Blog 12: Abortion Ban Causes Indian Woman Living in Ireland to Lose Her Life

This past week, an Indian woman living in Ireland named Savita Halappanavar was denied a life-saving abortion and died of septicimia as a result. Ireland's laws are very religion-based, and abortion is outlawed in the Catholic country as a result – Dr. Halappanavar was denied the abortion because the fetus' heart was still beating, and fetal death is the only event in which abortion is legal in Ireland. Indian representatives have responded to this event by stating that this turn of events was both a denial of Halappanavar's human rights and a violation of internation law. Ireland is currently investigating these events, and India has asked that Ireland keep communications open and share any and all results and details. Abortions are legal in many circumstances in India, where spokespeople have stated that they cannot honestly say they support human rights if they do not support a mother's choices about her own health and body.

The law in Ireland does actually violate international law views on abortion, which is that it should at least be allowed if the mother's life is at risk. India's vested interest in investigating the case and whether or not the law has been specifically violated in this instance makes a lot of sense under the circumstances. Indian and Irish ambassadors have been speaking and while India's stance on this is fairly aggressive, both sides are being cordial. Since Dr. Halappanavar was an Indian citizen living in Ireland, the legal issues here are delicate as she is not an Irish citizen, so the law could have been unfair to exact upon her. If the investigation does show that it was the lack of abortion specifically that was the cause of her death, legal action may be taken – precedent may end with her family being paid in recompense, though money is no replacement for a family member. Hopefully this will also encourage Ireland's government to think critically about the effects of basing law in religion has on citizens and how loosening up abortion limitations may help save many lives.

http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/16/from-india-pressure-on-ireland-over-abortion-laws/?ref=freedomandhumanrights

LGBT* Pakistanis Seek Familial Rather than Legal Support

In Pakistan, LGBT* people face an interesting dynamic. While homosexual acts are illegal and are discouraged both socially and by law, it is still possible for people to successfully live without facing legal repercussions. Indeed, homosociality is a norm there, and it is common for men to hug and kiss in public. This article mentions that in many ways in Pakistan it is easier to conduct a secret homosexual affair than a secret heterosexual one. Now two women, one 30 and one 33, are organizing a secret group for LGBT* Pakistanis to meet and find support. The group focuses on increasing family support and understanding rather than fighting any legal battles. They view this as currently futile, and view an American-sponsored pride event from the past as doing a lot of damage to their cause. The visibility, they argue, is not what they currently need. Instead, they believe that a smaller-scale change is necessary that pushes families to accept their children rather than dismantling laws such the article of Pakistani penal code that criminalizes homosexuality. The group also provides safe-house services for those in fear of legal or physical repercussions to their sexuality or gender identity.

While dismantling these laws would make it easier for the group (called O) to meet up without fear, trying to sway the group into another direction could be perceived as very ethnocentric of non-Pakistanis. This is proven by the pride event the American embassy put on and how much it damaged the LGBT* scene in Pakistan. While from our viewpoint being “out and proud” can help spread awareness and thus normalize LGBT* existence, this visibility endangers Pakistani LGBT* people and puts them at legal and social risk that is not justified in their view. Western viewpoints have very little say in this matter, and it would likely be best if the American embassy stepped back and let LGBT* Pakistanis do what they think is most appropriate for the situation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/world/asia/gays-in-pakistan-move-cautiously-to-gain-acceptance.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&ref=freedomandhumanrights

Gynaecologist in the DRC Attacked for His Services (warning: discussion of rape)

A Congolese gynaecologist named Denis Mukwege has reported that he was recently targeted for assassination by gunmen because of his work helping rape victims. Several armed groups in the Democratic Republic of Congo have been accused by human rights groups of using rape as a war tactic. Dr. Mukwege is one of a very small percentage of the DRC population with both the means and motivation to help rape victims. He provides much needed services – a hospital in his region reported 5,000 cases of rape this year. The attacks by these gunmen are the reason why rape victims often don't get the help they need during their recovery process. For many with the means to help, the fear of attack and murder is too great for them to ultimately help these victims. One of Dr. Mukwege's personal bodyguards was killed in the attack, and Dr. Mukwege reports being barely missed by shots himself.

