Sponsors/Authors of AZ and Fremont Laws Have Ties to Known Hate Groups

Many of the recent measures by local and state officials to pass restrictive immigration laws have a shared a common source and champion in a Kansas attorney and law professor who works for the legal arm of a designated hate group. In fact, Kris Kobach, who wrote the controversial immigration law recently passed in Arizona, also led the appeal for the Fremont voter initiative recently allowed back on the ballot by the Nebraska State Supreme Court. Kobach is a University of Missouri-Kansas City law professor and counsel for the Immigration Law Reform Institute, the legal arm of FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform). IRLI is behind numerous other initiatives similar to Arizona’s new law and a lawyer for the group stated that since last week lawmakers in four other states looking to do the same thing have already approached them.

FAIR has been designated as a nativist hate group, due to its ties to white supremacist groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center, a watchdog group that monitors and reports the activities of hate groups within the US. FAIR was founded by John Tanton, an outspoken racist and “architect of the modern anti-immigration movement,” who wrote that to maintain American culture, “a European-American majority” is required. Tanton founded other anti-immigrant organizations including the innocuous sounding Center for Immigration Studies and NumbersUSA. He also owns a publishing company, The Social Contract Press, which publishes white supremacist literature.

The voter initiative in Fremont would make it illegal to harbor, hire, or rent housing to undocumented immigrants within the city limits. Similar laws written by Kobach did not withstand legal challenge in Pennsylvania and Texas. IRLI is also behind a California ballot initiative that seeks to overturn the citizenship requirements of the 14^th Amendment, which allows grants citizenship everyone born in the U.S., as well as, end pre-natal care (sound familiar?), non-emergency care, and child welfare payments that benefit U.S. citizen children of undocumented immigrants. Kobach was also behind a recent bill in the Nebraska Legislature, LB1001, which sought to repeal the DREAM Act, which provides in state to undocumented immigrants that graduate from Nebraska high schools and promise to seek citizenship. The bill stalled, but Kobach is covering his bases and is currently suing the state of Nebraska seeking the DREAM Act’s repeal.

Kobach had previously worked as former US Attorney General John Ashcroft’s top immigration adviser. While at the Department of Justice he developed a program called the National Security Entry-Exit Program, which closely monitors men from Muslim and Arab countries and requires them to complete a process of special registration upon arrival and departure from the US. Needless to say the program is subject to criticism as institutionalized racial profiling. He unsuccessfully ran for Congress in 2004, losing by 11 percentage points (only eleven?) after his opponent ran commercials accusing him of being a racist. Kobach countered the commercials by accusing his opponent of associating with groups that support “homosexual pedophilia.” His reference was to his opponent’s support of the Human Rights Campaign, which is a mainstream LGBT rights organization that in no way endorses pedophilia. Still an aspiring politician Kobach served as chairman of the Kansas Republican party from 2007-09 and is currently running for Kansas Secretary of State. Not only did he write the Arizona law, but he also stands to profit from it. According to a recent deposition by the Chief Deputy of the Maricopa County (Phoenix) Sheriff’s office, it was revealed that Kobach is under contract to make “either $250 and hour or $300 an hour” to train all of the nearly 900 deputies on how to enforce federal immigration law.

The sponsor of the immigration bill in the Arizona State Senate, Russell Pearce, has his own history of ties to white supremacists. According to the New York Times, in 2006, he came under fire for speaking fondly of a 1950s deportation program called “Operation Wetback,” and for sending out email to supporters that included an attached anti-Semitic article from a neo-nazi group. A year later he appeared in a widely circulated photograph with a man who was the featured speaker at a neo-nazi conference. Yet, in 2009, after being forced out of the state house of representatives, he was elected to the state senate by 56 percent of the vote in his Mesa district. Why is this man repeatedly reelected? What is wrong with the people of Mesa?

The laws themselves are shameful, but that they are being written and sponsored by those with known ties to hate groups is appalling. Sure, the new Arizona law has drawn plenty of attention, but where has the outrage been up until now? Like we talked about in class, how do we reframe this into a human rights argument that would appeal to the voters in Mesa? Or Fremont? What common ground do we have with someone who knowingly votes for a candidate with ties to neo-nazi groups?

HR in the News: MLB and Anti-Immigration

Yesterday afternoon seemed just like any other for Major League Baseball as the Arizona Diamondbacks were set to play the Chicago Cubs at Wrigley Field. However, fans that were entering the stadium to enjoy one of America's favorite pastimes were confronted by protestors shouting for them to "Boycott Arizona!" and handing them pamphlets voicing their disagreement with Arizona's controversial immigration law. This group is also calling for Americans to boycott other sports teams from the state.

I am all for political activism and I am completely against this new immigration bill, but I feel like these people were out of line. First off, yelling at people with bullhorns is not going to change their minds or say "Way to go! I support what you are doing a 100%!" For the most part it is just going to annoy the heck out of them. It also does not seem very intelligent and is counterproductive to start chanting "Go home, racist" at a man that seemed to support the new bill. However, maybe this is just their way of "public shaming" and getting people to voice their opinions.

My main point is that I do not feel like this was the best place to be protesting this bill. If they felt the need to do this at a game it would have been better to do it in Arizona and not in the state of Illinois. This is a sporting event though and the Arizona Diamondbacks had nothing to do with the passing of the bill. I am not very knowledgeable on the finances that go into major league teams, but I am almost sure that the state does not pay money to these teams. I know the state of Arizona does receive some benefits through taxes on ticket sales, etc., but should players and teams really be punished because their state decided to pass an unpopular bill?

What are your thoughts? Should Americans boycott teams from Arizona to oppose this bill or is it just harming the players and teams themselves and in this case, another state that has nothing to do with the bill?

HR In the News: Execution in China may have inspired copycat criminals.

Criminal psychologists are claiming that three separate attacks on school children in China are copycat crimes, emulating an attack that took place on March 23 where Zheng Minsheng stabbed eight children to death at a primary school in Fujan Province. The three ensuing attacks, all of which occurred in the last three days, are said to have been “inspired by the intense public reaction and broad media coverage of the March 23 murders.” The first of the reactionary attacks took place on Wednesday, the day of Zheng’s execution. While the Chinese media has claimed that two or three of the attackers suffered from mental illness, these claims seem to be exaggerated.

