Last Tuesday, the European Union Court of Human Rights upheld Belgium’s 2011 ban on wearing the full-face veil, also known as the niqab, in public places.

This decision comes after two Muslim women mounted a legal challenge to the ban, claiming that it violated their civil rights. Belgian national Samia Belcacemi and Moroccan national Yamina Oussar both say they voluntarily choose to wear the niqab and that in not being able to, their right to religious freedom is being infringed upon.

Oussar reportedly told the court that she decided to stay home after the ban was introduced in fear of legal repercussions. Belcacemi continued to wear the veil for a period, but stopped because of societal pressure and fear that she would be heavily fined.

Under the law, individuals who fail to comply with the law regarding full-face coverings face penalties ranging from a hefty fine to imprisonment for repeat offenders.

The European Court of Human Rights upholds a Belgian ban on wearing the full-face niqab veil in public pic.twitter.com/S1unR1Y4Dq

— AFP news agency (@AFP) July 11, 2017

Siding with Belgium’s legislature in a unanimous vote, the seven-person panel said a statement that the ban is “necessary in a democratic society” and that the Belgian law is meant to ensure “public safety, equality between men and women and a certain concept of living together in a society.”

A hot-button issue in Europe

The topic of people’s freedom of religious expression in the public sphere has been at the forefront of European politics for several years now.

Belgium is not the first country to take a stance against the niqab or burqa. France banned full-face veils in 2010, and since then, at least 10 other European countries have placed limitations on Islamic dress. Just last month, Norwegian legislators proposed a ban on full-face veils in public schools and universities. The bans are largely seen as a response to the influx of refugees in the region. In Belgium, the 2016 terror attacks have also intensified the debate.

Federal Pensions Minister Daniel Bacquelaine, a member of Belgium’s Reformist Movement party, said on Twitter he was delighted at the court’s announcement, which he believes will strengthen Belgians’ ability to live together.

“To forbid the veil as a covering is to give them more freedom,” Baquelaine said back in 2010 before the law passed. “If we want to live together in a free society, we need to recognize each other.”

Since the E.U. court’s decision, human rights groups have expressed their discontent with the ruling.

“Fostering human relations is a laudable goal,” wrote Hillary Margolis, the Women’s Division Researcher at Human Rights Watch. “But forcing women to choose between wearing what they want and being able to appear in public isn’t the way to do it.”

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post EU Human Rights Court Upholds Belgian Ban on Full-Face Veil appeared first on Law Street.

Clay Higgins, Did You Seriously Think This Was a Good Idea?

Somehow, Louisiana Congressman Clay Higgins thought filming a video for his re-election campaign inside a gas chamber in Auschwitz was a good idea. Higgins is no stranger to controversy: last month he said that the U.S. should hunt down and kill all Islamic terrorism suspects. In the video clip, he talked about the importance of homeland security and making sure the country is safe from “the evils of the world.”

Negative reactions were swift. The Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial and Museum denounced the video, tweeting that the concentration camp is “not a stage.”

Everyone has the right to personal reflections. However, inside a former gas chamber, there should be mournful silence. It’s not a stage. https://t.co/AN5aA1bYEU

— Auschwitz Memorial (@AuschwitzMuseum) July 4, 2017

Some people questioned whether Higgins was aware of the context–the brutal genocide propagated by the Nazis was not an external threat but an internal one. One Twitter user wrote that Auschwitz should also stand “as a reminder of what demonization of people by the state can lead to.” The U.S.-based Anne Frank Center denounced the video in harsh terms, calling it “a global disgrace.” Yesterday, Higgins apologized and said that his intent was to remind people that evil exists, which most of us are all too aware of already. “I have retracted my video…and my sincere apology for any unintended pain is extended,” he said in a statement.

DISGUSTING. @RepClayHiggins your infomercial at Auschwitz a global disgrace. Apologize. Get sensitivity training or a new job. #NeverAgain pic.twitter.com/ddjf7EhwMc

— Anne Frank Center (@AnneFrankCenter) July 5, 2017

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 RantCrush Top 5: July 6, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, a Bangladeshi diplomat in New York was charged with labor trafficking and assault for allegedly forcing his servant to work up to 18 hours a day without pay. The man couldn’t escape his situation as the employer, Mohammed Shaheldul Islam, had taken his passport and threatened to kill his mother and son.

Forty-five-year-old Islam is the deputy consul general for Bangladesh. According to authorities, he hired Mohammed Amin to be his servant and organized for him to come to the U.S. in 2012. But when he arrived, Islam took his passport and made Amin work for up to 18 hours a day. He said if Amin left, he would have his mother and son killed and “shame” his daughter.

Islam is also accused of beating Amin if he wasn’t obedient enough, with his hands or with a wooden shoe. He didn’t pay him, but Amin did make a little bit of money working at parties and events that Islam organized. But even then, Islam took the tip money and gave Amin a check back, so that it would look on paper as if he was given a paycheck.

Islam is now facing 33 charges for grand larceny, assault, labor trafficking, unlawful imprisonment, and more. “The long list of 33 charges in the indictment is a clear indication of the shocking depth of the deprivation and abuse allegedly meted out by this diplomat against his helpless domestic worker,” said Phil Robertson of Human Rights Watch in Asia.

Arranging for countrymen to accompany diplomats to serve as household help is common for South Asian diplomats. But in 2013, Indian deputy consul general Devyani Khobragade was arrested on charges of labor trafficking, also in New York. She had forced her housekeeper and nanny to work for $1 dollar an hour, for 100 hours a week. Shortly after that Islam started writing checks for Amin’s tip amounts, to create the illusion of a regular paycheck.

Khobragade’s arrest caused relations between the U.S. and India to worsen. People in India were outraged at the news–not because of the rich diplomat’s treatment of her employee, but because U.S. officials had arrested her outside her daughter’s school and strip-searched her. Many also argued that the housekeeper was far better paid than domestic workers in India.

Preet Bharara, then the United States Attorney in Manhattan, commented on it at the time. “One wonders why there is so much outrage about the alleged treatment of the Indian national accused of perpetrating these acts, but precious little outrage about the alleged treatment of the Indian victim and her spouse,” he said.

Experts say the cases that are actually prosecuted are only the tip of the iceberg–the practice of using servants under slave-like conditions is probably much more common than we know.

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 Bangladeshi Diplomat Allegedly Forced Unpaid Aide to Work 18-Hour Days appeared first on Law Street.

Prime Minister Theresa May addressed activists on Tuesday about where human rights fall on her priorities following Saturday’s attack in London and the Manchester bombing in late May. “And if our human rights laws stop us from [tackling extremism and terrorism], we’ll change the law so we can do it.” she said to a crowd in Berkshire, England.

This statement follows her speech on Sunday in which she presented a four-point plan toward combatting terrorism, and comes only 36 hours before polls open for Britain’s snap election this coming Thursday. Polls show her lead continuously shrinking. May also added that she wants to make it easier to deport foreign terror suspects and monitor the movement of those suspects when there is a fear that they pose a threat but there’s not enough evidence to prosecute them.

While many are familiar with the human rights atrocities Britain has committed in its various roles as a colonial power, violations within its borders may come as a slight surprise to some. But May’s statements become less surprising with some context:

What “human rights laws” currently govern Britain?

There are two sets of laws that Britain currently abides by: the European Convention of Human Rights and the 1998 Human Rights Act. The former was ratified in 1953 by the then-newly-formed Council of Europe after World War II to prevent anything like Nazi Germany from happening again, protect human rights, and defend “the fundamental freedoms in Europe.” The latter was created so that the rights contained in the ECHR would be incorporated into British law, and human rights breaches could be challenged in domestic courts without having to go to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg.

Wait, back up. Why do we care about the European Convention of Human Rights? Isn’t Britain leaving the EU?

The ECHR is separate from the EU so Britain doesn’t have to leave if it doesn’t want to. For the time being–it seems like the Conservatives, the current party in power, want to remain in it, according to their manifesto. The decision will be revisited after the next parliament’s term ends. Oddly enough, Conservatives are more concerned with replacing or amending the domestic Human Rights Act as they begin their Brexit.

Makes sense. But if there are two sets of human rights laws, wouldn’t that make it difficult to enact any change?

Despite May’s comments, precedent in the United Kingdom shows that the current “human rights laws” might not even need to be changed in order to accomplish the counter-terrorism policies she laid out (but we’ll get to that later).

Wait, so the UK can violate human rights?

Technically. Britain is allowed to “derogate”–or temporarily ignore–parts of the European Convention of Human Rights in a “time of emergency” that is “threatening the life of the nation” under Article 15 of the agreement. Their particular cup of tea is the suspension of habeas corpus. In 1979, for example, the European Court of Human Rights allowed them to use preventative detention without trial of PIRA terror suspects in Northern Ireland after a string of attacks killed British soldiers.

Today, terror suspects can be held for 14 days without a trial, a decision that was implemented with the Criminal Justice Act of 2003. May has stated that she is looking to revisit that number and seek derogation to extend that period to 28 days, a move that was attempted in 2011 when she was Home Secretary, the UK’s equivalent of a Director of Homeland Security, and when Conservative David Cameron was Prime Minister.

“When we reduced it to 14 days, we actually allowed for legislation to enable it to be at 28 days,” she said in an interview with The Sun. “We said there may be circumstances where it is necessary to do this. I will listen to what they think is necessary for us to do.”

Even doubling the figure seems tame compared to previous attempts to extend the length of uncharged detention. In 2005, Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair attempted to lengthen the period to 90 days following the July 7 attack on London. That time, however, civil rights groups stepped in out of protest and that provision was subsequently dropped.

And even with all of this wiggle room, May wants to change the laws?

Yes. As previously stated, Conservatives don’t really view the Human Rights Act too favorably. Not necessarily in a maniacal way, more in a “we want to make a better version” way. They have wanted to replace the law with a British Bill of Rights for a few years now, and this year is no exception.

May’s comments about changing human rights laws most likely also comes from her suggested plans to expand terrorism prevention and investigation measures, a two-year designation given to terrorism suspects considered to be enough of a threat. The measures currently include overnight curfews of up to 10 hours, electronic tagging, reporting regularly to the police, exclusion from certain zones, enforced relocation, and some limitations on use of mobile phones and the internet.

When you bundle expanding all of that with her Sunday promise to “make sure the police and security services have all the powers they need,” it’s clear why she wants to remove as many legal roadblocks as possible.

What are other people saying about this?

Former director of public prosecutions and Labour shadow Brexit secretary, Sir Keir Starmer, believes that the laws should stay in place as they are because they have not gotten in the way of combatting terrorism and extremism before.

“If we start throwing away our adherence to human rights… we are throwing away the very values at the heart of our democracy,” he said in a BBC Radio 4 Today interview.

Current Labour leader, and the closest political opponent to May in the election, Jeremy Corbyn, lambasted the Prime Minister’s comments and accused her of trying to “protect the public on the cheap,” referencing that fact that she cut nearly 20,000 police officers during her time as Home Secretary.

Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron took the accusation a step further and said May’s speech about being tough on terror was just a facade.

“In her years as home secretary she was willing to offer up the police for cut after cut,” he said. “We have been here before – a kind of nuclear arms race in terror laws might give the appearance of action, but what the security services lack is not more power, but more resources. And responsibility for that lies squarely with Theresa May.”

Whether or not the British public believes May’s words will be tested in Thursday’s election. Polls show that Conservatives are still leading Labour by about six points, down from almost a double digit vote lead when both campaigns started.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Theresa May’s Challenge of Human Rights Laws is Unsurprising appeared first on Law Street.

Two Chinese labor activists investigating a factory that produces shoes for Ivanka Trump’s brand have gone missing, and a third was recently arrested. The three men work for China Labor Watch and were looking into the alleged abuse of workers at the Huajian International shoe factory. The group is based in New York but focuses on workers’ rights in China.

According to the Associated Press, Hua Haifeng was arrested for illegal surveillance after working undercover at the factory since April. The group lost touch with the other two men, Li Zhao and Su Heng, over the weekend. The parent company of the particular factory, Huajian Group, produces between 10,000 and 20,000 shoes for Ivanka’s brand every year. It also makes shoes for brands like Coach and Nine West.

According to the director of China Labor Watch, Li Qiang, his employees found evidence that workers were forced to work overtime without pay, and that workers who left were fired. They also could be fired if they took sick leave, and were forced to sign false time sheets.

JUST IN: One arrested, two missing after investigating working conditions at Ivanka Trump shoe factory in China https://t.co/nB6f48k2eh pic.twitter.com/OzCQjJjIFF

— The Hill (@thehill) May 30, 2017

Chinese police claimed that the men had used illegal surveillance technology, but according to Li Qiang they just used their cellphones to shoot video. He said he thinks the police are protecting the factory since it is affiliated with the U.S. president’s daughter, considering he has investigated hundreds of Chinese factories before without any incident like this.

The wife of the man who was arrested said that she received a phone call from the police saying that Hua had been detained, and that she didn’t need to know anything more than that. “I understand and support my husband’s work,” she said. “I feel his work is legal and meaningful, so why should they arrest him?”

Li Qiang said that his company was planning on releasing a report on the factory next month. The Democratic National Committee responded to the news by releasing a statement calling for the White House to act on China’s human rights abuses:

We deeply hope that these detained or missing human rights workers are safe and can be reunited with their families as soon as possible. For years, Ivanka Trump has ignored public reports of awful labor conditions at a factory that makes her shoes. Now, she must decide whether she can ignore the Chinese government’s apparent attempt to silence an investigation into those worker abuses.

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 Activists Investigating Factory Used for Ivanka Trump’s Brand Are Missing appeared first on Law Street.

On March 3, the State Department released its Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2016, and its pointed critique of India’s human rights record has raised some eyebrows. The report is particularly critical of India’s history of state violence and the country’s criminal justice system in general. While one might expect the State Department’s findings to influence talks during Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s impending visit to Washington, the matter will likely be ignored.

Accusations of State Violence

“Instances of police and security force abuses, including extrajudicial killings, torture, and rape; corruption” are cited as the most significant examples of human rights violations in India. While an investigation by India’s National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) revealed examples of arbitrary, unlawful, and extrajudicial killings throughout the country, the State Department report said, data from the Institute for Conflict Management suggests a concentration of killings in northern states, particularly along the Indian-Pakistani border.

