Government – Page 2 – UAB Institute for Human Rights Blog

Why the Death Penalty Won’t Stop Sexual Violence Against Women in South Asia—And Might Make It Worse

clearing cache to see changes with image — Image 1. Women protesting Rape in India. Source: Yahoo Images

The death penalty as a form of punishment is seen as controversial across the globe. Primarily used in murder cases, it can be viewed as an archaic replacement of Hammurabi Code, an eye for an eye, which is why many oppose it. Proponents contest that this is a just, necessary deterrent for extremely violent crimes. They attest that it not only provides justice for the victims but also prevents criminals from committing murders. However, does that logic apply in real life? The government of West Bengal state government seems to agree after passing legislation allowing capital punishment for the offence of rape when it results in the victim’s death or leaves them in a vegetative state.

In India, this significant form of punishment for this kind of crime comes as a result of public outcry over the rape and murder of a 31-year-old postgraduate trainee doctor at Kolkata’s RG Kar Medical College and Hospital. This is not the first occurrence of punitive anti-rape legislation in India. Following the Nirbhaya case, a brutal gang rape of a young woman on a moving bus in Delhi, the nation was shocked to its core, and Parliament was expedient in passing Criminal Law (Amendment) Act in 2013 to allow the death penalty in rape cases. At face value, it seems like direct action is being taken to address sexual violence against women in India; however, conflicting reports from women’s rights groups and data on sexual violence against women prove otherwise. The death penalty for rape is far from an advancement in women’s rights, and it is actually a regressive step for women.

Death Penalty in Practice

There are currently 31 countries that enforce the death penalty for rape, especially in South Asia, in an attempt to mete out justice and protect women. This form of retributive justice is rooted in the patriarchal idea that “rape takes a woman’s life away,” essentially implying that a woman’s value is intrinsically tied to her sex. This sort of logic supports the death penalty for rape because it is protecting a woman’s dignity. However, this form of punishment does not actually protect women. Supreme Court advocate Shoumendu Mukherjee emphasizes that there is “no significant correlation between the imposition of the death penalty and a reduction in crime rates.” By increasing the barriers to reporting and perpetuating victim-centric stereotypes, the Advocates for Human Rights cite a study that shows “imposing the death penalty for rape can be more harmful to victims.”

In the majority of rape cases, the woman knows her rapist. Adding the execution of someone she knows, perhaps a family member, friend, or coworker, to the punishment of rape further exacerbates the culture of silence and lack of willingness for women to speak up. With many rape cases, the most significant hurdle is getting victims to speak up. Many victims struggle with understanding what happened to them, so introducing the death penalty may discourage women from coming forward because they do not want to condemn someone close to them to death. Another consequence of capital punishment for rape is a backlog of rape cases to be filed and wrongful convictions—capital punishment for rape results in overburdening an already strained legal system. In order to systematically violence against women, the courts need a swift form of punishment. By heightening the punishment of these types of cases, the courts are delaying justice for the victims. Additionally, the pursuit of quick resolutions to satisfy public demand for justice can lead to rushed trials, which may undermine due process and increase the risk of wrongful convictions. Project 39-A conducted empirical research on the criminal justice system in India and found that convicts who are sentenced to death and who remain on death row are predominantly from poor and lower-caste communities, with little access to proper legal aid. Within the Indian legal system, public defenders are struggling to meet the requirements of this progressive law, and poor people are taking the blame for it. Before the court system passes progressive laws, it must enact reform within the present system so that this new legislation can be correctly put into practice.

What to Focus on Instead

Capital punishment exists in the Indian Penal Code, but studies have shown it is not an effective deterrent to violence against women. Madhya Pradesh had the highest number of death sentences awarded between 2016-2020 but remained one of the states with the highest number of rape cases in 2019. Additionally, women’s activists in India do not call on this type of reform and instead advocate for speedy trials, high conviction rates, and addressing systemic inequalities against women that lead to sexual violence against women. Kavita Krishnan, Secretary of the All India Progressive Women’s Association, argued that highly publicized executions of rape convicts result in more women being murdered to prevent them from surviving as witnesses. A 2021 study by Equality Now and Dignity Alliance International (DAI) found that rape survivors’ idea of justice does not include the death penalty.

The death penalty has been the center of a long-held debate; however, the idea that it is harmful is not a newfound discovery. Feminists in India maintain that capital punishment is dangerous for women and detracts attention from support services for women that encourage speaking up, counseling, and changing the current attitude towards women in society. This sentiment corroborates the 1977 US Supreme Court case, Coker v. Georgia, which argued that the death penalty for rape should be rejected as a remnant of an outdated, patriarchal system that treated women as the property of men requiring chivalric protection from men. This side has been around for a while, but it is now more relevant in terms of punishment for rape in South Asia.

Recommendations to Consider

Various studies accounts from survivors, and women’s rights organizations all contend that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent to rape. The death penalty is a cruel form of retributive justice that barely has a positive impact on victims or crime punishment. According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the death penalty is a violation of the right to life. Instead of severe punishment, South Asian governments need to adopt a victim-centered approach to addressing rape and sexual violence. These alternatives involve strengthening legal protections for victims, providing access to victim advocates, enhancing the integrity of the criminal justice system, and offering public education on sexual violence along with training for the judiciary. Recognizing that criminal trials may not always bring the desired outcomes for victims or their families is essential in moving toward abolition and reducing reliance on the criminal justice system—including the death penalty—as the sole means of delivering justice. By addressing these systemic issues, we can bring about real change in the Indian government for all women in the country. This is certainly not a new conversation for advocates of women’s rights, but it is a conversation that needs to happen in order to enact substantive change. This is the first step to a long road of reeducation, raising awareness, and reframing the narrative. By taking these necessary steps, we can significantly curb the effects of violence against women around the world.

An Analysis of Voting Rights and Infringements: Pakistan

Pakistan’s Political Landscape

Pakistan is a unique country amalgamating diverse ethnicities, religions, regional dynamics, and political ideologies. Upon independence from British Colonial rule in 1947, Pakistan had experienced periods of military dictatorships interspersed with democratic governance.

The creation of Pakistan’s democratic foundation is accredited to President Ayub Khan. He worked to create the Elective Bodies Disqualification Order of 1959; this was created to help prevent “free-for-all” fighting among politicians, having a negative impact on the country. Through this order, the beginning of the democratic order began, with the increased role of the civil bureaucracy and increased central authority. This order did not come without criticism, especially from the lay citizens; through the order, individuals were not incentivized to participate democratically in the country’s politics.

Photo of Benazir Bhutto attending an election rally. Source: Flickr

A Turning Point in Pakistan’s Democratic Framework

The trajectory of Bangladesh’s secession from Pakistan demonstrates the complex interplay of socio-political forces. General Agha Muhammad Yahya Khan, succeeding Ayub Khan, led Pakistan’s military regime from 1969 to 1971 amidst a backdrop of enduring military rule, reflecting a nation grappling with its identity; this was very different from the approach Ayub Khan had taken. The 1970 general elections, a watershed moment, laid bare the fissures of regionalism and social discord, with the Awami League ‘s electoral triumph in East Pakistan highlighting demands for provincial autonomy. Meanwhile, in West Pakistan, the Pakistan People’s Party’s populist surge under Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto reshaped the political landscape, overshadowing traditional Islamic parties; however, fears of East Pakistani dominance spurred a political conspiracy thwarting the Awami League’s ascension, triggering armed rebellion and Indian intervention, culminating in the birth of Bangladesh in 1971 amid the throes of conflict.

