Civil Rights on The Huffington Post

Rebecca Sive: A National Day of Action to Stop Stupak

2009-12-02T16:55:40Z

I write as a member of the "menopausal militia," as the New York Times*, quoting NARAL's President, Nancy Keenan, characterized those of us "of a certain age" who have led America's decades-long fight for reproductive rights.

But, today, on this National Day of Action (to stop Stupak), I feel like I'm still 18, in the fall of 1968, gathering nickels, dimes and dollars for a friend to take the bus to Rapid City, South Dakota to get an (illegal) abortion.

On other recent days, I've felt like the newly married 23-year-old I was, living in Chicago the year abortion became legal, realizing that the fight was on, that I needed to make this fight a part of my life's work, for my personal sake.

But today, on this National Day of Action, though still a married woman living in Chicago, things are very different for me. Today, it doesn't matter to me, for me, whether abortion remains legal or not. It doesn't even matter to me for my immediate family: I don't have children or grandchildren. Even so, I know, with every bone in my body, that this is still a fight worth fighting.

So, it still feels like a day in1968. For if abortion becomes illegal again, or impossible to obtain in a conventional medical setting -- because the Stupak Amendment has become law -- it will be 1968 all over again. For sure, it will be 1968 all over again if America's young women don't wake up and realize that women's reproductive rights can only be secured by battling to secure this human right, the right to control one's own body.

In 1968, as we looked towards adulthood, we knew that the threshold determinant of women's equality is the capacity to control one's reproductive destiny. We recognized that, absent that capacity, the rest just isn't possible; nope, and hear me clearly on this one: none of it: not that cuddly family, not that nice home, not that non-sexist husband, not that good job, not the ability to choose when to have children, or how many to have, for the capacity to determine one's own reproductive life is what makes all the rest of this achievable.

So, yes, we've battled ever since, and in the process we've become a (menopausal) militia.

And because we have, we're here to tell you to stop talking about personal choice, as though it could be the basis of the strategy to win this fight (to stop Stupak) to keep abortion safe and legal. It isn't.

Time to leave the talk to the (male) academics, pollsters and journalists. And while you're at it, time to leave to the big time male executives at the big time ad agencies (they can waste their time) the business of proposing new taglines and "softer" messages: If you just try this one, mam, you're sure to get those middle-of-the-road moms on your side, as though selling a permanent commitment to women's reproductive choice were like selling perfume.

Listen to us, members of the menopausal militia. We know, from direct and repeated experience for decades, that there just isn't any "nice" way to convince politicians to keep abortion safe and legal. This one is "hard time," not in prison, but certainly in a war zone.

Time to get real -- you (younger) women who are wishing it were otherwise: This fight is about your bodies, and who controls them.

Why in the world do you think that it was only women's reproductive health care that was exempted from a reasonable and comprehensive approach to providing Americans with access to health care? Was this just the luck-of-the-draw, just Congressional business as usual? Hell, no.

There have been numerous other issues facing Congress, on which the Blue Dogs said they'd hold out. But, when it came down to it, they didn't. Yet, when it came to legislation that would guarantee women's autonomy, they did, and then, to add insult to injury, they convinced others to join them in their war against American women.

Why were these Members of Congress able to do this? Because women's autonomy -- remember: it took women almost 150 years to get the right to vote in this country -- isn't what the men who (still) rule America want for us. Why? Because our gaining our autonomy is about their giving up their power.

If I cede the basic position from whence my power stems, in the case of a male legislator, who's being male, what might I have left?

Forget the catchy slogans and friendly messages. Forget the pretty pink websites. Forget the pollsters. Forget trying to make deals with legislators fundamentally unsympathetic to the cause of women's autonomy. Forget trying to make ever-so-reasonable arguments about reducing the cost of health care, or about the benefits of health care, if we just have reproductive coverage for those mothers who love their children just so much.

Instead, recognize that today's fight is a defining battle for American women.

Today, and on every day to come, be battle-ready: be prepared to tell your legislators they've crossed the line. In fact, tell them they need to step back. Tell them you will lie down on the steps of the Capitol, so they can't get in to vote; tell them you will picket the White House, so they can't meet with the president; tell them you will ruin their family's Christmas, and oh, by the way, while you're at it, remind them you birthed the children now going to Afghanistan to fight, and because you did, you know every child should be a loved and wanted child; most of all, tell them you know that the America your children now fight for, and die for, is one which should give you, their mothers, equal rights, in all matters, and, in case they don't get it, tell them that means the right to control your own body. Tell them nothing less will do.

Young women of America: Fail to understand this at your peril. Take this lesson from the menopausal militia to heart.

Young women of America: Today is a national day of action; so, act, and then prepare for many, many more days like this one. We'll be right there with you.

Iraqi Women Forced Into Sex Slavery

2009-12-02T16:42:42Z

Rising numbers of Iraqi women are being sold into sexual slavery every year because of the waning economy and dire security situation.

Kenneth C. Davis: The Day Rosa Wouldn't Move

2009-12-02T14:54:00Z

I'd like to propose a candidate for a new national holiday. December 1-Rosa Parks Day.
On December 1, 1955, a black seamstress would not budge. And all America shook.

History is taught as the record of presidents, kings and generals. But sometimes it is the extraordinary story of an "ordinary" person that history must tell. On December 1, 1955, one woman's act of defiance changed history. But it wouldn't be fair to call Rosa Parks, who was born in 1913 in Tuskegee, Alabama and died October 24, 2005 at age 92, an "ordinary person." What do you know about this courageous woman who helped spark the civil rights movement that transformed America? (Answers below)

1. Where and why was Rosa Parks arrested?
2. Before her arrest, was Rosa Parks involved in the civil rights movement?
3. How much education did Rosa Parks, the descendant of slaves, receive?
4. What action did her arrest trigger?
5. Who was elected president of the organization that ran the boycott?

Check here for resources about Rosa parks from the Library of Congress.

Quiz adapted from Don't Know Much About Anything

Answers
1. She refused to give up her seat to a white passenger on a Montgomery, Alabama bus. A city law required that whites and blacks sit in separate rows. The law also required blacks to leave their seats to make room for white passengers.
2. Yes. Rosa Parks had become one of the first women to join the Montgomery Chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in 1943, serving as its secretary until 1956. Employed as a seamstress, she lost her job as a result of the boycott and later moved to Detroit.
3. She attended Alabama State Teachers College.
4. Her arrest triggered a boycott of the city's segregated bus system that had been planned by local civil rights leaders who were awaiting the right moment. The arrest of Rosa Parks was that moment. For 382 days, thousands of blacks refused to ride Montgomery's buses and the boycott ended when the U.S. Supreme Court declared segregated seating on the city's buses unconstitutional.
5. A young and unknown Martin Luther King, Jr. -- then a Baptist minister in Montgomery -- was chosen as president, providing his first national stage.

Read more about Rosa Parks in Don't Know Much About History and my biography for young readers, Don't Know Much About Rosa Parks

Judge H. Lee Sarokin: The Bishop Un-Bribes Patrick Kennedy

2009-12-02T14:08:31Z

When John F. Kennedy ran for president, scare tactics were used to frighten voters by suggesting that he would take directions from the Pope. He publicly denounced such claims and assured voters that he would accept no directions on policy from the Catholic Church. Apparently Providence's Bishop Tobin believes otherwise. He seeks to bar communion to Rep. Patrick Kennedy because of his support for abortion rights contrary to church teachings. His tactics are worrisome and should be of concern to all.

Individuals and groups (including religious groups) can and do threaten or sanction elected representatives who fail to carry out their policies. But those threats and sanctions are political, not personal. Votes, volunteer and financial assistance and other forms of support can be withheld if an elected representative fails to carry out the desired policies, but trying to coerce or punish a legislator personally for a vote should give us all pause.

Implicit in Bishop Tobin's bar to communion is the suggestion that if Rep. Kennedy voted otherwise, the bar would be withdrawn. Therein lies the danger. Being a member of the Catholic Church is not the same as being a member of a club that one can merely quit over disagreement with some of its policies. The Kennedy family's ties and devotion to the Catholic Church are legendary. The withholding of communion undoubtedly is a serious matter. It should not be used either as a weapon to obtain a vote or as punishment for a vote rendered.

Ironically, the Bishop's position might make it more difficult for Catholics to be elected, because the scare tactics once bemoaned by President Kennedy have become reality through the Bishop's actions. I doubt that this blatant attempt to coerce a legislative vote is criminal, but it would seem to me that if it is wrong to give something of value to a legislator to influence a vote, it should be equally wrong to withhold something of value for that same purpose.

Chris Prevatt: Major Setback to Campaign to Restore California Marriage Equality in 2010

2009-12-02T13:03:01Z

The effort to take the marriage equality battle back to the California ballot in 2010 experienced a major setback Monday when the Courage Campaign announced it was calling for more research and time to change hearts and minds before returning to the ballot to restore marriage for gay and lesbian couples in California. Courage Campaign had previously been in strong support of the effort to repeal Proposition 8 in November 2010. In 2008 California voters narrowly approved a Constitutional amendment that removed the right of same-gender couples to be married in California.

The Courage Campaign, in partnership with Lambda Legal, has recently concluded the first phase of extensive and groundbreaking research about public beliefs and concerns about marriage and homosexuality. It confirmed that attitudes are shifting steadily toward equal treatment of same-sex couples, and that conversations among family members and other close relationships inevitably speed the process. The statement released today is concurrent with a Lambda Legal statement.

“For months, we have laid out the criteria for moving forward. Like the Obama Campaign, we understand that we need a combination of powerful and clear research that informs an expertly run campaign, an unstoppable movement that harnesses the new energy we have seen since the passage of Prop. 8 and the connections through personal stories and outreach in order to win at the ballot box,” said Rick Jacobs, the Courage Campaign founder and Chair. “We are taking the lessons learned from last year’s Prop. 8 campaign, the campaigns in Maine and other states to understand the fundamental work that must be done before moving forward in California. We also must come together as a community to create a broad coalition and governance structure, put in place a strong manager and secure the resources to win. Right now, the pieces are not all in place to do so confidently.”