While state violence is identified as a primary concern, injustices are believed to extend to almost every aspect of India’s criminal justice system. Here are some examples:

• According to the report, police and government officials have consistently denied claims of hundreds of unresolved disappearances, and have supposedly demanded bribes from people hoping to learn whether or not their family members are currently detained.
• According to the National Law University in Delhi, 216 of the 270 death row inmates they interviewed had been tortured.
• Investigations by NHRC revealed numerous cases in which police officers raped detainees and NGOs argued the government agency underestimated the figures.
• Research indicates that activists and “economically vulnerable” people are at a much greater risk of being arbitrarily detained and subjected to cruelty. Torture is often used to force false confessions.
• Judicial corruption is believe to be widespread and, according to the Supreme Court, 43 percent of the country’s high court positions are vacant.

The report suggests India’s Armed Forces Special Powers Act of 1958 (AFSPA) is a major contributing factor to state violence and arbitrary detention. Though there are multiple iterations, the act grants security forces special powers in areas the government has determined to be “disturbed.” These “special powers” include, but are not limited to, the right to use deadly force against anyone who is in violation of the law, and to arrest anyone “who has committed a cognizable offence or against whom a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed or is about to commit a cognizable offence” without a warrant.

Security forces also have the right to enter and search property without a warrant. While there are numerous Islamic and Maoist insurgent groups operating in the “disturbed areas,” critics argue the decades-long enforcement of AFSPA has only escalated violence carried out by the government with impunity.

A White House Response?

In a press briefing on Friday about the upcoming visits of the leaders of Jordan and Egypt, a senior White House official said that human rights were “first and foremost in our discussions [with foreign leaders],” but that the Trump Administration plans on approaching “these types of sensitive issues in a private, more discreet way.” This approach however, makes it difficult for the public to know whether matters of human rights are discussed with foreign leaders at all. If existing information is anything to go by, trade, not human rights, will be the topic of choice during Modi’s visit.

By all accounts, President Donald Trump and Modi enjoy a warm relationship. Five days after his inauguration, Trump called the prime minister, expressed his support for Modi’s economic reforms, and invited Modi to the White House. Trump called Modi again last Tuesday to congratulate him on his party’s victories in state-level elections. After the call, the White House confirmed Modi would be visiting Washington sometime this year. No date has been set.

When Trump called Modi in January, “the two discussed opportunities to strengthen the partnership between the US and India in broad areas such as the economy and defense,” according to the White House. While campaigning, Trump expressed support for Modi’s plan for economic growth. In an interview with The Times of India, former Deputy Secretary of State William Burns suggested that a bilateral investment treaty would likely be a priority for both countries when Modi visits. It is safe to assume that the topic of trade will take precedence in any upcoming discussions between the U.S. and India.

Trump is unlikely to address the matter of human rights, even “in a private, more discreet” setting. After the two leaders spoke in January, a Trump spokesperson noted that they had agreed to “stand shoulder to shoulder in the global fight against terrorism.” India has long used terrorism as the justification for AFSPA and state violence at large. In spite of the fact that the State Department identified state violence as one of the most flagrant examples of human rights violations in India, the “law and order president” is unlikely to condemn the hardline policies believed to be motivating the violence.

While the scathing human rights report carries Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s signature, the endorsement is only a formality. Trade will likely be at the forefront during Modi’s visit and any future discussions between the two countries.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will Trump Mention India’s Human Rights Abuses in His Meeting with Narendra Modi? appeared first on Law Street.

On Wednesday, Mexican presidential hopeful Andrés Manuel López Obrador submitted a petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) accusing President Donald Trump of persecuting migrants. The petition could indicate a swelling international resistance to Trump.

In a press conference at the National Press Club, López Obrador and his team announced that the petition challenged Trump’s anti-immigration executive orders. While the petition lists 30 specific cases involving Mexican and Guatemalan citizens, López Obrador’s team claimed to be acting on behalf of immigrants around the world.

Signed by over 12,000 Mexican and American citizens, the petition will be placed under initial review. If the IACHR allows it proceed, the case could go before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. However, even if the court denounces the U.S., such a ruling would have little, if any, effect.

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights are components of the Organization of American States, and collectively uphold the American Convention on Human Rights. While the U.S. signed the convention in 1977, it did not ratify it. Therefore, the U.S. is under no legal obligation to accept rulings issued by the Inter-American Court. Furthermore, Trump has regularly expressed his contempt for international organizations and would most certainly dismiss any ruling that denounced his policies.

It is unlikely that López Obrador submitted the petition with the intention of mounting a genuine legal challenge. He will be well aware that U.S. is not beholden to IACHR rulings. However, by submitting the petition, the left-wing politician has cast himself as a determined political opponent of Trump. Though candidates for the Mexican presidential race are not expected to file until the summer, López Obrador has been working to drum up early support and currently leads opinion polls.

While the extremely unpopular Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto received an outpouring of support  after he canceled a meeting with Trump, his approval rating has since dropped to a record low. López Obrador is promising a platform that stands to the left of the president’s Institutional Revolutionary Party.

Speaking at the National Press Club, López Obrador said he was “disappointed” with how Peña Nieto handled early conversations with Trump. He accused the Mexican president of “submitting” to the U.S. by agreeing to avoid publicly discussing Trump’s proposed border wall and immigration policies. López Obrador declared that Mexico “is not a colony” and that the two countries “need a relationship based on respect not force.”

Riding the same wave of anti-establishment sentiment that propelled Trump to the White House, López Obrador is a refreshing alternative to many who are tired of the status quo. Though largely symbolic, López Obrador’s petition sends a clear statement of intent to both those in Mexico and those in the U.S.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mexican Presidential Hopeful López Obrador Accuses Trump of Human Rights Violations appeared first on Law Street.

Over the past several months, there have been major advancements in Colombia’s peace process. But more work lies ahead if Colombia wants to achieve lasting peace and reconciliation–each actor in the conflict must be held accountable. In an attempt to ensure a comprehensive peace process, Colombia’s transitional justice system charged a group of multinational corporations (MNCs) with crimes against humanity. The move to charge corporate entities with crimes against humanity is rare and could set a precedent for corporate accountability moving forward.

Colombia’s Peace Process

Late last year, the Colombian government reached a peace agreement with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and has since begun talks with the National Liberation Army (ELN). Negotiations between the government and these two marxist insurgencies have dominated coverage of the country’s peace process. However, it is a mistake to treat the conflict as something exclusive to the government and these leftist insurgencies. The war in Colombia is complex. In order to achieve lasting peace, the process cannot ignore the plethora of groups and interests that have stoked the conflict over its many years. On February 2, the Colombian transitional justice system took a major step in ensuring a comprehensive peace and reconciliation process by charging a group of MNCs with crimes against humanity.

While FARC and the ELN often draw the attention of onlookers, a 2013 government report claimed right-wing paramilitary groups aligned with the Colombian government and/or corporations perpetrated most of the conflict’s targeted killings and a majority of its massacres. The collection of MNCs, which includes Dole, Del Monte, and Chiquita were accused of knowingly funding right-wing paramilitary groups in order to protect their interests. The fruit-producing MNCs are believed to have supported the infamously violent United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC) which controlled swaths of Uraba and northern Colombia–the country’s main banana producing region.

Corporate Crimes?

Of course, corporations are regularly accused of violating human rights. There are no shortages of stories (many backed by conclusive evidence) in which corporations ruthlessly pursued their interests with a callous disregard for human life. Rich in natural resources, Latin America is home to some of the most harrowing examples of corporate incited conflicts. Notwithstanding the multitudes of corporate interests in the region, fruit companies have a particularly sordid history in Latin America. In the 1950’s, the United Fruit Company worked with the CIA to overthrow an overwhelmingly popular leftist government in Guatemala and install a far-right authoritarian government that was sympathetic to corporate business interests. This authoritarian coup led to a 36-year war and the genocide of an estimated 200,000, predominately indigenous, people. In the 1980’s, The United Fruit Company changed its name to Chiquita Brands International. Though stories past and present suggest that corporations consistently violate human rights, they act as though they are “too big to stand trial.”

MNCs are largely immune from legal accountability. By definition, MNCs are international entities. Their global reach often leads them to argue that a given court does not have jurisdiction over their actions. Therefore, finding a court that will hear a case and have the authority to enforce a ruling is a major challenge for a prospective plaintiff. Furthermore, many courts, including the International Criminal Court, fail to list corporations as judicial persons subject to investigation and prosecution. While courts could potentially punish executives instead of the entity as a whole, complex corporate structures make it difficult to pin liability on particular individuals. Even if a viable case is brought against a corporation, they generally have a distinct economic advantage over the plaintiff that allows them to employ superior counsel or settle the case out of court. On the rare occasion MNCs are found guilty in court, the punishments are often negligible. These factors perhaps explain why Colombia’s transitional justice system is among the first to charge MNCs with crimes against humanity.

Transitional Justice as a Model?

Transitional justice systems are established in the wake of a conflict and are a crucial component in peace and reconciliation processes. According the International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ), a non-profit that has been working with Colombia since 2005, transitional justice, among other things, works to make “access to justice a reality for the most vulnerable,” ensure “that women and marginalized groups play an effective role in the pursuit of a just society,” and  establish “a basis to address the underlying causeless of conflict and marginalization.” While one would hope and expect that every court system upheld these values, transitional justice systems are established with these particular humanitarian aims in mind. If the consortium of corporations actually did fund paramilitary groups, then it is imperative for peace that they are held accountable. An effective reconciliation process must necessarily give a voice to those most affected by the conflict and create a dialogue that addresses, deconstructs, and delegitimizes the conflicts motivating interests and actors. However, there is often a stark power imbalance between those driving conflict and those most affected by conflict. Unfortunately, these disparities in power translate into the traditional court room.

Far too often, corporate behemoths are able to marginalize the voices of those victimized by their interested pursuits. MNCs are able to bat away, or at least minimize, practically any legal challenge that comes their way. It is too early to argue that events in Colombia signify a turning point for corporate accountability. The charges against these MNCs were pressed by an impermanent court, under particular circumstances, have yet to be proven, and the implications of a guilty verdict remain to be seen. Multinational corporations continue to grow in size and influence, and corporate accountability is often demanded but rarely demonstrated. The fact that that a transitional justice system was among the first to explicitly charge MNCs with crimes against humanity is indicative of the way in which traditional justice systems generally preserve hegemonic interests rather than uphold justice.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Colombia Charges Corporations with Crimes Against Humanity appeared first on Law Street.

Russian Deputy Minister Yelena Mizulina submitted a bill to the State Duma, Russia’s lower house of parliament, that would decriminalize some acts of domestic violence. If passed, the law would protect abusers found guilty of domestic abuse for the first time, as long as the attack did not cause serious harm and excluded rape.

The ultra-conservative lawmaker, who  claimed the bill defends “traditional family culture,” said people should not be jailed or considered a criminal for “a slap.” Unsurprisingly, Mizulina is also the author of the “gay propaganda bill,” which has greatly restricted the rights of LBGTQ people. This law was similarly justified by claims that it defended traditional families.

The Duma, dominated by President Vladimir Putin’s United Russia party, overwhelmingly supported the legislation, dubbed the “slapping bill” by Russian media. Of the Duma’s 450 MPs, 368 voted in favor of the law after its first reading. The law stands in opposition to one passed last July that criminalized acts of violence against family members. This complete 180 is believed to be a means of appeasing the ultra-conservative faction within United Russia.

While there is little data available on domestic violence in Russia, a report by the ANNA National Centre for the Prevention of Violence estimates that violence occurs in one in four households, two-thirds of murders are domestic, 14,000 women a year are killed by their husbands or other relatives, and up to 40 percent of violent crimes are family related. Meanwhile, the city of Moscow only has one state-funded refuge for victims of domestic violence.

The bill has outraged many in Russia but the government has already moved to silence opposition. Groups wishing to protest in Russia must file for permits. While activists requested permission to protest, their requests for permits were denied on the grounds that a protest would disrupt traffic and pedestrians.

The sizable United Russia majority is likely to push the bill through subsequent votes with ease before they send it to the upper chamber for a final vote.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bill Aims to Decriminalize Some Domestic Violence in Russia appeared first on Law Street.

An Iranian civil rights activist and former college student is in critical condition after going on a hunger strike for over two months. Human rights groups have been urging authorities to do something, but to no avail. Arash Sadeghi stopped eating four months into his own prison sentence to protest the arrest of his wife, Golrokh Ebrahimi Iraee, who was imprisoned because of an unpublished novel she wrote. Sadeghi is serving a 15-year sentence on charges of “assembly and collusion against national security,” “propaganda against the state,” “spreading lies in cyberspace,” and “insulting the founder of the Islamic Republic.”

Sadeghi has said that he was arrested because he supported a group of poor students who had been denied access to education. He also supported left-leaning students, the families of people who had been killed, and peaceful protests against executions and wrongful imprisonments.

His wife was working on a fictional novel about stoning in Iran, which is a common form of capital punishment in the country. But officials didn’t even know about the book draft until they were ransacking the couples’ home while arresting them both for Sadeghi’s “crimes.”

Arash is a political prisoner. He is on his 68th day of hunger strike demanding his wife be released. #SaveArash pic.twitter.com/E2qbBZz2HO

— Bahman Kalbasi (@BahmanKalbasi) December 30, 2016

As the draft contained a description of burning a Quran, she got the maximum punishment even though it was only fiction and not yet published. In a conversation with the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran (ICHRI) in October, she said:

I was interrogated dozens of times about the burning of the Quran in my story. Each time I explained: it’s only a story. I told them and I wrote [in my defense statement] that if what I did was a crime, then many scriptwriters and novelists should be arrested for committing the same crime.

