View previous stories
	Stop Honour Killings by Diana Nammi   The International Campaign Against Honour Killing is a project started by Diana Nammi Director and Founder of London-based charity IKWRO which provides support and protection to women faced with "honour"-based violence and forced marriage.   The project was established in the aftermath of the murder of Heshu Yones, in a climate of growing awareness of "honour" as an factor in women"s subordination.   It was out of this awareness, and the understanding that "honour"-based violence, and oppression against women justified in the name of "honour" are widespread, and not confined to any particular group, that the movement towards an international project, to inform journalists, academics and the general public and provide a platform for activists to discuss their methods, opinions and experiences, and to share their campaigns within a community.   ICAHK is a secular organisation which stands for the universality of human rights. For the latest news, visit the link below.   "Honor" Killing: The crime wave that shames the world, by Robert Fisk. (The Independent)   It is one of the last great taboos: the murder of at least 20,000 women a year in the name of "honour". Nor is the problem confined to the Middle East: the contagion is spreading rapidly.   It is a tragedy, a horror, a crime against humanity. The details of the murders – of the women beheaded, burned to death, stoned to death, stabbed, electrocuted, strangled and buried alive for the "honour" of their families – are as barbaric as they are shameful.   Many women"s groups in the Middle East and South-west Asia suspect the victims are at least four times the United Nations latest world figure of around 5,000 deaths a year. Most of the victims are young, many are teenagers, slaughtered under a vile tradition that goes back hundreds of years but which now spans half the globe.   A 10-month investigation by The Independent in Jordan, Pakistan, Egypt, Gaza and the West Bank has unearthed terrifying details of murder most foul. Men are also killed for "honour" and, despite its identification by journalists as a largely Muslim practice, Christian and Hindu communities have stooped to the same crimes.   Indeed, the "honour" (or ird) of families, communities and tribes transcends religion and human mercy. But voluntary women"s groups, human rights organisations, Amnesty International and news archives suggest that the slaughter of the innocent for "dishonouring" their families is increasing by the year.   Iraqi Kurds, Palestinians in Jordan, Pakistan and Turkey appear to be the worst offenders but media freedoms in these countries may over-compensate for the secrecy which surrounds "honour" killings in Egypt – which untruthfully claims there are none – and other Middle East nations in the Gulf and the Levant.   But honour crimes long ago spread to Britain, Belgium, Russia and Canada and many other nations. Security authorities and courts across much of the Middle East have connived in reducing or abrogating prison sentences for the family murder of women, often classifying them as suicides to prevent prosecutions.   It is difficult to remain unemotional at the vast and detailed catalogue of these crimes. How should one react to a man – this has happened in both Jordan and Egypt – who rapes his own daughter and then, when she becomes pregnant, kills her to save the "honour" of his family?   Or the Turkish father and grandfather of a 16-year-old girl, Medine Mehmi, in the province of Adiyaman, who was buried alive beneath a chicken coop in February for "befriending boys"? Her body was found 40 days later, in a sitting position and with her hands tied.   Or Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow, 13, who in Somalia in 2008, in front of a thousand people, was dragged to a hole in the ground - all the while screaming, "I"m not going - don"t kill me" - then buried up to her neck and stoned by 50 men for adultery? After 10 minutes, she was dug up, found to be still alive and put back in the hole for further stoning.   Her crime? She had been raped by three men and, fatally, her family decided to report the facts to the Al-Shabab militia that runs Kismayo. Or the Al-Shabab Islamic "judge" in the same country who announced the 2009 stoning to death of a woman - the second of its kind the same year - for having an affair? Her boyfriend received a mere 100 lashes.   Just a few of the murders, a few names, a small selection of horror stories across the world to prove the pervasive, spreading infection of what must be recognized as a mass crime, a tradition of family savagery that brooks no merciful intervention, no state law, rarely any remorse. Visit the related web page
