Drumming in the sun at the sacred fire on highway 126. [Photo: M. Howe]

See also:

In previous years, the Canadian government, which chairs the negotiations of the annual HRC resolution on violence against women, has played a leadership role in helping to create advances seeking to protect women from violence. Yet this year, a number of concerns have been raised regarding Canada’s approach to the new resolution on the theme of ‘sexual violence’. The concerns in question are the very proposals that Canada itself is putting forward which are regressive and represent a serious attack on women’s rights and the health and wellbeing of survivors of sexual violence.

The Canadian government has been, and continues to be, actively preventing numerous key recommendations related to effectively addressing sexual violence and the rights of survivors of violence.  In particular, it is using its role as chair of the negotiations to block the recognition of a comprehensive package of services that need to be available to survivors of sexual violence. Numerous governments and civil society organizations insist that these services must explicitly include: access to essential sexual and reproductive health services, including emergency contraception, safe abortion, post-exposure prophylaxis for HIV infection, diagnosis and treatment for sexually transmitted infections, among others. “Once again, we see the government of Canada exporting its conservative ideology internationally, to the detriment of millions of survivors of sexual violence who need access to these essential services,” said Sandeep Prasad, the Executive Director of Action Canada for Population and Development, who is at the HRC following negotiations. “We need only look to the exclusion of funding for safe abortion services, even where legal, from Canada’s international aid under the Muskoka Initiative for another example.  This time Canada is standing in the way of ensuring survivors of sexual violence have access to services they need, including access to safe abortion.”

Beyond the issue of access to essential services, Canada is blocking key proposals related to the prevention of sexual violence, including references to “reproductive rights” and “gender equality”. The Canadian government is also refusing to include acknowledgement of the need to implement rights-based, accurate and comprehensive sexuality education programmes as a key tool to prevent violence and promote gender equality.

“Not only is Canada not entertaining recommendations on advancing existing commitments, it is actively seeking to roll back hard-won previously-agreed policy measures made in other international fora, including just 3 months ago at the UN Commission on the Status of Women, for which the theme was elimination and prevention of all forms of violence against women and girls,” said a delegate closely involved in the negotiations.

Without these references, women’s rights activists and their allies are less able to hold their governments accountable to provide sexual violence survivors with essential services they need, as well as work to eliminate gender stereotypes and norms among younger generations, through providing sexuality education, which can in turn contribute to the elimination of all forms of violence, stigma and discrimination.

The actions of Canada have resulted in the alienation of its traditional allies on the resolution from all regions of the world.  At the time of this release, many of these allied governments who traditionally co-sponsor UN resolutions addressing violence against women have indicated that they will not be co-sponsoring this draft resolution unless Canada shows flexibility and fixes the problems it has created with the text.

“As many as 7 in 10 women experience physical or sexual violence in their lifetimes, and the first sexual experience of up to 1/3 of them is forced. Adolescent girls and young women are especially at risk of violence.  Up to 50% of sexual assaults are committed against girls under 16. Canada will be tabling for adoption a resolution that neglects the very real needs of survivors of sexual violence. In doing so, it has alienated its allies in States and civil society around the world.  This is a historic low for Canada on the international stage,” said Prasad.

Version française: 

Ottawa / Genève – 7 juin 2013 – Les gouvernements et la société civile remettent en question le leadership du gouvernement canadien sur le thème de la violence faite aux femmes à la 23ème session du Conseil des droits de l’homme des Nations Unies (CDH).

Dans les années précédentes, le gouvernement canadien, qui préside les négociations portant sur la résolution annuelle du CDH en matière de violence faite aux femmes, a joué un rôle de premier plan en aidant à la réalisation de progrès visant à protéger les femmes contre la violence. Pourtant, cette année, un certain nombre de préoccupations ont été soulevées au sujet du traitement qu’accorde le Canada à la nouvelle résolution sur le thème de la «violence sexuelle». Les préoccupations en question portent sur les propositions mêmes que le Canada met lui-même de l’avant. Celles-ci sont régressives et représentent une atteinte grave aux droits des femmes et à la santé et au bien-être des victimes de violences sexuelles.

