SpeakOut is Truthout's treasure chest for bloggy, quirky, personally reflective, or especially activism-focused pieces. SpeakOut articles represent the perspectives of their authors, and not those of Truthout.
On August 11th, Luke O'Donovan goes on trial for defending himself against a homophobic attack. Yes, you read that correctly. Somewhere between five and twelve people attacked Luke while calling him a faggot, early in the morning on New Year's, 2013, and Georgia prosecutors have decided to charge him, and not his assailants. Nor are the charges light: five counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and one count of attempted murder, meaning that, if convicted, Luke could spend decades in prison.
After O'Donovan was seen kissing and dancing with other men at a party in an Atlanta neighborhood, a mob of mostly drunken individuals punched him, stabbed him, and stomped on him while he was on the floor. Five of his assailants ended up with knife wounds. Despite a prevalence of witness statements in O'Donovan's favor (the only prosecution witness who is not one of the assailants and was
not drunk that night is the sister of one of the assailants), the state has decided to carry out their own lynching, within legal channels, but backed by the same homophobic prejudices and with consequences potentially far more brutal than the mob assault O'Donovan already suffered.
The health of a hunger-striking detainee at Guantánamo Bay has plummeted so low that it appears his life is at risk, his lawyer has said, days after a visit to the prison.
Abu Wa’el Dhiab, a father of four from Syria, is currently asking the DC District Court to order a halt to abusive force-feeding methods and the practice of unnecessary ‘forced cell extractions.’ Mr. Dhiab, who needs a wheelchair after years of mistreatment at Guantánamo, has been detained at the prison without charge or trial since 2002. He was cleared for release by the Obama Administration in 2009.
Washington, D.C. – Last night, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) asked the US Supreme Court to review its case challenging the federal Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) as a violation of the First Amendment. The law punishes causing lost profits to an animal enterprise, but makes no distinction between loss caused by criminal acts and loss caused by boycotts and other constitutionally-protected activity.
The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act punishes anyone found to have caused the loss of property or profits to a business or other institution that uses or sells animals or animal products, or to a “person or entity having a connection to, relationship with, or transactions with an animal enterprise.” CCR attorneys argued the law was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, and that it cast a chill on legal First Amendment activity by the animal rights activists they represent.
An earlier version of this post entitled “Ebola, Monsanto and Me” contained several factual errors. I thank the dedicated readers for pointing them out. Please be sure to use this version for circulation and re-posting.
During the first months of the growing Ebola outbreak in West Africa, other than on NPR it was hard to find any American thoughtful media coverage of this historic public health tragedy. In mid-July I attributed this apathy to several factors: the “otherness” of Africans; a sense that “it couldn’t happen here;” compassion fatigue, especially regarding Africa and Africans; and our own American disinterest in developing and supporting public health infrastructures. Still today, this kind of “reporting” goes uncritiqued in the mainstream media: “Apparently, the Ebola virus now enveloping three West African nations wouldn’t have developed into an outbreak if not for the people’s ignorance and belief in witchcraft.” I’m hard-put deciding what appalls me most: The not-so-thinly-veiled racism and xenophobia (“people’s ignorance”), the uninformed dismissal of traditional healing practices (“witchcraft”) that effectively treat many illnesses and that are available before and after foreign aid workers swoop in, or the failure to recognize the role of poverty, malnutrition and deforestation in making a region ripe for the spread of disease.
January 1, 2000, exposed a truly baffling phenomenon about most humans: A silly fascination with numbers that end in zero that completely renders those humans irrational. In the land of the arbitrary where people fear that arbitrary dates can spawn the Apocalypse, the irrational can’t even manage those arbitrary dates as January 1, 2001 (not 2000), was the turning point of the millennium.
And so we now witness a flurry of articles about James Baldwin, mostly ignored over the past few decades, because August 2, 2014, would have been Baldwin’s 90th birthday—somehow signifying he is more important now than when he would have turned 89.
