A Tennessee lawmaker is vying for control of what Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) cardholders can and cannot buy with federal dollars.

In January, State Rep. Sheila Butt introduced a bill that would ban Tennessee shoppers on public assistance from buying food with no perceived nutritional value. According to Butt, current rules allow taxpayer money to fund people’s “unhealthy lifestyle choices.”

“I go into convenience stores almost every day and see the most non-nutritional foods on the counters and in the aisles marked ‘EBT Approved,’” said Butt. “By allowing their purchase with EBT cards, we are actually enhancing diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and obesity in at-risk communities.”

The Republican Majority Floor Leader of the Tennessee House of Representatives plans to model the prospective junk food ban off statewide standards for public school cafeterias. First-time offenders who buy prohibited items would be fined $1,000, while second and third offenses would amount to $2,500 and $5,000 fines, respectively. Grocers caught selling the forbidden foods would be subject to the same fines as shoppers.

Historically, Republicans haven’t exactly been advocates of state welfare programs. GOP politicians, including House Speaker Paul Ryan and Congressman Mike Conaway, have been particularly critical of EBT cards, which are part of the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)–formerly known as the Food Stamp program.

Considering Trump’s current administration, not to mention the Republican-controlled House and Senate, drastic alterations to EBT could very well happen under his term.

Within recent years, officials have suggested drug testing recipients to determine if they qualify for benefits. There has also been a reemergence of work requirements across the country. Today 22 states enforce that if you are an “able bodied person” between the ages of 18 and 49 with no dependents, and work less than 80 hours a month, then you are only eligible to use EBT benefits for three months out of every three years.

In June 2016 federal authorities rejected Maine Gov. Paul LePage’s efforts to remove soda and energy drinks from EBT-approved items. In a scathing letter to the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, the conservative leader blamed the Obama Administration and “junk food manufacturing interests,” and threatened to overhaul Maine’s EBT program altogether. LePage claimed that “billions” of taxpayer dollars are being spent on “candy and soda.”

“It’s time for the federal government to wake up and smell the energy drinks,” said LePage in a letter to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which funds SNAP programs “Doubtful that it will, I will be pursuing options to implement reform unilaterally or crease Maine’s administration of the food stamp program altogether. You maintain such a broken program that I do not want my name attached to it.”

Maine would have become the first state to pass such a provision. With 18 percent of Maine residents relying on EBT benefits (the third-highest rate in the United States after Oregon and Mississippi), LePage’s failed motion had the potential to severely impair nearly one-fifth of Maine’s population of 1.3 million.

While unhealthy foods encompass one side of the argument, Missouri Republican Rick Brattin would also like to prohibit users from buying certain “luxury” food items, such as steak and seafood. His intent is to bring EBT back to its original purpose: nutrition assistance. However, some critics consider this to be attack on poor people rather than a promotion of healthy eating habits.

“It just seems really repressive,” said Mark Rank, a professor at Washington University and author of the book “Living on the Edge: The Realities of Welfare in America.” “I don’t see how it makes any sense to ban some of these foods. Fish is something that should really be in your diet. And steak, what does that mean in this context?”

As these political figures tout their efforts to promote health and wellness, they often overlook systematic challenges that low-income Americans face. The percentage of obesity in the United States has increased from about 13 percent to 35 percent since the early 1960s. Oftentimes, these poor eating habits can result from a range of societal issues including, but not limited to, insufficient healthy food options in economically-challenged areas, inconsistent work opportunities, and lack of education–all of which can fuel the multidimensional cycle of poverty.

Although one may expect geographically isolated areas known as “food deserts” to be the leading cause of EBT recipients buying junk food, Joe Cortright from the Atlantic thinks otherwise. He attributes the influx of obesity and diabetes in poor communities to household income and education as well. After these factors are taken into consideration, distance from nutritional food explains less than 10 percent of the variation in consumption of healthy foods. Therefore, perhaps politicians should devote more energy to providing work opportunities and educational training for America’s poorest citizens, rather than punishing poor people with rigid diet restrictions.

Jacob Atkins

Jacob Atkins is a freelance blogger and contributor for Law Street Media. After studying print journalism and international relations at American University, Jacob now resides in Madrid where he is teaching English, pursuing multimedia reporting projects and covering global news. Contact Jacob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

http://jacobson.pressfolios.com/

The post Conservative Lawmakers Propose Stricter EBT Regulations appeared first on Law Street.

From documenting human rights abuses in China to investigating political corruption scandals in Nigeria, Voice of America (VOA) often serves as the only source of global news in nations with restrictive press freedoms. Aired in more than 100 countries, translated in 61 languages, and seen by over 278 million viewers worldwide, today VOA is the largest provider of multilingual content aimed at promoting democratic interests abroad. However, recent structural changes within the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), the independent agency responsible for overseeing U.S. government information services, may result in VOA becoming more of a household name in 2017.

A new provision in the National Defense Authorization Act for the 2017 fiscal year has replaced the BBG’s bipartisan nine-member board with a single CEO selected by the president. The BBG supervises not only VOA, but also Television Martí, Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, and Radio Free Asia. Certain political analysts now worry that President Donald Trump could potentially capitalize on the provision and use the BBG’s vast network to combine his television background and foreign policy interests. According to Politico, “Trump is finally getting his Trump TV–financed by taxpayers to the tune of $800 million per year.”

Voice of America’s Origins

Originally VOA began as an alternative to Nazi and Japanese wartime propaganda in 1942. However, under the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, the network was forbidden from broadcasting in the United States until 2013 out of fears that it would inundate Americans with propaganda. Despite the ban being lifted during Obama’s presidency, speculations over VOA’s autonomy stem from such historic origins.

Nowadays, VOA claims that it functions as “surrogate media” in countries where state-run media supersedes the free press. Former president Gerald Ford tried to honor the agency’s editorial independence in 1976 by enacting a VOA public charter. To distance the agency from claims of propaganda, the bill solidified VOA’s commitment to promoting freedom of the press and transparent reporting on American foreign policy, according to the VOA website.

Along those lines, the BBG launched in 1994 after the International Broadcasting Act passed. Designed to function as an editorial “firewall” between American policymakers and journalists, the board was founded to prevent the State Department, White House, and other agencies from interfering with the news agency. As previously mentioned, historically the BBG has been comprised of nine members tasked with preserving the “accuracy, balance, comprehensiveness and objectivity” of the United State’s transnational media operations. Originally it was part of the U.S. Information Agency, but it became an independent agency in 1999 with the legislation of the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act.

Criticisms & Legal Changes Threatening Editorial Independence

From allegations of ineffective public diplomacy to a poorly managed $750 million budget of taxpayer dollars, the BBG is no stranger to criticism. In 2012, the board was ranked as one of the most poorly managed federal government agencies to work for due to its “hostile board dynamics,” and opponents claim the BBG fails to compete with Russia’s RT or Qatar’s Al Jazeera. According to one report, the former nine-member council was “incompetent, useless, and perhaps fatally broken” due to unqualified board members not taking the job seriously.

The new provision, which passed by a 92-7 vote in the Senate led by House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce (R-CA), replaces the board of directors with a presidential-appointed CEO who will serve a three-year term and report directly to the White House. A Washington Post article speculates that checks and balances may be eliminated by placing power into the hands of an individual chosen by the highest authority. With Trump officially in office, the story raises the concern that he could take advantage of the new amendment to elect another representative from the transpiring alt-right movement (or even elect an official with close ties to the Kremlin) to oversee the BBG.

Roots for Concern in Trump’s Administration.

According to NPR, Trump’s “attitude toward the press veers wildly depending on the favorability of the treatment he receives.” Trump, who is known for lashing out at mainstream media outlets for critical coverage, set an alarming standard when he selected Steve Bannon as his chief strategist. The appointment left many Americans fearful of what President Trump could accomplish with the spokesman of the alt-right movement as his lead accomplice, according to a New York Times article. Bannon previously served as executive chairman of hyper-conservative Breitbart News, whose columns “reflect abhorrence for so-called mainstream media organizations” such as CNN. Watchdog groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center and Anti-Defamation League condemned Trump’s decision based on Bannon’s platform of white nationalism and accusations of anti-Semitism.

After choosing Bannon, President Trump is expected to appoint a divergent political figure to represent  U.S. media abroad as the head of the BBG. Whoever Trump ends up appointing as the new CEO will have the ability to hire and fire media personnel at will, in addition to controlling the budget with unparalleled authority. Although the prospective CEO is also expected to choose their own five-member cabinet, they won’t have any statutory power. Skeptics from the Washington Post are saying that VOA could someday rival the Kremlin in terms of lack of oversight.

“Congress unwittingly just gave President-elect Trump unchecked control of all U.S. media outlets,” said Michael Kempner, a Democratic member of the board who was appointed by President Barack Obama and was a Hillary Clinton donor. “No president, either Democrat or Republican, should have that kind of control. It’s a public jewel. Its independence is what makes it so credible.”

Conclusion

While credible concerns have arisen over VOA’s new Trump leadership, “Trump TV” may in fact already be here. Conservative media outlet Right Side Broadcasting Network (RSBN) is often referenced using the moniker after live streaming nearly all of Trump’s events and extensively covering his campaign. In December, the new 24-hour network announced it will have access to White House press briefings, raising questions about whether President Trump intends to circumvent traditional media by allowing a non-credentialed reporter to ask questions during briefings. Regardless, Trump still has the BBG and VOA in his pocket. While VOA never managed to fulfill its potential as an American propaganda tool before, it very well could under Trump’s presidency.

Jacob Atkins

Jacob Atkins is a freelance blogger and contributor for Law Street Media. After studying print journalism and international relations at American University, Jacob now resides in Madrid where he is teaching English, pursuing multimedia reporting projects and covering global news. Contact Jacob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

http://jacobson.pressfolios.com/

The post Will Voice of America Become ‘Trump TV’? appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this month Israeli authorities convicted 20-year-old Israel Defense Force (IDF) soldier Elor Azaria of manslaughter over the killing of Palestinian Abdel Fattah al-Sharif. The January 4 ruling has since triggered an outpouring of nationwide support for Azaria, with an estimated 70 percent of Israelis asking for a full pardon.

The incident began last March when al-Sharif stabbed an Israeli soldier in the West Bank city of Hebron. After al-Sharif was shot and neutralized, cellphone footage showing Azaria shooting the incapacitated assailant in the head went viral. Originally Azaria was going to be tried for murder, but his charges were reduced to manslaughter for violating protocol, essentially shooting at a non-perceived threat.

While the decision to press charges against Azaria may indicate that Israel is holding its soldiers accountable after decades of contentious military engagement in Palestine, others consider Azaria to be innocent of any wrongdoing, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

This past weekend, protests were held across Israel in support of Azaria. In Jerusalem one group assembled outside of President Reuven Rivlin’s home to demand the charges be dropped. Seven demonstrators were reportedly arrested after failing to follow police order and disrupting traffic. Following this event, two individuals were also arrested for ¨inciting violence¨ over social media against court officials in Azaria’s case.

