text:
Finland’s Reindeer-Herding Sámi Women Fight Climate Change · Global Voices
PRI/PRX's The World

Inka Saara Arttijeff is the adviser to the president of the Sámi Parliament and hails from a family of Sámi reindeer herders. She represents Finland at international climate change summits. Credit: Sonia Narang/PRI
This story by Sonia Narang for GlobalPost originally appeared on PRI.org on March 7, 2018, and is republished here as part of a partnership between PRI and Global Voices.
Inka Saara Arttijeff and her family gather in the cozy kitchen of their red, wooden house, as a pot of soup simmers on the stove. They live at the edge of a frozen lake in the storybook village of Nellim, up towards the far reaches of northern Finland. It’s early February, and the sun here begins to set around 3 p.m. Arttijeff is part of a family of indigenous Sámi reindeer herders who are unfazed by short days in subzero weather.
The Sámi are indigenous to the northern parts of Finland, as well as Sweden, Norway and Russia, known for their centuries-old tradition of herding reindeer. (Reindeer are considered “semidomesticated” in Finland, and guided through their seasonal migrations by the herders.) However, the warming climate has threatened to disrupt the Sámi people's tradition of reindeer herding. As Arctic temperatures rise more than twice as fast as the global average, reindeer herders are struggling to cope with increasingly unpredictable and extreme weather.
Outside Arttijeff’s home, vast expanses of snow-covered trees fill the forest landscape. However, logging has started to encroach upon forests where Sámi people herd. The combination of weather changes and increased tree cutting has made it harder for reindeer to find food, and it’s altered their migration patterns.
“Reindeer herding represents a way of life,” Arttijeff said.
“We are born to be reindeer herders; it's part of our identity,” she added. “It's hard to think about your life without it.”
She spent her childhood around reindeer, and her herd learned to recognize her. “When I was a kid, I used to take a calf, and I would tame it and take it to walk with me. So, it was my pet,” she said with a laugh.
Warming Arctic temperatures have changed weather patterns in northern Finland, making it difficult for reindeer to find food under hardened snow on the ground. Credit: Sonia Narang/PRI
Sámi culture has always been a big part of her life, and Arttijeff infuses her clothing style with traditional Sámi accessories, like the handmade hat she wears outside and the patterned shawl with a round, golden brooch she dons indoors.
Arttijeff is one of a growing number of outspoken Sámi women who are taking their voices well beyond the borders of their small villages. The 33-year-old is the adviser to the female president of the Sámi Parliament, Tiina Sanila-Aikio, and represents Finland on the world’s stage. Every year, Arttijeff joins a delegation of indigenous representatives at the UN’s climate change talks. In between all that, she is also a graduate student in international relations and law.
Arttijeff says it’s an honor for her to represent the Sámi people and her country in international summits. “It sounds very weird, but before, the non-Sámis and nonindigenous were actually deciding for us. Now, we can be part of the decision-making, and they actually take us into account,” she said.
For indigenous reindeer herders, a slight temperature increase can have drastic repercussions. Reindeer used to be able to easily find their favorite food, lichen, a fungus-algae combination, in the winter snow. However, milder winters have caused melting and refreezing of precipitation on the ground, preventing reindeer from smelling and digging for meals trapped under hardened ice.
Arttijeff describes the weather changes she’s experienced over the years, with traditional snowfall changing to rain. “It can snow and then it can rain, and then it freezes again … that means the snow gets hard,” she said. “Reindeer cannot find food in the forest … and that makes them weaker,” Arttijeff said. “Your herd gets smaller and smaller.”
Inka Saara Arttijeff and her family live in this house in one of the first Sámi villages. This village was established at the edge of a lake when the Sámi people transitioned from a nomadic lifestyle to living in homes. Credit: Sonia Narang/PRI
Scientists in Finland have studied these impacts, too. “Arctic sea areas are very warm in early winter, forming moist air,” said Jouko Kumpula, a scientist at the Natural Resources Institute Finland. “This [air] comes to land, it rains on the snow and that is bad for reindeer.”
On top of this, the warming climate has made it more comfortable for harmful bugs. “New parasites and diseases are expanding towards the north due to climate change and can also infect reindeer,” Kumpula said.
At the Sámi village home, Arttijeff and her uncle discuss the issue of logging in their region. The 68-year-old Sámi elder, Kalle Paadar, has been herding reindeer his entire life and describes how forestry activity is a more noticeable problem. As trees are cut down, the vegetation of the forest changes and reindeer alter their migration routes. Logging also creates timber waste that litters the ground and covers up food sources for reindeer. “For reindeer herding, [we] need forest that is healthy,” Arttijeff said.
Saara Tervaniemi also points to forestry as one of the area’s biggest threats. She’s a reindeer herder and mother of three young children. “We are losing our winter grazing lands because of the forest industry,” she said, talking from inside the headquarters of the Sámi Parliament.
Finland’s state-owned forestry agency, Metsähallitus, manages about one-third of the country’s forests, and it’s also responsible for harvesting and selling timber. Kirsi-Marja Korhonen, a regional director and environmental specialist at Metsähallitus, says they work closely with Sámi communities to negotiate tree cutting in reindeer herding areas. Korhonen notes 60 percent of trees on Sámi lands are in protected areas. That still leaves large swaths of Sámi forests up for grabs, reindeer herders say, and they point to clear-cutting of productive forests.
Tervaniemi says it’s critical to monitor forestry activities on her people’s lands since logging is eroding the culture she hopes to pass down to her children. Tervaniemi learned how to herd as a child, during reindeer roundups with her father. Her children aspire to follow in their parents’ footsteps.
“As a mother, it's difficult to think that they dream to be reindeer herders when you know there's so many big threats [to] reindeer herding in our area,” she said. “If this forest logging continues as planned, it will be really challenging for my children to continue reindeer herding.”
Saara Tervaniemi, a member of the Sámi Council, says her three young children dream of becoming reindeer herders. Credit: Sonia Narang/PRI
This way of life runs through the Sámi people’s blood, according to Tervaniemi. “If you say to my husband or reindeer herders in our district to find some other job, I don't think that they have any other choice. They have grown up herding reindeer. It’s our life, and it's a way of existing,” she said.
Tervaniemi, 37, is a member of the Saami Council, which brings together Sámi representatives from four countries. “You have to be a little bit [like an] activist to support your livelihood and your culture,” she said. Sámi women have always been on equal footing with men, and many play a significant role in political organizations, according to Tervaniemi, who is also working on a PhD in Sámi issues.
That’s evident in Finland’s Sámi Parliament, which is split evenly between men and women and led by a woman president. Also, regional women's groups such as Sarahkka — named for the mythical daughter of the ancient mother and father of the Sámi — and the Sámi NissonForum (Women's Forum) bring together Sámi women from the northern countries. They focus on gender equality and indigenous political issues, including land and water rights.
Since Sámi women are primarily responsible for child care and passing on their culture to the next generation, reindeer herding has become an important issue for them, especially as logging and climate change have intensified in recent years.
Forests cover 75 percent of Finland’s land, and Sámi reindeer herders are concerned about logging on grazing lands. This photo is the view from the Sámi Parliament building in northern Finland. Credit: Sonia Narang/PRI
“The reindeer itself has such a big meaning in Sámi culture,” Tervaniemi said, adding, “and, being in nature, being with reindeer — it's so beautiful.”
Arttijeff also speaks wistfully about the Sámi people’s connection to their reindeer. “When we don't see them, we miss them. We miss the smell and how they look and how they sound. They recognize our voice, we call them, and they come to us.”
It’s not just reindeer herding that’s at risk — it’s the four other Sámi livelihoods, too: fishing, gathering, hunting and handicrafts. “For all of those, you need materials from nature,” Arttijeff says. “If the nature changes, you cannot do traditional livelihoods anymore. So, if that changes, everything changes for us.”
Sonia Narang reported in Finland with support from the European Forest Institute’s Lookout360 Climate Change Immersive Story Accelerator.


text:
For Jordanian Women, a Year of Hard-Won Progress and Continuing Challenges · Global Voices
Maram Alkayed

