Showing posts with label university of washington. Show all posts
Showing posts with label university of washington. Show all posts
Sunday, June 21, 2009

Iran: Hope for the Green Revolution


As the situation in Iran deteriorates, we can only hope and wish that a positive outcome will result for this conflicted country: a complete reversal from the dictatorial clutches of its suffocating theocracy.

Recent reports show that the brutal death of 16-year-old Neda Soltani, an innocent bystander who was shot during a street rally, is pushing the Iranian people onto the brink - the brink of a revolution that this region so desperately needs.

Iranians are hungry for democratic reform. They are tired of being dismissed as a rogue state that threatens nuclear destruction by the international community. The Iranians are denouncing their crazed leader
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with shouts of "death to the dicator!", particularly shocking in a nation that brutally supresses free speech and executes individuals for infidelity.

The Iranian leadership scoffed at President Obama's previous overtures for open dialogue, but the images and footage of protests online indicate that the people think otherwise.

We need to continue to support the Iranian people by providing them with today's weapons: access and resources to the Internet, online support groups, blogs, anything that will give them a voice for the rest of the world to hear, the voice that truly represents the real Iran boiling beneath the grip of a Hitlerish madman and his brainwashed minions.

- Anthony Shelley

Image courtesy of Daily News.

Saturday, May 30, 2009

Back on Track


First and foremost, I would like to thank our readers for waiting earnestly for UWJHR to return with updates and activities. For the past eight months, enormous changes have occurred throughout the world that have been both extremely positive and disappointing.

Our current goal is to provide somewhat of a bulletin board that will expose blatant attacks (from all over the globe) against journalistic freedom alongside our regular blog entries. Below is an example of a bulletin board update.

  1. Journalists accompanying President Obama on his trip to Saudi Arabia were threatened with "arrest and detention by Saudi authorities" if they reported on anything other than the president's visit.




Image courtesy of AFP/Getty
Sunday, September 14, 2008

A New Direction

Dear Readers,

Please bear with us as the University of Washington Journalists for Human Rights chapter undergoes changes in terms of the online newsletter and the overall direction of the group. We hope to keep the newsletter constantly updated and expand our activities in advocacy, collaboration, and raising funds for the causes that we support.

Thank you for patience.

- Anthony Shelley
Wednesday, August 20, 2008

Save Georgia.




Sign the petition and show your support for the free world. Make a stand against tyranny and oppression. Save Georgia.

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/save-georgia.html



Image courtesy of The Telegraph.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008

The World Around Us: Colombia

"Injustice for the Indigenous"
Nick Wong

Colombia's history of drug trafficking, extortion, and brutal assassinations have significantly diminished, but have not completely disappeared. A strong public sentiment exists that the current president, Alvaro Uribe, attempts to paint a picture that the civil war has long passed, but political kidnappings still occur and journalists continued to be murdered for reporting too close to the situation. While the combat has drastically calmed, (to the point where I can travel the country relatively safely), the after-effects of this tragic history remain prevalent.

Like most civil conflicts, the marginalized demographic suffers the most, which in Colombia's case means the indigenous and Afro-Colombians. According to codhes.org, Colombia is the world's leading country of displaced people with the majority being disproportionately Afro-Colombian. Many are moved from their war-torn home towns to bigger cities, like the country's capital, Bogotà.

Colombia's cities are divided into "stratas", ranging from 1 to 6; the ranking indicating accordingly the area's local income, availability of public services and so on. Not surprisingly, most politically displaced people are relocated in "strata 1 or strata 2" areas, often time the least government supported and also the most dangerous parts of the city. And as if things weren't difficult enough, adequate employment is hard to come by in a city as populated as Bogotà (estimated population 9 million).

Whether fabricated by media or true in reality, the former injustices that define Colombia's reputation have since lessened considerably, but a new form of human rights issues spawn from the past. While perhaps not as viciously obvious, it is still equally problematic at its core.
Friday, June 27, 2008

Political Commentary

"Conscription… or You May Know it As…"

Elliot Jacobsen

The military draft. Those words are being etched back into our everyday speech in such a subtle way that to many, it goes undetected. Lawmakers talk about it using code words and disguised speech in order to keep the option alive but not tip the public to the eventual application of the idea.

The United States tends to boast our status of having one of the world's only all-volunteer armed forces but as our undeterred elected warmongers continue to advance their quest of profiteering by force, that claim will be forgotten due to the basic necessity of disposable soldiers. We are stretched to the very limit of every branch of our military due to the forgotten war in Afghanistan and the unlawful invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq.

This past month has also brought us rumors and renewed lobbying that inch us ever closer to a conflict with Iran. With the looming possibility of three wars within a year's time, I beg the question, when (not if) will the draft begin?

John McCain, the Republican Nominee for President, stated on June 24th that only World War III would justify the resurrection of the practice. He was hoping that people wouldn't realize that World War III is in its infancy stages as we speak. He supports military action in Iran. He stated that he could see an occupation of Iraq lasting 100 years.

He has vowed to continue the fruitless hunt for Osama bin Laden and the continued battle against the Taliban in Afghanistan. He has done nothing to smooth extremely strained diplomatic ties with Pakistan. His campaign has used the idea of another domestic terrorist attack as a political advantage over his opponent. John McCain seems to be pushing World War III so that he would be able, by his own words, justify a military draft.

Conscription is the actual term for a draft. It is the mandatory service of an individual demanded by their government. The penalty for non conformity is incarceration in the prison of their choosing. The irony of a Country who at its fundamental core was based on the simple ideal of individual freedom also possessing the ability to rob you of that central virtue at the whim of a warmonger should be lost on no American.