Modern Implications of Political Success

The subsequent democratic experiment, marked by Bhutto’s ascendancy and ousting under General Zia-ul-Haq’s military rule, underscored Pakistan’s struggle for stability. Bhutto’s governance failed to bridge the chasm between rhetoric and reality, highlighting the entrenched power dynamics between civilians and the military. Even with elections, Pakistan’s democratic fabric remained frayed, with presidents wielding disproportionate influence compared to that of the prime minister. Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif and their descendants oscillated between who would be in power; this tumultuous change, albeit frequent, perpetuated a cycle of disillusionment and distrust among its citizenry. As subsequent administrations navigated the murky waters of power politics, from the restoration of parliamentary supremacy to Musharraf’s coup, the quest for a stable, inclusive democracy persists amidst the crucible of Pakistan’s diverse socio-political landscape.

Photo of previous prime minister of Pakistan, Imran Khan. — Photo of the previous prime minister of Pakistan, Imran Khan. Source: Flickr

2024 Elections

The foundation laid by historical nuances resulted in a unique 2024 election for the country. It all started in 2018 when Imran Khan, leader of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), was elected as the prime minister of Pakistan; after four years, however, Imran Khan was removed by the political opposition in a no-confidence vote. This vote followed Khan’s perceived economic mismanagement of the country, as inflation was at an all-time high, and the Pakistani rupee was plummeting alongside foreign currency. In addition, his commentary on foreign affairs, especially alongside Russia-US and China-US relations, were clauses of removal. Shehbaz Sharif, leader of the Pakistan Muslim League (PML), was then sworn in. Shortly after his removal from office, Imran Khan was sentenced to prison on terms of corruption, followed by a lengthened sequence on suspicion of leaking state secrets. The turbulence superseded the 2024 general election and contributed to allegations of political rigging and delayed results.

Results started on February 8th, when polls opened, demonstrated that PTI had a majority vote; many candidates had to run independently, so when there was no clear majority party, it was assumed that PTI maintained the majority vote. This was echoed by the Election Commission of Pakistan as well. This, however, was not reported, which raised suspicions and alluded to manipulation and political interference by external entities; comments were also rescinded from the Election Commission of Pakistan, resulting in concerns about the true results.

Amidst the election, the apolitical role of division commissioners had come under scrutiny amid concerns over their potential influence on election proceedings; despite official assertions of their non-involvement, apprehensions arose due to the appointment of electoral officers from within the hierarchy below a commissioner, raising suspicions of undue interference. This likely contributed to the hypothesized widespread electoral malpractice this past election. Urgent calls for a thorough investigation were prominent to understand the turn of events.

Internationally, the Free and Fair Election Network (FAFEN) reported widespread obstruction of election observers and candidates in accessing crucial tabulation processes, casting doubt on the integrity of electoral outcomes this past February. FAFEN’s appeal for meticulous scrutiny of contested constituencies using advanced analytical methods underscores the imperative of upholding electoral legitimacy, echoing similar demands from political stakeholders.

Human Right Implications

As seen with the 2024 election, speculations, potential interference, and lack of transparency prevent voter’s voices from being uplifted in the election process. Without protections of free, fair, and honest elections, individuals cannot participate democratically. As seen with Pakistan, a long history of concerns about election malpractice decreases trust in the government and current democratic systems. It is important for Pakistan and future leaders to address underlying challenges to help foster a culture of accountability and integrity, helping pave the way for a representative democracy that will upload the voices of its citizens.

Voting Rights are Human Rights: The Case of the U.S.

As we enter 2024, we constantly think about voting, especially in the United States. Voting is a way to engage with our political system, making our voices heard and shaping our respective country’s history and politics.

Voting is the cornerstone of democratic societies, helping protect individual freedom and collective self-determination. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights protects voting as a right for individuals to participate in the governance of their country through free and fair elections . However, this might only have been the case for some countries, especially throughout history.

Voting sign with blue text and arrow. Source: Flickr

Why Voting Matters

Voting may seem to be another task on one’s to-do list and may be seen as a burden; with the need to take time off to vote or go through paperwork to request an absentee ballot, it indeed seems like a lot of work and time is invested into something that does not elicit any visual change. However, the reality is that every vote truly matters. When analyzing the impact of voting, history tells it best. For example, in U.S. history, the 2000 election showed the effect of voting; Al Gore narrowly lost the Electoral College vote to George W. Bush because the latter won Florida by a mere 0.0009%. With each individual vote having a role in influencing history, it is important to note the importance of voting on the national and local levels.

The Significance of Voting Rights

The importance of voting has not been something reserved for all individuals. Throughout history, voting history has been associated with social justice and human rights, specifically the acquisition of it. Domestically, in the United States, it has been associated with women’s suffrage and civil rights. When reflecting on Seneca Falls in 1848, we see that delegates focused on the idea that all “men and women are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” This realization helped birth the idea of voting rights for women, especially at a time when American women were hindered from genuinely exploring their political identity. Even amidst the conflict of World War I, women were able to stay true to their cause and showed their commitment to advancing our country’s interests. This influenced many individuals to allow a change in how women were represented democratically and elicited the ratification of the 19th Amendment of the Constitution.

Beyond suffrage for women, African American suffrage further highlights the importance of voting rights throughout history. After the Civil War, the 14th Amendment granted African Americans the right to citizenship; however, this did not mean that all individuals were able to effectively cast their vote due to them being systematically turned away from the bolls. This unfairness led to individuals mobilizing to share their stories and advocate against inequality, poll taxes, literary exams, etc. The push for equity was eventually successful through the passing of the 24th Amendment and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, an encompassing act that prioritized equity in voting rights.

Human Rights and Threats to Voting Rights

Voting is unequivocally a human right; expressing one’s voice without discrimination is a right, and voting is one way to do so. This action is not only a political right but also a civil right, embodying the importance of preserving and exercising one’s voice.

However, recently, significant challenges domestically and internationally have suppressed these voices. Ranging from gerrymandering to voter ID laws , different communities are targeted. This undermines the integrity of the voting process globally. In addition, with the rise of misinformation and disinformation, public trust in elections has decreased, posing a great threat to democracy.

As we continue discussions around voting, it is important to highlight historical trends and work effectively to remedy the injustices we see. This series will highlight recent injustices in elections and the infringement on democratic and fair elections worldwide, helping us work through a more equitable global democracy.

Please add a hyperlink.

Yemen in the News? Let’s Recap.

In the past couple of months, Yemen has been mentioned a lot. More specifically, the Houthis or, as some have called them, Ansarallah. You might be wondering first, “What is Yemen?” Why are they being talked about? Who are the Houthis/Ansarallah? How is Saudi Arabia involved? And where is the government? These are all questions that I heard many people around me ask. So, in this article, we will answer all these questions as well as explain Yemen’s situation and wars coming from a Yemeni American.

HISTORY

Before diving into the issues concerning Yemen, we have to cover some important history of Yemen to have a full understanding. Yemen’s history can stretch back 3000 years and the biggest evidence of that is the architecture of the villages and towns in it. Yemen had three successive civilizations: Minean, Sabaean, and Himyarite.

Ancient Yemen played a crucial role in overland trade between Egypt, Mesopotamia, and the Mediterranean civilizations due to its strategic location. Pre-Islamic trading kingdoms, such as Minaean and Saba’, thrived on incense trade. The decline began with the Romans favoring the Red Sea, leading to the loss of wealth for southern Arabian kingdoms.

The rise of Islam in the 7th century saw Yemen’s rapid conversion. Muslim caliphs ruled, followed by local dynasties like Zaydi imamate and Rasulids. The Ottoman Empire took control in the 16th century, bringing Yemen under their rule. Despite a flourishing coffee trade, Yemen remained culturally isolated.