The story about these copycat crimes shows one important fact about the use of the death penalty in this instance: it not only failed at deterring crime, but it inspired more crime of the exact same type. If the death penalty does not prove to deter crime, then what is the point of enacting it? Also, this provides a demonstration of how quickly the death penalty is enacted in China. It took only one month for Zheng to be tried and executed. China has been known to be both harsh and mysterious when it comes to death sentencing, but the taking of someone’s life is not a practice that should be rushed.

HR in the News: Human Rights Activists Attacked in Mexico

On Tuesday April 27th, a caravan of human rights observers was ambushed in Southern Mexico near the city of Oaxaca. A group of militants forced the vehicles off the road, after which they riddled them with bullets. The vehicles displayed banners alerting the attackers that international observers and members of the press were onboard. Two of the passengers in the caravan were killed. One of them, a Finnish man named Jyri Jaakkola, had planned to stay in Mexico for the next year advocating for the human rights of citizens in places like Oaxaca, which is one of the poorest cities in Mexico and has a history of violence. The second victim was a Mexican woman named Beatriz Carino, who directed the Mexican human rights group CACTUS. In addition to the two deaths, two other Mexican members of the caravan, reporter Erika Ramirez and photographer David Cilia, are currently missing. The group’s main mission was to document and observe the conditions under which indigenous peoples lived in the city, which included lack of adequate food, electricity and education. Some members of the convoy took part in a five month takeover of the Oaxaca government by a leftist organization back in 2006. The human rights activists have declared their intentions to continue their mission, despite the dangers and the fact that two members of their party--at least one of which is injured--have yet to be found.

HR in the News: Anti-homosexuality Laws in Malawi Keep Engaged Couple in Prison

A same-sex couple in Malawi has been imprisoned after the country passed anti-homosexuality legislation. Steven Monjeza and Tiwonge Chimbalanga have been in prison since they participated in an engagement ceremony in December. Since their imprisonment, they’ve been subjected to medical examinations to determine whether or not the couple has engaged in anal sex, which is a violation of the country’s decency laws. In addition, they are allegedly not being fed adequately and their trial date has been set back several times.

Anti-homosexuality laws are common in Africa, and there has been a recent resurgence of anti-gay sentiment in places such as Malawi and Uganda. In Uganda, a recent bill could make homosexual acts punishable by death. People and governments in Europe and the United States have condemned the actions of these countries, but so far none of the laws have been repealed and Monjeza and Chimbalanga remain in prison. The men have released statements declaring their continued love for one another despite their imprisonment, poor treatment, and rejection by their families.

These recent events have brought Africa’s aversion to homosexuality to the forefront of the international scene. Amnesty International has added their support to the case by adopting the couple and declaring them “prisoners of conscience” who have done no one any harm and are being sorely punished for loving each other. Interestingly enough, the thing which has placed the most pressure on the Malawian government is not the fact that the prisoners’ human rights are being violated, but that they might lose international support and aid as a result of their actions.

To Help or Not to Help

We’ve spent a lot of time in class discussing morality and people’s reasons for helping or not helping others in need. Out of curiosity I looked up some information on reasons why people help or don’t help others and discovered a recent news story where a man attempted to stop another man accosting a woman in New York City. This Good Samaritan was stabbed for his trouble, and lay bleeding on the sidewalk until he died an hour later. What makes this case interesting is not that the man—Hugo Tale-Yax—was stabbed to death in New York city, but that a total of twenty-five people walked by him on the busy street and none of them reported it or tried to help him. Surveillance cameras show that many of the passersby looked over at the victim, one person stopped to shake him, and one man even took a picture on his cell phone.

But why did this happen? Psychologists blame it on something called the Bystander Effect, which holds that the more people who are around to witness an accident or attack, the less likely a person is to report it or help out the victim(s). The assumption is made by all the observers that someone else will call it in or provide help, and therefore none of them choose to help. In the case of Tale-Yax, this psychological phenomena cost him his life.

Other examples include the more famous case in 1964 of a 28-year-old woman named Kitty Genovese, who was stabbed to death in an alley by a serial killer while her neighbors heard and ignored her screams. In October of last year, a 15-year-old girl was gang raped for two hours outside of her San Francisco high school during the homecoming dance. Students meandered in and out of the dance, stopped to watch and laugh at what was taking place, and then went back to the party. Some dance attendees even joined in. A more recent example took place over the weekend in Toronto when a on a79-year-old man was mugged on a subway train. No one helped him either, even though there was a passenger assistance alarm located in the train car.

So why does the Bystander Effect stop us from doing what is right? As previously stated, when there are others around, people tend to make the assumption that "someone else will handle this." But, when we all make the same assumption, obviously nothing gets done. This effect exists in part due to something called "diffusion of responsibility," in which responsibility for the welfare of a person harmed in an event is spread evenly among the number of people who witness the event. In other words, if one person witnesses a mugging, he or she is more likely to act because the responsibility for reporting said act is his or hers alone. But when twenty people witness the same event, then theoretically, each person carries 1/20th of the responsibility for reporting the incident or helping the victim.

Is this reality? If I see a man dying on a street corner and ignore him, am I less responsible for his eventual death simply because there were also 20 other people who did the same? Collectively, we as a group of bystanders failed to act, but will the fact that I am only 1/20th of the problem change the fact that my actions could have saved him? Similarly, why do we look at this issue in terms of negative responsibility as opposed to positive potential? If I don't act, I will only be 5% to blame, but if I DO act, then my actions could potentially be 100% of the reason why the man survived or at least got medical attention. So instead of thinking of ourselves as one part of a group, couldn't we think of ourselves as one whole person who could do one thing and be wholly responsible for the outcome? In the same way, doesn't that mean that each person would cease to be 1/20th or 1/3rd or 1/1032nd responsible and begin to see him or herself as 100% responsible?

Obviously, we can't wish this thinking into existence. We think how we think and nothing can change that, can it? But most of us view this passive behavior as being a problem, do we not? So I suppose the question is, can we choose to change our group's way of thinking? If we can, what will it take? Could we simply push for more Good Samaritan laws that require bystanders to report attacks and accidents? Or will these laws be viewed as a legal obligation rather than a moral one? Isn't it a little pathetic that we have to create laws so that people will help each other?

