Journal of Human Rights Fall 2015 by Journal of Human Rights at NYU

JOURNAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS FALL 2015

JOURNAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FALL 2015 VOLUME XX

The Journal of Human Rights is a student-run publication dedicatED to informing the NYU community about Domestic and global human rights issues. We create and publish a journal each semester comprised of academic, opinion AND creative pieces. We thank all the students who submitted to our journal and all the members who worked to produce it.

EXECUTIVE BOARD

EDITORS

Editor-in-chief: Ryan Koul Vice President: Maxwell Smith Treasurer: Rebecca McCarthy Secretary: Lavanya Hinduja

Audrey Gascho

WRITERS Lila Carpenter Vanessa Chesnut Karim Dewidar Olivia Ezard Alison del Handel Shira Mogil Rebecca Oh

Lauren Parnaby Courtney Quigley Shashank Rao Julia Sanchez Riley Stenehjem

LETTER FROM THE EDITOR Dear Reader, The Journal of Human Rights at NYU is passionately committed to informing our community of violations of human rights – rights that inherently belong to all human beings. An awareness of inhumane laws and policies is the first step in advocating against them. We hope our academic, opinion, and creative pieces move you to take part in this fight. As technology has made the world smaller, our knowledge of human rights violations has grown. In the last ten years alone, we’ve learned of mass governmental surveillance by the U.S. and its western allies, CIA-sponsored torture and detention, brutal gender-based strife in central Africa, civil war in Syria and Ukraine, and the fight for homosexuals’ rights from Turkey to Tennessee. Kosovo, Serbia, and Montenegro earned independence after years of violence, and the last vestiges of Soviet-era Yugoslavia faded away. Authoritarian power changed hands but not its hold, as Fidel became Raul and Jong-il became Jong-un. Nothing runs in the family like a dictatorship. Iraq collected its wartime rent of two trillion dollars, 4,500 American lives, and over 120,000 civilians before we decided to wage war elsewhere. A Tunisian street vendor set himself on fire to protest against harassment and the illegal confiscation of his goods by government officials, and the Arab Spring was born. We welcomed South Sudan to the world, and some also welcomed Palestine. Some didn’t. Through it all, human rights were largely flouted or dismissed. As of December 2015, there are dozens of armed conflicts including ten ongoing wars spanning four continents, with annual death tolls ranging from 1,000-10,000+ and millions more injured or displaced as refugees. From torture and violations of privacy, to the deprivation of due process, to arbitrary attacks and arrests of non-combatants, to restrictions on the rights of marriage, movement, expression, and assembly, our world is fraught with human rights violations. This journal describes only a few. But we hope our pieces encourage you, the reader, to speak out against them. From every writer and editor who spent hours researching his or her paper and pondering over that perfect word, we thank you. This journal is for you. Sincerely, Ryan Koul Editor-in-chief

TABLE OF CONTENTS ASIA AND THE MIDDLE EAST

6 11

You Rebecca Oh Human Rights in Israel Olivia Ezard

AFRICA

Women’s Rights in South Sudan Riley Stenehjem

Anti-Terrorism and Human Rights in Egypt Karim Dewidar

POETRY

White Man’s Burden - A Satire Anonymous

Three Poems Courtney Quigley

THEORETICAL

Language as a Human Right Shashank Rao

The Commodification of People Vanessa Chesnut

The Politics of Difference: Islamic Law, Gender, and Rights Shira Mogil

The Entanglement of Womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Rights and Religion Alison Del Handel

UNITED STATES

Aid-in-Dying Legislation as a Human Rights Concern in the United States Julia Sanchez

Borderlands: Conflicting American Desires and Abusive Inaction Lila Carpenter

Beyond the Consumption of GMOs: The Human Toll of Seed Company Chemical Use on Kauai Lauren Parnaby

YOU REBECCA OH The following piece is based primarily on a UN report titled “Report of the commission of inquiry on human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea,” issued on February 7th, 2014. On December 10th 1948, the United Nations General Assembly ratified the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It was drafted by representatives from all over the world, and consists of thirty articles—each article declaring a distinct human right (UDHR). There is one nation in this world that violates every single one. And you live in it. He knows. He knows. He knows. He knows. “Our Supreme Leader can read all of your thoughts. So you should speak up and tell us if your parents or siblings or even your classmates dare to speak against the regime or him. It’s the right thing to do. You know this.” Should I speak up? He already knows anyway. This is the right thing to do. The right thing…the right thing… You clear your throat and say

“Young-Jae said something the other day. He made a joke in poor taste about Our Supreme Leader.” You point to the boy across the classroom, who starts trembling. He throws himself to the ground, cowering into a bow. He proclaims his eternal allegiance to the Supreme Leader, and screams his apologies. But they take him away. And you never see him again. You are a young girl in North Korea. Not lucky enough to be part of the elite who predominantly reside in the nation’s capital, Pyongyang, you live in a more rural area with your family. You are in your fifth year of compulsory education, and when you graduate from high school, you will have to serve in the nation’s military for seven years. The minimum height requirement to serve in the military is supposed to be 142 centimeters (almost 4’8”), but this is not strictly enforced (Choi). Looking around the classroom, you and your female classmates may be hard-pressed to meet anyone that height anyway. You are lucky, in fact, compared to your male classmates, who will have to

ASIA & MIDDLE EAST

devote ten years to military service after graduation (Choi). There is no religion here. No god except Kim Jong Un. There are no opinions, just facts. And the facts you have been taught largely center on the divinity of the Supreme Leader (Su-ryong) and on the villainy and incompetence of the U.S., Japan, and South Korea (United Nations, Report of the Commission 7). They are our enemies, and we must always be ready for war to defend our Su-ryong. Only the highest standard of morality is enforced here. The smallest sign of dissent is swiftly dealt with by the regime, by you, and by each other. Students are not simply required but expected to turn on classmates, children on parents. An interesting experiment is taking place because our leaders have changed all the rules of morality, and you and all others born under them have no idea that they were ever changed—that there could be anything but the rules you were taught. Foreign artifacts, particularly those from South Korea, are strictly prohibited, and

if you are ever caught with them, you will be severely punished—even sent to a labor camp. Your family might never be told what happened to you (United Nations, Report of the Commission 9). You’ll just disappear. All of this is necessary. The regime needs to limit its citizens’ exposure to foreign influence as much as possible. Such knowledge could plant dreams of a “better” life and thus shatter the illusion of our carefully crafted world. This is the only reality you will ever need. Why threaten it? Granted, sometimes they lie. You suspect it occasionally, even though their words are all you know. But it is through their cultivation of falsetruths—the lies that thread perhaps every school and every television broadcast—that the regime maintains control. Through communism, they alone have achieved a utopian equality. You are hungry, but thank God, our Supreme Leader, that you don’t live in the United States, where corruption and starvation are far more rampant than anywhere in the world. Besides, you’ve seen the video

footage—our leader has reduced their New York City to rubble (Fisher). They are nothing. A couple of years ago you saw something interesting. You were part of a crowd that was pushed into a stadium to witness a public spectacle. In the center, there were about eighty people, all tied to stakes. You looked to the side and saw machine guns lined and ready. You’d seen these before. You closed your eyes and clamped your hands over your ears, but couldn’t block out the rapid bratatatatat of the guns. It was so loud you didn’t even hear the bodies drop. You heard later that some of them were punished for possessing Bibles (Chasmar). Why hadn’t they known better? Didn’t they know that there is no religion in this land? The elites cannot condone organized religion. It could threaten our nation’s system-wide equality. Equality. The system of equality you live in is called songbun. It largely determines where and how you live—what schools, jobs, and food you have access to. The hunger you feel each night before sleep will not change. And improper political opinions and religious associations are reflected in one’s place in songbun (United Nations, Report of the Commission 8). At birth, you were assigned a social class by the State, and for the rest of your life, you are forbidden from traveling within or out of the country without official authorization (9). You remain in your assigned class and live right where you are born. But interest-

ingly, entire families of elites have been cast out of Pyongyang when one of their members has committed a serious crime or political slight (9). If there is any social mobility, it is downward. On paper, this may sound like a rather suffocating way to live. But you must understand: songbun is the only way to uphold true equality. It is a system superior to any of those found in nations defiled by capitalism. You know this. Everyone does. SHOULD YOU TRY TO LEAVE THE COUNTRY: If you are caught trying to leave our great nation or are repatriated to it, you will likely be subject to torture, extended imprisonment without trial, and even sexual assault through invasive body searches. If you have been impregnated during your time outside of North Korea, you will more than likely undergo a forced abortion. Such abortions are often driven by racism, as the regime does not tolerate the tainting of its people with foreign blood. The abortion would also act as a punishment (9). How dare you try to leave here, after all this country has done for you. But the choice to leave may not even be yours. A few years from now, you will be a woman, and even with this nation’s successful egalitarianism, there are certain dangers you may face. You may be trafficked into China for the purposes of “forced marriage, concubinage, or prostitution,” and any children you have there will be undocumented—having no

rights to citizenship, healthcare, or education—because you cannot risk being caught, sent back to North Korea, and punished (10). Even though it was not your choice, examples must be made. The most abysmal fate, however, awaits those in political prison camps (kwanliso). If you are found to have had contact with South Korean nationals or officials, or with Christian churches, you may be sentenced to imprisonment at a political prison camp, imprisonment at a standard prison, or execution (9). The worst possible sentence is undoubtedly being sent to a political prison camp; even execution is more compassionate. You and other political prisoners will die a slow, miserable death through deliberate starvation, forced labor, executions, torture, and rape. Women are denied any reproductive rights, as the officers control births through “punishment, forced abortion and infanticide” (12). In such camps, it seems that all of the indoctrination that inmates experience is magnified. Children raised in these camps learn nothing except propaganda, and lose nearly all sense of self except for the animalistic instinct to survive. Inmates, whether children or elderly, become so desperate as to pick through animal feces for grains of rice, and are often beaten to death. You and other prisoners of all ages are taught from the beginning that you have shamed the regime and deserve this systemic abuse. There is no concept of love for those born in these camps, no concept of religion to com-

fort them. There is not even a concept of right for the camp-born to know their abuse is wrong. For those born in such conditions, this is their normal (Marquand). They typically outlast those sent to camps later in life, the ones who know of a better world that they yearn to return to. These prisoners’ minds break down long before their bodies do. Perhaps all this has stirred something within you—some sense of injustice. Even you, as an ordinary citizen, must think that this systemic abuse is intolerable. But most likely, you know, as I do: they deserve this.

WORKS CITED Chasmar, Jessica. “80 People Publicly Executed across North Korea for Films, Bibles.” Washington Times. The Washington Times, 12 Nov. 2013. Web. 14 Nov. 2015. Choi, Song Min. “North Korea Introduces ‘mandatory Military Service for Wom en’” The Guardian. N.p., 31 Jan. 2015. Web. 14 Nov. 2015. Fisher, Max. “That Crazy North Korean Video of New York Blowing Up, Now with English.” Washington Post. The Washington Post, 5 Feb. 2013. Web. 14 Nov. 2015. Marquand, Robert. “North Korea’s Hidden Labor Camps Exposed.” The Christian Science Monitor. The Christian Science Monitor, 21 May 2013. Web. 1 Dec. 2015. North Korea Freedom Coalition. “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” Visions Seen The Evolution of International Human Rights (2011): n. pag. Web. 14 Nov. 2015. Report of the Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Human Rights Council, 2014. Web. Ryall, Julian. “North Korea Extends 10-year Military Conscription.” The Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group, 04 Nov. 2014. Web. 14 Nov. 2015. “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights | United Nations.” UN News Center. UN (1948). Web. 14 Nov. 2015.

ASIA & MIDDLE EAST

HUMAN RIGHTS IN ISRAEL OLIVIA EZARD Human rights in Israel may be viewed through two lenses: the rights of Israeli citizens and the rights of those under Israeli Occupation. It is most often the latter group that sees an abuse of human rights as outlined by international conventions and norms. Much of the psychology behind these violations stems from the creation of the state and the effects of persecution of the Jewish people. Prior to World War II, Jews were often subjected to human rights abuses, though there was very little international agreement on what human rights meant at the time. However, following the creation of the state of Israel, there have been copious violations directed at those under Israeli occupation: indigenous Palestinians. Israel has a less-than-favorable track record when it comes to such violations, particularly in cases of detainment and state-sanctioned torture. These violations often come directly into conflict with international law and gain attention through both local and international Human Rights Organizations. While Israel does not have a consti-

tution, it has developed a series of Basic Laws that serve as a makeshift constitution, and as a guideline for rulings in the High Court of Justice (Gross 81). The two major basic laws that pertain to human rights are Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, and Basic Law: Right to Occupation. As Aeyal M. Gross, professor of international and constitutional law at Tel Aviv University, explains, “Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty guarantees the right to life, physical integrity, human dignity and property, and freedom of movement from and to Israel” (88). Justice Aharon Barak has interpreted these basic laws to stretch further than their surface meanings. Under his reading of Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, “the right to human dignity incorporates many civil rights that were omitted from the Basic Law, including the economic right of freedom of contract” (90). However, under Barak’s reading, these basic laws only expanded economic rights, not social rights. Thus, they are largely ineffective in protecting human rights. For example, “under

