Police Shutdown Occupy Encampments

Another camp has been forcibly shut down now in Portland, Oregon. After a stand off between police and protestors attempting to reclaim their encampment, the police started to take down tents and remove them from the area. Protestors held a general assembly meeting in the morning when they were first pushed off the camp ground. Soon they relocated to the street and were told that they could be subject to 'chemical agents and impact weapons' to which their only response was "We are a peaceful protest." Eventually the protestors were cleared out of the street and the police have had the mayor's backing the entire time, he even tweeted a thanks to those who helped get the streets clear.

Human rights violations here encompass the right to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of peaceful protest, and security of self. Freedom of speech is the ever self explanatory right. If you stop them from Occupying you are stifling their political opinion. Assembly and Peaceful Protest go hand in hand here. It is an inherent human right that people are allowed to assemble in a group as well as protest in a peaceful manner without violence or any inherent harm to those around them. Security of self in this case has to do with the absolute lack of concern shown for these people's heath by the police who threatened to use weapons and chemicals against people who would not fight back. It's just unsavory.

I, personally, believe that as long as the Occupy protestors are not being violent or harming anyone that the police should not be allowed to touch them in any way. It is in their human and constitutional rights that they can gather and express their political opinion. Portland, and any other cities, that have attempted to shut down these movements are not working within their boundaries. it just seems ridiculous to me that they would shut these down so violently. To my knowledge, none of these people have caused harm to police, why are the police threatening harm?

Why are the police and the cities reacting in this way? Is it within the protestor human and constitutional rights to do what they are doing? Can an argument be made that it is not?

Syria Commits Crime Against Humanity

Syria, in the past few weeks, has been accused of crimes against humanity. Particularly in a industrial city named Homs, where several protests have broken out and security forces have been placed. Since November 2, it is thought that at least 104 more people have died at the hands of the security forces in Homs and that it could be more. Syria has been suspended from the Arab League pending further investigation and the UN is in talks to embargo arms and enact sanctions. In the article the author states that Homs is a microcosm to the entirety of Syria, making it just a small view of a larger picture that may be much worse than previously believed. With the deaths and seeming violent put downs of the protests what can be expected next?

In the arena of human rights there is the obvious violations of right to life and freedom of speech. The right to life is the most prominent and worrisome violation on the part of Syria. Many protests have broken out in Syria and it has not quite come out of its period of Arab Spring. Anti-government sentiment is high and if the government continues to react as it does, it can only be expected that it will violate the right to life of more and more of its citizens. On freedom of speech, it is pretty plain. The protests are being stopped by the means necessary and it seems that in some cases, if not most, that has been violent means.

I have never supported any sort of violence. I never will. al-Assad, in my opinion, should step down at this point. If there is so much strife in you country that even with the use of force protests will not stop reoccurring, maybe you should reevaluate your decisions. There are times like these where I am happy I live in the US because I know if someone tried to pull this in our own country they'd be evicted from the White House before the paper was out the next morning. Syria's government needs to take a hint from the Arab League and the UN and understand that if they are getting penalized so much they should cut their losses and figure something new out.

How do you feel about these deaths in Homs? Should security personnel be allowed such liberties? Can there be a solution in the future?

UN Scrutinizes Iran

Iran has come under scrutiny from the United Nations for targeted arrests and bad treatment of minorities and other designations. The United Nations Commission of Human Rights expressed concern over the continued discrimination against religious and ethnic minorities and homosexuals, as well as the capital punishment acted on juveniles. These allegations could lead to many problems for Iran if it does not try to relegate its offenses. The committee in question is made up of independent experts monitoring implementation of human rights conventions. Overall, Iran is being put under a spotlight at the moment.

The human rights violated here are right to life, right to religious freedom, and right to freedom from discrimination based on ethinicity, race, sexuality, etc. These are pretty straight forward. Capital punishment is against the right to life on principle. Religious freedom is a given as Iran is openly discriminating and arresting those of the religious minorities. Freedom from discrimination is hands down the most obvious violation from the ethnic and homosexual arrests and prejudices.

I personally have never really understood anything Iran does and often wonder why states sign human rights treaties they are not going to follow. Why not be truthful rather than asking for international scrutiny by signing the paper? Iran is one of many that have a long way to go before they will be up to snuff on human rights. I could not allow this to happen if I were in charge, but there is too much cultural and historical background for this not to have happened at some point in time.

What should be done about Iran? Why even bother making a statement? Will anything come of this scrutiny?

