Ecuador: Request for an Extended Arrangement Under the Extended Fund Facility-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Ecuador
Published May 31, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Friday, 31 May 2024
Gabon: 2024 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Gabon
Gabon: 2024 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Gabon
Published May 31, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Published May 31, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Thursday, 30 May 2024
ACLU: Protecting Students' Free Speech: Anthony Romero's Message to Graduates
Protecting Students' Free Speech: Anthony Romero's Message to Graduates
Published May 31, 2024 at 03:08AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/BWYF8Ol
Executive Director Anthony D. Romero spoke to graduates at the Colin Powell School for Civic and Global Leadership. He stressed the critical need to protect free speech on college campuses. He calls on universities to uphold the principles of open debate and academic freedom, while also prioritizing the safety and well-being of students from discrimination and violence. Romero inspires graduates to seize leadership opportunities with bravery and compassion, recognizing their potential to make a positive impact on the world.
When I was coming up here, it felt like I was coming home. I spent my early childhood not far from here, in the Castle Hill projects of the Bronx. Google maps says it’s only six miles from here, but it feels like worlds away. After the Bronx, we moved out to New Jersey, and I came back to New York after law school. I’ve now spent most of my adult life here in New York City. So, as a proud New Yorker – a proud Nuyorican – it is a special honor to be asked to speak at an institution woven so thoroughly and wonderfully into the fabric of the greatest city on earth.
As graduates of the Colin Powell School for Civic and Global Leadership, you have chosen to hone your leadership skills in a world where it is easier to retreat than to lead. At a time when it’s easier to give up and climb into a cocoon where the internet delivers your food, your clothes, and your opinions to your door. But thank God you chose a different path – as leadership has never been more important than it is now. You have decided to become a part of something bigger – to fight for the changes this nation and this world so desperately need. And I am grateful that you’ve chosen this path.
Having made the journey from public housing to this commencement podium, I feel joyful as I look out over a crowd of young people about to embark on your own journey. Standing here at your graduation, I can’t help but recall my own. With my Papi, Mami, my sister. All dressed in our Sunday best. Over the years, my heritage as a proud Puerto Rican was a source of great strength for me. It shaped my upbringing and continues to inform my worldview to this day. Looking out at this diverse sea of students, I suspect many of your ancestors may not have arrived on the Mayflower either. But all of you – each and every single one of you – earned your place to be here. And for many of you in the Class of 2024 – just like me and my family – you’ve had to overcome extraordinary odds to reach this moment.
I’m sure that somewhere in this class, I am looking at the next Felix Frankfurter, a City College graduate who became one of the greatest Supreme Court Justices ever to serve on the Court. Or the next Faith Ringgold, the brilliant artist and activist for gender equity and racial justice. Or the next Herb Sandler, a titan of industry who would ultimately give away a significant portion of his wealth to organizations and causes championing free speech, civil rights and social justice. Or, of course, the next Colin Powell, who broke racial barriers throughout his career and served his country for decades in military and civilian life.
You have accomplished a great deal and you should be proud – real proud. But let’s also remember to give credit to folks who helped you along the way. Your friends, of course. Your professors and administrators at City College. And the people who sacrificed to provide for you. The people who worked overtime to pay for tuition. The people who kept immaculate homes you came back to. The people who cooked you your meals. Who put a roof over your head. The people who had dreams for you. The people who pushed you. Believed in you. Hugged you. Picked you up when you fell down. The people who taught you how to walk. Say your first words. The people who taught you how to read. The people who showed you the meaning of the word LOVE. Of course, I am talking about your families. Your loved ones.
And graduates, you can feel real proud that you’re in that cap and gown …. that you’re about to walk across this stage – styling your way as you get your diploma. But you know that that diploma is as much theirs as it is yours. So why don’t you, the graduates, get on your feet and join me in giving the moms and dads, tías and tíos, grandmeres, dadis, bubbies, nanas, abuelas and countless others, a round of applause for everything they have done to make this day happen. Thank you.
Since we are talking about people who supported us along the way, I’d like to say a few words about someone who chose to be part of my journey – my late friend and former mentor Herb Sandler, City College Class of 1951. Founder and CEO of Golden West Financial. Herb used what he learned here to make enough money in banking that he could have built himself a castle and forgotten the problems faced by regular folks. But instead, he used what he learned at City College – and what he learned growing up poor on the Lower East side – to reach out and lift up others, as well.
Herb used his wealth to advance freedom and justice for everyone in America. Over the years, he gave me advice, support when I was struggling, and love when I needed it.
Herb was a true believer when it came to freedom of speech. He valued hearing divergent viewpoints – even when those viewpoints were critical of his industry, his bank or himself, personally. The press was sometimes unkind and even unfair to him, but Herb walked the walk when it came to free speech and a free press. He always believed that the answer to criticism, even if unfair or unfounded, was more speech – not less. He believed in open debate. Not censorship.
And he understood the centrality of real journalism to our democracy. With his philanthropy, he helped create Pro Publica, one of the most important institutions doing tough, nonpartisan reporting.
At the ACLU, we believe deeply that freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and academic freedom are all interconnected – that they’re all critically important to a functioning democracy. The ability to collect and impart information. The ability to discuss, debate and even hotly contest ideas. This is especially true for challenging ideas. Controversial ideas. Even repugnant ideas. We have zealously fought for the rights of people and groups of varied ideologies and beliefs to speak their minds. From gun owners and gun opponents; anti-LGBTQ organizations and pro- LGBTQ groups, Trump supporters and anti-Trump activists.
That’s why the ACLU fights so passionately to protect freedom of speech on college campuses right now when it is under attack.
As a domestic organization, the ACLU takes no position on wars between foreign countries. Yet we champion the right of students to express themselves. Whichever side they are on, whatever it is they believe.
Universities have a responsibility to ensure they maintain an environment in which all students can thrive and learn, but it’s not their job to protect students from hearing or engaging with upsetting or even hurtful ideas. In fact, it’s the universities’ job to prepare the leaders of tomorrow by exposing them to challenging worldviews, competing analyses. The leaders of tomorrow – you the Class of 2024 – need to be comfortable with the contestation of facts and the clash of ideologies.
Sometimes this is a hard line to walk. As passionately as students care, free speech is not a license for violence, property destruction, or physical intimidation or harassment of other students.
And as worried as administrators are, they must respect their students’ free speech rights and honor the long and important tradition of student campus activism.
That means that universities must not single out particular viewpoints for censorship, discipline, or disproportionate punishment. Whether students carry Palestinian, Israeli, or American flags, whether they are progressives, moderates, or conservatives, everyone must be accorded the same rights and accept the same responsibilities.