It would be best if Dr. Mukegwe himself didn't stop providing his services in light of this attack. He stated unequivocally that the four gunmen were definitely trying to kill him, and added “It upsets them when we denounce their crimes”. While being intimidated by these attacks is perfectly natural and it is reasonable for the doctor to need time to recover psychologically before he goes back to work, the need for his work is such that him stopping his work would be extremely harmful to the area. Victims of sexual assault need much support in the time after their violation, and he is one of the few in the DRC who can help. While regular doctors have the means to help women, his insight and skill as a gynaecologist is of great value to women who have been raped or otherwise sexually assaulted. Therefore, it is hoped that Mukegwe can go back to work as soon as is possible.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-20098175

Kelton Hollister Blog 9 - Internet Usage Rights Globally

This past Thursday, the U.N. Human Rights Council passed a resolution stating that controlling or infringing upon people's internet usage is a violation of human rights. While not universally agreed upon, even China backed the resolution, stating that people should have the same rights online as they do offline. Now it is up to internet providers and technology companies to decide whether or not to comply with this resolution or not. Since the resolution is not technically a law, there is no legal binding that these companies must work within. American law-enforcement agencies often request information about internet users from providers and companies, Thailand limits what kinds of things may be said about the royal family, Turkey does not allow discussion of atheism, and the tech company Cisco provides China with a firewall to filter what shows up on the internet. These provide internet and technology companies with a strong motivator towards continuing to infringe upon internet rights, as it gives a high profit margin. Some scholars believe that this will mean continuing limits on internet use rights, while others are more hopeful about companies complying with the resolution. Opinions expressed in the Pew report were almost perfectly split between the two sides.

Only time will tell whether internet companies will continue to work with oppressive and authoritarian regimes to violate internet rights in for monetary reasons or if they will protect these rights, like how the website Twitter already does. Since the resolution is not binding, there is not much that can be done to enforce these rights – we must have faith that these companies will do the right thing. Sociology professor Simon Gottschalk does not have high hopes for this, stating that “Firms might decide to implement steps that protect dissidents only if it is cost-effective for them to do so.” This resolution mostly works to shame governments that engage in internet repression, and so its effectiveness is limited to the sympathy of the ruling parties of a given country. As a result, this may not have effects in many countries, depending on both the ruling regime and the willingness of tech and internet companies to play along. While freedom of expression should be an inviolable human right, it may not be so for a long while.

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/06/so-the-united-nations-affirms-internet-freedom-as-a-basic-right-now-what/

Blog 8 - Roma Encampments Forcibly Evicted In France

Recently in Paris, around 150 Roma (otherwise known in popular culture as “Gypsies”, which they actually find to be a derogatory term) were ejected from a settlement and left homeless on the outskirts of the city. Among those evicted are children, whose families have nowhere to go after their homes inside the settlement were bulldozed on government orders. The settlement was located in Noisy-le-Grand, a suburb on the east side of Paris. The authorities in the area, claims an Amnesty International spokesperson, have completely neglected their human rights obligations in the planning and undertaking of this eviction. Across France, many Roma children have been rendered homeless because the government carries out forced evictions but does not make even a cursory effort to help find alternative housing. A court in Bobigny earlier this year had ordered the Roma leave by mid-June, with a two-month grace period for those with children. On the 8^th of October, the prefecture called a meeting on how best to proceed evicting the settlement members – no Roma were invited to attend. After police warnings, the tenants were ordered out on the morning of the 15^th and their homes were bulldozed within an hour. As of the time of the article, many Roma were waiting outside the mayor's office but he refused to meet with anyone regarding the evictions.

While it is within a governing body's rights to say who can lawfully stay on public property, this action has violated France's human rights obligations, which state that families with children should not be left homeless after evictions. This is only the latest in an ongoing series of evictions and legal actions targeting Roma living in France. Unfortunately, this is not the only place where this happens – Roma today face hostility in most parts of Europe (notably in Ireland as well as France). They have very little legal protection, as they are most frequently not citizens of the given place they are residing, and they face institutionalized oppression almost everywhere they go. Luckily, Amnesty International is doing all it can to raise awareness to the issue, but unfortunately there are little tangible results so far.

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/france-scores-roma-left-homeless-forced-eviction-near-paris-2012-10-15

Blog 7 - Serbia and Gay Rights

Resulting in much controversy, the Serbian government recently put a ban upon a gay pride march set to be held in Belgrade this Saturday. As a result, the EU has informed the Serbian government that they must protect human rights if they still wish to join the union. The Serbian government was officially made an EU candidate in March, but this ban puts them at risk of having that candidacy revoked. Serbian Prime Minister Ivica Dacic stated that this was a security issue. In the past, protesters opposing the march clashed violently with police, so the march was banned last year as well. However, it is relatively certain that these are not the only reasons that this ban was enacted this year. Patriarch Irinej, head of the Orthodox Church, called the pride event a “parade of shame” and called on Dacic to stop it from occurring. Irinej and the Islamic Community also tried to get Dacic to ban a photo exhibition that portrayed Jesus in women's clothing and heels, but the government did not enact this and in fact, police protected the exhibition. However, because of the riots in the past, the prime minister thinks the parade would be more of a safety risk.