Barak’s approach, Israel’s price regulation laws, as well as its minimum wage laws, would be considered in violation of freedom of occupation” (96). This leads to an increase in the gap between rich and poor in Israel, which is already one of the highest in the industrialized world. Marginalized groups are further hindered from escaping the cycle of poverty. Unfortunately, as Gross expresses, “today, Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty and Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation are often invoked in the name of business interests” (92). Human rights are not furthered under this particular reading of the Basic Laws. Fortunately, not every justice in the High Court of Justice has taken the same approach with the Basic Laws. Gross reports that, “some of the justices presiding in these cases examined Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty and held that the enhanced status that equality now enjoys as part of human dignity shapes the outcome in these cases” (100). This is, no doubt, a step in the right direction for equality in Israel, but it does not cover every inequality that citizens face. The application of Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty does not extend to all Israeli citizens. There have been successful cases brought to the High Court of Justice (HCJ) regarding discrimination on the grounds of gender and sexual orientation, but cases regarding discrimination on the grounds of race are left unheard. As Gross asserts, “with regard to Israeli Arabs, the Court has yet to ex-

pand its broad equality jurisprudence to include these citizens of the State” (103). The Arabs are not seen as equal under the eyes of the law by this measure. This calls into question whether their civil rights are protected under the Basic Law. Gross argues that they are not, postulating that “the definition of the State of Israel in the Basic Laws as a ‘Jewish and democratic state’ may serve to legitimize laws that discriminate in favor of Jews” (103). This makes it legal to discriminate against Arab or other non-Jewish job applicants, leaving them with no legal recourse. Such a justification allows the government to actively discriminate against anyone that isn’t part of the Jewish State. This violates Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which entitles all to “equal protection against any discrimination” (United Nations). Discrimination in Israel is so inculcated that, according to a report by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI), “the primary barrier to the prevention of discrimination in Israel is that the value of equality … has not been truly internalized within Israeli society … ” (Dahan 5). So long as the status of Jews is privileged over all others, there can be no equality in Israel. Human rights law regarding the Occupied Territories is much more complicated and problematic than domestic human rights law in Israel. As the ACRI report explains, “International law entitles Palestinians to special protections from occupying forces, yet they receive

few rights as compared to those enjoyed by their Jewish neighbors” (91). To this end, “while martial law is applied to the Palestinian population, Israeli law is applied to Jewish settlers” (91). This discrepancy shows a flagrant disregard for international norms regarding occupation. Further, “Israel’s policy of settling civilians in the West Bank and Gaza contravenes at least two fundamental principles of international humanitarian law, Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and Article 65 of the Hague Regulations” (Democracy and Human Rights 7). Despite this, the settlements still exist and continue to grow. This violates the rights to equality and dignity under Basic Law. ACRI accurately sums up the problem with inequality in the West Bank, asserting that “two populations live side by side, subjected to two different and fundamentally opposed legal systems and infrastructures that discriminate based on the national origin of the residents” (Dahan 5). This situation leaves very little room for the protection of human rights. Since its creation, Israel has been known to display harsh treatment toward prisoners to such an extent that it may be classified as torture. It is one of the major obstacles to preserving human rights, particularly in the occupied territories. Civil society in Israel does not enjoy complete protection of human rights, but this could be said of any country. However, the lack of human rights enforcement in the occupied ter-

ritories sets Israel apart from many of its associated nations. As Dr. Beth Simmons, a Harvard professor of international affairs and author of Mobilizing Human Rights: International Law in Domestic Politics, explains, “Israel provides an interesting case study because it is an outlier; a stable democracy with a recent history of harsh interrogation practices that many would describe as torture” (Simmons 296). Israel is considered a leader in prosperity and quality of life despite not extending these benefits to certain citizens. Understandably, Israel is wary of violence and acts accordingly. However, in attempting to protect its citizens, Israel often steps over the line and ends up violating the rights of prisoners. The issues of torture and false imprisonment spiked after the first intifada, the Palestinian rebellion against Israeli occupation from December 1987 to 1993. In fact, “it was not until 1987 – and the eruption of the intifada – that the government’s policies were systematically assessed by the Landau Commission report” (296). This marked the beginning of scrutiny placed on Israel for its treatment of prisoners. Though the international community was sympathetic to the threats Israel was facing, “both international and local human rights organizations campaigned in the early 1990s for an amendment to the Israeli Penal Code (Article 277), which allowed physical pressure” (297). In this case, of course, physical pressure would largely be categorized as torture. It was a com-

mon means of extracting (sometimes false) confessions from suspects. The use of these methods is a gross violation of human rights and international norms. This international concern was further expressed when, “in 1994, the Committee Against Torture expressed its ‘great concern’ regarding Israel’s alleged use of ‘psychological and physical torture to extract confessions from detainees and prisoners’” (299). Many of these practices were found to be inconsistent with international norms concerning torture. Again, Israel tends to be in a unique situation regarding its stance on torture. According to public intellectual and political activist Noam Chomsky, “Israel is alone in having ‘effectively legalized the use of torture’ (with Supreme Court approval), determining that in pursuit of Israel’s perceived security needs, ‘all international rules of conduct could be broken’” (Chomsky 29). As torture has become state-sanctioned, Israel has faced pressure from the international community to end these practices. Interestingly, the process by which human rights has become a part of larger Israeli culture began in the military. As Lisa Hajjar, professor of sociology at the University of California-Santa Barbara and member of the Journal of Palestine Studies, explains, “the military court system became the institutional nexus of the legal struggle for the rights of Palestinians living under Israeli occupation” (24). This was because the cases were more likely to be heard and cov-

ered by military law, and the transgressions against human rights were most often committed by the military. The military courts became the battleground for human rights abuses, making attorneys from both Israel and the Palestinian Territories the earliest human rights crusaders in Israel. Palestinians were able to circumvent the HCJ by going through the military courts. Through this process, “issues that previously had been ignored or treated as political problems came to be couched in legal language, and this served to politicize law itself ” (25). Human rights law became not only a legal issue, but also an international political issue. Human rights activists decided to capitalize on this and “efforts to frame the struggle for Palestinians’ rights in human rights terms were serving to internationalize the conflict in new ways by inviting – and even demanding – the attention and involvement of the international community” (26). This put a spotlight on human rights abuses, particularly in the occupied territories. The international attention and patronage served human rights organizations in Israel proper well, but international involvement had a negative effect on organizations in the occupied territories. These organizations were met with mistrust due to “the belief that human rights are ‘Western’” in Palestine (30). This belief impeded the ability of the organizations to effectively work in the Palestinian territories. Their credibility

in the territories was dealt a further blow with foreign investment. Funding for human rights organizations came primarily from international donors, particularly in Western Europe and the United States, and the organizations began to model themselves after NGOs in these countries. In this way, “Western actors... have become the primary constituencies for local human rights activism” (31). Human rights activism may no longer be considered a grassroots movement in the Palestinian territories, and this has lost the human rights organizations in the area much of their local support. While Israel has sanctioned human rights abuses under domestic law, its practices are still largely in violation of international norms and laws. As previously mentioned, the settlements in the occupied territories blatantly defy international law. Hajjar argues that “while these policies violated both the letter and the spirit of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Israel constructed an elaborate legal order to rationalize and legitimize its governance of the West Bank and Gaza” (23). The Israeli government often justifies its policies by arguing that certain cases call for exceptional measures because they have no precedents in international law, thus privileging its own laws over international norms. However, the state refers to international law when pleading its case against the abuses committed by other nations. Thus, Israel acts “in violation … of the very provision of the Universal Declaration

of Human Rights to which Israel and its apologists appeal with great fervor and self-righteousness when condemning the Soviet Union for restricting emigration of Russian Jews” (Chomsky 796). The provision that Chomsky refers to is freedom of movement and growth of population, which Israel attempts to control by restricting movement of Palestinians and other non-Arabs. The peace process also serves as a contentious issue in relation to international human rights law. Human rights organizations and other NGOs were deeply disappointed with the peace process in the Oslo accords, an international effort to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, when they realized that “neither side had any intention to use international law as a guiding framework for the agreements” (Hajjar 28). Specifically, neither side wanted to frame the issue as an international human rights issue. Perhaps this was because both sides were guilty of human rights abuses and thus did not want a list of violations to come to light. Further, if international law were to be used as a framework, both sides would have to compromise on issues that they did not want to compromise on. As Chomsky argues in relation to the Palestinians, “the Oslo settlement effectively abolishes their ‘right of return,’ endorsed unanimously by the UN General Assembly in 1948 as the most direct application of Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (Chomsky 913-4). This sets a

precedent that human rights violations are not a major barrier to reconciliation at the governmental level. Though Israel and the Palestinian Authority have a lot of room for improvement with regard to human rights, it is doubtful whether the current governments are truly invested in them, especially for the occupied territories. While there are numerous organizations and activists in Israel who are genuinely sympathetic to human rights abuses, the government has not taken enough steps to uphold human rights in Israel and comply with international laws in the Occupied Territories.

WORKS CITED Chomsky, Noam. The Fateful Triangle. London: The Electric Book Company Ltd, 1999. Print. Dahan, Tal. Situation Report: The State of Human Rights in Israel and the OPT. Rep. N.p., Dec. 2013. Web. 1 Dec. 2015. Democracy and Human Rights in the Mediterranean Partner States of the OSCE : Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Morocco and Tunisia. Washington (234 Ford House Office Building, Washington 20515-6460): Commission, n.d. Print. Gross, Aeyal M. “The Politics of Rights in Israeli Constitutional Law.” Israel Studies 3.2 (1998): 80-118. Print. Hajjar, Lisa. “Human Rights in Israel/Palestine: The History and Politics of a Movement.” Journal of Palestine Studies 30.4 (2001): 21-38. Print. Simmons, Beth A. Mobilizing for Human Rights: International Law in Domestic Politics. London: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Print. United Nations. “United Nations.” 10 December 1948. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. <http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/>

WOMEN’S RIGHTS IN SOUTH SUDAN RILEY STENEHJEM

A mother, held at gunpoint, was forced to watch militiamen rape her daughters (Muscati). Another woman, Nyabol, was abducted from her village, taken to a military camp, tied to an unshaded pole during the day, and raped and abused at night. Of the forty women in her group at the camp, ten of them were taken away one by one; none of them returned (McNeish). Horror stories such as these are not uncommon in South Sudan, where both government and rebel militia have been raping and abusing women as revenge tactics. The women who aren’t sexually abused are beaten within inches of their lives, causing at least one woman to have a miscarriage (Muscati). The brutal acts of sexual violence perpetrated against women, girls, and young boys in South Sudan have violated numerous human rights and have left an estimated 24,000 women in the country at risk of sexual assault (Allen). Both rebel and government military forces have violated Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by com-

mitting “cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment or punishment” through kidnapping, gang raping, physically abusing, and killing women (United Nations, “They Burned It All”). Abducted from their homes and forced into camps, these women also have their liberty and often their lives taken from them, violating the human right to life, liberty, and security of person outlined in Article 3 (United Nations). The world’s newest country is also one of its most violent. After years of civil war during which “the Sudanese military bombed and razed villages across the south and killed, raped, and enslaved civilians en masse,” the South Sudanese finally won independence from the Arab-dominated northern government in 2011, and enjoyed a period of peace for the first time in over a decade (Verini). But by December 2013, less than three years later, political tensions and ethnic differences between President Salva Kiir and his former vice president, Riek Machar, caused fighting to break out again. Their feud, according to one Na-

AFRICA

tional Geographic journalist, “came to define South Sudanese politics” (Verini). The political feud grew worse in the ensuing years. President Kiir fired Vice President Machar, and although South Sudan recently earned its freedom, its Sudan Peoples’ Liberation Movement (SPLM) soon became a “militarized one-party kleptocracy” accused of rigging elections (Verini). The tensions between President Kiir and Machar were inflamed by ethnic differences; the two largest ethnic groups in the nation, the Nuers and the Dinkas, have historically been rivals. Kiir is a Dinka and Machar is a Nuer, so their political feud quickly descended into an ethnic one. On December 15th, 2013, the conflict erupted when Dinka members of the presidential guard tried to disarm the Nuer members, resulting in a firefight; shortly thereafter, Dinka troops began executing people in Nuer areas allegedly based on marks on the outside of Nuer homes, suggesting the attack was premeditated (Verini). The Nuer retaliated, and the army quickly split into ethnic halves as fighting

spread across the country (Verini). The clashes sweeping through South Sudan between the Nuer and the Dinka are characterized not only by long-standing ethnic strife and political disputes, but also by fighting over resources, according to South Sudanese policy analyst Tongun Lo Loyuong (Lo Loyuong). Because both the Dinka and Nuer tribes share the same geographic space and livelihood, there have always been grounds for conflict; historically, the two groups fought over “dwindling cattle grazing land and water-points precipitated by drought and ecological degradation” (Lo Loyuong). Raids on cattle are considered normal among cattle farming communities, even traditional. Importantly, the history of conflict between these two groups does not simply demonstrate decades or centuries of deep ethnic hatred, but also a “failure to manage ethnic diversity” (Lo Loyuong). The current ethnic conflict is exacerbated by political brinkmanship. When President Kiir announced that Machar had attempted a coup, Machar pro-

claimed in retaliation that “Kiir had not only fabricated the coup plot in order to kill him…but also had in mind a genocide of the Nuer” (Verini). With surprising speed, the former vice president fled from the capital for the northeast and formed a rebel army. The sexual violence of the conflict began following a claim that Dinka men had raped Nuer women, and that these women were now pregnant with Dinka babies. On April 15th, 2014, a rebel commander took over the airwaves of a radio station in Bentiu, capital of the Unity state, and called upon Nuer men to meet at the barracks the next day, and do to the Dinka women what had supposedly been done to their own wives (UNMISS Attacks). After this announcement, one pregnant woman in Bentiu was targeted by the Nuer rebels because her husband was a Dinka soldier, an Africa Correspondent for the BBC reported (Leithead). She was caught by the men while fleeing to the UN compound in Bentiu, beaten with the butt of a rifle, and forced to have sex with two soldiers. When interviewed, she said, “The reason they gave was ‘[President] Salva Kiir is in charge and is killing our people” (Leithead). Nuer soldiers allegedly told the pregnant woman that they wanted to get rid of her Dinka baby, though the attack did not lead to a miscarriage. The gruesome violence in South Sudan has prompted international organizations to investigate and report on the conflict. Investigators of the UN Mission