Universities have also an obligation to protect students from discriminatory harassment and violence. This year, too many universities have failed to meet this obligation to their Jewish, Muslim, Arab, Israeli, and Palestinian students.
At the same time, universities must not penalize students for expressing their views, even if they do so in deeply offensive terms.
They can announce and enforce reasonable content-neutral time, place, or manner policies on protesting activity, but they must leave ample room for students to express themselves.
Universities must also recognize that armed police on campus can endanger students – students of color in particular – and should be a measure of last resort.
And, finally, administrators must recognize that many of the pressures that are being placed on them are coming from politicians seeking to exploit campus tensions. Recognizing the source of these pressures is the first step, resisting them is the second.
Class of 2024, you are graduating at a challenging moment. No one would blame you if you wanted to reconsider your career in leadership and public service right now.
But I’m guessing that’s not going to happen. You are New York City tough. You are City College trained. You follow in the footsteps of Frankfurter, Reinggold, Sandler and Powell. You are meant for more. Much has been given to you and even greater things are expected from you.
Reach out and make a difference in peoples’ lives like your parents and professors did. Get off the beaten path, discover new communities. Respect and engage with people whose passions and opinions differ from your own. Speak your mind with courage and clarity, but also stand up for the right of your opponents to do the same. Become part of institutions that will magnify your voice and drive change.
Leadership isn’t ordained from above. It doesn’t come from yelling the loudest and it certainly isn’t possible from a self-imposed isolation chamber. It comes from your heart. From your mind. From the sweat of your brow. It comes from your communities; from the institutions you will populate and lead – and from the people whose lives you will touch.
Congratulations, graduates. And thank you in advance for what I know you are going to achieve. The world desperately needs the 2024 graduates of the Colin Powell School for Civic and Global Leadership. It will be thrilling to watch you rock it. And now, give yourselves the round of applause you so deeply deserve.
Published May 31, 2024 at 03:08AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/BWYF8Ol
ACLU: Anti-Abortion Extremists Want to Use the 150-Year-Old Comstock Act to Ban Abortion Nationwide
Anti-Abortion Extremists Want to Use the 150-Year-Old Comstock Act to Ban Abortion Nationwide
Published May 31, 2024 at 12:26AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/kgvF1Yu
The outcome of the 2024 election will have a profound impact on access to abortion care in this country. Donald Trump’s allies have drawn up an agenda for a potential second presidential term, and they have made clear that if Trump is elected, he will dust off a 150-year-old federal statute called the Comstock Act to ban all abortions nationwide without any need for congressional action.
You read that right: Anti-abortion groups are peddling the radical theory that abortion could be banned in every state the moment he takes office.
And because anti-abortion politicians know that the American people oppose having our reproductive rights taken away, they’re trying to keep these plans under the radar until it’s too late—advising Trump and anti-abortion groups to keep quiet about their plan to impose a back-door abortion ban until after the election.
It’s long past time to shine a spotlight on this outrageous scheme, and why it’s just plain wrong.
The Comstock Act is an 1873 anti-obscenity law that, among other things, makes it a crime to mail anything that’s “indecent, filthy, or vile” or “intended for producing abortion.” Its namesake, Anthony Comstock, was an infamous Victorian-era anti-vice crusader who, as the Supreme Court has explained, “believed that anything remotely touching upon sex was obscene.” Comstock took credit for arresting thousands and driving at least 15 people to suicide through his anti-vice crusades.
Trump’s anti-abortion allies are trying to revive this zombie law, claiming that the Comstock Act is a dormant national abortion ban already on the books, just waiting to be enforced by a Trump Department of Justice. According to anti-abortion extremists, the Comstock Act makes it a crime to send or receive drugs or articles that are used in abortion care by mail or common carriers like UPS and FedEx. That interpretation of the law is wrong; it flies in the face of how courts and the Department of Justice have long interpreted the law. But if anti-abortion judges buy into this unfounded theory, it would effectively amount to a nationwide abortion ban because the medication and equipment used in abortion care are transported by mail and common carrier.
That likely means that abortion medication like mifepristone won’t even leave the factory. It means that companies that produce medical instruments, ultrasound machines, and other items used in abortion care couldn’t send them to abortion providers, and abortion providers couldn’t obtain the materials they need.
The plan to enforce the Comstock Act as an abortion ban is spelled out in the Heritage Foundation’s 180-Day Playbook, which details nearly 900 pages’ worth of “actions to be taken in the first 180 days of the new Administration.” The scheme is echoed by Jonathan Mitchell, Trump’s lawyer before the Supreme Court and the architect of Texas’s abortion bounty-hunter law, S.B. 8, who has made clear that a Trump Department of Justice would wield the Comstock Act as a backdoor abortion ban: “We don’t need [Congress to pass] a federal ban when we have Comstock on the books.”
Mitchell wants Trump and anti-abortion groups to “keep their mouths shut [on Comstock] as much as possible until the election.” Once in office, they plan to shut down abortion care nationwide without any need for congressional action.
To be clear, the argument that the Comstock Act is a dormant national abortion ban is legally wrong. That’s true for many reasons:
- First, starting in the early twentieth century, federal appellate courts reached a consensus that the Comstock Act only criminalizes sending and receiving materials to be used for otherwise unlawful abortion and contraception. The courts’ uniform conclusion was that the Act does not apply to drugs and articles sent and received for lawful abortion care. Importantly, courts reached this consensus well before the Supreme Court’s recognition of the constitutional right to contraception and abortion in Griswold v. Connecticut, and Roe v. Wade; the interpretation in no way turned on the existence of a constitutional right.
- Second, Congress was well aware of the court decisions that the Comstock Act doesn’t apply to lawful abortions. If Congress disagreed with the courts, it could have changed the law. Instead, Congress repeatedly reenacted the Comstock Act’s abortion provisions without modifying the language in response to the decisions. This means that Congress concurred with courts narrowing the scope of laws under the principle of congressional ratification. As the Supreme Court explained in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, “[i]f a word or phrase has been … given a uniform interpretation by inferior courts …, a later version of that act perpetuating the wording is presumed to carry forward that interpretation.”
- Third and relatedly, the United States Postal Service, the agency that enforces the Comstock Act’s mailing restrictions, also concurred with the courts’ settled interpretation of the Act, and in 1970 informed Congress of its position. This timeline bolsters the conclusion that Congress accepted the appellate courts’ narrowing construction of the law.
- Fourth, the Department of Justice has publicly endorsed this interpretation of the Comstock Act in a December 2022 Office of Legal Counsel opinion. As the opinion explains, “[b]ased upon a longstanding judicial construction of the Comstock Act, which Congress ratified and USPS itself accepted,” the Comstock Act “does not prohibit the mailing, or the delivery or receipt by mail, of [abortion-inducing medications] where the sender lacks the intent that the recipient of the drugs will use them unlawfully.
