The complex relationship between climate change and migration

The complex relationship between climate change and migration

OPINION 

The complex relationship between climate change and migration

climate migration
deepthi suresh stand news

Deepthi Suresh

17th October 2020

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1990 noted that the greatest single impact of climate change might be on human migration. Millions of people could be displaced by shoreline erosion, coastal flooding and agricultural disruption. The meteorological impact of climate change can be divided into two distinct drivers of migration: climate processes such as sea-level rise, salinization of agricultural land, desertification and growing water scarcity; and climate events such as flooding, storms and glacial lake outburst floods. Successive reports and various other studies have argued that environmental degradation due to climate change is poised to become a major driver of population displacement. It is a mega humanitarian crisis in the making. These repeated analyses or predictions, such as the possible displacement of 200 million people by 2050, may have made the argument of climate change increasingly confident in the scientific community – but the consequences, and its impact on human population distribution, largely seem unclear. The adverse impact of climate migration cannot be portrayed by the simple imagery of a coastal farmer being forced to pack up and move to a rich country.

 

From livelihoods to identity, the environment plays an important role in everyone’s daily lives, hence different types of climate migrants. Climate change would therefore influence many people’s decisions to stay or indeed to move. There is a rapidly growing literature contributing to the migration-environment theory: (1) migration is a fundamental strategy for addressing household risk arising from the environment; (2) environmental factors interact with broader socio-political histories; (3) the migration–environment association is shaped by social networks.

 

The first group who were forced to relocate from their ancestral homes due to climate change were the inhabitants of the coastal villages in Alaska – namely the Shishmaref and Kivalina groups. The low-lying coastlands of Bangladesh and India have faced severe storms as a result of the dramatic change in climate. A sea-level rise of 20 inches could displace over 6 million people in Bangladesh alone. As a result, many rural Bangladeshis have migrated to the capital, Dhaka, thereby resulting in an increase in the population growth to about 17 million, and thus also causing severe strain on the capital’s infrastructure. As the trend suggests, more affluent people have the opportunity to emigrate, while the most vulnerable people from poor households are trapped in risky areas.

 

Climate migration occurs both between and within countries. It may be temporary or permanent. It could follow existing routes or forge new ones. The impacts of climate change could trap people in dangerous places, and on the other hand, force people to move. Most people move within their own country if they are forced to flee due to floods, droughts and rising seas. But sometimes, when disasters unfold more slowly, some people decide to move across borders – either with or without the help of their governments. Climate migrants’ choice of potential destinations is further affected by the policies in these destinations.

 

It also seems as though there has been a collective and unfortunately a successful attempt to ignore the scale of this problem. Climate migrants who were forced to flee due to sudden or gradual changes in their natural environment as a result of climate change are omitted in international refugee and immigration policies. There is considerable resistance to the idea of expanding the definition of political refugees to incorporate climate refugees. When, where and how people will be forced to move as a consequence of climate change remains elusive, as do definitions about what it means to be a climate migrant and how best to govern the problem. It is also highly likely that the burden of providing for climate migrants will be borne by the poorest countries, especially by those who are least responsible for emissions of the greenhouse gases. This plight has been thoroughly observed and discussed, yet with no sustainable solutions to the horrifying crisis faced by political refugees. Those who are forced to move as a result of climate change are not protected by existing laws, and thus, the human rights afforded to them are unclear.

 

The complex status of human mobility is further debated upon, including the argument surrounding whether or not the climate migrants should be given a climate-specific legal status in addition to the refugees’ status (if given in the first place at all). It might also lead to a biased debate and would give only partial solutions to address the issue of human migration and climate change.

 

According to the Division of UN Migration Agency (IOM), the media has time and again pushed for features on climate refugees. In contrast, however, some of the smaller affected communities or states do not want to leave their homes or would rather move in dignity through regular channels without having to leave everything behind and run for their lives. IOM stresses the fact that “reducing the issue of migration in the context of climate change to the status of ‘climate refugees’ fails to recognize several key aspects that define human mobility in the context of climate change and environmental degradation.’’

Some of the aspects are as follows:

 

1. Climate migration is mainly internal: when migration is internal, the migrants remain under the responsibility of their state, as they do not cross borders and are not seeking protection from a third country or at the international level.

 

2. Migration is not necessarily forced, especially for a very slow onset process of climate change. In this instance, migration is still a matter of choice, even if it occurs in a constrained manner, so countries need to set in place a proper strategy migration management and agreements rather than refugee protection.

