Democracy promotion was main topic in Chapter 2 of In Our Own Best Interest written by William F. Schulz’s. In this chapter Schulz writes it is in America’s interest to promote democracy, and this in turn will help bring more rights to people who live in repressive countries. (Schulz, 48) Schulz also argued that, “More democracy does not always equal more stability any more than more democracy automatically equals more peace. In the long run, however, democratic communities of rights do in fact tend to be more ”dynamically stable” than autocracies.” (Schulz, 59) The arguments he put forward were intriguing to me; however, I felt he purposefully downplayed the difficulty in promoting democracy in order to make the American reader more open to his ideas.
Schulz argues the U.S. should promote democracy and many of his opinions, I believe, take on a realist perspective. This perspective, in International Relation terms, assumes the global system is anarchic and every state’s goal is to promote its own national interest. Schulz’s arguments rely on the U.S. doing what is best for us, but then simultaneously argues that if not the U.S. then either NATO (which is heavily supported by the U.S.) or the UN (where the U.S. has a seat on the Security Council) should intervene. Here we are presented some problems. First, won’t promoting our national interest not necessarily equate with promotion of democracy in other countries? Secondly, I take issue with Schulz saying, essentially, “If you don’t want the U.S. involved in democracy promotion than too bad because they will be involved.” This argument, or assumption, decreases the importance of other actors such as EU, or NGOs.
Schulz wanted the reader, at the end of his book, to think promoting human rights and democracy is in fact in our interest. However, what is in the U.S.’s national interest does not always mean promoting democracy and I believe this can be seen with the comfortable relations the United States has with Saudi Arabia. There a democracy is certainly not flourishing, but U.S. elites are not advocating for an Arabian democracy because of our natural resource needs. Viewing our national interest in economic terms, instead of the moral terms that Schulz hoped to promote, has occurred throughout our history and will continue.
Also, the use of realism has always bothered me and it still does when used within this book. The U.S. should promote democracy because it’s in our interest, but is it not also in other countries interest to promote democratic reforms (the democratic peace theory, after all, does not just apply to the U.S. and another democracy)? Let us assume Britain wanted to promote democracy in the United States, how would this promotion be achieved? Would it come through: election monitoring, promotion of civil society, or perhaps Britain would overthrow our government and install a new and better one? Obviously, the leaders of the U.S. would not allow these scenarios to occur neither would the elites or leaders of ‘problem’ countries. I think this is where Schulz purposefully simplifies democracy promotion. As a citizen I can petition the U.S. government, become involved with educational campaigns, or a NGO but ultimately democracy promotion will be in the hands of my elites and the elites of the problem country. Unlike ending human rights violations, there is no clear stopping point for democracy promotion and it is much less tangible than something like a genocide or FGM. This ultimately means the average U.S. citizen may advocate for democracy promotion but little may be done; moreover, the citizen may never really know if the promotion is accomplishing anything.
Schulz’s audience was U.S. citizens and he argued not every conflict requires U.S. action, but almost every democracy promotion will have a U.S. influence. Historically Schulz is probably correct, but promoting this view discounts the role other countries have played in promoting democracy. Additionally, it puts his American readers in a precarious position that is to either support democracy promotion directly, or indirectly you will have to deal with it. If then Americans view democracy in these terms they will never think about alternative methods of democracy promotion without U.S. engagement.
Finally, Schulz fails to address the idea of democracy itself. The literature discussing the different forms of democracy (for example, Presidentialism v. Parliamentary system, Federalism v. a Confederation) is vast, but Schulz does not address the different forms. Instead, he allows the reader to assume the U.S. liberal, capitalist democracy is the best version and is a cookie cutter model for any country. To me, there are obvious problems with this idea. A simple example of where our democracy may not work well is China. Their sense of communalism is much stronger than the U.S., which might mean they would want a different form of democracy.
