“How could this happen in America?”

“Is this still my country?”

In the past few days, those and similarly poignant Twitter posts have appealed to fundamental American values in objecting to the notorious U.C. Davis event, where police pepper-sprayed seated protesters, and to cities generally cracking down on the Occupy movement. The crackdowns have brought a military level of combativeness to what many Americans — even those not in sympathy with the protesters — would normally see as a police, not a military matter.

Police, not military. The distinction may seem academic, even absurd, when police are bringing rifles, helmets, armor, and helicopters to evict unarmed protesters. But it’s an old and critical distinction in American law and ideology and in republican thought as a whole. The 17th-century English liberty writers, on whose ideas much of America’s founding ethos was based, believed that turning the armed might of the state, (necessary in waging war against foreign enemies), to domestic policing of local communities tends to concentrate power in top-down executive action and vitiate treasured things like judiciary process, individual liberty, representative government, and free speech.

Constabulary and judiciary matters, high Whigs came to think, should never be handled by what they condemned as “standing armies.” It’s true, on the other hand, that keeping public order, not just aiding in prosecutions, is a duty of local police. When concerted crowd violence occurs against people and property, policing may be expected to be pretty violent too, and distinctions between combat and policing sometimes naturally blur.

But where protest is peaceful — maybe loud, maybe deliberately annoying, combative in its rhetoric, even possibly illegal, yet not actually violent or dangerous — treating it the way a state normally treats an outside military threat will give many Americans, across a broad political spectrum, a gut problem.

We’ve seen military hardware and tactics used in the Occupy crackdowns. We’ve seen them in post-9/11 federal funding in the states and municipalities for homeland security. We’ve seen them in the aptly named “war on drugs.” And anyone who has watched shows like “Cops” has seen — and may by now take for granted — techniques and technologies of military-style police raids on homes, raids that in more upscale neighborhoods might amount to nothing more than knocking on a door and serving a warrant. A Twitter post from Joy Reid, of the blog the Reid Report, put it this way last week: “Disconnect: liberals see a suddenly ‘militarized,’ possibly federalized police force. Black people see ‘the usual.’”

The police behavior at U.C. Davis — manifestly not “rogue-cop,” a trained, planned exercise — reveals the cool military thinking behind the operation. Pepper-spraying looked surgical, preemptive, even robotic. The strategic directive must have been to conserve police effort and maintain police maneuverability at virtually any cost. Such efficiencies and capabilities would be important in a riot; they’re not important when hoping to evict unarmed, seated protesters. It’s not as if officers have been resorting to battle gear under otherwise unmanageable pressure or initiating violence only as a last resort. They’ve been arriving in battle gear. They’ve been construing noncompliance as potential attack. They’ve moved preemptively to disable attack where none existed, not just trying to evict but seemingly hoping to inspire fear, to punish and defeat.

The mood these operations convey is that failure to achieve police objectives must result in something awful for the body politic. In reality, leaving citizens sitting around a park or campus a few more days, even possibly illegally, might be frustrating for police and others; it’s hardly the end of the world. Sometimes taking a few deep breaths is the only thing to do. But military training, tactics, and weaponry seem to inspire the idea in civic strategists that failure to achieve an objective is tantamount to fatal defeat by a hostile enemy. Intolerable. Not an option.

That mentality tends to place American governments at enmity with their dissident citizens — and vice versa. The fact that much militarizing of police, over the past twenty years, has federal sources raises endlessly complicated questions that reflect strangely on the histories of American federalism and government suppression. A horrific theme of the Civil Rights Movement was police violence, and many Americans have branded on their brains the watercannons, clubs, dogs, fists, and boots used against nonviolent protesters in the 1950s; police involved were generally state and local. Then in 1957 federal troops — the 101st Airborne Paratroopers — entered Little Rock, Arkansas, with fixed bayonets, to enforce federal law by ensuring the entry of African American students to state school there; states-rights advocates talked about federal overreaching and police state, the end of liberty. Then again, in the 1960s and ’70s the federal government, via its law-enforcement arm the FBI, carried out a covert war — involving assassination, it’s fairly uncontroversial to say — on the militant activist group the Black Panthers, who it’s fairly uncontroversial to say were not always peaceful protesters.

Responding now to police efforts against demonstrators, liberals and leftists have begun raising anew the issue of inappropriate police militarization and violence. Yet it’s the libertarian right that has done much of the reporting and research on the issue in recent decades (Democracy Now! is among left-liberal institutions that have also covered the issue for many years). The current state of heightened awareness means there’s a possibly interesting opportunity for people of varying backgrounds and politics to begin a new conversation. That conversation would involve some very strange bedfellows — and might spark new enmities. The Salon columnist Joan Walsh’s suggestion last weekend on Twitter that if police violence has federal sources, then President Obama bears some responsibility set off a torrent of invective violent even by Twitter standards.

James Madison may offer some long-range perspective. During the 1787 Constitutional Convention, arguing for forming a nation instead of retaining the confederation of states, he said that force applied to citizens collectively rather than individually ceases to be law enforcement and becomes war; groups so treated will seize the opportunity to dissolve all compacts by which they might otherwise have been bound. Madison’s argued against militarism in favor not of anarchy but of a higher kind of law and order.

And in 1794, Secretary of State Edmund Randolph, advising President Washington (to no avail) to eschew military adventure against the so-called Whiskey Rebels, and to use prosecutions instead, argued passionately that the real strength of government always lies not in coercion but in the affection of the people. Randolph was facing an actual insurrection, with threat of secession, not a peaceful protest; there were federal crimes involved. Still he advised against a military operation. The loathing of military suppression as a substitute for due process of law, going back to our first administration, runs deep in the American psyche.

But it’s worth remembering that equally strong feelings have always run the other way. Long before events known as the Whiskey Rebellion had risen to any kind of crisis, Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury, was urging Washington to bring military force against citizens somewhere in the country; otherwise, Hamilton believed, authority would always be in question. When Washington did so, he ignored habeas corpus and nearly every individual right set out in the new Bill of Rights, federalizing militias to bring overwhelming force to shock and awe innocent citizens of an entire region of the country. In his book Crisis and Command, John Yoo, author of the notorious “torture memo,” has defended the George W. Bush administration’s tactics in dealing with suspected terrorists by citing precedent — not wrongly — in Washington’s behavior in the 1790s.

“Is this still my country?” That’s been a question from day one, asked by Americans of widely diverging views in response to government crackdowns on protest. Objecting to military violence against protesting citizens may be inherently American. The urge to crack down can look inherently American too.

William Hogeland is the author of the narrative histories ‘Declaration’ and ‘The Whiskey Rebellion’ and a collection of essays, ‘Inventing American History.’

Reposted from AlterNet.

13 July, 2010
Countercurrents.org

Across America, daily incidents occur, one of many the cold-blooded January 1, 2009 murder of Oscar Grant – unarmed, offering no resistance, thrust face-down on the ground, shot in the back, and killed, videotaped on at least four cameras for irrefutable proof. USA Today said five bystanders taped it.

His killer: Oakland, CA transit officer, Johannes Mehserle, tried for the killing, the jury told to consider four possible verdicts – innocent, second-degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, or involuntary manslaughter, jurors deciding the latter.

The Legal Dictionary defines it as “The act of unlawfully killing another human being unintentionally,” the absence of intent distinguishing it from voluntary manslaughter. Many states don’t define it or do it vaguely. Wallin & Klarich Violent Crime Attorneys say in California it carries a two – four year sentence. However, since a gun was used, Judge Robert Perry can add three to 10 additional years.

Because minority victims seldom get justice, especially against police, Mehserle may serve minimal time, then be paroled quietly when the current furor subsides.

After the verdict, it erupted on Oakland streets, hundreds turning out to protest, Bay Area indymedia.org saying:

“The actions of the Police in Oakland tonight (including dozens of arrests) show their disrespect for justice in General. Their heavy handed violence towards protestors just reinforces their total disconnect with the people of Oakland.” It’s as true everywhere across America, police acting like Gestapo, usually unaccountably.

Grant’s family will appeal the verdict and is suing the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) for $25 million, his mother Wanda Johnson saying “My son was murdered (and) the law has not held the officer accountable.” It rarely does for Black, Latino, or other minorities, no matter the injustice, civil rights lawyer John Burris, representing Grant’s family in the civil suit, saying:

“The system is rarely fair when a police officer shoots an African-American male.” Police brutality against them and other minorites is systemic, including beatings, torture, and cold-blooded murder, usually with impunity, justice nearly always denied.

While far from certain, the Obama administration may charge Mehserle with civil rights or hate crime violations, DOJ spokesman Alejandro Miyar saying:

“The Justice Department has been closely monitoring the state’s investigation and prosecution. The Civil Rights Division, the US Attorney’s Office, and the FBI have an open investigation into the fatal shooting and, at the conclusion of the state prosecution, will conduct an independent review of the facts and circumstances to determine whether the evidence warrants federal prosecution.”

Systemic Police Brutality

An earlier Jones Report.com text and video account headlined, “Epidemic of Police Brutality Sweeps America,” showing footage of police repeatedly tasering a student with 50,000 volts of electricity for questioning the 2004 election results at a campus meeting.

Other videotaped incidents showed:

– a man victimized by police violence;

– a former sheriff’s deputy acquitted of voluntary manslaughter for shooting an unarmed man;

– police repeatedly beating an old man on the head, “for the crime of intoxication;”

– officers violently using assault rifles, tear gas, dogs, and at least one helicopter in an alleged narcotics sweep;

– a woman tasered to death by police; and

– a man in shock, bleeding and burned over much of his body, ordered to lie on the pavement, then tasered and shot to death while he sat dazed, the Report highlighting systemic police violence “repeated almost every day in (America), the police (getting) away with murder,” beatings, and other lawless acts – poor Blacks, Latinos, and Muslims for their faith and ethnicity their usual victims.

Amnesty International (AI) on American Police Brutality

On its web site, AI says “Police brutality and use of excessive force has been one of the central themes of (AI’s) campaign on human rights violations in the USA,” launched in October 1998. In its “United States of America: Rights for All Index,” it documented systematic patterns of abuse across America, including “police beatings, unjustified shootings and the use of dangerous restraint techniques to subdue suspects.”