 

3. It may be an impossible task to separate environment or climatic reasons from humanitarian, political, social, conflict or economic ones as it may lead to long and even unrealistic legal procedures.

 

4. Creating a special refugee status for climate change-related reasons might, unfortunately, have the opposite effects of what is sought as a solution: it can lead to the exclusion of certain categories of people who require protection, especially the poorest migrants, who are moving as a result of a mix of factors and would not be able to prove the link to climate and environmental factors.

 

5. Opening The the 1951 Refugee Convention might weaken the refugee status, which would be tragic given the state of our world in which so many people require protection because of persecution and ongoing conflicts.

 

6. Creating a new convention might be a lengthy political process that countries may not even have an appetite for. Many responses can come from migration management and policy as highlighted already in the 2011 International Dialogue on Migration and the recently adopted Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration. The Nansen Initiative that was launched to look at gaps in protection for people being displaced across borders by disasters, undertook thematic and regional consultations and also concluded with a document that proposed a “toolkit” of migration policies, rather than recommending the establishment of a new status for these people.

 

7. Climate migration discussions should not lose their focus on preventive measures: the key objective of our generation is to invest in climate and environmental solutions for our planet, so that people will not have to leave their homes in a forced way in the future. The Paris Agreement offers anchorage for climate action that considers human mobility to avert, minimize and address displacement in the context of climate change.

 

8. IOM encourages the full use of all the existing bodies of laws and instruments pertaining to human rights, refugees etc.

 

9. Human rights-based approaches are key in the addressing of climate migration: states of origin bear the primary responsibility for their citizens’ protection, even if their countries have not been the main contributors to global warming; they should therefore apply human rights-based approaches in terms of their citizens moving because of environmental or climatic drivers.

 

10. Regular migration pathways can provide relevant protection for climate migrants and facilitate migration strategies in response to environmental factors. Many migration management solutions are available as a response to challenges posed by climate change, environmental degradation and natural disasters, in terms of international migratory movements. They can provide a status for people who move in the context of climate change impacts, such as humanitarian visas, temporary protection, authorization to stay, regional and bilateral free movements’ agreements, among several others.

 

It is of the utmost importance that greater resources are dedicated to mitigating the complexity of climate migration and to the finding of an effective solution. Further research is needed to determine the best ways in which to improve the migratory process, be it through providing safer modes of transport, or by increasing migration monitors, and most importantly, by improving the destination country integration resources. The solution and strategies that the international community might indulge in together may be the defining factors of international relations in the 21st century – which is presently in dire need of restructuring.

 

To learn more about ‘Climate Migration’ check out STAND’s online student festival taking place between the 12th – 24th of October 2020. To register for online workshops, creative events and panel discussions, click here!

 

 

 

Featured photo by pxfuel

 
 

 

Women in Horror Cinema: ‘Screen Queens’ and changing representations

Women in Horror Cinema: ‘Screen Queens’ and changing representations

ARTS + CULTURE

Women in Horror Cinema: ‘Screen Queens’ and changing representations

gender roles in horror
ARIANNA STEWART - stand news

Arianna Stewart

16th October 2020

Horror cinema has always been an extremely nuanced genre of film in terms of its representation of female characters. Conventional gender roles and stereotypes permeate the genre with clichéd female archetypes such as the helpless victim as portrayed by Drew Barrymore’s character, Casey Becker in Scream (1996) and the sexually promiscuous woman as depicted by the character of Marcy in Cabin Fever (2002). The genre’s female characters have been historically perceived, in the words of English professor, horror novelist and Stephen King enthusiast Anthony Magistrale “exclusively as objects inspiring salacious behaviour from the horror monster, or at least as the object of the monster’s victimisation’’. Films such as Ginger Snaps (2000) began to comment on these quintessential female roles problematising them. The protagonist, Ginger Fitzgerald (Katharine Isabelle), directly comments on the limitations of gender roles in horror film, criticising how ‘’a girl can only be a slut, a bitch, a tease or the virgin next door’’.

 

gendered roles in horror - ginger snap

Still from Ginger Snaps, Copperheart Entertainment.

However more and more contemporary characterisations of the female figure in horror cinema have challenged these long-held gender stereotypes. In this article I’ll be examining the historical representation of women in horror films and how the horror landscape is changing, allowing for more nuanced and multi-faceted female characters that speak directly to modern female experiences.