in South Sudan (UNMISS), which has had a presence in the country since its birth and has recently been reinforced as a result of escalating tensions, confirmed the accounts of abductions, torture, and rapes (UNMISS Flash). The UNMISS also found at least nine cases where women and girls were burned alive in their homes after being gang-raped by government soldiers. A separate UNICEF report found girls as young as eight years old have been raped, and young boys have been castrated and left to bleed to death (Unspeakable Violence). A report released by the African Union (AU) corroborated the accounts of rape, torture, and mutilation, and discovered that the majority of these atrocities were being carried out against civilians not taking part in the conflict (African Union). The AU report also questions the truthfulness of the supposed coup against President Kiir that sparked the conflict. In light of the monitoring by and reinforced presence of these international organizations, and under pressure from the UN Security Council, President Salva Kiir signed a peace agreement with the rebels (Anderson). Though it was a step in the right direction, the fighting has not yet ceased. One group has had success implementing change within communities devastated by the conflicts. The Nonviolent Peaceforce, an unarmed civilian protection force, trains community members to act as peacekeepers — instead of foreign personnel — so that small,

local teams “form deep grassroots connections throughout the country” (Dziewanski). This is particularly effective in the case of South Sudan, the director of the Nonviolent Peaceforce explained to The Guardian, because the UN mission “has had no static presence in opposition-held territories [and has] … largely constrained its protection presence to the protection of civilian sites on United Nations bases” (Dziewanski). In addition, there are women-only Nonviolent Peaceforce groups that “work as monitors and mediators against threats to the security of women and other local residents” (Dziewanski). Elizabeth Akon Mading, the secretary of the women’s peacekeeping team in Maleng-agok, says the role of women-only groups was especially important following the most recent outbreak of fighting and sexual violence; Mading herself stepped in between the injured and those looking to do further harm during the attacks (Dziewanski). Restoring peace in a country that has been in a near-constant state of conflict for decades is no easy task. Human Rights Watch urges the UN to impose a “comprehensive arms embargo” and continued sanctions such as “travel bans and asset freezes on individuals responsible for violating the arms embargo or serious violations of international humanitarian law” (“They Burned It All”). The international NGO also recommends that the African Union “dispatch a high-level mission to Juba, South Su-

dan’s capital, to engage with the government on investigating credible and reliable allegations of serious abuses by government forces and allied militia” (“They Burned It All”). With the combined international efforts of the African Union and the UN, and the internal efforts of grassroots peacemakers like the Nonviolent Peaceforce, the brutal conflict and the violations of human rights sweeping through South Sudan may be stopped.

WORKS CITED African Union. Final Report of the African Union Commission of Inquiry on South Sudan. Rep. African Union, 15 Oct. 2015. Web. 10 Nov. 2015 Allen, Karen. “South Sudan: Women Raped under the Noses of UN Forces - BBC News.” BBC News. N.p., 10 June 2014. Web. 10 Nov. 2015. Anderson, Mark. “South Sudan Peace Deal Greeted with Quiet Optimism by Hu manitarian World.” The Guardian. N.p., 27 Aug. 2015. Web. Dziewanski, Dariusz. “The Unarmed Civilians Bringing Peace to South Sudan.” The Guardian. N.p., 30 Oct. 2015. Web. Leithead, Alastair. “Investigating Rape and Murder in South Sudan’s Bentiu - BBC News.” BBC News. N.p., 9 May 2014. Web. 13 Nov. 2015. Lo Loyuong, Tongun. “Why Are the Dinka and Nuer Killing Each Other in South Sudan?” South Sudan News Agency. N.p., 23 Jan. 2014. Web. 10 Nov. 2015. McNeish, Hannah. “South Sudan: Women and Girls Raped as ‘wages’ for Govern ment-allied Fighters.” The Guardian. N.p., 28 Sept. 2015. Web. Muscati, Samer. “South Sudan’s War on Women.” Human Rights Watch. N.p., 05 Aug. 2015. Web. 10 Nov. 2015. “They Burned It All.” Human Rights Watch. N.p., 22 July 2015. Web. 10 Nov. 2015. United Nations Mission in the Republic of South Sudan. Attacks on Civilians in Bentiu & Bor April 2014. Rep. United Nations, 9 Jan. 2015. Web. 10 Nov. 2015. United Nations Mission in the Republic of South Sudan. Flash Human Rights Report on the Escalation of Fighting in Greater Upper Nile. April/May 2015. Rep. United Nations, 29 June 2015. Web. 10 Nov. 2015. United Nations. “United Nations.” 10 December 1948. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. <http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/>

“Unspeakable Violence against Children in South Sudan Must Stop – UNICEF Chief.” UN.org. United Nations, 18 June 2015. Web. 10 Nov. 2015. Verini, James. “How the World’s Youngest Nation Descended Into Bloody Civil War.” National Geographic. National Geographic Society, 30 Sept. 2014. Web. 10 Nov. 2015.

ROLLING BACK THE REVOLUTION: ANTI-TERRORISM AND HUMAN RIGHTS IN EGYPT KARIM DEWIDAR The downing of a Russian airliner on November 5th over the Sinai by ISIS, which killed all 224 onboard, sparked a discussion about Syria, Russia, and ISIS, though something crucial was lost. The attack happened in Egypt, a country that has ducked out of the international spotlight since its dramatic Arab Spring revolution in 2011 and military coup in 2013. The renewed emphasis on Egypt should be directed towards current president Abdul Fatah Al-Sisi, and how since 2013, this former general has committed numerous violations of human rights in a brutal anti-terror campaign (Egypt: Counterterrorism). Aside from undoing the progress of the revolution, it has fostered an even greater climate of insecurity. The threat of terrorism has only grown since the 2013 regime change. Since 2011, Egypt has undergone quite a bit of turmoil. As reported by Human Rights Watch, the regime of longtime autocrat Hosni Mubarak came to an end in the winter of 2011 when he resigned following mass protests (All According to Plan). Then in 2012, President

Mohamed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood won the presidential elections and began cracking down on political opponents (World Report 2014: Egypt). Regime opponents felt the Muslim Brotherhood and Morsi were consolidating power and creating another autocracy similar to the one they replaced, and Liberal, Left, youth, and Reactionary-nationalist groups turned against the Muslim Brotherhood-led regime (Ghanem). Protests and street battles between Brotherhood supporters and rival groups were common. In July of 2013, Egypt was shaken again as then-Defense Minister Sisi led a popularly backed coup, disposing of President Morsiâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s regime and launching a crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood. The harsh security measures were against not only the Muslim Brotherhood, but also the Liberal, Left, and youth activists (Amnesty International 137). With Egyptian nationalism at an almost a fever pitch after the fall of the Morsi regime, Sisi rode this wave and won the presidential election by a landslide 96%

AFRICA

in May of 2014 (Kingsley). At the center of Sisi’s policy to bring back stability and prosperity was his “anti-terror” campaign. Since the coup, the Muslim Brotherhood has been decreed a terrorist organization and banned, and the group’s supporters have been summarily labeled as terrorists (Fahim). Former president Morsi, top Brotherhood officials such as Mohamed Badie, and hundred of others have been tried and sentenced to death in unfair trials (Amnesty International 139). The human rights of assembly, speech, religion and all other forms of expression have been severely limited in Egypt since 2013. Over 1,400 people were killed during protests and other clashes with security forces in the months following the coup in June 13 (Amnesty International 137). The bloodiest day was on August 14th 2013 when the Rab’a Massacre took place, “constituting probable crimes against humanity,” including the intentional killing and detaining of protesters by Egyptian security forces, a Human Rights Watch investigation found

(All According to Plan). Since Sisi took power in the summer of 2013, almost 40,000 people have been swept into Egypt’s notorious prisons where torture is commonplace, and over 1,200 death sentences have been handed out by Egyptian courts (Amnesty International 139). There are also reports of at least 163 people who have “disappeared” in police custody (Cunningham and Habib). Sisi’s anti terror campaign has not just liquidated the Muslim Brotherhood, but all opposition to the Sisi regime, including journalists. The imprisonment of three Al Jazeera journalists – Peter Greste, Mohamed Fahmy, and Baher Mohamed – on loosely defined terrorism charges is a case in point (Amnesty International 138). Egypt has locked up more journalists for political crimes than any other regime today, and the only place more dangerous for journalists is Syria, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists (Beise). Human rights activists have not been spared from Sisi’s wrath. Prom-

inent activist and lawyer Mahinour El-Masry was arrested in 2014 and sentenced to two years in prison for violating Egypt’s harsh new anti-protest laws; even peaceful activists were imprisoned for campaigning before the constitutional referendum in 2014 (“Human rights lawyer”). The support for the 2013 coup against democratically elected Mohamed Morsi showed a level of buyer’s remorse for Egyptians who had risen up in 2011 to demand freedom. Despite the poverty and repression in Egyptian society during the decades-long reign of Hosni Mubarak, he did provide Egypt with a state of relative stability and stood firmly against the militant Islamic fundamentalism that has since swept through the country (Kingsley). The current crisis can be traced back to the 2011 Revolution in Egypt. David Kirkpatrick, Cairo bureau chief and Middle East correspondent for the New York Times, writes that the economic malaise and break down of law and order after the fall of the Mubarak regime had “only grown worse” under Morsi (“As Egyptians”). And by 2013, most Egyptians seemed to grow tired of this experiment with democracy. Liberal, Left, and youth activists who brought about the Revolution against the military-based regime of Mubarak also supported the coup against his replacement (“Named Egypt’s Winner”). As coup leader and as president, Sisi won Egyptian’s support by pledging to bring back

the stability enjoyed under Mubarak (“Named Egypt’s Winner”). Seemingly everyone in the country save for the Muslim Brotherhood supported ousting Mohamed Morsi. But political support is fickle in Egypt, and it wasn’t long before Egyptians grew displeased with Morsi’s successor. A recent wave of violence in Egypt by suspected puritan, militant Islamic group Ansar Beit Al Maqdis highlights the detrimental effects of the Sisi regime’s anti-terror campaign. Terror attacks threaten Egypt’s urban centers as well as its northern Sinai region due to a renewed insurgency of militant attacks that has been exacerbated under Sisi (“31 Egyptian Soldiers”). To make matters worse, the militant group has pledged allegiance to ISIS (Kingsley and Chulov). The most recent wave of violence in the summer of 2015 is part of a larger current of blood spilling that has engulfed Egypt since President Mohamed Morsi was ousted. In October 2014, militants staged a lethal attack against Egyptian forces in the Sinai region that killed at least thirty-one soldiers (Kirkpatrick, “31 Egyptian Soldiers”). A similar attack by militants against the Egyptian army in January of 2015 in the Sinai killed thirty-two soldiers (Kingsley and Abdo). The attacks prompted Sisi to declare a state of emergency, giving even greater power to the military and Ministry of the Interior (Kingsley and Abdo). The government responded by

demolishing 800 homes to create a security zone along Egypt’s border with the Gaza Strip, leaving thousands homeless in the town of Rafah (Fahim and Thomas). Even public officials are not safe from the violence. On June 29th Egypt’s top prosecutor, Hisham Barakat, was killed by a car bomb while on his way to work, shaking the upscale Cairo neighborhood of Heliopolis. The powerful blast killed an additional three civilians and injured eight others (Fahim and Thomas). Days later, militants in Egypt’s Sinai province launched coordinated assaults on several military checkpoints and other government stations, killing dozens of soldiers (Mohamed and Hassan). Then, on July 11th, a car bomb detonated outside the Italian Consulate in the heart of the capital Cairo, tearing off the building’s façade, killing one person, and injuring several others (Sirgany). These violent and often coordinated attacks, most of which have come after the fall of the Morsi regime, show just how unstable Egypt has become since the Revolution. A report on Egypt’s security by the Tahrir Institute for Middle Eastern Policy, which began tracking attacks in 2010, shows that terrorist and militant attacks are becoming more frequent under Sisi. Prior to the 2013 coup, the rates of attacks were no greater than ten per month (“Egypt’s Rising Security Threat” 2). In the summer of 2013, the rate rose to thirty per month, and in

2015, it jumped to over 100. The report states that “the current violence has a character that it particularly unique to the post-June 2013 context” (5). These figures show that levels of violence in Egypt under President Sisi are rising in spite of an aggressive crusade against terrorism. Fundamentally, Egypt’s so-called “anti-terror” campaign, which mainly targets the Muslim Brotherhood, has led to an increase in terrorism and violence. Even more troubling, it has rolled back the hard-won victories of the Egyptian Revolution. The kind of activism and expression that brought about the 2011 Revolution and the removal of Mubarak are no longer tolerated in Egypt. The Egyptian leader, who himself came to power through a coup, has taken legal and military measures to prevent another from happening. The new constitution approved by referendum in 2014 further expanded his regime’s executive authority (All According to Plan). What seemed to be post-coup emergency measures that laid waste to the rights of so many Egyptian revolutionaries appears to be the new normal under Sisi. One cannot help but be dispirited at how deftly and swiftly Sisi brought back the pre-Revolution status quo of an Egypt ruled by an iron-fisted general. Egyptians supporting Sisi’s coup sacrificed more of their liberty for security. They ended up with neither.

