Human Rights Standards in the Courts Are an Oxymoron: Observations of a CSO Rep at IMF/WB Spring Mtgs – Part 35

As seen in my last blog, Bowing & Scraping by Feminists in “This Town:” While Death Tolls Mount, la vie en Rose construct that all of the NGOs in Washington (and other capitals across the Pond) are propagating is heightening the oppression of women (and their children) by misogynistic courts. In the Washington Post news article Celebvocate: Kelly Rutherford on equal rights in family court, “Rutherford told the audience that women stop her on the street and start crying, saying they’re afraid to leave bad marriages because of stories like hers.” And, this is exactly what the male-supremacists (financially backed by the Koch brothers and other 1%ers) under the guise of father’s rights groups, has intended with their manipulations within the media, press, and networks throughout the legal and political community in the USA for decades. The misogynistic rhetoric propagated by the press in the USA at present is horrific and overt, as shown in the case of ABC’s 20/20 (see my blog Lawlessness & Femicide in America), as well as in the case of Sean Penn, and his famous El Chapo Speaks article, and my ensuing bellowing blogs on his behalf, starting with El Chapo, Sean Penn & the Failed War on Drugs.

While there is much cheerleading going on in the world by NGOs, governments, and “famous” people regarding women’s rights, violence against women, and empowering women, the rhetoric is most decidedly not being translated into reality by anyone. I have been “playing” with the major actors in these three arenas for the past decade, soliciting their assistance with absolutely no results. My case is really quite simple I wanted to start a company. My ex-husband did not. So the courts complied with his every wish, and misappropriated all of my assets and property, threw me on the street with nothing, forced me to flee the country in fear for my safety and security, and prohibited me all contact with my children since 2008. Lawyers and judges in my case have consistently worked in collusion to defraud and silence my “dissent.” All of the divorce proceedings, 2007-2012, were completely illegal (see table below), with the Bar Association of Madrid (Colegio de Abogados) laughably claiming it is the “right” of lawyers to violated the rights of women in Spain under the “principle of judicial independence.” And, since NGOs, like Women’s Link Worldwide are only concerned with defending the rights of “working women”—prostitutes like Beauty Solomon—women, like me, have no rights. (My question for Women’s Link Worldwide remains—if I end up a prostitute, like my ex-husband kept on threatening me that I would if I left him, will Women’s Link Worldwide, then defend me when the police illegally arrest and harass me? Or, are “homemakers” so “tainted” that even if they become prostitutes, and “real” working women, they are not “redeemed” in the eyes of the law?)

The business model I was developing for my website is now called a “local-search directory” (and is a cross between www.tripadvisor.com and www.yelp.com). These business models are generating millions, and even billions, in revenues, as well as thousands of jobs. However, since Silicon Valley, and all of the CVs throughout the USA and Europe, only want to fund their good ol’ buddy networks, and really have no idea what SDGs are, nor care to know; none of the investors are interested in anything other than “high-tech” projects. That is why funneling SDGs monies through the Mike Milken good ol’ boy networks—the same networks which have created previous crash-n-burn financial bubbles—is so worrisome and dangerous. 

So, according to everyone in Washington, not only do I not know anything about anything in relation to socio-economic development, marketing, or challenges of the expat family; but I, my research, work and knowledge, are totally useless and unmarketable in the present work-force, regarding women’s rights, human rights, domestic violence, or my extensive administrative skills—all because I am a divorcee and have been “marginalized” by corrupt courts. As noted in my blog, Ethical Questions in Gender-neutrality & Favoritism, the labor-market, in its alpha-male construct, is so discriminatory against divorcees, that a back-stabbing USELESS (IMMIGRANT) IMF trailing spouse, (Anne-Beatrix Keller) was given a cushy job as Director of Development in a local NGO (a Ralph Nader initiative to boot,) when no one in the same job market will give the COMPETENT and HONEST AMERICAN WOMAN a job. I am one of the most highly qualified person in DC for a wide, wide variety of jobs, but since I am an AMERICAN, WHITE WOMAN, I am only eligible for menial work where I am belittled, berated, denigrated and even constantly threatened. (What is so comical is that the concept behind www.global-xpats.com is to be a “consumer protection agency” for expats, yet my Nemesis ends up with the Nader NGO.) Then to add insult to injury, the HR personnel in the IMF after “ousting” me from ICD, “black-listed” me in my application for 3 different positions. As seen in my personal case, “empowering” women in society, involves a little more than giving speeches and writing reports by the “important” people of the world. As the old adage states, “charity begins at home.” And, until, and unless, organizations such as the IMF, World Bank, UN, etc. implement democratic and progressive management styles into their daily inner workings, they will never be able to train or advise others to do so.  

However, those threatened by my efforts to combat the inertia and apathy in Washington, are not only within the IMF and GWU, even the women’s rights NGOs in DC are totally uninterested in anything which would “rock the boat” and stop the partying in “This Town”—see my blog The Emperor & His Entourage are “Buck-naked” in “This Town,” (in which Judith Lichtman and Debra Ness of the National Partnership for Women & Families were awarded the Ostrich, Toad, Bellowing-cow Award.