Many high profile Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender advocacy groups and leaders have since this summer been urging restraint in the drive to repeal Proposition 8. The Courage Campaign's announcement today further validates the arguments of the Prepare to Prevail advocates that it is too early to take the issue back to the voters.

2012 advocates have argued that we need to build strong majority support before placing the issue before voters. Popular support for marriage equality for same-sex couples has not changed since the last election. Today, California voters’ opinions on a constitutional amendment to overturn the voter-imposed elimination of marriage equality remain evenly split, according to all recent polls. In order to seek major investments of time and money from key stakeholders and allies in an affirmative ballot-measure campaign seeking a “yes” vote from voters, seasoned campaign experts advise against proceeding to the ballot without evidence of a strong majority in favor of the measure. Failure to begin with a sizable majority puts sponsors in a more likely position to lose.

The departure of Courage Campaign from the 2010 campaign removes a significant amount of volunteer resources from the signature gathering efforts currently underway to place an initiative on the ballot next November. Without those resources, and absent major donors to fund a paid signature gathering campaign it is looking like we will not see marriage equality on the ballot until 2012.

But that does not mean that advocates of marriage equality can sit on their tails and do nothing for the next few years. There is a lot of education and factual information to share. Everyone who cares about marriage equality needs to get involved now and help Prepare to Prevail in 2012. I suggest that you visit Equality California or Courage Campaign and join in their efforts to restore marriage equality to California.

Wayne Besen: The Gay Community's Pope Problem

2009-12-02T10:40:47Z

It is time to admit that the gay community has a gigantic Pope problem. Under the leadership of Benedict XVI, the Vatican has become an implacable foe of liberalism, modernity, and basic rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people. Rome has eagerly jumped with both feet into America's culture wars and is working on a global scale to punish or purge ideological dissenters within the church. This aggressive activism presents a formidable new front in the fight for parity -- one with considerable political clout and financial resources.

Last week, a coalition of totalitarian religious activists and radical clerics joined forces to unveil the "Manhattan Declaration" at Washington's National Press Club. This rambling manifesto, written by former Watergate felon Chuck Colson, called for "Christians" to disobey laws they didn't fancy and to ignore civil rights laws that protected GLBT people from discrimination. It was a dishonest document filled with historical revisionism that promoted theocracy, encouraged anarchy, and supported the dissolution of the rule of law. It falsely portrayed right wing Christians as victims, even as they pledged to work tirelessly to deny equality to those who would not adhere to their sectarian church rules.

An extreme manifesto of such breathtaking cynicism and insincerity is no surprise coming from what passes for "leaders" in today's evangelical circles. It was striking, however, that more than 15 key American Catholic leaders signed on to the "Manhattan Declaration". Signatories included heavyweights such as Timothy Dolan, Archbishop of New York and Donald Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington, DC. This was clearly a call to arms and a powerful signal that the Roman Catholic Church is taking the gloves off to fight political battles in America.

This hands-on involvement from Rome has passed the "trend" stage and appears to be official policy. Consider the significant involvement the Catholic Church had in stripping marriage rights away from GLBT couples in a Maine referendum held earlier this month.

In the same manner, on June 11, the Washington, DC Archdiocese threatened to abandon the homeless and quit charity work in the District if it had to comply with anti-discrimination laws. Catholic Charities had the audacity to believe it was entitled to collect $8.2 million in tax dollars meant to serve all DC residents, and then still get to handpick whom it deems worthy of assistance.

Catholic involvement with arch-conservative politics is growing by the day. In May, Catholic groups tried to stop President Barack Obama from speaking at a Notre Dame commencement ceremony because of his pro-choice position.

Earlier this month, Providence Bishop Thomas Tobin put the clamp on Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.), banning the lawmaker from communion because he is pro-choice. This was reminiscent of The St. Louis Archbishop refusing to give communion to John Kerry during his presidential campaign.

The Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis has suddenly begun to steer GLBT Catholics to 12-step programs that promise to "cure" homosexuality or support them in a lifelong celibacy. The Catholic Diocese in Sioux Falls, South Dakota urged its 128-thousand members to oppose an attempt to bring legalizing embryonic stem cell research to a public referendum. (I guess the sacrosanct "people's right to vote" on controversial social issues only applies to same-sex marriage)

In fighting back, we must remember that the Vatican is launching these attacks from a position of weakness. It has yet to recover its moral authority from public exposure of rampant child sexual abuse scandals that cost the Church billions of dollars in legal settlements.

The Vatican appears to be acutely aware it is losing its worldwide market share. It is basically defunct in the Middle East, where the religion began, and on life-support in Western Europe, where it once prospered. In Africa, Rome competes with Islam and Anglicanism for a shrinking slice of the pie. (Who can forget that while in Africa the Pope said condoms could make the AIDS crisis worse.) South America, one of its few remaining strongholds, is losing Roman Catholics to evangelical faiths by the millions.

Instead of competing against the conservative evangelical brand, Pope Benedict has decided to embrace it, shaping a conspicuously political Catholicism that embraces extremism and drives out dissenters. The Vatican has become so doctrinaire that it recently launched an invasive probe into the lives of America's 60,000 nuns to enforce anachronistic rules. In January, Benedict welcomed back excommunicated Bishop Richard Williamson who denied that millions of Jews died in Nazi death camps.

Fortunately, Benedict is a cold, unsympathetic figure and the majority of American Catholics often ignore his edicts. The strategy for the GLBT community should be to stand up to Rome and help mobilize mainstream Catholics to fight back against an authoritarian Pontiff who is hell-bent on making the Catholic Church as unpopular and unappealing as His Holiness.

Visit www.TruthWinsOut.org

Jeff Biggers: In the Name of Rosa Parks: Arrest of 81-Year-Old on Fast, Mourning Mountaintop Removal

2009-12-02T10:34:04Z

On the anniversary of Rosa Parks' historic act of civil disobedience, when her refusal to move from her seat on December 1, 1955 sparked the Montgomery bus boycott and triggered the rise of the Civil Rights Movement, 81-year-old veteran and anti-mountaintop removal activist Roland Micklem was arrested by law enforcement authorities during his open-ended fast at the West Virginia state capitol in Charleston.

The bizarre charge: Failure to appear at an Oct. 13 summons that never arrived at his place of residency.

The Orwellian turns of events in the Appalachian coalfield uprising continue to pile up with increasingly bizarre twists. Consider these latest events:

An elderly war veteran is arrested during a quiet fast, mourning the destruction of mountaintop removal, while millions of pounds of explosives openly rip across the Appalachians in violation of mining and Clean Water Act laws.

Local West Virginia citizens are arrested in their own State Capitol and Department of Environmental Protection, while out-of-state coal companies are courted by West Virginia Governor Joe Manchin in a closed-door meeting.

Obama officials traveled to West Virginia to select the Christmas Tree for the White House, and yet no top level Obama official has ever visited a mountaintop removal operation where millions of trees have literally been clear cut and burned in mountaintop removal operations in Appalachia.

(Photo credit: Vivian Stockman, OHVEC)

Nonviolent protesters are arrested for "littering" at mountaintop removal sites and toxic coal slurry impoundments that have literally wiped out thousands of acres of hardwood forests, blown up mountain ranges, and poisoned the area waterways.

More nonviolent coalfield residents and protesters are arrested for "trespassing," while three million pounds of ammonium nitrate fuel oil explosives every day have led to forced relocations of American citizens, and the dangerous nightmare of blasting, fly rock and silica dust storms from mountaintop removal operations.

According to reports by the Climate Ground Zero campaign yesterday, "Roland Micklem was arrested this morning for failing to appear in court for allegedly trespassing on Walker CAT property during the Senior Citizen's March to End Mountaintop Removal. Micklem claims he never recieved a notice to appear, and he claims he never enter any marked 'No Trespassing' areas nor was he asked to leave while on Walker CAT property. His arresting officer, Chief D.B. Cox, mentioned other outstanding warrants but did not name those implicated. Micklem was released on his own personal recognizance and has returned to the State Capital."

Micklem is a true American hero; he has been arrested at the Massey Energy regional headquarters, and led a senior citizens march against mountaintop removal.

Here's an interview with Roland Micklem about his fast:

Micklem also released a letter:

For a former naturalist whose interest in and concern for the natural world has spanned over half a century, the loss of so many once common and beloved species has been traumatic and depressing, depressing to an extent that has resulted in a loss of enthusiasm for a field of study that had stoked my fires in bygone years.

My boyhood haunts, where I came to know the grosbeaks, warblers, and other once abundant members of the creature kingdom have been converted to shopping malls and housing tracts. A fisheries researcher would be hard put to collect more than two or three minnow species from the same waters that yielded twenty or more in my student years. The proliferation of motorized traffic in eastern Virginia--only one of many examples of how so-called progress has impoverished our lives-has all but decimated the populations of box turtles, snakes, and other creatures that have not learned to look both ways before crossing the highways. Air, soil, and water pollution, along with other forms of environmental degradation, have robbed us of our natural heritage and birthright, namely the infinite variety of life forms that once flew through our skies, swam in our waters, and enriched our space with their beauty, their voices, and their strange and fascinating ways.

In the year 2009, I am, and have been for several years, an environmental activist.

I have exchanged my academic interest in the world of nature for a commitment to see that some of it is left for succeeding generations to study and enjoy. My sorrow over the changes that self aggrandizing humanity has wrought have resulted in my decision to fast, and I will do so, as indicated in my statement, in a very public place before those with the power to bring about needed reform.

But I'm not without hope. I'm inspired and energized by the young people here at Climate Ground Zero, who at great personal risk are carrying on a campaign to stop mountaintop removal by nonviolent direct action. Despite the awesome challenge of climate change and other threats to the global ecology, there's a new awakening among people and a renewed commitment to save Mother Earth from the excesses of our own species.

I'd like to be a part of this commitment.

