social justice – UAB Institute for Human Rights Blog

Who Gets to Decide? Prescription Laws, Public Health, and the Ethics of Medical Gatekeeping

In a world where people are expected to take responsibility for their health, the systems meant to support them too often stand in the way. Around the globe, and especially in the United States, access to essential medications is tightly controlled by prescription laws. These laws are often justified on the grounds of safety, but they also raise a pressing human rights concern: What happens when gatekeeping itself becomes a barrier to health, autonomy, and dignity?

This blog argues that prescription drug laws, as they currently function, too often violate the core principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). These include the right to a standard of living adequate for health and well-being (Article 25), the right to autonomy and freedom from arbitrary interference (Article 3 and 12), and the right to equal access to public services and protection (Article 21). By rethinking how access to medications is regulated, we can move toward a more equitable and compassionate model of care.

Prescription Control as a Barrier to Rights

At their best, prescription requirements aim to protect people from misuse, medical harm, and exploitation. But in practice, these laws create systemic barriers, particularly for marginalized communities, by requiring time, money, and proximity to healthcare providers simply to access medications that are safe, well understood, and often urgently needed.

This structure assumes that people cannot be trusted to manage their own care without professional oversight. But that assumption is increasingly at odds with both ethics and evidence. Many people understand the medications they rely on. They know the risks. Studies show that patients with chronic conditions often develop a high level of medication literacy and risk awareness through long-term use and counseling. And yet, they are asked to justify their needs to clinicians who may not share their urgency, or even their values. Prescription laws, in these cases, do more than inconvenience. They function as a form of medical disenfranchisement, denying individuals the right to act in their own best interest simply because they are not deemed qualified to make decisions for themselves.

Pretty sparkly pills — Image 1: An assortment of pills. Source: Yahoo Images

In the United States, prescription requirements are enforced through a legal and regulatory structure that delegates authority over medication access to licensed healthcare providers. The system is primarily governed by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) of 1938, which granted the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the authority to require certain drugs to be dispensed only by prescription. In 1951, the Durham-Humphrey Amendment formally distinguished between “prescription” (legend) drugs and over-the-counter (OTC) drugs, mandating that certain medications could only be obtained with the written authorization of a licensed practitioner.

Today, the FDA, along with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and state medical boards, determines which medications require prescriptions. These typically include:

Drugs with a high potential for abuse or dependence, such as opioids
Medications with significant side effects or narrow therapeutic windows, like warfarin or lithium
- A narrow therapeutic window (or therapeutic index) means there is a small range between a drug’s effective dose and its toxic dose, making precise dosing essential to avoid under-treatment or dangerous side effects
Substances that require monitoring or diagnostic oversight, such as antidepressants, antibiotics, and hormonal therapies

For a medication to transition from prescription-only to OTC, the manufacturer must submit a New Drug Application (NDA) with evidence that average consumers can safely use the drug without a clinician’s supervision. This review process is lengthy, costly, and highly restrictive. Even well-established medications often remain prescription-only due to regulatory or political reasons, rather than clinical necessity. For example, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has advocated since 2012 for over-the-counter access to hormonal contraception due to its safety profile, yet access remains restricted in many states due to political and regulatory inertia.

While intended as safeguards, these laws impose significant barriers, especially for people in rural areas, uninsured individuals, undocumented immigrants, and those with chronic conditions who need long-term medication access.

Access Denied: Real-World Consequences

To illustrate how this plays out, consider two examples: insulin and oral contraceptives.

Insulin, a century-old medication essential for people with diabetes, remains locked behind prescription requirements in the United States. The result is tragic: according to the American Diabetes Association, 1 in 4 Americans with diabetes has rationed insulin due to cost or access barriers. Delayed prescriptions, expired scripts, and unnecessary office visits put lives at risk—not because insulin is inherently dangerous, but because the system around it is.

Image 2: Insulin and injection supplies. Source: Yahoo Images

Now consider oral contraceptives. Major medical bodies like the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the World Health Organization have long advocated for over-the-counter access to birth control, citing overwhelming evidence of safety and efficacy. Yet millions must still navigate clinical appointments, insurance requirements, or geographic isolation just to avoid an unintended pregnancy.

In both cases, prescription requirements do not enhance public safety—they undermine the right to health and self-determination. They increase cost, delay care, and disproportionately burden people with the fewest resources. These are not minor inefficiencies. They are rights violations with life-altering consequences.

Image 3: Monthly birth control pills. Source: Yahoo Images

The UDHR states in Article 25 that everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for health and well-being, including medical care and necessary social services. But health is not merely about access to care; it also includes freedom and agency.

As the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights emphasizes, the right to health includes:

Availability: functioning healthcare services and medications
Accessibility: free from discrimination and within financial/physical reach
Acceptability: respectful of autonomy, culture, and identity
Quality: scientifically appropriate and safe

Prescription laws often fail all four. When a person cannot afford or reach a provider to refill their birth control, their care is not accessible. When a person is denied insulin because their script has expired, their treatment is not available. When gatekeeping assumes incompetence instead of encouraging informed decision-making, care becomes unacceptable in a rights-based framework.

Rethinking Risk, Rethinking Responsibility

None of this means all drugs should be available without limits. Medications with high risks of misuse, like opioids or antibiotics, require thoughtful regulation. However, the current system treats risk as a universal, rather than a spectrum. It places the burden of proof on patients rather than regulators and too often assumes incompetence by default.

We trust people to make countless risky decisions every day: driving, drinking, even refusing life-saving treatment. So why does buying an oral contraceptive or refilling a long-used insulin prescription require a professional sign-off?

A better model by human rights standards would be tiered and rights-conscious:

Expand over-the-counter and pharmacist-prescribed access for lower-risk, widely used medications
Increase public health education and harm reduction tools
Preserve professional guidance as an option, not an obstacle

This model would treat people not just as patients, but as rights-bearing agents.

Conclusion: The Right to Decide

Prescription drug laws were built with good intentions. However, when these laws block access, restrict autonomy, and exacerbate inequality, the human rights point of view holds that they must be reevaluated. Health is not just about surviving illness; it is also about having the freedom and support to shape one’s life. Access to medication is not simply a medical issue. It is a matter of freedom, equality, and dignity. The right to health also includes the right to decide. We don’t need to eliminate medical expertise, but, from a human rights perspective, we do need to stop making it the price of entry to healthcare.

Alterations to the State Department’s Human Rights Reports Threatens Global Accountability

In a move that has alarmed human rights advocates and foreign policy experts alike, the U.S. State Department is undergoing a dramatic reorganization—one that includes stripping key content from its annual human rights reports. As NPR reported on April 18, 2025, internal memos instructed staff to remove references to over 20 categories of human rights violations, including prison conditions, restrictions on freedom of assembly, political corruption, and violence against marginalized groups.

These reports have long served as a global standard, used by scholars, advocates, journalists, and international institutions to assess rights conditions worldwide. Their sudden dilution is not just bureaucratic streamlining; it’s a quiet dismantling of accountability.

Image 1: A shocked reporter holding a camera. Source: Yahoo Images.

What’s Changing—and Why It Matters

Since 1977, the U.S. Department of State has released detailed annual country reports on human rights practices. Though sometimes criticized for political inconsistency, these reports have been broadly recognized as crucial documentation of abuses across the globe—from extrajudicial killings in authoritarian states to censorship, labor exploitation, and systemic discrimination.

