Over three weeks ago, African immigrants in South Africa were brutally attacked and their properties destroyed by local citizens within various cities and provinces in the country. The conflict while still in its latent stage, initially began late August 2019 through petite skirmishes and altercations between foreign truck drivers and local south African citizens before it rapidly escalated into a full-blown violent conflict in mid-September 2019. The attacks which started in form of a riot protest with chants and songs that demanded foreigners return to where they came from in native Zulu language (South African native language) which was specifically aimed at immigrants from other African nations. During the protest, they began looting properties, destroying and burning down business enterprises owned by African immigrants. They also attacked any immigrant that was within protesting territories or those who tried to either protect or prevent their business stores from being looted or destroyed, which led to the death of twelve African immigrants. Properties worth millions of dollars was estimated to have been looted and destroyed, while thousands of immigrants are still licking their wounds due to the injuries sustained during the chaotic protest.
During the de-escalation stages of the violent conflict, a veteran South African politician condemnation speech against the negative behaviors and violent attacks against fellow African immigrants was quickly disrupted and aggressively challenged by the people, which shows a lack of remorse or regret for their shameful acts of violence which can be said of the entire South African government. Although the South African president alongside some of his aides have tendered an official written apology letter to leaders of affected African nations, it is believed to be barely a strategic and baseless diplomatic act which could be confirmed in the words of Marc Gbaffou (a member of the African Diaspora Forum that creates awareness for the rights of migrants in South Africa) who claimed “there was no political will to end the continuous xenophobic attacks against African immigrants which has become clear for the whole world to see”.
Although the African Union Commission Chairperson, Moussa Faki Mahamat had issued a statement which outrightly condemns the violent attacks and destructions against African immigrants, much needs to be done to ensure events such as these kind will forever remain a buried issue in the past. The safety and wellbeing of immigrants are to be taken with utmost respect by rendering valuable services in all its affairs with an experiential focus mostly placed on their security which should not be bridged irrespective of any unfathomable and unreasonable excuses. There is a need to put in place restrictive measures and binding sanctions to serve as precedence that guides against the continuity of these persistent shameless acts. Despite the United Nations high commissioner for human rights, Michelle Bachelet’s statement to the South African authorities urging them to ensure adequate protection for all victims of the xenophobic attack and make all perpetrators accountable, little has been done in this regard, only a few individuals were casually arrested due to their participation in the violent attacks, while the body language of the nation remains negative towards achieving a permanent resolution.
Source: Flickr
Humanity has been at logged-head with each other for a long time and there is a need to embrace and increase the volume of peace. In the world today, more genuine efforts should be put in place to reduce and if possible, eliminate the regular occurrence of conflict and violence at both the international and national level. Africa most especially, needs to put more focus on ensuring democracy and good governance are adequately consolidated, rather than laying emphasis on misplaced priorities or negative issues. The South African government needs to address the root cause of the continuous xenophobic attacks against African immigrants, which is the high rate of “Unemployment”. The historic timeline and trends, magnitude and possible continuity of the xenophobic attacks, also call for an urgent intervention from international organizations such as the United Nations and African Union, to ensure adequate measures are truly in place to ensure discontinuity of such attacks, while strict sanctions are to be placed on them, should they fail to meet required security standards.
PSHRC – Punjab State Human Rights Commission. Source: Punjab State Human Rights Commission, Creative Commons
Throughout the history of humankind, the way in which people transmit news has evolved exponentially, from the word of mouth in the olden days to a simple click, swipe, and 240 characters. It connects you and I to events happening around the world, from concerts to social movements concerning human rights. But, to what extent does the hashtag, only a recent medium for communication, bring people together around a common goal or movement?
As you might recall in 2014, many people around the world took part in the #ALSIceBucketChallenge, where participants would dump a bucket or a container of ice water on their heads. This challenge went so viral that a “reported one in six” British people took part. It also went so far as involving celebrities like Lady Gaga, which demonstrated its far reach and effectiveness. Despite many calling this challenge a form of slacktivism, (where one would simply like the post and involve very little commitment), the ALS Association raised over $115 million USD. Due to this striking number, the Association was able to fund a scientific breakthrough that discovered a new gene that contributed to the disease.
Free Stock Photo of ALS Ice Bucket Challenge. Source: Pixabay, Creative Commons
Then in 2017, the #MeToo movement sprung from the shadows, calling out sexual predators and forcing the removal of many high-profile celebrities, namely Harvey Weinstein. It went way beyond Turkana Burke, the founder of the MeToo movement from more than a decade ago, expected. It was through the use of social media that made #MeToo movement as large as it is today. As of 2018, the hashtag was used “more than 19 million times on Twitter from the date of [Alyssa] Milano’s initial tweet.” This effect, known as the Harvey Weinstein Effect, knocked many of the United States’ ‘top dogs’ from the limelight, revealing what could be behind the facade of power, wealth, and control that they hold. From Weinstein to George H.W. Bush to even U.S. Senate Candidate for Alabama Roy Moore, their reactions varied as much as the amount of people accused. Weinstein was ultimately fired, H.W. Bush apologized for his actions, and Moore denied the accusations. Through increased awareness and the ability to connect to virtually everywhere, women and men began to tell their stories and call attention to the actions of sexual predators.
Pink Letters Forming the Word #MeToo. Source: Rawpixel, Creative Commons
Both the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge and the MeToo Movement allude to key human rights concerns, with ALS involving the life of a person through a disease and MeToo involving sexual harassment charges and claims. By eliminating the one thing that threatened the life or sanctity of a person (Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights), a push towards human rights became realized. This demonstrates how hashtags are effective at promoting human rights issues among the general public, allowing these concerns to be confronted and resolved.
But where has the hashtag been limited in practice?
In April 2014, “276 schoolgirls were kidnapped from the remote northeast Nigerian town of Chibok by Boko Haram.” Soon after this event, #BringBackOurGirls shot up to the trending page of Twitter, and was shared more than four millions times, making it one of Africa’s most popular online campaigns. Alongside massive support from the public also came backing from famous individuals such as Kim Kardashian, Michelle Obama, and many others. Even though this campaign helped bring to light the domestic conflict that “claimed at least 20,000 lives,” it only resulted in limited support and is, arguably, an indicator of ‘slacktivism’. With a majority of support coming from Twitter users residing in the United States, Nigerian politics dismissed this outrage as some sort of partisan opposition against the Nigerian president of the time. As Ufuoma Akpojivi (media researcher from South Africa) said, “There is a misconception that embracing social media or using new media technologies will bring about the needed change.” Even with the global outrage at the kidnapping of teenagers, not much action took place because of partisanship and US disconnection with Nigerian citizens.
