Things I've Learned (and am still considering)

Before taking this course, there was no question in my mind that the protection of human rights was the absolute single, solitary moral and legal obligation that binds us all in a global community. The fact that you cannot go a day without reading in a newspaper about human rights abuses, and how the international world is going to respond to them, is proof positive that, as least in the Western world, we have convinced ourselves that we are the guardians of human rights and have done, do and will do anything in our power to protect them when some developing country does not (as it could only be a less developed nation abusing their citizens right? *cough* Canada + aboriginal rights). Everyday I feel I hear the term, or shall we call it a buzz word, being thrown around, willy nilly; usually it is to justify the intervention of a first world nation in the affairs of a "third' world nation (I prefer developing, but third in this context provides the right amount of condescension). It's almost become a formulaic sentence...so and so is abusing its citizens civil and human rights and so we...(usually America will be the first in line)...are sending an armed intervention to protect the people of so and so because their government will not. This, or some form of this sentence seems to get repeated often, especially in modern events such as Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya to name a few. A special amendment actually exists in the Charter of the United Nations that justifies third party intervention in a country when human rights abuses are evident and accurately reported. There is no question therefore that human rights, at least in the the Western world, are something that we have convinced ourselves, as everyday people through school, the media, and governmental ramblings, that we believe requires the utmost protection and is the most despicable abuse a government can subject its people to. Until this course, I was a proud defender of human rights and the first to object against any action performed by our or any other government that could infringe on a solitary human right.

Nearing the end of this course, I can't say I still have the same, narrow view of human rights. This first half of our course taught me, embarrassingly enough, that I had never considered the idea that any and all human rights discourse has been written by and from the perspective of a Western, "first world" nation. For example, in considering our current UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights--how many "third world" nations were included in the discussion while writing this lengthy document? Furthermore, the fact that some of the earlier rights documents were written by middle class, white males (and therefore only protected a very limited section of the population) has taught me that if anything, supposed "universal" declarations can actually be more exclusionary than inclusive. With this in mind, if we once again consider the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, written from a first world perspective, and therefore only taking Western first world cultures and traditions into consideration, I believe even this recent document excludes many developing nations populations who have different cultures and ideals than us in the Western world. Therefore while I recognize that the UN Declaration was written with good intentions (I'm not that cynical), I believe a more inclusive document, with input from developing nations, needs to be written if we are to create a truly universal and inclusive international declaration of rights.

The second half of this course...oh boy...that's where my ideas about human rights and their power to protect really started to change. I've always been aware of the atrocities committed in South America, by the government against its own people, just maybe not to the full extent. What I was unaware of however, is the amount of complicity developed nations, especially America, had in either allowing or blatantly helping corrupt governments continue to abuse its citizens. This for me was most shocking because as supposed crusaders for human rights protection, the fact that developed nations have been, and still are (in my personal opinion) involved in military operations and political dealings that harm human beings is nauseatingly hypocritical and disillusioning. How can we go on and on about the necessity of protecting human rights, at home and abroad, when we don't practice what we preach, by any stretch of the imagination. More and more it seems that the protection of human rights is of secondary importance to achieving political and military wins; the term human right will get thrown in there only to capture greater attention or to provide shallow justification to a naivee population that believes, 'hey, if human rights are at stake, we have every right to intervene,' an assumption that lacks a thorough understanding of one's government's true motive and intention.

To me, what was particularly revolutionary? shall I say, from these readings was the idea, most clearly articulated in the last section of reading about Guatemala, that people who are enduring human rights abuses recognize that was is occurring to them is wrong, but have little to no faith that these wrongs will ever be righted. I think it was a priest who said something along the lines that the human rights commissioner might as well be a thousand miles away for all the good it would do for him and his people that were being killed by the military. This statement shows just how disillusioned people living under corrupt and abusive governments are towards the ability of human rights to protect them. And so they should be. We can talk until we're blue in the face about the universal rights people should have, but until an effective instrument for protecting those rights is imagined, human rights really are just another way of talking. They mean nothing when millions of people are suffering from indignities that limit their ability to survive as "free" human beings. They mean nothing to the families of Argentinian and Guatemalan desaparecidos who still have no answer to what happened to their loved ones. The very phrase "human right" means nothing to people who live under a known abusive government and yet receive no help from the international community. In fact, human rights protection has been constantly trumped by other, supposedly more pressing issues of political or economic importance. It is only because we, the people of the industrialized world, are able to live in relative prosperity, that we have the luxury to discuss the various human rights violations that have occurred and are occurring. And really, that's all we do; we talk about human rights and how important they are to protect; we shake our heads at the horrible atrocities occurring around the world and thank our lucky stars that we are fortunate enough to live in a country that, after experimenting with rights abuses, finally cleaned up its act. However, the actual amount of true, honest to goodness, altruistic protection of human rights missions we embark on, without any other motive, political or economic? Very, very few.

So, what is the answer then. Are human rights useful? Is there a point in continuing this protection rhetoric that we, quite obviously, have failed to uphold? My simple and short answer would be: Yes. Yes this is a use for human rights. Despite the fact that the world has a horrifying track record of human rights abuses, I think they serve a purpose. Human rights exist as a promise that one day, everyone will be equally free from abuse. They exist as a guideline for how human beings must be treated. If you compare it with the laws of a country, human rights should be  considered the law of the world; unquestioned and undisputed boundaries that exist to keep people safe, conflict free, and enable them to prosper and live the one life they have, for as long as possible. Yes it is incredibly disheartening how completely inadequate we have been thus far in protecting human rights, or rectifying situations that abuse them. Governments are especially defective in protecting human rights because they let other more petty yet more financially rewarding motivations obscure their vision of their obligation to protect. However, I think it is important to recognize that some groups of people, particularly non-governmental organizations, have tirelessly and discreetly (in the sense that they don't clamour for recognition of every good deed they do) worked to help people that are suffering. For me, I believe NGOs set a far better example of human rights protection than any government ever has; NGOs are the epitome of an altruistic group of people, who do try to help people as their primary motivation; political and economic incentives do not exist, as are the inherent characteristics of a non-governmental body. Therefore, maybe the future for human rights protection isn't necessarily through national governments as the first line of defence (although they could certainly clean up their act) but through NGOs and other, more apolitical and morally motivated bodies that still believe human rights are and should be a universally shared commonality between all of the world citizens. Call me an optimist, but I believe their is possibility for greater collaboration and improvement of global human rights; we just need to figure out the appropriate avenue to achieve them.