WORKS CITED All According To Plan: The Rab’a Massacre and Mass Killings of Protesters in Egypt. Rep. Human Rights Watch, Aug. 2014. Web. 1 Dec. 2015. Amnesty International Report 2014/15 The State Of The World’s Human Rights. Rep. Amnesty International Ltd, 25 Feb. 2015. Web. 1 Dec. 2015. Beise, Elana. “Syria, Iraq, Egypt Most Deadly Nations for Journalists.” - Committee to Protect Journalists. N.p., 30 Dec. 2013. Web. 01 Dec. 2015. Cunningham, Erin, and Heba Habib. “Egyptian Groups: Government Has Been Kidnapping Students, Activists.” Washington Post. The Washington Post, 13 June 2013. Web. 01 Dec. 2015. “Egypt: Counterterrorism Law Erodes Basic Rights.” Human Rights Watch. Seven Stories Press, 19 Aug. 2015. Web. 1 Dec. 2015. “Egypt’s Rising Security Threat.” The Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy. N.p., 15 Nov. 2015. Web. 01 Dec. 2015. Fahim, Kareem. “Egypt, Dealing a Blow to the Muslim Brotherhood, Deems It a Terrorist Group.” The New York Times. Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr., 25 Dec. 2013. Web. 01 Dec. 2015 Fahim, Kareem and Merna Thomas. “Egypt Flattens Neighborhoods to Create a Buffer With Gaza.” The New York Times. Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr., 29 Oct. 2014. Web. 01 Dec. 2015 Ghanem, Hafez. Egypt’s Difficult Transition: Why The International Community Must Stay Economically Engaged. Rep. Brookings Institution, Jan. 2014. Web. 1 Dec. 2015. “Human Rights Lawyer Latest Victim of Egypt’s Repressive Protest Law.” Amnesty.org. Amnesty International, 27 June 2014. Web. 01 Dec. 2015. Kingsley, Patrick. “Abdel Fatah al-Sisi won 96.1% of Egypt Presidential election, say officials.” The Guardian 3 June 2014. Web. 1 Dec. 2015

Kingsley, Patrick, and Manu Abdo. “At Least 32 Killed in Egypt as Militants Attack Army and Police Targets in Sinai.” TheGuardian.com. Guardian News and Media, 30 Jan. 2015. Web. 1 Dec. 2015. Kingsley, Patrick and Martin Chulov. “Egyptian Jihadis Pledge Allegiance to Isis.” TheGuardian.com. Guardian News and Media, 10 Nov. 20141. Web. 1 Dec. 2015. Kirkpatrick, David. “As Egyptians Grasp for Stability, Sisi Fortifies His Presidency.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 07 Oct. 2014. Web. 01 Dec. 2015. Kirkpatrick, David. “Named Egypt’s Winner, Islamist Makes History.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 24 June 2012. Web. 01 Dec. 2015. Kirkpatrick, David. “31 Egyptian Soldiers Are Killed as Militants Attack in Sinai.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 24 Oct. 2014. Web. 01 Dec. 2015. Mohamed, Yusri, and Ahmed Hassan. “More than 100 Dead as Militants, Egyptian Army Clash in North Sinai.” Reuters India. N.p., 02 July 2015. Web. 01 Dec. 2015. Sirgany, Sarah. “1 Dead in Car Bomb Blast at Italian Consulate in Egypt CNN.com.” CNN. Cable News Network, 11 Jan. 2015. Web. 01 Dec. 2015. World Report 2014: Egypt. Rep. Human Rights Watch, Jan. 2014. Web. 1 Dec. 2015.

A satire of rudyard kipling’s “the white man’s burden” ANONYMOUS RUDYARD KIPLING

ANONYMOUS

Take up the White Man’s burden— Send forth the best ye breed— Go bind your sons to exile To serve your captives’ need; To wait in heavy harness, On fluttered folk and wild— Your new-caught, sullen peoples, Half-devil and half-child.

Take up the American burden— Send forth the best ye breed— Go bind your sons to exile To serve your lesser’s need; To watch with heavy holsters On fluttered folk and meek— Your choice, beleaguered peoples, Half-saboteur, half-sheep.

Take up the White Man’s burden— In patience to abide, To veil the threat of terror And check the show of pride; By open speech and simple, An hundred times made plain To seek another’s profit, And work another’s gain.

Take up the American burden— In credence to abide, To craft a threat of terror And feed the nation’s pride; By furtive speech and guile, As candid as humane To seek another’s profit, And work another’s gain.

Take up the White Man’s burden— The savage wars of peace— Fill full the mouth of Famine And bid the sickness cease; And when your goal is nearest The end for others sought,

Take up the American burden— Such crucial wars of peace— Grab hold the world economy And bid Oppression cease; And when your goal is nearest The end of Condor sought,

POETRY Watch sloth and heathen Folly Bring all your hopes to nought. Take up the White Man’s burden— No tawdry rule of kings, But toil of serf and sweeper— The tale of common things. The ports ye shall not enter, The roads ye shall not tread, Go mark them with your living, And mark them with your dead.

Watch Marx and Lenin Folly Bring all your hopes to nought. Take up the American burden— No cool executive Kings, But fresh, dejected veterans— The tale of common things. The drones ye shall not gamble, The roads ye shall not tread, Go guard them with your living, And leave dismissed their dead.

Take up the White Man’s burden— And reap his old reward: The blame of those ye better, The hate of those ye guard— The cry of hosts ye humour (Ah, slowly!) toward the light:— “Why brought he us from bondage, Our loved Egyptian night?”

Take up the American burden— And reap his old reward: The praise of those ye ally, The hate of those ye guard— The cry of hosts ye humour (Ah, finally!) toward the light:— “Why doom he us to bondage, His blesséd Eagle’s flight?!”

Take up the White Man’s burden— Ye dare not stoop to less— Nor call too loud on Freedom To cloke your weariness; By all ye cry or whisper, By all ye leave or do, The silent, sullen peoples Shall weigh your gods and you.

Take up the American burden— Ye dare not stoop to less— Nor call too loud on Justice But cloke your crookedness; By all ye cry or whisper, By all ye try to hold, The wise and righteous peoples Shant weigh your might in gold.

Take up the White Man’s burden— Have done with childish days— The lightly proferred laurel, The easy, ungrudged praise. Comes now, to search your manhood Through all the thankless years Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom, The judgment of your peers!

Take up the global burden, they will— Have done with silent days!— The lightly proferred laurel, The cheap and swollen praise. Comes now, cries “Inhumanity!” For all the heartless years. Purged alas of suborned reverence, The judgment of your peers.

THREE POEMS COURTNEY QUIGLEY Inspired by Courtney Quigley’s experiences serving those living in the Guatemala City garbage dump communities. Royalty Don’t bury me in the waste of Selfishness or disinterest. Stop letting my mother search for Scraps of survival so I can merely Exist. You say you care for what’s lost But don’t love what you’ve found Instead, I stand kept and weeping I want no more battles among the rats Or every other loss of life to substances that Rob souls to subsequent nothings Rather, Bring yourself to me and care. Follow me to the filth in which I bathe And cry to which I resort when Nobody consoles my calamities Or tragedies. Hold my hand and promise me there is beauty Beyond these corrugated metal star stoppers And makeshift barbed wire cuts For I am Treasure and must be reunited with Humanity’s kingdom

POETRY Dreadful Dreams How can I rest When there is a place where Dreams are more hurtful to have Than nightmares. Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s not in the midst of night fear is felt But when the sun rises. The lightness of reality doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t break the pain, It creates it. There is a place where facing a dream Is more courageous than battling one thousand nightmares. When can the heart win when future nor night Can soothe it?

Moonrise The child asked the sun to stay She loved the warmth and happiness The sun gifted her with. She asked that the sun give more rays, More light. But dusk had come. It turns out The sun needed peace too. A great sky was promising to the Tired sun. The girl pleaded for more hours of Heated wonders. For the sun to beam down on so many more Moments of her life. But the sun deserved to descend into the horizon. It deserved the colorful break of sunset. So the girl accepted the beauty. And with teary eyes, she noticed the moon.

LANGUAGE AS A HUMAN RIGHT SHASHANK RAO Across the world, hundreds of different languages are spoken within regions, states, and nations. Some of these languages are privileged with the status of being a nation’s or state’s official language. By putting one medium of communication above the rest, nationalizing a language frequently occurs at the expense of other media in the nation. But unlike the transition from written to broadcast news, which changed only the medium and not the language of communication, the transition to a new language poses far more problems to non-speakers. It is much more difficult to force or even expect people to begin using one language more than another, especially when they are not very similar. Languages constitute major components of culture and communication, and under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations), the freedoms to participate in the cultural life of one’s community and to express one’s opinions and thoughts in public and private spaces are protected (United Nations). Language itself constitutes

a human right because it is the basis for other human rights, including social and cultural rights, political agency, freedom of expression, education, and the free diffusion of ideas. It is often overlooked that language plays an essential role in our lives, since we use it every day. Languages are modes of communication that reflect the views and fundamental beliefs of the people who use them as well as the regions they are used in. Article 19 of the UDHR protects the right to “hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers” (United Nations). Under this principle, national governments should not be permitted to restrict or hinder a particular language within their borders. Yet in the past, some countries actively interfered with certain languages. For example, the Spanish government did not provide protections for the minority languages spoken in its states, and under Francisco Franco, instruction in any non-Spanish language was prohibited by law (Lou-

THEORETICAL renço). This had historically been the case in Spain, as when Isabella of Castille and Ferdinand of Aragon, in an effort to unite Spain, repressed the use of other languages and made Castilian Spanish the only mode of official communication (Lourenço). Not until the adoption of a new constitution in 1980 with the help of Josep Tarradellas, the former president of Catalonia, were other languages allowed to slowly come back into use (Lourenço). According to Dan Woodvine, a member of the Shropshire Languages Society in England, Tarradellas re-established the Government of Catalonia and revitalized Catalan, which is now the official language of Catalonia and Valencia (Woodvine). All schools in the region were required to teach Catalan and Spanish, and all establishments were required to label their storefronts in Catalan. Only after considerable pressure from the local governments, however, did the Spanish government grant them the right to use their own language in public. As this example shows, minority groups may hold their language as precious and demand protections for it. Therefore, it ought to be protected as a specific human right. Since language is a mode of communication and expression, it is also a form of political agency. Under the repressive policies of monarchs and rulers of Spain since the fifteenth century, the minority languages of Spain were unable to develop culturally and create art, lit-

erature, and other things that expressed their spirit (Bartholomae and Petrosky). A sixteenth century work by the Andean author, Felipe Guaman Poma de Ayala, called the “New Chronicle and Good Government” is a perfect example of language as a form of political agency; Guaman Poma lived under Spanish rule and used his literacy in both Spanish and Quechua, the indigenous language, to criticize the Spanish through the Spanish tradition of literature (Bartholomae and Petrosky). At the same time, he gave his language a written medium to make information available to monolingual speakers of Quechua. Guaman Poma exercised his political agency by using his language and his conqueror’s language as instruments of political change. Communities, especially when repressed by or displeased with a larger power, must also be able to communicate their grievances in the way they choose so that they can exercise their freedom of expression. Since language enables such expression, it is imperative that language be considered a distinct human right that includes the right to choose which language to speak, regardless of location. Language is also an important factor in education. What language should students be taught in when there are different languages spoken within a country? In India, for example, instruction at the grade school level is typically in the state language, Hindi, or even in English, and mostly in English at the university

level. Under Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, parents have the right to choose what kind of education their children receive, which logically extends to choosing the language in which their children are taught (United Nations). Article 26 goes on to say education is to “be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups” (United Nations). Multilingual education will help realize this goal. If a school chooses to conduct its coursework in a certain language, or more than one, its right to do so should be protected. This brings us to the question of secondary education availability. Since much of academia is in English, countries that discourage English education or have little access to it hinder their people’s educational opportunities. But beyond this, there is little one can do if a particular community does not advance the academic presence of its language. In addition to the provision outlined in Article 26, the freedom to use language in educational institutions should be unfettered. Now, a question to consider is whether the imposition of a national language necessarily disenfranchises those who do not speak it. Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “everyone has the

right to equal access to public service in his country” (United Nations). Does monolingual governing impede such access to non-speakers and non-natives? Given the example of Spain, one might be inclined to agree, but it is important to note that most speakers of Catalan or Basque, two of the several minority languages of Spain, are bilingual and can speak Spanish just as well as their own language. It is of little consequence that the national language happens to be Spanish, as schooling forces these people to learn the language anyway. However, in India, a nation with an established history of linguistic division even in antiquity, states are organized essentially along the lines of what languages people speak. Each state is governed in its own language, though news also comes in English and Hindi. People are free to go to schools that do or do not teach Hindi, so they are not forced to speak a particular language. However, according to Dr. B. Mallikarjun, a research officer at the Central Institute of Indian Languages and editor of Language In India, there are concerns that the Indian state fails to adequately “strike a balance between the demands of national and regional identities and goals of education” (Mallikarjun). Most Indians feel that competency in English is the key to economic prosperity and therefore have misgivings over the state enforcement of teaching regional languages, especially to students who are not native to the state in question. In the Indian houses

of government, English and Hindi are the primary modes of communication, but the state does make all of its services and documents available in the regional languages. I believe that regional or sub-national languages are adequately protected if the state provides services using them and allows for their use in public capacities. So long as the information and interests of various linguistic constituencies are represented on the national level, there is no problem. It is wrong to force out the opinions of a group within an electorate based on the language it speaks, as it infringes on that communityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s political agency. These concerns entail the need to regulate the use of language; therefore, the use of language should be encouraged in public spaces, but not to the point of depriving another group of its political agency. Language is a fundamental component of communication on the communal, regional, and national levels. To restrict the social and cultural flourishing of a language is to violate the human rights outlined in Articles 19, 21, and 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. National governments preserve the culture and political agency of their people by protecting the use of their peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s languages. In addition, the presence of a language in education further enables the intellectual growth of a community and grants it access to higher education. These things enabled by language ought to protected, and that

is why language constitutes a unique human right.

WORKS CITED Bartholomae, David, and Tony Petrosky. “Arts of the Contact Zone.” Ways of Reading: An Anthology for Writers. Fifth ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 1999. Print. Lourenço, Ricardo Tavares. “Language Policy in Spain.” Langology. Trans. Laura Bridges-Pereira. Web. 11 Nov. 2015. Mallikarjun, B. “Language in India.” Language in India. 2001. Web. 11 Nov. 2015. United Nations. “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights | United Nations.” UN News Center. UN, n.d. Web. 1 Dec. 2015. Woodvine, Dan. “Catalan: How Did the Catalan Language Develop, Why Has It Not Disappeared like Some Other Minority Languages Have and Will It Continue to Survive?” Web. 5 Nov. 2015.

