Loading...
Judges 17 to 21 in tamil
Quiz by Jenifer Christy
Customize this quiz to suit your class
Instantly translate to 100+ languages
Tag the questions with any skills you have. Your dashboard will track each student's mastery of each skill.
Give this quiz to my class
MYTH The British helped the Jews displace the native Arab population of Palestine. FACT Herbert Samuel, a British Jew who served as the first High Commissioner of Palestine, placed restrictions on Jewish immigration “in the ‘interests of the present population’ and the ‘absorptive capacity’ of the country.”1 The influx of Jewish settlers was said to force the Arab fellahin (native peasants) from their land. This was when less than a million people lived in an area that now supports more than nine million. The British limited the absorptive capacity of Palestine when, in 1921, Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill severed nearly four-fifths of Palestine—some thirty-five thousand square miles—to create a new Arab entity, Transjordan. As a consolation prize for the Hejaz and Arabia (which are both now Saudi Arabia) going to the Saud family, Churchill rewarded Sharif Hussein’s son Abdullah for his contribution to the war against Turkey by installing him as Transjordan’s emir. The British went further and placed restrictions on Jewish land purchases in what remained of Palestine. By 1949, the British had allotted 87,500 acres of the 187,500 acres of cultivable land to Arabs and only 4,250 acres to Jews. This contradicted Article 6 of the Mandate which stated that “the Administration of Palestine…shall encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish Agency…close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not acquired for public purposes.”2 Ultimately, the British admitted that the argument about the country’s absorptive capacity was specious. The Peel Commission said, “The heavy immigration in the years 1933–36 would seem to show that the Jews have been able to enlarge the absorptive capacity of the country for Jews.”3 MYTH The British allowed Jews to flood Palestine while Arab immigration was tightly controlled. FACT The British response to Jewish immigration set a precedent of appeasing the Arabs, which was followed for the duration of the Mandate. The British restricted Jewish immigration while allowing Arabs to enter the country freely. Apparently, London did not feel that a flood of Arab immigrants would affect the country’s “absorptive capacity.” During World War I, the Jewish population in Palestine declined because of the war, famine, disease, and expulsion by the Turks. In 1915, approximately 83,000 Jews lived in Palestine among 590,000 Muslim and Christian Arabs. According to the 1922 census, the Jewish population was 83,000, while the Arabs numbered 643,000.4 Thus, the Arab population grew exponentially while that of the Jews stagnated. In the mid-1920s, Jewish immigration to Palestine increased primarily because of anti-Jewish economic legislation in Poland and Washington’s imposition of restrictive quotas.5 The record number of immigrants in 1935 (see table) was a response to the growing persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany. The British administration considered this number too large, however, so the Jewish Agency was informed that less than one-third of the quota it asked for would be approved in 1936.6 The British gave in further to Arab demands by announcing in the 1939 White Paper that an independent Arab state would be created within ten years and that Jewish immigration was to be limited to 75,000 for the next five years, after which it was to cease altogether. It also forbade land sales to Jews in 95% of the territory of Palestine. The Arabs, nevertheless, rejected the proposal. Jewish Immigration to Palestine7 1919 1,806 1931 4,075 1920 8,223 1932 12,533 1921 8,294 1933 37,337 1922 8,685 1934 45,267 1923 8,175 1935 66,472 1924 13,892 1936 29,595 1925 34,386 1937 10,629 1926 13,855 1938 14,675 1927 3,034 1939 31,195 1928 2,178 1940 10,643 1929 5,249 1941 4,592 1930 4,944 By contrast, throughout the Mandatory period, Arab immigration was unrestricted. In 1930, the Hope Simpson Commission, sent from London to investigate the 1929 Arab riots, said the British practice of ignoring the uncontrolled illegal Arab immigration from Egypt, Transjordan, and Syria had the effect of displacing the prospective Jewish immigrants.8 The British governor of the Sinai from 1922 to 1936 observed, “This illegal immigration was not only going on from the Sinai, but also from Transjordan and Syria, and it is very difficult to make a case out for the misery of the Arabs if at the same time their compatriots from adjoining states could not be kept from going in to share that misery.”9 The Peel Commission reported in 1937 that the “shortfall of land is…due less to the amount of land acquired by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population.”10 MYTH The British changed their policy to allow Holocaust survivors to settle in Palestine. FACT The gates of Palestine remained closed for the duration of the war, stranding hundreds of thousands of Jews in Europe, many of whom became victims of Hitler’s “Final Solution.” After the war, the British refused to allow the survivors of the Nazi