Blog #10 Clearing The Tangled Path For Land Ownership In The West Bank

Clearing The Tangled Path For Land Ownership In The West Bank

In Palenstine, one can not simply own a piece of land. One can buy land, but they never see a title deed, as you would when you purchase a piece of land in the United States. People can buy land, but they never technically own it. A Palestinian-Canadian company called UCI is out to change that. They are buying property with money from the world bank in hopes to help with Palestine's economy.

To have the right to own your own property has many benefits for a person as well as the region of Palestine as a whole. Owning your own land in Palestine would allow the owner certain rights, including borrowing money against the land, using it as collateral.

Unfortunately, this is not a welcomed practice in Palestine. Many people think that UCI is a for profit company, just looking to earn money from them. They believe that the subdivided land would be better if made into housing developments instead of being sold to individuals. Many also believe that the land is overpriced and Palestinian's can not afford the cost of the land. A majority of Palestinian's believe that history should not be messed with, and that the area should stick with what they know.

From this article, UCI seems to have a great point: an economy will flourish if people are able to purchase land for their own personal ownership. They will be able to take loans out, using their property as collateral. This will allow for more money to be used in the region, which will in turn help the economy. However, I firmly believe in not taking out unnecessary loans. I believe that this is a world of debt, and that life would be much simpler if we didn't have the need for debt. This may be a naive thought, but I hope to have as little debt as possible, because I've seen people owe more than they bring in because they're allowed to take loans for more than they should due to having collateral. Those situations do not end well. With the people I've known who have dealt with this, they have ended up filing for bankruptcy, foreclosure, or even having their wages garnished because they can't afford the taxes on the properties that they have loans for. It seems like a never-ending downward spiral, because (unless you are very wealthy) you are required to take out loans to buy a house, land, and sometimes even a vehicle. This causes many to overextend themselves financially, and that is the downfall of our country. I would  hate to see the people of Palestine following in our debt-filled footsteps. I believe the Palestinian's are correct in saying that UCI should leave the region alone and let them continue on with their debt-free lives.

Andrika Payne 

4/24/2015

11:53 PM

Blog #6 Human trafficking laws 'should not ban buying sex'

Human trafficking laws 'should not ban buying sex'

According to BBC, Holyrood's justice committee has been gathering evidence on the Human Trafficking Exploitation Bill, which is going though parliament.  Many campaigners throughout Scotland are asking for prostitution to be made illegal, but the committee thinks they are not the right legislation for addressing this very pressing issue. Michael Matheson, who is the Justice Secretary, has agreed to meet with campaigners on both sides of the matter before a conclusion is reached. 

The committee backs the basic principles of the legislation, creating a specific offense of human trafficking and calling for a maximum penalty of life in prison. However, the persons forced into committing a crime will not be held responsible for their crimes. There are many positive parts of the bill, it is just a matter of singling out the offense of human trafficking and strengthening the protection of the victims of trafficking. The issue of creating an offense for the purchasing of sex along with this bill is not appropriate and should be consider two separated issues. 

It is wonderful to hear that Scotland is making progress in regards to human trafficking. I am glad to hear that this offense is being made illegal and punishable through the justice system. However, I do agree that the two issues involved (trafficking and selling sex) should be dealt with separately. I can see why they would try to lump the two together to protect the victims of human trafficking, but I think that it would be more appropriate if they created a clause in the bill that protects victims of human trafficking. I think that a separate bill should be passed in order to make prostitution illegal, therefore anyone who is selling their bodies can (and hopefully will) be prosecuted for that offense. If there is a clause in the Human Trafficking Exploitation Bill that dismisses any charges of selling sex from the victims of human trafficking, then the victims are protected, and the persons selling sex without being trafficked can still be prosecuted. Overall, I agree with the committee in their decision not to lump together two separate, although related, issues. It makes more sense to be specific about the offenses and to protect the victims of human trafficking. 

