Request for contributions
We are working with our Ugandan partners towards holding an International symposium on child mutilation and Sacrifice in July 2014 in Uganda. Any contributions can be send to africaoutreach(at)gmail.com Donations towards this worthy cause are also highly appreciated as our budget is very limited this can be done by paypal to the same email address or by international transfer to the Afrika Zending account in The Netherlands:
Name beneficiary: Stichting Afrika Zending (Africa Outreach)
Address beneficiary: Leeuwenberg 2
Postal code: 2641 MD
City: Pijnacker
Country: The Netherlands
Account number beneficary: 5795209
IBAN beneficiary: NL15 INGB 0005 7952 09
Bank beneficiary: ING Bank
Bank address: FINANCIAL PLAZA BIJLMERDREEF 109
Postal code: 1102 BW
City: Amsterdam
Country: NETHERLANDS
BIC/SWIFT code: INGBNL2A
Please mention the project for which you send a donation (choose below):
- Support African missionaries
- Symposium Uganda
- Anti-child sacrifice/mutilation campaign Uganda
- Safe house victims of ritual abuse Uganda
- Anti-child witchcraft accusations campaign
- Safe house sexually abused children and youths Malawi
- Safe house victims of child witchcraft accusations Malawi
- Development low-cost distance learning Bible College for Africa
- General
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
The tragedy of the ‘brain drain’ in evangelical theological education in Africa
The tragedy of the ‘brain drain’ in evangelical theological education in Africa
For many decades evangelical theological education has been promoted in Africa in order to produce leaders who can effectively disciple people so that they get a better grasp of the Gospel and the teachings of Christ. To some extend this drive has been successful and where there were only a handful of evangelical theologians in Africa with a PhD only three decades ago, today there are many more. However, all is not as rosy as it may seem. Evangelical PhD graduate face enormous difficulties once they leave seminary or university. They are confronted with family members who have been investing in them for 12 years or more so that they could complete their studies and who now have high financial expectations. There may be loans to be repaid as well.
Some were confronted with political violence, repression and censorship but also treated with suspicion by less educated fellow-Africans in our churches and less-educated missionary colleagues who perceived them as a threat to their position of authority. While all of the African Evangelical theologians I know were dreaming of contributing significantly to theological training in Africa, the realities on the ground made it very difficult for them. In many of our Bible colleges and theological institutions they were mistreated as second-class teachers because they needed a salary while their western colleagues proudly presented themselves as offering their services for ‘’free’’ in spite of receiving a much higher income and driving around in big landrovers or landcruisers while their poor African colleague had to use local transport. In spite of struggling to make a living with small salaries of 500 US$ or less per month without medical aid or hope for a future pension these African Evangelical theologians carried heavier workloads than their western colleagues and yet they were so much more effective in teaching, preaching and social outreach.
I have witnessed first hand how some plodded on for years, lecturing and preaching, and even managed to write some theological articles, start new projects and conduct many leadership seminars in their churches. However, eventually the strain became too much and started to take a heavy toll on their health, marriages and families. As a result many of them ended up leaving Africa with heavy hearts to take up lowly but better paying secular jobs in the west in order to make ends meet. For example the four evangelical PhD’s that I personally knew in Zimbabwe, only one has managed to remain in Africa and he is teaching mostly middle-class white students at a relatively well-to-do Bible college in Cape Town, South Africa. The most brilliant of them with a PhD from Aberdeen University and one of the most intelligent persons I have met in life is now a part-time community worker in a village in Scotland. As much as the others would have loved to continue to the spiritual growth of the church in Africa, they were simply not empowered to do so. Although all of them made great personal sacrifices, in the end they had no choice but to emigrate to the West so that at least they could do well in their most important ministry and that is looking after their families.Doing jobs way below their abilities they are now at least able to take care of their families and to build up a small pension for the future.
It is very easy for someone who has not experienced the poverty and the humiliation they have experienced to judge them, after all we do not have to worry about how to feed our families, pay for our children's school fees or whether we will retire in abject poverty. Nevertheless, the truth of the matter is that they work in the diaspora, not because they wanted to leave Africa or wanted to leave theological education, they were simply failed by the failure of their rich fellow Evangelicals in the West to support and empower them. This applies to their missionary colleagues who closed their eyes to the needs of their African colleagues and did not share their riches (1 John 3:17), but also to the rich body of Christ in the West. Considering the amount of funds available within western evangelicalism it would have been possible to provide each African Evangelical PhD Theologian with a stipend of 1500 $ per month which would have been enough for them to continue to do their work in Africa with joy and which would have been only a fraction of supporting a less effective western missionary with the same credentials (2 Cor. 8:7-15; 1Tim. 6:17-19).
Dr. Erwin van der Meer, The Hague, Netherlands
For many decades evangelical theological education has been promoted in Africa in order to produce leaders who can effectively disciple people so that they get a better grasp of the Gospel and the teachings of Christ. To some extend this drive has been successful and where there were only a handful of evangelical theologians in Africa with a PhD only three decades ago, today there are many more. However, all is not as rosy as it may seem. Evangelical PhD graduate face enormous difficulties once they leave seminary or university. They are confronted with family members who have been investing in them for 12 years or more so that they could complete their studies and who now have high financial expectations. There may be loans to be repaid as well.
Some were confronted with political violence, repression and censorship but also treated with suspicion by less educated fellow-Africans in our churches and less-educated missionary colleagues who perceived them as a threat to their position of authority. While all of the African Evangelical theologians I know were dreaming of contributing significantly to theological training in Africa, the realities on the ground made it very difficult for them. In many of our Bible colleges and theological institutions they were mistreated as second-class teachers because they needed a salary while their western colleagues proudly presented themselves as offering their services for ‘’free’’ in spite of receiving a much higher income and driving around in big landrovers or landcruisers while their poor African colleague had to use local transport. In spite of struggling to make a living with small salaries of 500 US$ or less per month without medical aid or hope for a future pension these African Evangelical theologians carried heavier workloads than their western colleagues and yet they were so much more effective in teaching, preaching and social outreach.