But under the new directive, entire categories of analysis are being erased. Sources within the department confirmed that topics such as discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, abuse of asylum seekers, and politically motivated arrests will no longer be discussed. These are not fringe issues—they reflect core violations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), including:

Article 5: Protection from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
Article 9: Freedom from arbitrary arrest
Article 19: Freedom of expression
Article 21: Equal access to public service and fair governance
Article 2: Freedom from discrimination on any basis

When the U.S. selectively omits these rights from its assessments of other nations, it undermines the very foundation of universal human rights—that they are indivisible, interdependent, and apply to all people, everywhere.

The Chilling Effect of Omission

The most dangerous censorship is often the quietest. When a government stops discussing certain abuses, the signal to others, particularly authoritarian regimes, is clear: these violations no longer matter enough to be named.

In countries where local journalists, dissidents, or NGOs depend on international validation to draw attention to abuses, U.S. human rights reports can serve as a shield. Without public acknowledgment from a prominent diplomatic actor, local violations are easier to obscure, deny, or normalize. Human Rights Watch, for example, has long cited State Department reports as part of its advocacy efforts, particularly in places where press freedom is under threat.

This shift will also hinder asylum claims, many of which rely on credible evidence of persecution or unsafe conditions. When categories like “political persecution” or “anti-LGBTQ+ violence” are scrubbed from official reports, it becomes harder for individuals to prove their eligibility for protection under international refugee law.

Even beyond humanitarian concerns, this policy shift has strategic costs. The U.S. has historically positioned itself, however imperfectly, as a moral voice in international affairs. This voice is now compromised. Diplomats and foreign service officers will be asked to promote democratic values abroad without the backing of their own agency’s complete assessment of those values.

Former ambassador Tom Malinowski noted that this move “betrays the people in repressive countries who depend on the U.S. to tell the truth about what they’re facing”. It also gives foreign governments an easy out: why heed U.S. criticism when that criticism is suddenly partial and politically selective?

A Broader Retrenchment of Rights Infrastructure

These changes aren’t occurring in isolation. They’re part of a broader rollback. As Reuters and AP have reported, the State Department’s ongoing reorganization includes eliminating 132 offices and slashing 15% of domestic staff, with many of the cuts affecting divisions focused on human rights, democracy, and civil security.

The office of the Undersecretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights has been dissolved, with responsibilities now folded under a new, less focused Coordinator of Foreign and Humanitarian Affairs. Programs on global women’s rights, diversity and inclusion, and atrocity prevention have been defunded or absorbed into more general roles.

Image 3: People protesting for their democratic freedom. Source: Yahoo Images.

Taken together, this appears to be a conscious effort to deemphasize rights-based diplomacy at a time when such diplomacy is critical for millions of people around the world. From a human rights perspective, this shift represents a failure of positive obligation. Governments that claim leadership in human rights are not merely expected to avoid violations—they are also responsible for upholding, promoting, and defending these rights domestically and internationally.

The United States’ retreat from honest human rights reporting signals that some lives and liberties are no longer worth documenting, let alone defending. This undermines Article 1 of the UDHR itself: that all people are “endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”

Instead, the new approach views human rights as selective and strategic tools, rather than universal moral commitments. That’s not just an administrative shift. It’s an ideological one.

Woman with tape over her mouth — Image 4: Woman silenced with tape over her mouth. Source: Yahoo Images.

Conclusion: What Happens When the Witnesses Go Silent?

Human rights reporting isn’t just about keeping records. It’s about bearing witness, recognizing suffering, and giving people living under oppression the affirmation that they are seen. When a government as influential as the United States chooses to omit entire categories of injustice from its global reports, it effectively tells victims: “Your pain doesn’t count.”

In the long arc of justice, documentation is everything. We cannot fight abuses we refuse to name. And we cannot claim to protect rights if we edit them for convenience. If we want to live in a world where power is held accountable, the act of recording the truth must remain sacred. Otherwise, silence becomes complicity—and complicity, policy.

Navigating the Impact of NIH Cancer Research Funding Cuts

In early 2025, the U.S. biomedical research community faced significant changes due to substantial reductions in funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), particularly affecting cancer research. These developments have sparked widespread discussion among scientists, healthcare professionals, policymakers, and the public. This blog will aim to provide a balanced examination of the recent NIH funding cuts, their implications for cancer research, and the broader context surrounding these decisions.

Understanding the NIH Funding Reductions

The NIH, a cornerstone of U.S. medical research, has traditionally supported a vast array of studies, including those focused on cancer. In 2025, the administration implemented significant budgetary changes, notably reducing indirect cost reimbursements for research institutions from an average of 60% to a capped rate of 15%. Indirect costs cover essential expenses such as facility maintenance, utilities, and administrative support, which are crucial for the everyday operations of research labs.

These adjustments were part of a broader initiative led by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), headed by Elon Musk, aiming to streamline federal spending. The administration projected that these cuts would save approximately $4 billion annually. While fiscal responsibility is important, the abrupt nature of these changes has raised questions about the potential risks to the nation’s biomedical infrastructure.

Implications for Cancer Research

Cancer research is an area where sustained investment has historically led to life-saving innovations. Advances in immunotherapy, targeted drug therapies, and precision medicine have dramatically improved survival rates for several types of cancer. However, these breakthroughs result from years of incremental research, often supported by NIH grants.

The reductions in NIH support have led to concerns about the future of ongoing studies, the initiation of new projects, and the overall momentum in the fight against cancer. Institutions like the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) have expressed apprehension that these funding cuts could delay the development of new therapies and hinder access to clinical trials, especially in underserved communities. Moreover, the potential slowdown in research progress raises concerns about the long-term impact on patient outcomes and the country’s ability to maintain its leadership in biomedical innovation.

Additionally, early-phase research, which often carries the highest risk but also the most potential for groundbreaking discoveries, is especially vulnerable to funding cuts. Many of these projects rely on public funding because they cannot have private investment yet. Without sufficient support, promising leads may never get the chance to be explored.

Economic and Workforce Considerations

Beyond the scientific implications, the funding reductions have economic ramifications. Research institutions across the country rely on NIH grants not only for scientific purposes but also as a large source of employment. The cuts have led to hiring freezes, layoffs, and a general sense of uncertainty within the research community.

Early-career scientists, in particular, face challenges in securing positions and funding, potentially leading to a decline in talent ranging from academics to industry or even other sectors. This shift could have long-term effects on the innovation pipeline and the diversity of research perspectives. The potential loss of highly trained researchers might also compromise the quality of mentorship available to future generations of scientists.

Legal and Political Responses

The funding changes have prompted legal actions and political debates. A coalition of 22 states filed a lawsuit against the federal government, arguing that the abrupt changes to NIH funding policies could jeopardize critical research and violate administrative procedures.

In Congress, reactions have been mixed. Some lawmakers have voiced strong opposition to the cuts, emphasizing the importance of sustained investment in medical research. Others have supported the administration’s efforts to reduce federal spending, highlighting the need for fiscal responsibility. The political discourse that’s happening reflects a broader national conversation about the balance between economic efficiency and public investment in science.