Andrika Payne

4/24/2015

11:34 PM

Blog 9: Rights group supports Aussie in Thailand

Rights group supports Aussie in Thailand

Alan Morison, an Austrailian Journalist who is scheduled to go to trial on July 14th, is being backed by The Human Rights Watch (based in New York) for the charges against him to be dropped. He is facing up to seven years in prison sentences and $A4000 in fines in Thailand if convicted of the crimes. The charges are related to a Phuketwan report, published in 2013 that republished excerpts from  a Reuters report that allege Thai security being involved in the smuggling of Muslim Rohingya from Myanmar, Burma. The report, from which the journalists won a Pulitzer Prize, was part of a Reuters investigative series on the Rohingya, a stateless and oppressed minority in Myanmar. The Human Rights Watch believes that the punishment against Alan Morison were disproportionate for the charges against him, causing reputational harm and infringing on the rights of freedom of expression, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press. 

I am sure that journalist Alan Morison is counting his lucky stars for the Human Rights Watch backing him in this lawsuit. It is almost obvious that the people of Thailand did not like the report, no matter how well written, because it had a negative connotation for the Thai security. Journalist of the report won a Pulitzer Prize, so it was well written and (most likely) backed with evidence and citations of the allegations against the Thai Security's involvement with the smuggling of Muslim Rohingya from Myanmar, Burma. Not only are the charges unfair because the punishment is extreme for the alleged crime presented, but it seems as though they should be dropped because they seem to be bogus claims. Although these feelings could just be my American brain getting the best of my judgment of the situation. It is well known that the United States has freedom of press, freedom of speech, and freedom of expression, and it seems completely bogus that someone could be punished for producing a truthful work of art.

Andrika Payne
4/17/15
11:53 PM

Blog #8 Rights groups welcome release of Chinese women activists

Rights groups welcome release of Chinese women activists

Human Rights groups have welcomed China's release of five activists who were held for more than a month, saying it was driven by an international outcry. The women, who were detained right before International Women's Day (March 8), planned many priests against sexual harassment. The US, UK, and European Union all called for their release. 

There have not been charges against the five activists, but the bail conditions mean there will be charges given at a later date. Liang Xaiojun, their lawyer, said they would need to let their whereabouts be known to authorities. Maya Want from Human Rights Watch stated that their release "shows international pressure works on China, when it is strong enough", and authorities should "cease harassment". William Nee, from Amnesty International said the release was "an encouraging breakthrough", but that "the authorities must now follow through and drop all charges and restrictions against the women". The co-founder of Yirenping, a Chinese campaign group that some of the women were involved with, said their detention was "a glaring injustice", but advocacy for their release has "actually furthered legal protection of women's rights and strengthened the rule of law in China".

The women, who are part of China's Women's Rights Action Group, are free on bail, but will remain under surveillance by authorities. Many see the arrests as a warning for civil rights groups in China to decrease their activities. This year's International Women's Day coincided with China's annual parliamentary session, which usually has tight security and is often preceded by the detention of activists. The women planned activities including gatherings in Beijing and Guangzhou calling for awareness of sexual harassment on buses and a march in a Beijing park where participants would wear stickers advocating safe sex. China said on Monday it had lodged a formal complaint to the US over a statement by Secretary of State John Kerry at the weekend in which he called for their unconditional release.

It is welcomed news to hear that these women have been released from detainment. I believe that China is using these women as examples of what could happen if activists continue to voice their opinion of what needs to be changed in China. From the article, it seems as though the activists had very peaceful plans such as a march while wearing stickers and gatherings. These are very non-violent types of protest, and usually are not means for detainment. I definitely think that China is using these women as a scare tactic to keep other protesters and activists under wraps. This is the issue that I have with governmental authority. China is supposedly a democratic nation. They are democratic in the sense that you vote for your leaders, but any time you wish to voice your opinion (and it's different from the norm) you run the risk of being detained. The same goes hear in the United States. There have been multiple times that peaceful protesters have been detained, beaten, sprayed with mace, or even killed. Stories like this make me never want to attend a protest, even if it is peaceful, out of simple fear for my life and my freedom. 

Andrika Payne

4/15/15

2243

Blog #7; McDonalds to give a pay raise to hourly workers

McDonalds to give a pay raise to hourly workers

McDonald’s states it going to raise the pay for workers at company-owned US locations. This makes it the latest employer to increase worker incentives in the improving economy. Company owned restaurants account for 10 percent of the more than 14,300 US restaurants. The remaining 90 percent are run by franchisees and they “make their own decisions on pay and benefits.” Many other major companies, including Wal-Mart Stores Inc., have also announced wage increases. In the past 12 months, there has been a 1.2 percent decrease of the unemployment rate. President Mike Andres states, "It's a very competitive environment and a significant rationale for this plan is that we want to be the most competitive and attractive employer.”