Yet little is done to monitor or constrain it, evidence showing that “racial and ethnic minorities were disproportionately” harmed by harassment, verbal and physical abuse, false arrests, and in the case of West African immigrant, Amadou Diallo, shot at 41 times by four New York policemen, struck 19 times and killed while he stood in the vestibule of his apartment building, unarmed and nonviolent, victimized by police brutality.

Nationwide, driving while black has been criminalized, racial profiling used for traffic stops and searches for suspected drugs or other reasons, the practice especially common in California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and Texas.

AI cited numerous incidents, including beatings and “questionable” shootings, usually found to be unjustified, yet cops most often absolved. Although most US police departments stipulate that officers should only use deadly force when their lives, or others, are endangered, dozens of cases show they do it indiscriminately, at most being “mildly disciplined” even if guilty of serious misconduct.

“Police shooting(s) resulting in death or injury are routinely reviewed (internally or) by local prosecutors….to see whether criminal laws (were) violated. However, few officers are criminally charged and little public information is given out if a case does not go to trial.” As a result, systemic abuse stays hidden, police brutality allowed to persist with impunity.

Despite Congress passing the 1994 Police Accountability Act, incorporated into the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act to require the Attorney General to compile national data on excessive police force, Congress has consistently failed to fund it. Further, the legislation doesn’t require local police agencies to keep records or submit data to the Justice Department. Nor does it criminalize police violence and excessive force as human rights violations.

ACLU Report on Racial and Ethnic Profiling

In August 2009, the report titled, “The Persistence of Racial Profiling in the United States” quoted Rep. John Conyers (D. MI) saying “Since (9/11), our nation has engaged in a policy of institutionalized racial and ethnic profiling,” although, as an African-American, he knows the problem goes back generations, most recently in the “war on terrorism” against Blacks, Latinos, and Muslims for their faith, ethnicity, activism, prominence, and at times charity, a topic this writer addresses often – arrests, some violently, bogus charges, prosecutions, and imprisonments often compounding the injustice.

Post-9/11 under Bush and Obama, federal, state and local law enforcement agencies have engaged in virulent racial/ethnic profiling, what the ACLU calls “a widespread and pervasive problem throughout the United States, impacting the lives of millions of people in African American, Asian, Latino, South Asian, and Arab communities.”

Evidence shows that racial minorities are systematically victimized, without cause, in public, when driving, at work, at home, in places of worship, and traveling, often violently.

A “major impediment to (prohibiting it) remains the continued unwillingness or inability of the US government to pass federal legislation (banning the practice) with binding effect on federal, state or local law enforcement.”

Nor do authorities comply with the provisions of the 1994 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) that obligates all levels of government.

In addition, the Justice Department’s 2003 Guidance Regarding the Use of Race by Federal Law Enforcement Agencies designed to ban federal officers from engaging in racial profiling is, in fact, flawed and does little to end it, because it doesn’t cover “profiling based on religion, religious appearance, or national origin.”

Nor does it apply to state and local law enforcement where police brutality is systemic. In addition, it specifies no enforcement mechanisms or punishments for violators, and contains a “blanket exception for national security and border integrity cases,” besides being advisory and not legally binding.

As a result, it actually promotes profiling and abuse, including false arrests, beatings and killings. It’s not surprising how minorities have been systematically mistreated by federal, state and local authorities, or that congressional legislation introduced to stop it never passed.

On December 13, 2007, the House and Senate introduced their versions of the End Racial Profiling Act (HR 4611 and S. 2481). Both bills were referred to committee and never enacted – making it extremely hard to nearly impossible for victims to successfully challenge abuses against them.

As a candidate, Obama promised a “Blueprint for Change” to ban racial profiling and related mistreatment, criminalizing them, but so far, no measures have been introduced or passed, showing another promise made, another broken, a systematic pattern under his leadership, across the board against the constituencies that elected him. Hopefully they’ll remember next election and choose another way, a third way, both parties equally corrupted in deference to big money and systemic police brutality that serves it.

National Police Misconduct Statistics

The Injustice Everywhere.com (IE) web site compiles them, publishing them in regular reports, some for individual cities, including daily accounts. One on July 10 covers King County, WA deputy Paul Schene, captured on videotape assaulting a 15-year old girl in jail. He was tried twice, hung juries resulting each time.

On July 9, the County Prosecutor’s Office dropped the charges, and won’t pursue a third trial. As a result, the sheriff’s department may rehire Schene, though he still faces possible disciplinary action. It’s currently in arbitration, IE saying decisions nearly always favor officers, in which case he’ll likely be reinstated to abuse other detainees, off camera to avoid being charged.

In early 2010, IE published an April – mid-December 2009 (8.5 months) Police Misconduct Report, from figures compiled in its National Police Misconduct Statistics Reporting Project (NPMSRP), begun earlier in March 2009, analyzing data:

“by utilizing news media reports of police misconduct to generate statistical information (to) approximate how prevalent (it) may be in the United States.”

Police departments don’t usually provide them, nor do courts, except for successful prosecutions, omitting confidential settlements and cases resulting in disciplinary action only, not trials. Media reports, though imperfect, are more complete because laws limit or filter information released. As a result, IE’s data “should be considered as a low-end estimate of the current rate of police misconduct,” as well as in individual cities covered.

Statistics compiled follow the same DOJ/FBI Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) methodology, recording only the most serious allegation (not conviction) when multiple ones are associated with a particular incident. The findings were as follows:

– 3,445 police misconduct reports;

– 4,012 officers charged;

– 261 law enforcement officials (police chiefs or sheriffs) cited;

– 4,778 alleged victims;

– 258 fatalities reported;

– an average of 15.05 daily incidents or one every 96 minutes;

– nearly $200 million in related civil litigation expense, excluding legal fees and court costs;

– 980.64 per 100,000 officers charged;

– one of every 266 officers accused of a violent crime;

– one of every 1,875 charged with homocide;

– one of every 947 accused of sexual assault;

– 33% of police officers charged were convicted, not necessarily justly for the offense committed;

– 64% of officers convicted were imprisoned, not necessarily as long as justified;

– those sentenced served an average 14 months, far less than citizens for the same crime;

– misconduct by category included 18.1% for non-firearm related excessive force; 11.9% for sexual misconduct; and 8.9% for fraud or theft;

– analyzing reports by last reported status showed 45.9% affected officers adversely, including 14% internally disciplined and 31.9% criminally charged; of the latter, 32.5% were convicted “for a 10.4% total criminal conviction rate for alleged misconduct incidents; and

– 27% resulted in civil lawsuits, 34.3% favoring victims.

In addition, data were compiled for states, cities and counties, excluding unavailable federal statistics as well as local omissions, especially in some states. Various offenses included:

– accountability: evidence of coverups, lax discipline, and other failures to adhere to official policies or processes;

– animal cruelty, harming them by unnecessary shooting, inappropriate KP unit training, or other mistreatment;

– assault: “unwarranted violence” off-duty, excluding murder;

– auto incidents involving recklessness, negligence, and other violations of official policies;

– brutality, involving excessive physical force on-duty, excluding firearms or tasers;

– civil rights, including unconstitutional civil liberties violations such as lawless peaceful protest disruptions;

– sexual misconduct, including rape, sexual assault, sexual battery, wrongfully eliciting sex, harassment, coercion, prostitution, sex on duty, incest, and molestation;

– theft or fraud, including robbery, shoplifting, extortion or bribery;

– shooting: gun-related incidents both on and off-duty, including self-harm;

– taser: excessive force, including usage not according to guidelines, resulting in excessive injury or death; also, improper taser use may be recorded as “brutality;”

– color of law, including incidents involving misuse of authority such as bribery, soliciting favors, extortion by threat of arrest, or using badges to avoid arrest;

– perjury, including false testimony, dishonesty during investigations, and falsifying charging papers or warrants; and

– raids, including misconduct during warranted or warrantless operations or searches, wrong address raids, mistaken ones, use of no-knock ones when warrants require notification, or mistreatment during executions.

Misconduct status stages go from allegations to investigations, lawsuits, charges, trials, judgments, disciplinary measures, terminations, convictions, and sentences.

IE compiles data regularly, prepares daily and quarterly reports, and henceforth an annual one each January the following year. It explains that its statistics:

“should only be used (as) a very basic and general view of the extent of police misconduct. It is by no means an accurate gauge that truly represents the exact extent (of its extensiveness) since it relies on the information voluntarily gathered and/or released to the media, not (first-hand) by independent monitors who investigate complaints…..because no such agency exists for any law enforcement agency….”

Detailed quarterly and annual reports are produced, not monthly ones considered a less accurate “depiction of the overall extent of police misconduct….” Daily reports cover a sampling of individual incidents. Overall, IE provides a valuable reading of systemic police misconduct, though capturing only a snapshot of the full problem – widespread, abusive, violent, often with impunity, and when officers are held accountable, imposed discipline is usually mild, prison sentences rare and short-term, victims cheated by a criminally unjust system, favoring power over people, no matter the offense.

Final Comments

In December 2007, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination published a report titled, “In the Shadows of the War on Terror: Persistent Police Brutality and Abuse of People of Color in the United States,” saying:

“Since this Committee’s 2001 review of the US, during which it expressed concern regarding incidents of police brutality and deaths in custody at the hands of US law enforcement officers, there have been dramatic increases in law enforcement powers in the name of waging the “war on terror (resulting in) the use of excessive force against people of color….(It’s not only continued post-9/11), but has worsened in both practice and severity” – a NAACP representative saying it’s “the worst I’ve seen in 50 years.”

On April 4, 2007, Ryan Gallagher, writing for Medill Reports, produced by Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism, headlined, “Study: Police abuse goes unpunished,” saying:

From 2002 – 2004, over “10,000 complaints of police abuse were filed with Chicago police….but only 19 resulted in meaningful disciplinary action, a new study asserts.” According to Gerald Frazier, president of Citizens Alert, it reflects “not only the appearance of influence and cover-up,” but clear evidence that city residents are being abused, not protected, despite the department’s official motto being “We Serve and Protect.”

Most disturbing is that the Chicago pattern reflects what’s happening across America, people of color like Oscar Grant systematically abused, in his case murdered in cold blood, what no criminal or civil actions can undo.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/

Aleksandr Herzen, speaking a century ago to a group of anarchists about how to overthrow the czar, reminded his listeners that it was not their job to save a dying system but to replace it: “We think we are the doctors. We are the disease.” All resistance must recognize that the body politic and global capitalism are dead. We should stop wasting energy trying to reform or appeal to it. This does not mean the end of resistance, but it does mean very different forms of resistance. It means turning our energies toward building sustainable communities to weather the coming crisis, since we will be unable to survive and resist without a cooperative effort.

These communities, if they retreat into a pure survivalist mode without linking themselves to the concentric circles of the wider community, the state and the planet, will become as morally and spiritually bankrupt as the corporate forces arrayed against us. All infrastructures we build, like the monasteries in the Middle Ages, should seek to keep alive the intellectual and artistic traditions that make a civil society, humanism and the common good possible. Access to parcels of agricultural land will be paramount. We will have to grasp, as the medieval monks did, that we cannot alter the larger culture around us, at least in the short term, but we may be able to retain the moral codes and culture for generations beyond ours. Resistance will be reduced to small, often imperceptible acts of defiance, as those who retained their integrity discovered in the long night of 20th-century fascism and communism.

We stand on the cusp of one of the bleakest periods in human history when the bright lights of a civilization blink out and we will descend for decades, if not centuries, into barbarity. The elites have successfully convinced us that we no longer have the capacity to understand the revealed truths presented before us or to fight back against the chaos caused by economic and environmental catastrophe. As long as the mass of bewildered and frightened people, fed images that permit them to perpetually hallucinate, exist in this state of barbarism, they may periodically strike out with a blind fury against increased state repression, widespread poverty and food shortages. But they will lack the ability and self-confidence to challenge in big and small ways the structures of control. The fantasy of widespread popular revolts and mass movements breaking the hegemony of the corporate state is just that – a fantasy.

My analysis comes close to the analysis of many anarchists. But there is a crucial difference. The anarchists do not understand the nature of violence. They grasp the extent of the rot in our cultural and political institutions, they know they must sever the tentacles of consumerism, but they naïvely believe that it can be countered with physical forms of resistance and acts of violence. There are debates within the anarchist movement – such as those on the destruction of property – but once you start using plastic explosives, innocent people get killed. And when anarchic violence begins to disrupt the mechanisms of governance, the power elite will use these acts, however minor, as an excuse to employ disproportionate and ruthless amounts of force against real and suspected agitators, only fueling the rage of the dispossessed.

I am not a pacifist. I know there are times, and even concede that this may eventually be one of them, when human beings are forced to respond to mounting repression with violence. I was in Sarajevo during the war in Bosnia. We knew precisely what the Serbian forces ringing the city would do to us if they broke through the defenses and trench system around the besieged city. We had the examples of the Drina Valley or the city of Vukovar, where about a third of the Muslim inhabitants had been killed and the rest herded into refugee or displacement camps. There are times when the only choice left is to pick up a weapon to defend your family, neighborhood and city. But those who proved most adept at defending Sarajevo invariably came from the criminal class. When they were not shooting at Serbian soldiers they were looting the apartments of ethnic Serbs in Sarajevo and often executing them, as well as terrorizing their fellow Muslims. When you ingest the poison of violence, even in a just cause, it corrupts, deforms and perverts you. Violence is a drug, indeed it is the most potent narcotic known to humankind. Those most addicted to violence are those who have access to weapons and a penchant for force. And these killers rise to the surface of any armed movement and contaminate it with the intoxicating and seductive power that comes with the ability to destroy. I have seen it in war after war. When you go down that road you end up pitting your monsters against their monsters. And the sensitive, the humane and the gentle, those who have a propensity to nurture and protect life, are marginalized and often killed. The romantic vision of war and violence is as prevalent among anarchists and the hard left as it is in the mainstream culture. Those who resist with force will not defeat the corporate state or sustain the cultural values that must be sustained if we are to have a future worth living. From my many years as a war correspondent in El Salvador, Guatemala, Gaza and Bosnia, I have seen that armed resistance movements are always mutations of the violence that spawned them. I am not naïve enough to think I could have avoided these armed movements had I been a landless Salvadoran or Guatemalan peasant, a Palestinian in Gaza or a Muslim in Sarajevo, but this violent response to repression is and always will be tragic. It must be avoided, although not at the expense of our own survival.

Democracy, a system ideally designed to challenge the status quo, has been corrupted and tamed to slavishly serve the status quo. We have undergone, as John Ralston Saul writes, a coup d’état in slow motion. And the coup is over. They won. We lost. The abject failure of activists to push corporate, industrialized states toward serious environmental reform, to thwart imperial adventurism or to build a humane policy toward the masses of the world’s poor stems from an inability to recognize the new realities of power. The paradigm of power has irrevocably altered and so must the paradigm of resistance alter.

Too many resistance movements continue to buy into the facade of electoral politics, parliaments, constitutions, bills of rights, lobbying and the appearance of a rational economy. The levers of power have become so contaminated that the needs and voices of citizens have become irrelevant. The election of Barack Obama was yet another triumph of propaganda over substance and a skillful manipulation and betrayal of the public by the mass media. We mistook style and ethnicity – an advertising tactic pioneered by the United Colors of Benetton and Calvin Klein – for progressive politics and genuine change. We confused how we were made to feel with knowledge. But the goal, as with all brands, was to make passive consumers mistake a brand for an experience. Obama, now a global celebrity, is a brand. He had almost no experience besides two years in the senate, lacked any moral core and was sold as all things to all people. The Obama campaign was named Advertising Age’s marketer of the year for 2008 and edged out runners-up Apple and Zappos.com. Take it from the professionals. Brand Obama is a marketer’s dream. President Obama does one thing and Brand Obama gets you to believe another. This is the essence of successful advertising. You buy or do what the advertisers want because of how they can make you feel.

We live in a culture characterized by what Benjamin DeMott called “junk politics.” Junk politics does not demand justice or the reparation of rights. It always personalizes issues rather than clarifying them. It eschews real debate for manufactured scandals, celebrity gossip and spectacles. It trumpets eternal optimism, endlessly praises our moral strength and character, and communicates in a feel-your-pain language. The result of junk politics is that nothing changes, “meaning zero interruption in the processes and practices that strengthen existing, interlocking systems of socioeconomic advantage.”

The cultural belief that we can make things happen by thinking, by visualizing, by wanting them, by tapping into our inner strength or by understanding that we are truly exceptional is magical thinking. We can always make more money, meet new quotas, consume more products and advance our career if we have enough faith. This magical thinking, preached to us across the political spectrum by Oprah, sports celebrities, Hollywood, self-help gurus and Christian demagogues, is largely responsible for our economic and environmental collapse, since any Cassandra who saw it coming was dismissed as “negative.” This belief, which allows men and women to behave and act like little children, discredits legitimate concerns and anxieties. It exacerbates despair and passivity. It fosters a state of self-delusion. The purpose, structure and goals of the corporate state are never seriously questioned. To question, to engage in criticism of the corporate collective, is to be obstructive and negative. And it has perverted the way we view ourselves, our nation and the natural world. The new paradigm of power, coupled with its bizarre ideology of limitless progress and impossible happiness, has turned whole nations, including the United States, into monsters.

We can march in Copenhagen. We can join Bill McKibben’s worldwide day of climate protests. We can compost in our backyards and hang our laundry out to dry. We can write letters to our elected officials and vote for Barack Obama, but the power elite is impervious to the charade of democratic participation. Power is in the hands of moral and intellectual trolls who are ruthlessly creating a system of neo-feudalism and killing the ecosystem that sustains the human species. And appealing to their better nature, or seeking to influence the internal levers of power, will no longer work.

We will not, especially in the United States, avoid our Götterdämmerung. Obama, like Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the other heads of the industrialized nations, has proven as craven a tool of the corporate state as George W. Bush. Our democratic system has been transformed into what the political philosopher Sheldon Wolin labels inverted totalitarianism. Inverted totalitarianism, unlike classical totalitarianism, does not revolve around a demagogue or charismatic leader. It finds expression in the anonymity of the corporate state. It purports to cherish democracy, patriotism, a free press, parliamentary systems and constitutions while manipulating and corrupting internal levers to subvert and thwart democratic institutions. Political candidates are elected in popular votes by citizens but are ruled by armies of corporate lobbyists in Washington, Ottawa or other state capitals who author the legislation and get the legislators to pass it. A corporate media controls nearly everything we read, watch or hear and imposes a bland uniformity of opinion. Mass culture, owned and disseminated by corporations, diverts us with trivia, spectacles and celebrity gossip. In classical totalitarian regimes, such as Nazi fascism or Soviet communism, economics was subordinate to politics. “Under inverted totalitarianism the reverse is true,” Wolin writes. “Economics dominates politics – and with that domination comes different forms of ruthlessness.”

Inverted totalitarianism wields total power without resorting to cruder forms of control such as gulags, concentration camps or mass terror. It harnesses science and technology for its dark ends. It enforces ideological uniformity by using mass communication systems to instill profligate consumption as an inner compulsion and to substitute our illusions of ourselves for reality. It does not forcibly suppress dissidents, as long as those dissidents remain ineffectual. And as it diverts us it dismantles manufacturing bases, devastates communities, unleashes waves of human misery and ships jobs to countries where fascists and communists know how to keep workers in line. It does all this while waving the flag and mouthing patriotic slogans. “The United States has become the showcase of how democracy can be managed without appearing to be suppressed,” Wolin writes.