Conscription is a legal form of military slavery in which a citizen simply has no choice and is given no consideration concerning their moral compass. Conscription gives no mind to basic human right we all have to decide for ourselves whether the value of the conflict is worth the cost of one's life. John McCain is leading us down the path were conscription, the military draft, will tear apart the very foundation this land is built on and he is asking for our vote in prime position to make it a reality.

A McCain presidency will lead to forced military service - "insert your name here".

We still have a choice though. We can choose to stand in the way of the stripping of our freedom and vote against John McCain. It is a choice we must consider with great diligence and hold in the highest regard because one day soon, the very ability to make a choice could be taken from us.

Monday, June 23, 2008

The World Around Us: The Philippines


"Philippine Ferry Deaths Reveal More than Typhoon Tragedy"
Anthony Shelley


Reuters reported that rescue efforts for the 800 people missing from the capsized Princess of the Stars ferry near Sibuyan Islands in the Philippines ended today. Only 20 were mentioned to have survived the tragic trip.

What makes this incident especially provoking is the sad fact that safety precautions are rarely taken during inter-island ferry travel in the Philippines. As a predominately poor nation, the lower class are forced to use this method of transportation which usually involves the use of dilapidated ferries.


I've ridden those ferries, traveling from the main island of
Luzon to Samar - the experience is very fresh in my memory. Witnessing a typhoon in action is also an event that I won't soon forget either; fortunately, I wasn't present on a boat and traveling out to sea during such bad weather conditions.


The Philippines is a country of great beauty but danger as well. There are basically no rules while traveling the roads. Children constantly risk the chance of getting struck of a vehicle by playing in the streets.


Bus drivers speed recklessly to reach their intended destinations before zipping off to other locations and packing on as many people and objects (to the point of excess) on the bus without regards to safety and security.


As long as the Filipino government continues to allow its suffocating atmosphere of corruption to exist, much-needed transportation funding will continue to be ignored, streets will crumble, old ferries will sink, and innocent lives will be lost.



Images courtesy of Reuters.

Political Commentary

"Don't Poke the Bear in the Cage, John"
Elliot Jacobsen

The Associated Press reported this tonight:

“Sen. John McCain called Wednesday for the construction of 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030…"

This comes after months and months of propaganda circulating about the nuclear aspirations of Iran. George Bush is slowly building a case with the support of John McCain to support a “hypothetical” invasion of Iran. They defend their upcoming increased pressure by telling the American people they are using “every avenue” of diplomacy.

We all know this is a blatant lie.

George Bush and John McCain have a quite dubious record of accomplishment being anything but diplomatic. The war in Iraq handled poorly, poorly pitched, and the fact it still rages at this hour should be the first warning sign of certain failure of Bush and McCain’s “Cowboy Diplomacy.” This call for 45 nuclear reactors is one more in the many foreign policy failures we have made these past 8 years.

Let us elaborate on the connection here.

Bush’s policy in Iran is that they as a country may not have any nuclear aspirations at all. They may not enrich uranium. They simply need to delete the word nuclear from their collective lexicon. George Bush has been selling the war to Americans as some sort of doomsday event if Iran does harness nuclear energy. We all must remember this speech:



I really do not understand this sort of rhetoric. On one hand, these people speak on diplomacy but on the next breath, speak of a World War III fear tactic. Now with 45 proposed additional power plants that John McCain would like to add to our already 101 currently active nuclear plants, we are telling Iran that we can do whatever we want in nuclear research and the Iranians cannot do anything.

This self-important status has plagued our nation for many years. The unwillingness to see that not every nation is out to get us will cause grief that is even more considerable in the future. Why should we not allow Iran to enrich uranium?


We will have to have it under a strict inspection process from U.N. Weapons inspectors. Iran would be under the biggest microscope the world as ever seen with not any the United States watching them but the World Community.

This would do wonders for us. We would break out of the reputation the Bush Administration created. The World thinks of us an isolationist and warmongers. It would increase willingness to help us both in the ending and with drawl of troops in Iraq.

It would help in this ongoing forgotten war waged in Afghanistan as we could refocus our full effort with a rejuvenated coalition of nations committed to destroying Al-Qaeda and bringing Osama Bin Laden to justice.

I may not be the most knowledgeable political mind there is. That honor in my opinion went to the great late Tim Russert. However, with the rising hostilities between Iran and the United States about the “Nuclear” issue…why would John McCain poke the big bears in the cage and say, “We can build reactors but you can’t? Nah, nah, nah.”

Tuesday, June 17, 2008

Political Commentary

“What My Father Told Me”
Elliot Jacobsen

This was originally intended to be an article about my merits for supporting Senator Barack Obama…

Not too long ago, I found out that the economic stimulus package, that was supposed to do so much for so many people, will not reach many of those who are in desperate need. My father, who was due to get a check worth $1,200, will not receive it because he owes student loans from over 20 years ago.

The IRS is not only withholding his income tax check but keeping money the Bush administration promised to help stimulate the economy and relieve my family’s financial woes. My parents need that money. They were hoping to move out from their broken-down two bedroom apartment which is located in a horrible part of town.

They wanted to move into a safer, nicer neighborhood that didn't require a nightly 911 call because gunshots were being fired a block away.

Now, my parents are confined to the same building where rent is continuously on the rise on par with a spike in crime.


My father can't even clear his debt by declaring bankruptcy. His loan is so high with interest that he could probably work the rest of his life and never be able to pay it off. This is especially tragic considering that he served proudly in the U.S. Army and is a Vietnam Veteran. The sacrifices he made for our country are still being paid today; my father just finished one battle with prostate cancer that was caused by chemicals he was exposed to in Vietnam. Not once has the Government ever stepped in to help.


My father is voting for Barack Obama because he realizes that George Bush's presidency has failed our nation in nearly every aspect. He realizes that John McCain voted along with George Bush 90 % of the time during Bush's term and also voted along with Bush policies up to 95% from last year.

