Sexuality Rights in Don’t Ask Don’t Tell

On Thursday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates presented new rules regarding the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) policy to top military officials. The new rules mean that it will be easier for gay and lesbian service members to serve. It does not mean, however, that homosexuals can serve openly in the military. There is a measure in congress, however, to repeal don’t ask don’t tell. The Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2010, introduced by Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), would repeal DADT.

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) has been a strong activist for the repealing of DADT. They say that the policy is an infringement on their human rights and freedoms, specifically freedoms of choice and speech.

Marine General James Conway stated this week that repealing DADT would be detrimental to the cohesion of the Marine Corps. The corps is the only military branch that shares barracks. Gen. Conway argued that repeal DADT would require the Marines to build new, one-man, barracks in order to accommodate the new policy. Conway said that openly gay service members would cause other Marine members to be uncomfortable.

Is DADT an infringement on the rights of gay military members, because they are not forced into any situation? Or, would repealing DADT be infringement on the rights of straight service members, it what Gen. Conway says is true, and they would feel uncomfortable in their living situation?

Saudi Arabia Stepping forward?

Hissa Hilal, a Saudi mother of 4 speaks out publicly against Muslim clerics. On the popular Arabic T.V. show “Millions Poet Contest” where poets compete for prize money judged by both a panel and their peers Hilal is surprisingly the favorite to win next weeks finals. Speaking to a gender separated audience cloaked in black she criticizes religious leaders. It is surprising that she has gotten this far without and repercussions from the government or religious hard liners. Although she receives death threats and hate mail. Many people, especially women are empowered by her openness and determination to speak out against what she believes a perversion of her faith and abuse of religious power.

It is rare to see a Saudi woman on television or photos, and much less rare that she would be the main subject of such an event, voicing her opinion through poetry and speaking out against male elites. It will be interesting to see if she wins the finals, and if her voice and message will be heard in the Saudi government.

Her recent poem against the “ad-hoc extreamists” read in English:

“I have seen evil from the eyes of the subversive fatwas in a time when what is lawful is confused with what is not lawful;

When I unveil the truth, a monster appears from his hiding place; barbaric in thinking and action, angry and blind; wearing death as a dress and covering it with a belt [referring to suicide bombing];

He speaks from an official, powerful platform, terrorising people and preying on everyone seeking peace; the voice of courage ran away and the truth is cornered and silent, when self-interest prevented one from speaking the truth.”

Google v. China

Touching on something recent, I'd like to point out Google's race in China to secure a foothold in the country where it dominates 30 percent of the country's search engine market.

China is known for censoring its media and its citizen's access to internet. With mainly Chinese owned search engines like Sina.com and Ganji.com, the country seems to be self sustaining without the Californian company's help. China's recent attempt in hacking into the search engine to monitor some searches by activist group has left Google baffled. Google then threatened to lift its censorship of its censorship in protest but in doing so has left China accusing the company of violating their agreed contract.

Mighty and powerful in America, the 11-year-old search engine has penetrated the lives of people around the world but is having difficulty handling China because the country can block access to Google's service at any time. And that would mean Google losing its 30 percent market dominance and all the advertising revenues that comes with it.

Clearly the battle is for economical reasons. However, Google's founder Sergey Brin, apparently a vocal advocate of freedom of speech, said no to a self-censoring Google search engine in China to uphold the right to free speech. It is after all stated in the second paragraph of the UDHR.

Say Google's intention is really to advocate freedom of speech in China, is it right for them to go into a country where its values are different than those of liberal America and say that they should not censor their search engines? Who's right, who's wrong?

On the other hand, freedom of speech is a right agreed by many world leaders. Can China being one of today's leading powers get away with 'protecting' its citizens through censorship?

Google is not budging on this matter and is still under negotiation with China after angering them for moving their search engine site to Hong Kong where they're not censored.

On a lighter note, my Chinese roommate mentioned today that she will be getting a Facebook account other than her Chinese version of Facebook.

Read Google-China story here.

Harry Potter and Fighting Poverty, Genocide, and Inequality?