Our society is one driven by social norms. We praise individuality and innovation yet by and large value conformity. A man may be bleeding on the sidewalk, but if I help him, I'll be strange. I'll stick out. I'll be abnormal. I also may be hailed as a hero, but in the moment, people don't think about becoming heroes. They think about keeping their heads down and staying out of other people's business. "I didn't want to get involved." That is what a neighbor of Kitty Genovese said after her murder. We just don't want to get involved. And this issue isn't just one that crops up in issues of life and death. I've seen this waiting for a the class before ours to dismiss. Six, seven, eight or more people all stand outside the room, unsure of whether or not to check and see whether there is anyone in the room, until one brave soul opens the door (risking stares from the students and instructor who may be inside). Then, if he or she goes in, the rest follow.

We're sheep, waiting for a shepherd to tell us what to do. But when human lives and human rights are at stake, can we afford to be sheep? How do we break out of his alarming habit of "not wanting to get involved" and do the right thing?



-Rebecca Schwarz-

LGBT Bullying in Schools

LGBT rights go through legislation and debates while they are fought for and petitioned against. All of this effort works toward affecting an older generation and their rights in society as adults, with things like the right to marry whom they please, and are also issues that are well known addressed. What about children in schools though, and bullying about being either part of the LGBT society or being associated with it by their peers? What is being done in the school systems to prevent this bullying and what are they doing for the cases and complaints that have been previously made? On top of that, how does this affect the child and their school experience?

Bullying regarding LGBT rights has been an issue in many schools, and has led to some suicides including an eleven year old boy who hung himself earlier this month because he had been taunted at school for being homosexual. This is about one year after another eight year old student was shot by another student in California, and that is only two cases of around five that have been reported this year. The mother of the student talked with the school district about the taunting, but nothing was really done and the situation was not confronted by the school beyond the meetings with his mother and administrators. The day he hung himself she was again going to a meeting at the school regarding this issue, but the lack of attention paid to it beforehand drove this eleven year old to take his life. And, though he was teased for being homosexual, his friends and parents had no reason to believe he associated with that community. Bullying and taunting about being homosexual or gay is a common practice for kids in schools today because it is one of the easiest ways to taunt another student and make an impact. Being called gay is one of the first things that students learn is hurtful and can hurt others, whether the actual term applies to them or not, because being called gay is associated with being called uncool. The expression “That’s so gay” is also one heard a lot at the schools and means something is stupid, furthering the negative connotations of the word.

To confront this issue, many schools now are participating in the Day of Silence to recognize LGBT rights and previous rights violations, and are having students in schools sign pledges saying they will not bully other students regarding being homosexual. Is this enough though to prevent bullying or do they need to explore other options? The mother of the boy who hung himself said that he had complained to her about the bullying and that she had contacted the school around seven or eight times but nothing was done by the school district to help him or prevent further taunting. After awhile, he stopped complaining to his mother and trying to get her to do something about it, realizing it wasn’t helping, and shortly after that was when he decided that the best way out of the taunting was to kill himself. He is not the only one to do this either, and in fact, about a month before he killed himself another boy in Massachusetts killed himself for similar reasons of being taunted and being called gay.

While all of this is happening in schools, LGBT protests and legislation are being considered for things like gay marriage and reforming “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” but what attention is being paid to the schools and to preventing occurrences like this one from occurring? More attention needs to be paid to bullying in the school districts regarding LGBT bullying and LGBT rights, but what can be done to promote more action from the school district in regards to the issue and what steps can be taken to prevent further problems from occurring?

School administrators and teachers are one group that needs to take action first to establish a school free of bullying, but many are reluctant to help in these cases because they either are uncomfortable or embarrassed with the situation or they don’t know what to do. Many are also wary of the societal atmosphere that surrounds the LGBT community and their rights and of getting involved in that. This is a problem because according to a 2005 survey, this was the second highest reason for bullying in schools, after appearance. One of the things that needs to be done is more active participation from school administration and making sure that each phone call received is taken seriously and treated seriously, and dealt with when it is received. One of the main comments from parents who have children that have been bullied is that the school district may acknowledge the problem but does not always actively work to prevent further attacks and work to discipline the current actions. On top of that, many do not speak with the victim of the bullying to better understand the problem, make the problem better or get their thoughts on what is going on. Another big thing that would help a lot is getting rid of the language and idea that being called gay means that a person is uncool. Even just changing this idea can get rid of some of the negative connotations associated with the word. The overall goal though is to change the way that sexual orientation is perceived. In doing so, this will help change how the LGBT community and ideas are integrated into schools and can help with some of the fear that homosexual children have in coming to class each day. This also includes further promotion of gay-straight alliance groups in schools and work done with the older generation working as teachers and administrators to help get rid of their biases and become more comfortable with the situation, getting rid of ideas that could negatively influence the children they teach.

Finally, there is also a connection to be seen with the children who are taunted by kids over LGBT issues in schools and those that are taunted by people on the streets or even violated by the police officers. With these situations as well there is a lack of something being done to help or solve the problem and situation. Complaints may come into the police department but they are not always acted on because the police are unwilling to talk against each other or the incident is brushed off. Likewise, many are afraid to speak out against the police and don’t voice their incidents. The same goes with the school district. Many kids try to take it on their selves, mainly because they believe that the adults around are going to be unable to help them or know that they will not do anything if it is reported. This puts all the weight on the child’s shoulders which eventually gets too much to bear and can lead to the idea that death would be better than living with the bullying. This connection also shows that the problem goes beyond the school districts and is present in everyday settings, like the streets, and that in starting in one place, like a school, solutions can possibly be spread to other situations to prevent this taunting and violence in other circumstances as well.