I understand Schulz’s goal of this book was to engage the average citizen on human rights issues, but I think in doing so he might have made the reader more ethnocentric in his or her own views. Schulz could have still achieved his goals by incorporating different views of democracy promotion within his book. Specifically, I think of Dr. McMahon’s “toolbox approach” to nation building and democracy promotion. Though Dr. McMahon’s subject matter may be unknown to the average citizen, the overall concept is pretty easy to grasp. Furthermore, had Schulz challenged his own American views then, perhaps, I would have had less issue with his Chapter 2; however, as it stands I find the chapter quite poor.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Death Penalty Discussion
The use of the death penalty is a violation of human rights. “Abolitionists argue that there is no evidence the death penalty deters future crimes; that it violates the sanctity of life, to say nothing of international human rights standards; that innocents can be killed; and the punishment is applied capriciously and tainted with racism (Schulz,170)
The use of the death penalty doesn’t actually have a deterrent effect. The notion that -by executing a murderer, we are preventing them from committing another murder of an innocent person-has the potential to be a true statement. If someone can prove that the criminal was going to murder again than yes, we have stopped him from murdering again. However, just because a person committed once doesn’t necessarily mean they will commit another one. There is honestly no real way of knowing that. The idea of the death penalty having a deterrent effect is debatable. There is no solid evidence showing a correlation between using the death penalty and a decrease in crimes punishable by death penalty. There is, however, evidence that disproves this idea. “Eighteen of the twenty states with the highest murder rates are death penalty states and death penalty states have averaged 9.1 murders per 100,000 and abolitionist states4.9 (Schulz, 170).” In addition, “Texas, which has executed more prisoners than any other state since 1977, has a murder rate more than 25 percent higher than the national average (Schulz).” So with this information in mind, the deterrent effect is not a good reason for supporting the death penalty.
The possibility of innocent murders being executed should be enough to stop anyone from supporting the death penalty. If an innocent person is executed than everyone associated with the case, from the jurors, to the judge and all the way to the person who administered the lethal injection is truly a murderer. There is one piece of evidence that shows how truly flawed the U.S. judicial system really is; As of April, 2009, 138 people exonerated in 26 different states (Death Penalty Information Center). This is an unbelievable amount of people. That could have been 138 innocent people dead but because of some reason, whether it was a new trial or DNA testing or something else, a real tragedy has been diverted. DNA testing, which is responsible for a lot of innocent people being exonerated, is a fairly new technology and wasn’t available twenty years ago. So, just imagine how many innocent people have either been executed in the U.S. or are currently sitting on death row right now.
Another major defect in the use of the death penalty in the United States is, it is used capriciously and is tainted with racism. “…race of the victim of a capital crime is a profound determinant of whether the perpetrator of that crime will be sentenced to death or to a lesser penalty (Schulz, 171). According to statistics provided by amnestyusa.org, “since 1977, the overwhelming majority of death row defendants have been executed for killing white victims, although African-Americans make up about half of all homicide victims (amnestyusa.org).”Since 1976, seventy-nine percent of death sentences handed out, the victim has been white. Indisputably the death penalty is penalty is being given in a racially biased way and severely undermines the judicial system as a whole.
The whole idea of the death penalty and punishing murders by killing them is morally challenged. The U.S. is sending the wrong message to society by using the death penalty. It telling society that violence is signifies retribution. It is telling people that violence can solve problems. This is the wrong message to be sending to youth who are taking in these messages. Jeffrey Reiman, Professor of Philosophy at American University, believes, “that the vast majority of murders in America are a predictable response to the frustrations and disabilities of impoverished social circumstances, and since I believe that that impoverishment is a remediable injustice from which other in America benefit, I believe that we have no right to exact the full cost of murders from our murders until we have done everything possible to rectify the conditions that produce their crimes (Reiman, 132).
The use of the death penalty doesn’t actually have a deterrent effect. The notion that -by executing a murderer, we are preventing them from committing another murder of an innocent person-has the potential to be a true statement. If someone can prove that the criminal was going to murder again than yes, we have stopped him from murdering again. However, just because a person committed once doesn’t necessarily mean they will commit another one. There is honestly no real way of knowing that. The idea of the death penalty having a deterrent effect is debatable. There is no solid evidence showing a correlation between using the death penalty and a decrease in crimes punishable by death penalty. There is, however, evidence that disproves this idea. “Eighteen of the twenty states with the highest murder rates are death penalty states and death penalty states have averaged 9.1 murders per 100,000 and abolitionist states4.9 (Schulz, 170).” In addition, “Texas, which has executed more prisoners than any other state since 1977, has a murder rate more than 25 percent higher than the national average (Schulz).” So with this information in mind, the deterrent effect is not a good reason for supporting the death penalty.
