Police in India have arrested at least 15 people for celebrating too vividly after Pakistan beat India in a cricket match that took place in London on Sunday. The two neighboring countries have traditionally had a hostile and competitive relationship, and that also extends to the sports world. The men were arrested on suspicion of sedition, a charge that could carry with it ineligibility for government jobs or even life in prison.

Most arrests were made in the state of Madhya Pradesh in central India, after a neighbor called the police complaining about cricket fans who were shouting anti-India slogans and lighting firecrackers. Police seized 15 men aged 19 to 35 on charges of sedition and criminal conspiracy in the Burhanpur district.

“They expressed hatred toward India and friendship toward Pakistan. They are charged for sedition and criminal conspiracy,” said Ramasray Yadav, a police officer who took part in the arrests. However, he also said the men shouted slogans expressing their love for India while in detention.

15 Muslim men arrested in India for celebrating Pakistan’s victory over India in the Champions Trophy cricket final https://t.co/8xLdAgh5UT pic.twitter.com/e0EGmcZz9J

— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) June 21, 2017

The neighbor who called in the complaint that led to the arrest of the 15 men is Hindu, while all the suspects are Muslim. And India is not free from Islamophobia. Muslims are a minority there, and many say they are experiencing an increase in violence and hostility, targeted because of their religion. Leaders of the ruling party BJP have tried to paint Muslims as violent and dangerous and accused them of scheming to rid India of Hindus.

Recently there have been several violent attacks on Muslims after people have accused them of killing, selling, and eating cows. Cows are holy in India, so slaughtering them is illegal. What Human Rights Watch calls self-appointed “cow protectors” have made it their task to crack down on Muslims suspected of stealing cows.

Since May 2015, at least 10 Muslims, including a 12-year-old boy, have been killed because of “cow protector”-related violence. On April 21, a mob of people brutally attacked a nomad family, including a nine-year-old girl and an elderly man. After their assault they set the family’s home on fire.

Pakistan, on the other hand, is mainly Muslim. Tensions between Pakistan and India turned so bad a few years ago that the annual cricket competitions had to be cancelled. Scheduled peace talks have been repeatedly abandoned for the past three years, and there seems to be no end to the conflict over the disputed area of Kashmir.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Indian Police Arrest at Least 15 for Celebrating Pakistan’s Cricket Victory appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, the Associated Press revealed that South Sudanese troops went on a nearly four-hour violent rampage, where they raped foreign aid workers and killed a local journalist near the country’s capital of Juba. The worse part is, the nearby U.N. compound and the U.S. Embassy knew, but did nothing.

For three long years, Juba has been the center of a civil war between President Salva Kiir and the opposition forces led by Riek Machar. During the course of the war, both sides have often targeted civilians. But on July 11, soldiers celebrating a battle win in the capital attacked the Terrain hotel complex, which is a temporary home to many foreign aid workers, expats, and members of the Sudanese elite.

Residents of Terrain heard shouts and gunfire, while  between 80 and 100 men armed, drunk, and wearing the symbol of the President’s army broke into the hotel complex. Security guards at the hotel armed only with handguns didn’t stand a chance.

The soldiers began their rampage inside the complex by stealing phones, computers, and wallets. Then they beat up foreigners with their rifles–seemingly singling out Americans–and fired bullets close to people’s heads.

A man from the Philippines said the soldiers definitely had hatred for America, recalling one soldier saying: “You messed up this country. You’re helping the rebels. The people in the U.N., they’re helping the rebels.”

Three women interviewed by the AP said they were raped–one of them by 15 men. One of the women said security advisers from an aid organization had told them they would never be the target of an attack since they were foreigners. She claimed this exchange happened half an hour before they were assaulted.

Local journalist John Gatluak was killed for having the same tribal markings as Machar. A soldier shot him twice in the head and four more times in other parts of his body.

Many sent texts, emails and Facebook messages to people on the outside, pleading for help.

“All of us were contacting whoever we could contact. The U.N., the U.S. embassy, contacting the specific battalions in the U.N., contacting specific departments,” said the woman raped by 15 men.

But why didn’t the U.N. or the U.S. Embassy do anything to stop the attack? According to an internal timeline compiled by the U.N. that was obtained by the AP, a member of the U.N.’s Joint Operations Center in Juba first received word of the attack at 3:37 p.m, minutes after the breach of the compound.

Then over the course of the next hour, the timeline noted more U.N. staff members began receiving messages from inside Terrain. At 4:33 p.m., a Quick Reaction Force was informed; however it wasn’t until 6:52 p.m.–more than two hours after first the first message–that the U.N. Department of Safety and Security (DSS) declared it would not be sending a team.

Ethiopians from the U.N. mission were asked to send a Quick Reaction Force instead, but the emergency team took too long and the mission was abandoned. The U.N.’s Department of Safety and Security also asked Quick Reaction Forces from China and Nepal to intervene, but no one did.

“Everyone refused to go. Ethiopia, China, and Nepal. All refused to go,” said an American man who alerted U.N. staff of the attack after being released early from the compound.

According to the U.N. timeline, a patrol was supposed to go the following morning instead, but it “was cancelled due to priority.” When asked why no one responded, the U.N. said that it is investigating the matter.

But the U.N. isn’t the only organization facing blame. The U.S. Embassy was also asked for help, and reportedly never answered the American citizens trapped inside the hotel. The Embassy also did not respond to repeated requests for comment from AP.