Women protesters in the Jordanian capital Amman in 1968. Photo released to the public domain.
In the month that commemorates Women’s Day, it is important to highlight what Jordanian women have achieved in the fight for their rights throughout 2017. Just one year ago, women were not in the same condition as they are now.
It is just as important, however, to note that obstacles still exist.
Despite a successful campaign to repeal a legal loophole allowing rapists to marry their victims, numerous challenges still lie ahead toward achieving gender equality in Jordan, including child marriage, barriers to joining the job market, and a nationality law that bans women from passing down their nationality to their children.
Article 308 of the Jordanian penal code originally stated that rapists could avoid jail time if they marry their victims and remain married for at least three to five years. According to a study by a local civil society group, a total of 70% of Jordanians regarded this as a loophole for male rapists to escape punishment, while 30% considered it to be a way of “saving a girl’s honor” in a conservative society such as Jordan’s.
After 20 years of pressure from women’s right activists, Muslim scholars, and Christian priests, the article was amended in 2016 to include only incidents of rape in which the girl is aged 15 to 18, and with consent. Given that girls within that age range are still minors — and even if they weren’t, it is unlikely that a victim would want to marry her rapist — 63 women’s rights organizations started a campaign over social media urging for the article to be scrapped altogether.
On August 1, 2017, the article finally passed cabinet, after months of sessions.
While the abolishment of Article 308 was a success, 2017 also saw the cabinet approve new regulations allowing for minors as young as 15 to get married if two judges authorize the union.
Many Jordanians are against the bill, and have mocked the government on social media for the decision. A global competition was even launched to award the most expressive cartoon against child marriage.
Statistics have indicated that nearly 20% of marriages in Jordan involve minors, who at the same time cannot vote, drive or drink.
In Jordan, minors aged between 15 and 18 can get married, but they are not allowed to drink, drive or vote.
Child marriage can often mean the end of girls’ education. Although the law is worded to protect the right to education despite marriage, making it a condition to get the license, statistics show otherwise.
According to the Higher Population Council, the majority of women who married before 18 were only educated up to the primary level or lower.
Another report issued by the Sisterhood Is Global Institute showed that 33% of illiterate Jordanian women were married at the age of 17 or younger.
This law has obvious repercussions, as girls who marry before 18 years of age are more likely to be subject to domestic violence.
Another problem arises with this law when it comes to the issue of Syrian refugees who are being forced to marry older Jordanians out of fear and the need for protection.
Stories indicate that older Jordanians are offering Syrian refugees employment and other privileges in exchange for the hand in marriage of a female relative. For a one-time payment as low as US $140, Syrian girls are being offered up as brides.
A total of 39.5% of female Syrian refugees are victims of child marriage in Jordan, with 48% of those being forced to marry men at least ten years their senior. These girls are being thrown into the unknown, with many of them exposed to exploitation, rape, denial of an education, and pregnancy difficulties.
The rate of unemployment for women in Jordan is higher than for men: 33% versus 13.9%. In response, a national Jordanian petrol company, JoPetrol, launched a project in September 2017 to hire women as gas station attendants, while offering them flexible shifts (four hours maximum, and in the morning), ”rewarding” pay, and safe working conditions.
There was a fair amount of objection from the public, however. Some attacked JoPetrol for trying to “grab attention“, or opposed the project because the dominant conservative mindset in Jordan considers it both shameful and dangerous for a woman to be working in the street and “doing a man's job”.
Others supported the move, saying that Jordan needs to start taking progressive steps towards creating a better workforce. Moreover, some have compared this to when the Traffic Police started hiring women in 2003, predicting that the backlash will fade away just as it did then.
For its part, JoPetrol says it will not eliminate the project; rather, it plans on expanding it. To protect its female employees from harm, such as violence or harassment by citizens who are against the initiative, JoPetrol has them working at a gas station in Al-Madina Al Monawara, a busy street in the centre of the capital, Amman.
When it comes to the job market, objectification of women is normalized in Jordan. The country's newspapers are filled with ads that go along the lines of “good looking, no need for prior qualification”, or that specify the female job candidate has to be a non-hijabi. A number of these ads are misleading, and turn out to be dangerous traps for female applicants.
An investigation was launched using a hidden camera in 11 job interviews that were conducted through these ambiguous ads; half of the interviews ended up with the female applicants either being sexually harassed or asked to work as sex workers.
The newspapers continue to run them, however, despite complaints, because they are lucrative.
According to the Jordanian citizenship law, women cannot pass down nationality to their children. Thus, children whose mothers are Jordanian and whose fathers are foreigners are treated as outsiders and denied citizenship.
The lack of nationality translates into curtailed rights. For example, students who do not hold a Jordanian passport have to enroll in the International Program — the fees for which can reach up to eight times higher than the Competitive Program that nationals can enroll in.
In August 2017, the cabinet passed a bill stating that the children of Jordanian women will receive equal treatment when it comes to higher education at Jordanian universities, and will have a privileges card to show for it.
This privileges card is supposed to be used for residency and work permits, driving licences and real-estate ownership. However, its actual influence is limited — it is not recognized by police officers or the public sector, and card holders have to go through complicated government procedures to be granted anything through it.
The number of children born to Jordanian mothers and foreign fathers who remain without citizenship stands at about 360,000. Meanwhile, authorities have made it easier for wealthy investors to acquire Jordanian citizenship.
Jordanians are taking steps to fight this legislation. A petition on social media, which has received 3,800 signatures so far, is calling for Jordan's controversial nationality law to be abolished, and another campaign, entitled “My mother is Jordanian and her nationality is my right”, is also attracting a lot of support.

source: news-globalvoices

license: Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

author: Maram Alkayed


text:
Citizenship, Surveillance and Taxes: A Dystopian Tale · Global Voices
L. Finch

Photo by Andrew Neel on Unsplash.
We’re living in a golden age for dystopian fiction, or so the critics say. Our pages and screens are filled with tyrannical governments, tech slavery, and surveillance run amok — dark imaginings of a society where the arm of injustice is inventive and long-reaching.
The genre has plenty of gripping tales to choose from, but allow me to add one more, told from an angle that might not seem so sexy or threatening at first — taxation. Stick with me.
In this story, you’re an immigrant. Like the increasing number of people in the world who cross borders in pursuit of education, employment, love, family, health, or safety, you leave your country of origin and settle someplace else.
You get a job, and you dutifully pay taxes on your income to your country of residence in exchange for use of common resources like medical care and transportation.
But that’s not enough. As it turns out, you have to pay taxes to your country of origin too, even though you don’t live there. It doesn’t matter if you already pay taxes to your country of residence. It doesn’t matter if none of your income comes from your country of origin. It doesn’t matter how little you make or how long you’ve been away.
Certain exemptions and deductions may reduce what you owe, but if you want to claim them, you must prepare complicated paperwork. If you need help, an accountant costs money.
It doesn’t end there. You’re self-employed in your country of residence, maybe a small business owner or part of the rising population of contractors working in the “gig economy.” And for that, the law says you must also pay self-employment tax to your country of origin.
If you’re lucky, you live in one of the two dozen places with special treaties to prevent this double taxation. But if not, buckle up: For the rest of your self-employed life, you must send 15% of your already taxed earnings to a country where you don’t live in order to fund welfare programs that you aren't allowed to use in full or at all … because you don't live there.
And that’s not to mention your country of origin expects a cut on any property, investments, and pension plans you may hold in your country of residence.
You can choose not to file taxes with your country of origin. Plenty of people don’t. But if the government finds out and says you owe more than $50,000 in taxes, penalties and interest, they have the power to revoke your passport — without a hearing or conviction.
And the government likes to huff and puff that they have ways of finding out.
On their insistence, the rest of the world collects your financial data in bulk without guarantee of secure handling or storage and reports it to your country of origin. Some banks require you to fill out special forms to continue as a customer, while others simply bar you completely from their services because dealing with your citizenship isn’t worth the hassle.
As a result, bank accounts are closed, mortgages are canceled, employment opportunities are lost, and retirement planning is a pipe dream. It becomes increasingly difficult for you and the rest of the diaspora to lead a normal life.
How to remedy the situation? You can abandon the roots you’ve put down and move to the country of your citizenship … or abandon your citizenship altogether. Caught between a rock and a hard place, an ever-growing list of your compatriots make the painful decision to renounce.
This trend doesn’t go unnoticed, however, and in response the government raises the fee to renounce by 422%, making it the highest cost of its kind in the world and likely out of reach for a person of modest means.
Regardless, the renunciations continue. One government policy architect callously argues before lawmakers that those ex-citizens are no great loss: There are more people naturalizing who are “willing to pay” taxes anyway.
As a scattered minority, you and your compatriots are largely ignored by politicians in your country of origin. In recent elections, one of the major political parties does vow to fix taxation for expatriates like you. Once in power, however, they pass a reform package that changes the rules for corporations, not for people, and makes it even more difficult for small-to-medium-sized business owners to stay open.
At least, for all your efforts, in the event of war or catastrophe, your country of origin will ferry you to safety … right? Sure, but only after you promise that you’ll reimburse the government for the costs of your own evacuation — and in turn, the government will promise to hold your passport hostage until you make arrangements to pay.
So you’re stuck, double taxed in the worst of cases and paying a precious penny for an accountant to prove that you shouldn’t be double taxed in the best. Your privacy is violated as you’re forced to give up your personal data — no suspicion of wrongdoing necessary. Your financial security is compromised as your citizenship transforms you into an unprofitable pariah.
Your business and romantic partnerships are hobbled, because association with you could bring loved ones and colleagues under the scrutiny of a powerful foreign government. And your plans for children give you pause because your citizenship — and tax burden — will be passed on to them, even if they never once set foot in your country of origin.
All because of chance. You can’t choose where you’re born or who your parents are, and you just so happened to be born to a country that keeps a tight grip on its citizens and casts a long, domineering shadow across the world.
How’s that for dystopian fiction? It’s a disturbing tale, one that touches on concerns over privacy, fair treatment and freedom of movement that are particularly relevant in this day and age. And there’s more. Ready for the plot twist?
It’s all true. At least if you’re one of the estimated 9 million Americans, like myself, who live outside the borders of the US.
The US is one of only two countries in the world that practices a system of taxation based not on residency, but citizenship. The other is the oppressive dictatorship of Eritrea, which the US itself has criticized for the “extortion, threats of violence, fraud and other illicit means” that the country uses to collect taxes from its diaspora.
And in the last several years, the US has made the situation even worse with the implementation of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act. Under FATCA, as it’s called for short, authorities vacuum up the financial data of US citizens and “US persons” (such as Green Card holders) who have non-US bank accounts, all without a warrant. The tactic isn't dissimilar to what the National Security Agency was revealed to be doing — to great outcry — with Americans’ phone and email records.
They accomplish this bulk collection with a threat: If the world’s financial institutions don’t hand over the details of their customers with US citizenship, the US will  impose a 30% withholding fee on their US transactions. In response, a mushrooming number of banks have limited what they offer to US citizens or shut them out altogether from even the most basic checking or savings services, because there’s no benefit in setting up special systems for one small slice of their clientele.
FATCA “starts with the unsubstantiated assumption most taxpayers are bad actors,” explains the ombudsman within the US Internal Revenue Service, known as the Taxpayer Advocate, “and implements a draconian enforcement regime applied to everyone.” You’re a US citizen living in Germany, paying taxes in Germany, and using a local German bank account? Under FATCA, you’re guilty of US tax misdeeds until proven innocent.
So if the current system is taxation dystopia for US citizens overseas, what would utopia look like?
In this story, you’re an immigrant. You leave your country of origin and settle someplace else. You open a bank account and use financial services without discrimination based on your citizenship. Your right to privacy remains intact. You pay taxes to your country of residence, and you aren’t under any obligation to pay even more of your money to the government of a country where you don’t live.
Too bad it’s fiction.