The possibility of innocent murders being executed should be enough to stop anyone from supporting the death penalty. If an innocent person is executed than everyone associated with the case, from the jurors, to the judge and all the way to the person who administered the lethal injection is truly a murderer. There is one piece of evidence that shows how truly flawed the U.S. judicial system really is; As of April, 2009, 138 people exonerated in 26 different states (Death Penalty Information Center). This is an unbelievable amount of people. That could have been 138 innocent people dead but because of some reason, whether it was a new trial or DNA testing or something else, a real tragedy has been diverted. DNA testing, which is responsible for a lot of innocent people being exonerated, is a fairly new technology and wasn’t available twenty years ago. So, just imagine how many innocent people have either been executed in the U.S. or are currently sitting on death row right now.
Another major defect in the use of the death penalty in the United States is, it is used capriciously and is tainted with racism. “…race of the victim of a capital crime is a profound determinant of whether the perpetrator of that crime will be sentenced to death or to a lesser penalty (Schulz, 171). According to statistics provided by amnestyusa.org, “since 1977, the overwhelming majority of death row defendants have been executed for killing white victims, although African-Americans make up about half of all homicide victims (amnestyusa.org).”Since 1976, seventy-nine percent of death sentences handed out, the victim has been white. Indisputably the death penalty is penalty is being given in a racially biased way and severely undermines the judicial system as a whole.
The whole idea of the death penalty and punishing murders by killing them is morally challenged. The U.S. is sending the wrong message to society by using the death penalty. It telling society that violence is signifies retribution. It is telling people that violence can solve problems. This is the wrong message to be sending to youth who are taking in these messages. Jeffrey Reiman, Professor of Philosophy at American University, believes, “that the vast majority of murders in America are a predictable response to the frustrations and disabilities of impoverished social circumstances, and since I believe that that impoverishment is a remediable injustice from which other in America benefit, I believe that we have no right to exact the full cost of murders from our murders until we have done everything possible to rectify the conditions that produce their crimes (Reiman, 132).
Republicans Contest Use of Miranda Rights
Along with the Times Square bomb story has come an interesting debate over Miranda rights, as Republicans call the using of these rights a mistake in the case of Faisal Shahzad. However, despite what some Republican representatives, such as Senator John McCain, have said about the danger of using the Miranda warning with terrorist cases, it is still absolutely the right thing to do because it ensures that the person being taken into custody has their rights respected, it ensures that any evidence found can be effectively used against that person in court, and symbolizes the United States’ effort to uphold consistent and fair legal standards. While these Republicans may be correct when they claim that more information can be extracted in instances without use of the Miranda warning, this practice can become discriminatory and defeats the purpose of the Miranda rights.
According to reporters, Shahzad was initially questioned without hearing his Miranda rights based on the safety exception rule, which states that authorities are not required to read a detainee their rights if there is an immediate threat to anyone. After the initial questioning, Shahzad was read his Miranda rights, and continued to cooperate with investigators, admitting to the attacks and claiming that he acted independently. This was all done according to United States law, and was seemingly a job well done by investigators until some Republican representatives decided to call the reading of the Miranda rights a mistake since this was a terrorist case, and investigators were “lucky” that Shahzad cooperated. This desire to deprive someone of their rights reflects the phenomenon of hypocrisy that William Schulz talks about in his book “In Our Own Best Interest.” Schulz points out that the United States, supposedly a champion for human rights around the world, has many areas of human rights that it struggles with as it is, and therefore has lost a lot of credibility in the international realm.
It’s one thing to not read overseas terrorists their Miranda rights (although that’s still wrong, legally and morally), but to suggest not reading them to a United States citizen within the borders of his own country is a clear-cut desire to eliminate someone’s rights. It’s not a bad thing for the Republican representatives to look out for Americans and attempt to gather as much information in the name of safety as possible, but this case may have been the wrong one for them to choose. Not only was Shahzad a United States citizen, but he was completely cooperative throughout his entire investigation according to all reports, and on top of it all, the bomb was a dud.
Miranda rights are important in the United States because they ensure that every person who gets taken into custody for questioning has their rights respected, and they are not taken advantage of by police or investigators. The United States claims to care about rights for its citizens, and this is one area where the government can actually back up that claim. The Miranda rights are also an important tool for immigrants and others who may struggle with the English language or American law.