People researching in a lab — Image 2: Researchers working in a science lab. Source: Yahoo! Images

International Context and Competitiveness

Another dimension of the funding debate involves the global landscape of cancer research. The United States has long been a leader in biomedical innovation, attracting top talent from around the world. However, as other countries increase their investments in science and technology, funding instability in the U.S. could lead to a shift in the global research balance.

Nations like China, Germany, and South Korea have been expanding their research funding, particularly in emerging areas like gene editing and personalized medicine. Reduced NIH funding could make the U.S. less competitive in these fields, potentially leading to fewer international collaborations and a decline in scientific influence.

Historical Precedents and Lessons

This is not the first time NIH funding has faced uncertainty. Historical data shows that flat or declining NIH budgets have correlated with decreased research productivity and fewer grant applications being funded. During the budget sequestration of 2013, many research projects were delayed or canceled, and similar consequences are anticipated in the wake of the 2025 cuts.

However, the scientific community has also shown resilience. Philanthropic organizations, private foundations, and public-private partnerships have started stepping in to fill funding gaps. For example, the Cancer Moonshot initiative, launched in 2016, allowed both government and private resources to accelerate research. Examples like this may become increasingly important in the future.

Patient Perspectives and Public Engagement

From the perspective of patients and advocacy groups, the funding cuts represent not just a policy shift but a personal concern. Many patients rely on cutting-edge treatments developed through NIH-supported research. Delays in trials or the discontinuation of research programs could directly impact access to new therapies.

Public engagement has become a critical component of the response to the cuts. Grassroots campaigns, petitions, and awareness events have emerged to advocate for restored funding. Organizations like the American Cancer Society and Stand Up To Cancer have mobilized supporters to contact legislators and raise public awareness about the stakes involved.

Looking Ahead: Balancing Efficiency and Innovation

The recent NIH funding cuts show the complex interplay between government policy and scientific advancement. While efforts to streamline government spending are a legitimate aspect of public administration, it’s essential to consider the possible long-term consequences of these actions on critical areas like cancer research.

As the nation navigates these changes, continuing conversations among stakeholders, including researchers, policymakers, patients, and the public, is necessary to ensure that the U.S. continues encouraging innovation while maintaining fiscal prudence. Collaborative funding models, greater transparency in policy decisions, and increased support for early-career researchers should ideally all play a role in adapting to the new funding landscape.

Ultimately, the goal should be to ensure that scientific progress continues and that the U.S. remains a major player in cancer research and healthcare innovation.

Human Rights Concerns at Tesla’s Texas Gigafactory

Overview

The Austin, Texas-based Tesla Gigafactory is regarded as a pillar of innovation, pushing the boundaries in sustainable production and economic expansion. However, serious human rights issues have emerged behind the news of economic revival and technical advancement. These problems, which range from claims of discrimination and labor exploitation to infractions of workplace safety, expose a concerning aspect of Tesla’s operations. As a leader in renewable energy and technology, Tesla needs to maintain ethical business standards in its establishments, particularly as public scrutiny increases. 

Workplace Safety Concerns 

Workplace safety is one of the Gigafactory’s most urgent human rights issues. After discovering that four employees at the Austin site had been exposed to dangerous chemicals without the appropriate training or safety precautions, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) penalized Tesla close to $7,000 in November 2024. Hexavalent chromium, an extremely hazardous material that can cause cancer, damage to the kidneys, and serious respiratory problems, was being handled by the workers. OSHA claims that workers in the Cybertruck body area were exposed to significant health hazards because they lacked the necessary training to handle hazardous materials. 

Apart from this offense, Tesla is also being investigated for the August 2024 worker death that was recorded at the facility. Even though the incident’s specifics are unknown until OSHA’s investigation is finished, it raises more concerns about the factory’s safety procedures and supervision. This is not an isolated problem for Tesla; the firm has been repeatedly criticized for its record on workplace safety in several locations, which suggests a systemic issue. 

Employee reports present a worrisome image. Workers have complained that safety instruction is either hurried or superficial, with little focus on long-term precautions. Some believe that speed and output are given precedence over worker safety due to Tesla’s focus on increasing production for vehicles such as the Cybertruck. This conflict between safety and efficiency draws attention to a crucial area where Tesla’s company operations deviate from ethical standards. 

Wage Theft and Exploitation 

Widespread criticism has also been directed at labor violations that occurred during the Texas Gigafactory development. A Texas-based nonprofit group called the Workers Defense Project complained to the U.S. Department of Labor in November 2022 on behalf of construction workers employed at the facility. According to the allegations, employees were sometimes not paid at all and were not paid for overtime. Contractors are also accused of giving employees phony safety training certifications, which essentially left them unprepared for the dangers they encountered on the job site. 

These labor violations reflect a larger problem with supply chain management at Tesla. Tesla indirectly supports exploitative activities by using subcontractors who compromise workers’ protections. Under the possibility of losing their jobs, construction workers, many of whom are immigrants, said they felt pressured into dangerous working conditions. In addition to breaking labor regulations, such actions also go against fundamental human rights values, which place an emphasis on treating employees fairly and with dignity. 

The problem is made worse by the contractors’ lack of responsibility. Employees who tried to report dangerous working conditions or wage fraud frequently faced retaliation or disregard. This cycle of exploitation shows how urgently Tesla must strengthen its oversight of its contractors to guarantee compliance with ethical standards and labor laws. 

Environmental Hazards and Worker Safety 

Although the Austin Gigafactory’s environmental practices have come under fire, Tesla’s dedication to sustainability is a fundamental component of its brand identity. There were rumors in November 2024 that a broken furnace door had exposed the facility’s employees to temperatures as high as 100 degrees Fahrenheit. According to reports, this problem lasted for months as Model Y manufacturing ramped up, seriously affecting worker comfort and safety. 

Additionally, Tesla was accused by a whistleblower of manipulating furnace operations to pass emissions tests. This manipulation prompted wider environmental concerns in addition to putting workers at risk of exposure to dangerous pollutants. Tesla’s public pledge to sustainability and environmental responsibility is compromised when it uses unethical means to satisfy regulatory requirements. 

These environmental risks exacerbate an already difficult and, at times, dangerous work environment for employees. Reports of excessive temperatures, chemical fume exposure, and insufficient ventilation reveal a pattern of carelessness that endangers workers. In addition to harming employees, these circumstances damage Tesla’s standing as a leader in environmentally friendly technology. 

Image 2: Tesla car production factory. Source: Yahoo! Images

Allegations of (Potential) Racial Discrimination 

Claims of racial discrimination have also sparked criticism of Tesla’s workplace culture. Although its facility in Fremont, California, has received a lot of attention, its challenges are representative of larger issues that could affect its operations in Texas. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued Tesla in September 2023, claiming that Black workers at the Fremont facility experienced widespread racial harassment. The lawsuit described instances of graffiti, racial epithets, and a toxic workplace where complaints were frequently disregarded. Workers who reported such instances were subject to retribution, which included negative employment changes and terminations. 

Even though these claims are specific to Tesla’s California plant, they raise important concerns about the company’s work environment and whether the Texas Gigafactory is engaging in similar activities. According to reports from former workers, Tesla’s leadership has had difficulty addressing concerns of equity and inclusivity within the company. Such claims reveal a stark discrepancy between a company’s internal procedures and public image, which is concerning for a forward-thinking business. 