There is clear hypocrisy here, but while that is true, the safety concerns are also valid. However, it seems fully justified for the EU to threaten terminating the candidacy in light of this. While cultural relativism should always be kept in mind, in the terms of the EU, banning this parade is a human rights violation. Many representatives have stated this and have come out against the ban. Limiting expression of a minority, oppressed group under the pretense of safety while being influenced by religious leaders is highly suspect. Since this clearly violates the parameters of the EU's human rights requirements, they can be denied membership.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sns-rt-serbia-paradel6e8l4ief-20121004,0,3602110.story?page=1

Kelton Hollister Blog 6 - Free Speech As a Human Right?

Recently at the U.N. meeting, the presidents of Egypt and Yemen, as well as certain other leaders of some Islamic nations, came out condemning president Obama's recent endorsement of free speech around the world. President Morsi of Egypt spoke of a recent short online video insulting the prophet Muhammed, as it has led to violence including the ddeath of the American ambassador to Libya and some of his staff members. He argued that Egypt allowed freedom of expression, but only as long as it causes no harm to anyone or incite hatred. President Hadi of Yemen started a speech by demanding curbs on freedom of expression that insults religion. President Zardari of Pakistan went even further, stating his wish that insults to religion be criminalized. Nabil Elaraby of the Arab League also stated a desire for “spiritual harm” to be criminalized. Iranian president Ahmedinejad also condemned free speech, as well as American campaign spending.

These issues are a challenge to regulate and legislate, as both sides of the argument are deeply entrenched in cultural relativism. Western, and especially American, views are wildly in favor of free speech with no restrictions. It has become such an intrinsic part of our cultural values that prohibiting free speech is anathema to our ideas of basic human rights and we see any limit of free speech as an attack not only against the peoples affected by it but also our own national and regional values and power. On the other hand, in the Middle Eastern countries referenced, Islam is the major religion and influences policy and daily life. Insults to the prophet Muhammed are considered disrespectful and inflammatory acts, and in a nation with much if not all of its policies dictated by religion, such insults are unacceptable. The issue comes now down to free speech on an international scale. Many of the aforementioned leaders not only defended limits on freedom of speech in their own country, but demanded that these same limits be enacted worldwide in an attempt to foster peace and respect. So now, other countries must weigh the costs and benefits of sticking to their own moral imperatives vs. acquiescing to demands for limits on free speech in order to foster peace. Hopefully this will not end in threats of military violence, but if so both sides of the argument must decide whether their cultural beliefs are inviolable enough to justify war.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/27/world/united-nations-general-assembly.html?ref=freedomandhumanrights

Kelton Hollister Blog 5 - Vietnamese Bloggers Imprisoned By Government 9/28/2012 3:10 PM

As of September 24^th this week, the Vietnamese government has jailed three dissident bloggers who write posts in criticism of the government. They were accused of posting on abanned website called Free Journalist's Club as well as being accused of writing critical posts on their own personal blogs. Nguyan Van Hai (pen name Dieu Cay) is a former soldier who was given the longest sentence at 12 years of imprisonment. Ta Phong Tan is a former policewoman whose mother set herself on fire in front of a government office in July and who was sentenced with ten years. Finally, Phan Thahn Hai was sentenced with four years in prison. There were some suspicious situations around the trial, including the judge not allowing the defence to finish his statement due to a time limit, and police detaining Dieu Cay's son and former wife so they could not attend the proceedings. In addition, as Dieu Cay's ex-wife pointed out, “Three people were charged with especially dangerous crimes within only several hours and people can clearly see that these are the most absurd sentences given to political prisoners. In addition, Vietnamese laws give citizens freedom of speech, which is ratified in the international treaties to which Vietnam is a part. The U.S. Embassy in Vietnam as well as the Human Rights Watch and various other activists and organizations have pointed out the dubious legality of these sentences and called into question the appropriateness of the harsh punishments.

