View previous stories
	MSF to pull out of World Humanitarian Summit by Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF)   May 2016 (MSF)   Last year, 75 hospitals managed or supported by Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) were bombed. This was in violation of the most fundamental rules of war which gives protected status to medical facilities and its patients, regardless if the patients are civilians or wounded combatants. Beyond the hospitals, civilians are being wounded and killed by indiscriminate warfare in Syria, Yemen, South Sudan, Afghanistan and elsewhere. At the same time, the treatment of refugees and migrants in Europe and beyond has shown a shocking lack of humanity.   A humanitarian summit, at which states, UN agencies and non-governmental organisations come together to discuss these urgent issues, has never been more needed. So the World Humanitarian Summit (WHS) this month could have been a perfect opportunity.   MSF has been significantly engaged in the WHS process over the past 18 months, including preparing briefing notes on various themes – a sign of our willingness to be involved. The WHS has done an admirable job in opening up the humanitarian sector to a much wider group of actors, and leading an inclusive process.   However, with regret, we have come to the decision to pull out of the summit. We no longer have any hope that the WHS will address the weaknesses in humanitarian action and emergency response, particularly in conflict areas or epidemic situations. Instead, the WHS’s focus would seem to be an incorporation of humanitarian assistance into a broader development and resilience agenda.   Further, the summit neglects to reinforce the obligations of states to uphold and implement the humanitarian and refugee laws which they have signed up to.   As shocking violations of international humanitarian law and refugee rights continue on a daily basis, WHS participants will be pressed to a consensus on non-specific, good intentions to ‘uphold norms’ and ‘end needs’. The summit has become a fig-leaf of good intentions, allowing these systematic violations, by states above all, to be ignored.   Summit participants, whether states or UN agencies or non-governmental organisations, will be asked to declare new and ambitious “commitments”. But putting states on the same level as non-governmental organisations and UN agencies, which have no such powers or obligations, the Summit will minimise the responsibility of states. In addition, the non-binding nature of the commitments means that very few actors will sign up to any commitments they haven’t previously committed to.   We hoped that the WHS would advance these vital access and protection issues, reinforcing the role for independent and impartial humanitarian aid, and putting particular attention on the need to improve emergency response. Unfortunately it has failed to do so, instead focusing on its ambitions to “do aid differently” and “end need”, fine-sounding words which threaten to dissolve humanitarian assistance into wider development, peace-building and political agendas.   We can no longer see how the WHS will help the humanitarian sector to address the massive needs caused by continuing violence against patients and medical staff in Syria, Yemen and South Sudan; by civilians intent on fleeing being blocked at borders in Jordan, Turkey and Macedonia; by the inhumane treatment of refugees and migrants desperately trying to find safe haven in Greece and Australia; by the serious gaps we faced during the response to the Ebola epidemic, repeated again, albeit on a smaller scale, in the yellow fever epidemic in Angola today; by the serious restrictions placed by some states on humanitarian access, denying people basic services; and by the continuing lack of effective mobilisation to address recurring disease outbreaks in Democratic Republic of Congo.   In all of these situations, the responsibilities of states in their making, and the diminished capacity of the humanitarian system to respond causing yet more suffering and death, will go unaddressed. For these reasons, and with considerable disappointment, MSF has decided to pull out of the World Humanitarian Summit.   http://www.msf.org/en/news http://www.msf.org/en/article/msf-pull-out-world-humanitarian-summit http://www.worldhumanitariansummit.org/learn Visit the related web page
	National Union of Journalists guidelines on reporting poverty by NUJ, Church Action on Poverty, agencies United Kingdom   Obese sponger. Jobless mother. Benefits scroungers.. Just a few phrases found in national tabloids in the UK since March. The language is casual, repetitive – and harmful.   Rachel Broady, Equality Officer for the National Union of Journalists’ Manchester and Salford branch, explains how we have been working together to tackle the problem.   Some media uses this language as if it’s acceptable: everyone accepts what a “scrounger” is, no one doubts the existence of “spongers”, and being “jobless” is something to be automatically condemned. With no room for discussion, no place for nuance, and no time, often, for journalists to stop and think, it leads to poor journalism.   The National Union of Journalists provides guidelines on how to fairly and ethically report on many things from suicide, to race, to far-right activities, to gender. They ensure journalists use the right language. They ask journalists to stop and consider what it is that they are writing and culturally contributing to.   The time came for similar guidelines on reporting poverty.   As the government seeks to cut our social security budget and various politicians in positions in power talk of “the welfare state subsidising lifestyles”, the media has become a testing ground for public opinion – and a place where opinion can be shaped. Manchester and Salford Branch of the National Union of Journalists felt such discriminatory reporting needed to be approached in the same way as tackling racism, sexism and homophobia.   It’s easy to assume all journalists believe what they write, understand what they write, and have time to consider how what they write contributes to society. It’s not always the case. Some write what they are told, others regurgitate information, some have no time or energy to think how their article will impact as deadline approaches.   It’s also easy to assume all journalists happily repeat stereotypes and are invested in them. Not at all. Many journalists across the UK launched campaigns to tackle stereotypes and support their readers, viewers and listeners living in poverty.   The NUJ produced a set of guidelines: six short statements. It asked its members to recognise their responsibility in adding to stereotypes of the people experiencing poverty.   The NUJ believes that the development of discriminatory language and the demonisation of the working poor and benefit recipients, through the use of stereotypes and misinformation, is an insult to workers, trade union organisations and readers.   The NUJ believes that its members as trade unionists cannot avoid a measure of responsibility in fighting stereotypes of the working poor and benefit recipients as expressed through the mass media.   The NUJ reaffirms its total opposition to censorship, but equally reaffirms its belief that press freedom must be conditioned by responsibility, and a resolution by all media workers not to allow press freedom to be abused to slander a section of the community.   The NUJ believes that newspapers and magazines should not originate material which encourages discrimination on grounds of being working poor or a benefit recipient.   The NUJ believes that editors should ensure that coverage of social security stories should be placed in a balanced context.   The NUJ will continue to monitor the development of media coverage in this area and give support to members seeking to enforce the above aims.   From this came a collaboration with Church Action on Poverty and a Guide to Reporting Poverty for journalists. The wording comes not from journalists but from people who are and have experienced being in receipt of benefits and living in poverty.   It offers fact-checks, real-life experience and a chance for reporters to hear genuine voices. These are just some of the comments included:   “Journalists need to realise that the majority of people suffering within poverty did not put themselves in that situation by choice.”   “Don’t use labels like lazy, cheating, skiving, feckless, anti-social – lumping all people in poverty under these labels, like we have no value. We do have value and this should be reported too.”   “People living in poverty have dignity. That humanity and dignity is taken away because of how the media portrays them.”   It is hoped the Reporting Poverty guide will be used in regional and national newsrooms, going some way to challenging the casual, repetitive and harmful language that stereotypes and vilifies a section of our communities.   http://realbenefits-street.com/blog/525/ http://realbenefits-street.com/launch-of-nuj-guidelines-for-journalists-reporting-poverty/   * Access the guidelines here: http://www.church-poverty.org.uk/news/pressroom/stigma/nuj/nujguide Visit the related web page
	View more stories