Sources:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/story?id=7328091&page=3
http://www.glsen.org/cgi-bin/iowa/all/news/record/2400.html
http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=90214
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/23/bullying.suicide/

Presidential Candidate Is Arrested in Rwanda

Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/22/world/africa/22rwanda.html

This article is a great example of liberal versus illiberal democracy. The article explains that Rwanda presidential candidate; Victoire Ingabire, was recently arrested and charged with genocide ideology, divisionism and cooperating with the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda. The article does not clearly express which party, the current government or Ingabrie, is in the wrong. Her staff and supporters argue that she is simply in opposition to the Tutsis party currently in government. In a true liberal state, being arrested for being in the opposition would not be allowed and the right of freedom of speech would be violated in this case. However, if the current government could prove a conspiracy type situation and safety concern surrounding the candidate, the government may have legitimacy in arresting her. This situation exemplifies the issues surrounding illiberal democracies and unfair elections and also exemplifies the gray areas surrounding these issues. “Investigators have interrogated her several times on suspicion of instigating ethnic divisions. She said in an interview last month that she was being persecuted for simply challenging the government.” Each party can argue a case in favor of their actions; however, the arrest is evidence that the Rwanda democracy is indeed illiberal.

Liberal Democracy

Establishing liberal democracies across the world is beneficial and will decrease human rights violations. I am a proponent of establishing a liberal society prior to democratic institutions. There are two main concepts at the core of liberalism. First, is individual freedom and second is tolerance. Like democracy versus liberalism, these two concepts can go one before the other, or vise versa and the order in which they are established in a country is critical to the longevity of liberalism. Likewise, there are many advantages to the establishment of a truly liberal democracy. Simply having a solid liberal democracy does not automatically lead to a society that respects human rights but the development of such a nation can decrease mass human rights violations and decrease cruelty around the world, especially in the form of warfare.
I argue that tolerance must come before individual freedom. Tolerance is the idea that views and ideals other than ones own must be tolerated and one must tolerate others, unlike themselves, enough not to harm them, take their freedom from them, or threat them unequally to ones self. Tolerance can and will look like many different things and there are a multitude of types of tolerance. Political tolerance can be defined as the opportunity for a wide range of political groups to express their ideas and to participate in the public life. Governmental institutions support much of this type of tolerance; however, cultural tolerance is the portion of tolerance that comes first when attempting to liberalize a country.
Different groups of people must learn to give and take, they must learn to accept others as different and get rid of an all of nothing ideal that supports only their position. Likewise, the institution of tolerance would lead to cooperation and voluntary associations. While tolerance needs to be established prior to other things, once established, social capital and other democratic ideals can be fostered and help produce a strong democratic state.
Second to tolerance is the liberal idea of personal freedom. This is simply explained in the United States as an individual freedom to life, liberty and happiness. For liberalization purposes, this freedom includes, among other things, the freedom of personal property, freedom of religion, freedom of speech and media. Like aspects of tolerance, aspects of freedom can and will be established and enforced using political institutions. This idea is why I argue that tolerance must come before citizens are able to grant freedoms to people different than themselves.
Establishing the core principles of liberalization, tolerance and personal freedom, will help nations control the corruption and prosper as a democratic nation. Teaching tolerance must be done internally and to make it genuine, it must not be forced by other nations. However, the establishment and support of personal freedom is something the West and the United States, specifically, can help with. Creating an environment for freedom to extend equally among citizens will be hard and an outside force that is not biased towards one group to help establish the institutions needed to extend freedom to all.
Establishing a liberal democracy, instead of an institutional democracy or simply voting would decrease human rights violations, especially those committed by governments towards citizens. In his book In Our Own Best Interest, Schulz makes this link between this liberal type of nation and human rights. He explains that beyond “free elections” is a “civil society” where such elections are actually meaningful and where differences are not dismissed but are trumped by recognition of a common humanity. A liberal democracy would ensure that elections are fair and that citizens can oppose the current government. Likewise, peaceful transitions between governments and peaceful relations during election time would likely be established. Government officials would be better held accountable for their actions and the country would be more likely to team up with other democracies which would lead to accountability internationally.
Schulz goes more into depth about what a liberal nation looks like and the importance of tolerance and personal freedom. He explains, “What makes a “free election” meaningful, however, is not just that more than one candidate is permitted to run for office. What matters also is that the opposition be unintimidated and the media unbowed. What matters is that he courts and arbiters be independent; that voluntary associations of all stripes be allowed to flourish. What matter is that minority rights be respected and the mores of civil society be in place.” As stated above, liberal democracy does not guarantee respect of human rights but a liberal democracy, as outlined in this blog, has a relationship with peace and a respect for human rights.

Resource:
Schulz, William F., and Mary Robinson. In Our Own Best Interest: How Defending Human Rights Benefits Us All. Boston, MA, USA: Beacon, 2002. Print.

HR in the News: Secret prison in Baghdad the setting of torture and brutality

A prison in Baghdad, holding mostly Sunni Arab prisoners, has come under fire by Human Rights Watch for torture, abuse, and brutality, now reportedly worse than first suspected. A secret prison at the Muthanna military airfield, the prison was illegally run by military command, housing approximately 430 prisoners, most of which were transferred to another prison in Rusafa. The detainees were examined by the HRW, which found consistent evidence of abuse. The reports include being hung, whipped, raped, sodomized, among other horrifying things.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki has denied any connections with the abuse, denying the existence of secret prisons in general. The discovery of the prison only adds to the sectarian conflict in Iraq between Shiite and Sunni. “All those held at the secret prison before it was shut down were brought to Baghdad from Sunni Arab areas in Nineveh where Mr. Maliki, a Shiite, is largely perceived as a sectarian leader with a personal vendetta against anyone associated with the former Sunni-led government of Saddam Hussein.”¹

This human rights abuse eerily echoes that of Abu Ghraib only a few years before.

¹http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/28/world/middleeast/28baghdad.html?WT.mc_id=WO-SM-E-FB-SM-LIN-TTO-042710-NYT-NA&WT.mc_ev=click

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/04/2010428143829403118.html

The Supreme Court, Affairs, and the Death Penalty

The supreme court recently denied death row inmate, Charles Hood, of Texas a new trial. After Hood’s trial it was discovered that the prosecuting district attorney, Tom O’Connell, and the case’s judge, Verla Sue Holland, were having an affair together. Hood has continued to deny all charges. Oddly, Holland took a new position soon after the case on Texas’ highest criminal appeals court, which heard the appeal of Hood. The appeals court in Texas ruled that Hood did indeed deserve a new trial. The state later denied the appeal, which was based on the admission of the affair, arguing that the affair did not affect the outcome of the case.