In short, Trump’s allies’ argument that the Comstock Act can be enforced as a national abortion ban defies the settled determination by federal courts and the Justice Department that the law does not apply to lawful abortion care.
But we have seen anti-abortion extremists manipulate the law to ban abortion before. Roe was settled law for decades until a reconstituted Supreme Court reversed course in Dobbs and allowed states to ban abortion. And before Dobbs, Trump’s lawyer, Jonathan Mitchell, managed to impose an abortion ban in Texas that ought to have been struck down as unconstitutional, but that survived because of its manipulative bounty-hunter enforcement scheme.
So when Mitchell, who is on the short list to become Trump’s attorney general, endorses the dangerous Comstock scheme, the threat is deadly serious.
Published May 31, 2024 at 12:26AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/kgvF1Yu
ACLU: The Long History of Discrimination in Job Hiring Assessments
The Long History of Discrimination in Job Hiring Assessments
Published May 30, 2024 at 04:50PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/Uigs6VM
Applying for jobs can be a difficult and frustrating experience: you’re putting forward your qualifications to be judged by a prospective employer. We all want to be treated fairly. We want our qualifications to speak for themselves. But for job seekers who have been historically excluded or discriminated against because of their race, gender identity, or disability, there can be another question lurking in the background: Am I being judged, not for my ability to do the job, but for my identity?
Automated decision-making tools, including those using artificial intelligence, or AI, and algorithms, have been widely adopted in hiring. Today seven out of 10 employers use them. We have previously written about AI and some of the newer ways that it’s impacting hiring, including how it lacks transparency and can harbor serious flaws that lead to bias and discrimination. But these tools are just the latest frontier in a long history of employment tests that can discriminate and harm job seekers. For example, one of the landmark civil rights cases, Griggs v. Duke Power Co (1971), was about a company’s use of bogus tests to block the promotion of Black workers.
When tests and tools that have a long history of problems are combined with new technologies like AI, risks of harm only increase, exacerbating harmful barriers to employment based on race, gender, disability, and other protected characteristics. While the harm of racial discrimination in employment tests has long been recognized and challenged, there has been less awareness about how these tests impact applicants who, in addition to facing racial discrimination, face discrimination based on their disabilities.
The use of personality assessments in hiring processes has become increasingly common. Yet these tests often ask general questions that may have little to do with the ability to do the job and capture traits that are directly linked with characteristics commonly associated with autism and mental health conditions such as depression and anxiety. This creates a high risk that qualified workers with these disabilities will be disadvantaged compared to other workers and may be unfairly and illegally screened out.
To push back, we filed a complaint to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) against Aon, a major hiring technology vendor, alleging that Aon is deceptively marketing widely used online hiring tests as “bias-free” even though the tests discriminate against job seekers based on traits like their race or disability. The ACLU and co-counsel have also filed charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against both Aon and an employer that uses Aon’s assessments on behalf of a biracial (Black/white) autistic job applicant who was required to take Aon assessments as part of the employer’s hiring process.
Two Aon products, a “personality” assessment test and its automated video interviewing tool, which integrate algorithmic or AI-related features, are marketed to employers across industries as cost-effective, efficient, and less discriminatory than traditional methods of assessing workers and applicants. However, these products assess very general personality traits such as positivity, emotional awareness, liveliness, ambition, and drive that are not clearly job related or necessary for a specific job and can unfairly screen out people based on disabilities. The automated features of these tools exacerbate these fundamental problems, particularly as Aon incorporated artificial intelligence elements in its video interviewing tool that are also likely to discriminate based on disability, race, and other protected characteristics.
Cognitive ability assessments, another staple in hiring, must also be subject to scrutiny, as they have long been shown to disadvantage Black job candidates and other candidates of color and may also unfairly exclude individuals based on disability. test, touted to measure aspects of memory, as well as several others it markets, have racial disparities in performance.
For autistic and other neurodivergent job applicants and applicants of colorpose a significant barrier to employment. Not only do they fail to accommodate diverse needs, but they also perpetuate discrimination based on race, disability, and other traits. Employers should not use assessments that carry a high risk of discrimination. Employers risk screening out people who could be successful employees, impacting diversity in the workplace, and could face legal liability, even where the assessments are designed and administered by third-party vendors. Employers have a legal obligation to thoroughly vet any assessments they use for compliance with anti-discrimination laws, and if they decide to use an assessment, they must provide meaningful notice so that disabled workers can make an informed choice whether to seek accommodations or alternative processes.
But vendors must also be accountable for the tools they market. Employers can hold vendors accountable by demanding that vendors truly design their products to be inclusive – including by incorporating the perspectives and experiences of people with disabilities and other protected groups into their design process — and conduct thorough auditing for discrimination based on race, disability and other protected characteristics. They can also demand transparency and decline to purchase their products if they fail to do so. And vendors can and should also be held legally accountable for their discriminatory products and deceptively marketing them. As the EEOC recently argued in a federal case about discrimination in an online hiring product, vendors can be held accountable under employment discrimination laws, and our FTC complaint should serve as notice to vendors that we will seek to hold them accountable under consumer protection laws as well.
As the hiring landscape continues to change and job applicants face new hiring tools, we must strive for a future where skills and potential, not bias, determines our opportunities. The ACLU stands ready to defend the rights of individuals wronged by discriminatory practices. Together, we can dismantle discriminatory barriers and build a more inclusive workforce for all.
Published May 30, 2024 at 04:50PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/Uigs6VM
ACLU: The Long History of Discrimination in Job Hiring Assessments
The Long History of Discrimination in Job Hiring Assessments
Published May 30, 2024 at 09:20PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/vdVYcN4
Applying for jobs can be a difficult and frustrating experience: you’re putting forward your qualifications to be judged by a prospective employer. We all want to be treated fairly. We want our qualifications to speak for themselves. But for job seekers who have been historically excluded or discriminated against because of their race, gender identity, or disability, there can be another question lurking in the background: Am I being judged, not for my ability to do the job, but for my identity?
Automated decision-making tools, including those using artificial intelligence, or AI, and algorithms, have been widely adopted in hiring. Today seven out of 10 employers use them. We have previously written about AI and some of the newer ways that it’s impacting hiring, including how it lacks transparency and can harbor serious flaws that lead to bias and discrimination. But these tools are just the latest frontier in a long history of employment tests that can discriminate and harm job seekers. For example, one of the landmark civil rights cases, Griggs v. Duke Power Co (1971), was about a company’s use of bogus tests to block the promotion of Black workers.