Le gouvernement canadien s’est activé à entraver – et continue à le faire – plusieurs recommandations clés visant à lutter efficacement contre la violence sexuelle et pour les droits des survivant-e-s de cette violence. Il exploite notamment son rôle en tant que président des négociations pour bloquer la reconnaissance d’un ensemble complet de services qui doivent être accessibles aux survivant-e-s de violences sexuelles. Plusieurs gouvernements et organisations de la société civile insistent sur le fait que ces services doivent inclure explicitement: l’accès aux services essentiels de santé sexuelle et reproductive, y compris la contraception d’urgence, l’avortement sécuritaire, la prophylaxie post-exposition pour l’infection au VIH, et le diagnostic et le traitement des infections sexuellement transmissibles, entre autres. « Une fois encore, nous voyons le gouvernement du Canada exporter son idéologie conservatrice à l’échelle internationale, au détriment de millions de survivant-e-s de violences sexuelles qui ont besoin d’accéder à ces services essentiels», a déclaré Sandeep Prasad, directeur exécutif de Action Canada pour la population et le développement, qui suit les négociations en cours au CDH. «Un autre exemple en est l’exclusion de l’aide internationale canadienne du financement de services d’avortement sécuritaire, aux termes de Initiative de Muskoka, et ce même là où l’avortement est légal. Cette fois-ci, le Canada fait obstruction à une façon d’assurer aux survivant-e-s de violence sexuelle l’accès aux services dont ces personnes ont besoin, y compris l’accès à des avortements sécuritaires.»

Au-delà de la question de l’accès aux services essentiels, le Canada bloque des propositions cruciales liées à la prévention de la violence sexuelle, y compris les références à des «droits reproductifs» et à l’«égalité des sexes». Le gouvernement canadien refuse également que soit reconnue dans cette résolution la nécessité de mettre en œuvre des programmes d’éducation sexuelle complets, exacts et fondés sur les droits des personnes comme outil essentiel pour prévenir la violence et pour promouvoir l’égalité des sexes.«Non seulement le Canada n’accepte pas de recommandations visant à faire valoir des engagements existants, mais il s’active à faire reculer des mesures politiques remportées de haute lutte précédemment dans d’autres instances internationales, y compris il y a seulement 3 mois à la Commission des Nations Unies sur la condition de la femme, dont le thème était l’élimination et la prévention de toutes les formes de violence contre les femmes et les filles», a déclaré une déléguée associée de près aux négociations.

«Non seulement le Canada n’accepte pas de recommandations visant à faire valoir des engagements existants, mais il s’active à faire reculer des mesures politiques remportées de haute lutte précédemment dans d’autres instances internationales, y compris il y a seulement 3 mois à la Commission des Nations Unies sur la condition de la femme, dont le thème était l’élimination et la prévention de toutes les formes de violence contre les femmes et les filles», a déclaré une déléguée associée de près aux négociations.

Sans ces références, les activistes des droits des femmes et leurs allié-e-s sont moins en mesure de tenir leurs gouvernements responsables de fournir aux survivant-e-s de violences sexuelles les services essentiels requis, ou de travailler à éliminer les stéréotypes et les normes de genre chez les jeunes générations, au moyen de l’éducation à la sexualité, ce qui peut à son tour contribuer à l’élimination de toutes les formes de violence, de stigmatisation et de discrimination.

Ces actions du Canada ont conduit à une désaffection de ses alliés traditionnels de toutes les régions du monde sur la question de cette résolution. Au moment où nous écrivons ces lignes, beaucoup de ces gouvernements alliés qui, traditionnellement, Co-parrainaient les résolutions de l’ONU concernant la violence contre les femmes ont indiqué leur intention de ne pas co-parrainer ce projet de résolution à moins que le Canada ne fasse preuve de souplesse et corrige les problèmes qu’il a créés au sujet du texte.

« Jusqu’à sept femmes sur dix vivent de la violence physique ou sexuelle au cours de leur vie, et jusqu’à une sur trois d’entre elles vivent sous contrainte leur première expérience sexuelle. Les adolescentes et les jeunes femmes sont particulièrement exposées à la violence. Jusqu’à 50% des agressions sexuelles sont commises contre des filles de moins de 16 ans. Le Canada va soumettre à l’adoption une résolution qui néglige les besoins très réels des victimes de violence sexuelle. Ce faisant, il s’est aliéné ses alliés habituels dans les États et la société civile à travers le monde. Il s’agit d’un creux historique pour le Canada sur la scène internationale », a déclaré M. Prasad.