nightmare to find sanctuary in Palestine. On June 6, 1946, President Truman urged the British government to relieve the suffering of the Jews confined to displaced persons camps in Europe by immediately accepting 100,000 Jewish immigrants. Britain’s foreign minister Ernest Bevin replied sarcastically that the United States wanted displaced Jews to immigrate to Palestine “because they did not want too many of them in New York.”11 Some Jews reached Palestine, many smuggled in on dilapidated ships organized by the Haganah. Between August 1945 and the establishment of the State of Israel in May 1948, sixty-five “illegal” immigrant ships, carrying 69,878 people, arrived from European shores. In August 1946, however, the British began to intern those they caught in camps on Cyprus. Approximately 50,000 people were detained in the camps, and 28,000 remained imprisoned when Israel declared independence.12 MYTH As the Jewish population grew, the plight of the Palestinian Arabs worsened. FACT In July 1921, Hasan Shukri, the mayor of Haifa and president of the Muslim National Associations, sent a telegram to the British government in reaction to a delegation of Palestinians that went to London to try to stop the implementation of the Balfour Declaration. Shukri wrote: We are certain that without Jewish immigration and financial assistance there will be no future development of our country as may be judged from the fact that the towns inhabited in part by Jews such as Jerusalem, Jaffa, Haifa, and Tiberias are making steady progress while Nablus, Acre, and Nazareth where no Jews reside are steadily declining.13 The Jewish population increased by 470,000 between World War I and World War II, while the non-Jewish population rose by 588,000.14 The permanent Arab population increased by 120% between 1922 and 1947.15 This rapid growth of the Arab population was a result of several factors. One was immigration from neighboring states—constituting 37% of the total immigration to pre-state Israel—by Arabs who wanted to take advantage of the higher standard of living the Jews had made possible.16 The Arab population also grew because of the improved living conditions created by the Jews as they drained malarial swamps and brought improved sanitation and health care to the region. Thus, for example, the Muslim infant mortality rate fell from 201 per thousand in 1925 to 94 per thousand in 1945, and life expectancy rose from 37 years in 1926 to 49 in 1943.17 The Arab population increased the most in cities where large Jewish populations had created new economic opportunities. From 1922–1947, the non-Jewish population increased by 290% in Haifa, 131% in Jerusalem, and 158% in Jaffa. The growth in Arab towns was more modest: 42% in Nablus, 78% in Jenin, and 37% in Bethlehem.18 MYTH Jews stole Arab land. FACT Despite the growth in their population, the Arabs continued to assert they were being displaced. From the beginning of World War I, however, part of Palestine’s land was owned by absentee landlords who lived in Cairo, Damascus, and Beirut. About 80% of the Palestinian Arabs were debt-ridden peasants, semi-nomads, and Bedouins.19 Jews went out of their way to avoid purchasing land in areas where Arabs might be displaced. They sought land that was largely uncultivated, swampy, cheap, and—most important—without tenants. In 1920, Labor Zionist leader David Ben-Gurion expressed his concern about the Arab fellahin, whom he viewed as “the most important asset of the native population.” He insisted that “under no circumstances must we touch land belonging to fellahs or worked by them.” Instead, he advocated helping liberate them from their oppressors. “Only if a fellah leaves his place of settlement,” Ben-Gurion added, “should we offer to buy his land, at an appropriate price.”20 Jews only began to purchase cultivated land after buying all the uncultivated territory. Many Arabs were willing to sell because of the migration to coastal towns and because they needed money to invest in the citrus industry.21 When John Hope Simpson arrived in Palestine in May 1930, he observed, “They [the Jews] paid high prices for the land and, in addition, they paid to certain of the occupants of those lands a considerable amount of money which they were not legally bound to pay.”22 In 1931, Lewis French conducted a survey of landlessness for the British government and offered new plots to any Arabs who had been “dispossessed.” British officials received more than 3,000 applications, of which 80% were ruled invalid by the government’s legal adviser because the applicants were not landless Arabs. This left only about 600 landless Arabs, 100 of whom accepted the government land offer.23 In April 1936, a new outbreak of Arab attacks on Jews was instigated by local Palestinian leaders who were later joined by Arab volunteers led by a Syrian guerrilla named Fawzi al-Qawuqji, the commander of the Arab Liberation Army. By November, when the British finally sent a new commission headed by Lord Peel to investigate, 89 Jews had been killed and more than 300 wounded.24 The Peel Commission’s report found that Arab complaints about Jewish land acquisition were baseless. It pointed out that “much of the land now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamp and uncultivated