The 19th century marked the division of Yemen into North and South, controlled by the Ottomans and British, respectively. North Yemen faced opposition, leading to the Ottoman evacuation in 1918. Two powerful imams ruled North Yemen until the 1962 revolution, resulting in the establishment of the Yemen Arab Republic (YAR).

The YAR faced internal conflicts and external interventions, including support from Egypt and Saudi Arabia. A coup in 1974 led to military rule under Colonel Ibrahim al-Hamdi. His assassination in 1977 and subsequent leaders set the stage for the lengthy presidency of Ali Abdullah Saleh, who ruled North Yemen until its unification with South Yemen in 1990.

TIMELINE OF YEMEN’S CONFLICT

Yemen’s modern history is a tumultuous journey marked by political transitions, civil wars, and external interventions. Understanding the dynamics of this complex narrative is crucial, especially for students seeking clarity amid the intricate details. Let’s embark on a journey through the early years of Yemen, focusing on key events involving President Ali Abdullah Saleh and the Houthi rebels.

In the 1990s, Yemen underwent a significant transformation with the reunification of North and South Yemen. Ali Abdullah Saleh, the president of North Yemen since 1978, transitioned to become the president of the Republic of Yemen. Concurrently, the Zaidi-Shia group Ansar Allah, commonly known as the Houthis, gradually gained power, with President Saleh’s tacit support. A brief civil war erupted in 1994 between the unintegrated armies of the north and south, resulting in the defeat of the southern army and solidifying Yemen’s reunification.

In 2000, President Saleh reached a border demarcation agreement with Saudi Arabia, seeking to disarm the Houthis, whom he had previously considered a valuable tool against Saudi interference. Tensions escalated between Saleh’s government and the Houthis, leading to a rebellion in 2004 initiated by Hussein Badreddin al-Houthi.

The conflict unfolded in several phases, with government crackdowns, rebellions, ceasefires, and amnesty grants. Saleh’s government faced sporadic clashes with the Houthis, and in 2010, Operation Scorched Earth aimed to crush the rebellion. The Houthis, however, persisted, engaging in cross-border clashes with Saudi forces.

Inspired by the Arab Spring, Yemen experienced widespread demonstrations in 2011, calling for an end to Saleh’s 33-year rule. Despite initial concessions, the protests intensified, leading Saleh to agree to a Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC)-brokered deal. However, clashes persisted until November 2011, when Saleh’s deputy, Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi, assumed power.

The National Dialogue Conference in 2014 laid the groundwork for a new constitution, and a political transition plan was approved. However, anti-government protests erupted, leading to the dissolution of President Hadi’s cabinet. In 2014, the Houthis seized control of Sanaa, and by early 2015, they took over the Yemeni government, prompting President Hadi to flee.

In response to Houthi advances, a Saudi-led coalition initiated Operation Decisive Storm in 2015, launching indiscriminate airstrikes and imposing a naval blockade. Despite subsequent efforts like Operation Restoring Hope, the conflict escalated, leading to a dire humanitarian crisis. Yemen became a battleground, but not for what is being told. One of those example is Al-Mahra.

In the shadows of Yemen’s well-documented conflicts lies a lesser-known struggle for control in the easternmost governorate of Al-Mahra. While the global narrative often focuses on the Houthi rebellion and the Saudi-led coalition’s efforts, the intricate dynamics at play in Al-Mahra offer a unique perspective on regional power shifts and economic interests.

Since 2017, Al-Mahra residents have witnessed a gradual influx of Saudi troops, raising concerns and sparking anxiety among the local population. What initially seemed like a limited military presence evolved into a comprehensive campaign by Saudi Arabia to establish control over the governorate, extending its influence to the Omani border in the east.

The intensified Saudi presence in Al-Mahra, marked by establishing over 20 military bases and outposts, fueled speculations regarding the kingdom’s interest in constructing an oil pipeline. With a population of no more than 300,000, Al-Mahra became a battleground for what some believed was a strategic move to secure a pipeline route for Saudi crude oil to the Arabian Sea.

Leaked diplomatic cables from 2008 revealed Saudi Arabia’s longstanding interest in building a pipeline by securing territories and gaining the loyalty of local leaders. The Saudis went beyond military installations, recruiting Mahri locals and attempting to create their irregular military force. The transfer of Mahri tribes from Saudi Arabia to Al-Mahra further deepened suspicions, leading to clashes between Mahri tribes and Saudi engineering crews.

Saudi forces secured Nishtun port, raising suspicions that it could serve as the intended site for an oil export terminal. A leaked memo from 2018, thanking the Saudi ambassador for a feasibility study on an oil port, added fuel to the speculation. While not explicitly mentioning Al-Mahra, the memo heightened concerns and contributed to the belief that Saudi Arabia was preparing to extend an oil pipeline through Yemen.

Governaorates in Yemen — Governorates in Yemen.

Amidst these developments, skepticism arose, suggesting that Saudi deployments and tactics aimed to counter Oman’s influence in Al-Mahra. Tensions between Saudi Arabia and Oman, exacerbated by the Yemen war, saw Oman leveraging various factors, including granting citizenship and maintaining ties with Mahri political leaders, to resist Saudi influence. Publicly, Saudi Arabia claimed its troop deployments focused on combating Houthi arms smuggling.

Critics argue that the theory of a Saudi pipeline in Al-Mahra is implausible given Yemen’s entrenched political instability. Protecting a multi-billion dollar pipeline would pose significant challenges with ongoing conflicts, external pressures, and internal threats. Even before the 2011 uprising, reports suggested Yemen’s volatility made it unsuitable for such projects. Adding another layer to the complexity of this conflict.

International outrage grew over the humanitarian crisis, and in 2018, the US Senate invoked the War Powers Resolution to end its support for the Saudi-led coalition. The Stockholm Agreement in December 2018 aimed for a ceasefire, but peace remained elusive.

In February 2021, President Biden announced a shift in the US approach, revoking the Houthi FTO designation and ending support for the Saudi-led coalition’s offensive operations. Efforts toward peace continued, with UN-mediated talks and a two-month truce declared in April 2022.

NOW

Despite the recent peace agreement between the Houthi rebel group and the Saudi-led coalition, Yemen continues to make headlines due to the dire humanitarian situation and escalating conflicts. The so-called “peace” only involved the Houthi rebels and the coalition, leaving the rebel group in power and the Yemeni people still suffering. Let’s examines the recent events that have unfolded in Yemen, shedding light on the complexities of the situation.

By mid-2023, dissatisfaction with the Houthi rebels’ control began to rise among the Yemeni population. The rebels’ oppressive regime, characterized by restrictions on rights, exorbitant “protection” fees, and crippling economic conditions, fueled public discontent. However, the rebels cleverly diverted attention by exploiting the longstanding Yemeni support for Palestine. On December 9, the rebels announced their blockade of Israeli ships in the Red Sea, citing the ongoing situation in Gaza as the reason. This move united Yemenis, temporarily halting internal uprisings and garnering increased support for the rebel group.

In response to the rebel blockade, the US and UK coalitions initiated airstrikes on multiple Yemeni cities on January 11. The airstrikes were portrayed as retaliation for the rebels’ interference with ships due to the Gaza conflict. This military response effectively quashed any attempts at democracy, sparking anger and resentment among Yemenis who felt victimized by the international intervention.

