Showing posts with label human rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label human rights. Show all posts

Friday, 24 June 2011

The State of New York legalizes same-sex marriages.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/25/ny...e.html?_r=1&hp

ALBANY — Lawmakers voted late Friday to legalize same-sex marriage, making New York the largest state where gay and lesbian couples will be able to wed, and giving the national gay-rights movement new momentum from the state where it was born. 

"You get to the point where you evolve in your life where everything isn't black and white, good and bad, and you try to do the right thing. You might not like that. You might be very cynical about that. Well, **** it, I don't care what you think. I'm trying to do the right thing. I'm tired of Republican-Democrat politics... I'm trying to do the right thing, and that's where I'm going with this."

-Roy McDonald, NY state Senator, Republican, who voted yea on same sex marriage bill.

Saturday, 28 May 2011

A historical precedent: a robot signs PATRIOT Act extension into law.

With President Obama in Europe, an "autopen" has been assigned the dubious task of continuing the legacy of constitutional excesses of law, and civil rights violations.

While most of the provisions of the PATRIOT Act are permanent law (a sad fact indeed), the most controversial facets, and the ones most vulnerable to abuse and violation of the Constitution, are subject to periodic review. This includes the following three provisions: roving wiretaps that follow targets within US borders and may pick up civilian information, searches of business records, and conducting surveillance on "lone wolves"; individuals suspected of terrorist-related activities but not officially affiliated with any extremist group.  

All three provisions have been re-approved by the autopen. 

This appears to be the first time that a robot has been used to sign a law into application, and it appears to set a precedent that is still in a legal gray zone.

I for one do not welcome our new civil-rights, warrentless wiretapping overlords.

Friday, 20 May 2011

Efficiency with Aid Money

Picked up a really good article on one of the most efficient ways to give aid. I like donating money to charity, but as an economist, the question of efficiency and whether or not this money actually makes a difference always sadly passes through my mind.

Now with at least some field-tested studies, my mind feels a whole lot better.

maybe you'll feel a whole lot better too

Saturday, 14 May 2011

Tuesday, 10 May 2011

China gets petty and blocks Norwegian salmon, in return for Liu Xiaobo Nobel Peace Prize.

http://news.scotsman.com/world/Nobel-dispute-leaves-bad-taste.6764873.jp

China is wielding its' economic prowess and trying to punish Norway by denying it access to its' markets. This is all in retaliation for the Nobel Prize Committee deciding to grant the award to noted Chinese human rights advocate Liu Xiaobo. 

This not only causes Norwegian producers to suffer, but also hurts Chinese consumers. Of course, Chinese trade theory has never really considered the Chinese people (the depreciated yuan comes to mind), but I suppose that this should not be much of a surprise considering how the average Chinese citizen has about as much right to free expression, as I have access to front row Habs playoff tickets.

I hope Norway has the political courage to not give in to China here. China is in the wrong, and the CCP should know that. While China's meteoric rise in economic power is something to admire, I think the transition to a state that grants its' citizens fundamental rights, and respects and protects them, would be something altogether more beautiful.

Sunday, 8 May 2011

NATO leaves 61 migrants to die of thirst and starvation.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/08/nato-ship-libyan-migrants


NATO has been accused ignoring distress calls from a boat filled with adrift migrants.

If this is true, NATO is in clear violation of international law, and this represents a shocking neglect of the sacred responsibility of upholding human life.

I fear that this isn't the worst of it. A tide of those who are left to flee the upheaval will soon be flooding through Europe, and Europeans will have to ask themselves some hard questions about whether or not they can deploy resources to aid these poor souls.

It's the beginning of what I can see as a pressing issue of the 21st century---namely, how developed nations will deal with the wave of people fleeing unlivable circumstances in the Third World. Tied into this is the First World's partial culpability for these circumstances (global warming, subsidies and supports to dictatorships etc.) but, sadly, the fact that many developed nations in this world do not have the political willpower or ability to deploy resources to help their own people, never-mind people that are considered "foreigners", has to weigh in the decision as well.

These hard questions, as we can see in this example, will entail the difference between life and death. It is a heavy responsibility to bear for the developed democracies of the West, but it is something that must be acknowledged, and debated, before it is too late to save any of the lives we could have saved.

I hope events like this spark the debate, and lead to people acknowledging the sanctity of HUMAN lives, rather than constantly dividing the world into meaningless subsections of Americans, Europeans, and Africans.

Saturday, 7 May 2011

Why does America seem to be on the wrong side of international freedom?

A country in the throes of revolution. An oppressive state known for jailing dissidents is going to fall soon. However, America happens to find itself in the awkward position of being a patron of this dictatorial regime. America soon defines an ambiguous position---the rebels might be a terrorist organization after all, so it is best to tread carefully.

You can apply this scenario to so many countries it isn't even funny. In this case, I think the sobering story of South Africa is a vivid illustration of hypocrisy in action.