Among Azaria’s supporters, some believe that the manslaughter charges could set a poor precedent for future military operations. For example, on January 8 a deadly truck attack occurred in Jerusalem when an Arab-Israeli citizen ran over a group of soldiers, killing four and injuring 15. Until service members realized that this wasn’t merely a car accident (made apparent when the truck went into reverse) the Jerusalem Post reports that some soldiers hesitated to fire knowing they could face similar charges as Azaria.

There are also some speculations that the Israeli army originally wanted to ignore the Azaria trial altogether to avoid ¨airing the military’s dirty secrets¨ to the world. According to Aida Touma-Suleiman, a Palestinian member of Israeli Parliament, Israel is particularly concerned about attracting more attention from the International Criminal Court (ICC) and its inquiries into war crimes.

“In a clear-cut case like this, it is important for Israel to look as though it is taking war crimes seriously, otherwise the ICC might itself decide to investigate,” said Touma-Suleiman. “But the case has caused problems because it has upset right-wing politicians and much of the Israeli public, who expect absolute impunity for soldiers.”

This is the first high-profile manslaughter indictment since 2005 when Taysir Heib killed a British photographer and pro-Palestinian rights activist, Tom Hurndall. Oftentimes cases involving military wrongdoings against Palestinians are simply dropped. According to MPCID (Investigations into the Circumstances Surrounding the Death of Palestinians Convictions and Sentencing) 120 out of 186  investigations into Israeli soldiers committing crimes against Palestinians were closed and only seven prompted disciplinary action.

Based on this lack of accountability for Palestinian lives, some Palestinian advocates consider the incriminating evidence caught on video to be the only reason Israeli officials are even pushing charges.

“The only difference between this case and others is this was caught on camera,” said Palestinian Knesset member Hanin Zoabi. “Hundreds of Palestinians are murdered every year and nobody pays attention to it, and only because this was on camera did it go viral in the media here and internationally and made big news —  but really it is something that happens every single day.”

Azaria could face up to 20 years in prison, which is the maximum sentence for manslaughter charges.

Jacob Atkins

Jacob Atkins is a freelance blogger and contributor for Law Street Media. After studying print journalism and international relations at American University, Jacob now resides in Madrid where he is teaching English, pursuing multimedia reporting projects and covering global news. Contact Jacob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

http://jacobson.pressfolios.com/

The post Israelis Want Elor Azaria to be Pardoned After Manslaughter Conviction appeared first on Law Street.

As the new year begins, it’s safe to say that 2016 was a trying time for the International Criminal Court (ICC). The United Nations-inspired program established by the Rome Statute of 1998 stands as the world’s only tribunal capable of prosecuting individuals at the international level. Formed to investigate and prosecute war-related crimes, the 124-member committee is now three members short, and its legacy is at stake. Various signatories in Africa have recently resigned (and more are expected to do so) due to continuous accusations of the court disproportionately targeting Africans and representing the interests of western imperialism. Now with fewer members (and therefore fewer outlets to pursue cases) the independent judicial body’s ability to indict foreign dignitaries for orchestrating violent campaigns may dwindle as Uganda, South Africa, and Burundi are facilitating a “coordinated revolt” to undermine ICC operations.

The International Criminal Court’s Unique Origins

The formation of the ICC resulted from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court–a United Nations initiative that was adopted on July 17, 1998 and took effect on July 1, 2002 after the 60th member state ratified it. For five weeks, U.N. members deliberated in the Italian capital about establishing a fixed international tribunal. After several compromises were made, the treaty passed with a vote of 120 to 7, with 21 countries abstaining. From the beginning, the mandate aimed to indict political officials for wartime atrocities, diminish impunity, and ensure that restorative justice is accomplished when national governments are unequipped to reach their own verdict (which is generally the case in times of crisis). Separate from the United Nations, the permanent, autonomous court provides an all-encompassing index on how to legally handle cases of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression. A limited scope of retribution was granted, meaning that only crimes occurring after the court’s 2002 inception are open for investigation.

Although the Yugoslavian and Rwandan wars were occurring during these preliminary negotiations (and therefore representing a dire impetus for action), the idea of a permanent world court was 50 years in the making. According to the International Policy Digest, the vision of a supranational judiciary gained momentum toward the end of World War II after the Axis Powers were defeated and their wrongdoings were exposed. Following the Nuremberg Trials against Nazi Germany in 1945 and 1946, the U.N. General Assembly passed the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in 1948. This was the first step in defining genocide, which is considered to be “the most heinous international crime” and one of the three original crimes that would fall under the ICC’s jurisdiction.

How Does the ICC Function?

The ICC, which is located in The Hague, Netherlands, can only intervene when states are “unable” or “unwilling” to prosecute criminals themselves. The Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) for the ICC receives referrals of “situations” where court action may be needed. This stipulation means that the ICC can only intervene when national criminal justice systems fail to prosecute a war crime themselves. By signing the treaty, member states, therefore, consent to the ICC’s jurisdiction and allow the judiciary to pursue investigations if warranted. Therefore, countries that didn’t sign the peace agreement, like the United States, cannot be issued warrants.

Instead of relying on juries, the ICC delivers verdicts through judges–all of whom must be citizens of an ICC member state. Within the tribunal there are 18 judges serving in three divisions: the Pre-Trial Division, Trial Division, and Appeals Division. Perhaps the most vital department is the Pre-Trial Chamber, given that it is responsible for issuing arrest warrants and confirming indictments that are initiated through the U.N. Security Council or the Assembly of States Parties. But this vital department allegedly has a slow response rate, sometimes taking months to respond to arrest warrants.

Ever-present Challenges and Critiques of the ICC

As the world’s only official international war crime tribunal, the ICC has a lot at stake. The agreement that created it may have made history, but the court also faces a lot of systematic challenges. When the ICC was formally introduced in 2002, certain skeptics believed that the institution would become too powerful and prompt the formation of a one-world government. Originally, countries like the United States and Israel were dissuaded from signing the treaty out of fear of potential prosecution, and that some “new mega-criminal law” would result in tyrannical practices. However, today the ICC is viewed as far from tyrannical (or effective for that matter) due to its “procedural and substantive deficiencies.” Throughout its short existence, the court has opened 10 investigations and publicly indicted 39 people. These relatively low numbers signify three main challenges of the ICC.

At the forefront is the issue of credibility. When Thomas Lubanga Dyilo of the Democratic Republic of the Congo was found guilty on March 14, 2012 for recruiting child soldiers (becoming the first person to be convicted by the ICC), the court had already existed for 10 years and spent an estimated billion euros. Although the verdict set a new precedent for international law, the amount of time required to set the milestone didn’t seem like an efficient use of time or money to some. Trials need to be carried out more efficiently for this situation to improve, which could be difficult considering how the ICC prefers live testimony, which inevitably elongates the trial process. Legitimacy is another indelible challenge for the ICC. Only two members of the U.N. Security Council are official judicial members, which certainly complicates the referral process. Although the U.N. Security Council has tried to refer the Syrian conflict to the ICC (despite Syria not being a member of the Rome Statute) both China and Russia (non-ICC members) have rejected such initiatives–major powers can veto court efforts even when there is proof of atrocities taking place.

The implementation of the ICC can be tricky, considering that the court relies heavily on other nation’s police forces to make arrests and transfer indicted people to The Hague. This requires vast cooperation among State Parties. A common critique is that the court relies too much on international governments to implement court mandates without much direct supervision or guidance. The consequences are straightforward: no arrests and no trials.

Finally, the third issue involves unrealistic expectations and the extent to which the treaty is a “persistent object of faith.” The treaty inherently relies on the free and voluntary consent of member nations, providing them with every right to withdraw if desired. Moreover, this has resulted in certain countries being ambivalent towards the ICC (particularly the United States during the Clinton and Bush administrations), which ultimately diminishes the court’s overall credibility.

Lately, the most critical commentary of the ICC involves how it may be an “instrument of modern colonialism” due to the extent in which the judicial body primarily affects African officials. Throughout the existence of the ICC, every indicted person has been African, which “implies unfair selectivity at best, and smacks of neocolonialism at worst.” Since the ICC began 18 years ago, nine out of the 10 investigated cases have involved African nations, which has led to accusations of bias. With fewer member states to help expedite this process, the ICC would have a more limited scope for prospective investigations. Fewer African members would make the ICC “a shell of its former self.” Not only does this undermine the legitimacy of the organization, but makes its operations seem dysfunctional.

African Case Studies

Following in the footsteps of Burundi and South Africa, the tiny West African country of Gambia became the latest member to withdraw from the ICC this past October. Together, these nations have chastised the multinational tribunal for its alleged “anti-African bias” and ignorance toward wrongdoings from Western powers. Burundi was the first constituent to “file for divorce” from the ICC. At the time, the country was being investigated for possible war crimes during the recent outbursts of political violence. Civil unrest transpired after the incumbent president, Pierre Nkurunziza, declared he would be running for a third term.

Once considered as a “continental heavyweight” and avid supporter of the ICC in the 1990s, South Africa disappointed the ICC after failing to arrest Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir in June of 2015, who is wanted by the ICC for orchestrating wartime atrocities in Darfur. Despite a South African court order to arrest al-Bashir, the Sudanese head of state still managed to attend an African Union summit in Johannesburg and leave Pretoria unscathed. Even though Sudan is not a member of the ICC, the U.N. Security Council successfully referred the Darfur conflict to officials in The Hague. South Africa and the ICC clashed over the impunity afforded to current heads of state. Although the ICC has brought current presidents to stand trial, this practice is something that South Africa strongly disapproves of.

Peeved by the continual investigations into African affairs, the Gambian President Yahya Jammeh urged the ICC to divert its attention from Africa and instead probe further into the E.U.’s wrongdoings in today’s ongoing immigration crisis. In a public statement, Jammeh suggested that European countries be tried for the deaths of African migrants on the Mediterranean Sea.

“This action is warranted by the fact that the ICC, despite being called the International Criminal Court, is in fact an International Caucasian Court for the persecution and humiliation of people of color, especially Africans,” said Sheriff Bojang, who serves as Gambia’s information minister.

Conclusion

If more African states revoke their ICC membership, then the court’s stability will remain unclear, considering that 34 of the original 124 member states are from the continent. The ICC could very well lose its credentials if a mass exodus of African nations ensues. Attention is currently fixated on Kenya, which many fear may be the next African country to abandon the tribunal. Three years ago, the African Union pressured the ICC not to persecute incumbent heads of states. Such a proposal was made while Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta and his colleague, William Ruto, were expected to stand trial for the ethnic violence stemming from the contentious 2007 elections. Kenyatta became the first head of state to be tried by ICC, but the charges were dropped due to insufficient evidence.

“These challenges are best addressed not by diminishing support for the court, but by strengthening it from within,” said U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in a statement. “Deterring future atrocities, delivering justice for victims, and defending the rules of war across the globe are far too important priorities to risk a retreat from the age of accountability that we have worked so hard to build and solidify.”

In hopes of gaining more clout on the international stage, it would be advantageous for the ICC to appeal to non-members, such as the United States, Russia, and China. Without support from the mightiest of global contenders, the court remains a fledgling U.N. project that lacks the global support it needs to properly function. Considering that 57 additional members have signed the treaty since its creation, further recruitment is possible. Lastly, to restore trust among members, the court must demonstrate that it has clear standards and motivations in convicting war criminals outside of Africa.