Investigation into Peruvian Forced Sterilizations Continue

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/17/world/americas/peru-sterilizations/index.html

A few weeks ago I posted a news article about the  forced sterilizations that occurred in the mid-90s under the Fujimori government in Peru (and then wrote my research paper on it). This CNN news article reports that further investigation has been conducted regarding forced sterilization, that included tying the fallopian tubes of unwitting women, and has found that over 2000 cases of forced sterilization have been confirmed, although this number is very likely much higher, in the hundred of thousands. This campaign was aimed largely at indigenous women as a way to curb Peru's expanding population.

What is particularly troubling about this article is that the health minister in charge at the time these sterilizations were taking place continues to deny that any state supported sterilizations occurred. Regardless of the countless testimonies of women who experienced forced sterilizations, and the doctors and nurses who were coerced by the government, through a quota system, to perform these procedures, the minister and many other government officials that were in charge continue to deny any governmental involvement.

While a modicum of justice is being served, for example the article states that one women was awarded (only!) $2,500 for having her tubes tied against her will, the doctor who performed the operation received no jail time. Devastatingly, most of the women who did experience forced sterilization will unlikely ever be compensated for the harm done to their bodies, against their will.

Guatemalan Genocide.

This week's readings delineates the genocide or civil war (depending from what side one chooses to examine it) in Guatemala, largely between the military and the indigenous Mayans in the Ixil triangle region (I'm calling them Mayans for simplicity's sake even though they are technically only of Mayan descent). The two main forces at play appeared to be the Guatemalan military, that seemed to act as its own sovereign body, without really submitting to governmental rule, and the Guerilla Army of the Poor (EGP)--the rest of the Mayan population was caught in the middle, or between a rock and a hard place. The reason I say this is because no matter what side a Mayan person chose to support, the costs of supporting that side far outweighed the benefits, and neither side promised safety. If, for example, a Mayan "chose" (or more accurately, was forced) to be on the side of the military and join the so-called "Civil Defense Patrol" that person was ordered to give up, torture and even kill their neighbours and people they knew. On the other hand, if a person decided to join the EGP, this meant putting the lives of everyone you knew (not to mention your own) in danger, as the military killed anyone and everyone (children!) who could be connected to a subversive or delinquent terrorist. Both of these "choices" meant death, whether you were the killer or the killed. The only other option for most Mayans was to flee;  to flee their homes that had been passed down from generation to generation and leave the only community they had ever known, as a desperate and risky attempt to escape ending up another statistic of the heinous war. This was however an option many decided to take. As Mayor Sanchez said, at the height of the terror in 1981, only 40-45 people remained in Cortzal, a village with a typically permanent population in the hundreds. This genocide, that killed or displaced roughly a third of the Mayan population in the Ixil triangle, was an atrocity it seems that few people escaped unscathed. While it is obvious to place blame on the military for conducting such a blatantly racial campaign against the poor indigenous Guatemalans, it is also important to consider the role the EGP had in, fuelling the flames, so to speak. As the author points out, the EGP, "must bear responsibility for jeopardizing the lives of thousands of native Guatemalans, who believed their impossible promises of a swift victory over their oppressors, and re-dress of their centuries-old grievances." The EGP should hold some accountability for endangering the lives of thousands of its own people (regardless of their reason for rebellion). The military's massive, vastly over-exaggerated and unnecessary use of force however, for me, appears to be the culprit most responsible for the murder of 30,000 people. 


What surprised me while reading this (somewhat jumbled and confused) narration of events was the number of times "human rights" and human rights organizations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International were mentioned. As this was occurring in the 70s-80s, human rights were really coming into their own and garnering global recognition as an intangible 'something' that required universal protection and promotion. Therefore, the presence of a considerable number of human rights advisors and helpers in Guatemala while this genocide was occurring should not be too surprising. What is surprising is that, even though human rights organizations, whose sole purpose for existence is to protect humans from the worst kinds of abuses (e.g. murder), had people on the ground, witnessing the terror that was occurring, and yet this apparently did little to deter the military's vendetta against the Ixil triangle. As Father Tomas remarks to the author, after being asked if he had reported any of the atrocities to the Human Rights Attorney, "If I make direct denunciations, I will be endangering my parishioners, as well as myself....Guatemala City and the Human Rights Attorney might as well be on another planet." From this quote, I think it is fair to surmise that Father Tomas, and undoubtedly most of the other people living through the genocide, lost all (if they had any to begin with) faith in the ability of "human rights" to legally and physically protect them from the determined campaign of the military. This then begs the question, what use ARE human rights. It's all well and good to sit around and talk about them in the Western industrialized world, but when human rights organizations are active in a country that is experiencing the worst kinds of atrocities and are powerless to enact any change or deter aggression, I'm beginning to see their uselessness (although the optimist in me is not completely and wholeheartedly convinced). 


The final thought I had with regards to this week's readings has to do with the American CIA involvement, surprise surprise. The last half of the third section of readings discusses the CIA's rather blatant financial involvement in supporting the military against the "communist" (really guys?) guerilla army. The author goes as far as to state that the CIA funded and directed the counterinsurgency against the guerillas for 35 years (pg. 364).  I think I speak for everyone when I say, what the heck America. Why. Why were you involved. Contrary to this (and previous blogs), I am not anti-American, half my family is American. I do believe however that America has just a dark and corrupt political history as many other nations and that shouldn't be ignored or down-played simply because it is *in whispered tones* "the US." While countries like Russia and China are still carrying around the negative reputation for once having corrupt and malicious dictators, America seems to largely still be venerated as the greatest and most just nation in the world. While America does have some remarkable qualities as a prosperous and successful nation, more attention should be focused on some of the more negative and despicable choices America has made in the past (dare I say so history does not repeat itself?) 

Rights Abuses Perpetrated by the Mexican Police

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/09/world/americas/mexico-miltary-abuses/index.html


This article from CNN reports about the accusations that have been made by Human Rights Watch against Mexican security forces who have allegedly been violating Mexican citizens' human rights in their attempt to find persons involved in the drug trade. Through a collection of interviews, testimonies, and governmental documents, Human Rights Watch laments that there have been over 170 reports filed against security forces by citizens that have experienced violence, torture, or disappeared family members, and yet only about 1% of these cases have been officially looked into by the government. Meanwhile, the Mexican government adamantly denies these allegations and promises that if there had been any reason to suspect unnecessary force being used by the police, they would examine each case in a court of law.

This seems to be a common theme in Latin America: allegations against state officials and police forces of torture and civil rights violations from the international community, while the government constantly and vehemently denies the validity of such statements. While the 170 reported cases makes the Mexican example seem trivial in comparison to the thousands that were affected in Argentina and Guatemala, it is important to recognize that such abuses are still occuring. Also, no single human torture or death is trivial nor undeserving of international attention and help.