Despite the argument that they affair may not have had any direct influence on the ruling in the case, it is both ridiculous and careless to send someone to death row under these circumstances. Clearly, the judge has document moral lapses in judgment involving the affair, creating the possibility that she may not have been fit to make a ruling on the case in the first place. Furthermore, it was Judge Holland’s own appeals court that ruled that Hood was deserving of a new trial. It is most likely the case that the judges ruling on the appeals case heard every angle of the case, considering it had everything to do with one of their fellow judges. The fact of the matter is, it is not right to execute anyone, but it most definitely not right to execute someone whose judge was in no capacity to make a proper decision regarding someone else’s life.

Article here: http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/19/scotus.texas.death.row/index.html?iref=allsearch

Fremont allowed to vote on illegal immigration issue

The Nebraska Supreme Court has recently ruled that they cannot rule on the constitutionality of the immigration laws set to be vote on by Fremont citizens, perhaps as soon as this summer. Instead the court said they couldn’t make any ruling until it is voted on or becomes law.

The bill would ban landlords from knowingly renting to illegal immigrants, as well as require police to check the immigration status of renters. The debate arose in 2008 when a petition with over 3000 signatures circulated supporting such action.

The petition seems to be highly similar to the bill recently passed in Arizona, requiring police to check immigration statuses of “suspicious” looking people. In both cases, it seems, there is no way to determine who is and who is not here illegally by any other methods than using discrimination. It is unlikely that any white person seeking to rent in Fremont would be asked to verify that they are a citizen in the same way immigrants or other “immigrant-appearing” people will be asked to identify themselves as lawfully in the U.S.

Of course, the bill has not yet been voted on or passed, but it will be interesting to see the results, especially after Arizona has received so much criticism from across the U.S and from people of Hispanic heritage.

New Arizona law and discrimination blog post

With the signing of a new immigration law in Arizona on Friday, April 23, 2010, immigration was pushed back into the forefront of American politics. Arizona’s Governor Jan Brewer authorized the bill, which “requires police to determine whether a person is in the United States legally (CNN.com).” Previously, requiring someone to provide proof of being in the country legally was only allowed when some other crime was suspected. The bill has since created a whirlwind of controversy fueled by disagreements on every side of the argument. Despite strong support from many U.S citizens, the new law is a violation of human rights because it encourages racial profiling and fails to grant immigrants asylum from dangerous situations abroad.

According to the bill, immigrants must carry their alien registration documents with them at all times, and police are required to question them if there is any reason to suspect that they are in the United States illegally (CNN.com). In response to those who feared the law might encourage racial profiling, Governor Brewer also issued an executive order requiring training on how to implement the law without engaging in racial profiling. Said Governor Brewer, “Racial profiling is illegal. It is illegal in America, and it’s certainly illegal in Arizona (CNN.com).”

It is clear that Governor Brewer recognized the criticism the state would soon be receiving as a result of the passage of their new law. It is unrealistic, though, to believe that the new law can be effectively practiced without using racial profiling. It is unlikely that any Canadian in the country illegally will be stopped and questioned about their immigration status while walking their dog mid-afternoon. It is unlikely that any white illegal immigrant, even if they were from Mexico, would be stopped for questioning. Instead, it is the people of Hispanic decent who will fear being stopped for no other reason than looking suspiciously like someone who may be in the country illegally. With Arizona’s large Hispanic and Spanish speaking population, this seems like it may be a huge waste of time and resources.

Along with the time and money taken away from fighting actual crime, Arizona is also facing boycotts and economic consequences from all over the United States as well as Hispanic countries. In an odd role reversal for most Americans, On Wednesday, April 27, 2010, Mexico issued a travel warning to citizens asking them to, “use extreme caution if visiting Arizona (USAToday.com).” Mexico’s government affiliated agency also urged the boycotting of Arizona based companies such as US Airways, and sports teams Arizona Diamondbacks and Phoenix Suns (USAToday.com).

The economic consequences on tourism, which provide a large portion of the state’s income, are not feared to have any major impact according to Governor Brewer. Already, conventions and other events planned to take place in Arizona have been cancelled. Governor Brewer, though, defends the law by emphasizing that she has consulted with business who are seeking to establish themselves in Arizona and were looking for assurance that their businesses would be protected from the crime that is accompanied by illegal immigration (CNN.com).

Sadly, the focus of the issue has been mostly economical. Even the U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, who is considering challenging the constitutionality of the law, stopped short of saying that the law was wrong. Instead he referred to the law as being subject to potential abuse (CNN.com). For the most part, it is only those who will primarily be affected by the law that are making human rights claims while most other concerned citizens are worried about crime and the economical impact of the law.

As a result of this, the human rights of both immigrants and citizens who appear suspiciously illegal are being violated. Many, if not most, illegal immigrants are seeking some type of asylum either from dangerous areas ruled by drug cartels, or economic conditions that make scraping up a living nearly impossible.

Americans are hugely responsible for the problems occurring in Mexico. It is Americans who are effectively creating much of the violence the immigrants are seeking to escape. The American demand is what is driving the drug cartels to get their drugs within our borders, while we are also directly and indirectly financing, training, and supporting the Mexican military forces that are responsible for curtailing the drug trade. It is also American corporations and companies who seek out the cheap labor in Mexico and other Hispanic countries in order to keep manufacturing prices down.

Clearly there is no simple solution to the immigration problem, but enacting laws that encourage discrimination is a step in the wrong direction. Articles six and seven of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights state, “Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law,” and, “All are equal before the law and are entitled without discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination,” respectively (Universal Declaration of Human Rights). The new Arizona law is indirectly stating that there are different types of people. There are those types of people who are legal, and there are those types of people who are illegal simply for being in a place without proper documentation. The way in which people who are illegal are identified, is by discriminating based on factors such as skin color or language. There is absolutely no other way to know whether a person is a citizen if there is no discrimination. It is impossible to determine someone’s immigration status by any of his or her actions. Instead, other discriminating factors are used in order to identify anyone that has a remote possibility of being an illegal alien.

Discrimination in the United States has already had a long and ugly history. There is no need to add to this history, especially when America prides itself on being the land of equal opportunity. Instead of devoting funds and training to stopping innocent people on the streets, perhaps our time, money, and effort would be more effectively spent on implementing policies both domestically and abroad that do not make our citizens so eager to discriminate and foreign citizens so eager to escape.

