Category: International

Our Rights Under Fire

by Pam Zuber

a photo of a gun store rack
and more guns. Source: Patrick Feller, Creative Commons.

The grim timeline:

  • On December 14, 2012, a gunman entered Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. He killed twenty children, six adults, and then himself. The gunman also killed his mother earlier in the day.
  • On March 15, 2019, another gunman traveled to two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand and opened fire. As of April 2019, he killed fifty people and wounded fifty more.
  • On March 21, 2019, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced that her country would ban sales of assault rifles beginning April 11, 2019, and reimburse people for returning rifles that they already owned. The country has also reclassified guns to make them more difficult to purchase.
  • On April 11, 2019, the United States still did not have substantial legislation against many types of weapons, even assault weapons that were once banned but were now legal.

Two countries, two tragic events, two very different approaches to gun ownership and legislation. What do the differences say about the two countries? What do the differences say about human rights? The shootings represent an egregious attack on human rights. Many victims in the Newtown attack were children. Many victims in the Christchurch attack were refugees and members of a religious minority. The attacks targeted some of the most vulnerable members of society. The shootings were also attacks on the greater society charged with protecting these vulnerable members.

Both shootings occurred in what should be safe spaces: schools and religious buildings. Advocates of gun ownership say that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution supports their stance. It states: “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” One can argue, though, that the Christchurch and Newtown victims experienced violations of the First Amendment of the Constitution. The mosque worshippers in Christchurch were expressing their religion, a First Amendment right. The children and adults in Newtown were exercising the “right of the people peaceably to assemble,” according to the words of the First Amendment.

While the dead and wounded people in New Zealand were not obviously U.S. citizens, they definitely experienced a violation of their human rights, if not technically a Constitutional one. Could the banning of assault-type weapons in that country help protect the rights of future New Zealanders? If the United States government does not issue such bans, is it violating its own citizens’ rights? Maybe. After all, commentators often cite that the National Rifle Association (NRA) is one of the major reasons why U.S. legislators cannot or will not pass major legislation against guns. The NRA is a U.S. organization that finances the campaigns of many U.S. politicians who oppose gun control. The NRA also encourages voters to vote for such candidates, making it a well-organized effort that exerts consistent pressure in favor of gun rights.

Wouldn’t it be better to divert our resources elsewhere? Money and time that the NRA and other organizations spend on campaigns to support gun ownership would arguably be better spent on mental health screening, treatment for drug and alcohol abuse, and other forms of preventative health care. Time and money that could be better spent on law enforcement efforts that look for potential trouble instead of reacting to it after it occurs. This is not to say that all shooters struggle with their mental health and that governments should track our every move. But, “weaknesses and lapses in the educational and healthcare systems’ response and untreated mental illness” contributed to the “deterioration” of the shooter in the Newtown attack, according to the Connecticut Office of the Child Advocate. The shooter in the Christchurch attack live streamed the attacks and may have posted his intentions on social media before he carried out his plans.

a photo of a large gun
gun. Source: skyandsea876, Creative Commons

New Zealand’s new laws are in line with regulations in other countries. Well-known for not participating in armed international conflicts, Switzerland also has strict rules about gun ownership. The country requires its male citizens to serve in its military. Sometimes Swiss men keep their weapons after their service, but this number has been declining. Swiss laws do not allow people to own firearms if they are struggling with drug or alcohol abuse or have been convicted of a crime. The country has laws that require people to obtain gun permits and typically only grant concealed weapon permits for police or security officers. Authorities in Swiss regions known as cantons determine if people are fit to own guns. They may talk with psychiatrists or authorities in other cantons to make such decisions. They also keep records of who owns guns in their cantons, although some semiautomatic long guns and hunting rifles are exempt from such records.

Switzerland had a population of approximately 8.5 million people and twenty-six cantons in a country of about 16,000 square miles in March 2019. The United States had a population of approximately 329 million people and fifty states in a country of about 3.8 million square miles in March 2019. It also has a federal district and various territories. Gun laws already vary widely in the fifty U.S. states, territories, and the federal district. Given the large population and geographic size of the United States, delegating the states to create and implement new gun laws may not be possible. Federal legislation would be more feasible to regulate weapons in the United States.

Another country, New Zealand’s neighbor Australia, may be a good example of federal weapon legislation. After a gunman killed thirty-five people in the Australian island state of Tasmania in 1996, the federal and state governments of Australia implemented a number of weapons ban from 1996-98. Under the Australian laws

  • Licenses and registrations are required to own weapons.
  • Police must determine whether people have satisfactory reasons for owning weapons.
  • Private firearm sales are prohibited.
  • People may not own weapons for self-defense and very few may own handguns.
  • Semiautomatic weapons are banned. Like New Zealand, the Australian government bought such weapons from private owners.

Australia’s gun control laws have produced dramatic results. While there were thirteen mass shootings in Australia from 1979 to 1996, there were none from 1996 to 2006. In 1979 to 1996, Australia witnessed an average of 627.7 firearm deaths every year. From 1996 to about 2003, Australia witnessed 332.6 firearm deaths annually. The country also experienced declines in firearm suicides, firearm homicides, and unintentional firearm deaths after the passage of the laws.

Limiting semiautomatic and assault weapons and passing stricter gun control legislation may mean fewer deaths. Australia and Switzerland know this. New Zealand may learn this. Given the reluctance of U.S. authorities to take such measures, it doesn’t look like the United States will learn this any time soon. If it doesn’t, more senseless firearm tragedies like Newtown (and Parkland, Las Vegas, Orlando, Christchurch, and so many other places) may occur. Until the United States limits and legislates guns, its citizens’ rights to peace and safety are in peril.

 

About the author: Pamela Zuber is a writer and an editor who has written about human rights, health and wellness, business, and gender.

Addressing Menstruation and Birth Control, Improving Women’s Lives

by Pam Zuber

Nyaya Health: A chant and a dance on the practice of Chhaupadi by the CHWLs and FCHVs
Nyaya Health: A chant and a dance on the practice of Chhaupadi by the CHWLs and FCHVs. Source: Possible: Creative Commons.

Menstruation and birth control.

Discussing these topics sometimes makes people uncomfortable. Why? Society sometimes says that we’re not supposed to talk about what happens down there, that they’re just not proper topics for everyday conversation. Could this discomfort be due to the fact that men have often traditionally served as political leaders, media gatekeepers, and educational instructors? Women’s power, voices, and advancement opportunities have been limited. So have their concerns, even if they’re everyday issues that women have faced since the dawn of time.

Such concerns are extremely important to the survival of our species. Menstruation and birth control are crucial parts of life. Without menstruation and everything that accompanies it, we wouldn’t be here. Depending if people have access to it, birth control is also a factor that can greatly improve or hinder a woman’s quality of life. But, these topics are often taboo. People don’t want to talk about them. People often can’t talk about them or do anything about them. Or, if people talk or act on these topics, they may face stigmas and punishments. Living normally during menstruation and controlling one’s reproductive destiny should be vital human rights everywhere. They’re often not, which has created inconveniences, obstacles, and even tragedy. Luckily, individuals and groups are shedding light on menstruation and birth control and how they impact women and the greater culture.

Menstruation discrimination

Although banned by law, menstruation huts are still a reality in some rural areas of Nepal. They’re part of traditions stating that menstruating women or women who have just given birth are impure or the bearers of bad luck. These beliefs have led people to banish menstruating women to live in huts or cattle sheds, prevent them from touching farm animals, and forbid them from eating certain foods.

