Protecting Life?

Recently, the United States House of Representatives approved the Protect Life Bill, HR 358, which would allow hospitals to deny lifesaving abortions to women who might die otherwise. The bill leaves no stipulation for emergency situations at all. The bill passed through the house with a vote of 248 to 173, all republicans voting in favor and 11 Democrats also supporting. The Protect Life Act blocks subsidies for health insurance that includes policies that include abortion coverage. This bill is by far not the first attempt to block women from the procedure of abortion, which in some cases is necessary to survive.

The most prominent human right violated by this is the right to life. If this bill makes it into law it could cause even more women to die due to complications during their pregnancies and not even give them the option to choose to live. Not saving just kills both of the parties in consideration. Another is the right to health care. The bill would effectively remove the woman’s right to receive particular health care just due to the needed procedure allowing her to die for not good purpose.

This is ridiculous. I cannot for the life of me understand why someone would vote for this legislation since it promotes such a horrible message. All I hear is “Oh so you’re dying and we could save you by aborting your baby, but we won’t because that is against our beliefs. Sorry.” It is an unneeded loss of life and the truth is if you do not save the mother you are now letting two people die, rather than just one. I feel like the whole premise is counter productive and that the law should be vetoed if it even makes it through the Senate, which I hope it does not. I could never look at someone and tell them that we could save their wife, daughter, sister, or friend, but we are not going to because that would mean we have to remove what, at that moment, is not a person yet and that is more important to us than the living, breathing person in front of us. It just does not make sense.

Do you think that the United States Congress is justified in trying to pass such a controversial legislation? Is it okay to allow the mother to die because removing the potential baby is against your beliefs? Can you justify letting a woman die in this way?

Counter-Terrorism Is Not An Excuse

The United Nations, recently, had an expert release a statement expressing his belief counter-terrorism is used too much to curb human rights and justify violations of the human rights of the ‘enemy.’ It has been incredibly prominent in the past decade as the counter-terrorism fight has grown immensely and spread to many states throughout the globe. Ben Emmerson, the UN expert, is a citizen of the United Kingdom who serves as a jurist reporting to the Human Rights Council about such violations. The violations, according to Emmerson, are not only in states that are still developing, but also in states that have prided themselves with having strong democracies. He believes that the current implementation of human rights should be studied first and sees if prevention is a better tactic.

The connection to human rights is quite obvious because it is speaking of the violation and possible implementation of human rights in the states that are participating in counter-terrorist activities. Human rights that have been violated in the name of counter-terrorism include right to life, security of self, freedom from inhumane treatment in prison, freedom from torture, and many others. These have been violated by everyone from the very top of the food chain to the very bottom in the name of protecting the states and people.

I, personally, always felt that such measures are counterproductive to the purpose of counter-terrorism. If someone ignores their human rights they will reciprocate it and in many cases just grow to hate the group more over time. If the group respects their human rights and tries to instill more it will become harder to hate them and over time the incentive to participate in terrorist activity will fall. I think it is particularly despicable of the large, Democratic Western states to take part in such types of counter-terrorist measures since they have signed many documents promising to support human rights and should play to part of role model in such situations. It seems as if some many people speak one way, but act the other and in so many cases it does not fix anything, but makes it worse.

Is it okay to break someone’s human rights because they are party to a terrorist group? Is it counterproductive to do so? Would it be better to ‘kill them with kindness’?

Dear President Obama, Uganda Needs Your Help

On Human Rights Watch, recently, a video expressing a plea of desperation from the peoples of Uganda, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and the Central African Republic. The Lord’s Resistance Army has plagued these people for decades now. The LRA is known for stealing children to be soldiers and prostitutes. They have run rampant through much of Northern Uganda, Democratic Republic of Congo, Central African Republic, and Sudan causing all sorts of death and destruction for seemingly no purpose. The plea to President Obama is to act on the law he has put into place to aid and cease the LRA’s terrorizing of the people in these countries.

There are several human rights violated by the LRA and the governments of these countries through the lack of action. The first and foremost is the right to life possessed by all people. The LRA has gone around robbing people of their lives in more than one way from murdering hundreds of people to brainwashing and forcing children into their ranks and leaving them little to do once they have left if they can escape. Next is the right to safety from violence, which obviously is not observed by this group as seen in the needless killing and injuring of people all through their area of dominion. One that has been violated by the governments of the countries is the right to seek asylum from these horrors. Refugees live in horrible conditions in different countries and areas of their own.

I have followed the story in Uganda closely since learning about it when I was still high school. The LRA has been the most devastating terrorist group in recent years in my opinion. It forces young boys to be soldiers and young girls to be prostitutes for its soldiers. They have the children kill their parents so they feel they cannot go home because no one will accept them. Anything done to children I feel is the worst violation of human rights. These children cannot protect themselves from such horrific things and to target them is unforgivable. I feel that President Obama must keep up his end of the bargain and begin to act on his law to relieve the people of this area of Africa.

