Showing posts with label human rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label human rights. Show all posts

Sunday, April 19, 2015

nudes play in snow

Как сообщает ИА "Восток-Медиа", игра в снежки без одежды была частью концепта фотосессии, устроенной девушкам одним из городских фотографов. Происходящее также активно снимали проходящие мимо зеваки. В итоге, сделанные и опубликованные прохожими в соцсетях снимки заинтересовали сотрудников полиции. Личности девушек были установлены, а сами они - приглашены в отделение полиции для беседы. На каждую из них был составлен протокол по административной статье "мелкое хулиганство" и наложен штраф в размере 500 рублей.

Сами нарушительницы объяснили свой поступок возникшим у них желанием сфотографироваться обнаженными. Фотограф, сделавший снимки, наказан не был наказан, так как его действия общественный порядок не нарушали.

Отмечается, что после публикации фотографий, девушки, одна из которых работала в кредитной организации, а другая - в автомобильном магазине, были уволены.

Thursday, January 16, 2014

David Satter about Russia

The Character of Russia

For centuries, the Russian traveler, crossing the border, felt an inexplicable lightness, as if an unseen burden had been lifted from his shoulders. In 1839, the Marquis de Custine recorded the comments of a German innkeeper in Travemunde who remarked that when Russians arrived on their way to Europe, they had a "gay, free, happy air." When they returned, the same people had "long, gloomy tormented faces." Their conversation was brief, "their speech abrupt." The innkeeper concluded that a country that "one leaves with so much joy and returns to with such regret" must be a "bad country."

The reason for the Russian travelers' relief on reaching the West was that, in Russia, the individual is expendable. On crossing the border, he acquires rights, security and the protection of law. Napoleon said that in Europe, there were really only two countries, Russia and everyone else. In the West, the individual is an end in himself. In Russia, he is the means to an end. He can be used for any purpose, his life has little value and his individual personality is not taken seriously.

This condition exists because in Russia, the state is sacred. This mentality is difficult for an outsider to comprehend so the intentions of the Russian regime are constantly misunderstood. When they are deciphered, they seem too bizarre to be real, which prevents the outsider from grasping their seriousness. In Russia, the regime is less a government than a religious crusade crystallized in the institutions of a state. Its preferred field of action is the whole world. The regime does not guarantee the welfare of its citizens because it does not aspire to. It exists for a "higher" purpose and does not recognize moral limits on the pursuit of its goals.

The tsars explained the Russian system on the basis of the "Russian Idea," which was a defense against the notion that Russia differed from the West only its backwardness. According to this idea, Russia's supposedly spiritual culture was actually superior to the materialism of the West. The Russian state was holy and it was the state's mission to bring godliness in the form of (the Russian) religion to the rest of humanity.

The Russian Idea, though developed to defend Tsarism, came to characterize Russian thought generally. The supporters of the regime saw the state's mission in terms of religion, the opponents in terms of socialism but both believed that it was the role of the Russian state to save the world on the basis of a totalitarian ideology that combined "philosophy with life" and "theory with practice."

The durability of this state mentality was such that when the Tsarist autocracy fell, the communist regime which succeeded it not only incorporated all of its repressive features but radically intensified them. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the notion of the priority of state goals guided the reform process whose lawlessness led to the complete criminalization of the country. When Russia began to experience economic growth and relative prosperity under Putin, the result was not the development of democracy but, again, the glorification of the state and a new policy of repression.

In a speech given in April, 2008, Putin expressed his philosophy in terms that have been traditional in Russia for hundreds of years. He said that "maintaining the governance of a vast territory, preserving a unique commonwealth of peoples while occupying a major place in world affairs calls… for enormous sacrifices and privations on the part of our people." This, he said, has been "the story of Russia's thousand year history." The Russian people "do not have the right to forget this." In other words, Russians should support the regime's ambitions, at the cost of "enormous sacrifices and privations" until the end of time.
In the interest of preserving Russia's status as a great power, millions of people were put to death deliberately during the communist era but there is no desire in Russia to commemorate their fate. The official view is that there were dark chapters in the country's history and also glorious deeds and it does not pay to dwell on the dark chapters. Russia was great in the past and will be great in the future. As for the need to change the state mentality that justified the murder of millions in order to guarantee Russia's supposed "greatness," the question is given little thought.

Recent weeks have seen signs of change in Russia. After twenty years of post-Soviet corruption and abuse, Russians have begun to protest against the ruling regime. They have, in effect, given themselves a second chance to gain the democracy they sought but did not achieve after the fall of the Soviet Union. The attempt will lead nowhere, however, without a change in the low value attributed to the individual in Russia, an attitude that, to a distressing degree, the people share with the regime. But for such a change to take place, Russia must discard its pretensions and honor its dead. Such a break with the past will not be easy. But it is within the capacity of a nation that tried to create heaven on earth and it is the only path to a better future.


