Thursday, April 18, 2019
On one thing Congress agreed. The United States should withdraw its involvement in the war in Yemen. While promoted as a civil war, the escalation and breadth of devastation resulted directly from Saudi bombing. The "war" is nothing more than the Saudi Prince's desire to consolidate his power at a time when he was the equivalent of the Defense Minister. He did not anticipate the resistance he encountered. This Saudi driven war has had a devastating impact on the country. Photographs of starving children are horrific. Educational systems have been closed leaving over 1.7 million children without any education. Between 13 and 20 million Yemeni civilians face starvation. Over 17,000 Yemeni people have been killed or injured. This war is no longer a civil war but a war of Saudi domination. Yemen is all but destroyed.
In a rare bipartisan move, Congress passed a resolution calling for an end to any US involvement in the war. US involvement includes arms sales to the Saudis. This weak the President, a strong supporter of the Saudi's, vetoed the resolution calling it an attack on his presidential powers.
Wednesday, April 17, 2019
Tuesday, April 16, 2019
Richard Zorza passed away on April 13th. For those of you who did not have the pleasure of knowing him, Richard was an amazing and brilliant thinker and social justice leader whose career was formed around access to justice. A Harvard Law School graduate, Richard, and Joan Zorza each engaged in public interest legal work throughout their careers. Joan became a respected domestic violence researcher and practitioner. Richard spent his early career as a public defender and then began a journey to introduce courts and others to how technology could be used to assist the self-represented and how courts can better manage cases involving the self-represented. One of Richard's most significant contributions was his writing and training on judicial neutrality. Richard explained that judicial neutrality was not achieved by the court's failure to inquire of pro se litigants, Rather, Richard theorized, judicial neutrality is best achieved when judicial inquiry is employed to determine the facts of a matter so that the court may make an informed decision. " As Richard alerted the judicial system " The appearance of judicial neutrality has caused us improperly to equate judicial engagement with judicial non-neutrality, and therefore to resist the forms of judicial engagement that are in fact required to guarantee true neutrality." Richard's contribution to the ethics of "judicial neutrality" and the proper way to achieve neutrality were groundbreaking and continue to influence judicial thought on cases with the self-represented. His article The Disconnect Between the Requirements of Judicial Neutrality and Those of the Appearance of Neutrality when Parties Appear Pro Se: Causes, Solutions, Recommendations, and Implications was published in 2004.
Richard's most recent contribution to self-represented literature is Five New Broad Ideas to Cut Through the Access to Justice-Commercialization-Deregulation Conundrum published in 2016.
The Legal Services Corporation recently honored Richard with a resolution recognizing his contributions to US legal development.
"Richard has devoted his professional life to improving access to justice in America, particularly for those who cannot afford to pay for counsel. He has worked as a public defender, a legal services attorney and a justice technology designer. Richard was the founder of the Self Represented Litigation Network and served as the coordinator of the Network at its inception and later on its executive committee. The Network has played an indispensable role in bringing together courts, bar associations and access to justice organizations in support of innovation in services for the self-represented. The National Conference of Chief Justices and National Conference of State Court Administrators have described Richard “as the foremost ambassador and crusader for the cause of self-represented litigants in the United States” and as a leader whose “service has been marked by exceptional accomplishments which have benefited innumerable litigants and courts throughout the nation.”
Monday, April 15, 2019
If all goes as planned, by the time this blog is published, Pete Buttigieg will have formally declared his candidacy for President.
As someone steeped in local governance as the Mayor of South Bend, Indiana, Buttigieg brings to the race a special awareness of issues that often fly under the radar during national elections. Water and wastewater are great examples.
Water access, affordability, and wastewater treatment are all the province of local government. National politicians often overlook these concerns even as they address important universal rights such as health care. Yet Buttigieg identifies water as a critical component of Americans' freedom.
For example, in an August 2018 Rolling Stone interview, Buttigieg said: "I think about wastewater management as freedom. If a resident of our city doesn’t have to give it a second thought, she’s freer."