McDonald’s has also been dealing with negative publicity from demonstrations over pay and labor practices at its restaurants, so the change comes at a great time. Worker groups have been pressuring the company with lawsuits and cases filed with the National Labor Relations Board and U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration on behalf of workers, in addition to ongoing protests since late 2012. Andres said few McDonald's workers are "not taking a toll.”

Kwanza Brooks, a McDonald’s employee of North Carolina called the move "too little to make a real difference" and said that it only covers a fraction of workers.

Beginning July 1, McDonald's starting wages will be one dollar more than the local minimum wage where company-owned restaurants are located. Wages will be adjusted accordingly based on tenure and performance, it said. By the end of 2016, it said the average hourly wage for McDonald's workers at those stores will be more than $10 an hour, up from $9 an hour. In addition to wage increases, McDonald's says workers at company-owned stores will get paid time off. Employees who have worked for the company for at least a year and work an average of 20 hours a week will be eligible to accrue about 20 hours of paid time off a year. Workers who don't take the time off will be paid for the value of that time, McDonald's said.

McDonald's Chief Administrative Officer, Pete Benson, stated last month that at the time a big part of the turnaround effort in the U.S. would be what the company is doing "around the employment image and our employee-employer relationship."

McDonald's U.S. business has been struggling, with customer counts and sales at established locations falling two years in a row. The company named Steve Easterbrook, its chief brand officer, as its new CEO in January. Easterbrook stated, "We know that a motivated workforce leads to better customer service so we believe this initial step not only benefits our employees, it will improve the McDonald's restaurant experience."

McDonald's also said it is expanding benefits to help workers at company- and franchise-owned restaurants complete high school and college, although there were no details provided about this.

Although this news is a step in the right direction, I believe that what Kwanza Brooks stated is true. McDonald’s is only making a change in 10 percent of the stores nation wide. I think that it is great that they are offering paid time off, even for part time employees.  It seems as though they are making a step in the right direction, but I definitely think that they could do a better job. I know that working at McDonald’s is not a job that requires many skills, however, I do believe that people should be given the right to earn a living wage in such establishments. I understand that 90 percent of the restaurants in the United States are owned by franchisees, but I do believe that they could be included in the increase. It doesn't seem fair to only see an increase in a small percentage of a company, and give them praise. I know if I were a worker in a franchisee owned McDonald's, I'd be trying to transfer to a corporate owned one immediately.  It is not fair that someone doing the exact same job, potentially in the exact same area, is getting paid one dollar more per hour and gets a benefits package just because of who the owner of the restaurant is. Is there no way that they could include a company wide minimum wage and benefits package in the corporate contract with the franchisees?

Blog #5 U.N. Report: No Country Has Achieved Equality For Women

U.N. Report: No Country Has Achieved Equality For Women

Hillary Rodham Clinton, then first lady, made headlines with these words on September 5, 1995, at the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing: "If there is one message that echoes forth from this conference let it be that human rights are women's rights and women's rights are human rights once and for all." 20 years later, the U.N. is taking stock of how far women have come and their new report says there's a lot of work to do. No country has achieved gender equality and violence against women remains "alarmingly high." Clinton will address the U.N. on this topic today at 1:30 p.m. Helen Clark, who runs the U.N.'s development program, says, "This anniversary year is our opportunity to resolve the unfinished business of Beijing.” She says countries must do a better job ensuring that women have access to health services.
About 35 percent of women worldwide have experienced sexual or physical violence, as stated by The U.N. About 1 out of 10 girls under 20 (One hundred and twenty million) have been subjected to sexual violence. The report says discriminatory attitudes and social norms in many countries make all this difficult to prevent. Ban Ki-Moon, U.N. Secretary General, says he's determined to make these gender issues a high priority. He says, "Women bear the burden. Women pay the price. But women are not just victims; they are agents of progress and change.”

The U.N. says there has been major progress in the areas of education and health for females. In politics, there are nearly double the women serving as lawmakers around the globe. Ban says the progress is uneven. He says, "There are five countries in the world where not a single woman is represented in Parliament, and eight countries in the world where not a single woman is a cabinet member.” The U.N. does keep track of the number of female lawmakers around the world. Saudi Arabia, Micronesia, Palau, Qatar, Tonga, and Vanuatu each have zero females in Parliament. Belize, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Yemen, and Kuwait are just a few who only have one female in Parliament. The U.N. goal for gender equality is 50:50 by 2030.