David Satter, a Senior Fellow at Hudson Institute and a visting scholar at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), is the author of It Was a Long Time Ago, and It Never Happened Anyway: Russia and the Communist Past (Yale). Age of Delirium, a documentary film about the fall of the Soviet Union based on his book of the same name, was recently released.

Friday, November 23, 2012

Status of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights in Central and Eastern Europe

Warsaw, November 23, 2012

ASTRA Network proudly presents:

RECLAIMING AND REDEFINING RIGHTS. ICPD+20:

Status of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights in Central and Eastern Europe.

The report was written within the frames of Southern Voices: Reclaiming and Redefining the Global South SRHR Agenda for 2015 coordinated by the Asian-Pacific Resource & Research Centre for Women (ARROW).

To read/download the report go to: http://www.astra.org.pl/pdf/publications/ICPD_20.pdf
To read the Executive Summary, scroll down.
RECLAIMING AND REDEFINING RIGHTS. ICPD+20: Status of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights in Central and Eastern Europe.
Executive Summary

The 1994 Cairo International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) adopted a 20-year Programme of Action (PoA) with a broad mandate on interrelationships between population, sustained economic growth and sustainable development, and advances in the education, economic status and empowerment of women. The year 2014 marks the 20th anniversary of the Cairo Conference. It is, therefore, necessary to reflect on the progress made, the challenges encountered and, based on these, to formulate strategic goals for ICPD’s agenda beyond 2014.

Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries failed to use ICPD as a framework to build a sustainable architecture to protect and promote women’s rights. The social and economic upheaval that took place in the CEE region in the 1990s has brought declining socio-economic conditions and increasing inequity throughout the region, and in all CEE countries there is a huge gender gap in the economic activity rate. Decision-making and political power is firmly held by men and not one of the seven countries surveyed for this report is even close to reaching the 30% quota of women’s political participation. This reflects the prevalence of deep-seated gender stereotypes that define women primarily as mothers and wives, assigning their role to the private sphere. Countries of the region are suffering a resurgence of patriarchal discourses and religious fundamentalisms which is reflected in setbacks with population and reproductive rights policies. In Hungary, Poland, Ukraine, and Russian Federation, there is a swing back towards pre-Cairo right-wing positions which limit people’s rights to make their own sexual and reproductive choices.

As a result, twenty years after Cairo, women still die unnecessarily due to unsafe abortion, pregnancy, or childbirth. Women and teen girls are suffering from the consequences of unsafe abortion and childbirth, and lack of access to respectful, caring, quality health services to which they have a right as citizens. A similar scenario of continued ill health and suffering exists for women with HIV/AIDS, reproductive cancers and infections, and unwanted pregnancies, in spite of the fact that the necessary technology and medical interventions are known. Neoliberal health policy transforms patients with rights to sexual and reproductive health into consumers who can (or cannot) pay for sexual and reproductive health. Another common denominator for the region is rampant homophobia and transphobia.

ICPD implementation has been slow in all countries, despite the acknowledged need to accelerate commitment and the effort to meet women’s needs and rights, known as the spirit of Cairo. While many new population and reproductive health policies have been introduced in the countries that form part of this study, they still do not clearly incorporate a human rights and women’s rights framework, either at a conceptual or programme level. There is also a large gap between what is stated and the actual implementation.

Barely two years to the end of the ICPD, the prognosis for achieving the objectives of the ICPD is generally not reassuring. Time is limited and population issues are generally difficult to turn around quickly. However, strategic or targeted planning, coupled with commitment, could still achieve much within a short time. While national conditions vary, the outcome of this monitoring project suggests that renewed focus by all countries – regarding the accessibility of sexuality education, affordable contraception and abortion services, as well as addressing the spreading HIV/AIDS pandemic – could galvanise Central and Eastern Europe’s lackluster move towards 2014 and beyond.


