That Development Lady

Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe has brutally seized control of his country’s diamond fields and is using the profits from our precious wedding rings and jewelry to finance a vicious political militia.

The group of countries that regulate the global diamond trade are right now meeting in Namibia to decide whether to suspend Mugabe and stop him selling his blood diamonds on the world market.

We have just two days to persuade these countries to act - let’s get a flood of signatures on a petition and deliver it directly to the meeting in Namibia. Sign at the link below and forward this email to anyone who doesn’t want our gifts of love to finance hate:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/diamonds_for_love_not_hate

All diamond producing countries know that their profits are dependent on the brand reputation of diamonds, and that increasing awareness of “blood diamonds” threatens that brand. A massive global petition will show them that the diamond-buying public is demanding action.

Zimbabwe’s diamonds used to be mined by local people. But in the last several months, Mugabe’s thugs have brutally taken over, murdering up to 200 civilians. An international investigation in July found “horrific violence against civilians”.

The profits from these blood diamonds are being used to finance a political militia that has already killed thousands of Zimbabweans, and threatens the fragile unity government in the country. Letting Mugabe keep these diamonds could finance a whole new war.

All of us are learning the ways in which our decisions about what we buy and do can affect the lives of our fellow human beings half a world away. An engagement ring should be something given and worn out of love, let’s tell diamond regulators to keep it that way:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/diamonds_for_love_not_hate

With hope,

Ricken, Alice, Benjamin, Graziela, Luis, Milena, Paul, Ben, Paula, Pascal and the whole of the Avaaz team

PS:

Once you’ve taken action, vote for Avaaz on the influential Huffington Post “New Media Game-Changers” poll! http://www.avaaz.org/huffpo (vote 10 for Avaaz as the ultimate game changer)

Sources:

A Human Rights Watch report on the Zimbabwe mines:
http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2009/06/26/diamonds-rough-0

The Kimberley process report:
http://www.zimonline.co.za/Article.aspx?ArticleId=5303

Articles on the possible ban this week:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8337385.stm

http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-11-02-zim-faces-possible-suspension-from-global-diamond-trade

More from Global Witness, a member of the Kimberley Process:
http://www.globalwitness.org/media_library_detail.php/861/en/campaigners_call_for_urgent_action_on_zimbabwe_blo

More on Zimbabwe’s political crisis:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article6896171.ece

People will need to turn vegetarian if the world is to conquer climate change, according to a leading authority on global warming.

In an interview with The Times, Lord Stern of Brentford said: “Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. It puts enormous pressure on the world’s resources. A vegetarian diet is better.”

Direct emissions of methane from cows and pigs is a significant source of greenhouse gases. Methane is 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide as a global warming gas.

Lord Stern, the author of the influential 2006 Stern Review on the cost of tackling global warming, said that a successful deal at the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December would lead to soaring costs for meat and other foods that generate large quantities of greenhouse gases.

He predicted that people’s attitudes would evolve until meat eating became unacceptable. “I think it’s important that people think about what they are doing and that includes what they are eating,” he said. “I am 61 now and attitudes towards drinking and driving have changed radically since I was a student. People change their notion of what is responsible. They will increasingly ask about the carbon content of their food.”

Lord Stern, a former chief economist of the World Bank and now I. G. Patel Professor of Economics at the London School of Economics, warned that British taxpayers would need to contribute about £3 billion a year by 2015 to help poor countries to cope with the inevitable impact of climate change.

He also issued a clear message to President Obama that he must attend the meeting in Copenhagen in person in order for an effective deal to be reached. US leadership, he said, was “desperately needed” to secure a deal.

He said that he was deeply concerned that popular opinion had so far failed to grasp the scale of the changes needed to address climate change, or of the importance of the UN meeting in Copenhagen from December 7 to December 18. “I am not sure that people fully understand what we are talking about or the kind of changes that will be necessary,” he added.

Up to 20,000 delegates from 192 countries are due to attend the UN conference in the Danish capital. Its aim is to forge a deal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently to prevent an increase in global temperatures of more than 2 degrees centigrade. Any increase above this level is expected to trigger runaway climate change, threatening the lives of hundreds of millions of people.

Lord Stern said that Copenhagen presented a unique opportunity for the world to break free from its catastrophic current trajectory. He said that the world needed to agree to halve global greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 to 25 gigatonnes a year from the current level of 50 gigatonnes.

UN figures suggest that meat production is responsible for about 18 per cent of global carbon emissions, including the destruction of forest land for cattle ranching and the production of animal feeds such as soy.