-FIN-
Pour plus d’informations (ne pas publier), s’il vous plaît contacter:
Neha Sood, responsable de la défense de droits et des politiques, Action Canada pour la population et le développement (ACPD),
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
+41-76-719-2135 (Genève)

OU

Sandeep Prasad, directeur général, Action Canada pour la population et le développement (ACPD)
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
+41-76-474-6335 (Genève)
+1-613-301-3782 (Ottawa)

OU

Sarah Kennell, Politiques et communications, Action Canada pour la population et le développement (ACPD)
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
+1-613-301-3716 (Ottawa)

(Remerciements à Mr. Martin Dufresne pour son aide à la traduction)

“People are realizing that we can’t rely on the industrial food system much longer. The awakening that’s happening is our greatest opportunity,” says New Mexican farmer and activist Miguel Santistevan. This awakening has sparked the revival of local, sustainable food systems.

At its most basic, sustainability connotes a system capable of continuing indefinitely without compromising future life. Sustainability is also sometimes described as a three-legged stool: in order to be balanced, it must sit equally on sturdy legs of economics, environment, and equity. A food system contributes to community sustainability if it is economically viable for small farmers; nourishing of the earth and elements; and socially equitable for all involved, including farm and food workers and consumers.

Examples in the movement to create local, sustainable food systems are virtually endless. Here are just a few:

* Community gardens are sprouting up everywhere, with an estimated 18,000 in the US and Canada. In most cases, members rent a small plot for a modest fee. These patchwork-quilt gardens, primarily in urban areas, provide a local food source, build community relationships, beautify the neighborhood, and give more people the opportunity to eat homegrown food.

* Educational gardening projects give children and teens the opportunity to get their hands dirty and learn about growing food. In East Oakland, California, youth with Oakland Food Connection grew over 3,000 pounds of produce in school-based gardens in one year. Now they’re branching out to create value-added products, like sauerkraut and jelly, and to run a catering business. On the other side of the country, in Orange, Massachusetts, Seeds of Solidarity works with rural and working-class youth to tend gardens at schools, a homeless shelter, and an elder care facility.

Deborah Habib, director of Seeds of Solidarity, said, “Every person is capable of helping to feed their community. To me, it’s really about reclaiming the heart-hands-land connection, so we can each participate, not only as consumers, but by cultivating the earth and cultivating foods.”

* Farmers are growing food for public institutions like schools, universities, hospitals, and prisons. In one instance, the Berkeley Unified School District did away with its tater tots and canned peaches through a policy of increasing the amount of local, organic food it purchases. “We’ve gone from 95 percent processed foods to 95 percent made from scratch,” said chef Ann Cooper. To help allay the higher food costs associated with this program, the school system has gotten bulk discounts from farmers and processors, sources a significant amount of fresh produce from school-sponsored gardens, and uses federal reimbursements from the USDA as well as sales to students. There are now farm-to-school programs involving 12,429 schools in 50 states.

* Real Food Challenge is working to shift $1 billion worth of college and university food purchases towards local, sustainable, and fair sources, and away from industrial agriculture. The nationwide project supports student organizers as they develop campus wide campaigns to get their schools to commit to purchasing 20% “real food” by 2020. They host leadership trainings and events, provide materials and other organizing support, and have developed a Real Food Calculator to help track institutional food purchasing. They define real food as “food which truly nourishes producers, consumers, communities and the earth. It is a food system – from seed to plate – that fundamentally respects human dignity and health, animal welfare, social justice and environmental sustainability.”

* A sad joke goes: If your illness doesn’t kill you in the hospital, the food will. Fletcher Allen Health Care in Vermont and Cancer Treatment Centers of America in Illinois and Oklahoma are just a few of the hospitals around the country that are part of a growing network of farm-to-hospital programs. Four hundred and forty-four hospitals in the US have signed a pledge, organized by the group Health Care without Harm, to offer more fruits and vegetables, as well as locally grown, fair-trade, and pesticide- and hormone free food. Some hospitals also host on-site farmers’ markets, plant gardens, and compost food scraps.

* Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) creates a direct partnership between a farm and members of the community. Members pay farmers at the beginning of the season, providing them with cash needed to purchase seeds and equipment. In return, each week they receive a share of the harvest, whatever is growing at the time. Members commit to sharing both the benefits and risks of each season. If there is a bumper crop of watermelon, everyone enjoys the abundance. If disease wipes out the tomatoes, share members ride that out as well. This commitment from members gives farmers more protection from both the whims of nature and price fluctuations of the market. By cutting out the middle-people, members have a more direct relationship with where their food comes from and receive a better price for local food.

Started in Japan, CSAs are catching on all over the US and the world. Since its introduction in the US in the l980s, the model has expanded to over 12,500 farms. In some rural areas, members pick up their share at the farm itself, while in cities, farmers drop off boxes of produce at distribution sites. The CSA model is now being used not only for vegetables but also for many other goods like grains, meat, dairy, fish, medicinal herbs, pies, and spun wool.

* Farmers’ markets are also experiencing a meteoric rise. Between 1994 and 2011, farmers’ markets registered with the US Department of Agriculture increased 400 percent. They now number over 7,800. Markets are also vibrant community gathering spots, places to meet, play, connect, and unwind. Food from a farmers’ market or CSA typically travels between 10 and 100 miles, unlike the long distances traveled by their grocery store counterparts.

* Farmers are continuing the time-honored practice of banding together through marketing cooperatives. Selling everything from cheese to cantaloupe, co-ops give small producers more bargaining power in the marketplace. They allow producers to pay discounted prices by buying in bulk; lower their transportation and distribution costs by sharing resources such as delivery trucks; earn a higher profit by eliminating some of the middlepeople; and access federal tax deductions. In 2008, the USDA reported that there were over 2,200 farmer, ranch, and fishery co-ops in the US, with a combined business volume of $213.4 billion. One small-scale example is Moo Milk in Maine. In 2010, 10 organic dairy farmers who had been dropped by the giant corporation Hood created the co-op, through which farmers now keep up to 90% of the profits.

Download the Harvesting Justice pdf here, and find action items, resources, and a popular education curriculum on the Harvesting Justice website. Harvesting Justice was created for the US Food Sovereignty Alliance, check out their workhere.

Read more from Other Worlds here, and follow us on Facebook and Twitter!

Copyleft Other Worlds. You may reprint this article in whole or in part.  Please credit any text or original research you use to Tory Field and Beverly Bell, Other Worlds.

Thursday, 06 June 2013 10:02
By Colin Todhunter, Countercurrents.org | News Analysis

What happens when you allow commercial interests free rein over a nation state's food and agricultural policies? Consumers and farmers end up paying the price. Take the current predicament of wheat contamination in the US .

Genetically engineered (GE) wheat is not approved to be grown for commercial use in the US or anywhere else in the world. Yet the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has announced that unapproved GE wheat has been found growing in an Oregon wheat field (1). An Oregon farmer sprayed his wheat field, intending it to lay fallow for the next year. Despite multiple sprays of Monsanto's Round Up, the farmer found that the crops unexpectedly persisted, just as GE crops are engineered to do. This prompted him to send samples to a scientist at Oregon State University , who determined that the crops were infused with the RoundUp Ready gene. The USDA confirmed the results.

Since 1994, Monsanto has conducted 279 field trials of RoundUp Ready wheat over more than 4,000 acres of land in 16 states. The USDA has admitted that Monsanto's GMO experiments from 1998 to 2005 were held in open wheat fields. The genetically engineered wheat escaped and found its way into commercial wheat fields in Oregon (and possibly 15 other states), causing self-replicating genetic pollution that now taints the entire US wheat industry.

Contamination of non-GE crops is a serious concern. Worries about harm to human health and the environment are well documented. But GE contaminated wheat has wider ramifications. In the wake of the disclosure of contaminated wheat, Japan has cancelled its offer to buy US western white wheat. Toru Hisadome, a Japanese farm ministry official in charge of wheat trading, is reported by Reuters news agency as saying that Japan will refrain from buying western white and feed wheat immediately (2).