 
ASTRA Secretariat, ul. Nowolipie 13/15, 00-150 Warsaw, Poland,
ph/fax 48.22.635 9395, federa@astra.org.pl, www.astra.org.pl

Saturday, October 13, 2012

why women have no children

Women who choose to be permanently childfree perceive more social pressures to become mothers than other women, but feel less distress about not having kids than women who are childless from infertility or other reasons, a new national study shows:


  • Motherhood is so highly connected with adult femininity (what is it?) in the United States that many women feel that they need to be mothers
  • In recent years more U.S. women - estimates suggest about 20 percent - are ending childbearing years without having children. Some can't conceive because of biomedical infertility; others simply delay because of financial concerns, educational demands, job demands, not finding the right partner or other situational barriers. Guess, 3/4 of them simply did not want to have.
  • influence from others to have children was associated with distress only if the women considered motherhood important
  • as reproductive options have increased, both for limiting fertility and overcoming fertility barriers, we are learning what is devastating for some women is a relief for other women

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Medvedev signed a new law on Health Care

arrived from Secretariat@epfweb.org
Last week, on 22 November, the President of the Russian Federation, Dmitriy Medvedev, signed a draft law that will have a series of implications on Russian women’s access to SRHR, both positive and negative. "Basics of the protection of the health of the citizens of Russian Federation," as the law is entitled, went through three readings in the State Duma (lower house of Parliament) and was the subject of wide debate in Russian society with interventions from the Orthodox Church, civil society and academia, and was heavily criticized by the Head of the National Medical Chamber of the Russian Federation, Mr. Leonid Roshal. For its final reading, more than 300 amendments were presented, 109 of which were adopted.

The new law will affect Russian women’s sexual and reproductive health and rights in three ways:
  1. Access to abortion:
First, as regards access to abortion, Article 56 § 3 of the new law introduces a new "silence period", ie. a mandatory waiting period before performing an abortion. According to the article 55 § 3, abortions conducted on a woman's request within first 12 weeks of pregnancy will require a waiting period of 48 hours in the case of pregnancy in the 4th-7th week or 11th-12th weeks, but not later than end of 12th week of pregnancy and with waiting period of 7 days in the case of the pregnancy of 8-9th weeks. The law also sets the provision for obtaining an abortion in Art 56 § 4 that reads: "Abortion is conducted on social grounds until 22 weeks of pregnancy and in case of medical need, irrespective of the duration of pregnancy” (social grounds are set by the Government of the Russian Federation).
  1. Conscientious Objection of abortion providers
Additionally the law introduced the possibility of conscientious objection in the article 70 § 3 that states "the treating doctor in agreement with the relevant official (head) of the medical organisation (division of medical organisation) may refuse to follow the patient or his treatment and also inform in written form about this refusal to conduct an abortion if this refusal does not directly threaten the life of patient and the health of those around him. In the case of refusal of the treating doctor to follow and treat the patient and in the case of notice in written form about the refusal to conduct an abortion, the official (head) of the medical organisation (division of medical organisation) must organise a replacement of the treating doctor.”

  1. Family Planning services
Regarding family planning, the law guarantees free family planning consultations (Art 51 § 1); free medical assistance during pregnancy, during delivery and post-pregnancy (Art 52 § 2); provision of nutrition for pregnant women and breastfeeding mothers as well as children under 3 years old including through special nutrition delivery "points" (art 52 § 3), sets rules for assisted reproduction (Art 55). The law overall guarantees free medical assistance, allows the patient to choose the doctor and medical institution (once a year) as well as sets out unified standards of delivering medical assistance on the entire territory of the Russian Federation.

According to unofficial sources, only Members of the Unified Russia (ruling party) voted for the law (306 in favour, 123 against) in the State Duma. We are trying to clarify this with the Duma officials. 

Many thanks to the colleagues at Russian Association on Population and Development and Centre for Reproductive Rights for providing necessary information.

For those interested, more information is available in the links provided below and in the document attached:

Tuesday, October 11, 2011

The San Jose Articles


New Expert Document: 

No Right To Abortion Under International Law

A new document launched today in New York clarifies once and for all that there is no right to abortion under current international law.

The so-called ‘San Jose Articles’ contains nine articles which summarise the position of internationally binding treaties and customary law regarding abortion, drawing the conclusion that a right to abortion does not exist. Sovereign states, therefore, have no international obligation whatsoever to provide their citizens with access to abortion.

This holds true even for the frequent claim that access to abortion should be provided for health, privacy, sexual autonomy or non-discrimination reasons.

Despite the absence of a ‘right to abortion’, what legal scholar Mary Ann Glendon calls “rights talk” surrounding abortion has become commonly used language in international institutions such as the UN and the EU. Such rhetoric has become the key instrument used by such institutions to pressure countries around the world into allowing abortion – often against their will.

As recently as a few weeks ago the UN Special Rapporteur on Health, the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the UN Secretary General have all said a right to abortion exists. And, according to Human Rights Watch the CEDAW Committee has directed 93 countries to change their laws on abortion.

The San Jose Articles strongly condemn such pressure tactics and reminds treaty-monitoring bodies, UN Agencies and non-governmental organizations that by asserting a ‘right to abortion’ they may be acting beyond their authority and contrary to their mandate.