author: L. Finch


text:
Prominent Chinese Feminist Social Media Account Shuttered on International Women’s Day · Global Voices
Hong Kong Free Press

A photo posted by Lu Pin on her personal Weibo account. The sign reads: “Women’s day: Instead of giving me a discount, why don’t you fight sexual harassment with me?”
This post was written by Catherine Lai and originally published in Hong Kong Free Press (HKFP) on March 9, 2018. The version below is published on Global Voices as part of a partnership agreement.
A prominent Chinese feminist account was forcibly shut down on March 8, International Women’s Day.
The Feminist Voices account on Sina Weibo, one of China’s most popular social media platforms, received a notice saying it was suspended due to “irregularities” late on Thursday evening.
Prior to its suspension, Feminist Voices had more than 180,000 followers on the microblogging platform and was one of the most popular feminist advocacy platforms in China. It often posted articles related to feminism and rallied followers to support related causes. The account was also suspended on International Women’s Day last year, but administrators were later able to reactivate it.
The account’s founding editor Lu Pin told HKFP that their team called Sina Weibo on March 9, Friday morning to ask about the suspension:
They said it was because we distributed sensitive content that was in violation of regulations…But they didn’t tell us exactly which content it was… and they said they could not reactivate the account for us.
Lu added that they were appealing to Sina Weibo to get the account back online.
Feminist Voices had launched a campaign against sexual harassment on March 6. It asked users to post photos and a pledge to combat sexual harassment with the hashtag #March8againstharassment. The account had been reposting the responses in the run-up to the women’s day event.
It also posted content criticising corporate advertisements that it said were discriminatory, and hit out at the commercialisation of women’s day and sexist campus banners.
Lu explained the group's plan on Twitter:
During the 2018 Women's Day, FeministVoices encouraged people to announce their “anti- sexual harassment declaration” to echo the #MeToo campaigns. We was also criticizing both corporate-funded advertisements and campus-based misogynist slogans that sexuality Women's Day.
— 吕频Lü Pin (@pinerpiner) March 9, 2018
Lu told HKFP she did not think the topic of feminism was particularly sensitive, but its large followership may have attracted Sina Weibo’s censors:
Our topic isn’t really related to the core of politics, but we have a big power to rally supporters… so that might be the problem, because a lot of people follow us.
Last year in February, the account was suspended when administrators posted a message about the advocacy of women’s strike, Day without a Woman, in the United States, but they were able to later reactivate the account, Lu said.
Prominent feminist activist Ye Haiyan posted her reaction to the account being blocked on Sina Weibo:
I think, the Chinese government does not understand feminism, does not understand what feminists are doing, and does not understand what they are advocating. But they are prejudiced against feminists, and have not truly communicated with them.
People have no way to know where the boundaries of speech are, and don’t know the standards that relevant departments use to block speech. That means, regarding the control of speech, the relevant departments do not have a very clear decree. They can only go by feeling right now.
It is unclear whether the ban on the account originated from the Chinese authorities or whether it was undertaken by censors at Sina Weibo.
Chinese authorities arrested five feminists in 2015 for their plans to commemorate International Women’s Day by handing out stickers to combat sexual harassment. Since the #MeToo movement launched last year, censors have deleted hundreds of social media posts featuring the hashtag #MeTooInChina and closed topic forums on the subject.
The Feminist Voices account remains blocked at this time. HKFP has reached out to Sina Weibo for comment.
On March 9, the user account shutter has been extended to the group's WeChat public account. WeChat is the most popular social media platform in China:
Following up: The Wechat public account of Feminist Voices was also censored this morning. The trace of us has been totally erased from social media in China. We are still in shock now. This is the darkest time of Chinese feminists since 2015. @FeministChina pic.twitter.com/ZUyvY1J1RO
— 吕频Lü Pin (@pinerpiner) March 10, 2018

author: Hong Kong Free Press


text:
Why Isn’t Mexico’s Government Surveillance Investigation Moving Forward? · Global Voices
Giovanna Salazar

A presentation of the play “Privacy,” starring Diego Luna and Luis Gerardo Méndez. The celebration of 100 showings of the play was an occasion in which artists and public figures gathered with ordinary citizens to denounce the standstill in the investigations into the case #GobiernoEspía (#SpyGovernment). Screen shot of the video shared by NotimexTV, available on YouTube.
Since at least 2013, there has been evidence that the Mexican government possesses sophisticated surveillance technology.
But it was not until 2016, with the case dubbed #GobiernoEspía (#SpyGovernment), that Mexico found itself in an uproar over government surveillance at both the national and international levels. The case was made public in the middle of 2016 thanks to the investigation, documentation, and publication of jointly prepared report from non-profit civil and digital rights organizations Article 19, Red en Defensa de los Derechos Digitales (R3D, Network in Defense of Digital Rights), SocialTIC, and the University of Toronto's Citizen Lab.
The investigation uncovered the government's use of a surveillance software product called Pegasus to spy on reporters, activists and civil rights advocates under critical circumstances involving their work. The software was manufactured and sold to the Mexican government by the Israeli company NSO Group.
Since then, dozens of civil society organizations, national and international public figures and the victims of technical surveillance have united to speak out against indiscriminate and arbitrary surveillance practices.
A joint general statement signed and published on June 19, 2017 read:
Exigimos rendición de cuentas por parte del gobierno mexicano sobre el uso de malware para realizar espionaje, la apertura de investigaciones independientes, exhaustivas y transparentes, así como sanciones contra los responsables que, mediante el abuso del poder, han decidido vulnerar ilegalmente la privacidad de estos actores sociales. Asimismo, exigimos las reformas legales necesarias para regular las facultades de vigilancia del Estado de conformidad con los parámetros de derechos humanos y garantizando la rendición de cuentas.
We demand fiscal accountability from the Mexican government regarding the use of malware to conduct espionage, thorough and transparent independent investigations, and sanctions against those responsible who, through the abuse of power, have decided to infringe upon the privacy of these advocates for social change. Additionally, we demand the legal reforms that are necessary to control state surveillance practices so that they comply with human rights parameters and guarantee fiscal accountability.
Unfortunately, eight months after this happened, and despite the fact that the authorities announced that they would initiate an investigation to establish who should be held responsible, no results or substantial advances in this regard have been seen.
Sketch de domingo porque lo de #gobiernoespia es gravísimo y hay que hablarlo https://t.co/ApQ62vmjtt #hagodibujitos pic.twitter.com/QiJdJEzOAD
— Eréndira Derbez (@erederbez) February 25, 2018
Sketch on Sunday because the #gobiernoespia issue is serious and we need to talk about it
Translation of sketch:
#Spy Government
In 2017 the New York Times published a report —>
—> the Mexican government purchased a spying software —> for almost 80 million dollars —> PEGASUS —> That can only be used to spy on organized crime
—> But they used it to spy on journalists and NGOs ([journalists] Aristegui, Loret, [organizations] ProDH, Mexicans Against Corruption, etc
—>That's illegal!  —> The victims reported the crime
—> 8 months after the beginning of the investigation there's no serious progress —> It's a bureaucratic labyrinth —> The Attorney General's Office is not going to investigate itself
—>  To have a proper investigation, we need an autonomous (and independent) Attorney General's Office —> So governmental abuses can be punished.
On February 20, 2018, a new report from The New York Times announced that, among other things, United States government officials had rejected requests from the Mexican government to aid in the investigations. The reason given was that they didn't want to legitimize an investigation which, from the beginning, was thought to be corrupt.
Indeed, the Office of the Attorney General (Procuraduría General de la República, commonly referred to as PGR) — the agency in charge of leading the investigation — is one of the federal government agencies that appeared to have bought and used this surveillance software.
Reportaje del @nytimes exhibe la nula disposición del gobierno mexicano para resolver el caso #GobiernoEspía.
El FBI no quiso entrarle a ser comparsa de la PGR y validar su simulación. https://t.co/R6IJZrlvT5
— Pepe Flores ?? (@padaguan) February 20, 2018
Report from @nytimes shows the inability of the Mexican government to resolve the case #GobiernoEspía.
The FBI didn't want to get involved with the PGR and authenticate its hoax. https://t.co/R6IJZrlvT5
In this new article from The New York Times, ex-assistant attorney general to the PGR Mario Ignacio Álvarez even stated:
Lo más probable es que los actores políticos que usaron este software están frenando la investigación para que no progrese.
Este es un país donde todavía es mejor rezarle a la Virgen de Guadalupe para que haya justicia que hacerlo a las autoridades”.
Most likely, the politicians who used this software are slowing down the investigation so that it doesn't move forward.
This is a country where it is still better to pray to the Virgin Mary for justice than it is to go to the authorities.
The advocacy organizations that have been pressing for answers since the case was first uncovered recently called for the formation of a panel of independent experts that can, in contrast with the PGR, carry out an investigation that is reliable, impartial, and thorough to establish who is responsible and hold them accountable.
In the statement, which was published on the same day as the last report from the NYT, the signatory organizations highlighted evidence of the federal government's lack of intention to clarify the facts. They enumerated various actions that have not been taken to sanction those who were guilty of using this kind of illegal surveillance.
All of the above has been summarized in the episode “Cyberwar, the Pegasus case” from the documentary series “Cyberwar” by VICE media, which its producers describe as being dedicated to exposing the cyber espionage networks that exist in different parts of the world.
Frente al #GobiernoEspía y la falta de investigación, R3Dmx, @CentroProdh y @article19mex exigen una investigación independiente, pues a 8 meses no hay avances.
El documental “Cyberwar” de @VICE pone en evidencia el uso de Pegasus por parte del gobierno mexicano. pic.twitter.com/Lg62dLIpdQ
— Centro Prodh (@CentroProdh) February 28, 2018
In the face of #GobiernoEspía and the lack of investigation, R3Dmx, @CentroProdh and @article19mex demand an independent investigation, since there haven't been any advances in 8 months.
The documentary “Cyberwar” by @VICE reveals the use of Pegasus by the Mexican government.
The Mexican government hasn't made any announcements up to now, although the demands for accountability continue. As recently as 25 February, the artistic community, civil society organizations, activists and journalists joined together not only to celebrate that the play “Privacidad” (“Privacy,” starring Diego Luna and Luis Gerardo Méndez) had completed 100 performances, but also to publicly condemn the fact that the crimes continue to go unpunished.
Some of the people who were targets of the surveillance by Pegasus participated in the celebration, as well as Edward Snowden.
Anoche @diegoluna_ y @LuisGerardoM celebraron 100 funciones de #Privacidad junto con los defensores de derechos humanos, activistas y periodistas espiados con Pegasus por el #GobiernoEspía.
Last night, Diego Luna and Luis Gerardo Méndez celebrated the 100th presentation of the play “Privacy” (Privacidad) with human rights defenders, activists and journalists that were spied on using Pegasus by the Spy Government.
Edward @Snowden reconoció la valiente denuncia hecha por los objetivos del #GobiernoEspía y felicitó al equipo de la obra @privacidadmex por socializar la importancia de este derecho. pic.twitter.com/NRk6hBd2aW
— R3D (@R3Dmx) February 27, 2018
Edward Snowden highlighted the brave exposure made by those targeted by the Spy Government and congratulated the team behind the play “Privacy” for amplifying the importance of that right.