Guatemala + America

“With its policy in supporting dictatorships, the United States has collaborated in the strengthening of these regimes and burdened our people with debt, often for the most superfluous programs. With its policy in police and military assistance, the United States has collaborated in the acts of repression, and consequently in the violation of human rights”

For me, this quote nicely summarizes the Guatemalan political history from the 1950s-1970s in a nutshell. It is a history heavily laden with unjustified American intervention, political corruption, massive military participation, and human rights abuses on a very large scale. Unfortunately for the Guatemalan people, their recent history is just as shockingly corrupt and murder-filled as Argentina’s, although for significantly different reasons. The most noticeable difference between these two Latin American countries is the significant involvement of the United States in Guatemala’s domestic affairs. With this understanding I think it is fair to insinuate, or blatantly state as the above quotation eloquently does so, that the US is responsible for facilitating the human rights abuses that have occurred in Guatemala because of the significantly large role the America government played in overthrowing the democratically elected President, Arbenz.

When democratically elected Arbenz became President of Guatemala, he began to enact significant reforms in an effort to modernize his poor country. Land reforms, a common Latin American initiative, angered the monopolistic, American United Fruit Company because land was taken; the owners and investors of this multinational refused to sit by and allow the Guatemalan President to expropriate “their” land. Thus a call to overthrow the government was conjured up and supported by many American officials, including Dulles of the CIA (who was an investor in the United Fruit Company). Dulles managed to gain support for this coup from the American government by framing it as anti-communist campaign, designed to rid Guatemala of its supposedly pro-communist President and stop the dreaded spread of communism in the Western Southern hemisphere. Through a series of ill-conceived political and military manipulations, the US managed to oust Arbenz (through shear luck if you ask me) and (eventually) replace him with a military dictator, Castillo Armas. From 1954 until the 1980s (or at least as far as this book was written), Guatemala suffered through a series of unstable military dictatorships, each more brutal than the next. Unfortunately, following Arbenz’s exit and as seems to be characteristic of dictatorships, human rights were the next things to leave the country.

One common goal shared by each junta was a desire to rid Guatemala of any political opposition, especially any right leaning revolutionaries. Through a series of disappearances, kidnappings, mass killings, and murders, thousands of students, intellectuals, professionals, professors and basically any minutely educated persons, with the ability to create dissent, were silenced. Just as we saw in Argentina, state sponsored terrorism against its own people was frequently and indiscriminately employed against any person who could pose the slightest threat to the government. And once again, American governmental intervention, this time in the form of police training and governmental support, collaborated with the Guatemalan government to abuse its people and deny them basic freedoms, freedoms the millions of American citizens living a few countries away would dismantle their government for depriving them of. And so the infuriating and almost unbelievable American hypocrisy continued to thrive, causing utter chaos and disaster in a country far away from the American government’s “caring” eyes. Therefore, while both Argentina and Guatemala are undeniably guilty for state sponsored terrorism that killed thousands of people, it could be argued that Guatemala was propelled down this path by an outside force, whereas Argentina managed to get there largely by itself. American intervention, causing the demise of democracy in Guatemala, is at the very least partly responsible for the ensuing decades of human rights abuses, as it paved the way for ferociously corrupt and violent dictators to gain power and strip their people of the rights granted to them under democracy. 

Dirty War Officials Jailed...Finally

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/27/world/americas/argentina-dirty-war/index.html

This article is about the recent imprisonment of 18 ex-officials who were involved with the dirty war. I thought this fit really well with this week's readings, as it obviously touches upon many of the same situations and themes.
The article highlights a woman whose parents and grandmother were disappeared. She too was taken in 1977 but released a few days later (she was only 16 months). Never seeing her parents again, Marinela has waited thirty four years to see the people responsible for the death of her family, brought to justice. One thing that struck me about this article was that Marinela mentions running into the officer responsible for killing her parents, just as Mario mentions his encounters with his ex-torturers. This ex interrogator came into the bar Marinela was working at and she understandable had to pass him off to one of the other waitresses to serve him (they didn't even kick him out!?). It is so incomprehensible to me that so many examples of this type of situation have occured. The government that allowed criminals to walk free after the dirty war years, and that pardoned their crimes, should go to prison themselves. It is a crime that Marinela had to encounter and potentially SERVE the man who killed her family. Fortunately now (although incredibly late in timing) these dirty criminals are finally getting the punishment they deserve. Marinela, as other people who had family or friends disappeared during the war, expresses her sense of relief and satisfaction that they are finally being put behind bars. The fact that these monsters were able to walk the streets for almost thirty years after the war however is unforgivable.

Memories of an ex-desparacido

This weeks readings from a Lexicon of Terror were among the most disturbing and horrifying things I have ever read. Reading surviving desparacidos, or ex-desparacidos, testimonials about the time they spent in Argentinian concentration camps during the dirty war and the physical and psychological torture they endured was so incredibly upsetting that it is almost unimaginable that something like this could have occurred, and on such a large scale. The description of the forms of horrible torture imagined by sadists to "interrogate" the desparacidos was pretty close to unreadable. However for me what was most (unpleasantly) surprising was the idea that psychological torture was even MORE tormenting than physical torture. As Mario, the ex-desparacido in the second chapter describes, "physic torture was infinitely worse...Because it was constant" (76). I guess I had never really given it that much thought, but whenever I heard stories of concentration camp victims (such as Holocaust survivors) I immediately shuddered because of the pain  these poor people endured during sick, twisted torture sessions. I never realized that the psychological torture of waiting and wondering could actually be worse than mechanical, wound-producing torture itself. Mario describes how the torture of waiting for your next "interrogation session" or waiting to hear if your name was called to be "transferred" (which meant certain death) was infinitely more draining and painful than the physical pain of 220 volts running through your body.

In addition to this horrible death-waiting game desparacidos had no choice but to play, the interrogators and guards themselves contributed to the perverse psychological torture endured by the prisoners--apparently physical torture was just not enough.  One example I found particularly astonishing was the fact that the guards, in between their mechanical torture "interrogations," would come and play cards with the prisoners, in their cells, while they were still chained against the wall. How mind-numbingly cruel is it to play children's games with a person you just tortured within an inch of his life? Another example of this, as Mario states, was when the guards "allowed" the prisoners watch the World Cup final because Argentina was playing. This was particularly cruel because it was reminding the prisoners, and providing solid evidence, of the real world that was going on, business as usual, while these poor victims were held for no apparent reason and being mercilessly tortured everyday. Furthermore, by providing the desparacidos this glimpse of the outside world, they were offering a tiny shred of hope that they would escape the experience with their lives. Hope, as Mario underlined, was dangerous and could actually be the demise of a prisoner because with hope comes fear. Hopeless individuals, or prisoners like Mario who accepted the notion that they would not escape, seemed to fair better because this idea actually made them emotionally tougher and less easy to "break".