Do you think that Obama should hold up his end of the bargain? Why has this atrocity been allowed to go on for so long?

The Sadness of Senegalese Women

As in many African countries, Senegal has been plagued by the practice of genital cutting for ages. Recently, though, villages have been rising up and denying this old tradition. The tradition has been something believed to make women and girls pure and acceptable for marriage as well as to ensure that they would remain virgin until they were married. Many women, like Aissatou Kande, have declared that they will not cut their daughters and foster a new age in their villages. This phenomenon is a very recent occurrence, but it is a slow process though so many are standing against it. Aissatou Kande’s village has not yet pledged to stop the practice though.

The human rights violated here are many. The first is the right to security of self. Women and girls cannot feel safe as long as practices such as this exist because their bodies must change to be acceptable. Another is the right to safety of person from violence. Though is some cases people would consider it traditional, but it is a violation of a woman’s/girl’s safety of person. It also violates the right to equality of men and women, in which women have this extra expectation of them that men do not have. To be pure should not require a surgical procedure that is very dangerous.

I, personally, have never understood the practice of such traditions because they do more harm than good if you look at it objectively. Traditions like these often have come out of old religious practices and it is somewhat understandable why it has held so long. The problem here is that overarching international programs do not work as well, but grassroots programs do work. The grassroots program in question is Tostan, which focuses on the education of the populace within the villages. This has always been the best approach to human rights violations in Africa in my opinion and though it cannot be duplicated well for all countries, it does work better than any amount of money funneled into the continent.

Do you believe that due to its status as a tradition it should be overlooked? Is the initiative being taken by the villages and women themselves enough to change the situation?

Civil Wars Worst Crimes

In 2010, Côte d’Ivoire had a civil war between the former president and the newly elected president when former President Gbagbo refused to step down for President Ouattara. Recently, there has been a call for even human rights accusations and trials. President Ouattara has been diligent in handling human rights abused on Gbagbo’s side, but has slacked on his own where there many as well. There were several murders and armed conflicts during the civil war that must be brought to justice as well as hundreds of rapes on both sides. These rapes were often done on religious, racial, and political lines for the most part and many women would be gang raped by an entire group of soldiers, sometimes only for wearing a shirt in support of one president or the other. President Ouattara may create a new divide in the country if he does not take the action needed.

Violations here are the right to life, right to security of self, freedom of religion and political views. Right to life is pretty self explanatory due to the mass amounts of killings during the civil war. Right to security of self falls with the rape problems. Women should be able to feel safe when moving about their country and the mere fact that so many women were raped in such a short time. Freedom of religion and political views is obvious since people were targeted for these while choosing victims to the rapes and murders.

I cannot understand the reasons for Ouattara not charging everyone involved. I understand that several of these were also his supporters, but when it comes to human rights violations there must be a line drawn. It cannot be acceptable in any case for someone to commit such inhumane acts just because they support the winning side. There are just too many types of violations here to let it slide especially since it was a civil war situation. To make people understand that the President only worries about the people he must show that regardless of your affiliation if you commit a crime you will be tried. You must make the people feel safe.

Should Ouattara allow his supporters to slip through the cracks? What could the allowance of this cause in Côte d’Ivoire? What can be done to make the people feel safe?

Communism: You Are Doing It Wrong.

The New People’s Army is a Maoist communist faction in the Philippines that is in open rebellion against the Filipino government since 1969. The NPA has been attributing civilian deaths to their “people’s court” handing down ruling upon them as well as detaining several people for the same reason. The existence of the “people’s court” is not confirmed as a real body or a sham as of yet. The group is, as part of an intra-country conflict, required to follow the international humanitarian laws, such as the Geneva Convention that the Philippines have signed. Any violations of these can bring scrutiny from the international community. The most common violations have been murder of civilians and detaining individuals without fair trial. The NPA is currently under intense scrutiny due to their most recent civilian murder of Ramelito “Ramel” Gonzaga, accused of “crimes against the people.”

As for human rights violations, there are quite a few in this case. The right to life is violated by the unlawful killing of civilians for apparent “crimes against the people.” The right to a fair trial is not upheld in the least regardless of the apparent existence of the “people’s court” and their rulings. The right to security of self and right against violence to one’s self is obviously broken with the auxiliary causalities caused during these murders as well as the murders themselves. Another is the right to human treatment while detained or imprisoned, which to most people’s knowledge is not being given the prisoners of this group.