Arash Sadeghi Is In “Critical And Worrying” Condition After 64 Days On Hunger Strike In Tehran’s Evin Prison #SaveArash pic.twitter.com/vnKj3qonfM

— Nick Sotoudeh (@NickSotoudeh) December 26, 2016

As Sadeghi hasn’t eaten for over 68 days, his body started to break down a couple of weeks ago. He was taken to the prison clinic on Wednesday night for low blood pressure, heart palpitations, asthma, and was coughing up blood. But he has refused medical treatments ever since he was banned from visiting his wife. In the late stage of a hunger strike it is very likely to fall into a coma or even die. Famous IRA activist in Northern Ireland Bobby Sands died after 66 days of striking in 1981. A source speaking on the condition of anonymity to ICHRI in the beginning of December stated:

Arash has lost a lot of weight and he’s suffering from stomach and intestinal problems. His blood pressure has dropped severely and he has been constantly in and out of the prison clinic during the past week. He spat out blood and he can barely stand or speak. His health is in critical condition and worrying,

Recently the hashtag #SaveArash started trending on Twitter, and several human rights groups have pleaded with the Iranian government to step in.

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 Imprisoned Iranian Civil Rights Activist Continues Hunger Strike appeared first on Law Street.

For Nepali men, going abroad to work is often the only option they have to support their family. But doing so can come with great risk. Lately, many Nepali men have died under mysterious circumstances while working in other countries, and it seems to be part of a larger trend that strikes every decade or so. Since Nepal’s government started promoting foreign labor, the number of Nepali men trying their luck in other countries has increased a lot.

In 2015, about 500,000 men went abroad to work, compared to about 220,000 in 2008. But the number of men who die while away has gone up disproportionately–in 2008 only one in 2,500 workers died. In 2015, the number was one in 500, according to the Associated Press.

In total, more than 5,000 workers from the small country situated in between India and China have died since 2008. About 10 percent of Nepal’s 28 million people are working abroad and the money they send back amounts to almost a third of the country’s annual revenues.

These statistics could be enough to intimidate most from endeavoring on a journey across borders. But as Nepal is one of the poorest and least developed countries in the world, many have few alternatives to earn money. And because Nepali men are often willing to work hard under any circumstances, they are in high demand.

Qatar is preparing for the 2022 FIFA World Cup and has hired around 1.5 million immigrants from different countries. To make its citizens desirable for recruitment, the Nepali embassy in Doha even started advertising online, saying, “Nepalese workers are well known for their hard work, dedication, and loyalty.” The site goes on to say they are “comparatively cost effective and their hiring cost is lower as compared to other labour exporting countries,” and that they are “experienced in working in the extreme climatic conditions.”

Qatar has long promised to make conditions for migrant workers safer. But still, Nepali men working for the World Cup were dying at a rate of one man every two days in 2014. The government has been criticized for not doing enough to prevent this from happening. The men work long hours in temperatures that often reach 122 degrees Fahrenheit. “We know that people who work long hours in high temperatures are highly vulnerable to fatal heat strokes, so obviously these figures continue to cause alarm,” Nicholas McGeehan from Human Rights Watch told the Guardian.

Two Nepali workers die in Qatar every three days constructing for the 2022 FIFA WC, @Jomo1966 at #ThorolfRaftoChallenge @RaftoFoundation pic.twitter.com/ZlcrrrZM8o

— Solveig Moldrheim (@Solmol) October 5, 2016

Nepal only has one international airport, located in the capital, Kathmandu. About 1,500 workers fly out every day, and on average, three dead bodies come back. “The rate at which Nepali workers are dying abroad is alarming because they are too young to die,” said labor migration expert Ganesh Gurung to Nepali Times. Gurung added that it’s difficult to know the actual reason for the deaths, as autopsies are very rarely performed. Writing “natural causes” in the death certificate could be a way to cover up the real cause.

Many Nepali workers also end up taking on a lot of debt just to get a job abroad. Even though it’s illegal for employers to charge fees for work, both in Nepal and in Qatar, the costs can be high. The men need to get enough money to afford a plane ticket, pay a recruiter, and find a place to sleep. This means many work endless hours, live with a dozen or more men in one room, while also being the target of scammers. These brutal conditions might be a reason why otherwise healthy young men die. Nepal’s government even arranged for trucks to be retrofitted to carry coffins after deaths abroad increased.

Nepali migrant workers who return in coffins are too young and healthy to die https://t.co/kBjuq18Zkt @omastharai pic.twitter.com/fCLYMGDEws

— Nepali Times (@nepalitimes) January 8, 2016

Exactly how the young men die largely remains a mystery, as natural death, heart attack, or cardiac arrest are listed as the cause of death in about half of the cases. Many of them went to bed as usual, but never woke up in the morning. According to medical researchers, this is actually something that happens about every 10 years to healthy Asian men working away from their home countries. In the 1970’s, it was a problem in the U.S., in the 1980’s in Singapore, and later on in China. The phenomenon was named Sudden Unexplained Nocturnal Death Syndrome and next year an international effort plans to take a closer look at the phenomenon.

Patrick Clarkin at the University of Massachusetts told the AP that he could see a pattern in the Nepali workers. “I suspect that there would be little harm in improving the diets and living conditions of these young men. Something as simple as a multivitamin could go a long way and with little risk.” The difference in diet when going to another country could be an explanation, but also because even though they are working in the desert they drink less water than usual because, as Hindus, they are not allowed to use Muslim restrooms.

Nepali authorities blame stress and even homesickness. “I’m not trying to be insensitive but we have sent millions of workers to more than 100 countries, and so yes, sometimes people will die,” the spokeswoman for the Department of Foreign Employment, Rama Bhattarai, told the AP. “They die as foreign employees, they die here when a bus goes off a cliff.” The problem doesn’t seem to be taken as seriously as it should. But Krishna Dawadee, director of Kathmandu’s work permit center, wishes that it would. “These are our youth, draining out from our country. I am very much worried about these people,” she said. Hopefully, the international investigation will find out more about the cause in order to find a solution.

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 Nepali Workers Abroad are Dying at an Alarming Rate 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.

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.

Every day, people all over the world are executed for a wide variety of crimes. Though in the west it is mostly used to punish serious crimes like murder, in some places you can be executed for who you sleep with, how you dress, or if you have a different opinion from your government. Some countries execute people who were underage at the time of committing a crime and some do it to the mentally ill. Monday, October 10 marks the World Day Against Death Penalty.

Some countries still use the death penalty for homosexuality.

Let’s stand with our LGBTQI friends on the 10th October for World Day Against the Death Penalty #NoDeathPenalty #LGBTQI pic.twitter.com/ZOabAGG9Iz

— Rainbow Amnesty (@AI_LGBTQI_NSW) October 6, 2016

Amnesty International is committed to abolishing the death penalty worldwide and presents some of the main arguments for why. The fact is that by sentencing someone to death, you are denying the person’s right to life–which was established in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Additionally, because mistakes do happen, there have been several cases when an innocent person has been executed. There is also no proof that the use of the death penalty reduces the crime rate in a country. It is a discriminatory practice; death sentences are more likely to to be given to someone from a religious or racial minority as well as the poor and those who cannot afford an expensive lawyer for a lengthy trial.

Lastly, the risk that it is used as a political tool to quiet dissent in countries with a deeply corrupt justice system is too big.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said in a statement on Monday:

Let us be clear: participation in peaceful protests and criticism of a government–whether in private, on the Internet, or in the media–are neither crimes nor terrorist acts. The threat or use of the death penalty in such cases is an egregious violation of human rights.

World Day Against the Death Penalty – AI calls on Indon authorities to end DP and review all DP cases https://t.co/MppoXbz5et pic.twitter.com/0Y5Otj7jc3

— Amnesty Int’l (@AIIndoTimor) October 10, 2016

The U.N. Secretary-General also pointed out that although many countries seem to believe the death penalty is an effective way to handle terrorism, by scaring off future assailants, it actually has the opposite effect. He said:

This is not true. Experience has shown that putting terrorists to death serves as propaganda for their movements by creating perceived martyrs and making their macabre recruiting campaigns more effective.

Many Twitter users expressed their opposition to the practice.

On the World Day Against Death Penalty,I hail all those who were executed by #Iran‘s regime in the battle for freedom #NoDeathPenalty

— Maryam Rajavi (@Maryam_Rajavi) October 10, 2016

Places like China and Iran frequently execute people who dare to stand up against the government or reveal unflattering depictions of what life is like there. According to the most recent numbers from Amnesty International, Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia account for almost 90 percent of all recorded executions in 2015. But this percentage does not include China, where thousands of people are believed to be executed each year, though data on executions is considered a state secret and is highly classified. The data also shows that last year saw the highest number of executions worldwide in 25 years.

Killing in the name of justice? Mapping death penalty https://t.co/z7eN42lrJk #NoDeathPenalty #WorldDayAgainstDeathPenalty @WCADP @amnesty pic.twitter.com/G9kP9IIQCG

— Benjamin Hennig (@geoviews) October 10, 2016

Salil Shetty, Amnesty International’s Secretary General said in a statement:

The rise in executions last year is profoundly disturbing. Not for the last 25 years have so many people been put to death by states around the world. In 2015 governments continued relentlessly to deprive people of their lives on the false premise that the death penalty would make us safer.

California has a particularly high number of prisoners on death row–prisoners who have been sentenced to death but not yet executed. Only 13 people have been executed since the death penalty was reinstated in 1978, and nearly 750 remain on death row. In November, Californians will vote on two ballot initiatives that will change the state’s death penalty practice. Proposition 62 would repeal the death penalty entirely, and Proposition 66 would change the current system to speed up the appeals process to reduce the number of prisoners on death row. If both pass ,the initiative with the most “yes” votes will become law.

California, we’ve fallen far behind the times. It’s time to end the death penalty for good. RT if you agree. https://t.co/F3ZjwbrgfM pic.twitter.com/l5qpQ0CBXk

— Yes On 62 (@yeson62) October 9, 2016

According to Amnesty International, the United States has the fifth highest number of executions worldwide, following China, Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. Last year, it was also the only country in the Americas to actually perform an execution. We share a place on a list of countries that are infamous for violating human rights, while our neighboring countries and Europe got rid of this practice many years ago. It makes you wonder, does the death penalty really have a place in the United States in the 21st century?

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 World Day Against Death Penalty: Do Executions Belong In the 21st Century? 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.

In today’s “news that didn’t come from The Onion, but I had to double check” North Korea has banned sarcasm. Because that’s going to go real well.

Warning: there’s a lot more sarcasm ahead.

Specifically, sarcasm that mocks the authoritarian regime in the country or its leader, Kim Jong-Un, is forbidden. For example, North Korean citizens are no longer allowed to say “this is all America’s fault” when speaking about their woes, a phrase which is apparently equivalent to our snarky American expression “thanks Obama.”

See:

Another phrase that is no longer allowed is “A fool who cannot see the outside world”–which apparently pokes fun at North Korea’s fearless and not-at-all reactionary leader Kim Jong-un.

North Korean citizens were told about the new ban on sarcasm at large meetings held around the country, which sound like a fun time. According to Radio Free Asia, a nonprofit news organization that operates in the area:

‘One state security official personally organized a meeting to alert local residents to potential ‘hostile actions’ by internal rebellious elements,’ a source in Jagang province, which lies along the border with China, told RFA’s Korean Service this week.

‘The main point of the lecture was ‘Keep your mouths shut!’’ the source said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

You know, if you think about it, banning sarcasm actually makes a lot of sense. North Korea’s citizens are some of the most oppressed in the world and have severely limited freedoms when it comes to speech and the press. According to a UN report regarding the human rights violations in North Korea, the “gravity, scale and nature of these violations reveal a State that does not have any parallel in the contemporary world.” When there’s so little accountability, transparency, and decency, humor is apparently the only thing left to lose.

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 Kim Jong-Un is the Best Leader Ever, Bans Sarcasm 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.

The number of suspected drug criminals that have been killed by police in the Philippines since President Rodrigo Duterte took office seven weeks ago is believed to be as high as 1,800 people, according to Philippine National Police Chief Ronald Dela Rosa. Local politicians, the United States, and the U.N. have started voicing concern about human rights violations as the country ramps up its fight against drugs. In response to recent criticism, Duterte lashed out at his critics and even suggested that the Philippines may leave the U.N. in the future.

At a Senate hearing on Monday, Dela Rosa said that police had killed 712 drug dealers and users since July 1. He also mentioned that they are investigating 1,067 other drug-related killings, but did not elaborate further. According to Reuters, two U.N. human rights experts recently urged the Philippines to stop the extrajudicial killings of suspected drug dealers that have escalated dramatically lately.

Late Sunday night, President Duterte held a press conference, in which he threatened to fire everyone in the government who had been appointed to his or her position by a previous president. At the press conference, he said the police did not carry out the extrajudicial killings. He also said, responding to critics at the U.N., “I will prove to the world that you are a very stupid expert.” In his speech, he asked people to not only think about how many drug dealers were killed but to also take into account how many innocent lives that are lost to drugs.

President Duterte even threatened to pull out of the U.N. saying, “I do not want to insult you. But maybe we’ll just have to decide to separate from the United Nations.” He went on to say that the Philippines might instead start a new international organization with China and several African nations.

Duterte continued to criticize the U.N. for not stopping the war in Syria:

You know, United Nations, if you can say one bad thing about me, I can give you 10 [about you]. I tell you, you are an inutile [useless]. Because if you are really true to your mandate, you could have stopped all these wars and killing.

The United States is normally a close ally to the Philippines but has expressed concerns similar to the United Nations in light of the recent deaths. The Philippines’ foreign minister, Perfecto Yasay, said on Monday that the President’s words had been no more than an expression of a strong disappointment with the U.N. “We are committed to the U.N. despite our numerous frustrations and disappointments with the international agency,” Yasay said. He added that Duterte has promised to respect human rights and that it is irresponsible for the U.N. to “jump to conclusions.”

But Senator Leila de Lima, a fierce critic of Duterte, is also concerned; she began a two-day inquiry on Monday, questioning police about the many killings. “I am disturbed that we have killings left and right as breakfast every morning,” she said. She also expressed her fear that the president’s war on drugs could be an excuse for law enforcement to kill with impunity.

On Sunday night, Duterte did not seem to worry about effects of his statements. When asked about his comments he said, “What is… repercussions? I don’t give a shit to them.”