The Harry Potter Alliance is a group that has apparently been around for some time and I have simply not been in the know. They feel themselves inspired by messages contained in Harry Potter, such as love, equal rights, making the world a better place, etc., and in response have created the Harry Potter Alliance to promote these ideas. The group explains that “The Harry Potter Alliance is dedicated to using the examples of Harry Potter and Albus Dumbledore to spread love and fight the Dark Arts in the Real World” (http://www.thehpalliance.org/). With their motto, “The Weapon We Have Is Love,” the group has raised funds for Darfur and Burma, donated books collected in their “Accio Books!” drives (Harry Potter fans will get the accio reference), and more. Finding this group (in extremely nerdy ways that will not be discussed in further detail) during the time of the semester that we have read Orwell made me think again about the impact of fiction on real world issues, or at least perceptions of real world issues. While Orwell was explicitly concerned about torture and totalitarianism, Rowling told a broad story of love and right choice. This group has expanded upon the spirit of Rowling’s tale to think of other humans in terms of love and concern, leading them to focus directly on genocide and poverty. It is a fascinating use of Rowling’s work and leaves me with several questions. First, I wonder whether there are moral implications of being motivated to care about real world suffering primarily because of fictional writings? In other words, is this the sort of sentimental education that Rorty would support, or ought we to be motivated by real world cases? Second, I wonder if this group can hold the attention of those it attracts at an early age? With this question I am assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that younger persons are more likely to join the Harry Potter Alliance. If this is the case, are they attached to the group (and Harry Potter), or to the broader cause? The answer to this question seems rather straightforward: the group is a way to get awareness of the broader cause and so I assume that the commitment is sincere though it seems the question could still be out there for some. Third, I wonder what will happen to this group as Harry Potter goes out of style (though perhaps it will not in ways that certain other works of fiction have not). Finally, I wonder what this approach to dealing with rights violations has to offer. It clearly aims at getting a younger generation concerned about rights violations, which seems a good step forward. Is this step enough to keep them engaged throughout their life, or should we be satisfied simply with their involvement at any stage in their life? These questions about the Harry Potter Alliance are not be of the same caliber as the concerns about the rights violations themselves, but they seem interesting to consider while taking a Human Rights course which includes a reading of Orwell.

Human Rights Alliance Demands Inquiry into UK Torture Role

It will be pretty fascinating to see how things shake out in Britain, where a group of human rights organizations have joined up with MPs to demand an independent inquiry:

The case for an inquiry is supported by almost everybody except the government, including Lord Carlile, the government’s own independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, the joint committee on human rights, David Cameron, Nick Clegg and other experts in this field. This proposal offers a clear way forward. The government should take it.

Full article here (HT: Susanne Ure).

(via).

Open Borders vs. National Sovereignty

Coming off of our class discussions regarding immigration, I had to wonder where state sovereignty fits into the immigration issue. State Sovereignty, as defined by Merriam-Webster, is "supreme power especially over a body politic; freedom from external control". The idea of state sovereignty came from the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 when leaders from all over Europe decided that each leader had sovereign control over their independent state.

The idea of state sovereignty has continued to this day and the article attached is a perfect example of that. China has restricted the free movement of it's own national citizens in and around Beijing. The hukou system was developed to try and control the massive population of China and control the movements of it's people. Each person is given a hukou card that is designated as either a urban card or a rural card, and each citizen is expected to live in their "home district" for life. While the Chineese idea is a good one in theory for population control, it severly restricts the free movement of it's people by limiting healthcare, education to people not in their "home district".

The question that comes with this article would be: Does the international community have an obligation to stand up for the Chineese who are feeling oppressed? Or, does China have the right to control the free movement of it's people under the philosophy of national sovereignty?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/03/11/china.hukou.migrants/index.html

Immigration and Government Expenditures

    I was curious about some things said regarding immigration during class, specifically about immigration and government services, so I did a little research. One well-regarded, though somewhat dated, study was done by the National Academy of Sciences in 1997. The study, entitled The New Americans: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration, found that most immigrants paid more in new taxes than they received in new government services in their lifetime. As the study brief points out, part of this is due to the fact that they receive protection from high fixed-cost services (national defense, roads, interest on national debt) without requiring additional expenditures on those items. In effect, they pull down the average cost per citizen of providing those services. A piece by the Cato Institute further expands on immigration and this study, saying that the study shows the average immigrant family pays $80,000 more in government services than it receives in a lifetime. Even better, those immigrants with college degrees (likely those who benefit from the H1-B visas) constitute a net gain in revenue of $198,000 (Cato, p. 3). Keep in mind that not only are immigrants making our fiscal situation better, but also we are giving them a much better opportunity to make a decent living, an effect that many would argue would be worth paying for.

    Two other thoughts struck me as I was doing this research. First, if we amended our immigration policies to allow anyone who wants to come here, the net benefit of the average immigrant would probably decrease. At present, we are probably keeping out many low-skilled workers who want to come here. Thus, while the current 'typical' immigrant represents a net gain of $80,000, much of that is inflated by our current policy which allows high-skilled workers yet it more restrictive of low-skilled. That said, there is still a lot of play in that area. Even if a new immigrant was neutral financially or even a small loss, the gain he represents for economic growth is not negative, nor is the benefit conferred by giving him more opportunities. The second thought was that by drastically reducing border patrol along the U.S.-Mexico border, we could save $3 billion, or at least a significant portion of that, each year (Cato, p. 12). Thus, even if we somehow allowed enough low-skilled immigrants to enter that the net benefit was negative, we could pay for part of that with these reduced expenditures.

    Finally, in a somewhat unrelated thought, I was wondering how Carens' argument, especially regarding Rawls or utilitarianism, would apply to protectionist policies. Wouldn't Rawls, under the 'veil of ignorance,' say we should buy the most efficiently produced item, regardless of unimportant contingencies such as nationality? And in this same vein of thought, are attacks on outsourced labor wrong? This is just a brief thought, and I don't have time to expand on it, but I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts.

Feel free to post any thoughts on whether these immigration statistics affected your thinking, or if you had any thoughts on Carens, Rawls, and outsourcing.