MJ-UPBEAT Bring Back Our Girls! Source: mj-upbeat.com, Creative Commons
Following, in 2018, hashtags such as #NeverAgain, #MarchForOurLives, and #DouglasStrong emerged as a response to the shooting at Stoneman Douglas High School, where teen personalities and activists Emma Gonzáles, David Hogg, and others began campaigning against the accessibility of guns. Such a movement gained considerable support, with over 3.3 million tweets including the #MarchForOurLives hashtag and over 11.5 million posts related to the March itself. Through the use of social media, the movement was born; however, one of the key things that March For Our Lives disregards is the bureaucratic system that the government embodies. Even though activists want rapid and sweeping changes to the system, Kiran Pandey notes how “there is only the trenchant continuation of political grandstanding, only this time it’s been filtered through the mouths of America’s youth.” Even with such declarations facing our bureaucratic system, alienating people with diverse viewpoints have made the movement weak and ineffective. It does not help when many people, including our friends and family own a gun. By attacking these owners and not focusing on saving lives, this movement has been, and will arguably be, stagnant until bipartisanship is emphasized and utilized.
WR Nonviolence — Nonviolence makes the world a better place. Source: Waterloo Region Nonviolence, Creative Commons
Though both #BringBackOurGirls and #MarchForOurLives caused widespread protests and promoted awareness about the key issues of the time, it failed to generate support due to its limited field. In #BringBackOurGirls, many of the mentions came from U.S. Twitter users. Because the conflict was and is taking place in Nigeria, many of these tweets and protests have little to no say in the matter of forcing Boko Haram to return the kidnapped Nigerian girls. In the case of #MarchForOurLives, the movement failed to gain traction simply because of its push to call out those in support of having guns and the NRA caused the issue of safety and security of the person to become a partisan issue. Both issues are key human rights issues, however, they fail to capitalize on actual support and exclude those who have diverse views on the issue at hand.
How exactly could someone make a hashtag go viral?
Well, according to ReThink Media, an organization that works to build “the communications capacity of nonprofit think tanks, experts, and advocacy groups,” building a hashtag campaign for social impact includes three key areas to manage a hashtag campaign:
Having a List of Your Supporters
Having influencers and connectors can help in a great way. By using a specific hashtag to a broad fanbase or following, having those influencers can help jump-start a movement and gain awareness rapidly about key issues of the time.
Using the Right Terms at the Right Time
“Take too long to decide and the news cycle might pass you by.” By using terms that appeal to everyone and using them during critical news-worthy moments, it is easy to be able to attract everyone quickly. For example, if there was some type of crisis going on in the United States, having a relevant hashtag that appeals to everyone could allow more people to support that movement. Using terms that solely appeal to a political side may only be limited in scope.
Have Supplemental Support Once the Hashtag Gets Posted
By using certain graphics or memes, combined with the regular posting of the hashtag overtime, during mid-day, more people could potentially get involved and push the movement towards social impact. It also allows people to gain awareness and spread that message to more people in their following.
Overall, hashtags can be effective when incorporating supplemental supporters and a non-partisan central focus. By supporting the movement through influencers and spreading awareness, such a movement could gain traction and provide real-time results, such as the removal of sexual predators from positions of power and gaining funding in order to cure a disease. However, a hashtag’s reliability is solely dependent on the users that spread it. Thus, social media can help people gain a social consciousness and support pivotal human rights issues when they matter most to those affected.
I remember when I first saw a photo of a lynching. I couldn’t have been more than ten years old and was afraid to go outside of my house or attend school. I told my mother that the people that were hanging could not have been viewed as human but as objects of intimidation and pure terror. I recall the trauma from this photo I experienced as a child. The fear and concern for me and my family began to really scare me. Once researching this photo, I told my mother about it and she told me to research the word “lynching”. Upon the discovery, I stepped into this dark time of American history and I have become an advocate against the violation of human rights since then. As discussed by Paula Giddings, professor of Afro-American Studies, the historical definition of this term is when someone is put to death by hanging by a mob consisting of three or more people. Lynching is done without a legal sanction, a trial, or a court sanction and actually began during the Revolutionary War. It did not become an issue of racial terror until 1886 when the number of Black lynching became higher than that of White lynching.
The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), an organization that fought against the struggle against lynching discusses the act of lynching and the nature of its terror. Lynching in America was done as an act of terror against Black people following Reconstruction in the late 19th century. The organization estimates that between the years of 1882-1968, 4,743 people were lynched. Among those people, 3, 446 of those victims were Black. The Equal Justice Initiative, an organization dedicated towards the liberation of oppressed people in America has done much research on lynching. It documents the practice being done in mostly Southern states such as Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia. It was not limited to the Southern states. The organization lists that it also occurred in other Western states such as Illinois, Kansas, and Oklahoma. So, during this time after Reconstruction, racial lynching was a nationwide phenomenon.
Source: Yahoo Images
Research from the NAACP and Giddings notes, that most of these acts of brutality were justified in the eyes of many Southerners. It was used as a method of intimidation to Black people within their communities which resulted in this season of racial tension. Lynching was also a tactic that was influenced by the desire to protect the Southern white womanhood. In the eyes of Southern whites, there was this notion that Black men were sexually aggressive and predatory towards white women. Most lynching were motivated by the accusations of sexual assault and violence of Black men against white women. Although that was the story that the history books told, I knew that it had to be more to the story than that. I wanted to study more about lynching because it affects so many things in our society and our country overall. For all these incidents of racial terror to occur for so many years, the effect of that terror does not just cease. As I came to college and became more of an activist, I wanted to do my own research on lynching. I began to understand the importance of studying the ugly moments in history because we are told to forget.
Although the act of lynching has decreased at a tremendous level, the attitude and the justification of lynching has not. During my research, I discovered lynching was not only subjected to death by hanging, but also through beatings or being burned alive. Not only the denial of a trial but to hang someone from a tree who was most of the time innocent of the crime they were accused of. The victims were confronted by a lynch mob in jails and then beaten and tied with rope. The most shocking thing about all this was the vigilantism about it and the act of mobs storming into a jail cell to retrieve an innocent man or woman and deny them a fair trial. Hanging was not the only form of punishment they endured. Giddings also notes that victims were also burned alive, dismembered, or even dragged by vehicles, beaten, and even castrated. As lynching became spectacles for the white people in these communities, it became clear to me that these victims could not be viewed as human beings during this time. This was during a time period in America where Black people did not have many civil or human rights. The rights of their humanity were not protected under the American law as many white people did not even look at Black people as citizens. The ADL, an organization for anti-hate advocacy, declares that there was this notion of superiority that allowed for the white race to feel superior to the Black race. This notion is the foundation of white nationalism and white supremacy in the United States.
Lynching was viewed as the hate crimes of their day and were often used to maintain their superiority and social order in America. This lack of respect for their humanity is displayed as they were killed simply because they were Black. They were not seen as humans and their rights were not protected under the law. This problem of the lack of recognition of the human rights of Black people has left a damaging legacy and continues to contribute to the racial issues in America. Recently, I have visited the EJI museum and witnessed the jars of the soils of the sites of the lynching victims. There were so many, and it dawned on me that all these human beings could only be remembered in a jar of soil. Then I visited the National Memorial for Peace and Justice and saw the pillars of the lynching victims in America. Not only did the number of pillars completely shock me, but as you walk down the area, the floor descends, and the pillars ascend. This was to represent the victims hanging from the trees as the pillars are hanging from the ceiling. Breathtaking is not strong enough of a word to describe how I felt, I felt helpless and full of sorrow because I could not help them nor fight for them. All I could do was memorialize them as the ones that died in the struggle for Black liberation.