The US-led coalition’s bombing campaign intensified, with the worst attack occurring on February 3. Many described it as more severe than previous assaults, even during the Saudi-led coalition’s offensive. The bombings targeted vital infrastructure, including one of Yemen’s international airports, resulting in halted flights, disrupted electricity, and widespread fear among the population.

Yemen, already grappling with eight years of conflict, faced an alarming humanitarian crisis. The World Food Programme (WFP) highlighted the unprecedented level of hunger, with 17 million Yemenis experiencing food insecurity. Child malnutrition rates were among the highest globally, and a significant portion of families lacked essential dietary elements. The WFP’s December 5 announcement of a pause in food distribution in the North due to funding shortages further worsened the situation.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres pleaded for de-escalation, urging all sides to avoid worsening the situation. Despite initial warnings and concerns expressed by global leaders, including President Joe Biden, the airstrikes persist, deepening the crisis in Yemen.

As Yemen grapples with the aftermath of international airstrikes, the fragile peace has shattered, leaving millions of Yemenis in an increasingly dire situation. The humanitarian crisis, exacerbated by disrupted food distribution and ongoing military actions, demands urgent attention and international cooperation to alleviate the suffering of the Yemeni people.

New Alabama Legislation Restricts Absentee Voting Infringing on Voting Rights

By Delisha Valacheril

Image 1: Absentee Ballot. Source: Yahoo Images

In the United States, the right to vote is heralded as a cornerstone of democracy, in which every citizen can access the ballot box. However, recent legislation in Alabama has cast a shadow over this fundamental right, prompting a fierce legal battle to uphold the principles of democracy and accessibility in the electoral process. Alabama Senate Bill SB1 imposes stringent restrictions on absentee ballot assistance. The new law imposes misdemeanor penalties for returning someone else’s ballot application or distributing an absentee ballot application containing a voter’s personal data, like their name. The payment of someone to distribute, order, collect, deliver, finish, or prefill another person’s absentee ballot application is a felony act that carries a maximum 20-year jail sentence. Aimed at combating “ballot harvesting,” a type of voter fraud that involves submitting completed ballots by third-party individuals rather than by voters themselves, the legislation criminalizes certain forms of aid provided to vulnerable voters, including the blind, disabled, and illiterate, who rely on assistance to exercise their constitutional right to vote. Extensive research, however, shows that voter impersonation is essentially nonexistent, fraud is extremely rare, and many purported cases of fraud are actually errors made by administrators or voters. The Brennan Center’s seminal report, The Truth About Voter Fraud, conclusively demonstrated that most allegations of fraud turn out to be baseless and that most of the few remaining allegations reveal irregularities and other forms of election misconduct.

Image 2: Voting Rights Act of 1965 plaque in Alabama. Source: Yahoo Images

Historical Context

The restrictions that accompany this new law not only infringe upon fundamental constitutional rights but also perpetuate a legacy of voter suppression that has long plagued Alabama’s electoral system. This has been rooted in the state’s constitution since 1901. When delegates gathered to rewrite the constitution, Chairman John Knox opened the proceedings, saying their goal was “to establish white supremacy in this state.” During Jim Crow segregation, Alabama implemented numerous laws and practices to disenfranchise Black voters. These discriminatory practices included poll taxes, literacy tests, and grandfather clauses, which limited Black people’s right to vote. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed as a result of the first failed march for voting rights from Selma to Montgomery, which was called “Bloody Sunday” and concluded with an attack on protesters. There have been several instances in Alabama’s history that contributed to systemic voter suppression.

Since then, there have been various forms of voter disenfranchisement in terms of redistricting, strict voter ID laws, and lack of accessibility for absentee voting. In Alabama, absentee voting is allowed only with a specific excuse. Voters must expect to be away from their county on Election Day, have a physical disability, or be scheduled to work a shift of 10 or more hours on Election Day to request an absentee ballot. This policy is completely unnecessary and imposes outdated, inconvenient restrictions on eligible voters. The challenges faced by low-income individuals, rural communities, Black Alabamans, the elderly, and those with disabilities have only worsened as a result of Alabama’s inability to enact these reforms. The lack of accessibility in Alabama’s election system was not intended with these marginalized populations in mind.

Image 3: Disabled person waiting in line to vote. Source: Yahoo Images

Implications

SB1 adds to these restrictions because now people who have a valid excuse, such as a disability, are penalized for using absentee ballots. One of the law’s key provisions prohibits individuals from assisting others with absentee ballots, criminalizing acts as benign as providing a stamp or sticker to a neighbor in need. Due to restricted transit alternatives or physical disabilities, voting is already difficult for many residents, such as homebound individuals, retirees, and the elderly. This is designed with a blatant disregard for vulnerable voting groups under the pretense of preventing voter fraud. Allowing this form of blanket prohibition not only undermines the spirit of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which sought to remove barriers to voting for marginalized communities, but also stifles the efforts of grassroots organizations striving to empower voters.

Alabama’s law creates new hurdles to voting, escalates already-existing inequities, and criminalizes assistance that helps marginalized voters participate in the political process. Enacted amidst heightened partisan tension due to the 2024 presidential election, the law has sparked widespread condemnation from civil rights organizations and voting advocacy groups. The Alabama State Conference of the NAACP, the League of Women Voters, Greater Birmingham Ministries, and Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program are A few years ago, a similar case was presented to the US Supreme Court, Milligan v. Allen, in which a coalition of civil rights organizations sued against the state’s enacted congressional redistricting, stating it was racial gerrymandering, the map-drawing process was intentionally used to benefit a particular race. The Court upheld the district court’s decision and required Alabama to create a second majority Black congressional district in compliance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

Image 4: Protest sign that urges for protecting voting rights. Source: Yahoo Images

Final Thoughts

This problem goes beyond party politics and touches on democracy. Regardless of circumstances, everyone deserves unrestricted access to the ballot box in a country built on equality and freedom. The court dispute is a harrowing reminder of the continuous fight to preserve voting rights and protect democratic principles for future generations as it plays out. SB1 perpetuates obstacles that Alabamians with disabilities, the elderly, and home-bound individuals encounter daily. These people oftentimes have to travel further, wait in longer lines, and jump through more bureaucratic hoops than other people. Absentee voting increases accessibility, allowing these voters’ voices to be heard. Restrictive legislation like this is designed to keep eligible voters out of the voting booth. Twenty-eight states already have no excuse for absentee voting in place for November. Criminalizing assistance that provides access to the voting process to others limits participation for Alabama’s most vulnerable citizens.

Voter fraud is wrong, but rather than enacting laws that will make it more difficult for millions of eligible Americans to exercise their right to vote, we should focus on finding answers to real issues. All Alabama citizens need to be able to vote in the November election, and they need to be able to trust the results. This can be achieved by countering the misinformation about mail-in/absentee voting. Instead of passing SB1, voters must appeal to Congress to supply the necessary funds to help states with less experience processing absentee ballots. Voter fraud is a serious issue; however, the right to vote is a Constitutional right enshrined in this country’s foundation. Before preventing any fraud, protecting all citizen’s right to vote should be paramount. Despite all the obstacles in this unprecedented moment, Americans will vote this year, possibly in record numbers. It’s not a matter of whether tens of millions will do so by mail but whether they will have their voices heard.