Broader Implications for Human Rights 

The human rights violations at Tesla’s Gigafactory in Texas are not isolated events; rather, they are a part of a wider trend of unethical behavior by the business. Communities like Austin have benefited economically from Tesla’s quick growth and innovation-focused approach, but worker safety, ethical labor standards, and environmental responsibility shouldn’t be sacrificed for these advantages. 

Furthermore, the significance of Tesla’s actions is increased by its influence. Being one of the most well-known businesses in the world, Tesla sets the standard for how big businesses can balance innovation and morality. Tesla runs the danger of damaging its reputation and alienating both staff and customers if it doesn’t sufficiently address these human rights issues. 

Steps Toward Ethical Practices 

Tesla must take swift action to change the way it operates and address these concerns. First and foremost, the business needs to make a stronger commitment to workplace safety by putting in place comprehensive training programs and making sure that all workers, whether they are contracted or directly employed, have enough protection. Regular audits are part of this to find and fix safety hazards before they can cause harm. 

Labor practices also need to see substantial reform. Tesla needs to hold contractors accountable for wage theft and other violations by implementing stricter oversight mechanisms. Ensuring that workers are paid fairly and on time is not just a legal obligation, but a moral imperative. 

Environmental responsibility must be prioritized as well. Tesla’s innovative reputation relies on its commitment to sustainability, and this should extend to its factory operations. Adhering to environmental regulations and maintaining transparency in emissions testing are important steps toward rebuilding trust. 

Finally, fostering an inclusive workplace culture is essential for addressing allegations of discrimination. Tesla would benefit from establishing clear channels for employees to report harassment and discrimination without fear of retaliation. Regular training on diversity and inclusion can also help create a more equitable environment for all workers. 

Conclusion 

These major concerns at Tesla’s Texas Gigafactory are a sobering reminder of the ethical challenges accompanying rapid industrial growth. From workplace safety violations to wage theft and allegations of discrimination, these issues stress the gaps in Tesla’s operations that demand immediate attention. Given its influence, Tesla has a unique opportunity to set an example for ethical corporate practices. 

By addressing these concerns head-on, Tesla can ensure that its growth benefits its bottom line and the workers and communities contributing to its success. Ultimately, the true measure of Tesla’s impact will be its technological achievements and its commitment to upholding the fundamental rights and dignity of its workforce. 

Thailand’s Uyghur Crisis: A Decade of Detention and Desperation

Forty-eight Uyghur men have been held in detention facilities throughout Thailand for more than ten years. Trapped in a diplomatic limbo that perfectly captures the clash of international politics, human rights violations, and the suffering of an oppressed minority. These men, who are members of a Muslim ethnic group from China’s Xinjiang province that speaks Turkic, left their country in search of safety from systemic persecution. But rather than escaping to safety, they now risk being forcibly deported back to a government notorious for its cruel treatment of Uyghurs.

Image 1: 150 Uyghurs and supporters protested in Berlin after July 2009 Ürümqi riots. Source: Claudia Himmelreich, Creative Commons

Who Are the Uyghurs?

The northwest Chinese province of Xinjiang is home to the Uyghurs, who are an ethnic minority whose population is predominately Muslim. International human rights organizations have repeatedly reported serious violations in Xinjiang, such as forced labor, mass detentions, cultural erasure, and even accusations of genocide. The so-called “re-education camps” in China have imprisoned more than a million Uyghurs and subjected them to psychological abuse, forced sterilization, and indoctrination.

Many Uyghurs have left China in search of safety, often going across Southeast Asia in dangerous conditions. Thailand’s close proximity has made it a popular transit country. However, many Uyghurs have been held in overcrowded facilities indefinitely instead of being granted refuge.

Thailand’s Role: A Decade of Detention

Nearly 350 Uyghurs, including women and children, were detained by Thai police in 2014 under the pretense of being “illegal immigrants.” Some, most notably the forty-eight men, were left behind in Thailand. Others were later sent to Turkey, a country that shares cultural and theological similarities with the Uyghurs. The individuals detained in Thailand have suffered horrendous conditions in prison over the years, with no access to healthcare, sunlight, or legal protection.

When Thai authorities forced the captives to sign “voluntary return” forms in January 2025, their situation worsened. In a desperate protest against their protracted incarceration and impending deportation, the Uyghurs refused to comply and on January 10 began a hunger strike.

Fears of Refoulement

Human rights organizations are incensed by the idea of sending these men to China. The cornerstone of international refugee law, the principle of non-refoulement, would be broken by such acts, according to Human Rights Watch and other groups. Countries are not allowed to send people back to places where they risk threats of torture, cruel treatment, or persecution under the principle of non-refoulement.

There is little uncertainty on the fate of deported Uyghurs given China’s history in Xinjiang. Prior examples have shown that repatriated individuals are subject to substantial prison sentences, forced confessions, and immediate detention. “Deporting these men to China would be a death sentence. Thailand must resist political pressure and prioritize human rights.” said Elaine Pearson, Asia Director for Human Rights Watch, urging Thailand to honor its international obligations.

Thailand’s Political Calculations

A larger battle to achieve a balance between national policies, international commitments, and geopolitical influences is seen in Thailand’s treatment of the Uyghur captives. Thailand has historically refrained from ratifying the 1951 Refugee Convention due to worries about illegal immigration and sovereignty, and the nation’s dependence on Chinese commerce and investment makes it more difficult for it to stand firmly against Beijing.

Despite widespread outrage, Thailand deported 109 Uyghurs to China in 2015. Chinese state media aired videos of deportees arriving in shackles and clearly distressed. The incident showed the impact of China’s global reach while also drawing harsh criticism from the UN and other international organizations.

Image 2: Child’s play – Uyghur children in old town Kashgar, China. Source: Sherpas 428, Creative Commons

Hunger Strike

The severe physical and psychological effects of indefinite incarceration are brought to light by the ongoing hunger strike. Hunger strikes, which represent the captives’ desperation, have long been used as a nonviolent protest tactic. Prolonged hunger strikes can cause organ failure, permanent health problems, and even death, according to medical professionals. However, for many Uyghurs, the risks of being detained or deported forcibly are greater than the risks of protesting.

The detainees’ relatives have pleaded with Thai authorities to step in. In an impassioned appeal, a relative of one detained stated, “They are not criminals; they are victims… Sending them back to China is the same as signing their death warrants.”

International Responses

The plight of Thailand’s Uyghur prisoners has drawn attention from throughout the world. Foreign governments and advocacy organizations have called on Thailand to free the inmates and give them safe transportation to third countries that are prepared to take them in. Turkey is still a possible destination because of its sizable Uyghur diaspora. These attempts are complicated, however, given political tensions between Beijing and Ankara.

International human rights standards are being broken by Thailand’s ongoing detention of the Uyghurs. Even though Thailand is not a member to the Refugee Convention, the UNHCR has reminded it of its duties under customary international law to prevent refoulement.

Broader Implications

Thailand’s Uyghur crisis is not an isolated event; rather, it is a part of a wider trend of Southeast Asian nations facing refugee challenges. Regarding their handling of Uyghur asylum seekers, Malaysia and Indonesia have also come under fire, frequently pointing to Chinese diplomatic pressure and domestic security concerns.

Furthermore, Thailand’s actions established a concerning precedent. Global human rights frameworks are weakened if strong countries like China can apply enough pressure to compel weaker states to violate international rules. It also calls into question how international organizations hold nations responsible.