When tests and tools that have a long history of problems are combined with new technologies like AI, risks of harm only increase, exacerbating harmful barriers to employment based on race, gender, disability, and other protected characteristics. While the harm of racial discrimination in employment tests has long been recognized and challenged, there has been less awareness about how these tests impact applicants who, in addition to facing racial discrimination, face discrimination based on their disabilities.
The use of personality assessments in hiring processes has become increasingly common. Yet these tests often ask general questions that may have little to do with the ability to do the job and capture traits that are directly linked with characteristics commonly associated with autism and mental health conditions such as depression and anxiety. This creates a high risk that qualified workers with these disabilities will be disadvantaged compared to other workers and may be unfairly and illegally screened out.
To push back, we filed a complaint to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) against Aon, a major hiring technology vendor, alleging that Aon is deceptively marketing widely used online hiring tests as “bias-free” even though the tests discriminate against job seekers based on traits like their race or disability. The ACLU and co-counsel have also filed charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against both Aon and an employer that uses Aon’s assessments on behalf of a biracial (Black/white) autistic job applicant who was required to take Aon assessments as part of the employer’s hiring process.
Two Aon products, a “personality” assessment test and its automated video interviewing tool, which integrate algorithmic or AI-related features, are marketed to employers across industries as cost-effective, efficient, and less discriminatory than traditional methods of assessing workers and applicants. However, these products assess very general personality traits such as positivity, emotional awareness, liveliness, ambition, and drive that are not clearly job related or necessary for a specific job and can unfairly screen out people based on disabilities. The automated features of these tools exacerbate these fundamental problems, particularly as Aon incorporated artificial intelligence elements in its video interviewing tool that are also likely to discriminate based on disability, race, and other protected characteristics.
Cognitive ability assessments, another staple in hiring, must also be subject to scrutiny, as they have long been shown to disadvantage Black job candidates and other candidates of color and may also unfairly exclude individuals based on disability. test, touted to measure aspects of memory, as well as several others it markets, have racial disparities in performance.
For autistic and other neurodivergent job applicants and applicants of colorpose a significant barrier to employment. Not only do they fail to accommodate diverse needs, but they also perpetuate discrimination based on race, disability, and other traits. Employers should not use assessments that carry a high risk of discrimination. Employers risk screening out people who could be successful employees, impacting diversity in the workplace, and could face legal liability, even where the assessments are designed and administered by third-party vendors. Employers have a legal obligation to thoroughly vet any assessments they use for compliance with anti-discrimination laws, and if they decide to use an assessment, they must provide meaningful notice so that disabled workers can make an informed choice whether to seek accommodations or alternative processes.
But vendors must also be accountable for the tools they market. Employers can hold vendors accountable by demanding that vendors truly design their products to be inclusive – including by incorporating the perspectives and experiences of people with disabilities and other protected groups into their design process — and conduct thorough auditing for discrimination based on race, disability and other protected characteristics. They can also demand transparency and decline to purchase their products if they fail to do so. And vendors can and should also be held legally accountable for their discriminatory products and deceptively marketing them. As the EEOC recently argued in a federal case about discrimination in an online hiring product, vendors can be held accountable under employment discrimination laws, and our FTC complaint should serve as notice to vendors that we will seek to hold them accountable under consumer protection laws as well.
As the hiring landscape continues to change and job applicants face new hiring tools, we must strive for a future where skills and potential, not bias, determines our opportunities. The ACLU stands ready to defend the rights of individuals wronged by discriminatory practices. Together, we can dismantle discriminatory barriers and build a more inclusive workforce for all.
Published May 30, 2024 at 09:20PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/vdVYcN4
People’s Republic of China—Macao Special Administrative Region: 2024 Article IV Consultation Discussions-Press Release; and Staff Report
People’s Republic of China—Macao Special Administrative Region: 2024 Article IV Consultation Discussions-Press Release; and Staff Report
Published May 30, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Published May 30, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Tuesday, 28 May 2024
Rwanda: Third Reviews under the Policy Coordination Instrument and the Arrangement under the Resilience and Sustainability Facility, and the First Review under the Standby Credit Facility Arrangement-Press Release; and Staff Report
Rwanda: Third Reviews under the Policy Coordination Instrument and the Arrangement under the Resilience and Sustainability Facility, and the First Review under the Standby Credit Facility Arrangement-Press Release; and Staff Report
Published May 28, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Published May 28, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Mauritius: 2024 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Mauritius
Mauritius: 2024 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Mauritius
Published May 28, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Published May 28, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Friday, 24 May 2024
Tuesday, 21 May 2024
Peru: 2024 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Peru
Peru: 2024 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Peru
Published May 21, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Published May 21, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Monday, 20 May 2024
Guinea-Bissau: Fourth and Fifth Reviews Under the Extended Credit Facility Arrangement and Requests for Rephasing of Access, Waiver of Nonobservance of Performance Criteria, Modification of Performance Criteria, and Financing Assurances Review
Guinea-Bissau: Fourth and Fifth Reviews Under the Extended Credit Facility Arrangement and Requests for Rephasing of Access, Waiver of Nonobservance of Performance Criteria, Modification of Performance Criteria, and Financing Assurances Review
Published May 20, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Published May 20, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
ACLU: We Fought for Deaf People on Probation and Parole in Georgia — and Won
We Fought for Deaf People on Probation and Parole in Georgia — and Won
Published May 20, 2024 at 10:45PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/oMKEgw7
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN TRANSLATED INTO AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE
A five-year effort to get equal access for deaf and hard-of-hearing people on parole and probation in Georgia has ended in victory. The American Civil Liberties Union and our legal partners reached a groundbreaking settlement that requires the Georgia agency responsible for supervising people on probation and parole – the Georgia Department of Community Supervision or “GDCS” – to dismantle the discriminatory hurdles that make it harder for deaf and hard-of-hearing people to avoid prison and live safely in their communities. We hope that other states look to this agreement when determining what is required for their supervision agencies to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
For years, our clients lived in constant fear of reincarceration. Supervision officers often held important meetings with people who used American Sign Language (ASL), but failed to provide ASL interpreters or other needed accommodations. They “explained” the rules of supervision to people who could not hear or understand these rules, but who nonetheless risked prison or jail if they didn’t follow them.
Two of our clients had this exact fear realized when ineffective communication resulted in them being incarcerated while the case was ongoing. Supervision officers also failed to take disability into account in other ways, too. They knocked on the doors of individuals they knew were deaf, and then accused them of failing to cooperate when they didn’t answer a knock at the door that they couldn’t hear.
