Live stream: Hillary Clinton speaks on population
By zohra moosa | 6 January 2010, 20:08
Received an email bulletin from the Washington-based Center for Health and Gender Equity (CHANGE) today about an interesting event happening this Friday.
At 14.30 eastern standard time (that’s 19.30 GMT), Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will be making a speech to commemorate the 15th anniversary of the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD). The conference was a landmark, making the links between maternal health, violence against women, gender equality and sexual and reproductive health and rights - among other issues - and the population and development debates. In her speech, Hillary Clinton is expected to reconfirm the US’ commitment to the Conference’s goals - which should make for interesting listening given the recent attacks on women’s access to abortion during the health care reform debates within the States itself.
The speech will be streamed on http://www.icpd2015.org/. If you miss it, check out the site later on for a video and transcript of the speech. CHANGE will also be providing highlights and analysis on their site and are calling on those living in the States to take action to time with the speech:
For those who live in the U.S., please take a moment to email your Representative and urge her/him to co-sponsor H. Res. 947, a resolution introduced by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) that recommits the U.S. to achieving the goals of the ICPD Program of Action. Please click here [link to an action page on CHANGE’s website] to take action today.
cross-posted on feministing
Have your say
In order to keep this blog as a feminist and friendly space, comments will be subject to some rules. We do not seek to censor debate: the beauty of the internet is that anyone can set up their own blog or website to express their views.
- This blog is a safe and friendly space for feminists and feminist allies. Debate and critique are welcome where it is constructive and deepens analysis or understanding. Anti-feminist comments will not be approved. We get to decide what's anti-feminist.
- All comments must be approved by one of the bloggers. For this reason, there may be a delay before your comment appears.
- No sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, classist, ablist comments, comments which make personal attacks on any blogger or commenter, or comments that are otherwise deemed offensive by us will be posted.
- Trolls will be banned from commenting. We get to decide who is a troll.
- No anonymous comments - please feel free to use your real name or make one up, though.
- Be nice.
Feeds
earwicga said:
I wonder if Clinton will shed her 'real tears again and promise money to the women of Congo again, and not give it again.
Posted on 07 January 2010 at 10:32 AM
coldharbour said:
I think she's more interested in securing the $3 Trillion a year "aid package" to help Israel starve, ethnically cleanse and imprison the Palestinian people out of existence. I find the support for this woman on this site pretty stomach churning to be honest.
Posted on 07 January 2010 at 6:48 PM
zohra moosa said:
Hi coldharbour
That's a pretty bold, and inflammatory, claim - did you have a chance to listen to the speech at all to see if your feelings were borne out?
Posted on January 10, 2010 10:07 PM
earwicga said:
"I find the support for this woman on this site pretty stomach churning to be honest."
What support? You came to a thread that contained one comment (mine) that didn't support Clinton in any way.
I wasn't aware that Israel needed any help in persecuting Palestinians (beyond the continued US support). As far as I can see they are doing very well already. So I am interested in what the "aid package" is that you refer to.
Posted on 11 January 2010 at 6:49 AM
coldharbour said:
According to the U.S. Congressional Research Service, American aid to Israel has averaged at least $2 billion a year (two-thirds of which has been military assistance) since 1971 although this figure has been disputed as being a fraction of the true figure (most notably by the late economist and Middle-East expert Thomas R. Stauffer). Last year the (Israeli) National Institute For Security Studies quantified the Israeli military budget as being just over $13.3 billion per annum understating the fact that without U.S. aid the level of militarism presently employed by Israel to crush the Palestinian people would be near impossible if not very difficult. When Hillary Clinton met with Benjamin Netanyahu in November she unequivocally backed Israels current position of further ethnic cleansing and land grab in the West Bank solidifying the Democrat Party's ambition to be as ultra-Zionist as their colleagues in the Republican Party. I understand however your dispute was regarding whether the article was endorsing Hillary Clinton in general. It was my opinion that the article alluded to Ms. Clinton as being someone who stands up for feminism and human rights, I wanted to express the fact that nothing could be further from the truth. Kind regards.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/jul2006/clin-j19.shtml
http://www.scottishpsc.org.uk/
Posted on 11 January 2010 at 10:19 PM
earwicga said:
Video of speech is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IgrNuXBI-s
I haven't listened to it yet - need to line my stomach first to listen to this hypocrite.
Posted on 11 January 2010 at 10:45 PM
earwicga said:
Transcript here:
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/01/135001.htme
Posted on 11 January 2010 at 11:13 PM
zohra moosa said:
Hi coldharbour
My post refers readers to Hillary Clinton's speech, calls the event itself 'interesting', discusses how the Conference it was given in anniversary of was a landmark, points out that there have been some strident attacks on women's rights in the US very recently and suggests that the speech should be judged against this.