A Path Forward

The ongoing crisis calls for immediate action to protect the rights and lives of the detained Uyghurs. Here are some thoughts on how they should proceed:

Release and Resettlement: Thailand should release the detainees and work with international organizations to facilitate their resettlement in third countries willing to accept them, such as Turkey or Canada.

Strengthened Legal Protections: Thailand should consider ratifying the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, thereby aligning its policies with international human rights standards.

Increased International Pressure: The global community, particularly Western nations, should intensify diplomatic efforts to prevent deportations and ensure the detainees’ safety.

Monitoring and Transparency: Independent observers should be granted access to monitor the conditions of Uyghur detainees in Thailand to ensure compliance with human rights norms.

Addressing Root Causes: The international community needs to hold China accountable for its actions in Xinjiang, addressing the root causes that force Uyghurs to flee their homeland.

Looking Ahead

The situation of the forty-eight Uyghur men who are being held captive in Thailand serves as an alarming example of the human cost of international indifference and geopolitical scheming. Unless Thailand and the international world step in, these people, who escaped unspeakable oppression, now face a bleak future. Respecting the values of refugee protection and human rights is not only a moral obligation but also a test of our shared humanity.

There is, nevertheless, hope for a solution that puts human rights and international collaboration first, even though the situation is still grave. Thailand can establish a standard for treating refugees humanely and solidify its standing as a responsible global actor if it takes the appropriate actions. The future of the Uyghur captives is in jeopardy, but a fair resolution is hopefully achievable with enough advocacy.

The Abuse of Facial Recognition Technology in the Hong Kong Protests

Overview

Facial recognition technology has become a powerful tool in the last ten years, with uses ranging from improved security to personalized customer experiences. However, concerns about its potential for abuse have been voiced worldwide. This has not been more apparent than during Hong Kong’s pro-democracy demonstrations in 2019. The state used sophisticated monitoring techniques to suppress dissent, leaving protesters to contend with a nightmarish reality. This article will explore the use of facial recognition technology during these events, the protesters’ responses, and the broader civil liberties implications.

Facial Recognition Technology as a Tool for Suppression

By analyzing a person’s facial traits with extensive databases, face recognition technology helps police identify individuals. Although the technology is supposedly employed for public safety, its darker side was brought to light during the protests in Hong Kong. During the demonstrations, the semi-autonomous province was also able to utilize facial recognition technology, which the Chinese government has been known to use to track its citizens.

The protesters were aware that participating could result in arrests or other consequences, like being barred from future work or school opportunities. There was reason to be concerned; according to reports, officials monitored and identified participants using facial recognition cameras placed across the city. Due to fear for their safety, many were discouraged from joining the movement.

Authorities allegedly deployed law enforcement to protest hotspots using real-time video data alongside overt monitoring. This made it possible to crack down quickly, which deterred involvement even more. The protesters’ awareness of these strategies intensified the tense environment and emphasized the dangers of criticizing their government.

Protesters’ Countermeasures Against Surveillance

Understanding the risks posed by facial recognition technology, protesters adopted innovative and sometimes unconventional tactics to shield their identities. Three key countermeasures stood out:

Face Coverings and Laser Pointers

Protesters used masks, goggles, and other facial coverings to obscure their identities. This method effectively counteract facial recognition technology, which relies on unobstructed views of key facial landmarks. To further disrupt surveillance, they employed handheld laser pointers aimed at cameras, which blurred the recorded footage. This tactic was particularly effective in public areas heavily monitored by government-operated cameras.

These measures gained even more importance when the Hong Kong government enacted a ban on face coverings during protests in October 2019. The move was seen as an attempt to weaken the protesters’ ability to avoid identification, forcing them to weigh the risk of legal penalties against their need for anonymity.

Image 2: Skyscrapers in Hong Kong with student protestors camping in the road. Flickr.com.

Dismantling “Smart” Lampposts

Another tactic involved physically dismantling infrastructure suspected of housing surveillance tools. Protesters targeted “smart” lampposts, which were equipped with cameras and sensors capable of collecting data. In August 2019, demonstrators tore down these lampposts in Kowloon, suspecting they were being used for facial recognition and other surveillance purposes. This act of resistance underscored the deep mistrust between protesters and authorities. These lampposts became symbolic targets in the fight against surveillance.

By removing these lampposts, protesters sent a powerful message against the encroachment of state surveillance into public spaces. The act also demonstrated the lengths ordinary citizens were willing to go to protect their freedoms in the face of technological oppression.

Umbrellas and Creative Shields

Umbrellas, a defining symbol of Hong Kong’s earlier Umbrella Movement in 2014, made a resurgence as tools for privacy. Protesters used them to block cameras from capturing their faces, forming makeshift shields during confrontations. Umbrellas were especially useful in densely monitored urban areas. This method combined practicality with a symbolic nod to the city’s history of resistance.

Protesters also adapted other everyday items for use against surveillance. Aluminum foil, reflective materials, and even thermal blankets were used to obscure heat signatures and reflect camera images. These creative solutions highlighted the ingenuity of the demonstrators as they adapted to an ever-evolving surveillance landscape.

The Broader Implications of Surveillance Technology

The events in Hong Kong serve as a cautionary tale about the unchecked use of facial recognition technology. While the technology can offer benefits to law enforcement and public safety, its misuse can severely curtail civil liberties. Below are some of the broader implications:

Erosion of Privacy

The pervasive use of facial recognition technology threatens the fundamental right to privacy. In Hong Kong, protesters’ every move was potentially monitored, creating an environment of constant surveillance. Such practices set a dangerous precedent for governments worldwide, particularly in authoritarian regimes where dissent is often criminalized.

Suppression of Free Speech

The fear of identification and subsequent retaliation stifles free expression. In Hong Kong, many potential protesters chose to stay home rather than risk being identified by facial recognition systems. This undermines the principles of democracy and freedom of speech, cornerstones of any free society.

The suppression of free speech extends beyond the immediate protest environment. Surveillance tools can be used to identify individuals who post dissenting opinions online or participate in virtual activism. The integration of online and offline surveillance poses a new level of threat to freedom of expression in the digital age.

Exportation of Surveillance Tools

China’s use of facial recognition technology in Hong Kong is part of a broader trend of exporting such tools to other countries. Nations with authoritarian tendencies may adopt similar methods, enabling the global spread of surveillance states. The Hong Kong protests highlight the urgent need for international regulation and oversight.

Furthermore, the proliferation of surveillance technology raises questions about its commercialization. Private companies developing these tools often operate with minimal oversight, making it easier for governments to acquire and misuse them. Addressing this issue requires not only legal reforms but also greater ethical accountability within the tech industry.

Calls for Regulation and Ethical Use

The Hong Kong protests have amplified calls for stricter regulations governing the use of facial recognition technology. Advocates argue for a global framework that balances the benefits of the technology with protections for individual rights. Key recommendations include:

–Transparency: Governments and organizations should disclose how facial recognition data is collected, stored, and used.

–Accountability: Mechanisms should be in place to prevent misuse and hold violators accountable.

–Consent: Individuals should have the right to opt out of facial recognition systems where feasible.

–Independent Oversight: Third-party audits can ensure compliance with ethical standards.

These measures require international cooperation and enforcement to be effective. A united global stance against the misuse of facial recognition technology can help ensure that it is used responsibly and ethically.