Jacob Atkins

Jacob Atkins is a freelance blogger and contributor for Law Street Media. After studying print journalism and international relations at American University, Jacob now resides in Madrid where he is teaching English, pursuing multimedia reporting projects and covering global news. Contact Jacob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

http://jacobson.pressfolios.com/

The post Is the Fate of the International Criminal Court in Jeopardy? appeared first on Law Street.

Freedom of speech is at an all-time low worldwide, according to an annual report from the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ). As of December 1, 2016, there are 259 journalists imprisoned internationally, with Turkey accounting for nearly a third of the global total–making 2016 the worst year for journalists since the watchdog group began in 1990.

In its annual census, CPJ named Turkey as the most hostile nation against free press, with at least 81 imprisoned journalists facing anti-state charges–the highest number in any one country at any one time. Ranked 151^st out of 180 in the World Press Freedom Index, unprecedented levels of suppression and intimidation tactics are troubling signs of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s growing authoritarianism.

According to the CPJ, the arrests have accelerated due to an ongoing crackdown on media in Turkey following a failed coup d’état in July. By government decree, Erdoğan has bypassed Turkey’s judicial system to lawfully prosecute independent media companies for even remotely criticizing the establishment. These mandates have been justified by his administration as security measures against Kurdish insurgents or sympathizers of Fethullah Gülen, the self-exiled religious cleric living in rural Pennsylvania who is accused of masterminding the unsuccessful junta this past summer.

Reporters Without Borders is another organization keeping an eye on Erdoğan’s political developments. In November, the group condemned the arrests of ten employees at the Cumhuriyet opposition newspaper. Government forces raided the publication on November 5 for its perceived connections to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and the Gülen movement–both of which are outlawed in Turkey. The opposition newspaper was accused of “undermining national unity” and spreading propaganda for these alleged terrorist organizations.

Another anti-terrorism investigation involved the pro-Kurdish newspaper Özgür Gündem, whose print version has a circulation of roughly 7,500. Police stormed the paper’s offices and arrested 24 people after ruling that the paper acted as the “de facto news outlet” for Kurdish rebels. TurkSat, Turkey’s sole communications satellite operator, also removed more than a dozen independent TV and radio stations from its lineup due to allegations of “separatism and subversion.”

“The Turkish government’s decision to silence still more media outlets shows its growing intolerance of open political debate and dissent of any kind,” said Robert Herman, CPJ’s vice president of international programs. “The government this time targeted stations broadcasting in Kurdish and showed its disregard for the principles of democracy.”

This past year CPJ Europe and Central Asia Program Coordinator Nina Ognianova testified to the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee against Turkey’s media purge. Ognianova told the committee that Turkish authorities have detained more than 100 journalists, closed more than 100 media outlets, censored approximately 30 online news sources, and retracted more than 600 press credentials, since the failed coup attempt on July 15. Passports have also been reported as confiscated, including those belonging to family members of prominent critics of Erdoğan’s establishment. Such hostility is motivating many to go into exile or flee the country.

After Turkey, the countries with next highest numbers of jailed journalists are China and Egypt. China has frequently been named the world’s worst jailer of journalists in previous years, making the top spot 18 times to be exact. A total of 38 journalists were jailed in the country this year, due in large part to a crackdown on coverage of human rights abuses. As for Egypt, 25 were detained for reporting from prohibited areas in the country.

CPJ monitors nations around the world, paying close attention to journalists in government custody. Those held by non-state actors are not included in the list. Arrest statistics are incorporated into the report after the CPJ has verified that individuals were jailed for charges relating to their work.

Jacob Atkins

Jacob Atkins is a freelance blogger and contributor for Law Street Media. After studying print journalism and international relations at American University, Jacob now resides in Madrid where he is teaching English, pursuing multimedia reporting projects and covering global news. Contact Jacob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

http://jacobson.pressfolios.com/

The post Turkey Jailed Record Number of Journalists in 2016, CPJ Says appeared first on Law Street.

This November, the state of Maine “could change the face of democracy in America,” according to a recent article in Foreign Policy. Lauded as the second-most important election on November 8 by author Larry Diamond, the New England state is predicted to adopt a new voting system where gubernatorial, legislative, and senatorial candidates would be required to earn the majority of votes to secure power. Originally brought forth by a citizens’ initiative with over 61,000 signatures, the Maine Ranked Choice Voting Initiative (Question 5) is currently on the state ballot. If passed, Maine would become the first state to replace plurality with ranked-choice voting (RCV). Considering that Maine has a long history of multi-party elections, this hierarchal arrangement (where candidates are ranked on an ordinal scale) is designed to break away from today’s embedded two-party system–all while encouraging residents to vote for candidates they actually believe in. Not only could this measure set a new precedent for Maine politics, but it could also potentially motivate the rest of the country to redefine statewide elections.  

How It Works

If the referendum passes, the Pine Tree State would become the first to officially veer away from the “winner takes all approach” that has dominated American politics for decades. Also known as instant-runoff voting or preferential voting, Maine’s proposed system would require residents to rank political contenders in order of preference. Supporters of this approach believe it would ensure that the winner actually possesses broad appeal among voters. Already enforced in several U.S. cities and a number of countries (including Australia, Ireland, Malta, and New Zealand), many praise RCV for its potential to strengthen democratic institutions and empower less prominent candidates to fully participate in (and potentially win) political races.

In instances where a candidate does not yield more than half the votes during the first round of tallying, an “instant-runoff” would occur where the person with the least amount of support would be removed from the race. If a voter ranked the eliminated candidate as their top preference, then their vote would go  to their second-highest choice. By enforcing RCV, voters’ opinions won’t be diluted or forced to conform into a single vote. Depending on how many candidates are running, this process would repeat itself until somebody earns more than 50 percent of the votes.

Why is This Relevant to Maine & the Nation

Over the course of Maine’s history, plurality voting has allowed unpopular candidates to win by small margins. Since 1974, only two out of the past 11 elected governors earned a majority vote. During these gubernatorial races, five of these competitors came out victorious with less than 40 percent support. The most recent example of this trend is seen with Republican governor Paul LePage, whose “successes have been largely dependent on splitting the vote between Democrats and independents.” The incumbent governor won the election with 38 percent of the vote in 2010 and 48.2 percent in 2014.

Some also say that he represents a new era in Maine politics based on his hostility toward rival Democrats and racist remarks against people of color. Recently the public official made headlines for attributing Maine’s heroin crisis to black and Hispanic people, as well as vowing to veto every bill from Maine’s Democratic legislature until they approve his motion to eliminate the state income tax.

Seeing that LePage draws many comparisons to Donald Trump, it’s interesting to note that the Republican presidential nominee did not earn over 50 percent of the popular vote during the primaries and caucuses–instead he won the plurality of votes. Based on a report by FairVote, it’s possible that Trump wouldn’t have won the Republican contest if RCV was utilized based on simulated Super Tuesday results.

Possible Outcomes

A recent poll by the New Hampshire Survey Center saw that 48 percent of Maine voters were in favor of the referendum, while 29 percent were opposed to the measure and 23 percent were undecided. If implemented, ranked choice voting would restore the fundamental tenants of majority rule, requiring that officials earn an absolute majority (50 percent, plus one vote) to hold office. Voting “yes” on Question 5 would therefore make bipartisan elections less predictable by giving third parties more of a viable opportunity to participate in statewide general elections. Citizens would no longer feel dissuaded from “throwing away a vote” by voting for third-party candidates, which has been a common sentiment throughout this year’s presidential election. Instead of feeling obligated to vote for a candidate you don’t completely condone, RCV safeguards a diversity of public opinion.

“We need a system that works–where candidates with the best ideas, not the biggest bank accounts have a fighting chance,” said Dick Woodbury, who is part of The Committee for Ranked Choice Voting in Maine. “You should never have to vote for the ‘lesser of two evils’ when there is another candidate you really like.”

For candidates to have successful campaigns, they will also be required to appeal to a wider range of constituents in order to receive more general support. Essentially this would eliminate strategic voting (voting for one candidate to ensure the other one loses) and discourage politicians from investing in negative campaigns against their competitors, according to the Committee for Ranked Choice Voting in Maine.

Critiques Against the Referendum

A prominent argument made against RCV involves its alleged complexity. After decades of utilizing plurality rule, voters may need to acquaint themselves with new procedures and logistics. Since RCV functions best with multi-party elections, this system would also require voters to be better educated about candidates and their platforms. Nonetheless, this could require voters to invest more time and effort in order to make informed decisions. Certain opponents, such as Maine Republican State Representative Heather Sirocki, also consider RCV to be unconstitutional based on Maine law. Sirocki argues that plurality is woven into the Maine constitution, saying that the election of governors and state senators or representatives require “a plurality of votes” to determine the winner. 

“Until recently, I assumed that all measures placed on the ballot were lawful. I was wrong,” wrote Sirocki in an op-ed featured in The Maine Wire. “Blatantly unconstitutional questions may appear on the ballot as long as enough valid signatures are certified by the Secretary of State.”

An additional constitutional concern for RCV is the manner in which the votes will be calculated. It is specified in the Maine constitution that votes must be tabulated at a municipal level. The implementation of RCV, however, could require a different process for counting ballots. Critics are particularly disapproving of this caveat due to the inflated levels of time and money required to facilitate a election. Enacting RCV would likely cost more than Maine’s current $248,000 budget for elections.

Conclusion

With the legal challenges surrounding Question 5 laid out on the table, the referendum would certainly necessitate an amendment to Maine’s current constitution. In the event that Maine votes “yes” on the initiative, its final application would be contingent upon a two-thirds approval of Maine’s legislature and voter approval at a state-wide referendum. As far as legality goes, Maine Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap remains confident that his state’s legal framework can be altered via statewide plebiscites or the legislative process.

“It’s a matter of opinion,” said Dunlap. “Formally, everything considered and passed either by the people directly or through their representatives in the Legislature is considered to be constitutional unless and until challenged successfully before the Law Court. The folks in the black robes have final say on constitutionality.”

There may be a ripple effect throughout the country if Mainers decide to pass Question 5. As the national election quickly approaches, many Americans seem dissatisfied (not to mention misanthropic) over this year’s outcome. Simply put, neither the Republican or Democratic nominee are well-liked among a majority of citizens. The federal incorporation of RCV, however, would alleviate two major criticisms of the American electoral system: ensuring that the winner truly has the approval of the electorate and empowering voters to support their first choice–regardless of whether or not they are truly capable of winning or not. If RCV were to be federally implemented someday, candidates like Bernie Sanders, Jill Stein and Gary Johnson would possibly be better equipped to someday compete against today’s uncompromising bipartisan culture.

