courrier, qui a abandonné sa traditionnelle couleur rouge pour le violet.

      « Le Temps » montre un dessin où plusieurs hommes sont représentés, mais aucune femme. « Un genre vous manque, et tout un journal est dépeuplé », titre le quotidien. Son édition de vendredi est parsemée de cases blanches, là où une journaliste devait écrire un article.

      https://www.tdg.ch/suisse/suisse-romandejournaux-romands-mettent-violet/story/25605124

    • En Suisse, les femmes appelées à la grève pour dénoncer les inégalités

      Les organisateurs souhaitent mettre en lumière les différences salariales, mais aussi insister sur la reconnaissance du travail domestique et dénoncer les violences contre les femmes.


      https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2019/06/14/en-suisse-les-femmes-appelees-a-la-greve-pour-denoncer-les-inegalites_547605

    • Why Swiss women are back on strike today

      On June 14, 1991, half a million women in Switzerland joined the first women’s strike. Now, nearly 30 years later, they’re mobilising again.

      Many people in Switzerland were taken by surprise on that spring day in 1991. The idea came from a small group of women watchmakers in the Vaud and Jura regions. Organised by trade unionist Christiane Brunner, it became one of the biggest political demonstrations in Swiss history.

      About 500,000 women throughout the country joined in the women’s strike through various types of actions. They called for equal pay for equal work, equality under social insurance law, and for the end of discrimination and sexual harassment.
      Why 1991?

      The choice of date was not arbitrary: on June 14 a decade prior, Swiss voters had approved a new article in the constitution on equality of the sexesexternal link. But the principle laid down in the constitution had not been translated into concrete legislation. The gap between men’s and women’s pay was still glaring.

      The 1991 strike was also intended to mark the 20th anniversary of women getting the vote at the federal level, a goal achieved very late in Switzerland compared to all other countries in Europe and most of the world.
      Why a strike?

      The idea of presenting the mobilisation of 1991 as a strike at first struggled to find acceptance. “At the outset, the Swiss trade union congress was not enthusiastic,” recalls historian Elisabeth Joris, who specialises in women’s and gender history in Switzerland. “The word was going round: ‘This is a day of action, not a strike’, because the very notion of a strike was linked to paid work, while women worked in very varied settings and often not for a paycheque.”

      On the other hand, talking in terms of a strike took on a highly political significance. “Every social movement takes place in a historical context, it is linked to other events,” notes Joris. Declaring a nationwide political strike meant appealing to the precedent of the other great nationwide political strike in Swiss history: the general strike of 1918, which included women’s suffrage among its demands, and in which women played an important role.

      “Women were borrowing a tradition from the workers’ movement, but gave it a wider meaning, transforming and adapting it to the needs of the feminist movement,” explains Joris. The idea of a women’s strike was not new, either. In 1975 there was such a strike in Iceland, to mark International Women’s Year. Even the choice of March 8 as International Women’s Day commemorates the strike by New York garment workers in 1909 and 1910.

      A different kind of strike

      The 1991 strike movement had many obstacles to overcome. In the economic and political world, there was much opposition. At the time, Senate President Max Affolter urged women not to get involved in it and risk “forfeiting men’s goodwill towards their aspirations”.

      On the other hand, the varied working environment of women, often outside the realm of paid work, did not lend itself to traditional forms of mobilisation. “The 1991 women’s strike involved a wide range of actions,” points out Elisabeth Joris. “This was able to happen because the strike was organised on a decentralised basis, unlike traditional strikes.”
      Snowballs for politicians

      Even if its historical significance was not recognised at the outset, the 1991 strike had a decisive impact on progress regarding equality of the sexes and the struggle against discrimination in Switzerland. The newfound strength of the women’s movement showed itself in 1993, when the right-wing majority in parliament declined to elect the Social Democratic Party candidate Christiane Brunner to a seat in the Federal Council, preferring a man.

      “The majority in parliament thought it could do the same thing it had done ten years before with Lilian Uchtenhagen [another Social Democrat who failed to win the election]”, notes Joris. “But Christiane Brunner was the women’s strike. The reaction was immediate. A few hours later, the square in front of parliament was full of demonstrators. Some parliamentarians found themselves pelted with snowballs.”

      Francis Matthey, the candidate elected to the Swiss executive branch, came under such pressure from his own party as well as demonstrators that he felt obliged to resign. A week later Ruth Dreifuss was elected in his place. “Since that time, the idea of there being no women in cabinet is just not acceptable.”

      In 1996, legislation was brought in to ensure the equality of the sexes, which had been one of the demands of the strike. In 2002, Swiss voters approved legislation legalising abortion. In 2004, the article in the constitution on maternity leave, which had been in the constitution since 1945, was finally implemented in a piece of enabling legislation.
      ‘A new generation that favours feminism’

      And yet, in spite of the victories of the women’s movement, equality remains a burning issue. Pay gaps between women and men remain considerable. The #metoo movement has brought to the fore – like never before – the issue of sexual harassment and discrimination based on a person’s gender or sexual orientation.

      “Already around the 20th anniversary there was talk of another women’s strike, but the idea didn’t take hold,” notes Elisabeth Joris. “To succeed, a movement needs an emotional energy to it. This energy has now accumulated. There is a huge generation of young women in their 20s and 30s that favours feminism.”

      “In 2019, we are still looking for equality, and realise that there has to be a lot more than this – the culture of sexism is part of everyday life in Switzerland, it’s invisible, and we are so used to getting along that we hardly notice it is there,” says Clara Almeida Lozar, 20, who belongs to the collective organising the women’s strike at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne.

      https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/feminism_why-swiss-women-are-back-on-strike-today/45025458