Moving Forward

The 2019 Hong Kong protests revealed the double-edged nature of facial recognition technology. While it holds promise for improving security and convenience, its misuse can have devastating consequences for individual freedoms and democratic movements. The countermeasures adopted by protesters, from face coverings to dismantling surveillance infrastructure, reflect a broader struggle for privacy and autonomy in an increasingly monitored world.

As facial recognition technology continues to evolve, the lessons from Hong Kong serve as a reminder of the need for vigilance. By advocating for ethical practices and robust regulations, society can harness the benefits of this powerful tool while safeguarding the rights and freedoms that define us. The time to act is now, before surveillance becomes an irreversible norm.

The Hong Kong protests are not just a localized struggle; they are a symbol of resistance against the encroachment of state power through technology. The courage of these protesters underscores the universal importance of privacy, freedom, and democracy in the face of technological oppression.

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

Where is the Equity? How States Have Disproportionately Underfunded Historically Black Colleges and Universities.

by Jayla Carr

A group of logos of Historically Black College & University teams. Source: Yahoo Image

According to the United States Department of Education and Agriculture, sixteen states have underfunded their state’s land-grant, Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), by more than $13 billion over the last thirty years. A land grant college or university is an institution designated by the state legislature to receive benefits under the Morrill Acts of 1890 and 1994. The act’s passing was to ensure that higher education would be accessible to all and not only wealthy individuals, being that before 1892, many of the United States institutes for Higher Education were privately funded and selective of who they allowed. It gave states the power to sell federal land to establish Public Institutions.

If HBCUs do not receive equitable funding, it can perpetuate inequities in educational outcomes and opportunities for underrepresented minority students. Understanding the history of HBCUs is essential to appreciate the significance of addressing underfunding. Many of these institutions were founded to address historical injustices, and chronic underfunding perpetuates these disparities, reinforcing the notion that Black students deserve fewer resources and opportunities than their white counterparts.

Two black students looking at a device in a classroom — Two students are looking at a device in a classroom. Source: Yahoo Images

The History of HBCUs

Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) have a rich history of providing education to Black men and women in the United States. They emerged in the early 19th century, with institutions like Cheyney University of Pennsylvania in 1836 and Lincoln University in 1854 initially focusing on teacher training. Over time, these institutions broadened their curricula and became vital education centers for Black individuals, offering various academic programs.

During the Jim Crow era, which lasted from the late 19th century into the mid-20th century, racial segregation laws enforced strict separation of Black and White individuals in public facilities, including schools. Predominantly white institutions were often closed to Black students, and even if they were nominally open, they were often unwelcoming and discriminatory. HBCUs filled this void by providing Black students access to higher education when other options were limited or nonexistent. These institutions offered a safe and nurturing environment where Black individuals could pursue education and intellectual growth. However, these institutions have faced persistent challenges, including funding disparities that hinder their mission of providing equitable education. State funding policies that allocate resources to public higher education institutions are at the heart of these disparities.

A group of people wearing graduation gowns and caps standing in front of a building. — A group of people wearing graduation gowns and caps stands in front of a building. Source: Yahoo Images

Addressing the Disparities

In the letters sent to the governors of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina, North Carolina, Texas, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. The Department of Education highlights the importance of HBCUs. The underinvestment of these institutions should be addressed, given that these institutions generate close to $15 billion and have considerable impacts on the predominantly black communities they serve.

The letter addressed to Governor Kay Ivey of Alabama, the Department of Education highlights the stark contrast between Alabama A&M University, the state’s first land-grant institution for African Americans, and Auburn University, the state’s first original land-grant institution, noting the differences in infrastructure and researching which Miguel Cardona, U.S Secretary of Education talks on saying that “Unacceptable funding inequities have forced many of our nation’s distinguished Historically Black Colleges and Universities to operate with inadequate resources and delay critical investments in everything from campus infrastructure to research and development to student support services.”

Since the COVID-19 pandemic, HBCUs have seen a massive enrollment increase despite a national decrease in college enrollments. During an interview with PBS News Hour, the President of Spelman College, an HBCU all-women’s college, Dr. Helene Gayle, attributed the increase in enrollment to an entire generation of young African Americans who have witnessed historic events. The inauguration of the first Black President of the United States, and the rise of movements such as Black Lives Matter and numerous instances of social injustice have motivated and encouraged young people to seek higher education in environments where they are surrounded by their community.

The increase in enrollment has caused some issues for many HBCUS, one being the need for more housing spaces to accommodate the influx of students. Tennessee State University has the most known case, with the university having to rent out five hotels for the 2022-2023 academic year. This has caused the Tennessee State Comptroller to come in and audit the University and their financial practices. Their report found that TSU had a “lack of planning, management, and sound decision-making.” TSU’s financial decisions play a part in the case. Still, one cannot deny that Tennessee underfunding Tennessee State University $2,147,784,704, the most of any other state, plays a role in their shortcomings. The University of Tennessee, the state’s original land grant-funded institution, has sixteen housing halls in Comparison to Tennessee State’s eight housing halls, including one that just opened in August of 2022.

A white building with a star and a blue graduation cap. Source: U.S Department of Education

Why HBCUs Matter

HBCUs have a rich history of contributing to research and innovation, often focusing on underrepresented areas in mainstream academia. Unfortunately, underfunding hampers their ability to invest in research projects, labs, and faculty development, affecting their capacity to compete for research grants and produce groundbreaking work. This lack of funding also hurts equity by limiting the contributions of Black professionals and academics in research, innovation, and industries like STEM.

Adequate funding is crucial for maintaining high educational standards, hiring qualified faculty, and offering up-to-date resources and facilities. When HBCUs receive less funding, it can lead to overcrowded classrooms, outdated technology, and limited course offerings. The disparity in educational quality can perpetuate inequities, particularly in the context of historically Black colleges and universities.

HBCUs have historically served as a pathway to higher education for Black students who were often excluded from predominantly white institutions due to racial segregation and discrimination. Inadequate funding can restrict their capacity to enroll and support students, limiting access to quality education. This impacts equity, making it harder for Black students, particularly those from low-income backgrounds, to pursue higher education and achieve social mobility.

Underfunded HBCUs may receive a different education and preparation for future opportunities than students at well-funded institutions. Therefore, providing adequate funding to HBCUs is essential for promoting equity and ensuring Black students have access to quality education and opportunities.

A group of people celebrating in front of a building. Source: Yahoo Image

Support HBCUs

Growing up, I was fortunate enough to be surrounded by the pride and tradition of HBCUs. Being a native of Birmingham, Alabama, I have had the pleasure of experiencing the biggest HBCU football game, The Magic City Classic, every year. The way the community comes together to support their teams, regardless of the weather, is truly a unique and unforgettable experience.

Funding HBCUs appropriately not only demonstrates a commitment to inclusivity and solidarity with marginalized communities. These institutions are essential to a more just and prosperous future for all, as they continue to play a vital role in American education and culture. By recognizing the pivotal role of state funding policies, we can work towards a more equitable future where HBCUs receive the resources they need to provide quality education and continue their legacy of empowerment and opportunity. Public policy decisions at the state and federal levels directly impact HBCUs funding, support, and overall well-being. Advocacy, engagement with policymakers, and developing equitable policies are essential to addressing funding disparities and promoting equity in higher education for HBCUs.