My father realizes that as Americans, we simply cannot give tax breaks to oil companies that willfully raise the price of gas daily.

He also realizes that you cannot give billions of dollars in tax breaks to corporations who ship our jobs overseas while hardworking American citizens fall into financial ruin. My father realizes that our servicemen and women need to pull out of Iraq this next year and not in 2013, as John McCain stated in dire contrast that, "Bringing the troops home is not too important."

How can America not pass a bill that puts statues of limitations on student loans? How can we not have better funding for the VA and better assistance when a veteran absolutely needs it?

How can the Government refuse to tax the same corporations who gleefully rape our pocketbooks?

How would you, as an American, even consider voting for a John McCain presidency, a certain third Bush term, and promote the assured economic stagnation, loss of our soldiers’ lives, and self-destruction of the greatest country on earth?

My father is an American hero just like you, John McCain, and if you would have told my father that it wasn't important to bring him back home from a useless war, then I could promise you -
he would have punched you in face.

Monday, June 16, 2008

Article #6 from Volume 1, Issue 4: Your Media, Your Human Right

“Iraq and Justice”
Ben Schock

On March 19, 2003, the United States invaded Iraq in order to bring peace and according to President Bush “restore control of that country to its own people.” It has been nearly five years since the US military entered Iraq, and there are still approximately 140,000 US soldiers currently stationed there. Since the invasion, roughly 151,000 Iraqis have died; 9 in every 10 of these are due to US military operations.

As well, the number of US troop deaths has almost reached 4,000. The amount of money spent each month in Iraq is equally unfathomable - about $8 billion.

No, this is not another antiwar slam, or political stance, I simply want you to stop and think about our country’s role as a military power and its effects on the world. The topic is justice, and when applying that to the war in Iraq, one must wonder what sort of “justice” we’re bringing to Iraq and the rest of the Middle East.

No weapons of mass destruction were found; the dictator Saddam Hussein fled, was found, captured, and hung publicly; and yet the US military is still there. Understandably, the US military is there to keep peace and retain order, but there have been few talks about restricting military presence in Iraq or helping to create political order from the US standpoint.

Many say that we’re bringing “justice” to Iraq, but if that is the case, shouldn’t we then look to other poverty- and war-stricken countries of the world and bring justice as well? Many say that the US plays Big Brother to the rest of the world, due to its military strength, corporate power, and an intricate political system.

However, many of the past US military invasions have been out of concern for American prosperity: Vietnam, Korea, and the first occupation of Iraq in the early 90s (which lasted less than a year). These are all examples of military “justice” extended by the United States.

In Iraq today, the occupation of thousands of troops is yet another extension of what the United States believes to be justice. This justice, which freed the Iraqis from a dictatorial rule, shall supposedly provide a new future for those living in this country and become an example of American influence and political support.

Article #5 from Volume 1, Issue 4: Your Media, Your Human Right


"Human Rights Starts at Home"
Nick Wong

Being in Guatemala for the past six weeks, it has become apparent to me that “Human Rights” and “Justice” are two phrases in desperate need of a common union. Clear effects of the 36-year war are prevalent as indigenous populations continue to fill the lower brackets of the social ladder. Big business and foreign investors feast off the lifeline of the country.

Former officers of the genocide still become elected into political positions. There are a plethora of causes to be fought for here - a myriad of problems needing resolution - but what often gets lost in these larger mind-boggling injustices are the smaller day-to-day struggles of life.

Every day the country breathes survival. Young children scramble at the sight of shoes needing to be shined or try to sell lottery tickets to people who are too smart to buy them. Others market souvenirs to travelers who hope a culture can be commodified into an item able to be packaged, shipped, and placed on their wall back at home.

And finally there are those who simply show bodily deformations in hopes that a passerby will maybe throw them a few cents to absolve the guilt of not looking into their eyes. This crippled third-world economy is not due to individual laziness or an act of spontaneity, but rather due to the steadily deteriorating social infrastructure caused by global networks that benefit places like the United States.

Trade agreements like CAFTA (Central American Free Trade Agreement) set up unbalanced stipulations that prevent development and exploit countries like Guatemala. International banking systems like the IMF (International Monetary Fund) offer short-term loans with hefty interest rates in exchange for rights to property and land, eliminating prospects of self-sustainability.

These large networks are a new form of colonialism, a subversive system of share-cropping, indebting countries to the whim of the powerful. And it isn’t as if all Guatemalans are living in poverty. In almost every capitalist society, the United States included, there is an ever present gap between the have and the have-nots. Those who allow these agreements or have already established wealth, benefit from these relationships just as those in the States do. It is just the proportion that differs.

The majority of people in the States can reap the benefits of these international economic relationships, at least more so than those in Guatemala. Here, kids sacrificing their childhood to help their family are a prevalent reality, rather than an overlooked occurrence like it is in the States.

These tragic scenes I witness everyday are the costs to supplement a US lifestyle that pacifies people with comforts and inconsequential gadgets that update themselves every three months. Hence we get distracted when hearing about the exploitation. This isn’t necessarily about Guatemala specifically or to say that their problems are more tragic than others.

It is instead to say that we are all implicated whether we acknowledge it or not. So if we want to start bringing together “Human Rights” and “Justice,” start by looking inside ourselves and how we live our lives.

Article #4 from Volume 1, Issue 4: Your Media, Your Human Right

“Of Pharmaceuticals and Patents”
Nari Corley-Wheeler

Intellectual property rights are assigned to original creations with implications that can alter the quality of one’s life and choices. In terms of pharmaceutical companies, intellectual property rights are applied in the form of patents. According to the US Food and Drug Administration, patents are protections placed on new products entering the market which prohibit the release of generic drugs by granting the original producers sole selling rights while the patent is active.

