May, 18 2010, 05:27pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Diana Duarte, Media Coordinator,Phone: +1 212 627 0444,Email:,media@madre.org
Post-Earthquake Violence Against Women in Haiti: Failure to Prevent, Protect and Punish
WASHINGTON
MADRE is working as part of a coalition of organizations seeking
justice for women in Haiti. The coalition submitted the following
statement to the UN Human Rights Council for the upcoming session.
Coalition members include: MADRE KOFAVIV Bureau des Avocats Internationaux (BAI) Institute for Justice & Democracy in Haiti (IJDH) University of Virginia School of Law Human Rights Program Human Rights Litigation and Advocacy Clinic, University of Minnesota
Post-Earthquake Violence Against Women in Haiti: Failure to Prevent, Protect and Punish
- The
January 2010 earthquake not only devastated Haiti's frail
infrastructure, it also worsened already inadequate and inequitable
access to basic social services throughout Haiti. It also created a
severe crisis of safety and security - especially for those living in
the Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) camps - exacerbating the already
grave problem of sexual violence. - Women in Haiti are
disproportionately impacted by the earthquake, both because they face
gender discrimination, exposing them to higher rates of poverty and
violence; and because they are responsible for meeting the needs of the
most vulnerable, including infants, children, the elderly and the
thousands of newly disabled people. - From May 1-10, 2010,
a delegation of U.S. lawyers and a women's health specialist
investigated the prevalence and patterns of rape and other gender-based
violence (GBV) against IDPs in Port-au-Prince in the aftermath of the
earthquake and the governmental, inter-governmental, non-governmental
and grassroots responses to the violence. For firsthand knowledge of
the rapes in the camps, members of the delegation interviewed over 25
survivors of rape or attempted rape. These women and girls were
referred to the delegation by KOFAVIV and FAVILEK, grassroots women's
organizations working within Port-au-Prince. - Although
this report makes no attempt to quantify the rapes that have occurred
in the camps to date, one thing is clear - rapes in the camps are
dramatically underreported. From January 13-March 21, KOFAVIV tracked
230 incidents of rape in 15 camps in Port-au-Prince. There are over 500
camps in the capital. Medicins Sans Frontiers reported 68 cases of rape
in the month of April at one of their clinics in Port-au-Prince. The
vast majority of the women living in camps who were interviewed
reported being raped by two or more individuals, almost always armed
and at night. - There is a demonstrated lack of governmental
response to sexual violence occurring in the camps. This failure to act
appears to have two prongs - the Haitian government is both unwilling
and unable to respond. Rape survivors living in the camps told
interviewers that reporting rape to the police is an exercise in
futility since they could not identify their assailant or assailants.
Many women stated that when they approached the police for help, the
police said that there was nothing they could do and the survivor
should return when she had identified and/or captured their attacker.
One survivor reported that the officer she spoke with disclaimed
responsibility for trying to capture her rapist, telling her that it
was the problem of Haiti's president, Rene Preval. - Conditions
in the camps are bleak. Overcrowding, lack of privacy, weakened family
and community structures, among other things, render women and girls
particularly vulnerable to sexual violence. Women and girls live in
inadequate shelter, often sleeping under nothing more than a tarp or
blanket, with no means of protection and no friends close by, and bathe
in public, in view of men and boys. - Sexual assault
survivors interviewed spoke of widespread occurrence of transactional
sex to obtain food aid cards, although each interviewee denied having
engaged in transactional sex herself. The occurrence of coerced
transactional sex - a form of rape - is beyond the scope of this report
and merits an independent investigation. - Preventative
measures within the camps are critically lacking. In particular, the
survivors we spoke with noted the following issues, a number of which
were confirmed by our own visits to the camps: lack of lighting; lack
of private bathing facilities; lack of tents; and even for those with
tents, utter lack of security (at least one survivor stated that her
attacker had used a blade to cut the side of her tent to gain access);
lack of a police presence (many survivors stated that police only
patrolled the perimeter of the camps and were unwilling to enter the
interior, particularly at night). - Because most of the
camps were erected with little or no planning, patrolling the camps is
an onerous task and poses safety issues even for officers. Police are
unwilling to enter the camps because they fear the armed gangs who
generally are active at night when, due to the lack of lighting,
attackers are less likely to be seen or recognized. - Mechanisms
for redress following sexual violence appear to be lacking,
