Quiero que sepas

Nunca lo he entendido y quiza jamas lo lograre entender--el castellano siempre ha sido para mi el idioma de las emociones. Mas facil expresarlas, mas facil entenderlas, una manera mas bella de expresar todo lo bueno y lo malo de la vida.

Cuando me llamo A. hoy para ir a ver un concierto en un pequeno cafe "sin nombre" al lado de casa me puse de acuerdo simplemente por eso ... estaba al lado de casa y no tenia otra cosa mejor que hacer.

Poco sabia yo que el "programa" llevaba un cantante muy--pero muy--conocida por America Latina. Poco sabia yo que cantaba precisamente sobre los temas sociales que mas me han formado la vida: la migracion, la pobreza, la violencia de genero, las maquiladoras, las desaparecidas, la separacion familial ... la busqueda de una vida mejor.

Me quede con cosqullias, sin palabras y con los ojos mojaditos. Sobre todo cuando canto "Quiero que sepas". No fue solo por la manera tan natural, tan sincera, tan franco en que lo contaba todo por cancion (vamos, mucho mas que en este video), sino tambien porque me hizo recordar por que, hace tantos anos, sentia tanta necesidad de dedicarme la vida a eso.

Tambien por que me hizo recordar lo lejos que estamos aqui de la realidad de tantisima gente--en nuestro cafe acogedor espolvoreado con empleados de las organizaciones internationales en Ginebra, donde todo funciona tal y como debe.

Que lindo es tener estos recordatorios inesperados para volver a ponernos los pies en la tierra. Donde pertenecen. Donde tienen que quedar.

Ladies and gents, we're not there yet

"Other people in the room were looking at you and thinking that you are beautiful, but when I look at you, I not only see your beauty, but I see that you are an angel".

Ladies and gents, does this seem like a normal thing for someone to tell you in a work setting? And no, I'm not talking about your snookums smothering you in these *sweet* words, I'm talking about a total stranger.  Or perhaps we shall refer back to one of the other winner lines this man slipped into a professional conversation, and which I mentioned in my last post ...

"Your speech was absolutely phenomenal, I'm wondering if I might interest you in adapting it to print form for a journal that I publish regularly and submitting it as a guest editorial for our next edition?  Oh, and I also run an on-line dating service?"

Or how about the time when a certain well-known Washington State representative ever so slyly slipped me his business card along with a second, unmarked "personal" card containing only his name and cell phone after I refused his invitation to "chat more up in his room" (we were at the same hotel for a conference) about the people the contacts he could get in touch with to get me an "extremely well paying job" in Washington State politics?

Or perhaps the time when, in the middle of a business meeting where we were supposedly discussing the financial terms for running publicity, the bank CEO begins telling me "what beautiful eyes" I have and how they "match so nicely with my earrings" ... only to be followed by a barrage of half questions-half accusations about how "women like me" shouldn't be in the business world, they should be "at home, raising just as beautiful children and looking after themselves".

Leaving aside American electoral politics, in which so many seem to think that women will quickly switch from one party to the next simply to support a woman (of course there's no logical, intelligent reasoning behind womens' decisions!) ... there's always the age angle to boot.

"So when did you get out of school?"  "How old are you, if I can ask?" Come on, I may be young, but would you really ask this question to anyone else??  I get these questions quite literally at least once a week. I have to wonder, as well ... why is it that the vast majority of interns in this town are female ... when the vast majority of top posts in the field are filled by men? My theory after some serious observation, the men are hired on permanent contracts, the women are hired as interns.

Ahhh, and lest we forget that sexism is not soley found in the workplace, I just about turned around and knocked the wind out of a guy that was kissing to me the other day.  I'm used to the comments, the whistles, etc, (not that I care at all for it either), but come on, kissing?? You kiss to your dog to tell it to come, you don't kiss to women walking down the street.  Then there was the guy that literally came up and grabbed me by the shoulders at the train station yesterday. I swear to high heaven that I DID punch him good in the chest (ok, so maybe not the most effective target area, but I wasn't really thinking straight either). And then there was the guy who would have done God knows what in the dark tunnels of the catacombs in Paris last year if a group of people hadn't walked up right at that very second. I still shudder when I think how "close of a call" that was ... and wish I would have punched him where it counts and/or reported him ... for my own sake and that of any other women traveling through there on their own.

We talk about gender equality, we talk about equality in the workplace, but I can absolutely guarantee you beyond a shadow of doubt that we are not there yet.  I have absolutely nothing against men, but you can bet your bottom dollar that I have something BIG against those, including women, who somehow think that, because of one's gender, because of one's age, they can say, do or ask things that they would never dream of in the face of someone older and, quite frankly, male.

I, for one, have had enough.

"It sounds rather Orwellian..."

This week and next, the UN Committee on Migrant Workers is meeting to review the extent to which (in this round of reviews) Azerbaijan, Bolivia, Colombia, El Salvador and Syria are fullfilling (or not) their obligations under the Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families. An interesting process at least, it provides an opportunity for NGOs and other individuals to present complaints and questions to the governments themselves about the way in which migrant rigths are being protected. What follows is admittedly an "old" newsflash (from May 2006), and yet, as we see right-winged anti-immigrant Berlusconi return to the throne in Italy today, and the way in which DNA testing is used in migration family reunification contexts, I shudder to wonder just when we may see the micro-chip suggestion brought to the table yet again ....