Once the patents expire, which take on average twenty years, generic drug manufacturers can apply to the FDA for entry into the market. Large pharmaceutical companies instantly have easier access to the brand name drug makers.

As former acquisitions, entry in the New York Stock Exchange and mergence’s with other companies has allowed major pharmaceuticals to profit enough to afford the costly research companies that discover the drugs first. These pharmaceutical companies require patents in order to turn a profit, as the patents work to simultaneously increase market drug prices and eliminate generic drugs from competition.

The difference between generic and brand name drugs is simply this: patents ensure that the company purchasing the developed drug can – in a sense – reimburse the research, development, marketing, and promotional costs involved in creating a new drug.

Generic drugs are not obligated to the costs of development like their brand name counterparts, allowing them to be cheap but delayed upon entering the market. Otherwise brand name and generic drugs are identical without the patents; marked by the same active ingredients, meeting the same FDA guidelines, containing equal dosage and strengths, these drugs are identical sans their price tag.

The market-driven world we live in enables pharmaceutical companies, researchers, and manufacturers to forget that the drugs being created are for the service and benefit of the consumer. Hindering the generic drugs from entering the market because research and pharmaceutical companies need to cover their expenses seems like a reasonable excuse, but in actuality is a strategy for large companies to spin higher profits.

Pharmaceutical companies profit considerably without patents, interestingly because at any given time any one of the 300 million American consumers could become ill and require medication. With a huge consumer base to rely upon, pharmaceutical companies will never lack for business.

Heeding to the patent-protected pharmaceutical companies remain innumerable American households buried in financial debt continually paying off the fees to purchase heart disease medication, insulin treatment, or critical life-saving prescription medication. Intellectual property rights have become a source of woes hurting individuals that cannot afford the unsubsidized costs of their medication that insurance cannot consistently cover.

High costs for prescription medicine bores numerous implications now and, in the future, exponentially more as the American demographics shift. Concerns regarding baby boomers approaching their 60s and 70s will arise as increased demand for heart disease, diabetes, arthritis, osteoporosis, and Alzheimer’s medication will soar.

Additionally, the rates of surgical procedures – nearly 50 million annually – is only climbing due to increased demands for cosmetic, gastric by-pass, heart disease, and cancer-related surgeries. Post-surgery prescription medication like painkillers, blood thinning medication, and cancer-related medication bear high costs.

HIV/AIDS patients are paying tens of thousands of dollars each year for prescription drug cocktails and additional anti-depressants and anti-psychotics to manage psychological impairments.

Admitting generic drugs to the market upon manufacturing is one of the most immediate ways to relieve patients of the incremental costs associated with prescription medication. Allowing brand name drugs to dominate the pharmaceutical market forces growing numbers of consumers to bury themselves in financial debt and to remain extremely dependent on the prescribed drug available regardless its price.

Article #3 from Volume 1, Issue 4: Your Media, Your Human Right

"Not Without Dignity"
by Jacob Galfano


In a nation with a history of commercializing its justice system, it should surprise nobody that one of America’s newer social norms is privatized inmate labor. Over the past few decades, more industries in the private sector are benefiting from inmate labor programs.

In November 2007, voters in Washington State continued the trend, overwhelmingly approving a constitutional amendment that allows its inmate labor programs to be contracted to private companies that “operate in a correctional facility.”

The vote – shunned by local mainstream media – reflects the intersection of mob mentality and state complicity, where free enterprise continues to rule. The initiative’s supporters and op­ponents appear to fall on either side of an argument focused on the economy, and together conclude that “offenders should work to reduce their burden on taxpayers by paying room and board, crime victim’s compensa­tion, court costs and… child support,” but that “should not be to the detriment of law-abiding citizens competing for jobs or local businesses competing in the marketplace.”

Although narrow, this dichotomy reveals the broader challenge of policy change, in which innumer­able stakeholders are affected – which includes prisoners them­selves. Statistics show that some prison labor programs reduce recidivism (the rate at which prisoners return to prison after their release), and prisoners prefer to work than to not.

Frank Hinojosa spent 10 years in the federal prison system, and credits the opportunity to train as an electrician for his rehabilita­tion: “They asked me to clean tables, and I refused. I knew I did not ever want to go back there, so I promised myself to learn a trade. I started studying, and saw the potential in getting certified. It was an accomplishment; now I have a career.”

University of Washington Professor of Law Steve Calandrillo agrees: “I think it’s important that sanctions attempt to deter so­cially undesirable actions and rehabilitate offenders to the extent possible. We need to ensure that we provide opportunities like job training in order to allow for their reintegration into society. Otherwise we risk further alienating individuals and increasing the chance of recidivism.”

But is there a difference between consent to predetermined choices and empowerment? How many stories like Frank’s really exist?

A growing restorative justice movement suggests that treating human beings as human capital is dangerously disenfranchising, especially when most of those involved in inmate labor programs have no hope for rehabilitation. Paul Wright of Prison Legal News elaborates: “In our reporting, we find it a lie that labor pro­grams are concerned with rehabilitation. The reality is that all of the work programs are in medium to maximum security prisons, where many of the inmates participating in them are already serv­ing life terms.”

“But restorative justice as a movement has little traction if the defendant is convicted for a drug or other public-order offense for which the ‘victim’ is the state. What is there to restore?”
Perhaps redefining what it means to be a victim is necessary for the movement to overcome the daunting challenge of find­ing its niche within a criminal justice system reinforced by centuries of retributive law and litigation. But it works collaboratively, and uses non-conventional tools like theatre, dancing, literature, and dialog to counter the ubiquitous prison policy of suppressing voice and creativity.