ineffective, or underutilized. In partnership with the Haitian
government, UNICEF, and NGOs postcards listing psychological and
medical follow-up support have been distributed in the camps. An
informal survey of listed clinics revealed that the card contained
inaccurate information, including out-of-service phone numbers and
incorrect street addresses. Furthermore, the cards were published in
French instead of Kreole, the predominantly spoken language in the
camps. The publication of misinformation could discourage survivors
from attempting to access such resources to the extent they have heard
from others that it is a waste of time. Additionally, not all staffing
and resources are adequate. At least one of the clinics did not provide
HIV prophylaxis or testing. Many survivors believed that even if they
knew of a clinic, they thought they could not afford services or the
cost of transportation. The publication of misinformation not only
hinders survivors from accessing critically needed resources but also
discourages women from attempting to obtain support. - Although
government officials cite a lack of authority and a lack of resources,
efforts must be made to maximize the resources that are available and
provide support to existing programs. The Haitian government should
support community-based anti-violence strategies within a human rights
framework. Haitian women's groups indicated that each of the
following measures could be helpful in increasing the security in the
camps: training programs for officers on GBV and human rights issues;
increasing the number of female police officers; instituting
self-defense training and rape whistle programs within the camps; and
providing various trainings as well as support to community-organized
security patrols. - Along with UNIFEM, two national women's
organizations, Kay Fanm and SOFA, are training the Haitian National
Police on protocol for receiving survivors and will be providing
survivors with transport needs for rapid response. They are also
working with students from the state university to hold self-defense
clinics in the camps. However, these efforts are not well-publicized.
Their impact could be greatly increased if the support of smaller,
grassroots organizations and the resources of NGOs were also brought to
bear. - The Haitian criminal justice system has never
effectively prosecuted rape cases. First, discriminatory practices
pervade the justice system, such as a refusal to credit women's
eyewitness testimony against a man's, discriminatory laws, and gender
imbalance at every level and unit of the justice system. Second, there
is limited access to justice for all women, especially poor women, who
are the majority of rape victims. Lastly, there is a lack of
specialized training and programs for rape prosecutions. This failure
to effectively prosecute denies victims justice, normalizes gender
violence and provides prospective perpetrators assurance of impunity. - We respectfully urge the Human Rights Council to recommend the following:
a.
That the Government of Haiti and other IGOs/NGOs coordinating the
relief effort allocate resources immediately to provide for increased
security and lighting in the camps.b. That the Government
of Haiti act immediately to implement the National Plan for Combating
Violence Against Women (2006-2011) and, upon its expiry, work to renew
a new and stronger national plan of action to eliminate violence
against women that includes legal measures, service programs, redress
and prevention strategies and encourages collaborative participation
with the civil sector for both drafting of a national plan and for
strategic and effective implementation.c. That the
Government of Haiti assess its current laws, policies and programs that
address violence against women; evaluate their compliance with
international obligations; remove discriminatory laws and practices
against women; and implement a legal and policy framework that
guarantees due diligence and promotes the full protection and promotion
of women's human rights.d. That the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women visit Haiti.
e.
That the Haitian and donor governments guarantee women's full
participation and leadership in all phases of the reconstruction of
Haiti as mandated by UN Security Council Resolution 1325 and other
internationally recognized standards.f. That the
Government of Haiti enact a systematic collection of data that
documents the prevalence and incidences of all forms of violence
against women in the IDP camps; in collaboration with civil society
organizations.
MADRE is an international women's human rights organization that partners with community-based women's groups to advance women's human rights, challenge injustice and create social change in contexts of war, conflict, disaster and their aftermath. MADRE advocates for a world in which all people enjoy individual and collective human rights; natural resources are shared equitably and sustainably; women participate effectively in all aspects of society; and all people have a meaningful say in policies that affect their lives. For more information about MADRE, visit www.madre.org.