The conciliatory, apathetic nature of everyone in the NGOs in Washington (and across the Pond) at present is exactly the conciliatory nature Dr. Justin Frank criticizes Obama for in his book, Obama on the Couch. And, it is precisely this same conciliatory, indecisiveness that permeates and dominates Washington at present. This is why the women’s rights “Revolution” is “Stalled.” In my last blog, Bowing & Scraping by Feminist in “This Town,” the UN report Progress of the World’s Women 2015-2016, Transforming Economies, Realizing Rights, was examined, demonstrating that the “gaps” of knowledge at the UN, World Bank and IMF regarding gender issues are the size of the Grand Canyon. And, it necessitates Evil Knievel type efforts to “bridge the gaps” in the gaping holes of gender and women’s issue at the UN, IMF, World Bank, and other international organizations.  

So in continuation of the examination of the UN’s report on “transforming economies and realizing rights” for women, and using a case study being prepared for the Committee on Elimination of Discrimination of Against Women, CEDAW, I analyze the rhetoric vs. reality of the situation.   

The “reforms” in family law in the USA, in the past decades, have been plagued by a feminist movement that “dropped the ball” on women’s private rights, and instead “bought into” an alpha-linear construct that, not only denigrates women, but devalues them and their contribution to society with their work within the home, family and marriage. The situation has been further aggravated by male supremacists lobbying of the legal community, as well as politicians with misogynist rhetoric pushing legislation favoring men, and father’s rights. The patriarchal la vie en Rose/Wonderland of Alice construct of the male supremacists, propagated and distributed by family courts has been in large part responsible for the present paradigm; a paradigm where the world is truly “in reverse.” This is why the assumption that the Western women’s rights movement of the past decades has been “positive” is false.

What factors determine the disposition of the state toward family law reform? Analysis reveals that there is a powerful association between the character of the state-religion relationship and the degree of gender equality in family law. In countries where the state plays an active role in, upholding religious practices, doctrines and institutions, family law tends to discriminate against women. In contexts where political and ecclesiastical institutions are more separated, family law tends to be more egalitarian. This is not to suggest that religions are inherently patriarchal; they are only historically so (as are most secular traditions). The key finding is that religious doctrine is less likely to evolve and adapt to changing social practices where it is upheld by the state. In such contexts patriarchal interpretations of religion get frozen, and it becomes hard to reform family law. Challenges to the religious interpretations endorsed by the law come to be seen as challenges to the entire institutional configuration, binding state power and religious authority.

What the authors of the report, in the passage above, fail to understand, is that the problem of “religious interpretations endorsed by the law come to be seen as challenges to the entire institutional configuration, binding state power and religious authority” is exactly the same in secular “democracies” as in non-secular ones. However, in the case of the West, it is the secular institutions which are binding the state power to an authority which is continually, and systematically, violating the rights of its citizenry, with women and children disproportionately affected. As seen in the case of Erin Eddy (see my blog The Right to Truth, the Obligation to Protect and Universal Jurisdiction), Western courts, and their misogynistic “interpretation” of the law enjoy the same “protection” from the governments, as religious institutions in non-secular countries. The situation for women in the West is further damaged by the fact that their courts are driven by greed and profits, with no regard for citizen’s rights. In religious institutions there are, at least, a pretext of morality and integrity, in efforts to bring order and justice to constituencies. However, in the case of the courts, there is not even an attempt at integrity or honesty. As one of my first lawyers, Maria Fernanda Guerrero Guerrero, told me “everyone lies in Spanish courts. It’s expected.” This is one of the lawyers that the Bar Association of Madrid claims is in her “right” to violate the rights of her clients, and/or any other citizen in Spain of her choosing. As seen in the table above, all of the lawyers in Spain are actively violating the rights of women and children, snubbing their noses at the Spanish Constitution, with the human rights community in Spain, and elsewhere, complacently “watching,” and even refusing to take action with argumentation handed to them on a silver platter. It is not legislation, nor even argumentation, which lawyers lack, it is the will and desire to advance women’s rights that is lacking.

While the West criticizes the Muslim world for not “accepting” Western style democracies. What the present situation demonstrates, is that secular countries, and their governments, are refusing to assume responsibility for functions previously overseen by the religious institutions, leaving these societies, and their economies in shambles. The two major “moral authorities” within societies, the “wife/mother” and the “clergy,” in secular societies have been completely removed, with governments and NGOs, failing miserably in “efforts” to fill those functions. It should be noted that “wives/mothers” and “clergy” are not faced with “conflict of interest” issues due to a lack of financial incentives in their work. However, government agencies and NGOs are not “liberated” from this constraint, and one reason for their present inertia. Additionally, NGOs are completely and totally impotent in fighting court corruption. And government agencies, charged with the responsibility of overseeing the courts, and all the actors in it, are too busy paryting with the NGOs to have time to serve their constituency, nor do they even care about their constituency.

Historical legacies also influence the scope for legal equality. Countries that experienced communist rule often have gender-equal family laws due to communist governments promoting changes in women’s roles in order to encourage full employment and to marginalize religion and traditional cultures.