 

Historical representations of women in horror cinema can be overall perceived as chiefly negative due to the hegemonic cultural practice of gendered stereotypes. According to film theorist Claire Johnston, ‘’the image of woman operates in film as a sign, but as a sign which derives its meaning not from the reality of women’s lives, but from men’s desires and fantasies’’ (Gymnich and Ruhl 229). This holds true with the many slasher films where women are repeatedly victimized such as Halloween (1978) The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1978) and Friday The 13th (1980) to name a few.

 

Although there are a few exceptions, such as the character of Ellen Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) in sci-fi horror Alien (1979). The film reconfigured the idea of women as helpless victims and placed her centre stage, a powerful gun-toting feminist heroine. Clarice Starling (Jodie Foster) in The Silence of The Lambs (1991) who is a successful female agent, dominates within the phallocentric industry of the F.B.I.

 

“Masculine roles such as the antagonist or monster figure are upheld by a male or a masculinised female, whereas women are more than often the victims of highly sexualised violence”

However, within the horror genre specifically, female characters have been repeatedly victimised and punished for being sexually active, in contemporary language, they’re slut-shamed. The horror genre can therefore be recognised as a gendered genre as the masculine roles such as the antagonist or monster figure are upheld by a male or a masculinised female, whereas women are more than often the victims of highly sexualised violence.

 

Such films as American Psycho (2000), The Human Centipede 2 (2011) and The Hills Have Eyes (2006) feature scenes that depict sexualised violence against women which can perpetuate a harmful coexistence of sex and violence. However in recent years, as described in a comprehensive article about the evolution of women in horror cinema ‘’Women in horror: Victims no more’’ by Beth Younger, ‘’the genre has moved from taking pleasure in victimising women to focusing on women as survivors and protagonists. It has veered away from slashers and torture porn to more substantive, nuanced films that comment on social issues and possess an aesthetic vision’’. Such films as It Follows (2015) subverts the idea of woman as sexually deviant and opens up an opportunity to critique rape culture and comment on the importance of sexual consent.

 

With the contemporary emergence of empowering, feminist directors such as Julia Ducournau, Ana Lily Amirpour, Greta Gerwig and Ava DuVernay to name only a few, it only makes sense that the on-screen female characters are equally as empowered.

 

This series of articles will examine contemporary female-centred narratives from a number of directors across multiple cultures, such as; A Girl Walks Home Alone At Night (2014) Midsommar (2019) Hereditary (2018) The Witch (2015) and Halloween (2018). It might not be a bad idea to check these out before my next article. Happy spooky season!

 

Check out some of the interesting sources that I’ve mentioned in this article below!

Gendered (Re)Visions: Constructions of Gender in Audiovisual Media edited by Marion Gymnich, Kathrin Ruhl

Women in Horror: Victims no More

 

 

Featured photo from Alfred Hitchcock’s 1960 chiller Psycho

 
 

 

Young people show compassion with @letshelpdirectprovision

Young people show compassion with @letshelpdirectprovision

VIDEO

Young people show compassion with @letshelpdirectprovision

sustainable fashion - second hand september
valerie mchugh

Valerie McHugh

15th October 2020

Women and the Military: Could pushing female representation do more harm than good?

Women and the Military: Could pushing female representation do more harm than good?

OPINION + WOMEN

Women and the Military: Could pushing female representation do more harm than good?

Women and the military representation
Aoife Burke

Aoife Burke

2nd October 2020

From female CEOs to LGBTQ+ visibility in films, the participation of under-represented groups in powerful institutions has been widely praised as both a reflection of and a catalyst for, social progress. However, to what extent individual representation should be prioritised is a matter of serious contention within social justice movements. In the age of tokenism and performative allyship, many are now asking: how useful is representation in and of itself? If individual members of marginalised groups are in positions of power, will the necessary changes for their community be achieved, or do we need a collective movement of oppressed groups to attack systems of inequality from the outside? These questions have been particularly divisive in feminist discussions on women and the military.

 

Some women’s rights advocates argue that in countries such as the U.S. and Britain, the army is an instrument of patriarchy and imperialism that cannot be participated in from a feminist perspective. However, the argument generally put forth by liberal feminists is that progress in this area cannot be gained without female representation in the military. For instance, when all U.S. military positions became open to women in 2015, the move was praised by some as a victory for women’s rights; but some left-wing feminists argued that this development widened the reach of the American military, an institution that ultimately perpetuated violence against women of colour in other countries. In Britain, there was a similar discourse about whether the opening of combative roles to women should be interpreted as a feminist milestone. Today, the use of feminist language in British Army PR campaigns has raised scepticism again. When Laura Whitmore defended her appearance on the British Army podcast, she argued that “every industry and body is bettered by… a balance of all sexes”. While this is often true, is possible that the push for female recruits may do more harm than good for women’s rights?