Governor signs immigration law here: http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/23/obama.immigration/index.html

Challenge to constitutionality here: http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/27/napolitano.immigration.act/index.html?hpt=T1

Boycott articles here: http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2010-04-27-arizonaboycott27_ST_N.htm?csp=usat.me

Economical issues here: http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/26/arizona.governor.immigration/index.html?iref=allsearch

Travel alert here: http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2010-04-27-mexico-travel-alert-arizona-immigration-law_N.htm

Universal Declaration of Human Rights here: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Portrayal of Rusesabagina: Testimonial Narrative or Self-Promotion

The figure of Rusesabagina is an interesting one. It is jarring to arrive in Rwanda and find not a single person with anything good to say about him. It is also jarring to meet a survivor who stayed at the Milles Collines with similarly little good to say of Rusesabagina. These are based on a mix of things though: questions about his business practices during the genocide, the requests by genocide planners to subpoena him as a defense witness of sorts to their trials, his comments regarding the current state of Rwanda, his lack of experience with contemporary Rwanda (which may be due to the debated potential for him to return permanently). The most frequent criticism that is troubling are questions regarding the placement of his fund’s money. Supposedly it goes to Rwanda, but Rwanda denies that said money has ever touched Rwandan soil. This suggestion is to imply that either he and his family keep it, or that it goes to people outside the state who are implied to have some participation in genocide.
This is the rather abysmal story one gets when arriving in Rwanda after being exposed to movies such as Hotel Rwanda. It was not a complete surprise to me after reading supporting and opposing accounts of Rusesabagina. Other disturbing claims I had read before going to Rwanda was that he was on his way to Gitarama to serve with the genocidal government when he stumbled on the Milles Collines opportunity, that he not only charged but harassed refugees in the hotel, and that he kept himself in the nicest of suites during the genocide. Many of these sorts of complaints have been around for some time, but have recently been summarized in Hotel Rwanda or the Tutsi Genocide as seen by Hollywood by Alfred Ndahiro and Privat Rutazibwa. One lecture given during our study abroad was by Privat Rutazibwa, and for U.S. students who had not researched the controversy surrounding Rusesabagina, such comments were shocking.
I bring these up in order to confront the controversy directly. The Rwandan government charges that movies like Hotel Rwanda and articles such as Kohen’s (though not directly cited) accept Rusesabagina’s story of heroism without questioning what actually happened in Rwanda or trying to learn more and instead take Rusesabagina’s current words at face value when invited to speak without taking Rwandan context into account. So there are several questions embedded in this discussion. One is whose word to take, the Rwandan government or Rusesabagina and his supporters. The next question, based on the answer to the first, is whether Rusesabagina ought to be portrayed as a hero. The final question, bringing Kohen’s article explicitly into question, is how much of this controversy ought to be taken into account when looking for examples of heroism that will motivate individuals to behave in moral ways to respond to or prevent human rights abuses.
The question of whose word to take is a difficult one. There are many factors involved in the discussion as insider/outsider arguments fly. The Rwandan government points out that Rusesabagina’s words about Rwanda are taken at face value because of a fancy Hollywood movie without noticing that Rusesabagina cannot speak authoritatively about Rwanda after his longstanding absence from the state. Paul replies that there are challenges to his return and charges the Rwandan government with attempting to arrest him should he return. This interchange is connected to larger discussions of revisionism and who gets to tell the authoritative tale of the genocide. It is these larger discussions that make deciding a victor in the debate difficult. The Rwandan governments points out its role in ending genocide when no one else would. The resultant logic is compelling for many: who are we outsiders to question the official Rwandan genocide narrative when we did not even care enough to stop such genocide, let alone prevent it when we had clear knowledge that it was being orchestrated. If we as outsiders feel particular guilt, then it is not too difficult to transfer similar doubt regarding Rusesabagina’s ability to tell the current status of his homeland when he has not been there for extended time in fifteen years. On the other hand though, there seem to be many groups that question the current Rwandan government policies, particularly regarding speech issues in the state. Perhaps like many cases, the truth may lie somewhere in the middle, or perhaps there is a clear victor. Rather than deciding whose word to take as authoritative, it seems best to allow for an ongoing cross-cultural discourse regarding this and other controversies surrounding Rwanda’s past and present. The Rwandan government emphasizes the need for partnership relationships, and I do not think they are wrong in this, but I know that this is very complicated. At best though, in finding inspirational models to instill desirable human rights respecting behavior, I do not think this controversy has to stop our exploration of Rusesabagina as a potential hero.
This then leads directly into the answer for the second question regarding how Rusesabagina ought to be portrayed. The case of Rusesabagina stands out regardless of claims against him because he did something to prevent more deaths at a time when few were doing so. He may or may not have used unscrupulous methods during his endeavor, but no one who stayed at the Milles Collines was killed during the genocide. Also, it seemed that many Rwandans, including Rutazibwa, still saw positive in Hotel Rwanda and even said they would encourage people to watch the film. Their plea was not to prevent people from seeing the movie. They noted that many outsiders are brought to a concern for Rwanda after popular movies like Hotel Rwanda. Part of this comes from a realization that certain audiences will never be moved by documentaries. Hollywood style movies appeal to a larger group of people, which increases awareness of genocide in Rwanda or the genocide against the Tutsi (as the government prefers it to be termed). The story itself though of someone doing something in an extremely hostile climate to protect others can be the sort of sentimental education that individuals need to encourage mimicking moral behavior. Given this behavior, it seems permissible to consider Rusesabagina a hero during this time. There may be questions regarding his more recent statements about Rwanda or his purported connections with questionable, but it seems that his actions during the time of the genocide against the Tutsi still resulted in the saving of lives. This does not have to lead to an unquestioned acceptance of his behavior or comments since the genocide or even some of his activities used to secure the Milles Collines. The possibility for debate still exists. This debate does not have to negate the result of whatever Rusesabagina’s activities were: the saving of lives in a time when many lives were taken. Perhaps there was unscrupulous behavior during or since the genocide against the Tutsi, but it is notable that people were able to survive the genocide through their stay at the Milles Collines.
This finally leads to a discussion of Kohen’s portrayal of Rusesabagina as a moral hero. Some criticisms of Rusesabagina may come into direct confrontation with Kohen’s moral heroism. For example, if Rusesabagina was motivated by monetary or political gain as some of his most stringent critics argue, then it would blur the line between his position as a moral or a mortal hero. Similarly if he was motivated by a desire to save those closest to them and had to save others physically close in order to do so, then he may not have been inspired by a pure desire to save the lives of others. It is important to separate the types of heroism for the reasons that Kohen argues. It does matter whether the motivation was self-centered or personal, or whether it was focused on the needs of others. Does proximity to victims diminish the care? Singer stated it shouldn’t make a difference but Kohen argues that starting with the closest allowed people like Wilkens to expand his circle. Similarly, even if Rusesabagina did begin just with protecting his closest friends and family, perhaps he was able to truly expand his circle to more people at the Milles Collines. I am not saying this is the particular path he did or did not take, but simply trying to allow for the greatest doubt in the story to show that there still may be some use in the idea of citing particular actions of Rusesabagina as heroic.
The reason Rusesabagina’s story is powerful is due to a lack of response to incredible human rights violations in Rwanda. Close to a million (if not a million) people died as the international community bartered over legalistic terms and silliness such as the shipment of outdated, ill-functioning (at best) equipment. There was a duty to respond in some meaningful way to genocide in Rwanda. I focus though on whether Rusesabagina was a hero, and what can be learned of this case. Part of the reason Rusesabagina is focused on is that few others were able or willing to save more than a handful. There was a real danger in harboring Tutsis, and Rusesabagina did it in the open. Perhaps he did so with an unscrupulous relationship with genocide participants or perhaps he did it though a concern for others. Either way people were saved under him. It seems that even taking some of these examples on face value, there is still a case to be made about the positive nature at least of Rusesabagina’s protective behavior during the genocide while still leaving open room for discussion and even criticism about the particularities of that behavior and his behavior since.