Lord Stern, who said that he was not a strict vegetarian himself, was speaking on the eve of an all-parliamentary debate on climate change. His remarks provoked anger from the meat industry.

Jonathan Scurlock, of the National Farmers Union, said: “Going vegetarian is not a worldwide solution. It’s not a view shared by the NFU. Farmers in this country are interested in evidence-based policymaking. We don’t have a methane-free cow or pig available to us.”

On average, a British person eats 50g of protein derived from meat each day — the equivalent of a chicken breast or a lamb chop. This is a relatively low level for a wealthy country but between 25 per cent and 50 per cent higher than the amount recommended by the World Health Organisation.

Su Taylor, a spokeswoman for the Vegetarian Society, welcomed Lord Stern’s remarks. “What we choose to eat is one of the biggest factors in our personal impact on the environment,” she said. “Meat uses up a lot of resources and a vegetarian diet consumes a lot less land and water. One of the best things you can do about climate change is reduce the amount of meat in your diet.”

The UN has warned that meat consumption is on course to double by the middle of the century.

Saturday’s International Day of Climate Action gave us overwhelming evidence of hope at a time of widespread despair on global warming.

Last month, scientists predicted a 6.3 degree rise in average temperatures — higher than previously estimated — by the end of this century, even if the strongest pollution-reduction targets proposed by the world’s leaders go into effect. (The most recent ice age, for context, was triggered by a 3 degree change in average temperatures.) The Obama administration, meanwhile, has been criticized for weakening its stance on the climate issue, and hopes are dimming for an international treaty at the December climate summit in Copenhagen. As Democrats struggle to pass a domestic cap-and-trade bill, partisan battles are increasingly shrill and contentious, casting doubt on the bill’s chance of passage anytime soon. Even if it were to pass, enviros have criticized the legislation as “woefully inadequate” and “less than worthless.”

Most of us are deaf to these laments. The more strident and dismal the climate battle becomes, the more the American public tunes out. We can’t ignore the science, but we’ve got to move past the partisan bickering, past the politics of doom and gloom, and focus on what’s going right. As Saturday’s event made clear, there’s a lot going right:

1. We are connected.

Online organizing and social media — Flickr, Twitter, YouTube, Skype, Facebook, blogs — are ushering in a new era of coalition-building and global climate outreach breathtaking in scope. These online tools “enable us to track the growing momentum on this issue,” 350.org organizer May Boeve told me. “That’s vital to movement building.” Daily twitters and blog posts on climate change number in the tens of millions — spreading information, rallying lobbyists, and stoking innovation. Al Gore, for one, has nearly two million followers on Twitter — more than Martha Stewart.

2. We have a target.

The most complex scientific problem humanity has ever faced has been distilled into a three-digit manifesto — 350. Transcending language and education barriers, this global target was spelled out on beaches, mountain tops, monuments, and town squares, in human bodies linked to human bodies.

3. We have youth.

Kids and students were a highlight of the 350 event — reflecting the youth climate movement that has been growing globally in recent years. In the US, the Energy Action Coalition has convened hundreds of thousands of students who are greening their campuses, lobbying state legislatures and Congress, and partnering with activists worldwide — members of the China Youth Climate Action Network, Khmer Youth Association, Accion Climatica Colombia, the Indian Youth Climate Network, among other groups. In place of the panda, they’ve have chosen for their symbol the green hard hat, representing a new era of green jobs.

4. We have diversity.

Saturday’s event produced the world’s first grand-scale portrait of the global climate movement-and most of them looked nothing like Al Gore. The images of activists across all economic strata in Mumbai, Instanbul, Cairo, Dhakam, Gaborone and well beyond made it clear that environmentalism is no longer the domain of the white, privileged Prius-and-polar-bear set.

5. We have a movement.

As the global climate movement diversifies, D.C.-based environmental groups have been joining forces with labor, veterans and religious groups in a broad coalition dubbed Clean Energy Works. The group is mobilizing organizers in 28 states and spending handsomely on television ads to promote climate policies that will transition America to a green economy and create millions of clean jobs.

6. We have action.

In the months leading up to the 350 event, governmental leaders of the Maldives Islands held a cabinet meeting underwater in scuba gear to expose the global warming threat. Greenpeace activists scaled the Houses of Parliament in London carrying “Change the Politics — Save the Climate” signs. Student activists blockaded the entrance to a coal plant in downtown Washington D.C. This is activism with a wow-factor — reminiscent of the 60s-era outreach that helped trigger a sea change in environmental policy.