In Seattle, Pat Graney’s Keeping the Faith project helps incarcerated women and girls reclaim their identities. “This is one of the first major accom­plishments in my life. This program takes a bunch of convicts and allows us to be productive, socially accepted figures of pride,” said one partici­pant on the program’s website.

There are statistics here, as well. New York’s Juvenile Justice Initiative has resulted in fewer than 35% of its youths being rear­rested or violating their probation. Montgomery, Alabama’s com­munity-based centers for youth offenders have led to recidivism rates under 10% and zero suicides – both enormous reductions.

However, in the United States, one in one-hundred people are in prison – an unprecedented ratio.


As the restorative justice movement grows, it will continue to encounter skepticism and political barriers. But it is resilient, and has the support of scores of human rights activists, legislators, elected officials, and scholars.

Social scientist Dr. Philip Zimbardo writes, “Prisons are places that demean humanity, destroy the nobility of human nature, and bring out the worst in social relations among people.” He might agree that by providing more alternatives to those incarcerated and empowering them to choose, Washington State can send the message that no human being is without dignity.

For the complete interview with Frank Hinojosa, visit our web­site: http://students.washington.edu/j4hr

Article #2 from Volume 1, Issue 4: Your Media, Your Human Right

“Reconciliation as Grassroots Justice”
Rachel Proefke

Between April and July of 1994, in the span of 100 days, an estimated one million Tutsis and moderate Hutus were butchered throughout Rwanda as the rest of the world watched passively. The brutal genocide was orchestrated by the use of the propagandist radio station Radio Mille Collines; instigated in the shadows by the government; and enflamed by an inauspicious plan crash blamed on Tutsis which killed Rwanda’s President.

Most of the killings were perpetrated by civilians against unarmed civilians in vicious attacks of neighbors and community members acting out murder and destruction on a largely innocent minority and their supporters. This event is significant for the sheer efficiency and magnitude by which so many lives were extinguished.

Also, its significance is manifested in the fact that this was not the first outbreak of violence between Tutsis and Hutus, but rather one of the more glaring instances in a greater history of ethnicized tension in both Rwanda and Burundi where both sides are guilty of transgressions.

In the aftermath of the genocide, while the rest of the world wrestles with its complicit inaction, Rwandans are left with the questions of justice, truth, memory, and reconciliation.
Grappling with more than 120,000 alleged genocidaires placed in Rwanda’s prisons and communal jails by 2000, and despite the instituting of the International Criminal Tribunal of Rwanda, reconciliation and justice have been sought by other means.

Human Rights Watch conceded that the combination of the national courts and the ICTR managed to try 10,000 suspects in a decade, but at this rate it is projected that it would take upwards of 100 years to prosecute all the suspects. In a throwback to traditional community and tribal justice systems, a means to deal with Rwanda’s wounds has been presented in the form of the Gacaca court system.

According to the official Rwandan government website of the National Service of Gacaca Jurisdictions, the Gacaca courts system is the manifestation of endeavors to reconstruct what happened during the genocide, speed up the legal proceedings by using as many courts as possible, and promote reconciliation of all Rwandans to build their unity.

Traditionally, Gacaca courts were community assemblies presided by elders which would settle village and family disputes.

However, in their modern manifestation, these grass-roots courts, as their name implies, are overseen by individuals with judicial training and act as a forum for the community to discuss the local context of the genocide and prosecute local offenders on four categories of criminality- organizational capacity in the genocide, perpetrators of homicide, committing acts of serious bodily injury, and property damage.

There are no lawyers present at the trials; instead, community members are welcome to comment or intervene as they see fit on either the side of or against the defendant. While instituted primarily to speed up the process of justice within the small, mountainous African nation, instead the courts have been attested as the primary agents for reconciliation, truth, and memory at the local level.

This complements the community-based nature of the genocide itself where neighbors are the perpetrators and where communities must conceive of a means to negotiate their relationships.

The Gacaca courts are often touted as the most sweeping implementation of the ideological assumptions behind the necessity of truth and reconciliation. However, they are often criticized as well for potential biases, inefficiencies, needlessly exposing witnesses and victims to reprisal, and inadequacies of coping with such a complex historical and socio-political context larger than the locality.

Others in turn retort with the notion that these faults are the “occupational hazards” of truth and reconciliation as opposed to conventional retributive justice systems. The question remains how is justice to be conceived of and achieved in the context of such widespread brutality? What is the function of locality in reconciliation following crimes against humanity? And how do we repatriate a sense of community and peace after such broad transgressions?

Despite the persistence of these subjectively-oriented questions, at the very least, the Gacaca courts are occupying the gaps in accountability, speed, and resolution that international justice following the genocide has left gaping. They can be conceived of as healing the wounds that complicit international passivity allowed to be inflicted. Perhaps the best way to secure justice for community-based and widespread crimes is through respect for this locality, as opposed to through the very mechanisms of justice and protection which failed to resolve the issue before over one million civilians were brutally butchered.

Article #1 from Volume 1, Issue 4: Your Media, Your Human Right


“Tibetan Buddhists Struggle for Justice”
Janice Goh

The Three Jewels, The Buddha, the Teachings, and the Spiritual Community, of Tibetan Buddhism govern the religious community of Tibetans.
Honoring the Three Jewels, the Dalai Lama composed a prayer for the people of Tibet in 1960, praying for freedom of Tibet, praying for ‘the pious people,’ praying for the spread of universal friendship and love, praying for justice. Justice, defined as the quality of being impartial and fair or simply the quality of conforming to law, has been stripped from the people of Tibet since China’s invasion in 1959.

Although China has established the Law of Regional Ethnic Autonomy in Tibet, the implementation of the law is inconsistent with its intended agenda.
The reality in Tibet reveals a suppression of religious freedom and practices that undermines the legitimacy of the law.