Our clients’ heroic and sustained efforts have helped to guarantee equal rights for all deaf and hard-of-hearing people on supervision in Georgia. Starting now, each current and future deaf and hard-of-hearing person on supervision in Georgia will undergo a communication assessment that will allow the state to create a communication plan that considers the range of situations a deaf or hard-of-hearing person may experience while on supervision, and the types of accommodations they may need.
Importantly, GDCS has agreed to provide Deaf interpreters for people who need them. Deaf interpreters are sign language interpreters who are also deaf. A Deaf interpreter will work with a hearing ASL interpreter to provide effective communication, especially for deaf adults who have experienced language deprivation — a neurodevelopmental disorder with negative and long-lasting effects on the deaf adult’s language, cognitive, and socioemotional development. Long periods of incarceration with no ability to communicate with other people who know ASL can compound the effects of language deprivation. Hearing-sign language interpreters alone are typically unable to bridge the communication gap between deaf adults with language deprivation and their supervision officers. This communication gap can often lead to serious and preventable misunderstandings between the deaf person and the supervision officer that a Deaf interpreter could solve.
For example, in one instance a probation officer relied on a single, hearing interpreter — present on a computer — to explain a form with confusing conditions to a client. The client struggled to understand the interpreter and asked to take a photo of the form so he could ask the ACLU’s legal team to provide a Deaf interpreter to translate the form in a way he understood. Had the ACLU not stepped in to secure a Deaf interpreter, our client would not have fully understood what the form said, nor would he have been able to ask several clarifying questions, and would have risked reincarceration. This settlement ensures that any use of video interpretation, known as VRI, is clear, not relegated to a small cell phone screen, and that supervisees actually understand the directions being given.
GDCS will also now provide better accommodations for deaf or hard-of-hearing clients who cannot read and write English. Historically, the agency provided critical information about supervision only in writing. With this settlement, a lack of fluency in reading or writing English will no longer be a barrier to successfully completing supervision. If the deaf or hard-of-hearing person cannot understand written documents due to their disability, GDCS has agreed to use appropriate accommodations and provide the written information in another accessible format. This will help prevent future incidents of confusion when people receive documents with important instructions that they do not understand. We have also produced ASL and plain language translations of the new ADA Policy so that signers and those with limited literacy can access the ADA policy at any time.
Many people on supervision in Georgia are required to complete programs or classes as a condition of their supervision, but, in the past, the sponsors of many of these programs have refused to provide ASL interpreters and other necessary accommodations to our clients. GDCS will now require that the providers of any classes or programs required for people on supervision, comply with federal disability laws by providing necessary accommodations, such as interpreters, for effective communication.
While we’ve won this fight in Georgia, the work is not yet done. Every parole and probation department in the country has the obligation under federal disability laws to provide not only effective communication to deaf and hard-of-hearing people, but also any reasonable accommodations that people with disabilities need to have an equal opportunity to successfully complete supervision. In reality, probation and parole departments regularly fail to determine whether their people with disabilities need accommodations, let alone provide those accommodations.
Right now, we’re challenging this failure in Washington, D.C., where people with mental health disabilities are nearly twice as likely to face reincarceration or other punishment for “technical violations,” or minor rule violations like missing an appointment with a supervision officer. And in Georgia, we now begin a four-year period of monitoring the state’s compliance with the agreement. As part of that monitoring, GDCS will provide us with documentation to show that they are complying with the agreement and providing effective communication. If they violate it, we’ll see them back in court.
Published May 20, 2024 at 10:45PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/oMKEgw7
ACLU: We Fought for Deaf People on Probation and Parole in Georgia — and Won
We Fought for Deaf People on Probation and Parole in Georgia — and Won
Published May 20, 2024 at 06:15PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/C7mG6Sy
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN TRANSLATED INTO AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE
A five-year effort to get equal access for deaf and hard-of-hearing people on parole and probation in Georgia has ended in victory. The American Civil Liberties Union and our legal partners reached a groundbreaking settlement that requires the Georgia agency responsible for supervising people on probation and parole – the Georgia Department of Community Supervision or “GDCS” – to dismantle the discriminatory hurdles that make it harder for deaf and hard-of-hearing people to avoid prison and live safely in their communities. We hope that other states look to this agreement when determining what is required for their supervision agencies to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
For years, our clients lived in constant fear of reincarceration. Supervision officers often held important meetings with people who used American Sign Language (ASL), but failed to provide ASL interpreters or other needed accommodations. They “explained” the rules of supervision to people who could not hear or understand these rules, but who nonetheless risked prison or jail if they didn’t follow them.
Two of our clients had this exact fear realized when ineffective communication resulted in them being incarcerated while the case was ongoing. Supervision officers also failed to take disability into account in other ways, too. They knocked on the doors of individuals they knew were deaf, and then accused them of failing to cooperate when they didn’t answer a knock at the door that they couldn’t hear.
Our clients’ heroic and sustained efforts have helped to guarantee equal rights for all deaf and hard-of-hearing people on supervision in Georgia. Starting now, each current and future deaf and hard-of-hearing person on supervision in Georgia will undergo a communication assessment that will allow the state to create a communication plan that considers the range of situations a deaf or hard-of-hearing person may experience while on supervision, and the types of accommodations they may need.
Importantly, GDCS has agreed to provide Deaf interpreters for people who need them. Deaf interpreters are sign language interpreters who are also deaf. A Deaf interpreter will work with a hearing ASL interpreter to provide effective communication, especially for deaf adults who have experienced language deprivation — a neurodevelopmental disorder with negative and long-lasting effects on the deaf adult’s language, cognitive, and socioemotional development. Long periods of incarceration with no ability to communicate with other people who know ASL can compound the effects of language deprivation. Hearing-sign language interpreters alone are typically unable to bridge the communication gap between deaf adults with language deprivation and their supervision officers. This communication gap can often lead to serious and preventable misunderstandings between the deaf person and the supervision officer that a Deaf interpreter could solve.
For example, in one instance a probation officer relied on a single, hearing interpreter — present on a computer — to explain a form with confusing conditions to a client. The client struggled to understand the interpreter and asked to take a photo of the form so he could ask the ACLU’s legal team to provide a Deaf interpreter to translate the form in a way he understood. Had the ACLU not stepped in to secure a Deaf interpreter, our client would not have fully understood what the form said, nor would he have been able to ask several clarifying questions, and would have risked reincarceration. This settlement ensures that any use of video interpretation, known as VRI, is clear, not relegated to a small cell phone screen, and that supervisees actually understand the directions being given.