The purpose of the San Jose Articles is to prepare politicians, diplomats and citizens around the world to counter such assertions and calls on any state encountering abortion rights pressure from UN bodies, EU officials and others to demand accountability from their respective institutional system.

Ambassador Grover Joseph Rees, former US Ambassador to East Timor, said, “When I was in Timor I witnessed first-hand a sustained effort by some international civil servants and representatives of foreign NGOs to bully a small developing country into repealing its pro-life laws. The problem is that people on the ground, even government officials, have little with which to refute the extravagant claim that abortion is an internationally recognized human right. The San Jose Articles are intended to help them fight back.”

The San Jose Articles were drafted by a group of human rights lawyers, legal scholars, public officials and international policy experts, including Professor Robert P. George and Ambassador Grover Rees, along with Professors Carter Snead and Paolo Carozza, both of Notre Dame Law School. Carozza is also a member of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

They were then negotiated and ratified by 30 experts in international law, public health and public policy from around the world. They include Lord David Alton of the British House of Lords, Lord Nicholas Windsor of the British Royal Family, Professor John Finnis of Oxford University, Carl Anderson (Supreme Knight of the Knights of Columbus, and Giuseppi Benagiano of the World Health Organization and the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO).

The San Jose Articles will be released today at 11 a.m. (local time) at UN headquarters in New York. The European launch will take place in a press conference during the October plenary session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg. Subsequent press conferences and panel discussions will take place throughout October in London, Madrid, Rome, Strasbourg, Buenos Aires, San Jose, Santiago, Calgary, Washington (DC) and Manila.


For more information, please visit: www.sanjosearticles.org.
Actually, did not understand what are these artickes and who are those all people

Tuesday, September 6, 2011

God save Slovenia

From Sonja Lokar
CEE Network for Gender Issues
Ljubjana Office - Slovenia

 Dear colleagues,
 As a member of the Women's Lobby of Slovenia, CEE Network was crucial in the organizing of two protests in solidarity with the women in Russia and Poland, where there are serious attempts in the parliament to diminish their right to legal and safe abortion.
 We succeeded to hand out our appeals in in their support addresses to MP Putin and Tusk, to the Russian Deputy Ambassador and to the Polish Ambassador, in Slovenia. There were many media reporters present, and we gave some interviews. We also sent a special press release to all the media after the event. I succeeded as well, to publish a special article on this women's human rights issue in the Saturday supplement of the daily Dnevnik. пикет в Любляне у русскогопосольства
thank you, Sonja ;)

Sunday, August 21, 2011

donor is donor or three parents

"Don't Be Afraid"A Sydney sperm donor has been erased from his 10-year-old daughter's birth certificate and replaced with the lesbian partner of the biological mother. As reported in BioEdge, the partner had sued to add her name to the birth certificate because it was far more convenient for the child - even though the two women have now split up. The unnamed 58-year-old man is furious.

"Fathers have been thrown in the trash can. I'm absolutely outraged. I don't even know if I can call her my daughter, like father's day is in two weeks time. Am I now her father? What am I?

"As far as I can see I'm nothing. I'm just a donor who donated sperm to make a child, not even my daughter. I can't even call her my daughter now. She's not my daughter as far as the law's concerned.

"I have no legal rights whatsoever. The judge has totally ignored the rights of the child. The child does have a right to know their identity. The judge totally ignored that, so it's just a very bad day for fathers."

The judge showed sympathy for the man's disappointment and mused that allowing three parents on a birth certificate might be a solution -- although this might create still more problems. ~ ABC News, Aug 18

Sunday, July 17, 2011

President of Russia and woman vs zygote

It is ЛВЕ coment to a post in RDLJ:

It is so unfortunate that the Russian female population is absolutely unaware that the clerical group of higher-ups in the Government and Duma are dreaming to control their bodies and diminish their Rights for Choice. Some do not consider the proposed measures will set additional barriers and those partial restrictions of the women’s right for reproductive autonomy serious, some - do not understand that religion is entering too far into people’s intimate sphere.

The President’s signature on the Law Amendment restricting abortion services advertisements is the first real step from the Government in the whole public discussion about the women’s right for choice vs zygote right for life. The Russian President who is a real professional in law did not see any conflict here. May be, he is not well informed that the Russian Federation has ratified all the International Treaties, like Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women as well as the ICPD Conference` Platform of Action thus the Government is ought to provide not only comprehensive reproductive health services, but proper information and means for the target population to fulfill their rights for parenthood as well as reproductive freedom.

Hopefully by the end of his presidency in the absence of “abortion advertisement” he will not receive letters from the parents of teenager girls who have had followed smb`s advise and are dead now due to clandestine abortions.