I have witnessed first hand how some plodded on for years, lecturing and preaching, and even managed to write some theological articles, start new projects and conduct many leadership seminars in their churches. However, eventually the strain became too much and started to take a heavy toll on their health, marriages and families. As a result many of them ended up leaving Africa with heavy hearts to take up lowly but better paying secular jobs in the west in order to make ends meet. For example the four evangelical PhD’s that I personally knew in Zimbabwe, only one has managed to remain in Africa and he is teaching mostly middle-class white students at a relatively well-to-do Bible college in Cape Town, South Africa. The most brilliant of them with a PhD from Aberdeen University and one of the most intelligent persons I have met in life is now a part-time community worker in a village in Scotland. As much as the others would have loved to continue to the spiritual growth of the church in Africa, they were simply not empowered to do so. Although all of them made great personal sacrifices, in the end they had no choice but to emigrate to the West so that at least they could do well in their most important ministry and that is looking after their families.Doing jobs way below their abilities they are now at least able to take care of their families and to build up a small pension for the future.
It is very easy for someone who has not experienced the poverty and the humiliation they have experienced to judge them, after all we do not have to worry about how to feed our families, pay for our children's school fees or whether we will retire in abject poverty. Nevertheless, the truth of the matter is that they work in the diaspora, not because they wanted to leave Africa or wanted to leave theological education, they were simply failed by the failure of their rich fellow Evangelicals in the West to support and empower them. This applies to their missionary colleagues who closed their eyes to the needs of their African colleagues and did not share their riches (1 John 3:17), but also to the rich body of Christ in the West. Considering the amount of funds available within western evangelicalism it would have been possible to provide each African Evangelical PhD Theologian with a stipend of 1500 $ per month which would have been enough for them to continue to do their work in Africa with joy and which would have been only a fraction of supporting a less effective western missionary with the same credentials (2 Cor. 8:7-15; 1Tim. 6:17-19).
Dr. Erwin van der Meer, The Hague, Netherlands
Thursday, July 4, 2013
Thoughts about de-constructing the evil-self image of abused ‘witch children’
Thoughts about de-constructing the evil-self image of abused ‘witch children’
For the so-called ‘witch children’ and other abused children it is often easier for them to accept that they are indeed witches than to accept that they are innocent and have been victims of abuse. They have been dehumanized so that they no longer see themselves as valuable human beings but have adopted the 'witch' identity imposed on them by the abusers. Jewish victims within the Nazi death camps were not only tortured, starved and killed, there was also a systematic attempt to destroy their self-image and sense of identity and being unable to resist the perpetrators of abuse many victims turned to self-hatred (Herman 1997:92-95). Children who have been abused are even more vulnerable than adults to indoctrination because their identity was not yet fully formed by the time the abuse took place. A child entrapped in the horror of being accused of being a witch or in other forms of child abuse may due to the severity of the abuse develop the belief that he or she is somehow responsible for the crimes of the abusers. "Surely if the most powerful people in his or her life do such terrible things to me, I must be thoroughly evil" (Herman 1997:105). Survivors of severe childhood abuse may think of themselves in terms of what they consider ultimate evil or filth, such as witches, vampires, satanists, prostitutes, whores, dogs, rats or snakes or whatever is considered the ultimate evil or filth in their cultural context(ibid).
It is important for any counselor involved in counseling such severely traumatized children to know that they may have developed a stigmatized identity whereby in an attempt to make sense of an otherwise senseless situation and have internalized the evil of the abuser. Even after the child is brought into a safe environment this inner sense of badness does not automatically disappear as it has been integrated into the child’s personality structure. As a result the survivors of such abuse continue to view themselves with contempt, carrying the shame and guilt of the abusers upon their shoulders (ibid). Outwardly the child may be working very hard to appear good and display an almost perfectionist zeal and yet inwardly loathe him or herself. It is essential to help the child to overcome the sense of being evil and bad, and learns to accept that the evil and bad was done to him/her.
It is not easy to undo witch-indoctrination in a culture in which the prevailing belief-system affirms the existence of witches and interprets most disasters, illnesses, deaths and misfortunes to the activities of witches. A young orphan who has been brought up in this context and loses his or her parents due to the HIV/AIDS pandemic will need very little coercion to be convinced by the relatives or community that he or she is the witch responsible for the death of the parents. Already traumatized by the loss of the parents and in desperate need to placate the powerful adults in his or her life the child will quickly agree to every accusation in the vain hope that this well bring an end to hostilities and bring the protection, care, love and affection he or she craves for. For the child to construct a more positive sense of self it is essential not to just deal with the physical and psychological effects of the abuse but to address the underlying worldview which provided the rationale for the abuse and which still holds the victim mentally captive in a sense of guilt, shame and self-loathing.
Erwin van der Meer
- Herman, Judith Lewis 1997. Trauma and Recovery. London: Pandora.
For the so-called ‘witch children’ and other abused children it is often easier for them to accept that they are indeed witches than to accept that they are innocent and have been victims of abuse. They have been dehumanized so that they no longer see themselves as valuable human beings but have adopted the 'witch' identity imposed on them by the abusers. Jewish victims within the Nazi death camps were not only tortured, starved and killed, there was also a systematic attempt to destroy their self-image and sense of identity and being unable to resist the perpetrators of abuse many victims turned to self-hatred (Herman 1997:92-95). Children who have been abused are even more vulnerable than adults to indoctrination because their identity was not yet fully formed by the time the abuse took place. A child entrapped in the horror of being accused of being a witch or in other forms of child abuse may due to the severity of the abuse develop the belief that he or she is somehow responsible for the crimes of the abusers. "Surely if the most powerful people in his or her life do such terrible things to me, I must be thoroughly evil" (Herman 1997:105). Survivors of severe childhood abuse may think of themselves in terms of what they consider ultimate evil or filth, such as witches, vampires, satanists, prostitutes, whores, dogs, rats or snakes or whatever is considered the ultimate evil or filth in their cultural context(ibid).
It is important for any counselor involved in counseling such severely traumatized children to know that they may have developed a stigmatized identity whereby in an attempt to make sense of an otherwise senseless situation and have internalized the evil of the abuser. Even after the child is brought into a safe environment this inner sense of badness does not automatically disappear as it has been integrated into the child’s personality structure. As a result the survivors of such abuse continue to view themselves with contempt, carrying the shame and guilt of the abusers upon their shoulders (ibid). Outwardly the child may be working very hard to appear good and display an almost perfectionist zeal and yet inwardly loathe him or herself. It is essential to help the child to overcome the sense of being evil and bad, and learns to accept that the evil and bad was done to him/her.