THEORETICAL

THE COMMODIFICATION OF PEOPLE VANESSA CHESNUT “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights” - Article 1, Universal Declaration of Human Rights What happens if you were not born “free”? What if you were born into a life of servitude or slavery, under the control of a system of violence and abuse not only perpetuated by slaveholders, but also by the very institutions that proclaim they adhere to international human rights protocols? Kevin Bales, in Disposable People: New Slavery in the Global Economy, uncovers a transnational market that profits from what he calls modern global slavery: the exploitation of impoverished populations who, though not legally owned or required to work, are economically and circumstantially forced to do so, resulting in slave-like working conditions. It is a system of objectification where, according to Bales, “people become completely disposable tools for making money” (4). The key difference between old chattel slavery and modern global slavery is in the forms of labor. As Bales puts

it, “[It’s] not about owning people in the traditional sense of old slavery, but about controlling them completely” (6). In chattel slavery, which has been abolished in every country, slaves were legally owned by their masters; in modern slavery, slaveholders hold control without “receipts or ownership papers,” because modern slaves lack the means and ability to find work elsewhere (Sutter 2011; Bales 5). Slaveholders therefore “have all the benefits of ownership without the legalities,” obtaining “total control without any responsibility for what they own” (Bales 5). Chattel slavery and modern global slavery also differ in the longevity and demographics of slaves. Before 1865 in the United States, slaves were a long-term investment, but for modern slave-holders today, slaves are cheap, disposable, and in need of little care. In addition, chattel slavery typically involved slaves from sub-saharan Africa, while modern global slavery is very much propelled by a person’s socioeconomic status, making race, gender, and religion inconsequential

(11). As a result, trafficked and bonded laborers, child slaves, and sex workers have become the new faces of slavery in the twenty-first century. This new form of slavery is widespread and growing. The Global Slavery Index of 2014, which Bales co-launched, estimates that there are around 35.8 million people living in modern global slavery (25). Out of 167 countries analyzed, an estimated 71 percent of these slaves can be found in India, China, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Russia, Nigeria, Democratic Republic of Congo, Indonesia, Bangladesh, and Thailand; the rest are divided throughout the Middle East, Southeast Asia, Latin America, and Africa (Walk Free Foundation 7). Bales identifies several reasons for modern slavery’s growth: systematized violence or abuse perpetrated against the slave, relative poverty, a religion/ ideology used to justify forms of ownership, a “hunger for money,” and specific cultural practices such as polygamy or female genital mutilation (Bales 10, 19). Third-world economies also lack regulations on modern slavery due to rapid economic growth and governmental indifference. Taken together, these factors lead to corruption, violence, and an environment propitious for corporations to economically enslave vulnerable individuals. Importantly, the same reasons that made chattel slavery a human rights violation also make modern global slavery a human rights violation. Article four of

the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, “[n]o one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms” (United Nations). The Declaration also emphasizes workers’ rights in article twenty-three: “[e]veryone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work. Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection. Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests” (United Nations). Thus, just as chattel slavery was abolished globally because it violated human rights, modern global slavery must also be abolished. To do so, Bales maintains that citizens must act politically and economically to pressure legislative bodies and governments into passing protective labor legislation. For example, the labor legislation enacted by the United States during the early 1900s, culminating in the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, partly explains its low levels of modern slavery. In recent years, Latin American countries like Venezuela, Brazil, Ecuador, and Bolivia have followed suit, increasing the minimum wage, promoting

the right to unionize, and formalizing employment so as to combat the exploitative conditions plaguing many laborers. In light of robust labor legislation in the United States, Latin America, and parts of Europe, it is not surprising that the Global Slavery Index estimates that Europe today has approximately 1.6 percent (566,200) of the 35.8 million people in slavery, the United States has 0.019 percent (60,100), and Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador, and Venezuela together have 0.414 percent (220,700) of the total slaves in Latin America (Walk Free Foundation 6, 18-20). By comparison, slavery remains high in nations where there has been little government intervention, such as Thailand, China, and Ghana (18-20, 23, 32). In addition to inadequate labor standards and workers’ rights, lack of political, social, and economic mobility often leads to modern global slavery. Developing countries with a large percentage of their population under such slavery should therefore address structural problems, such as access to “education and employment opportunities” (Scott). And non-state actors, such as NGOs and companies that outsource their production to foreign countries with cheaper labor, must work with governments to eradicate the many forms of slavery that exist today. Ariel Siegel, a program manager for Somaly Mam Foundation, an anti-trafficking organization, told The Guardian that big companies that produce their products in countries where

minimal to no labor laws exist need to “follow ethical labour practices [so] businesses can create more jobs that pay living wages, which in turn reduces the poverty rate. Businesses in these situations can play a great role in economic development in some of these regions where slavery is rife” (Scott). In order to institute anti-slavery measures in developing countries, there must be collaboration among all actors so that civil societies will no longer be plagued by modern global slavery (Scott). However, even before collaboration can occur, Bales points out that people must learn where the products they buy and consume are manufactured. It only takes a few clicks on the computer to find out where the Nike shoes you are wearing were manufactured, or where the dress you bought for a bargain was produced. Only by learning about the sources of the goods we buy and consume can we have a meaningful dialogue to address the human rights abuses that millions of people currently face under the banner of slavery.

WORKS CITED Bales, Kevin. Disposable People:New Slavery in the Global Economy. London England: University of California Press, 2012. Print. Hardy, Quentin. “Global Slavery, by the Numbers.” NYTimes.com. Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr., 06 Mar. 2013. Web. 1 Dec. 2015. Scott, Anna. “20 Ways to Combat Modern-day Slavery.” TheGuardian.com. Guardian News and Media, 5 Aug. 2013. Web. 1 Dec. 2015. Sutter, John D. “Slavery’s Last Stronghold.” CNN. Cable News Network, n.d. Web. 1 Dec. 2015. United Nations. “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights | United Nations.” UN News Center. UN, n.d. Web. 1 Dec. 2015. Walk Free Foundation. 2014 Global Slavery Index. Rep. Hope for Children, 2014. Web. 1 Dec. 2015.

THEORETICAL

THE POLITICS OF DIFFERENCE: ISLAMIC LAW, GENDER, AND RIGHTS SHIRA MOGIL Introduction As a student growing up in the Western liberal tradition, the values of freedom and choice have been imparted to me as inalienable rights. These values, however, are reflected differently in different cultures. To better understand gender identity within Islam, I have been forced to reckon with the ideas of freedom and choice outside of the Western liberal tradition. To do this, I first employ the work of Etin Anwar, Gender and the Self in Islam, to explain the work of Islamic scholars in interpreting the Qur’an in order to portray the way religion and culture are interconnected, primarily when discussing the issue of gender difference. I then discuss the work of Abdullahi AnNa’im in “The Rights of Women and the International Law in the Muslim Context,” in order to extrapolate upon his idea regarding the reformation of Shar’ia, which he proposes as an attempt to construct women’s rights from within the Muslim tradition. Next, I incorporate Carl Ernst’s work, Following Muhammad:

Rethinking Islam in the Contemporary World, to further emphasize the importance of internal reformation within Islam. Finally, I use Lila Abu-Lughod’s work, Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving?: Anthropological Reflections on Cultural Relativism and Its Others, as a framework to argue that the responsibility of the outside is to understand the complex lives of Muslim women within different cultural, political, and historical contexts. Ultimately, I believe that an intervention characterized by an active attempt to understand the intrinsic connection between religion, culture, and politics, and how this connection manifests itself within different cultural societies, should occur among the powerful and elite. This understanding is not based upon the notion of rights, freedom, and choice, but rather upon the built connection between humans. Religious Interpretations and the Muslim Context for Gender Inequality While Islam is expressed differently within varying local cultures, the prop-

er role of the Qur’an, Anwar argues, is to act as the beating heart of Muslim society. Interpretations of the Qur’an, then, are essential to the way these texts are viewed. While the lived experiences of women illustrate “the multitude of sexual, gender, and familial constructs in Muslim societies,” Anwar writes, “philosophical texts capture the intertwined pronouncement of what is appropriate and inappropriate for women in Muslims’ context, as an expression of what the public perceives as the truth” (Anwar 43). The philosophical texts of the Qur’an possess a principle truth, and the interpreters of the Qur’an are the voices of these truths. Scholars therefore hold an immense amount of power, for they hold the ability to dictate universal principles that transcend cultural norms and practices. Many scholars interpret the Qur’an based on a gendered system that depends on “the politics of difference” (16). As Anwar argues, “Muslims use politics of difference as a regime to produce a series of norms, values, rewards, prohibitions, disciplines, and punishments that shape male and female morality” (16). The “politics of difference,” however, did not originate within Islam. Rather, Anwar explains, it was conceived during the seventh century in Saudi Arabia, before the development of Islam. Shar’ia and its Reformation It is due to the interwoven nature of religion and culture that the reinter-

pretation of Islamic text must come from within Muslim society and tradition. As Shar’ia, Islamic Law, is the manifestation of religious obligations through a social legal framework, it would seem fit that reinterpretation come through the reformation of Shar’ia. An-Na’im argues that because Shari’a possesses great influence within Muslim majority countries, when there is a conflict between an edict within international law and a principle of Shar’ia, the country will more often than not abide by Shar’ia and forego international law. Shar’ia, in many cases, upholds a commitment to religious and cultural practices. To follow Shar’ia is to follow the will of God, something that maintains a strong hold on popular culture in many Muslim countries. Due to the weight that Shar’ia possesses, “The rights of women are the function of the interplay of two powerful forces” (AnNaim 514). An-Na’im asserts that while Muslims have an enduring commitment to Shari’a, which often has negative implications for women, the secularization of Muslim men and women has created an expectation of equality for women and for the rights of women. Both external secularization and Shar’ia play key roles in shaping the lives of women within Muslim culture. As Anwar explains, however, the interpretation of Islamic text and law is imperative to the practices and daily norms of Muslim society. An-Na’im writes that “it is also extremely important to reflect on possible inconsistencies between Shari’a and

the international standards of the rights of women … not only because of the current legal force of certain relevant aspects of Shari’a, but also because of its continuing strong influence on Muslim public opinion, even where it is not binding as law at the present time” (509510). In order to alter public opinion, one must change the very edicts that govern it, namely, Shar’ia. This reformation of Shar’ia must be conceived from within Muslim culture through the creation of “an Islamic platform in advocating fundamental reform of Shari’a on the rights of women and the provision of Islamic foundations for these rights” (501). An-Na’im claims that “this must be done internally through the adoption of imaginative reform techniques for the evolution and reformulation of Shari’a rules relative to women’s rights” (501). This reform, however, is the business of those from within the Muslim community. An example of such an internal reform is shown through the role that Muslim feminist scholars play in the reinterpretation of religious texts. Fatima Mernissi, a Moroccan feminist author, used traditional techniques of Muslim scholarship to re-examine the hadith in which the Prophet was said to have declared that women were unfit to hold political office in order to question “male-dominated interpretation by engaging directly with authoritative scriptural text” (Ernst 149). Mernissi, in this instance, provided an alternative valid

opinion to the question of whether a woman is allowed to serve in a government office. By contrast, non-Muslim, external academics who asserted what Mernissi did would not have the same legitimacy. It is crucial, therefore, for those outside of the Muslim community to avoid dictation. An-Na’im explains that it is counterproductive for such outsiders to characterize Muslim laws and traditions as archaic and oppressive. “Despite the challenges that women face in different Muslim societies,” Ernst writes, “it is important for Europeans and Americans to avoid treating them with condescension, with the assumption that Islam is a prison from which Muslim women seek to be liberated” (151). An-Na’im, however, explains that there should be room for culturally considerate external influences that also possess a commitment to enlightened ideals. Our commitment, An-Na’im argues, “should not be to the rights of women in the abstract, or as contained in high-sounding international instruments signed by official delegations” (An-Naim 516). This commitment is to “the rights of rural and nomadic women in practice; the rights of rural and nomadic African and Asian women to live in very ‘traditional’ or tribal communities and practice Islam, or other religious beliefs, out of genuine conviction” (516). These women must be allowed to “live in harmony with their immediate environment” and not be forced to subscribe to an interna-

tional feminist vision. As Ernst explains, “disentangling the roles of ethics of gender and patriarchal history is a task that now is being undertaken in every culture, even when it does not bear the name feminism” (Ernst 143). Thus, reformation is rooted in and driven by the Muslim community. What Have Rights Got To Do With It: Lilia Abu-Lughod and Personal Arguments At times, however, this notion of “rights” provides a mere sweeping of a population of women. What does it mean to fight for women’s rights? In essence, all women are different and each woman possesses a unique context, history, or perhaps “herstory”. What may be lacking from the work of Al-Na’im is, in fact, this notion of diversity. I believe he is correct in saying that change and reformation must come from within Muslim tradition. But when he claims that this is to ensure the “rights of women,” what are these rights that he is referring to? A sense of egalitarianism, perhaps? It is egalitarianism, An-Na’im notes, that does not find its origins in the Qur’an, but comes from outside of the Muslim tradition. What is lacking from this notion of rights is a sense of nuance, a human touch to the lives apparently at stake. Lila Abu-Lughod writes that “if we were to listen more closely, I believe we would discover that matters are not

so simple” (Abu-Lughod 202). She continues, “if we were to listen and look, we might be forced to take account of contexts that are not as disconnected from our worlds and our own lives as we think” (202). It is essential, then, to not look at Muslim women as “others,” for it is when an individual is perceived as an “other” that this person is most directly misunderstood. “The lives of the unschooled, the poor, or the rural seem to be more regularly rendered legible through talk about their rights and the violations of their rights than the lives of the rest of us,” Abu-Lughod argues (223). It is necessary to search, find, and uncover similarity in order to forge a connection to better understand those who are externally different from one’s self. When one looks again, then, it appears that what was at first a stranger and a threat is now a familiar face, even perhaps an individual with whom one may resonate. It is only with this understanding that one possesses the ability to grasp the differing cultural norms that shape the lives of each woman and person. Abu-Lughod argues that the contexts within which women come from “are shaped by global politics, international capital, and modern state institutions, with their changing impacts on family and community” (202). Above all, she writes, “these examples of women’s situations might shake our moral certainty about some cherished values of liberalism that have diffused so widely in

this era when human rights ideals have become hegemonic” (202-203). It is crucial to see the complexities in the lives of Muslim women, to not reduce them “to subjects known only by deficits in their rights, with the remedies—in development, empowerment, Christianity, women’s rights, human rights, or Islamic reform—known in advance by others” (223).

ent notion of free choice than the atheist college student living in New York. It is crucial, therefore, that when using such terms we seek to re-understand them as part of a larger context.