He repeated this idea more recently at an appearance at Northeastern University in Boston, adding drinking water into the mix.
Time will tell whether Buttigieg's unlikely campaign continues to gather momentum. But if nothing else, Buttigieg's recognition of the importance of water in everyday lives -- and the jeopardy that individuals face because of government's neglect of these concerns (think Detroit, Baltimore, Flint, Lowndes Co. Georgia) -- will make an important and unique contribution to the election debates over the next 18 months.
Sunday, April 14, 2019
Politico reports that the Trump Administration has declined to renominate human rights leader Gay McDougall as a member of the CERD Committee, which monitors state party compliance with the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination (CERD). Rather than renominate McDougall, the Administration nominated no one to the Committee. While Committee members serve as experts rather than national representatives, the Administration's move ensures that there will be no American voice on the Committee as it considers measures to address racial discrimination worldwide.
McDougall, an internationally renowned human rights advocate, was a particularly effective member of CERD. She served as the Committee's vice-chair. She brought to the Committee her extensive experience investigating human rights abuses as a UN expert. McDougall's credentials include an academic affiliation with Fordham Law School, honorary degrees from Georgetown and CUNY Law Schools, and a MacArthur "genius" award recognizing her work against South African apartheid, among other campaigns.
It is well-known that the current Administration has a practice of reneging on its international commitments. The U.S. resigned from the UN Human Rights Council, for example, and has failed to hold up its treaty obligations by filing monitoring reports with the UN. The list goes on, with withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord, and failure to support the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.
All of these actions remove the U.S. from human rights dialogues that might, over time, expand the human rights of U.S. residents. But beyond that, removing U.S. voices from these formal dialogues also gives other nations cover for their human rights abuses. McDougall, for example, was an outspoken advocate for addressing the human rights situation of the Uighurs in China. While she will no doubt continue to speak out, the Trump Administration's move sends a message that such human rights critiques take a back seat to economic considerations -- including personal economic gain for the President and his family, whose business ties to China remain extensive.
The U.S. has long taken an approach of human rights "exceptionalism," based on the idea that our domestic standards were "exceptional," essentially exempting us from international human rights scrutiny and dialogue. As a human rights leader, this idea went, we could stand aside and critique others for their human rights records.
This latest development at the CERD Committee, however, demonstrates that human rights exceptionalism has taken on a new meaning in the U.S. Now, human rights itself is "excepted" from America's governance equation, and our current government will do what it can to deny a platform to those who speak out effectively on human rights issues, wherever those abuses occur.
Thursday, April 11, 2019
The A.J. Muste Memorial Institute Social Justice Fund makes grants for grassroots activist projects in the US and around the world, giving priority to those with small budgets and little access to more mainstream funding sources. The Fund is especially interested in funding efforts to:
- end the violence of borders and the criminalization of immigrants
- abolish the death penalty, shut down the prison industrial complex, redefine criminal justice
- confront institutionalized repression against racial, ethnic, gender-based, and LGBTQ communities
- support progressive workers movements and the eradication of poverty
- dismantle the war machine, end state sponsored terrorism, expose the dangers of nuclear power
One of this year's grantees is the Fang Collective, a grassroots group working in the Northeast U.S. to, among other things, shut down ICE and local cooperation with ICE.
The application deadline for the Social Justice Fund's next round of grants is July 8, 2019. More information is available here.
Wednesday, April 10, 2019
International Criminal Court prosecutor Fatou Bensouda is banned from the United States. Secretary of State Pompeo had threatened last month to revoke the visa of anyone investigating the United States. Prosecutor Bensouda was seeking information about possible war crimes committed by US soldiers in Afghanistan.
"Washington's attempts to intimidate the ICC by canceling the ICC prosecutor's visa over a possible Afghanistan investigation is the Trump Administration's latest shameful attack on the rule of law" according to Human Rights Watch's international justice director.