Another interesting revelation Mario alluded to was the idea that, in order to survive, one had to find a way to relate to the guards. Mario even states that he believes the reason he managed to survive five different concentration camps and make it out alive was because of his ability to understand and correctly interact with the guards. His first realization was that the guards were men themselves, and by envisaging them as monsters or beasts, this was actually doing yourself a disfavour. He also learned to understand the guards and to pick up on the little tests thrown his way. One such example was when one of the guards, after noticing Mario's girl companion was being "transferred" (i.e. murdered) he asked Mario if he was "alright" or going to be "ok" with his friend leaving, in a very paternalistic manner. Mario, intelligently realizing it was a test to see if his spirits were broken and he would therefore serve no more purpose for the guards, replied something along the lines of, "there are other fish in the sea". Had Mario admitted his true feelings about the girl being taken away, Mario very likely would have been on the next list of "transfers". Finally, Mario underlines the importance of learning the language of the interrogators, as the best protection against being arbitrarily murdered. He remarks that when he was first sent to the concentration camps, he could hardly understand what the guards were saying because they were using common, everyday terminology that has taken on new meanings in sinister setting of a camp. By learning the language of the guards and torturers, Mario says it had a way of uniting the prisoners with their torturers. He gives the example of going on a "field-trip" to a nearby cafe with other prisoners and guards. While sitting at a cafe, they are discussing the concentration camp and related details. At first Mario is aghast that they are talking about this in broad daylight, and wonder why no strangers are realizing that this odd assortment of people are actually desparacidos from a camp. He quickly realizes however that the language they are using is so limited and specific to the people who live within the walls of the camp that no one but someone who has been inside a camp for a lengthy duration of time would have any idea what they were saying. In this sense then, the idea that prisoners and tortures were speaking a 'new' and 'same' language, had the effect of uniting both groups. All of these tactics Mario learned to do, in order to relate and build quasi-relationships with the guards, managed to save his life. And he is not the only one. The author mentions that there are a number of examples of guards marrying the very people they were imprisoning--clearly other desparacidos learned how to survive in an environment so oppositely conducive to life.

While reading these chapters, I undoubtably was experiencing the same emotions as everyone else: shock, horror, revulsion, heart-break, and anger. Anger for me was one of the dominant emotions. I was angry that these abuses had happened, angry that torturers were complicit in carrying out the government's orders, and just generally angry about the unfairness of the entire ordeal. However, most infuriating for me was Mario's stories at the end of chapter two, in which he actually was forced to encounter his torturers AGAIN, even after he escaped the camps. The fact that those criminals were allowed to walk the streets after the murders they committed is inexcusable under every circumstance. I absolutely could not believe the gaul of Julian the Turk, who Mario ran into TWICE, after he was freed. The fact that the Turk tried to act like Mario's buddy and pretend that nothing unpleasant had ever happened between them was absolutely sickening and pitiful. He didn't even have the decency to at least given Mario the respect to apologize or walk away in the other direction when he saw him. Instead, by pretending to be an old friend, he tried to erase history through his fake friendliness and camaraderie. I was so appalled to learn that so many of the torturers and murders had been granted pardons under the new government that I did a little more research into the matter, to find out what happened to Julian the Turk. While researching, I came across an interview with the Turk and a journalist that the Turk had actually tortured at one of the concentration camps. Throughout almost the ENTIRE interview, Julian insists that he was not a torturer and that he had no idea what the journalist was talking about. It is not until the very end that Julian half admits to some of the atrocities he committed, but takes none of the blame for it and claims to have just been following orders. He even tries to play himself off as a "nice" interrogator who didn't go as hard on prisoners as he could have. The whole interview is sickening and yet very interesting to see an ex-"interrogator" forced to come to terms with (although he is apparently incapable of it) the crimes he committed and listen to the stories of someone he himself had tortured. I would give a standing ovation to the journalist for doing such a courageous interview if I could.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwzaJeYe2Nk <---- the interview, check it out if you have time, very interesting.

Peruvian Forced Sterilization

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2011/10/peru-to-reopen-probe-into-forced-sterilization-of-hundreds-of-women.html




This short article from the Los Angeles Times reports about the Peruvian government's decision to reopen the case of forced or uniformed sterilization of impoverished women during the 1990s. Carried out under President Alberto Fujimori's regime, this practice was undertaken as a supposed attempt to reduce poverty, especially in the highland areas. Only now, some twenty years later, is the despicable policy getting the negative attention it deserves.


I had never heard about this forced sterilization in Peru specifically, although I was aware of it in other cases, such as to mentally handicapped people during the Holocaust. Talk about a human rights abuse, this for me is one of the most explicit examples of a human right violation. By forcing women (or tricking them) into undergoing sterilization processes, the government is effectively taking away the women's right to decide if she wants to create a family (at least biologically) and it also infringing on a women's right to do what she wishes with her own body. I hope this investigation brings the perpetrators of this policy to justice, although it will not give these women their ability to bear children back, nor bring those women who died from such procedures, and their families, much relief or satisfaction.

Argentina Case Study Number One

This week's readings, while all obviously shared themes of abuse and violations committed in or relating to Argentina in the 1970s-80s, were also similar in their tone and mood. Specifically, there were all written in an incredibly dark and somber manner, which is only fitting for the subject matter discussed. I don't mean to point out the obvious but I think it is terribly heart breaking for the Argentinian people that their history is one filled with such horrible images and accounts of mass murders, torture, exile, war, and countless other inhumane experiences. As a Canadian I suppose I take our (relatively) peaceful history for granted and therefore can't imagine how generation after generation of Argentinians (and many other nations with violent histories) have been affected by the horrific abuses of their pasts. I think it's remarkable that people who have suffered such extreme atrocities at the hands of their own unjust and oppressive governments, have been able to continue on and find strength to keep fighting against what is wrong, after virtually everything has been taken away from them. While reading this week's collections therefore, I was shocked to learn about the inhumanities committed in Argentina, by one human being to another, but even more amazed by the courage and perseverance exemplified by those who suffered the most, to keep on living, thriving, and fighting to end abuse.

The Madres of the the Plaza de Mayo, perhaps a Latin American rights group most of us are familiar with, is a prime example of this remarkable Argentinian courage. These mothers, who refused to accept that their loved ones, unlawfully captured by the government and police, were gone forever and so they quite literally took matters into their own hands, marching to court and judges, pleading habeus corpus for those disappeared. When the police started the rumour that they were crazed, pathetic women, the Madres continued on and pulled more women into their demonstration. They even went to far as to capture international media coverage during the world cup, despite the presence of the dictatorial government and police force watching their every move. These women demanded answers and demanded the return of those taken from them. They stood up to the government even after members were detained and held in prison. In short, these remarkable women said a big eff you to the government, and demonstrated that they would not be intimidated into silence and would keep causing trouble until their loved ones were rightfully returned to them.

