Tuesday 28 December 2010

Brandhouse Beverages -- Prison Sleaze Campaign

A conspicuously rancid ad reared its ugly head towards the end of 2010, apparently to dissuade men from drinking and driving. The ad is though so tasteless and crass that someone had to report it to the Advertising Standards Authority.


The advertisement starts out with “prisoners” summing up their proclivities and interests in what can be described as a televised dating service. The scene is expanded as the camera zooms out to include a deluge of scantily clad men, intently “dressed-down” to exploit prejudices and enforce fears. All of these “inmates” would love to meet you. One decidedly dressed-as-shady “prisoner” says in a husky voice at the end: “ek wag vi jou” [I am waiting for you]. The supposed intent of the advertisement is to dissuade men to drink and drive.

Aforementioned most ill conceived ad is replete and saturated with innuendo to the point that there seems consensus that it exploits male rape as a cheap scare tactic to supposedly prevent men from driving under the influence of alcohol.

[1] http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/western-cape/rape-in-jail-ad-too-shocking-for-some-1.1003729

[2] http://victimempowermentsa.wordpress.com/2010/12/15/drive-dry-are-we-accepting-that-prison-rape-happens/

[3] http://toysoldier.wordpress.com/2010/12/23/a-dose-of-stupid-v41/

Should female rape been used in a similar fashion it would have been summarily banned and international outrage would have ensued. Why these double standards?

Sans condoning any abusive behaviour, it is abhorrent that double standards exist in our society whereby men have been subjugated as faceless sufferers who enjoy no sympathy from the public and often endure slights to their own sexuality if they report rape. Many a times men do not report these crimes and prison authorities ignore it.

For decades activists fought to have male rape recognised as a serious crime. For centuries, men who were fundamentally violated saw a miscarriage of justice as assailants were only charged with “indecent assault”, a much lesser charge carrying a much lesser sentence. Only in 2007 with the promulgation of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act , [No. 32 of 2007], was the common law definition of rape scrapped and reformulated and expanded to include male rape.

Norman Reyneker’s claim [1] that “...research had shown that 88 percent of South Africans would be deterred from drunk-driving by the prospect of arrest and incarceration,” does not vindicate the abhorrent advertisement in any way. Is this not the crassest manifestation of heterosexism ever? Is the consequence of drunk driving rape? Is this constitutionally fair? I think not.

Reyneker states in the IOL [1] article: “The campaign is not about prison life. It is about the consequences of drunk-driving.” Should we infer that the consequence of drunk-driving is what is portrayed as the in-your-face innuendo (i.e. rape)?

Victim Empowerment South Africa [2] states eloquently: “The idea of prison is to rehabilitate those who have broken the law, not to inflict violence and abuse against them. Those in prison may have had their right of movement restricted, but they should not have their rights to dignity removed.

Nobody deserves rape. Prison rape is not acceptable. [Emphasis in original] Nor, is it funny or sickly romantic (as is presented in this advert).”

Toy Soldiers For the forgotten men and boys who suffer in silence states [3] that: “Thirdly, if the research shows that most South Africans would be deterred from driving while drunk by the prospect of arrest and incarceration, why is the ad campaign not about that? In Illinois there are several drunk driving ads featuring drivers (all men, because apparently women never drink and drive) with their cars filled with alcohol. The ads end with the drivers getting pulled over and arrested, with the disclaimer that if you drink and drive you will go to jail.” It is extremely painful to have foreigners point out the self-reinforcing nature of our violent society.

A spokesperson from the ASA as quoted in the IOL article states that one should see the ad in question in context [1]. Is the corrective services inextricably and inexplicably linked to sexual abuse? Should it be seen in this way? Does “context” justify the use of abuse tactics?

Wednesday 22 December 2010

Civil Society Pressures Governments to Successfully Reverse Discriminatory Vote at UN

Civil Society Pressures Governments to Successfully Reverse Discriminatory Vote at UN

"Several swing states indicated a change from their votes in November. South Africa, a key vote from the African region, stated that in today's vote they were "guided by our Constitution that guarantees the right to life" and that "no killing of human beings can be justified whatsoever." Colombia, which abstained on the earlier vote, also offered its unequivocal support during the new vote."

via the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission

Civil Society Pressures Governments to Successfully Reverse Discriminatory Vote at UN
12/21/2010

Contacts:

Jessica Stern, International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission,jstern@iglhrc.org, +1 212 430 6014 (English)

Marcelo Ferreyra, International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission,mferreyra@iglhrc.org, (54) 11-4665-7527, (Spanish, English)


(December 21, 2010) On Tuesday, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) voted overwhelmingly in favor of restoring reference to "sexual orientation" in a high-profile resolution condemning extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. The reference to sexual orientation had been removed by an earlier amendment at the committee level by governments opposed to ensuring protection for individuals targeted because of their actual or perceived sexual orientation. The vote - which passed 93 to 55, with 27 abstentions and 17 absent or not voting - demonstrated that efforts to exclude vulnerable groups from human rights protections at the UN will be vigorously opposed.

Today's dramatic vote comes after a UN General Assembly sub-committee responsible for human rights issues voted in November to remove the reference to "sexual orientation" from a paragraph enumerating vulnerable populations in the resolution condemning extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions.

The earlier removal of the reference to sexual orientation, approved in committee by a vote of 79 in favor, 70 opposed, with 17 abstaining and 26 not voting, was met by an international outcry – including from governments such as the United States who vowed to re-open the issue.