These rights are also important to the legal system in the United States because, since the 1966 Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Court decision, any information gathered without stating the rights of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments cannot be used against the detainee in court. By reading the Miranda rights, the investigator ensures that any information the person in question is willing to give can be used against them in court, thereby aiding the judicial process while at the same time recognizing rights from two different amendments.
Additionally, these rights guarantee more fair legal standards in the United States, preventing uneducated or otherwise ignorant individuals from being abused through the legal process of being investigated and taken to court. The rights require that the investigator tell the person in custody that they have the right to remain silent if they choose, and also that they will be represented by an attorney whether they have money to afford their own or not. Fair legal standards are another thing that all Americans enjoy, yet this is only the case because it is applied universally only with the safety exception.
The denial to read a suspect their Miranda rights before investigation is another rights violation that can be used against the United States by any nation that it wishes to influence. Rights violations in the United States drastically lower the ability for the country to spread human rights to countries that desperately need it, and, as Schulz claims, countries are unwilling to follow hypocritical examples such as that of the United States. The United States government must be more careful with its criticisms and denials of rights if it wants to become a significant player in the international world of human rights, and the restriction in the use of Miranda rights is only a step backwards for the country.
Condon, Stephanie. “Faisal Shahzad Was Read Miranda Rights After Initial
Questioning,” CBS News. May 4, 2010. http://www.cbsnews.com
/8301-503544_162-20004108-503544.html
Schulz, William F. "In Our Own Best Interest: How Defending Human Rights Benefits
Us All." Beacon Press, Boston, 2002.
According to reporters, Shahzad was initially questioned without hearing his Miranda rights based on the safety exception rule, which states that authorities are not required to read a detainee their rights if there is an immediate threat to anyone. After the initial questioning, Shahzad was read his Miranda rights, and continued to cooperate with investigators, admitting to the attacks and claiming that he acted independently. This was all done according to United States law, and was seemingly a job well done by investigators until some Republican representatives decided to call the reading of the Miranda rights a mistake since this was a terrorist case, and investigators were “lucky” that Shahzad cooperated. This desire to deprive someone of their rights reflects the phenomenon of hypocrisy that William Schulz talks about in his book “In Our Own Best Interest.” Schulz points out that the United States, supposedly a champion for human rights around the world, has many areas of human rights that it struggles with as it is, and therefore has lost a lot of credibility in the international realm.
It’s one thing to not read overseas terrorists their Miranda rights (although that’s still wrong, legally and morally), but to suggest not reading them to a United States citizen within the borders of his own country is a clear-cut desire to eliminate someone’s rights. It’s not a bad thing for the Republican representatives to look out for Americans and attempt to gather as much information in the name of safety as possible, but this case may have been the wrong one for them to choose. Not only was Shahzad a United States citizen, but he was completely cooperative throughout his entire investigation according to all reports, and on top of it all, the bomb was a dud.
Miranda rights are important in the United States because they ensure that every person who gets taken into custody for questioning has their rights respected, and they are not taken advantage of by police or investigators. The United States claims to care about rights for its citizens, and this is one area where the government can actually back up that claim. The Miranda rights are also an important tool for immigrants and others who may struggle with the English language or American law.
These rights are also important to the legal system in the United States because, since the 1966 Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Court decision, any information gathered without stating the rights of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments cannot be used against the detainee in court. By reading the Miranda rights, the investigator ensures that any information the person in question is willing to give can be used against them in court, thereby aiding the judicial process while at the same time recognizing rights from two different amendments.
Additionally, these rights guarantee more fair legal standards in the United States, preventing uneducated or otherwise ignorant individuals from being abused through the legal process of being investigated and taken to court. The rights require that the investigator tell the person in custody that they have the right to remain silent if they choose, and also that they will be represented by an attorney whether they have money to afford their own or not. Fair legal standards are another thing that all Americans enjoy, yet this is only the case because it is applied universally only with the safety exception.
The denial to read a suspect their Miranda rights before investigation is another rights violation that can be used against the United States by any nation that it wishes to influence. Rights violations in the United States drastically lower the ability for the country to spread human rights to countries that desperately need it, and, as Schulz claims, countries are unwilling to follow hypocritical examples such as that of the United States. The United States government must be more careful with its criticisms and denials of rights if it wants to become a significant player in the international world of human rights, and the restriction in the use of Miranda rights is only a step backwards for the country.
