There have been numerous reports that in China mentally disabled people have been kidnapped and forced to be slaves for brick factories.
In a recent LA Times article called “China’s disabled exploited as slaves,” Barbara Demick tells the story of two Chinese families searching for their lost sons. Liu Xiaoping was a slave for ten months in brick factories across China’s countryside, but was recently found with burned hands and gashes all over his body.
He Wen, who has been dealing with mental health problems since his teen years, was never found as his family has been looking for him for over half a year. One of the reasons why Wen’s family can’t find him is the lack of help they get from the police.
It’s sad that authorities just assume Wen ran away because he’s mentality disabled. This is a growing problem in China and the police needs to start treating these cases more serious.
Also, I was disturbed to read that many families don’t care when their disabled relative is kidnapped because it will be less of a burden.
I applaud Xiaoping and Wen’s families for not giving up hope and looking for their love ones even without the help of others. Hopefully, the Chinese police wakes up and help search for Wen and bring him back home.
It guarantees the right of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition; yes I am talking about the first amendment of the U.S. This amendment, unlike any other, has a tendency to be discussed in many cases in the justice system and most recently in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
In a recent LA Times article, a Santa Cruz man was arrested for doing a Nazi salute at a City Council meeting in March of 2002. The court ruled the city’s actions as “viewpoint discrimination” which in my opinion I also completely agree.
As I read this story, I really couldn’t help but to chuckle. The fact that a salute equals jail was just unfathomable to me especially when you take into consideration the circumstances in which this scenario took place. The man was a homeless advocate- not a Nazi and the place was a city council meeting- not some fascist parade. The holocaust was a horrible and honestly a unspeakable crime that took place and I understand there are a lot of emotions that are harbored with a Nazi salute, but this case remains to be ridiculous.Watch the video and make your own judgement.
Jimmy Carter said that in his Inaugural Address in January, 1977. Today, it still rings true. While we have fought and campaigned for equal rights for decades, we have come far – but we still have a long way to go.
December 10, 2010 marked the 60th anniversary of the World Human Rights Day, when the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was formally adopted by the United Nations. Though ultimate global equality is by no means in the near future, we have made considerable strides in the journey toward it.
Consider the following:
1865: 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution abolished slavery.
1920: 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, allowing women the right to vote.
1948: United Nations adopts the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
1954: Brown vs. Board of Education declared the Plessy vs. Ferguson case (state-mandated segregation in school) unconstitutional.
1955: Montgomery, Alabama desegregated public buses as a result of Rosa Parks’ “sit-in.”
1964: 24th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution abolished the poll tax in 11 southern states (which had made it difficult for impoverished African-Americans to vote.)
1965: Congress passed the Voting Rights Act, ending the tests and obstacles African-Americans had to pass to vote in the South.
1967: Loving vs. Virginia ruled that prohibition of interracial marriage is unconstitutional.
1968: Civil Rights Act signed by President Johnson.
1989: UNICEF set the Convention On the Rights of the Child.
2004: Massachusetts legislation allows same-sex marriages.
2010: California overturned Prop 8 (which banned same-sex marriages.)
2010: “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy banning openly gay citizens from enlisting in the armed services, is repealed.
These may seem minor victories alone, but they are victories nonetheless. While it is still crucial to continue fighting for equality and better opportunities for the oppressed and victimized, it is also important to step back and thank our ancestors for their work in achieving rights we have today. Appreciating what we do have and celebrating every victory, no matter how small, is the heart of the human spirit – and we should always remember as such.
Amnesty International released a report in April 2010 called the “Un-Natural Disaster: Human Rights In the Gulf Coast.” The report illustrates the adversity and struggle that victims of the 2005 Hurricane Katrina in the Gulf Coast of the U.S. faced – and still face today.
There continues to be a lack of housing and access to health care, and a corrupted criminal justice system that has contributed to the prevention of former residents returning home. In addition, those who have returned find “home” is no longer the same.