Dieu Cay stated “According to Vietnamese laws, citizens have the right to freedom of speech”, a fact which the government seems to be overlooking. Earlier in the month, the Vietnamese Prime Minister stuck out at three other blogs critical of the government, and it seems that the Vietnamese government's prerogative is eliminating all criticism of itself, which goes directly in opposition with the freedom of speech laws of the country and in the international treaties that Vietnam is a part of. However, the government is using “vaguely-worded” national security laws in order to enact these crackdowns, so navigating the legality of the situation is a complicated issue, since while what the government is doing seems illegal on some levels, they may be protected under the national security laws they are invoking. They are already receiving heavy international criticism, so freeing the prisoners may be an outside effort. If lawyers within the country cannot utilize free speech laws to free the bloggers, it may come down to the other countries involved in the international treaties to threaten dissolution of the treaties if the bloggers are not let go. However, it is not certain that this will happen, since maintaining the treaties may be more important to other countries than the prisoners' individual rights.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19697905

Blog #4 - Judge Rules That Prison System Must Respect Lakota Inmates' Religious Rights (9/21/2012 2:40 pm)

Recently, a federal judge ruled that South Dakota's prison system's decision to ban the use of tobacco in Native American religious ceremonies infringes on their religious freedoms. Judge Karen Schreier stated that inmates and officials should talk and together propose an appropriate injunction that will restrict tobacco use outside of religious ceremonies but protect its use within them. Tobacco use is so vital in Lakota religion that the Native American Council of Tribes states that Native American prayer is only effective if it is “embodied in tobacco and offered within a ceremonial” framework. The prison system argued that the allowance of tobacco for religious use was being exploited and the tobacco was being traded and used non-religiously, so all tobacco was banned in October of 2009. As a result, inmates involved in the Native American Council of Tribes sued, but it is only now being judged by a federal judge. Both the inmates' attorney and Judge Schreier have stated that they are confident that a resolution that is agreeable to all can be reached.

While this issue is specific only to America, it reflects both overlying trends in how the American prison (and military) systems tend to strip the rights of inmates, and how marginalized, often native peoples are treated by dominating colonial powers around the world. Last week, I wrote about how Libyan prisoners were mistreated by their American captors, showing that this trend is widespread and affects international relations as well. American prisons in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay are also notorious for infringing prisoners' religious rights, often refusing Muslim prisoners the right to pray, taunting them when they do, and torturing them by forcibly exposing them to things that are forbidden or disapproved of in Islam. In addition, colonial powers have a tendency to infringe the rights of the native population. This is readily apparent ust in the history of how white Americans have treated Native Americans to this day – stripping them of their lands and forcing them to live on reservations, exposing them to disease as a way to take their land, and treating Native American women remarkably poorly (1 in 3 Native women will be raped in her lifetime, the highest incidence of this kind of sexual assault among any ethnicity in the country). Currently, the Sioux tribe are fighting the government for the rights to their sacred land of Pe'Sla. This is echoed elsewhere throughout the globe, from how old British colonies are still exploited for their natural resources despite being independent, and how recently ancient Aboriginal art in Australia was defaced with acid. However, the fact that a federal judge has ruled in favor of the Lakota inmates shows that perhaps there is more hope now for the decent treatment of both prisoners and native populations.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/judge-sd-prison-tobacco-ban-substantially-burdens-native-american-inmates-religious-rights/2012/09/19/a5845284-02cd-11e2-9132-f2750cd65f97_story.html

Blog 3: Waterboarding Allegations in the case of Libyan Detainees (9/15/2012 2:42 pm)

A new report by the Human Rights Watch has recently brought new questions around official C.I.A. reports regarding the extent of waterboarding conducted by the united states, specifically upon Libyan prisoners. The agency has repeatedly gone on record stating that waterboarding was only ever used in three cases (on Abu Zubaydah, who ran a terrorist camp; on Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who organized the Sept. 11^th attacks, and on Abd al-Nashiri, who was suspected of planning to bomb the destroyer Cole in 2000), but this new report indicates that there may have been another prisoner who was waterboarded. Mohammed Shoroeiya stated that one time while imprisoned in Afghanistan, his captors put a hood over his head, strapped him to a wooden board (which they could spin around to disorient him), and poured water over his head until he felt like he was drowning. While he did not use the word “waterboarding”, this description closely matches well-known descriptions of that term. When questioned about this, a C.I.A. spokesperson stated that the agency has already gone on record with its official statements of three cases, and that the Justice Department had looked into the treatment of over 100 detainees and “declined prosecution in every case”. However, it is possible that Libyan prisoners were not a part of the detainees whose cases were investigated.