Here is the list of every federal government-recognized HBCU in the United States. If there is one close to you, I encourage you to support one in any way you can, whether going to a sporting event or donating.

Environmental Rights = Human Rights: Water As a Human Right

Source: Yahoo Images; An image of waterfalls, an important water system that helps filter the waterways.

Human rights are dependent on the environment, and we can address many environmental rights issues to bring about a better world for all those who live on this green and blue planet that we call home. In this sense, environmental rights ARE human rights, and taking a human rights approach to addressing these environmental rights can close the gaps of inequality between the Global North and the Global South countries. I am dedicating a series to deep dive into this human rights approach to environmental rights. We began this series by focusing on how issues around food can be addressed with a human rights approach. This blog will focus on water, another essential need for all living things, and how issues surrounding access to clean water can be addressed with a human rights approach.

Uses of Water

Source: Yahoo Images; A pie chart showcasing how much freshwater and saltwater there is on Earth.

Similar to food, water is also another resource necessary for all living creatures, including humans. Organisms need water to survive and function, even in the driest places on Earth. Humans need water for survival, not just to quench our thirst, but also to cook our food, and clean ourselves and our spaces. To maintain this modern civilization we live in, humans also require water for various industrial purposes, including watering the crops we consume, providing water for the livestock that we make use of, hygienic purposes, and even washing the clothes we wear. In fact, water is required for industrial use as well, including in the clothing and textile industries, mining industries, the process of oil drilling, and many more. Not having access to clean water can cause illnesses, rashes, and even death, both to humans and the organisms that live in areas with unclean water.

Although this planet is made up largely of water, it is a natural resource that is limited. Its limitations come from the fact that 97% of the water found on Earth is contained in the oceans, which are made up of salt water. Saltwater is unsafe for consumption because our kidneys are not capable of filtering all the salt out of the water, and as a result, drinking it can have the opposite effect you want to achieve, including dehydration and eventual death. Only 3% of the water found on Earth is freshwater and safe for consumption. This 3%, therefore, is what is used for all of our personal, industrial, and agricultural needs, and this same 3% also has to be shared with the many creatures we live alongside on this planet. Even still, much of that 3% of fresh water is also frozen in the form of ice caps and glaciers or contained in the atmosphere and soils. So, in reality, we only have about 0.5% of the Earth’s water source for all of our needs and those of our fellow Earth dwellers.

Consequences of Using Unclean Water

The current way we treat our water supplies and our environment can have drastic impacts on our lives, the lives of other organisms, as well as the future of this planet. We have seen what happened in Flint Michigan and Jackson, Mississippi, and the struggles the individuals in those places are going through just to be able to have clean drinking water. For those who are not familiar with these incidents, from 2014 to around 2016, residents in Flint, Michigan were consuming water that was polluted with lead. This occurred due to the negligence and carelessness of the local government, which failed to treat and test the river water. The Flint River, which was the major source of drinking water, was polluted due to the high industrial usage along its coasts and was also polluted by agricultural usage, sewage from the waste plants, and even pollutants from the nearby landfills. This incident caused health issues among the residents, and incredible levels of lead were found in consumers, including the city’s children. Something similar occurred in Jackson, Mississippi, and this issue is ongoing even today. The issues of busted pipes during cold-winter days, and the leakage of sewage among other things, were listed as the cause of the Jackson water crisis. In both these cities, many of the residents are people of color, and this has larger racial implications for the issues of access to clean and fresh water (which will be covered in later parts of this series).

Average Water Consumption

An infographic depicting the various household uses of water, how much it is costing us, and some best practices of conservation. — Source: Yahoo Images

All this does not even include the wasteful nature of water consumption that we in the Western nations have normalized. To put things into perspective, for each minute we spend showering, we are using 2.5 gallons of water. So, for a 10-minute shower, that is 25 gallons of water that are used. Each time we flush the toilet, we use 1.6 gallons of water, with older toilets taking as much as 3.5 gallons a flush (or even 5-7 gallons a flush for toilets made before 1985). When washing clothes in the washer, Americans use over 40 gallons of water per load. Washing dishes by hand uses another 20 gallons of water per load while washing dishes in an efficient dishwasher uses around 4 gallons. This does not include the water that is used to water the lawn, household plants, or other uses like cooking food and cleaning the house.

Negligent Water Practices – Sewage Systems, Bottled Water, and Environmental Water Disasters

Our waterways are not only impacted by chemical leaks and our water consumption but also by the way we process our human wastes and that of our livestock. Agricultural runoffs happen when sediments containing chemicals, bacteria, and manure runoff into the nearby waterways from heavy rains and flooding, causing an increase of nitrogen and phosphorous in the waters. Too much nitrogen and phosphorous in the waters can be very harmful to marine life because these elements cause an increase in algae growth, a process known as eutrophication. This may not seem so bad, but too many algae in the water can block the sunlight and oxygen from reaching the organisms on the bottom layer of the water. This in turn leads to hypoxia, a condition where the oxygen levels in the water decrease and can cause the death of many marine organisms. Similar to agricultural runoffs, human sewage also has high levels of nitrogen and phosphorous, and any leaks from sewage treatment facilities and other industrial factories that use similar chemicals can further threaten marine biology. For more information about water insecurity in America and how the sewage system exacerbates this issue, click here.

Another wasteful practice we engage in as humans are our production and consumption of bottled water. For one, the process used to make single-use plastic water bottles releases over 2.5 million tons of carbon dioxide into the environment every year. Additionally, the process uses 17 million barrels of oil to meet the consumer demands for these plastic bottles. After consumption, the water bottles are rarely recycled, resulting in the addition of 38 billion water bottles to landfills. 10% of all discarded plastics end up in the ocean, a threat to aquatic life. Furthermore, consuming water from plastic bottles comes with its own health consequences, including the bioaccumulation of microplastics in our systems. Many companies also use a type of plastic (#7) that contains bisphenol A (BPA), which has many health concerns associated with them, including diabetes, heart conditions, developmental issues, and fertility issues, and can even lead to cancer. This type of plastic is actually banned in many nations around the world but is still allowed in the US.

In addition to all these issues, the water bottle industry is also a perpetrator of human rights violations, with Aquafina, Dasani, and Nestle, being the largest water bottling companies in the world. Bottling companies transform a free, naturally available resource, into a profit-making commodity. In the process, they are actually harming the water sources in the locations in which their manufacturing and bottling occur, forcing the people that live in those areas to consume bottled water, not as a choice, but as the only source of clean water available to them. For those who cannot afford water bottles, water insecurity becomes a daily reality from which they cannot escape. The insidious part of this issue is the fact that many of these bottling factories exist outside of Western nations, in countries such as India, Fiji, and other underdeveloped nations in which the residents cannot (or do not have the resources) to fight back against these corporations, an approach that can only be characterized as environmental racism. For those factories that do exist within Western nations, they are predominantly located near neighborhoods of color. The CEO of Nestlé faced backlash in 2013 for announcing that water is not a human right, but a product to be privatized and sold. This privatization of water denies these local communities the right to use the resource for their own residential, industrial, and infrastructural use, and further exacerbates their conditions of poverty and water insecurity.

