Saturday, December 10, 2011

The US' evolving LGBT views

This past week, the Obama administration announced that they would factor in a country's record on LGBT issues, when evaluating how much to give in foreign aid. This is a welcome change to the status quo.

Linked is Secretary Clinton's remarks regarding the decision. I just want to highlight a few of her words, though:

"...Some have suggested that gay rights and human rights are separate and distinct; but, in fact, they are one and the same. Now, of course, 60 years ago, the governments that drafted and passed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights were not thinking about how it applied to the LGBT community. They also weren’t thinking about how it applied to indigenous people or children or people with disabilities or other marginalized groups. Yet in the past 60 years, we have come to recognize that members of these groups are entitled to the full measure of dignity and rights, because, like all people, they share a common humanity.


It is violation of human rights when people are beaten or killed because of their sexual orientation, or because they do not conform to cultural norms about how men and women should look or behave. It is a violation of human rights when governments declare it illegal to be gay, or allow those who harm gay people to go unpunished. It is a violation of human rights when lesbian or transgendered women are subjected to so-called corrective rape, or forcibly subjected to hormone treatments, or when people are murdered after public calls for violence toward gays, or when they are forced to flee their nations and seek asylum in other lands to save their lives. And it is a violation of human rights when life-saving care is withheld from people because they are gay, or equal access to justice is denied to people because they are gay, or public spaces are out of bounds to people because they are gay. No matter what we look like, where we come from, or who we are, we are all equally entitled to our human rights and dignity.


There is a phrase that people in the United States invoke when urging others to support human rights: “Be on the right side of history.” The story of the United States is the story of a nation that has repeatedly grappled with intolerance and inequality. We fought a brutal civil war over slavery. People from coast to coast joined in campaigns to recognize the rights of women, indigenous peoples, racial minorities, children, people with disabilities, immigrants, workers, and on and on. And the march toward equality and justice has continued. Those who advocate for expanding the circle of human rights were and are on the right side of history, and history honors them. Those who tried to constrict human rights were wrong, and history reflects that as well. ..."

Thursday, November 10, 2011

Change in United States’ Policies through Ratification of ICESCR?

Change in United States’ Policies through Ratification of ICESCR?
Taken into account the recent demonstrations all around the country, it seems obvious that something in the United States’ policies needs to change. The decisions of those who run the country no longer reflect the needs of the general public. The more difficult question is how to bring about change? One possibility is to look to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) for an answer. In 1977, the United States already became a signatory State to the covenant in pursuit of fighting poverty in the country. Ratification however, has not happened.
The ICESCR seeks to ensure an adequate standard of life to all individuals within a treaty party’s control. Some might argue that the United States is one of the wealthiest nations in the world, and even the poor need not suffer from poverty as compared to the poor in developing countries. The United States’ government already provides housing and foodstuffs for those who cannot afford it. Why is it so hesitant to ratify the ICESCR and implement all of the rights recognized by the treaty into domestic law? The answer seems to lie in the governmental body that is responsible for (not) giving its consent and advice for ratification: the Senate.  As a practical matter, wealthier citizens would have to provide for those who cannot afford an adequate standard of living on their own. Upon ratification of the ICESCR and implementation into domestic law, tax monies would have to be allocated in a way to positively ensure the rights to all individuals. If those politicians, who generally belong to the group of wealthier citizens, need to make funds available to ensure the realization of economic, social and cultural rights of others they might simply pursue their own interests over those of the poor.
Moreover, becoming a treaty party upon ratification after 24 years of merely being a signatory State might add to the credibility of the United States politics among the international society. United States’ politicians tend to point fingers at foreign governments and critique the way they treat their peoples. Why not start changes within the borders to ensure an adequate standard of living to every United States’ citizen?
Certain rights recognized by the ICESCR already seem to be in accord with the United States’ domestic standards. In particular a person’s right to primary education or everyone’s right to form a trade union or strike, to name a few. Others, however, are far from what the treaty seeks to realize. Particularly, the ICESCR provision which constitutes a person’s right to mental and physical health to the highest attainable standard seems to be at issue within the United States’ politics. Unfortunately, for some it is not only a matter of receiving the best attainable medical assistance but rather any medical assistance. Due to the lack of adequate health insurance or insufficient financial background many patients do not get the medical attention when they need it. Since the federal government already provides for certain medical expenses, why not improve the existing system to assure timely assistance to all?
Certainly, the ratification of any international treaty may seem like sacrificing a part of a nation’s sovereignty. This is especially true in a case like the ICESCR where an international monitoring body exists to ensure the State’s compliance with the treaty. But how much of its sovereignty would the United States really have to give up upon ratification of the ICESCR? Since it is already a signatory State to the covenant, international law regulates that it cannot take any actions that undermine the general object and purpose of the treaty. Yet, this leaves those provisions of the treaty that require affirmative government action in order to realize the rights recognized by the covenant. To assure those rights certain resources are necessary. The current financial situation undeniably does not allow for everyone to be endowed with caviar and champagne for dinner. But this is not the standard of adequacy the ICESCR seeks to achieve. The major concern within the United States – voiced by the demonstrators around the country – is the gap between the rich and the poor. Taken into account that the United States is nonetheless still one of the wealthiest nations in the world, the funding of programs seems like nothing more than the mere reallocation of subsidies. The ICESCR itself provides for the progressive implementation of rights to give States Parties the time to establish essential programs for the realization of rights.
One concluding thought: until now, the United States has failed to ratify the ICESCR partly on the ground that the United States’ Constitution and domestic laws do not allow for a system that takes from the wealthy in order to provide an adequate standard of life for the poor. What the United States Constitution and domestic laws do provide for are numerous limitations to rights granted to United States’ citizens on principles of national peace and security. Last year’s events in France, Great Britain or Greece demonstrate how poverty coupled with desperation can threaten a whole nation’s peace and security. If the United States is hesitant to ratify the ICESCR on political or moral grounds – maybe it should consider ratification and implementation on grounds of national peace and security?
Thea Muehe,
Candidate LL.M. in Global Law and Technology,
 Suffolk University Law School