Resources

Ballotpedia: Maine Ranked Choice Voting Initiative, Question 5 (2016)

Bangor Daily News: Maine Group Launching Campaign for Ranked-Choice Voting

Bangor Daily News: LePage: I’ll Veto Every Democratic Bill Until Legislature Agrees to Kill Income Tax

FairVote: Simulating Instant Runoff Flips Most Donald Trump Primary Victories

Foreign Policy: The Second-Most Important Vote on Nov. 8

League of Women Voters of Maine Education Fund: Ranked Choice Voting Basics

The Maine Wire: Ranked Choice Voting: Wrong for Maine & Blatantly Unconstitutional

New York Times: How Controversial is Gov. Paul LePage of Maine? Here’s a Partial List

Portland Press Herald: Our View: Ranked-Choice Petition First Step Towards Reform

Portland Press Herald: Ranked-Choice Voting: Costly, Complicated, Undemocratic 

Portland Press Herald: Question 5 Advocates Try to Allay Confusion About Ranked-Choice Voting

Vox: Maine Could Become the First State in the Nation to Have Ranked Choice Voting

 Editor’s Note: This article was updated on 10/31/2016 to clarify language on the possible ramifications of Ranked Choice Voting in Maine. 

Jacob Atkins

Jacob Atkins is a freelance blogger and contributor for Law Street Media. After studying print journalism and international relations at American University, Jacob now resides in Madrid where he is teaching English, pursuing multimedia reporting projects and covering global news. Contact Jacob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

http://jacobson.pressfolios.com/

The post Citizens’ Initiative in Maine Calls for Ranked-Choice Voting appeared first on Law Street.

Communities in southwestern Haiti were devastated when Hurricane Matthew struck the Tiburon Peninsula on October 4, 2016. Accompanied by rapid winds, heavy rainfall, and subsequent flooding, the Category 4 storm on the Saffir-Simpson scale killed at least 1,000 people, destroyed countless homes, and displaced thousands. Approximately 2.1 million people have been affected, 1.4 million need humanitarian aid, 750,000 need urgent help, and 806,000 are at an extreme level of food insecurity. Haiti, which is roughly the size of South Carolina, was ill-equipped to withstand another natural disaster. For the past six years this Caribbean country has been trying to recuperate from the 2010 earthquake that left more than 200,000 dead (according to Haitian government figures) and wreacked havoc upon a preexisting weak infrastructure. Now history seems to be repeating itself.

Communication networks are down, crops were destroyed, and roads have been blockaded by debris–making it all the more strenuous for citizens to receive the assistance they desperately need. Simultaneously burdened by two catastrophes, once again Haitians are bracing themselves for another cholera outbreak. Yet with limited financial resources and crumbling medical facilities, some hospitals don’t even have enough gasoline to put into ambulances or any antibiotics left to ward off the waterborne disease.

“Needs are growing as more affected areas are reached,” said UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, whose organization recently pledged $120 million for humanitarian aid in Haiti. “Tensions are already mounting as people await help. A massive response is required.”

Oftentimes referred to as the “republic of NGOs” (non-governmental organizations), Haiti rarely receives the aid it is promised. Although some would consider the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere to be susceptible to certain ailments (like inclement weather and bad governance), the reality of the situation is that Haitians haven’t gotten the necessary support to thrive as a sovereign nation after decades of economic exploitation, American military intervention, and poorly implemented aid projects.

Colonial History

Much of Haiti’s tumultuous past stems from its colonial predecessors: Spain and France. From 1492 to 1625, the island of Hispaniola (present-day Haiti and the Dominican Republic) was administered by Spain. Originally the native Taíno inhabited the island, but the Arawak group was essentially wiped out after Christopher Columbus and his fellow voyagers brought infectious diseases. During this era, however, a variety of European powers were competing for geopolitical power and resources in the Caribbean. The 1697 Treaty of Ryswick allowed France to inherit Haiti from Spain in order to mitigate conflict between the two colonial powers. The western third of the island became “Saint-Domingue” under French rule, while Spain maintained its sphere of influence in the neighboring Dominican Republic.

Throughout the 1700s, Haiti became the wealthiest colony in the “New World”–making up more than a quarter of France’s economy in the process. During the peak of the Transatlantic Slave Trade, however, such wealth was only achieved through brutal means. Thousands of enslaved Africans were brought over to the French territory to perform backbreaking labor on Haiti’s many sugarcane plantations. This exploitation continued until 1801 when a successful slave revolt defeated the French army, making Haiti the first black republic in 1804. However, in order to achieve international recognition and persuade French warships to leave Haitian harbors, Haiti was coerced in 1825 into paying their oppressors an “independence debt” worth 150 million gold francs. Valued at approximately $21 billion by today’s standards, this large sum of money was meant to compensate French colonists for their lost profits. Although the remaining $36 million of debt was forgiven by the World Bank in 2010, some attribute this initial debt to having predisposed Haiti to immense economic shortcomings. 

The United States has also contributed to Haiti’s myriad of problems. Concerned about European rivals in 1914, former President Woodrow Wilson deployed American troops in Haiti to ensure that no other country would try to exert influence in the region. Another reason why the United States interjected was the political instability of Haiti. In fact, between 1888 and 1915 no Haitian president managed to complete their seven-year term due to numerous military coups, assassinations, and deaths of natural causes. American intervention lasted from 1914 to 1934 until President Franklin Roosevelt enacted his “Good Neighbor Policy.” Following three decades of American occupation, despotic dictatorships under François “Papa Doc” Duvalier and his son Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier plummeted the country into further political and economic turmoil. Democracy was only temporarily restored with the appointment of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, who was temporarily ousted in a 1991 military coup.

American Intervention & Clinton Administration Controversies

In contrast to other American politicians, Bill and Hillary Clinton have made Haiti a focal point of their foreign policy, but that focus hasn’t been without controversy. In the early 1990s Bill Clinton won the love and admiration of many Haitians after helping the democratically-elected President Aristide return to office after he was ousted in a 1991 coup. However, this was only accomplished by enforcing another U.S.-led intervention that lasted approximately two years. Ever since then, Washington has played an immense role in dictating Haitian politics and economics. While serving as Secretary of State, for example, Hillary Clinton’s administration was accused of threatening to withhold foreign aid to Haiti if the 2010 presidential elections didn’t yield the candidate Washington desired. Additionally, the highly anticipated Caracol Industrial Park–a 600-acre textile factory meant to provide much-needed jobs to Haitians–was a Clinton Foundation project. The Clinton Foundation promised it would create 60,000 jobs in five years, but the enterprise only employs approximately 5,000 laborers as of mid-2015.

Other adverse effects of American involvement can be found in Haiti’s agriculture and economy. For example, during Bill Clinton’s presidency, Haiti became more dependent on international imports. Pressured by the United States, the Haitian government was persuaded to lower tariffs on imported food (including rice) from 50 percent to about three percent–making their main export less valuable in the process. Instead of growing their own rice, Haitians started to rely more heavily on exported rice, therefore becoming less capable of feeding themselves with domestically-grown products. 

The Clintons were also accused of mishandling 14.3 billion dollars of donation money that was intended to go toward relief efforts following the 2010 earthquake. Under Ban Ki-moon’s jurisdiction, Bill Clinton became the UN envoy to Haiti tasked with spearheading relief efforts. Based on a report by neoconservative group PJ Media, though, this money allegedly went to “friends of Bill” instead.

Effectiveness of Non-Profits

Among the estimated 10,000 non-profits operating out of Haiti, perhaps the most notorious is the American Red Cross. Normally held in high regards, the humanitarian organization pledged to help Haiti rebuild itself after the fatal 2010 earthquake. The charity managed to fundraise approximately $500 million through soliciting donations. The money was supposed to fund the construction of new homes, roads, schools, etc., but after six years it appears as though the Red Cross has not fulfilled its promises. In fact, it’s unclear where all the money even went.

This past summer ProPublica and NPR conducted an extensive investigation that revealed a series of fabrications and haphazard estimations among the samaritan group. The joint effort examined an array of confidential memos and emails from administrative higher-ups that show how “the charity has broken promises, squandered donations, and made dubious claims of success.”

One of the most garish falsifications involved housing. Apparently, the Red Cross claimed to have built homes for over 130,000 people in the neighborhood of Campeche in Haiti’s capital Port-au-Prince, but in reality only six were constructed. Another controversial discovery is the amount of overhead costs that the Red Cross gives to its employees, which more often than not are non-Haitians. For example, a project manager working in Haiti receives an allowance of $140,000 meant to cover housing, food, paid trips home, four vacations a years, and relocation expenses. In contrast, a Haitian senior engineer earns $42,000 a year. Because of such disparities, Haitian non-profits are known for perpetuating inequalities among a small group of wealthy foreign elites–most of whom cannot speak Haitian-Creole, nor French.

Conclusion

Despite the UN’s current attempts to rejuvenate Haiti, even it isn’t immune to scrutiny–especially when it comes to the ongoing health crisis surrounding cholera. The fact of the matter is that Haiti was cholera-free for over a century before UN peacekeepers reintroduced the infectious disease back to the island. Cholera is a fast-spreading infectious disease known for causing severe diarrhea and dehydration. As certain reports have proven, waste generated from UN facilities crept into a river, which in the end contaminated other nearby bodies of water. Since fresh water was scarce in Haiti to begin with, now it is even more difficult to find sanitary water to drink or bathe in.

“The need for a new UN response that both controls and eliminates cholera and compensates the victims who have suffered so much is now more dire than ever,” said Beatrice Lindstrom, who serves as a human rights lawyer with the Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti.

Haiti will continue to be plagued with problems if the impoverished country is unable to properly recover from disease outbreaks like this, as well as devastating natural disasters. Decades of economic exploitation, flawed aide efforts, and further interference and exploitation from other countries inhibit this country’s ability to thrive as a sovereign nation.

Resources

Al Jazeera: Ban Ki-moon in Haiti Inspects Matthew’s Damage

Al Jazeera: Haiti Death Toll from Hurricane Matthew Passes 1,000

Alternet: How America and the Rest of the World Ruined Haiti

BBC: Haiti Quake Death Toll Rises to 230,000

BBC: The Long History of Troubled Ties Between Haiti and the US

TIME: The World Must Not Abandon Haiti to the Devastation Left by Hurricane Matthew 

The Daily Beast: How Hillary Helped Ruin Haiti

Foreign Policy in Focus: Are Foreign NGOs Rebuilding Haiti or Just Cashing In?

The Guardian: Hollande Promises to Pay ‘Moral Debt’ to Former Colony Haiti

Miami Herald: In Post-Hurricane Haiti, a Picture of the Human Toll Begins to Emerge

NPR: In Search of the Red Cross’ $500 Million in Haiti Relief

Newsweek: Reasons Behind Haiti’s Poverty

New York Times: Cholera Deaths in Haiti Could Far Exceed Official Count

PJ Media: Former Haitian Senate President Calls Clintons ‘Common Thieves Who Should Be in Jail’

Politico: The King and Queen of Haiti

ProPublica: How the Red Cross Raised Half a Billion Dollars for Haiti and Built Six Homes

Reuters: World Bank Cancels Remaining Haiti Debt

London Review of Books: Who Removed Aristide?: Paul Farmer Reports From Haiti

Editor’s Note: This post has been updated to correct the year in which the Treaty of Ryswick was signed. 