The Prosecutor's office said that she will continue complying with her statutory duty and to follow her mandate under the Rome Statute to conduct investigations without "fear or favor."
The visa revocation will not impact the Prosecutor's ability to attend meetings at the United Nation.
Tuesday, April 9, 2019
Professor Shalanda Baker of Northeastern Law School has just published a thought-provoking article at 54 Harvard Civ. Rights-Civ. Lib. L. Rev. 1 (2019), titled Anti-Resilience: A Roadmap for Transformational Justice Within the Energy System.
Here's the abstract:
Climate change mitigation and adaptation require a transition of the energy system from one that relies on fossil fuels and is vulnerable to major climate events to one that is dependent on renewable energy resources and able to withstand climate extremes. Resilience has emerged as a conceptual frame to drive both climate and energy policy in this transitional moment. For example, in the wake of major storms such as Hurricanes Harvey and Maria, policymakers have frequently called for greater resilience of the energy system and resilience of vulnerable communities impacted by the storms.
This Article focuses on resilience at the system level. It argues that, in many cases, resilience of the energy system may actually reify structural inequality and exacerbate vulnerability. A hardening of existing energy infrastructure may also operate to harden existing social, economic, and environmental injustices that disproportionately burden the poor and people of color. Such situations call for new framings beyond resilience and transition toward liberation and transformation. This Article argues that, to facilitate the liberation of low-income communities and communities of color from the disproportionate impacts they face under the current energy system—and to foster a just transformation of the energy system—activists, policy-makers, and scholars engaged in the work of climate and energy justice must adopt a framework of anti-resilience: An antiracist and anti-oppression policy approach focused on the greater social and economic inclusion of people of color and low-income communities in the renewable energy transition.
Monday, April 8, 2019
By Jeremiah Ho Association Professor, UMass Law School
It’s probably unsurprising to say that a severe case of status quo anxiety has influenced the acrimonious states of our recent politics. The Senate majority’s latest episode of “going nuclear” (i.e. using a simple-majority vote) to rewrite the rules for confirming presidential judicial nominees seems like a move partly motivated by an urgency to clear the backlog of Trump nominees before a period of political powershifting arrives.
Last year at this time, a study put forth by the National Academy of Sciences suggested that the dominant demographic that supported Trump in the last presidential election cycle (white, male and Christian) did not act necessarily out of a sentiment of feeling “left behind,” but rather by the narrative of fearing what may come. Here is a NY Times article from last year that succinctly summarizes the study. If the idea of fear of the future holds true, then it not only helps us understand what happened in 2016, but also, for the time being, our current state of politics—and, derivatively, of law.
I broach this idea of status quo anxiety because I’ve seen it in two Supreme Court decisions involving religion rendered in the past year. Such anxiety helps explain for me what might be the animating principle for the Court in controversial decisions that may bring up the fear of progress—or putting it in relative terms of the status quo—the fear of losing status as a result of socio-political progress.
First, in reverse chronological order, is Dunn v. Ray, a case from this past February where the Court vacated the stay of execution entered originally by the Eleventh Circuit. In Dunn v. Ray, Domineque Ray, a black Muslim, who had been placed on death row in Alabama, requested to have an imam present at his execution. The Holman Correctional Facility in Alabama, where Ray was to be executed, had regularly permitted Christian chaplains for prior executions but refused Ray’s request for an imam. Ray appealed and sought a stay of execution. The Eleventh Circuit granted the stay because it held that the prison facility likely violated the First Amendment Establishment Clause and would proceed to consider the merits of Ray’s case. However, on further appeal by the Alabama Department of Corrections to the Supreme Court, the Court in Justice Thomas’ written order, vacated the stay of execution because it determined that Ray had waited too long to seek his request for an imam. The result, as many commentators have noted, is a disparate result between different religions—imparting what Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her dissent, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer and Sotomayor, was treatment that prioritizes a majority religion over a minority religion. In her words, the Court’s decision “goes against the Establishment Clause’s core principle of denominational neutrality.”
