To jumpstart the media campaign on popularizing CEDAW, it's best to start with a primer of sorts.

Philippines: CEDAW 101
A treaty looking after women's human rights
by Claire Villacorta (Women's Feature Service)

At first glance, it may seem like we've come this far rocking the status quo. But if it means we've finally achieved a certain degree of equality with men, are we necessarily reaping the benefits? In some cases, yes. Others, well, most likely not. That's because a society where women are free from discrimination doesn't really exist, no matter how much actual progress there has been in most countries to put a stop to it.

As you read this, women all over the world are constantly battling various forms of discrimination. For instance:

a. Women account for two thirds of the world's illiterate adults.

b. There are more boys getting an education than girls.

c. Not only are women earning three fourths of what men earn, but they are also doing twice the amount of unpaid work that men do.

d. The health concerns of women are more often than not overlooked or ignored.

e. When it comes to positions of power, women are vastly under-represented.

f. Globally, violence against women has reached epidemic heights.

Luckily, we've had the UN on our side from the start. They've been around to promote equality between the sexes. And as far as women's rights go, they've kept their radar on to advance the cause throughout the years. But somewhere along the way, something essential has come along to complement it, taking on the form of an international bill of rights for women. It's a well-kept secret that everyone should be in on.

Enter CEDAW. It's an acronym for the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. If that's a mouthful, you can always refer to it as "The Women's Convention" or, more loosely, "The Convention". It is also known as the United Nations Treaty for the Rights of Women.

Being the first and only international treaty of its kind, CEDAW addresses women's rights in a comprehensive manner. It taps all areas - civil, political, economic, social, cultural and family life. Of course, you may ask - what makes this so much more special if there's already a UN Declaration in place? Well, CEDAW pretty much seals the deal by setting binding legal standards for achieving this equality, and at the same time, protecting our human rights in the process. Our laws and policies are given the CEDAW spin before they are implemented.

Our right to choose is not only limited to laws - it applies to cultural practices as well. CEDAW happens to be the only human rights treaty that supports our reproductive rights. It's also the only treaty that places the spotlight on culture and tradition as par for the course when it comes to shaping our gender roles and how we relate to our families.

Here's a bit of herstory. December 18, 1979 was an important day for CEDAW because it was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly. It also happened to be during the UN Decade for Women. The Philippines came on board on July 15, 1980 and ratified CEDAW a year later on August 5, 1981. CEDAW itself came into force on September 3, 1981. And this makes us one of 182 governments or State Parties out of 191 signatories as of March 2006. And as a State Party, our government is "bound to Respect, Protect and Fulfill women's rights" by recognizing the need for state action all because of problems that go back to discrimination and inequality against women.

It's been 25 years now for CEDAW, and for the first time, a Filipina chairperson is head of the Committee: Ambassador Rosario G. Manalo. As chairperson, her task at hand is to make sure that all 182 State Parties comply with the provisions of CEDAW. This makes for a special anniversary, and all the more reason to celebrate.

Ambassador Manalo believes it's high time for Filipinas to claim their rights. "Women are often unaware of the rights they have under the law, and they may not be empowered to claim them effectively."


Learn more about CEDAW:
UN website on the CEDAW Convention

Office of the High Commission on Human Rights Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women

Peace Women: Women's International League for Peace and Freedom

Office of the High Commission on Human Rights

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Social and Human Sciences

International Labour Office

The People's Movement for Human Rights Education

Eldis: The Gateway for Development Information

Amnesty International

Human Rights Watch

Asian Women's Resource Exchange

Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)

Toolkit for Women

The United States Committee for the United Nations Development Fund for Women

Stop Violence Against Women

International Women's Rights Action Watch (IWRAW)

IWRAW-Asia Pacific

CEDAW Watch Philippines

Tags: CEDAW, women's rights

Labels: governance, politics

Part of me wishes I brought my dogs, had I known about last summer's Dog Parade. And while the intentions - to protest the act of dogeating and subsequently put an end to the dog meat trade - were good and well-meaning, it also raises questions about the politics of animal cruelty. My vegetarian friend thought the whole thing seemed rather specie-ist, and he did have a point. I guess the cats, horses, rabbits and rodent-like pets can have their own parade. But it's not like the animals deemed for human consumption - namely cows, pigs and chickens - are exempt from animal cruelty practices. Even if we'd rather not think about how chickens are stuffed closely together in crates or how pigs and cows are tortured in the slaughterhouses while we (the carnivore-inclined, anyway) savor our meat, it's pretty obvious that a value judgement has been placed on these animals. Oh, and dogs are meat-eaters, too.

So when we talk about anti-animal cruelty month, do we mean the animals closest to our hearts, like our own pets? Then again, there are also people who work closely with animals in the wild, struggling to preserve their natural habitats or provide an environment that is similar enough. And what about the animals in the zoo or endangered species, or anything worthy of Animal Planet documentaries?

We do have an Animal Welfare Act that is not being enforced to the letter. Dog meat is openly being sold in wet markets and certain eateries in Baguio City and the Cordilleras, and illegal slaughterhouses are also operating from there. What makes it difficult for groups like Linis Gobyerno to crack down on this trade is that their local officials and policemen are a part of the trade and likewise, a part of the problem. And because they have business interests to protect and are of the belief that either the Animal Welfare Act does not apply to their areas or are upholding a certain dogeating tradition by following a skewed version of it (one that makes sense in their heads, I suppose), it makes them feel invincible or untouchable in that sense. Some of these dogeaters are opposed to the Animal Welfare Act because they see it as colonialism at work - Americans have deemed our culture shameful for making the practice of dogeating "normal" - so for them, eating dogs is a rebellion against the colonial mindset.