On December 7th, the opening day of the Copenhagen Climate Summit, citizens from across the coalfields and the country will converge on the embarrassing WV Department of Environmental Protection to call for an end to mountaintop removal on the historic Coal River Mountain. While providing less than 8 percent of our national production of coal, mountaintop removal mining has destroyed over 500 mountains, 1.2 million acres of hardwood forests, and jammed an estimated 2,000 miles of streams with mining waste.

For more information, see: savecoalrivermountain.org/

Until the crime of mountaintop removal is abolished, heroes like Roland Micklem, among many, need your support.

Magda Abu-Fadil: Vienna Declaration: Press Freedom and Security Compatible in Fight Against Terrorism

2009-12-02T07:35:00Z

Security and press freedom can coexist, with the free flow of information recognized as the best weapon against terrorism, international media experts argued in a final declaration published this week.

"Everyone has the right to access diverse, uncensored sources of information. States should create an environment that encourages the development of a diverse, pluralistic media sector," said the Vienna Declaration culminating from a two-day conference on media and terrorism in October.

It said editorial independence should be respected by states and inter-governmental organizations and that specific obligations should not be imposed on media outlets in the pursuit of counter-terrorism.

"The Vienna Declaration recognizes that a free and unfettered flow of information and ideas is an important antidote to terrorist ideologies and that a free media is indispensable in achieving this," said David Dadge, director of the Vienna-based International Press Institute (IPI) that organized the event with the Salzburg-based Center for International Legal Studies (CILS).

Journalists, legal, security and anti-terrorism experts from around the world hammered out the declaration after heated discussions at the Diplomatic Academy in Vienna during a two-day conference entitled "The War on Words - Terrorism, Media and the Law."

Participants reiterated that freedom of expression and of the media were fundamental human rights, enshrined in Article 19 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

According to Manfred Nowak, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture and a professor of constitutional law and human rights at the University of Vienna, every act of terrorism is a very serious crime.

But treaties on human rights stipulate that torture is unacceptable, he said, adding that fighting terrorism must be through the rule of law.

"Certain laws restrict civil liberties," he said.

Participants noted that by establishing secret places of detention post-9/11, the United States had violated all human rights conventions, despite former president George W. Bush's contention he was conducting a war on terror and that human rights were no longer applicable.

"If you didn't like what happened to civil liberties, watch what would happen if it happens again," warned Philip Zelikow, former Executive Director of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States who teaches history at the University of Virginia.

"War on Words" panel (Abu-Fadil)

Lucy Dalglish, Executive Director of the Virginia-based Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said except in most extreme circumstances, there was no restraint on journalists thanks to the First Amendment, but that there was also no special protection for reporters.

Media in the U.S. were timid post-9/11 "but have staged something of a comeback," she said.

Riem Higazi, a talk radio host on Austria's ORF FM4, had an interesting take on the conference (http://fm4.orf.at/stories/1629100).

She was flabbergasted by stereotypical and racist remarks from some members of the audience. Her show's podcast is available for download.

N. S. Mueen, author of downloadable "Working with the Media: A Guide for Local Muslim Groups," demonstrated in a video clip the pitfalls of blaming entire ethnic communities in the U.K. for the sins of the few.

Mueen, who works with The Muslim Council of Britain, showed a segment from the British comedy TV show Exposé where a reporter insists on tarring an Asian Muslim teenager, who is unveiled in the clip, as a captive of traditional parents "who treat her like a piece of property."

The dialogue between the reporter and parents brings out the journalist's biases, ignorance and arrogance by insisting the girl is deprived of her basic human rights, only to be told by her parents -- the mother is also unveiled -- that their daughter goes to the movies and leads a "normal" life.

Gudrun Harrer, senior editor at Austrian daily Der Standard, in a session on how the media reported on terrorism and torture, said consensus post-9/11 broke following the Iraq war, with the jury still out on how news organizations had handled the matter.

"We used to talk about pressure on media from governments, she said," adding that pressure also came from consumers. "It's easier to take sides."

Raphael Perl, who heads the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe's Action against Terrorism Unit, said media had immense potential as a counter-terrorism resource.

"Accurate and rapid dissemination of information to the public during terrorist incidents can prevent panic, reduce confusion, streamline response efforts and save lives," he argued.

But he admitted communication between the media and counter-terrorism officials was often hampered by lack of cooperation and trust, stemming from various legitimate concerns as well as from mutual lack of understanding of the respective goals and responsibilities of each group.

"It's important for the media to report stories, not create them," said Al Jazeera International's (English) chief Ibrahim Helal.

He defended his network against claims it fanned the fires by inciting violence with its coverage of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars and its focus on Israel's wars on the Gaza Strip and Lebanon.

IPI (www.freemedia.at) plans to promote the Vienna Declaration as a worldwide tool to rally support for freedom of expression.

It will also use it to highlight press freedom, and help legislators, policy and decision makers, and the public at large balance the right to freedom of expression with the need to address the serious threat of terrorism.

Signatories to the Vienna Declaration:
The following organizations, all members of the International Freedom of Expression Exchange (IFEX) network, have endorsed the Vienna Declaration on Terrorism, Media and the Law:
Adil Soz - International Foundation for Protection of Freedom of Speech, Kazakhstan
Association of Caribbean Media Workers (ACM)
Association of Independent Electronic Media (ANEM), Serbia
ARTICLE 19
Bahrain Center for Human Rights
Canadian Journalists for Free Expression (CJFE)
Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility, Philippines
Center for Media Studies and Peace Building, Liberia
Centre for Independent Journalism, Malaysia
Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)
Exiled Journalists Network, UK
Human Rights Watch
Inter American Press Association (IAPA)
Independent Journalism Center, Moldova
International Federation of Journalists (IFJ)
International Press Institute (IPI)
Instituto Prensa y Sociedad de Venezuela (IPYS Venezuela)
Maharat Foundation, Lebanon
Media Foundation for West Africa
Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA)
Media Rights Agenda, Nigeria
Media Watch, Bangladesh
Pacific Freedom Forum
Pakistan Press Foundation (PPF)
Palestinian Center for Development and Media Freedoms (MADA)
Privacy International
Public Association "Journalists", Kyrgyzstan
Southeast Asia Press Alliance (SEAPA)
Pacific Islands News Association (PINA)
Reporters Without Borders (RSF)
World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers (WAN-IFRA)
World Press Freedom Committee (WPFC)

Malkia A. Cyril: The Internet Must Not Become a Segregated Community

2009-12-01T17:07:33Z

Co-authored by Malkia Cyril, Chris Rabb and Joseph Torres

When Fox News' Glenn Beck called President Barack Obama a racist this past July, the online advocacy group ColorOfChange.org launched a campaign to convince advertisers to boycott the show. To date, some 285,000 people have joined the effort, and more than 80 companies have pulled their ads.

CNN parted ways with Lou Dobbs last month after civil rights groups and Presente.org mobilized thousands of Latinos online to call on CNN to dump the talk show host for spewing hate against immigrants for years.

None of this -- not these advocacy efforts, not countless small business success stories, not even the election of President Obama -- would have happened without a free and open Internet. For communities of color, the Internet provides us with a unique opportunity to speak for ourselves without first seeking approval or permission or having to secure major funds to do so. But the big telecommunications companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast want to create an effectively segregated online community where they will act as our gatekeepers.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is now considering new rules that could protect the fundamental principle of "Network Neutrality" once and for all. Net Neutrality prohibits Internet service providers (ISPs) from blocking, discriminating against or deterring Internet users from accessing online content and applications of their choice -- such as e-newsletters, blogs, social networking sites, online videos, podcasts and smart-phone apps.

It's not that network owners are secretly plotting to stifle free speech. But they have an undeniable, rational interest in creating a pay-for-play model for the treatment of communication on the Internet. Commercial Web sites that pay will get speed and quality, and the noncommercial uses of the Net will be collateral damage -- relegated to the slow lane. It's not necessarily that they want to block our speech for political reasons. It's that our speech is not important to them because it's not going to make them money.

The Internet provides our communities with a medium to access services, find jobs, connect to friends, make inexpensive international phone calls to family members, and to advocate for social change. Many of the most valuable things we do online are noncommercial; they exist because the Internet is the first mass media system with no gatekeepers to dole out privilege to the highest bidder. That freedom and openness is what makes the Internet different from broadcasting and cable. We can't allow Comcast, AT&T, Verizon and other broadband providers to deliver substandard Internet service to our communities.

Telecom Companies Want to Create Second-Class "Netizens"

But the big phone and cable companies want to get rid of Net Neutrality and control how the public accesses the Internet.

This threat to Internet freedom isn't hypothetical. Verizon got caught blocking text messages sent by the pro-choice group NARAL to its own members - backing down only in response to public pressure. Comcast has also illegally interfered with file-sharing on its network, a practice that earned the company a rebuke from the FCC.

Even though President Obama pledged that he would "take a back seat to no one" on Net Neutrality, the big phone and cable companies are pulling out all the stops to derail it, including deploying Karl Rove-style scare tactics within our communities and using their massive resources to block Obama's agenda.

In the first nine months of 2009, they employed nearly 500 lobbyists and spent some $74 million to influence Congress and the FCC. Their misinformation has even convinced Glenn Beck that Net Neutrality is an attempt by President Obama to take over the Internet.

Who will protect the online rights of marginalized communities against the raw profit motive of big business? We urge leaders not to yield to the underhanded scare tactics that corporations like AT&T have used on our communities.

We Must Reject a Separate but Unequal Online World

One of those scare tactics is the claim, pushed by phone and cable companies, that Network Neutrality poses a threat to digital inclusion. Nothing could be further from the truth. Not only does Net Neutrality expand media diversity and access by ensuring fairness and nondiscrimination by big corporations, it will prevent the kind of media consolidation that has happened in the broadcast industry by helping our communities develop a diversity of civic and commercial online enterprises on a scale that represents our growing online numbers.