when it was purchased…There was at the time of the earlier sales little evidence that the owners possessed either the resources or training needed to develop the land.”25 Moreover, the Commission found the shortage was “due less to the amount of land acquired by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population.” The report concluded that the presence of Jews in Palestine, along with the work of the British administration, had resulted in higher wages, an improved standard of living, and ample employment opportunities.26 It is made quite clear to all, both by the map drawn up by the Simpson Commission and by another compiled by the Peel Commission, that the Arabs are as prodigal in selling their land as they are in useless wailing and weeping (emphasis in the original). —Transjordan’s king Abdullah27 Even at the height of the Arab revolt in 1938 (which began in April 1936 with the murder of two Jews by Arabs and the subsequent murder of two Arab workers by members of the Jewish underground28), the British high commissioner to Palestine believed the Arab landowners were complaining about sales to Jews to drive up prices for lands they wished to sell. Many Arab landowners had been so terrorized by Arab rebels they decided to leave Palestine and sell their property to the Jews.29 The Jews paid exorbitant prices to wealthy landowners for small tracts of arid land. “In 1944, Jews paid between $1,000 and $1,100 per acre in Palestine, mostly for arid or semiarid land; in the same year, rich black soil in Iowa was selling for about $110 per acre.”30 By 1947, Jewish holdings in Palestine amounted to about 463,000 acres. Approximately 45,000 were acquired from the mandatory government, 30,000 were bought from various churches, and 387,500 were purchased from Arabs. Analyses of land purchases from 1880 to 1948 show that 73% of Jewish plots were purchased from large landowners, not poor fellahin.31 Many leaders of the Arab nationalist movement, including members of the Muslim Supreme Council, and the mayors of Gaza, Jerusalem, and s sold land to the Jews. As’ad el-Shuqeiri, a Muslim religious scholar and father of Palestine Liberation Organization chairman Ahmed Shuqeiri, took Jewish money for his land. Even King Abdullah leased land to the Jews.32 MYTH The British helped the Palestinians to live peacefully with the Jews. FACT In 1921, Haj Amin el-Husseini first began to organize fedayeen (“one who sacrifices himself”) to terrorize Jews. El-Husseini hoped to duplicate the success of Kemal Atatürk in Turkey by driving the Jews out of Palestine just as Kemal had driven the invading Greeks from his country.33 Arab radicals gained influence because the British administration was unwilling to take effective action against them until they began a revolt against British rule. Colonel Richard Meinertzhagen, former head of British military intelligence in Cairo, and later chief political officer for Palestine and Syria, wrote in his diary that British officials “incline towards the exclusion of Zionism in Palestine.” The British encouraged the Palestinians to attack the Jews. According to Meinertzhagen, Col. Bertie Harry Waters-Taylor (financial adviser to the military administration in Palestine 1919–23) met with el-Husseini in 1920, a few days before Easter, and told him that “he had a great opportunity at Easter to show the world…that Zionism was unpopular not only with the Palestine administration but in Whitehall.” He added that “if disturbances of sufficient violence occurred in Jerusalem at Easter, both General [Louis] Bols [chief administrator in Palestine, 1919–20] and General [Edmund] Allenby [commander of the Egyptian force, 1917–19, then high commissioner of Egypt] would advocate the abandonment of the Jewish Home. Waters-Taylor explained that freedom could only be attained through violence.”34 El-Husseini took the colonel’s advice and instigated a riot. The British withdrew their troops and the Jewish police from Jerusalem, allowing the Arab mob to attack Jews and loot their shops. Because of el-Husseini’s overt role in instigating the pogrom, the British decided to arrest him. He escaped, however, and was sentenced to ten years in absentia. A year later, some British Arabists convinced High Commissioner Herbert Samuel to pardon el-Husseini and to appoint him Mufti (a cleric in charge of Jerusalem’s Islamic holy places). By contrast, Vladimir Jabotinsky and several followers, who had formed a Jewish defense organization during the unrest, were sentenced to 15 years. They were released a few months later.35 Samuel met with el-Husseini on April 11, 1921, and was assured “that the influences of his family and himself would be devoted to tranquility.” Three weeks later, riots in Jaffa and elsewhere left forty-three Jews dead.36 El-Husseini consolidated his power and took control of all Muslim religious funds in Palestine. He used his authority to gain control over the mosques, the schools, and the courts. No Arab could reach an influential position without being loyal to the Mufti. His power was so absolute that “no Muslim in Palestine could be born or die without being beholden to Haj Amin.”37 The Mufti’s henchmen also ensured he would have no opposition by systematically killing Palestinians who discussed