author: Giovanna Salazar


text:
Can Germany’s ‘Lex Facebook’ Be Saved? A Business and Human Rights Analysis · Global Voices
Ben Wagner

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg on stage at Facebook's F8 conference. Photo by pestoverde via Flickr (CC BY 2.0)
In an attempt to stifle hate speech and racial discrimination online, German lawmakers built one of the most controversial EU laws regulating online platforms in 2017.
Commonly known as “NetzDG”, Germany’s Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz (Network Enforcement Law) requires large social media companies to proactively enforce German speech laws on their platforms. This has been met with a storm of criticism both at home and abroad.
The law imposes fines on social networks if they fail to remove “manifestly unlawful” content within 24 hours of receiving a complaint about such content, and gives companies up to seven days to consider the removal of more ambiguous material. Since Germany’s criminal code already defines hate speech, the law does not create new measures or definitions beyond requiring large social networks to answer legal summons related to the law through a German address.
Instead, it forces companies to police hate speech or face astronomical fines for persistent violations of up to 50 million Euro. While this increases pressure on the companies to respond, it also forces them to decide what is — and is not — hate speech. The short time frame in which the law expects companies to remove hate speech could easily lead them to err on the side of automated censorship, in an effort to avoid steep fines.
NetzDG is rooted in Europe’s current political moment, much more so than in long-standing tensions over the power and rights of social media companies when it comes to hosting online speech.
During Germany’s 2017 election season, fears of the right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) winning seats in parliament led to a cacophony of voices pressuring legislators to prevent hate speech on social media, with Facebook being a primary target. This largely drowned out voices that argued for a measured approach that would require greater transparency and accountability from social media companies, in an effort to protect user rights and interests.
While all social media companies must comply with the law, it is understood among policy experts that this “lex Facebook” was always meant to bring one specific company to heel.
What we now have in Germany is a law that demands respect and disproportionate attention from Facebook without actually forcing the company to reform its practices in the public interest.
Every time legislators feel pressure to systematically mitigate harmful speech online, they seem to transfer more and more of the actual responsibility of regulating content to private companies themselves. The end result is that Facebook is required to decide more — not less — about what types of content should stay online.
And while its implementation technically remains within German borders, its effects can be felt worldwide. Can the law be repaired sufficiently to prevent further harm to human rights online? Or should it be scrapped completely?
In practice, the NetzDG creates a slightly different user experience for German Facebookers who encounter speech that they think is illegal. When users seek to flag potentially illegal content, they are led to a separate complaint page through which they can ask Facebook to take down content under the next NetzDG law. The page is completely separate from the existing mechanisms for reporting harmful content that Facebook offers users in the rest of the world. The page also seems to have a separate escalation mechanism behind it.
Screenshot of NetzDG complaint page by author.
Most of what the NetzDG law does is refer to existing German legal norms on illegal content. Importantly, it also attaches tight time limits and fines to fulfilling requests for the company to remove illegal content.
Yet we still know very little about how Facebook actually determines what content abides by German law and what does not.
Will content flagged on Facebook be evaluated by a human being or an algorithm? If it is seen by a human being, does that person live in San Francisco, the Philippines or Dublin? What languages does that person speak? Does the person know the cultural context of each post flagged for review? Does that person have any legal training? Who makes the ultimate decision in the content review process?
We don’t know, because Facebook does not make this information public. The process could vary dramatically, depending on the answers to these questions.
One brighter element of the NetzDG is a requirement that companies publish periodic, detailed transparency reports about the results of the law’s implementation. However, the categories of data for this transparency report proposed by the NetzDG law do not offer a meaningful understanding of how Facebook makes decisions. The transparency required only extends to the implementation of the law itself and does not pertain to all content removal decisions made by Facebook. Decisions made within the scope of the Terms of Service are completely separate — the law requires no transparency about such decisions.
Moreover, the NetzDG requires a type of transparency from Facebook that the German government itself does not provide for its own institutions. It is impossible to get a national overview of all content removal or data requests made by German public authorities, let alone an agency-by-agency breakdown of these records. German companies such as the Posteo email platform suggest that a large proportion of the government requests they receive for user information are illegal under German law. Could this mean that a similar proportion of content removal requests are also illegal? Publicly-accessible data on such requests could help to answer this question.
At the same time, the NetzDG law does attempt to impose some additional transparency measures upon Facebook’s decision-making process, by requiring regular transparency reports from the company about how the law is implemented.
Anti-AfD demonstration in Cologne, Germany, April 2017. Photo by Elke Wetzig via Wikimedia (CC BY-SA 4.0)
Finally, the law misses the opportunity to define a common standard for the disclosure of data, that would allow for it to be meaningfully searched and cross-referenced between private companies. This means that every company will provide the information in a different format and with different metrics, making meaningful comparisons — for example, between Facebook and Twitter  — essentially impossible. Private companies could and should have developed such common disclosure standards jointly long ago, but since they show little interest in making their data meaningfully comparable, civil society organisations are left to step in and define appropriate standards.
These facts together make it impossible for independent third parties to cross-reference public sector transparency reports with private sector transparency reports. It’s not rocket science to ensure that transparency is provided by both public and private sectors in a manner that ensures the statements made are independently verifiable and thus far more accountable than if they were made by any one actor alone. But to the detriment of the public interest, the law does not go this far.
Perhaps most absurdly, while much of the public debate on the law was full of reports on how the existing self-regulatory regime on Facebook wasn’t working, there are very few components of NetzDG that actually improve it.
This means it is still perfectly possible to for Facebook to take down images of breast-feeding mothers or non-violent political speech that it deems offensive while leaving incitement to violence on the platform completely untouched.
Higher minimum standards for self-regulation on Facebook would go a long way to responding to the many challenging questions about content regulation on Facebook, which we still know almost nothing about.
For example, a minimum level of legal training — in German law — for individuals making decisions about content would go a long way to ensuring that they are able to make effective decisions that respect German law.
At the German Ministry of Justice, the author of the NetzDG law noted: “with power and control comes responsibility.”
But the unique shape and scope of influence of social media companies has left legislators in a  regulatory paradox. As more and more legislators focus on “doing something about Facebook”, they find themselves in a downward spiral of deregulation. Perhaps vexed by the unique characteristics of social media companies, legislators are dumping decision-making power and responsibility on the companies in a manner that is neither helpful nor effective in resolving the problem. As such, they are privatising decisions that should be made by independent authorities. Each regulatory invention by legislators wanting to do the right thing just leaves them trapped in the same regulatory paradigm of transferring more responsibility to Facebook,Google and the many other (mostly smaller) players on the field.
Moreover, there are other areas in which the public sector could play a meaningful role in mitigating hate speech on social media. If judicial decisions were easily accessible, affordable and swift, users facing harassment or threats of violence online could actually turn to law enforcement for help and protection. Rather than bringing in Facebook as a privatised police force, the law could instead shift the burden of decision-making to public actors. Of course, this would also require them to acknowledge that improvements are necessary to ensure swift and effective impartial public decision-making, within the existing constitutional bounds of German law and existing international standards.
This is not impossible.
The Netherlands Police service employs a special centralised unit that is setup to process all takedown orders and requests for data to online service providers, in an effort to ensure that they are legally sound. Such a model, combined with additional judicial oversight, could be a start for German legislators to show they are serious about fixing a problem, rather than expecting Facebook to do it for them. By offloading responsibility to Facebook, the public sector doesn’t just fail to solve the problem — it becomes actively complicit in making it worse.
So what does this mean in practice? Can the law be fixed and if so how? Broadly speaking, legislators could improve the NetzDG by reducing the amount of regulatory power it gives to private companies and ensuring that instead to the public sector take greater responsibility and civil society play a greater role.
They could abandon the 24-hour window for content removal and replace this with a more limited solution in which Facebook would hand over all cases – whether manifestly illegal or not – to a German self-regulatory body, which would then have more time to consider them.
They could invest in the German legal system beyond requiring a local address for Facebook, making the judicial system more accessible and ensure that existing government decisions are more transparent and accountable.
An amended NetzDG also could set and enforce an open standard for its already-required transparency reports. A successful open standard would allow citizens to cross-reference data between public and private entities, and use these mechanisms to hold companies and the government to account for their responsibilities.
And at a higher level, the law could set a process in motion to begin an open public debate, incorporating all relevant stakeholders basic, that would determine minimum standards of self-regulation for online platforms which conform with human rights and international standards.
These steps might turn a heavily criticised law into a slightly less problematic legal text. Such a revised NetzDG law that conforms with international human rights standards and actually considers the opinion of international legal experts while being drafted could help reduce some of the damage the law has done internationally. The German government needs to ask itself why a carbon copy of the NetzDG law is currently being considered by the Russian Duma and how this reflects on its obligations to uphold and protect human rights.
In order to develop a less awful NetzDG, legislators need to first acknowledge and then break out of the (de-)regulatory spiral they are currently trapped in. Business as usual is not an effective way to regulate large private intermediaries. Focusing on basic human rights norms and standards is.