A primary reason for the digital divide is that the cost of fully engaging in the online world is just too high for many in our communities. Broadband in the United States is among the slowest but most expensive of any industrialized nation. After years of consolidation, the largest telecom companies have gotten away with price-gouging our communities because of a lack of competition in the broadband market.

More choices for broadband service -- not permitting more discrimination -- are the key to bringing down costs. Scrapping Net Neutrality in order to consolidate control over the Internet by cable and phone companies is not the answer. More market control won't give them more incentive to sell low-cost high-quality services to low-income communities. Our communities will still be subject to the same business logic that has marginalized us in the first place since our households don't have a lot of money to spend. Shareholders aren't charities, and we are foolish to expect otherwise.

But more importantly, we should not be sacrificing an open Internet to bribe phone and cable companies not to practice forms of red-lining. The answer to the digital divide cannot be to deliver a second-class, closed Internet to our communities.

The historic fight against discrimination by groups like the NAACP and the League of United Latin American Citizens has led to great societal change, laying the groundwork for the election of a president of color. We urge our colleagues in the civil rights community to fight with us to ensure that telecom and cable companies are not allowed to discriminate against our communities or interfere with our capacity to speak for ourselves without first asking AT&T, Verizon or Comcast for permission.

So far, several organizations of color have spoken out in favor of passing Net Neutrality regulations, including the National Hispanic Media Coalition, UNITY: Journalists of Color and ColorOfChange.org.

We are living through a critical moment in our nation's history. The FCC is going to decide whether the Internet will remain an open platform that allows for the greatest number of voices to participate in our democratic society, or whether it will be a closed network controlled by the big telecom companies.

We are concerned about the dire consequences of living without Net Neutrality. It would create a separate but unequal online world where our communities will be unable to use the Internet to compete or to advocate for justice when we have been wronged.

We need civil rights, media justice, community-oriented and grassroots organizations to stand together to make sure effective Net Neutrality regulation will protect our communities from the predatory practices of the phone and cable companies.

As with past civil rights struggles that successfully expanded access, thwarted discrimination, destroyed legalized segregation, and created broad opportunity, so too will the cause of Internet freedom.

-- Malkia Cyril is the executive director of the Center for Media Justice. Chris Rabb is the founder of the online community Afro-Netizen and is a visiting researcher at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University. Joseph Torres is the government relations manager of Free Press and former deputy director of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists.

Greg Mitchell: Shocked -- Or Not? New Data Shows Abortion Quite Common In Most Red States

2009-11-30T14:56:13Z

No matter how you feel about the pro-choice/anti-choice issue, it's always been difficult to examine data on the number of legal abortions in the U.S. on a state-by-state level. Now The Guardian newspaper's DataBlog has performed a real service in pulling together the latest numbers (from 2005) on the number of abortions state-by-state.

They both confirm certain things you might expect (abortions tend to happen more often in big, blue states) but also prove surprising (the large number of red states where anti-choice is strongest but where the abortion procedure, it turns out, is quite common).

Then there is this number: 233. That's the number of abortions per 1,000 live births. That high number may surprise quite a few people. I suppose it will confirm for the anti-choice side that the procedure is out of control -- as the "religious right" just today made new moves in Washington -- while to others indicating that is too widespread to be denied without massive repercussions.

Even in small, conservative, allegedly anti-choice Kansas, for example, there were over 10,000 legal abortions in 2005. In deep-red Utah, which had a relatively low rate, there were over 3500 in that one year, or about 10 per day.

Actually, the national percentage is probably even higher, as The Guardian was unable to secure numbers for California. Even so, that 233/1000 is the lowest number in these stats since 1973. The national total hit 820,000 legal abortions in 2005 year and has not topped 1 million since 1997. The numbers all come from the Centers for Disease Control.

These red or reddish states have high numbers for frequency of abortion, just under the national "233/1000" average: Alabama, Alaska, Georgia, Maine, Montana, New Mexico, Tennessee, Texas.

Right at or above the norm: Georgia, Kansas, Nevada, N. Carolina, Virginia.

The smaller, redder states also tend to have the highest percentage of mothers under the age of 19 electing to have abortions. Among the leaders: Montana, Alaska, North Dakota. Vermont.

States with the highest rates of legal abortions, at 400 per 1000 lives births or greater: New York, then Florida and Rhode Island. The rate for New York City is over 700/1000.

Today, a protester threw a film box at Rep. Patrick Kennedy, who was discussing being banned from taking communion because of his views on abortion.

Go here for more and for video on Baltimore City Council passing new law making "pro-life" counseling center post notices that they do NOT provide referrals for abortions.

Greg Mitchell's latest book is "Why Obama Won." He is editor of Editor & Publisher. He also blogs here.

Fred Karger: Manhattan Declaration -- Who Are They Kidding?

2009-11-30T10:47:36Z

NOM head, Maggie Gallagher, as she puts it, "likes fairy tales." This sure sounds like a fairy tale to me, a very scary one.

Once upon a time there were 152 -- how should I say it -- extremists, all meeting in Manhattan (crazy place for this group to meet). These 152 zealots drafted, approved, and signed their Declaration of War on full civil rights for gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgender (LGBT) Americans last week. They threw in some other societal beefs, just to try and mask the overriding issue, their fervent opposition to same-sex marriage.

One major leader of their movement is missing from the 152 names.

There are NO MORMONS on the list, and several of us read it very carefully.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon Church) has been leading the anti-gay marriage movement in this country for the past 14 years. They have spent tens of millions of dollars in practically every state ($30 million in California alone last year) to fight equality and to pass constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage.

So where are the Mormon representatives on this illustrious list? Are they truly backing off their longstanding opposition to gay civil rights?

To their credit, Michael Otterson, a high ranking Mormon Church official recently testified in support of the Salt Lake City ordinance that would no longer allow discrimination in employment and housing against LGBT people in Utah's largest city. While a small step, it has been broadcast around the world. That's because the Church, through its Public Affairs Department, got the word out -- big time.

Let's hope the Mormon leadership is truly softening its position on this issue. It has been a huge PR nightmare for the Church and one that divides so many Mormon families. Maybe they will redirect all that time, talent, and money to other causes, real problems.

There are plenty of Catholics on this list, however, and some very prominent ones. Two Cardinals and lots of Bishops. Catholics appear to be the new Mormons in the fight against same-sex marriage.

The Catholic Church has become much more visible as the Mormons have backed off. Maine Bishop Richard J. Malone and his sidekick, Marc Mutty, ran and heavily funded the recent campaign in Maine to take away same-sex marriage in that state. The Roman Catholic Dioceses of Portland (ME) even set up a Political Action Committee (PAC), and gave and raised $553,000 to pass Question #1. That's a lot of money, especially when they recently closed 5 churches in Maine.

Now, last week in Washington D.C., the Catholic Church there threatened to stop feeding the homeless if the City Council passes a same-sex marriage bill. Yes, the Catholic Church will stop feeding the hungry!

Here's what the New York Times editorial said about that yesterday: CLICK HERE

National Organization for Marriage (NOM) Chairman Robert P. George authored their new manifesto, along with former Watergate felon Chuck Colson. They hired a PR firm to publicize the Manhattan Declaration, the Mark DeMoss PR Group in Atlanta. Their web site identifies them as "the first and largest PR firm exclusively representing faith-based leaders, organizations, and causes." The DeMoss Group promotes itself on www.ManhattanDeclaration.org web site almost as much as its client.

Don't they have anything better to do?

Janet Grillo: A Wall That Has Not Yet Fallen

2009-11-30T10:07:19Z

Days ago, millions celebrated the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. But this year also marks the 30th anniversary of the United States' refusal to break down another crucial wall; the barrier between women and their fundamental rights. Few know what the acronym CEDAW stands for. Which is in and of itself a crying shame. It means: the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. In 1979, the United Nations adopted CEDAW, a treaty to protect fundamental rights of women, beyond cultural mores and traditions. Such as: protection from slavery, rape, honor killings and genital mutilation, to name a few. As well as equal pay for equal work, access to health care and parental leave. The treaty was ratified by 186 UN Member States, including such bastions of feminism as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Countries we decry for their outright abuse and oppression of women. Yet the nation with the most political sway in the international fight to protect human rights failed to ratify the treaty. You guessed it; our own. As long as the United States stands idly by, protections against outrageous aggression against women, which CEDAW could provide, linger un-enforced. Sure, they're "on the books." But if the Leader of the Free World doesn't take them seriously, why should Ahmadinejad?

One might ask, what's the value of this treaty in the first place? We all know that UN protocols are as meaningful as the participants' desire to abide them. But treaties are tools with which other watchdog organizations, such as the renowned HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, can work. They provide ground rules so that international pressure can be brought to bear on offenders. They establish standards to which all nations will be held accountable.

We are experiencing a valuable moment of acute public attention to atrocities against women. Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn describe what is tantamount to gender genocide in their stirring book, Half the Sky. Hilary Clinton is boldly speaking out against rape as a mode of military conduct. The time has come to advance the cause of human justice for those who are born with two X chromosomes. Mr. Obama, take down this wall!

(Oh, and while we're at it...do you realize that our own Equal Rights Amendment was never passed? And that was originally brought to Congress in 1923.)

Serena Yuan Volpp, M.D.: Marriage Equality: Not Just For Today's Adults

2009-11-27T10:06:54Z

The other day, my friend Sandra and her daughter Maya were talking about growing up. Sandra told her daughter, "Honey, when you grow up, I know you'll find a nice boy to marry who will love you." Maya, who is eight years old, replied, "But Mom, I could marry a girl."

Sandra stood corrected. They live in Massachusetts. Same-sex marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for over five years now, and the law has begun to affect the way children and adolescents are able to envision their domestic futures. Of course, Maya is not old enough to understand what the concepts of heterosexuality and homosexuality really mean. Whether or not she herself grows up to be gay, she already has a wider view of the world's possibilities than do many of the grown-ups around her.