It is not easy to undo witch-indoctrination in a culture in which the prevailing belief-system affirms the existence of witches and interprets most disasters, illnesses, deaths and misfortunes to the activities of witches. A young orphan who has been brought up in this context and loses his or her parents due to the HIV/AIDS pandemic will need very little coercion to be convinced by the relatives or community that he or she is the witch responsible for the death of the parents. Already traumatized by the loss of the parents and in desperate need to placate the powerful adults in his or her life the child will quickly agree to every accusation in the vain hope that this well bring an end to hostilities and bring the protection, care, love and affection he or she craves for. For the child to construct a more positive sense of self it is essential not to just deal with the physical and psychological effects of the abuse but to address the underlying worldview which provided the rationale for the abuse and which still holds the victim mentally captive in a sense of guilt, shame and self-loathing.
Erwin van der Meer
- Herman, Judith Lewis 1997. Trauma and Recovery. London: Pandora.
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Evil thrives when 'good' people do nothing
Evil thrives when ‘good’ people choose to be quiet
I was recently confronted by the plight of a young Iranian Christian woman who was refused permission to stay in the Netherlands by the Netherlands Immigration authorities. Having been a victim of oppression and a refugee myself I reflected on what this means for me as someone with a Netherlands nationality.
We live a world marked by serious economic inequalities, ruthless and irresponsible pursuit of personal gain, sexual abuse, political oppression, armed conflict, psychological abuse, violence, pollution, ecological disasters and so on. In such an unsafe world we seek to protect our fragile cultural and national identities in our collective pursuit for peace, harmony and happiness. Unfortunately we often do so to the exclusion of others who have a different cultural, social or national background. Many rich European nations therefore make it very hard for poor citizens of other nations to settle in Europe.
The legitimate desire to protect our collective interest often results in human rights abuses. Of course when we send oppressed minorities back to their home countries such as Christian Iranians back to the religiously oppressive Islamist context of Iran, or Zimbabwean democrats back to the politically oppressive context of Zimbabwe we do so in agreement with the national, international laws we largely designed ourselves. However, we must be aware that there is a world of difference between morality and legality. Not every law we have designed is morally just and not every application of the law is morally justifiable in the light of the moral values and ethical assumptions behind the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.(1)
We have a moral obligation in our collective pursuit of happiness not to inflict harm on those coming from a different culture and national background. After all as a society we have agreed to ratify this declaration which includes:
“Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services.”
And
“Everyone is entitled to a social and international order which protects the rights and freedoms set forth in this declaration.” (2)
This is not just a matter of refraining from unjust exploitation of the natural resources, and the siphoning of the wealth of economically and politically weaker nations as is currently done by many powerful nations.(3)Though we certainly bear a collective responsibility to protest against, and stop this injustice inflicted by our societies and companies on weaker nations as they are actively and wrongly harmed by a system of global political and economic arrangements that is disproportionately shaped by and for the benefit of wealthy Western societies. (4)
In the same way we have a moral obligation to ensure that the same human rights are accorded to refugees, asylum seekers and other migrants who have come to us for help. Not only if we have a historical responsibility due to our colonial past, or because we have contributed to their current woes by means of neo-colonial exploitation. Regardless of what our historical or contemporary involvement has been in exploiting weaker nations, it is also morally unjustifiable to send back Iranian Christians to an oppressive Islamist context, or Zimbabwean democrats to an oppressive political context, or a Saudi Arabian feminist activist back to an oppressive sexist context. We must not allow our governments to hide behind terms of ‘illegal’ migrants because in a democracy we collectively are the law-makers and if the law is unjust, or its application is unjust and violates the moral principles behind the Universal Declaration of Human Rights we must hold government and all those involved accountable lest we become ‘not so innocent’ bystanders and condemn others to a live of oppression and abuse if not death. Or we can say as many Germans did after the horrors of the NAZI death camps ‘we didnt’ know’ but the indifferent masses cannot claim innocence as their silence perpetuates the context in which the abuse can happen.(5)
(1) Thomas Pogge 2007. Recognized and Violated by International Law: The Human Rights of the Global Poor: p. 2. http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/poverty/expert/docs/Thomas_Pogge_new.pdf (Revised version of article originally published in Leiden Journal of International Law 18/4 (2005), 717–745).
(2) Thomas Pogge 2012. Poverty, Human Rights and the Global Order: Framing the Post-2015 agenda. CROP.
(3) Project at Yale Led by Professor Thomas Pogge, the Global Justice Program at Yale is an interdisciplinary group that works on the assessment and reform of global institutional arrangements. http://www.yale.edu/macmillan/globaljustice/DirtyMoney.html
(4) Thomas Pogge: World Poverty and Human Rights. Cambridge: Polity
Press, 2002.
(5) Hannah Arendt, The origins of totalitarianism (San Diego: Harcourt, 1951), 305-307.
I was recently confronted by the plight of a young Iranian Christian woman who was refused permission to stay in the Netherlands by the Netherlands Immigration authorities. Having been a victim of oppression and a refugee myself I reflected on what this means for me as someone with a Netherlands nationality.
We live a world marked by serious economic inequalities, ruthless and irresponsible pursuit of personal gain, sexual abuse, political oppression, armed conflict, psychological abuse, violence, pollution, ecological disasters and so on. In such an unsafe world we seek to protect our fragile cultural and national identities in our collective pursuit for peace, harmony and happiness. Unfortunately we often do so to the exclusion of others who have a different cultural, social or national background. Many rich European nations therefore make it very hard for poor citizens of other nations to settle in Europe.
The legitimate desire to protect our collective interest often results in human rights abuses. Of course when we send oppressed minorities back to their home countries such as Christian Iranians back to the religiously oppressive Islamist context of Iran, or Zimbabwean democrats back to the politically oppressive context of Zimbabwe we do so in agreement with the national, international laws we largely designed ourselves. However, we must be aware that there is a world of difference between morality and legality. Not every law we have designed is morally just and not every application of the law is morally justifiable in the light of the moral values and ethical assumptions behind the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.(1)
We have a moral obligation in our collective pursuit of happiness not to inflict harm on those coming from a different culture and national background. After all as a society we have agreed to ratify this declaration which includes:
“Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services.”