In the passage above, it is important to note that “encouraging full employment and to marginalize religion and traditional cultures” occurred in “democratic” countries (noting I use that term extremely lightly), as well as the communist countries. And, it precisely the “encouragement of full employment” that has created problems for women in both “blocks,” since courts in both cases have adopted “gender-equal,” misogynistic standards. If one examines the origins of religious movement in the past 2000+ years, they are all in reality social justice movements, centered upon human rights standards. And, while in the Western world, the responsibility for applying these standards has moved from religious to secular structures, the failure of governments to assume responsibility for that role, as seen in Gonzales (Lenahan) vs. USA, and the contention of the American government that “states, and their courts, are out of federal jurisdiction” is RIDICULOUS, and even renders the American government null and void.  

The legacy of British colonialism, by contrast, has been to stymie reform by creating multiple family laws on the basis of cultural identities of the communities lumped together in post-colonial States. The existence of plural legal systems based on cultural or religious identity can pose particular challenges to women seeking justice.

 Even where progress towards equality in family laws has been achieved, sustaining this progress can be challenging, especially in countries where conservative forces and extremist groups that resist gender equality are gaining ground. These groups, in developed and developing countries alike, misuse religion, tradition and culture to reshape laws, state institutions and social norms to curtail women’s and girls’ human rights and entrench stereotypical gender roles, both within the ‘private sphere’ as well as in public life.

What is disquieting in the passage above is that even when “progress towards equality in family law has been achieved,” in a country—is that “progress” is not “progress,” but rather regression. As explained at the beginning of the blog “progress” in “women’s rights” in the West has NOT been progress, but rather has rendered women slaves to their husbands, family, and society. The only “rights” women have gained in the past 50 years have been in relation to labor law—rendering women even more burdens of beast than before. Not only are women paid a substantial lower rate for the same work as men, but they are still supposed to fulfill their former roles as wives and mothers, with no rights within the home or marriage; with any dissent draconically silenced by the courts and society (see the case of Erin Eddy in New Jersey (The Right to Truth, the Obligation to Protect, and Universal Jurisdiction, and the case of Maria Jose Carrascosa in New Jersey, In Defense of Maria Jose Carrascosa: Rights Are No Rights Unless Protected and Defended, and my own against Spain. Progress in advancing women’s rights in the West has NOT been achieved, and the interpretations of “family law” in western countries the past 50 years has been under a construct of jurisprudence built by misogynistic courts, misogynistic lawyers, and misogynist judges, and has done more to SOLIDIFY THE OPPRESSION of women in societies around the world than liberate them. The only women in the world left with any semblance of rights are those countries where religion oversees the family and marriage (ie. non-secular countries). In secular countries governments claim “jurisdiction” of the family and marriage in their constitutions (and civil codes in the case of Spain) but then disclaim any “responsibility” for those courts when they start violating the rights of women and children—as seen in the case of the American government’s response to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Gonzales (Lenahan) vs. USA. (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4I9d72v3kw ) 

To resist this rollback and make it clear that culture and religion cannot be a justification for the violation of rights, alliances between women’s rights advocates and other like-minded forces, whether in government or in national and global civil society, are key.

As seen the “key” to advancing women’s rights, and thereby empowering her lie in “alliances between women’s rights advocates” and actors within government agencies and NGOs. However, since all of the actors in these organizations are too busy partying and snubbing their noses at women and children “alliance building” with anyone serious about advancing women’s rights is impossible for the simple fact that women’s rights advocates don’t exist. Many 1%ers women’s rights organizations and advocates exist. However, the other 99% of the women in the world are left out in the cold to starve with their children—with lawyers, and their bed-fellows the bankers, laughing all the way to the bank.

So today my Ostrich/Toad/Bellowing-cow Award goes to Walter & Ann Pincus, formerly of the Washington Post. While the Washington Post will cover a story about Kelly Rutherford divorce and fight for rights in the courts, because she is an actress, and is a “protected” group of the 1%ers. They will not cover a story about someone who is REALLY fighting for women’s and children’s rights in the courts. In 1981, when I first came to DC as an intern for former Senator J. Bennett Johnston (D-LA), I rented a basement apartment from Walter Pincus and his wife. In 2007, out of desperation to seek help from the press in the USA (since my Consulate in Madrid was ignoring me and refusing to assist me), I called Walter Pincus’s home and spoke with his wife—telling her that my life was in serious danger, and the courts and my Consulate were doing everything in their power to cover-up everything.

Pincus's wife was ''not interested', told me to contact the Associated Press who might pick-up the story (before my demise), and hung up. I spoke with her again in February of 2016 regarding my CEDAW case (as well as the Sean Penn Affair), and she brushed me off with “oh yes, the divorce in Spain,” and again hung up. I was flabbergast. It has been almost a decade from my original phone call, (from a woman fighting for her life) and now I am taking my case to the international courts; yet for Walter Pincus and his wife, this is “just a divorce.” This is exactly the type of mentality, and lack of concern for one’s fellow man (or woman) that women and children have no rights in the courts. It also goes to show that the Washington Post is only interested in stories about actress and “famous people,” rather than any real “news.”