How Stigma Hurts: The Ethnicity in ‘Marijuana’

By Eva Pechtl

In my introductory blog on ‘How Stigma Hurts,’ I reviewed the opium crisis and the stigmatization of opium smoking by Chinese immigrants. I highly recommend reading this to better understand how addiction was viewed differently depending on the communities using drugs, and usually viewed negatively if that person is already seen as an ‘other.’ While anti-opium sentiment was centrally anti-Chinese, the anti-marijuana sentiment that developed in the 1900s was also, in ways, spurred by racist notions. It may be hard to hear, but the history of drugs has cultural complexities. In this blog, I will continue exploring the history of Marijuana stigmatization and how it intertwines with ethnic bias. I will review current information on the effects of marijuana, explain the shift from referring to weed as ‘marihuana’ to ‘marijuana,’ and display how the criminalization of marijuana has had a heavy toll relevant to Mexican and Black communities in the justice system.

Marijuana and its derivatives can be smoked, used for cooking, synthesized into vapes, boiled into edibles, and used for medical purposes. An image of a man breathing smoke out of his mouth. Image Source: Yahoo Images via Flickr Aldo Tapia Text Source: Healthline

History of Marijuana Propaganda

Marijuana, or cannabis, is a type of cannabinoid drug commonly known as weed, pot, or dope. The dried flowers from the cannabis plant contain compounds or cannabinoids, which can be impairing or mind-altering. Medical marijuana is prescribed for chronic pain relief, nausea relief, managing diseases, and stimulating the appetite. Marijuana is used to manage the side effects of cancer and cancer therapies, relieving nausea and vomiting from chemotherapy and severe nerve pain. Marijuana produces a euphoric, relaxing effect and affects the brain more rapidly if smoked, and the Center for Disease Control estimates that 10% of cannabis users become addicted. However, marijuana can cause disorientation and negative effects on mental health, especially when used frequently and in high doses. Smoking, in general, increases the risk of heart attack, stroke, and vascular diseases, and marijuana smoke carries many toxins similar to tobacco smoke. Today, marijuana legality is increasingly accepted but still controversial in the US, and is currently regulated by each state separately.

Before accurate information was provided about its effects, marijuana was highly questioned and feared in the US. In 1930, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics was created to address rising problems with many drugs, but with a particular focus on Marijuana. When alcohol prohibition was repealed, people in power and policymakers found marijuana as the next appropriate target to deem as detrimental to the country, as well as the communities using it. Weed was strongly stigmatized to be associated with Mexican immigrants since it was presumed to have been brought with those fleeing from the Mexican Revolution in the early 1900s. This is despite weed being farmed in North America since the 1600s and used generously in over-the-counter medicine since the 1840s.

This is a 'warning card' to be placed in public places like trains and buses made by the Inter-state Narcotic Association, displaying severe effects of marijuana use on the US population. — This is a ‘warning card’ to be placed in public places like trains and buses made by the Inter-state Narcotic Association, displaying severe effects of marijuana use on the US population.An image of an anti-marijuana propaganda poster that circulated in the US in the 1930s. Source: Yahoo Images via Wikipedia

Mass propaganda was produced by the federal government to induce fear about weed, linking marijuana with the devil, the degradation of women, and insanity. A notable example of this is the film Reefer Madness, an exploitation film showing high school students becoming addicted to marijuana and then committing various crimes such as manslaughter and attempted rape. The film misrepresents the realistic effects as the teens experience hallucinations, more relevantly representing the desire to demonize and, in that way, oppress drug users. When high, the teenagers in the film descend into unpredictable and insane behavior, perpetuating the notion that those who use marijuana, and interchangeably certain communities, were violent and criminal threats to the US.

From ‘Marihuana’ to ‘Marijuana’

The ‘Mexican Hypothesis’ of drug prohibition demonstrates how the extreme prejudice already well-developed against Mexicans was then attached to their drug of choice. In Mexico, in the 1900s, the common notion of marijuana users was dangerous and unpredictable behavior concentrated among prisoners or soldiers. However, a sort of “Mexican marihuana folklore” was instilled in Americans, and this racist sentiment only grew when immigrants’ effects on the economy made them more threatening. In the context of unemployment increasing public fear of immigrants, many acknowledge that the fear of marijuana was tied to intentional racist undertones, specifically associating Mexican communities with violence and crime. The change in spelling from marihuana to marijuana in legislation, plus references to Mexican ‘locoweed’ or ‘crazy weed’ from Spanish to English, reflects the deliberately xenophobic choice to associate the drug with Mexican immigrants and, frankly, any Mexican communities. Referring to weed or hemp as a foreign, unrecognizable word caused actual confusion, and some Americans did not realize the “new Mexican drug” was the same plant that had already been farmed and used in the US for many years.

Harry Anslinger was a leader in the Bureau of Narcotics and, unfortunately, a notable proponent of repressive anti-drug measures. Some sources reflect that before Anslinger took office, he expressed that claims of marijuana inciting violence or insanity were absurd. His immediate change in opinion when he began his leadership seems to reflect a political power’s interest in finding something and someone to strictly prohibit rather than using his own opinion to advance regulation purposes. Anslinger used his position to defund, discredit, and prevent the publication of research that contradicted his reasoning for marijuana penalties, claiming the drug was something to fear to an extreme. This is an early example of actions by the government raising assumptions that the drug wars weren’t really meant to increase public safety. Anslinger expressed throughout his campaign that marijuana users were infectious and even that they caused white women to be sexually promiscuous with men of color. Overall, Anslinger and related anti-drug propaganda associated drugs with people of color and induced panic and fear about both.

Marijuana was seen by jazz musicians as a way to stimulate creativity, and this is reflected negatively in this image. An image of an advertisement associating marihuana with Black swing musicians and denoting it as dangerous. Source: Yahoo Images via the Strategic Business Institute

From another perspective, marijuana was specially connected to jazz music and the Harlem Renaissance, a creative movement in Black culture in the 1920s. This period embraced the reconceptualization of Black identity apart from the negative stereotypes that had impacted their relationship to their heritage and communities. Harry Anslinger also publicly complained about Black people, claiming the music of the cultural revolution was satanic and that “jazz and swing results from marijuana use.”

Understanding Criminalization

In 1937, the Marijuana Tax Act criminalized and regulated marijuana use, including an expensive stamp requirement, which made legal compliance nearly impossible for people living in poverty. Income inequality disproportionately affected communities of color due to the racial wealth gap, which was about 10 to 1 for White to Black in 1920, with Latinos unrecognized. No longer being able to afford this drug led to the emergence of illegal markets among communities of color. In the meantime, wealthier White communities could still purchase and use marijuana without violating the law. One’s race and class contribute to their risk of criminalization, and the overrepresentation of certain groups easily invites stigmatization. White communities were not subject to the bias or policy that racial and ethnic minorities faced, and still, in this century, people of color are overrepresented in marijuana arrests. Institutional factors like financial means, neighborhood of residence, and unconscious bias in policing practices are said to contribute to continued discrimination.

The paper shows four of twelve youth arrested for gang-related criminal activity amonst the outrage of the Zoot Suit Riots. An image of a newspaper article labeling four Mexican men as ‘pachucos,’ signifying them as delinquent or involved in gang membership. Racial outrage against those wearing ‘Zoot Suits’ popular among minority communities, culminated in the ‘Zoot Suit Riots.’ This was a week of racially oriented beatings framed in the newspapers as a vigilante response to crime waves by immigrants, and police mainly arrested Latinos who fought back from the unwarranted beatings. Image Source: Local Wiki Text Source: History.com

The government continued to strengthen cannabis regulation, with the Boggs Act in 1951 establishing 2-5 year minimum sentences for first-time drug offenses. This essentially treated weed as harshly as heroin, and representatives clarified that repressive legislation on marijuana belonged in the Narcotics Control Act of 1956, later classified as a Schedule 1 dangerous drug by the Controlled Substances Act in 1971. Prejudice against Mexican immigrants played a fundamental role in federal prohibition, as some employers and stakeholders feared Mexican people as a source of crime and drugs. Legal scholars Bonnie and Whitebread acknowledge past federal law, noting that as immigrants supposedly introduced marijuana smoking to the US, anti-marijuana statutes followed in the states along with Mexican migration patterns. Around the 1960s, marijuana became popular among the middle class and mostly white college students, a movement that I will explore in my coming blog about the counterculture movement and Peyote in Indigenous culture. Similarly to that topic, existing punishments for marijuana appeared inappropriate once people of different classes and communities advocated for its free use. What is highlighted in Isaac Campos’ reassessment of prohibition is how extremely stigmatized a drug was that was so historically used and relatively mild in effects. Discrimination was even clearer cut in news sources, with claims that Mexican peddlers would distribute marijuana samples to children and the idea that marijuana was a direct product of unrestricted immigration.