Conclusion Through the understanding and perception of complexity, it is apparent that there is no quick solution to any one problem. This should not result in discouragement, however, as one should find exhilaration in the fact that all people possess a life worth analyzing. It is the job of those on the outside to recognize this complexity and search for its nuances and idiosyncrasies. “Looking carefully at these women’s circumstances can teach us much about loaded values like choice and freedom and how they actually work in the context of human lives,” Abu-Lughod writes (224). Think critically about the terms and ideas that are used by dominant society, for the way they manifest themselves in daily life is often different from how we use them colloquially. The Western notions of freedom and choice connote something entirely different for a woman living in rural Egypt. A woman who finds serenity in her faith and submission to God may very well possess an entirely differ-

WORKS CITED Abu-Lughod, Lila. Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving?: Anthropological Re flections on Cultural Relativism and Its Others. N.p.: n.p., 2003. Print. An-Na’im, Abdullahi. “The Rights of Women and International Law in the Muslim Context.” In the Whittier Law Review. 1987-1988. Print. Anwar, Etin. Gender and the Self in Islam. New York: Routledge. 2006. Print. Ernst, Carl. Following Muhammad: Rethinking Islam in the Contemporary World. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. 2004. Print.

THEORETICAL

THE ENTANGLEMENT OF WOMEN’s RIGHTS AND RELIGION ALISON DEL HANDEL In 1945, the United Nations Charter set out in its preamble to “reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, [and] in the equal rights of men and women…” (“Preamble”). Three years later, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was adopted, granting all men and women “the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as … sex…” (United Nations). Women’s rights have been challenged by a number of things since the declaration, but according to Annie Laurie Gaylor, one of the co-founders of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, “Organized religion always has been and remains the greatest enemy of women’s rights.” Gaylor’s words ring true more than two decades after she said them. In most major religions, women are more heavily policed than their male counterparts. Women are subject to far more rules and restrictions, including, but not limited to, the way they dress, their sexuality and reproductive health, job opportunities,

access to education, inheritance, and custody of their children, all in the name of religious traditions. This paper will discuss examples of this phenomenon from around the globe, namely, the Rabbinical divorce court in Israel, the Bodu Bala Sena’s attempts to control Sinhalese women’s access to contraception in Sri Lanka, and the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Incorporated Supreme Court case in the United States. To begin, Israel is in many ways a land of contradictions. It is a secular society but an inherently religious nation. It has one of the most progressive and gender inclusive militaries in the world, with women comprising nearly 50 percent of its lieutenants and captains (Abramson). But many Israeli laws and policies stem from ancient Jewish laws and traditions, creating a patriarchal system that makes it difficult for women to exercise certain forms of agency. Israeli divorce law is particularly problematic. In Israel, those who are Jewish or who are married to Jewish men have to be divorced by Jewish law in a Rabbinical divorce court.

This law even applies to non-religious Jewish couples. In the words of Liel Leibovitz, an Israeli-American journalist, these courts “adhere to worldviews that are about 800 years past their expiration date”. An Orthodox rabbi oversees the divorce ritual in which the husband places a folded decree into the wife’s cupped hands; however, the paper can be hard to come by because husbands are able to refuse this ritual, which therefore prevents official divorce (Leibovitz). At this point, there is nothing the rabbis can do. The granting of the divorce is based solely on the husband’s placing this piece of paper in his wife’s hands, not on the desires of the woman involved. A Jewish man also needs his wife’s permission to divorce, but without it, he can marry another woman and have children recognized as Jewish in Israel, while she cannot. In this way, patriarchal Jewish divorce laws can trap even secular women for years; therefore, they violate Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which entitles men and women to “equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution” (United Nations). Jewish divorce laws also take away the rights of the woman’s future offspring. Ronit Elkabetz, an Israeli writer and director, made a film about this ancient ritual entitled, Gett: The Trial of Viviane Amsalem. In an interview with NPR, she discussed the rabbinical divorce court and how it affects women’s rights. In a particularly poignant moment she

said, “How come that a woman’s freedom is at the mercy of her husband? That law was written 4,000 years ago. But it’s put the woman in a place that they became invisible and helpless and, most of the time, completely dependent on their husband’s will” (Harris). Often times, men will not grant their wives divorces because they do not want to evenly divide assets. Men also blackmail their wives by only granting them a divorce if they take less than their rightful share of jointly owned property. In an article condemning the rabbinical courts, Merav Michaeli, a member of the Israeli legislature, writes, “Men who condition a divorce on getting a larger part of the joint property than they are supposed to is a daily occurrence at the rabbinical courts … the dayanim (rabbinical judges) collaborate in pressuring women to waive their share in order to obtain the divorce”. There are no female dayanim, so women’s interests are inevitably sidelined and neglected. In Israel, religious laws and practices impede women’s rights. A woman’s right to a divorce is based solely on the will of her partner and until she is granted it, she is forbidden to pursue other relations, whereas her male counterpart can do as he pleases. It seems ridiculous that a clearly sexist law fashioned thousands of laws ago still applies in a modern “secular” society. As Michaeli articulately states, “There’s no reason on earth why civil matters such as marriage, divorce, money, custody and child support

should be decided by non-egalitarian religious courts that are committed not to Israeli law, but to religious law”. To bring this injustice to an end, a true balance must be reached between Judaism and democracy, which can only happen by legalizing and normalizing civil marriages, making the secular courts the default authority in divorce cases, and giving couples the option to use rabbinical courts if they so choose. In Sri Lanka, women’s rights are also sidelined in the name of religion. Perhaps the most notorious example was carried out by an organization called the Bodu Bala Sena in 2013. Bodu Bala Sena, which is Sinhalese for Buddhist Power Force, is a Buddhist nationalist organization formed in 2012 that “seeks the enforcement of Buddhist predominance in Sri Lanka” (Tracking Terrorism). Based out of Colombo, Sri Lanka, the capital city, the organization engages in hate speech and campaigns against Muslim and Christian groups because it believes they pose “a threat to Sri Lanka’s Sinhalese-Buddhist identity” (Tracking Terrorism). In early 2013, the BBS suspected some non-governmental organizations of conspiring to reduce the Sinhalese community from a majority to a minority community, and launched a series of retaliatory protests and acts of sabotage against several family planning clinics and NGOs (Wijenayake). The Ceylon Times, a newspaper in Sri Lanka, reported that monks of the BBS met with Sir Lankan President Mahinda Ra-

japaksa and emphasized the “existential threat posed by birth control activities” that they believed was specifically targeting Sinhalese women (Wijenayake). In response, the Ministry of Health issued a public order to government hospitals and private institutions, prohibiting all irreversible methods of family planning (Christopher). When Ceylon Today reached out to Health Ministry Secretary Dr. Nihal Jayatilake, “he refused to explain the reasons for the ban but stressed that none of the NGOs are allowed to carry out any permanent birth control methods,” citing “government policy” (Christopher). The reasoning behind the government’s official order remained unclear. The government had been a proponent of family planning for decades, but had taken unprecedented measures to restrict it. One cannot help but think that religion was wrapped up in that specific policy. After all, it was put into effect immediately after the BBS attacked several family planning outposts and met with the president. Following the ban on permanent birth control methods, all women who had scheduled procedures had to be turned away (Christopher). Ceylon Today spoke to a doctor from the Family Planning Association of Sri Lanka who said the procedure is prohibited and worried the ban will lead to “unplanned pregnancies” (Christopher). Women seeking a permanent form of contraception could no longer access it because of a religious and nationalist agenda. The

doctor, who spoke on condition of anonymity, also expressed fear that women who were seeking out the procedure but were denied it may ultimately resort to unsafe methods of sterilization or even unsafe abortion. These possible dangers were not taken into consideration when the BBS proposed the ban and when it was put into place by the government. Eventually, the ban on irreversible forms of family planning was lifted, but the entire episode represents an unfortunate chapter for women’s rights in Sri Lanka. Preventing forced sterilization based on a religious body’s agenda is not the same as denying women access to certain methods of contraception. The government must distinguish between the two so that it does not “implement a policy that infringes on the reproductive choices of its people and more specifically, of its women” (Wijenayake). Beyond Sri Lanka, religion, politics, and rights have been intertwined in the United States for a very long time. After all, the most common argument for overturning Roe v. Wade is grounded in Christianity, and in general, most opponents of women’s reproductive rights frame their opposition as a religious issue. A recent United States Supreme Court case, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., highlighted Christian opposition to women’s rights. The question before the Court was whether certain companies could deny contraception coverage for their employees on the basis of religious objections (Burwell v. Hobby Lobby).

The religious owners of Hobby Lobby Inc., the Greens, seek to run their business according to Christian principles and Biblical precepts. One of these principles is that the use of contraception is immoral and interferes with God’s agenda. The problem was that most of Hobby Lobby’s 13,000 employees received health care coverage through the Affordable Care Act (ACA) (Appelbaum). With the Green’s Christian values, they were neither happy nor comfortable with this measure, largely because they believed that four of the contraceptives approved by the FDA, including the “morning-after pill,” were abortifacients (substances that induce an abortion), since they may prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine wall (Liptak). The Greens equated these methods of contraception to abortion, and on behalf of Hobby Lobby, they sued the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to challenge the contraception mandate of the ACA (Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores). The case made its way to the Supreme Court, which ruled that closely held for-profit corporations may be exempt from the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate on the basis of sincere religious objections (“Supreme Court of the United States”). The decision was one of the most contested in recent U.S. history. There were outpourings of rage and joy all throughout the country and women fell on both sides of the spectrum. Supporters of the contraceptive mandate

claimed that “a victory for the plaintiffs would allow large corporations, under the cover of religious freedom, not just to impede women’s exercise of their reproductive rights but also to defy civil rights statutes with impunity” (Horwitz). With this ruling, it is very unclear how the government will ensure that women with religious employers obtain free contraception. Many women with employer coverage are already paying some of the cost of their contraceptives. The whole situation surrounding women’s reproductive health has become even more muddied. And once again, women’s rights have been put on the back burner in the name of religion and religious expression. Religion impedes women’s rights all over the world, regardless of how developed or secular some countries may be. In the United States, a nation that prides itself on the separation of church and state, religious agendas drive the politics of women’s reproductive health. In Sri Lanka, women were denied access to permanent sterilization because a religious body worried about the population growth of the Sinhalese ethnic group. Israel, a nation built on religion, cannot determine which traditions should be left in the past and which should remain. For women to move forward, faith and religion need to be left in their houses of worship. Perhaps it would be prudent for these religious actors to take a step back and reflect on the ways in which their dogma affects women in compar-

ison to men. Maybe then we can move forward.

WORKS CITED Abramson, Larry. “Women In Combat: Some Lessons From Israel’s Military.” NPR. N.p., 1 Dec. 2015. Web. 1 Dec. 2015. Appelbaum, Binyamin. “What the Hobby Lobby Ruling Means for America.” The New York Times. Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr., 26 July 2014. Web. 1 Dec. 2015. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Incorporated. Supreme Court. 30 June 2014. SupremeCourt.gov. N.p., 30 June 2014. Web. 1 Dec. 2015. Christopher, Chrishanthi. “Banned.” Ceylon Today. Ceylon Newspapers (Private) Limited, 24 Feb. 2013. Web. 1 Dec. 2015. Gaylor, Annie Laurie. “Why Women Need Freedom From Religion.” Freedom From Religion Foundation. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 Dec. 2015. Gett: The Trial of Viviane Amsalem. Dir. Ronit Elkabetz and Shlomi Elkabetz. Perf. Ronit Elkabetz, Menashe Noy, Sasson Gabai, and Simon Abkarian. Les Films du Losange, 2014. Film. Harris, Emily. “In Israel, Jewish Divorce Is Granted Only By Husband’s Permission.” NPR. NPR, 3 Mar. 2015. Web. 1 Dec. 2015. Horwitz, Paul. “Hobby Lobby Is Only the Beginning.” The New York Times. Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr., 01 July 2014. Web. 1 Dec. 2015. Leibovitz, Liel. “Israel’s Rabbinic Court System Is Divorced from Reality.” Tablet Magazine. N.p., 27 Feb. 2015. Web. 1 Dec. 2015. Liptak, Adam. “Supreme Court Rejects Contraceptives Mandate for Some Corporations.” The New York Times. Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr., 30 June 2014. Web. 1 Dec. 2015. Michaeli, Merav. “It Is High Time to Close Israel’s Rabbinical Courts - Opinion.” Haaretz.com. N.p., 7 May 2012. Web. 1 Dec. 2015.

“Preamble | United Nations.” UN News Center. UN, n.d. Web. 1 Dec. 2015. Tracking Terrorism. “Bodu Bala Sena (BBS).” TRAC | Terrorism Research & Analysis Consortium. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 Dec. 2015. United Nations. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Palais de Chaillot, Paris: United Nations, 1948. Web. 1 Dec. 2015. Wijenayake, Vishakha. “Bodu Bala Sena, Population Control and Reproductive Rights.” Ceylon Today. Ceylon Newspapers (Private) Limited, 28 Mar. 2013. Web. 1 Dec. 2015.