Known as chhaupadi, this practice of separating women from the general population puts women at risk. Many of the huts lack heat or bathroom facilities or are far removed from the rest of society. In 2019, a woman and her two children died after they inhaled smoke from a fire inside of this type of hut. A teenager died in 2017 from a snakebite she received while staying in a hut. People who live in such huts may have to travel miles to use toilets, wash, and gather supplies. They cannot attend school and their employment opportunities may be limited.

Under chhaupadi, disadvantaged women face even more obstacles that prevent them from overcoming their disadvantages and improving their lives. They do not have the full measure of human rights that males enjoy, simply because they are menstruating. Similar fears about female impurity have long banned women of menstruating age from the Hindu Sabarimala temple complex in India. As part of a number of protests, two women defied this ban and entered the temple in 2019. Their actions sparked further protests for and against women’s rights in the region and ignited international debate.

Positive period news

In a positive period-related development, access to feminine hygiene products is increasing for many. The states of Illinois, California, and New York provide free sanitary products for their public school students. Educational institutions such as the University of Washington also offer such products and other schools are considering it. These efforts are global. The government of Scotland provides free sanitary products to students who attend schools, colleges, and universities as well as to people who visit leisure centers and libraries. Several states in the United States have also removed the sales tax for such products (the tampon tax) or are considering doing so.

Period. End of Sentence is an Academy Award-winning short documentary that also testifies to the power of proper period care. Directed by Rayka Zehtabchi and produced by Melissa Berton, the film depicts efforts in India to provide sanitary products, end stigma about menstruation, and improve the lives of women and girls. “I can’t believe a film about menstruation just won an Oscar!” said Zehtabchi. The filmmakers acknowledged that Indian initiatives can help girls pursue schooling. “A period should end a sentence, not a girl’s education,” said Berton. Girls in India missed school 20 percent of the time because of menstruation, according to a report by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Females who lack sanitary products might use hay, old fabric, rags, or other products during menstruation, which can lead to unsanitary conditions and infections. It could make menstruation more visible and thus subject to scrutiny and stigma, eroding girls’ self-esteem and confidence in their abilities.

Others question whether menstruation really causes girls to leave school but acknowledge that taboos surrounding menstruation do indeed exist. Supporting girls and women is vital. “Providing girls with a product can only get you so far if you don’t have the enabling environment in the school, supportive teachers, and information about what’s happening to your body,” said Columbia University professor Marni Sommer on a National Public Radio interview. Proper period care “is a human right,” noted Sommer. “We shouldn’t have to justify that girls are deserving of an environment where they can just meet their basic bodily needs.”

Destigmatizing menstruation and providing access to menstruation products may create more equality. If women and girls face discrimination and lack essential hygiene products, they may stay home from work, school, civic engagements, and social events. They cannot fully participate in their lives and the lives of others. People who lack sanitary products live lives similar to women who live under the practice of chhaupadi. Just because they menstruate, women and girls affected by both cannot fully engage with the outside world. People are working to highlight and change this.

the movie poster for Period. End of Sentence.
Source: Creative Commons

The cost of unintended pregnancies

Access to birth control is also an important driver of human rights. Like sanitary products, effective and accessible birth control products provide physical and mental health benefits. Both can be valuable tools for improving and sustaining human rights. Physically, birth control helps women prevent pregnancies. This sounds obvious, but it means so much. Pregnancy and labor take tremendous physical tolls on women. Even after childbirth, breastfeeding mothers’ bodies are not entirely their own, and mothers face the physical and mental strain of raising children and running households.

Mental strain can be considerable for mothers. They are charged with taking care of themselves and their children and completing other tasks, such as working various jobs, helping their families, and fulfilling other responsibilities, not to mention trying to find time to pursue various interests. It can be difficult enough to do those things when they’re deliberate choices when women plan the size of their families. Not having access to birth control makes this precarious juggling act even more difficult. Becoming pregnant unintentionally may impact women’s health since they’re gaining weight, dealing with hormone fluctuations, and experiencing other intense physical changes related to pregnancy. Mentally, they may be facing the stress, anxiety, and depression of unwanted pregnancies and the profound life changes they may create.

Unintentional pregnancies can also burden women and their families financially. Women may take unpaid maternity leaves, turn down promotions or specific positions, or quit their jobs to raise children. They may have to allocate a considerable part of their incomes to pay for childcare. Mothers who re-enter the workplace may not earn the same incomes, have access to the same opportunities, or achieve the same advancements as colleagues who never left the paid workforce. Health and financial issues, unintended pregnancies, and other types of stress can strain women’s relationships with their partners. It could cause women to feel unfulfilled with their lives and feel that they’re not doing all that they want to do because they must fulfill the various responsibilities in their lives.

The worth of birth control

Birth control may shift this balance, helping women do what they want to do instead of what they feel they must do. Access to birth control gives women agency. There are mixed messages about this agency. Just as some higher education institutions are providing sanitary products, some are providing birth control access to their students. Arguably, they’re not providing full access. For example, institutions such as the University of Oregon operate health centers that employ pharmacists who prescribe birth control pills and other forms of contraception. They do so without appointments and charge $15.00 per visit. Not requiring appointments may make it easier for students to visit in spite of busy schedules. Charging $15.00 might make it easier for students for affording such visits. On the other hand, the university isn’t paying for birth control itself. Students must use health insurance or pay out-of-pocket to cover the costs of birth control. This means that people may go without much-needed birth control because they can’t afford it. They may not be able to pay for the $15.00 pharmacist visitation fee or other costs as well.

Sanitary napkins, tampons, birth control pills, and other forms of contraception often aren’t expensive, but the lack of them are. Women who don’t have them may face much more expensive financial, emotional, and physical costs in the future. Providing assistance and access to such items can change an individual woman’s life and transform society as a whole.

About the author: Pamela Zuber is a writer and editor who has written about human rights, health and wellness, business, and gender.

The Crisis in American Journalism Is a Labor Rights Crisis (Part I)

by Andy Carr

a photo of a newsstand
news. Source: Anthony Lazaro, Creative Commons

To say American media has struggled in recent decades would be an understatement, but the past weeks of extensive newsroom layoffs cut especially deep. As CNN reported on January 24, from Monday to Thursday of that week, at least 1,000 journalists were laid off nationwide, including 15 percent of BuzzFeed News personnel (approximately 220 individuals), 7 percent of various Verizon-owned entities’ staff (including HuffPost, AOL, and Yahoo News), and widespread cuts at Gannett, America’s largest newspaper owner. At BuzzFeed News alone, the entire national news desk staff was gone by January 25, along with all but one of the LGBT-focused reporters at the company and the national security staff.

That devastating week’s news follows years of similar stories far beyond the present decade’s startups and digital innovators. Last spring, Sridhar Pappu and Jay Stowe of the New York Times provided a concise yet devastating account of the shifting media landscape since the dawn of the twenty-first century, including the collapse of marquee legacy publications like TIME magazine:

When Time Warner merged with AOL in 2000, the company seemed poised to conquer the internet. History, however, had other plans. Subscribers and advertisers turned away from the core publications. Budgets shrank. Layoffs became commonplace. In 2014, Time Inc. was spun off from the Time Warner mother ship, and in 2015 it left the Time & Life building for a comparatively modest space on Liberty Street in Lower Manhattan.