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 Philippine President Duterte Threatens to Leave U.N., Calling it Useless appeared first on Law Street.

On Wednesday the U.S. sanctioned North Korea’s leader Kim Jong-un for human rights abuses for the first time. There are already sanctions on the country for its nuclear activities, but this is a unique step since it names the dictator himself, as well as 10 other prominent figures, by name. These sanctions are seen as a stepping up of the United States’ efforts to control and isolate the Asian nation. Now North Korea has offered a denuclearization plan–if the U.S. agrees to its demands.

Only one day after the news about sanctions on Kim Jong-un, Pyongyang released terms for a deal. North Korean leaders want the U.S. and South Korea to give them information about American nuclear weapons in South Korea, pull out those weapons, and a guarantee from Washington that it will not use nuclear weapons against North Korea, reports news agency TASS, among other terms.

However, in the statement cited by TASS it also says that unless the U.S. agrees to these conditions, North Korea will continue to build up its nuclear forces—both in quality and quantity.

South Korea has welcomed the U.S. sanctions and hopes that they will raise international awareness of how serious North Korea’s human rights violations are.

South Korea welcomes first US sanctions against Kim Jong-un https://t.co/KiVbJH3bup #UFO4UBlogAsia

— UFO4U@NEWS (@UFO4U) July 7, 2016

The Human Rights Abuses

North Korea “continues to commit serious human rights abuses, including extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, arbitrary arrests and detention, forced labor, and torture,” said the State Department in a statement about the human rights sanctions.

It goes on to describe the political prison camps that are still in use in the country, holding family members and even children of those accused of crimes. The State Department estimates the number of prisoners to be between 80,000 and 120,000. Freedom of speech, media, expression, and religion are heavily restricted and guarded.

North Korean workers are often sent abroad to make money to send back to the homeland, in order to get around different sanctions, according to human rights groups cited by Huffington Post. These workers go to countries without much control over companies’ conditions, such as Poland or Russia. People work up to 70 hours a week without proper pay—most of the money is sent to the government—while their wives and children are held “hostage” in Pyongyang. If a worker defects, the family members are punished, or in a few extreme cases, killed.

What Do The Sanctions Mean?

The sanctions toward Kim Jong-un and the 10 other men are mostly symbolic, but mean that U.S. companies are prohibited from collaborating with any of the people on the list. U.S. companies can also not do any business with Kim Jong-un or any international companies that are under his control. Any assets belonging to Kim Jong-un in the U.S. will be frozen.

This could be the start of a wave of additional sanctions and have a worldwide effect, according to USA Today, since it would be risky for any international companies or banks to have anything to do with the individuals on the list. Hopefully it will push North Korea in the right direction. But analysts doubt it will have any effect on the leader, who just created a new State Affairs Commission that will take care of all national and foreign affairs. Who’s in charge of that? Kim Jong-un himself, of course.

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 North Korea Replies to U.S. Sanctions on Kim Jong-un appeared first on Law Street.

Angela Gui, the daughter of a Hong Kong publisher who went missing seven months ago is now appealing to the United States for help. On Tuesday, Gui testified before the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, which is currently investigating China’s efforts to silence people who are critical of the government.

In her testimony, Angela Gui claimed that China has been acting illegally beyond its borders by imprisoning her father without trial or reason. She notes that this is particularly troubling because her father, Gui Minhai, actually has Swedish citizenship, not Chinese. He moved to Sweden to study in the 1980s and during his time there she was born.

Gui Minhai, 51, ran a publishing house in Hong Kong and wrote gossip books critical of China’s political elite. He disappeared from his vacation home in Thailand last November. Angela Gui said she had no idea where he was, but that she received messages from her father telling her to keep quiet about what happened to him.

Then, three months after he went missing, he appeared in tears on Chinese state television, saying he had turned himself in for a drunk driving incident that occurred years earlier, and that Sweden should stop looking for him. He also said that his roots would always be in China.

None of this made sense to Angela Gui. In the hearing on Tuesday, she said:

In his so-called confession my father says he traveled to China voluntarily, but if this is true, then why is there no record of him having left Thailand?…Only a state agency, acting coercively and against both international and China’s own law could achieve such a disappearance.

The Swedish government’s own investigation hasn’t produced any results, so she urged the United States to pressure China “to make sure that Chinese authorities are not allowed to carry out illegal operations on foreign soil.”

See her full speech below:

In full: Daughter of ‘abducted’ bookseller Gui Minhai testifies at US hearing https://t.co/ATLH2xNvcjhttps://t.co/FWjgTc11sU

— Hong Kong Free Press (@HongKongFP) May 25, 2016

Gui Minhai is not the only bookseller to suspiciously go missing like this. Since last October, as many as four of his colleagues have been through the same ordeal–all of them later appeared on Chinese state television admitting to various crimes and claiming to have turned themselves in.

One of them, Lee Bo, was allegedly taken from Hong Kong by police from the Chinese mainland, a move that would constitute a breach of the treaty between Hong Kong and China. In his confession video, Lee Bo even renounced his British citizenship and asked people to stop searching for him, just like Gui Minhai. Republican congressman Chris Smith, chairman of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, said on Tuesday:

The methods used by Beijing to enforce a code of silence are going global…The heavy hand of the Chinese government has expanded beyond its borders to intimidate and stifle critical discussion of the Chinese government’s human rights record and repressive policies.

The Swedish embassy in Beijing has repeatedly requested to visit Gui Minhai but has not been allowed to since February 24.

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 Daughter of Missing Hong Kong Publisher Appeals to Congress For Help appeared first on Law Street.

Three foreigners have recently been sentenced to years of imprisonment and hard labor in North Korea. An American businessman for 10 years for stealing state secrets on behalf of South Korea. A Canadian pastor, reading off a script, confessed to trying to “set up a base for a religious state” on behalf of South Korea. He was dealt a life sentence. And an American college student said he was offered a used car from a friend in America in exchange for a North Korean propaganda poster, which he stole from the 5th floor of the hotel he was staying at in Pyongyang. He was handed a sentence of 15 years.

The latest in a string of sentences by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) came last week when Kim Dong Chul–the businessman–was found guilty of “espionage” and “subversion.” Barring an early release, Kim will spend the next 10 years of his life working as a hard laborer for Kim Jung Un’s communist government. With the sentencing, he joins Otto Warmbier, the 21 year old American college student who was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor in March, and Hyeon Soo Lim, the Canadian priest who was sentenced to life of hard labor in December, as the only three westerners still detained by the notoriously insular and secretive nation.

During an interview with CNN in Pyongyang–North Korea’s capital–in January, Kim admitted to two year’s of spying for “South Korean conservative elements.” Kim, a naturalized American citizen who had been living in the Chinese border town of Yanji since 2001, gave CNN’s Will Ripley a rather detailed narrative of his activities as a spy, including mention of a former North Korean soldier who acted as a source and an explanation of how the North Koreans tracked his activities.

“I was tasked with taking photos of military secrets and ‘scandalous’ scenes,” Kim, 62, said. “[South Korea] asked me to help destroy the [North Korean] system and spread propaganda against the government.”

Though Kim’s account is unusually detailed, his claims are impossible to corroborate, and the North Korean justice system does not adhere to due process. The 68-year-old state is cited by Human Rights Watch as being among the “most repressive in the world.”

Kim’s case is the most recent in a spate of detentions under Kim Jung Un, who took power after his father died of a heart attack in 2011. And while sentencing foreigners as a means of gaining leverage over the West is hardly a novel tactic used by Kim Jung Un, the process by which the detentions have been doled out–in court, under the guise of law–is unusual.

“It seems that they are trying to emphasize and justify their holding of these individuals under grounds that [the accused] violated DPRK laws,” Scott Snyder, Director of U.S.-Korea policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, said in a phone interview with Law Street. “It also has to do with their desire to uphold the validity of their own system somehow in the eyes of their own citizens.”

Traditionally, foreigners detained by the DPRK remained in limbo until a diplomat from their home country reached out to make amends and bring the detainee home, Snyder said. Kim Jung Un has altered things by bringing cases to court, delivering a concrete judgment, and waiting months, sometimes years, before negotiating a return with government officials from the detainee’s home country. Under Kim Jung Un’s rule, four Americans have been sentenced and later released prior to their official release date.

According to Snyder, it’s common for the DPRK court to sentence a defendant based solely on a confession. He said that as early as the 1960s, foreigners accused of “sins against the state” would be required to write self-evaluations, often under intense pressure from communist party officials. Those evaluations, coupled with a show of contrition, or remorse for actions deemed unlawful, would be enough evidence for a conviction.

“It’s pretty clear in this socialist system, once [a detainee] gets to a hearing a sentence has already been determined,” Snyder said. “It’s a puppet court, and there’s no pretense of an actual evaluation of right and wrong.”

And while diplomatic relations between the United States and North Korea are effectively nonexistent, communication at the moment is especially frosty, given recent military posturing by the DPRK that breached international law. The Swedish Embassy acts as the U.S. point of contact in North Korea, passing along messages from both sides, and acting as “proxy eyes and ears,” according to Snyder.

However, there’s only so much that foreign diplomats can do in the hermit kingdom; where international law is routinely flouted and the supreme leader–Kim Jung Un–has unequivocal power.

And though Snyder recognizes the unjust consequences for crimes committed in North Korea, he thinks those traveling there must be conscious that they’re heading to a place where the rule of law is just another prop in the country’s facade.

“Obey the North Korean rule or you’re putting yourself at risk,” he said. “North Korea has its own laws.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post In North Korea, Due Process is Virtually Nonexistent appeared first on Law Street.

What’s for dinner tonight? Perhaps steamed corn, infused with some delicious dichlorophenoxyacetic acid. Or maybe, if you’re feeling bold, you’ll eat some tofu bites containing glyphosate, which the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified in March as “probably carcinogenic in humans.” Corn, soy, sugar, papayas, milk, zucchini—the list goes on; the number of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, is multiplying. The U.S. House of Representative’s decision on Thursday to pass a law that would block states from mandating GMO labels only contributes to the danger that these GMO or genetically engineered (GE) foods inflict on farmers, on the environment, and on consumers.

So what are GMOs exactly, and why are they causing such a scene on Capitol Hill? Genetically modified organisms are plants or animals that are genetically altered to exhibit traits that are not natural, primarily a resistance to pesticides and herbicides. It may sound brilliant to have developed crops that can withstand the chemicals necessary to cultivate large amounts, but GMOs are often untested, require dangerous chemicals in their farming, and may be a threat to organic foods and to the environment. In the United States, GMO foods require no pre-market testing. Unlike with drug production, where there is mandatory testing on animals, mandatory human clinical trials, mandatory tests of carcinogenicity, fetal impact, neurological impact, and at least some limited allergy testing, none of those steps are required for these crops.

The American Medical Association has stated that mandatory testing should be required before GE foods and ingredients are introduced on the market, but lawmakers continue to ignore medical research centers, farmers, and constituents who oppose or at least want labels on GMOs. Maine, Connecticut, and Vermont have all passed laws mandating the labeling of genetically modified foods for consumers but unfortunately these three states are the exception, not the rule. Last week, a majority of Representatives voted in favor of a law that prevents states from mandating GMO labels, stating that labeling GMO foods is “misleading.” Supporters of the bill said that labeling foods that contain GMOs sends a message to consumers that the products are risky, and that according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), GMOs are not dangerous. However, that information is based on testing by scientists who are funded and influenced by the companies who own GMOs. Opponents of the bill called banning the labeling of GMOs “an infringement of the public’s right to know what’s in their food.”

Currently, 64 countries worldwide require the labeling of GMOs, including all 28 nations of the European Union, Russia, and China. Our lack of GMO labels is not only causing us to fall behind most other developed countries, but is also failing the satisfy a vast majority of Americans who support GMO labeling. A total of 92 percent of Americans want GMO foods to be labeled and in the past two years, more than 70 labeling bills or ballot initiatives were introduced across 30 states.

In 2012, some of America’s most profitable chemical companies teamed up with large food companies to defeat California’s Proposition 37, an initiative that would have required labeling of genetically engineered foods. Monsanto, PepsiCo, CocaCola, Nestle, and several other companies spent over 45 million dollars to block the legislation. Why? Because keeping consumers in the dark about the dangers of GMOs can be profitable, and requiring labels would allow consumers to question what they’re consuming before they buy. The companies that own GMO seeds, which are patented, sell their seeds to farmers who then buy herbicides from the same companies who also own the chemicals. This brilliant business model is racking up millions for these corporations, but is causing people to consume more and more dangerous herbicides.

Another concerning symptom is that weeds are becoming resistant to the hazardous chemicals. Genetically engineered crops are designed to survive weed killers. Corporations like Monsanto that create these herbicides and pesticides claim that herbicide use has decreased since the introduction of GE crops; however, before GE crops were cultivated, weeds resistant to Roundup did not exist. There are now 14 known species of Roundup-resistant weeds in the U.S. alone, known as “super weeds.” Super weeds have been reported on half of all U.S. farms and cost farmers millions of dollars a year to control. With more weeds becoming resistant to Roundup, farmers now have to spray larger quantities of even more toxic herbicides on their crops to kill weeds, like 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-d), a component of the poisonous Agent Orange used during the Vietnam War. GMOs intensify the problem of herbicide use and create more super weeds that are immune to harsh chemicals, disrupt the environment, and contaminate water systems.

In 2010 the President’s Cancer Panel reported that 41 percent of Americans will be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetime. The panel pointed to chemicals, primarily herbicides in our air, water, soil, and food as the primary cause of this increased cancer rate. Later that same summer, the journal Pediatrics reported in a peer-reviewed study that there is a direct correlation between pesticide exposure and increased ADHD diagnoses. In 2011 a study revealed that the insecticide in GMO corn was detected in the umbilical cord blood of pregnant women. With 90 percent of soy and 85 percent of corn now genetically engineered, and super weeds on the rise leading to harsher chemicals being used on our food, GMO consumers are being exposed to more and more dangerous chemicals. And without GMO labels, shoppers have no idea if the foods they are eating are a part of that group.