It is amazing for me to read articles like this. As a female, I feel like we’ve come such a long way in terms of equality, but the numbers state otherwise. I am flabbergasted at the number of countries with zero females in office, although it doesn’t surprise me because the countries with zero females are some of the ones with horrible women’s rights.

Thirty-five percent of women worldwide have experienced sexual violence. This is an astonishing number. It amazes me that the number of victims of sexual assault is still so high. It truly makes me wonder if there are actually precautions being taken towards improving these statistics, or of there is even progress being made. Of course, being a privileged American female, I have not experienced some of the gender issues that other females in other countries may have encountered. However, I have experienced some gender issues in my lifetime, and I am part of the thirty-five percent. Having experienced such issues seems like such a rare occurrence here in the United States, but these issues must be very common overseas if the number of effected females is still soaring out of control.

I would love to see the U.N.’s goal of gender equality by 2030 come to reality, but I feel like the rate we are currently trucking along at is not quick enough. It would be amazing to see women’s rights and equality actually happen in this lifetime, let alone in 15 years. 

Andrika Payne
3/19/15
0648

Blog #4 France violates treaty on smacking - Council of Europe

France Violates Treaty on Smacking- Council of Europe

France has been criticized by Europe's top human rights watchdog for its failure to explicitly ban smacking children.  The Council of Europe stated that France's laws on corporal punishment were "not sufficiently clear, binding and specific". The laws in France recognizes the parents' "right to discipline" their children but forbid violence against children. The ruling comes after a complaint by a British children’s charity against France and six other EU countries. “Approach,” the charity, says the countries are violating a section of the European Social Charter calling on signatories to protect children. The Council of Europe doesn’t have power to sanction member states. It has called for all of its 47 members to ban corporal punishment of children. So far, only 27 have banned the practice.

The Council's European Committee of Social Rights said: "There is now a wide consensus at both the European and international level among human rights bodies that the corporal punishment of children should be expressly and comprehensively prohibited in law." Approach spokesman Peter Newell said: "In many countries, violent punishment of children is the only form of inter-personal violence in the family that is still legal. We are pleased that the Council finds France in violation of the Social Charter." The French government denies the allegations put forward by Approach, saying existing laws already offered sufficient protection for children. In reaction to the reports and media, France’s Family Minister Laurence Rossignol said she did not believe it was necessary to legislate on the issue of smacking. She said, "We don't need a law, but we do need to collectively consider the usefulness of corporal punishment in bringing up children." A poll from 2007 stated that 87% of French parents had smacked their children on the bottom, with 32% saying they had given them a "resounding" slap on the face. Coordinator of the anti-smacking campaign by Fondation Pour L’Enfance, Gilles Lazimi stated that 50% of French parents hit their children before they reach two years old. Polls have shown widespread support in both Britain and France for the right to smack children, but the laws in France have occasionally caused controversy. In 2013, a case that reignited the debate about corporal punishment in France was that of a father who was fined €500 (equivalent to 560 USD) for spanking his nine-year-old son. The Council of Europe is due to announce its decisions on other countries included in the Approach complaint in May.
This is a very interesting article to me because I feel like the United States has very different laws about spanking children and child abuse. I grew up in an abusive family, and my mother was very physical with us. I can remember many times when spanking or switching was a normal form of punishment, although it is frowned upon now. I have many friends who were raised in very different backgrounds and have never been spanked, and I feel like we are comparable when it comes to discipline in adult life. I think that there is a fine line between spanking and child abuse, but that is because there aren’t any specific laws on what is legal and what is illegal. Of course, it is well known that if you are hitting a child to the point of bruising, bleeding, breaking bones, or (in extreme cases) death, it is considered child abuse. I am unaware of any laws in the United States that make disciplining your child by spanking an illegal action. Until there are laws of this nature, spanking your own children is not considered child abuse.