TIME, along with parent company Time Inc.’s other leading magazines, like Sports Illustrated, Fortune, and Money, had been purchased in fall 2017 by media conglomerate Meredith Corp., before putting the Time portfolio up for sale just six months later. Gannett, meanwhile, recently was described as “the most voracious acquirer of local papers in the news business,” publishing national outlets like USA Today and major-market papers “including The Arizona Republic, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, and The Cincinnati Enquirer.” Even Gannett is exposed to looming concerns: Alden Global Capital, a New York-based global hedge fund founded in 2007, offered a hostile bid to takeover Gannett for $1.4 billion. As The Week reported earlier in January,

[The] strategy of buying and cutting [media staff] is exactly the one that Gannett pursued as it grew into the biggest newspaper owner in the country. Alden is following Gannett’s own logic, taken to its furthest extreme. So far, wherever Digital First [Alden’s media subsidiary] has gone, ‘a bevy of job cuts’ has followed. [So, if] Alden succeeds in its bid, it will be a waking nightmare for anyone who cares about newspapers.

Many such stories have wrenched the field of journalism since the 1990s, and one need not look far back into archives to see the expansive damage. The Weekly Standard, a conservative outlet which in its waning months of operation “exhibited a cover-to-cover vibrancy that had eluded it for more than a decade,” was “snuffed” out of existence by owner Phil Anschutz last December; Glamour announced last November that the 80-year-old print version of the magazine would cease production, “shifting to a digital-only operation” after January 2019; international titles with U.S.-based parent organizations, like men’s magazine ShortList and Cosmopolitan Australia, also closed in 2018. Among America’s local and regional newspapers, the bludgeoning has proved even more draconian: approximately “1,800 local papers have closed or merged since 2004,” according to a 2018 CNN report.

As I wrote late last year, journalism—and journalists, individually—are linked inextricably to human rights concerns, as the “chroniclers” of human rights abuses, making them known to the world, as advocates and agents of human rights causes they cover, and as the targets of increasingly frequent abuses globally. The stunning decline of American news media broadly affects both deep-dive investigative journalism and analysis, along with on-the-ground reporting of current affairs. In so doing, these structural changes to the industry threaten journalism’s integral role in cataloging, reporting, and advancing human rights.

an older man reading the newspaper
Reading the newspaper. Source: Nicolas Alejandro, Creative Commons

These systemic changes to the news media landscape often have been grouped into two broad categories: the overall consolidation of American mass media, among other industries, since the end of the twentieth century (a two-time subject of John Oliver’s Last Week Tonight, back in 2017), and the massive shift to mobile and online-based advertising, where aggregate revenue overwhelmingly is concentrated in leading digital companies like Facebook and Google. According to a 2018 estimate reported in Adweek, those two companies alone account for “around 85 percent of every new digital dollar” entering the mobile and online ad spaces. Facebook in particular already functions “as one of the world’s largest distributors of information,” a reality it “acknowledged” in early 2017 “by announcing the Facebook Journalism Project.” The Project “calls for the company to forge deeper ties with publishers,” to help “develop training programs and tools for journalists,” and to “help train members of the public to find news sources they trust, while fighting the spread of fake news across its site.” While Facebook had met with thousands of publishers by mid-year 2017; actual financial support, i.e., the transfer of advertising revenue streams or any other profit-generating opportunities, remain illusory, and outside the scope of Facebook’s efforts.

Clearly, American mass media faces several structural challenges, but why is any of this relevant for human rights-related concerns?  Why is the labor crisis in journalism a human rights concern unto itself? The effects are manifold.  First, media consolidation has been found to affect the “viewpoint diversity” of media broadly – meaning, consolidation might restrain the variety of views and issues covered in papers and online outlets.  As early as 1999, the late Senator Paul Wellstone (D-MN) wrote about his concerns about the early stages of media consolidation as a threat to American democracy.  In a Federal Communications Law Journal article, Sen. Wellstone expressed grave concerns about a then-pending merger of CBS and Viacom, among a “recent wave of mergers among media companies,” all of which might pose threats “for our representative democracy” and accordingly “warrant the highest level of scrutiny by … antitrust agencies” (p. 551).  The Senator continued, presciently arguing that America’s media is not just any ordinary industry.  It is the life-blood of American democracy.  We depend on the media for the free flow of information that enables citizens to participate in the democratic process.  As James Madison wrote in 1822, ‘A popular government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy, or perhaps both.’  That’s why freedom of the press is enshrined in our Constitution.  No other industry enjoys that kind of protection (p. 551-552).

Speaking of the media’s macro-role, Sen. Wellstone concluded that, for America’s “democracy to work, we depend on the media to do two things.  We depend on them to provide citizens with access to a wide and diverse range of opinions, analyses, and perspectives” and, second, “we depend on the media to hold concentrated power—whether public or private power—accountable to the people” (p. 552).  Thus, “greater diversity of ownership and control” confers superior ability among journalists “to perform those functions” which are so vital.  The empirical record for that proposition, admittedly, is mixed – as a 2009 study by Daniel E. Ho and Kevin M. Quinn in the Stanford Law Review found twenty years after Sen. Wellstone’s article was published.  (The question remains an open, hotly debated one, nonetheless, especially among legal scholars.)

Regardless of consolidation’s effects on viewpoints in journalism, the effects on reporters’ professional capabilities—to fulfill the democratic functions outlined by Sen. Wellstone and to highlight, in particular, human rights stories at home and around the world—are less ambiguous.  On the one hand, the renewed implosion of the field has exposed journalists to protracted, targeted, organized abuse online, especially through social media attacks, which journalists have used to share job opportunities and freelance gigs during the cycles of layoffs, and just as often to provide support to or commiserate with former colleagues and other industry peers.  As writer and journalist Maya Kosoff put it in a January 29 tweet, she was “overwhelmed by how helpful and supportive people have been [through Twitter] over the past week” of layoffs, and dedicated to finding ways “to pay it forward” to others in the field.

For present purposes, worries run deeper.  As writer Rebecca Traister put it in a reflective tweet amid the layoff chaos in late January, it is difficult to “fathom the number of talented journalists being taken away from the work they were in the midst of doing this week.  This is a travesty” – and a harbinger of what is to come in the event of further consolidations and layoffs.  To take just one example, BuzzFeed News reporter Mike Giglio—among those who were laid off last month—produced extensive, in-depth stories during his more than five years with the company.  His reporting on U.S. involvement in Syria regularly touched upon the complexities of both foreign policy stratagem and the dire concerns of civilians exposed to human rights abuses.  Last fall, Mr. Giglio perceptively deconstructed the geopolitical morass of the Jamal Khashoggi killing, accounting for the crosscutting interests of Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the U.S. with deeply reported interviews and analysis.

After the BuzzFeed News desk was effectively “demolished,” dozens of talented reporters and writers like Giglio are now forced into an unforgiving job market, sitting on dormant stories and leads.  Similar stories at the abovementioned outlets reeling from layoffs—from HuffPo to AOL, Gannett to the more-recent purges at McClatchy—abound.  The gutting of newsrooms around America is a profound pain for writers and their families, personally.  But the ongoing thinning of journalism’s most-talented ranks undermines the whole public’s access to vital information needed to hold human rights abusers to account as well.  The stakes are high.

International Women’s Day: Continuing the Fight while Celebrating the Victories

a picture of Peruvian women in front of a mountain range
Peru. Women in the Colca valley. Source: Pedro Szekely, Creative Commons

Today is International Women’s Day. This year’s theme is “Think Equal, Build Smart, Innovate for Change.” In her context statement about the theme, UN Women Executive Director Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka states that the changing world continues to shape the lives of people and “we have to be intentional about its use to positively impact the lives of women and girls. [The theme] puts innovation at the centre of efforts to reflect the needs and viewpoints of women and girls and to resolve barriers to public services and opportunities.” Innovation highlights the game-changers and activists willing to “accelerate progress for gender equality, encourage investment in gender-responsive social systems, and build services and infrastructure that meet the needs of women and girls.” The goal of today is to celebrate the incredible achievements of women and girls who seek to overcome their marginalized status in their communities, level the representation across various academic disciplines and professional fields and undo the cycles of intersectional injustices to bring about a more equitable world.