Congress’s decision last week to block any mandatory labeling of foods made with genetically engineered crops proves that corporate influence in Washington is taking away our right to choose what we consume. Genetically modified foods can and should be labeled, and Congress has an obligation to listen to the 92 percent of Americans who support the right to know what they are consuming via GMO labels. The FDA’s Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act states that the consumer has a right to know when something is added to food that changes it in ways a consumer would likely not recognize, and that indicates labeling should be required. Just like juice from concentrate, wild versus farmed, country of origin, and many other mandatory labels we see on our foods, GMOs should also be visible, since the chemicals that come with them are not. We have a right to know and a right to choose. It’s time to question whether the FDA and Congress are here to protect us, the people, or to protect a handful of chemical companies that want to keep us in the dark.

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post GMO Labeling: The American People Have A Right To Know appeared first on Law Street.

Praised as a “tremendous step forward” toward meaningful penal reform, the Mandela Rules provide a framework for what is and is not permissible in terms of detention conditions in prisons across the globe. With 10 million people in prisons worldwide, it’s easy to assume that there is a high demand for the humane treatment of prisoners. However, while the Mandela Rules have been commended for their progressive revisions of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (SMRs) that have been in place since 1955, there is still no guarantee that prisons, domestically or internationally, will improve.

For a document that is supposed to provide governments the guidelines necessary to ensure that basic rights are afforded to prisoners, the Mandela Rules fail to provide incentives to abide by them or a method of accountability for prisons that break them. Furthermore, the lack of widespread discussion on the new rules is shocking, and perhaps telling of the low level of importance that both the public and politicians place on reforming the criminal justice system. Just like under the previous SMRs that the Mandela Rules revised, prisons will continue to cut corners, mistreat prisoners, and break this agreement unless there is more legal pressure and incentives to treat inmates with dignity.

The SMRs have since 1955 acted as the universally acknowledged minimum standards for the detention of prisoners and for the development of correctional laws, policies, and practices. On May 22^nd of this year, however, the United Nations Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (the Crime Commission) passed a resolution approving the revised standards, named the Mandela Rules after the late South African President Nelson Mandela who was imprisoned for 27 years. These changes were prompted after a review of the SMRs in place concluded that advancements in human rights discourse since 1955 left the SMRs out of date. The Crime Commission identified nine areas for revision, agreeing that the new standards should reflect advances in technology and society.

Rules on health care, LGBT rights, and solitary confinement are the key modifications in the Mandela Rules, but a prison that does not want to be held accountable for treating inmates with dignity can easily dismantle almost all of the updates. One of the most acclaimed aspects of the new rules is that indefinite or prolonged solitary confinement is prohibited. Solitary is defined as confinement of a prisoner for 22 hours or more a day, and prolonged solitary is defined as confinement for fifteen consecutive days. So solitary confinement for fifteen consecutive days is not allowed, but what about fifteen days in confinement, one day out of confinement, and fifteen more days within? The new Rules have so many loopholes and almost no accountability for the “advances” they claim to make in the treatment of prisoners.

The Rules emphasize that prisoners should be protected from torture and inhumane or degrading treatment and punishment. The United Nations will adopt these Rules later this year, though nothing but the potential for an internationally-backed slap on the wrist will prevent prisons from operating under standard minimums. If anything, the Mandela Rules simply say, “Look, we know prisons are bad, and prisoners are being tortured around the world. There’s not much we care to do about that, but here’s some advice that you should follow if you want.”

Yes, state and federal prisons do have their own separate laws in place regarding the treatment of prisoners, but are those laws abided by? The answer, especially in the United States, is a resounding “No.” Even though prison guards are expected to keep inmates safe, there were more than 5.8 million violent crimes self-reported by inmates in 2012. Four percent of the prison population reports being sexually victimized while in prison in the past year, and over half of the incidents involved a prison guard or other staff member. Even though health care is supposed to be afforded to prisoners, 1,300 lawsuits have been filed in the past ten years in Illinois alone against the state because health care in Illinois prisons is so poor that it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. These are only a few examples of failures of concrete laws that have been breeched, and continue to be broken, in prisons across the country. If the initial SMRs were never fully realized in prisons across the world, what hope do we have that the Mandela Rules, which raise the standards that were never even abided by in the first place, will actually be implemented?

Several sponsors of the new SMRs note the importance of civil society in the success of the Mandela Rules. The American Civil Liberties Union’s David Fathi said, “The Rules are only as good as their implementation.” Fathi expressed that both the public and decision makers must be aware of the rules and see them as a national priority in order for the Mandela Rules to be effective. But what if we live in a society in which the public does not see the humane treatment of prisoners as a national priority? And what if we live in a society in which private groups are swaying lawmakers to extend prison sentences and to create harsher punishments? While the Mandela Rules do offer a sort of cheat sheet for evaluating a state’s prison performance, they do not do anything about the public apathy towards the inhumane treatment of prisoners and they do not erase the negative stigmas that pro-prison lobby groups and lawmakers have instilled in the minds of millions. None of the 2016 U.S. presidential candidates have mentioned the Mandela Rules in their campaigns or expressed a plan to ensure that they are implemented in our prisons. If civil society has a critical role to play in the humane treatment of prisoners, and the current campaign rhetoric by governmental leaders is any indication of what civil society cares about, the outlook for prison progress looks bleak.

How do we ensure that these minimum rules will be followed? While the Mandela Rules do call for a more humane treatment of prisoners, and require a more accepting environment and safer prison standards, which is certainly wonderful, they should not be praised as a revolutionary feat. What would be revolutionary is if the United States and other countries would actually adopt these rules in practice rather than merely going through the motions.

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Prisons Won’t Get Better Just Because We’ve Signed Another Document appeared first on Law Street.

Despite growing political pressure, both Israel and Hamas avoided the United Nations’ annual report on Children and Armed Conflict. The report lists countries with a record of children’s rights violations.

The U.N. Secretary-General’s office for Children and Armed Conflict reviews ongoing conflicts to determine whether children’s rights violations occurred. In addition to a summary of active conflicts, the report also includes two annexes, or the so-called “list of shame.” The U.N. calls upon all listed parties to end and take measures to prevent future crimes against children in order to be taken off the list. The report focuses on violations of six specific children’s rights, including the recruitment of children as soldiers, the killing and maiming of children, sexual violence against children, attacks on schools and hospitals, abduction of children, and the denial of humanitarian access.

Although Hamas and Israel are not listed in the annexes of the most recent report, it does designate four pages to discussing the 2014 Gaza conflict. A total of 561 children in Israel and Palestine were killed, 557 of which were Palestinian. U.N. estimates also indicate that at least 1,000 of the 2,955 Palestinian children who were injured will be permanently disabled. Additionally, at least 262 schools and 274 kindergartens in Gaza were affected last summer due to Israeli airstrikes. The death toll in the Gaza conflict even surpassed the number of minors confirmed killed in Syria last year. Palestine had the third highest number of child deaths among all conflicts in 2014, and the highest number of damaged or destroyed schools.

Although the number of recorded abuses against children rose significantly, the Secretary-General decided to let Israel and Hamas off the hook. The list remains unchanged from the previous year despite what Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon calls “grave violations suffered by children as a result of Israeli military operations in 2014.”

Unnamed U.N. officials told the Associated Press that initial recommendations for the list, which circulated internally within the United Nations, included both Hamas and Israel. But due to disagreements among people on the ground, neither group was included in the final version of the report.

Placing Israel on the annual report could have a meaningful effect on the country. Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Myanmar, Somalia, South Sudan, and Yemen have all signed action plans to prevent future violations. According to the Office of Children and Armed Conflict, these actions plans “outline concrete, time bound steps that lead to compliance with international law.” As of this year, 23 parties have signed action plans–11 governments and 12 non-state groups–nine of which have fully complied with their action plans and are no longer on the list.

Human Rights Watch has been one of the strongest proponents of including Israel and Hamas in the report’s annexes. Prior to the report’s release, Philippe Bolopion, the organization’s Crisis Advocacy Director, sent a letter to Ki-Moon urging him to include Israel, Hamas, and several other armed groups engaged in conflicts. Bolopion reinforced that point last month saying,

Applying consistent standards would add some long-time abusive parties to the list, including Israel and Hamas, for their wartime conduct harming children… Failure to include countries and groups that are known offenders will harm a report that’s been a powerful tool to protect children in war.

Since its creation in 2005, the Office for Children and Armed Conflict has monitored both Israel and Palestine. While previous reports document violations by these groups, they have both consistently avoided the report’s annexes. In his letter, Bolopion emphasizes, “other parties to armed conflict have been listed in your annexes in the past for less serious violations.”

The U.N. missed an important opportunity when it excluded both groups from the list. In the event of future conflicts, there are few measures in place to protect the lives and rights of children who are caught in the middle of the conflict. While the violence between Israel and Hamas might seem impossible to end, further international scrutiny may be help ensure that children’s most basic human rights are preserved in the future.

Alissa Gutierrez

Alissa is a member of the Catholic University Class of 2018 and was Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Alissa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.N. Leaves Israel Off ‘List of Shame’ appeared first on Law Street.

A shocking Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) report recently obtained by the Associated Press revealed that United Nations (U.N.) peacekeepers in Haiti had “transactional sex” with hundreds of poor local women. According to the report, a third of the alleged sexual abuses reported involved individuals younger than 18. OIOS’s in-depth analysis and a history of past U.N. misconduct demonstrate a pressing need to reevaluate current peacekeeping policy.

Earlier this year, reports surfaced that between December 2013 and June 2014 French peacekeeping soldiers made local children in the Central African Republic (CAR) commit sex acts as entertainment. However, this was hardly the first reported incident of sexual misconduct.

In 1999, former U.N. International Police Force monitor Kathryn Bolkovac reported that U.N. officials were involved in the Bosnian sex trafficking industry. “[Bolkovac] discovered numerous individuals in the Bosnian and U.N. police (which was made up of some 1,800 officers from 45 countries) who were not only using trafficked prostitutes but were on the traffickers’ pay-roll,” the Telegraph reported.

A few years prior, a 1994 study authored by former First Lady of Mozambique Graça Machel found that the arrival of peacekeeping troops actually correlated with a “rapid rise” in child prostitution in six out of 12 country studies on sexual exploitation of children in situations of armed conflict.

It is clear that there has been systematic sexual abuse of local women by U.N. peacekeepers for quite some time now. Nevertheless, U.N. peacekeepers rarely get convicted for their atrocities. U.N. personnel are protected by diplomatic immunity, meaning they can’t be prosecuted in their mission country. Compounding the issue is that home governments have little incentive to publicize their troops’ bad behavior.

Some efforts to rectify the situation have already taken place. In response to Bolkovac’s revelations, the U.N. established a conduct and discipline unit in 2007. Susan Malcorra, who heads the unit, told the Telegraph that the U.N. can waive immunity whenever necessary. The U.N. regularly kicks officials off their missions and hands the investigation and punishment over to the member state, she said. On the U.N. Conduct and Discipline Unit’s website, Secretary Ban Ki-moon asserts that the organization is taking this problem seriously, writing:

Let me be clear: the United Nations, and I personally, are profoundly committed to a zero-tolerance policy against sexual exploitation or abuse by our own personnel. This means zero complacency. When we receive credible allegations, we ensure that they are looked into fully. It means zero impunity.

The recent report on abuses in Haiti did not find issue with U.N. policy. Rather, it found issue with “significant underreporting,” characterizing assistance to victims as “severely deficient.” To remedy the situation, the U.N. needs to increase oversight. One option is to require at least one member of the conduct and discipline unit, whose sole job would be to evaluate the conduct of U.N. officials, to be present at each peacekeeping site at all times.

Maintaining integrity is imperative. The unit must screen its employees rigorously to ensure that they are not the same officials who are causing problems and regularly rotate employees to different peacekeeping sites to minimize the possibility of collusion with peacekeepers. Periodic assessments of both peacekeeping officials and conduct and disipline unit employees is a must.

As human rights activist Gita Saghal asserts, “the issue with the U.N. is that peacekeeping operations unfortunately seem to be doing the same thing that other militaries do. Even the guardians have to be guarded.” Perhaps then the organization meant to uphold human rights will stop doing the exact opposite.

Hyunjae Ham

Hyunjae Ham is a member of the University of Maryland Class of 2015 and a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Hyunjae at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post United Nations Peacekeepers Aiding Sex Traffickers? appeared first on Law Street.

On June 4, 2015 at a restaurant called Busboys and Poets, the DC Coalition for Housing Justice hosted its ninth annual Housing and Community Service Awards Ceremony and Fundraiser. The DC Coalition is a charitable nonprofit dedicated to encouraging and inspiring social justice by addressing housing as a “human rights issue.” The coalition, which serves residents of the District of Columbia, focuses on low to moderate-income communities and works with local politicians and advocacy groups to create jobs and lobby for changes in local and national housing policies.

Following a musical performance by John Davies, Executive Director and Co-Founder of the Coalition, Lester M. Cuffie, welcomed the crowd and shared a few thoughts on the importance of the coalition’s work and on the organizations and individuals being honored. Cuffie expressed that while the trials to combat housing problems are many, the determined people in the room should be commended for working on necessary changes toward housing justice. Predatory lenders, gentrification, and a lack of jobs were matters touched upon that Cuffie says contribute to a need for housing reform. “If we are to tame the lion that is gentrification,” he said, “we must remain vigilant.”

Keynote Speaker Barry Lenoir, President of United Black Fund, shared his thoughts on several problems that he believes need to be tackled in order to better serve disadvantaged communities in the United States and in Washington, DC in particular. His speech cited topics such as racial profiling, drug trafficking, unaffordable housing, and corruption within groups trusted to serve impoverished populations. Lenoir named income inequality as a primary problem that needs to be addressed. He said that the top 20 percent of Washington residents have an average annual household income of $284,000, while the bottom 20 percent have an average annual household income of $10,000; this discrepancy in wealth leads to a strained  understanding of those bottom 20 percent who are in need of assistance. Lenoir said that the lack of personal relationships with individuals in need of housing support is a major propagator of inequality. Lenoir stated, “One of the failings we have with housing in this city is we have think tanks and the ivory towers that come up with ideas, but they don’t have any connection with what is actually happening.” He added that standards are often not high enough for organizations that attempt to combat the current housing problem by saying, “We have to begin to set standards for those people who want to help the poor. If we don’t begin to move that money to serve their needs, corruption will occur. This is something we have to look at throughout the nonprofit community.”