The practice and psychology of advertising, the rule of “market forces” in many arenas other than markets, the continuous technological advances that encourage elaborate fantasies (computer games, virtual avatars, space travel), the saturation by mass media and propaganda of every household and the takeover of the universities have rendered most of us hostages. The rot of imperialism, which is always incompatible with democracy, has seen the military and arms manufacturers monopolize $1 trillion a year in defense-related spending in the United States even as the nation faces economic collapse. Imperialism always militarizes domestic politics. And this militarization, as Wolin notes, combines with the cultural fantasies of hero worship and tales of individual prowess, eternal youthfulness, beauty through surgery, action measured in nanoseconds and a dream-laden culture of ever-expanding control and possibility to sever huge segments of the population from reality. Those who control the images control us. And while we have been entranced by the celluloid shadows on the walls of Plato’s cave, these corporate forces, extolling the benefits of privatization, have effectively dismantled the institutions of social democracy (Social Security, unions, welfare, public health services and public housing) and rolled back the social and political ideals of the New Deal. The proponents of globalization and unregulated capitalism do not waste time analyzing other ideologies. They have an ideology, or rather a plan of action that is defended by an ideology, and slavishly follow it. We on the left have dozens of analyses of competing ideologies without any coherent plan of our own. This has left us floundering while corporate forces ruthlessly dismantle civil society.

We are living through one of civilization’s great seismic reversals. The ideology of globalization, like all “inevitable” utopian visions, is being exposed as a fraud. The power elite, perplexed and confused, clings to the disastrous principles of globalization and its outdated language to mask the looming political and economic vacuum. The absurd idea that the marketplace alone should determine economic and political constructs led industrial nations to sacrifice other areas of human importance – from working conditions, to taxation, to child labor, to hunger, to health and pollution – on the altar of free trade. It left the world’s poor worse off and the United States with the largest deficits – which can never be repaid – in human history. The massive bailouts, stimulus packages, giveaways and short-term debt, along with imperial wars we can no longer afford, will leave the United States struggling to finance nearly $5 trillion in debt this year. This will require Washington to auction off about $96 billion in debt a week. Once China and the oil-rich states walk away from our debt, which one day has to happen, the Federal Reserve will become the buyer of last resort. The Fed has printed perhaps as much as two trillion new dollars in the last two years, and buying this much new debt will see it, in effect, print trillions more. This is when inflation, and most likely hyperinflation, will turn the dollar into junk. And at that point the entire system breaks down.

All traditional standards and beliefs are shattered in a severe economic crisis. The moral order is turned upside down. The honest and industrious are wiped out while the gangsters, profiteers and speculators walk away with millions. The elite will retreat, as Naomi Klein has written in The Shock Doctrine, into gated communities where they will have access to services, food, amenities and security denied to the rest of us. We will begin a period in human history when there will be only masters and serfs. The corporate forces, which will seek to make an alliance with the radical Christian right and other extremists, will use fear, chaos, the rage at the ruling elites and the specter of left-wing dissent and terrorism to impose draconian controls to ruthlessly extinguish opposition movements. And while they do it, they will be waving the American flag, chanting patriotic slogans, promising law and order and clutching the Christian cross. Totalitarianism, George Orwell pointed out, is not so much an age of faith but an age of schizophrenia. “A society becomes totalitarian when its structure becomes flagrantly artificial,” Orwell wrote. “That is when its ruling class has lost its function but succeeds in clinging to power by force or fraud.” Our elites have used fraud. Force is all they have left.

Our mediocre and bankrupt elite is desperately trying to save a system that cannot be saved. More importantly, they are trying to save themselves. All attempts to work within this decayed system and this class of power brokers will prove useless. And resistance must respond to the harsh new reality of a global, capitalist order that will cling to power through ever-mounting forms of brutal and overt repression. Once credit dries up for the average citizen, once massive joblessness creates a permanent and enraged underclass and the cheap manufactured goods that are the opiates of our commodity culture vanish, we will probably evolve into a system that more closely resembles classical totalitarianism. Cruder, more violent forms of repression will have to be employed as the softer mechanisms of control favored by inverted totalitarianism break down.

It is not accidental that the economic crisis will converge with the environmental crisis. In his book The Great Transformation (1944), Karl Polanyi laid out the devastating consequences – the depressions, wars and totalitarianism – that grow out of a so-called self-regulated free market. He grasped that “fascism, like socialism, was rooted in a market society that refused to function.” He warned that a financial system always devolves, without heavy government control, into a Mafia capitalism – and a Mafia political system – which is a good description of our financial and political structure. A self-regulating market, Polanyi wrote, turns human beings and the natural environment into commodities, a situation that ensures the destruction of both society and the natural environment. The free market’s assumption that nature and human beings are objects whose worth is determined by the market allows each to be exploited for profit until exhaustion or collapse. A society that no longer recognizes that nature and human life have a sacred dimension, an intrinsic value beyond monetary value, commits collective suicide. Such societies cannibalize themselves until they die. This is what we are undergoing.

If we build self-contained structures, ones that do as little harm as possible to the environment, we can weather the coming collapse. This task will be accomplished through the existence of small, physical enclaves that have access to sustainable agriculture, are able to sever themselves as much as possible from commercial culture and can be largely self-sufficient. These communities will have to build walls against electronic propaganda and fear that will be pumped out over the airwaves. Canada will probably be a more hospitable place to do this than the United States, given America’s strong undercurrent of violence. But in any country, those who survive will need isolated areas of land as well as distance from urban areas, which will see the food deserts in the inner cities, as well as savage violence, leach out across the urban landscape as produce and goods become prohibitively expensive and state repression becomes harsher and harsher.

The increasingly overt uses of force by the elites to maintain control should not end acts of resistance. Acts of resistance are moral acts. They begin because people of conscience understand the moral imperative to challenge systems of abuse and despotism. They should be carried out not because they are effective but because they are right. Those who begin these acts are always few in number and dismissed by those who hide their cowardice behind their cynicism. But resistance, however marginal, continues to affirm life in a world awash in death. It is the supreme act of faith, the highest form of spirituality and alone makes hope possible. Those who carried out great acts of resistance often sacrificed their security and comfort, often spent time in jail and in some cases were killed. They understood that to live in the fullest sense of the word, to exist as free and independent human beings, even under the darkest night of state repression, meant to defy injustice.

When the dissident Lutheran pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer was taken from his cell in a Nazi prison to the gallows, his last words were: “This is for me the end, but also the beginning.” Bonhoeffer knew that most of the citizens in his nation were complicit through their silence in a vast enterprise of death. But however hopeless it appeared in the moment, he affirmed what we all must affirm. He did not avoid death. He did not, as a distinct individual, survive. But he understood that his resistance and even his death were acts of love. He fought and died for the sanctity of life. He gave, even to those who did not join him, another narrative, and his defiance ultimately condemned his executioners.

We must continue to resist, but do so now with the discomforting realization that significant change will probably never occur in our lifetime. This makes resistance harder. It shifts resistance from the tangible and the immediate to the amorphous and the indeterminate. But to give up acts of resistance is spiritual and intellectual death. It is to surrender to the dehumanizing ideology of totalitarian capitalism. Acts of resistance keep alive another narrative, sustain our integrity and empower others, who we may never meet, to stand up and carry the flame we pass to them. No act of resistance is useless, whether it is refusing to pay taxes, fighting for a Tobin tax, working to shift the neoclassical economics paradigm, revoking a corporate charter, holding global internet votes or using Twitter to catalyze a chain reaction of refusal against the neoliberal order. But we will have to resist and then find the faith that resistance is worthwhile, for we will not immediately alter the awful configuration of power. And in this long, long war a community to sustain us, emotionally and materially, will be the key to a life of defiance.

The philosopher Theodor Adorno wrote that the exclusive preoccupation with personal concerns and indifference to the suffering of others beyond the self-identified group is what ultimately made fascism and the Holocaust possible: “The inability to identify with others was unquestionably the most important psychological condition for the fact that something like Auschwitz could have occurred in the midst of more or less civilized and innocent people.”

The indifference to the plight of others and the supreme elevation of the self is what the corporate state seeks to instill in us. It uses fear, as well as hedonism, to thwart human compassion. We will have to continue to battle the mechanisms of the dominant culture, if for no other reason than to preserve through small, even tiny acts, our common humanity. We will have to resist the temptation to fold in on ourselves and to ignore the cruelty outside our door. Hope endures in these often imperceptible acts of defiance. This defiance, this capacity to say no, is what the psychopathic forces in control of our power systems seek to eradicate. As long as we are willing to defy these forces we have a chance, if not for ourselves, then at least for those who follow. As long as we defy these forces we remain alive. And for now this is the only victory possible.

Chris Hedges, a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter, is a senior fellow at the Nation Institute. He writes a regular column for TruthDig every Monday. His latest book is Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle.

Reprinted from AlterNet.

Violence between couples is usually the result of a calculated decision-making process and the partner inflicting violence will do so only as long as the price to be paid is not too high. This is the conclusion of a new study by Dr. Eila Perkis at the University of Haifa. “The violent partner might conceive his or her behavior as a ‘loss of control’, but the same individual, unsurprisingly, would not lose control in this way with a boss or friends,” she explains.

In this new study, carried out under the supervision of Prof. Zvi Eisikovits and Dr. Zeev Winstok of the University of Haifa’s School of Social Work, Dr. Perkis examined intimate violence based on the fact that in most cases the offending partner is a law-abiding individual living a normative life outside of the family unit. Dr. Perkis says that in most cases the couple continues living together and sustaining a shared family unit, so it is important that we learn to understand the dynamics of such partnerships in order to treat them.

First Dr. Perkis divided intimate violence into four levels of severity: verbal aggression; threats of physical aggression; moderate physical aggression; and severe physical aggression. “These four levels follow one another in an escalating sequence; someone who uses verbal violence might well move on over time to threatening physical attack, and from there it is only downhill towards acting on the threat,” she explains. Dr. Perkis warns however, that the results of this study should not be correlated to cases of murder, since the dynamics between couples in such cases are different and such offenses are not included in the chain of violent acts being examined.

The researcher found that acting on each type of violence is calculated, such that the violence constitutes a tool for solving conflict between the partners. “Neither of the couple sits down and plans when he or she will swear or lash out at the other, but there is a sort of silent agreement standing between the two on what limits of violent behavior are ‘ok’, where the red line is drawn, and where behavior beyond that could be dangerous,” she explains. She adds that when speaking of one-sided physical violence, most often carried out by men, the violent side understands that for a slap, say, he will not pay a very heavy price, but for harsher violence that is not included in the ‘normative’ dynamic between them, he might well have to pay a higher price and will therefore keep himself from such behavior. “A ‘heavy price’ could be the partner’s leaving or reporting the incident to the police or the workplace. As such, it can be said that violent behavior is not the result of loss of control and both sides are aware of where the red line is drawn, even if such an agreement has never been spoken between them,” she says.