 

 

There are undeniable benefits to promoting female representation in many contexts. Increasing the number of women in decision-making roles can lead to more gender-sensitive policies being adopted and improve institutions as a whole. For instance, when women are involved in negotiating peace processes, this not only increases the likelihood of gender provisions being included in peace agreements but also increases the sustainability of peace in general. The importance of female representation in influential roles is often discussed in the context of critical mass theory. This theory argues that having a very small percentage of female decision-makers is unlikely to progress gender equality. However, once a critical mass of female representation is achieved, usually estimated at 30%, women’s interests are more likely to be defended. This theory can be applied to boards of directors, political offices and any position involved in policy-making. However, does it apply to army recruits?

 

In considering this, it’s important to remember that the advancement of women’s rights through representation can only happen when women are actually given decision-making power. Entry-level cadets and lower-ranking members of the military have no say over the rules they follow. Moreover, even the highest-ranking members of the military ultimately do not determine their nation’s foreign policy agenda, and how it may impact female civilians. Therefore, when the army pushes for female recruits, be it through making more positions available to women, or using feminist talking points in their recruitment campaigns, this does not necessarily present an opportunity for women to shape military policy. Of course, it could be argued that a higher level of female participation at entry level will eventually lead to more women in higher ranks. However, gendered barriers and widespread discrimination make it unlikely for a critical mass of women at the top to be achieved through the normal course of promotion. If the British military actually wanted to include a female perspective, they wouldn’t be using media campaigns – they would be adopting targeted internal policies such as quotas for high ranking positions. Given that the army has only recently allowed women to even apply for all roles, it seems unlikely that affirmative action is on its way any time soon.

 

“If the British military actually wanted to include a female perspective, they wouldn’t be using media campaigns – they would be adopting targeted internal policies such as quotas for high ranking positions.”

However, even if there was a large minority of women in the higher ranks of the military, recent research suggests that this would not actually guarantee the progression of women’s interests. While some studies show that increased female representation will lead to more gender-sensitive policies when over 30% of decision-makers are women, other studies have shown the opposite to be true. Increased representation sometimes hinders women’s interest; while a small number of women may be accepted within an establishment, a large minority can be perceived as a threat to male dominance and thus face a negative response. This kind of backlash could be of particular concern in the military, where there is a long history of male dominance and ongoing issues of discrimination and abuse against women.

 

A lack of understanding of civilian women in war is another reason why female participation in the army might not be effective in bringing about change. The reason female representation at the top can sometimes advance the position of women more broadly is not that every woman is necessarily committed to feminism – but because female leaders often have shared experiences with their female subordinates, and can understand and empathise with what it means to be a woman in their institution. However, servicewomen in the British Army are unlikely to have experienced the gendered impacts of war or understand the experiences of female civilians in conflict. Furthermore, the disproportionate effects of conflict on women are often indirect and may not be witnessed first-hand by foreign soldiers. Because of this, increased female participation might lead to some advancements in the internal workings of the military, but is unlikely to make war safer for female civilians, the most vulnerable group in this context.

 

British Army 2020 recruitment Campaign Women Confidence

British Army recruitment campaign targeting women (Ministry of Defence, 2020)

Overall, the British military pushing for female recruits could lead to improvements for servicewomen at some undefined point in the future. However, these benefits are ultimately uncertain and indirect. Unfortunately, the harms of this kind of campaigning are more concrete. When the British Army uses feminist rhetoric to sell militarism, it is intended to sanitize their public image and make war seem more palatable to those who value women’s rights. This situation can be described as “woke-washing”, and serves to drown out concerns about the oppressive impact of militarism on female civilians. In practice, this means that the lived experiences of marginalised women are shoved to one side, while images of the military as a driving force for empowerment circulates mainstream media. This situation could make people being less likely to fight for justice because there has been the illusion of progress but no meaningful change. From the army’s perspective, if they can reap the benefits of being perceived as feminist either way, there is no incentive to acknowledge women’s rights abuses in the past or to work towards change in the future. These damages exist even if the military is unsuccessful in recruiting more women because the affiliation of the army with feminist talking-points is powerful in of itself.