Aid-in-Dying Legislation as a Human Rights Concern in the United States JULIA SANCHEZ Designating issues within the domain of human rights is in many cases nuanced and subjective. The wording of human rights documents is intentionally general so that the principles outlined may be applied in many varied circumstances, but this generality necessarily creates gray areas. An issue that falls within this gray area is that of a terminally ill patientâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s right under certain conditions to legally access physician assistance to end their lives prior to the natural course of their illness. Advocates argue that denying this choice violates individualsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; human rights, often citing rights to free private personal life and to an adequate standard of living. However, since the connections between the issue of physician-assisted death and these rights are not clearly defined, the issue becomes contentious. Opponents, who do not believe that granting patients such a choice is a mandated human right, raise valid concerns about the possible negative, unwanted outcomes of legally permitting it. As a result, the debates surrounding this issue in state legislatures frequently

become tense and deeply personal. The introduction of legislation guaranteeing terminally ill individuals access to life-ending medication is a relatively recent phenomenon in the United States. Although euthanasia practices have a lengthy history in medicine and society worldwide, legal mechanisms for the regulated practice of physician-assisted suicide were established much more recently. In cases where aid-in-dying legislation exists in the United States, a contentious political and ethical debate preceded its passage. The deeply personal and emotional nature of the issue makes it complex and controversial. On one hand, aid-in-dying legislation seems to be incompatible with the belief in the preservation of human life found in both governmental and medical contexts. On the other hand, denying patients the choice to end their lives forces them to live with a degree of suffering, which arguably violates human rights standards. In recent years, arguments for and against aid in dying have been raised more frequently in the political arena, with bills proposed

UNITED STATES

in state legislatures throughout the country. In the states that have passed aidin-dying legislation, all share the regulations and safeguards specified first in Oregonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Death with Dignity Act. The act stipulates that only patients who are adult residents of the state, diagnosed with terminal illnesses that will lead to death within six months, and found to be mentally competent may receive a prescription for lethal medication. The diagnosis must be given by the attending physician and corroborated by a consulting physician, and only the ill patient may initiate the written request process. The attending physician is required to determine that the patient is capable of making the request voluntarily, and the patient must confirm his or her full understanding of the diagnosis, the prognosis, the potential risks associated with the medication, and the feasible alternatives. The law also stipulates a strict request process involving an initial oral request, a written request, and second

oral request, including specified waiting periods. If the attending physician conscientiously objects to providing the desired prescription, he or she must refer the patient to another doctor. Also, when patients choose to have aid in dying, the official cause of death is listed as the disease from which they suffer, and not suicide, a detail that in many cases has significant ramifications in life insurance claims (Oregon Death with Dignity Act). Opposition to aid-in-dying legislation often comes from a desire to preserve life and promote alternatives like hospice care. In many cases, opposition relates to individualsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; religious affiliations, but arguments against aid-in-dying legislation have empathetic and logical bases as well. Personal anecdotes of patients living far longer than their initial prognoses generate public debate, evoking fear and uncertainty. Many believe prescribing lethal medication violates ethical tenets of medical practice such as the hippocratic oath, in which

physicians pledge to “utterly reject harm and mischief ” (Hippocratic Oath-Classical Version). The most effective argument against aid-in-dying legislation is that it could potentially make vulnerable, terminally ill patients victims of coercion. Since palliative care is expensive and the families of the ill face budgetary constraints, there is a risk that patients who qualify for aid in dying may feel pressured to end their lives against their wishes. Furthermore, opponents believe that institutionalizing a system to facilitate death is contrary to the ethical values that society ought to promote. In contrast, advocates argue that freedom of choice in the context of imminent passing is a human right to which the terminally ill are entitled. Although no such right is specifically delineated in federal or international human rights documents, the tragic and often disturbing stories of those denied such medication make it easy to perceive the issue in such a light. The personal anecdotes shared in these circles focus on the suffering of the terminally ill, waiting for death while their quality of life degrades. Given the high degree of suffering which afflicts such patients, as well as the inevitability of their impending passing, opting for a controlled, speedy alternative is often preferable. In this view, providing a controlled, legal option for the terminally ill to end their lives is not just a merciful choice, but a rational one. By denying such an alternative, lawmakers force these patients to live out

a prolonged state of worsening pain and confinement that violates human rights standards. States therefore have a duty to permit aid-in-dying practices. Legislation to permit physician-assisted death for the terminally ill has increased in the United States in recent years. Oregon established its famous Death with Dignity Act in October 1997, and 859 people have used the prescribed medication to end their lives since; that same year, the United States Supreme Court ruled that doctor-assisted death is not a Constitutional right, and stated in 2006 that the issue falls within the jurisdiction of state governments (Pickert). Not long after this decision, Washington approved the Washington State Death with Dignity Act (Pickert). In 2013, Vermont passed its Patient Choice and Control at the End of Life Act. Together, these were the only three states that offered aid-in-dying options when Brittany Maynard of the San Francisco Bay Area was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer at age 29. Maynard made public her decision to establish residency in Oregon and take advantage of the state’s legislation in an essay titled “My right to death with dignity at 29,” published by CNN in November 2014. Her story attained national media coverage and was followed by a slew of bills proposing aid-in-dying legislation in 25 states and the District of Columbia (Maynard). Many related bills have been drafted in recent years, but most have failed.

Given the limited group of directly affected citizens (primarily the terminally ill and their families and friends), as well as the ethical issues it raises, the issue fails to gain significant traction in states. But things that bring the issue into public discourse, such as Maynard’s essay, have the capacity to spur constructive action on a social and legal level. On October 5th of this year, Maynard’s home state of California joined Oregon, Washington, and Vermont when it chaptered its End of Life Option Act (Death with Dignity around the US). Overall, the emergence of aid-indying legislation is a recent phenomenon, but its expansion shows no signs of stopping. Though its public support has fluctuated over time, it remains a firm majority, rising from 58 to 68 percent between 2014 and 2015, according to Gallup’s Values and Beliefs survey data (Dugan). Additionally, the same poll shows a sharp decrease in the belief that, regardless of legality, “doctor-assisted suicide is morally wrong” (Dugan). Between 2013 and 2015, the percentage of Americans who deemed doctor-assisted suicide morally wrong dipped from 49 to 37 percent, and those who deemed it morally acceptable jumped from 45 to 56 percent (Dugan). Since 1948, the right to life has been formally recognized as a human right (United Nations). Given the trends in public opinion and the growing legislation permitting aid in dying in the

United States, perhaps the right to die will one day become a human right, too.

WORKS CITED “Death With Dignity around the US: Take Action.” Death with Dignity National Center, 14 Oct. 2015. Web. 15 Oct. 2015. Dugan, Andrew. “In U.S., Support Up for Doctor-Assisted Suicide.” Gallup. N.p., 27 May 2015. Web. 22 Oct. 2015 “Hippocratic Oath- Classical Version.” Nova Online. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Oct. 2015. Maynard, Brittany. “My Right to Death with Dignity at 29.” CNN. Cable News Network, 02 Nov. 2014. Web. 13 Oct. 2015. Oregon Revised Statutes (1994). The Oregon death with dignity act. Retrieved from the Oregon state web site: http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/docs/stat ute.pdf Pickert, Kate. “A Brief History of Assisted Suicide.” Time. Time Inc., 03 Mar. 2009. Web. “The Oregon Death with Dignity Act.” (1994)” 1-12. public.health.oregon.gov. Web. 1 Dec. 2015. United Nations. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Palais de Chaillot, Paris: United Nations, 1948. Web. 1 Dec. 2015.

UNITED STATES

BORDERLANDS: CONFLICTING AMERICAN DESIRES AND ABUSIVE INACTION LILA CARPENTER Introduction: Globalization and NAFTA

The dichotomy between American elite interests and xenophobic public interests has led to a distinctly racist and inhumane zone at the Mexican-American border. In the International Human Rights Lexicon, Susan Marks and Andrew Clapham define globalization as “a process (or a set of processes) which embodies a transformation in the spatial organization of social relations and transactions – assessed in terms of their extensity, intensity, velocity and impact – generating transcontinental or interregional flows and networks of activity, interaction, and the exercise of power.” Border areas, typically found at the junction of nation-states, allow globalization to exist, but also are frequently the greatest sources of resistance to these flows and networks. The Mexican-American border is one such area where the increased flow of people from south to north can be directly traced to policy decisions such as the North American

Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). In the United States, there is often vehement anti-immigrant sentiment, especially in border states, despite American industry depending in many ways on the cheap labor provided by undocumented immigrants, who are often less likely to unionize and demand fair wages. The distinct dichotomy between the American political and economic leaders’ interests in protecting corporate profit and popular anti-immigrant sentiment has led to the creation of a gray area surrounding the Mexican-American border, where unregulated citizen policing and human rights abuses have become the norm. Conceptually, globalization in many ways depends on the existence of rigid nation-state boundaries. Were there not borders to transcend, new markets to explore, and cultural barriers to breach, the “transcontinental or interregional flows and networks of activity [and] interaction” might indeed be the norm, rather than the exception (Marks and Clapham). That said, globalization is actively challenging national borders and

the militarization of those borders as people, ideas and goods flow more freely. Marks and Clapham also point out that two of the key effects of globalization are an increase in global inequality and the creation of complex systems of inclusion and exclusion. These inequalities of development, wealth, opportunity, and resources in many ways force people who can no longer sustain themselves in their native countries to migrate. In 2013, there were an estimated 11.6 million Mexican immigrants living in the United States, not including migrants from other Central and South American countries or potentially unaccounted-for undocumented migrants (Zong and Batalova). Since the existence of Mexico as a country, there has been a flow of people across the border in search of labor, land, and opportunity, among other things. And this has always been a source of controversy. Since around 1850, there has been a culture of citizen activism or “vigilantes” who purposefully take such matters into their own hands, often with violent results (Chacón, Akers, Davis and Cardona). This vigilante culture has seen a reemergence in the late 90s and early 2000s. To fully understand the issue, it is necessary to understand the effects of NAFTA. The North American Free Trade Agreement is a trilateral trade arrangement between Canada, the U.S. and Mexico created in 1994, with the last steps of implementation ending in 2008. Although disputed, it is argued

that because the Mexican farm industry has been opened up to competition with the heavily subsidized U.S. agriculture industry, Mexican farms and farmers have suffered (Sergei). In fact, the impact of American prices on their farm products is so strong that in one Mexican state known for pig farming, “…farmers have found the prices they receive per hog are now $19 to $25 less than the cost of raising them.” Furthermore, there is evidence that, overall, the trade agreement has favored the U.S. and Canada to the detriment of Mexico. In Bacon’s book The Right to Stay Home, he points out how “the extreme rural poverty rate of 35 percent from 1992 to 1994, prior to NAFTA, jumped to 55 percent between 1996 and 1998, after NAFTA took effect…” and that “by 2010, fifty-three million Mexicans were living in poverty… – half the country’s population” (9, 11). This stands in contrast to the Preamble of NAFTA, passed in 1994, which states that “The Government of Canada, the Government of the United Mexican States and the Government of the United States of America, resolved to… Create new employment opportunities and improve working conditions and living standards in their respective territories” (“North American”). The downward-spiraling living conditions in Mexico correspond with the increase in flows of migration to the United States (Staudt, Payan, & Kruszewski 73). As poverty and violence in Mexico have grown, more Mexican citizens are will-

ing to attempt the dangerous trip across the border to the United States. NAFTA is a perfect example of how a neoliberal trade agreement contributes to the unequal redistributive qualities of globalization. As capital flows more freely, so must labor. Conflicting Approaches: Human Rights Abuses Between 1994 and 2007, an estimated 4,600 migrants died while making the treacherous trip across the border, with women dying more frequently than men (Staudt, Payan, and Kruszewski 8). Bacon points out that “…migrant rights are connected to the right to not migrate,” and one can look into the actual role of choice in a decision to leave the poverty-stricken and violent country. However, regardless of their reasons, when Mexicans do make the decision to leave, they face numerous human rights obstacles. Firstly, migrants are more vulnerable to scams, trafficking, and indentured servitude as smugglers, and guides, necessary because they know the dangerous terrain and are able to lead groups of migrants, are able to charge exorbitant fees and very literally have the migrants’ lives in their hands. In 2002, six people were indicted on charges of forced labor in a case where forty Mexican migrants were coerced into working on a farm in upstate New York in order to pay off excessive debts incurred during their trip

across the border (Greenhouse). While certainly not the only occurrence of indentured servitude of the kind, this is one example of the extreme circumstances that immigrants can be forced into as a result of attempting to relocate. Similarly, as drug-related violence increases in Mexico, there have been more reports of migrants who have been forced to smuggle in marijuana and other substances through brute force or in exchange for protection during a short period of their journey. This practice puts the migrants at a two-fold risk—they are not only coerced by powerful drug cartels, but are also at risk of harsher punishment upon reaching the United States than they might otherwise have received (Burnett). Women are especially susceptible to abuse as they make their way across the border. Not only are they frequently travelling alone, usually on their way to meet up with husbands and male family members already in the United States, but they are also travelling between two largely male-dominated societies. As cited by the San Diego Union-Tribune in 2006, according to a UN director “… some women consider [rape] ‘the price you pay for crossing the border,’” with an estimated 80 to 90% of female migrants having suffered sexual violence in some way (Staudt, Payan, and Kruszewski 31). In numerous detention centers across the United States, immigrants are held without trial and engaged in work programs in which they sometimes earn