Religious Freedom and South Park

In South Park's 200th episode, Matt Stone and Trey Parker (the show's creators) picture every celebrity South Park has insulted trying to get Mohammed's "goo", which makes him off-limits to be ridiculed. This had enraged some radicals at the "Revolution Muslim" website, especially when Mohammed is portrayed in a bear suit to avoid showing his actual person (though in episode 201 it is showed that it was actually Santa in the bear suit). The extreme reaction of those at Revolution Muslim prompted Comedy Central to bleep every time Mohammed's name was used in episode 201, as well as the "summing up" bit at the end of the episode (where the characters say what they learned).

I have four questions about this:

1. Why does radical Islam have so much control over what Comedy Central shows? Matt and Trey never actually show Mohammed or his figure. Plenty of other groups have been angry, but Comedy Central has never gone this far. South Park has shown God as a purple warthog, Jesus and Satan have boxed, the Vatican has been shown taking orders from the Great Queen Spider, the show is constantly insulting Catholics and Jews, and an episode was devoted to ridiculing both Mormons and Scientologists (just to name a few). Groups have expressed outrage about these things before, but this fringe group made a veiled threat and the network edited out the last few minutes of the episode. Due to all other religions not being off-limits, I can only assume that the editing was due to the idea of violence.

2. What about the makers of South Park's speech rights? I agree with what Mr. Ifitkhar says, that the "best way to counter free speech is with more free speech".

3. Why now? South Park already showed Mohammed's image in season 5's "Super Best Friends" episode, where he fought crime with Jesus and other religious figures. How is it more offensive now than it was before?

4. What does this do to, and say about, Americans' attitudes about Muslims? There's already a fear of Muslims among many Americans, and this fuels the fear and misunderstanding about Muslims.

This should be a non-issue. The fact that this group grabbed hold of something so insignificant shows they just wanted publicity at the expense of the creators (and viewers) of a show that is an equal-opportunity insulter.

HR in the News: Grim Conditions in Zambia Prisons

Just recently, a report was released by the Human Rights Watch, also working with the Prisons Care and Counseling Facility and AIDS and Rights in Alliance for Southern Africa, in Zambia over the prison conditions there. One of the largest problems with the prison is overcrowding. In one of the prisons that is supposed to only hold a maximum of 400 people, there are upwards of 1700 people being held there and in horrible conditions. They are packed into the prison cell like pigs and are unable to all lie down to sleep and thus sleep in shifts, still partly laying on top of each other. Solitary confinement includes being stripped naked and locked in a cell without windows for days in ankle deep water that is contaminated with excrement. There is also violence that occurs, lots of malnutrition due to lack of food and water, and disease spreading to the prisoners there. Another problem that arises is that many of those being held are innocent or have to wait years before their day in court. On top of that, the working conditions are like that of slave labor and the hierarchy of the prisoners adds to the violence and abuse already in place by the prison guards.
One of the reasons that is given for the lack of good conditions is the lack of attention and government funding that the prisons receive. Where the funding is already low, prison funds are being pushed aside and allocated to different places, leaving them without the necessary funding to better the conditions. They also do not have the muscle power to make the conditions better and would need volunteers to come and help as well. One of the ways that the report suggests to better the situation would be to allow a bail for lesser crimes that would help prevent overcrowding and would keep some of the innocent from having to spend years waiting for their day in trial. What other ideas could the prison employ to help better the situation for Zambia prisoners? Also, though the report has been filed, what will/should the Human Rights Watch do to act on the findings and how should they go about doing this? On top of that, how much will the government of Zambia have to step in as well to make the necessary changes, and how could funding and volunteers be attained to help make the necessary improvements?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/28/world/africa/28zambia.html

The Case of The Former Yugoslavia: Srebrenica

After talking about the topic of bystanders and lack of help the international community provided to the people of Rwanda during the horrific genocide that took place there, I would like to bring up a similar case, the case of the former Yugoslavia. Although it is frequently referred to as the Yugoslavian war, I believe in the case of Bosnian and Herzegovina it was genocide.