The Law Offices of Paul Strauss and Associates received the Tenant Law Firm of the Year Award.

Strauss Accepts Tenant Law Firm of the Year Award

Cuffie praised the firm for its exceptional work in housing justice, its unparalleled assistance to tenants, and its honorable contributions to the DC community. Paul Strauss and Associates received the award for readily making itself available to tenants, among other accomplishments. The firm has a policy of free consultations for clients who need a lawyer, and even stays open until 7 pm each day so that tenants are not forced to miss work to meet with an attorney. Tenant Association directors thanked Strauss and his attorneys, saying, “We take our directions and instructions from you.” Former clients expressed their gratitude for the firm’s work, relaying personal stories of cases won and justice granted for themselves and their families. Strauss accepted the award by saying, “I’m proud to stand with the Coalition for Housing Justice because they are leading this movement by getting out there in the community, working with these groups, and giving them the tools that they need.”

Strauss, a current Shadow Senator from the District of Columbia and former superdelegate to the 2008 Democratic National Convention, sat down with me for an interview to discuss his work and how young people can get involved in issues related to housing justice. Strauss said that in an era of record low interest rates, homeownership should be expanding rather than displacing tenants. “We are working hard to make sure that in buildings where we represent tenants and tenant associations, that they get to use something in DC called the Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act to actually buy their apartment buildings, own them themselves, [and] run them themselves.”

In 1987, Strauss was a young student at American University living in a rental apartment. After being hit with a massive rent increase, he helped to organize a Tenant Association, bought his apartment complex, and became a tenant advocate and activist. “That’s where I started,” he said, “in my own neighborhood, in my own building, in my own community.” Strauss emphasized that young people can truly influence their communities and that traditional activism is the most powerful way to ignite change. “You can sign an online petition, you can tweet your support for any cause, but at the heart of organizing and at the heart of activism is that, at some point, you have to go out and knock on doors and engage people in a human way. There’s just no substitute for grassroots organizing.” Strauss also acknowledged stereotypes of those who choose careers in law and policy, but reassured me that they are not all true. “People shouldn’t think of law and policy careers as something for dull, suit-wearing people,” he said. “There’s a great tradition of our profession being activist; you can be a lawyer and be an activist at the same time. You can work for the government in public policy and be an activist at the same time. It’s not one or the other. Those skills only help you be better at all of it.” This attitude towards advocacy melded with law promises to be helpful to many people who need aid the most.

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post DC Coalition for Housing Justice Honors Local Advocates appeared first on Law Street.

Tens of thousands of Russians marched in Moscow today mourning the death of Boris Nemtsov. The human rights activist and critic of President Vladimir Putin’s government was shot to death on the night of Friday, February 27 while walking in the capital city. It is widely believed by Putin’s opposition that the Kremlin is responsible for the act.

Boris #Nemtsov killing spurs thousands to march in Moscow, as motives debated – http://t.co/Lc7cAFUl7S pic.twitter.com/ab9t03LBib

— CBS News (@CBSNews) March 1, 2015

Reports from the ground spoke to the solemn and quiet mood of the march. Participants broke into anti-Putin chants from time to time, but for the most part the “only sound was the steady thwack of police helicopters overhead or the hum of police boats patrolling the shores of the Moscow River.” Widescale marches for a variety of causes from climate change to social justice are a hallmark of American culture; many of us have likely experienced at least one in our lifetimes and can easily recall the vibrations of the crowd, the yelling and clapping, and general energy. The near-silence reported today in Moscow is difficult to imagine. Nemtsov was an outspoken critic of the Putin government, calling out its actions in Ukraine in a radio interview only hours before his death. Fellow opposition leader Ilya Yashin weighed in on Nemtsov’s killing and lent weight to the belief that it was ordered by the government:

Essentially it is an act of terror. It is a political murder aimed at frightening the population, or the part of the population that supported Nemtsov or did not agree with the government. I hope we won’t get scared, that we will continue what Boris was doing.

Secretary of State John Kerry took to the Sunday morning shows to lend the official American perspective on the killing. He asserted that the U.S. does not have any information what happened or who shot Netsov, but that he is pushing for a “thorough, transparent, real investigation, not just of who fired the shots, but who, if anyone, may have ordered or instructed [the shooting].” Members of Congress expressed their condolences and outrage over Nemtsov’s death, including Senator John McCain (R-A) via Twitter:

I am heartbroken by murder of my friend #BorisNemtsov – a voice for human rights in #Russia. My stmt: http://t.co/f1yHqEtWpj — John McCain (@SenJohnMcCain) February 28, 2015

McCain also released a statement that directly addressed Nemtsov’s fight against the Kremlin and the need for continued pressure to decrease human rights abuses in Russia.

That Boris’ murder occurred in a secure part of the Russian capital raises legitimate questions about the circumstances of his killing and who was responsible. But regardless of who actually pulled the trigger, Boris is dead because of the environment of impunity that Vladimir Putin has created in Russia, where individuals are routinely persecuted and attacked for their beliefs.

Whether or not a fair investigation will be conducted into Boris Nemtsov’s death, the fact remains that tensions in Russia are nearing a boiling point, and the international community can no longer afford to turn a blind eye to what is happening in the region.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Russians March in Mourning of Opposition Leader’s Death appeared first on Law Street.

India has long been an important nation on the international stage; its massive population and rapidly growing economy have the potential to propel it forward even further. While there have been ebbs and flows–the recent recession strongly impacted the sub-continent–things may be looking up. There’s a new Prime Minister and India is on the rise yet again. Read on to learn about India’s growth, the relationships it has with other nations, and the challenges that the country will face in coming years.

A Look Into the Past

Like China and Mesopotamia, India is often considered one of the birthplaces of civilization. The first civilization in India was founded over five thousand years ago. Since then, India saw the rise and fall of countless empires, invading forces, and ideas. Buddhism and Hinduism were also founded in India; and Islam, when it reached the area in the eighth century, came to exert a powerful influence, as well.

The story of modern India however, picks up at the beginning of the eighteenth century, when the declining Mughal Empire was conquered piecemeal by the British East India Company. The British outcompeted their French rivals and bit by bit took over the sub-continent. Yet British rule was not to last either, with a large-scale mutiny in the middle of the nineteenth century hinting at the rise of Indian nationalism.

This came to fruition after years of protest that featured leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi when India finally achieved independence in 1947. This independence, however, did not come about smoothly. The same year India became independent, it also broke into two separate nations, Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan. As many as 12.5 million people migrated to one country or the other depending on their religion. Up to one million people died in the ensuing chaos.

Rise of Modern India

After the end of colonial rule, India initially adopted a planned economic approach. The idea was to increase consumer savings, which would then lead to greater investment in the economy and growth. The plan was to create a prosperous India that was financed by its own economy and not beholden to outside forces.

While the plan had some success, however, growth remained limited in India at an average of four percent annually in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s. The plan was also plagued by unbridled population growth and inequality. The proverbial corner was turned beginning in the late 80s and early 90s when the economy was finally opened up. Growth shot up to over 6.5 percent annually, while the service sector in particular began to take off.

Move to a Market Economy

The key to the turn-around for India economically was when it moved from a series of five-year plans, as part of a planned economy adopted from its then-ally, the Soviet Union, to a market economy, which is similar to those of Western nations. Originally India adopted a socialist model as the means to improve its economy. This meant most industry, licensing, and investment infrastructure was controlled by the government. The whole idea behind this logic was to build strong home-grown industries in India, and in the process prevent the inequality notorious in capitalist societies from spreading there.

The planned economy proved ineffective. This was mainly due to low growth rates and the failure to generate high savings rates. In fact the state, far from succeeding in building up savings, actually began running up higher and higher deficits as its programs proved ineffective. Thus, spurred by this ineffectiveness and a rise of the price of oil as a result of the first gulf war which nearly caused the country to default, India made a change. The government did a complete 180, reducing state control and planning, liberalizing trade and investment, and reducing the deficit.

Following the success from the 1990s and with continued reforms, the Indian economy continued to hum along in the first decade of the 2000s, averaging greater than six percent growth annually. Rapid growth stalled, however, as it did in much of the rest of the world, following the Great Recession.

The reason that India was hit so hard was because of a failure to further liberalize policy concerning labor, energy, land reform, and infrastructure improvement. Namely the issue was in many ways the same that had been affecting India during its planned economy, despite the reforms the country had enacted in the past two decades. First labor laws were still very restrictive so it made it hard for people to move around in search of jobs.  Secondly, the infrastructure was not adequately developed in India so that its manufacturers could easily export their products. Third, the country was still plagued by shortages in essential goods, such as energy. This was all compounded by the government’s vain effort to prop up the country’s currency, the Rupee.  Not only has this led to a higher deficit, but also inflation, which eats away at people’s savings and makes them poorer. This led to growth rates closer to four or five percent during the recession.

After the Recession

Nevertheless, India’s economy has rebounded in the last two years and in 2014 outpaced China for the first time. This was due to several improvements. First, both the manufacturing and financial sectors improved dramatically. In addition, new Prime Minister Modi and other political leaders have worked diligently to reduce debt. Lastly, the drop in the price of oil has dramatically helped India, as most of its import deficits were due to the importation of oil to fuel its growing need.

While India has seemingly regained its status as a rapidly growing emerging market, this also comes with caveats. First, the growth figures that show it outpacing China had to be recalculated due to some errors, so many economists are treating them with skepticism. Secondly, according to a New York Times study from 2011-2012, 30 percent of Indians still live in extreme poverty, which translates approximately to 363 million people. That is more people than live in the United States. Thus, although India may recoup its status as a major, up-and-coming economy, there is still room for improvement. The following video gives an outlook on the impact reforms could have on India’s economy.

India’s Friends and Enemies

Pakistan

When discussing international concerns for India, the discussion always starts with Pakistan. The two nations were founded at the same time when British rule in India ended; however, the division of the two countries was plagued by extreme violence and a persistently strong feeling of animosity. The situation has in no way improved by the three wars and ongoing proxy war being waged over Kashmir. The conflict in Kashmir stems back to the separation of India and Pakistan.

At the time of independence, there were 562 princely kingdoms that were independent from either country and could choose which one they wanted to join. Both countries therefore were eager to recruit these principalities–Kashmir was one of the most coveted. Pakistan seemed to have the upper hand, as 70 percent of the population was Muslim; however, at the time, the ruler was Hindu so India claimed the area on that argument and still occupies it to this day. Aside from the direct conflicts there, Pakistan has also waged a guerrilla campaign to free the territory from India and incorporate it into the Muslim state of Pakistan.

On top of all that, both countries possess nuclear weapons and flaunt their capabilities, an example of which was the corresponding nuclear tests during the 90s. The video below provides a summary of the two nations’ conflict.

Nonetheless, hopes for thawed relations came when Prime Minister Modi was elected last year–one of his campaign promises was to improve relations between the two countries; however, lately Modi’s speeches have been full of aggressive rhetoric and the Pakistani military continues to support anti-India terror groups so change has yet to come. An example of this is when he suggested Pakistan was, “waging a proxy war” in Kashmir. He has also canceled several meetings with Pakistani officials, including one potential rendezvous at the United Nations.

China

India’s other major neighbor in Asia is China. Like Pakistan, India also fought a brief war with China in 1962 and has since maintained a relatively tense border with the country in the Himalayas. Tthe relationship with China has steadily improved in other areas as the countries have signed a number of trade agreements. The relationship was tested in 2013 with a Chinese incursion into Indian territory; however, no apparent serious harm came of it.

The lack of consternation may be rooted in how the countries view each other. In India, China is seen as a chief rival and also a source of emulation economically. For China, which is stronger militarily and economically, India is not regarded as much of a rival.

United States

Like its relationship with both Pakistan and China, India’s relationship with the U.S. is complicated. The countries originally shared strong ties, with the U.S. aiding India during the conflict with China. Relations were strained following America’s decision to side with Pakistan in its 1971 war with India. Things were further exacerbated by an arms treaty signed between India and the USSR and India’s testing of nuclear weapons in the 70s.

Relations seemed to be improving in the 1990s as India opened up its economy and moved to a free market approach. But once again ties between the nations weakened in 1998 when India again tested nuclear weapons, which drew condemnation and sanctions from the U.S. The sanctions were quickly repealed though and the two nations became close once more over a commitment to combat terrorism. The two sides have continued to grow closer since then, signing everything from trade to weapons agreements. In 2013 an Indian delegate was arrested for committing visa fraud, causing major waves. The two sides have seemed to yet again overcome this hiccup though, following the president’s recent trip to India where he reaffirmed the U.S. commitment to friendship.

The relationship with the U.S. also seems likely to continue to improve, despite numerous setbacks, many of which were over nuclear policy that now seem settled. While the U.S. may want to utilize India against a rising China, the two sides also value each other as trade partners. The relationship is further enhanced by the U.S.’s further distancing itself from Pakistan.

Domestic Concerns for India

While India navigates the dangerous game of international politics, it has internal issues to consider, as well. First and foremost is the status of women. While seemingly no country in the world can boast of total equality between men and woman, the situation is especially bad in India. While some women may enjoy access to lucrative lifestyles, there is a virtually systemic oppression of women in education, marriage, and the economy. A grisly example was the gang-rape of a woman by six men in Delhi in 2013 that resulted in the woman’s death. While four of the men were eventually sentenced to death, their crime highlighted a culture where women are often blamed for rape and where the courts are slow to act.

Women, of course, are not the only group to be institutionally marginalized in India. The caste system has existed for a long time. In this system people are born into and can expect to rise no further than a particular caste or class, which is often associated with some type of profession. While some efforts have succeeded at down-playing caste origins in jobs, castes still play a large role in social interactions and romantic relationships.