History

What started as a response to a women’s labor strike in New York 1909 became an international movement to honor the rights of women and to garner support for universal women’s suffrage. In 1913-14, International Women’s Day was a tactic to protest World War I as a part of the peace movement. The UN adopted 8 March as the official date in 1975 during the International Year of Women. Gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls is Sustainable Development Goal #5 in 2015.

Celebrating some game-changers and activists

The list below is not extensive. Its purpose is to assist you in your search to discover and know what women are doing and have done around the world.

Kiara Nirghin: Won Google Science Fair for creating an orange and avocado peel mixture to fight against drought conditions around the world. She will join Secretary-General António Guterres.

Elizabeth Hausler: Founder of BuildChange.org, an organization that trains builders, homeowners, and governments to build disaster-resistant homes in nations often affected by earthquakes and typhoons.

Jaha Dujureh: Founder of SafeHandsforGirls.org, an organization fighting to end child marriage and female genital mutilation (FGM).

BlackGirlsCode.com: A San Francisco based organization seeking to increase the number of girls from marginalized communities in STEM fields by 2040.

Shakhodat Teshebayeva: When the water crisis threatened her livelihood, she organized and mobilized a women’s group to advocate for a place for women at the discussion table regarding equal access to water.

Mila Rodriguez: Cultivates safe spaces for young people to use music to promote peace in Colombia.

Wangari Maathai: late Nobel Peace Prize Laureate from Kenya who initiated the GreenBeltMovement.org by planting trees for the cultivation of sustainable development and peace.

Next Einstein Forum: Continental STEM forum in Africa

Una Mulale: the only pediatric critical care doctor in Botswana who works to combine medicine and art to bring healing to the body and the soul.

The Ladypad Project

This coming week, Dr. Tina Kempin Reuter and Dr. Stacy Moak will take 12 UAB students to the Maasai Mara in Kenya. The team, in collaboration with the I See Maasai Development Initiative, will fund education on women’s health rights and provide 1500 girls with materials, including underwear and reusable pads, for menstrual hygiene management. The project was awarded a grant through Birmingham’s Independent Presbyterian Church Foundation.

Continuing the Fight

International Women’s Day is not only about celebrating the accomplishments of women and girls, but it is also about shining a light on the continuing injustices faced by more than half of the world’s population. From femicide and early marriage to FGM and sexual violence and exclusion from peace talks, gender inequity discounts the contribution of women and girls to the overall value of humanity. Kofi Annan, the late UN Secretary-General, posited that the empowerment of women proves more effective than any other tool for development. Noeleen Heyzer concludes that although there are women’s issues and rights still to be raised and respected, including those outlined in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, there are many that we must continue to protect. March is Women’s History Month and our contributors will write about issues that continue to impact the lives of women and girls around the world.

 

Disability Rights, Health, and Medicine

Disability Symbols. Wikipedia, Creative Commons.

What is a disability?

“A disability is a condition of the body or mind that makes it more difficult for the individual to do certain activities and interact with the world around them.”

Approximately one in five adults in the United States has some type of disability. There are numerous types of disabilities that impact people’s daily lives through sight, movement, learning, or communication, although there are many others. Furthermore, even if two people have the same disability that doesn’t mean they are impacted the same way. Thus, individuals who have a disability do not consist of one general population, but instead a diverse population with various needs. Now the focus is more on how the word disability refers to the three components mentioned in the next paragraph and how there are numerous factors that go into having a disability.

The World Health Organization created the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF). The ICF introduces the word disability into three main categories that are impairment, activity limitation, and participation restrictions. The term disability and impairment do not mean the same thing. Before the 1970s, the common view was that a disability is measured by whether or not an individual has an impairment or a health condition. In the 1970s there was the disability rights movement, which geared people away from this medical view. However, many people still focus on the more traditional, medical model of disability.

Disability and Health

Those with disabilities tend to face health care disparities such as less access to adequate care, both in terms of promoting health and preventing diseases. Some people even go as far as labeling those with disabilities as a medically underserved population. There has been some research on how people with disabilities usually have a lower quality of health and are more likely to experience secondary conditions. Some examples of the health disparities include not having interpreters during medical examinations, adults with developmental disabilities being at risk for secondary conditions such as obesity, seizures, and cardiovascular disease, and women who have disabilities are less likely to get Pap tests and mammograms. Furthermore, some other issues include misconceptions and stigmas surrounding the word disability, shortage of suitable training, lack of proper medical equipment and facilities, lack of accessibility, and little to no individualized accommodations.

Disability Rights. Flickr: Féin, Creative Commons.

The Stigma

While there are medical advances over the years in regards to individuals with disabilities, there is a stigma surrounding people with disabilities. They tend to be seen as individuals incapable of making decisions or helpless. There are implicit or even unconscious biases against individuals who have a disability. Furthermore, there are several articles on how the medical community treats those with disabilities as having less value than non-disabled people. The medical interpretation of a disability is viewed as a pathological disorder and so this perspective focuses on how one can treat or cure it, rather than a social problem. In contrast to the medical model, there is the social model of disability, which focuses on how disability is formed from a social situation or construct, rather than a person’s characteristics. This viewpoint focuses on dividing impairment from disability, rather than recognizing that one is a component of the other.

The National Council on Disability says, “people with disabilities comprise the largest and most important health care consumer group in the United States, yet the Institute of Medicine and others have warned that Federal agencies, policymakers, and health care systems have not yet responded to the broad-ranging implications, for individuals, and for society, of the demographic increase in disability as the population ages.”

Health Insurance

Another barrier is that people with disabilities tend to lack health insurance or adequate coverage for healthcare. The National Council on Disability conducted research and found that few health care training programs address disability issues in their curriculum and most federally funded health disparities research do not look at people with a disability as a disparity population. Furthermore, while Medicaid and Medicare cover some people with disabilities, these programs do not cover those who have private insurance. Private group plan insurances are usually given through employers; however, not all employers offer health insurance and not all people who have disabilities are working. Those who have private group plans through their employer are required to cover basic care for the average working population. Medical equipment such as wheelchairs, ventilators, and crutches are limited in terms of annual payments.

Individual plans charge higher premiums to individuals with disabilities. Persons with emotional disabilities consist of those most uninsured, closely followed by persons with visual or hearing disabilities.

The three key elements of health care insurance are availability, affordability, and coverage for critical benefits. Important benefits can include long-term care, mental health, and medications. There have been national surveys that found people with disabilities have a hard time figuring out the insurance system, visiting specialists, and obtaining medical equipment that is durable. Additionally, numerous essential health care services can be out of their budget, meaning that they go without certain things because they simply cannot afford it.

According to the Journal of Disability Policy Studies, “estimates suggest that these factors obstruct or delay care for as many as 30 – 50 percent of adults with disabilities.”

The Henry J Kaiser Family Foundation conducted a national survey that found, “health insurance is inadequate for more than one in three people with disabilities who reported delaying care, skipping medication, or going without needed equipment because of cost.”

Accessibility

Accessibility can be broken down into many different components. The two main sections to focus on are communication and physical access.