REPORT: COLOMBIAN PRESIDENT WOULD CONSIDER IMMIGRANT TRACKING WITH MICROCHIPS

AP Thursday May 04, 2006

BOGOTA, Colombia —

Comments attributed to Colombia's president that microchip implants could be used to track Colombians working temporarily in the U.S. drew attention — and criticism — Thursday. The alleged statement by President Alfaro Uribe dismayed some Colombians after it appeared in Colombian newspapers.

"It would be a blatant violation of human rights," said Jorge Pinilla, 50, a lawyer in Bogota. Details of Uribe's conversation last month with U.S. lawmakers were revealed by Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania in a report he read into the congressional record last week.

Specter and Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama met with Uribe, the United States' staunchest ally in Latin America, during their visit to Colombia on April 7-9. During the informal meeting, Specter expressed concerns about seasonal workers who immigrate to the United States to work temporarily on farms and then don't return to their country once their visa has elapsed.

"President Uribe said he would consider having Colombian workers have microchips implanted into their bodies before they are permitted to enter the United States to work on a seasonal basis," said Specter in a speech entered to the Congressional record April 25. "I doubted whether the implantation of microchips would be effective since the immigrant worker might be able to remove them."

Uribe on Thursday refused to say whether he proposed microchip implants, acknowledging only that he encouraged the senators to replace "draconian" immigration laws with a temporary work program that treats Colombian workers humanely, like one the country already shares with Spain and Canada. "If the United States, with all its technology, computers and chips, doesn't have the means to know who enters or leaves the country then where are we?" he said during an interview on City TV.

The offices of Specter and Sessions did not return calls seeking comment on their meeting with Uribe. Uribe's alleged comments, which dominated the airwaves Thursday, were unpopular with some Colombians.

"If the United States wants to prevent illegal immigrants from entering the country, they should find a better way than treating humans like animals," said Diana Lozano, an architecture student. Using microchips the size of a grain of rice to track the movement of cattle is nothing new. There has been some marketing of the microchips for human use as a way to control access to secure areas and keep tabs on some criminals, but not for immigration.

"It sounds rather Orwellian," said John Keeley, spokesman for the Center for Immigrations Studies in Washington. "In a Star Trek-kind of future, 20-40 years down the road, we might need to consider this, but it's not germane to the contemporary immigration debate." An estimated 1.5 million Colombians live in the United States and scores more have considered migrating north to escape economic hardship or the country's four-decade civil war.

Quantifying life

It's not the first time that I've run in to the oddities of refugee law and the way it plays out in the everday lives of everyday people.

I distinctly recall being in the office in Barcelona with two asylum seekers from the Ivory Coast, one of which - call him Bob - had been in Barcelona for some time trying to pull together enough documents to make a solid case for asylum and the other - call him George -, recently arrived, having brought all of his documents in a neatly kept folder. George was bemoaning the fact that his mother had just passed away and he was unable to return for her funeral, Bob minced no words as he told him to shut up ... "at least his mother got a funeral". Bob then leaned over and told me that it's a good thing this isn't Africa; otherwise he would kill him (George) right now.

You see, Bob's entire village, including all his family and friends, were wiped out in the genocide and, because he had fled with no notice, he had no documents - no birth or wedding certificates, no passport to show to facilitate the asylum process. George - though there is no evidence that he carried out any killings himself - was on the "guerilla" side ... the side who was told exactly what documents to bring and present so that their request for asylum in Europe would be quickly processed. When I left Barcelona, George had acquired refugee status (in 7 months, no less), while Bob was still awaiting a decision.

Needless to say, these memories came to mind when I was at a UNHCR deployee training last week, as we we lectured on the criteria for refugee status eligibility. Instigators of "crimes against humanity", for example, are never eligible to be granted refugee status. The question, however, is just HOW you define "crime against humanity".

Imagine, for instance, that you have been attacked and taken hostage by a rebel group, along with 20 others from your hometown. The rebels pull you out of the group, lead you in front of everyone, hold a gun to your head and order you to shoot the other hostages. Never, in a million years, would you dream of doing such a thing, yet the gun gets pressed harder into your temple and you make the desperate - and perhaps selfish - decision to shoot as ordered in order to save your own life. Your life is saved; you've just killed your fellow hostages; and you've just committed a "crime against humanity".

Why? Because international law has quantified lives. In a sheer game of numbers, you being shot and killed is but one life lost. You killing two, three, five, ten people means that many more lives were lost and, since it would be impossible to say who's live was more important, the decision dissolves into mere numbers. Better to lose one life than multiple. Never mind acts of self defense nor the very real possibility that the others would have been killed eventually anyhow.

Indeed, with all of our laws, standards, protocols, declarations, resolutions, decisions ... with all of our nobley intentioned legal frameworks we have attempted to protect and defend humanity, but is it really possible to fit the impossibilities of reality into stark, man-made definitions?