GDCS will also now provide better accommodations for deaf or hard-of-hearing clients who cannot read and write English. Historically, the agency provided critical information about supervision only in writing. With this settlement, a lack of fluency in reading or writing English will no longer be a barrier to successfully completing supervision. If the deaf or hard-of-hearing person cannot understand written documents due to their disability, GDCS has agreed to use appropriate accommodations and provide the written information in another accessible format. This will help prevent future incidents of confusion when people receive documents with important instructions that they do not understand. We have also produced ASL and plain language translations of the new ADA Policy so that signers and those with limited literacy can access the ADA policy at any time.
Many people on supervision in Georgia are required to complete programs or classes as a condition of their supervision, but, in the past, the sponsors of many of these programs have refused to provide ASL interpreters and other necessary accommodations to our clients. GDCS will now require that the providers of any classes or programs required for people on supervision, comply with federal disability laws by providing necessary accommodations, such as interpreters, for effective communication.
While we’ve won this fight in Georgia, the work is not yet done. Every parole and probation department in the country has the obligation under federal disability laws to provide not only effective communication to deaf and hard-of-hearing people, but also any reasonable accommodations that people with disabilities need to have an equal opportunity to successfully complete supervision. In reality, probation and parole departments regularly fail to determine whether their people with disabilities need accommodations, let alone provide those accommodations.
Right now, we’re challenging this failure in Washington, D.C., where people with mental health disabilities are nearly twice as likely to face reincarceration or other punishment for “technical violations,” or minor rule violations like missing an appointment with a supervision officer. And in Georgia, we now begin a four-year period of monitoring the state’s compliance with the agreement. As part of that monitoring, GDCS will provide us with documentation to show that they are complying with the agreement and providing effective communication. If they violate it, we’ll see them back in court.
Published May 20, 2024 at 06:15PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/C7mG6Sy
Friday, 17 May 2024
Guinea: 2024 Article IV Consultation and Request for Disbursement Under the Rapid Credit Facility-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Guinea
Guinea: 2024 Article IV Consultation and Request for Disbursement Under the Rapid Credit Facility-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Guinea
Published May 17, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Published May 17, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Thursday, 16 May 2024
Iraq: 2024 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Iraq
Iraq: 2024 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Iraq
Published May 16, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Published May 16, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Wednesday, 15 May 2024
St. Kitts and Nevis: 2024 Article IV Consultation-Press Release and Staff Report
St. Kitts and Nevis: 2024 Article IV Consultation-Press Release and Staff Report
Published May 15, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Published May 15, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Belize: 2024 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; and Staff Report
Belize: 2024 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; and Staff Report
Published May 15, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Published May 15, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Monday, 13 May 2024
ACLU: A Mistake Shouldn’t Mean Exile or Prolonged Mandatory Detention
A Mistake Shouldn’t Mean Exile or Prolonged Mandatory Detention
Published May 13, 2024 at 10:23PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/bv4j2Ql
Nyynkpao Banyee remembers vividly the first time he saw the United States. He was six years old, flying high above New York City. “If I close my eyes right now, I go back to seeing, just being above New York and seeing those lights for the first time. It was nighttime. And there was snow. I remember seeing that for the first time, just a little bit, but it was beautiful,” he recalled recently.
Mr. Banyee, his mother and younger brother came to the U.S. in 2004 as refugees fleeing the civil war in Côte D’Ivoire. His father died in Côte D’Ivoire shortly after the family arrived in the States. They resettled first in rural Pennsylvania, then moved to Philadelphia and later became lawful permanent residents. When he was about 17, the family moved to North Dakota, where he has been living for nearly a decade and now lives with his mother and his two younger half-siblings. His mother’s two sisters live nearby, as does his brother.
An inquisitive and observant child, Mr. Banyee was fascinated by drawing and comic books. Today, at 26, he is a restaurant-worker who aims to use that creativity to turn his interest in music into a career. He has ambitious plans for building up his own business. He supports his family, although he says his family is really his support system, especially his mother. “Me and my siblings talk about this among ourselves: we’ve never seen a woman or a person as strong as our mother,” he said.
A dark shadow hangs over Mr. Banyee’s bright future. He’s facing the possible loss of his liberty – deportation to a country he has never been back to since he fled as a child refugee and permanent separation from his family and the only home he’s ever known.
“I Just Couldn’t Allow Myself to Be Defeated”
In 2017, when he was just 19, Mr. Banyee was arrested for robbery and later sentenced to four years in prison. He experienced a lot of fear upon being incarcerated but was inspired to turn over a new leaf. “A lot of different things kept me motivated, but I would say primarily, from the core, it was my family,” he said.
While incarcerated, Mr. Banyee worked on himself and was motivated to learn as much as he could.He read an enormous selection of novels, finance books, magazines, and worked in the prison. His favorite job was working in the library. He voluntarily completed numerous programs in peer support, mental wellness, and practical skills like budgeting and CPR.
“I just got into learning, learning, learning. I just couldn’t allow myself to be defeated [by the system].”
He wrote letters to his family and sent them the poems he’d written. He wrote so much his family couldn’t keep up. Although his family wanted to visit him as much as possible, he wanted to spare them the burden of driving the long distance from their home to the prison, and the emotional toll of seeing him in prison. They still talked on the phone frequently.
After spending years working on himself, Mr. Banyee’s release date was finally approaching: March 31, 2021. He was expecting to go home, but when March 31 came, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents were waiting for him at the prison. They took him into custody, and he was transferred from North Dakota to a Minnesota jail.
“I couldn’t believe it,” Mr. Banyee said. “I’ve been [in the U.S.] my entire life. I had no idea – no clue – what ICE was and what this department was capable of, or what in the world was going on.” He called his mother from the jail to tell her he was in detention again – not for a criminal reason, but because of immigration.
The Unjust System of Mandatory Immigration Detention
Why was Mr. Banyee taken into immigration detention the moment he was released from prison?
It was because of a law that Congress passed in 1996 that requires the mandatory detention of noncitizens facing possible deportation for criminal conduct. Under this law, ICE can detain noncitizens slated for deportation for a range of criminal convictions, including convictions for nonviolent, minor, or old offenses, and even if the noncitizens have already served their time and are long rehabilitated. While their deportation cases are pending – a process that can take years – noncitizens could sit behind bars indefinitely, without the right to a bond hearing, even if they pose no danger or flight risk.
Since the mandatory detention law was enacted in 1996, the ACLU has taken the lead in challenging it in the courts. My Khanh Ngo, a staff attorney with the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project (IRP), said immigration detention is not supposed to be about punishment. The only legitimate government interests in immigration detention are if a person poses a flight risk or a danger to the public. But the mandatory detention statute allows the government to detain a person without showing why it’s necessary – violating a basic principle of due process. Ngo recently appeared as counsel for Mr. Banyee before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, where she argued that the mandatory detention statute was unconstitutionally applied to him.