The problem with the NPA’s actions is that they are not a legal governmental body and thus have no authority to carry out death sentences against Filipino citizens or to detain them. I cannot fathom how this has been allowed to go on at all, let alone for forty years. The international community should have attempted to remedy the situation decades ago. No party or militant group has the right to target civilians, regardless of their intentions, especially when they are held to the standards of the Geneva Convention. Also, their court is not an official court that can sentence people and if the court does not first allow the person to argue their case then it is not a fair trial and thus void in the beginning. Overall, I do not believe that the NPA has any right to do what they have been doing for the past forty years and that it is a travesty that it has been allowed to continue so long.

Why has the NPA been ignored by the West? Is it okay for a group in open rebellion to target civilians? Should the “people’s court” be investigated on its existence?

Can You Hear Us Now?

Verizon may be the best wireless carrier, but are they the best employer? On the back of the recent CWA strike against Verizon, for attempting to take away the workers retirement and most of the health care, the company has had mandatory 12-hour days 7 days a week for almost a month. I know this because me stepfather works for Verizon and has not had a day of rest since they went back to work. This man in New York had been doing the very same thing and on September 14th it caught up with him. Though no one knows exactly how the line got loose, if the man had been fully alert he would have noticed the problem and very likely not died that day due to electrocution. On the back of this tragedy Verizon has now let their workers take weekends off, but it is still 12-hour days for the other 5 days of the week. This is an astronomical change compared to their usual hours, which were from 7am-3pm. It is causing many people health problems, but for fear for their jobs they will not take any days off. Verizon still refuses to comment in any capacity about these occurrences.

Many would ask what human right this violates, because it does not seem like there are any. But there are. Work under favorable conditions is the first. No one should be subject to an amount of work that could be dangerous to their health or well-being. Another is the right to rest and leisure. This is something that in developed countries often keeps us going. To have no time to get adequate rest and time away from work can be very dangerous to someone in a very physically demanding field.

Personally, I feel like Verizon is trying to punish the workers for not just lying down and accepting their terms during the strike and now. Unfortunately, big CEO types do not understand the full affect of their decisions on those below them. This man died. My stepfather's back problems are getting worse. Someone else is likely very sick, but to scared to go to the doctor. Verizon needs to be stopped. 12-hour days have not been the norm since the industrial period and there is a reason for that. Health workers are productive workers and for some reason Verizon is not registering that at the moment. There is a point when corporate gain over worker safety sentiments gets to be too much and I think for Verizon, that they have reached it.

Do you think that what Verizon is doing is okay? Should they be called out for it? Why are MNCs so unconcerned with their workers health and lives?

Protestors Meet Pepper Spray in Occupy Wall Street Rally

The women in this picture had just been pepper sprayed in the face by the New York Police Department while protesting at the Occupy Wall Street Rallies. Occupy Wall Street is a rally that wishes to push the financial sector to make financial reforms. They claim to know that the 'real power' is not in Washington, D.C. It is your typical protest (except larger), in which people carry banners and signs, yell a bit, and walk back and forth between two points. Peaceful enough and nothing illegal. Yet, last Saturday the NYPD corralled and pepper sprayed several protestors at the Occupy Wall Street rally, all while arresting eighty people for disturbing the peace. I may be looking at this wrong, but last I checked it was perfectly legal and, dare I say it, encouraged that the people assemble and protest in a democratic system. The NYPD has countered that the group did not have a marching permit and were doing so against the law. The problem with the police reaction to the protestors is that the protestors they pepper sprayed were young women carrying signs that were in no way threatening the officers. It seems that the police officers were also being over brutal in their arrests of people, tackling and shoving down protestors, who were unarmed, to cuff them. This, to me, seems very sketchy and the department is investigating it, but I worry that it will get swept under the rug.

Many people would wonder how this is a human rights violation and I can understand this sentiment, but it in fact is a violation of human rights and our own democracy. The right to peaceful protest is a human right and well as a democratic right. These people were not being violent and, though some did fight back when being arrested, they did not deserve the treatment they received from the NYPD. Another human right broken was the right to freedom from violence. These people did not infringe on anyone else's rights by marching and protesting. They did not deserve to incur such a violent reaction to their protests.

I, personally, cannot believe that all this has happened.

Something that is so engrained in the American psyche is now being violently oppressed in our own country. The history of the United States is that of rising up against things that were not right in our society and by now you would think that people would understand that and it would be upheld as the right it is. But it is not. This is one of the most absurd human rights violations I have seen in the Untied States. The right to peaceful protest should not be something we are still working the kinks out of in this country. We are supposed to be a role model for the rest of the world and, yet, we are still doing things like this to our own citizens when they decide to disagree with the government/private sector. I can't make good sense out of why the NYPD felt the need to mace the protestors or why they seemed threatened enough by the people to tackle them before arresting them. These people are UNARMED. The best they could do is hit you with their sign or scream in your face, excessive force is unneeded.

My question to you is do you think that the police were justified? Do you think that protests like this should be so regulated? Is the right to assembly and protest not the democratic right we thought it was?