cooperation with the Jews from rival clans. As the spokesman for Palestinian Arabs, el-Husseini did not ask that Britain grant them independence. On the contrary, in a letter to Churchill in 1921, he demanded that Palestine be reunited with Syria and Transjordan.38 The Arabs found rioting an effective political tool because of the lax British response toward violence against Jews. In handling each riot, the British prevented Jews from protecting themselves but made little effort to prevent the Arabs from attacking them. After each outbreak, a British commission of inquiry would try to establish the cause of the violence. The conclusion was always the same: The Arabs feared being displaced by the Jews. To stop the rioting, the commissions would recommend that restrictions be placed on Jewish immigration. Thus, the Arabs learned they could always stop the influx of Jews by staging riots. This cycle began after a series of riots in May 1921. After failing to protect the Jewish community from Arab mobs, the British appointed the Haycraft Commission to investigate the cause of the violence. Although the panel concluded the Arabs had been the aggressors, it rationalized the cause of the attack: “The fundamental cause of the riots was a feeling among the Arabs of discontent with, and hostility to, the Jews, due to political and economic causes, and connected with Jewish immigration, and with their conception of Zionist policy.”39 One consequence of the violence was the institution of a temporary ban on Jewish immigration. The Arab fear of being “displaced” or “dominated” was an excuse for their attacks on Jewish settlers. Note, too, that these riots were not inspired by nationalistic fervor—nationalists would have rebelled against their British overlords—they were motivated by economics, the radical Islamic views of the Mufti, and misunderstanding. In 1929, Arab provocateurs convinced the masses that the Jews had designs on the Temple Mount (a tactic still used today to incite violence). A Jewish religious observance at the Western Wall, which forms a part of the Temple Mount, served as a pretext for rioting by Arabs against Jews, which spilled out of Jerusalem into other villages and towns, including Safed and Hebron. Again, the British administration made no effort to prevent the violence, and, after it began, the British did nothing to protect the Jewish population. After six days of mayhem, the British finally brought troops in to quell the disturbance. By this time, most of Hebron’s Jews had fled or been killed. In all, 133 Jews were killed and 399 wounded in the pogroms.40 After the riots, the British ordered an investigation, resulting in the Passfield White Paper. It said the “immigration, land purchase and settlement policies of the Zionist Organization were already or were likely to become, prejudicial to Arab interests. It understood the mandatory government’s obligation to the non-Jewish community to mean that Palestine’s resources must be primarily reserved for the growing Arab economy.”41 This meant it was necessary to restrict Jewish immigration and land purchases. MYTH The Mufti was not a Nazi collaborator. FACT In 1941, Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem, fled to Germany and met with Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, Joachim Von Ribbentrop, and other Nazi leaders. He wanted to persuade them to extend the Nazis’ anti-Jewish program to the Arab world. The Mufti sent Hitler fifteen drafts of declarations he wanted Germany and Italy to make concerning the Middle East. One called on the two countries to declare the illegality of the Jewish home in Palestine. He also asked the Axis powers to “accord to Palestine and to other Arab countries the right to solve the problem of the Jewish elements in Palestine and other Arab countries in accordance with the interest of the Arabs, and by the same method that the question is now being settled in the Axis countries.”42 In November 1941, the Mufti met with Hitler, who told him the Jews were his foremost enemy. The Nazi dictator rebuffed the Mufti’s requests for a declaration in support of the Arabs, however, telling him the time was not right. The Mufti offered Hitler his “thanks for the sympathy which he had always shown for the Arab and especially Palestinian cause, and to which he had given clear expression in his public speeches.” He added, “The Arabs were Germany’s natural friends because they had the same enemies as had Germany, namely…the Jews.” Hitler told the Mufti he opposed the creation of a Jewish state and that Germany’s objective was destroying the Jewish element in the Arab sphere.43 In 1945, Yugoslavia sought to indict the Mufti as a war criminal for his role in recruiting twenty thousand Muslim volunteers for the SS, who participated in the killing of Jews in Croatia and Hungary. He escaped French detention in 1946, however, and continued his fight against the Jews from Cairo and later Beirut where he died in 1974. MYTH The bombing of the King David Hotel was part of a deliberate terror campaign against civilians. FACT British troops seized the Jewish Agency compound on June 29, 1946, and confiscated large quantities of documents. At about the same time, more than 2,500 Jews from all over Palestine were arrested. A