7. We have faith.

Churches in the Presbyterians of America alliance tolled their bells 350 times. The target was also spelled out in signs draped across synagogues and mosques. Faith-based climate activism has been gaining ground in recent years, in particular the “creation care” movement spearheaded by evangelicals. With a membership of 45,000 churches and 7,000 megachurches, National Association of Evangelicals, for instance, is supporting mandatory carbon caps.

8. We have profit motive.

General Electric, Google, and Duke Energy are among a multitude of big-brand businesses positioning themselves to profit from a 350 ppm target —innovating climate solutions from electric cars to smart-grid components. We need these climate profiteers. To borrow and reinterpret a line from Thomas Edison: Corporate innovators are finally discovering what the world needs — and they’re proceeding to invent.

In a 1979 presidential address Jimmy Carter quoted an activist friend who said, “We’ve got to stop crying and start sweating, stop talking and start walking, stop cursing and start praying.” These words resonate today as we face so much despair and political paralysis on climate change. The good news is that the sweating, walking and praying has begun.

Amanda Little is the author of Power Trip: From Oil Wells to Solar Cells, Our Ride to the Renewal Future (Harper/HarperCollins Publishers).

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amanda-little/eight-reasons-for-hope-on_b_336046.html

Yesterday, the English Observer belatedly picked up an article written for the September issue of Standpoint magazine by Jessica Mann, a reviewer who covers crime fiction for the Literary Review. In it, Mann criticizes the genre for revelling in the brutalization of women, and writes that “however many more outpourings of sadistic misogyny are crammed on to the bandwagon, no more of them will be reviewed by me.”

I sympathize with Mann—I can’t stomach much mutilation, and I wouldn’t want my job to be wading in dismembered female bodies. Judging by the response in the blogosphere, though, you’d think this was kinda like Marlon Brando refusing his Oscar or Jonathan Franzen turning down Oprah. But the problem of crimes against women in crime fiction has been often noted: here’s a rundown of some of the more sickening passages you’ll find in today’s popular offerings.

The debate, however, is not just about female mutilation—it’s about terminology. First, it’s about the “F” word. Mann writes:

The trend cannot be attributed to an anti-feminist backlash because the most inventive fiction of this kind is written by women.

In a 2007 piece in the Guardian, Julie Bendel asked why women love to write and read about other women being brutalized:

Given my work as a feminist activist and writer, you might expect me to hate the crime genre. I have spent the whole of my adult life fighting male violence, and much of my work involves researching topics such as rape, child sexual abuse, pornography and murder…. Yet, when it comes to fiction, the serial killer genre is my favourite.

I understand Mann’s and Bindel’s basic premise—that women who care about women shouldn’t, in a logical sense, like to write or read about violence against women—but they both seem to ignore that women can be part of an “anti-feminist backlash,” that men can be feminists, that feminism means different things to different people, that it might have very little to do with what is going on here. When a headline on a Web site geared toward women asks “Feminist or Misogynist?” in a (thoughtful) consideration of Stieg Larsson’s “Girl” trilogy, is that helpful or merely polarizing? Must we choose?

The “F” word is not alone. There’s another word commonly thrown around in this discussion that really seems to turn people’s heads upside down: the “L” word. In 2007, Ian Rankin caused a stir when he quipped, “The people writing the most graphic novels today are women. They are mostly lesbians as well, which I find interesting.”

I suppose it is terribly interesting—if one’s logic follows the proposition “If L then F,” and if you are quite certain what each variable signifies. The popular media was pretty certain: it badgered Val McDermid, a lesbian, for a response (which the Times Online ran with the headline “Revenge of the Bloodthirsty Lesbians”). She called it “arrant rubbish,” and said, “I’ll tell you what pisses me off more than almost anything: when people say, ‘As a woman, how do you feel about writing on violence?’ Have you ever heard a male crime writer being asked, ‘As a man, how do you feel about writing about violence?’ ”

McDermid keeps it real: this debate is about men and women, and mostly about women, a “demographic” that contains multitudes, that is comprised of individuals who may resist any label, even that of “woman.” So it’s a debate about humans, and it turns on the question “Are Women Human?” Not when they are being lumped into unhelpful categories so that they can be lazily scrutinized by the press.

The New Yorker

OTTAWA — The government’s push to abandon much of the Kyoto protocol prompted dozens of developing countries to walk out on Canada’s address during recent climate talks in Thailand, The Canadian Press has learned.

The mass walkout came after the Canadian delegation suggested replacing the Kyoto Protocol with an entirely new global-warming pact, according to one of the negotiators and notes taken by others at the meeting.

A widening and bitter rift between rich and developing countries over climate change was laid bare last week when delegates from 180 nations met in Bangkok to shape a successor to Kyoto before its first phase expires in just over two years. The United Nations hopes to broker a draft deal in time for a meeting in Copenhagen this December.