author: Ben Wagner


text:
From Graffiti to Politics, Anti-Semitic and Neo-Nazi Speech Is Becoming More Visible in Eastern Europe · Global Voices
Filip Stojanovski

Neo-Nazi graffiti on the monument to Soviet soldiers in Plovdiv, Bulgaria, 10 November 2017. Text reading “Communism = Jewishness.” 88 is a Neo-Nazi code for “Heil Hitler.” Other graffiti on the crime scene include text such as “Kill the Jews” and “Crystal night.” Photo by PodTepeto.com.
Recent events in Eastern Europe show a rise in antisemitism rhetoric, including in European Union (EU) members like Bulgaria and other EU candidate countries.
In November, monuments to the Soviet army in the cities of Plovdiv and Sofia, Bulgaria, a country that was a close ally of the USSR during its existence, were vandalized with anti-Semitic graffiti. Russia's foreign ministry spokesperson, instead of condemning the graphic show of anti-Semitism, used the fact to try to revise the history of the rescue of the Bulgarian Jews during World War II.
Bulgaria joined World War II on the side of Nazi Germany, and as such perpetrated the Holocaust of Jews from Macedonia and Northern Greece in 1943. However the pro-fascist authorities faced difficulties in exterminating the rest of the Jewish population, who were mostly saved through efforts by domestic pro-democratic forces and the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. On September 9, 1944, after the Red Army occupied the country, Bulgaria changed its government and switched its support to the Allies.
The attempt to exploit the anti-Semitic graffiti for propaganda purposes, and present the USSR as savior of Bulgarian Jews, resulted in pushback from the Bulgarian foreign ministry spokesperson, the American Jewish Committee, as well as different media outlets and influential bloggers.
A worrisome aspect resulting from the debate, however, was that because the graffiti appeared on Soviet monuments, right-wing political parties in Bulgaria largely gave the anti-Semitism a “free pass”, under the guise that opposing communism is more important.
This isn't the first instance fo anti-Semitic graffiti in Bulgaria. In 2016, visiting UK-based musician and writer Rachel Susser noted:
I started counting the swastikas sometime in December. Most days I would see at least one, but usually there were more. There were two between my apartment and my favorite bakery, and four on the way to my dance class. More than five visible through the bus window on the ride between Sofia and Plovdiv. Eleven in the first two hours of the drive north through the mountain pass toward Veliko Tarnovo. There are other neo-Nazi, white supremacist, and ultra-nationalist symbols, too.
Adela Peeva directed a 2017 documentary titled  “Long Live Bulgaria” about rising nationalism in smaller cities in the country. In an interview with Bulgarian public television, she explained that what she saw were strong nationalistic views among those populations, combined with anti-Semitism and hate of the Roma population. A prime example can be seen in the opening scenes of the film, including the trailer below, in which a schoolboy states, “The national holiday is not for the foreigners or for the Gypsies.”
In October 2017, Bulgarian literature critic Dimitar Kambourov was accused by a number of prominent figures, and at least one Jewish organization, of using anti-Semitic speech in his review of the documentary “Angel Wagenstein – Art Is A Weapon”, about the life of screenwriter Angel Wagenstein, including his time in a Jewish brigade during wartime Bulgaria. After the uproar, Kambourov's review was taken down from the portal “Kultura” (culture), with an apology by the editor-in-chief. Another news outlet, Liberal Review, published a story, in which the author said that Kambourov has written in the past other racist texts.
Like the November graffiti, where anti-communism was used as an excuse for anti-Semitism, the heated discussion around the movie review was also focused on the fact that it was presented through an anti-communist point of view.
In 1943, the deportation of 48,000 Jews from Bulgaria was stopped, but only after 11,343 people were already sent away from the occupied territories in Northern Greece and Macedonia. In February 2018, Bulgarian far-right extremists continued to honor the memory of one of the proponents of the Holocaust (assassinated by anti-Nazi fighters in 1943), by holding a parade in the center of Sofia, the capital, in his honor.
Veni Markovski, an anti-fascist digital activist in Bulgaria, told Global Voices:
The result of all of the above, is a clear sign that more educational work is needed, and one could hope that Bulgaria would take the lead and confront anti-Semitism.
He's not alone in warning about the need to do something about anti-Semitism. Civil society activists from Central and Eastern Europe have been sounding the alarm about increasingly emboldened hate speech against Jewish people and apology for perpetrators of the Holocaust, as well as about the dangers of allowing it to pass with impunity.
For example, at a November 13, 2017 march of far-right nationalists in Warsaw, marking the anniversary of Poland's independence, chants calling for the country to be free of Jews were heard, according to the Times of Israel.
In Macedonia, a candidate for the EU, social media users took the occasion of Holocaust Memorial Day, January 28, to revisit a short-lived scandal in 2011 involving the country's current president, Gjorge Ivanov, who was elected in 2009 and 2014 with support by right-wing populist party VMRO-DPMNE.
In 2011 a newspaper called Shpic revealed that Ivanov, who previously worked as a political science professor, had co-written a university textbook which defined anti-Semitism as “hating Jews more than necessary.” Several months later, that newspaper was shut down by the government. The textbook is still in use.
Од неисцрпните бисери на #хорхе:
„Антисемитист е човек што ги мрази Евреите повеќе од потребното“
Извор: „Политички теории – Антика“; автори: д-р Ѓорге Иванов и д-р Светомир Шкариќ
Бонус: Звездан Георгиевски „Антисемитизам во претседателскиот двор“ > https://t.co/ABrH0f6FAs pic.twitter.com/CgcjflqgMv
— Neb. Gelevski – Bane (@banekoma) February 2, 2018
Tweet: One of the endless ‘pearls of wisdom’ by #Jorge [derogatory nickname for Gjorge Ivanov]:
“An anti-Semite is a person who hates Jews more than necessary”
Source: “Political theories – Antiquity”; authors Gjorge Ivanov, PhD, and Svetomir Škarić, PhD
Bonus: [link to an article by journalist] Zvezdan Georgievski “Antisemitism on the presidential court”
Photo: Excerpt from the book with the quote underlined, and photos of Ivanov and Škarić.
While not as common as in Bulgaria, swastika graffiti do pollute the walls of Macedonia too. Over the last several years, when graffiti of this nature appears, or when there is the occasional vandalism against the Jewish Cemetery in the southern city of Bitola, the public pays very little attention, and the perpetrators are not brought to justice.
An exception to the established practice of ignoring neo-Nazi and anti-Semitic hate speech is a recent announcement by the Macedonian police about the results of an investigation after swastika graffiti painted on the memorial museum of the uprising against fascism as well as some other buildings in the city of Prilep. On March 7, 2018, they issued an announcement that they filed charges against a suspect identified as K.D. (15) under the Criminal Code article 264 for “damage or destruction of protected objects, cultural heritage or natural rarities”.
Neo-Nazi symbols on the megaphone used by Macedonian right-wing politician Todor Petrov. Screenshot from a video clip by A1on.
Widespread understanding of the coded neo-Nazi symbols such as those displayed on the Plovdiv, Bulgaria monument is low. When in March 2016 a Macedonian right-wing politician and former member of parliament, Todor Petrov, used a megaphone branded with “SS 14 88″ (meaning Schutzstaffel, Fourteen Words, Heil Hitler) at a nationalist rally, the only reaction came from the then-European Union mediator of the negotiations between political parties, Belgian expert Peter Vanhoutte.
Several media quoted his Facebook post expressing outrage, but there were little additional actions by domestic actors or institutions. Petrov, who has close ties with VMRO-DPMNE, the former governing party which presents itself as center-right and as such is a member of European People's Party, has since stopped using the megaphone. However, he continues to participate in numerous hate-filled public events organized by their proxy groups, and is currently engaged in rallies and diaspora announcements against the negotiations regarding the Macedonia name issue.
Civil society activists and other progressive forces in the region have been warning for years about the corrosive effects of hate speech on social cohesion. It's no coincidence, then that in recent months, European institutions and NATO have declared that confronting extremism in the region is one of their top priorities.

author: Filip Stojanovski


text:
International Women’s Day in Latin America Was a Day of Protest, Debate and Resistance · Global Voices
Laura Vidal