Source: Yahoo Images
As I think about this kind of hate violence, I begin to think of other victims whose lives have been taken by hate. I think about people such as Emmett Till, James Reeb, Matthew Sheppard, Brandon Teena, and countless others. To me that kind of violence that is motivated by hate is the most abrupt and vicious attack on human rights. Although this type of hate violence occurred during Reconstruction, there is this overwhelming feeling that hate violence have been steadily increasing in these present times. This kind of hate violence has left a haunting legacy that still haunts our society today. In an article by the Washington Post, it discusses the rise of hate crimes and the target towards minority groups and religious groups. These groups include crimes against the LGBTQIA+ community, people of color, and Muslims in America. I feel as though the motivation of this growing trend is due to white nationalism and the desire to return to a society where white populace was the dominating voice in the country. Hate crimes have been recognized by the Human Rights Campaign in regards to hate crime related violence. Even though it has been declared by legislation, there needs to be more advocacy for ending hate crime violence in the United States.
Hate crimes are committed to express prejudice and hate against a certain group and in this act, one does not see these victims as human. Instead, the victims are seen as people that must be punished for ruining or destroying what they consider as “their country”. Of course, this is not moral justification to commit violence against humans, but this is normally the attitude of the ones who commit this violence. To me, legislation is not enough to combat this issue without the acknowledgement of the history of hate violence. There must be conversations about where hate violence stemmed from. I have always lived by the quote of “you have to understand the past to understand the present”. By us being able to able to talk about the past, it will allow us to be able to dissect the problem at the root and create resources to prevent it from occurring.
As a nation that is so rich in diversity, there is not any room for hate towards its American citizens. There is certainly not any room for violence against its American citizens as the rights and safety of American citizens should be protected under the law. If we are really going to move forward as a country, I believe that the country needs to be honest with itself about what has been done in the past. It is imperative because as hate violence was done in order to preserve white supremacy during the lynching period, the same notion remains in our society today. Another aspect is the lack of punishment for people that commit these crimes, and this really exposes the problems that continue to harm the people within our society. Every citizen in this country should be protected under the law along with their rights.
If we are really going to look at the root cause of this problem of hate crime and violence, then we need to take a look in the mirror and decide if we even value humanity.As a country, we failed during the era of lynching as we failed to recognize our humanity, but that narrative does not have to remain this way for the rest of our lives. There must be more conversations and resources for advocacy against hate violence, it is imperative at this point. It is imperative to ensure that the dark history of lynching and hate violence does not repeat itself as history tends to do. On my part, I have always been dedicated to the liberation of oppressed people and the protection of human rights for minority groups overall. In this I am a fellow of the Jefferson County Memorial Project that does research on lynched victims in Jefferson County. I appreciate this work because we owe it to them to tell their story and memorialize them. As a part of this fellowship, there will be an opportunity to create conversations in the Birmingham community in an educational way. It is also important to implement this education within the nation about this dark history so that we can see how it affects us today as Americans and how we can dismantle hate violence at the root.
In April 1989, following the sexual assault of a white woman in New York City’s Central Park, five young Black and Hispanic youth were convicted for this heinous crime despite inconsistencies in DNA evidence. In the process of weathering the media storm and pressure from local authorities, Salaam claims he had a “spiritual awakening” that was being shaped by the hands of God. About six months into his bid, Salaam was debating if he was doing time or if time was doing him, when an officer approached him and asked, “Who are you?”. After giving the officer his full name, the officer replied, “I know that. You’re not supposed to be here. Who are you?”. This moment changed his entire trajectory because Salaam realized he was born with a purpose. As a result, Salaam earned a college degree while in prison and suggested this accomplishment means he could do anything. He argues that many in the public eye were looking at him with hatred because they saw his future self, an educated Black man fighting for racial and criminal justice.
After serving nearly seven years for a crime he did not commit, a confession and DNA match from Matias Reyes in 2002 allowed the release and exoneration of Salaam as well as Antron McCray, Kevin Richardson, Raymond Santana, and Korey Wise. Aside from Salaam and Wise’s acquaintanceship, the Exonerated Five did not know each other. Due to police profiling, they were rounded up by NYPD, interrogated, and pressured to confess to false narratives about one another, thus having to fight individually for themselves as well as their families. The Exonerated Five never discussed these events among each other because they assumed everyone had the same experience. However, upon a pre-release screening of When They See Us, which Salaam claimed was a “traumatic experience”, the Exonerated Five had the opportunity to process the series of events that would bind them together forever.
Dr. Salaam speaking with Dr. Dilworth. Source: UAB Institute for Human Rights
Although, the story does not end here. As fate would have it, then future U.S. President Donald Trump actively participated in promoting the execution of the Exonerated Five through an ad in local newspapers. Furthermore, Salaam’s claim that President Trump is responsible for “cosigning folks in Charlottesville” suggests our current cultural, social, and political environment encourages racial and criminal injustice. In response, echoing Carter G. Woodson’s treatise “The Mis-Education of the Negro,” Salaam exclaimed that history is trained and taught into a people. As a result, people of color, namely Black Americans, can become so destroyed by a system that they don’t want to participate. Although, Salaam said such a position suggests, “Non-participation is participation.” Thus, we, ourselves, are the answer.
This brings us to how we, particularly white folks who have orchestrated institutions to disadvantage people of color, can be the change we want to see. As Salaam suggests, “The system is working the way it was designed.” Thus, systemic issues disproportionately affecting people of color, such as police profiling, generational poverty, underfunded schools, and weakened voting rights, must immediately be addressed and reformed. Eradicating these injustices will unlikely be in in our lifetime, although current efforts by Black Lives Matter, Innocence Project, The Sentencing Project, and Woke Vote, among many others, shine a light on what we have, and can, accomplish.
Electric Towers During Golden Hour. Source: Pixabay, Creative Commons
On Saturday, September 21st, 2019, the Institute of Human Rights co-sponsored an event with Alabama Young Democrats that featured former Vermont gubernatorial candidate Christine Hallquist. Hallquist’s visit to UAB focused on a screening of her released documentary “Denial” which covers her time as the CEO of Vermont Electric Cooperative while she advocated for sustainable energy and processed her gender identity.
Upon announcing her 2018 gubernatorial campaign in Morrisville, Hallquist officially became the first openly transgender major party nominee for governor. Her campaign focused on increased broadband access, universal healthcare, and an aggressive stance on climate change. After winning the Democratic nomination, she ran against incumbent Phil Scott and gained over 40% of the popular vote. Though losing the gubernatorial campaign, Hallquist continues to be an activist addressing climate change and being a fighter for all those experiencing discrimination or fear based on gender identity.