Jacob Atkins

Jacob Atkins is a freelance blogger and contributor for Law Street Media. After studying print journalism and international relations at American University, Jacob now resides in Madrid where he is teaching English, pursuing multimedia reporting projects and covering global news. Contact Jacob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

http://jacobson.pressfolios.com/

The post Haiti’s History of Disappointments: Intervention, Exploitation, and NGOs appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this month Polish nationals fought for their reproductive rights after the ruling Law and Justice Party (PiS) tried to pass a bill designed to criminalize abortions. The proposed statute, which was originally brought forth by an anti-abortion citizens’ initiative and encouraged by the Catholic church, aimed to completely outlaw abortions unless the mother’s life was threatened. Prison sentences for illegal procedures would have also increased from two to five years, in addition to penalizing surgeons who perform unlawful operations.

In the wake of such a proposition, a series of protests dubbed “Black Monday” disrupted the ordinance from gaining further momentum in the predominately Catholic country. Three days after these events unfolded, the Sejm (the lower house of the Polish parliament) overturned the bill in a 352-58 vote–proving the power of an active citizenry. Considering how successful these protests were in persuading the government to discard the bill, Poland nonetheless has an array of political and cultural challenges to overcome before women achieve total self-autonomy. The following article delves into some of these obstacles.

The Magnitude of “Black Monday”

On a conceptual level, these historic actions were inspired by an Icelandic strike in 1975, where 90 percent of the country’s female population abandoned their jobs and domestic duties to denounce rampant workplace discrimination. Propelled by this example, protests were held throughout Poland and other surrounding countries on Monday October 3, 2016. Solidarity events took place in Berlin, Dusseldorf, London, and Paris, although the largest of these assemblies occurred in the Polish capital of Warsaw where approximately 30,000 individuals (clad in black clothing) gathered to rebuke the religious-based injunction. Such an outpouring of support surprised many, considering people only had a day’s notice to prepare for the event. Some even boycotted school and work to show their commitment to the cause.

“The protest was bigger than anyone expected. People were astonished,” said one activist, Agnieszka Graff. “Warsaw was swarming with women in black. It was amazing to feel the energy and the anger, the emotional intensity was incredible.”

During an interview with NPR, Reuters staff member and Polish citizen, Justyna Pawlak, also explained how the protests caught on like wild fire, despite the lack of initial planning:

There wasn’t a real kind of serious organization committee. And what’s interesting is, you know, Poland, as you said, is a very conservative country still, even though the power of the church and the – kind of the sway of the church over the heart and soul of churchgoers has been waning, bishops still have a lot of – a lot of influence over how people vote and how they think. There’s still quite a lot of opposition for abortion on demand in Poland, but many women felt that these new proposed restrictions just simply went too far.

An Unforeseen Political Response

Following these nationwide protests, the Justice and Human Rights Committee of the Polish parliament urged the PiS to reconsider the ordinance. PiS Chairman Jaroslaw Kaczynski surprised many by taking this suggestion to heart after witnessing the intensity of the Black Monday demonstrations. According to the Wall Street Journal, the right-wing politician realized that a total ban could potentially have adverse effects later down the road. From his perspective, a complete ban would only embolden future efforts among liberal politicians to ensure unabated access to abortions someday. In the end, Kacynski’s remarks resonated among other senior politicians and even the Catholic clergy, who couldn’t endorse prison sentences for women seeking abortions.

“What you’re proposing isn’t the right course of action,” said Kaczynski. “Considering the situation in the society, what you’re proposing will be a factor that will start processes whose effect will be exactly opposite to what you’re talking about.”

Poland’s Strong Catholic Roots

Compared to other countries in the European Union, Poland’s pre-existing reproductive laws were already among the most restrictive because of the nation’s Catholic roots. Last year approximately 1,000 women received legal abortions, which could only be fulfilled if the fetus was severely damaged, if the mother’s life was jeopardized, or if the pregnancy was caused by incest or rape. Although the recently initiated bill was not ratified, these stipulations still exist today. Faced with such barriers at home and fear of stigmatization, an estimated 150,000 illegal abortions are performed every year in facilities with questionable sanitary conditions. Keeping this in mind, thousands of Polish women also travel abroad to receive abortions, especially in nearby countries such as Germany, Czech Republic and Slovakia–termed “abortion tourism.”

These aforementioned policies began in 1993 as a means to replace Poland’s communist-era policies where abortions were once easily obtainable. With 95 percent of the country identifying as Catholic, it is widely acknowledged that the church yields profound “moral authority” over the population and influences people’s political decisions. Some doctors are reluctant to even facilitate abortions, even if the mother’s survival is in peril or if a pregnancy is a result of rape. There have been noted cases where doctors deliberately delayed approving abortions until the twelfth week when it’s too late to remove the fetus. Back in 2012, for example, officials tried to persuade a 14-year-old from opting out of an abortion after being raped. Another problematic incident transpired when a vision-impaired mother, Alicja Tysiąc, was forced to follow through with her pregnancy regardless of the dangers it presented to her eyesight. This brings up the question of human rights and whether or not Poland’s reproductive policies are disregarding Polish women’s wellbeing.

Interest groups such as the Stop Abortion coalition and think-tank Ordo Iuris are still actively trying to enact prohibitive laws against abortions. After all, they are the lobbyists responsible for presenting the Polish parliament with more than 400,000 signatures to start the bill in the first place. At first these groups’ endeavors were backed by the Catholic church. In the long run, though, the clergy could not promote a law allowing for the imprisonment of women and health practitioners. 

Conclusion

Public opinion over abortion appeared to drastically change once the protests materialized. Recent polls indicate that the majority of Poles now disapprove of the ban, not to mention desire the existing set of reproductive laws to become more liberalized. The Economist says that today only 14 percent of Poles condone the original ban (in hindsight), making it highly unpopular among today’s general populace.

The participants of Black Monday may have set a new precedent for other countries with restrictive abortion laws, but pro-choice activists still have a lot of work cut out for them. Certain political parties are currently drafting their own anti-abortion bills and trying to push them into legislation. For example, it is reported that PiS is pushing for a “eugenic abortions” bill that would criminalize abortions for fetuses with abnormalities–meaning that the three existing stipulations for abortions would be dwindled down to only two. So far in PiS’s tenure in Polish parliament, the group has also cut state funding for in-vitro fertilization as well as drafted legislation to ban and criminalize the morning-after pill.

To prevent further “medieval regulations” from being placed on the agenda, Poland’s opposition party, Nowoczesna (meaning “modern” in Polish), have pledged to provide women with more reproductive freedom. The liberal party partnered with the Save the Women group to plan the Black Monday protests. According to them, illegal abortions could cease to exist if the Polish government decided to introduce sex education into the classroom, allocate state-funded contraception, as well as provide wider access to qualified doctors.

Resources

BBC News: Poland Abortion: Parliament Rejects Near-Total Ban

CBC News: Poland’s Proposed Ban on Abortion Part of Broader Push to Turn Back History

Center for Reproductive Rights: Tysiąc v. Poland: Ensuring Effective Access to Legal Abortion

The Conversation: The Battle Over Abortion Rights in Poland is Not Over

Economist: Polish Women Skip Work to Protest Against an Abortion Ban

The Guardian: Poland’s Abortion Plan Near Collapse After Mass Protests

New York Times: Poland Steps Back from Stricter Anti-Abortion Law

NPR: Poland Backs Down on Abortion Plan After Extraordinary Protests

Reuters: Abortion Protests Rattle Polish Ruling Party, May Prompt Rethink

Reuters: Europe Rights Court Condemns Poland in Abortion Rape Case

Reuters: More Polish Women Seen Seeking Abortions Abroad

Vox: Poland Votes Down an Extreme Abortion Ban After Thousands of Women Go on Strike

Wall Street Journal: Poland Rejects Abortion Ban After Protests

Washington Post: Why Would Poland Make its Already Strict Abortion Law Draconian?

Jacob Atkins

Jacob Atkins is a freelance blogger and contributor for Law Street Media. After studying print journalism and international relations at American University, Jacob now resides in Madrid where he is teaching English, pursuing multimedia reporting projects and covering global news. Contact Jacob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

http://jacobson.pressfolios.com/

The post Poland’s Abortion Protests: What was “Black Monday?” appeared first on Law Street.

A political gridlock has rattled Spain for the past nine months, leaving the country without a national government and with a fractured legislature. Officials within this parliamentary constitutional monarchy simply haven’t prevailed in forming a coalition government among longtime feuding politicians. Operating under stressful conditions, the 350-seat assembly in the lower house of Congress cannot reach a consensus over the fate of Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy and his contested People’s Party (PP). In spite of the group’s initial landslide victory in 2011, today the Spanish parliament (known as “Cortes Generales” in Spanish) is divided on whether or not the incumbent should be allowed to claim minority-rule within the estranged governmental system. The past two attempts to hold national elections were inconclusive due to the PP failing to earn a majority vote, despite receiving the highest numbers during the first plebiscite on December 20, 2015. 

For all intents and purposes, Spain is still a relatively young democracy. The death of former dictator Francisco Franco in 1975, for example, permitted the restoration of democratic rights and the development of a stringent two-party structure split between conservatives and socialists. With Spanish politics more stratified than ever before in recent history, there are more competitors seeking political representation and trying to secure power–making negotiations all the more complex. The fact of the matter is that none of these parties have succeeded in gaining the majority vote throughout the past two elections, hence the ongoing volatility and third round of polling looming over Spaniards’ head. In acknowledgment of Spain’s dynamic intergovernmental structure, this article attempts to introduce readers to some of the most central characters and predicaments within this game of political charades.

The Important Players

Mariano Rajoy: Even with rampant opposition, Mariano Rajoy still serves as the “caretaker” Prime Minister of Spain and leader of the conservative-leaning PP. Ultimately, the native Galician aspires to serve a second-term as prime minister, which would theoretically end what some consider to be political mayhem. Easier said than done, though, considering the polarization of Spanish politics. Nowadays he is scrambling to regain power by trying to win a vote of confidence from his colleagues, which has yet to yield positive results considering the fierce opposition he faces from the Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party (PSOE).

Made evident by Rajoy’s fall from grace, many of these issues stem from the parliamentary requisite for an absolute majority–meaning that despite receiving the most votes in the past two attempted elections, the PP still lagged behind. Adding fuel to the fire, Rajoy’s reputation started to tarnish after his PSOE rival, Pedro Sánchez, accused him of financial corruption. Allegedly Rajoy was in cahoots with the former treasurer, Luis Bárcenas, in operating a “secret slush fund” for the PP’s campaign purposes. Today Bárcenas is serving time for corruption, money-laundering, and tax evasion after it was exposed that he hoarded 47 million euros in Swiss bank accounts.   

“I made a mistake in maintaining confidence in someone we now know did not deserve it,” said Rajoy, who maintained his party’s innocence. “Nothing related to this matter has prevented me, nor will it prevent me from governing.”