This case is very difficult to analyze and prosecute. While the Human Rights Watch is a well-regarded institution whose word is highly respected, without the cooperation of the C.I.A. it is very hard to corroborate these claims. If any further leeway is to be made into this case, it must involve either some form of spying or subterfuge, or a power higher than the C.I.A. must mandate investigation. As it is, it is highly unlikely that this mandate will be put into effect (especially with it being election season in the United States right now). Therefore, it is unlikely that much progress will be made, since conducting illegal investigations into the C.I.A. would be very challenging, very risky, and highly punishable. So while Mr. Shoroeiya's story coming to light is a small triumph for him in its own right, it is highly doubtful that any real prosecution will be made or that retribution or at least apology will be had for him.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/06/world/middleeast/libyan-alleges-waterboarding-by-cia-human-rights-watch-report-says.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=humanrightswatch

Kelton Hollister Blog 2 - France's Ban on Face Veils (9/7/2012 at 2:02 pm)

In April of 2011, France passed a ban on all full-face veils. Although this has been an issue of contention since its initiation last year, it is reaching attention again as its relevance and appropriateness are being tested and questioned. Many times when stopped, French Muslim women will simply lift their veil for police officers. However, many people consider this a violation of their religious freedoms. On July 24^th this past year during the holy month of Ramadan, a woman in Marseille standing outside a mosque refused to lift her veil for the police, and many supporters and bystanders joined in, culminating in the arrest of four people. Although the ban was worded as a non-specific security measure (it says it is to prohibit anyone from wearing anything “intended to hide the face”), it then goes on to set prison sentences for anyone “forcing another to wear a face veil”, an attack clearly aimed at Muslims. This is indicative of a common pattern of sexism aimed at Muslim women disguised as an attempt to “save” them. It ignores that many Muslim women wear the niqab out of choice and see it as an important expression of their faith and their culture, and sees them as oppressed – it assumes that if given the choice, all women would not wear the veil. This is explicitly not true, as evidenced by the women in the article. Kenza Drider is a Muslim convert who wears the veil and refuses to remove it for police. When given a fine and told she was not to wear the niqab in public settings, she told them to just continue to fine her. The other woman in the article says the law has allowed other French citizens to feel like they are justified in confronting her: she has tales of being spat upon, beaten, and assaulted while carrying a child.

Different things are being done to combat this bill – a wealthy businessman named Rachid Nekkaz has offered to cover all fines incurred by Muslim women wearing the veil, but notes that many instead stay home. He says astutely, “The law was meant to protect women but it has imprisoned them instead.” The second woman I mentioned, Ms. Ahmas, is appealing one fine and arrest to the high courts in hopes of then taking it before the European Court of Human Rights. However, this appeal will likely take years and many Muslim officials think it is important to work on other issues – within the past years there have been troubles regarding halal fast food and food in schools, minaret height, and prayers in the streets when mosques overflow, and many people think these issues of religious oppression are more pressing. However, this human rights violation is also very important, as it intersects issues of both religion and gender, and should be given serious consideration in both the public and private spheres.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/02/world/europe/tolerance-eases-impact-of-french-ban-on-full-face-veils.html?_r=1&ref=freedomandhumanrights

Blog 1 - Ethnic Refugees from Civil War in Myanmar Forcibly Evicted From China by Authorities, Kelton Hollister, 08/25/2012 9:43 PM

Since last week and intensifying this past Tuesday, the Chinese government has been forcibly evicting Kachin refugees from the borders of its Yunnan province and back into the conflict-ridden Kachin State of northern Myanmar. The refugees have reportedly been living in Yunnan for around a year, fleeing from one of many civil wars currently occurring in Myanmar. The Chinese government has no official stance on the Kachin conflict, though the area's wealth of timber, jade, and other valuable resources are apparently coveted by China, which also has a few dam projects in the state. The Chinese Foreign ministry would give no official comment and calls to the Yunnan and Dehong (the location of the refugee camps) propaganda offices were not answered or returned. This makes it unclear as to why exactly the refugees are being expelled from the area now. Around 4,200 Kachin or more have been forced from six refugee camps and back into Kachin State, where they are reportedly living on both sides of the conflict zone. In some cases, Chinese border guards had begun destroying refugee huts before the refugees had even had a chance to leave the site.

This behavior on part of the Chinese has arguably been a huge violation of human rights. The Human Rights Watch had reported in June that between 7,000 and 10,000 Kachin refugees were living in terrible conditions in China and faced harassment and harsh treatment by officials. That means that these refugees were already in a state of extreme vulnerability and likely had no way to defend themselves from this eviction - and even if they had, resistance might have been met with more violent retaliation. It is unlikely at this time that the Kachin will be able to bring a case against the Chinese government, as they live in extreme poverty and their everyday lives are a battle for survival with little time, money, or energy to spend on hiring lawyers. It is possible that outside organizations such as the Human Rights Watch may attempt to step in on behalf of the Kachin refugees, as this is a clear violation of international humanitarian law. In doing this, the government is sentencing these people to a life of even worse squalor and a constant fear for their lives - it is my hope that an international watchdog organization of some kind will step in, though it is probable too early to tell.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/world/asia/china-forcing-repatriation-of-ethnic-refugees-from-myanmar.html