Condon, Stephanie. “Faisal Shahzad Was Read Miranda Rights After Initial
Questioning,” CBS News. May 4, 2010. http://www.cbsnews.com
/8301-503544_162-20004108-503544.html
Schulz, William F. "In Our Own Best Interest: How Defending Human Rights Benefits
Us All." Beacon Press, Boston, 2002.
HR in the News: Times Square car bomb criminal charged with "attempting to use a WMD"
This article from the Guardian casually states that Faisal Shahzad, the man who confessed to constructing the bomb in a 1993 Nissan Pathfinder in the middle of Times Square, was “charged yesterday with terrorism and attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction.” I have no problem with the United States government charging Shahzad with terrorism, attempted murder, attempted MASS murder, anything you want to call his attempt at the killing of a large number of Americans in the middle of New York on Saturday. However, am I the only person to have found the charge of “attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction to be shocking, if not problematic?
I feel as though this story is an example of the United States again giving other nations, particularly our enemies, something to hold against the United States. This is because the bomb inside the car, according to experts, could have only produced a very small explosion, potentially only killing the nearest passersby. If every explosive of this same size or potential killing capacity is now considered a WMD, it seems as though the United States has been supplying WMDs to countries all over the world for many years.
I am still hopeful that this charge is erroneous, not because I want Shahzad to have a lesser sentence, but because I do not want other countries to begin exploiting the “new” definition of WMDs as related to this case.
I feel as though this story is an example of the United States again giving other nations, particularly our enemies, something to hold against the United States. This is because the bomb inside the car, according to experts, could have only produced a very small explosion, potentially only killing the nearest passersby. If every explosive of this same size or potential killing capacity is now considered a WMD, it seems as though the United States has been supplying WMDs to countries all over the world for many years.
I am still hopeful that this charge is erroneous, not because I want Shahzad to have a lesser sentence, but because I do not want other countries to begin exploiting the “new” definition of WMDs as related to this case.
Liberal Democracies and Human Rights Violations
Throughout the semester in this class, there has been much information read and posted about human rights violations in the lesser developed, less liberal regions of the world. Citizens in many nations today still suffer many abuses, from female genital mutilation still being somewhat widespread across Africa, to prisoner abuses in Zambia, and forcible relocation of the homeless, poor, and suspected thieves of Rwandan society to an Alcatraz-like island facility where they can be "rehabilitated." Many nations have also tried to outlaw homosexuality, making this lifestyle punishable by arrest or even death. And nations such as Iran and Rwanda have put down political dissent, showing no tolerance for differing opinion and (in the case of the former) attacked and killed their own citizens.
But there have also been detailed abuses of human rights, even in countries that are fully fledged liberal democracies and therefore should not be doing such things. The persecution and violence against GLBT people in the United States is more common than might be believed, and frequently done by police officers, members of society who are supposed to uphold the law and safety of citizens rather than trample them. Police-initiated brutality against GLBT people make up only two to four percent of reported incidents, but in reality, constitute at least 40 percent of police-initiated violence incidents (Amnesty International). Abuses by U.S. soldiers against prisoners captured in Iraq and Afghanistan is also well known, due to incidents at Guantanamo Bay and the Abu Ghraib scandal, among others. And the recent Arizona immigration bill allows for much more strict policies against illegal immigration from Mexico. Law enforcement can stop a Latino person if the officer simply suspects that the person is in the state illegally, which raises fears that this new law could lead to racial profiling.
The United States is certainly not the only guilty liberal democracy of violating human rights in this day and age. Multiple countries in Europe are moving to repress and restrict aspects of Islam. France and Belgium are both deciding upon measures that would ban the Islamic burqa in public venues. While leadership here believes the burqa is an "attack on women's rights," the banning of a cultural practice of Islam is in turn an attack on the right to religious freedom, criminalizing a practice that, while controversial, does not pose any direct, hostile threat to people or to society (Crumley). Switzerland has taken a slightly different direction, but one that is no less alarming, as the country has passed laws by popular vote that prohibit the building of minarets. Normally a country known and renowned for its tolerance and neutrality, the Swiss citizens have somehow decided that increasing the number of minarets is intolerable (with only a small amount of them existing currently) and is something that represents a threat to their national identity (Altikriti).