According to Dr. Perkis, it is important to point out that use of violence is not a normative behavior; it is illegal, and of course, immoral. Therefore, it is only the violent partner who is culpable for the act. Nevertheless, once we understand that violence is being used as a tool for solving conflict between a couple that is interested in staying together, we can help them subdue such behavior by providing them with better tools to cope with the source of tension and conflict in their lives together.

“In couples therapy for partners who express the wish to stay together, therapy must be focused on identifying illegitimate motives, such as nonnormative tactics for solving conflict, and assisting the couple in acknowledging their ability to convert destructive patterns into effective ones and ultimately to run their lives better,” the researcher concludes.

Reposted from the University of Haifa.

VICTORVILLE, Calif. — Ever since it became clear that Barack Obama would be our next president, there’s been an unprecedented run on guns ‘n ammo in America. Partly this is fueled by fears, some justified some not, that Obama will outlaw a broad range of assault weapons; partly it’s fueled by socioeconomic factors, racism and right-wing hate.

Nowhere is this phenomenon more evident than in Victorville, a desert exurb of Los Angeles that boomed faster with the subprime craze than just about any city in the country and fell harder when it all collapsed. Today, guns and ammo are in short supply here in Victorville. But there is an abundance of despair and paranoia.

There are a lot of guns around these parts, too. The barren desert surroundings are perfect setting for gun enthusiasts of all stripes, and it feels like most everyone here owns a weapon or two. And why not? You can drive 15 minutes beyond city limits, turn off onto a backroad and start unloading to heart’s content. That is, if you are able to get your hands on some ammunition.

In Victorville, every single gun store is out of all types of ammo, all the time.

“I went through 11,000 of 9mm rounds in two days. That’s an awful lot for a little shop like this. I would never ever stock that much,” an owner of a  gun shop tucked away in a corner of a strip mall told me. “All the people that make ammunition are making more than they have in any other year, but they are still running out.”

Excessive target practice did not even come close to explaining the insatiable demand for ammo. Even the local Wal-Mart, the pioneer in demand-driven distribution, can’t keep up, selling out of as soon as soon a new shipment comes in.

Rumor on the street has it that Wal-Mart has sold more ammo year-to-date than any other year in its history. And while Wal-Mart’s media relations department would not confirm or deny that information, citing proprietary concerns, all one has to do is visit their two stores in the area.

Aside from a couple of boxes of buckshot, shelves in the guns-and-ammo department stand perpetually empty — a weird sight in a store otherwise overflowing with goods. According to a salesperson at their Victorville location, ammo that arrives overnight will be picked clean long before lunch hour rolls around. The only sure way to buy is to call as soon as the store opens at 9 a.m. and put what you want on hold. That is, if a shipment comes in that day at all.

Charles Drew, owner of a gun store in Victorville, told the press that even people that don’t own guns are hoarding ammunition “just in case.” It is a trend recorded nationwide. 

The Outdoor Wire, a news service for the outdoor industry, has named Obama its “Gun Salesman of the Year.” Mandatory FBI background checks for firearms sales have jumped by 50 percent in recent months, while ammunition manufacturers have seen record sales. Olin Corp., maker of Winchester ammunition, upped its first-quarter sales this year from $110 million to $133 million, giving it a much-appreciated 20 percent boost in profits.

Ammunition has been so scarce lately that some police departments have been forced to scale back on target practice, fearing that they won’t have any bullets left for real police work.

And the thing to remember is that bullets aren’t cheap. A box of 25 9mm rounds sells for about $25. More specialized ammo easily sells for $2 a bullet or more. But in these difficult times, cost does not appear to be an issue, even in the flat-broke city of Victorville.

Victorville is set on a flat stretch of the Mojave Desert among Joshua trees and tumbleweeds 100 miles east of Los Angeles. Fertilized by land speculation and the riskiest of loans, blocks and blocks of beefy McMansions started sprouting here in the last decade, baiting low-income families with the glorious dream of homeownership.

Priced just right, Victorville was a testament to the accessibility of the American Dream for all, regardless of wealth. And in 2007, it became America’s second-fastest growing exurb, doubling its population to just over 100,000 in six short years.

There was no local industry to support such growth, and despite the two-hour average commute, each way, people flocked here from all over Southern California, eventually making Victorville more ethnically diverse than Los Angeles.

But the egalitarian dream didn’t last. Prices have now dropped to pre-2000 levels. Whole neighborhoods of beefy homes, some of them half-built, now stand abandoned, eerily blending in with the barren desert landscape.

The unemployment rate in Victorville doubled in the past year, spiking way above the national average to between 12.5 and 18.5 percent (the national and state averages are 8.5 and 11.2 percent, respectively).

Violent crime is on the rise, too. Victorville saw a 7 percent jump in 2008, while some surrounding areas clocked as much as 13 percent more homicides, rapes, robberies, assaults and motor vehicle theft.

There are two sides to Victorville, the old and the new. Before its stint as a dirt-cheap suburban paradise, Victorville was a tiny God-fearing community populated by white conservatives living an isolated frontier lifestyle with heavy military overtones.

One of the local World War II-era bases had shut down more than a decade ago, but a Marine Corps base remains operational and is still one of the biggest employers in the area. Until the housing boom flooded the area with urban homeowners, 1 out of every 6 adults here was a veteran.

The influx of new — and mainly nonwhite — homeowners has been a cause of racial tensions here for more than a decade.

“The chemistry out here is perfect for more and more racism,” said Tom Metzger, the infamous leader of the white supremacist hate group White Aryan Resistance who lives in Southern California, about the Inland Empire back in 2005. “You’ve got all these nonwhites moving here from Orange County and Los Angeles trying to flee the crime perpetrated on them by their own kind in their ghettos, and when they come out here, they’re basically shoving forced integration down the throats of the whites who have traditional claim to this area, and that is provoking a negative racist reaction among whites, as it damn well should. It’s great!”

What has been simmering conflict may soon be bubbling over the edge. There is almost a sense of inevitability of a spike in hate crimes.

“In the past month, there was only one reported hate crime. But you have to wonder how many go unreported. I think a lot, ” a local crime beat reporter told me. “Just go to our comments section and read what people are saying. There is definitely a perfect storm building.”

In October 2008, two teenagers belonging to a local hate group shot a black man in a liquor store parking lot. Schools have been dealing with an uptick in race-based conflicts and shooting threats. Earlier this month, one of the cars of a Jewish family was trashed inside and out, its engine destroyed and swastikas painted on its doors and hood.

As I’m writing this, news is coming out that police arrested a group of six local skinheads from Hammerskin Nation for attempted murder, witness intimidation, conspiracy to commit murder and assault with a deadly weapon.

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, Hammerskin Nation has been stepping up recruitment lately, as has every other known extremist group across the nation.

On April 15, about 200 people, mostly white, showed up at Victorville’s Tea Party. Some were not hesitant to vow that they’ll take violent action if “Osama’s” socialist policies continued unabated.

To the protestors, the economic crisis had exposed what their government had become: a big, meddling bureaucracy that had little regard for personal liberty. Socialism was a’coming to the USA, and it was hell-bent on exploiting honest, hardworking people like themselves — whether its being forced to bail out delinquent homeowners or having your jobs given to illegal immigrants.

While President Obama was talking about raising taxes, redistributing wealth and carelessly spending hundreds of billions of dollars on his banker buddies, their boys were coming back home from Afghanistan and Iraq thankless and jobless. Much of their anger was aimed at new residents: Hispanics, Asians and blacks.

Nowhere is this animosity more visible than on the local Internet forums. Here are just two of dozens of similar comments posted by readers on an article about Victorville’s spike in crime rates by the Daily Press, a local daily:

married wrote:

Sheriff’s can’t pinpoint why there’s an increase in crime? Geez even an idiot can tell you what the problem is – low-income housing, Juan and Shanana moving up here to get little Julio and Tyron away from the gangs, but not realizing they are the gang, and welfare money running out in the middle of the month. I can’t wait to hear the remarks I’m gonna get on this comment. 5/2/2009 7:59:03 PM

sandynator wrote:

No surprise here, what do you expect with all the social engineering we had via Barney Frank and the dems, too many gangbangers got loans and moved on up to the high desert. Now we the citizen pay the price while the fat cats like Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi and BO laugh themselves silly. 5/2/2009 9:59:36 PM

The day day after the nationwide Tea Party protests, channeling the spirit of Timothy McVeigh, the Department of Homeland Security released a perfectly timed report warning law enforcement agencies that America’s shifting political landscape, the economic downturn and influx of returning vets all combined for a perfect storm likely to cause a swell in right-wing extremist organization activity.

The report cited evidence that extremist groups are stockpiling weapons and ammo in preparation for … something.

Republicans went on a partisan offensive slammed the report as an affront against our troops, but even a cursory look at Victorville shows how close to the bone the report really gets.

Yasha Levine is a gun-ownin’ editor of eXiledOnline. He is currently stationed in Victorville, California, working on a book from the trenches of the American Dream. You can contact him at levine@exiledonline.com.

Reprinted from: http://www.alternet.org/story/139872/

Paul Boxer’s large-scale study shows conclusive link between media violence and real violence in adolescents.

 (Newark, N.J., Nov. 18, 2008)  — You are what you watch, when it comes to violence in the media and its influence on violent behavior in young people, and a new paper, lead-authored by Rutgers University, Newark, researcher Paul Boxer, provides new evidence that violent media does indeed impact adolescent behavior.

The research, to be published in February/2009 in the Journal of Youth and Adolescence, shows that even when other factors are considered, such as academic skills, encounters with community violence, or emotional problems, “childhood and adolescent violent media preferences contributed significantly to the prediction of violence and general aggression” in the study subjects.  The study is available online at http://www.springerlink.com/content/4788773215243487/fulltext.html .