After the death of the Yugoslavian President, Josip Broz Tito in 1980 the country’s once suppressed nationalism began to flourish and a movement of Serbian nationalist was backed by the leader of the Yugoslavian National Army, Slobodan Milosevic. After taking over the Army including all military equipment and attempting to forcefully take Slovenia and Croatia into a greater Serbia, Milosevic and the Serbian government moved to take the Bosnia as well. In meeting with Yugoslavian leaders of national parties, Radovan Karadzic the President of the Serbian Democratic party explained that by pushing for independence and seeking recognition by the United Nations as such, they are “pushing themselves into the same hell and death Croatia and Slovenia saw” and that “the Muslim people will possibly disappear” because “if war breaks out in Bosnia the Muslim people cannot defend themselves.(1)

Here Karadzic is referring to the military power and arms he knew the Bosnia Muslims didn’t have, due to Serbian control of the Yugoslavian Army and the arms embargo placed on the region. This brings up many questions. First, with the rhetoric and questionable intentions that the international community knew in advance, why was nothing done to stop it? And second, the arms embargo only helped the Serbian Nationalists because they already had their weapons and knew their enemy was unprepared.

The lack of support and aid given to the Bosnian Muslim militias that formed for their own protection during the attempted siege of Bosnia was wide spread and can be seen in the numerous crimes that were committed against the Muslim population. Such as in the famous case of Srebrenica, that has become the single event that sums up the atrocities that happened all over the once peaceful country.

The declaration of a UN safe zone in Srebrenica was a bold move by the UN Security Council. Only ten miles from the Serbian border, the village was a prime target for the expansion of a greater Serbia. UN Civilian Head in Bosnia from 94-95, Yasushi Akashi recalls that the UN “…produced high sounding resolutions, which we on the ground did not have the ability to execute.”(2) The UNPROFOR were placed in Srebrenica to deter the Bosnian Serb forces from overrunning the enclave.

Under the terms of UN protection the inhabitants of the safe zone were disarmed. The disarmament of Srebrenica was one of the goals the Bosnian Serb forces had since the beginning of the war. General Ratko Mladic told BBC during his negotiations with UN forces and Muslim leaders that if Muslim defenders gave up their weapons “Bosnian Serb forces would not enter Srebrenica, but only pacify it.”(3) This disarming of Srebrenica became one of the most crucial mistakes the UN made and allowed the rest of their actions to domino into the eventual disappearance of Muslim Srebrenica. Mladic and his troops were well known for their brutal tactics of ethnic cleansing, rape and torture. Since 1993 he and other members of his brigade were wanted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in The Hague.(4)

After two years under UNPROFOR protection, on July 8, 1995 around 7:00 am, Serb tanks arrived at the Dutch Observation post in Potocari, three miles from Srebrenica. At the forceful request of Serbian leaders, the Dutch retreated from their post. While doing so they were stopped by a Muslim roadblock where one Dutch soldier was killed by a Muslim thrown grenade. This action, by the Muslim forces within Srebrenica, surprised and frightened the UNPROFOR and the soldiers began to question the value of their own lives against the lives of the refugees they were sent there to protect.(5) By 3:15 pm Bosnian Serb forces had managed to take the observation post. By the next day the people of Srebrenica were fearful of what may happen next and some fled through the hills, but were shelled with mortar rounds and grenades. Thirty Dutch hostages were taken prisoner, one of them recalled “the Muslim got a note and he wrote down 30 Dutch and 30,000 Muslims. He said as long as the 30 Dutch are in the hands of the Bosnian Serbs, the UN wont risk anything, because your 30 soldiers are even more valuable than the 30,000 Muslims.”(6)

A series of requests for air support by UN Col. Karreman were denied, halted and postponed. After his request had finally been approved, he told Muslim leaders in the village, NATO planes were on their way the following morning at 6:00 am. The next morning they looked to the sky and saw no sign of NATO. NATO informed Col. Karreman his request was submitted on the wrong form leaving NATO planes roaming around above Bosnian air space on stand-by. When the Bosnian Serb forces entered Srebrenica thousands fled to the Dutch base in Potocari, where they were told only 5,000 could stay, the rest took refuge in factories, schools and fields. Mladic followed his troops through Srebrenica to Potocari where he told Muslims taking refuge there that they were safe and would be allowed transportation to Muslim territories. He negotiated over two days with UNPROFOR and Muslim leaders where he told one Muslim man, “you just decide what you want to do…you can survive or you can disappear.” Then they finally negotiated to allow buses to haul all refugees into Bosnian Muslim territory.(7)

During the days leading up to the bussing of refugees out of Srebrenica the international community watched in surprise at the bold moves Mladic and his troops were making. The whole world was watching, and no one knew what to do next. No one thought Mladic would carryout what he and his troops did. Mladic promised lies to the people of Srebrenica and the UNPROFOR stood by, blind to what was being carried out around them. While buses arrived to take the refugees into Muslim territory lines were formed with check points, women and children were allowed to board right away while men were sent towards a house and told to leave their belongings in the garden. When Dutch Soldiers saw the men being diverted to the house, they investigated and were told by Serbian leaders all the men had to be interrogated to find Muslim war criminals. One Dutch Solider admits he saw Bosnian Serb forces murder one man behind the house, but said nothing.(8)

Reports of the actions in Bosnia surprised many political leaders around the world but no real action was taken until three years after the atrocities began. In late 1995 the United Nations began to increase their numbers and soon after NATO became involved, sending troops and heavy arms to aid the Bosnian forces. On December 14, 1995 Serbian, Bosnian and Croatian leaders signed a peace agreement in Paris known as the Dayton Accords.

1. Bosna Muslim Media, “The resistance of Bosnia was heard up to the Skies.” Documentary Film. 2007.

2. BBC Storyville. “Srebrenica: A Cry from the Grave” Documentary Film. 1999.

3. Randal, Jonathan C. “Key Muslim town in Bosnia said to prepare surrender; Security Council votes ‘Safe Area’ around Srebrenica” The Washington Post. April 16, 1993.

4. Stiles, Kendall W. “Case Histories in International Politics, 4^th Ed.” New York: Pearson Longman. 2006. 226.

5. Weiss, Thomas G., David P. Forsythe, Roger A. Coate and Kelley-Kate Pease. “The United Nations and Changing World Politics, 5^th Ed.” Boulder: West View Press. 2007. 68.

6. BBC Storyville, 1999.

7. BBC Storyville. 1999.

8. BBC Storyville. 1999.