Andrika Payne
3/5/15
8:30 

Blog #3 Valentine's Day Has Another Side: Fighting For Freedoms For Women

Valentine's Day Has Another Side: Fighting For Freedoms For Women

Valentine's Day is not only about candy hearts and kisses anymore— at least not for global activists. For them, Feb. 14 is V-Day, the international day of ending violence against women and girls. In 1998, the V-Day movement was created by Eve Ensler (creator, The Vagina Monologues) to tackle the discrimination and abuse that women face. Law, according to many countries’ constitutions, guarantees equality but its not always true. According to Equality Now, there are more than 40 national laws that take these rights away. Some laws allow men to abuse (and/or rape) his wife. Some decide which jobs women are allowed to work, and which they cannot. Some laws still state that women are worth less than men. 

Almost 200 governments met for the U.N. World Conference on Women in 1995 to pledge to revoke all sexist laws. In 2000, the U.N. made gender equality one of the Millennium Development Goals. Not much progress has been made, so activists are asking the public to take action. These are a few examples of the outrageous laws from different countries that Equality Now is campaigning against.  

"In Yemen, a husband is legally entitled to have sex with his wife. "A husband has the right to be obeyed by his wife in the interest of the family ... . She must permit him to have legitimate intercourse with her when she is fit to do so." And in India, "Sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under fifteen years of age, is not rape."

In Nigeria, it's not a crime to hit your wife for the purpose of "correcting" her. "Nothing is an offence which does not amount to the infliction of grievous hurt upon any persons which is done: (d) by a husband for the purpose of correcting his wife, such husband and wife being subject to any native law or custom in which such correction is recognized as lawful."

In Egypt, a man who kills his wife over her "act of adultery" will not be punished for murder. "Whoever surprises his wife in the act of adultery and kills her on the spot together with her adulterer-partner shall be punished with detention instead of the penalties prescribed in Articles 234 [unpremeditated murder] and 236 [assault]."

In Malta, a man guilty of abducting a woman is not liable for prosecution if he marries his victim. "If the offender, after abducting a person, shall marry such person, he shall not be liable to prosecution, except on the complaint of the party whose consent ... would be required for the marriage; and if the marriage takes place after the conviction, the penal consequences thereof shall cease and the party convicted shall, upon his application, be forthwith released by order of the court."

In Saudi Arabia, a 1990 fatwa, or religious edict, bans women from driving. "The issue of women's driving of automobiles ... is known [as] a source of undeniable vices ... . It could also lead to committing 'haraam' [taboo] acts.... Thus, the pure 'Shari'a' prohibited all the ways leading to vice... . Women's driving is one of the means leading to that and this is self-evident."

In Iran, a woman can be jailed for not following the Islamic dress code, which includes wearing a hijab. "Women who appear in public without prescribed Islamic dress (hejab-e-shar'i), shall be sentenced to either imprisonment of between 10 days and 2 months or a fine of between 50,000 and 500,000 rials [up to $18 USD]."

In Russia, women are prohibited from doing 456 types of work. Banned activities include operating trains, bulldozers, ships and trucks; working in sewage systems; producing leather; firefighting; and repairing aircraft and ships.

In Madagascar, women are not permitted to work at night. "Women, regardless of age, shall not be employed at night in any industrial establishment of any kind, public or private, secular or religious, nor in any annex of one of these establishments even if these establishments are of a professional or charitable character, except for establishments where the only ones employed therein are members of one same family."

In Guinea, a married woman can only work if she has permission from her husband. "A wife can have a separate profession from that of her husband unless he objects. If the husband's opposition is not justified by the interests of the family, the woman may be authorized by way of law to override it."" 

 (I chose not to use my own wording on the laws and to copy them straight from the article because changing the wording might change interpretation of the law itself.) 

       The fact that some of these “laws” are still intact in certain countries is completely and utterly outrageous. I couldn’t imagine being in the situation of one of these women in these countries (like Yemen, Nigeria, Egypt, Malta, and many others) subjected to legal abuse, rape, and even murder by her spouse. To be told that you're not allowed to work a certain type of job (Russia, Madagascar, Guinea) or drive a car (Saudi Arabia) simply because you are a female, or that you will be jailed for not wearing a piece of clothing (Iran) is blasphemous to me. It must be the ‘privilege’ of being raised in the United States taking over because, I imagine, these women see these rules as a way of life. They accept them as they are, and they don't challenge them (possibly because they are laws against this.) I am glad to see that there are activist groups that are concerned with equality worldwide and not just equality stateside. I am also glad to see that Equality Now doesn't just focus on one realm of equality. 