The delegates discussed whether all or parts of Kyoto should end up in the new agreement, according to notes taken by a delegate from a developing nation as well as one of the South African negotiators.

The developing countries want a new climate deal to complement Kyoto, but Canadian officials told the room they would rather replace Kyoto with one agreement, according to the meeting notes.

Canada’s delegation was apparently open to putting “some or all” of Kyoto in a new climate pact, the notes say.

“Some or all of (Kyoto Protocol) elements can be incorporated into (Copenhagen) agreement,” the notes say about Canada’s position.

At that point, the South African delegation stood up and led the Group of 77 developing nations - except for a group of small island states - out of the room.

“The conversation, in our view, at the point in time was effectively over and the G77 left the room,” Joanne Yawitch, a South African negotiator at the Bangkok talks, said in an interview.

Talks resumed the next day, she added.

“We’re not going to walk out of any negotiating process,” Yawitch said.

“But there are certain conversations which we feel are outside of the perimeters of the legal mandate.”

The developing nations were perturbed that Canada and other industrial countries would consider copying parts Kyoto into a new treaty. “You can’t do a cut and paste on a ratified treaty,” Yawitch said.

“You have to re-open it and negotiate what you would cut and paste. And we think that the risks are that you might end up with something that might be considerably weaker.”

Environment Minister Jim Prentice declined comment on the walkout.

The Kyoto Protocol binds 37 industrial countries - including Canada but not the United States, which refused to sign it under George W. Bush’s presidency - to reduce greenhouse gases by 5.2 per cent from 1990 levels by 2012.

Canada, the U.S., the Europeans, the Australians and others want a new agreement to also bind big developing nations such as China and India to cut greenhouse gases. Canada has spent much of the past year harnessing its environmental policy to that of the Obama administration in the United States.

The industrial countries argue the battle to cut greenhouse gases is for naught unless all major polluters curb their emissions. Developing countries argue that binding targets would stunt their fledgling economies.

They also oppose having similar targets to industrialized nations, who they say are responsible for most of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

It is against this backdrop of diplomatic tussling that countries are trying to agree to a new global-warming pact in time for the Copenhagen meetings.

The discussions in Thailand make it clear that a meaningful agreement in Copenhagen may be elusive. Only five negotiating days remain before December’s climate talks.

“I think that Bangkok has been a very, very difficult meeting,” Yawitch said.

“I think it leaves the talks in a very difficult space, and I think it is going to be very challenging to pull this together and to find agreement in the short time that we’ve got left.

“But I think we are very committed to doing that.”

U.S. President Barack Obama was once thought to be leading the charge towards a new climate pact but environmentalists believe he is facing increasing pressure to blunt any agreement on greenhouse gases that costs corporate America too much money.

The Nobel peace prize committee appeared to be offering encouragement to Obama last week by specifically mentioning in their citation that the U.S. president is “now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting.

The Canadian Post

This Saturday, President Obama will be the keynote speaker at the Human Rights Campaign’s big New York fundraiser. As the largest gay rights fundraiser in the U.S., it’s a big deal to score a personality like the President. But his presence has many members of the LGBT community worried. Here’s a guy who has done virtually nothing for gay rights since his election. What can he possibly say?

I’m sure his speechwriters have cooked up something special for the night, but I’ve got a few ideas of my own. I’ve written a little speech for the beloved President - the kind of speech we wish the man would give, just once.

Tonight is a night to celebrate the Human Rights Campaign - the work they have done, tireless, well organized, well executed work, to promote the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transsexual people in this country. It’s also a night to celebrate all of you, the people who donate their money and time to help make this country a more equal and just society.

But it is also a serious night, a night to reflect on where we have been and, more importantly, a night to plan and commit to where we are going.

I have a plan and I am ready for that commitment.

I understand that, in the face of the economic crisis facing us at home, the military crisis facing us abroad in Iraq and Afghanistan and the environmental crisis facing the international community, there is a very real struggle for basic human rights engaged in everyday by LGBT people in the United States.

This struggle is not overshadowed by the big news issues. It is not lessened by them. It is a constant and painful inequality. I know something about this kind of discrimination. My family knows something about this kind of discrimination.

And so, I do not stand before you tonight with excuses for the delays in Washington, for the setbacks and political conflicts that have crippled many important equality initiatives and stalled others.

I am here tonight because my administration is committed to full equality for LGBT people in this country. I pledged that commitment early in the campaign and have not swayed from that position.

I believe in the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, the passage of inclusive immigration reform and the widespread protection of LGBT employees from retribution for their sexual orientation or gender identity.