Some observers immediately noted a speciousness in the Court’s reliance on procedure to lift the execution stay. The reliance on procedure here seemed heavy-handed, especially in light of the constitutional violations that underscored this case. Dunn v. Ray is an unsatisfactory case because Ray’s religious merits were ignored—and yet, this is the same court that has recently fortified religious practices, most notably in cases such as Burwell v. Hobby Lobby or Town of Greece v. Galloway. Very shortly in this term, we will see the Court’s decision in another religious liberty case, American Legion v. American Humanist Association, involving a cross as a war memorial. So what’s the difference between Dunn v. Ray and the others? Well, the difference might just be as terse as the majority’s decision in Dunn v. Ray: we protect religion so long as that religion does not seem to displace or threaten the status quo.
For further guidance, I refer to Derrick Bell’s theory about the status quo to explain why this underlying motive might be so. As a corollary to Bell’s well-regarded interest convergency theory, he espoused that even where an effective remedy exists for a marginalized group, that remedy will be abrogated at the point that those in power fear the remedial remedy is threatening the superior societal identity of the status quo. In the context of political marginalization of African-Americans, Bell called this “racial sacrifice.” But I also view his theory’s instrumentality applicable to other marginalized groups. In Dunn v. Ray, the subordination of Ray’s religious liberties could be sacrificial in Bell’s terms as well.
The Judeo-Christian backgrounds of the majority Justices in Dunn v. Ray are uncontroverted, as well as their conservative dispositions. In addition, the Judeo-Christian identity is well within the status quo of the American mainstream society and has influenced action on headline-grabbing controversial social issues such as women’s health and sexuality all the way to more subtle conventions such as the national holiday calendar.
By contrast, there is no doubt that the Muslim faith has engendered much disregard and misunderstanding, especially since September 11th and the war on terror. Some of the negative responses have become racialized and ensconced within the rhetoric against those of Middle-Eastern descent. In addition, the politics of race—especially the relations between white and African-American groups—have not fared well in recent years. All of these combined tensions could have resonated and then fallen upon the shoulders of Ray in his request to the prison for an imam. Ray was, by all accounts, a black Muslim who had been convicted of a 1995 homicide of a Selma, Alabama girl, Tiffany Harville. His request for an imam, rather than a Christian chaplain could have triggered a discriminatory response from Alabama prison officials that was independently echoed by the Court’s majority because it would not have led to affirming the freedom to engage in Christian practice, but rather a minority religion.
Status quo bias may not be coming from the Supreme Court bench in the expressed case sentiments of the Justices. It might, however, explain the use of procedure to summarily dispose of Ray’s case, even when Ray had some constitutional remedial measures, as the Eleventh Circuit had recognized. Ray might have been substantively entitled to his religious practices, but legal procedures were strictly enforced against him to effectuate that practice. Ultimately, it results in a double-standard brought to us through plausible deniability that Justice Thomas espoused that Ray’s imam request simply could not be obliged because the timing of the request did not adhere to procedure. As Justice Kagan revealed in her dissent, it was quite possible the context of Ray’s request had certain injustices that would have made a prompt request impossible.
Herein lies the speciousness. The substantive case was strong on Ray’s side but the Court’s procedural justification to deny his request was weak. The decision to lift the stay prioritizes the Christian faith over other faiths in Ray’s case, despite our constitutional standards of religious neutrality. Could the resort to procedure be just a cover? After all, is it the old lawyer’s strategy to resort to procedure if the substance of a case’s merits is not going to produce a win. (See the late John Dingell’s famous quote: “If you let me write the procedure, and I let you write the substance, I’ll screw you every time.”). Constitutionally, Ray might have been entitled to having an imam at his execution just as much as another inmate would have been entitled to a chaplain in similar circumstances, but because the Muslim faith is being invoked here, it isn’t treated as urgently as the Christian faith might be. The Court, under the guise of procedure and plausible deniability, summarily defeats Ray’s claim. Was the Court’s majority threatened by the idea that giving parity to the Muslim faith in Ray’s instance seemed somehow threatening to the religious liberties given to Christian practices? Under Bell’s thesis, could we deem this a moment of Muslim and racial sacrifice?