The foreign aid workers in the field are there to help local civilians, but when they themselves become targets of attacks, the U.N. and their embassies should be the first ones to assist them. Instead, they were ignored when they begged for help.

Human Rights Watch is now calling for increased sanctions and an arms embargo on South Sudan.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post South Sudanese Soldiers Raped Foreigners, While the U.N. Did Nothing appeared first on Law Street.

After significant public controversy, Facebook is making some edits to its problematic “real name” policy. The company received criticism after requiring that users use their “real names,” and allowed other users to flag when someone wasn’t adhering. But critics argued that this policy led to harassment and complications, particularly for the LGBTQ community, performers who go by different names, those who are attempting to hide their identities, and groups whose “real names” didn’t fit the narrow rules prescribed by Facebook–particularly those from Native American backgrounds. But in response to that outcry, Facebook is now making some changes to this policy that should benefit all.

Previously, Facebook required users to use their “real names,” or some semblance of that name. There were a few reasons that Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg gave for this policy–including the fact that that it’s easier to find people to connect with when we all use legal names. Additionally, Zuckerberg made the argument that requiring “real names” made it less likely that fake profiles could be used for harassment.

There have been complaints about this policy for a while, but an open letter written recently by a variety of advocacy groups accelerated the discussion. Authors of the letter included the ACLU and the Human Rights Watch, and as a whole represent:

Transgender and gender variant people whose legal names don’t accord with their gender identity.

People who use a pseudonym or name modification in order to protect themselves from physical violence, legal threats from repressive governments, or harassment on the basis of gender, sexuality, religion, or political activities.

People who have been silenced by attackers abusing Facebook’s “Fake Name” reporting option.

People whose legal names don’t fit the arbitrary standards of “real names” developed by Facebook, such as Native Americans, other ethnic minorities, and members of the clergy.

These individuals have often had a hard time reclaiming their profiles after being accused of using “not real names.” More dangerously, sometimes Facebook has reinstated profiles with an individual’s legal name instead of the one they were previously using, possibly outing them or exposing them to violence. Read the full letter below:

In response to this letter, Facebook has announced that it will be making a couple changes to the policy that will help alleviate these concerns. To start, users will be able to provide context to Facebook about the name they choose when they sign up for an account. This will allow Facebook to understand why someone might have difficulty verifying their identity. The other change is that users who flag others for “fake names” will have to explain why they’re flagging an individual, to ensure it isn’t just for harassment purposes. Finally, Facebook will make it easier for those who have been locked out of their accounts due to the policy to regain access. While Facebook hasn’t totally changed its tune, it is a good step in the right direction.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Facebook Makes Changes to Problematic “Real Name” Policy appeared first on Law Street.

The Human Rights Watch is an independent organization dedicated to protecting human rights domestically and around the globe. This week, they have released an extensive 126-page report called “An Offer You Can’t Refuse: How US Federal Prosecutors Force Drug Defendants to Plead Guilty.”

The argument focuses on the issue of mandatory minimums—certain crimes in which convictions automatically require a minimum punishment, such as a given amount of years in prison. One example of a mandatory minimum is the three-strikes law, which requires that if an individual is found guilty of a third felony charge, they have a mandated harsher sentence. Mandatory minimums are especially controversial in drug cases—there are certain types of drugs like painkillers and hard drugs that mandate harsh sentences.

Supporters argue that certain crimes deserve uniformly appropriate punishments. After all, we’ve all seen what happens when judges are allowed sole discretion in deciding punishments—the recent case of Stacey Dean Rambold, who was given only a 31-day sentence for raping an underage girl. Critics of the law argue that it does not allow the accused to be charged on a more appropriate case-by-case basis. They also argue that it leads to a countless number of unfair convictions and sentences, such as these examples. Ninety-seven percent choose to plead guilty.

Another issue with mandatory minimums is that they only refer to types of drugs and amounts, not the actual job of the person being charged. For example, a kid who is working as a courier can be charged with selling large quantities of drugs, instead of the actual drug dealer facing charges.

The report released by the Human Rights Watch details how these mandatory minimum requirements in drug cases are being manipulated. Prosecutors give defendants the choice: either go to trial, and if convicted, face harsh mandatory minimums, or plead guilty to a lower sentence than the mandatory minimum. According to this report, they also threaten to add charges to the crimes, such as prior drug convictions, or if they had a weapon at the time they were arrested.

Given that some of these mandatory minimums can be a life sentence, this offer is incredibly enticing.

The Human Rights Watch report looked at a number of cases in which defendants pled not guilty, and the results were devastating. For example, a woman named Sandra Avery, who was characterized as a small-time drug dealer, was offered a sentence of 10 years for possessing 50 grams of crack cocaine with intent to sell. She turned it down, and instead chose to go to trial. She is now serving life in prison without parole.

The HRW report calls this a “trial penalty.” They explain that a trial is a right within the United States, but that for those who have been forced to plead guilty for fear of an unreasonable sentence, that right has been taken away. The relevant statistics that the HRW gathered are convincing—as noted in the report, “the average sentence for federal drug offenders who pled guilty was five years, four months; for those convicted after trial, the average sentence was sixteen years.”

This report will most likely add to a growing sentiment that mandatory minimums need to be revisited. After all, Attorney General Eric Holder has made his feelings on them clear—he has stated that the laws need to change. Hopefully, this report will continue that discussion, and changes will be made to ensure that everyone does receive the due process of law.

[Human Rights Watch]

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Tori Rector via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How U.S. Prosecutors Force Drug Defendants to Plead Guilty appeared first on Law Street.