The persistence of discrimination, both against women and people of lower classes, speaks to the issue of inequality in the country. According to a report from the United Nations – Economic and Social Commission for Asia and Pacific (UNESCAP), income inequality actually increased in India from the 1990s to late 2000s.

India’s population is the second largest in the world at more than 1.2 billion people. With birth rates still outpacing death rates, that number is only going to continue to increase until it is expected to plateau in 2050. The population of India is also expected to surpass that of China for the world’s largest along the way, in 2025. All these extra people mean more food, housing, and jobs for a country that is already hard pressed to generate them at current levels. The accompanying video highlights the issues with poverty in India.

Domestically, though changes have been made incrementally, the sweeping changes necessary to fix many of India’s societal ills seem unlikely. As the infamous Delhi rape trial showed, while courts can be forced into action when thrust into the spotlight, they have been very slow to protect women. This also speaks to a problem of institutionalized marginalization for a large chunk of society, which has lasted for many years and thus is unlikely to simply go away now. Couple these issues with continued population explosion and the poverty that haunts India is likely to continue. Particularly with inequality rising and wealth being consolidated into the hands of the elites, much as it is in western nations.

Conclusion

After initially struggling following independence, India has enjoyed strong recent growth. While that growth was threatened by the great recession, India was able to pull through and even outpace China, if the numbers are to be believed. Going forward, Asia’s other potential superpower has many issues to deal with. Internationally, serious issues still exist concerning the relationship between India and Pakistan. India’s relationship with Asia’s affirmed rising super power is also in question as India moves closer to fellow democracy in the United States, while China seemingly drifts closer to fellow autocrat Russia.

Domestically it is more of the same, with concern over the economy dominating. Yet other issues also exist, namely an entrenched class system and the low status of women. Thus, while India has come very far, there is still a long way to go. Therefore while it is still possible for India to act on its superpower potential and one day rival China as Asia’s premier power, reforms and improvements are likely required along the way.

Resources

Primary 

Indian Embassy: U.S.-India Relations

Additional

Forbes: India Growth Now Beats China

Diplomat: India and Pakistan: A Debilitating Relationship

National Interest: China and India: The End of Cold Peace?

Council on Foreign Relations: Timeline U.S.-India Relations

Centre for Economic Policy Research: India’s Growth in the 2000s: Four Facts

Economist: How India Got Its Funk

BBC News: India Growth Figures Baffle Economists

The New York Times: Setting a High Bar for Poverty in India

Asia Society: India-Pakistan Relations: A 50-Year History

Saarthak: Women’s Situation in India

World Post: India Gang Rape Case: Four Men Sentenced to Death

Economist: Why Caste Still Matters in India

Financial Express: Income Inequality: Poor-Rich Gap Growing in India, Asia-Pacific

International Business Times: Partition of India and Pakistan: The Rape of Women on an Epic, Historic Scale

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post India: A Superpower on the Rise? appeared first on Law Street.

Meriam Ibrahim, the 27-year-old Christian woman who was jailed for apostasy in Sudan and sentenced to death by hanging last May has finally been set free, again.

Ibrahim’s story has gone global as she is the only Sudanese woman to escape a death sentence without renouncing her faith. Ibrahim was convicted of apostasy, the renunciation of one’s religion, after marrying a Christian man, Daniel Wani in 2011. The Sudanese government sentenced Ibrahim to death after she birthed her child, but through the efforts of diplomats and other world leaders, Ibrahim was released from jail and the charges were dropped.

Ibrahim’s release seemed to be a step forward by the hard-ass Islamic government in Sudan. It seemed that they had finally realized how barbaric they were being. But just as I raised my hands up to applaud the Sudanese government, they went and re-arrested the poor woman.

Liars! I say liars! Ibrahim barely had 24 hours of freedom before she was arrested for trying to leave the country. Really? Just for trying to leave after being imprisoned for holding on to her faith. Sudan, I didn’t hold your policies in the highest regard before, but now I am so ashamed, I can barely look you in the eye.

So ashamed.

Thankfully she was re-released on the condition that she remains in Sudan, according to her lawyer. She now faces forgery charges because of the travel documents she attempted to use to fly out of the country. South Sudan gave visas to the family to travel to America because the husband, Wani, is recognized as a citizen there. State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said that Ibrahim had all the documents needed to travel to the U.S., but that “it is up to the government of Sudan to allow her to exit the country.” Sudan sounds like a clingy ex if you ask me.

You would think that through all this Ms. Ibrahim would at least have the support of her family right? Wrong. Her own brother was quoted by CNN saying, “The family is unconvinced by the court’s decision. We were not informed by the court that she was to be released; this came as a surprise to us…This is now an issue of honor. The Christians have tarnished our honor, and we will know how to avenge it.”

Who said blood was thicker than water?

If it wasn’t for the international outcry by so many official figures across the world, Ms. Ibrahim wouldn’t have been saved. But support has come from notable figures such as British Prime minister David Cameron who said he was “absolutely appalled,” by the sentence given by the court, and told The Times that “religious freedom is an absolute, fundamental human right, I urge the government of Sudan to overturn the sentence and immediately provide appropriate support and medical care for her and her children.”

Amnesty International headed a campaign demanding the immediate release and halted execution of Ibrahim, started a Change.org petition that has gained more than 600,000 signatures, and released a statement saying, “the fact that a woman has been sentenced to death for her religious choice, and to flogging for being married to a man of an allegedly different religion is appalling and abhorrent. Adultery and apostasy are acts which should not be considered crimes at all. It is a flagrant breach of international human rights law.”

The U.S. State Department said it was “deeply disturbed” by the sentence and called on the Sudanese government to respect Ms. Ibrahim’s religious freedoms.

And to put the sweet icing on top of the justice cake, tweets calling on the Sudanese government to release Ibrahim from Hillary Clinton, David Cameron, and British personality Laura Laverne were retweeted thousands of times.

I am absolutely appalled by the decision to sentence #MeriamIbrahim to death. The way she is being treated has no place in today's world.

— David Cameron (@David_Cameron) May 31, 2014

Meriam Yahya Ibrahim’s death sentence is abhorrent. Sudan should stop threatening religious freedom and fundamental human rights.

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) May 24, 2014

#Sudan: pregnant mother sentenced to death for apostasy. Take action to save her life https://t.co/fQqZlRIRxx

— Lauren Laverne (@laurenlaverne) May 21, 2014

The problem at hand here is the so called “Freedom of Religion” in Sudan. In 2005 the Interim National Constitution of Sudan provided freedom of religion throughout the entire country, but in practice religious minorities exist between the North and the South. Christians in the North face strong social pressure to convert, and Muslims who express interest in converting face even stronger pressures to recant. Ibrahim was the first woman who did not have to convert religions to be released. Forcing women into believing in a certain religion doesn’t seem all that holy to me, and while the step is small, Ms. Ibrahim’s case is a step in the right direction.

Although she is being forced to stay in Sudan, I have a strong feeling that Amnesty International, the U.S. State Department, the British Parliament, and Hillary Clinton will all still have a strong voice in the matter and Ms. Ibrahim and her family will be free at last.

Bring it

—

Trevor Smith

Featured imaged courtesy of [Waiting for the Word via Flickr]

Trevor Smith

Trevor Smith is a homegrown DMVer studying Journalism and Graphic Design at American University. Upon graduating he has hopes to work for the US State Department so that he can travel, learn, and make money at the same time. Contact Trevor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Meriam Ibrahim: Free at Last? appeared first on Law Street.

Folks, how many of you are John Green fans? I hope every single one of you raised your hand. He’s basically perfection.

Not only does he write awesome books, but he also posts weekly vlogs on YouTube with his brother, Hank. The two of them cover everything from goofy details about their daily lives to politics and religion. And they do it HYSTERICALLY. Seriously, I never knew I could be so entertained while watching a video about the American healthcare system.

Anyway! One of John Green’s wonderful books, The Fault in Our Stars, has been made into a feature film. It’s hitting theaters next month and stars Shailene Woodley.

So much gorgeousness is happening here, you guys.

Shailene is pretty awesome, making some queer-ish, feminist-y comments about love being independent from gender, doubting our society’s obsession with marriage and monogamy, coming down on Twilight for promoting an unhealthy and abusive relationship dynamic, and advocating for more nuanced, kickass roles for women in movies.

She’s pretty rad.

But! Shailene was recently asked if she identifies as a feminist. And she said no. Cue collective exasperated sigh of disappointment.

Why is this apparently feminist star eschewing the feminist label? Because, it seems, she doesn’t actually understand what being a feminist means.

“No,” said Woodley, when asked if she considered herself a feminist, “because I love men.” She went on to say that feminism means giving undue power to women at the expense of men, an arrangement that wouldn’t be beneficial to anyone.

But, see, that’s not what feminism is. That’s not what it means. Not even a little bit. Feminists aren’t power hungry man-haters looking to depose men from their porcelain thrones of fragile masculinity. We’re not looking to climb over the men, flip the oppression coin, and unfairly win some sort of gender pissing contest where vagina-bearers come out on top.

Feminists are people who come in all shapes, sizes, and genders — some of them are men, go figure! — who believe in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes. Just ask Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, the TEDx talker who came up with this perfectly coined definition of feminism. This isn’t power grabbing. This isn’t renewed, rearranged sexism.

Feminism is a commitment to ending gender-based oppression. And that’s something that both men and women will benefit from.

Because, let’s be real. We live in a world where gender-based oppression is a huge fucking deal. There’s so much of it, in fact, that every week I’m swamped with potential stories to cover here on The F Word. My email inbox is consistently flooded with article recommendations from friends, family members, and coworkers, all alerting me to the latest crazy incident of racist, sexist, homophobic bullshit to hit the airwaves. There’s always too much to cover on any given day.

This week, for example, we’ve got Monica Lewinsky. Vanity Fair has debuted an exclusive essay by Lewinsky, breaking her decade-long silence regarding her past as the White House whore. “It’s time to burn the beret and bury the blue dress,” she writes, going on to express her deep regret and remorse for her affair with former President Bill Clinton — which, she insists, was totally consensual.

But does consent really exist between an intern in her early 20s and her boss — a man who’s not only twice her age, but who’s also the President of the United States? The leader of the motherfucking free world asks you for a blow job, and what do you do? Report him to human resources?

I feel like the U.S. military’s Commander in Chief probably pulls rank on that one, no?

Yes, yes he does.

We live in a world where the man who abused his position of power to score sex from a hot, 20-something staffer, is now getting paid millions of dollars in speaking engagements. Meanwhile, his well-educated, exceptionally capable whore has been unable to land a full-time job ever, AT ALL, because of her “history,” a media sensation that’s transformed her from a person into a joke.

This is a world that needs feminism.

Then, we’ve got Emily Letts, an abortion counselor at a clinic in New Jersey who filmed her surgical abortion and posted it online, to show other women that “there is such a thing as a positive abortion story.”

The short video, featured below, is not graphic or violent, shows only the top half of Letts’ body, and focuses on her emotional and physical experience during the procedure. As a counselor, Letts wanted to share her experience to diffuse some of the frightening misinformation surrounding abortions, modeling one possible solution to a very personal, complicated situation.

Letts’ video and her accompanying essay for Cosmopolitan are helping women across the country come to safe, informed decisions about how to handle an unexpected pregnancy. They’re also helping to chip away at the deeply ingrained stigma our country holds against women who take control of their bodies and reproductive systems.

We live in a world where those are two goals that cause a huge chunk of the United States to respond with anger and vitriol, calling Letts a Godless Baby Slaughterer Witch from Hell. I give it about five minutes before death threats start rolling in.

This is a world that needs feminism.

And then, we’ve got 300 girls in the Nigerian village of Chibok who were abducted from school, OF ALL PLACES, and are now being sold into sexual, marital slavery for a few dollars a pop by Boko Haram, an Islamist fundamentalist group.

#Malala stands in solidarity with Nigerians & people everywhere calling for action to #BringBackOurGirls pic.twitter.com/woAjreav0W

— Malala Fund (@MalalaFund) May 4, 2014

These girls, who range in age from 9 to 15 years old, haven’t been found, which is SHOCKING considering how little media or political attention their abductions have warranted. (Please re-read that sentence and multiply the sarcasm factor by infinity.) And why were they abducted? Because Boko Haram is opposed to women in Nigeria receiving Western educations.

That’s right, folks. We live in a world where girls are violently denied educations and sold into slavery — all while making fewer headlines than Kimye.

This world needs feminism so badly that I have to come up with creative ways to squeeze multiple stories into a single blog post — and I never manage to cover them all. It needs feminism so badly that I had an entire post written about this racist, sexist,  douchebag extraordinaire from Princeton who’s not apologizing for his white privilege, and I SCRAPPED it, because there were too many other stories that were even more important to cover this week.

So, to Shailene Woodley, and to all the other people in the world who are hesitant or unwilling to adopt the feminist identity, please listen.

Feminism is not man-hating. Feminism is not power-grabbing. Feminism is not dangerous, destructive, or harmful.

Feminism is empathy. Feminism is self-love, and love for your fellow human beings. Feminism is working to end the oppression of all people — men, women, queers, people of color, poor people, disabled people — so that all of us can live happier, healthier lives.

Being a feminist means that you believe in social, political, and economic equality between the sexes. Being a feminist means you believe in ending oppression.

And sadly, this column is proof that there aren’t enough of us.

So, please, get next to feminism. Feminists are changing the world for the better. And we need you.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York City. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [Mingle MediaTV via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post An Open Letter to Shailene Woodley: What Every Not-a-Feminist Needs to Hear appeared first on Law Street.

Whether you’re for or against drone strikes, it should at least be accepted that regulations should be followed when using drones. The Obama Administration’s drone strike policies have most recently come into question after a wedding procession turned into a funeral. The December 2013 drone strike in Yemen violated the Administration’s own policies to prevent civilian casualties, according to a recent report by Human Rights Watch. A dozen people were killed and many others injured, including the bride. While the government claimed that the strike targeted and killed only militants, Human Rights Watch reported otherwise. This incident begs two questions:

1. What are the Obama Administration’s drone strike regulations?  

2. Are the regulations effective at targeting terrorists and protecting civilians?

Obama cited his administration’s drone policies in a speech last May, stating that strikes are permitted only when there is ‘near certainty’ that no civilians will be hurt. However, the phrase ‘near certainty’ was never officially defined and remains ambiguous. Additional guidelines included the following: ‘near certainty’ of the presence of the enemy; the enemy still poses a threat to the United States; and no possibility of the enemy’s being arrested or captured by different means. According to Human Rights Watch, the U.S. did not meet any of these guidelines in the December Yemeni attack.