And
“Everyone is entitled to a social and international order which protects the rights and freedoms set forth in this declaration.” (2)
This is not just a matter of refraining from unjust exploitation of the natural resources, and the siphoning of the wealth of economically and politically weaker nations as is currently done by many powerful nations.(3)Though we certainly bear a collective responsibility to protest against, and stop this injustice inflicted by our societies and companies on weaker nations as they are actively and wrongly harmed by a system of global political and economic arrangements that is disproportionately shaped by and for the benefit of wealthy Western societies. (4)
In the same way we have a moral obligation to ensure that the same human rights are accorded to refugees, asylum seekers and other migrants who have come to us for help. Not only if we have a historical responsibility due to our colonial past, or because we have contributed to their current woes by means of neo-colonial exploitation. Regardless of what our historical or contemporary involvement has been in exploiting weaker nations, it is also morally unjustifiable to send back Iranian Christians to an oppressive Islamist context, or Zimbabwean democrats to an oppressive political context, or a Saudi Arabian feminist activist back to an oppressive sexist context. We must not allow our governments to hide behind terms of ‘illegal’ migrants because in a democracy we collectively are the law-makers and if the law is unjust, or its application is unjust and violates the moral principles behind the Universal Declaration of Human Rights we must hold government and all those involved accountable lest we become ‘not so innocent’ bystanders and condemn others to a live of oppression and abuse if not death. Or we can say as many Germans did after the horrors of the NAZI death camps ‘we didnt’ know’ but the indifferent masses cannot claim innocence as their silence perpetuates the context in which the abuse can happen.(5)
(1) Thomas Pogge 2007. Recognized and Violated by International Law: The Human Rights of the Global Poor: p. 2. http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/poverty/expert/docs/Thomas_Pogge_new.pdf (Revised version of article originally published in Leiden Journal of International Law 18/4 (2005), 717–745).
(2) Thomas Pogge 2012. Poverty, Human Rights and the Global Order: Framing the Post-2015 agenda. CROP.
(3) Project at Yale Led by Professor Thomas Pogge, the Global Justice Program at Yale is an interdisciplinary group that works on the assessment and reform of global institutional arrangements. http://www.yale.edu/macmillan/globaljustice/DirtyMoney.html
(4) Thomas Pogge: World Poverty and Human Rights. Cambridge: Polity
Press, 2002.
(5) Hannah Arendt, The origins of totalitarianism (San Diego: Harcourt, 1951), 305-307.
Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Presentation at Maastricht University in the Course Global justice and Human Rights
Are Pogge’s and Singer’s approaches to Global Justice and Human Rights mutually exclusive?
1. Introduction
1.1 Problem statement
In this presentation I am looking at whether Pogge’s and Singer’s approaches to Global Justice and Human Rights should be understood as mutually exclusive or whether some form of integrated approach is possible drawing on the work of both scholars.
1.2 Limitations
At the onset I must state that this presentation reflects a very limited study of the literature by Pogge and Singer and therefore my evaluation and conclusion are preliminary and incomplete and only provide an indication of what could be possible.
In discussing Singer and Pogge I mainly refer to the issue of world poverty and hunger but this is simply to illustrate the differences between the two approaches and not because I consider other issues in Global Justice and Human Rights as less important.
1.3 Disclosure of personal bias
Let me also indicate what my biases are in as far as I am aware of them. First of all I am committed to a Christian worldview which for me is not so much a matter of organised religion but a matter of adopting a lifestyle and approaching all issues in life from the perspective of love for oneself and one’s fellowman.
Love in this sense does not refer to a feeling but to a way of life whereby you try treat others in the way you would like to be treated. Practically this means to pursue personal happiness and what is good for myself while at the same time seeking to contribute to what is good for other people and to their happiness. I realise that in praxis this brings me close to the utilitarianism of John Stuart Mill although my underlying faith in the existence of God as the source for my moral beliefs brings me closer to Emmanuel Kant.
2. A brief overview of Pogge’s and Singer’s approaches to Global Justice and Human rights
I now would like to describe briefly the two approaches of Singer and Pogge to the issue of Global Justice and Human Rights.
2.1 A brief overview of Singer’s approach to Global Justice and Human Rights
2.1.1 Peter Singer’s utilitarian ethic
Peter Singer is an Australian Jewish philosopher and a utilitarian ethicist who is currently professor of Bioethics at Princeton University. Utilitarianism in this sense being the proper course of action is the one that maximizes overall "happiness". It is a form of consequentialism whereby something is morally right if it will produce a good outcome, or consequence, if it does not then it is morally wrong . The preferred outcome or consequence in theory being happiness for all, but in praxis it means for as many human beings as possible.
In his essay "Famine, Affluence, and Morality", Singer applies his utilitarian ethic to the question of world hunger and poverty and concludes that “suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad.” They are bad because they cause unhappiness on a gigantic scale. It follows therefore, that if some people living in abundance while many others starve this is morally indefensible from a utilitarian point of view.
It then follows logically that anyone who had the resources to help the poor has the moral responsibility, the duty, to donate at least part of their income to aid poverty relief and similar efforts.
It is from this perspective that Singer states that it is morally imperative for citizens of developed countries to give more to charitable causes that help the poor. The fact that we live near or far from people does not change our moral obligation nor does the fact that our own individual impact on world poverty in any way diminish our obligation to do about it what is in our power to do.
In discussing starvation Peter Singer builds his conclusion on the following premises:
P1. If we can prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, then we ought to do so.
P. 2 Death by starvation is bad.
P. 3 We can prevent many people from dying of starvation by sacrificing our luxuries, which are not as important.
His conclusion:
C1: We ought to prevent people from dying of starvation by sacrificing our luxuries.
2.1.2 Other considerations concerning Singer’s approach
Some people have pointed out that Singer’s reasoning while very logical at the same time comes across as too demanding. But we must not misunderstand or misrepresent him: He actually does not ask us to sacrifice so much of our comforts that we become unhappy ourselves. He does not mean that the poor should become happy at the expense of our happiness. Singer simply wants to us to give more so that more people enjoy happiness in the world. He also points at various studies which have demonstrated that when people give to others they experience more happiness. In order words we do not just give to make others happy, it also makes us more happy.
It can be easily understood how this must appeal to the utilitarian: Happiness galore!!!
Singer does admit that this principle entails radical conclusions—for example, that affluent people are very immoral if they do not give up some luxury goods to donate the money for famine relief. In line with his ethic Singer says that we ought to give where our money does the most good, in other words where our donation contributes to the most happiness. Finally, Singer himself does not only theorise about this but puts his belief into practice by donating 25 percent of his salary to international relief agencies such as Oxfam.
2.2 A brief overview of Pogge’s approach to Global Justice and Human Rights
Thomas Pogge is a German philosopher and is currently Professor of Philosophy and International Affairs as well as Adjunct Professor of Law at Yale University. Thomas Pogge stands in the tradition of Emmanuel Kant, John Rawls and others who believe that there are guiding universal principles, pre-existing moral principles many of which are reflected in the universal declaration of Human Rights. Where Singer starts with morality and ethics from the perspective that whether something is moral depends on its consequences whether it contributes to the greater good of maximizing happiness for as many people as possible, Pogge takes the position that moral principles already pre-exist.