Images from the Women's International Day Demonstration taken on March 8th in Montevideo, Uruguay. Shared by online collective Emergentes and used with permission.
This post was written in collaboration with Marianne Díaz Hernandez, Sandra Abd'Allah-Alvarez Ramírez, Giovanna Salazar, Fernanada Canofre and Romina Navarro.
In Latin America, March 8th was marked by protests and commemorations both online and offline. Thousands of women took to the streets and to their social networks to join the demonstrations and voice their concerns. Although the motivation behind each protest was unique to its specific country, women across the region were united in resistance against the difficult realities faced by women Latin America — the most violent region of the world for women.
In Chile, protests were linked to increased economic instability marked by invisible and unpaid work that disproportionally affects women, while the center of discussion in Argentina's gatherings continued to revolve around issues of legal and safe abortion. Women in Puerto Rico marched and also gathered in public debates that included cultural and artistic presentations reminding the public about the double burden placed on women in the current economic situation. Other forms of protests were lead by female journalists from all over the region who shared different testimonies regarding their profession. Luz Mely Reyes, Co-founder and general director of Efecto Cocuyo wrote:
No sólo nos enfrentamos a un gremio históricamente dominado por ellos (como muchos otros gremios), nos enfrentamos también a medios cooptados por intereses capitalistas dominados por hombres y en lo más básico de nuestro ejercicio nos enfrentamos a fuentes, a entrevistados, a hombres que ostentan el poder y que nos deslegitiman como periodistas por el simple hecho de ser mujeres.
We're not only facing a profession historically dominated by them [men], like many other professions. We also face a media system that has been co-opted by capitalistic interests and dominated by men. [Even in] the highest positions, we face sources, interviewees or men in power that delegitimize us as journalists just because we are women.
Many of the demonstrations were shared under the hashtags #8M or #DiaInternacionalDeLaMujer (International Women's Day) where pictures and videos coming from different cities in the region are still flowing online.
Networks also became learning spaces as many feminists and online media groups shared infographics and memes explaining how March 8th was not a celebration day but an opportunity to commemorate the many struggles women face globally. The online media organization Pictoline, as it has done in other years, created an infographic which put together many of the arguments shared online about how men can best support women:
Image shared online by Pictoline. Used with permission.
Better than flowers:
Things you can do on International Women's Day.
Learn: Quoting Nelson Mandela, “education is the most powerful weapon”. Learn about injustices that women face or about the importance of solving current problems regarding gender.
Support: There are different organizations that need help to improve women's situation around the world. These are some of the ones you can help: Inspiring girls, Women for Women, ONU Women
Act: Get involve in the battle against harassment, defend women's reproductive rights and join campaigns against gender violence. Any action paving the way towards a fairer society.
No, Alejandro, el #DiaInternacionalDeLaMujer no es para ‘celebrarla’ ni para regalarle rosas pic.twitter.com/An9KXmeNvX
— Plumas Atómicas (@plumasatomicas) March 7, 2018
In the image: Why shouldn't you congratulate women for being women on March 8th? Because we end up celebrating femininity instead equal rights.
Between 1909 and 1917 women organized to demand better salaries, the right to vote, equality. In 1975 the UN determined that March 8th would be the day in which we commemorate these struggles.
So, congratulating a woman on March 8th is like congratulating a student on Octiber the 2nd [the day in which Mexico commemorates the Tlatelolco Massacre in which hundreds of people were reported to have been killed].
We commemorate a struggle that is not over.
In the tweet: No, Alejandro, on #InternationalWomensDay you shouldn't be ‘celebrating her’ or giving her roses.
Meanwhile, memes were also a very popular and direct way to explain this same point, like the following one using a pop culture reference from American animated series The Simpsons:
Image widely shared online on March 8th
This March 8th, if you give flowers you get a paddlin’
The complexity around the debate over women's rights wasn't limited to misogynistic vs. feminist clashes.  Participation by women of color and transwomen also reflected the different trends, privileges, and oppressions within women's rights movement. Some of the discussions underlined the lack of diversity and the exclusive nature behind many calls for the strike — seen by many non-white feminists as something designed and organized from a very specific and privileged part of society. For many of these women, the demonstrations and the strikes don't constitute a victory but an example of a very complex reality.
In an interview with Eldiario.es, Antoinette Torres Soler, the founder and co-writer of the collective site Afroféminas, explained why many women of color didn't join the strike:
…hemos decidido seguir otro rumbo […] El feminismo negro tiene una historia diferente. Es así, no es un capricho. Además, tiene unos referentes totalmente distintos, parte de las huellas que dejó la colonización y de cómo se construyó la mujer o, más bien, cómo se deshumanizó a la mujer negra. Nuestra lucha, nuestra reivindicación fundamental es la deshumanización de la mujer racializada. Pero esta deshumanización no viene solo de los hombres; también de las mujeres […] Primero pedíamos, exigíamos más bien, visibilidad dentro de un mismo proyecto, aún teniendo en cuenta que la historia es diferente. Que la historia sea diferente implica que obligatoriamente tienes que estar hablando de cosas distintas. Por esto he recibido muchas críticas. La gente piensa que se trata de excluir, pero nosotras siempre hemos estado excluidas.
We chose to follow a different path […] Black feminism has a different history. That's a fact, it's not capriciousness. Also, [black feminism] has very different references, they're part of the traces left by colonizations and how women, black woman, were deconstructed, or rather, dehumanized. Our struggle, our fundamental concern is the dehumanization of racialized women. But this dehumanization does not come only from men, it also comes from women […] We asked, we demanded to be visible inside of the same project, even taking into account that our history is different. The fact that our history is different implies that you have to talk about different things. For this I've received a lot of criticism. People think we try to be exclude ourselves, but we have always been excluded.
In Venezuela, political divisions also permeated the debate. The hashtags #8M and #NosotrasParamos (We strike) were joined by women who support the government. In response, the hashtag #EspejismoFeminista (Feminist Mirage) was created to denounce chauvinist behavior by government representatives. The collective portal Caracas Chronicles summarizes many of the reactions:
Far from protecting women, your government takes advantage of them. Hypocritically speaking of women’s rights, to produce politically “inclusive” speeches is just another way of abuse.
On a day like this, I had to tell you, my dear socialist, self-proclaimed feminist:
In Mexico, women belonging to the Zapatista movement in Chiapas, a left-wing political and militant group, organized the first International Political Artistic and Cultural Encounter of Women who Struggle. In their main message, they underlined the different ways that their fight for justice is not only related to their gender, but also to their race, class and politics.
PORQUE VIVÍ EL DESPRECIO, LA HUMILLACIÓN, LAS BURLAS, LAS VIOLENCIAS, LOS GOLPES, LAS MUERTES POR SER MUJER, POR SER INDÍGENA, POR SER POBRE Y AHORA POR SER ZAPATISTA. Y SÉPANLO BIEN QUE NO SIEMPRE ERA HOMBRE QUIEN ME EXPLOTABA, ME ROBABA, ME HUMILLABA, ME GOLPEABA, ME DESPRECIABA, ME MATABA. TAMBIÉN MUCHAS VECES ERA MUJER QUIEN ASÍ ME HACÍA.  Y TODAVÍA ASÍ HACEN.
Because I've experienced being looked down on, humiliated, being made fun of. The violence the strikes, the deaths for being a woman, for being indigenous, for being poor and now for being zapatista. Know that it wasn't always a man who would exploit me, steal from me, humiliate me, strike me, despise me or kill me. Often times those who did all that to me were women. And they still do.
Nevertheless, they finish with an ideal that can very well summarize the common ground of all of those struggling for women's fundamental rights:
Y TAMBIÉN CRECÍ EN LA RESISTENCIA Y VI CÓMO MIS COMPAÑERAS LEVANTARON ESCUELAS, CLÍNICAS, TRABAJOS COLECTIVOS, Y GOBIERNOS AUTÓNOMOS […] Y VÍ QUE LA REBELDÍA, QUE LA RESISTENCIA, QUE LA LUCHA, ES TAMBIÉN UNA FIESTA, AUNQUE A VECES NO HAY MÚSICA NI BAILE Y SÓLO HAY LA CHINGA DE LOS TRABAJOS, DE LA PREPARACIÓN, DE LA RESISTENCIA.
[But] I also grew up in resistence and saw how my women partners built schools, hospitals, collective work and autonomous governments […] I saw that rebelliousness, the resistance and the struggle are also a celebration, even if sometimes there's no music or dance, and only the drag of work, of all the preparation, of the resistance.

author: Laura Vidal


text:
Millions of People Take to the Streets in the Largest Show of Support for the Feminist Struggle in Spain’s History · Global Voices
Lourdes Sada