Never Again, the compilation of Argentinian prisoners' accounts of the torture they endured during detainment by the police was a truly horrifying read. The fact that there exist human beings capable of exerting so much pain on other individuals and actually get some sort of twisted pleasure out of it makes me want to lock my door and never leave my house again.  The testimonials of those people, and the thousands of untold stories of those who died under such torturous conditions, document some of the most despicable acts of mankind. And yet, I believe there is some purpose to reporting these horrible events. The people who recounted their traumas should be commended for reliving these experiences so that the people who committed such crimes can be caught and punished, and (optimistically) stop such crimes from ever occurring again. I have called this optimistic however, and probably naivee, because regardless of the number of survivors stories, such as these, that we read or hear, there will continue to be new stories in the future because bad people will continue to be moulded from society and live to commit horrible crimes.

With this in mind then, I sometimes do wonder about the importance or necessity of human rights. Inherently 'good' people (I use this term loosely to mean the average person that doesn't have a thirst for blood or violence) will be nice to other people, and respect other peoples' so called rights. But bad people, as has been made obvious by history (*cough* Hitler), will harm other people, regardless if there is a piece of paper restricting such actions because they infringe on a supposed human right. The very notion of a human right is such a sociological, intangible construct that it basically means nothing and holds little weight in the real world. It's all well and nice to sit around and talk about the need to declare the universal rights that every human being should enjoy, but the inability to enforce these rights makes them essentially useless and a waste of time. How did the UN Universal Declaration of Rights help the Madres protect their loved ones from the government? How did it enable the victims from "Never Again" to escape torture? How did human rights stop 30,000 Argentinians from being captured, tortured, and killed by their own government, the very body that is supposed to enforce such rights? The existence of "human rights" did nothing to protect the Argentinians and millions like them, who had the severe misfortune of being targeted by bad, violent people.

Chavez says goodbye to Gadhafi

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/21/world/americas/venezuela-chavez-gadhafi/index.html


This article relates to our discussion regarding the classification of dictators. One student (sorry can't remember who) pointed out that one person's dictator is another person's freedom fighter (or something to that extent). This was perhaps one of the reasons we had a difficult time reaching a consensus regarding who would be included in the "dictators" section of our human rights museums. 
This article reports President Chavez's response to the news that his "good friend" President Gadhafi had been killed. Chavez is reported as having said that Gadhafi was a, "great fighter, a revolutionary and a martyr" and that he would miss his friend. While I think its safe to say that the vast majority of the world would consider Gadhafi to have been a dictator and tyrant rather than a revolutionary and martyr, it is important for us to keep in mind that there will always be those people who go against the status quo and support people who have committed terrible crimes because they do believe the person was justified in their actions. Therefore reaching agreement over who will be historically labelled  a dictator 100s of years from now is not easy and is definitely not black and white. The rulers we consider dictators will always have supporters that honor them as brave revolutionaries or martyrs. 

Rights in Latin America

The Angostura address, written by Simon Bolivar, is a document that calls for a reorganization of the federalist government system in Venezuela. Bolivar insists that he is an adherent believer in equality among men (note, MEN not WOmen) and believes that laws are what make men equal, even though naturally, men are not created equally (for example there are different levels of intelligence, ability, talent, morality, etc.). Laws are the equalizing factor that provides men the ability to educate themselves and prosper within a society. The only way to ensure this equality however is through a republican state.

Bolivar also points out that is impossible and foolish to try to apply laws created in one country (such as the United States) to another (such as Venezuela) without taking into consideration the different histories, cultures, religions, etc. of the two countries. Bolivar feels this lack of consideration is why the political system (in 1819) in Venezuela was not working as it should and why Venezuela was not prospering the way the US did after its implementation of a democratic system.

            A particularly interesting part of the document is Bolivar’s statement that he believes a hereditary senate, rather than elected would be more beneficial for keeping the government stable because the senate would be responsible to no one but the state itself. In this sense, it is within the senates’ best interest to keep the government stable and it would therefore naturally do whatever it must to achieve national stability and general happiness. I thought this seemed a little strange as it effectively takes away the freedom of choice for those (presumably sons) born to senators of future employment. From a young age they would be subjected to all matters of education and training to prepare them for their future senator position without ever being asked if that is what they wished to do with their life (unless I am completely misunderstanding what Bolivar intended).

            Bolivar concludes that while he believes in a system of checks and balances (and therefore the tripartite division of government) he believes this decentralization of authority usually has the effect of making democracies weak and it is for this reason most great democracies have failed. Bolivar therefore calls for a centralist rather than federalist organization to government that gives the president more power and more capability to yield power over the country. In the end he believes that a stable government can be achieved by finding a happy medium between pacifying the general will of the people and curtailing public authority.

            Margaret Crehan’s article regarding the evolution of the Latin American state divides the history of Latin America into three sections: the Colonial Heritage, Neo-Colonialism, and the Modern State. The first stage of LA history apparently begins with the Spanish colonization. Under Spanish rule the Americas were carved up into vast tracks of land through which the Spaniards could derive resources to help their fledgling economy. Important (rich) persons were appointed to look after the land and keep the native people under control. As such, the vast majority of the population was treated as second-class ( or even third class) citizens with very few rights.

            The second stage is neo-colonialism, which as Crehan points out, was basically a transfer of colonial power from the Spanish to America and Europe. Even though the wars of independence had occurred, Latin America was still heavily economically reliant on Europe and the US due to the emergence of export-economies. After independence, newly formed LA countries toyed with the possibility of democratic and republican government. However, these were often weak or futile, and the majority of the population still enjoyed few rights, while the power of the country lay in the hands of a privileged elite.

The development of the modern state has largely been an experiment of dictatorships and military coups. Crehan blames the weak democracies inability to maintain order during the world war years as reason for the emergence of so many military dictatorships in the mid-20^th century. Also, the economic support given by America, the most powerful nation, to ensure LA countries didn’t turn towards socialism (as the wayward Cubans!) helped prop of dictatorship and fund corruption. Needless to say, the status of human rights by the turn of the century has been less than exemplary as nations are just beginning to build democracies, and attempt to succeed where they failed in the past.