Asian consumers are keenly sensitive to gene-altered food, with few countries allowing imports of such cereals for human consumption. Asia imports more than 40 million tonnes of wheat annually, almost a third of the global trade. The bulk of the region's supplies come from the US . Meanwhile, the European Union has prepared to begin testing shipments for the RoundUp Ready gene.

This all could have major implications for the US economy. In 2012, exported wheat represented a gross sum of $18.1 billion, with 90 percent of Oregon 's wheat exported abroad. Mike Adams of Natural News says that all wheat produced in the US will now be heavily scrutinized and possibly even rejected by other nations that traditionally import US wheat. This obviously has enormous economic implications for US farmers and agriculture. Adams argues that genetic experiments which 'escaped' into commercial wheat fields could devastate US wheat farmers. The floor could drop out on wheat prices, and there may well be a huge backlash against the USDA by US farmers who stand to lose hundreds of millions of dollars (3).

Much of the problem lies with the USDA, which gave the go ahead for open-field GMO experiments - little wonder that the USDA is regarded by many as the official cheer -leader for the GM sector.

Genetically modified wheat may be the tip of the iceberg, given the prevalence of open-field trials regarding various other crops and the not so hidden agenda behind such trials. As reported in the Toronto Star back in January 2001, Don Westfall, biotech industry consultant and vice-president of Promar International, stated that the hope of the industry is that over time the market is so flooded with genetically modified organisms that there's nothing you can do about it - people just sort of surrender.

None of this would be possible without the ability of the GM sector to corrupt state machinery in order to further its commercial interests. Writing on Rense.com, Rich Murray has highlighted how top people from the GM sector have moved with ease to take up positions with various US government bodies, such as the US Food and Drug Administration (4). Writer and researcher William F Engdahl describes a similar effect in Europe , noting the links between the GMO sector and the European Food Safety Authority (5).

India appears to be no different. I mmediately after a moratorium on BT Brinjal was announced in 2010, a Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI) Bill suddenly emerged. The BRAI Bill could not be passed in 2010 and 2011 because of objections, but it has surfaced again as a 2013 Bill. In the June edition of Ki Kisan Awaaz, Vandana Shiva argues that it not so much constitutes a Biotechnology Regulation Act, but a Biotechnology Deregulation Act, designed to dismantle the existing bio-safety regulation and give the green-light to the GM sector to press ahead with its agenda in the country. By highlighting the GM sector interests behind the proposed legislation, S hiva says that the goal is to give the sector's corporations immunity by freeing them of courts and democratic control under India 's federal structure (6). It is, in effect, 'Monsanto's Protection Act'.

Whatever the implications of such legislation, we are right to be suspicious given the GM sector's ability to infiltrate and contaminate key government bodies, nowhere more so than in the US . And the result? Look no further than the case of wheat and the agenda of contamination behind open-field testing. I t will not only be consumers who ' pay the price' for corporate duplicity, in terms of health dangers, but, quite literally, US farmers too.

Colin Todhunter : Originally from the northwest of England, Colin Todhunter has spent many years in India. He has written extensively for the Deccan Herald (the Bangalore-based broadsheet), New Indian Express and Morning Star (Britain). His articles have also appeared in various other newspapers, journals and books. His East by Northwest website is at: http://colintodhunter.blogspot.com

Notes

1. http://www.enewspf.com/latest-news/science/science-a-environmental/43625-oregon-wheat-found-contaminated-with-unapproved-ge-wheat.html
2. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/30/us-wheat-asia-idUSL3N0EB1JC20130530
3. http://www.globalresearch.ca/monsanto-is-a-ticking-time-bomb-for-u-s-agriculture-japan-halts-imports-of-u-s-wheat-after-usdas-finding-of-genetic-pollution-from-gmos/5337283
4. http://rense.com/general33/fd.htm
5. http://www.globalresearch.ca/stench-of-eu-corruption-in-monsanto-gmo-whitewash/5316294
6. http://www.kisankiawaaz.org/magazine_data/magazine_data_pdf/default.pdf

Plantastic! (10 TED Talks)

Green, leafy, often delicious: Plants make our ecosystem work. Hear from gardeners, designers, conservationists (and weekday vegetarians) on the wonderful world of plants and vegetables. Watch »

Total run time 1:58:21