Many dictatorships and fledgling/illiberal democracies around the world take a lot of heat for human rights abuses, and rightfully so, as many terrible things do occur under such regimes. But shouldn't liberal democracies who point out these abuses look to themselves for these things, as well? Even liberal democracies, it seems, are not immune to intolerance and can use elements of its democracy to trample human rights when it sees fit. The minaret ban in Switzerland, for instance, was done by popular referendum, getting the support of 57% of the voter turnout (Altikriti). It is often the case that Western liberal democracies champion human rights and press less powerful, less developed nations around the world to change their practices and actions in order to respect these rights. But what happens when these Western liberal democracies fail to practice what they preach? Who is to enforce or dictate the upholding of human rights on these nations when they violate them, sometimes quite flagrantly?
While it is true that international groups and other countries can point out these abuses and try to hold Western liberal democracies accountable, the Western liberal democracies must ultimately hold themselves accountable and address these issues from within. Political tolerance of outgroups is something that still needs to be encouraged and practiced. If different groups are understood to not be a threat to the current society and lifestyle, negativity and suppression are likely to decrease as a result. And while there is no real power of its enforcement over any country, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is still something to be closely adhered to, as even these liberal democracies seem to have forgotten some of its tenets. At the very least, if these issues cannot be fixed, it would help the liberal democracies to save face to try and address them, since nobody likes listening to a hypocrite. The fact that a nation might be a liberal democracy is not a guarantee that human rights violations will not be perpetrated by these countries, which is something that must be observed and heeded by all liberal democracies.
Works Cited:
Altikriti, Anas. "Minarets and Europe's Crisis." 2 Dec 2009 (aljazeera.net).
Amnesty International USA. Stonewalled. New York: Amnesty International Publications, 2005 (http://www.amnestyusa.org/outfront/stonewalled/report.pdf).
Crumley, Bruce. "France moves closer to banning the burqa." 23 Apr 2010 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100423/wl_time/08599198387100).
But there have also been detailed abuses of human rights, even in countries that are fully fledged liberal democracies and therefore should not be doing such things. The persecution and violence against GLBT people in the United States is more common than might be believed, and frequently done by police officers, members of society who are supposed to uphold the law and safety of citizens rather than trample them. Police-initiated brutality against GLBT people make up only two to four percent of reported incidents, but in reality, constitute at least 40 percent of police-initiated violence incidents (Amnesty International). Abuses by U.S. soldiers against prisoners captured in Iraq and Afghanistan is also well known, due to incidents at Guantanamo Bay and the Abu Ghraib scandal, among others. And the recent Arizona immigration bill allows for much more strict policies against illegal immigration from Mexico. Law enforcement can stop a Latino person if the officer simply suspects that the person is in the state illegally, which raises fears that this new law could lead to racial profiling.
The United States is certainly not the only guilty liberal democracy of violating human rights in this day and age. Multiple countries in Europe are moving to repress and restrict aspects of Islam. France and Belgium are both deciding upon measures that would ban the Islamic burqa in public venues. While leadership here believes the burqa is an "attack on women's rights," the banning of a cultural practice of Islam is in turn an attack on the right to religious freedom, criminalizing a practice that, while controversial, does not pose any direct, hostile threat to people or to society (Crumley). Switzerland has taken a slightly different direction, but one that is no less alarming, as the country has passed laws by popular vote that prohibit the building of minarets. Normally a country known and renowned for its tolerance and neutrality, the Swiss citizens have somehow decided that increasing the number of minarets is intolerable (with only a small amount of them existing currently) and is something that represents a threat to their national identity (Altikriti).
Many dictatorships and fledgling/illiberal democracies around the world take a lot of heat for human rights abuses, and rightfully so, as many terrible things do occur under such regimes. But shouldn't liberal democracies who point out these abuses look to themselves for these things, as well? Even liberal democracies, it seems, are not immune to intolerance and can use elements of its democracy to trample human rights when it sees fit. The minaret ban in Switzerland, for instance, was done by popular referendum, getting the support of 57% of the voter turnout (Altikriti). It is often the case that Western liberal democracies champion human rights and press less powerful, less developed nations around the world to change their practices and actions in order to respect these rights. But what happens when these Western liberal democracies fail to practice what they preach? Who is to enforce or dictate the upholding of human rights on these nations when they violate them, sometimes quite flagrantly?