So far, in the ‘How Stigma Hurts’ series, exploring bias in responses to early drug crises has revealed similarities across the criminalization of Chinese people and opium smoking and the scare about Mexican and Black people over marijuana. Especially strong was the idea that immigrants and these drugs would harm the purity of white women. Since bias was so ingrained in society, it was simple for people to follow along with repressive legislation because it made sense to them to criminalize these minorities. Importantly, government responses to these issues demonstrate the dangerous effects of a lack of knowledge, especially the tendency to falsely attribute national issues to international people. In times when information about novel drugs was scarce, the same drugs were viewed and criminalized differently because of the groups using them.

Unraveling the Injustices in West Papua

By Jayla S. Carr

The region of West Papua has been plagued by a complex web of struggles and injustices that have left indelible marks on its society. These issues are deeply rooted in the region’s colonial past and have been compounded by ongoing struggles for self-determination, discrimination, and egregious human rights abuses. The people of West Papua continue to grapple with the multifaceted challenges posed by these historical injustices, and their struggle for justice and equality remains ongoing.

The Challenges of Self-determination

The Act of Free Choice that took place in 1969 was a significant event in the history of West Papua. At the time, the territory was under Indonesian rule, and a process was initiated to determine the status of West Papua. The process was organized under international pressure but lacked genuine representation and transparency. The participating representatives represented only 1 percent of the West Papuan population, and there were allegations of coercion. The Act of Free Choice has been a lasting source of frustration for West Papuans. It was seen as a profoundly flawed process, symbolizing a profound historical injustice. The vote was conducted in a minimal scope, with only 1,022 handpicked representatives voting. These representatives were pressured to vote in favor of Indonesian rule, and there were even allegations of torture and intimidation. The Act of Free Choice has been a contentious issue ever since. Many West Papuans believe that the process was rigged and that they were denied their right to self-determination. The vote was not conducted fairly and transparently, and the outcome was predetermined. The legacy of the Act of Free Choice continues to resonate, and it remains an important issue for West Papuans seeking justice and recognition.

The Flag of West Papua. A flag with blue and white strips with a red stripe and a star.

Marginalization and Discrimination

Indigenous Papuans have faced systematic discrimination, resulting in stark socio-economic disparities. Unequal access to education, healthcare, and economic opportunities has entrenched a sense of disenfranchisement. Policies favoring non-Papuan migrants further contribute to marginalization exacerbating tensions and perpetuating historical injustices that affect the fabric of Papuan society. Al Jazeera News, reports that the government of Indonesia created a transmigration program that has been moving others from around the country to the Indigenous West Papuan lands, forcing them out of their own.

Cultural suppression in West Papua has taken various forms, and one of the most prominent ones is the restriction placed on indigenous languages and practices. The Indonesian government’s imposition of a dominant Indonesian culture over the diverse cultural landscape of West Papua is perceived as a significant threat to the rich tapestry of Papuan cultural identity. As a result, the Papuan population has been resisting attempts to assimilate them into a broader Indonesian identity for decades.

Recognizing and preserving West Papua’s unique cultural heritage cannot be overstated. The region is home to over 250 distinct indigenous groups, each with its language, customs, and traditions. The suppression of these cultures has had a severe impact on the Papuan people, leading to a loss of cultural identity and a sense of dislocation. Despite the challenges, there are ongoing efforts to preserve and promote Papuan culture. Organizations such as the Papuan Hope Language Institute are working to document endangered languages, while others are advocating for the recognition of customary laws and practices. These efforts are crucial in ensuring that the rich cultural heritage of West Papua is preserved and remembered.

A group of people holding a banner. Credit: Wikimedia Commons /Nichollas Harrison.

Exploitation and Economic Disparities

West Papuan natives argue that they have not received proportional benefits from economic activities, particularly mining and logging. Military operations that displace indigenous Papuans pave the way for extractive industries and Indonesian settlers, which exacerbates instability and makes it difficult for people to work and earn a living due to the constant threat of violence.

The United Nations human rights experts have been advocating for access to the area to investigate reports of human rights violations. The Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights estimates that between 60,000 and 100,000 people have been internally displaced since 2018. West Papuans have experienced racism ranging from common insults such as “monyet,” meaning monkey, to active discrimination, limiting their business opportunities and making them feel like second-class citizens. Environmental degradation further exacerbates their struggles and negatively impacts traditional livelihoods. Addressing these economic imbalances is crucial to promoting sustainable development and redressing historical injustices in the region.

Movements and Resistance

The Indonesian government’s actions have increased military presence in the region and led to the emergence of West Papuan movements such as the National Committee for West Papua(KNPB) and the Free Papua Movement (Organisasi Papua Merdeka or OPM). The OPM advocates for independence, which has led to occasional violence and clashes between pro-independence groups and the Indonesian military.

Reports of human rights abuses by the Indonesian security forces have been persistent in West Papua. Violence, extrajudicial killings, arbitrary arrests, and restrictions on freedom of expression and assembly contribute to a climate of fear. The systematic nature of these abuses underlines the urgent need to address human rights concerns as an integral part of rectifying historical injustices in the region. Since the annexation of West Papua in the 1960’s, over 100,000 civilians have been killed in the indigenous land. The most known tragedy was the Biak Massacre in 1998, where tensions between the West Papuan people and the Indonesian military came to a boil. The total number of state forces deployed in the region remains classified. However, Papua and West Papua provinces are known to have the country’s most significant presence of Indonesian troops.

Protestors holding flag and raising their fists . Credit: Ulet Ifansasti/Getty Images

Conclusion

The historical injustices embedded in West Papua’s past are intricate and interconnected, requiring a nuanced approach to resolution. A comprehensive strategy should acknowledge the complexities of colonial legacies, contested political processes, discrimination, human rights abuses, cultural suppression, and economic disparities. It is crucial to draw international attention, promote meaningful dialogue, and make concerted efforts to establish justice, equality, and self-determination in West Papua. This is necessary to rectify historical injustices and pave the way for a more inclusive and sustainable future in the region. The Free West Papua Campaign website is a great resource to learn about organizations actively working towards this goal, and you can even donate to support their cause.