“Denial” details the life of Christine Hallquist, discussing two major issues, her gender dysphoria (as David in the film) and the increasing threat of climate change in people’s lives. As the CEO of Vermont Electric Cooperative, Hallquist pushed to promote cleaner methods to produce energy, such as wind turbine farms, solar energy, and smart meters. The movie also explores Hallquist’s transition into womanhood through the lens of her son, Derek, who struggles to accept that his father has transitioned into a woman. Asked by her son as to why she didn’t speak out earlier in life, Hallquist responds by explaining how if she were truthful at 15, she would be placed in a mental institution. If she were truthful in her 20s, then she wouldn’t be married nor have any children. She then spoke about her dream, which was to “spend every waking moment as a woman. But if I went to work in a dress,” she says, “I would be unemployed.” These sentiments speak to the barriers trans people face as they navigate their daily lives.
Hallquist addressing the audience about her film. Source: UAB Institute for Human Rights
During the film’s Q&A session, an audience member asked Hallquist what she has done since leaving Vermont Electric Cooperative. She said she became aware that action would be needed at the executive level in order to induce change and propel Vermont to employ cleaner energy practices; by realizing the severity of the crisis, she transitioned from being perceived as a centrist to that of a staunch progressive. As a result, she wrote the North American Solution to Climate Change, which detailed ways in which the climate crisis could be hindered in favor of saving the Earth. She claimed we are “fighting for the future of this country” and that we have to “collaborate across the world to solve the problem. We need to learn how to work with each other!”
An audience member questioning Hallquist about her work for Climate Justice. Source: UAB Institute for Human Rights
Does it take effort and a willingness to accept change in order to make a difference? That is a question that each one of us must answer. Looking at the future, should we all push towards climate action like Hallquist? Or should we take a step back and plan our movements to avoid being too rash? Hallquist raised an interesting point when she claimed that we as humans are not very well used to change. We decide much of the time to stick with tradition and avoid getting out of our comfort zone. Rather, we should embrace change and grow with our own experiences. We can start by teaching ourselves to challenge what we know about gender as well as to learn more about the impacts of climate change. These issues are imperative to upholding our basic human rights because all people deserve to live in a healthy, safe, and welcoming environment.
Some Victims of the On-going Anglophone Crisis in Cameroon
Photo by the Cameroon Humanitarian Relief Initiative
Cameroon has always been known as a nation of peace and tranquility ever since she gained her independence on the 1st of January 1960. Despite being surrounded by nations constantly faced with internal conflicts and wars, it remained steadfast in being a violent and conflict-free nation. She is located in the western part of Africa and shares territorial borders with a host of other nations such as Chad on the northeast, the Central African Republic on the east, Equatorial Guinea, the Republic of Congo and Gabon on the south, and Nigeria on the west. The nation currently officially known as the Republic of Cameroon is bilingual, with English and French as its official languages. Historically, there was a federal and then, a “united” republic of Cameroon that had seven provinces, two of which are Anglophones and the others, Francophones, before their expansion to form eight provinces, resulting in the current ten provinces within the country. Then in 2008, the use of “provinces” as a form of territorial breakdown was abolished and replaced with “regions”. Even though French Cameroon now Republic of Cameroon gained her independence in 1960, and returned to independence of British Cameroon by either joining Nigeria (Northern British Cameroon), or independent French Cameroon (Southern British Cameroon), the South- and North-West regions consisting of Anglophones who are the minorities, are being subjected to a series of socioeconomic and political marginalization and discrimination from their Francophone counterparts, despite a binding and official referendum joining both regions as a political unit in 1972, a violation of the 1961 agreement that brought about the federal republic.
Over the years, there have been several cases and reports of bias, unequal treatment and unconstitutional actions against the Anglophones while their counterparts enjoy a smooth and successful relationship with the central government in terms of better developmental structures and platforms, enormous representation and control of major sectors in the government. Another major area of concern is the rigid educational and justice system, mostly controlled by and privileged to French speakers due to their dominance. There has been a long case of marginalization in the nation, one of which includes the prominent case of Fon Godji Dinka (a report by the Council on Foreign Relations), an Anglophone lawyer and the first president of the Cameroon Bar Association. He was arrested and imprisoned in 1985 by the then and current president of Cameroon, President Paul Biya for rebuking the actions of the government and terming it unconstitutional. Fon Godji Dinka believed the government was unfair and unjust, which was why he began to move for an independent Anglophone region known as the Republic of Ambazonia, an act that led to his imprisonment and the separatist idea suppressed. The continuous cases of inequity, inequality, bias, discrimination and marginalization suffered by the Anglophone regions eventually resulted in the 2016 onset mass non-violent protest led by Anglophone lawyers and teachers, where the protesters displayed their disinterest and frustration in the government, negotiated with the leaders who demanded a return to federation and eventually called for an autonomous nation of the Republic of Ambazonia.
The government on the other hand, was aggressive and brutal to the protesters and labeled them and their movement as pro-terrorist. The military forces were ordered to curb and contain the non-violent peaceful protests (carrying peace plants), and unfortunately responded by firing live ammunitions into the crowd of protesters which led to the arrest, injuries and deaths of several protesters. To further suppress the separatist movement, military forces often laid attacks on several Anglophone villages and communities, sometimes opening fire where they considered a threat. Thousands of elites and locals have been arrested and jailed without trial and are faced with severe torture and other inhumane treatments. Over 5,000 lives have been lost, families scattered, several homes destroyed, businesses ended and the futures of millions shattered. These actions by the government and military forces brought about a more resounding and coordinated separatist motive and movement. They began to solicit and continuously receive support from prominent Cameroonians within Cameroon and in diaspora, to further their campaign and organized rebel groups to conduct so called “self-defense” against the government and its military forces. Presently, several acts by both conflicting parties have resulted into severe human right violations as Amnesty reports that over 200 villages have been burnt and according to the United Nations, while over 1.2 million people, mostly women and children, are either displaced or refugees in neighboring countries.
According to the UNICEF press release on the 21st of June 2019, it discusses how the security and living conditions of the Anglophone regions continue to worsen, as the UNICEF spokesperson in Geneva, Toby Fricker, estimates about 1.3 million people have been affected by on-going conflict, and are urgently in need of humanitarian assistance such as basic welfare and health items and services. Another major area of concern is education, whereby over 80 per cent schools in the regions have been shut down because of continuous crisis, putting the future of over 600,000 thousand children at risk. So far, several communities and villages in these regions are continuously being plundered, attacked and destroyed, leaving victims to either live in the shattered remains of their communities or villages under strict martial law, or seek refuge in Nigeria, a neighboring country. The latter is the mostly selected option with over 500,000 so far, trooping daily into several refugee camps within various communities, where they are vulnerable to sexual abuse and harassment, rape, child abuse, forced relationships, extortion, unplanned pregnancies, abortion, drug abuse, prostitution, hunger, stigmatization, poor shelter, poor access to educational and health services, and lack of basic welfare privileges.