Physical barriers are objects that are either natural or manmade that hinder or block mobility or access. These barriers can include inadequate transportation, accessibility to the facility and offices, and lack of accessible exams. Something as simple as getting a mammogram exam can provide numerous difficulties because the mammogram machine cannot adjust for height or health professionals are not adequately trained for lifting assistance. Thus, some health professionals conduct exams while patients are in their wheelchairs, which can yield inaccurate results. Other physical barriers include parking at the medical facility, entering the building, and the bathroom facilities, making it more difficult for someone with a disability to receive proper care.

Proper communication and education are required to make a change. Individuals with disabilities should feel they can discuss their challenges without fearing discrimination, while, those in the healthcare field should appropriately discuss, support, and address the challenges people with disabilities face. Research shows there is a lack of awareness and inadequate instruction among health care providers. For example in Connecticut, “91% of primary care physicians said they had no training in intellectual and developmental disabilities.” Without proper training, people tend to make assumptions about people with disabilities and often times they are incorrect. Some stereotypes include thinking that those with developmental disabilities cannot feel pain so they do not need anesthesia, people who are deaf have problems with their cognitive functioning because they are not fluent in standard English, or women who have disabilities do not need reproductive care because they are assumed to be sexually inactive. Making assumptions is not only harmful to the health of the patient but also it undermines who they are as a person. This can lead to damaging the patient-provider trust and provoke people with disabilities to not even bother to seek care. Ultimately, having access to appropriate health care can prevent new health conditions and could possibly stop current health conditions to worsen. In order to be effective and efficient, health care must be inclusive and accessible.

 

Keep up with the latest announcements related to the upcoming Symposium on Disability Rights by following the IHR on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.

 

At the Intersection of Disability and Everything Else

Kiribati 2009. A blind man sitting at a Braille machine
Kiribati 2009. Photo: Jodie Gatfield, AusAID. Source: Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Creative Commons.

When someone says the word intersectionality, do human rights come to mind? Maybe but probably not. For some people, intersectionality is a just buzzword used by protest movements or the liberal media, while for others is a means of social identification. It is okay if you have never heard of it or do not understand it or know how to define it, you are not alone. Although it is an identifier and has mainstream vernacular usage, scholars like sociologist Patricia Hill Collins acknowledge that intersectionality is challenging to define, and only slightly easier to identify when recognized. Hill Collins asserts that “scholars and practitioners think they know intersectionality when they see it. More importantly, they conceptualize intersectionality in dramatically different ways when they use it.” Thus, an essential aspect of societal understanding and identification of intersectionality is our knowledge of its dependent relationship to power and inequity. Intersectionality must have a subject (a person or group of people) that experiences inequality (subjugation/oppression) because of its/their relation to power (the dominant with the hierarchical structure).

Intersectionality relies heavily on social constructions like race or gender, but not as a singular point of inequality. The term “intersection” demands another point—an interlocking point–of inequality. For example, intersectionality must critically examine the subjugation experienced by a person with blindness who is a Hispanic trans woman as well as a teenage girl who is Arab and a wheelchair user, respectively. Both are members of marginalized populations: ethnicity – Hispanic and Arab, gender/sexuality – a trans woman and teenage girl, and disability – blindness and wheelchair user; therefore, the intersectional analysis must include at least two points of oppression. The and makes the difference. For this to occur effectively, individuals must determine how they will employ intersectionality as a definition, in addition to a research tool.

In her essay, Hill Collins sheds light on three possible frameworks for intersectionality: a field of study that examines both content and themes that might be characteristic, an analytical strategy reliant upon intersectional frameworks to explain the social world, and a form of critical praxis connected to social justice practice via scholarship. Intersectionality has increased in popularity as society becomes more aware of the work of critical race theorist, Dr. Kimberlé Crenshaw, and with the rise of protest movements. Many people identify Crenshaw as the creator of the term intersectionality, but Black feminist scholars point to Anna Julia Cooper, Audre Lorde, and the Combahee River Collective, among others as describing the concept in their works years and centuries before Crenshaw.

First, as a field of study, intersectionality has positives and negatives. The positives lay in its complementary adaptability with other disciplines and areas of study, yet, it is here that many of the negatives exist as well. Citing Edward Said, Hill Collins notes that “theories can lose their originality and critical stance as they travel from one domain to another” (6). This travel can result in the misrepresentation of the original intent and the exclusion of some scholarship as has happened over time in fields of study like Black feminism.

Second, as an analytical framework, intersectionality must “rethink” constructs, not only as concepts of work and family but violence and identity, and in direct relation to “underutilized” categories of analysis like class and age. It is at this juncture that disability rights activists and scholars demand an increased inclusion. Using Stuart Hall’s theory of articulation, Hill Collins questions how it is possible for two sets of ideas, the expressed and unexpressed, to create the necessary knowledge needed for an intersectional canon (15). Hill Collins questioning aligns with Ellen Samuels’ assertion that disability remains underrecognized as a “legitimate or relevant position from which to address broad subjects” and Michael Berube’s pronouncement that disability must continually battle against gender, race, and sexuality in various areas. Historically, there has been an imbalanced pattern of research due to the heavy focus on the intersections of race and gender; yet, when considering that one in five human beings live with a disability, multiple constraints apply and extend beyond gender and race.

Lastly, as a praxis, intersectionality can contribute perspective by elucidating areas of social inequality as activists and scholars increase their political engagement. Sociologists Hae Yeon Choo and Myra Marx Ferree observe three ways that intersectionality is/can become practiced: group-centered, process-centered, and system-centered. They caution that even in practice, neglect occurs in facets of the intersectional analysis despite best efforts to adequately include, analyze, and identify because as Crenshaw notes, sometimes conflicting political agendas detract from the areas of oppression.

boys with physical disability playing soccer
Soccer – Boys from one of Mumias’ schools for the physically handicapped. Source: Brenda, Creative Commons

The Intersection of Disability and Everything Else

In many societies today, disability, like most categories of marginalization, boxes members as differing from the norm or as the needy and helpless Other. In many ways, disability has become a fetishized difference and a source of ‘inspiration porn’ when foregrounded in the mainstream via social media, television, and movies. What if activists and scholars began to utilize the constellation of knowledge as outlined by Hill Collins and Choo and Ferree through the employment of an analysis of the intersection of disability and everything else? Persons with disabilities are the global majority when accounting for the entire spectrum of disability; thus, we as individuals who make up the collective, have a chance to bring those surviving on the margins into the center of analysis and discussion.

Humanity must begin to see the inclusion of disability as a prerequisite for the dismantling of structural violence and social injustice. Black feminist and lesbian Lorde, in her comments to a New York conference audience, protested that “survival is not an academic skill. It is learning how to stand alone, unpopular and sometimes reviled, and how to make common cause with those others identified as outside the structures in order to define and seek a world in which we can all flourish. It is learning how to take our differences and make them strengths. For the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. Racism and homophobia are real conditions of all of our lives in this place and time. I urge each one of us here to reach down into that deep place of knowledge inside herself and touch that terror and loathing of any difference that lives there. See whose face it wears. Then the personal as the political can begin to illuminate all our choices” (112-3). If disability replaced either racism or homophobia in Lorde’s quote, how does the level of analysis and research begin to change the conversation surrounding our social understanding of these areas of oppression and subjugation? Intersectionality forces humanity to come to terms with the lack of knowledge about difference while confronting the terror and loathing of difference which lurks inside us as barriers and outside of us as social institutions and societal norms. In whatever form intersectionality finds usage, it is imperative that it remains a tool that dismantles injustice at the personal and political level.

 

**Keep up with the latest announcements related to the upcoming Symposium on Disability Rights by following the IHR on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.