Boxer, an assistant professor of psychology at Rutgers University in Newark, has been involved since 2004 in research funded by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) into media violence and its relation to serious youth violence and criminal behavior.  Although a relationship between media violence and violent behavior has been acknowledged for some 40 years, much of the research was usually done in a laboratory setting rather than in the field, with very little emphasis on documenting links between media violence and actual engagement in serious violent and antisocial behavior, explains Boxer.

What’s more, many studies did not sufficiently address other influences on the children’s behaviors, such as exposure to violent or aggressive behavior at school or in the community, academic difficulties, and psychopathic tendencies or other emotional problems, according to Boxer.

Because violence is a “multiply determined behavior,” Boxer and the research team collected data on several risk factors for aggression, to examine whether violent media exposure has an impact on behavior even when those other influences are present. “Even in conjunction with other factors, our research shows that media violence does enhance violent behavior,” Boxer states.  “On average, adolescents who were not exposed to violent media are not as prone to violent behavior.”

Boxer was the lead author on the paper, the first paper produced through the CDC project. It reports the results of the research team’s extensive interviews of 820 adolescents from the state of Michigan – 430 high school students from rural, suburban and urban communities, and 390 juvenile delinquents held in county and state facilities.  The adolescents were about evenly split between male and female, minority and non-minority. Parents or guardians of 720 of the youths also were interviewed, as were teachers/staff of 717 of them.  Each subject was asked about favorites TV shows, movies and video/computer games, both as a child and as a teen, and questioned to determine if they had engaged in specific antisocial behaviors, such as throwing rocks or using a weapon.

Interviewers also investigated the youths’ exposures to aggression or violence, as well as other risk factors for aggressive behavior, such as emotional disorders or being victimized.  The parents, guardians, teachers and staff also were interviewed about the behaviors they had observed in their children or students.

After collecting the data, researchers analyzed findings by integrating “violent media exposure scores” into cumulative risk totals.  Their findings: high violent risk scores “added significantly to the prediction of both violence and general aggression.”  What’s more, “even for those lowest in other risk factors, a preference for violent media was predictive of violent behavior and general aggression,” according to the findings.

Boxer believes the study results can be used to assess, intervene and treat young people displaying aggressive behavior.  He also knows more detailed research is needed, such as analyzing the impact on behavior when violent interactive video games are banned.

Boxer is co-investigator on the CDC grant;  Principal Investigator is Dr. Rowell Huesmann, University of Michigan; the other co-investigator is Dr. Brad Bushman, University of Michigan.

Boxer and his team also are in the process of analyzing data collected through interviews with pre-school children and their parents to determine how violent media consumption impacts very young children. “Young children react to what they see and they mimic behavior,” but are unable to distinguish between reality and fantasy, or right and wrong, says Boxer.  By investigating the mechanisms that influence their development, researchers can try to learn how to intervene in potentially aggressive or anti-social behaviors, and effect change at a very young age, he notes.

Boxer’s research into media violence and its impact is only one aspect of his overall work, which “focuses on the impact of violence in all aspects of the social environment on child and adolescent development.” Boxer is currently working on research that emphasizes the role of family violence and community violence in children’s aggressive behaviors. Boxer also is involved in federally funded research investigating the role of political violence in childhood adjustment, as part of a team directing research with children growing up in Israel and the Palestinian Territory.

Reprinted from Rutgers University.

The report, “Alcohol and Violence: Exploring Patterns and Responses,” examines the association between alcohol and violence through the disciplines of anthropology, clinical psychology, human rights law, gender, and public health.

“We need to look more closely at the meaning attached to both drinking and violence in different cultures, without assuming that the one causes the other,” writes Anne Fox, PhD, a contributor to the report and founding director of Galahad SMS Ltd. in England.

Dr. Fox writes that the presence of certain cultural features can largely predict levels of homicide, spousal abuse and other forms of violence. Violence-reinforcing cultures tend to share the following features:

• Cultural support (in media, norms, icons, myths, and so on) for aggression and aggressive solutions;
• Militaristic readiness and participation in wars-societies that are frequently at war have consistently higher rates of interpersonal violence as well;
• Glorification of fighters;
• Violent sports;
• Corporal and capital punishment;
• Socialization of male children toward aggression;
• Belief in malevolent magic;
• Conspicuous inequality in wealth;
• A higher than normal proportion of young males in the society;
• Strong codes of male honor-in general, societies and subgroups that actively subscribe to strong codes of honor tend to have higher rates of homicide;
• A culture of male domination.

In her paper, “Sociocultural Factors that Foster or Inhibit Alcohol-related Violence,” Dr. Fox argues that efforts to counteract a “culture of violence” and “the male propensity for aggression” should be channeled toward altering “beliefs about alcohol” and “social responses to violence and aggression.”

The report includes other papers including “The Role of Drinking Patterns and Acute Intoxication in Violent Interpersonal Behaviors” which looks at patterns of violence at the individual level. The paper “Working with Culture to Prevent Violence and Reckless Drinking” studies alcohol and violence from a gender perspective and identifies strategies used to respond to analogous social problems. “Practical Responses: Communications Guidelines for First Responders in Cases of Alcohol-related Violence” presents international guidelines for enhanced communication among first responders (police, emergency room staff, social workers) to alcohol-related violence, particularly between the health and law enforcement sectors.

###

ICAP has been engaged in the relationship between alcohol and violence since 1998, including a literature review and a report on violence in licensed premises. The organization has engaged in discussions with a variety of international bodies, including the World Bank, the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women (INSTRAW), the United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM), the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the International Center for the Prevention of Crime, and the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women. In 2005, the World Bank hosted a meeting organized by ICAP and co-chaired by UNIFEM to discuss how best to move forward on the issue through some form of public-private cooperation. This report is a result of ongoing international collaboration to contribute to greater international understanding on the intersection between alcohol and violence.

The full report may be found at ICAP’s web site:

http://63.134.214.153/Portals/0/download/all_pdfs/Violence%20Monograph.pdf

Alcohol and Violence: Exploring Patterns and Responses was commissioned by the International Center for Alcohol Policies. ICAP is a not-for-profit organization whose mission is to promote the understanding of the role of alcohol in society through dialogue and partnerships involving the beverage alcohol industry, the public health community, and others interested in alcohol policy, and to help reduce the abuse of alcohol worldwide. ICAP is supported by major international producers of beverage alcohol. The views expressed in this book are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily represent those of ICAP or of its sponsoring companies.

Written by Emma Back, a global health policy expert, and Catherine Cameron, one of the authors of the Stern Review , with a foreword by Lord Nicholas Stern, the UNICEF UK report reveals that children, especially in Africa and Asia, face a future in which disasters, violence and disease will be more frequent and intense, clean water and food supplies will diminish, and incomes and productivity will fall. It highlights how climate change is already having and will continue to have an overall adverse impact on children’s lives, as well as on all the Millennium Development Goals relating to children, including health, survival, education and gender equality.

David Bull, UNICEF UK Executive Director, said, “Those who have contributed least to climate change – the world’s poorest children – are suffering the most. If the world does not act now to mitigate and adapt to the risks and realities of climate change, we will seriously hamper efforts to reach the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) by 2015 and sustain development progress thereafter. Many more children could die.  It’s clear that a failure to address climate change is a failure to protect children.”

The report maps the consequences of climate change for children in the context of the MDGs and children’s rights, highlighting:

• Increased child poverty due to reduced incomes and threatened livelihoods (affecting MDG 1): Climate change could cause an additional 40,000 to 160,000 child deaths per year in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa through Gross Domestic Product (GDP) losses alone.
• Increased hunger (MDG 1 and 4): With temperature increases of 2°C, an additional 30 – 200 million people will be placed at risk of hunger globally rising to as many as 550 million with warming of 3°C.
• Fewer children able to attend school, especially girls (MDG 2 and 3): The negative impact on livelihoods may make it more likely that parents remove their children from school – and in most cultures this will almost certainly mean removing girls first – so that they can collect water and fuel and supplement household income
• Increased childhood disease (waterborne/communicable) (MDG 6 and 7): Malaria: changes in environmental factors mean malaria – which already kills 800,000 children every year – is now being seen in areas which were previously outside the range of malarial mosquitoes, such as the highlands of Kenya and Jamaica. Diarrhoea: Climate change will increase the burden of diarrhoeal disease in low income countries by between 2 and 5 per cent by 2020. Dengue: Estimates suggest the population at risk could increase to 3.5 billion by 2080 (from 1.5 billion today) due to climate changes.

“Government, private sector and individuals all have a role to play,” Bull continued. “The UK Department for International Development needs to ensure that children are involved – and empowered – when they develop their policies to tackle climate change. Children’s issues were not on the agenda 10 years ago in Kyoto – nor were their voices heard. It is critical that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) meeting in Copenhagen in December 2009 puts children at the heart of the discussions and includes their voices in the debate.”

The report highlights the ways in which UNICEF already works with children and their communities to help them adapt to climate change, such as supporting people to be prepared for natural disasters as they become more frequent, tackling the problem of contaminated or reduced water supplies by providing wells and pumps or using new techniques such as rainwater harvesting.  However, according to the report, much more needs to be done to protect children. The policy recommendations in the report include:

• Calling on the UK Government to ensure a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of at least 80 per cent against 1990 levels by 2050 and ensure that the implications of climate change for children are on the agenda of the UNFCCC meeting in Copenhagen in December 2009.
• Urging the Department for International Development (DFID) to do development differently, by mainstreaming the climate change implications for children across its work and empowering children to have a voice in the debate.
• Calling on UK companies and individuals to substantially reduce their emissions and contribute to the costs of mitigating and adapting to climate change.

UNICEF UK is also asking the UK public to visit www.unicef.org.uk/climatechange and join the campaign by writing to their MP, calling for the UK Government to increase the 2050 emissions reduction target from 60% to at least 80% and to include aviation and shipping in the climate change bill.

For more information contact Sarah Epstein, UNICEF UK media office, 0207 312 7606 or 07766 052 658 or email sarahe@unicef.org.uk

Read the full report

    
Pets are part of the family in the majority of American households, where nearly three-quarters of families with school-age children have at least one companion animal. These animals are often treated like members of the family, but if the family is experiencing violence they can become targets as well. Pets are often an important source of comfort and stability to the victims of abuse, particularly children. But abusive family members may threaten, injure, or kill pets, often as a way of threatening or controlling others in the family.