Of the $35.4 million estimated by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, UNHCR, as urgently needed to help provide welfare services to the victims of the crisis, only 4 per cent of the estimated funds have been generated so far according to a UNHCR official report. Although the UN representatives, alongside other humanitarian organizations continue to provide basic welfare and healthcare services to the Cameroonian refugees in few camps in Nigeria, there are still thousands languishing in severe pain and hunger in bushes and settlements not easily accessible, especially in Cameroon. One organization that has remained consistent in providing necessary assistance to both the refugees and IDP’s is the Cameroon Humanitarian Relief Initiative (CHRI). CHRI is a registered US 501-3c non-profit organization set-up to provide emergency humanitarian relief to those affected by the on-going crisis in Cameroon. In partnership with the Institute of Human Rights (UAB) and other local/international organizations, CHRI has carried out several humanitarian outreach initiatives to refugee camps/communities and IDP settlements in Nigeria and Cameroon respectively, and serves as a reliable organization of support for individuals, groups or organizations willing to assist victims of the present conflict either through donations or voluntary services. To donate, kindly visit their official website at chrelief.org/donate or mail a check to CHRI at 4413 Nuttall Road, Fairfax, VA 22032.
Food items provided for refugees by the Cameroon Humanitarian Relief Initiative (CHRI) Photo by CHRI
In terms of resolving the conflict, there has been no reasonable development between the Cameroonian government and the separatist or other groups despite numerous calls for dialogue. Several protests by these groups have been carried out, questioning the 85 years old President Paul Biya’s long tenure. He has been in power since 1982 (37 years) in a supposed democratic government. Several protesters have also been arrested by the government and charged by a military court with various acts of rebellion, insurrection and engaging in hostile activities against the country. The United States, United Kingdom, and other international humanitarian organizations are being alerted by the continuous violence that has generated a huge distress and violations in the Anglophone regions, and have begun initiating strategies and action plans to successfully resolve these conflicts. Just recently on June 25th, 2019, U.S. Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL), Ben Cardin (D-MD), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), and Tim Kaine (D-VA), introduced an amendment to the Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to halt all further U.S. security assistance to Cameroon except for dealing with Boko Haram (a terrorist group in Nigeria) until the U.S. Secretaries of Defense and State certify the military and security forces of Cameroon have demonstrated progress in abiding by international human rights standards regarding the repression in the Anglophone regions. Also, a German lawmaker named Christopher Hoffmann on June 5th, 2019, wrote a letter to Germany’s Chancellor, Angela Merkel, requesting her to urgently review the escalating Cameroon crisis and assist in finding swift resolution to the violent conflict.
Refugees scrambling for clothes donated by the Cameroon Humanitarian Relief Initiative (CHRI) Photo by CHRI
Since the beginning of time, there has been and will always be demands for separation and breakaway among families, lineages, institutions, unions, groups, communities, societies and nations. It is a part of the human nature and psychology to aspire for a better and improved lifestyle if the existing or present way is not as beneficial or productive as hoped. Often within a group setting, the minorities or marginalized would always aspire for separation or breakaway from the existing unit or body. We cannot dismiss groups seeking autonomy or separation, especially if evidence proves they are being marginalized and discriminated by the majority or the government. But demand for such autonomy has been responsible for several historical wars and conflicts. Although some separatist movements were successfully achieved while others failed, the enormous loss of lives and destruction of properties to both parties remain constant across these movements. The Anglophone crisis has already aligned to a violent pattern and would need the intervention from other nation-states and international organizations to be successfully resolved. There is a need to carefully conduct an in-depth analysis of the long-term effects on the Anglophone people and the Cameroon government to bring if possible, a permanent end to this crisis and restore peace.
The wailing wall and al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem. Source: Tina Kempin Reuter
On 15 August 2019, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ordered a travel ban on two US Congresswomen, Michigan Representative Rashida Tlaib and Minnesota Representative Ilhan Omar.His decision was a surprising reversal from a mere month ago, when both PM Netanyahu and Israeli’s Ambassador to the US, Ron Dermer, confirmed that Reps. Tlaib and Omar would be allowed into Israel “out of respect for the US Congress and the great alliance between Israel and America.”While the final catalyst for this reversal is credited to the machinations of US President Donald Trump, the primary cause for the travel ban, according to PM Netanyahu, is Reps. Tlaib’s and Omar’s support for the transnational Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) Movement, a concerted effort to compel the State of Israel to revolutionize how it works with Palestinians within and around Israel’s borders.This post aims to unpack the historical and cultural context of the BDS Movement, analyze the fault lines within the BDS Movement, and suggest ways for BDS to mend these divides while sharpening its effectiveness in advocating for the human rights of Palestinians.
Originating the Boycott, Divestment, & Sanctions (BDS) Movement
From 31 August to 7 September 2001, the United Nations held the World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance (WCAR, also called the Durban Conference, as it was held in Durban, South Africa), billed as “providing an opportunity for the world to engage, for the first time in the post-apartheid era, in a broad agenda to combat racism and related issues.”Within this anti-racist, anti-apartheid ethos, world leaders sought to locate and eradicate large-scale structures bolstering racist ideology and marginalizing populations based off racial and ethnic identity.Almost all states at the WCAR were in total agreement that Zionism, the political movement to establish and protect a wholly-Jewish nation, was indeed racist.Many actors arguing against the ideology of Zionism claimed that, although the Jewish people have the right to create their own state, ethnic cleansing of the indigenous people (Palestinians) rendered the current form of Zionism a racist ideology.It was at the Durban Conference that BDS finds its intellectual roots, as many Middle East / North African states (specifically, Algeria, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, the United Arab Republic, and Yemen) agreed to utterly isolate Israel (economically, intellectually, culturally, politically) until Israel revolutionized its relationship with indigenous Palestinians.Of course, calls for isolationism, itself a remnant of how the world treated South African during its apartheid practices, were eclipsed by the 9/11 attacks against the US a mere four days after the Durban Conference ended. It was also at the Durban Conference that the “Red-Green” alliance was formed between radical leftist and Islamist groups, collectively impugning Israel’s treatment of indigenous Palestinians.
The intellectual seeds of BDS were planted, and two years later, the world would see the harvest.On 8 December 2003, the UN General Assembly (UNGA) requested the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for an advisory opinion regarding the Israeli-built wall surrounding East Jerusalem, seeking to ascertain if the wall constituted a breach of international law (specifically the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949).The ICJ (relying on oral and written testimony from over 50 UN Member States, the League of Arab States, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, and the European Union – amongst others) declared the wall bisecting Jerusalem and the continuation of Israeli settlements (displacing indigenous Palestinians) indeed violated international humanitarian law.The ICJ concluded their opinion, stating Israel should (a) cease construction on the wall and dismantle structures within the Occupied Palestinian Territory, (b) respect the right of the Palestinian people’s right to Self Determination (read this article for more information), and (c) pay reparations for costs incurred to the Palestinian people; furthermore, the ICJ contended that all State Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention should ensure Israel complies with this advisory opinion.While the advisory opinion alone was relatively toothless on the international stage (as, again, the US and Israel refused to comply with these stipulations), the ICJ’s decision kickstarted the eventual BDS movement two years later.