 

“Prioritizing the individual ambitions of white women over the collective needs of women of colour is a defining feature of “white feminism”, and yet another issue with the military co-opting feminist language”

On the other hand, if this kind of campaigning does attract more women, it means that the army can expand its reach and power. If history is anything to go by, this looks like a greater capacity for unnecessary military interventions that disrupt civilian lives and perpetuate gendered violence. It is of course true that some women may find military service empowering and want the chance increase to improving conditions for servicewomen. While everyone should be free to choose their career path, praising these cases as a win for feminism is misguided. An increase in female recruits could someday benefit the predominantly white population of British servicewomen, but these gains would ultimately rely on an institution that oppresses and kills women of colour. This is particularly problematic given that servicewomen choose to be in the army, while civilian women don’t consent to how their lives are impacted by military intervention. Prioritizing the individual ambitions of white women over the collective needs of women of colour is a defining feature of “white feminism”, and yet another issue with the military co-opting feminist language.

 

For as long as civilians shoulder the cost of imperialism, and empty rhetoric is used in place of real change, the military will continue to be a patriarchal force. As feminists, this is not a system we should strive to participate in or strengthen, but rather something we should refuse to accept. Whether it is in the ballot box, in the streets or in the media, feminist action needs to incorporate an anti-war perspective and raise the voices of civilian women in conflict throughout the world.

 

Check out part one and part two of Aoife’s ‘Women and the Military’ series. 

 

 

Featured photo by Wallpaper Flare

 
 

 

Remembering John Lennon and Matthew Shepard

Remembering John Lennon and Matthew Shepard

OPINION 

Remembering John Lennon and Matthew Shepard on the anniversary of Shepard’s death

matthew shepard john lennon
parisa

Parisa Zangeneh

11th October 2020

Today, October 12th, 2020, marks twenty-two years since Matthew Shepard’s murder, three days after the 80th birthday of John Lennon, international peace and human rights activist and icon, who was also murdered and lost to the world at an unbearably young age.

 

Why is it important to remember their lives and what they stood for today, in 2020? It is important because their lives and deaths symbolize the fragility of the global fight for human rights. The victims of hate and violence, such as Lennon and Shepard, are among the people who made it possible for us even to begin to talk about human rights and pie-in-the-sky notions such as world peace. Additionally, many young people do not know who Matthew Shepard was.

 

In the next few weeks, we will march into a time of intense vitriol and polarization. The progress on which we have been riding will be renegotiated and redecided at the ballot box by over 300 million people. During this period, we must remember the sacrifices of people whose work and memories have formed the basis of the human rights movement, which is at a critical stage in its progression. Matthew Shepard and John Lennon are two of those people.

 

 

Let’s remember.

 

 

John Lennon was shot outside of his apartment building, the Dakota, in New York City on December 8th, 1980. Matthew Shepard, a young gay man, was pistol-whipped, tied to a fence, and left to die on the Wyoming prairie and died on October 12th, 1998.

 

Shepard’s mother described his final moments in his hospital bed this way:

 

“Bandages and stitches all over his face,” […] “and bandages around his head where the final blow had crushed his brain stem. His fingers and toes were curled in a comatose position already. Tubes everywhere enabling his body to stay alive. One of his eyes was partially open so you could see his blue eyes and the tubes in his mouth. You could see his braces, so of course it’s Matt. His face was swollen, actually kind of unrecognisable till you got closer.”

 

Lennon was a political target not only due to his support for the peace movement but because he was married to a Japanese woman, with whom he eventually had a son, Sean. In the 1960s and 1970s, inter-cultural marriages, which is one way of putting it, were not easy affairs. Lennon’s personal decisions were political. Significantly, Lennon’s professional decisions were also political: Ono was only named as a co-writer of Imagine in 2017.

 

Lennon was also a baby boomer, of the same generation as my parents. His parents would have involved in or at least affected by, the war that undoubtedly left Ono’s childhood with deep, indelible scars and trauma. Their martial and professional union literally spanned the globe, cultural borders, and historically disparate human civilizations. Lennon would have grown up among the first generation in human history, probably, to be educated about concentration camps and the evils of mass murder, or the international crimes that comprise the basis of the jurisdiction of a human innovation formed after his death: the International Criminal Court.

 

Their lives and deaths are clear, strong reminders of the work that is left to be done for all vulnerable people, including women, not just to be able to physically survive in the world, but to thrive. In the coming days and weeks, many of us will have a critical choice to make that will influence the world. We will continue to have micro-choices in front of us on how we implement our commitment to human rights and feminism in our daily practices.

 

This brings me back to the context in which I introduced this topic: The future is ours. The question is: what will we do with it? I hope that we will choose to “Give peace a chance, not shoot people for peace. All we need is love. I believe it.”