Congress only declared that the ANC and Nelson Mandela were not terrorists in 2008.

http://www.johnkerry.com/news/entry/...n_mandela_anc/

America also tacitly supported the apartheid regime and gave military support to South Africa in the South African Border War---though this should also be framed in the context of a Soviet-American proxy battle, it also once again shows how millions of people must suffer in the pursuit of some military goal that does not make sense (let's make a war on words and ideas!).

Once again, with Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia, we are forced to wonder whether or not America is on the right side. I think this is particularly important, since America is the one world power that tries to claim its' legitimacy by offering itself as a luminary of human rights---which it should be said, it does follow up on sometimes.

However, certain policies it pursues seems to undermine these long-term strategic goals. How on Earth can we be so short-sided to see that depriving people of their freedom might stop a terrorist attack or two, but will generate enough anger to create an infinitely larger amount of terrorists? I also question America's ability to delineate between freedom fighter and terrorist, which seems to be firmly based on whether or not you are trying to achieve strategic American military goals, whatever they may be.

It should be pointed out that while South Africa has its' problems, you cannot argue that it is more unstable than the carcasses left behind by American military intervention (North Korea situation, Khmer Rouge, the current Iraq/Afghanistan situation). I am all for Realpolitik---but is it not realistic to say that change does not happen overnight, cannot be forced by killing and looting a country, that we must truly support the long-term aspirations of people around the world over our short-term security needs, and that America's stated willingness to help people around the world be free is what truly makes it great?

Friday, 6 May 2011

Sunday, 1 May 2011

Democracy

 الديمقراطية

民主

Demokratie

демократии

민주주의

δημοκρατία

here's to hoping, in all the languages of the world, that someday everyone will be able to choose their leaders.

going to vote tomorrow, with all those who cannot in mind

Thursday, 28 April 2011

Kill em all---how war can make the most horrible of crimes forgettable.

In 1949, in special consideration of how war is a time where the fundamental human rights of civilians and combatants is especially vulnerable, most nations of the world signed and ratified the Geneva Conventions. However, the conflicts that have played out after this signing indicate that many nations still do not heed this edict.

One example of this comes from declassified American military documents that record that "US commanders repeatedly, and without ambiguity, ordered forces under their control to target and kill Korean refugees caught on the battlefield."

It comes on the heels of other declassified documents that implied American knowledge, and complicity with South Korean massacres of suspected leftists-including women and children. The death toll has been rumored to be up to 100,000, although it is likely we will never know the whole truth due to the political sensitivity of these killings.

If America, self-avowed leader in the rights and dignity of mankind, can simply look on as her allies slaughtered thousands of their own citizens, and actively participated in this slaughter---well, it certainly dispels the notion that evil and good are black and white, Soviet and American, freedom fighter and terrorist-----doesn't it?

It's a scary thought, since I really think America is one of the better nations in this regard. I am sure that other regimes have committed much worse (Stalin and Mao's crimes against their own people come to mind). In fact, the only reason why I would bother posting American war crimes is because the American people have the freedom to acknowledge and rectify these grievous errors, a privilege that is denied to most of the world.

It's a sad thought to think that even a country like America is prone to these bouts of savagery.

This idea also gets to the notion of the "true cost of war". I have always found that governments seem to make a game of tricking their own citizens by classifying sensitive documents that describe the whole picture of what's truly going on in their name (and of course, financed by their money). We only know about the Korean war atrocities because fifty years later, the American government has decided her people have more or less forgotten about Korea (which they were quite right on). It makes me wonder what they're trying to hide in the top secret documents they have out there now. We already know that some American soldiers murder Afghan civilians for sport. Perhaps if we knew the true cost of wars, we'd understand why there seem to be so many suicide bombers (can we really blame lunacy and the fact they hate our freedoms for this long?). Perhaps if we knew the true cost of war, we'd understand the terrible implications of it, and grasp that it truly is a tool of last resort. Perhaps if we knew the true cost of war, there would be less war.

but here I am, dreaming again
and hoping someday you'll join me too

Wednesday, 27 April 2011

Uganda reverses course on executing gays.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/26/uganda-anti-gay-bill-death-penalty

I cannot believe how this law has stood despite violating basically every aspect of human rights. To me, it's an extension of the fundamentalist Christian "homosexual agenda" gone completely wrong, where Ugandan politicians are basically concerned about the most ludicrous thing (homosexuals recruiting children to join them), and therefore, they can justify gay rights advocates such as the assassinated David Kato becoming prey to irrational prejudices, and they can justify killing their own citizens for personal choices that do not really harm anyone else.

It has meant a whole lot of suffering for a whole lot of people, as Ugandans now feel they can persecute any actual or merely suspected homosexuals with impunity.

Even though the law is pared down to the point where capital punishment is probably going off the table, the imposition of a life sentence on anyone convicted of a homosexual act is still a possibility.