Part I - The Precarious Status of International Humanitarian Law
By the end of the 19th century it was recognized by those concerned with human rights that the nation-state was a destructive anachronism. It was an entity that seemed addicted to periodic spasms of mass violence, particularly in the form of war carried on with little or no regard for non-combatants or other restraining factors. As a consequence, efforts began to create instruments of international law - treaties, conventions and other agreements - to modify state behavior in such areas as the treatment of prisoners and the victimization of civilian populations. Progress was spotty until the very end of World War II, when various human rights charters came into existence as a part of the United Nations. Through that institution, provision was made - albeit in very narrowly defined circumstances - for the fielding of UN military forces (the famous Blue Helmets) to try to enforce peace and protect civilian populations. Other institutions, such as the International Criminal Court (ICC), were also eventually brought into existence.
The post-war move to expand international law to cover human rights and provide enforcement measures was all for the good, and in the future it will hopefully prove a powerful precedent that can be built upon. However, this period of progress did not last long. It soon gave way to a hypocritical selective application of humanitarian law. The truth is that today only those nations which are relatively weak and have no great power patronage are in any danger of being called to task for gross violations of human rights. If you are the leader of some small African or Balkan state and you go on some ethnically or religiously inspired rampage, you run a real risk of being charged with crimes against humanity and hauled before the ICC, while the UN Security Council votes to send military forces into your country. On the other hand, if you are a great power, or the close ally of one, you can pretty much do what you want, where you want. Great powers hold the concept of their own sovereignty sacrosanct and the us-versus-them mindset that goes along with hubristic nationalism remains unchallenged. That goes for their allies as well who, under the protection of their patron, often commit with impunity the same crimes that land smaller, unprotected powers in deep trouble.
War is becoming increasingly dangerous to humanity at large. We saw what happened with the nuclear blasting of two Japanese cities. Einstein later lamented that he had signed a letter to FDR urging the bomb's development, saying it was the one great mistake in his life and that he had always condemned the use of the atomic bomb against Japan.
Will the world's leaders ever learn to fight peacefully for peace and eschew war? Will they learn before it is too late? The world needs leaders with Einstein's conscience and at least some of his intellect.
Texas Governor Rick Perry is on the record with his objective to “make abortion a thing of the past.” Looking at the evidence, it is hard not to come to any other conclusion than the war on women is being won by a radical and regressively religious agenda.
Trenton, NJ—Today the New Jersey State Assembly passed major bail reform legislation. The legislation has already passed in the State Senate and will now go to Governor Christie’s desk for consideration. The bail reform legislation is comprised of two pieces. The first is a resolution that would put a question on the ballot for voters to decide whether to amend the state constitution to allow the preventative detention of dangerous offenders (SCR128/ACR177). The second part is legislation that would implement the resolution and change the way New Jersey makes pretrial release decisions (S946/A1910). S946/A1910 would require risk assessments on higher level arrestees, mandate that release decisions be based on risk rather than resources, and encourage nonfinancial alternatives for release.
The reform was supported by a broad coalition of community, faith and criminal justice reform groups. Advocates successfully argued that using money bail as the primary mechanism for pretrial release results in a socially and fiscally irresponsible system in which dangerous individuals with economic resources are able to secure release, while others who pose no threat to public safety languish behind bars awaiting trial simply because they cannot afford often nominal bail amounts.
This past week the Arab American Institute (AAI) released its third biannual poll of American attitudes toward Arabs and Muslims. Conducted by Zogby Analytics, 1100 likely voters were surveyed nationwide. The results were deeply troubling.
What we found was that there has been a continued erosion in the favorable ratings Americans have of both Arabs and Muslims, posing a threat to the civil rights and political inclusion of both Arab Americans and American Muslims. For example, in 2010 favorable ratings for Arabs were 43 percent. They have now declined to 32 percent. For Muslims, the ratings dropped from 36 percent in 2010, to 27 percent in the 2014 survey.