week later, news of a massacre of 40 Jews in a pogrom in Poland reminded the Jews of Palestine how Britain’s restrictive immigration policy had condemned thousands to death. In response to the British provocations, and a desire to demonstrate that the Jews’ spirit could not be broken, the United Resistance Movement planned to bomb the King David Hotel, which housed the British military command and the Criminal Investigation Division in addition to hotel guests. The Haganah pulled out of the plot and left it up to the Irgun. Irgun leader Menachem Begin stressed his desire to avoid civilian casualties and the plan was to warn the British so they would evacuate the building before it was blown up. Three telephone calls were placed on July 22, 1946, one to the hotel, another to the French Consulate, and a third to the Palestine Post warning that explosives in the King David Hotel would soon be detonated. The call to the hotel was received and ignored. Begin quotes one British official who supposedly refused to evacuate the building, saying, “We don’t take orders from the Jews.”44 As a result, when the bombs exploded, the casualty toll was high: 91 killed and 45 injured. Among the casualties were 15 Jews. Few people in the main part of the hotel were injured.45 For decades, the British denied they had been warned. In 1979, however, a member of the British Parliament provided the testimony of a British officer who heard other officers in the King David Hotel bar joking about a Zionist threat to the headquarters. The officer who overheard the conversation immediately left the hotel and survived.46 In contrast to Arab attacks against Jews, which Arab leaders hailed as heroic actions, the Jewish National Council denounced the bombing of the King David.47 1 Aharon Cohen, Israel and the Arab World, (NY: Funk and Wagnalls, 1970), p. 172Judges 17 to 21 EnglishEarlier in 2019 there was a lot of femicide uh girls being killed by their boyfriends because they did one or two things there are also cultures of if there is violence in terms of a marital relationship that that is fine if there's a marital rape that that is fine so you find such situations being normalized and it being also a taboo to speak about those issues the 2030 agenda for sustainable development is grounded in respect for human rights and the power of people to change the world every individual on the planet has the right to health and well-being in all aspects of their sexuality their body and their reproductive choices ensuring these rights is integral to addressing poverty education violence against women and gender equality sexual and reproductive health rights are agreed in international law they were fought for by courageous women's rights activists and advocates across a broad range of professional fields and frontline experiences by movements of all ages levels and backgrounds they are still being fought for while progress has been made globally many barriers remain especially for those most marginalized excluded or discriminated against human rights are central to delivering the 17 sustainable development goals in the sustainable development agenda indeed each sdg target is simultaneously a metric and a claim for human rights the interplay between these political commitments and human rights obligations is particularly important when it comes to achieving sexual and reproductive health rights for decades human rights-based tactics have been used to drive progress in this episode of right to a better world experts share challenges they have faced and tactics they have used to address them the challenges they describe occur in settings all around the world the strategies used are ones that they have found to be successful in their own settings viewers are encouraged to learn from these experiences and consider how tactics could be adapted to their own context when sexual and reproductive health begins with equality the discussions decisions programs and policies which follow can build towards a future where every individual is not only born free but lives free and equal in dignity and rights without violence or discrimination the time to take action is now violence against women is any act that results in or is likely to result in physical sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women this includes threats of such acts coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty in public or private life it happens everywhere in every country in the home in communities at work and at school crises including health and humanitarian crises frequently contribute to higher rates of violence against women violence against women is directed at women because of their status as women the consequences are dire jeopardizing women's health including sexual and reproductive health and mental health hampering their ability to participate fully in society causing tremendous physical and psychological suffering for both women and their children the majority of women survivors of violence do not disclose or seek any type of services efforts to address violence against women must recognize the many different contexts in which it occurs and the many different forms it can take the majority of violence against women is committed by an intimate partner her current