Pedro Sánchez: At the forefront of opposition against Rajoy is the former secretary general of the PSOE, Pedro Sánchez. Compared to other lawmakers, he and his deputies are influential players in hindering Rajoy’s attempts to form a minority government. Originally King Felipe of Spain appointed Sánchez to pioneer a new system following Rajoy’s decline. Earlier this month, though, Sánchez resigned after a tense 11-hour deliberation with fellow party members on October 1. Sánchez, who was considered to be Rajoy’s most prominent antagonist, was ousted after the party ruled against him in a 132-107 vote. Spirits appeared to be deflated after senior PSOE member José Antonio Pérez Tapias told reporters outside the assembly that “the party is broken.” Now that Sánchez is seemingly out of the picture, many Spaniards believe that Rajoy will finally be able to regain the support he needs to rejuvenate Spain’s central government.  

King Felipe VI: Looming over Rajoy and Sánchez is King Felipe VI of Spain, who certainly complicates today’s political conundrum based on how he plays “both sides of the fence.” For example, it is the king’s monarchical duty under the constitution to appoint (or rather endorse) an elected prime minister, but lately this seems more like a neglected formality. At this point in the political impasse, the head of state and commander-in-chief of Spain holds little clout when it comes to restoring order. King Felipe VI was originally responsible for endorsing Sánchez to pioneer a new and improved government after Rajoy’s foundation plummeted. However, Sánchez and his Socialist party also lack the necessary parliamentary support to win majority-rule as well–only possessing 85 seats of the 350-seat legislature. To add insult to injury, his attempts to beckon Rajoy to power (once again) were also unfruitful. 

Contributing Factors to the Political Paralysis

What all of these delegates have in common are earnest intentions to alleviate Spain’s long-standing economic issues. Following the aftermath of the 2007 economic crisis, 4.8 million Spaniards are jobless–leaving Spain with an unemployment rate of 20 percent, one of the highest in the developed world. In light of this national issue, two other parties have materialized to challenge the dual-partisan system and remedy the record-high unemployment rates. One of these groups is Ciudadanos (meaning “Citizens” in Spanish) led by Albert Rivera, one of the most popular Spanish leaders. The centre-left party forged an alliance with PP to create anti-corruption measures in parliament and help Rajoy find his way back into office. Conversely, there is also Unidos Podemos (meaning “United We Can” in Spanish) who are known for their staunch opposition against austerity measures and leftist-leaning ideologies. Pablo Iglesias, Unidos Podemos’ young charismatic leader, feels good about shaking up Spain’s status-quo.

“What happened was nothing short of revolutionary,” said Iglesias in reference to the collapse of Spain’s longstanding two-party arrangement in December. “Because even with an electoral system that promotes bipartisanship, we have this completely new landscape.”

Another indelible factor complicating Spain’s election is the stratification among regions vying for more autonomy, specifically in regards to Catalonia. Every political body appears to have a different opinion about their quest for sovereignty. The wealthy region where Barcelona is located recently promised to hold another referendum for independence in September of 2017, which will certainly infuriate certain individuals and potentially plunge the country into further confusion. PP and Ciudadanos are hesitant to approve the secession, PSOE is open to making constitutional changes, while Unidos Podemos is completely willing to allow the region to secede.

Conclusion

If a coalition government isn’t formed by October 31, then we can anticipate King Felipe VI will dissolve parliament and enforce a third-round of elections on Christmas day, which is an outcome many Spaniards are dreading. According to the Spain’s main newspaper El País, this would be an “unmitigated disaster.” Yet with Sanchez’s recent resignation, many speculate that Rajoy’s party now yields higher chances to obtain a true majority. Upcoming regional elections in Galicia and the Pais Vasco (Basque Country) are also expected to play important roles in determining the outcome of Spain’s national governance. Galicia’s highly anticipated election may serve in Rajoy’s favor considering that he is from the northern region himself and could prospectively align himself with the newly elected officials. For the time being, though, onlookers can expect a lot more negotiating and emblazoned attempts to form much-needed alliances. Let’s hope that the rivalries simmer down in the interim. 

Resources

Al Jazeera: Spain: Is This the End of the Socialists?

Financial Times: Spain: Political Stalemate in Madrid

The Guardian: Spain Eyes Basque and Galician Elections to Break Political Deadlock

The Guardian: Spain Moves Towards Rightwing Government After Socialist Quits

The Guardian: Unidos Podemos: Spain’s Leftwing Alliance Hoping to End Political Impasse

New York Times: Spain’s Interim Leader Bids to Form New Government

Reuters: Center-Right Roars to Victory in Spain Election

Reuters: Spain’s Socialist Leader Quits and Opens Door to End of Deadlock  

The Spanish Report: Pedro Sánchez Resigns As PSOE Leader

The Spanish Report: PP Wins Most Votes but Loses 63 Seats, Rajoy Says he will Try to Form a New Government

Sputnik News: Spain’s Citizens and People’s Party Ink Alliance Deal Before PM Investiture Vote

The Telegraph: Spain’s Mariano Rajoy Reels Under Corruption Charges in TV Debate

Wall Street Journal: Spain’s Socialist Leader Resigns in Potential Breakthrough to Country’s Political Impasse

Jacob Atkins

Jacob Atkins is a freelance blogger and contributor for Law Street Media. After studying print journalism and international relations at American University, Jacob now resides in Madrid where he is teaching English, pursuing multimedia reporting projects and covering global news. Contact Jacob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

http://jacobson.pressfolios.com/

The post Dreaded Third Round of Elections Predicted for Spain: How Will it Escape Political Gridlock? appeared first on Law Street.

The appearance of one’s hair may seem like a trivial or superficial matter to some. For students at South Africa’s Pretoria High School for Girls or PHSG, however, hair is an integral part of their cultural identity–and it’s currently under attack. Fed up with being told that they look “exotic” or distracting to others, or chastised for speaking their own local languages, these young girls have taken to the streets to protest the institute’s dress code and code of conduct as inherently racist. 

Pupils at the prestigious all-girls school, which became racially integrated in 1990 (four years before apartheid ended), have historically been penalized for adorning “natural” hair in the form of afros or cornrows more than a centimeter wide. Girls at the school have been forced to straighten or chemically “relax” their hair to satisfy the school’s standards. Those who fail to conform to such regulations face possible disciplinary action that not only deducts from valuable class time, but also contributes to the development of low self-esteem and a sense of inferiority.

“You weren’t welcomed into any assembly; you’d most probably be kicked out of class,” said Tiisetso Phetla, a recent graduate of the PHSG, about the consequences of looking too “native.” “So it basically took away your learning time, it took away your right to education and the image of beauty that you possess of yourself because that’s what they were telling you, that you’re not good enough to be here with your natural hair.”

Despite the abolition of apartheid more than 20 years ago, many black South African students say the country’s current education system continues to be full of racial inequalities that force them to assimilate into a foreign culture.  This country is still healing from decades of systematic segregation and marginalization, but policies against natural hair are just the tip of a much larger, problematic iceberg.

History of Apartheid-Era Policies

Before apartheid was enacted in 1948, black schools fell under the jurisdiction of missionaries and churches, meaning they were relatively autonomous from white minority rule. Educational inequalities were exasperated when the National Party centralized the nation’s education system under the Bantu Education Act of 1952. This mandate segregated South Africans into “population groups,” deliberately depriving blacks from receiving a quality education. The architects of apartheid justified such arrangements with the false advocation of a “Christian National Education,” saying that “the task of white South African with regard to the native is to Christianize him and help him culturally.” 

South Africa’s Department of Education was unevenly partitioned by race as a result of the Bantu Education Act, with black schools receiving the least amount of funding, resources, and qualified teachers. The ordinance also determined the length of time students had to be in school, which of course varied by one’s perceived ancestry. While whites were obligated to be enrolled in school from the ages of seven to fifteen, black students were only expected to attend from seven to thirteen, if at all. By limiting access to the classroom and keeping access to education low, the blatantly racist act ensured that blacks remained part of the poorer working class. Considering that students at PHSG can lose classroom time for simply wearing their hair in its natural form, today’s circumstances have opened old wounds for many South Africans.

Has the Rainbow Nation Fulfilled its Promises?

Originally, when democracy was introduced in South Africa in the early 1990s, education was touted as the key to solving South Africa’s economic and social inequities. As the World Bank put it in a 2010 report, “development through education would lead to freedom.”

Yet some scholars believe South African schools function under “de facto” segregation. More specifically, only white students can afford to study at private institutes, while black students and students of other ethnicities are left with resource-scarce schools. All things considered, these educational barriers have magnified economic disparities for people of color in South Africa. Fact of the matter is that blacks earned 20 percent of what their white counterparts were making in 1994 when apartheid formally ended. Considering that blacks are still on the lower-end of the economic spectrum, they still have less means to pay for schooling, and are therefore less likely to attend school at all.

Post-apartheid South Africa also saw a shift in policies, from being race-based to race-blind. What this means is that although South African schools cannot legally deny admission to somebody based on their race, black learners are still in overwhelmingly black schools. The majority of African students continue to live in rural areas or geographically isolated urban communities, which reinforces apartheid-era restrictions that forced blacks to reside in their own separate communities that were typically off the grid. This has made white schools all the more whiter. Therefore, schools are being segregated by default without overt racial discrimination ever being brought into the picture.

Present-Day Movement for Equal Rights

Equal Education, a South African civil rights group, was not surprised by the recent discrepancies from PHSG. The organization, which is comprised of activists, educators, students, and parents alike, strives to mobilize stakeholders in finding democratic solutions to these oftentimes neglected problems. For example, the committee implores the Department of Basic Education and provincial education departments to be adequately trained on matters of diversity and human rights. According to a press release on its website:

Racist prejudice is being expressed in the language of undemocratic school governance. South Africa’s schools continue to be dominated by hierarchical and authoritarian power relations. Just as racism must be rooted out of these institutions, so too must their modes of governance be transformed so that it will not be possible for learners to be victimized like this in future.

Students from PHSG are also joining a much wider educational reform effort aiming to dismantle and “decolonize” the remnants of apartheid throughout South African schools. For example, proposed tuition increases in 2015 resulted in massive demonstrations last October, which later came to be known as the #FeesMustFall movement. At the epicenter of this activity were black South Africans who (aware of previous precedents) thought such proposals were deliberate means to exclude them from receiving an education. They succeeded in persuading South Africa’s president, Jacob Zuma, to prevent a tuition hike from being legalized, but recently the Minister of Higher Education and Training, Dr. Blade Nzimande, said that it should be up to a university’s discretion to raise tuition or not. Protests are still ongoing. 

Similarly, a documentary entitled “Luister“ (which translates to “listen” in Afrikaans) showcased 32 interviews from black students at Stellenbosch University–all of whom discussed their trials and tribulations at allegedly one of the most racist schools in South Africa. Dan Corder, a literature student at the University of Cape Town, produced the 35-minute film in 17 days after his friend was penalized for protesting against the school’s language policy, which they say clearly favors Afrikaans speakers. In fact, many South African public schools (like PHSG) and universities shun local African dialects and only conduct classes in the colonial language.

“Being black within the Stellenbosch community you know that you’re not accepted and you kind of ask yourself what’s wrong with me, like what did I do wrong?” said one interviewee. “In the beginning I actually started to assimilate, you know, wanting to lose myself and attain whiteness. Maybe this will work better and they’ll accept me more because I’m trying to be like them. And I realized that I cannot do that. I’m not willing to sell my soul to whiteness. I have to be proudly black.”