A 1997 survey of 50 of the largest shelters for battered women in the United States found that 85% of women and 63% of children entering shelters discussed incidents of pet abuse in the family. Children who have witnessed domestic violence or who have been the victims of physical or sexual abuse may also become animal abusers themselves, imitating the violence they have seen or experienced. A study conducted in 1995 noted that 32% of the pet-owning victims of domestic abuse reported that one or more of their children had hurt or killed a pet. Similarly, a 1983 study noted that children were reported to be abusive to animals in more than a third of a sample of pet-owning families referred to New Jersey’s Division of Youth and Family Services for suspected child abuse.

It is essential for those who respond to family violence to be alert to this connection. Professionals in domestic violence intervention, law enforcement, child protection, human and veterinary medicine, education, and animal care and control should get to know their counterparts in other professions and work together to establish strategies for a coordinated response to these needs.

In fact, professionals who help families in crisis are increasingly recognizing the role that animals play in the dynamics of family violence. Many law enforcement agencies are training officers who respond to domestic violence calls to be alert for signs that a situation is life-threatening. These include situations where the batterer has threatened suicide, is displaying a firearm, or has hurt or killed a family pet.

In addition, local domestic violence shelters and animal protection organizations have begun partnering to develop “safe havens” for the pets of domestic violence victims because many victims delay leaving the abusive batterer out of fear for their pets’ safety. All too often, batterers punish victims for leaving by abusing or killing the pets. Yet, with the help of over 100 safe haven programs currently operating around the United States, many domestic violence victims no longer have to choose between their safety and their pets.

The First Strike® campaign can help in the process of bringing professionals together from a variety of agencies. We facilitate workshops and provide educational materials specifically for various professionals working to prevent family violence. For more information, please call our First Strike toll free line at 1-888-213-0956       .

References

Ascione, F. R. 1995. Domestic violence and cruelty to animals. Paper presented at the 4th International Conference on Family Violence, Durham, NH, July 24, 1995.

Ascione, F. R. 1997. The abuse of animals and domestic violence: a national survey of shelters for women who are battered. Society and Animals, 5(3): 205-218.

DeViney, L., J. Dickert and R. Lockwood. 1983. The care of pets within child abusing families. International Journal for the Study of Animal Problems, 4(4): 321-336.

Reprinted from The Humane Society of the United States.

Infantilization dates from the 19th century, a response to two developments: the consolidation of the Atlantic slave trade and modern colonialism. These were, arguably, the first serious attempts at globalization. If a cross-continental trade in live human beings, and a political economy touching four continents – on which the sun reportedly never set – are not global, then what is? Fittingly, it required a global war to bring an end to colonialism and remove the blatant institutionalized racism that was the bequest of slavery in North America.

Lest we forget, slavery and colonialism became global systems after the Enlightenment had made deep inroads into European society. Republicanism and the ideas of scientific rationality and progress had become part of the everyday language of politics. Indeed, it was the Enlightenment connection that distinguished modern colonialism from its older cousins who specialized in blatant exploitation and pillage and seeking legitimacy in religion. The new colonialism talked of ‘civilizing mission’ and ‘the white man’s burden’ and saw itself as an agent of progress based on the principle of rationality.

In a secularizing world, infantilization quickly became a moral posture and a theological necessity. It allowed the main actors in slavery and colonialism to make peace with their own consciences, and the intelligentsia and the Church to produce a powerful mix of justifications for the new world order. It allowed glib talk of the historical necessity to care for the retrogressive, irrational, ignorant savages and the Christian responsibility to guide them towards a better future.

                               *   *   *

However, another form of legitimacy for these brand-new institutional arrangements came from a scientized language of the body, with a new politics of the human lifecycle riding piggyback on it. This language supplemented the metaphor of gender with a metaphor of the prerogatives of maturity and age. First, childhood lost part of its shine as intrinsically valuable; it was redefined as incomplete, imperfect adulthood. In that imperfect stage, ‘childlikeness’ continued to be valued as a symbol of Biblical innocence, purity and authenticity; but ‘childishness’ needed strict discipline and ruthless, authoritarian control. Once the metaphors became common currency, the likes of Cecil Rhodes could speak of the African as ‘half-savage, half-child’ who needed close supervision and re-socialization, so that one day in the distant future they, the Africans, would grow up to bear the responsibility for their own lives. That process of growth was later to be given many attractive names – modernization, development and progress being the best-known of them.

Second, the older societies like China and India, brought under the dominance of the emerging global order, were reclassified as ancient civilizations that had seen better days but were now decrepit, decadent and disposable. Naturally, they had to be run by youthful nation-states that had become the carriers of the ideology of productive, masculine adulthood. Their obsolete, yet occasionally lovable cultures were now museumized, to be viewed and marvelled at during the weekends.

The dominance that the masculinity principle established in the public sphere in the 19th century is well known. Less known are the authoritarian upbringing, exploitation and sheer cruelty towards children in the Victorian age. Phillip Aries in his Centuries of Childhood and Lloyd de Mause in his explanations of psychohistory have told the story in lurid detail.

                               *   *   *

No-one emerges from large-scale violence and oppression unscathed; certainly not the perpetrators. Victimhood and infantilization are indivisible. Once you turn institutionalized violence into a system and run it, your self-definition begins to adjust to the systems you have set up. Predictably, the hierarchies based on gender and lifecycle not merely became metaphors of inescapable stages of history and a new language of triumphalism for European civilization, but also shrank the role of women, children and the elderly in Europe and the Americas. Some in the backwaters of the Southern world were ungracious enough to suspect the various theories of stages of history to be actually mouse-traps of history; but that was to be expected and no-one paid any attention.

The seductive charms of infantilization today, tacitly shaping the idea of modern citizenship, are a direct product of this psychological and cultural journey. So is the contemporary idea of democracy, championed by societies that have a long, not-very-enviable record in the matter of democratic rights in the Southern world. The violent, oppressive past survives in both the rulers and the ruled. For the rulers, it survives as academic history, manicured and washed clean of all emotions – as if it were a record of something fishy someone did to someone else. For the ruled in the ahistorical, darker continents, it survives as shared memory that underwrites cynicism and frequent attempts to turn against one’s own self – and also as part of an epic consciousness that is yet to find full expression in music, art and literature.

Four clear traces are already visible in this dominant strain of democracy. First, after their momentous triumph at the end of 1980s, the victors in the cold war are now more confident that it is the end of history. They are less sceptical about a production process that ensures a steady supply of ‘normal’ citizens as part of normal democratic governance. There is even less reason to feel diffident about deploying the same vague social evolutionary principles that first legitimized their global dominance. Indeed, there has grown a deeper suspicion of their own ‘immature’ ordinary citizens and a fear that, if left to them, they will not exercise their political choices wisely.

Second, during the long cold war some democracies came to feel that, in the battle against the communist regimes, they were handicapped by the freedoms and rights their citizens enjoyed. They tried to build closed systems within an open, democratic order. Years ago Robert Jungk argued that in all societies, democratic or totalitarian, there was the same authoritarian culture of secrecy, surveillance and censorship built around their nuclear establishments. Such closed systems within open societies have now become standard in domains such as national security, foreign affairs, technological choices and development, increasingly outside political debates and legislative control. These domains are now presided over by experts who are supposedly above politics and beyond criticism. What the authoritarian regimes failed to do through the coercive machinery of the state, the victors in the cold war have done without much effort, with the consent of a passive, carefully depoliticized citizenry. Third, the explosive growth of media and the idea of unlimited entertainment have brought governance within the ambit of what can be called the happiness industry. This has helped politics to become a ‘manageable spectacle’ and to enter the living rooms of citizens, turning them into receivers of one-way messages and willing captives of a virtual world that promises to exile all death and suffering from politics. Simultaneously, politics has become more open to those from the entertainment industry than to those coming through the representational process, for the former are seen as more adept at the technology of electoral politics.

In large parts of the world, the citizens are primarily spectators of politics, with only the right to vote once every four or five years. The rest of the time they see politics as a spectator sports on television, enjoying vicariously a feeling of active participation in public life. Even the electoral process is becoming more media-sensitive and turning into brand wars over market share. The de-politicization of politics is no longer a catchphrase in the ‘advanced’ democracies. It is reflected in the increasingly poor voter turnout in some of the most powerful democracies in the world. In the United States, voter turnout is usually half of what it is in India. Increasingly, some of the central political problems of our time – such as mass poverty, loss of security at the bottom of society, threats to life-support systems and environment, and loss of vocations – are pushed out of political debates in many democracies. The sense of sheer impotence and irrelevance forces many to opt for ideologies that seek to restore agency to the individual, if not as a responsible, self-conscious citizen making personal choices, at least as an agent of a trans-human, cosmic power presiding over a moral universe.

Fourth, the definition of a happy citizen itself is changing in modern democracies. Citizens are free to vote, consume, travel and entertain themselves to death. These activities mark one out as an active, responsible, happy citizen and keep one occupied. Those who are unhappy despite these freedoms are seen as maladaptive discontents, forever looking for reasons to be disgruntled. The Soviet Union used to get them certified by psychiatrists and put in asylums. They were unhappy in a utopia – and that was culpable. In open societies, they are advised to go to psychotherapists or are prescribed anti-depressants.

Even democratic initiatives in matters of political rights and disaster management in distant parts of the world have been fitted within this model and have led to the infantilization of entire populations. Whether it is food shortage in sub-Saharan Africa or tsunami victims in South and Southeast Asia, it is the same story. Even survivors of genocide are quickly classified as traumatized and incapable of taking care of themselves. Post-traumatic stress disorder has become a handy diagnostic category that deprives traumatized communities of all agency, which is then transferred to experts belonging to international bodies.