While it is true that international groups and other countries can point out these abuses and try to hold Western liberal democracies accountable, the Western liberal democracies must ultimately hold themselves accountable and address these issues from within. Political tolerance of outgroups is something that still needs to be encouraged and practiced. If different groups are understood to not be a threat to the current society and lifestyle, negativity and suppression are likely to decrease as a result. And while there is no real power of its enforcement over any country, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is still something to be closely adhered to, as even these liberal democracies seem to have forgotten some of its tenets. At the very least, if these issues cannot be fixed, it would help the liberal democracies to save face to try and address them, since nobody likes listening to a hypocrite. The fact that a nation might be a liberal democracy is not a guarantee that human rights violations will not be perpetrated by these countries, which is something that must be observed and heeded by all liberal democracies.
Works Cited:
Altikriti, Anas. "Minarets and Europe's Crisis." 2 Dec 2009 (aljazeera.net).
Amnesty International USA. Stonewalled. New York: Amnesty International Publications, 2005 (http://www.amnestyusa.org/outfront/stonewalled/report.pdf).
Crumley, Bruce. "France moves closer to banning the burqa." 23 Apr 2010 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100423/wl_time/08599198387100).
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Human Rights in the News: Iran Abuses
While this week has been all about nuclear weapons and the attempt of the UN to keep the proliferation of WMD's from escalating, especially in Iran, Faraz Sanei's article reminds us that we cannot forget about the blatant, gross human rights abuses at the hands of Iranian President Ahmadinejad. Including but definitely not limited to violence towards and imprisonment of journalists, human rights activists, minorities and more. Further, Iran executed 388 people in 2009, many of whom protested the failed election last year, while still others were killed for "enmity with God". The article highlights that Iran faces the Human Rights Council in Geneva and has made no real reform that the Council previously demanded. It also calls for the "United States and other countries [need] to keep up the pressure"; but I'm wondering what this means exactly? Certainly the U.S. can apply little to no pressure with regards to Iran's death penalty policy. And while we can and should call for the release of political prisoners and freedom of press, what can be done? Historically we have proven inept to apply the right kind of pressure. While the abuse and injustice in Iran warrants serious rebuke, what actions are necessary? Surely it is not enough for "the people of Iran [to] know that the world has not forgotten them".
Views on Women and LGBT Individuals
We have spent a fair amount of time in class discussing the treatment of members of the LGBT community. Our readings on the treatment of LGBT individuals were particularly graphic and spurred some of our most emotionally charged classroom discussions. Likewise, there has been good discussion on both this blog and the class's associated twitter account of the issue of rights for homosexuals and gender minorities. In my opinion, though, we have largely missed out on the opportunity to discuss the treatment of women in the context of human rights.
One reason that the issue of women's rights is overlooked by the general population is the mistaken belief that women have all the rights they need and that everything is fine and dandy. While there are plenty who hold this belief, I suspect they are less well represented among a group of people engaged in the study of human rights. It is more likely that we did not discuss the particular case of the treatment of women because the unique case of women is actually not all that unique. The human rights violations we have discussed have been perpetrated against various manifestations of the Other: racial minorities, recent immigrants, members of the LGBT community, prisoners and death row inmates. Women can very easily be considered the universal Other. Given the patriarchal nature of all human societies, women are constantly in the outgroup. Because human rights violations are generally perpetrated against those in the outgroup, by discussing one particular form of human rights violations, we are in effect discussing every other form of human rights violation.
I do feel, though, that there exists a special relationship between the treatment of members of the LGBT community and the treatment of women. Hostility toward gays, lesbians and gender minorities is rooted in misogyny. For example, men who adopt what is seen as a woman's sex role or who seem in some way effeminate are subject to particular scorn. Contempt for members of both groups largely springs from a traditional understanding of masculinity in particular and gender roles in general. Narrow, inflexible views of appropriate or acceptable appearance and behavior based on biological sex are the root issue of both forms of prejudice.