Conclusion

Following nationwide demonstrations, an online petition that garnered more than 30,000 signatures, and a meeting with parents, administrators in Gauteng province suspended PHSG’s code of conduct surrounding in response to the protests over hair. The Head of Education, Panyaza Lesufi, also announced that an investigation will soon commence over accusations of racism.

“The code of conduct […] is insensitive to different people and discriminates badly against black pupils as it asks them to straighten their hair,” said Lesufi. “ That is not fair because some pupils have natural[ly curly] hair so we have agreed with the student governing body that it be suspended.”

Resources

Primary

Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy: Racial Equality in Education: How Far has South Africa Come?

Additional

CNN: South African Students Protest Against School’s Alleged Racist Hair Policy

The Guardian: Luister: the Viral Film Exposing South Africa’s Ongoing Racism Problem

The Guardian: South African Students Speak Out Against ‘Aggressive’ Ban on Afro Hair

NPR: Girls At South African High School Protesting Hair And Language Bans

The Washington Post: Protests Over Black Girls’ Hair Rekindle Debate About Racism in South Africa

The Washington Post: South Africa’s Student Protests are Part of a Much Bigger Struggle

Education Equality: We Demand an End to Prejudicial School Codes of Conduct!

Stanford University: A Brief History of Educational Inequality from Apartheid to the Present

The World Bank: South Africa’s Long Walk to Educational Equality

South Africa: Overcoming Apartheid, Building Democracy: Bantu Education

Jacob Atkins

Jacob Atkins is a freelance blogger and contributor for Law Street Media. After studying print journalism and international relations at American University, Jacob now resides in Madrid where he is teaching English, pursuing multimedia reporting projects and covering global news. Contact Jacob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

http://jacobson.pressfolios.com/

The post Apartheid-Era Racism?: South African Students Protest Discrimination in Education appeared first on Law Street.

Tensions between residents of Okinawa Prefecture in Japan and stationed American soldiers have reached a new boiling point. Last week court officials in the prefectural capital of Naha rejected incumbent Governor Takeshi Onaga’s bid to close down the disputed Marine Corps Air Station Futenma in Ginowan. The resolution signified the first official judicial ruling over the complex reclamation project that was ignited in 1996 after three American soldiers were convicted of abducting and murdering a 12-year-old girl. Long-time opponents were once again outraged over the recent slaying of 20-year-old Rina Shimabukuro by former U.S. Marine and current military contractor, Kenneth Franklin Shinzato.

Onaga’s administration teamed up with locals to urge the national government to scrap the foreign airbase altogether, but Prime Minister Shinzo Abe followed through on his resolution to relocate the contested encampment into a less populated region of Japan’s southernmost province. Keep reading to learn more about how the Okinawa is struggling to achieve self-autonomy after decades of American military intervention.

History

A historical perspective is necessary to fully grasp such a political conundrum. During World War II Okinawa (formerly known as the sovereign Kingdom of Ryukyu) experienced some of the bloodiest fighting and conflict against the Allied Powers, particularly due to its strategic location between the South China Sea and Pacific Ocean. Some accounts say that up to 70,000 Japanese soldiers and 150,000 civilians died in the Battle of Okinawa, which wasn’t as widely documented as the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. After the United States defeated Japan, Washington controlled Okinawa for 27 years until it became reincorporated on May 15, 1972.  However, the United States government managed to maintain its military installations throughout the island after signing a bilateral security treaty to end the war. Today there are over 25,000 American personnel deployed at 32 American military bases located on Okinawa, which occupy approximately 20 percent of the island’s total landmass.

Before Governor Onaga was elected in December of 2014, former Governor Hirokazu Nakaima permitted the construction of a new American military base in Nago, which is where Futenma will likely be relocated. The legislation has yet to be implemented, however, due to such widespread opposition throughout Okinawa. Prime Minister Abe’s recent resolution, though, now allows operations to formerly begin.

Local Opposition

Over the years, Okinawa’s citizens haven’t been keen on such arrangements, especially in terms of the noise, congestion, and crimes stemming from American troops in the area. Resentment against the United States heightened last spring after an American serviceman confessed to raping and murdering 20-year-old Rina Shimabukuro. Responding to the confession, an estimated crowd of 65,000 gathered in Naha to rally against the U.S.’s long-term military influence. A civil society group called All Okinawa Kaigi organized the event, with assistance from Okinawa’s current governor, politicians, and provincial mayors. Governor Onaga himself was elected to office based on his advocacy for limiting both the central government and the U.S.’s jurisdiction over the island.

“The government should know that the anger of the people in Okinawa is almost reaching a limit and it is not [right] to sacrifice Okinawa people for military bases anymore,” said Governor Onaga at the event. Determined to take matters into his own hands, Governor Onaga has not only requested Prime Minister Abe arrange a personal meeting with President Obama, but also presented a case to the UN Human Rights Council.

Anti-American sentiments are not uncommon in the Japanese prefecture after a series of violent crimes initiated massive protests and resistance. Prior to Shimabukuro’s murder, a 12-year-old girl was gang raped by three American personnel in 1995. This event in particular is what prompted the relocation project to begin in the first place. Even more recently in March of 2016, an American sailor raped a Japanese tourist in her 40s as she slept in her hotel.

In a report published by Women in Action Against Military and Military Bases, approximately 180 Japanese female civilians were raped between 1945 and 1997–22 of whom were less than 20-years-old. The study also examined how American soldiers are still committing war crimes against Japanese women. In addition to these sexual crimes, locals have also felt threatened by the imminent threat of catastrophe. For example, a military jet lost control in 1959 and ended up crashing into an elementary school where 17 people were killed and 121 were injured. Moreover, local activists are concerned about the possible environmental damage the relocated Futenma base could have on Nago’s ecosystem. Reports say that Nago Mayor, Susumu Inamine, has began mobilizing residents to resist the upcoming construction project.

Why are Some Japanese Supportive of American Military Bases?

Unlike Governor Onaga, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has condoned American military presence in Okinawa at one time or another. A prominent blog on Japanese culture, Tofugu, explains how the arrangements benefits Japan in terms of increased geopolitical stability. Japan is surrounded by some of the world’s most confrontational superpowers like China, Russia, and North Korea, and has few allies throughout the region after the damage it inflicted upon other countries in World War II.  It’s plausible that the Japanese government feels more secure with American soldiers stationed in such close proximity due to China’s increasingly assertive presence in the South China Sea. Yet the question sill persists–is Okinawa bearing the brunt of Japan’s national security concerns?

The United States has been rewarded by the provisions, which allow Washington to yield authority in East Asia if prompted and keep close tabs on perceived adversaries in the vicinity. The Heritage Foundation also contends that American military presence assists Washington in pursuing its diplomatic interest and deterring would-be aggressors from attacking the region.

Although Prime Minister Abe is trying to preserve cooperation with the Obama Administration, he did not veer away from expressing disapproval toward the American president during a recent joint-news conference.

“This is an unforgivable crime, and I have expressed our anger,” said Abe during a press conference with President Obama ahead of the Group of Seven Summit. “It has shocked not just the Okinawa people but also all the people of Japan.” Abe also vowed to work to prevent future violence, such as Shimabukuro’s murder, saying, “I have asked the president to carry out effective measures to prevent a recurrence of such crimes.”

Conclusion

President Obama expressed his condolences in a historic visit to Hiroshima over Memorial Day Weekend. Some analysts worried that the newest island scandal would threaten the post-World War II alliance between the U.S. and Japan, but both countries seem steadfast in resolving such matters.

“We will be fully cooperating with the Japanese legal system in prosecuting this individual and making sure that justice is served,” said President Obama in response to Shimabukuro’s murder. “We want to see a crime like this prosecuted here in the same way that we would feel horrified and want to provide a sense of justice to a victim’s family back in the United States.”

Washington has responded to these controversies by imposing certain restrictions on its constituents, such as prohibiting off-base alcohol consumption. The policy change came after an American sailor injured two Japanese civilians while driving intoxicated last September. Along those lines, part of Prime Minister Abe’s rationalization for relocating the contentious Futenma marine airbase to the island’s rural south is that deployed Americans will be farther away from crowded residential areas. Considering that locals are still averse to the resolution, Governor Onaga’s rivalry with Prime Minster Abe (and the Washington establishment) is likely to continue until Okinawa can truly disassociate itself from American troops.

Resources

Heritage Foundation: Top 10 Reasons Why the U.S. Marines on Okinawa Are Essential to Peace and Security in the Pacific 

TNI: The Human Rights of Children and Women Under the US Military Administration: Raped Lives

Tofugu: Japan’s Sacrificial Lamb–The Okinawa Military Base Controversy

Al Jazeera: Japan Court Clears Way for US Okinawa Base Relocation

Al Jazeera: Ex-US Marine Charged with Rape, Murder of Okinawa Woman

Al Jazeera: Voices of Okinawa: Standing Against a US Military Base

Al Jazeera: Japan Protests Alleged Rape by US Sailor

CNN: Japan: Okinawa Murder Provokes Protests Against U.S. Bases in Okinawa

International Business Times: Japan to Halt US Okinawa Base Relocation Work But Government Says Plan Intact

Japan Times: What awaits Okinawa 40 Years After Reversion?

Japan Times: Okinawa Suspect Allegedly Admits to Rape of Women Before Killing Her

Japan Times: Okinawa Gov. Takeshi Onaga Asks Abe to Set up Meeting With Obama

Japan Times: Anger Over Okinawa Murder Grows Despite Obama’s ‘Deep Regret’ Over the Incident

Sputnik News: Japan’s Okinawa Requests to Shut Down US Marine Base Construction

USA Today: Tens of Thousands Protest on Okinawa to Close Key U.S. Bases in Japan

The Washington Post: Okinawa Murder Dominates Talks Between Obama and Abe

Jacob Atkins

Jacob Atkins is a freelance blogger and contributor for Law Street Media. After studying print journalism and international relations at American University, Jacob now resides in Madrid where he is teaching English, pursuing multimedia reporting projects and covering global news. Contact Jacob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

http://jacobson.pressfolios.com/

The post A Complicated History: Japanese Court Blocks Bid to Close Down American Military Base in Okinawa appeared first on Law Street.

Politicians threatening to build extravagant walls as a means to prevent refugees from entering the country are not exclusive to the likes of Donald Trump in the United States. Last week British Immigration Minister Robert Goodwill announced that the United Kingdom and France plan to erect an “anti intrusion” barrier in the northern French city of Calais. Projected to span half a mile, stand more than 13 feet tall, and cost over $2.6 million, the purported “Great Wall of Calais” will be funded by the British government to hinder would-be immigrants from illegally crossing the English Channel. The development signifies only a fraction of a $22.7 million collaborative Anglo-Franco project designed to heighten security measures between the two nations.

With construction supposedly beginning later this month, read on to learn about the complicated humanitarian crisis currently unfolding in one of Europe’s largest refugee settlements.