Disability Advocacy and Technology in the 21st Century

Images of The Gang of 19 and “Capitol Crawl” will forever be remembered as pivotal moments in the U.S. disability rights movement alongside international achievements such as the first Paralympic Games in Rome, African Decade of Disabled People, and UN Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities. There are those who foster the value-based assumption that picketing, chanting, and public fervor are the appropriate methods to fighting the good fight. However, as digitalization rapidly enters our homes, schools, and places of work, modern technology offers a myriad of new ways to advocate for the rights of people with disabilities, namely social networking platforms and phone apps.

Many of those who engage with social networking platforms have heard of social media subcultures such as Asian-American Twitter, Black Twitter, and Feminist Twitter. These digital subcultures often address sociocultural issues related to their communities and galvanize captivating hashtags, like #BeingAsian, #BlackLivesMatter, and #MeToo, that take the mainstream media by storm. Among, and often intersecting with, these social causes is a growing phenomenon that could be referred to as Disability Twitter. Here, disabled activists share individual narratives coupled with hashtags, such as #AbledsAreExhausting, #DisabledAndCute, and #ThisIsAbleism, as well as address cultural, social, and political issues affecting the disability community through sentiments like #CripTheVote (accessible voting), #DisabilityTooWhite (limited representation of people of color with disabilities), and #SuckItAbleism (plastic straw ban). Such efforts have also been extended to social media platforms such as Facebook and Instagram, further capturing the attention of disability rights to internet users worldwide, generating dialogue and solutions that relate to accessibility.

smartphone. Source: pixabay.com, Creative Commons

With two-thirds of the globe connected by a mobile device, usage of phone apps has become the norm for many people. While many people use such apps for daily tasks and leisure, others utilize these platforms to amplify justice-related causes, namely access for people with disabilities. For example, Wheelmap is a service that allows users to locate and mark accessible places in seven languages. One does so by rating a respective space with a traffic light system that indicates green markings are wheelchair accessible, yellow markings have restricted wheelchair access, and red markings are not wheelchair accessible. Voice of Specially Abled People (VOSAP) is an India-based organization who created a phone app with the same name which crowdsources accessibility data so it can be used to inform community leaders and promote awareness. VOSAP also allows users to make an action pledge that supports people with disabilities so communities can correspond with allied parties. Parking Mobility is another phone app that offers a self-reporting mechanism, although this service allows users to report abuse of accessible parking spots. For partnering communities, such reports are forwarded to local law enforcement and citations are mailed to the registrant of the vehicle. Please contact Parking Mobility to inquire about getting your community involved in this program. There are also many other phone apps designed for personal assistive use such as Be My Eyes (navigation for blind and visually impaired), RogerVoice (subtitled phone calls), Miracle Modus (self-relief for Autistic persons), and Medication Reminder (people with Alzheimer’s and dementia). As a result of these diverse phone apps, there are multiple ways for people to self-advocate as well as spread information about accessibility.

As demonstrated, social media and digital technology have engendered revolutionary ways to address issues salient to the disability community, allowing self-advocates and allies to communicate about current challenges, successes, and resources. Therefore, simply opening your computer, tablet, or phone to navigate these issues, alongside other intersecting causes, shines a brighter light on the importance of disability rights, access, and representation in the 21st century.

Keep up with the latest announcements related to the upcoming Symposium on Disability Rights by following the IHR on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.

CRPD: Implementation for the people, by the people

** As the IHR and other sponsors prepare for the “Symposium on Disability Rights,” the next few weeks will highlight some posts from the past as well as feature new posts written to provide some background into the various panel focuses.  

* This is a repost from summer 2017.

a picture of the CRPD CoSP banner outside of the UN
Source: Ajanet Rountree

The UAB IHR team had the opportunity to participate as rapporteurs in the Conference of State Parties (CoSP) annual meeting at the United Nations headquarters in New York City. In accordance with Article 40 of the Convention on the Rights of Person with Disabilities (CRPD), CoSP consists of convention signatories responsible for the implementation of the Convention. This annual meeting is the “most diverse international disability meeting in the world” because it brings together UN agencies, non-governmental organizations, human rights institutions, disabled persons organizations (DPOs), and civil society.

Estimated at 1 billion, persons with disabilities are the largest minority worldwide, facing considerable marginalization in every day life. The CRPD is the first human rights treaty of the 21st century, with the expressed purpose of ensuring that “all persons with all types of disabilities…enjoy all human rights and fundamental freedoms”. Adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in December 2006, the CRPD is the first treaty “open for signature by regional integration organizations” (app) who exercise the social development dimension by changing attitudes and approaches to persons with disabilities.

The UN Enable website designates the mandate of CRPD as “the movement from viewing persons with disabilities as “objects”  of charity, medical treatment, and social protection towards viewing persons with disabilities as “subjects” with rights, who are capable of claiming those rights, and making decisions for their lives based on their free and informed consent as well as being active members of society.” In other words, CRPD focuses on the human being rather than the disability, and its implementation teaches the world to do the same. As of November 2016, 168 states and the European Union ratified the Convention; the United States has not.

The CRPD presents a disabled perspective to an able-bodied norm. Through the CRPD, persons with disabilities– disempowered through invisibility that is rooted in an able-bodied world, which often forgets their existence—benefit as their human rights infuse with other conventions, standards and norms of treatment.

a map of the nations that have and have not ratified the CRPD
Source: UN Enable

Janet Lord argues that the language utilized in the CRPD reinforces the need to reframe disability as a contribution to society, rather than a hindrance. Pointing to the American Disability Act (ADA) as a stepping-stone to the CRPD creation, she makes a clear delineation that CRPD is not an international version of ADA. “[CRPD] provides a framework for the development of disability rights in countries that is, in large part, inspired by the principles and concepts found in the ADA—nondiscrimination, inclusion, autonomy, human dignity. Like any other human rights treaty, the CRPD seeks to ensure that the human rights to which all are entitle are actually implemented for persons with disabilities.” She hones in on two essential themes of the CRPD: non-discrimination and employment.

First, non-discrimination is all-inclusive as defined in Article 2 and outlined in Article 5. “Discrimination on the basis of disability means any distinction, exclusion or restriction on the basis of disability which has the purpose or effect of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal basis with others, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field. It includes all forms of discrimination, including the denial of reasonable accommodation.” Akiko Ito, Chief of the Secretariat for the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, insists the need for at least two perspectives, disabled and gendered, when mainstreaming disability as a measure to counter discrimination. Unfortunately, the layers of discrimination are not limited to two perspectives; therefore, it is necessary to include race and/or ethnicity, given the intersectionality of an individual life.

Second, barriers to employment reinforce exclusion and marginalization. While employment barriers differ depending on the disability, the overarching concept lies in accessibility. As an able-bodied person, I take accessibility for granted. Consider how a wheelchair user gets to work if there is not access to a bus, cab, or car that is accessible; or how a visually impaired person gets information from the internet, if there is no voice-over technology. Article 27 of the CRPD challenges and demands the labor market to be “open, inclusive and accessible…by taking appropriate steps” for persons with disabilities to participate and enjoy the right to work. UN Enable reports that there is difficulty in obtaining data on persons with disabilities, specific to employment; however, here some of what we know:

  • In the US, a 2004 survey reported that 35% of persons with disabilities have employment when compared to 78% of the rest of the population.
  • China has an estimated 83 million persons with disability – that is 6.3% of the country’s population
  • In Ireland, 37% of persons 15-64 have a disability and are employed
  • Thailand states that 1.3 million of the 4.8 million persons with disabilities are working age
  • 70% of Russia’s disabled population is unemployed

The rights to employment and non-discrimination fall into the categories of economic and social affairs. While CoSP ensures the practical application of the CRPD on the local level, the Department of Economics and Social Affairs (DESA) advises, develops, and oversees policy creation and the implementation of CRPD on the national level. Ito explains, “DESA works to support the development pillars of the United Nations – peace and security, and human rights.” CRPD and its implementation align with the 1945 UN Charter that seeks to identify progress in economic and social development, and promote human rights through the creation and maintenance of a peaceful and prosperous world.