“The problem with mandatory detention is that there is no individualized consideration,” Ngo said, “Our argument has always been the government needs to bear the burden of showing this person needs to be detained either by [showing they’re a] flight risk or danger.”
After nearly 13 months in detention, Mr. Banyee and his volunteer immigration counsel, the Advocates for Human Rights (AHR), won a habeas petition – a request to a court or judge to determine whether a person’s detainment is legal or just – and was granted a bond hearing. An immigration judge released him on bond in April 2022. He had been incarcerated for over five years, four for the criminal conviction, and one for mandatory immigration detention.
His family and friends celebrated his release with a big feast. Every moment of freedom has been special. “I had five years taken away from a lot of our time together,” Mr. Banyee said of his family. “I’m trying to spend as much time with them.”
Today, the federal government is appealing Mr. Banyee’s habeas decision, arguing that it has a right to detain him with no limit, as long as his deportation case is proceeding. The ACLU has joined AHR to defend the habeas grant, supporting Mr. Banyee’s right to have a bond hearing and be free while he challenges his deportation case.
Mandatory detention significantly impacts a person’s ability to defend against deportation and win relief to which they might be entitled. Even though immigration detention is not supposed to be a punishment, people are often detained in criminal detention settings and subject to the same rules and limitations as people who are incarcerated.
Ngo explains there is no right to government-appointed immigration counsel, so a person in immigration detention is much less likely to be represented because they can’t work and are less likely to be able to afford a lawyer. People in immigration detention also have limited phone or email access and limited language services, preventing them from engaging with the outside world, including legal services. Often, they are isolated and unable to gather evidence to defend themselves.
The United States’ immigration detention system is the largest in the world, Ngo notes. “The conditions of immigration detention are so horrific,” she said. “No other country holds this many immigrants to try to deport them.”
A Mistake Shouldn’t Mean Exile
Like many noncitizens, Mr. Banyee has deep roots in the U.S. and has already served his time for crimes he committed. Yet, he and many others are again deprived of their liberty through mandatory immigration detention, and face the possibility of deportation.
Some, like Mr. Banyee, are arrested immediately after their term of incarceration ends. Others are arrested years after they complete any sentence for their convictions, even though they have reintegrated into their communities and have not had any legal troubles. For many, it feels like double punishment.
“You shouldn’t be defined by one thing that took place in your history, and that shouldn’t consign you to a life of permanent banishment from the United States,” Ngo said.
Mr. Banyee has had significant success defending against deportation in his immigration court proceedings. An immigration judge and three members of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) have determined that he deserves cancellation of removal, meaning that if he wins his case, he can keep his lawful permanent resident status and one day become a U.S. citizen. His immigration case is currently on appeal for the second time, before the BIA, where it can take years to resolve. At the same time, he is waiting for the Eight Circuit to decide if he can remain free on bond while he awaits a decision on the deportation case.
“Everybody makes mistakes,” Mr. Banyee said. “In my case, [I] served time, [I] actually went through the process of giving back that adhered to the principles of the society.” He feels deportation would be an extreme consequence for people, like him, who arrived in the U.S. as children, whose lives are here, and who have already served their time for past mistakes.
Mr. Banyee wants to stay in the U.S., with his family, in the country he calls home. The U.S. is the country that has molded him, that has provided him security and allowed him to have ambitious dreams while supporting his family. “I’m willing to put in the work,” he said, “just to be allowed to live that dream.”
Published May 13, 2024 at 10:23PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/bv4j2Ql
Japan: Financial Sector Assessment Program-Technical Note on Regulation and Supervision of Investment Funds
Japan: Financial Sector Assessment Program-Technical Note on Regulation and Supervision of Investment Funds
Published May 13, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Published May 13, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Austria: 2024 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Austria
Austria: 2024 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Austria
Published May 13, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Published May 13, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Sunday, 12 May 2024
Maldives: 2024 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Maldives
Maldives: 2024 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Maldives
Published May 13, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Published May 13, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Friday, 10 May 2024
Haiti: Staff-Monitored Program-Extension and Modification of Performance Criteria-Press Release; and Staff Report
Haiti: Staff-Monitored Program-Extension and Modification of Performance Criteria-Press Release; and Staff Report
Published May 10, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Published May 10, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
ACLU: The Painful Reality of Being an Incarcerated Mother
The Painful Reality of Being an Incarcerated Mother
Published May 10, 2024 at 10:35PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/eTVha8J
Many of us will celebrate Mother’s Day over the weekend by remembering or being present with women who raised us, or with our families. But for the more than 190,000 women incarcerated in the United States this weekend, there will be no celebration.
Close to 60 percent of these women serving prison sentences were the primary caregiver of their minor children before sentencing. All too often, a prison sentence tears them from their family connections and contact with their children, while severing their children from a vital source of emotional and financial support. State women’s prisons are often located in rural areas, with limited modes of transportation, and families struggle to visit.
As a result, families have very few in-person visits, and must rely on postal mail, or pay inflated prices for telephone calls and video contacts. Compounding the lack of connection, women in many state prisons cannot even hold in their hands and cherish a card or drawing sent by their children. Many prisons have done away with real mail, and now use vendors to intercept, scan, and destroy all postal mail, delivering poor quality printouts of the original letter to the incarcerated recipients weeks later for a fee.
In addition to women sentenced to prison, more than 2.4 million women spend at least one day in jail each year, and 80 percent of them are mothers of children under the age of 18. And more than 60 percent of women in our nation’s jails are presumed innocent and awaiting trial, jailed due to poverty and an inability to purchase their freedom by posting bail.
Children with mothers incarcerated in local jails often fare no better than those whose mothers are in state prisons: Some jails have completely banned in-person visitation to require all visits be done by paid video, not because of COVID, but to boost their bottom line. A 2015 study found that 74 percent of jails had banned in-person visits after putting video visits into place. Even when women are able to have in-person visits with their children, jail visits are often done through a plexiglass barrier. Women cannot hold, hug, touch, or kiss their children.
Although many more men are incarcerated than women in the U.S., women’s rate of incarceration has grown twice that of men in the past 40 years. Since 2009, while the overall number of people in prisons and jails has decreased, women have fared worse than men in 35 states. Women and families of color are disproportionately affected by this increase. Black and Native American / Alaska Native women are incarcerated at double their share of the population of women in the United States.
Women often become entangled with the criminal legal system due to trying to cope with poverty, limited access to child care, underemployment or unemployment, unstable housing, and physical and mental health challenges. They get thrown into a legal system that criminalizes survival behaviors such as selling drugs or sex work, and policies that charge and arrest persons for being present when crimes are committed by others, “aiding and abetting” others, or fighting back against domestic violence. A study in California found that 93 percent of women incarcerated in state prison for a homicide of a partner were abused by the person they killed, and in two-thirds of those cases, the homicide occurred while attempting to protect themselves or their children.