Another recent Supreme Court case that shares this same mechanism is Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. In that case, a same-sex couple sought a claim of sexual orientation discrimination under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) after they had attempted to order for a custom-made cake to celebrate their then out-of-state marriage but was refused by a Christian baker. By all accounts, under CADA, the couple had strong evidence of sexual orientation discrimination and the baker did not fall within any religious exemptions. The state-level determinations all found that the same-sex couple had been discriminated against under CADA. But in 2018, even after Obergefell, the Court reversed the couple’s sexual orientation discrimination claim, not on the substantive merits but through procedure—observing that the lower state proceedings had disparaged the baker’s Christian faith during its review and thus violated religious neutrality. Again, procedure was used rigidly to vitiate the strong substance of the discrimination claim. Justice Kennedy’s use of procedure here—the violation of religious neutrality, was likewise specious and thin. The concurring and dissenting Justices in Masterpiece debated the existence or non-existence of religious neutrality, which seemed to place some doubt on the firmness of Justice Kennedy’s findings.
Could Dunn v. Ray and Masterpiece Cakeshop decisions—both involving religious liberties, minority claimants with strong substantive merits, and the Court’s dismissive use of procedure—have been rendered out of a perceived threat to the status quo’s religious identity? Do we have a panic on the Court? Placed with the context of status quo anxiety and Derrick Bell’s sacrifice theory, the two cases allow us to think about the Court’s future renderings for religious freedoms. If the Court is presiding collectively with status quo anxiety in mind, then minority claimants that seemingly threaten the status quo might have their prayers for relief fall on deaf ears.
Sunday, April 7, 2019
The New York Times headline read Alabama's Gruesome Prisons: Report Finds Rape and Murder at All Hours. The investigation into Alabama's male prison system began under the Obama administration with the bulk of the investigation continuing under the present administration. As the Times article notes, Alabama is not alone in deplorable conditions, but Alabama incarcerates in numbers greater than other jurisdictions and its conditions are "severe" with antiquated prisons housing nearly twice the number of individuals they were built to house. Photographs of the deplorable conditions may be found here. Reportedly, the Southern Poverty Law Center received a thumb drive containing over 2,000 photographs of gruesome prison conditions.
Most of Alabama's prisoners are not housed in safe conditions. Sleeping dorms contain no protections from violence and solitary confinement is used to house the most vulnerable prisoners.
Alabama Governor Kay Ivey said that her administration will work to address "mutual concerns" and to make certain that the Alabama problem has an "Alabama solution". Interpretation - the concerns were never mutual. The need for an Alabama solution tells her constituents that once again, Alabama will resist acknowledging the authority and will resent the interference of the federal government.
Example: according to one report, a proposed Alabama solution would have the state build much larger prisons. This is not exactly a solution that prisoner's lawyers are seeking. One representative of Southern Poverty Law Center responded: “You don’t need to build mega prisons, you need to increase the number of correctional officers that are working in your prison. You need to deal with issues of violence and sexual assault. You need to engage in more sentencing reform to further drive down the population, so that you’re not at 160 percent capacity. But, instead, the answer that we got was: build, build, build.”
Administrative self-reflection appears to be the missing link.
Thursday, April 4, 2019
Last month, the NGO Committee on the Status of Women/New York awarded the Cities for CEDAW Global Leadership Award to Mayor William Peduto of Pittsburgh, PA.
The Committee explained that Mayor Peduto "was chosen for this award due to his work to implement sustaining policies which eliminate all forms of discrimination against women at the local level."
