I just read this interesting article about how Africa (and yes, the author does point out that Africa is an extremely diverse continent and not a single country or even a generally unified continent) is rising. It is developing a middle class, and it is beginning to take control of its natural resources and profit from them. The continent is beginning to recover from the centuries of abuse and plundering by Europeans, and it is beginning to take charge of its people in a responsible fashion. Touching on the diversity issue, the continent runs from countries like Egypt and Libya, which are really much more Middle Eastern in culture, to Madagascar, which is still pretty wild, to Ghana, which is highly educated, to Somalia, which is ravaged by famine. If the African countries are beginning to pull it together, I salute them, and I encourage them. Europe is certainly struggling, and it is interesting to watch these long-standing colonies of places like Brazil and India develop into strong countries of their own.
On a related yet unfortunate note, I just read Charlayne Hunter-Gault's article "Violated Hopes" in The New Yorker's May 28, 2012, edition. It focuses on the prevalence of rape of lesbians in South Africa. I feel that by now, it is fairly well-known that South Africa has the highest rate of rapes in the world. According to the article, in South Africa, a woman is raped every seventeen seconds, and obviously, the majority of rapes go unreported (one person speculated the report-rate is 1:9). What is interesting is that, on its books, South Africa has progressive laws: Following Mandela's 1996 election and sweeping reforms, "equality laws were tested and upheld in the courts, leading to equal protection for gays in the workplace. Sodomy laws were overturned. L.G.B.T.s gained rights in adoption, immigration, inheritance, and medical aid. they were permitted to serve openly in the military, and to have their sex change recognized on identity documents. The constitution mandated the creation of several state institutions to protect equal rights, including the Commission for Gender Equality and the South African Human Rights Commission. In the fall of 2004, in response to an application brought by a lesbian couple, the Supreme Court of Appeal ruled that the common-law definition of marriage must include same-sex marriage. In December, 2005, the Constitutional Court made any inferior status imposed on same-sex partners unconstitutional." Then, as recently as 2011, South Africa introduced and voted for a resolution at the UN Human Rights Council to end "acts of violence and discrimination, in all regions of the world, committed against individuals because of their sexual orientation and general identity." Despite these VERY progressive laws and public stances, South African men are raping South African lesbians in an attempt to "correct" them. Women are being beaten, stabbed, and gang-raped. Even when they report the abuse to the police, the police often do very little. If the perpetrator is put on trial, there are accounts where he refuses to recant. Obviously, the danger is heightened even more considering the prevalence of HIV in South Africa and the belief that if a man has sex with a virgin woman, he will cure himself of HIV.
Considering these two stories together, if South Africa wants to move onto a major economic stage and continue growing as a viable power, it will have to improve its rape (and murder, which I didn't even touch on) record/rate. At this point, companies have no reason to move any of its current workers and their families to a country to be assaulted or murdered. Additionally, unless it can verify the safety of its workers, the company will risk the world judging its policies purely by its location in such a violent place. However, the argument is to be made that, if major companies begin moving into South Africa, they can begin changing the environment there and creating a safer country by providing people with "things they don't want to lose." We know, as a societies, that people who have nothing to lose will commit crimes because the threat of jail or the like serves no deterrent. However, if these people progress to having secure jobs and increasing their livelihoods, then they will have skin in the game and not want to lose it. Additionally, if lesbians become part of the workforce, they might be seen then as productive members of society and workplace partners, as opposed to outsiders or people to be victimized. Furthermore, with more employment, people will have more of their time occupied, which then will also lead to lower crime: they just won't have the time. All just thoughts . . . it's worth keeping these developments on the radar.
On a related yet unfortunate note, I just read Charlayne Hunter-Gault's article "Violated Hopes" in The New Yorker's May 28, 2012, edition. It focuses on the prevalence of rape of lesbians in South Africa. I feel that by now, it is fairly well-known that South Africa has the highest rate of rapes in the world. According to the article, in South Africa, a woman is raped every seventeen seconds, and obviously, the majority of rapes go unreported (one person speculated the report-rate is 1:9). What is interesting is that, on its books, South Africa has progressive laws: Following Mandela's 1996 election and sweeping reforms, "equality laws were tested and upheld in the courts, leading to equal protection for gays in the workplace. Sodomy laws were overturned. L.G.B.T.s gained rights in adoption, immigration, inheritance, and medical aid. they were permitted to serve openly in the military, and to have their sex change recognized on identity documents. The constitution mandated the creation of several state institutions to protect equal rights, including the Commission for Gender Equality and the South African Human Rights Commission. In the fall of 2004, in response to an application brought by a lesbian couple, the Supreme Court of Appeal ruled that the common-law definition of marriage must include same-sex marriage. In December, 2005, the Constitutional Court made any inferior status imposed on same-sex partners unconstitutional." Then, as recently as 2011, South Africa introduced and voted for a resolution at the UN Human Rights Council to end "acts of violence and discrimination, in all regions of the world, committed against individuals because of their sexual orientation and general identity." Despite these VERY progressive laws and public stances, South African men are raping South African lesbians in an attempt to "correct" them. Women are being beaten, stabbed, and gang-raped. Even when they report the abuse to the police, the police often do very little. If the perpetrator is put on trial, there are accounts where he refuses to recant. Obviously, the danger is heightened even more considering the prevalence of HIV in South Africa and the belief that if a man has sex with a virgin woman, he will cure himself of HIV.
Considering these two stories together, if South Africa wants to move onto a major economic stage and continue growing as a viable power, it will have to improve its rape (and murder, which I didn't even touch on) record/rate. At this point, companies have no reason to move any of its current workers and their families to a country to be assaulted or murdered. Additionally, unless it can verify the safety of its workers, the company will risk the world judging its policies purely by its location in such a violent place. However, the argument is to be made that, if major companies begin moving into South Africa, they can begin changing the environment there and creating a safer country by providing people with "things they don't want to lose." We know, as a societies, that people who have nothing to lose will commit crimes because the threat of jail or the like serves no deterrent. However, if these people progress to having secure jobs and increasing their livelihoods, then they will have skin in the game and not want to lose it. Additionally, if lesbians become part of the workforce, they might be seen then as productive members of society and workplace partners, as opposed to outsiders or people to be victimized. Furthermore, with more employment, people will have more of their time occupied, which then will also lead to lower crime: they just won't have the time. All just thoughts . . . it's worth keeping these developments on the radar.
No comments:
Post a Comment