When do kids become aware that they are gay or lesbian? Kids who grow up to be gay don't wake up one day at age 12 or 13 and say, "Hey, I'm gay!" Recognizing one's own sexuality is a long and often challenging process. When kids grow up in a world that assumes everyone will grow up to be heterosexual, those kids who grow up to be gay, lesbian, or bisexual face extra developmental challenges. Kids taunt each other on the playground with the word "faggot" without fully understanding or thinking about what that word means. That affects a kid's self esteem when -- sometimes years later -- he connects that word, and the pain of being teased, with sexual or romantic feelings he or she has for someone of the same sex.

That point is underscored by a study published earlier this year in the medical journal Pediatrics, which helped to illustrate the relationship between lack of acceptance and harm to mental health. The research showed that lesbian, gay and bisexual adolescents growing up in families who did not accept them as gay were nine times more likely to feel suicidal, five and a half times more likely to be depressed, and three and a half times more likely to use illegal drugs compared to kids whose families were more accepting.

Marriage equality can change society so that peers -- and parents -- can, if not embrace, accept homosexuality as part of the world in which we live. Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, Iowa, and New Hampshire now allow same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage laws are on the table in New Jersey, New York, and the District of Columbia. Despite the recent loss in Maine, the issue continues to move forward.

To be sure, some people may cringe at the thought of kids growing up more accepting of homosexuality. Might this tolerance lead to more gay and lesbian adults in the future? Research does not support such ideas.

Numerous studies of children growing up with same-sex parents have concluded that these children are no more likely to grow up to be gay or lesbian than are children raised by heterosexual parents. What they are more likely to be is open and accepting of the possibility of homosexuality or bisexuality in themselves or others. And the recent study in Pediatrics suggests that this tolerance will be good for the mental health of the gay, lesbian, and bisexual friends and family members that these children will surely encounter.

Same-sex marriage laws will benefit not only adults in committed relationships today, but also kids who don't yet know what being gay, lesbian, or bisexual means. Kids who grow up to be gay adults will have the chance to grow up in a world that accepts them as full members, and their straight friends, family members, co-workers, and neighbors will be more prepared to live in an ever-more diverse world.

New Haven's White Firefighters Win Promotions

2009-11-25T16:30:05Z

NEW HAVEN, Conn. (AP)-- A federal judge has ordered Connecticut officials to promote 14 firefighters who won a reverse discrimination case in a landmark ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court.

U.S. District Judge Janet Bond Arterton ruled Tuesday that the civil rights of white New Haven firefighters were violated when city officials threw out the results of a 2003 promotion exam when too few minorities did well.

Her ruling followed the Supreme Court's instructions.

In 2006, Arterton had thrown out the white firefighters' lawsuit. A federal appeals court upheld her decision before the Supreme Court overturned both rulings in June.

City spokeswoman Jessica Mayorga said Tuesday that New Haven intends to promote the firefighters "as soon as practicable."

Six firefighters are set to be promoted to captain and eight to lieutenant.

The case became an issue in confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. She ruled against the firefighters when she was a federal appeals court judge.

Watch a news report about the promotions

Book Review: Gene Dattel's "Cotton And Race"

2009-11-25T10:54:29Z

JACKSON, Miss. — Gene Dattel grew up in the segregated South and was one of the few Mississippians enrolled at Yale University in 1962 when his home state became ensnared in a bloody confrontation over integration.

More than 1,200 miles and a cultural universe away from the land of cotton, the white freshman found himself answering questions about the violent resistance to James Meredith's court-ordered admission as the first black student at the University of Mississippi.

Jacob M. Appel: The Rom Houben Tragedy And The Case For Active Euthanasia

2009-11-24T22:33:04Z

Opponents of the right to die appeared to savor a public relations victory with the reported "rebirth" of car-crash victim Rom Houben, a forty-six year old Belgian man who is said to have spent twenty-three years trapped immobile in his own body. Dr. Steven Laureys, a leading neurologist and well-respected coma expert based in Liege, used brain imaging techniques not available at the time of Houben's accident to argue that his patient was "locked-in" and fully conscious, rather than relegated to a vegetative state. A speech therapist, Linda Wouters, now claims that she has helped a grateful Houben to communicate with the outside world using a touch-screen keyboard. If Houben's story does live up to the media hype -- and many authorities in the field are not yet convinced -- conservative activists may attempt to use his tragedy as an argument against withdrawing care from those believed to be persistently comatose. However, should Dr. Laureys prove correct in his belief that many other patients are similarly imprisoned, these calamities may instead offer a compelling argument for withdrawing such care. In fact, such circumstances might present the rare occasions when active euthanasia is morally justified without overt consent.

I should emphasize that I have no personal knowledge of Rom Houben's case beyond what has been revealed by the media. At the same time, I confess that I am still highly suspicious of the details of this alleged medical miracle -- and particularly of the messages that Houben purportedly types with the help of his aide. Wouton claims that she can feel gentle pressure in her patient's finger that help steer him toward keys. Yet if Houben is truly paralyzed, the neurological mechanism that allows for these signs is unclear. American bioethicist Arthur Caplan, not persuaded by Dr. Laurey's claims after watching video of Wouton "assisting" Houben, suggested that the patient's "messages" were actually acts of facilitated communication in which the caregiver, rather than the patient, was choosing the letters. Caplan described facilitated communication as "Ouija board stuff" that has "been discredited time and time again." James Randi has gone even further, describing these writings as "a farce" and "a lie." Of course, that does not mean that Houben is not "locked-in" yet sentient, as Laurey's brain scans may show. Houben's cognitive abilities can be tested in numerous ways -- such as reading him a sentence when his helper is out of earshot, and then asking him to retype it -- so eventually we may learn whether his story is authentic, a matter of wishful thinking, or even a cruel and manipulative hoax. Until that time, the media and the public should retain a healthy skepticism.

For momentary argument's sake, let us give Houben's tale of "rebirth" the benefit of the doubt. Does this mean that patients in vegetative states should be kept alive at all costs in the belief that some of them may be merely locked-in? Not necessarily. If one believes that the preservation of life is the paramount value in all circumstances, then human beings should never be allowed to die prematurely -- even if the alternative is torture. On the other hand, if one believes that the prevention of suffering may sometimes justify the withdrawal or withholding of care, then the very fact that Houben was conscious for twenty-three years might call more convincingly for such action. Houben's own words are haunting: "I would scream, but no sound would come out....I became the witness to my own suffering, as doctors and nurses tried to speak to me and eventually gave up." That sounds strikingly like a form of torture. Keep in mind that patients like this have no guarantee that their consciousness will ever be discovered. And even if it is, they will be locked forever in the shackles of their own bodies. So rather than offering a compelling reason to keep such patients alive, the horrors of enduring such a petrified existence may offer a compelling reason to let them die.

The distinguished neuroethicists Guy Kahane and Julian Savulescu make such a case in their paradigm-shifting article, "Brain Damage and the Moral Significance of Consciousness," in this February's Journal of Medicine and Philosophy. Their reasoning turns traditional progressive thinking in such tragedies on its head. During the court battles over the fates of Terri Schiavo and Eluana Englaro, liberals argued that these women should be permitted to die, in part, because they were no longer sentient. Yet if they were no longer capable of thought -- dead in all but name -- at least they were not suffering. In contrast, if they were indeed conscious, then the horror of being prisoners in their own bodies might offer a far stronger argument for allowing their suffering to end. Most people would prefer not to live if their quality of life dropped below a certain level. Short of being boiled alive in hot oil daily, finding oneself completely locked-in is about as low a quality of life as one can achieve while conscious.

That is not so say that some partially locked-in patients, like Jean-Dominique Bauby, who blinked The Diving Bell and the Butterfly with his left eyelid, don't achieve meaning in their frozen condition. But many more probably suffer like Johnny Bohnam, the senseless, limbless soldier who begs for death by pounding Morse code with his head in Dalton Trumbo's indelible Johnny Got His Gun. I can say with confidence and considerable reflection that I personally would not want to live twenty-three locked-in years, even knowing that "rebirth" loomed in the future. I regard such a fate as medically-induced torture. I'd hope that my friends and family would press a pillow over my face until my breathing stopped -- and I believe that, in honoring this previously and frequently expressed wish, they would be acting fully within the bounds of medical ethics and decency and love.

When a "locked-in" individual can express a preference for life or death, respect for autonomy strongly suggests that such a wish be honored. No conscious individual should ever be euthanized against his wishes merely because he is not socially productive, or because his care is costly, or because a panel of bioethicists believes that his life is not worth living. The problem is that few individuals ever express their wishes regarding this disturbing set of particular circumstances -- one way or another -- before they find themselves in a locked-in state. That omission leads to a deeply unsettling question: In cases where no prior preference has been expressed, should the default rule be the preservation of life or should the default be freedom from suffering? One solution might be to survey the population and to establish the majority preference as the default. Another might leave the decision in the hands of family members. Or we could even conclude that some forms of suffering are so horrific that a few patients may have to die against their preferences so that others will not have to undergo years of unremitting psychological agony.

What is clear is that, if there are truly more locked-in patients than once believed, our society must confront these unpleasant choices directly. While we might ultimately decide to let these patients live, even at the risk of allowing them to suffer, we should recognize that such a policy is neither obvious nor intuitive. Whatever the truth of Rom Houben's case, it does not offer any easy answer to these questions.

Heather Robinson: Israeli Prisoner Exchange With Hamas: A Necessary Deal With The Devil?

2009-11-24T16:05:05Z

Is it ethical to for Israel to make a prisoner exchange with Hamas, a body that denies the right of Israel to exist?

Apparently, Israel is considering exchanging Hamas terrorists for IDF Sgt. Gilad Shalit.

Shalit was kidnapped by Hamas terrorists in a cross-border raid in June, 2006. Hamas militants, who have refused to allow the International Committee of the Red Cross to visit him, have held him for three and a half years. In exchange for Shalit's release, Hamas is demanding the release of 1,000 Palestinian prisoners.

Shalit's plight has captured the hearts of Israelis, who in a country where military service is compulsory at age 18 view the taking hostage of Israel Defense Forces soldiers with grave concern.