Here are some websites offering more information about this blog post

Indigenous Peoples Major Group for Sustainable Development

Free West Papua Campaign

Rohingya Refugee Crisis Leads to Shifting Tide in Indonesia

by Delisha Valacheril

Figure 1 Displaced Rohingya at a refugee camp. Source: Yahoo Images

The Rohingya are survivors of atrocities committed by the government of Myanmar. Described as the most persecuted minority in the world by the United Nations, the Rohingya are the world’s largest stateless population. Under Myanmar’s Citizenship Law, the government has consistently denied citizenship to this group of people for decades. 135 distinct ethnic groups are recognized under the law, with Rohingya being one of the few exceptions. Without citizenship, they are deprived of basic rights such as access to health services, education, and employment. Forced to leave their homes and families, more than 730,000 fled to neighboring countries like Bangladesh or Indonesia. Approximately 600,000 still reside in Myanmar’s western Rakhine State. They are restricted to refugee camps and settlements where there is a severe lack of food, adequate healthcare, education, and livelihood opportunities. The long-lasting systemic abuses against the Rohingya at the hands of the Myanmar government are equivalent to crimes against humanity, deprivation of liberty, and even apartheid.

Who are the Rohingya?

The Rohingya are a Muslim ethnic group who have lived in the predominantly Buddhist region of the Rakhine State of Myanmar for generations. Since the government of Myanmar does not recognize them as an official ethnic group, during the conflict, authorities took over much of the former Rohingya land. Forced to flee their homeland, nearly a million Rohingya live in makeshift camps on the outskirts of civilizations. Despite being disenfranchised, refugees try to have a way of life, but the seasonal flooding and tropical storms endemic to safe haven regions like Bangladesh prevent them from doing so. Due to decades of state-sanctioned discrimination, repression, and violence, the Rohingya refugees cannot return to their homes either.

The remaining 600,000 Rohingya who have been arbitrarily detained in Myanmar endure even worse conditions with no agency or freedom. Of the 72,000 children who are confined to these detention sites, 40,000 were born into imprisonment, and it is all they have ever known. Access to indispensable necessities like clean water, enough food, and adequate housing is limited in this squalid, stateless purgatory. Military officials impose strict curfews, unnecessary checkpoints, and barbed wire fencing, significantly affecting the Rohingya population’s right to movement. This directly violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, respective of Article 13. By depriving this community of their civil liberties and development rights, such as freedom to movement, food, water, and housing, the government is hardening the barrier of segregation to marginalize them from society permanently.

Figure 2 Young girl holding a child in detention sites in Myanmar. Source: Yahoo Images

How did the crisis begin?

Presently, in Sittwe, a town that was once home to approximately 75,000 Rohingya residents before 2012—constituting nearly half of the town’s population—only 4,000 individuals remain. Anti-Muslim sentiments across Myanmar marked the onset of a period of heightened oppression of the Rohingya in both policy and actions. Article 3 of the 1982 Law, on the other hand, positions taing-yin-tha, national race, and identity as an ongoing basis for recognition of citizenship. This meant that national race trumps citizenship, so even though Rohingya were born and raised in Myanmar, they can be kicked out because they are not a part of the national race. This environment set the stage for more severe and organized military atrocities in 2016 and 2017. The largest exodus of refugees is marked by military attacks that occurred in August of 2017 that resulted in the massacre of thousands, villages burned to the ground, and the whole community displaced. The war crimes that occurred offer a clear warning of Myanmar’s military to carry out ethnic cleansing and the government to support the internment of the Rohingya people. The brutality that played out in the Rakhine State is on par with apartheid, persecution, and imprisonment.

Figure 3 Rohingya landing on the shores of Indonesia. Source: Yahoo Images

What is happening to Rohingya refugees in Indonesia right now?

Indonesia is turning away 150 Rohingya refugees from its shores because of local resentment about the arrival of boats carrying exhausted refugees. Due to the unending oppression in Myanmar and the growing risks of calamity in Bangladesh, refugees are now risking tumultuous sea voyages to seek refuge in neighboring countries like Indonesia. However, the growing influx of immigrants is a cause for concern for Indonesian residents. The Indonesian navy has intercepted a boat with Rohingya refugees as it neared the coast of Aceh. Aceh is the only state in the archipelago where 90 percent of the population follows Islamic law. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) reported that since November 11 Rohingya boats have landed, and the refugees have relocated to informal sites, mainly in Aceh and one in North Sumatra. The attack on refugees is not an isolated incident but rather the consequence of an organized online campaign of misinformation, deception, and hate speech directed towards Rohingya.

In the escalation of hatred against the Rohingya, hundreds of students stormed a temporary Rohingya shelter in Indonesia’s western Aceh province, demanding their deportation. The students shouted and physically abused the migrants before forcing them onto trucks and transporting them to the government office responsible for immigration. Demands for relocation stem from local anger over the already limited resources that are overstretched to accommodate new arrivals. Residents do not want the refugees in their communities and have gathered to protest boat landings. The greater international pressure to provide fair asylum to Rohingya refugees is causing tensions to rise in Southeast Asian governments. It is unfair to expect these countries to deprive resources of their citizens instead of addressing the real issue.

What Can We Do?

The responsibility to end the worst forms of violence and persecution falls on the government of Myanmar. For instance, by cutting off the Myanmar military’s government funding, the revenue from the abusive operations can be allocated to the Rohingya people so they can finally experience justice.

The governments of Indonesia, Malaysia, and Bangladesh should pressure the government of Myanmar to be responsible for the genocide and displacement of the Rohingya people. By exerting the existing international obligations that require governments to take a number of actions to prevent and punish genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, Myanmar will have to respond. It is a long road to repatriation, but placing pressure on governments and non-profit organizations ensures the onus falls on Myanmar to correct its wrongs.

The long-term root causes of the crisis must be addressed to quell the tide of hopelessness. However, until safe and dignified returns are guaranteed for Rohingya refugees, they will require emergency assistance in order to survive. Myanmar is strengthened as a state by its multi-ethnic, multi-religious makeup. With help from foreign governments and humanitarian aid, the Rohingya can work towards restoring their rights.

Brazil Decides in Landmark Court Case to Grant Land Rights to Indigenous

by Delisha Valacheril

Image 1. Indigenous Representatives Speaking with Local Leaders in Brazil. Source Flickr.

A jubilant celebration of color erupted as several indigenous leaders and activists gathered outside the courthouse adorned in tribal wear and brilliant headdresses to rejoice in the top court’s decision to rule in favor of their land rights. Dubbed the “trial of the century,” Brazil’s Supreme Court decided against a so-called cutoff date restricting Indigenous people’s claims to their traditional lands. Demarcation of ancestral lands is essential in preserving Indigenous human rights. By protecting these lands, indigenous communities can aid in conservation and preserve their cultural integrity. It is reported that 29% of the territory around indigenous lands in Brazil has been deforested, according to the Amazon Environmental Research Institute (Ipam). Now that the native people can access their roots, they can help preserve what is left. This decision also provides legal ramifications against land poaching or exploitation, which applies to several indigenous areas throughout the Amazon. Addressing historical injustices is a crucial step to ensuring that these communities can enjoy a more equitable and sustainable future.

Image 2. Tribal Chief at Land Protest. Source Flicker.

Context

On September 21^st, the Federal Supreme Court had to decide whether or not the native people’s right to their territories predated the Constitution of Brazil formulated in 1988. The Justices followed the precedent set up by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which states that the right continues as long as their “material, cultural, or spiritual connection” with the land persists. This case has been brewing in the nation for quite some time. The dispute stems from Santa Catarina’s legal battle against the Ibirama-La Klãnõ Indigenous Land. The Xokleng tribe sought to regain their ancestral land from the state of Santa Catarina. The state used the “Marco Temporal” legal argument, which prohibited Indigenous Peoples who were not living on the land when Brazil’s current constitution was enacted in 1988 to apply for land demarcation. This is gravely prejudicial, given a significant part of the indigenous population was expelled and displaced during Brazil’s two decades of military dictatorship. Numerous tribal communities were killed and displaced due to that repressive system, which included the invasion of land, forced labor, displacement, and other human rights violations.