2.2.1 Thomas Pogge and Global Justice
When it comes to the issue of Global Justice and Human Rights, Pogge takes a human rights approach and focuses in particular on Articles 25 and 28 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which state:
“Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services.”
And
“Everyone is entitled to a social and international order which protects the rights and freedoms set forth in this declaration.”
However, his concern is not so much international law but rather the assumed universal morality which inspired the UDHR. Pogge’s approach is therefore not so a legal approach as that it is a moral approach. He stresses the widespread recognition of moral human rights is important as it forms the basis from which an independent critical assessment is possible of existing international law.
Interpreting article 28 in the light of article 25 of the UDHR Pogge concludes that any institutional design is to be assessed and reformed principally by reference to its relative impact on the realization of the human rights of those on whom it is imposed as compared to conceivable alternative designs.
From this in the follows that an institutional order and its imposition are human-rights-violating if and insofar as this order foresee-ably gives rise to a substantial and avoidable human rights deficit.
2.2.2 Evaluating current global institutional world order
Pogge has evaluated the current global institutional world order represented by agencies such as the World Bank, IMF, WTO and has come to the conclusion that the current order is actually violating the human rights of the poor as in they are becoming poorer and more marginalised.
He argues that it is probably the largest human rights violation ever committed in human history. He admits that those who commit it do not intend the death and suffering they inflict either as an end or as a means but their wilful indifference to the enormous harms they cause in the course of advancing their own ends while going to great lengths to deceive the world (and sometimes themselves) about the impact of their conduct.
2.2.3 Examples of how the current global institutional world order is flawed
2.2.3.1 Misrepresentation of figures and interpretation by the World Bank
Pogge in a book which is about to be published this year demonstrates how the world bank has been shifting goalposts, and has been playing around with numbers in creative accounting, so that it looks like global poverty is decreasing when in fact it is not. In the media they portray as if the millennium goals are being met while in fact inequality and the plight of the worlds poorest is worsening.
2.2.3.2 Two additional illustrations
Besides the dissemination of misinformation and falsehood at a global level Pogge gives various other examples how the current institutional world order harms the poor of which I just want to highlight two:
2.2.3.2.1 Local corruption is facilitated and exacerbated by global institutions
The world’s global institutions facilitate and exacerbate corruption perpetuated by national institutions. Pogge is especially critical of the “resource” and “borrowing” privileges which allow illegitimate political leaders to sell natural resources and to borrow money in the name of the country and its people. In the long term the ordinary citizens suffer as their governments sooner or later have to pay back these debts with interest on top which means less funds are available for education, health and development.
2.2.3.2.2 Global institutions allow the unrestricted flow of illegal money
According to Pogge Global institutions are turning a blind eye, if not facilitating the unrestricted flow of illegal money from the developing world to the developed nations of the world.
The figures are staggering:
Every year, $1 trillion is spirited out of developing countries through corruption, smuggling, money laundering, and corporate tax evasion. These illicit financial flows out of developing countries dwarf the flow of development assistance going in. Illicit financial flows removed $10 for every dollar spent on overall development aid, and $80 for every dollar spent on basic social services.
Multi-national corporations
This flow of money does not just refer to funds transferred by corrupt dictators into bank accounts in Switzerland or the Cayman Islands but also refers to profits illegally transferred by multi-national companies so that they avoid paying revenues and taxes in the developing countries where they operate.
The current global economic and financial system allows these injustices to happen and actually maintains an unequal and unjust global environment where such things can happen. The world’s poor are not merely suffering because we are doing too little to help. They are being actively and wrongly harmed by a system of global political and economic arrangements that is disproportionately shaped by and for the benefit of wealthy Western societies.
2.3 Pogge and other forms of interventions on behalf of the poor
Pogge is not opposed to individual or collective action to alleviate the burden of the poor by means of charity and relief work. His point is that this may have little effect in the long-term if the global institutional side of things is not addressed:
It makes little sense to pour in development dollars and lots of energy into charity and relief work if the global system is so flawed that for every dollar given in development, 10 dollars disappear.
The long-term solution according to Pogge is to call for institutional reform of the global institutions such as the World Bank, IMF, WTO and the like so that they will no longer foster inequality and the trampling of the rights of the poor but can be harnassed to promote pro-poor policies, genuine equality and address global human rights violations instead of facilitating them.
HOW CAN THI BE ACHIEVED?
How this can be achieved practically is best expressed in Pogge’s words:
This will require international collaboration among experts, practitioners and the media. Academics can foster such collaboration by working together across academic disciplines toward building a common understanding of the world poverty problem and a common methodology for tracking its dimensions and for assessing the prospects and actual results of new policies and reforms.
Pogge himself takes a leading role in promoting institutional reform as heads of the Global Justice Program at Yale University; an interdisciplinary group that works on the assessment and reform of global institutional arrangements.
3. Evaluation
3.1 Discussion of agreements and disagreements between Pogge and Singer’s approach
From my brief descriptions of the approaches to global justice by both Singer and Pogge I think it may have become clear that both are very concerned about world hunger and poverty in the world but have very different starting points. For Singer morality is closely related to happiness and avoiding harm while for Pogge morality is a matter of conformity with pre-existing universal moral values such as the concept of human dignity. Also Singer emphasizes the duty of the individual to give more and do more to alleviate human poverty and suffering while Pogge emphasizes the need for global institutional reform to address these issues.
3.1.1 Criticism levelled at Singer
Critics of Singer have pointed out that his approach appears too demanding to the individual and as such may have little impact in encouraging them to give. Other’s suggest that Singer's “solution” to world poverty is simply a means whereby an individual can pay for the privilege of having a clear conscience, rather than a meaningful strategem for relieving poverty, and that those who follow Singer's arguments are simply adopting the ethic of anyone who believes that they can buy, with a mixture of guilt and cash, an exemption from the responsibility to focus their intellect and effort to more effective and lasting solutions.” In other words it provides an easy and lazy way out put does not provide lasting solutions.
However, Singer nowhere says that individual action is the only way to address the issue of world poverty and hunger, he would probably agree that collective action is also very important as well as global institutional reform are equally morally important if this will bring the greatest amount of happiness.
3.1.2 Criticism levelled at Pogge
When it comes to Thomas Pogge, several critics point out that institutional reform is a good long-term strategy but should not be the only strategy. Even if the WB, IMF, WTO are reformed, even if the ICC and similar institutions are democratized and harnassed in the fight against world poverty and hunger, we still have the problem of the elite’s in developing countries whose interests are so entrenched locally, even within their legal systems, that they will continue to get the lion share of available resources.