The press release for the announcement provides some additional background on the component parts that worked together to achieve this change for Pittsburgh:
"To make the global local in Pittsburgh, NGOs: WILPF/Pittsburgh and the Zonta Club of Pittsburgh, along with women advocate groups New Voices Pittsburgh and the Women’s Law Project, formed the Pittsburgh for CEDAW Coalition. They worked closely with their sponsor, Councilperson Natalia Rudiak, and with the full support of Mayor Peduto, the City Council passed unanimously the CEDAW ordinance in 2016. The Ordinance seeks to improve the lives of all women and girls in Pittsburgh by, for example, reducing and eliminating violence against women and girls, promoting more equitable economic development, increasing quality education opportunities and the delivery of all City services. It recognizes discrimination in these areas also affects the health and well-being of women and girls and seeks ways to improve or complement the work that is already being done by groups such as the Pittsburgh Public Safety Department. The Gender Equity Commission began meeting in 2018 and currently has 14 volunteers who are local feminist leaders. Executive Director Anupama Jain describes their goals of “dismantling gender inequalities in our city” and reiterates the CEDAW motto that, “when women succeed, our communities thrive.'"
Wednesday, April 3, 2019
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in Bucklew v. Precythe -- a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Gorsuch that goes out of its way to endorse methods tantamount to torture as legitimate means to execute a death row inmate. With a different make-up, the Supreme Court had long looked to evolving standards of decency to guide its 8th Amendment jurisprudence, and had at least acknowledged that continued U.S. embrace of the death penalty left us out of step with peer nations. The current majority, however, apparently has no use for such transnational comparisons or appeals to human decency, instead gratuitously complaining about the "excessive delays" while prisoners exercise their rights to challenge their executions.
In dissent, Justice Breyer predicts that "it may be that, as our Nation comes to place ever greater importance upon ensuring that we accurately identify, through procedurally fair methods, those who may lawfully be put to death, there simply is no constitutional way to implement the death penalty." For the time being, however, the Supreme Court majority seems more concerned with speed than accuracy or fundamental morality.
A day after the Bucklew decision, the Human Rights Committee published its list of issues for the U.S. to address when it prepares its periodic report on U.S. compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Questions about the U.S.'s continued use of the death penalty are prominent, and the Committee asks:
"Please provide information on: (a) Death sentences imposed, the number of executions carried out, the grounds for each conviction and sentence, the age of the offenders at the time of committing the crime, and their ethnic origins; (b) Steps taken to eradicate racial bias in death penalty convictions; (c) Execution methods used in carrying out the death penalty and whether such methods were reviewed since the last reporting period; (d) The compatibility of lethal drugs used in executions reported to cause severe physical and mental suffering with the Covenant; (e) Steps taken to prevent wrongful convictions leading to death penalty sentences and provide compensation for those exonerated; and (f) steps taken to implement the judgment of the International Court of Justice on review and reconsideration of death penalties for individuals whose right to consular assistance was violated. Provide information on the number of wrongful death sentence convictions since the prior reporting period and any remedial measures taken. Indicate, also, whether the State party has considered establishing a federal moratorium on executions, with a view to abolishing the death penalty."
Ultimately, the U.S. will present this information to the Human Rights Committee for its review and comment. The current Supreme Court majority may believe that they can operate in a domestic vacuum, turning back the clock to death squads if need be. But the rest of the world is judging, too. The methods of execution approved by the current Court underscore, to people worldwide as well as in the U.S., the utter barbarity of the death penalty.
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
This startling sentence comes at the end of the movie Wind River, a graphic 2017 murder mystery/thriller that has at its core the issue of missing and murdered indigenous women (MMIW). Since the release of that movie, a database that more thoroughly documents MMIW has been created. This database, which is housed at the Sovereign Bodies Institute website, was created by Annita Lucchesi, a doctoral student, and cartographer. Lucchesi used the Freedom of Information Act requests to obtain information from many law enforcement entities.