8-M demonstrations in Madrid, Barcelona, Seville and Vigo. Photos from the eldiario.es website, under CC-BY-SA license.
More than five million people (possibly even six million) went on strike in Spain on March 8 to show their support for the feminist struggle in a huge movement that many consider a historic moment in the struggle for gender equality.
This initiative was so successful that it received extensive international media coverage. Women hung their aprons from balconies in a subtle act of solidarity for those who couldn't take part in the strike because of their work or family obligations.
One of the main reasons behind the strike is the economic effect of the crisis which has hit women harder than men. Female unemployment is 3.4% higher than male unemployment and job insecurity triples that of men. The wage gap, according to the latest Eurostat report, stands at 14.9% which also translates into lower pensions and a higher percentage of women who experience economic hardships.
In addition, mainstream media and social media have contributed to the growth of the strike. In recent days, the press has been extensively covering the opinions of the most influential politicians on this feminist strike. The reactions ranged from the unconditional support of the leaders of the Unidos Podemos (‘United We Can’) alliance, a tepid reaction from the PSOE which supported the women's demands but not the strike, to the direct rejection by of People's Party that governs the country.
The radical change of position taken by the People's Party is worth mentioning. At the beginning of the week, its members argued and accused the strike of instigating “the confrontation between men and women” and of pretending to “break our model of Western society,” labeling it “irresponsible, elitist and unsupportive”. On the day of the strike, President Mariano Rajoy surprised everyone by supporting the feminist actions and disavowing the position of several leaders of his party, some of whom even went so far as to accuse the women of being elites and asked, “who will care for the elderly and minors?”:
¿No pueden esas mujeres ir a la huelga? ¿No pueden las autónomas ir a la huelga? Esa huelga es para las élites feministas y no para las mujeres reales que tienen obligaciones.
Isn't true that those women can't go on strike? Isn't true that the self-employed can't go on strike? This strike is for feminist elites and not for real women who have obligations.
The group Afroféminas reported that it was not planning on joining the strike because it considered it the product of  “mainstream feminism, explicitly white”:
No hay representación, ni visibilización de nuestras posturas, y nuestra principal reivindicación como mujeres racializadas [es que] el racismo se obvia, ya que en realidad, no se le da ninguna importancia. La brecha más grande es entre blancxs y racializadxs.
There is no representation nor visibility of our positions and our main claim as racialized women [is that] although racism is obvious, in reality, it is not given importance. The biggest gap is between white people and people who are racialized.
This position has caused some feminists to get upset, like “qwerty”, who commented on the website:
Vamos, el problema es que no os victimizan lo suficiente. En lugar de pelear por salir adelante, a llorar para dar pena. Claro que sí, guapis.
Come on, the problem is that they do not victimize you enough. Instead of fighting to get ahead, you cry for pity. Of course, lovelies.
But most people have understood the reasons for these demonstrations, like Carolina, who also participated in the discussion on the website:
Gracias por vuestro testimonio, de este nos queda reflexionar y trabajar todo lo posible para incluir a todas. No hay excusas que valgan, hay que trabajar esto ya. Gracias.
Thank you for your testimony, we have to reflect on this problem and do whatever is possible to include everyone. There are no valid excuses. We have to work on these issues straight away. Thank you.
The Catholic Church also commented on the feminist movement, although its opinions have been conflicting. On the one hand, Archbishop of Madrid Carlos Osoro, said he understood the women who support the strike because they must “defend their rights,” and concluded: “I would also support it, in fact, the Blessed Virgin Mary does.” However, Bishop of San Sebastian Ignacio Munilla, well-known for his controversial ultra-conservative views, spoke with the Radio Maria station and stated:
Es curioso cómo el demonio puede meter un gol desde las propias filas. El feminismo, al haber asumido la ideología de género, se ha hecho una especie de ‘hara kiri’
It is interesting how the devil can score a goal from their own ranks. Feminism, having assumed the gender ideology, has become a kind of ‘hara-kiri’ (referring to the Japanese suicide ritual Seppuku)
That has prompted the Twitter user named Filosofía Perdida to answer this:
#EsMachismoCuando ves al demonio en el feminismo y en la igualdad, pero no lo ves en la pederastia ni en la pedofilia. pic.twitter.com/D3NvOJgQsT
— Filosofía Perdida (@FiloPolitics) 6 de marzo de 2018
#EsMachismoCuando (#IsMachismoWhen) you see the devil in feminism and equality but you do not see it in pederasty or pedophilia.
The hashtag #EsMachismoCuando (#IsMachismoWhen) has been trending on the social media and has lead to heated debate:
#EsMachismoCuando una mujer que aborta es una asesina pero un hombre que mata a su mujer es un presunto asesino.
— María. (@mssmry_) 8 de marzo de 2018
#EsMachismoCuando (#IsMachismoWhen) a woman who has an abortion is a murderer, but a man who kills his wife is an alleged murderer.
#EsMachismoCuando los hombres toleramos e incluso reímos las gracias machistas de otros y no tenemos el valor de reprenderlos.
— Jose Manuel Puente (@JoseBurgales) 6 de marzo de 2018
#EsMachismoCuando (#IsMachismoWhen) men tolerate and even laugh at the macho antics of others and we do not have the courage to reprimand them.
#EsMachismoCuando
-¿Qué haces así vestida? ¿Vas a clase o de fiesta?
-Siéntate como una señorita
-Tienes que buscarte a un tío con dinero
-Es distinto con tu hermano, tú eres una niña
-¿Quien va a querer casarse contigo si no sabes ni freír un huevo?
— Brittany Ojeda (@brittyojeda) 6 de marzo de 2018
#EsMachismoCuando (#IsMachismoWhen)
- What are you doing dressed like that? Are you going to class or partying?
-Sit like a lady
-You have to look for a man with money
-It's different for your brother, you're a girl
-Who is going to want to marry you if you don't even know how to fry an egg?
Others used the same hashtag to express completely contrary opinions:
#EsMachismoCuando las que se hacen llamar feministas me obligan a odiar a todos los hombres bajo el lema machete al machote.
— Aini85?? (@AiniApgg) 8 de marzo de 2018
#EsMachismoCuando (#IsMachismoWhen) those who call themselves feminists force me to hate all men, to follow the call of ‘machete to macho’.
#EsMachismoCuando a la mujer le interesa. Ninguna de ellas nace con un contrato debajo del brazo obligándole a casarse, tener hijos, etc. Es opcional. Ya está bien de victimizarse por todo, a todas las horas. No se puede nadar y cuidar la ropa. Lo queréis (algunas) todo. pic.twitter.com/y85tZGVnmA
— Eneko (@stickplus_) 8 de marzo de 2018
#EsMachismoCuando (#IsMachismoWhen) the woman is interested. No woman is born with a contract in her hands forcing her to marry, have children, etc. It's optional. It is good to play the victim for everything all the time. You can not swim and also take care of your clothes at the same time. You (some of you) want everything.
#EsMachismoCuando una pareja se separa y el hombre se queda sin la casa, le da una pensión por los hijos a los que cada 15 días también cuando una mujer denuncia a un hombre y le detienen sin preguntarle siquiera, ah no que solo veis lo que queréis
— laura? (@Ivanmerlo07) 8 de marzo de 2018
#EsMachismoCuando (#IsMachismoWhen) a couple separates and the man remains without house and gives a pension for the children every 15 days; also, when a woman denounces a man and they arrest him without even asking him; when you see only what you want.
Despite the differing opinions and heated debates, it is clear that March 8th, 2018 will go down in history as a key day for feminist demands in Spain.

author: Lourdes Sada


text:
Societal Attitudes Are the Primary Threat Against Sexual and Gender Minorities in Ecuador · Global Voices
Carlos E. Flores