I believe in hate crimes legislation that protects Americans from homophobia as well as racism.

And here’s what I’m going to do to make the things I believe in, a reality.

Within one year, by November 2010, we will introduce comprehensive immigration reform. This immigration package will include spousal sponsorship for same-sex couples in a committed relationship. Immigration reform is a priority for my administration and no reform package will be complete without this provision for the unification of American families thus far separated by discriminatory immigration policies.

Within six months, by April 2010, we will introduce a bill repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. When we ask so much of our troops, send them back for repeat tours, ask them to fight in harsh conditions so far from home, we must support their right to be open with their colleagues and superiors. We simply cannot afford to lose anymore good people from our military simply because of their sexual orientation.

As we speak, members of Congress are mobilizing around an inclusive hate crimes bill. That is a success that is imminent and my administration pushed to include the Matthew Shepard Act in the defense bill before Congress. We will push to get it passed.

These campaigns will not happen without roadblocks. Sometimes it will seem like we are moving backwards. We have already seen this with Proposition 8 in California and the proposed Proposition 1 in Maine.

But, the United States of America is a community of people from many different countries and many different cultures. It is a nation that vibrates with diversity and rises from its people’s differences as much as their shared experiences.

We are ready for progress. We are ready for equality. We, together, are going to make that equality happen.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/emma-rubysachs/the-big-gay-speech-we-wis_b_313425.html

A bloody massacre in Guinea could undermine peace across West Africa. Sign the call for targeted sanctions on the Guinean junta and let’s raise a popular outcry worldwide against this crackdown:

Last week, over 150 civilians were killed when the military opened fire on a peaceful pro-democracy rally in the West African country of Guinea. Women were raped and people were bayoneted on the streets as they tried to escape — a terrifying message to a nation crying out to elect a democratic, civilian government for the first time.

In spite of the international community’s condemnation of the violence and calls for the regime to allow elections, the junta is clinging to power, warning ominously that the army is acting beyond the chain of command. The tense situation threatens to spiral into inter-factional fighting or a counter-coup, which would likely see violence spill over and destabilize the whole region.

We need to act fast. The international community must send a clear message that unless the regime agrees to step down and allow a peaceful democratic transition, they will face immediate, tightly-targeted sanctions. The African and European Unions have discussed invoking travel and banking sanctions on the ruling elite, who love to fly and shop: this could be the best chance to have quick impact, without hurting Guinea’s people — who desperately need our help. We’ll deliver this campaign to European and African leaders before they meet later this month — click the link below to sign the petition and forward this email:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/guinea_stop_the_crackdown

The military ruler of Guinea, Capitan Moussa Dadis Camara, seized power in a military coup last year. He had agreed to step aside and allow for democratic elections next year — but after months of tension, recently reneged on that promise. The people of Guinea have suffered over 50 years of brutal and corrupt dictatorships. Tens of thousands of civilians who attended last week’s rally were clamouring for an end to military rule and opposing his candidacy in elections.

The violence against civilians was brutal. A human rights watch witness stated: “I saw the Red Berets [an elite unit within the military] catch some of the women who were trying to flee, rip off their clothes, and stick their hands in their private parts. Others beat the women, including on their genitals… the women were crying out.”

Firm action is needed not just to make clear that we reject the violent repression of people anywhere who stand up to demand democratic and accountable government, but because what happens in Guinea will affect dozens of other fledgling democracies across Africa, where would-be dictators are closely watching the response from the international community. Years have been spent establishing a fragile peace in neighbouring Sierra Leone and Liberia. If Guinea blows, they too could be at risk.

An international inquiry is needed into the violence and the army must return to barracks. But a week after the massacre, opposition leaders remain in military detention, and Capitan Camara is shirking responsibility for the violence, blaming the opposition and banning all public ‘subversive’ meetings — sending a clear signal that he isn’t going step aside easily or bend to initial international declarations.

The regional body, Economic Community of West African States, has nominated a negotiator for Guinea. But any talks must be backed up by clear international pressure — otherwise the mineral-rich regime could hold on, ruling through the biggest army in the region. A policy of targeted AU and EU sanctions, affecting the leadership personally, could be pivotal — not only could it help halt more bloodshed, it could start to lay the foundation for a democratic transition.

http://www.avaaz.org/en/guinea_stop_the_crackdown

Guinea’s people desperately need international help and support now. Let’s stand with them, send a clear message to the Guinean military and forces across Africa who seek to rule by the gun that the time for repressive military rule is over. Sign the petition and send it on to family and friends:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/guinea_stop_the_crackdown