less than $1 a day. Aside from the distinct unconstitutionality of detention without due process, there are important labor and contract rights violations. The officials argue that the work is voluntary, yet according to an ACLU report, migrants in some cases were threatened with solitary confinement if they refused to work (Urbina). Constitutionally, the federal government has full power over immigration, yet much of immigration policy has been delegated to the states. As might be expected in the age of neoliberalism, “…the Bush administration and later the Obama administration have encouraged local and state authorities to play a part in enforcement. Tuscon’s new courtroom was set up, and the contract for federal detention facilities was given to Corrections Corporation of America…” (Bacon 157). The de-centralization of immigration authority plays a dual role; it allows those closer to the issue to make laws pertaining to it, but this, in turn, means that there is less accountability because state and municipal legislatures may be more prone to biased or discriminatory laws. For example, Arizona law SB 1070, considered one of the strictest immigration laws in the country, makes it a crime for migrants to not have proper documentation on them at all times. Civil rights groups have accused the law of promoting racial profiling, but it has immense popular support in Arizona, leading other states to pass similar acts (“Arizona’s SB 1070”). One of the greatest detriments to the pro-

tection of the rights of migrants is their unwillingness and oftentimes inability to go to law enforcement when they have been the victim of a crime. Over 95% of migrants do not report to the police if they have been the victim of a crime, usually out of fear of deportation or detainment, and only about 4% report to human rights or nonprofit agencies. In addition, migrants who do report crimes are often hard to track down afterwards, making it difficult to process and investigate the crimes. (Staudt, Payan, and Kruszewski 60). Lastly, the increased presence of citizen patrols and vigilante groups has a deleterious effect on migrant rights. The aforementioned right-wing groups have attracted the support of neo-Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan, and other nativist groups. In several instances, the groups, members of the groups, or simply sympathizers with the groups have been charged with unlawfully detaining migrants, threatening them, stealing from them, and possibly killing them (Archibold; Applebome; Leduff). Additionally, the militia-type groups are typically heavily armed, and there are fears that the drug violence in northern Mexico could erupt into fights with these pugnacious American watchdog groups. Conclusion: Conflicting Goals and Inaction at the Border American political and economic elite benefit immensely from the cheap,

compliant labor provided by migrant workers, particularly guest workers and undocumented workers. In fact, all Americans benefit from an economy whose firms exploit underpaid labor to produce goods and services cheaply. But because of a struggling economy and political divisions, a significant number of Americans are vehemently anti-immigration. These two viewpoints represent two sides of a spectrum that can be visualized by different border-security measures. The Mexican-American border could be completely open, demarcated only by occasional checkpoints (much like the Canadian-American border); this would allow for a free flow of labor between the two countries, which would be preferable for American employers, as long as the flow were still technically “illegal.” At the other end of the spectrum is the U.S., which could build a wall that runs along the length of the border, patrolled by border and immigration agents, to effectively shut off all border crossings except those at highly controlled and restricted entry points. Instead, the United States has chosen a more indistinct path. After September 11th, 2001, the United States ramped up its border security policies: “The number of border agents stationed at or near the border doubled between 2001 and 2008, reaching about 18,000. Prior to 2005, there were 135 miles of fencing along the border. Between 2005 and 2008, another 370 miles were added through the Secure Border

Initiative” (Whitaker). This increase in border security has simply forced migrants to take longer, more straining routes to cross the border, resulting in increased numbers of deaths and more crime. In addition, the government in some states seems to have given de facto border control to citizen militias and watchdog groups. In this way, the United States has effectively made the already gray area of the border into a peculiarly inhumane space, where there is almost zero accountability and a complete dearth of human rights for migrants.

WORKS CITED Applebome, Peter. “Paramilitary Group That Caught 15 Aliens Plans More Patrols.” The New York Times. Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr., 07 July 1986. Web. 1 Dec. 2015. Archibold, Randal C. “A Border Watcher Finds Himself Under Scrutiny.” The New York Times. Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr., 23 Nov. 2006. Web. 7 Nov. 2015. “Arizona’s SB 1070.” American Civil Liberties Union. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 Nov. 2015. Bacon, David. The Right to Stay Home: How US Policy Drives Mexican Migration. N.p.: Beacon, 2013. Print. Burnett, John. “Migrants Say They’re Unwilling Mules For Cartels.” NPR. NPR, 4 Dec. 2011. Web. 7 Nov. 2015. Chacón, Justin Akers, Mike Davis, and Julian Cardona. No One Is Illegal: Fighting Racism and State Violence on the U.S.-Mexico Border. Chicago: Haymarket, 2006. Print. Greenhouse, Steven. “Migrant-Camp Operators Face Forced Labor Charges.” The New York Times. Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr., 20 June 2002. Web. 7 Nov. 2015. Leduff, Charlie. “Illegal Immigrants File Suit Against Vigilante Patrols.” The New York Times. Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr., 29 May 2003. Web. 7 Nov. 2015. Lopez, Mark Hugo. “The Hispanic Vote in the 2008 Election.” Pew Research Centers Hispanic Trends Project RSS. N.p., 05 Nov. 2008. Web. 7 Nov. 2015. Marks, Susan, and Andrew Clapham. “Globalisation.” International Human Rights Lexicon. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2005. N. pag. Print. “North American Free Trade Agreement.” NAFTA Secretariat. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 Nov. 2015.

Sergie, Mohammed Aly. “NAFTA’s Economic Impact.” Council on Foreign Relations. Council on Foreign Relations, 2 Feb. 2014. Web. 7 Nov. 2015. Staudt, Kathleen A., Tony Payan, and Z. Anthony Kruszewski, eds. Human Rights along the U.S.-Mexico Border: Gendered Violence and Insecurity. Tucson: U of Arizona, 2009. Print. Urbina, Ian. “Using Jailed Migrants as a Pool of Cheap Labor.” The New York Times. Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr., 24 May 2014. Web. 7 Nov. 2015. Whitaker, Julie. “Mexican Deaths in the Arizona Desert: The Culpability of Migrants, Humanitarian Workers, Governments, and Businesses.” J Bus Ethics Journal of Business Ethics 88.S2 (2009): 365-76. Web. 3 Dec. 2015. Zong, Jie, and Jeanne Batalova. “Frequently Requested Statistics on Immigrants and Immigration in the United States.” Migrationpolicy.org. N.p., 25 Feb. 2015. Web. 7 Nov. 2015.

BEYOND THE CONSUMPTION OF GMOs: The Human toll of seed company chemical use on KAUAI LAUREN PARNABY It is widely unknown that Hawai’i is the world’s epicenter of GMO seed testing. The effects such testing has on people in surrounding areas are also unknown, though early reports are troubling. A recent report on GMO cornfields in Waimea, a small town on the south west of Kaua’i, confirms these reports and links them to the growth of pesticide use on this land: “In Kaua’i, chemical companies Dow, BASF, Syngenta and DuPont spray 17 times more restricted-use insecticides per acre than on ordinary cornfields in the US mainland” (Pesticides In Paradise). These chemicals, all 18 tons of them, include glyphosate, popularly circulating as “Roundup,” which the International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health Organization, classified this year as “probably carcinogenic in humans” (IARC). The testing center in Kaua’i lies exactly between a middle school and local hospital, and the regular spraying constantly exposes schoolchildren to the fumes; complaints of asthma and other breathing problems have since become a common

occurrence within the school population (Achitoff). With limited investigations having taken place since the inception of these GMO fields, it is difficult to project the full extent of the consequences on human health (Thompson). Even if public dissent is vocalized loud enough to spur research of any kind, it will likely require resources and time—time that poison’s effects on the human body do not wait for. And because the current political priorities in Hawai’i revolve around an upcoming vote by Native Hawaiian delegates on whether to form a possible sovereign Native government, a potential investigative study on GMOs has been placed on the back burner. Nonetheless, health issues from GMO seed testing remain problematic. Peer-reviewed studies have linked GMO seed testing to birth defects, potentially due to wind drifts blowing herbicides onto local campuses (Achitoff). This violate Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states: “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and

UNITED STATES

well-being of himself and of his family.” In addition, since Native Hawaiians are an indigenous group, government inaction on GMO seed testing breaches Article 21 of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which grants indigenous people the right to “the improvement of their economic and social conditions, including .. health …”. What makes this testing a human rights violation rather than a mere social injustice is the direct threat to human life that GMOs have posed in the past decade. Testimonies from victim’s families, particularly newborns with major birth defects, have been made in Hawaiian courts with little to no redress (“Kauai Pesticide”). Currently, other than court hearings—which act more as symbolic efforts than meaningful reforms—and local organizing efforts by affected populations, little is being done to protect the rights of these people. Such court hearings are purely reactionary and do not prevent further trauma on affected families. In effect, state inaction and media inattention have allowed GMO

companies to continue seed testing without having to reckon with its human toll. Most arguments against this testing have centered on the adverse health impacts for consumers, or more broadly on the damages of chemical uses on the environment (Marris). While these are likely legitimate concerns, their political potency is drowned out by competing rhetorics. Furthermore, without an adjoining human face, these tired arguments often backfire by alienating otherwise neutral parties through abstract claims, and ultimately fail to curb the powerful chemical companies. When these cases were first being reported, community organizers campaigned extensively to force the state to intervene in the practices of major seed companies. This included a complaint made directly to the State of Hawai’i First Circuit Court in December 2011 that aimed to stop DuPont from spraying fields daily without regard to the secondary effects of chemical fumes (LaVenture). DuPont holds leasing rights in Waimea to “conduct open air-testing

of GMO crops as part of its Waimea Research Center” (LaVenture). A law against seed companies was finally motioned under Bill No. 2491 in November 2013. Although this bill did not ban the use of chemical treatments of crops altogether, it did implement certain restrictions on seed companies as part of their ethical liability (and duty of care) to the local population. Under this bill, seed companies were required to: disclose use of Pesticides and GMOs (Sec. 22-22.4); create “buffer zones” that mandated no crops be grown within 500 feet of inhabited residences, hospitals, nursing homes, or schools (Sec. 22-22.5); and conduct a formal “Environmental and Public Health Impact Study” (Sec. 22-22.6) (Council of the County). Seed companies remained largely unregulated outside of these clauses, yet some companies unhappy with the court ruling threatened to sue the state over Bill 2491, claiming it pre-empted state law and was therefore unconstitutional (Hawai‘i). Despite these exhaustive efforts from community members fighting for their own bodily rights, Bill 2491 was eventually overturned by U.S. Magistrate Judge Barry Kurren who ruled in favour of the continuance of business-as-usual operations of offending seed companies (Pollack). Critics of the reports, including Bennette Misalucha, executive director of Hawai’i Crop Improvement Association, argue that the apparent spike in birth defects lacks any “credible source

of statistical health information” (Pala). While it is likely true that little to no reliable health information currently exists, more research into the long-term effects of GMO seed testing is needed to ensure that native inhabitants aren’t harmed. But due to the economic and political influence that the major seed companies have on the islands, it is doubtful that this important research will take place. Until recently, the hospital in proximity to GMO crops in Waimea was run by Dow AgroSciences’ chief lobbyist in Honolulu. In order for this to be recognized as a potential threat to human life, further studies must be conducted on the effects of the herbicides that are tested and used within these spaces. The time left in between will only result in further human toll. It is because of this urgency that a state-imposed restriction is necessary. Chemical testing on GMOs has not been widely or credibly researched and so its health effects remain inconclusive. The seed companies and the government dismiss this inconclusiveness as proof that chemical testing does no harm. In reality, the plight of the victims and the rise of birth defects call for more research. In the meantime, it would be prudent to suspend all chemical testing to reduce potential health damages, as well as reimplement buffer zones from carcinogens, until the government can ensure the people of Waimea that the chemicals used by seed companies are not harming their health.

WORKS CITED Achitoff, Paul. “GMOs in Kauai: Not just another Day in Paradise.” Huffington Post. March 5 2014. Web. Nov 12, 2015. The Council of the County of Kaua’i, State of Hawai’i. Bill No. 2491. Draft 2. October 13, 2013. Web. Nov 12, 2015. First Circuit Court, State of Hawai’i. Plaintiffs Vs. Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc. Hawai’i: 11-1-0358, 2011. Web. Nov 12, 2015. Hawai‘i. United States District Court For The District Of Hawai‘i. Syngenta Seeds Et Al., Plaintiffs, v. County Of Kaua‘i, Defendant. N.p.: n.p., n.d. www-assets.vermontlaw.edu/. 23 June 2014. Web. 1 Dec. 2015. IARC Monographs Volume 112: Evaluation of Five Organophosphate Insecticides and Herbicides. Rep. International Agency for Research on Cancer, 20 Mar. 2015. Web. 29 Nov. 2015. “Kauai Pesticide and GMO Bill 2491.” StopPoisoningParadise.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Nov. 2015. LaVenture, Tom. “Waimea residents suing Pioneer Hi-Bred.” TheGardenIsland.com. N.p., 14 June. 2012. Web. 29 Nov. 2015. Marris, Claire. “Public Views on GMOs: Deconstructing the Myths: Stakeholders in the GMO Debate Often Describe Public Opinion as Irrational. But Do They Really Understand the Public?” EMBO Reports 2.7 (2001): 545–548. PMC. Web. Nov 12, 2015. Pala, Christopher. “Pesticides in Paradise: Hawai’i’s Spike in Birth Defects Puts Focus on GM Crops.” The Guardian, sec. US news: August 23 2015. Web. Nov 12, 2015. Pesticides In Paradise Hawai‘I’s Health & Environment At Risk. Rep. Hawai’i Center for Food Safety, May 2015. Web. 29 Nov. 2015.

Pollack, Andrew. “Judge Blocks a Local Pesticide Law in Hawaii.” The New York Times. Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr., 25 Aug. 2014. Web. 29 Nov. 2015. Thompson, Megan. “GMO Seeds Grow into Big Fight on Kauai.” Newshour. PBS. 30 Dec. 2013. Television. Transcript. United Nations. “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights | United Nations.” UN News Center. UN, n.d. Web. 1 Dec. 2015. United Nations. “United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.” (2008): n. pag. UN.org. United Nations, Mar. 2008. Web. 14 Nov. 2015.

Journal of Human Rights Volume XX â&#x20AC;˘ Fall 2015