According to the report, federal government statistics approximate 200,000 evacuees in the aftermath of the hurricane (who were sent off to different areas as far as Washington, D.C.). More than 400,000 people resided in New Orleans prior to the disaster, and about 80% of them lost their homes and property in the event. Furthermore, 75% of those residents were African-American, many living below the national poverty line at the time of the disaster. Today, about 2/3 of the original population numbers are back in the area – but not all are the original residents.
The government was slow to provide health services and housing in the aftermath of the hurricane, thus making it even more difficult for residents to return. Disbursement of funds for rebuilding has been corrupted and slow. Primary health care is still missing as the main medical center that previously offered it was closed in the aftermath, and a new one will take years to build. Law enforcement was not prepared for a large-scale disaster such as Katrina, and excessive force and unnecessary detention was utilized on civilians during the chaotic time. And a corrupt justice system, bent on trying “criminals” for petty crimes and low level offenses is having an indirect effect on the economy, since potential employees cannot find work.
All of this may seem trivial, or perhaps not severe enough to have that widespread of an effect, put yourself in their shoes. Consider that your hometown was devastated by a natural disaster. You’ve lost your home, your belongings, your land. Perhaps your family and pets. You’re traumatized by the intensity of the event, displaced and taken to a place you may never have been, separated from everything you know in an instant. Then you can’t go back. The government isn’t doing enough to support your return, your community has been ravaged and little federal help is being given, you still don’t know where your family, friends, neighbors, co-workers, or pets are. You may find them one by one slowly, but still you wait and wonder when you can “go home.”
It’s an experience hopefully none of us will ever have to experience. But for those unfortunate Gulf Coast residents, it was reality. And their lack of resources and fundamental human rights to food, housing, and protection from the government is appalling. Non-profit organizations and charities across the nation stepped up to help them in their time of need, and oftentimes the extent of their charity was never realized. Money was squandered on other things, or resources never reached their target destination.
And through it all, the government tagged along to “help,” but never maximized their potential to recover an already suffering region. “ The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005.”]For the people, by the people?”
The battle over “pro-choice” vs. “pro-life” in the abortion issue has long been waging in America, since the passing of Roe v. Wade in 1973, which forbade states from outlawing child abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy, and makes health reasons the only justification for abortion in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters.
Should the law ever be overturned, the issue of abortion would return to the States. While California and Colorado were the first states to legalize it under extreme circumstances (rape, mental instability, etc.) in 1967, they lack enforcement in the Parental Consent field, which requires a female minor to provide permission from her parents before undergoing the procedure. (In 2008, Prop 4 appeared on California’s ballot, which would “prohibit abortion for unemancipated minors until 48 hours after physician notifies minor’s parent, legal guardian or, if parental abuse has been reported, an alternative adult family member.” [Ballotpedia] The measure lost 52-48%.)
There are many aspects tied to this controversy, and not only the religious versus secular views. While most churches and religious institutions argue that any human life form (even in early development) is a life, and thus abortion is considered murder, there is a scientific perspective that argues whether a fetus can be considered a human life in the first trimester of pregnancy.
This debate will likely never end – because no matter the amount of scientific reasoning or religious views that are offered, people will hold different viewpoints and beliefs in the practice.
What is fact, however, is the physical repercussions that can accompany abortion. For example, there is a reported link between abortion and breast cancer, as well as the risk of uterine damage, complications with future pregnancies, infection, and even death. With these very serious risks looming over an impending abortion, perhaps it is wise from a political standpoint to not outlaw the procedure altogether. After all, making it illegal would not stop it entirely. It would merely force physicians (or untrained novices with no surgical skills) to perform the procedure in secret, making the risk for medical complications even more severe. I picture hideouts and dark alleyways, with dirty knives and “under the table” payment, and women screaming from the unprofessional procedure. No anesthesia, no insurance coverage or protection from harm, and those who could perform it would have a monopoly.