Here is a description of the database from the Sovereign Bodies Institute website:
The MMIW Database logs cases of missing and murdered indigenous women, girls, and two-spirit people, from 1900 to the present. There are many lists and sources of information online, but no central database that is routinely updated, spans beyond colonial borders, and thoroughly logs important aspects of the data, and overall, there is a chronic lack of data on this violence. The Database works to address that need, by maintaining a comprehensive resource to support community members, advocates, activists, and researchers in their work towards justice for our stolen sisters.
Other efforts to reliably document murdered and missing indigenous women include proposed federal legislation. Savanna’s Act was introduced in the 115th Congress and unanimously passed in the Senate. Thereafter, it stalled in the House. A revised version of the bill was recently re-introduced by Senator Lisa Murkowski. It had 11 co-sponsors.
The congressional findings in the bill are as shocking as the Wind River coda. They include:
(1) On some reservations, Indian women are murdered at more than 10 times the national average.
(2) American Indians and Alaska Natives are 2.5 times as likely to experience violent crimes—and at least 2 times more likely to experience rape or sexual assault crimes—compared to all other races according to the National Congress of American Indians.
(3) More than 4 in 5 American Indian and Alaska Native women, or 84.3 percent, have experienced violence in their lifetime according to the National Institute of Justice.
(4) More than 4 in 5 American Indian and Alaska Native men, or 81.6 percent, have experienced violence in their lifetime according to the National Institute of Justice.
(5) According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, homicide is the third leading cause of death among American Indian and Alaska Native women between 10 and 24 years of age and the fifth leading cause of death for American Indian and Alaska Native women between 25 and 34 years of age.
(6) Investigation into cases of missing and murdered Indian women is made difficult for Tribal law enforcement agencies due to a lack of resources, … a lack of interagency cooperation, … and a lack of appropriate laws in place.
With efforts like the MMIW database and, one can hope, bipartisan federal legislation, perhaps the shameful failure to document missing and murdered native women and girls can begin to be rectified.
Anticipating federal restrictions on reproductive choice, states and cities have been looking to implement legislation that will protect reproductive rights. New York City recently enacted a bill that prevents employment discrimination based upon sexual health choices.
The bill summary notes:
"The bill would prohibit discrimination in employment, and discriminatory harassment or violence, based on an individual’s sexual and reproductive health decisions. Sexual and reproductive health decisions would be defined to include any decision by an individual to receive services, which are arranged for or offered or provided to individuals relating to sexual and reproductive health, including the reproductive system and its functions. Such services include, but are not limited to, fertility-related medical procedures, sexually transmitted disease prevention, testing, and treatment, and family planning services and counseling, such as birth control drugs and supplies, emergency contraception, sterilization procedures, pregnancy testing, and abortion."
The law will go into effect on May 20, 2019. To read further commentary, click here.
Monday, April 1, 2019
517 business earned the top score, noting advances for members of the LGBTQ community. Of note was health care advances for transgender individuals. The survey included major corporations and law firms. The press release notes: “The top-scoring companies on this year’s CEI are not only establishing policies that affirm and include employees here in the United States, they are applying these policies to their global operations and impacting millions of people beyond our shores,” said HRC President Chad Griffin. “Many of these companies have also become vocal advocates for equality in the public square, including the dozens that have signed on to amicus briefs in vital Supreme Court cases and the more than 170 that have joined HRC’s Business Coalition for the Equality Act. Time and again, leading American businesses have shown that protecting their employees and customers from discrimination isn’t just the right thing to do -- it’s also good for business.”
The three foundations of the survey are:
● Non-discrimination policies across business entities;
● Equitable benefits for LGBTQ workers and their families;
● Supporting an inclusive culture and corporate social responsibility.
The report also notes those businesses that support the Equality Act which will provide explicit protections for LGBTQ individuals under the nation's civil rights laws.
The full report may be read here.
Sunday, March 31, 2019
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is 70 years old. On April 3 Columbia Law School will honor the anniversary of the signing with a panel discussion and the unveiling of a donated bust of Eleanor Roosevelt. One of Mrs. Roosevelt's granddaughters Laura Roosevelt will be in attendance and add commentary.