Since Chairman Mao ZeDong and his Red Army invaded Tibet in 1950, Tibetans have suffered from religious suppression. Not only was this part of Mao’s Cultural Revolution that prohibited subscribing to religious ideologies, it was also his agenda to assert political control and avoid political competition from the Dalai Lama.

Prior to the Chinese invasion of Tibet, Tibet had a longstanding history of a system of government known as chos srid gnyi ldan, a combined religious and secular system under the rule of the Dalai Lama. This system had been in place since 635 AD where the Dalai Lama was seen as cho rgyal, a political leader and earthly manifestation of the Buddha of Compassion, Chenrezig.

In 1984, China promulgated the law on regional ethnic autonomy that states that Tibetans have the right to inherit and develop traditional culture as well as practice religious beliefs.
However, paralleling the economic growth in the region has been stifling social and cultural development, especially in terms of religion.

This was spearheaded by the exile of the Dalai Lama in 1959. Coupled with the exile of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, 95% of the monasteries and temples in Tibet were destroyed, books were burned, and Buddhists were thrown in jail for practicing their religion. In addition, the Chinese government abolished the traditional practice of reincarnating the Panchen Lama, the second most spiritual figure in Tibet after the Dalai Lama.

When the previous Panchen Lama passed away in 1989, the Chinese government disregarded the Llhasa government’s election of the reincarnation the Panchan Lama. Rather, they elected a Panchen Lama of their choice that is now educated in Beijing, instead of receiving a traditional Buddhist education. This exemplifies a deliberate attempt to control and suppress the religious culture of the Tibetans that the international community of Tibetans and Tibet Government in Exile deem as unfair, unconstitutional, and unjust.

Today, the suppression of religion is furthered by restrictions on the freedom to become a monk in Tibet. The Chinese government places limits on the number of people who may become monks not only to limit the spread of faith but also to relieve the state’s financial burden as lamas enjoy state subsidies for food. Even if people become monks, Tibetan monks do not have the freedom to preach; Tibetan monks have rules on giving public lectures on Buddhist philosophy. If there are more than 100 people, permission must come from the commune, if there are over 500 people, permission must come from county authorities, if the audience is over 1000, permission must come from provincial authorities.

Even on an individual level, there are restrictions on religious practices and freedom. Although government officials maintain that it is legal to possess or display pictures of the Dalai Lama, authorities view possession of such photos as evidence of separatist charges. Therefore, it is taboo to circulate posters or propaganda related to the Dalai Lama or to even display of photographs of him.


There also exists a ban on including religion in the teaching syllabus as well as a ban on displaying religious shrines in the household. This has been implemented on the basis of fearing that this will foster linkages between Tibetans and the exiles.

In 2001, Hu Jintao, President of China, arrived in Lhasa, delivering a speech that boasted of the rights of the people in Tibet.

“Today, people of all ethnic groups in Tibet are fully enjoying political, economic, cultural and other rights, and have complete control of their destiny.”

Contrary to Hu Jintao’s claim, the people in Tibet are deprived religious rights as postulated in the Law on Regional Ethnic Autonomy in Tibet. Justice has not been served since the invasion of the Chinese government and will not be until there is consistency between the promulgation and implementation of the law. Until then, Tibetans will continue to pray for freedom, pray for posterity, and pray for justice.

Spotlight on...



Poet and Fort Lewis-stationed war veteran, Brian Turner spoke on KUOW Presents. Here is the transcript of the interview we had with him.


How do you define Justice?


I don’t think I can adequately answer this question. I would suggest that people look to Socrates and consider his method in defining the word justice.


How does your definition relate to your experience in the army?


BT: What is happening in Guantanamo diminishes the American judicial system. Extraordinary rendition diminishes the same system. Abu Ghraib has become a synonym for torture, rather than a symbol for justice a democracy might bring.


In your poem, “At Lowe’s Home Improvement Center”, you write about the war in Iraq and how, here in the US, it seems to exist in time, but not in space. What does this mean for your audience and its relationship to the war?


In At Lowe’s Home Improvement Center*, I’m trying to connect the war in Iraq with those of us living here in the States, to bridge these two spatial divides by melding them together. It’s an attempt at the surreal.


It’s also my way of saying--If we don’t feel the Iraqi and American dead among us, if we don’t experience some of the pain of a war we are participants in (as a nation of collective individuals), if we don’t have a sense of the suffering and struggle that is taking place, if we don’t sense even the foundation stones of war, what does that say about us as human beings? What does it say about us as a culture, and as a nation within a much larger community of nations?


In general, what can art do for a society like ours (in the U.S.)? What can it do now -- with both domestic and foreign human rights abuses (e.g. poverty, war) on the minds of its citizens? What can it do for policymakers and elected officials?


I’m hoping that art might not only entertain, but that it might, on a more fundamental level, work within the Socratic method, offering us questions which we must answer for ourselves, each in our own way.


* To listen to At Lowe’s Home Improvement Center, visit:
http://www.kuow.org/defaultProgram.asp?ID=14325

Friday, June 13, 2008

Article #5 from Volume 1, Issue 3: Your Media, Your Human Right


“Media Control in China”
Nari Corley-Wheeler

To mitigate international concern surrounding tightly controlled media policies, the Chinese Communist Party has pledged to loosen their iron grip on their state-run news publications before the 2008 Beijing Olympics.

However, in order to loosen their grip, they must tighten their reins. Recently, local and national journalists have faced mounting charges for ‘spreading rumors’ or violating codes of ‘news discipline.’

Journalists reporting on local and national issues are restricted from reporting news that is inconsistent with the ideologies of the Communist Party. Ironically though, recent intensified ‘crackdowns’ on local journalists has only resulted in an increase reporting on media rights by international publications.