LATEST NEWS
ICE Goons Pepper Spray Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva During Tucson Raid
"If federal agents are brazen enough to fire pellets directly at a member of Congress, imagine how they behave when encountering defenseless members of our community," Grijalva said.
Dec 05, 2025
In what Arizona's attorney general slammed as an "unacceptable and outrageous" act of "unchecked aggression," a federal immigration officer fired pepper spray toward recently sworn-in Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva during a Friday raid on a Tucson restaurant.
Grijalva (D-Ariz.) wrote on social media that US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers "just conducted a raid by Taco Giro in Tucson—a small mom-and-pop restaurant that has served our community for years."
"When I presented myself as a member of Congress asking for more information, I was pushed aside and pepper sprayed," she added.
Grijalva said in a video uploaded to the post that she was "sprayed in the face by a very aggressive agent, pushed around by others, when I literally was not being aggressive, I was asking for clarification, which is my right as a member of Congress."
The video shows Grijalva among a group of protesters who verbally confronted federal agents over the raid. Following an order to "clear," an agent is seen firing what appears to be a pepper ball at the ground very near the congresswoman's feet. Video footage also shows agents deploying gas against the crowd.
"They're targeting small mom-and-pop businesses that don't have the financial resources to fight back," Grijalva told reporters after the incident. "They're targeting small businesses and people that are helping in our communities in order to try to fill the quota that [President Donald] Trump has given them."
Mocking the incident on social media, Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin contended that Grijalva "wasn’t pepper sprayed."
"She was in the vicinity of someone who *was* pepper sprayed as they were obstructing and assaulting law enforcement," she added. "In fact, two law enforcement officers were seriously injured by this mob that [Grijalva] joined."
McLaughlin provided no further details regarding the nature of those injuries.
Democrats in Arizona and beyond condemned Friday's incident, with US Sen. Ruben Gallego writing on social media that Grijalva "was doing her job, standing up for her community."
"Pepper spraying a sitting member of Congress is disgraceful, unacceptable, and absolutely not what we voted for," he added. "Period."
Democratic Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes said on social media: "This is unacceptable and outrageous. Enforcing the rule of law does not mean pepper spraying a member of Congress for simply asking questions. Effective law enforcement requires restraint and accountability, not unchecked aggression."
Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) also weighed in on social media, calling the incident "outrageous."
"Rep. Grijalva was completely within her rights to stand up for her constituents," she added. "ICE is completely lawless."
Friday's incident follows federal agents' violent removal of Sen. Alexa Padilla (D-Calif.) from a June press conference held by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.
Congresswoman LaMonica McIver (D-NJ) was federally indicted in June for allegedly “forcibly impeding and interfering with federal officers" during an oversight visit at a privately operated migrant detention center in Newark, New Jersey and subsequent confrontation with ICE agents outside of the lockup in which US Reps. Bonnie Watson Coleman and Rob Menendez, both New Jersey Democrats, were also involved.
Violent assaults by federal agents on suspected undocumented immigrants—including US citizens—protesters, journalists, and others are a regular occurrence amid the Trump administration's mass deportation campaign.
"If federal agents are brazen enough to fire pellets directly at a member of Congress, imagine how they behave when encountering defenseless members of our community," Grijalva said late Friday on social media. "It’s time for Congress to rein in this rogue agency NOW."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Gavin Newsom Wants a 'Big Tent Party,' But Opposes Wealth Tax Supported by Large Majority of Americans
"A wealth tax is a big tent policy unless the only people you care about are billionaires," said one progressive organizer.
Dec 05, 2025
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, considered by some to be the frontrunner to be the next Democratic presidential nominee, said during a panel on Wednesday that he wants his party to be a “big tent” that welcomes large numbers of people into the fold. But he’s “adamantly against” one of the most popular proposals Democrats have to offer: a wealth tax.