The social repercussions could be disastrous. Therefore, all moral and religious perspectives aside, I hope that abortion is never outlawed in America (or California, for that matter). It just might become a bigger problem than it seems to be now.
The United States is one of only two countries in the world that has not ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child “Rights of the Child.” Somalia, a country heavily riddled with female genital mutilation and lacking in a structured government, is the other.
Alarming? On the surface, yes. But according to the United Nation’s Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the U.S.’s treaty ratification process can take decades to complete. After signing an “intent” to ratify the treaty in 1995, 15 years of putting it on the backburner seems to be approaching “inexcusable.”
UNICEF also says many countries that have ratified it have yet to enact it, which somewhat contrasts with the U.S.’s shortcomings. Many issues children face worldwide include manual labor, physical abuse, sexual exploitation, warfare (child soldiers), and of course lack of education or access to shelter/housing, nutrition, and water. And American children are not entirely exempt from that.
So why has the U.S. not yet ratified this? We boast being the “land of the free” and being a wealthy, privileged nation – yet we deny children their rights explicitly. The excuse that the agenda is too full to accommodate this ratification as of now, or that the process takes an extensive amount of time don’t quite fly – when every other nation has made it a priority to ratify and protect their children’s rights. Granted, as discussed earlier with the Equal Rights Amendment, governmental text does not guarantee enforcement.
The Equal Rights Amendment – or ERA -was originally written in 1923 by American suffragist/activist Alice Paul, who also took part in the campaign for women’s rights and helped pass the 19th Amendment (women’s suffrage) in 1920.
The proposition calls for as follows:
Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification
Basically, it ensures that women and men alike will be treated equally, fairly, and in like terms. Women will not be oppressed or denied privileges that men receive, and equality would not only be a social component, but a legal and Constitutional law as well.
Between 1923 and 1970, the ERA was proposed at every Congressional session but never made it to the Senate or House to be voted upon. In 1970, the House passed it and Senate rejected it, as was the same in 1971, until finally both House and Senate passed it in 1972 and sent it to the state governments for ratification – who ultimately voted against it.
To this day, the ERA has not been passed into law.
I learned about this little tidbit of human rights history in a journalism class here at CSUN. I was surprised to learn that it had never been passed, but at the same time, considering the text of the proposition, I wasn’t. This fact speaks volumes about the gaps between men and women’s rights in America today. To date, women still make 77 cents to a man’s dollar. Women are still discriminated against, denied climbing higher up the “career ladder”, and hold alarmingly few positions in corporate management.
Add in the fact that women are still beaten, raped, abused, sexually exploited, tortured, and victims in countless hate crimes, and it’s no wonder the ERA is not in effect.
I wonder, though, if the amendment had been passed. If the United States Constitution had this text in its amendments, or if the wording of the Declaration of Independence was not “all men are created equal,” but “all persons are created equal” (as was the change women like Alice Paul, Susan B. Anthony, and Cady B. Stanton tried to achieve with their Declaration of Sentiments), would things be different? Would government text really serve a purpose, or has society’s constructs created a chasm between men’s and women’s rights so deep that it is within our minds and hearts ourselves? Can a governmental document, or even the law enforcement to back it up, really change something so deeply embedded in our social reality?
I guess not. Which is perhaps why the amendment is still awaiting the day when social reality will be more conducive to its passing.
Though many of us prefer to pretend it no longer exists, or that its effects are far away from our pretty, polished Western Civilization lives, human trafficking is in fact a global epidemic.
With over 30 million human beings enslaved today – the majority being women and children – we cannot afford to ignore this issue. Women are exploited for sexual work, children are considered the easiest and cheapest form of manual labor (with no pay), and law enforcement does little to no good about stopping the practice and freeing the slaves, especially in impoverished countries where police officers can easily be “bought off” by the slave masters or “pimps”.