Of course, all Israel-supporters, and those who value human life, are praying for this young man's safe return home.

Historically, Israeli/Palestinian prisoner swaps have been grossly disproportionate, with hundreds of Palestinian prisoners-including those with blood on their hands-being released for just a few Israelis.

Or worse. In June 2008, the Israeli government, by Knesset vote of 22 to 3, decided to exchange numerous live Palestinian and Lebanese prisoners for the dead bodies of Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser, whose plight had consumed the nation, and broken the hearts of Israel-supporters around the world. (Regev and Goldwasser had been kidnapped by Hezbollah militants in July, 2006).

That's right, in exchange for dead bodies, Israel freed many live Palestinian prisoners, including a convicted child murderer/terrorist.

At the time, even outlets that normally blanch at Israel's self-defense seemed appalled by this decision.

It may be easy-too easy-for armchair warriors to critique the decision to undertake a prisoner exchange when it will save the life of a beloved brother, husband, son, or father.

Prisoner exchanges may be counterproductive by encouraging the practice of terrorist hostage taking (after all, the terrorists see their tactic works to get more of their people released. Is it any mystery they keep trying it?) But when, in the present moment, such an exchange will save even one life, it is hard to argue against the practice, even though it is will possibly endanger innocent lives in the future.

But whatever the understandable and heart-wrenching ethical and practical dilemmas of live prisoner exchange, this commentator can see no logical or ethical justification for prisoner exchange for a dead body.

In Judaism, the body after death is sacred and to be honored. But Judaism does not exalt death above life. Indeed, this difference-this dedication to the protection and prioritization of innocent life-separates Israel from its most pernicious enemies.

That exchanges have taken place in which Israel has traded, for the dead bodies of its soldiers, live Arab prisoners who could endanger innocent lives in the future and indeed probably will, is dangerously misguided. It has likely rewarded and possibly reinforced not only the practice of terrorist hostage-taking, but terrorist hostage-killing.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should not accept any assurances or promises, but consider an exchange if and only if Shalit is returned alive and healthy, to Israeli soil. Questionable as any prisoner-swap with terrorists may be, at the very least, a live, healthy prisoner, safely returned home to Israel, should be the absolute prerequisite.

May Gilad Shalit return home soon, alive and healthy.

Susan Bevan: Reform...at What Cost?

2009-11-23T17:55:30Z

The recent debate on health care reform has brought new focus to the important issue of reproductive choice -- and a clear understanding that it cannot be taken for granted.

As the Senate prepares now to take up its version of a massive health care overhaul, pro-choice Americans are watching closely to see if the Senate will sell out the reproductive rights of women, just as the Democratic leadership did in the U.S. House. The potential ramifications of any legislation that would eliminate women's reproductive health choices -- effectively discriminating against American women -- will undoubtedly reverberate to the 2010 elections, and beyond.

The renewed focus on reproductive choice was triggered by the House's actions. In the frenzy to pass a health care bill -- any bill -- Nancy Pelosi and House majority leadership allowed a vote on the now-infamous Stupak Amendment. Sponsors of the amendment misrepresented their efforts as a move to stop federal funding for reproductive choice. In fact, there is already a ban on federal funding for abortion. What Stupak did was effectively ban insurance coverage for most abortions from all public and private health plans in the new health exchange. Translation: it would make it nearly impossible for any American woman to obtain insurance coverage for abortion.

This travesty took place on the Democrats' watch. They cannot explain it away, and they cannot deny that they had complete control over this amendment's viability. This was an outrageous "compromise" that constituted no compromise at all. House Democrats, determined to push a health care reform bill this year, decided it was acceptable to sacrifice women's current reproductive health rights in the process.

The most unfortunate fall-out from this vote is that Congress is now legislating policy that is discriminatory against women, particularly low-income women. Abortion can be an expensive procedure, and many women, who use protection and practice responsible sex, still find themselves faced with an unwanted pregnancy for a multitude of reasons. The price tag attached to an abortion often means that, while every woman has the right to an abortion, only wealthier women have access to it.

Like it or not, abortion is a legal medical procedure and a decision that has to be left to doctors and families. Why are women being singled out and denied coverage, even through private plans? The claim that abortion is preventable or elective only underlines the discriminatory aspect of the Stupak Amendment. The truth is, countless treatments for preventable conditions, such as smoking cessation or the effects of obesity, are covered by private and public insurance plans. Would Congress ever offer amendments to unduly punish people who act 'irresponsibly' and make poor lifestyle choices by smoking, failing to wear seat belts or eating unhealthy foods? Of course not.

We do not, as a society, say, "I don't want my tax dollars to care for someone who has been in a car crash and didn't have a seat belt on." It sounds ludicrous. We all pay for people's regrettable decisions, and the financial impact of these 'preventable' medical needs is staggering. According to the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, $96.7 billion is spent on public and private health care combined annually due to smoking. Each year, each household spends $630 in federal and state taxes for expenses related to smoking. A new report released this week projects that in 10 years, 21% of all medical costs will go to treat diseases linked to obesity up from 9% we spend now.

Congress, the Senate and the President need to understand that women's reproductive health deserves the same equitable treatment that these other preventable medical procedures enjoy. It certainly must not be used as a bargaining chip in the rush to pass one of the largest legislative initiatives of our time. In fact, if the controlling Democrats cannot get their own majorities to agree on a health care compromise, that should make it clear that there are major problems that need to be addressed before dumping another expensive, government-run program on the American people.

As difficult as it is for real Republicans like us to admit, we've seen misguided efforts like the Stupak Amendment from extremists in our own party far too often. We have sadly watched as more and more women and 'moderate' voters have left our party because they believed the Democratic Party would do anything and everything to protect our individual freedom of reproductive choice. In one vote, that assumption was erased and pro-choice Americans are outraged.

Irene Monroe: Remembering Two-Spirits This Thanksgiving

2009-11-23T14:43:42Z

As I prepare for the Thanksgiving holiday, I am reminded of the autumnal harvest time's spiritual significance. As a time of connectedness, I pause to acknowledge what I have to be thankful for. But I also reflect on the holiday as a time of remembrance -- historical and familial.

Historically, I am reminded that for many Native Americans, Thanksgiving is not a cause of celebration, but rather a National Day of Mourning, remembering the real significance of the first Thanksgiving in 1621 as a symbol of persecution and genocide of Native Americans and the long history of bloodshed with European settlers.

I am also reminded of my Two-Spirit Native American brothers and sisters who struggle with their families and tribes not approving of their sexual identities and gender expressions as many of us do with our families and faith communities.

"Yes, there's internalized homophobia in every gay community, but as Native Americans we are taught not to like ourselves because we're not white. In our communities, people don't like us because we're gay," Gabriel Duncan, member of Bay Area American Indian Two Spirits (BAAITS), told the Pacific News Service.

And consequently, many Two-Spirit Native Americans leave their reservations and isolated communities hoping to connect with the larger LGBTQ community in urban cites. However, due to racism and cultural insensitivity, many Two-Spirits feel less understood and more isolated than they did back home.

But homophobia is not indigenous to Native American culture. Rather, it is one of the many devastating effects of colonization and Christian missionaries that today Two-Spirits may be respected within one tribe yet ostracized in another.

"Homophobia was taught to us as a component of Western education and religion," Navajo anthropologist Wesley Thomas has written. "We were presented with an entirely new set of taboos, which did not correspond to our own models and which focused on sexual behavior rather than the intricate roles Two-Spirit people played. As a result of this misrepresentation, our nations no longer accepted us as they once had."

Traditionally, Two-Spirits symbolized Native Americans' acceptance and celebration of diverse gender expressions and sexual identities. They were revered as inherently sacred because they possessed and manifested both feminine and masculine spiritual qualities that were believed to bestow upon them a "universal knowledge" and special spiritual connectedness with the "Great Spirit." Although the term was coined in the early 1990s, historically Two-Spirits depicted transgender Native Americans. Today, the term has come to also include lesbian, gay, bisexual, and intersex Native Americans.

The Pilgrims, who sought refuge here in America from religious persecution in their homeland, were right in their dogged pursuit of religious liberty. But their actual practice of religious liberty came at the expense of the civil and sexual rights of Native Americans.

And the Pilgrims' animus toward homosexuals not only impacted Native American culture, but it also shaped Puritan law and theology.

Here in the New England states, the anti-sodomy rhetoric had punitive if not deadly consequences for a newly developing and sparsely populated area. The Massachusetts Bay Code of 1641 called for the death of not only heretics, witches and murderers, but also "sodomites," stating that death would come swiftly to any "man lying with a man as with a woman." And the renowned Puritan pastor and Harvard tutor, the Rev. Samuel Danforth in his 1674 "fire and brimstone" sermon preached to his congregation that the death sentence for sodomites had to be imposed because it was a biblical mandate.

Because the Pilgrims' fervor for religious liberty was devoid of an ethic of accountability, their actions did not set up the conditions requisite for moral liability and legal justice. Instead, the actions of the Pilgrims brought about the genocide of a people, a historical amnesia of the event, and an annual national celebration of Thanksgiving for their arrival.

In 1990, President George H.W. Bush ironically -- if not ignorantly -- designated November as "National American Indian Heritage Month" to celebrate the history, art, and traditions of Native American people.

As we get into the holiday spirit, let us remember the whole story of the arrival of the Pilgrims and other European settlers to the New World.

On a trip home to New York City in May 2004, I went to the Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture to view the UNESCO Slave Route Project, "Lest We Forget: the Triumph Over Slavery," that marks the United Nations General Assembly's resolution proclaiming 2004 "The International Year to Commemorate the Struggle Against Slavery and Its Abolition."

In highlighting that African Americans should not be shamed by slavery, but instead defiantly proud of our memory of it, I read the opening billboard to the exhibit that stated, "By institutionalizing memory, resisting the onset of oblivion, recalling the memory of tragedy that for long years remained hidden or unrecognized and by assigning it its proper place in the human conscience, we respond to our duty to remember."