Incarcerated women have high rates of histories of physical and sexual abuse, trauma, and mental health and substance use disorders. While incarcerated, women are more likely than incarcerated men to face sexual abuse or harassment by correctional staff, and they experience serious psychological distress due to incarceration and the conditions in prisons. Treatment in prisons or jails for mental health conditions, substance use disorders, and trauma is often nonexistent. Health care for physical medical conditions or pregnancy often is limited at best: Last year, through our lawsuit, we learned the Arizona Department of Corrections was inducing the labor of pregnant incarcerated people against their will. This came after we documented inadequate prenatal and postpartum care of women in Arizona prisons in 2019, including a woman with serious mental illness who gave birth alone, in the toilet of her cell, at a maximum custody unit.
So what can we do to honor incarcerated women and families? First, we can financially support the incredible work of community-based bail funds that help free mothers and bring them home to their children and families. Second, we can support criminal legal reform policies to stop mass incarceration.
The National Bail Out is a Black-led and Black-centered collective of organizers and advocates who are working to abolish pretrial detention and mass incarceration. They have coordinated with a variety of other groups, including Southerners on New Ground (SONG), to create the tactical mass bail out of #FreeBlackMamas to acknowledge the reality that incarceration of women disproportionately affects Black women. They work with partner organizations to post bail for incarcerated women year-round, but especially before Mother’s Day. This year, instead of (or in addition to) sending flowers to your favorite mothers, you can donate to National Bail Out or the 18 Black-led organizations they are working with across the country to help #FreeBlackMamas.
We also need to address the root causes of the incarceration of women in this country, which is often due to poverty. While drug or property offenses account for about half of the charges for which women are incarcerated, policies must also focus on reducing so-called “violent” offenses that women commit often in response to violence and abuse.
When we incarcerate women, we are causing irreparable damage to them, their families, and all of our communities.
Published May 10, 2024 at 10:35PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/eTVha8J
ACLU: The Painful Reality of Being an Incarcerated Mother
The Painful Reality of Being an Incarcerated Mother
Published May 10, 2024 at 06:05PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/EjKn0O8
Many of us will celebrate Mother’s Day over the weekend by remembering or being present with women who raised us, or with our families. But for the more than 190,000 women incarcerated in the United States this weekend, there will be no celebration.
Close to 60 percent of these women serving prison sentences were the primary caregiver of their minor children before sentencing. All too often, a prison sentence tears them from their family connections and contact with their children, while severing their children from a vital source of emotional and financial support. State women’s prisons are often located in rural areas, with limited modes of transportation, and families struggle to visit.
As a result, families have very few in-person visits, and must rely on postal mail, or pay inflated prices for telephone calls and video contacts. Compounding the lack of connection, women in many state prisons cannot even hold in their hands and cherish a card or drawing sent by their children. Many prisons have done away with real mail, and now use vendors to intercept, scan, and destroy all postal mail, delivering poor quality printouts of the original letter to the incarcerated recipients weeks later for a fee.
In addition to women sentenced to prison, more than 2.4 million women spend at least one day in jail each year, and 80 percent of them are mothers of children under the age of 18. And more than 60 percent of women in our nation’s jails are presumed innocent and awaiting trial, jailed due to poverty and an inability to purchase their freedom by posting bail.
Children with mothers incarcerated in local jails often fare no better than those whose mothers are in state prisons: Some jails have completely banned in-person visitation to require all visits be done by paid video, not because of COVID, but to boost their bottom line. A 2015 study found that 74 percent of jails had banned in-person visits after putting video visits into place. Even when women are able to have in-person visits with their children, jail visits are often done through a plexiglass barrier. Women cannot hold, hug, touch, or kiss their children.
Although many more men are incarcerated than women in the U.S., women’s rate of incarceration has grown twice that of men in the past 40 years. Since 2009, while the overall number of people in prisons and jails has decreased, women have fared worse than men in 35 states. Women and families of color are disproportionately affected by this increase. Black and Native American / Alaska Native women are incarcerated at double their share of the population of women in the United States.
Women often become entangled with the criminal legal system due to trying to cope with poverty, limited access to child care, underemployment or unemployment, unstable housing, and physical and mental health challenges. They get thrown into a legal system that criminalizes survival behaviors such as selling drugs or sex work, and policies that charge and arrest persons for being present when crimes are committed by others, “aiding and abetting” others, or fighting back against domestic violence. A study in California found that 93 percent of women incarcerated in state prison for a homicide of a partner were abused by the person they killed, and in two-thirds of those cases, the homicide occurred while attempting to protect themselves or their children.
Incarcerated women have high rates of histories of physical and sexual abuse, trauma, and mental health and substance use disorders. While incarcerated, women are more likely than incarcerated men to face sexual abuse or harassment by correctional staff, and they experience serious psychological distress due to incarceration and the conditions in prisons. Treatment in prisons or jails for mental health conditions, substance use disorders, and trauma is often nonexistent. Health care for physical medical conditions or pregnancy often is limited at best: Last year, through our lawsuit, we learned the Arizona Department of Corrections was inducing the labor of pregnant incarcerated people against their will. This came after we documented inadequate prenatal and postpartum care of women in Arizona prisons in 2019, including a woman with serious mental illness who gave birth alone, in the toilet of her cell, at a maximum custody unit.
So what can we do to honor incarcerated women and families? First, we can financially support the incredible work of community-based bail funds that help free mothers and bring them home to their children and families. Second, we can support criminal legal reform policies to stop mass incarceration.
The National Bail Out is a Black-led and Black-centered collective of organizers and advocates who are working to abolish pretrial detention and mass incarceration. They have coordinated with a variety of other groups, including Southerners on New Ground (SONG), to create the tactical mass bail out of #FreeBlackMamas to acknowledge the reality that incarceration of women disproportionately affects Black women. They work with partner organizations to post bail for incarcerated women year-round, but especially before Mother’s Day. This year, instead of (or in addition to) sending flowers to your favorite mothers, you can donate to National Bail Out or the 18 Black-led organizations they are working with across the country to help #FreeBlackMamas.
We also need to address the root causes of the incarceration of women in this country, which is often due to poverty. While drug or property offenses account for about half of the charges for which women are incarcerated, policies must also focus on reducing so-called “violent” offenses that women commit often in response to violence and abuse.
When we incarcerate women, we are causing irreparable damage to them, their families, and all of our communities.
Published May 10, 2024 at 06:05PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/EjKn0O8
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)