or previous boyfriend or husband globally around 30 of women have experienced physical and or sexual violence by an intimate partner in their lifetime this increases the risk of acquiring an sti or in some regions hiv by 1.5 fold when a woman is experiencing violence especially from her partner she's really unable to keep safe from hiv men have power to decide how when and where sex should be done and the woman is at risk of being infected because she cannot say no schools are another setting where violence against girls can take place assault and harassment during their commute bullying sexual harassment and mental or physical abuse on school property are all challenges across various country contexts this has a direct impact on girls access to inclusive quality education a target of sdg4 and an indirect impact on many of their other human rights young girls are taking advantage of at a very young age and they do not understand the choices and the avenues whereby they can exercise their rights when it comes to sexual productive health and rights and so you find a lot of dropouts and a lot of girls also going through a lot of traumatic experiences that would be avoided if they had guidance promoting a safe and secure working environment for all is a cornerstone of sdg 8. this includes a workplace free from sexual harassment and violence but for many women especially women migrant workers and others in precarious employment this is far from reality so we went to naivasha which is a flower farm and we've met the informal workers the casual liberals working for the flower farms when for example the sexual violence cases are reported companies don't take them very seriously a wide range of tactics have been used to prevent and address violence against women and girls and to recognize it as a fundamental violation of human rights prevention of intimate partner violence is possible when interventions are informed by evidence of what works we started out by describing the problem we've now moved to research on what works what are the kinds of interventions that are successful both for preventing the problem from happening in the first place and also from interventions to respond the respect women framework on preventing violence against women developed by the who un women ohchr and other international agencies promotes seven strategies which focus on relationship skills strengthening empowerment of women services for health justice police and social sector poverty reduction environments made safer including schools workplaces and public spaces child and adolescence abuse prevented and transformation of gender attitudes beliefs and norms this action-oriented framework can enable policy makers and health implementers to design plan implement monitor and evaluate interventions and programs to prevent violence against women we have come a long way for sure we still have some ways to go and we need to do more to stop this violence from happening in the first place this involves addressing the social norms that still prevail in many settings that make this form of violence acceptable women are not exposed to gender-based violence by accident all because of an inbuilt vulnerability violence against women is rooted in discriminatory social norms and power dynamics dismantling these underlying causes of violence against women and girls is at the heart of achieving gender equality and empowering all women and girls as set out in the targets and indicators of sdg 5 ensuring healthy lives in sdg3 and reducing inequalities in sdg 10. women and men are valued differently society has heap privileges on the men while the women are looked at as subordinate power is not only the problem but also the solution to preventing violence against women we are making it personal everyone connects with power every day people living with power or grappling with power they find themselves within this whole conversation if you're working to create gnome change there has to be change at all levels strategies to raise awareness in communities about violence against women and girls are critical as there is still a lot of stigma and shame which inhibits many women and girls from talking about it intervention is like a big complicated word sometimes it's just about talking about dialogue i mean the fact that we went into schools and just began a conversation with parents um bringing them together in the school along with the school personnel and then having the conversation start from there and we also sort of train providers within schools to appropriately refer children to health facilities for care what we found was that this dialogue began to spark other conversations in the community and i guess they just felt that oh it's actually okay to talk about this openly rather than pretend that nothing is going on sassa is a community mobilization approach to prevent violence against women and hiv and aids it is activist led it's not workshop heavy based it comes away from the traditional programming of organizations going to do things themselves instead they support activists who do the activities with their friends and neighbors health systems play a critical role in responding to violence wherever it occurs supporting health workers to respond appropriately