It is in the spirit of our connected struggles against discrimination that we can all stand on a solid rock that rests on a multicultural foundation for a true and honest Thanksgiving.

And in so doing, it helps us to remember, respect, mourn and give thanks to the struggles not only our LGBTQ foremothers and forefathers endured, but also the ongoing struggle our Native American Two-Spirit brothers and sisters face everyday -- and particularly on Thanksgiving Day.

Brian Levin, J.D.: FBI Reports Small Increase In Hate Crimes, But On Very Limited Data

2009-11-23T11:00:46Z

Hate crime incidents in the United States increased slightly in 2008 according to data released today by the FBI. There were 7783 incidents up 159 or 2.1% from the 7624 reported last year. Overall, non-hate crime declined less than 2% last year. However, it is not known if the reported increase in hate crime is the result of an actual increase in cases, or instead a result of a rise in the number of agencies actually participating in the program from 2007 and by reporting improvements in states with minimal previous reporting. The reporting rate for the nation was 3.46/100,000 population covered, but rates vary widely. New Jersey reported 8.5 hate crimes per100,000 hate crimes population while neighboring Pennsylvania reported a rate about ten times less. Participation is simply too spotty to be able draw firm conclusions about the direction of hate crime nationally last year, according to the Center for the Study of Hate & Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino.

The number of participating agencies increased by 449 or 3.4% from last year, although most "participating agencies" reported no hate crime. The number of agencies submitting at least one incident grew by over 125 agencies from 2025 (15.3% of reporting agencies), in 2007, to 2145 (15.7% of reporting agencies) in 2008. The marked improvement in reporting efficiencies among some states with extremely low numbers last year apparently was responsible for some of the increase. Arkansas went from 27 agencies submitting 33 incidents in 2007 to 36 agencies submitting 91 incidents in 2008. Louisiana's numbers increased from 31 to 67, despite a decrease in participating agencies. Indiana went from 40 incidents in 2007 to 61 last year.

Still other large states like Pennsylvania, 6th ranked in population, with only 68 incidents, appear to have broken down in reporting accurately. Illinois, 5th ranked in population with 120 incidents, and Florida, 4th ranked in population with 153 incidents also have data that appear to be suspect. In 2002, a year with a lower national tally than 2008, Florida reported 257 incidents, Illinois 155, and Pennsylvania 132 incidents.

In addition to steep drop-offs in some of the largest states, data is further limited by a continuing apparent lack of participation by Hawaii and several southern states. States such as Mississippi, 4 incidents from 1 agency, and Georgia, 9 incidents from 2 agencies, limit the accuracy of overall national hate crime data. Georgia and Mississippi are states with among the highest representation of African-Americans, who account for 35% of all hate crime victims annually, but their state reporting barely registers.

Our California State University Study of 15 jurisdictions released last week found a slight decline in hate crime in those places, but also found that the national data to be extremely limited by differences in reporting quality across jurisdictions. That survey concluded: "We simply do not know if this small decline is illusory, or if it is not, whether it will be sustained." The same can be said of today's small increase in the official reports.

Today's FBI Data:

The most incidents in 2008, 3992 were committed on the basis of race, with 2,876 incidents or 72.6% of total racial incidents being directed against African-Americans. 17.3% of racial crimes were committed out of anti-white bias. In 2007 there were 3,870 incidents on the basis of race and 2,658 committed against African-Americans.

There were 1,519 religion hate crimes committed in 2008, with 1,013 committed against Jews or 65.7% of total religious incidents followed by 105 anti-Islamic crimes, 7.7% of the total religious incidents. In 2007, 1400 crimes were committed on the basis of religion with 969 against Jews and 115 anti-Islamic crimes. Sexual orientation crimes were at 1297, with all being anti-gay, lesbian or bisexual except for 33 anti-heterosexual incidents. Tensions regarding sexual orientation grew in 2008 as various states, including California saw contentious debates over the legal status of gay marriages. Gender and gender identity were not included in the FBI's 2008 tally, but will be included in future reports owing to changes passed as part of the Shepard-Byrd Hate Crime Prevention Act signed into law in October.

Anti-Ethnic/National origin crimes decreased from 1,007 to 894, with the largest portion of those, anti-Hispanic incidents dropping 595 to 561. The anti-Hispanic incidents are still higher than the level seen in 5 of the previous 8 years, since 2000. Disability crimes decreased by 1 from 79 in 2007 to 78 in 2008.

32.4% of offenses were property damage/destruction/vandalism, while 29.5% were intimidation, 19.4% simple assault and 11.2% were aggravated assault. 60.4% of crimes were against persons, 39.4% against property. Crimes overall (non-hate crime) are overwhelmingly against property. Homicides decreased by 2 from 9 to 7.

A quick review of several large states by quarter did not indicate an increase in overall hate crimes during the fourth quarter of 2008, during the election period.

California, the largest state, with about 37 million residents reported 1381 incidents, followed by New Jersey, with 8.7 million residents reporting 744, and New York, with 19.5 million residents reporting 570 incidents. Hawaii did not participate, while Mississippi reported 4 incidents, Wyoming 6, Alaska 8, and Georgia and New Mexico had 9.

Agency Participation Varies Widely, Affects Data

The Hate Crime Statistics Act (HCSA: 28 USC 534) enacted in April 1990 mandates that the Attorney General collect data voluntarily submitted by states on crimes that "manifest prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity." In 1994, Congress added the category of disability. On October 28, 2009 President Obama signed the Shepard-Byrd Hate Crime Prevention Act, 18 USC 249, which further expands data collection for future reports under the HCSA to include "gender and gender identity" as well as data on crimes involving juveniles.

As some states like Louisiana, Arkansas and Indiana saw significant increases, probably due to improvements in reporting--what's known as reporting effect, other states, particularly large ones have declines that are so variant from their population size that their previous numbers, that their declines are suspect. Illinois, the fifth largest state with 12.9 million residents, dropped from 167 incidents last year to 120 in 2008. The number of agencies reporting at least one incident varied only by one, but the number of "participating" agencies rose from 60 to 308 (a large proportion of the increase in "participating agencies." The majority of Illinois agencies "participating" simply are submitting forms with zero incidents on them.

Similarly, Pennsylvania, the sixth largest state with 12.4 million residents, reported only 68 hate crimes from 31 agencies, despite 1,241 of the states agencies saying they "participate," mostly again by reporting a form with a "zero" written on it. While various states have done well in reporting over time, many have not, making it exceedingly difficult to draw firm conclusions on trends from the data submitted. The overall annual figures are the highest since 2001, but the totals have been in the 7,000-8000 range from 2002 forward.

Ryan Mack: What I Hope We Learn from the Heather Ellis Case

2009-11-23T01:01:59Z

The Heather Ellis case that is occurring in Kennett, Missouri started nearly three years ago. Ms. Ellis joined a line at Walmart but was accused of cutting the line. She alleges that she was joining her cousin. You know...we have all done it..."You stay in that line while I stay in this line...if you get to the checkout station first I will join you." This seems pretty simple, but it turned into a racial debate that has divided this small town of 11,000.

Heather Ellis was a college student at the time of the incident and had no criminal history. One side of the story states that many white patrons yelled racial slurs at her when she went into the other line. She claimed that the employees refused to give her back her change and called the police. She states that one officer told her upon arrival that she needs to "Go back to the ghetto" and another roughed her up.

The other side of the story states that she was being unruly, rude, shoving merchandise, kicked one officer in the shin, and split another officer's lip (I saw none of this on the tape).

To make a long story short, she didn't want to plea for a lesser charge with the police so today she is going through a trial facing felony charges and up to 15 years in prison if convicted.

I have my opinions of the case. I feel that there this has been blown way out of proportion and if she were to spend another day in prison justice has not been served. I realize that my opinion does not carry as much weight as those who were actually there because the only way that I know about the case is from what I read about. However, I want to make a much broader point in this case...how do you respond when police officers arrest you?

I am growing weary of hearing stories about people who continue to loudly express their opinion once police officers arrive. Professor Gates continued to express his disgust at the officer once he arrived and now Heather Ellis (from what I saw on the camera footage) was not walking away quietly. BOTH in my opinion should not have been arrested but BOTH in my opinion once the officers arrived needed to "SHUT UP!"

I want you to read these lines very carefully...

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say or do can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?

My uncle, Chuck Smiley rest his soul, was one of the most fierce defense attorneys ever seen by Dayton, Ohio. He would continuously state that many times cases were lost before he was even called because those who were arrested would feel the need to have diarrhea of the mouth killing any chances of an acquittal well before he arrived to their defense. To those reading this right now, please read the ONLY four things that you are to say if a police officer arrests you:

1. Yes Sir/Madame
2. No Sir/Madame
3. May I please speak with a lawyer?
4. NOTHING!

You do not display an angry attitude, you do not yell at the officer, you do not be incompliant, and you make sure that even if you think that they are in the wrong for arresting you in no way should you resist arrest! I am not justifying or condoning police brutality or police abuse of power...we absolutely need to fight against wrongful arrest and abuse of power...JUST NOT AT THE TIME OF BEING ARRESTED! Fight it with your attorney after the arrest, fight it through the system by lobbying for more regulations and laws to be put in place, picket, protest, and do whatever you need to do; but when the cops say to you that you need to go downtown because you are under arrest SHUT UP, COMPLY, DO AS YOU ARE TOLD, AND ASK FOR AN ATTORNEY!

Gates tried to be a martyr and he was dragged away in cuffs, Ms. Ellis walked away with her finger waiving and now she is facing 15 years. Both were right to be upset, but both were wrong as to how they handled it! This impulse behavior to act without thinking about the repercussions needs to stop and there is not a value that one can place on a sound/rational mind!

I hope the trend of abuse of power by the police comes to an end. I hope that Heather Ellis does not get 15 years in prison and should not serve another day in prison. I also hope that those in the community learn from this moment as to how to act when arrested...think first!

Hagai El-Ad: Democracy, Human Rights, Us. No Way We're Giving Them Up.