But impoverished countries are not the only culprit – nor is Asia, although the Pacific Rim is the most heavily enslaved area on the globe. America itself, the great United States, sports human trafficking as the third highest source of commercial profit, with 300,000 people enslaved today. And it partakes both in import and export of the slave network, with a whopping 14,000 people trafficked into the country each year. Bet you didn’t know that.
Forced labor is not just a denial of choice and rights; it is a violent practice that mandates 20+ hour workdays, institutes abuse and beating when the person grows tired or slows down his/her production, often starves them and denies them shelter, clothing, and pay, and holds a constant threat of death or torture if the person tries to escape. Sexual slavery (forced prostitution) is even more widespread, while women are forced into submissive acts, sexual exploitation with up to 50 “clients” a day, denied birth control and medical exams (so they are often impregnated or contract diseases, at which point their pimps often torture them and throw them out onto the streets to die, or murder them personally.) The revenue this generates is often too “good” for the governments or law enforcements of the practicing countries to ignore – thus, the cycle continues.
So what can we do about it?
Educate ourselves. Knowledge is key to power, and power is key to making change. Educate yourself about the extent of human trafficking, its prevalence and the ways it is destroying the foundations of human rights and equality that so many have tried to build up in today’s global society.
Research companies and industries who support manual labor as opposed to free trade. For example, Bath and Body Works – along with their sister company Victoria’s Secret, as part of Limited Brands – engage in forced labor for manufacturing of their goods. Meanwhile, The Body Shop actively engages in free trade to boost the economies of suffering communities such as in Africa and South America, and furthermore is against animal testing in their products. You can find a list of companies that participate in slave labor at Change.org, in a report released by the Department of Labor.
If you have an iPhone, another handy resource is a “buy this, not that” type of application called “Free2Work.” The program lists products that are manufactured by forced labor and those that practice fair trade, so you are always making a global-conscious decision.
Above all, don’t ignore the issue. Don’t pretend it isn’t happening. There is so much more than meets the eyes, and more than can fill this space in text. Educate yourselves and help put an end to human slavery.
Do Ask, Do Tell. A phrase that some members of the armed forces may become much more comfortable with. The Senate has officially passed a repeal to the discriminatory policy- Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. The repeal was made possible, in large part, to a rushed stand-alone bill spearheaded by Senator Harry Ried (NV) and Senator Joe Liebermam (CN). Until now, Dont ask, Dont, Tell had been attached to other bills that included increased defense spending and had been filibustered incessantly. At one point, it was even attached to The Dream Act.
It would seem like common sense that anyone who wanted to sacrifice their life for their country should be allowed to. But homophobia has stood in the way of allowing gay men and women to serve openly in the armed forces and fight for the freedoms that Americans enjoy. Why is the military so threatened by gay people? I suppose it is the same reasons the military was threatened by women and blacks joining. The fear that adding something new would disrupt unit cohesion. But military history has showed that adding willing participants to fight for this country no matter your sex, gender, race, religion or sexual orientation only strengthens the military. The only difference is that gay people can be honest about who they are without fear of losing their job.
Imagine having to constantly lie about what you did during the weekend to your co-workers? Constantly having to watch your back in fear of being caught in a bar can really takes it toll on the human spirit– and that doesn’t sound like a positive feeling for a strong and well-prepared armed service member. And lets be real, over 70% of Americans say they are ready for this repeal. It is about time. As one shirt I saw during the news coverage of the decision– “You don’t have to be straight to shoot straight.”
The state of Arizona is in center stage of the immigration debate again but this time the law in question is the 2007 legislation entitled the Legal Arizona Worker’s Act. PBS’s Newshour presented a news segment that analyzed the details of the legislation in question and what the Supreme Court’s decision will likely be. This law requires all employers to verify the eligibility of new workers through the federal database of the E-Verify system. Violators of the law can have their business licenses suspended or revoked. Supporters of the law say the federal government has not been doing its job therefore it is up to the state to enforce the laws. Opponents argue that only the federal government can enforce immigration laws which in turn makes the law unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has yet to make a decision on the matter.