Cuba: Right to Buy Homes

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/03/world/americas/03cuba.html?_r=1&ref=americas

This article from the New York Times is about the monumental reform policy that is to be implemented in Cuba by the end of the year: Cuban citizens will, by 2012, legally have the right to buy and own their own homes. For socialist Cuba, this is a huge step. Until now, the government has owned all property and Cubans have been perpetual renters. With the passing of this new law however, Cubans will be taking a big step into the capitalist world and will be allowed to purchase their own homes.
Drawing from our class discussions on human rights, I was completely unaware and shocked to learn that Cubans do not possess the right to own private property. After all, all of the documents regarding human rights that we have read declare the right to property (or land) to be a "fundamental" human right. Following this logic then, all Cubans have been deprived of a basic human right for a very long time.

However, this article made me realize that the human rights doctrines that we have read have all been written from the point of view of a capitalist society (hence the right to private ownership). If a communist were to write a declaration of rights, the right to property would not be included (hence communism and a sharing of resources). Therefore from a communist perspective, Cubans have not been denied a basic right (with regards to a lack of right to property). I just think it is interesting that I had never before considered that human rights doctrines are created with an economic ideology in mind (therefore all of the "Western" rights documents we have read have also been capitalist ones, as that has been the dominant economic system in the Western world since the revolutions of the late 18th century). I wonder what other differences between human rights would exist on a communist written doctrine versus one written by a capitalist.

Human Rights and Wrongs

I enjoyed reading Galeano’s Memory of Fire because it is unlike any historical narrative I have ever read. The way Galeano writes, by creating a vivid picture of each short account he is describing, makes these historic snippets that much more powerful and real. While each of the vignettes may not be one hundred percent historically accurate, by combining them all into one narrative the reader is able to see the big picture of what Galeano is trying portray—the incredibly violent and brutal history of Latin America.

Each story (for the most part—there were a couple of seemingly random inclusions of famous people) describes a scene in South American history, and most of these are riddled with violence, racism, exploitation, or some other form of human right abuse. The stories deal with a wide variety of atrocities, including extreme racism in Peru, the massacre of Granada, revenge of the Mayan army over the “whites”, exploitation of workers building railways, black slavery, Chinese slavery, corrupt dictators, coup d’états, and Native American exploitation. There is a recurrent theme, and mention, of a privileged few dominating the masses, usually in regards to the privatization of land that benefitted the small aristocratic class and caused hunger and starvation for the vast majority of the poor populations. Before reading these stories I had a very limited knowledge of Latin American history. Now however, I can say without a shred of doubt that the history of South America is probably one of the most brutal and violent in the world. I think its safe to say that human rights did not exist, for the majority of the population, except for those privileged few (white men? Isn’t it always the case) who managed to snag power for a brief moment in time.

The second reading, as I’m sure most will agree, was quite intense and extremely grotesque in some instances. Fifteen million Native Americans killed in 50 years---wow!! Not only is that horrifying but it is unimaginable, especially considering this happened in the mid 16^th century, when methods for mass murder, such as bombs and heavy machinery, had not even been invented yet. The magnitude of this--I think its fair to say—genocide is despicable and almost too terrible to comprehend.  The fact that the Spaniards were killing the indigenous people for no other reason but out of shear greed is even more sickening. What was most troubling to me was the innocence and naïveté of the Native Americans. Las Cajas gives example after example of the same cyclical Spanish massacre that seemed to occur in most of the “new world”. The Spaniards would arrive, and be treated with nothing but respect and welcoming from the Native Americans. The Spaniards would then proceed to start their mass killings, usually involving the assassination of one of the most important leaders or chiefs. Eventually the indigenous people would realize that the Spaniards were not to be trusted and would form a resistance movement. This however would prove to be to no avail because the advanced technology and weaponry of the Spanish left the Native Americans all but defenseless. And so entire populations—men, women, children, babies, the elderly—would be wiped out or sold into slavery.  Just despicable.

            After reading this week’s readings, I think labeling this week as “Wrongs in Latin America” is an adequate, if not too lenient, a title. I cannot recall one passage from either of these lengthy articles that would merit recognition as an adherence to a human right. The list of human “wrongs” however could fill many, many pages. The fact that human beings have been, are, and will be so cruel to one another is dishearteningly heartbreaking and eye opening at the same time. What is the point of crusading for human rights when people are so capable, and willing, to commit human wrongs?

Illegal? Immigrants

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/03/world/americas/mexican-immigrants-repeatedly-brave-risks-to-resume-lives-in-united-states.html?_r=1&ref=americas

This weeks article is about illegal Mexican immigrants crossing the border into the United States. I think it is so unnecessary to deport Mexican (technically illegal) immigrants who have been living and working in the US for, in some cases, most of their lives and contributing to the American economy. One man interviewed for the article said he has lived in the US for over twelve years, has a wife and an American son, and has three brothers also living in the US. However, the man recently got deported for driving on an expired drivers license. Is it fair to say that this man does not have the right to live in the US? His entire family lives there, his son is an AMERICAN citizen, and yet he was deported back to Mexico, with no hope or inclination as to when he may be able to be reunited with his family.

I personally do not understand why the government exhausts so much time and money on the issue of illegal immigration, especially when the vast majority of "illegals" are average, relatively young people, who are leaving Mexico to escape violence and are therefore merely in search of a better life. While it is true that some illegals that cross the border work for drug cartels and conduct other illegal business, this is a relatively small percentage of the Mexicans who cross the border. Instead of spending $12,500 PER PERSON that is deported, why doesn't the government save that money and leave well enough alone--let the illegal immigrants, who have already suffered so much to get to where they are, continue living peacefully and undisturbed, especially since all they want is a safe place to raise family--they are doing no harm  (and do NOT tell me they are taking away jobs--most Mexican immigrants are forced to work at jobs that pay below minimum wage, receive no benefits and are hard labour, jobs Americans would not work at for so little money). Why doesn't the government spend that 12,500 (per person!!) cracking down on other, more serious problems within their country (healthcare, education, low-income housing, crime...to name a few).

The redefinition of human rights?

The readings this week share the common idea that human rights have ended or never really existed in the first place. Rather, some believe, they are ideological constructs perpetuated by the Western world, in an unconscious (of conscious?) effort to spread Western beliefs and values around the world, and smother other forms of cultural diversity. Here are my thoughts on two of the readings (space constraint prohibits me from sharing my thoughts on all of the readings).