Presently, journalists are barred from reporting against Communist propaganda, leaders, and internal healthcare violations. Sources divulging evidence of anti-foreign teachings, food safety scares, or the environmental crises, are generally discredited and punishable by the Communist Party.

State-run news publications are not taken lightly in China. Journalists forced to quit their jobs report that the news media encourages and endorses fabricated stories that are in line with the party’s political interests and strategies instead of real events.

Acting as the primary media division and authorized by the Communist Party, the Central Propaganda Department (CPD) is the branch of governance that remains immensely indispensable to the government as it actively enforces media controls and censorship. As a de facto arm of the Communist Party of China, the CPD covertly and discriminately evaluates publications for reporting inconsistent with the ideals put forth by the Communist Party.

Prior to releasing newspapers, the CPD ensures that the papers carry the undertone consistent with Communist Party ideology, a sound representation of major political figures, and peaceful foreign engagements.

Asserting propaganda messages to the global landscape proves interesting when contrasted by human rights violation reports by international publications. Slight human rights violations that appear sporadically in international newspapers depict a vastly different Chinese landscape than the one revealed in Chinese state-run newspapers.

However, when human rights violations occur in mining towns, textile factories, or rural villages, readers cannot depend on the Chinese newspapers to cover topics regarding their falling standards of healthcare and their deep-seated inability to provide appropriate standards of living that the Communist ideology claims to insist upon for their citizens.

Displacing basic human rights for a strong and mobile economy, the Communist Party has little option to reveal their emerging environmental crises that afflicts the health of 1.2 billion individuals residing within their closed-media borders.

Further demonstrating their stronghold on the media, the Communist Party has engaged in another way to broaden media censorship – through the internet. In late August of 2007, the government enacted the search engines Google China and China Yahoo to remove ‘illegal and unhealthy content’ within a week of the announcement (Human Rights Watch).

Fearing embarrassment encouraged by internet bloggers and news sites, the government would rather censor and reduce media transparency rather than to admit to their faults.

Unfortunately, efforts to curtail media transparency will become increasingly difficult in an ever-globalizing world. Attempts to avert attention from inaccurate news reporting and methods of human rights violations to combat efforts to expose media truths will become paramount as China is socialized into international norms and regulations.

With the imminent arrival of the 2008 Beijing Olympics, China will especially have to make grand alterations to their internal reality for the global audience.

Journalists from around the world will be closely observing the media climate in China and will return reporting an image of China that may be uncomfortably familiar to the Communist Party, but unfamiliar to the international community.

Article #4 from Volume 1, Issue 3: Your Media, Your Human Right

“Media Repression in Myanmar”
Janice Goh

“Whoever controls the media, controls the mind.”
-- Jim Morisson

The year 1962 heralded the end of democracy for Burma. That year also birthed the military coup that marked the ascension of the military junta.

Since 1962, freedom of media has ceased to exist in Burma. According to the Reporters without Borders press freedom ranking, Burma is ranked among the bottom ten countries in the world. Despite international pressures to liberalize the media, the military junta relentlessly monitors and monopolizes the media with an iron grip.

Print and broadcast media are filtered to exclude criticism of the government and social oppression while on the other hand, including religious ritual activities of generals and progress of policy implementation.

As a result of draconian media control, the people of Burma suffer from a lack of privacy, a lack of security and a lack of freedom. Public access to information is tightly restricted. Not only is the internet vigilantly censored, internet cafes are required to install a screen-shot system that automatically takes screen shots of computers every five minutes.

This is done to prevent or ensure that users do not surf political or banned sites. Currently, local Burmese are only allowed to surf Burmese sites and receive e-mails that end with .mm (Myanmar); Google’s Gmail service is not allowed in Burma as the Military Intelligence finds it hard to monitor and regulate. Even telephone conversations are not spared; Burmese civilians are paid by the military to tap phone line, eavesdrop and identify ‘international informers.’

Coupled with the dire access to global information of the Burmese, the absence of independent media allows the junta to mask human rights violations. In addition, writers and journalists that express the slightest discontent with the junta face imprisonment or are banned from writing.

Today, Burma is ranked the 6th most repressive place for journalists, according to the Committee for Protecting Journalists.

Journalists are strictly prohibited to report on Aung San Suu Kyi, debates about government policies, the National League for Democracy and news that negatively reflects the junta. U Win Tin, the 77-year-old former editor of Burma’s Hantawathi newspaper and Burma’s most famous journalist, has been imprisoned for the past 18 years on the basis of different charges, such as promoting ‘anti-government propaganda’ and for supporting Aung San Suu Kyi’s pro-democracy cause.

As of October 12 2007, 11 reporters have been arrested and labeled as ‘liars trying to destroy the nation’ after reporting about the recent pro-democracy movement.

The military junta has definitely managed to suppress the local media by state control and censorship. At the expense of the government’s censorship, the people are deprived access to information and communication. At the expense of the government’s dictatorship, the journalists suffer in silence.

Until the military junta decides to step down or release its iron grip on the media, the Burmese population will be denied access to a free independent media and the imprisoned journalists who stand true to their convictions will remain victims of a media terror.

Article #3 from Volume 1, Issue 3: Your Media, Your Human Right


“Community Radio: Pluralism in Media”
Jacob Galfano

“Let’s be clear,” says Jacqui Brown Miller, board member and president of the South Puget Sound Chapter of the Alliance for Democracy. “Radio, television, newspapers… media is supposed to be the fourth estate of democracy. It should inform the citizenry, so they can participate and challenge the system. But it is not doing that job, not engaging the people.”

Although Miller participates in media in a very specialized way, her sincerity and desire to create change are manifest in both word and action and illustrate that policy is not shaped just by the rich and powerful.