Misrata's Murder Militias

It has been discovered recently that militias in Misrata have been killing indiscriminantly any proposed supporters of Gadhafi. These militias have specifically targeted a town a few miles away named Tawergha. There were upwards of 100 such militias in Misrata and many still exist. The reason for most of the resentment is the continuous assault on the city that occurred during the end of Gadhafi's reign earlier this year. It is obvious that in this post-war time in Libya there is a need for accountability for human rights violations. To get the country back to running there needs to some form of authority and it needs to be shown in the refounding of a state. As the Misratan militia have been seen shooting and killing people of Tawergha unarmed. Their campaign has not been limited to this other city of Tawergha, but also to any other groups that were supporting Gadhafi.

The human rights violated in this case is right to life and the right to freedom of opinion. The right to life is violated in a very blatant sense in this particular case in Libya. There is not any way around it. The right to freedom of opinion is violated in the sense of killing purely because the person's beliefs are different than yours.

It is ridiculous to think that killing people is the only solution to some to get what they need. Though I understand their frustrations and their reasons with their situation and yet they should avoid bloodshed of this magnitude. Now that the war has ended there should have been a decrease in death and murder because now the whole country has a chance to rebuild. It seems that there may be a need for United Nations peace keeping forces to help quell the violence.

How can the murders be stopped? Are UN Peace Keeping forces needed? Should there be any intervention?

Israel is Moving In

Recently, Israel has declared new plans to accelerate settlement in the West Bank due to the admittance of Palestine as a voting member of UNESCO. This follows on a failed attempt at recognition by the UN Security Council by Palestine, which was vetoed by the United States, an Israeli ally. Palestinians have called for a full halt of settlements to continue peace talks, but Israel has not shown any sign of stopping. These settlements are a way for Israel to claim more and more land so to take over most of Palestine's terrirtory. Though Palestine is not considered a legitimate state due to its lack of formal government or territory, it still is seem as a nation due to the shared ethnic and cultural backgrounds of its people. Both countries think there is little chance at peace due to these recent events. These settlements, first and foremost, are illegal as declared by the United Nations and cautioned against by the United States. It is interesting that Israel would chance such a risk of negative consequences.

The human rights violated here are the Palestinians' rights to be a citizen of a country and to exist, in a sense. Israel is preventing Palestine from having its own country and land claim subjecting Palestinians to be people without a country. They are not really considered citizens of any existing country and that in itself limits the rights awarded them by the countries of the world. The right to exist is broken in the sense that to Israel it would be much better if Palestinians did not exist and they do their best to suffocate them as much as possible.

I, personally, have been appalled by many of the things I have seen come out of Israel on their treatment of the Palestinians. I know that it is a two way street, but in the Palestinians case it is almost justified because they have been kicked off their land and treated like second class citizens by the Israelis for several decades. Israel should be held to a somewhat higher standard because they are the most stable democracy in the Middle East and they are considered a relatively developed country. What right do they have to oppress an entire nation? Does it not seem as if they should be the last people who act out oppression on others?

Should the Israelis be allowed to build these settlements even though it is against international law? Why do people overlook these human rights violations so much? Why does the United States continuously support Israel when it continues to perpetrate these acts?

The Iran Paradox

The situation in Iran, for women, is an interesting one. Women in Iran are incredibly liberated in the sense of education, health care, and the like, but the women are still subject to old laws on marriage, divorce, custody, and inheritance. One woman, Sussan Tahmasebi, went to her native country and stayed for ten years. She started the One Million Signatures Campaign, spreading a petition asking the government to pass and change laws for more equal rights to be awarded to women. The job of the people who work for her organization is to go into public places and ask normal Iranians to sign the petition. The women are very educated in Iran, holding jobs in medicine and politics, yet they are still subject to these seemingly primitive laws. In 2006, arrests began, but this only raised their resolve.

The human rights violated here have to do with right to liberty, freedom from forced marriage, free speech, and to think freely. It seems obvious that there should be something done in this case. Imprisoning people for showing an opinion and trying to peacefully see it fixed? It seems absurd. Everything that occurs in this situation is against some human right that is guaranteed to all people.

To me it seems ridiculous to give these women seeming economic liberty, but limit them socially by regulating their marriages, divorces, custody, and inheritance. They are educated women who understand that they are being treat unfairly. The government tries to justify it through religion, but that does not even work if one looks at the Koran deeply enough. It is violating these women's right to be a person and run their own lives. They were even imprisoned for trying to change it in the most peaceful way possible. What can a petition do? Is it a threat? I think not. I hope that one day Iran can take a step forward and equal out their women's rights.

Do you think that Iran is a paradox? Are women's rights as important in such a society as most would consider them? Is it religiously or patriarchically based prejudice?

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?