The Ideology of Human Rights

Mutua is very pessimistic about the idea of human rights. He is one that believes human rights, as they are defined and exist today, have only evolved from the Western perspective of what is right and wrong, and primarily serve to promote an ideology, namely Western democratic liberalism and capitalism. He therefore insists that that the human rights movement of the post-1945 era is merely an evolution and branching off of the Western liberal democratic ideology, and as a result, insists that human rights movements are in fact a political ideology centred around Western norms and values. The more I read of Mutua, the more I started to see his side of the debate. While I may not necessarily agree with him, here are some of the thoughts I was having while reading his paper and comprehending his argument:

Is the idea that we are responsible for bringing human rights to the rest of the world (namely the global south) not a continuation of the “white man’s burden,” our crusade to right the “wrongs” in countries, to help the “others” in backward nations. Is this not another form of a Western superiority complex—what we are doing is right and therefore what anyone else does is wrong? From this perspective, we don’t take into consideration the values and cultures of other nations. We are culturally insensitive and only pushing our liberal democratic ideals onto other people, who do not necessarily want it, but only think they do because that is what the “superior” Western cultures are doing. Is it not a form of propaganda?

Also, is it a coincidence that most INGOs concerned with “human rights” have arisen out of the West (as opposed to the global South, or even developed Asian countries such as China, Japan etc.). Why don’t we have as many organizations from the South promoting human rights as we do from the North? Furthermore, why is it that the heads of the these organizations are either “Westerners” or Western educated? Is it because this is the only way to ensure that they will embrace and promote the values Western liberalism?

Mutua also points out that most human rights authors state (whether it be explicitly or implicitly) the notion of an inescapable link between human rights and democracy; it is insinuated that human rights cannot prosper without a democratically elected government in which citizens have the legal right to vote and participate in the democratic process of choosing a leader, who will then govern them, according to the laws of human rights. These authors suggest that a dictatorship will never be a suitable breeding ground for practicing human rights and thus we must turn the world into an entirely democratic system if we want “human rights” to thrive.

I like the idea of cultural agnostics—people who believe human rights would be more accurately defined if different cultures, not just the Western ideals and values, were taken into consideration. Mutua points out that if this were to occur, it is very likely that different cultures would find that they agree on many of the same issues—the important thing here is to incorporate other cultures’ values into defining what a human right is, rather than pushing our Western definition onto them.

The role the United States has played in equating human rights with democracy has also been important to defining human rights in a strictly Western perspective. For example Regan linked democracy with a promotion of human rights when garnering support for the fight against communism: he propagandized that a vote for democracy was a vote for freedom (the fundamental principle of a human right, is it not?) and that it was necessary to save the Soviet people from the political system that was stealing their rights away.

Beyond Human Rights:

From this article I realized it is important to note the distinction between refugee and a stateless person. A refugee is fleeing political, economic, social, or environmental persecution or hazards while a stateless person does not belong to a specific country. It is interesting however that a refugee can decide to become a stateless person, but a stateless person is not necessarily a refugee. Furthermore, it was remarkable that at one time, powers, such as Fascist Italy, could strip a person of their nationality if they committed an act that was un-Italian. This apparently gave the government the right to take away a person’s right to belong to a certain group or classification of people (i.e. Italian).

I was also interested in the rather optimistic notion of creating an “aterritorial” Europe—one without state boundaries that create hostilities between governments and thus refugees would be free to flow in and out of.  This however is a very idealist dream and I severely doubt will be attainable, at least not in my lifetime. There are too many contradicting factors, such as different cultures, languages, religions, beliefs etc. that will keep a landmass, such as Europe, with millions of people from different backgrounds, from melding into one giant super country. The idea of a world without national boundaries however is incredibly enticing. Would that not solve many of our biggest problems today (for instance the fight between Israel and Palestine over recognition of territorial rights)?

Chilean Student Protests

http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/23/world/americas/chile-student-protest/index.html

This article is about student protestors' encounters with police forces who were ordered to break up the students' demonstrations. The students have been protesting for many months now over privatization of education in Chile. Students demand education to be more "accessible" and privatization limits the ability of poorer families ability to send their children to school.
I believe the Chilean government is only shooting themselves in the foot by attempting to privatize education. Sure for now it might save the government some extra money and force parents to pay for their children's education. Down the road however, they are going to realize this actually costs them MORE than it benefits them as they are going to have a whole generation of children who were unable to attend school due to cost limitations. A generation of undereducated youth will be a nightmare for the Chilean government as they will have a workforce that is unskilled and will be a heavy burden on the welfare state. Therefore, the government's attempt to privatize education (and basically take away the right of education from poorer families by taking away their ability to benefit from public education) is an ill-advised move indeed. Sending in the police to forcefully stop these demonstrations is just icing on the- human-rights-abuse-cake.

image110923102428-chile-student-protest-story-top.jpg

Capital Punishment and Women's Rights

While reading the "Social Contract" by Rousseau, one section that particularly stood out for me was chapter five, "The Right of Life and Death." In this section Rousseau discusses the legality of the death penalty, specifically as the punishment for killing another man. Rousseau contends that, since man gives up some of his "natural" freedoms when joining the social contract (the contract that basically gives order to society), and acknowledges this fact by living in a society governed by law, he similarly acknowledges the punishments set out for breaking the laws of that society. It Rousseau's time, fact the penalty for murder was capital punishment. Therefore, by committing murder, the murderer has broken the social treaty agreed upon by the sovereign (the people as a collective) and has become an enemy of the state. Rousseau believes that an enemy of the state and the state itself cannot coexist, and so the only reasonable solution to resolve this problem, other than the dissolution of the state, is to exterminate the enemy.  Given the fact that the murderer understood the societies' punishment for murder, before he committed the crime, it is logical and fair for the killer to be executed by the state. 

The reason I was particularly interested by this section is because of the current debate going on now about the use of the death penalty, specifically in the United States. In light of a couple of capital punishment executions last week, there has been an international backlash against the use of such punishment, especially in a so-called "first-world" country. Personally, I have always been against capital punishment simply because I think it is almost a gentler to punishment to kill someone and put them out of their misery, rather than to subject them to a life-long sentence in a maximum security prison, where they will be treated incredibly harshly for the rest of their miserable lives. That aside however, after reading Rousseau's understanding of the legality of capital punishment, I was almost convinced to change my opinion. For me, Rousseau's explanation of the use of capital punishment makes complete and logical sense. If the known penalty for murder is state execution, and someone commits first degree murder anyway (I'll limit this argument to the case of first degree murder), it seems reasonable for the state to convict the criminal and sentence him to death. Punishments are in place to deter people from breaking laws. If a society decides that they want their punishment for murder to be capital punishment, that is their right as a sovereign society. That is the social contract they are entering into and agreeing upon and it is therefore the right of the government to execute a murderer, as they are adhering to the common will.  Therefore, if a person knows the consequence of breaking a law, and yet does so anyway? Society has every right to punish them, in the way they agreed upon when creating and agreeing upon their social contract.