She leads a coalition of activists who are applying for a non-commercial educational (NCE) full-power radio broadcast license.

In 2006, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announced that it would open a window during which community organizations could be considered for space on the spectrum.

That time is now.

Community radio encompasses an increasingly integrated movement consisting of both low-power (LPFM) and full-power stations and non-governmental organizations (NGO) at local, state, and national levels that deliberate and mobilize around media policy and legislation.

Its scale is far-reaching, as ‘membership’ might include FCC commissioners, national and state elected officials, non-profit employees, and on down to the volunteer who answers the phone during your local station’s pledge drive.

This participatory phenomenon is known as pluralism, which provides an alternative to elite theory. According to scholars Theodoulou and Kofinis, pluralism “assumes that a democratic governing system can operate even in light of an unquestionable inequality of resources between classes. [It] suggests that politics and policy are the consequence of the interaction and conflict among groups… [and] that all individuals posses the opportunity and ability to organize and collectively influence the political a policy process.”

Miller and Alliance for Democracy are hoping to receive a frequency to be allocated by the FCC after the current window closes.

She hopes the station can provide service to audiences marginalized by corporate radio and has been careful to include these voices in the application process.

“We want worthwhile and diverse outreach, and have sought out Native American, Latino, environmental, and labor representation [among others].”

This is an important element of pluralism, especially when it comes at a time when minorities are underrepresented within and across mainstream media. According to the American Society of Newspaper Editors, minorities comprise just 11% of professional journalists. This inequity is compounded when considering that minorities own just 8% of full-power radio stations, according to the StopBigMedia.Com Coalition. Miller realizes being awarded the license will not be easy.

It is a long, arduous process, and her group must anticipate and prepare for several logistical requirements. According to Prometheus Radio – a national community radio NGO – NCE license applicants must be aware: “Unlike with low power FM, you must submit an engineering exhibit proving that your proposed station will cause no interference to existing radio stations.”

As the radio industry moves toward incorporating digital signals into bandwidth, the capacity for interference with other signals emerges as a problem. Jonathan Lawson, Executive Director of Seattle’s Reclaim the Media and co-organizer of the Northwest Community Radio Network elaborates: “The FCC has decided that U.S. digital radio will use a new system which makes a station’s signal ‘wider’ within its designated channel.

This has [a] negative effect from the point of view of people who believe that analog FM radio is likely to remain an important resource for grassroots media in the U.S. because wider transmissions are more likely to bleed into adjacent channels that would otherwise be available for other stations, especially including LPFMs.”

Whether or not Miller and Alliance for Democracy are awarded a frequency, their actions demonstrate that – as posited by scholars MacRae and Wilde – “informed citizens can be their own policy analysts.”

Article #2 from Volume 1, Issue 3: Your Media, Your Human Right

“Penal Code 301: Public opinion & ‘Turkishness’”
Todd Price

At the start of summer, democratic elections in Turkey had never seemed more crucial to a loosely assembled relationship with the U.S. The results yielded a controversial Parliamentary body whose beliefs and opinions have traditionally been at odds with each other over an array of serious issues.

Joining the European Union in particular has been on Turks minds for the greater part of the last half of the century. However, apart from the generalized construction of these issues surrounding this relationship is an enhanced problem of international human rights.

Respect for the freedom of press is honored by our world’s citizenry as a democratic principle and is enshrined as a right of individuals. Un-willingly though, the factors of extenuating contexts that have shown important consequences for Turkey’s relative position within the international community have not demonstrated the enhancement of such principles.

The international human rights aspects to the U.S.-Turkish relationship have been for the most part historically uncertain. Arguably, United States’ primary interests have always remained strategic in aspect. Above all, for Turkey and its’ people, undergoing the long-hauled journey to the European Union has been the most serious issue. However, the increasingly hostile international community has painted a desperate, completely different portrait of the Turkish national agenda.

For example, recent New York Times articles showing the clash of civilizations and subsequent discussions about the rise of a Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) totalitarian regime have been evermore negligent to efforts to protect these rights. Perhaps, it is through benign combat with democracy and international human rights NGOs that a forum for dialogue concerning ethnic peace remains static and lacks respect for the moral rights of global citizens.

This may be why so many Turks within the deteriorating 84-year-old secular establishment have been strongly opposed to any changes to Constitutional laws that would subsequently pose a threat to its secular orientation, despite improving the status of
human rights.

The projected changes would improve its steps as measured by the Copenhagen Criteria toward European Union integration. In light of this, the suggested changes to the Turkish
Penal Code 301 has become the matter of public disgrace instead of necessarily advocating change.

One clause stipulates: “[A] person(s) who publicly denigrates Turkishness, the Republic or the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, shall be punishable by imprisonment of between six months and three years.”

Many notable Turkish authors such as Orhan Pamuk and Arat Dink, along with media oligarchs, have posited that this clause exacerbate the human right to free speech.

In addition, this may also help explain why the young Turkish generations have become increasingly aware of their inalienable media rights and are staging mass protests across ethnic divides.

The public press is one of Turkey’s most prominent institutions and the focus of social reason on the Anatolian Peninsula.

It has historically been uncertain. Who is going to protect these universal rights on behalf of both the world citizenry and Turkish nation as a conduit for freedom of the press and not as the source of public fear?

Recently, dozens of public rallies have featured an array of socio-political issues such as constitutional change, presidential elections, and the war in Iraq. These should matter to the international community- important issues to care about enhancing.

In the emerging context of debate over Kurdish problems, the US Congress’s Armenian Genocide Resolution indicates that it is again supporting strategic consideration of the Turkish Republic marginalizing Turks’ human rights.

This is quite worrisome.

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)