Andrika Payne

2/20/15

1200 

Blog #2 Abu Dhabi Louvre and Guggenheim Outposts Still Have Human Rights Problems

Abu Dhabi Louvre and Guggenheim Outposts Still Have Human Rights Problems

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Abu Dhabi Louvre and Guggenheim Outposts Still Have Human Rights Problems

According to the Human Rights Watch, the United Arab Emirates, reforms haven’t done enough to end the exploitation of migrant workers building a high-profile project including branches of the Louvre and the Guggenheim museums. In the 82 page report, Human Rights watch stated that they believe that Emirati authorities have taken “positive steps,” but workers still face abuses including working without pay and benefits, confiscated passports, and poor housing accommodations. Consequentially, if workers go on strike, they face deportation.

This report is the newest edition from international rights groups to bring the Gulf Arab region into the spotlight. These Gulf region countries are very wealthy, and they rely on an estimated 5 million low paid, temporary migrant workers to do the “blue-collar” work of the region. The Tourism Development and Investment Company, which is backed by the Emirates government, is rejecting the report from the Human Rights Watch, calling the “outdated and based on unknown methodologies.”

The “Employment Practices Policy” previously set out standards for companies involved in its projects and has built a facility that is supposed to house employees for all of its contractors and subcontractors. Spokespeople from the Louvre, Guggenheim, and a remote NYU site claim that rights are top priority. However, the 113 interviewed current and former laborers who worked on the project between 2013-2014 all disagree. They state that employers “held their passports and did not reimburse them for recruiting fees they paid.”

This article really gave me a slap in the face as far as human rights is concerned. I have heard of the poor working conditions in UAE, and I truly thought that there were vast improvements being made. According to this article, the conditions are improving, but not as quickly as they should be. I can only imagine what the migrant workers are going through, basically working as slaves to the Emirati officials, living in terrible conditions, and working without pay or ability to leave. They can’t even go on strike to defend their rights as humans.  If they do, they face deportation.  They are basically caught in a paradox. They are talked into moving to this beautiful, wealthy country, and offered a salary that cannot be competed against in their home country, so they sign up. Once they get to UAE, the conditions are poor and they are not paid for their work, as they were promised. Their passports are confiscated and they cannot leave of their own free will. They are stuck in a bad situation, and it is necessary for a bigger power to step in. The Human Rights Watch is helping the migrant workers gain their rights, slowly but surely. 

Andrika Payne 

2/12/15

1513

Blog #1 North Korea to UN: Human rights resolution is illegal

North Korea to UN: Human Rights Resolution is Illegal

 

  North Korea’s foreign minister demands The United Nations secretary general tell the member states that the resolution of Human Rights issues is illegal and based on lies. Ri Su Yong, North Korea’s foreign minister, states that North Korea will be willing to “actively engage ourselves in talks and cooperation in the field of human rights” if the illegal resolution is withdrawn.

North Korea became upset late last year when The United Nations General Assembly approved the “illegal resolution” that the country’s situation of human rights should be addressed in the international criminal court and that North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong Un, should be held responsible.

Last month, prominent North Korean defector Shin Dong-hyuk changed his story. Because of this, North Korea stated that defectors are “human scum” and can not be trusted. As a result of the defector’s story changed, the entire United Nations resolution has since collapsed.  

The North Korean foreign minister is now trying to figure out who the other defectors are so he can discredit them as well. He states, “We are ready to reveal to the whole world the true identities of each and every one of them and the crimes committed and the lies told by them one by one.”

North Korean diplomats tried to intimidate defectors who had helped the commission of inquiry last year by openly filming them at an U.N. event. 

This is a classic example of why North Korean has a human rights issue. Someone of power made a mistake (lied), openly admitted the mistake, and now the North Korean government is trying to discredit every single defector for the benefit of their cause. They are using intimidation tactics, threats, and even childish name-calling. They lumped every single defector into a group with the one at fault, regardless of the defectors actual disposition, demeaning the entire group for one man’s actions. It is almost insulting because North Korea cares so little for the human rights and equality of their people as a whole, yet they are willing to make one group equals when it benefits the beliefs of the leader or, in their opinion, benefits the country as a whole. It is completely unfair to treat a whole group in a certain way just because of one of the member’s negative actions.

Andrika Payne

0048

2/5/15