2009-11-23T00:50:00Z

There's a limit to how many blows democracy can take before it is trampled down and beaten into something else. Democracy and human rights are absolutely essential for protecting who we are, preserving our rights, and enabling us to realize the equality we all deserve.

Quite honestly, we're already living in a "challenged" democracy in Israel. For years now we've counted among us second-class citizens, third-class residents, and fourth-class migrants, not to mention the Palestinians living under occupation whose rights aren't counted at all. This dangerous reality has persisted for many years. Far too many.

But over this past year, the very foundations of our democracy have been shaken. As if the usual threats to our basic values weren't serious enough, we've seen a dangerous shift, propelling us toward a dark abyss. More and more Israelis are feeling this threat. More and more of us understand that the danger to our most basic values -- the ones that enable us to live here together, the ones that give us hope for the future and protect us -- are imminent and real.

This year, racism against Arab citizens has risen to the level of finding sanctuary in key positions of our current government. Attacks on the rule of law have intensified. Incitement against Israeli human rights activists has been unrestrained. The limitations imposed on freedom of expression during Operation Cast Lead were unprecedented, as was the publics' apathy towards the fate of the Palestinians. We've been witness to a government that wants to deport children born and raised here in Israel, that has threatened its Arab citizens and marked them all collectively as "the enemy", and that proposes laws that are inherently undemocratic. It's not the Kahanists or fringe extremists pushing these measures, but our very own government. Something at our core is under attack.

What these predatory legislative initiatives and anti-democratic measures share is that they are rooted in pessimism and fear -- fear of the other, fear of an open and free society, fear of rights that we all have according to the most universal pre-requisite -- our humanity.

Can we allow our democracy and our rights to thus be weakened and threatened right before our very eyes? No way.

We are not afraid of equal citizenship for all Israelis, nor do we have any qualms about living in a society where human rights are simply ours. Human rights are not conditional -- they do not succumb to racist legislative initiatives, nor are they subservient to arbitrary government decisions that would wave human rights about as a carrot or a stick. There are those who would ransom the concept of human rights, who would transform our society into a limited democracy. There is no such thing. A state in which human rights are conditional is no democracy at all, and there is no way we will allow Israel to slide down that slippery slope.

We are not afraid to send our children to classrooms in which students of Ethiopian decent and native Israelis, or Sephardic and Ashkenazi girls, or Arabs and Jews, are given equal educational opportunities; are respected as human beings; and are provided with the skills to explore, evolve and make the most of their potential. We are becoming increasingly concerned that our children are attending schools that provide them with models of segregation, discrimination and alienation, which push aside the mission of educating for human rights.

We are not afraid to speak about the Nakba, but we are afraid of the possibility of living in a country that silences its citizens. Freedom of expression belongs to us all, and there is no way we will surrender it.

We are not afraid of refugees or of migrant workers. We are not afraid of their children. But we are appalled by politicians who believe that people in Israel without Israeli citizenship are not entitled to their human rights. We believe that people are human beings first, possessing unalienable rights; any belief to the contrary completely undermines the concept of human dignity.

We are not afraid of authentic public debate about issues that will determine our future in this country: whether to create a biometric database unlike any other in the world, whether to enact land reform legislation, whether to slash budget allocations for welfare and education. However, we are deeply troubled by a government that attempts to bypass democracy and seeks to determine law through unprecedented underhanded methods that bypass proper public debate, as in the case of Israel's "Economic Arrangements Law".

We will not remain in the closet regarding gays, lesbians, transgendered people and bisexuals -- we state unequivocally that they are equal in their identity, in their love and in their human rights. The verbal and physical abuse directed at a person solely based on his or her sexual orientation or gender identity is dangerous, ugly and, quite simply, racist.

We have no cause to fear equal access for everyone to health services, to housing, to education. And we do mean everyone: Bedouin in the Negev, children in Petach Tikvah, the homeless in Tel Aviv. Our fear is of a society that is apathetic to its periphery, to its weakened populations; a society that is indifferent to those who must forego proper medical treatment because it is not within their financial reach; a society that has no intention of guaranteeing housing for all, quality public medical care, equality in education, or a dignified existence for both the employed and the unemployed.

We do not fear the end of the occupation. We are afraid of its perpetuation, and the entrenchment of a separation regime that discriminates against Palestinians in favor of Israeli settlers in the territories. We are gravely concerned about the poisonous effect the continued occupation has upon our society, upon the rule of law, and upon our chances of becoming a true democracy. There is no way that Israel can be a true democracy without an end to the occupation.

Is it possible for us to stand up to these threats -- and succeed?

We firmly believe that through our combined power as citizens we can succeed in standing together as equals possessing equal rights, without having to compromise our values and with the recognition that it's not too late to turn the tide. Human rights, equality, social justice -- these are not utopian ideals. They are essential conditions for our shared existence, for living decent and worthy lives. The rule of law is not the sole realm of the courts, nor is the preservation of democracy a matter to be left exclusively to the Knesset. When we come out in defense of human rights and democracy, we come out in defense of ourselves. The power rests in our hands.

And this year, for the first time, it also rests in our feet. On Friday, December 11th, in honor of International Human Rights Day, we will take to the streets in Israel's first-ever Human Rights March. The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) invites everyone to come out and participate: organizations for social change and equality, youth movements, human rights organizations, activists, and every one for whom it is crucial to protect all human rights for all human beings -- and the future of this society in which we all play a part.

These are our rights and our future. There is no way we can allow ourselves to fail. On December 11th we begin to change direction. We will not wait for the next elections. We will not continue to grumble in the privacy of our homes. We will no longer rely on "someone" to do "something". We remind all those who perhaps have forgotten: We are here. And there is no way we will surrender our rights.

Jonathan Horowitz: The New Bagram: Has Anything Changed?

2009-11-20T16:16:32Z

Last weekend, the United States unveiled its new state of the art detention facility to journalists, diplomats, Afghan officials, and nongovernmental organizations. After participating in the tour, I give the new facility a "vastly improved" grade compared to the Bagram Theater Internment Facility (BTIF), but U.S. detention policy has a long way to go before reaching "satisfactory."

It's clear that the authorities looked back at lessons learned from eight years of blunders and abuse in designing the new lock-up facility. However, since the detainees have not yet been transferred, the reality of the new facility is still unknown.

How will the guards and interrogators behave towards the detainees? Will the United States grant human rights groups access to the facility once the detainees arrive? Will the new Detainee Review Boards, charged with determining if someone should be released or not, be accurate and fair?

A communal cell in one of four detainee housing units at the new facility in Parwan. (Jonathan Horowitz)

Interviews I've conducted with former Bagram detainees indicate that these issues are of greatest importance, not the facility itself.

Also, a new facility does not tell us about the treatment of detainees at the point of capture. That is when Afghans allege that most physical violence and unnecessary destruction of property takes place.

As a Human Rights First report reveals, although the United States has improved the procedures previously in place at Bagram, those new policies closely resemble the discredited policies of the Cuba-based detention facility. Given the history at Guantanamo Bay, it's not hard to predict disaster -- unless U.S. detention authorities address the pitfalls immediately.

Similar to Guantanamo Bay, the new Bagram procedures deny access to lawyers, but grant them personal representatives and allow detainees to call witnesses. Yet this process failed when it was used in Guantanamo.

A communal cell in one of four detainee housing units at the new facility in Parwan.

A Seton Hall study found that in 78 percent of Guantanamo cases reviewed, the personal representative met with the detainee only once; and in 79 percent of the cases the personal representative meet with the detainee only a week before the hearing. This certainly did not provide anyone with a meaningful defense. The study also showed that very few witnesses were allowed to appear, effectively nullifying the right to call witnesses.

While additional improvements to the facility are still needed, there is evidence of a desire to improve detention conditions. The isolation cells contain toilets, which limit forced extractions and humiliating searches each time a detainee has to go to the bathroom. The metal meshed observer walk-ways above the 20 person communal caged cells have mats on them to reduce the noise of patrolling guards.

It is also a positive step that Secretary of Defense Gates created a new high-level task force--Joint Task Force 435--dedicated to improving detention policy in Afghanistan and ensuring that the new procedures are implemented.

Showering facilities in one of four detainee housing units at the new facility in Parwan.

However, the United States must continue to reform its detention policy in Afghanistan; additional steps must be taken to increase transparency, legitimacy, and accuracy.

The United States should open its detention facilities to independent human rights observers, such as the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission. This was never done at BTIF or Guantanamo Bay. Afghan groups have been lobbying for this with a unified voice, and it is time for the United States to heed their calls.

The United States should invite Afghan officials and civil society actors to provide input on detention policy reforms. This will help enhance the legitimacy of any future policies in the eyes of Afghans, and make sure that local concerns are taken into account.

Placing Afghan judges on the Detainee Review Boards and giving detainees access to lawyers, instead of personal representatives, would also improve the accuracy and credibility of U.S. detention operations. The United States must guarantee that sufficient resources and expertise will be deployed to review evidence and seek out witnesses connected to detainee cases. Bagram regulations should also explicitly ban the use of coerced evidence at Detainee Review Board proceedings.

The United States also needs to improve its collection, corroboration, and analysis of information used to determine who it captures and detains. To do this, U.S. soldiers need to be better trained and equipped to gather more conclusive forms of evidence. Reliance on joint operations and intelligence sharing with the Afghan government should increase. And, reliance on malicious informants and poorly qualified interpreters at points of capture and interrogations must end.

The United States, with the help of the international community, needs to find more effective ways to successfully train Afghan lawyers, judges, and Afghan National Security Forces to respect the rule of law and the rights of detainees. The United States will only considering handing detention operations over to the Afghans if it trusts their justice system. Specific focus should be placed on reforming the practices of national security prosecutors operating under the Office of the Attorney General and engaging in rule of law reforms within the National Directorate of Security.

The first detainees are supposed to be transferred from the old Bagram facility to the new one by the end of the year. Soon, we will know if U.S. detention policy in Afghanistan has really changed or if it is more of the same.