On 9 July 2005, over 150 Palestinian Civil Society Organizations (representing Palestinian refugees, Palestinians under occupation, and Arab citizens of Israel) signed an open letter to global civil society actors declaring their intent to boycott Israeli products, divesting business activities from working with Israel, and sanctioning groups continuing to aid the Israeli State.The letter argues, in light of Israel’s refusal to adhere to the ICJ’s recommendation, settlements extending into East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights, and the West Bank (see this article for a map of Palestine land loss since 1946) triggered the need for a transnational, nonviolent movement aimed at compelling the State of Israel to abide by the ICJ’s recommendation.The letter, echoing the anti-apartheid boycott movement of the 1960s – 1990s, contends that all persons of conscience (including Israeli citizens and members of the Jewish faith worldwide) have a moral obligation to pressure those in power (e.g., business leaders, political decision-makers, and other persons of high influence) to forcefully condemn Israel’s maltreatment of Palestinian populations.The three fundamental demands of the BDS movement of the State of Israel are as follows:
Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall;
Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and
Respecting, protecting, and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194.
Per the BDS official website, the Movement boasts several consequences of its ongoing efforts, including:
A 46% drop in foreign direct investment in Israel in 2014
Israeli weapon manfacturers complaining of an export crisis due to “less desire for Israeli=made products”.
Refusals from major artists (such as Roger Waters from Pink Floyd, Faithless, Lauryn Hill, Brian, Eno, and Elvis Costello).
A formal recognition from the State of Israel that the BDS Movement presents a strategic threat to Israel’s treatment of Palestinians.
Since its publication, the BDS movement has largely gained the most traction on college campuses (long understood to be a bastion of political activism).Simultaneously, the BDS Movement has been associated with radical anti-Zionism, bordering on anti-Semitism.This association has been the fodder of many political and civil society leaders and has crippled the efficacy of Palestinian Rights activists.
Critiques of the BDS Movement fall into three broad categories: (1) issues surrounding its founder and leader, Omar Barghouti; (2) BDS’s opposition to the internationally-accepted Two-State Solution; and (3) accusations of antisemitic rhetoric and subsequent promotion of violence.
The recent developments in Gaza are especially disturbing because they express so vividly a deliberate intention on the part of Israel and its allies to subject an entire human community to life-endangering conditions of utmost cruelty… If ever the ethos of “a responsibility to protect”, recently adopted by the UN Security Council as the basis of “humanitarian intervention” is applicable, it would be to act now to start protecting the people of Gaza from further pain and suffering.(p. 36)
Falk levels a thoughtful critique of both Israel’s and the international community’s abdication of protecting the human rights of Palestinian individuals.These critiques, shared by many in the global community, fall on deaf ears, for Barghouti has, in many respects, poisoned the well from which BDS-activists guzzle.Barghouti has been viably accused of tax evasion (to the tune of 700 000 USD), vociferously argued against a potential two-state solution, lambasted Palestinian academic and cultural leaders from debating with their Israeli counterparts, and has been accused of espousing views suggesting the ‘human rights of Palestinians are more equal than the human rights of Israelis’.
Beyond the problematization of BDS’s Founder, other cultural and political forces call into question the endgame of the BDS Movement.Former US Ambassador to Israel (2011 – 2017), Daniel B. Shapiro, recently argued in The Atlantic the BDS Movement “advocates the end of Israel, rather than the establishment of two states, and assigns as responsibility for the conflict, in all its historical complexity, to Israel alone”.Other critics, such as the Anti-Defamation League (an international Jewish NGO) has formally classified the BDS Movement as antisemitic.Australian politicians have noted pro-BDS protests feature acts of violence; British academics voted against Israeli boycotts, noting these boycotts constrict peaceful dialogue between Israeli intellectual leaders and the rest of the world; and American politicians note that BDS can empower antisemitism and undermine the lives and livelihoods of young Israeli scientists. Furthermore, symbolic of many global academics’ ambivalence towards the BDS Movement, philosopher Judith Butler suggests a third path: collaborating with intellectual and cultural Israelis without accepting funding from the Israeli State. This move, Butler suggests, sidesteps the thorny issue of discrimination on the basis of nationality (e.g., refusing to work with Israeli academics simply wholly due to their Israeli citizenship) while still eschewing affiliation with the Israeli government.
Considering the complexity of the BDS Movement, with its goal of unshackling indigenous Palestinians and its questionable methods and leadership, I now pose the question: what lessons can transformational solidarity movements teach BDS, allowing it to deftly address its many criticisms and simultaneously bolster its efficacy to advocate for the human rights of Palestinians?
“Queers for Palestine” by Magdalena, Creative Commons
Embracing Complexity within Transformational Solidarity Movements
Dr. Anne Garland Mahler, in her text From the Tricontinental to the Global South: Race, Radicalism, and Transnational Solidarity, alludes to an ideal form of solidarity movements; this form is defined by qualities such as transnationalism (e.g., a widening of solidarity membership to include sympathizers of many, seemingly incongruous nationalisms – such as Palestinian and Israeli), transracial (e.g., not only including diversity ethnicities, such as Jewish and Arab, but an antiracist alignment of said ethnicities), anti-neoliberal (e.g., rejecting the ‘built-in’ nature of inequalities along dimensions related to socioeconomic status, level of education, political access, and health), and horizontalist (e.g., eschewing rigid hierarchies of authority within an organization).While her original analysis centers around the Tricontinental Solidarity Movement, a Cuban-borne political movement attempting to interlock methods and goals of liberation found within Asian, African, and Latin American peoples, leaders of the BDS Movement would do well to heed her call.
The BDS Movement, at base, aims to transform the lives of Palestinians – the endgame is to reduce violence, promote negative and positive peace, and provide the conditions within life that allow an individual and a people the resources and structures required to build harmony, enjoy prosperity, promote health, and protect equity.Transformational movements fixate not only on the immediate tragedies of war and conflict, but they additionally fixate on the long-term situations giving rise to sustainable peace.Mahler correctly locates a critical juncture within this equation – transformational movements must ally themselves with other, perhaps seemingly disparate, movements also aspiring for liberation.This relational space of ally-ship is precisely where the BDS Movement should aim to stride.These allies (and partners in transformational struggles) may include prominent Arab-Jewish transracial and Israeli-Palestinian transnational organizations.These potential allies also include Neve Shalom / Wahat al-Salam (facilitating intentional encounters between Israeli and Palestinian groups), the Children of Abraham (emphasizing the spiritual and religious dimensions required of Israeli-Palestinian peace processes), the Alliance of Middle East Peace (a political lobbying coalition proposing legislation promoting peace in the MENA region), and Peace Oil (an for-profit company promoting economic interdependency between Arabs and Israelis).Alliances between BDS and these organizations may increase accountability for ‘bad actors’ within the BDS Movement, demonstrate cooperation between Arab and Israelis (rather than domination or antagonism), and sidestep the maligned efforts of ‘spoilers’ within peacebuilding processes.