Monday, November 7, 2011

The Dying Giant

Today, there are two great stories in The New York Times on censorship in China. Specifically, the stories describe how the internet is being used to circumvent the rigid controls placed on artists by their government.

“The worst effect of the censorship is the psychological impact on writers[…]”

Murong Xeucun (pen name of Hao Qun) has described himself as a “word criminal” and his books have been described as “violent” and “nihilistic.” When he showed up to received his first literary prize last year, he held up a white piece of paper and made a zipping motion across his mouth – as if to signify that he was unable to speak. Later, he posted the contents of that paper on the internet. It said, in part: “Chinese writing exhibits symptoms of a mental disorder […]This is castrated writing. I am a proactive eunuch, I castrate myself even before the surgeon raises his scalpel.”

Murong first started writing because he found it fun. It was only later that he learned that writing in China has to go through many layers of editing and revisions. He has found a way around this, and in turn has grown his fanbase. Murong has decided to publish censored books in China but publish the uncensored manuscripts online. By publishing in China, Murong is giving a wink-and-a-nod to his fans to find the uncensored work online. In fact, given his intense online following (he has nearly 1.1 million followers on China’s twitter-esque service) he will frequently publish upcoming chapters of his books to get crowd-sourced plot suggestions. This allows the crowd to come up with potentially subversive material organically. Even if the material is later removed via the editing process, the words remain alive in the collective consciousness of Murong’s millions of fans.

The impact of censorship in China is great on a writer, according to Murong. Despite being successful, he describes times where he will “think of a sentence, and then realize that it will for sure get deleted. Then [he] won’t even write it down. That self-censoring is the worst.”

The internet is a great tool for getting “the” word out. Right now, we’re seeing artists in China dance around the margins of the government will allow. However, the internet doesn’t respect social boundaries, it doesn’t respect geographical boundaries, and it certainly doesn’t respect boundaries imposed on it by governments. If there is one lesson to take away from the Arab Spring, it is this: where there is a group of people, committed to an open society, coupled with sufficient technology, a small spark has the power to destroy any barriers in its way.

“On Sunday, after [Ai Weiwei’s] Weibo account was disabled, dozens of people began arriving at the gate of Mr. Ai’s studio … [and] a number of people had folded 100-renminbi notes into airplanes and tossed them over the walls of his compound.”

The story of Mr. Weiwei’s imprisonment by the Chinese government is still ongoing. Currently, he’s being held under house arrest and accused of evading taxes. Because he is unable to work, Mr. Weiwei’s supporters took to the internet to pay off his $2.4m yuan tax bill. Despite being given only 15 days to come up with the money, his supporters donated upwards of $5m yuan since Tuesday. "These are tens of thousands of people bringing in the money," Ai Weiwei told the BBC. "They all have one message: we're supporting you, we're behind you, we have to let the people know solidarity and we know what it is and we know the accusations are fake, they're unreal."

No longer must we languish in silence. The internet made this possible…

Pushing China’s Limits on Web, if Not on Paper.

Online and by Paper Airplane, Contributions Pour In to Chinese Dissident

Saturday, October 29, 2011

Come get your pong on and support a good cause!

Just in case you need more motivation to write for SHR blog...

A good article to get you fired up to write for the Suffolk Law School Human Rights Blog!  Send submissions to

FGM article commentary

Found this article browsing through TNR and thought it was perfect for a blog. Basically this article discusses the prevalence of female circumcision, or female genital mutilation (FGM), in Egypt. Apparently Mubarak, and his wife Suzanne, were critics of FGM and even tried to ban its practice. In the power vacuum engendered from Mubarak's overthrow however, The Muslim Brotherhood has gained increasing influence, and is a vociferous supporter of FGM. Certainly makes for an interesting read and definitely a topic to raise awareness about so check it out: