Human Rights at Home Blog

Enjoy Halloween, But Do So Responsibly

Jonathan Todres

 

“Can’t we just let kids enjoy Halloween?” Inevitably that’s the response I receive this time of year when I mention the ongoing exploitation of children in the chocolate industry. The answer to that question, by the way, is yes. Yes, children should be allowed to enjoy Halloween, but the evidence on cocoa production is that our enjoyment of chocolate comes at the expense of children in Ghana, Cote d’Ivoire, and other countries.

Enjoying Halloween and supporting efforts to end child labor are not mutually exclusive. Don’t take my word for it. Click here to read what one thoughtful 10-year-old student in New Mexico wrote about the issue (and a list of Fair Trade chocolate brands can be found here).

SCOTUS TO HEAR N.C. TRANSGENDER CASE

In what should prove to be a much watched and written about case, the Supreme Court accepted for hearing the North Carolina case Gloucester County School Board v. GG.   Gloucester was discussed earlier on this blog, when the case first appeared on the Supreme Court docket requesting a stay of implementation of the N.C. law that would have permitted high school students to use the bathroom of the gender with which they identify.  We reported that Justice Breyer wrote at that time that his vote for a stay was a "courtesy".  Befuddled at the time, it appears that we may discover the meaning of this "courtesy".  The case involves, in part, a Department of Education's interpretation of Title IX that funding recipients must provide separate facilities and treat transgender students consistent with their gender identity. 

This case will be significant in the LGBT journey to assign sexual identity suspect classification status. 

In the meantime, an Illinois Federal court decided that Title IX protects transgender students in using locker and bathrooms in accordance with their gender identity.  Of significance is the Judge's finding that "High school students do not have a constitutional right not to share restrooms or locker rooms with transgender students whose sex assigned at birth is different than theirs".  This language may be important to SCOTUS' decision if constitutional claims are made.

 

 

 

 

The Rise of Human Rights Cities

Martha Davis has edited a book with Barbara Oomen (University of Utrecht) and Michele Griglio (Nottingham Trent University) Global Urban Justice - The Rise of Human Rights Cities.  Released this summer, the book examines the process of becoming a human rights city, imagining human rights cities and exploring the challenges and possibilities among other topics. 

Published by Cambridge University Press the book's website says:

"Cities increasingly base their local policies on human rights.  Human rights cities promise to forge new alliances between urban actors and international organizations, to enable the 'translation' of the abstract language of human rights to the local level, and to develop new practices designed to bring about global urban justice.  This book brings together academics and practitioners at the forefront of human rights cities and the 'right to the city' movement to critically discuss their history and also the potential that human rights cities hold for global urban justice."

The topic will be explored at a December conference, Global Justice Goes Local: The Emergence of the Human Rights Cities. Martha Davis will keynote the event to be held at Northeastern Law School and sponsored by the Program on Human Rights and the Global Economy.   More information about the conference may be found here.

Foley Hoag's New UN Practice Group: Doing Well by Doing Good?

Law school placement offices and trend-watchers take note:  Yesterday, the law firm Foley Hoag announced creation of a new UN Practice Group, believed to be the first of its kind.  According to the firm's press release:

     Chaired by attorney Christina Hioureas, Foley Hoag’s UN practice group provides legal advice and representation to     Permanent Missions to the United Nations on matters before the Security Council, General Assembly, Sixth     Committee to the General Assembly (Legal Affairs), United Nations Commission on International Trade Law     (UNCITRAL) and meetings of the States Parties to the Law of the Sea Convention, among other UN bodies. The first of its kind, the group also serves to advise States on matters before the UN including trade, law of the sea, human rights, international criminal law and international humanitarian law.

If Foley's instincts are right, and this leads other firms to look into this area of practice, perhaps future law students can aspire to work in the public international law arena without renouncing law firm perks.  At the very least, Foley Hoag's move underscores the idea that the law addressed by the UN is real law, with real consequences for member states, and that getting legal advice is a good idea.

Chris Christie's Human Rights Opportunity

Earlier this year, we posted resources on the growing movement to end solitary confinement in the United States.  Now, New Jersey could be on the brink of restricting solitary confinement in state and county prisons.  A bill passed by both houses of the New Jersey legislature is waiting for the Governor's signature.  While not a complete ban, the American Friends Service Committee supports the measure, saying that it chips away at human rights violations inherent in the widespread practice. 

In the past, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has been skeptical of solitary confinement, signing into a law a bill which limited use of solitary against juveniles.  But now, with his chosen presidential candidate on the ropes and with continued revelations concerning his knowledge and involvement in Bridgegate, will Christie do the right thing?  The legislature's vote was along party lines, which might lead a cautious Christie to exercise a veto.  But that's the wrong instinct.  Many observers argue that Christie's political career is essentially over.  Perhaps that's good news for those who support the bill.  On the one hand, the political consequences if he signs the bill will pale in comparison to the consequences for his other actions.  And on the other hand, if he has any chance of rebuilding his reputation as a practical, smart and independent politician, he should take the moral high ground approved by the legislature and sign the pending bill.

It seems like a century ago that Christie was vying for the Republican presidential nomination.  But in a speech back in July 2015, Christie pledged to take a different approach to criminal justice issues.  He noted the difficulty that former inmates have in re-integrating into communities post-release, a process that is made exponentially more difficult when inmates have suffered the mental assaults posed by solitary.  “Justice isn’t something we jail our way to. Justice is something we have to build in our communities,” Christie said. 

His presidential ambitions may be gone for good, but by signing S51, Chris Christie can still make the positive difference that he once promised.

 

 

Housing and The Human Right to Life

When UN Rapporteur for Housing Leilani Farha speaks this week at Columbia Human Rights Institute on the Right to Life, she will be speaking in one of the cities across the country that is looking seriously at providing a lawyer to tenants who appear in housing court as part of an eviction process.  As reported earlier, New York City instituted a pilot program where tenants were appointed a lawyer for the process.  While only 20% of the tenants were assigned lawyers, the outcomes for tenants with lawyers were significantly better than those without.  Now the city is looking at the possibility of appointing counsel for all housing court involved tenants. Hearings were held in late September and speakers were overwhelmingly in favor. The movement toward appointed counsel for those who cannot afford counsel is spreading.  Last week the District of Columbia held hearings on a bill that looks to enhance the availability of counsel in civil cases that involve fundamental human rights.  The bill looks to fund pilot projects for  access to counsel, through expanding existing legal services organizations. Among the cases that would be prioritized are housing, family integrity (custody), health care and safety (domestic violence).  The bill reads "A right to counsel should attach in civil cases whenever fundamental human needs are at risk." 

In specifically addressing the need for counsel in housing cases, the bill states: "Safe, secure, and accessible housing  is essential to achieving equal access to all other fundamental needs. Without housing, individuals and families cannot preserve family integrity, gain employment or other income, or enjoy access to healthcare, proper nutrition and education."  While the bill is largely aspirational, it has ignited serious human rights discussion. 

Major cities are assessing the need, if not the right, to counsel in housing matters.  Civil Gideon implementation is edging toward reality.

For a national perspective on the Civil Gideon movement, click here.

 

D.C. Youth Document the Human Rights City

In summer 2016, the Washington, D.C. Youth Ambassadors Summer Program, in partnership with the American Friends Service Committee and the DC Humanities Council, created a remarkable series of videos and photo-essays investigating the status of human rights in the nation's first human rights city, Washington, D.C.  These vivid videos are valuable in their own right, are models for similar projects elsewhere, and may be useful jumping off points for class discussions.  They deserve a wider viewership.  Here are links to several of the videos:  An Introduction to the HR Project; Human Rights in a Human Rights City: Tell us our Rights; and Human Rights in an Unrecognizable Human Rights City.  More are posted on Youtube.

An Opening to Create Allies

Many thanks to the Republican leaders who unequivocally withdrew all support for Donald Trump following the release of the Billy Bush video.  They are to be admired. While Paul Ryan who, early in the election process, refused to give an unqualified endorsement to the Trump candidacy, has said that he would not defend the Republican nominee, he was a reluctant supporter and lukewarm campaigner from the beginning.  It was interesting to watch him struggle with his instincts to stay away from Mr. Trump, but find the balance of being the party leader.  

Mr. Ryan was clear in his unwillingness to risk the Republic by campaigning for a man who from the outset promoted disrespect for many of those living in America as well as disregard for democratic principles.  Congressman Ryan’s recent response to Mr. Trump’s misogyny has been, in part, due to his being personally offended and not simply a response calculated to counter the loss of women’s support for the Republican Party.  

One lesson from this interesting debacle, has been that the party elders, such as Mitt Romney, immediately disavowed the Trump candidacy.  Mr. Ryan, coming from the circle of the far right experienced his first major test of leadership for all. Do what is right and the party will benefit.  Hopefully, Mr. Ryan has learned that the elders have wisdom.  That the "old-fashion" politics of compromise works and bipartisanship can work.  Is there hope for  Mr. Ryan, when it took the Mr. Trump's outrageously offensive acts for him to respond? Mr. Ryan is on the verge of becoming a solid party leader who follows his moral and political instincts to serve the country.  He will determine his own fate in 2017.

Mr. Ryan and his colleagues must continue to show support for women by setting aside what, during the present administration, appears to be opposition for opposition’s sake.  Mr. Ryan has an opportunity to lead us into an era where the best interest of the country is the paramount consideration.   Our political representatives may not like each other  and they may disagree on strategies that will keep our country strong: economically, politically and morally.   But they need to respect each other and be willing to reach compromise.  They must also be unwilling to concede to those who act solely to promote their own self-interest or personal bias.  

The determinative test of Mr. Ryan leadership is here.  He must decide whether  to work professionally with our first female president.  The continuous irrational refusal of Congress to work with each other as well as with the executive branch contributed to creating the vacuum that permitted Mr. Trump to claim the Republican nomination.  Paul Ryan was part of that  vacuum building. A courageous Mr. Ryan can reverse the atmosphere of distrust and non-cooperation, even in the face of criticism from his party colleagues.  Women will be grateful for a return to professional, issue-based discussion.   Setting aside tactics of hostility and anger, both rooted in the masculine, will help bring gender balance to political leadership and permit the country to recover some of the core values that seem to have been lost.

May Mr. Ryan find his way to seeing the election of our first woman president as an opportunity to infuse the feminine principles of respect and civility into his party’s leadership. 

Human Right to Social Security

"The right to social security is the right to access and maintain benefits, whether in cash or in kind, without discrimination in order to secure protection, inter alia, from (a) lack of work-related income caused by sickness, disability, maternity, employment injury, unemployment, old age, or death of a family member; (b) unaffordable access to health care; (c) insufficient family support, particularly for children and adult dependents." – Committee on the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment 19

The human right to social security is overlooked in US debate.  The topic was absent from the presidential discussion this election season until the final debate. Issues were largely ignored because personality and character flaws have dominated election discussion.  More recently funding mechanisms, raising the age of eligibility and privatization have been points of discussion.  Continuation of benefits is never assured by either party. 

None of the proposals raised by politicians secure human rights for those most in need.  A good example is the suggestion of raising the age of eligibility.  For those at or near retirement age now, eligibility for full benefits begins at age 66.  Some advocate raising that age to 68.  The proposed age may be possible for those of us privileged to work in academia and other non-physical positions.  But for the mechanic on his feet all day, 66 is a hardship.  For those whose ailments develop earlier because of sustained physical work, placing social security benefits further out of reach is a denial of dignity.

Any measure that removes responsibility for government supported financial security risks the financial survival of millions.

There is no shortage of funding sources for Social Security.  If the funds collected through payroll were invested for the sole use of payment of benefits, each recipient could collect thousands more a month than is paid now.  But the collected funds are used toward the general budget, which presently includes substantial funding of the forever war.  That was not the intention when the payroll tax was designed. 

 The solution to providing for those who are disabled or elderly is simple.  The next time a politician or others talk about the "drain" that social security is taking on our domestic budget, we might suggest segregating the social security payroll tax with the dedicated use being supporting those in financial need.   Dignity of those in need of financial security is not optional, particularly since those citizens have paid into the system through out their working lives with the expectation of receiving a pension.  We have the method of collection and we have the funding.  The government needs to make reparations to the depleted fund and prioritize the survival and dignity of those most in need.

 

 

Resources for Teaching US Human Rights

Putting together a course on US human rights?  You're not alone!  There are a number of exemplary courses available on the internet.  A course on US human rights currently being offered by the University of Pennsylvania Africana Studies department is described here.  Columbia Law School offered a law course on US human rights advocacy in 2015, described here.  Information on a University of Connecticut sociology course focused on US human rights is available here.  Northeastern Law School will also offer a course on US human rights advocacy in 2016-2017.  It's worth noting that such courses are of particular interest to LLM students anxious to learn about the US approach to human rights.  Responding to this interest, the University of Connecticut recently launched a new L.L.M. in Human Rights and Social Justice, which links study of human rights with the US civil rights movement. 

Want more information?  As part of its "Teaching Human Rights" project, the University of Connecticut maintains a website with a wide range of human rights course syllabi.   The website is up to date, with a number of 2015 and even 2016 course syllabi posted to give instructors inspiration and ideas.  If you have another syllabus that you think should be included, contact the U Conn folks at [email protected].

 

 

International Standards on Business and Human Rights: Is Drafting a New Treaty Worth It?

Professor Connie de la Vega, an occasional guest author on this blog, has posted a fascinating new paper that moves the ball forward on the debate over  the impact of a new business and human rights treaty.  Here's the abstract:

Abstract:      

In 2014, the United Nations Human Rights Council adopted a resolution to establish a Working Group to draft a treaty on business and human rights. In the aftermath of this resolution, much is being written on what such a treaty would cover. And in light of the very close vote approving the resolution — and the likelihood that few developed countries would ratify the treaty — question may arise as to whether the effort to draft the treaty would be worth it. To answer this question, paper examines the International Convention for the Protection of All Rights of Migrant Workers and Their Families — which has only been ratified by a small number of states (and primarily by sending countries).

This paper first summarizes the history of the efforts to address corporate accountability, and examines the current voluntary and mandatory international standards relevant to the human rights obligations of businesses.

The paper then reviews the Convention on Migrant Workers and the Committee on Migrant Workers (CMW) Concluding Observations on reports of the States Parties. These reports indicate that states have adopted legislation to both educate their own citizens who might emigrate to other countries as well as to provide some benefits to migrant workers in their own countries. Despite the small number of States Parties to the Convention, this legislation demonstrates what can be done to protect the rights of migrant workers both in sending and receiving countries, and it helps develop best practices to promote their rights. And while the CMW has raised concerns regarding the adequacy of this legislation, the laws have helped to develop the legal standards regarding the definition of migrant workers, and regarding rights of those in irregular situations. The paper asserts that these benefits will clearly have an effect on the evolution of the law protecting migrant workers and their families. The Convention on Migrant Workers thus provides a good model for the possible benefits of a treaty on human rights, even if such a treaty is not widely ratified. First, the drafting of a binding document has helped develop the law on migrant workers. Second, the treaty has helped to promote and protect the rights of workers from sending states as well as migrants who live in the States Parties. 

The paper concludes that the drafting of a treaty on business and human rights could have a similar effect. Such a treaty could promote the development of international standards to address the topic at the international level, as well as the development of procedures at the national level. It could also provide a forum for addressing redress at the international level when the domestic procedures are not sufficient.

 

Hope for the Planet- Enhancing the Montreal Protocol

The 28th Meeting of the Parties (MOP 28) to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer met in Rwanda last week.  Among the discussion was the use and misuse of hydrofluorocarbons (HFC).    The related working group met immediately prior to the general meeting in order to write draft policy on HFC.  The use of HFC has environmental benefits.  Hydrofluorocarbons can substitute for chemicals that deplete the ozone layer.  Uncontrolled use of HFC leads to climate warming.  The meeting focused on ways to manage the use of HFC, which would prevent a rise in world temperature by more than half a degree Celsius by the end of the century.

On Saturday, 170 nations signed an agreement limiting the use of HFC in air conditioners and refrigerators. The agreement amends the Montreal Protocol, a pact agreed to so that unified actions could take steps to close the hole in the ozone layer.  At that time countries agreed to ban the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFC). 

The agreement exemplifies the UN's best. Nations working together to create solutions. The agreement acknowledges that poorer nations will take longer to implement HFC reduction. And scientists say slow implementation is insufficient to avert some warming. None of that takes away from the fact that 170 countries acknowledged the seriousness of the warming crisis and acted together to help save our planet.

October Surprise

No, it's not another blog about the endless US election .  .  . the real surprise this October is that Bob Dylan is a Nobel prizewinner!  The crazy kids at the Swedish Academy found a way to cut through the mishigas and remind us that words, and music, matter and can raise us up.  That got us thinking about human rights and music and, no surprise here, there are many, many blogs devoted to this topic.  And most of them feature one or two Dylan songs.  Here are a few to check out:

Development Education offers a site that links World Music with human rights, featuring Blowin' in the Wind, among others. 

Amnesty International-Australia posts Ten Songs for Social Change, including Billie Holiday's Strange Fruit and Joan Baez with We Shall Overcome.

The government of Manitoba posts Human Rights Songs to augment the K-12 curriculum -- Dylan's The Times They are a Changing is one of the listings.

There are even course curricula on music and human rights, like this syllabus from Florida State University, which starts with a Charter of Musical Human Rights.

What are your top 10 human rights songs?  Use our blog's comment tab to share a Youtube link and spread the inspiration!

Whatever the election outcome, at least we can all look forward to the Nobel Prize ceremony in December.

 

UN Human Rights Chief Weighs in on US Election

In an unusual move, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Raad al-Hussein spoke out against a Trump presidency during a news conference in Geneva on October 12.  Speaking a few days after the 2d presidential debate where Trump threatened Clinton with jail time should he win the presidency, Mr. Hussein instead recalled candidate Trump's statements about torture and immigration.  As Mr. Hussein explained, when an election could result in an increase in the use of torture "or the focus on vulnerable communities in a way that suggests that they may well be deprived of their human rights, then I think it is incumbent to say so."  An audio version of the remarks is available here.  As noted on this site a few weeks ago, neither Trump nor Clinton has yet responded to Human Rights Watch's candidate questionnaire concerning their positions on human rights issues.     

 

Misogyny Nation

I am neither surprised nor outraged at the latest disclosed remarks on Trumps physical assaults on women.  I never expected anything other than Mr. Trump's hatred for and abuse of women.  I am sad that as a nation America disrespects women.  

The signs were all there.  A history of calling women pigs, dogs and slobs; two lawsuits against him that allege either rape or attempted rape; assigning wives to traditional roles; disparaging one reporter's disability and another's menstruation, and more.  Combine that with other behavior and comments offending almost every group that is not white, rich and Christian and we have all the indicia of misogyny and racism.  

Why wasn't the previously exposed behavior sufficient to cause the outrage we are now observing?  Because Americans minimize the impact of disrespectful behavior.  I thank the Washington Post for the latest disclosures.  Apparently hateful behavior will be challenged only if extreme.  If Trump is elected president, we could be a long way toward fascism before the populace even considers taking action.   To say nothing of women being exponentially more unsafe from physical assault than they are today. (For a humorous response to this failure to respond  to Trumps earlier disrespectful comments see John Oliver's comments.)

This climate of tolerance and refusal to demand consequences for disrespectful behavior is fertile ground for the elimination of access to basic human rights.  We have traveled a good way down the disrespect road already.   I am not convinced that we will avoid human rights horrors in our future.

Responses to the latest revelations have been universally condemning. This may give us a reprieve from total devolution, but until the country is willing to protect each of us from the indignities of misogyny and dismissiveness, I fear that our travel toward the hateful nation may have slowed, but not stopped.  

 

 

 

Donald's Smart Ways

contract images - Google Search

By Jeremiah Ho

 

In teaching American contract and remedies law in the years after the Great Recession, I have often encountered several examples from the U.S. mortgage crisis that seemed to broaden the scope of traditional contract doctrines, particularly in the realm of excuse doctrines.  What does this have to do with human rights?  Well, as I see it, it would not be far-fetched to suppose that we can derive endless lessons—individually and societally—from examining the mortgage crisis of the last decade.  From deceptive lending practices to the use of robo-signers, there are many instances that show us how we humans can be our own worst enemy and how we make choices that eventually prompt catastrophes of global impact.  We do not need natural disasters to impede us; our legacy sometimes says it all.  Generally-speaking, in contract law, that old classic adage, pacta sunt servanda, stands as the way in which contract law embodies a type of absolute liability—basically: if you break the contract, you pay for it.  But in the Great Recession, it seemed as if pacta sunt servanda was stretched—at least in commercial mortgages to further perhaps a “less absolute” system of contractual enforcement.  And the example started and ended with none other than, an example from Donald Trump.

 

The recent release of 3 pages of presidential candidate Donald Trump’s 1995 tax returns, showing—as he would claim it—how “smart” he was in averting taxes by claiming a $916 million dollar loss reminds me of how he dodged his mortgage default suit with Deutsche Bank during the Great Recession: by attempting to excuse himself against his creditors on a $640 million construction loan obligation for a Chicago high-rise through a commercial impracticability argument likened the Great Recession to a force majeur—essentially to an act of God.  Thus, in his argument, it would not be commercially practicable for him to complete his mortgage obligations because he could not have anticipated that such a world-wide economic downtown would have impaired his ability to honor those obligations to pay back the loans.  In contract law, breaching parties on a contract, who usually try to excuse themselves based on a reasoning that bad economic market conditions are like acts of God, get laughed out of court.  Even during bad market conditions, if you break it, you still have to pay for it.       

But the court here bought his argument.  Trump was excused.  What about all of the defaulting homeowners who would not and could not have been allowed to use the same impracticability excuse and same argument of the Great Recession to get themselves out of terrible mortgage obligations that they took on in homeownership?  Or even the individual consumers who bought real estate from Trump during that time and could not repay?  Likely they would not have been able to take advantage of Trump’s reasoning and excuse themselves from defaulting because their individual mortgage agreements for condos or apartments were not near the gargantuan worth of $640 million.  Trump got away with it because of the commercial aspects of his agreement and because of the money involved.  But why should the size of someone’s purse-strings shut them out from possibly a just recourse?  It’s interesting that in the eyes of contract law, often there is so little room for economic and human dignity.

In a “change election,” in which both presidential candidates have talked about economic disparity, my hope is our candidates do mean to both act with economic integrity and not with the leveraging power of their bank accounts.  That is not always the “smart” way in the long run.  

The Holiday formerly known as Columbus Day

In Genoa, Italy, Christopher Columbus is still touted as a most famous favorite son.  There, alongside boat models and other items, the Museum of the Sea displays a handwritten document from 1479 in which Columbus declares that he is a Genoese citizen going to Portugal to seek financial backing as he sets off on his voyage.

But here in the United States, more and more towns, cities, and states are shifting focus away from Columbus to the indigenous peoples who were already in America long before Columbus arrived.  In August of this year, Boulder, Colorado joined more than a dozen other cities and states across the country that have transformed Columbus Day, still a federal holiday, to Indigenous People's Day.  "I'm sorry it took so long," said Boulder's Mayor, Suzanne Jones.  Even more recently,  Denver, Phoenix, Yakima and Santa Fe have all approved similar resolutions.

Still, the pull of the Christopher Columbus story remains strong in some sectors.  In Cincinnati, on October 5, the city council rejected a proposal to adopt an Indigenous People's Day in lieu of Columbus Day.  Of 9 council members, 4 abstained, 1 opposed the proposals, and 4 supported it, leaving the measure one vote short of the majority needed to pass.  According to press reports, some council members were concerned about eclipsing Columbus Day, and suggested that the Indigenous People's Day should be set on a different date.  The bill sponsor said, however, that the point of the new designation was to "tell the full story of the history of this country," so that the Columbus story was not seen in isolation from the events that his voyage triggered.

Does designating a day really matter?  One disappointed activist in Cincinnati noted that an Indigenous People's Day would "not only include Native Americans in this very diverse city, but is also means that what my family endured will not be forgotten."  And the fact is, the old-style celebrations of Columbus Day are on the wane.  Even Columbus, Ohio, stopped its parades in the 1990s.  As many cities and states have found, a new designation for the holiday actually re-invigorates the day  in a way that celebrates contemporary America. 

In other words, let Genoa continue to maintain Christopher Columbus' legacy in its excellent museum.  Here in the US, we have a more complete and inclusive story to tell.    

 

 

Atonement and Action for the Final 100 Days

Jonathan Todres

Next week is Yom Kippur (Sundown, October 11 to Sundown, October 12), the Day of Atonement on the Jewish calendar. As tradition has it, atoning on Yom Kippur will address only sins against God. For transgressions against other individuals, Jews are obligated to seek forgiveness from and reconciliation with those people first. Yom Kippur also marks the end of the High Holidays, and thus offers the prospects of a fresh start and an opportunity to do better than we did the year before.

While I’m well aware that President Obama is not Jewish (or Muslim—are people still really talking about that?), I’d like to invite him to participate, at least in spirit.  And I think the timing is appropriate, because Yom Kippur falls approximately 100 days from the end of the Obama Presidency—leaving one final window of opportunity for the president while still in the Oval Office.

On his inauguration in 2009, newly-elected President Obama boldly proclaimed that “[a]s for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.” Human rights advocates hailed his election and speech as the dawn of a new, promising era of progress on human rights. The past eight years haven’t necessarily lived up to expectations.

So, with little more than 100 days left in the Obama Presidency, I have two hopes. First is that he is reflecting on shortcomings (e.g., no human rights treaty was ratified while he was in office; even President George W. Bush managed to achieve ratification of two human rights treaties). Second is that he will use these final 100 days to do better.  Yes, I know he faces significant opposition in the Senate (the Senate’s failure to approve the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was deeply disappointing). But at the risk of sounding naïve, if you aren’t willing to try to advance the ball on human rights when holding arguably the most powerful position in the world, when is the right time? 

The “To Do List” for human rights is lengthy. But here are three options for President Obama that can be done within 100 days:

1. End the federal government practice of confining migrant children in detention centers. No six-year-old who has fled violence in search of safety should be “welcomed” by being incarcerated. A recent essay by Wendy Cervantes at First Focus sheds light on this practice.

2. Ban child labor in tobacco production. The adverse health consequences of tobacco use are well known. Less well-known is the harm inflicted on those who work in tobacco fields, particularly children. In August 2016, 110 organizations called on President Obama to protect children from “acute nicotine poisoning and other health and safety hazards faced by children working in US tobacco fields.” (click here for the letter to President Obama from the Child Labor Coalition and other organizations).

3. 3. Send the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) to the Senate. The U.S. is now the only country in the world that has not ratified the CRC. This is the closest any human rights treaty has come to universal acceptance. Since the U.S. signed the treaty in 1995, no President has taken further action. No one can prevent President Obama from forwarding the treaty to the Senate for its advice and consent. Are there sufficient votes in the Senate now for ratification? Probably not. Might some Senators object? Probably.  But it’s President Obama’s decision, and sending the treaty to the Senate would be a step forward.

These three opportunities all have two important things in common: First, President Obama has the power to act on all of these. Second, all three steps would help move the United States in direction of ensuring the rights and well-being of children. It’s time for action.

The Consequences of Clean Water Deprivation

Flint Michigan is undergoing an outbreak of infectious disease.  Shigellosis is a contagious disease that causes fever, stomach pain and diarrhea.   Since the city of Flint and the state of Michigan began sending lead contaminated brown water through the city water pipes, the residents have taken measures to avoid using local water. 

Clean water has been distributed at various points for city residents.  Along with the water, residents were given "baby wipes".  While the wipes have the ability to remove dirt, chlorinated water used with traditional soaps are more effective in eliminating harmful bacteria.  The inability of residents to access clean municipal water is seen as the source of the infectious illness.  But Flint residents, understandably, do not trust the water being provided by the city.  While many residents have filters on their faucets and showers, hot water reduces the life of the filters.  The residents' ability to afford frequent filter replacement is limited.

This is the second outbreak of infectious disease experienced in Flint.  Two years ago, the residents saw an outbreak of Legionnaires' disease.

The human right to clean water, the most essential ingredient in human survival, remains a low priority in many US cities, with Flint evidencing the consequences.

 

 

Justice(s) in Alabama

We reported in August, 2015, about the resistance of some Alabama judges to implementing Obergefell.  Behind the resistance was Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, Roy Moore. Last week Justice Moore was suspended from office by the Alabama Court of the Judiciary for refusing to implement same sex marriage and instructing others not to issue marriage licenses.  Justice Moore was suspended without pay and he will remain unpaid for the next six years.  At the end of the term,  he will be too old to run for chief judge.  

Moore used a tired rationalization to disguise his prejudice toward those who are not heterosexual.  He argued that the federal government lacked authority to direct the states.  In suspending the judge, the judiciary noted that Moore was not the only one on the Supreme Court who disagreed personally with the Obergefell ruling.  But, the Court noted, "This Court simply does not have the authority to reexamine those issues."

This is the second time Moore has been relieved of his duties as a Supreme Court Justice.  In 2003 he was  removed from office for refusing to remove a replica of the ten commandments from display in the State Judiciary building.  Again he claimed that he was not bound by federal authority.

In a culture where judges and others refuse to accept federal authority, we can only imagine the depth of difficulties encountered by advocates when advancing global human rights principles.