	World leaders should recognize commitments to fight poverty are life-and-death issues by Jeffrey D. Sachs The Earth Institute USA   July 2010   When hosting the 2010 G8 summit of major economies, the Canadian prime minister, Stephen Harper, called for an "accountability summit" to hold the G8 responsible for the promises that it made over the years. So let"s make our own account of how the G8 did. The answer, alas, is a failing grade. The G8 this year illustrates the difference between photo-ops and serious global governance.   Of all of the G8"s promises over the years, the most important was made to the world"s poorest people at the 2005 G8 Gleneagles summit in Scotland. The G8 promised that, by this year, it would increase annual development assistance to the world"s poor by $50bn relative to 2004. Half of the increase, or $25bn per year, would go to Africa.   The G8 fell far short of this goal, especially with respect to Africa. Total aid went up by around $40bn rather than $50bn, and aid to Africa rose by $10bn-$15bn per year, rather than $25bn. The properly measured shortfall is even greater, because the promises that were made in 2005 should be adjusted for inflation. Re-stating those commitments in real terms, total aid should have risen by around $60bn, and aid to Africa should have risen by around $30bn.   In effect, the G8 fulfilled only half of its promise to Africa - roughly $15bn in increased aid rather than $30bn. Much of the overall G8 increase in aid went to Iraq and Afghanistan, as part of the US-led war effort, rather than to Africa. Among G8 countries, only the UK is making a bold effort to increase its overall aid budget and direct a significant portion to Africa.   Since the G8 was off track in its aid commitments for many years, I long wondered what the G8 would say in 2010, when the commitments actually fell due. In fact, the G8 displayed two approaches. First, in an "accountability report" issued before the summit, the G8 stated the 2005 commitments in current dollars rather than in inflation-adjusted dollars, in order to minimize the size of the reported shortfall.   Second, the G8 summit communique simply did not mention the unmet commitments at all. In other words, the G8 accountability principle became: if the G8 fails to meet an important target, stop mentioning the target - a cynical stance, especially at a summit heralded for "accountability".   The G8 did not fail because of the current financial crisis. Even before the crisis, the G8 countries were not taking serious steps to meet their pledges to Africa. This year, despite massive budget crisis, the UK government has heroically honored its aid commitments, showing that other countries could have done so if they had tried.   But isn"t this what politicians like to do - smile for the cameras, and then fail to honor their promises? I would say that the situation is far more serious than that.   First, the Gleneagles commitments might be mere words to politicians in the rich world, but they are matters of life and death for the world"s poor. If Africa had another $15bn-$20bn per year in development aid in 2010, as promised, with the amounts rising over future years (also as promised), millions of children would be spared an agonizing death from preventable diseases, and tens of millions of children would be able to get an education.   Second, the emptiness of G8 leaders words puts the world at risk. The G8 leaders promised last year to fight hunger with $22bn in new funds, but so far they are not delivering. They promised to fight climate change with $30bn of new emergency funds, but so far they are not delivering. My own country, the US, shows the largest gap between promises and reality.   Hosting this year"s G8 summit reportedly cost Canada a fortune, despite the absence of any significant results. The estimated cost of hosting the G8 leaders for a day and a half, followed by the G20 leaders for a day and a half, reportedly came to more than $1bn. This is essentially the same amount that the G8 leaders pledged to give each year to the world"s poorest countries to support maternal and child health.   It is absurd and troubling to spend $1bn on three days of meetings under any circumstances (since there are much cheaper ways to have such meetings and much better uses for the money). But it is tragic to spend so much money and then accomplish next to nothing in terms of concrete results and honest accountability.   There are three lessons to be drawn from this episode. First, the G8 as a group should be brought to an end. The G20, which includes developing countries as well as rich countries, should take over.   Second, any future promises made by the G20 should be accompanied by a clear and transparent accounting of what each country will do, and when. The world needs true accountability, not empty words about accountability. Every G20 promise should spell out the specific actions and commitments of each country, as well as the overall promise of the group.   Third, the world"s leaders should recognize that commitments to fight poverty, hunger, disease, and climate change are life-and-death issues that require professional management for serious implementation.   The G20 meets later this year in South Korea, a country that has emerged from poverty and hunger over the past 50 years. South Korea understands the utter seriousness of the global development agenda, and the poorest countries needs. Our best hope is that South Korea will succeed as the next host country, picking up where Canada has fallen far short.   (Jeffrey D. Sachs is Professor of Economics and Director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University. He is also Special Adviser to United Nations Secretary-General on the Millennium Development Goals). Visit the related web page
	View more stories