From a peace and human rights perspective, the BDS Movement should aspire to be one of solidarity – meaning its membership, supporters, and leaders coalesce their methods of transformation within three domains: (1) electoral democracy, (2) opposition, and (3) dialogue.Specifically, global sympathizers of the BDS Movement should consider continuously voting for candidates and measures ultimately empowering peacebuilding between Israel and Palestine, utilizing nonviolent methods of protesting anti-peace individuals and organizations (boycotts, divestments, and sanctions are obvious examples here – what is missing is a clear focus on the definitive spoilers of peace) and finally, engaging in good-faith, long-term dialogue within their own ranks and between the BDS Movement and other allies and potential adversaries.
There are many types of disabilities. There is no one way to be disabled. One thing is for sure, living with a disability can be challenging. The navigation of places that are not disability-friendly remains overlooked. Having a physical disability means there is a need to make sure areas and spaces are accessible, and if you have an invisible disability, like severe anxiety, there is a need to ensure that you are mentally and physically prepared against possible triggering. However, there are no guarantees.
Misunderstanding and disabilities
Having a disability isn’t easy in this world. You want others to understand you, but it’s exhausting to try to keep re-explaining your experience. Some days you want to live a regular life, and not think about how you are different from others. If you are living with a mental illness, you are often misunderstood. People do not understand what it is like to live with severe anxiety, mania, crippling depression, or PTSD. Having to fight a constant battle with your mind is extremely difficult to explain to someone who does not know or care what it is like. For example, the thought of leaving the house is terrifying for someone with agoraphobia or similar phobias, while many others have no thoughts about it.
The world is not accessible as it should be; in fact, it is quite the opposite. It is difficult to mask or pretend to be “normal.” According to NAMI, one in five people have a mental illness. Mental illnesses are considered disabilities. If your mental illness is severe enough to impact your functioning, you might isolate and fear to be around others because you’re stigmatized. It is not healthy for the human experience, as social isolation may cause loneliness, depression, physical health complications, and may lead to taking one’s life.
As a society, what can we do?
We must work to understand those living with mental illness as well as other disabilities. There is a lack of understanding of differences when it comes to our society. We expect people to be cookie cutters and the standard of “normal” does not accurately reflect our world in terms of the human experience. The human condition is that we are all unique. The ADA limited in its protections against discrimination due to the stigma surrounding the identification of disability. The “yes, I have a disability” box on applications is supposed to allow for accommodations. Yet, the fear of stigma often paralyzes many people from checking it; checking the box places you in a proverbial box. The impact of being “boxed” because of a disability can have a severe impact on a person’s state of mind and overall wellbeing. Additionally, the failure to comprehend and/or empathize with persons with disabilities can come off as judgemental and further exasperate the issues.
Preventing social isolation
It is tempting to want to isolate when you cannot seem to find a sense of community or belonging, but we, as a society, can prevent this from happening. Studies show that isolation is as harmful to our health as smoking fifteen cigarettes per day. It is important to remember that an answer is available. One of the things that we can do in addition to raising awareness for disabilities and the experiences of people living with disabilities is to pursue mental health treatment. If you have a disability, no matter what it is, talking about how society impacts you is empowering. Whether you work with a counselor in your local area or try online therapy, you deserve to be heard. Speak out and up, advocate for yourself and others with disabilities, and take care of your mental health because you deserve it.
Marie Miguel has been a writing and research expert for nearly a decade, covering a variety of health-related topics. Currently, she is contributing to the expansion and growth of a free online mental health resource with BetterHelp.com. With an interest and dedication to addressing stigmas associated with mental health, she continues to specifically target subjects related to anxiety and depression.
Twenty-four words that may mean so much. The above words are the text of the proposed Equal Rights Amendment. Long discussed, the U.S. Congress passed the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) in 1972 but it has stalled since then. Not enough states have ratified this proposal to make it an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. As a basis of comparison, on the international level, the United Nations (UN) sponsors the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). The UN body adopted this convention five years after it was written. Do these differing timelines indicate different perspectives on women’s rights?
What’s the history of the ERA?
The ERA’s journey has indeed been long. Suffragist and feminist Alice Paul, who was instrumental in adding the Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that gave American women the vote, proposed a version of the ERA as early as 1923:
“Men and women shall have equal rights throughout the United States and every place subject to its jurisdiction.”
Feminists proposed this amendment to the U.S. Congress several times, although it did not pass. In 1943, Paul and her supporters revised the language of this proposal and pitched it to the U.S. Congress several times. Spurred by gains in the civil rights movement and the work of the National Organization for Women (NOW) and other second-wave feminists, the proposal began to garner more support. Such support was from U.S. first ladies, presidents, various politicians, and other prominent people as well as much of the American public. The proposal also generated equally prominent criticism that contributed to its undoing. Conservative activists such as Phyllis Schlafly decried the ERA as unfeminine and threatening to the social order.
After passing the U.S. Congress, thirty-eight states needed to ratify the proposal by 1979 to make it a constitutional amendment. Legislators extended the deadline to 1982, but it didn’t help since only thirty-five states ratified the ERA by that date. Nevada and Illinois ratified the amendment in the 2000s, but Congress would have to pass legislation that extends the deadline to recognize the latest two ratifications. If this deadline is approved and if one more U.S. state approves the deadline, thirty-eight states will have ratified the amendment, although some states have rescinded their previous approval of the ERA. These rescissions make a complicated matter even more complicated.
Betty Ford and Rosalynn Carter ERA. Source: Public Domain
What could the ERA do?
If the ERA becomes an amendment on the U.S. Constitution, it could mean so much. On a very basic level, the amendment would be a formal, written statement of rights. While the U.S. Declaration of Independence states that all people are created equal and the Constitution makes it illegal to “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” various authorities have not followed these directives. They capitalized on the vague nature of the language in those documents to create circumventing loopholes or ignored the language entirely.
By addressing the rights of women directly, the ERA is more specific. The U.S. Supreme Court and lower courts could judge individual cases based on this amendment. Legislative bodies could make laws using this amendment as a guide. The ERA could create precedents to follow or to dispute, precedents that would not be subject to the whims of the political considerations of presidential administrations or legislative bodies such as the U.S. Congress or U.S. Senate. Adding the ERA to the Constitution codifies rights for women, especially for women who work in government. It could help define their rights and assist them if they have grievances. It could help them secure better pay to close the wage gap, promote fairer conditions in the workplace, and help women find equality and attain opportunity in general. As a precedent, the ERA could serve as a model for other federal, state, and local laws to grant and protect women’s rights.