Another document that was intriguing to me, as I'm sure it was to many others simply because it is so unlike anything we have read thus far, was the "Declaration of the Rights of Woman and the Female Citizen" by Georgia de Goughes.  The feminist document was quite interesting to read because it is the first time we see a woman sticking up for our rights as equal human beings. What was most interesting to me however was the fact that, unlike all of the documents which prescribe strictly to the rights of man, de Goughes does not exclude the opposite sex in her Declaration of Rights, but merely surmises that men and women should be equals. Rather than writing a vindictive diatribe against men as payback for being left out of centuries of rights documents, de Goughes is the bigger person and includes, perhaps for the first time, both sexes in one document. Furthermore, she doesn't believe women should get preferential treatment (as say, every other document written before hers did with reference to men). Rather she is merely campaigning for utter equality in all matters of the law-- "No woman is an exception; she is accused, arrested, and detained in cases determined by law. Women, like men, obey this rigorous law." I greatly appreciate and respect de Goughes document and cannot imagine the courage it must have taken for her to put out such a radical and progressive statement, at a time when women were still regarded as secondary citizens.  We owe the success of the women's rights movement to de Goughes and others like her that kicked the status quo in the butt and demanded equality in an unequal world.

Tweeters in Mexico

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/americas/09/07/mexico.twitter.analysts/index.html

This article is about a couple of Mexican twitter users who falsely "tweeted" about attacks occurring at a couple of schools. The tweets caused such a reaction, as parents desperately rushed to their children's schools, that the city was in a bit of a state of chaos and numerous traffic accidents and other minor calamities resulted. The tweeters were discovered and the government is seeking to charge them on accounts of terrorism and sabotage--crimes that warrant upwards of 30 years in Mexican prison. However, the lawyers, and civil rights activists, are arguing that such a sentence, or any sentence at all, is completely preposterous as the tweeters were merely exercising their right of freedom of speech (or tweet as the case may be).
When I first started reading the article, I was appalled that the Mexican government would so blatantly disregard such a "fundamental" human right as freedom of speech. But then I got to thinking that maybe it wasn't so black and white. The tweeters (indirectly) caused bodily harm to those parents who got into accidents in their rush to get to their kids. The "fundamental" freedoms of humans are granted only so long as they don't cause harm to other human beings. Therefore, it seems fair to conclude that the tweeters were partially responsible for causing chaos in the city and should therefore receive some sort of punishment. Make the punishment fit the crime however, thirty years in prison seems a bit steep. Community service or some other form of minor punishment does not seem an outrageous infringement on human rights--the tweeters did something bad, and following logic, such an act deserves some sort of retribution.
This article brings out the much larger question of how technology and social media sites play into our basic rights. Because of the anonymity the internet and social networking sites afford users, it is becoming increasingly easier for people to anonymously hide behind what they say on the internet--all you need to do is create a pseudonym and you have instant ability to say whatever you want, without anyone finding out who you are. This has positive and negatives consequences which I will not get into. At what point can we keep granting freedom of speech, especially when it starts to physically harm others? Something to consider...
 My main point is, however, when dealing with issues such as human rights infringements, it is never black and white. You have to take into account the whole picture, examine it from both sides, and then decide, for your own self, if a human right has been violated. It is highly unlikely that everyone will ever fully agree on what constitutes human rights abuses.

Human and Civil Rights

One of the first things that struck me while reading these documents on human rights was the number of times that God was mentioned, especially in the earlier documents. While I understand and am happy to recognize that the time period most of these documents were written in was one where God was placed above everything else in society, I do not see the logic or necessity of including "Him" in some of the more recent documents. Take for example our own Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, written a mere 29 years ago. At the very beginning it declares, "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law" and then continues to list the various human rights awarded to all Canadian subjects. This inclusion of God simply bothers me for some reason. It's like saying, we as Canadians have been granted these so-called undeniable human rights, not by our government, but by God, some elusive, intangible being. And then, the very first article under the fundamental freedoms of Canadian citizens is, "a right to conscience and religion." Really?? Then why is there a mention of God not two sentences before? What if, God forbid, someone is agnostic or an atheist? Then the mention of God, in their charter of rights and freedoms, seems kind of hypocritical. It reads to me that there IS freedom of religion, as long as you pick one--none of this atheist, non-believer nonsense. The inclusion of God, in a legal document, seems so unnecessary and even discriminatory as not all people believe in God. So then, are these nonbelievers not deserving of the same rights and freedoms as the good worshipping folk? I guess what really bugs me is that we, as a society, have claimed to have established a separation of church and state and yet some of our most important documents still have mention of God and simply assume that everyone has a faith (whether it be Christianity, Islam, Judaism Buddhism, Sikhism etc.) when this is simply not the case.

Another point I wanted to think about, which, as I skimmed briefly through some of my peers responses they also seem to be questioning, is what is the point to drawing up these documents? What actual purpose do they serve? It's all very nice and comforting to write a series of declarations, trumpeting the various "fundamental" or "unalienable" rights we enjoy as human beings. But to what avail? Sure as a society we pat ourselves on the back, and commend ourselves for being an enlightened nation that cares about not only Canadian, but other nationalities' human rights as well (as our inclusion in the UN and the resulting Universal Declaration of Human Rights we adhere to). But then what? After those papers are signed and then given to the public to read, does that really change anything? Is reading about the clauses of non-discrimination going to change a racist person's outlook on people with different skin color? Probably not. I believe these documents aren't going to affect the way anyone thinks or acts towards other people. Maybe I'm hugely cynical and not giving other people a fair chance, but I'm trying to be realistic and from what I've seen, it takes a lot more than a document promoting human rights to change how people act towards others that are different from them. 

Now, having ranted and raved about the shortcomings and peculiarities I see in these documents, I want to clarify that I don't think they are useless or without purpose. I think they give (especially the UN Universal Declaration of Rights) something for us, as a global community to strive for. I can't say I disagree with any of the human rights laid out (at least the ones from the 20th century) although i would include a few things (sexual orientation? a right to NO religion?). THese documents are admirable goals but I think we all know we are kidding ourselves if we think that just the shear acknowledgement of such rights necessitates that they are actually being adhered to. We've got many miles to go before we have actually attained "universal" human rights around the globe (or even within our own country). 

About Me

Hey everyone,
My name is Petra Arnold-Bowen and I am fourth year International Relations student. I am taking this course because I am interested in human rights issues around the world. I grew up most of my life overseas in Germany, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Switzerland. Consequently, I've had the opportunity to be immersed in many different cultures and witness different countries' stance on human and civil rights. Latin America is a region I know relatively little about and so I am looking forward to learning more about the area. In the future I hope to be employed in a human rights related field and so I hope this class will be a good starter course to send me in the right direction. See you all Monday--cheers.