Social structure, certain religious beliefs, and a lack of judicial response from the state are a dangerous combination that result in the existence and continued activity of institutions that offer treatments to “reorient” the sexuality of LGBTQ people. Illustration by Mónica Rodríguez. Used with permission.
The following is the third part of a series about “de-homosexualization clinics” in Ecuador that forcibly admit lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and intersex (LGBTQI) people and subject them to abuse in the name of “curing” them. The report was written by Carlos Flores and originally published by Connectas. It was re-edited for Global Voices with the author's help.
The first part of this series tells some of these stories and the second part explores the legal circumstances that make LGBTQI people vulnerable to kidnapping and torture by these so-called clinics.
This final installment gives an account of the work of the organizations and activists who fight for the rights of LGBTQI people and against the most powerful limitation in advancing their cause: social conventions.
In February 2017, the city of Cuenca, in the south of Ecuador, approved a Municipal Ordinance for the Inclusion and Respect of Sexual Diversity. This ordinance prohibits the operation of centers offering supposed cures for homosexuality, bisexuality, or trans identities.
In spite of rules like these that seek to regulate and prevent the kidnapping and mistreatment of LGBTQI people, the cases have not stopped.
When these cases do occur, the aforementioned regulation states in Article 8 that “the municipal authorities for the control of land use will proceed with a final closure. Once the sanctioning process has been completed, by the competent municipal authority, the results will be sent to the corresponding criminal authority.”
However, in that same year and in the same city, two lesbian women were imprisoned against their will, a case that mobilized activists and local authorities to search for them.
There was also the case of Elías in the coastal province of Guayas. The boy had openly declared his homosexuality and his mother, who was of strong religious beliefs, made arrangements to confine him first in an Adventist school in Santo Domingo de los Tsáchilas and then in a clandestine clinic in Quinindé, located in the province of Esmeraldas on the border with Colombia.
According to his cousin, Elías was locked up and forced to beat up his companions “because that's how a man was made” in that school. When he ran away, he stayed at the home of his cousin for a time, but Elías soon reconciled with his mother and returned to stay with her. One day he disappeared and that was when his cousin filed a complaint with the Guayaquil Council for the Protection of Rights.
After being forcibly admitted, Elías and his mother came together and received psychological attention. Elías, according to his cousin, returned to a normal life. He and Elías live together Monday through Friday, and on weekends the boy visits his mother. There was no prosecution since the mother, at least in theory, reconsidered her position, according to Ludovico Garcés, the lawyer who oversaw the case. He said these “clinics” and the families tend hide their motives from authorities: “Obviously, these torture centers are never going to tell you that ‘we admitted him for being gay’. That is punishable by law.”
Apart from these cases, Cayetana Salao of the Women's Communication Workshop points out that they have learned “of four recent [cases], plus two more [of which the person was a victim several times].” These cases were made public in a text that was presented in October 2017, entitled “Portraits of Confinement, Survivors of Dehomosexualization Clinics“.
Many activists were surprised by the lack of municipal reaction to adopting these regulatory advances in Cuenca, even as the forced imprisonment of the two lesbian women mentioned previously came to light. One of the women was admitted to an addiction center called Mujer de Valor (Woman of Courage). When we spoke with Marcelo Campuzano, the director and owner, he admitted that indeed one of the young lesbians was in the institution, but he maintained that her admission was due to alcohol problems. “We do not de-homosexualize people, because that is not our job.”
However, the only document related to the case that was available for review was the simple copy of the Cuenca Provincial Health Directorate's ruling, which states that one of the women did have alcohol problems and that she had been taken by her family to the clinic. Although, the document continues, the woman never signed the informed consent form; this is contrary to what the Mujer de Valor center had attested. Despite this, the Provincial Office released the center from responsibility and only ordered them to comply with the requirements set forth in the regulation.
When asking about de-homosexualization cases in other addiction centers, the responses of the directors are the same: We do not de-homosexualize. Some affirm, categorically, that the admissions that have taken place were always due to addiction, and that the cases were duly demonstrated in front of judicial authorities.
Jorge Betancourt of the organization Verde Equilibrante (Balancing Green), in Cuenca, said we must not forget that the first aggression occur at home:
Muchas veces, en los grupos focales nos han comentado, [que] llegan a consumir el alcohol u otras sustancias porque es un medio que les ahonda sus penas, o la angustia de que en la casa los están martirizando, burlándose o muchas veces, hasta pegándoles. Luego las familias los internan por el uso de alcohol y drogas.
Many times, we have been told in the focus groups that they end up consuming alcohol or other substances as a way to drown their sorrows, or their anguish of being martyred, ridiculed, and often beaten at home. Then the families admit them for the use of alcohol and drugs.
Annie Wilkinson, who is the author of “Sin sanidad, no hay santidad” (Without sanity, there is no sanctity), a book which addresses forced sexual identity change therapies in Ecuador, identified a pattern of those who manage the clinics:
El director de un centro salió desde otro centro. Luego una persona sale de ese segundo centro y abre otro, y de allí sigue igual, creando una cadena o red informal de centros. Algunos están vinculados a personas en el gobierno y muchos tienen relaciones con iglesias cercanas que les ayudan en su trabajo.
A director of one of these clinics comes from another one. Then another person from that second clinic leaves and opens another. It goes on and on, creating a chain or an informal network of clinics. Some are linked to people in government and many have relationships with nearby churches that help them in their work.
It's not only addiction centers that offer these types of “therapies.” Churches also do such work under the heading of “spiritual help.”
The gray area between expression of faith, psychological therapy and forced change of sexual identity produces varying reactions. Patricio Aguirre, who was interviewed when he was in charge of the Ministry of Public Health’s National Direction of Human Rights, Gender and Inclusion, assured that churches should not offer such “treatments” because it is considered an infringement of rights.
As for Patricio Benalcázar of the Department of Protection of Citizens’ Rights, he explored the limits from another perspective:
Si las personas libremente consienten en ir a un culto y a un tipo de apoyo espiritual con el ejercicio de su autonomía qué puede hacer usted, qué puedo hacer yo […] otra cosa es si es que hay manipulación, si es que hay abuso y hay algún atentado a tu integridad psíquica, física o moral, donde por supuesto el eje de los derechos humanos tiene que participar.
If people freely agree to go to a service or a type of spiritual support, exercising their own autonomy, what can you do? What can I do? […] If there is manipulation, then that's another thing. If there is abuse and there is some attack on your mental, physical or moral integrity, then of course an element regarding the [defense] of human rights needs to be present.
When asked if he knew of any churches involved in practices outside the law, he answered that he did not.
However, those who have been victims of mistreatment by these religious institutions know quite well the reality of it all. In several of these cases, the victims are kidnapped by their own relatives with the help of agents working for the clinics, who take them forcibly or under false pretenses. The same method is used when the clinics in question are addiction centers. Those forcibly confined manage to leave this seclusion with the help of other relatives, friends or partners. Nevertheless, after submitting complaints to judicial bodies, the cases are rarely followed up with action.
Gabriela Alvear, who participated in some of the inspections that took place at centers suspected of carrying out sexual reorientation “therapies,” concluded:
Vamos a cumplir 20 años de la despenalización de la homosexualidad, pero se requiere despenalizar la homosexualidad de la mente y del corazón de la gente y la sociedad y, adicionalmente, de que el Estado de manera progresiva deje de mirar a la comunidad GLBTI como una minoría y como ciudadanos y ciudadanas de segunda clase.
We are about to celebrate 20 years since the decriminalization of homosexuality, but we must decriminalize homosexuality in people’s minds and hearts and society and, additionally, in a progressive manner the state must stop looking at the LGBTI community as a minority and as second-class citizens.
For detailed descriptions of the cases and more testimonies that relate the mistreatment suffered by the victims of these clinics, see the full report on Connectas.

author: Carlos E. Flores


text:
What Were Global Voices’ Readers up to Last Week? · Global Voices
L. Finch

Photo by Flickr user Wrote. CC BY-NC 2.0
At Global Voices, our community researches, writes, edits, and translates stories with a mission to support human rights and build bridges of understanding across countries, cultures, and languages.
We don't publish just to grab clicks or follow a news trend. We do, however, like to keep track of the ways in which our hard work has impact around the world.
To that end, one useful metric is how readers respond to our stories and translations. So let's take a look at who our readers were and what caught their attention during the week of March 5-11, 2018.
Last week, our stories and translations attracted readers from 208 countries! The top 20 countries represented across all of Global Voices’ sites were:
1. United States
2. Brazil
3. Mexico
4. France
5. Japan
6. Spain
7. Colombia
8. United Kingdom
9. Philippines
10. Italy
11. Germany
12. Russia
13. Taiwan
14. Canada
15. Kazakhstan
16. India
17. Peru
18. Argentina
19. Indonesia
20. Bangladesh
But that's only a small slice of the diversity of our readership. Let's use the True Random Number Generator from Random.org and take a look at a few other countries on the list:
70. Czech Republic
152. Kosovo
159. Guyana
22. Madagascar
93. Palestine
The English-language site is where the majority of original content is first published at Global Voices. The top five most-read stories of last week were:
1. Detention of Businessman in Kazakhstan Prompts Fears Over Torture, Political Motivations
2. Lantern Festival Riddles Outwit and Enrage Chinese Censorship Authorities
3. Black In Tokyo: a Documentary About Life in Japan
4. Language Lessons: Kazakhstan Still Torn Between Tongues
5. How Greek Anti-Nationalist Satire Was Misunderstood as Hate Speech in Macedonian Media
Lingua is a project that translates Global Voices stories into languages other than English. There are about 30 active Lingua sites. Below is last week's most-read story or translation on each active language site.


text:
‘Aesthetics Japan’ Tweets the Beauty of Japan, From Neon Lights to Misty Mountaintops · Global Voices
N'Donna Russell

“Osaka, Japan” by Flickr user Pedro Szekely. Image license: CC BY-SA 2.0
There is no shortage of social media accounts devoted to posting fantastic photos of Japan. As street photographer Lee Chapman documents his daily life in Japan through photos, Instagram's Tokyo Camera Club offers stunning snaps of Tokyo and beyond to its over 400,000 followers. In a similar vein, Twitter account Aesthetics Japan posts various photos in order to encourage followers to appreciate the beauty of the archipelago through photos featuring its scenery, art, and food.
Here is just a selection of the images of Japan shared by this Twitter account.
Yasaka Pagoda | by yorozuya.yoh on Instagram pic.twitter.com/HhPbTjXDLs
— 日本 (@AestheticsJapan) October 30, 2017
Rainy Tokyo | by @torataroo11 pic.twitter.com/XLWyLlxP3c
— 日本 (@AestheticsJapan) November 2, 2017
The account was established in 2016 and today has more than 93,000 followers.
In an interview with Global Voices using Twitter's Direct Message tool, the account holder, who also runs an ecommerce site for anime fans, and who wishes to remain anonymous, said they started the account due to their love of everything Japan, an interest started in childhood: “It was traditional Edo architecture and nature that attracted me to it. Then as I grew older, the neon lights of Tokyo made me love it all over again.”
Everyday Life in Tokyo | by Takashi Yasui pic.twitter.com/5SqwECwJtX
— 日本 (@AestheticsJapan) November 4, 2017
Shibuya Nights | by moto_ph0t0 on Instagram pic.twitter.com/Hh2s55B4o6
— 日本 (@AestheticsJapan) November 16, 2017
In the interview, the author was quick to state that these photos are not their own. Instead, they curate the photos, which are sourced from Flickr, Twitter or other sources.
The account often contrasts Japan's glittering nightlife and natural scenes to show off various facets of the country. Night photos of Tokyo, Osaka, and Kyoto feature prominently.
Memory Lane | by @liamwong pic.twitter.com/gKEVPoXywB
— 日本 (@AestheticsJapan) November 18, 2017
Shizuoka, Japan | by cww44 on Instagram pic.twitter.com/2DrbyVJIWm
— 日本 (@AestheticsJapan) November 21, 2017
Sunrise ☀ | by @st19721 pic.twitter.com/2FfZEJ8FPr
— 日本 (@AestheticsJapan) November 29, 2017
The site also features assorted food photography, including adorable dishes from character cafes as well as cute bento boxes.
Latte Art from Reissue Cafe pic.twitter.com/yMakbviJgl
— 日本 (@AestheticsJapan) January 6, 2018
Shiba Inu Dumplings (みたら柴) pic.twitter.com/uqn6u4XhYT
— 日本 (@AestheticsJapan) December 15, 2017
Fans seem to appreciate the effort, with some being reminded of their own experiences in the Japan, while others are simply amazed by the quality of the curated photos.
This is so pretty
— Dugrik (@Elsaadi97) October 27, 2017

author: N'Donna Russell