The role of civil society is imperative in the implementation of the CRPD. Article 33 makes allowance that persons with disabilities and their organizations are involved and participate in the monitoring process; this outlet is CoSP. Civil society participation is uncharted territory as no other human rights treaty acknowledges the advocacy, accountability, and the representation of NGOs. By recognizing the mandates and positions of NGOs within communities and around the globe, CoSP is striving to ensure the full inclusion of persons with disabilities into an accessible and accepting society. To be clear, the implementation process is complex, difficult, and far from over. Fortunately, having persons with disabilities led and dominate discussions, CoSP represents a microcosm of dedicated innovation and a relentless pursuit of excellence as they collaborate to create, maintain, and reframe equal representation of human rights through participation and partnership.

Over the course of this week, the team will share personal experiences and takeaways from this incredible week that included the official launch of the CRPD app and sharing of Making Disability Rights Real in Southeast Asia by Dr. Derrick Cogburn and Dr. Tina Kempin Reuter.

 

 

Why Big Data is a Human Rights Concern

What Is Big Data?

Big Data refers to the collection and use of massive volumes of data to study, understand, and predict human behavior. Big data or predictive analytics is a new field that is growing fast. In order to predict human behavior with a high degree of accuracy, data researchers require millions of data points. Collecting this data is far easier than using it to make useful predictions. A large portion of these researcher’s work lies in organizing and manipulating the data into a format that allows for detailed analysis to be conducted. Researchers make use of highly advanced algorithms to process data and make useful predictions about future human behavior. Many of the world’s largest tech and social media companies, including Google, Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, and Snapchat are at the forefront of this industry. In this article, I will focus on the cases of China and Facebook. To clarify Big Data and Artificial Intelligence are not the same thing. Rather Big Data is a general term referring to the collection of massive amounts of information and algorithms to make predictions on future outcomes. Artificial Intelligence falls under Big Data but it is a distinct subcategory that refers to the programming of computers to do tasks that normally require human intelligence. This can range from Tesla’s self-driving car mode, Siri’s speech recognition, or Amazon’s predictions for shopping habits.

The primary reason is that these companies are perfectly positioned to make use of Big Data. Each of these companies has access to the information of millions of their users and customers, which allows them to fulfill the massive amount of data needed for Big Data research. Many governments are also becoming increasingly involved with the use of predictive analytics. Examples of the use of Big Data are counter-terrorism, personalized ads, increasing work productivity, and predicting virus outbreaks.

Why Is Big Data Concerning?

While Big Data presents many possibilities for good, it raises many moral and ethical concerns. The primary concern is an individual’s right to privacy online. In the United States and many countries around the world, personal rights to privacy in the physical world are well established. Law enforcement, or anyone for that matter, cannot search our belongings, homes, cars, or persons without consent unless there are legal grounds for probable cause and a warrant to search. However, most of these laws and regulations fail to extend to privacy rights for online activity. The quick rise of the Internet and the rapid pace of technological innovation has left these laws outdated and inadequate for the modern age where the Internet is a daily requirement for many peoples’ lifestyles. The Internet is necessary for most jobs, access to the news, social connectivity with friends and family, entertainment, and freedom of expression. One could make the argument that access to the Internet is an ‘inherent and inalienable’ human right under the ‘preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness’ guaranteed to all men in the Declaration of Independence. With it being the case that the Internet is an essential part of our lives that are increasingly becoming bigger and bigger, shouldn’t our rights to privacy extend to our time on the Internet? This is the human rights case being made for the creation of online privacy laws.

How Does Big Data Affect Me?

Currently, governments and companies are utilizing our information as they see fit with very little or in some cases no consent or oversight. Big Data has become a valuable commodity that is being bought and sold between these entities. Almost every aspect of our lives that is possible to monitor is being tracked with the widespread use of surveillance cameras, logging of browser search history, online purchasing habits, flight reservations, financial records, social media posts, and physical appearance and security data. Private companies, such as Facebook and Google, are using this data to create millions of detailed user profiles. These companies then monetize their customer information by selling access to other companies, governments, and organizations attempting to conduct research, target ads, or make other use of this massive amount of information. It is hard to even imagine how large Big Data is. The majority of billions of peoples’ online activities are being stored and collected. The data is so huge that no computer’s hard drive can store it all and it must be accessed through the cloud. Giant server farms located all around the world maintain and hold onto this personal data.

With this much personal information on this many people, there is a great risk for abuse. There are many well-documented scandals of misuse of personal data and illegal online surveillance by many governments. Companies have come under pressure for hacks and bugs that have exposed personal information on users, many of which weren’t even aware that their information was being collected. These instances are clear violations of basic human rights to privacy and further highlight the need for online privacy legislation.

China’s War on Online Freedom & Privacy

China is the largest country in the world by population, the world’s third largest economy behind only the United States and the European Union, and very advanced in terms of education and technological innovation. However, it also is responsible for the largest case of mass censorship, denial of freedom of Internet access, and mass online tracking and surveillance the world has ever seen. In 1995, China allowed the general public to have access to the Internet. However, the regime quickly realized the potential for political opposition movements to utilize the Internet as a means of protest and call for change. To combat this, the leaders enacted laws that punished those who used the Internet and posted anything that could be deemed to “hurt national security or the interests of the state.”

To enforce these laws the government invested heavily into a means of removing information that violated these terms and regulating the flow of data into and out of the country. This tool has become known as the “Great Firewall of China.” When Xi Jinping became president in 2012, he restricted access to the Internet further and increased the penalties for violating the country’s strict Internet laws. Xi mounted a heavy offensive against any resistance by arresting many individuals and punishing dozens of companies for violating his policies. China, under his rule, employs over two million people just to regulate and censor information that is contrary to the “interests” of the country. This has culminated into what has been labeled the Great Cannon, a massive team of Chinese government hackers that targets any site in violation of Chinese internet regulations.

China is a clear example of the dangers of the government having too much control over the internet. With no transparency or oversight, governmental abuse of power will often result. Xi was able to single-handedly suppress over a billion people’s rights, beliefs, and access to news and important information. These are risks when rights to the Internet and online privacy are not protected through legislation. Internet access and privacy laws will safeguard against the government violating the rights of citizens.

Does Facebook Care About My Privacy?

On the other end of the spectrum, the absence of regulation can also be detrimental. A lack of stringent internet privacy laws to control how big tech companies in the US can use the information of their user base has led to many citizens privacy rights being violated. One of the most alarming incidents came this past year with the Cambridge Analytica scandal. Cambridge Analytica collected the personal data of 87 million users due to Facebook’s inadequate safeguards against data harvesting and lack of oversight of Facebook developers.

Facebook has policies in place that have allowed people and companies claiming to conduct research the ability to gain access to users accounts if given permission. However, by one user downloading the developers’ app and agreeing to share their information, the information of every single one of that user’s Facebook friends could also be obtained. This flaw is what allowed 87 million people’s personal information to be improperly collected without their knowledge.