The panel session will review the implementation of the declaration and look forward to what remains to be done.
The website explains: Seventy years ago, the UN General Assembly unanimously adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Drafted under Chairwoman Eleanor Roosevelt, the UDHR inaugurated the modern international human rights system. This panel discussion explores past accomplishments and future challenges of human rights under the UDHR. The anniversary will also be marked by the unveiling of a bust of Eleanor Roosevelt, gifted to Columbia Law School in recognition of her contribution to human rights.
The session will be held from 6:30 to 8 in Jerome Green Hal. Further information may be found here.
Thursday, March 28, 2019
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights recently issued its report on police violence against African Americans in the United States. Approved in November 2018, the report assesses structural discrimination against African-Americans with a particular focus on "deepseated racial disparities in policing and the criminal justice system". The IACHR notes that concerns that the long-standing violence against African Americans raises a larger concern with US failure to enforce international human rights norms.
The report goes beyond assessment of violation of individual civil and human rights. The report includes a history of the race discrimination in the US as well as examining "modern structural discrimination" and over-policing.
The IACHR press release notes that the report's "conclusions are perhaps most succinctly expressed in a note on the cover art, which reads, “the United States has systematically failed to adopt preventive measures and to train its police forces to perform their duties in an appropriate fashion. This has led to the frequent use of force based on racial bias and prejudice and tends to result in unjustified killings of African Americans.”
Wednesday, March 27, 2019
On Tuesday, UN human rights experts issued a statement condemning the “egregious” business practices of giant private equity and investment firms which are scooping up low income and affordable homes around the world, upgrading them, and substantially raising rents, forcing tenants out of their own homes.
Recognizing the central role that private investing plays in these developments, Leilani Farha, the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate housing, and Surya Deva, Chairperson of the Working Group on business and human rights, wrote to one of the world’s largest investors in residential real estate, the Blackstone Group L.P. The experts expressed serious concerns that the Blackstone Group's actions are inconsistent with international human rights law with respect to the right to housing and its responsibility to respect human rights under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.
At the same time, the experts have been critical of the role that governments have played in permitting these private actors to profit from actions that create displacement and homelessness. Of particular interest in the U.S., the experts sent a letter to the U.S. government reminding it of its human rights obligations.
More information is here.
Tuesday, March 26, 2019
This week PBS ran a two part story addressing the role of women in peacemaking on a national level. More segments are to come.
Part I addressed the role of women in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland coming together to be involved in the peace discussions ending the many years of "The Troubles". Women leaders are interviewed in the documentary and their reflections on their roles brings an important perspectives to events. Their efforts were minimized by the men in power who dismissed the suggestion that Sinn Fein be brought to the table. Ultimately though, the women recognized that lasting peace would be impossible without the rebels at the table. Even the Clinton administration "forgot" to invite the women to the White House when all parties to the talks were brought together. Hillary Clinton met with the women and thanked them for their efforts. Thereafter the women received acknowledgment as part of the peace talks.
Part II addresses women's protests and fights for change in Egypt. Women marched and protested before and during the Arab Spring but it was when the Arab Spring arrived that men were aggressively silencing women. Of the women arrested for protesting, at least a third were subject to "virginity" tests. One mob used a woman demonstrator's headscarf to strangle her. Despite the horrific tactics used to silence Egyptian women, many carried on underground.
Additional documentaries are part of the series. These are stories of courageous women. Excellent models for being brave in challenging times.
Click here for a link to the PBS website on Women, War and Peace.
Monday, March 25, 2019
On April 12th, the Bringing Human Rights Home Network will hold its annual conference. The event is co-sponsored with the Columbia Human Rights Institute and others. This year's topic is Securing Fundamental Human Rights & Challenging Criminalization of Poverty. The event is free for public interest attorneys including academics. Topics include the criminalization of homelessness as well as leveraging human rights strategies. The event will be held at Skadden Arps in NYC.