to violence as well as ensuring their work environment enables them to provide safe effective and quality survivor centred care are important strategies for better addressing violence against women and girls um we came to learn not to ask direct questions not to give our opinion or our judgment on them and let her speak and once with that flow starts once that connection is established that doctor-patient relationship emotionally is established she will actually tell you the whole history legal frameworks to promote enforce and monitor equality and non-discrimination on the basis of sex are an important sdg 5 indicator but putting laws in place does not automatically make them effective there are existing protections for women in the workplace or for individuals in the workplace in relation to harassment but we know from our call for evidence that they are not actually addressing the problem the recommendations that we developed included government implementing a mandatory duty for employers to take preventative steps to address harassment in the workplace so what we would like to see is government implement a much stronger legislative duty it has taken decades of struggle by the women's rights movement to persuade the international community to view violence against women as a human rights concern and a sustainable development priority not a private matter governments have obligations to respect protect and fulfill the right to a life free of violence and to provide for sanctions when they fail when seeking accountability the priority consideration must always be the safety and well-being of survivors respecting their wishes and autonomy and supporting them to make informed choices about the type of justice they want context is vitally important there are many strategies to hold perpetrators accountable including strategic litigation and public campaigns when the teachers impregnate the girls that means the system has failed and okay what they do is they blacklist the teachers and they are always removed from the payroll but we think that is not enough the case that was quite interesting is where one of the judges she did find a ruling against the teacher service commission the commission that is responsible for hiring teachers asking them that they must take responsibility and they were ordered to pay compensation to the girls who had gotten pregnant while in school the justice police issue came about a few years back when a young girl was raped and the punishment for her being ripped was that harappa she was gang-ripped and therapists were told to slash grass feminist organizations and young women organizations came back to the police and the police commissioner to ask and request that the people who are found to be perpetrators should be punished according to our constitution and according to the laws of the land and those are very big campaigns to get better justice so consequently they were jailed but also it was a sign that the system the police system had to be checked in terms of when someone reports a case any case of violence what happens and how is it followed through the maria pedra is another example of litigation that became a political mobilizer so this was a case from the inter-american commission that really galvanized a change in public policy a huge change because it was a case that addressed gender-based violence intimate partner violence it called on responsibility of brazil also for not having prevented this kind of violence the reality of a case that says you have the right to not be bruised you have the right to be free of physical psychological violence it's powerful it can change women's lives investing in autonomous women's movements has been one of the most important drivers of changes in laws and policies to address violence against women over the past 40 years according to data from over 70 countries women organizing to advance women's status define the very concept of violence against women raised awareness of the issue and put it on national and global policy agendas often we thought that it takes generations or centuries to change working intensely with the communities we can actually see change coming violence against women and girls is a violation of fundamental human rights to life and to physical and psychological integrity not to be tortured or treated in an inhuman and degrading way to respect for private and family life and the right not to be discriminated against this understanding is more than theoretical human rights-based tactics can offer a practical route to addressing systemic challenges across all the circumstances where violence against women and girls occurs including but not limited to at the hands of their partners at school and in the workplace by using evidence-informed prevention strategies addressing power relations and social norms community mobilizing and dialogue supporting health systems and professionals putting in place strong legal frameworks accessing justice and ending impunity feminist organizing and mobilizing every individual can help to deliver the 2030 agenda for sustainable development building a world in which women and girls are free from all forms of violence and discrimination [Music] youJudges 12Judges 13-18Judges 1-6Judges Ch4Judges 11