The app was created by a researcher at Cambridge University and programmed to harvest the data of the user and every one of that user’s friends. This brings up ethical concerns as well as a security issue. The vast majority, around 99.7%, of the 87 million accounts harvested was of user’s that were unaware that companies and researchers had possessed their information or how their information was being used. One wonders how Facebook could legally and ethically allow for millions of their user data to be harvested without consent. Even more concerning is the lack of protocols for ensuring that these companies’ motives are legitimate and that the data harvested is protected. Since there isn’t much oversight, this data was able to be licensed illegally to Cambridge Analytica and other companies for over a year before Facebook became aware of the incident. This isn’t an isolated case with The Washington Post reporting that Facebook announced “malicious actors” abused the search function to gather public profile information of “most of its 2 billion users worldwide.” Facebook’s lack of stringent safety measures to prevent the harvesting and abuse of user’s personal data is alarming. They have misused and failed to protect user data many times and have suffered little to zero punishment due to the lack of laws to hold them accountable.

What Needs to Happen to Protect Online Privacy

China and Facebook have shown us the dangers of not having well-crafted internet privacy laws and policies in place. It is clear that a balance needs to be struck on the level of internet regulation. With too much regulation the government has a large amount of power that could be abused as seen with China. However, a lack of regulation will allow private companies and citizens the opportunity to freely abuse the rights of others. The goal is to push for internet privacy laws that will adequately protect user rights while preventing either of these cases from occurring. When this is achieved then the human right to freedom of expression and privacy online will be secured for all people.

 

*additional resource 

Book Review: White Fragility by Robin Diangelo

by Mary Johnson-Butterworth

I recently read White Fragility by Robin Diangelo. Diangelo is an academic, lecturer, and author and has been a consultant and trainer on issues of racial and social justice for more than twenty years.  She formerly served as a tenured professor of multicultural education at Westfield State University.” I picked up the book because I am trying to understand and eradicate any micro-aggressions directed toward people of color on my part and to woman up to my own racism.  Identifying as both white and fragile puts the onus for my education and change on friends and acquaintances of color, and I wanted to take responsibility for my own rehabilitation.

DiAngelo conceived of white fragility from years of facilitating diversity training where “good” white people became incensed when faced with any suggestion of racist identity in their own lives. How does it connect to racism? Racism, the oppression of a dominant group by a targeted group based on skin color, is a complex, multi-layered structure—not an event. “Racism hurts (even kills) people of color 24-7.  Interrupting it is more important than my feelings, ego, or self-image,” writes Diangelo.  She also maintains that, when it comes to racism in the U.S., no choir exists to whom we can preach.  Regardless of our upbringing as white people, we all are indoctrinated by a potent combination of entitlement, individualism, comfort, safety, normalcy, and supremacy that other races cannot access.  Diangelo suggests that a person of color may refuse to wait on me in a store, but I still have the power, as a white person, to manipulate which neighborhood she can choose and, therefore, the caliber of schools her child attends, hence debunking the existence in our society of reverse racism.

*Lack of understanding of what racism is

*Seeing ourselves as individuals, exempt from the forces of racial socialization

*Failure to understand that we bring our group’s history with us, that history matters

*Assuming everyone is having or can have our experience

*Lack of racial humility, and unwillingness to listen

*Dismissing what we don’t understand

*Lack of authentic interest in the perspectives of people of color

*Wanting to jump over the hard, personal work and get to “solutions”

*Confusing disagreement with not understanding

*Need to maintain white solidarity, to save face, to look good

*Guilt that paralyzes or allows inaction

*Defensiveness about any suggestion that we are connected to racism

*A focus on intentions over the impact

Aversive racism allows us white people to remain racist and still feel good about ourselves by rationalizing segregation in schools as the need for “good schools,” and the overabundance of whites in the workplace “because they [people of color] don’t apply.” White folks get away with the use of coded language such as urban, underprivileged, diverse, sketchy, and good/bad neighborhoods to belie their racist underpinnings.  The author relays a story of a white friend who called to say they had a mutual friend who bought a ridiculously cheap house in a New Orleans neighborhood, but her friend felt the need to buy a gun. When Diangelo responded, “I assume it’s a black neighborhood,” her friend said, “Yes, you get what you pay for.  I’d rather pay $500,000 and live somewhere where I wasn’t afraid.” The woman never used the word “black,” but the implication was crystal clear.  Toni Morrison alludes to “race talk,” designed to denigrate people of color, elevate white people, and keep in place the “us and “them” dichotomy.

While facilitating a workshop, the author questioned an African American man about what he would think if white people risked upsetting their white racial equilibrium to graciously receive feedback, reflect, and work to change their behavior. His immediate answer, “It would be revolutionary.”  “However, we aren’t likely to get there if we are operating from the dominant worldview that only intentionally mean people can participate in racism.” Color blindness (“I don’t see color.”) and color celebration (“I have a good friend who’s black.”) often exempt white people from examining the racism impacting them daily.  Most of us are taught to be kind, but “unless that kindness is combined with clarity and the courage to name and challenge racism, this approach protects white fragility and needs to be challenged.”  “An honest accounting of our racist patterns is no small task given the power of white fragility and white solidarity, but it is necessary.”

According to Diangelo, studies show that white children develop a sense of white superiority as early as preschool. Although many millennials profess to living in a postracial society, when 626 white college students at 28 colleges across the U.S. were asked to keep journals of racial images, racial issues, or what they understood to be racist behavior for 6 to 8 weeks, over 7500 blatantly racist comments and actions committed by family, friends, acquaintances, and strangers were recorded.

White fragility can translate as bullying when a racial point is made by a person of color, and a white woman cries needing comfort or all of the energy goes to soothe or assuage the guilt of the white people in the room.  The salient point is lost to white fragility, and nothing is learned.

Diangelo states that, in the U.S., anti-blackness is particularly prevalent, and white people’s history, as well as their present, is tied to abuse and devaluation of black bodies.  Slavery, lynchings, police shootings of unarmed black men, the school to prison pipeline, even the dissing of a black man who “takes a knee,” reflect a White disdain for African Americans in this nation.   Diangelo poses that it is a very different narrative to hail Jackie Robinson the first black man allowed by white people to play in the majors, rather than the first black man to have the skill to play in the majors.

Cover-to-cover, White Fragility is full of messages that are difficult for us white people to hear. I am indicted as a racist just by virtue of the society in which we live. We, White people, have the responsibility to transform our guilt into action.  We must move past defensiveness, discomfort, the conscious unawareness of our role in overt or often covert racism, and the way we look to others.  We must guard against allying with fellow racists in solidarity, forgetting that we are unconsciously invested in racism, refusing feedback from or not listening to people of color, and staying insulated in our cocoon of white equilibrium.  If we find ourselves open to shoving our white fragility aside, we may accomplish the following:

*Minimize our defensiveness.

*Demonstrate our vulnerability.

*Demonstrate our curiosity and humility.

*Allow for growth.

*Stretch our worldview.

*Ensure action.

*Demonstrate that we practice what we profess to value.

*Build authentic relationships and trust.

*Interrupt privilege-protecting comfort.

*Interrupt internalized superiority.  

Robin Diangelo offers us white folks the insights and the tools to explore and, with hard work, to overcome our white fragility in favor of transformation and enlightenment.

 

Mary Johnson-Butterworth, age 69, has been a social justice activist most of her adult life.  She has facilitated social justice workshops for middle and high school students throughout the Birmingham area and beyond with the YWCA of Central Alabama, the National Conference for Community and Justice, the National Coalition Building Institute, and YouthServe.  Mary has also been on staff at a residential YWCA diversity camp, Anytown Alabama, for 22 years and has facilitated trainings for corporate entities, Leadership Birmingham, and Project Corporate Leadership.  She has recently discovered the power of poetry to transform her own life and the lives of impacted listeners.