And speaking of colonialism - how much of it has affected how we view dogs as man's best friend, or care for dogs as pets? I've always viewed dogs as pets, so I would never even dream of eating them. But I always knew the dogeaters were never far away, and a dog that runs away from home never to return is as good as eaten. It's a morbid cultural mindset, but one that could hold a grain of truth, even by half. Of course, I come from one of those barangays that aren't gated, and while our area is relatively peaceful, the grimier side of things are not too far off in the neighboring barangays (squatters, gangs, etc.) which admittedly may be as much of an assessment of class as it is of safety - and I'm not just talking about the safety of dogs here.

There are many stray dogs, though, and it's only a matter of time before they get caught. Some dogs, however, aren't even strays, but are let loose by their owners to roam in their immediate surroundings and even manage to find their way home. While walking my dog in the neighborhood a few months ago, I saw a truckful of dogs, most likely headed for the pound to be burned to death. Somewhere in the NCR, dogs that are placed in the pound aren't supposed to be killed, but are killed anyway. Mayor's orders. Ask him about the Animal Welfare Act, he's probably giving you his own version (or his own law), but he obviously didn't do his homework.

The Philippine Animal Welfare Society (PAWS) has an active adoption program in place. But a lot of privileged dog lovers seem to have a preference for those imported purebreds, something I could never fully comprehend since I have never been particularly fussy when it comes to dog breeds. It's like collecting car models. Can't a love for a dog transcend their breed? Which probably makes it hard to find new homes for dogs that have a history, or have been "broken" to some extent. And when there are just too many dogs taking up space in an already crowded pound, the easiest option is to euthanize. Compassion and Responsibility for Animals (CARA) Philippines, however, proposes to nip the problem in the bud to keep unwanted litter from spreading and straying all over the place - by spaying and neutering - rather than killing them.

When a global community of animal rights groups gets wind of our situation, they are about as passionate as they are condescending. While it's true that there are bloody idiots in Baguio and Benguet who are complicit in letting their own officials get away with the illegal dog meat trade, these First World groups always have to emphasize that such a practice is unheard of in their own countries and generally put our race in a bad light by discouraging tourism in the Philippines and calling for a boycott for all Filipino products, and all because of how Filipinos in general supposedly treat dogs. It's like 1904 all over again - how the Igorots were showcased in the St. Louis World's Fair as dogeaters, an exoticism to be gawked at, at the expense of showing who exactly was master and who was colony. This piece of history is biting us in the ass again by way of globalization, and how many times must we reiterate that not all Filipinos are dogeaters and that there are Igorots who are disgusted with the idea of eating dogs and the fact that their "tradition" is often namedropped to justify the practice of dogeating. Our country is in enough bad shape as it is, economically and politically, and leave it to the Westerners to screw it up for our people even further, precisely at the moment when times are very hard. There are other solutions, I'm sure, just not easy ones.

And why does a Western culture single us (and perhaps China and Korea) out for abhorable treatment of dogs when they have puppy mills over there? But of course, tit for tat doesn't exactly solve anything, does it?

Labels: governance, health, politics

Imagine a day without news. No newspapers. Static on the radio except for one solitary station playing the national anthem. Same on tv. All snow in all channels. Eerie. But it actually happened on September 21, 1972, the day Marcos declared Martial Law.

The military then tried to intimidate 23 women journalists brave enough to write stories about military atrocities. I salute them for their courage!

We fought long and hard to get back our democracy. And I am not about to repeat that infamous day. I do not want to have that feeling of uncertainty again because of a news blackout. But we should not wait for that day to happen again. We should be on our guard.

Already there was talk of inviting the media "to work out guidelines on media coverage under a state of national emergency." Proclamation 1017 threatens our freedom of speech. I refuse to give up our fundamental right to publish facts, ideas or opinions. I refuse to submit to any media guidelines that will curtail this freedom. No government should interfere with this right in any way, as in the case of the Tribune or any other paper.

When news tends to be biased or borders on the incredible…only the public may judge to remove a publication or program out of the market. But never the government.

As a woman writer and editor for a syndicated media service that writes stories from the women's perspective, I manage to put women's views in the news…and I will not lose this space, no matter how small.

Women are half the population and deserve space in print and broadcast media and should have a say on all issues that affect their lives. They want to know the truth. They want to know all sides. They want to be part of the debate. And this cannot happen with a manipulated press.

The press is the last bastion of democracy. A free press is the best safeguard against unjust rule. A government is less likely to impose unjust laws when people can openly criticize its decisions. Without that freedom, people cannot be politically free or achieve economic progress.

The right to speak is non-negotiable. It is free for all. Keep media free!

For some background info on the campaign, please check out
FREE 4 ALL.

Labels: media, politics

Since AKBAYAN work towards a government that is honest and accountable, responsive and competent (among other platforms), it's pretty crystal clear, by their protest action, where the administration stands. Actually, anyone can see that it's been falling flat on its face, and the Denial Queen behind it has been flailing that light saber of hers with about as much flair as, say, that schoolyard bully you once knew who felt entitled to step all over you, just because. PP 1017 or none, she'll have your ass because her government is the Fight Club. And the first rule is, you do not talk about the Fight Club.

For Rep. Risa Hontiveros to undergo a violent arrest during the International Women's Day march is just inconceivable.

Rep. Hontiveros on her arrest:

"It is not enough to say that women are ashamed of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. Her underhanded draconian tactics betray her capacity to be the next Marcos. Does this arrest mean that protesting against her anti-women policies is tantamount to rebellion?"

"That a member of this institution had been arrested despite parliamentary immunity shows the disregard of GMA with the independence of Congress. The government now feels that it may pluck out members of the opposition from Congress, prevent them from performing their duties to their constituents, and silence whatever democratic opposition there is in the country."

Labels: governance, politics