With this in mind, hundreds of activists have flocked to the capital, demanding respect for the rights that were stolen from them. These activists advocate for land traditionally occupied by indigenous people to be reserved for their perpetual possession. They are the natural owners of the land, so it should belong to them. They also argue that the natives can conserve the land much better than the local government. Traditional habits and customs of the indigenous are the most significant deterrent to deforestation. However, there are some critical opponents to this viewpoint. Individuals involved in the agribusiness sector and those on the far right are stronger than ever in National Congress, upholding the time limit principle. This decision opposes their farming interests because they want that land to grow their business. Currently, Indigenous reservations cover 11.6% of Brazil’s territory, notably in the Amazon. This area is rich in biodiversity, making it ideal for agricultural commodities. However, ruling against business interests could exacerbate violence against Indigenous peoples and escalate conflicts in the rainforest.

Image 3. Indigenous People Protesting Brazil Government. Source Flickr.

Historical Significance

The Xokleng, the tribe responsible for taking this case to the highest court in the country, was nearly wiped out by Italian settlers who were granted “uninhabited” land in the State of Santa Catarina by the Brazilian government during the 20th century. They were pursued by “bugreiros,” or hired hunters, who were sent into the forest to hunt down and exterminate the Amazon’s native inhabitants. After that mass extermination, how can the government uphold such a discriminatory precedent? The Xokleng are the rightful owners of the land because the Brazilian government forcibly removed them. Marco Temporal is a complete infringement on human rights. The tribe was almost decimated in the 1900s, and the law stated indigenous people living on the land past 1988 had a right to the land. Examining this from a historical viewpoint further illuminates the egregiousness of the situation. The Supreme Court of Brazil found this law inherently unfair because the same government that invaded indigenous lands could not decide on the legality of their land rights.

Conclusion

While this is a historic milestone for indigenous communities, the work is not over. Though land demarcation is critical in the pursuit to secure the rights of Indigenous Peoples, it does not, by itself, sufficiently protect ancestral land. We must hold the government accountable to implement an active, systemic policy that enshrines Indigenous rights from violence, especially violence committed by anyone who illegally trespasses into their territory. Additionally, they must have unhindered access to their territories. From a human rights standpoint, defending indigenous rights is critical because it resolves past wrongs, assures access to necessities, fights discrimination, and upholds justice, equality, and respect for the dignity of all people and communities.

Southern Prisons in the U.S.

by Abigail Shumate

Prisons, Historically

A quick Google search of “Alabama prison news now” will lead you to hundreds of articles detailing brutal and entirely unnecessary deaths of Alabama inmates. This is not exclusive to Alabama, it’s a trend you can find amongst most other southern states, including Georgia, North Carolina, and Louisiana. The UAB Institute for Human Rights already has several fantastic blog posts focusing on the injustices in Alabama prisons. Where this post differentiates from the others is in its focus on southern prisons as a whole, as well as worker’s rights within those prisons.

If you look at our country’s constitution, the 13^th amendment states “neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duty convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” While this amendment, along with the 14^th and 15^th, expanded the rights of Black Americans, the italicized portion is a perfect display of how the rights of this population are frequently given with conditions. It’s easy to jump to the conclusion that this does not just affect Black Americans; however, it’s vital to note that this group is disproportionately incarcerated. For example, in the southern United States, Black Americans are five times more likely to be incarcerated in state prisons than their white counterparts. In states such as Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, Florida, Louisiana, Texas, and North and South Carolina, African Americans make up 38% of the population, but 67% of the incarcerated population.

Photo of a beige building with high walls, at the top of the walls are fences with barbed wire. Source: Flickr

Within the Walls

Southern prisons and jails are notorious for being some of the worst in the country, with excessive violence and incredibly poor conditions. Southern prisons are grossly understaffed, and this leads to the intense mistreatment of incarcerated individuals. One example of this is this uncurbed time in solitary confinement. In Alabama, individuals can be placed in solitary confinement for “weeks or months at a time”, and because of understaffing they are denied their basic rights, such as showering. The overuse of solitary confinement is not uncommon in southern jails and prisons, and Black people deal with the brunt of this. Incarcerated Black individuals are eight times as likely to be put in solitary confinement and ten times more likely to be held in solitary confinement for excessive periods of time. Solitary confinement has intense physical and mental implications, and it can cause lasting damage to individuals kept alone for extended periods of time. The suicide rate for individuals kept in solitary confinement is needlessly high; in Georgia, for example, there were nine deaths by suicide from just February to April 2022. Similar to the usage of solitary confinement, in South Carolina there have been multiple extended lockdown periods, both before and during the pandemic. These extended lockdowns are the result of staffing shortages, which is a common theme in many southern prisons. One individual in a North Carolina Prison was forced to spend nine years in solitary confinement, and after their release they stated, “I feel like I am losing touch with reality…I feel helpless and abandoned, which makes me angry.”

Photo of a prison from within a cell. The walls, bars, and floors are various shades of beige. Source: Flickr

While the prison system exposes people to uncountable horrors, one that has intense financial consequences is the extensive use of unpaid or underpaid labor. Worker’s rights laws in the United States don’t apply to those who are incarcerated—incarcerated workers have no right to form unions either, so they are unable to fight for improved conditions or pay. For most jobs, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, and more pay nothing for the labor, and if they do pay, it’s only cents per hour. Legally, incarcerated individuals can earn five cents a day. Turning the focus back to Black Americans, many are forced into work that can easily trigger generational trauma—required to work in fields, picking fruit and cotton (further reading on this can be found in the works of Dr. Joy DeGruy). The low wages combined with the undesirable jobs could incentive states to keep people imprisoned and working, so that they are better able to profit from of the tangible goods that incarcerated individuals are producing. Portions of payment are fed back into the state, or into the companies that are leasing the incarcerated.

Photo of a green field with rows of crops. There are large, brown trees in the background. Source: Flickr

Permanent Impacts

The financial detriment that is forced on the imprisoned is not limited to their time in jail. Ex-convicts are treated as second-class citizens, and they often have an incredibly hard time getting jobs after their time in the prison system. At least 27% of formerly incarcerated people are unemployed—which is all the more shocking when you learn this rate is higher than the unemployment rate during the Great Depression. As a reminder, the unemployment rate only includes people who are actively looking for work, so this reinforces how challenging it is for previously incarcerated individuals to support themselves after returning to the general public. This difficulty perpetuates a cycle that can be hard to break—without employment, individuals must deal with less stability and surety, and this can result in them returning to prison or jail.

Impoverished individuals are more likely to commit crimes, and, unfortunately, the jobs that are open for previously incarcerated individuals often leave them below the poverty line. This claim is not unaffected by race, as white men are the most likely to be employed full-time after imprisonment, and Black women are least likely to be employed full-time. This relates back up to previous discussion in the post, and incarceration heavily impacts minority races, and it affects them much more after their time in prison.

Conclusion

The Southern incarceration system presents challenges that can seem insurmountable; however, with appropriate attention and legislative power, positive change can be made for both current inmates and those who were previously incarcerated. One effective measure that can be taken is to Ban the Box. The Ban the Box Campaign advocates for the removal of the question “Have you ever been convicted?” from job applications, housing applications, and more. This limits employers’ and loan distributors’ ability to discriminate against individuals when making hiring or other decisions.

There are also major structural changes that need to be made, including increasing pay for prison labor, improving living conditions within prisons, and limiting the time given in solitary confinement. It is important to recognize that incarcerated individuals are people too, and that they deserve the same rights awarded to everyone in the Constitution.