Other objections raised include that Thomas Pogge’s long-term strategy could actually take a very long time as it needs extensive international support and political willingness which is not easy to achieve.
Others argue that Pogge’s approach needs to be complemented with other approaches. Instead of just looking at the negative duty of global institutions to refrain from global injustice and human rights violations these must be complemented with positive duties such as fostering global solidarity as in the world social forum as well as individual and collective action for immediate relief and mitigation.
However, in none of his writings does Pogge object to complementary approaches, he simply points at the global economic and social world order and the major role of global institutions and says that change at that level is essential for a long term solution. It does not necessarily follow that Pogge is at the same time opposed to short-term interventions.
3.2 Pogge meets Singer
It is in short-term intervention that Pogge and Singer stand side by side. Both are both prominent members of the “Giving what you can” society who have pledged to contribute at least 10% of their income to charitable organizations such as Oxfam to where they think it will do the most to eliminate poverty in the developing world.
However, even when it comes to global institutional reform Singer would probably agree that global institutional reform is necessary if this has the potential to bring long term happiness for many more people in the world than is the case in the present world order.
4. Conclusion
Now at the end of this presentation I want to come back to my opening question:
Are Pogge’s and Singer’s approaches to Global Justice and Human Rights mutually exclusive?
My answer is no, they are not mutually exclusive. It is not a matter of ‘either-or’, but a matter of ‘both-and’, they complement each other.
Let end with illustrating this from a more personal angle:
Imagine a woman with a starving baby on her back knocks at my door in Malawi asking for some food so she can feed her child. I cannot send her away empty-handed and tell her: “don’t worry my dear, we are busy campaigning for global institutional reform so that in the future you will no longer have to face this problem.” Such an answer would not only be ridiculous and totally incomprehensible for the woman, it would actually be immoral. I therefore would stress that we have an individual duty to alleviate human suffering as well as a collective and global responsibility.
Thank you.
-------------------------
Sources used (not all):
Singer, Peter. "Famine, Affluence, and Morality." Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1972: 229-243.
Thomas Pogge. “Poverty, Human Rights and the Global Order: Framing the Post-2015 Agenda,” forthcoming in Malcolm Langford, Andy Sumner and Alice Yamin, eds.: MDGs and Human Rights: Past, Present and Future (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2012).
Thomas Pogge. Recognized and Violated by International Law:
The Human Rights of the Global Poor
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/poverty/expert/docs/Thomas_Pogge_new.pdf is revised version of article originally published in Leiden Journal of International Law 18/4 (2005), 717–745
Thomas Pogge, Poverty and Human Rights “Poverty and Human Rights” (2007), Expert Comment for the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights; reprinted in Manoj Kumar Pattanaik, ed.: Human Rights and Intellectual Property (Hyderabad: ICFAI University Press 2008), 95–102. http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/poverty/expert/docs/Thomas_Pogge_Summary.pdf
Thomas Pogge: World Poverty and Human Rights. Cambridge: Polity
Press, 2002.
Thomas Pogge 2012. Global Justice Program. Yale University: http://www.yale.edu/macmillan/globaljustice/index.html
1. Introduction
1.1 Problem statement
In this presentation I am looking at whether Pogge’s and Singer’s approaches to Global Justice and Human Rights should be understood as mutually exclusive or whether some form of integrated approach is possible drawing on the work of both scholars.
1.2 Limitations
At the onset I must state that this presentation reflects a very limited study of the literature by Pogge and Singer and therefore my evaluation and conclusion are preliminary and incomplete and only provide an indication of what could be possible.
In discussing Singer and Pogge I mainly refer to the issue of world poverty and hunger but this is simply to illustrate the differences between the two approaches and not because I consider other issues in Global Justice and Human Rights as less important.
1.3 Disclosure of personal bias
Let me also indicate what my biases are in as far as I am aware of them. First of all I am committed to a Christian worldview which for me is not so much a matter of organised religion but a matter of adopting a lifestyle and approaching all issues in life from the perspective of love for oneself and one’s fellowman.
Love in this sense does not refer to a feeling but to a way of life whereby you try treat others in the way you would like to be treated. Practically this means to pursue personal happiness and what is good for myself while at the same time seeking to contribute to what is good for other people and to their happiness. I realise that in praxis this brings me close to the utilitarianism of John Stuart Mill although my underlying faith in the existence of God as the source for my moral beliefs brings me closer to Emmanuel Kant.
2. A brief overview of Pogge’s and Singer’s approaches to Global Justice and Human rights
I now would like to describe briefly the two approaches of Singer and Pogge to the issue of Global Justice and Human Rights.
2.1 A brief overview of Singer’s approach to Global Justice and Human Rights
2.1.1 Peter Singer’s utilitarian ethic
Peter Singer is an Australian Jewish philosopher and a utilitarian ethicist who is currently professor of Bioethics at Princeton University. Utilitarianism in this sense being the proper course of action is the one that maximizes overall "happiness". It is a form of consequentialism whereby something is morally right if it will produce a good outcome, or consequence, if it does not then it is morally wrong . The preferred outcome or consequence in theory being happiness for all, but in praxis it means for as many human beings as possible.
In his essay "Famine, Affluence, and Morality", Singer applies his utilitarian ethic to the question of world hunger and poverty and concludes that “suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad.” They are bad because they cause unhappiness on a gigantic scale. It follows therefore, that if some people living in abundance while many others starve this is morally indefensible from a utilitarian point of view.
It then follows logically that anyone who had the resources to help the poor has the moral responsibility, the duty, to donate at least part of their income to aid poverty relief and similar efforts.
It is from this perspective that Singer states that it is morally imperative for citizens of developed countries to give more to charitable causes that help the poor. The fact that we live near or far from people does not change our moral obligation nor does the fact that our own individual impact on world poverty in any way diminish our obligation to do about it what is in our power to do.
In discussing starvation Peter Singer builds his conclusion on the following premises:
P1. If we can prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, then we ought to do so.
P. 2 Death by starvation is bad.
P. 3 We can prevent many people from dying of starvation by sacrificing our luxuries, which are not as important.
His conclusion:
C1: We ought to prevent people from dying of starvation by sacrificing our luxuries.