In October, progressive economists Emmanuel Saez and Robert Reich joined forces with one of California's most powerful unions, the Service Employees International Union's (SEIU) United Healthcare Workers West, to propose that California put the nation’s first-ever wealth tax on the ballot in November 2026.
They described the measure as an "emergency billionaires tax" aimed at recouping the tens of billions of dollars that will be stripped from California's 15 million Medicaid recipients over the next five years, after Republicans enacted historic cuts to the program in July with President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which dramatically reduced taxes for the wealthiest Americans.
Among those beneficiaries were the approximately 200 billionaires living in California, whose average annual income, Saez pointed out, has risen by 7.5% per year, compared with 1.5% for median-income residents.
Under the proposal, they would pay a one-time 5% tax on their total net worth, which is estimated to raise $100 billion. The vast majority of the funds, about 90%, would be used to restore Medicaid funding, while the rest would go towards funding K-12 education, which the GOP has also slashed.
The proposal in California has strong support from unions and healthcare groups. But Newsom has called it “bad policy” and “another attempt to grab money for special purposes.”
Meanwhile, several of his longtime consultants, including Dan Newman and Brian Brokaw, have launched a campaign alongside “business and tech leaders” to kill the measure, which they’ve dubbed “Stop the Squeeze." They've issued familiar warnings that pinching the wealthy too hard will drive them from the state, along with the critical tax base they provide.
At Wednesday's New York Times DealBook Summit, Andrew Ross Sorkin asked Newsom about his opposition to the wealth tax idea, comparing it to a proposal by recent New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, who pledged to increase the income taxes of New Yorkers who earn more than $1 million per year by 2% in order to fund his city-wide free buses, universal childcare, and city-owned grocery store programs.
Mamdani's proposal was met with a litany of similar warnings from Big Apple bigwigs who threatened to flee the city and others around the country who said they'd never move in.
But as Robin Kaiser-Schatzlein explained in October for the American Prospect: "The evidence for this is thin: mostly memes shared by tech and finance people... Research shows that the truth of the matter is closer to the opposite. Wealthy individuals and their income move at lower rates than other income brackets, even in response to an increase of personal income tax." Many of those who sulked about Mamdani's victory have notably begun making amends with the incoming mayor.
Moreover, the comparison between Mamdani's plan and the one proposed in California is faulty to begin with. As Harold Meyerson explained, also for the Prospect: "It is a one-time-only tax, to be levied exclusively on billionaires’ current (i.e., 2025) net worth. Even if they move to Tasmania, they will still be liable for 5% of this year’s net worth."
"Crucially, the tax won’t crimp the fortunes of any billionaire who moves into the state next year or any later year, as it only applies to the billionaires living in the state this year," he added. "Therefore... the horrific specter of billionaire flight can’t be levied against the California proposal."
Nevertheless, Sorkin framed Newsom as being in an existential battle of ideas with Mamdani, asking how the two could both represent the Democratic Party when they are so "diametrically opposed."
"Well, I want to be a big-tent party," Newsom replied. "It's about addition, not subtraction."
Pushed on the question of whether there should be a "unifying theory of the case," Newsom responded that “we all want to be protected, we all want to be respected, we all want to be connected to something bigger than ourselves. We have fundamental values that I think define our party, about social justice, economic justice.”
"We have pre-distribution Democrats, and we have re-distribution Democrats," he continued. "Therein lies the dialectic and therein lies the debate."
Polling is scarce so far on the likelihood of such a measure passing in California. But nationally, polls suggest that the vast majority of Democrats fall on the "re-distribution" side of Newsom's "dialectic." In fact, the majority of all Americans do, regardless of party affiliation.
Last year, Inequality.org examined 55 national and state polls about a number of different taxation policies and found:
A billionaire income tax garnered the most support across party identification. On average, two out of three (67%) of Americans supported the tax including 84% of Democrats, 64% of Independents, and 51% of Republicans.
In national polls, a wealth tax had similarly high levels of support. More than three out of five Americans supported the tax including 78% of Democrats, 62% of Independents, and 51% of Republicans.
