http://webcast.un.org/ramgen/ondemand...
[link above is to my statement at the UN human rights council today]
so some context for that last photo. today the united states made its report to the united nations human rights council on its response to the "universal periodic review" (UPR) – a new process at UN HRC that reviews the human rights records of countries every four years. i wrote about this back in november when i was in geneva for the beginning of the process (when countries made recommendations to the united states) so have a look back at that if you like.
the photo is from a demonstration in nyc which was in response to a call from sex worker groups to mark this day b/c the united states actually accepted a recommendation from uruguay to address violence and discrimination against sex workers as a human rights issue. the exact text from the US was: "we agree that no one should face violence or discrimination in access to public services based on sexual orientation or their status as a person in prostitution." this was (i believe) the first time that sex workers' rights were affirmed at the UN human rights council. certainly the first time by the US. it represents a shift in policy (or at least language) by the US – they didn't rely on the typical anti-sex work language in the name of anti-trafficking that has marked past US statements on the international level. even when the delegation was discussing the recommendations they received on labor rights and trafficking, they still did not fall back onto the same old line. it is just language, in a way, but like foucault said, language is power, and this represents a real change in power. it is entirely possible that the anti-sex work activists were simply not in the house or not lobbying so maybe we will see a backlash, but (it seems, at least) that we have built some actual relationships at the state department and can leverage that to make some change. which is a phenomenal concept.
as part of the US report today, just as with any UPR report, NGOs had an opportunity to speak (as did states). i was fortunate enough to be one of the ten speakers – which is a story in itself that perhaps i'll tell another day. i tried to find a line between forcefully calling on the government to follow up on its words with actions and making them feel good about what they had done – it seems i may have succeeded, according to both my colleagues and the attitude of the members of the US delegation towards me afterwards. i do have to say that the government made a very impressive effort to be open and transparent with this process, which is exciting by itself. after the report adoption, the US delegation (or some of them at least) had a very intimate sit down meeting with US NGOs and it was a really interesting conversation. i appreciate those who criticized the process and/or the outcomes, as well as the amount of appreciation in the room – the delegation seemed quite willing to take critique and talk about next steps. as much as i might criticize the obama administration, i have to say that i can't imagine anything like this happening under bush or perhaps even clinton (not old enough to really know!) and it's a real testament, in my opinion, that they went about this process in such an open way. for sure there were plenty of problems, but on the average i would say that not only was the process positive but also the outcome.