2.1.2 Other considerations concerning Singer’s approach
Some people have pointed out that Singer’s reasoning while very logical at the same time comes across as too demanding. But we must not misunderstand or misrepresent him: He actually does not ask us to sacrifice so much of our comforts that we become unhappy ourselves. He does not mean that the poor should become happy at the expense of our happiness. Singer simply wants to us to give more so that more people enjoy happiness in the world. He also points at various studies which have demonstrated that when people give to others they experience more happiness. In order words we do not just give to make others happy, it also makes us more happy.
It can be easily understood how this must appeal to the utilitarian: Happiness galore!!!
Singer does admit that this principle entails radical conclusions—for example, that affluent people are very immoral if they do not give up some luxury goods to donate the money for famine relief. In line with his ethic Singer says that we ought to give where our money does the most good, in other words where our donation contributes to the most happiness. Finally, Singer himself does not only theorise about this but puts his belief into practice by donating 25 percent of his salary to international relief agencies such as Oxfam.
2.2 A brief overview of Pogge’s approach to Global Justice and Human Rights
Thomas Pogge is a German philosopher and is currently Professor of Philosophy and International Affairs as well as Adjunct Professor of Law at Yale University. Thomas Pogge stands in the tradition of Emmanuel Kant, John Rawls and others who believe that there are guiding universal principles, pre-existing moral principles many of which are reflected in the universal declaration of Human Rights. Where Singer starts with morality and ethics from the perspective that whether something is moral depends on its consequences whether it contributes to the greater good of maximizing happiness for as many people as possible, Pogge takes the position that moral principles already pre-exist.
2.2.1 Thomas Pogge and Global Justice
When it comes to the issue of Global Justice and Human Rights, Pogge takes a human rights approach and focuses in particular on Articles 25 and 28 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which state:
“Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services.”
And
“Everyone is entitled to a social and international order which protects the rights and freedoms set forth in this declaration.”
However, his concern is not so much international law but rather the assumed universal morality which inspired the UDHR. Pogge’s approach is therefore not so a legal approach as that it is a moral approach. He stresses the widespread recognition of moral human rights is important as it forms the basis from which an independent critical assessment is possible of existing international law.
Interpreting article 28 in the light of article 25 of the UDHR Pogge concludes that any institutional design is to be assessed and reformed principally by reference to its relative impact on the realization of the human rights of those on whom it is imposed as compared to conceivable alternative designs.
From this in the follows that an institutional order and its imposition are human-rights-violating if and insofar as this order foresee-ably gives rise to a substantial and avoidable human rights deficit.
2.2.2 Evaluating current global institutional world order
Pogge has evaluated the current global institutional world order represented by agencies such as the World Bank, IMF, WTO and has come to the conclusion that the current order is actually violating the human rights of the poor as in they are becoming poorer and more marginalised.
He argues that it is probably the largest human rights violation ever committed in human history. He admits that those who commit it do not intend the death and suffering they inflict either as an end or as a means but their wilful indifference to the enormous harms they cause in the course of advancing their own ends while going to great lengths to deceive the world (and sometimes themselves) about the impact of their conduct.
2.2.3 Examples of how the current global institutional world order is flawed
2.2.3.1 Misrepresentation of figures and interpretation by the World Bank
Pogge in a book which is about to be published this year demonstrates how the world bank has been shifting goalposts, and has been playing around with numbers in creative accounting, so that it looks like global poverty is decreasing when in fact it is not. In the media they portray as if the millennium goals are being met while in fact inequality and the plight of the worlds poorest is worsening.
2.2.3.2 Two additional illustrations
Besides the dissemination of misinformation and falsehood at a global level Pogge gives various other examples how the current institutional world order harms the poor of which I just want to highlight two:
2.2.3.2.1 Local corruption is facilitated and exacerbated by global institutions
The world’s global institutions facilitate and exacerbate corruption perpetuated by national institutions. Pogge is especially critical of the “resource” and “borrowing” privileges which allow illegitimate political leaders to sell natural resources and to borrow money in the name of the country and its people. In the long term the ordinary citizens suffer as their governments sooner or later have to pay back these debts with interest on top which means less funds are available for education, health and development.
2.2.3.2.2 Global institutions allow the unrestricted flow of illegal money
According to Pogge Global institutions are turning a blind eye, if not facilitating the unrestricted flow of illegal money from the developing world to the developed nations of the world.
The figures are staggering:
Every year, $1 trillion is spirited out of developing countries through corruption, smuggling, money laundering, and corporate tax evasion. These illicit financial flows out of developing countries dwarf the flow of development assistance going in. Illicit financial flows removed $10 for every dollar spent on overall development aid, and $80 for every dollar spent on basic social services.
Multi-national corporations
This flow of money does not just refer to funds transferred by corrupt dictators into bank accounts in Switzerland or the Cayman Islands but also refers to profits illegally transferred by multi-national companies so that they avoid paying revenues and taxes in the developing countries where they operate.
The current global economic and financial system allows these injustices to happen and actually maintains an unequal and unjust global environment where such things can happen. The world’s poor are not merely suffering because we are doing too little to help. They are being actively and wrongly harmed by a system of global political and economic arrangements that is disproportionately shaped by and for the benefit of wealthy Western societies.
2.3 Pogge and other forms of interventions on behalf of the poor
Pogge is not opposed to individual or collective action to alleviate the burden of the poor by means of charity and relief work. His point is that this may have little effect in the long-term if the global institutional side of things is not addressed:
It makes little sense to pour in development dollars and lots of energy into charity and relief work if the global system is so flawed that for every dollar given in development, 10 dollars disappear.
The long-term solution according to Pogge is to call for institutional reform of the global institutions such as the World Bank, IMF, WTO and the like so that they will no longer foster inequality and the trampling of the rights of the poor but can be harnassed to promote pro-poor policies, genuine equality and address global human rights violations instead of facilitating them.
HOW CAN THI BE ACHIEVED?
How this can be achieved practically is best expressed in Pogge’s words:
This will require international collaboration among experts, practitioners and the media. Academics can foster such collaboration by working together across academic disciplines toward building a common understanding of the world poverty problem and a common methodology for tracking its dimensions and for assessing the prospects and actual results of new policies and reforms.
Pogge himself takes a leading role in promoting institutional reform as heads of the Global Justice Program at Yale University; an interdisciplinary group that works on the assessment and reform of global institutional arrangements.
3. Evaluation
3.1 Discussion of agreements and disagreements between Pogge and Singer’s approach
From my brief descriptions of the approaches to global justice by both Singer and Pogge I think it may have become clear that both are very concerned about world hunger and poverty in the world but have very different starting points. For Singer morality is closely related to happiness and avoiding harm while for Pogge morality is a matter of conformity with pre-existing universal moral values such as the concept of human dignity. Also Singer emphasizes the duty of the individual to give more and do more to alleviate human poverty and suffering while Pogge emphasizes the need for global institutional reform to address these issues.