Did the U.S. have ‘near certainty’ that the terrorist was among the group in the wedding procession?

The U.S. claimed they did, and that among the members of the targeted group was Yemen’s most-wanted terrorist, Shawqi Ali Ahmed al-Badani; however, the government has not offered any conclusive evidence or video proof that the target was, in fact, present during the attack. The government is not legally required to report the logistics of drone strikes, but this very fact points to a potential flaw in the policies. Without a record, there is no way to demand accountability. Moreover, the government’s claim contradicts statements that Human Rights Watch gathered from witnesses and members at the wedding party, none of whom affirmed the presence of the terrorist or other members of Al-Qaeda.

Was the main target and others involved in the attack a threat to U.S. security? 

Shawqi Ali Ahmed al-Badani is claimed to be an Al-Qaeda affiliate who was involved in the shutdown of around a dozen U.S. diplomatic centers across the Middle East last year. It seems that the target did, in fact, pose a continuing threat to U.S. security. However, the study suggests it is likely that the terrorist was not among the group attacked. Furthermore, Human Rights Watch acknowledged that there was a possibility that some Al-Qaeda associates were among the dead; however, it is unknown whether these people posed imminent threats to U.S. security.

Did the U.S. have ‘near certainty’ that no civilians would be hurt?

The fact that those targeted were part of a wedding makes it hard to believe that the United States was sure no civilians would be killed or injured. Moreover after the attack, Yemeni officials presented money and assault rifles, a traditional gift of apology, to the families of the dead and wounded. The Yemeni officials’ apologetic actions signify that many of those attacked were civilians and were mistakenly targeted. Finally, Human Rights Watch asserted that targeting the whole group to eliminate the terrorist would still not justify an attack by the United States since the attack would involve a disproportionate amount of civilian casualties.

According to the report, the Obama Administrations’ drone strike guidelines were not properly followed. Furthermore, the guidelines are not stringent enough to protect civilian lives, as there is no clear and established meaning of ‘near certainty.’ The phrase leaves much to the interpretation.

As more civilians are killed in the process of targeting terrorists, the United States risks endangering its relationship with countries that are working with them to stop terrorism. The U.S. risks breaching international laws of war due to the amount of civilian casualties. There have been more than 390 drone strikes during the Obama Presidency, and the consequences of these strikes include the deaths of 273 civilians. Lawyers from a British human rights organization have already filed in the ICC for the killing of civilians in a drone strike in Pakistan, which signifies the threat of a violation of international law is real. Not only do drone strikes pose a potential threat to civilian life, but they could also worsen the United States’ diplomatic relations with other countries and its own international reputation.

[Washington Post] [Human Rights Watch] [Bureau of Investigative Journalism] [Truthout] 

—

Sarah Shelden (@shelden430)

Featured image courtesy of [doctress neutopia via Flickr]

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post Drone Rules: Are They Enough to Protect Civilians? appeared first on Law Street.

The U.S. military isn’t doing enough to protect the health and safety of the people who make their clothing, according to The International Labor Rights Forum (ILRF). In the ILRF’s recent report, Dangerous Silence, the organization asserts that the U.S. Military has not properly looked into the sources of the clothing sold in their over 1,100 base stores, much of which comes from outsourced factories in Bangladesh.

According to the ILRF, the military doesn’t gather  sufficient information about the safety conditions and treatment of workers in these factories, and in many cases, relies on audits by companies such as Walmart and Sears that have failed to properly protect workers in their own factories. In some cases the military exchanges were aware of safety violations but did not alert Bangladeshi authorities; for instance, the Army and Air Force Exchange failed to act when they learned that Green Fair Textiles workers were being submitted to 80-hour work weeks.

Considering the fact that it is legal for the military to use overseas suppliers, some believe that they do not need to protect the factory workers. Army and Air Force Exchange Service spokesman Judd Anstey stated that the agency abides by guidelines issued by the Department of Defense which necessitates that all local laws are followed and merchandise is not made by forced labor or children. But what about overworking those in factories that is illegal by American standards, if not locally?

The military exchanges’ failure to report and solve the problems with their clothing suppliers is all the more surprising in the wake of last years’ tragedies in Bangladesh. The Tazreen Fashions factory, which manufactured Marine Corps logo clothing, experienced a fire in which 112 workers died. In April 2013 at Rana Plaza an eight-story clothing factory collapsed, killing more than 1,134 people and leaving 200 people missing as of last December.

The U.S. military fights for freedom across the world and defends liberty at home, yet the message strikes some as hypocritical when their uniforms are made in places that condone human rights violations. Although the U.S. has no legal responsibility for the conditions in factories in other countries, government entities should not turn a blind eye to the safety and labor violations in the factories they patronize.

An interesting comparison is the nearly nonexistent criticism directed toward military exchanges with the public’s reaction to the 2012 U.S. Olympic uniform controversy; the difference is striking. Ralph Lauren received a significant amount of negative press during the London Olympics because the U.S. delegation’s uniforms were made in China rather than domestically. Perhaps the backlash to this outsourcing was due to the fact that the Olympics is a spectacle that attracts international attention, while the military exchanges lack public prominence. Nevertheless, the Ralph Lauren controversy shows how public outcry can stimulate change: in reaction to the negative press over their uniforms, Ralph Lauren made a point to use American sources and labor for the 2014 Sochi uniforms. If the military exchanges garnered the same level of attention, perhaps they would be compelled to act, too.

United States officials should take a stance against this abuse of workers and safety in outsourced factories in order to set an example for other retailers to follow when it comes to factory conditions. The ILRF’s report provides several suggestions as to how the United States military can help protect Bangladeshi workers, including requiring suppliers to comply with international labor standards, issuing mandatory repairs and inspections to ensure safety, organizing worker unions and committees, and publicly disclosing audit results. The Marine Corps appears to be taking the lead. The branch’s Trademark and Licensing Office issued a new policy mandating its retail suppliers be signatories to the Accord on Fire and Building Safety.
—

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post The U.S. Military & Bangladeshi Factories: Who’s Responsible for Safety? appeared first on Law Street.

I love the Olympics. I always have. Summer or winter, it doesn’t matter. I will dutifully watch hours of Olympic coverage, get weirdly into obscure sports (curling!!!!!!) and stay up until ridiculous hours to watch my favorite games. That being said, the Olympics aren’t just all about fun. Over the years, the games have served, often unwillingly, as a backdrop for powerful political statements. For example, the American 1980 Summer Games boycott and resulting Soviet Union 1984 Summer Games boycott were both obviously politically motivated. Individual athletes can also turn the Olympics political — the 1968 Olympic Games Black Power salute by Tommie Smith and John Carlos made headlines and eventually got the two spectacular athletes banned from that year’s Olympic games.

Controversies in the Olympics are common, but this year’s games in Sochi seem particularly fraught. Here are the five most important political and social reasons to care.

5. Stray Dogs

Sochi is home to a lot of stray dogs. Nice, stray dogs, like peoples’ abandoned pets, or the offspring of those pets. According to passersby, most of the dogs seem quite friendly.  But I guess it looks bad to just have stray dogs wandering the Olympic grounds, so the Russian government paid a firm to have them rounded up and killed. The firm hired to do so called the dogs “biological trash.” This move sparked international outrage, people are now trying to adopt these dogs, and a Russian billionaire and big time Putin supporter is actually donating a ton of money to save the dogs.

Now I have…conflicting thoughts on the issue. Don’t get me wrong, I was incredibly outraged by the attempt to kill the dogs. I love dogs — they’re hands down my favorite animal, and come on, how can you resist a face like this?

I’m horrified that they would try to kill the dogs, and I would love for those dogs to be saved, but there is something amazing about the global reaction to Russia’s attempt to kill the stray dogs. This Guardian piece sums it up well, but case in point is that people do seem to care more about dogs than humans. There have been numerous stories of human rights abuses, yet this Sochi-stray-dogs story has made tons of headlines. I love the dogs too, and it breaks my heart that any would be killed, but it’s concerning that people are so focused on this issue. My best guess is that it’s easier to take a stand against animal abuse than more contentious political issues, such as…

4. The Ukraine Conflict 

While the Olympics happen, everyone is kind of tacitly ignoring the fact that there’s a major civil conflict going on essentially next door in the Ukraine. For all intents and purposes, Russia’s next step in the conflict has been on “hold” — most pundits are speculating that they will wait until the games are over to make a big move. So far, the entire conflict has been thoroughly messy though, and not just in the Ukraine. It’s become an almost miniature proxy war between the US and the EU and Russia. And believe me, both sides have the potential to play dirty. Russia is the most likely culprit to have leaked an incredibly embarrassing voicemail from a US diplomat dissing the EU. It seems like as soon as these Olympics end, things will start getting global in the Ukraine.

I think it actually says a lot about the symbolic power of the Olympic games (especially games set in Sochi) that Russia, the United States, and others, are willing to put some political maneuvers on hold.

3. Irina Rodnina 

Irina Rodnina was a prolific figure skater when she was younger, and now she is a Russian political figure. As one of the country’s most recognizable winter athletes, she was a seemingly natural choice to light the torch. But after Rodnina’s name was announced, it came to light that she had retweeted this disgustingly racist and obviously doctored photo this fall (as seen below in journalist Terry Moran’s tweet).
https://twitter.com/TerryMoran/statuses/431870114258878464

Rodnina wouldn’t even apologize at first. She just said that “Freedom of speech is freedom.” More recently, she claimed that she was hacked, although she had never said so in the past. But even after the tweet was discovered, Russia made no effort to get her to apologize or remove her from the torchbearer’s post.

2. The Economy

As much as I love the Olympics, this is a point that I will make every time the Games occur in a non-major city (and sometimes even when they do occur in a big city). Before any Olympic games, the infrastructure gets ridiculously built up, and often after the Olympics end, the new buildings, hotels, and stadiums are abandoned. Here is an incredibly creepy collection of pictures from abandoned Olympic villages.

The Olympics provide a big economic boost, but after that, nothing. That’s a facet of every Olympic games. But the Sochi games have taken extravagance to a whole new level, and in a medium-size city like Sochi (52nd largest in Russia), things had to be built completely from scratch. Supposedly protected natural habitats of animals were destroyed, and an entire village had to be relocated. Like I said, I love the Olympics, but the pragmatist in me wonders if the cost is worth it, and I have never wondered about that more so than during the Sochi games.

1. Gay Rights

This shouldn’t come as a surprise, but obviously Russia’s attack on gay rights is the biggest political story of these Olympics. As has been demonstrated over the last few months, being gay in Russia is incredibly difficult and oppressive. We’ve heard these stories for a long time, but the international spotlight on Russia this winter has given them a particularly haunting voice. President Obama and Vice President Biden, French President Hollande, and Canadian Prime Minister Harper, among others, have all declined to attend. In general, the Olympic games in Sochi have shed light on the human rights violations that occur there, and led to international pressure, but so far there’s been no real tangible signs of change. If the international community, the United States included, is serious about helping the very real problems of the LGBT community in Russia, the pressure on the country needs to increase substantially. Otherwise, the issue will be forgotten, as so many international causes have, and that’s just not acceptable.

—

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 [U.S. Army 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 The Top 5 Reasons to Care About the Sochi Olympics appeared first on Law Street.

Until recently, Zimbabwe’s laws required heavy penalties for insulting the president. Section 33 of Zimbabwe’s Criminal Codification and Reform Act levied a 100 dollar fine or a year of imprisonment for such an offense. The current political consensus does not support the president, as a result many individuals broke section 33 by badmouthing President Mugabe and received such punishments. At least 80 cases alleging these charges have been seen in the last year. However, amendments to section 33 are now in progress.

President Mugabe has been the head of Zimbabwe for 33 years. He will be 90 when he concludes this term. He was once greeted by cheers when first elected in 1980. At that time, he was the first black president in a country that had been formerly ruled by a small population of whites–a haunting vestige of its colonial history. But Zimbabwe’s love for Mugabe has turned sour, and his most recent election was met with apathy and exacerbated already existing despondency.

Mugabe’s reign has not seen the prosperity of the hope it once promised. During his rule, the country has suffered from extremely high levels of inflation, the implementation of his infamously poor land reforms that damaged the country’s tobacco industry, and many human rights issues. The land reform legislation, created to return the power to the black population, allowed for the government to seize land from the white population, without compensation, and redistribute it to the black population. Black riots and marches in celebrations of the fast-track resettlement program injured the white population physically and economically, causing a mass migration. The departure of the white population meant a decrease of wealth and resources for Zimbabwe. Furthermore, this expensive redistribution of land gave farms to individuals with little agrarian knowledge, resulting in a reduction in productivity and poor land management. This hyperinflation added salt to wound–as inflation was 1,000 percent just last year. The well-being of the economy is usually positively correlated to the reelection of the incumbent president. The only reason Mugabe was able to win the recent 2013 election was by pushing the limits of human rights, and rigging the votes.

With a distressing recent history, things are starting to turn around for Zimbabwe as a new democratic constitution is created. Two significant events are driving the policy changes; change of presidential term limits and support for freedom of speech from the judicial sector. The new constitution would limit the terms of the President to two to five years, and limit power through checks and balances system similar to United States. Furthermore, High Court Judge Malaba’s promotion of freedom of speech in opposition to the insult laws, “law[s] cannot be used to restrict the exercise of freedom of expression under the guise of protecting public order when what is protected is not public order,” spurred Zimbabwe’s change. Once again, we are reminded of Mugabe’s first election, as hope predicts a positive future.

[BBC] [Aljazeera] [BBC]

—

Featured image courtesy of [U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Jesse B. Awalt via Wikipedia]

Vasudha Sadana

The post Changing Laws in Zimbabwe: Rise of a New Hope appeared first on Law Street.