                               *   *   *

If infantilization has been so central to violence and oppression in our times, should not there be a history of infantilization? Of course, there can be. That is what we are moving towards now. That history, true to its Enlightenment heritage, will predictably exile all human subjectivities as so much flotsam, and confine itself to the archives so adored by historians. In the post-War era some psychoanalysts did try to sneak into history to de-sanitize it, but their efforts have done more to widen psychoanalysis than to broaden academic history. Once a ‘proper’ history of infantilization and that of the new post-Enlightenment forms of violence take shape, they will dutifully exclude any reference to the inner world of the victims and the categories they use. The experience of suffering of millions will have to survive at the margins of human awareness the way it usually does – either as fading memories handed down from generation to generation; or as fragments of an unwritten epic that cast their shadow only on the unofficial, vernacular modes of political and cultural self-expression.

Ashis Nandy, political psychologist and cultural theorist, is a National Fellow at the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, Delhi. His recent books are: An Ambiguous Journey to the City, The Romance of the State, and Time Treks.

Reprinted from New Internationalist (NI).

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 License.

This judgment comes at a time when deportation to states known to practice torture and ill-treatment is occurring with troubling frequency in the name of the ‘war on terror.’ The court reaffirmed the longstanding rule that no circumstances, including the threat of terrorism or national security concerns, can justify exposing an individual to the real risk of such serious human rights abuses. 

Today’s unanimous judgment by the Grand Chamber of the court was handed down in the case of Saadi v. Italy, which concerns the decision of the Italian authorities to deport Nassim Saadi, a Tunisian national lawfully residing in Italy, to Tunisia. In his absence, Saadi had been convicted in Tunisia of terrorism-related offenses, and was sentenced to 20 years of imprisonment. Before the European Court, Saadi claimed that he would be at risk of torture and ill-treatment in Tunisia, where mistreatment of alleged terrorists is routine and well-documented. 

The government of the United Kingdom intervened in the case to try to overturn the absolute prohibition on torture and ill-treatment. It argued that the right of a person to be protected from such treatment abroad should be balanced against the risk he posed to the deporting state. In the 1996 case of Chahal v. United Kingdom, the court rejected this argument and held that the European Convention prohibited expulsion to countries where there is risk of torture and ill-treatment in all circumstances. This conclusion has been consistently reaffirmed by the court in its subsequent judgments. 

The UK government’s intervention in Saadi replicates its intervention – together with the governments of Lithuania, Portugal, and Slovakia – in another case still pending before the court: the case of Ramzy v. the Netherlands, which involves deportation to Algeria. These attempts to undermine fundamental human rights with assertions that national security and public safety are under threat are often based on information that the governments seek to keep secret even from the individual affected. 

Today the European Court was resolute in upholding the approach established by its earlier decisions and followed by other international courts and bodies. The judgment reaffirmed that the transfer of individuals to countries where they face a real risk of torture or other ill-treatment is prohibited absolutely, and that the law cannot allow for exceptions. The court recognized that “States face immense difficulties in modern times in protecting their communities from terrorist violence. It cannot therefore underestimate the scale of the danger of terrorism today and the threat it presents to the community. That must not, however, call into question the absolute nature of Article 3 [of the European Convention, prohibiting torture and other ill-treatment].” 

The judgment also addressed the issue of “diplomatic assurances” and whether a state’s duty not to deport where there is a risk of torture or ill-treatment can be mitigated by promises of humane treatment from the state to which the individual is to be deported. The court held that such assurances do not automatically offset an existing risk, emphasizing “that the existence of domestic laws and accession to treaties were not sufficient to ensure adequate protection against the risk of ill-treatment.” The court left open whether assurances might “in their practical application” provide a sufficient guarantee against the risk of ill-treatment. In practice, once such a risk is established, the court has never found assurances capable of displacing it. A growing number of international actors – including the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, and the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights – hold that diplomatic assurances against torture and ill-treatment are inherently unreliable and practically unenforceable, and thus do not provide an effective safeguard against torture and ill-treatment.

To view the text of the European Court’s judgment, please visit: 

www.echr.coe.int/echr/

———–

Please help support the research that made this bulletin possible. In order to protect our objectivity, Human Rights Watch does not accept funding from any government. We depend entirely on the generosity of people like you.

To make a contribution, please visit http://hrw.kintera.org/donate3

“Violence against women both violates and impairs or nullifies the enjoyment by women of their human rights and fundamental freedoms…
In all societies, to a greater or lesser degree, women and girls are subjected to physical, sexual and psychological abuse that cuts across lines of income, class and culture.”

–Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, paragraph 112

Gender-based violence both reflects and reinforces inequities between men and women and compromises the health, dignity, security and autonomy of its victims. It encompasses a wide range of human rights violations, including sexual abuse of children, rape, domestic violence, sexual assault and harassment, trafficking of women and girls and several harmful traditional practices. Any one of these abuses can leave deep psychological scars, damage the health of women and girls in general, including their reproductive and sexual health, and in some instances, results in death.

Violence against women has been called “the most pervasive yet least recognized human rights abuse in the world.” Accordingly, the Vienna Human Rights Conference and the Fourth World Conference on Women gave priority to this issue, which jeopardizes women’s lives, bodies, psychological integrity and freedom. Violence may have profound effects – direct and indirect – on a woman’s reproductive health, including:

• Unwanted pregnancies and restricted access to family planning information and contraceptives
•  Unsafe abortion or injuries sustained during a legal abortion after an unwanted pregnancy
•  Complications from frequent, high-risk pregnancies and lack of follow-up care
•  Sexually transmitted infections, including HIV/AIDS
•  Persistent gynaecological problems
•  Psychological problems

Gender-based violence also serves – by intention or effect – to perpetuate male power and control. It is sustained by a culture of silence and denial of the seriousness of the health consequences of abuse. In addition to the harm they exact on the individual level, these consequences also exact a social toll and place a heavy and unnecessary burden on health services.

UNFPA recognizes that violence against women is inextricably linked to gender-based inequalities. When women and girls are expected to be generally subservient, their behaviour in relation to their health, including reproductive health, is negatively affected at all stages of the life cycle.

UNFPA puts every effort into breaking the silence and ensuring that the voices of women are heard. At the same time, the Fund works to change the paradigm of masculinity that allows for the resolution of conflict through violence. One strategy is to engage men – policy makers, parents and young boys – in discourse about the dynamics and consequences of violence.

As the chart below shows, women may face different forms of violence at different stages of their lives.

Gender Violence throughout a Woman’s Life

Source: Heise, L. 1994. Violence Against Women: The Hidden Health Burden. World Bank Discussion Paper. Washington. D.C. The World Bank

Violence at Home

Most domestic violence involves male anger directed against their women partners. This gender difference appears to be rooted in the way boys and men are socialized — biological factors do not seem to account for the dramatic differences in behaviour in this regard between men and women.

Pregnant women are particularly vulnerable to gender-based violence. Some husbands become more violent during the wife’s pregnancy, even kicking or hitting their wives in the belly. These women run twice the risk of miscarriage and four times the risk of having a low birth-weight baby.

Cross-cultural studies of wife abuse have found that nearly a fifth of peasant and small-scale societies are essentially free of family violence. The existence of such cultures proves that male violence against women is not the inevitable result of male biology or sexuality, but more a matter of how society views masculinity.

Gender and Violence

Studies of very young boys and girls show only that, although boys may have a lower tolerance for frustration, and a tendency towards rough-and-tumble play, these tendencies are dwarfed by the importance of male socialization and peer pressure into gender roles.

The prevalence of domestic violence in a given society, therefore, is the result of tacit acceptance by that society. The way men view themselves as men, and the way they view women, will determine whether they use violence or coercion against women.

UNFPA recognizes that ending gender-based violence will mean changing cultural concepts about masculinity, and that process must actively engage men, whether they be policy makers, parents, spouses or young boys.

Sexual Assault

The majority of sexual assault victims are young. Women in positions of abject dependence on male authorities are also particularly subject to unwanted sexual coercion. Rape in time of war is still common. It has been extensively documented in recent civil conflicts, and has been used systematically as an instrument of torture or ethnic domination.

Now, with precedents set at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, in Tanzania, and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, at The Hague, for mass rape, other acts such as sexual assault, sexual slavery, forced prostitution, forced sterilization, forced abortion, and forced pregnancy may qualify as crimes of torture, crimes against humanity, and even some as crimes of genocide.

UNFPA Responds

Because gender-based violence is sustained by silence, women’s voices must be heard. UNFPA puts every effort into enabling women to speak out against gender-based violence, and to get help when they are victims of it. The Fund is also committed to keeping gender-based violence in the spotlight as a major health and human rights concern.

UNFPA advocates for legislative reform and enforcement of laws for the promotion and the protection of women’s rights to reproductive health choices and informed consent, including promotion of women’s awareness of laws , regulations and policies that affect their rights and responsibilities in family life. The Fund promotes zero tolerance of all forms of violence against women and works for the eradication of traditional practices that are harmful to women’s reproductive and sexual health, such as rituals associated with puberty.

As part of its work to counter gender-based violence, UNFPA has supported training of medical professionals, to make them more sensitive towards women who may have experienced violence and to meet their health needs. Pilot interventions have been tested in 10 countries-Cape Verde, Ecuador, Guatemala, Lebanon, Lithuania, Mozambique, Nepal, Romania, Russia and Sri Lanka.

Following consultations with health providers and clients, all women were screened for abuse in some pilot projects. Possible victims have been offered legal, medical and psychological support, and medical referrals when necessary. Attention has been paid to involving communities, and to creating support networks for gender-based violence victims that include both police and health-care providers, along with counselling services.

UNFPA has also held workshops for health providers on recognizing the effects of gender-based violence on women’s health, and on how to detect and prevent abuse and assist victims. These have stressed the need for confidentiality and monitoring.

Based on this experience, UNFPA has produced a manual, A Practical Approach to Gender-based Violence, which has been translated into seven languages.

Additional strategies the Fund employs to address gender-based violence include:

•  Ensuring that emergency contraception is available for victims of sexual violence
•  Strengthening advocacy on gender-based violence in all country programmes, in conjunction with other United Nations partners and NGOs
•  Advocating for women with parliamentarians and women’s national networks
•  Integrating messages on the prevention of gender-based violence into information, education and communication projects
•  Conducting more research on gender-based violence

This article was reprinted from:  United Nations Population Fund