What’s the history of the CEDAW and what does it do?
Women’s rights are also a primary interest of the United Nations’ Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). According to its text, governments that adhere to this convention must “commit themselves to undertake a series of measures to end discrimination against women in all forms, including
to incorporate the principle of equality of men and women in their legal system, abolish all discriminatory laws and adopt appropriate ones prohibiting discrimination against women;
to establish tribunals and other public institutions to ensure the effective protection of women against discrimination; and
to ensure the elimination of all acts of discrimination against women by persons, organizations or enterprises.”
Compared to the long, arduous journey of the ERA, the passage of the CEDAW was considerably quicker and less complicated. Working groups of the UN’s Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) created the text for the CEDAW in 1976. The General Assembly adopted it by a vote of 130 to zero in 1979. After the ratification of twenty member states, it became a convention in 1981. According to the UN, this passage occurred “faster than any previous human rights convention.” One notable country that hasn’t ratified the CEDAW is the United States. U.S. critics of the commission say that such international agreements threaten the sovereignty of the United States. Given the stalled progress of other pro-women initiatives such as the ERA in the country, this failure is disheartening but perhaps not that surprising.
Why isn’t the ERA the law?
While international organizations and governments CEDAW were able to draft, approve, and agree to the conditions of CEDAW (although they haven’t always abided by such conditions), the passage of the ERA continues to stall and generate debate. Why? Some people say that women don’t need the ERA. According to this perspective, U.S. women already have the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution and other laws, such as Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, to protect their civil rights. Others vehemently disagreed that the Fourteenth Amendment covers women’s rights, notably late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
Current laws are inadequate to provide equal rights, say some scholars. Legal scholar and professor Catharine A. MacKinnon observed, “If we’re sexually assaulted if it isn’t within the scope of Title VII as it understands an employment relationship or Title IX in education, we don’t have any equality rights.” The ERA may help provide such rights. Given the current political climate, it is not surprising that the ERA has not passed. In fact, it seems amazing that Nevada and Illinois have ratified the ERA at all. Ideological impasses have prevented other types of political action in recent years. For instance, in 2016, members of the Republican Party refused to host hearings on whether Merrick Garland was suited to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court because Garland was a nominee of President Barack Obama, a member of the Democratic Party. Since the results of 2018 elections meant that the Democrats controlled the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate remained in the hands of Republicans, will political deadlocks continue and possibly become even worse? Some people fear that the ERA would expand abortion and create other conditions less favorable to conservative values, so they may be loath to ratify the ERA on a state level or vote in favor of laws that extend the deadline for the ERA on a federal level. They should consider ratifying the ERA and extending its deadline. Measures such as the ERA provide legal protection.
With this legal protection, women would have the security of knowing that they have legal recourse to address any conflicts that arise. Even better, this protection may prevent conflicts from occurring in the first place. No document is perfect. But adding the Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides rights, opportunities for growth and advancement, and peace of mind. Not bad for a mere twenty-four words.
Pamela Zuber is a writer and an editor who has written about human rights, health and wellness, gender, and business.
The conversation around reproductive and sexual rights and the bodily autonomy of women generally consists of access to abortion, birth control, and intimate partner and sexual violence. FGM is a patriarchal cultural practice rooted in the cutting away of the female body with the suppression of emotion, which at its core, is a denial of personhood. For more than 200 million girls and women, the violation of their body occurred when they could not advocate for themselves. For these girls/women, it is as if all the entities in her world are conspiring against her current and future life. Although Grace details the practice of female genital mutilation (FGM) in Kenya in this blog, the violation has increased in the US since 1990. The global conversation on FGM has been spurred by young women and girls willing to risk social exclusion in the pursuit of eradicating gender-based violence. – AR (**Trigger warning)
by Grace Ndanu
Maasai Girl. Source: Donald Macauley, Creative Commons
The development of women has been low for a very long time in my country of Kenya because of some retrogressive cultures that include FGM, early marriages, and wife inheritance. For this blog, I will major on FGM within the community I am most familiar with: the Masai.
The practice of FGM is rooted in gender inequality. Women will never have a say on the issues surrounding their daughters; this means that the men are the ones to control women’s sexuality, and ideas about purity, modesty, and purity. Although women do not have a say on their daughter issues, they are the ones to perform the act; this is seen as an honour. The act of cutting one’s daughter is both an honour and a fear. The fear lies in the inevitable social exclusion if the cutting does not occur. The procedure is done in three ways: partial or total removal of the clitoris, the complete or partial removal of the inner labia with or without removal of the clitoral organ and outer labia, or the removal of the external genitalia and fusion of the wound. The inner and/or outer labia are cut away with or without removal of the clitoral organ.
The cutters use non-sterile devices which may lead to contracting diseases such as HIV. The devices include knives, razors, scissors, glass, fingernails, or sharpened rocks. There are adverse health effects depending on the type of procedure. The effects include infections, difficulty in urinating and passing menstrual flow, chronic pain, development of cysts, complications during childbirth and fatal bleeding.
Female circumcision lowers girls self-esteem and confidence. When they undergo the practice, they must stay at home for them to heal which means, particularly for in a school, they miss a lot of their lessons. For those who have never been to school are at risk of being married at an early age, maybe 12, to an older man.
There have been efforts in fighting FGM because there are no known health benefits instead the effects known are negative. A number of NGOs, including the Cara Girls Rescue Center under the Cara Project, are helping to mitigate the practice. The Cara Center takes in girls who are at risk of going through the painful process and also the ones who are already circumcised. They ensure the girls’ safety and security. If the girl has not yet gone through the process, she is welcomed in the center and immediately start the counseling process. Additionally, she will begin schooling – some of them may not have gone to school at all. For those already violated, they are immediately taken to the Gender Violence Recovery Center under the Nairobi Women’s Hospital for medication where they are admitted and receive counseling. At the same time, both the parents and the cutters are arrested. They must present to court when they are summoned and given a warning that if it has ever happened again, they will be jailed.
The rescued girls and warned parents receive an education about the human and reproductive rights of girls and women. It is with this new knowledge that they understand their personal/familial and communal rights better. Learning has created awareness and advocacy throughout the Masai community [and in other African countries and throughout the world]. There has been the development of a zero-tolerance attitude on FGM matters that extends to many of them becoming rescuers of girls before they are circumcised.
UAB is an Equal Employment/Equal Educational Opportunity Institution dedicated to providing equal opportunities and equal access to all individuals regardless of race, color, religion, ethnic or national origin, sex (including pregnancy), genetic information, age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, and veteran’s status. As required by Title IX, UAB prohibits sex discrimination in any education program or activity that it operates. Individuals may report concerns or questions to UAB’s Assistant Vice President and Senior Title IX Coordinator. The Title IX notice of nondiscrimination is located at uab.edu/titleix.