I don't think this is supporting anyone particularly, except perhaps for CHANGE, the organization that alerted me to the info.
Posted on January 12, 2010 12:44 PM
earwicga said:
"It was my opinion that the article alluded to Ms. Clinton as being someone who stands up for feminism and human rights, I wanted to express the fact that nothing could be further from the truth." I understand and completely agree with your sentiment.
I think it is unfortunate that it isn't more evident that apart from the first line of the post, it is all a quote from elsewhere. I think that The F-Word even lets our comments through moderation means that disparate views are allowed here. Much of the media is concerned with propaganda regarding what Israel is doing to Palestine. Zionists have phrased the argument to be that to disagree with apartheid, ethnic cleansing, and denial of basic human rights by othering Palestinians as less than human is anti-semitic when nothing could be further from the truth.
Thank you for response, and links. I would add that without America's vocal support of Israel then Israel would not be able to continue in this vein either.
Solidarity
Posted on 12 January 2010 at 12:56 PM
earwicga said:
Argh - I didn't double check that it was all a quote. It seemed very familiar but reading your comment (which I think was being typed at the same time) it is clear that I was wrong. Apologies.
Zohra - what did you conclude from the speech?
Posted on 12 January 2010 at 1:06 PM
coldharbour said:
I would like to thank the both of you for your response and interest in my post. I offer my apologies as my vitriol should have not been leveled at anyone posting here, unfortunately my blood boils when I think about politicians like Ms. Clinton. No Pasaran.
Posted on 12 January 2010 at 2:02 PM
gadgetgal said:
I'm not here to defend Israel's actions in Gaza (neither side is particularly defensible, but the stronger party should always be held the most accountable as they tend to do the most damage) but I am here to point out that equating Zionism with Israel and racism (as was done by the United Nations in 1975) was rescinded in 1991 because that IS anti-semitic:
"We must use the occasion to denounce anti-Semitism in all of its manifestations. This brings me to the lamentable resolution adopted by the General Assembly in 1975, equating Zionism with racism and racial discrimination. That was, perhaps, the low-point in our relations; its negative resonance even today is difficult to overestimate. Fortunately, the General Assembly rescinded the resolution in 1991." Kofi Annan, 25th March 1998
If you're going to talk about Israel's actions then please call it "Israel". It's like saying "Shi'a" instead of "Iran", they are both quite offensive to confuse.
Also when Clinton met with Netenyahu she remained as vague as any politician would:
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2009a/10/131145.htm
And it has been reiterated just recently:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8449947.stm
No out and out disapproval, but no out and out approval either, just restating the need for talks with no preconditions (whether you think that's right or not, fair enough, but it's not an evil USA/Zionist plot, either). And I say this as neither a fan nor a detractor of Clinton - I think most politicians have good and bad about them, otherwise they'd never get elected because most nice people don't want to go into politics!
As to her feminist background I only know a little, but I'll check out the speech later to see what's going on, it's quite difficult to get decent info on where US women's reproductive health is up to since it varies so much from state to state.
Posted on 12 January 2010 at 3:44 PM
zohra moosa said:
Please note that this post is now closed to further comments on Israel and Palestine unless they relate to Hillary Clinton's speach on population.
Posted on January 12, 2010 6:43 PM
gadgetgal said:
I can't really point out too much specifically about this speech because the whole thing rocked! She really did a good job highlighting how reproductive rights are at the heart of women's wellbeing worldwide. Well worth watching! I really hope they're able to live up to their aims.
Posted on 15 January 2010 at 8:09 PM
coldharbour said:
Watching the speech was probably the longest 22 minutes of my life, Clinton's smug hypocritical garbage sums up everything that is wrong with American 'liberals'. If Hillary Clinton is so concerned with the well-being of woman in the developing world why is she supporting the bombing of woman and children in Pakistan and Afghanistan? The reason is simple: America is only interested in supporting governments in the developing world that are conducive with their economic interests regardless of how they treat woman, history has proved this has always been the case. Access to family planning and contraception for woman will never come to fruition while America keeps the developing world in abstract poverty regardless of what made up arbitrary statistics Clinton comes up with. Last year the Democrats sold out the American people on health care reform while pumping billions into state-sponsored terrorism round the world, I suppose Clinton would see that as in our interests in the phony 'war on terror'. Empire or Humanity? You decide.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arn3lF5XSUg
Posted on 17 January 2010 at 2:15 PM