Introducing today's amendment, the representative of the United States called on governments to acknowledge that all persons have the right to be free from extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, including those targeted because of their sexual orientation. The US later went on to note that the voices of civil society and human rights defenders had been heard. They also called on UN Member States to sign onto the 2008 General Assembly declaration confirming that international human rights protections include protection from violence and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

The discriminatory vote in November prompted a massive mobilization by civil society including through action alerts issued by ARC International and by the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission – an organization which, in July, faced unsuccessful efforts by the same conservative forces to prevent it from gaining official NGO status at the UN.

"This, of course, could not have happened without the concerted and passionate efforts of several governments. But what this victory also demonstrates is the power of civil society at the UN and working across countries and regions to demand that their own governments vote to protect LGBT lives." said Cary Alan Johnson, Executive Director of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC). "The outpouring of support from the international community sent the strong message to our representatives at the UN that it is unacceptable to make invisible the deadly violence LGBT people face because of their actual or perceived sexual orientation."

Following the November vote, civil society from around the world - including strong coalitions from the Global South - were vocal in pressuring their governments to support critical human rights protections for LGBT people. As the ad hoc civil society coalition from South Africa noted:

"The November amendment … aggravates an already difficult environment for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender and intersex (LGBTI) people and their defenders, who live in continual fear of violent attack and experience discrimination throughout Africa and many other parts of the world. ...and ignores the overwhelming evidence that people are routinely killed around the world because of their actual or perceived sexual orientation."

Following today's successful inclusion of language on sexual orientation, the resolution itself passed with a vote of 122 in favor and 1 against (with 62 abstentions and 17 absences). It now states, "To ensure the effective protection of the right to life of all persons under their jurisdiction and to investigate promptly and thoroughly all killings, including those targeted at specific groups of persons, such as...killings of persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities, or because of their sexual orientation...."

This marks a return to previous inclusive language that governments in the UN have supported for close to a decade. These abuses have also been consistently documented by UN Special Rapporteurs in reports to the UN Human Rights Council and its predecessor, the Commission on Human Rights, a point noted in today's statement by Belgium on behalf of the European Union.

Regrettably, governments have so far failed to include in the resolution mention of, or specific protection around, killings committed on the basis of gender identity. This is despite the fact that transgender people around the world are among those most vulnerable to violence and killings.

Today's vote to reinstate protections passed with broad cross-regional support. Many states took the floor in support of inclusion of reference to the vulnerability of LGBT people and calling for a stronger response against killings on the basis of sexual orientation that take place all too frequently around the world.

Several swing states indicated a change from their votes in November. South Africa, a key vote from the African region, stated that in today's vote they were "guided by our Constitution that guarantees the right to life" and that "no killing of human beings can be justified whatsoever." Colombia, which abstained on the earlier vote, also offered its unequivocal support during the new vote.

Although several countries claimed a supposed lack of a definition of sexual orientation in international law as a reason for their opposition, countries such as Rwanda firmly rejected this saying: "Take my word, a human group need not be legally defined to be the victim of executions and massacres as those that target their members have [already] previously defined [them]. Rwanda has also had this bitter experience sixteen years ago. It is for this that the Delegation of Rwanda will vote for this amendment and calls on other delegations to do likewise."

Today's vote affirms the message of UN Secretary Ban Ki Moon, who on International Human Rights Day, delivered an unequivocal statement - much quoted by States supporting the amendment - on the obligation of the UN and its member states to end violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

He declared, "Together, we seek the repeal of laws that criminalize homosexuality, that permit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, that encourage violence. People were not put on this planet to live in fear of their fellow human beings."

Watch the video from Human Rights Day Event and read UN Secretary Ban Ki Moon's full statement »

Contacts:

ARC International
Kim Vance +1-902-488-6404 (Canada)
John Fisher +41-79-508-3968 (Geneva)
arc@arc-international.net

CariFLAGS
Kenita Placide
Tel: +1 758 7141765, kenita72@hotmail.com

COC Nederland
Björn van Roozendaal
Tel: + +31 6 22 55 83 0, BvanRoozendaal@coc.nl (Netherlands)

International Day to End Homophobia and Transphobia (IDAHO)
Joel Bedos
Tel: +33664715921 (Paris)

International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC)
Jessica Stern
Tel: +1 212 430 6014, jstern@iglhrc.org (New York)

International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex Association (ILGA) World
Renato Sabbadini
renato@ilga.org (Brussles)



In favor of amendment restoring sexual orientation to UNGA resolution on executions (93):

Albania, Andorra, Angola, Antigua-Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Bolivia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mauritius, Marshall Island, Mexico, Micronesia, Monaco, Montenegro, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela

Opposed to amendment (55):

Afghanistan, Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Botswana, Brunei Dar-Sala, Burkina Faso, Burundi, China, Comoros, Congo, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Gambia, Ghana, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Mauritania, Morocco, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russia, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Tanzania, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe

Abstained (27):

Belarus, Bhutan, Cambodia, Eritrea, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Kenya, Lao, Lesotho, Liberia, Maldives, Mali, Mongolia, Mozambique, Philippines, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome Principe, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Vietnam

Did not vote/Absent (17):

Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Cote D'Ivoire, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar, Myanmar, Seychelles, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan


Read the formal communications from human rights defenders in countries that lobbied their governments on this vote (PDF) »

See the IGLHRC petition on this vote with over 3400 signatories from over 85 countries »