3.1.1 Criticism levelled at Singer
Critics of Singer have pointed out that his approach appears too demanding to the individual and as such may have little impact in encouraging them to give. Other’s suggest that Singer's “solution” to world poverty is simply a means whereby an individual can pay for the privilege of having a clear conscience, rather than a meaningful strategem for relieving poverty, and that those who follow Singer's arguments are simply adopting the ethic of anyone who believes that they can buy, with a mixture of guilt and cash, an exemption from the responsibility to focus their intellect and effort to more effective and lasting solutions.” In other words it provides an easy and lazy way out put does not provide lasting solutions.
However, Singer nowhere says that individual action is the only way to address the issue of world poverty and hunger, he would probably agree that collective action is also very important as well as global institutional reform are equally morally important if this will bring the greatest amount of happiness.
3.1.2 Criticism levelled at Pogge
When it comes to Thomas Pogge, several critics point out that institutional reform is a good long-term strategy but should not be the only strategy. Even if the WB, IMF, WTO are reformed, even if the ICC and similar institutions are democratized and harnassed in the fight against world poverty and hunger, we still have the problem of the elite’s in developing countries whose interests are so entrenched locally, even within their legal systems, that they will continue to get the lion share of available resources.
Other objections raised include that Thomas Pogge’s long-term strategy could actually take a very long time as it needs extensive international support and political willingness which is not easy to achieve.
Others argue that Pogge’s approach needs to be complemented with other approaches. Instead of just looking at the negative duty of global institutions to refrain from global injustice and human rights violations these must be complemented with positive duties such as fostering global solidarity as in the world social forum as well as individual and collective action for immediate relief and mitigation.
However, in none of his writings does Pogge object to complementary approaches, he simply points at the global economic and social world order and the major role of global institutions and says that change at that level is essential for a long term solution. It does not necessarily follow that Pogge is at the same time opposed to short-term interventions.
3.2 Pogge meets Singer
It is in short-term intervention that Pogge and Singer stand side by side. Both are both prominent members of the “Giving what you can” society who have pledged to contribute at least 10% of their income to charitable organizations such as Oxfam to where they think it will do the most to eliminate poverty in the developing world.
However, even when it comes to global institutional reform Singer would probably agree that global institutional reform is necessary if this has the potential to bring long term happiness for many more people in the world than is the case in the present world order.
4. Conclusion
Now at the end of this presentation I want to come back to my opening question:
Are Pogge’s and Singer’s approaches to Global Justice and Human Rights mutually exclusive?
My answer is no, they are not mutually exclusive. It is not a matter of ‘either-or’, but a matter of ‘both-and’, they complement each other.
Let end with illustrating this from a more personal angle:
Imagine a woman with a starving baby on her back knocks at my door in Malawi asking for some food so she can feed her child. I cannot send her away empty-handed and tell her: “don’t worry my dear, we are busy campaigning for global institutional reform so that in the future you will no longer have to face this problem.” Such an answer would not only be ridiculous and totally incomprehensible for the woman, it would actually be immoral. I therefore would stress that we have an individual duty to alleviate human suffering as well as a collective and global responsibility.
Thank you.
-------------------------
Sources used (not all):
Singer, Peter. "Famine, Affluence, and Morality." Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1972: 229-243.
Thomas Pogge. “Poverty, Human Rights and the Global Order: Framing the Post-2015 Agenda,” forthcoming in Malcolm Langford, Andy Sumner and Alice Yamin, eds.: MDGs and Human Rights: Past, Present and Future (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2012).
Thomas Pogge. Recognized and Violated by International Law:
The Human Rights of the Global Poor
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/poverty/expert/docs/Thomas_Pogge_new.pdf is revised version of article originally published in Leiden Journal of International Law 18/4 (2005), 717–745
Thomas Pogge, Poverty and Human Rights “Poverty and Human Rights” (2007), Expert Comment for the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights; reprinted in Manoj Kumar Pattanaik, ed.: Human Rights and Intellectual Property (Hyderabad: ICFAI University Press 2008), 95–102. http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/poverty/expert/docs/Thomas_Pogge_Summary.pdf
Thomas Pogge: World Poverty and Human Rights. Cambridge: Polity
Press, 2002.
Thomas Pogge 2012. Global Justice Program. Yale University: http://www.yale.edu/macmillan/globaljustice/index.html
Saturday, April 28, 2012
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Anonymous: Thank you for your efforts to educate us Malawians on the dangers of accusing each other of witchcraft specially our children. In our village several children were burned so they would confess that they were practicing witchcraft. After confession they were taken to the chief and beaten up badly. Afterwards they were 'healed' by the witchdoctor and their families were made to pay his fees. These were the lucky ones, others have been chased away and have become streetkids or prostitutes and those who were very young died of exposure and hardship. Some have been killed by the community through hanging on a tree and it was reported as suicide.
These and other harrowing stories were told as our researchers interviewed people all over Malawi's Southern Region concerning witchcraft related beliefs and practices which affect children. Of the respondents 80% firmly believed in witchcraft and 74% believed even young children can be witches. While most of them suggested counseling and exorcism for these children a small but vocal group calls for stiff punishments, beatings and even death. For the elderly who are accused of having instructed the children in witchcraft there is far less sympathy with 18% of the respondents calling for banishment and 15% preferring execution.
As witchcraft accusations against children and the elderly are on the rise there is need to promote a change of mindset in Malawi and consequently we have agreed to extend the nation wide media campaign until the end of 2012 and continue to teach church and community leaders about constructively addressing these issues in regional seminars in Southern Malawi.
These and other harrowing stories were told as our researchers interviewed people all over Malawi's Southern Region concerning witchcraft related beliefs and practices which affect children. Of the respondents 80% firmly believed in witchcraft and 74% believed even young children can be witches. While most of them suggested counseling and exorcism for these children a small but vocal group calls for stiff punishments, beatings and even death. For the elderly who are accused of having instructed the children in witchcraft there is far less sympathy with 18% of the respondents calling for banishment and 15% preferring execution.
As witchcraft accusations against children and the elderly are on the rise there is need to promote a change of mindset in Malawi and consequently we have agreed to extend the nation wide media campaign until the end of 2012 and continue to teach church and community leaders about constructively addressing these issues in regional seminars in Southern Malawi.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)