Welcome to the Jungle

On the outskirts of Calais lays a conglomeration of makeshift homes tokened as “The Jungle” due to the dense and oftentimes unpredictable living arrangements. While the French government proclaims the population of this community hovers around 7,000, local activists say the actual number exceeds well over 9,000 and growing daily –with roughly 70 newcomers arriving every day.

Image Courtesy of [malachybrowne via Flickr]

Migrants began to move into the area in 1999 with the formation of the original Sangatte refugee camp. Over the years the spot has emerged as a controversial haven for citizens fleeing Northern Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia. Despite its closure in 2001 and 2002 by former French president Nicolas Sarkozy, migrants intending to someday relocate to England have resiliently (and perhaps strategically) stayed put. Largely attributed to Calais’ short distance from Dover, England (less than 30 miles away), the settlement predominantly attracts prospective asylum seekers adamant about making the United Kingdom their new home.

Together these men, women, and children live in highly challenging living conditions with minimal resources, not to mention face the constant threat of expulsion and ridicule from the local populace. Ironically enough, the decision to create a buffer between England and France comes after the British government was approached to accept 400 parentless refugee children. Specifically, some children living within the tent city were previously separated from their families, some of whom now reside in England.

In an attempt to solicit a stronger humanitarian response from the United Kingdom, the Archbishop of Canterbury has proven to be one of the most vocal advocates for reuniting these family units, urging Parliament to expedite the process more efficiently. Today the encampment is experiencing dire food shortages and children prone to malnutrition. Currently the Refugee Community Kitchen says that there isn’t enough donated food remaining to feed all of the residents, meaning some people are being turned away.

How Could England Justify a Wall?

Many migrants in Calais are hesitant to formally register as refugees in France due to their intentions to someday relocate to England–leaving them in “legal limbo” according to a Washington Post article. Since the growing settlement is situated directly across from a major highway, historically it has been plausible for refugees to easily reach the point of crossing over to England. Because of The Jungle’s close proximity to the industrial road leading directly to the channel, some refugees clandestinely hide on trucks and ferries to reach their desired destination.

Regardless of the safety hazards presented, this past July it was estimated that up to 2,000 migrants try to illegally cross the English Channel every night. More specific numbers show that prospective migrants try to sneak into the United Kingdom every six seconds with more than 84,000 border arrests made last year–the majority hailing from Calais. In 2015 the migrant crisis made headlines when approximately 235 illegal migrants bombarded a ferry en route to England.

“People are still getting through,” said Goodwill, who spearheaded the verdict. “We have done the fences. Now we are doing the wall.” 

Logistically speaking, giant slabs of concrete will replace the trajectory of barbed wire already placed along the highway leading to the ferry terminal and underground tunnel to completely cut access. Goodwill rationalized his decision to assemble a wall by claiming it would amplify security in order to dissuade refugees from illegally traveling on England-bound lorries. 

The French Perspective

Certain French officials would put an end to the sprawling camp in a heartbeat. Back in February the French government vowed to dismantle a portion of the encampment that serves as a home for more than 1,000 people. Such animosity intensified recently after 100 migrants broke down a fence to reach the Eurotunnel terminal.

Based on a New York Times report, the prefect for Calais’ administrative department, Fabienne Buccio, is trying to incentivize migrants to abandon such squalor and move into state-run shelters or other immigration centers situated across France.

“I think that it is time to tell the migrants in Calais, who are still living in conditions that are not dignified and that are not desirable: ‘We really have a solution for you, there are no more reasons for you to stay in these conditions,’ ” said Buccio.

Earlier this summer French truck drivers and residents of Calais protested outside the outpost. A fleet of approximately 40 trucks and a number of farming vehicles marched on the highway leading to the waterway. According to the demonstrators, migrants are resorting to hazardous tactics in their pursuit to cross the English Channel. An Al Jazeera video report featured below also discusses how some migrants slashed truck tires to enter large vehicles and hide within the cargo. The CEO of the Calais port, Jean-Marc Puissesseau, expanded upon this trend saying that refugees place tree trucks, branches, and gas cylinders along the road to halt traffic and sneak into vehicles.

“This wall is going to prevent migrants from invading the highway every night,” said Puissesseau. “We can no longer continue to put up with these repeated assaults.”

Protesters also demanded that the French government compensate local businesses for the gradual loss of tourism revenue throughout the region. Locals say that the presence of refugees tarnished the city’s reputation.

Opposition to the Decree

Numerous civil society groups in both England and France have condemned their countries for their unwillingness to provide aid to these individuals forced to flee their homes out of fear of death or persecution. One grassroots organization in England called Worldwide Tribe, for example, aims to fight prejudice against refugees in Calais with compassion.

“We’re not politicians, we don’t pretend to have all the answers, and we’re not charity workers,” said Jasmine O’Hara, a member of the Worldwide Tribe in Calais, in 2015 to The Guardian “We’re just normal people from Kent who want to help our fellow human beings with their basic needs.”

The current circumstances are also soliciting a strong response from certain members of the French Green Party, such as Jean Lambert.

“The decision to build a wall in Calais is the latest wrong move in what is the ongoing scandal of the handling of the plight of refugees in northern France,” said Lambert, who serves as a migration spokeswoman for the British Green Party. “The UK government must get its act together.”

Surprisingly enough, the mayor of Calais, Natacha Bouchart, is dubious of the upcoming project as well. From her perspective, constructing a wall would be frivolous when the city government is determined to shut down the campsite as soon as possible and supposedly assist refugees in finding alternative housing solutions. Even British truck drivers within the UK’s Road Haulage Association disapprove of the recent announcement, calling it a “poor use of taxpayer money.” Some say that funneling funds into better security precautions along the roads (specifically) would be a better investment.

Conclusion

Doctors Without Borders declared that 35 migrants from The Jungle have died while attempting to cross the English Channel. According to the non-profit organization, this proclaimed wall is likely to increase the death toll in the coming months as refugees will try to find alternative methods in reaching England–endangering their lives more so in the process.

“Further investment from the UK in security measures in the area around Calais, prioritizing deterrence over a safe and humane management of the situation, will only further the suffering of those people who remain in deplorable conditions in squalid camps,” said Executive Director of Doctors Without Borders for the British branch, Vickie Hawkins. “So far deterrence measures have not proven that they fulfill their objective, rather they have created a policy-made humanitarian crisis in northern France.”

Resources

The Local: Everything You Need to Know About the Calais Wall

Al Jazeera: UK Slate Over Planned Anti-Refugee Wall in Calais

CNN: UK to Build ‘Big New Wall’ in Calais to Stop Migrants

Redice.TV: Massive Concrete Wall Planned for Calais to Keep Migrants Out of Britain

The Washington Post: Britain and France to Construct ‘Great Wall of Calais’ to Keep Migrants From Port

The New York Times: France to Dismantle Part of Migrant Camp Near Calais

Sputnik News: Building Wall at French Calais Could Cause Humanitarian Crisis in Refugee Camp

The Huffington Post: ‘Great Wall of Calais’ Refugee Migrant Barrier to be Build in France, Robert Goodwill Confirms

BBC News: Why is There a Crisis in Calais?

Reuters: Food Shortages Hit Calais ‘Jungle’ Camp as UK urged to Accept 400 Children

The Independent: Britain to Build 13ft High Wall in Calais to Block Refugees From Entering the UK

Editor’s Note: The post has been edited to reflect that the French government has vowed to dismantle only a portion of the Calais encampment, rather than all of it.

Jacob Atkins

Jacob Atkins is a freelance blogger and contributor for Law Street Media. After studying print journalism and international relations at American University, Jacob now resides in Madrid where he is teaching English, pursuing multimedia reporting projects and covering global news. Contact Jacob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

http://jacobson.pressfolios.com/

The post The “Great Wall of Calais”: The UK’s Controversial Plan to Stop Migrants appeared first on Law Street.

Since becoming president of the Philippines on June 30, Rodrigo Duterte has primarily been consumed with ridding his country of drug-related crimes. This past Friday, however, the Filipino head of state officially declared a “state of lawlessness” after alleged Islamists attacked a marketplace in his hometown of Davao. Only a tier down from enforcing martial law, this latest decree now permits police and military forces to halt vehicles or frisk civilians at their total discretion.

“We have to confront the ugly head of terrorism,” said Duterte on Friday, September 2. “We will take this as a police matter about terrorism.”

Sources say that Abu Sayyaf was responsible for the attack that killed 14 and injured around 70 in the city where Duterte served as mayor for more than 22 years. Categorized as a terrorist organization by both the Philippines and the United States, the militant group is considered to be an ally of the ISIS and originally funded by al Qaeda.

Equipped with over 400 members, the insurgents are committed to forming a sovereign Islamic state on Mindanao Island, which is also where Davao is located. Known for conducting ransoms and abducting foreigners to help fund their endeavors, Abu Sayyaf’s latest operation transpired as Filipino forces led an offensive attack against the separatists in Sulu province.

Now anticipating more attacks, currently Davao is under tight surveillance with numerous checkpoints scattered throughout the city of two million people. Even though Abu Sayyaf has claimed responsibility for Friday’s detonation, “The Punisher” president is adamant about investigating other potential culprits. Bearing in mind that more than 2,000 Filipinos have been extrajudicially killed since Duterte took office, such military progressions are troubling signs that violence may intensify in the upcoming weeks.

“These are extraordinary times and I supposed that I’m authorized to allow the security forces of this country to do searches,” said Duterte while visiting the battered marketplace. “We’re trying to cope with a crisis now. There is a crisis in this country involving drugs, extrajudicial killings and there seems to be an environment of lawless violence.”

Duterte’s Controversial Track Record with Human Rights

During his candidacy Duterte gained widespread support for his “no nonsense” platform against drugs–yet 10 weeks into his presidential tenure the international community had already condemned Duterte’s policies as draconian. Although he is praised by some for his disciplinarian approach to combating drug addiction in the Philippines, others lament the manner in which he is allowing citizens to be persecuted without any legal representation.

According to Sputnik News, Duterte could very well resort to using similar tactics in his response to Abu Sayyaf’s recent belligerence. For example, as police units continue to collaborate with neighborhood patrol squads, accused drug users are being rounded up in “knock and plead” operations where they are expected to voluntarily surrender or face retaliation.

Criticized for encouraging vigilante violence by offering rewards to would-be assassins, the professionally trained lawyer has also angered the United Nations for his observed disregard on human rights, saying that “junkies are not humans” to begin with and that they’re not worthy of second chances.

On top of this, Duterte earned the reputation for being unapologetically brash after making some disparaging comments over the rape and murder of an Australian missionary in 1989–saying, “I was angry she was raped, yes that was one thing. But she was so beautiful, I think the mayor should have been first. What a waste.”

Jacob Atkins

Jacob Atkins is a freelance blogger and contributor for Law Street Media. After studying print journalism and international relations at American University, Jacob now resides in Madrid where he is teaching English, pursuing multimedia reporting projects and covering global news. Contact Jacob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

http://jacobson.pressfolios.com/

The post Filipino President Rodrigo Duterte “Confronts Ugly Head of Terrorism” appeared first on Law Street.