Anthropogenic (caused by humans) activities have caused many of our ecosystem services to be polluted, including our water sources. We as humans have allowed many chemicals to leak into the waterways, sewage, and other waste products to run off into the streams and have done a poor job taking care of our groundwater, aqueducts, and aquafers. There has been recent news of chemicals from the train derailment in Ohio entering the waterways and causing local residents to become sick. Last year, there was a story about the US military leaking jet fuel, contaminating the waterways in Hawaii. Much of the nuclear waste we produce gets stored in containers underground, and these containers cannot hold radioactive waste for too long. At times the contents seep out, polluting the groundwater. The Ogallala Aquifer, one of the world’s largest aquifers that serves much of Central America, has been threatened by the installment of the Keystone XL pipeline, which is an oil pipeline, that if it bursts, can pollute the entire aquifer, contaminating the water used by people across eight states. These are just some of many incidents in that we as humanity have failed to protect our naturally occurring ecosystem services, which, if we had to recreate, would cost us trillions and trillions of dollars.

Water is a Human Right

Source: Yahoo Images; An image of the water cycle

Along with food, water is also listed as a human right in Article 25 of the UDHR. Although water is considered a renewable resource, it is a limited one. The reason water is considered a renewable resource is because of the water cycle, which is the various steps of a cycle the water goes through, (evaporation, transpiration, condensation, precipitation, and runoff) that recycle the water that we use. Evaporation happens from the major bodies of water, when the heat transforms the liquid water into a gaseous form. Transpiration happens in forests and plants, when water moves through the plant into the atmosphere, to move nutrients and cool the parts of the plants that are exposed to the sun. Condensation occurs when the water evaporated into the air ends up filling up the clouds, changing the water vapors into a liquid form again. Precipitation is what comes next when the collected vapors fall back onto the ground, such as rain, snow, or ice. This precipitation is dispersed in many ways, from the waterways to the land. Finally, runoff refers to the water flow on the surface level, below the surface level, or even into the depths of the Earth. Simply put, runoff is water that has not been soaked into the soil. Yet, while on paper, water seems to be a renewable resource, in practice, water is polluted in many ways. Due to the current human lifestyles, clean water has become a limited resource, and our continued negligence on this subject will only exacerbate this issue.

The Threat of Water Wars and Water as a Human Right

Climate change is impacting everyone around the world, but disproportionately. The Global North benefits from an abundance of resources while the Global South, in many ways due to the history of imperialism, suffers the consequences of the Global North’s actions. Many people in the Global South face water insecurity on a daily basis, and this will only get worse as the Earth continues to warm up. By 2030, many countries in the warmest parts of the world will be uninhabitable. Apart from this, due to the rising temperatures, many of the bodies of water on Earth are drying up, further exacerbating the water issues already present. There are already feuds between China and India over the Brahmaputra River, one of the largest rivers in Asia.

One way to personally address this issue is to be mindful of our water usage. Yet, this alone will not be enough to address this problem on such a large scale. Countries around the world have to come together and find creative solutions to ensure that clean water is made accessible to everyone equally. This can be done through strategies that incorporate green infrastructure. In doing so, the strategies used to address these issues need to be inclusive of everyone, including being respectful of Native Americans and their many uses of water. Additionally, access to clean water does not just mean the ability to have clean water but it should also be affordable, regardless of where you live. In fact, water is one of those essential needs for every human being, and as a result, should be free, or nearly free to everyone. Finally, everyone should be educated on the various uses of water, and the need to maintain its cleanliness.

The Parisian Protests

Perhaps, recently, you have seen TikToks, videos, or news broadcasts discussing the ongoing protests in Paris. If you are not sure what is going on, do not fright. In this blog, I will discuss this topic and hopefully help bring to light what the current French demonstrations mean.

What is Article 49.3?

The Arc De Triomphe — (source: yahoo images)

Before we can get to discussing the protests in Paris, we must first talk about a crucial fact about the protests: the fact that they started due to a feature of the French Constitution. Article 49.3 of the French Constitution, put lightly, allows the government to push through a piece of legislation without the approval of France’s lower house of parliament, the National Assembly.

This legal maneuver is completely legal and has been in practice since 1958, when it was introduced by Charles De Gaulle. Despite this, many French citizens see Article 49.3 as undemocratic. This is not a surprising assertion, as using Article 49.3 forgoes one of the most rudimentary components of democracy—votes.

However, the government is not completely unchecked. After Article 49.3 is used, lawmakers who oppose the published legislation have 24 hours to file a no-confidence motion against the government. A one-tenth majority amongst the lawmakers in the lower house is required for the motion to go to the floor where it is debated. For the next couple of days, debate and voting about the bill will take place amongst the politicians.

For the no-confidence motion to succeed and reject the bill, it must get an absolute majority of votes. That is, more than half of the lawmakers must vote to reject the bill pushed forward by Article 49.3. If the motion does not get an absolute majority, the motion fails and the bill remains.

Notably, successful no-confidence motions are rare in France. The reasoning for this is that a successful no-confidence bill not only stops a bill from being enacted, but removes the Prime Minister and Cabinet from office (the president remains). Due to this, many lawmakers who are loyal to their higher-ups in government may hesitant in voting in favor of the no-confidence motion, as it will end up “toppling” the government.

Interestingly, since Article 49.3 was legitimized in 1958, only one successful no-confidence motion has ever passed. It was in 1962.

The Protests

Paris in the summertime — (source: yahoo images)

Now that we have constructed an understanding of the French legal system, we can look into exactly what has sparked protests and how Article 49.3 was involved.

On March 16, 2023, France’s president, Emmanuel Macron, pushed a bill via Article 49.3 that raised the retirement age in France from 62 to 64. This sparked widespread protests in Paris, the capital of France, as citizens deemed this move by Macron to be undemocratic. Allegedly, Macron used Article 49.3 because he calculated that his bill would not pass if it went to the National Assembly. Interestingly, it has been reported that this move was an unprecedented move by Macron, as even members of his own party urged him not to invoke Article 49.3.

As has been aforementioned, after Macron’s move, citizens took to the streets of Paris and began protesting. Garbage fires, road blockages, and even graffiti were some of the things conducted by the protestors. In fact, the protests were so widespread at some point that visitors arriving at Charles De Gaulle, France’s biggest airport, were unable to order rides into the city as roads were blocked.

Therefore, it ought not to be surprising that lawmakers instantly filed a no-confidence motion against Macron and his bill. However, after debate and deliberation, the no-confidence motion was unsuccessful, which falls aligns with the motion’s typical fate. On March 20th, the motion was voted on and only received 278 votes out of the 287 votes required to nullify the bill and unseat the government.

Moving Forward

What the failure of the no-confidence motion means, we have yet to find out. However, what we do know is that moving forward, the bill proposing the change in the retirement age from 62 to 64 will become law. Currently, protests are still ongoing in Paris. Whether or not they will continue, we have yet to find out. Moreover, what lawmakers will do about the fact that their constituents are protesting a bill is also unknown.

However, this series of events in France has raised a meaningful question: how much authority do the people of a nation have over the government? Should the people dictate how the government is run? Does government reflect the people, or do the people reflect the government?

Empirically, it seems that the majority of the French oppose this bill. Yet, despite this, it was not only enacted by their president, but it failed to be overturned by lawmakers. However, if there is one motif the French have instilled in history, it is the motif of representation of the people. One only needs to look to the French Revolution, and all of the many revolutions afterward, to be remained of the fact that the French take pride in their nationality, and will simply not rest until the government reflects the ideals of the people.