The solution to both misogyny and homophobia is not just acceptance of those who are different from oneself. More fundamentally, the strict policing of gender roles must end. We should see the world not so much in terms of women and men, but rather in terms of people. We should open our societies up to the full array of human potential. People should be free to dress and act however they like. Individuals should be free to choose any consenting partner.
Admittedly, such an approach will require a substantial shift in societal conceptions. However much I welcome this change, I do not expect that it will happen overnight. In the interim, measures must be taken to ensure that the rights of women and members of the LGBT community are protected. The issue of expanding rights to include LGBT individuals was the topic of both a recent blog post and past twitter and class discussions. In theory, I am of the opinion that we already have all the rights we need; we just need to apply them. In fact, the whole issue seems incredibly simple: These are human rights. These people are human. These people have human rights. To add to the canon of human rights seems especially unnecessary since we are still not applying existing rights, which the new rights would likely echo.
In practice, however, I do favor legislation in support of both women and members of the LGBT community. If nothing else, the act of codifying into law the rejection of prejudice and discrimination gives advocates something to point to in order to legitimize their claims to rights. Doing so would demonstrate our commitment to human rights. Enacting legislation in support of the rights of women and LGBT individuals would also obligate our government to act in defense of the rights of members of these groups. Although we should not need legislation on the rights of women and members of the LGBT community, the unwillingness of society to afford members of these groups the rights that are due to all human beings necessitates such action.
As a side note, in the event that anyone is still checking the blog, can we all agree to stop referring to adult women as girls? Despite how offensive it is, it remains strikingly commonplace.
One reason that the issue of women's rights is overlooked by the general population is the mistaken belief that women have all the rights they need and that everything is fine and dandy. While there are plenty who hold this belief, I suspect they are less well represented among a group of people engaged in the study of human rights. It is more likely that we did not discuss the particular case of the treatment of women because the unique case of women is actually not all that unique. The human rights violations we have discussed have been perpetrated against various manifestations of the Other: racial minorities, recent immigrants, members of the LGBT community, prisoners and death row inmates. Women can very easily be considered the universal Other. Given the patriarchal nature of all human societies, women are constantly in the outgroup. Because human rights violations are generally perpetrated against those in the outgroup, by discussing one particular form of human rights violations, we are in effect discussing every other form of human rights violation.
I do feel, though, that there exists a special relationship between the treatment of members of the LGBT community and the treatment of women. Hostility toward gays, lesbians and gender minorities is rooted in misogyny. For example, men who adopt what is seen as a woman's sex role or who seem in some way effeminate are subject to particular scorn. Contempt for members of both groups largely springs from a traditional understanding of masculinity in particular and gender roles in general. Narrow, inflexible views of appropriate or acceptable appearance and behavior based on biological sex are the root issue of both forms of prejudice.
The solution to both misogyny and homophobia is not just acceptance of those who are different from oneself. More fundamentally, the strict policing of gender roles must end. We should see the world not so much in terms of women and men, but rather in terms of people. We should open our societies up to the full array of human potential. People should be free to dress and act however they like. Individuals should be free to choose any consenting partner.
Admittedly, such an approach will require a substantial shift in societal conceptions. However much I welcome this change, I do not expect that it will happen overnight. In the interim, measures must be taken to ensure that the rights of women and members of the LGBT community are protected. The issue of expanding rights to include LGBT individuals was the topic of both a recent blog post and past twitter and class discussions. In theory, I am of the opinion that we already have all the rights we need; we just need to apply them. In fact, the whole issue seems incredibly simple: These are human rights. These people are human. These people have human rights. To add to the canon of human rights seems especially unnecessary since we are still not applying existing rights, which the new rights would likely echo.
In practice, however, I do favor legislation in support of both women and members of the LGBT community. If nothing else, the act of codifying into law the rejection of prejudice and discrimination gives advocates something to point to in order to legitimize their claims to rights. Doing so would demonstrate our commitment to human rights. Enacting legislation in support of the rights of women and LGBT individuals would also obligate our government to act in defense of the rights of members of these groups. Although we should not need legislation on the rights of women and members of the LGBT community, the unwillingness of society to afford members of these groups the rights that are due to all human beings necessitates such action.
As a side note, in the event that anyone is still checking the blog, can we all agree to stop referring to adult women as girls? Despite how offensive it is, it remains strikingly commonplace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)