That sentiment only seems to have grown since the return of President Donald Trump. An Economist/YouGov poll released in early November found that 72% of Americans said that taxes on billionaires should be raised—including 95% of Democrats, 75% of independents, and 48% of Republicans. Across the board, just 15% said they should not be raised.
Support remains high when the proposal is more specific as well. On the eve of Mamdani's election, despitre months of fearmongering, 64% of New Yorkers said they backed his proposal, including a slight plurality of self-identified conservatives, according to a Siena College poll.
Many observers were perplexed by how Newsom proposes to maintain a “big tent” while opposing policies supported by most of the people inside it.
"A wealth tax is a big tent policy unless the only people you care about are billionaires," wrote Jonathan Cohn, the political director for Progressive Mass, a grassroots organization in Massachusetts, on social media.
"Gavin Newsom—estimated net worth between $20 and $30 million—says he's opposed to a billionaire wealth tax. Color me shocked," wrote the Columbia University lecturer Anthony Zenkus. "Democrats holding him up as a potential savior for 2028 is a clear example of not reading the room."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case That Could Bless Trump's Bid to End Birthright Citizenship
"That the Supreme Court is actually entertaining Trump’s unconstitutional attack on birthright citizenship is the clearest example yet that the Roberts Court is broken beyond repair," said one critic.
Dec 05, 2025
The United States Supreme Court on Friday agreed to decide whether US President Donald Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship—as guaranteed under the 14th Amendment for more than 150 years—is constitutional.
Next spring, the justices will hear oral arguments in Trump's appeal of a lower court ruling that struck down parts of an executive order—titled Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship—signed on the first day of the president's second term. Under the directive, which has not taken effect due to legal challenges, people born in the United States would not be automatically entitled to US citizenship if their parents are in the country temporarily or without legal authorization.
Enacted in 1868, the 14th Amendment affirms that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
While the Trump administration argues that the 14th Amendment was adopted to grant US citizenship to freed slaves, not travelers or undocumented immigrants, two key Supreme Court cases have affirmed birthright citizenship under the Constitution—United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) and Afroyim v. Rusk (1967).
Here is the question presented. It's a relatively clean vehicle for the Supreme Court to finally decide whether it is lawful for the president to deny birthright citizenship to the children of immigrants. www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25...
[image or embed]
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjsdc.bsky.social) December 5, 2025 at 10:55 AM
Several district court judges have issued universal preliminary injunctions to block Trump's order. However, the Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority found in June that “universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts."
In July, a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit unanimously ruled that executive order is an unconstitutional violation of the plain language of the 14th Amendment. In total, four federal courts and two appellate courts have blocked Trump's order.
“No president can change the 14th Amendment’s fundamental promise of citizenship,” Cecillia Wang, national legal director at the ACLU—which is leading the nationwide class action challenge to Trump's order—said in a statement Friday. “We look forward to putting this issue to rest once and for all in the Supreme Court this term.”
Brett Edkins, managing director of policy and political affairs at the advocacy group Stand Up America, was among those who suggested that the high court justices should have refused to hear the case given the long-settled precedent regarding the 14th Amendment.
“This case is a right-wing fantasy, full stop. That the Supreme Court is actually entertaining Trump’s unconstitutional attack on birthright citizenship is the clearest example yet that the Roberts Court is broken beyond repair," Edkins continued, referring to Chief Justice John Roberts.
"Even if the court ultimately rules against Trump, in a laughable display of its supposed independence, the fact that fringe attacks on our most basic rights as citizens are being seriously considered is outrageous and alarming," he added.
Aarti Kohli, executive director of the Asian Law Caucus, said that “it’s deeply troubling that we must waste precious judicial resources relitigating what has been settled constitutional law for over a century," adding that "every federal judge who has considered this executive order has found it unconstitutional."
Tianna Mays, legal director for Democracy Defenders Fund, asserted, “The attack on the fundamental right of birthright citizenship is an attack on the 14th Amendment and our Constitution."
"We are confident the court will affirm this basic right, which has stood for over a century," Mays added. "Millions of families across the country deserve and require that clarity and stability.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


