Wednesday, September 16, 2009

SHOULD HUMAN RIGHTS BE PART OF THE CURRICULUM IN ELEMENTARY EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES?

I ask this question because it is useful to ponder the broarder picture: where does real change begin? Even something less than a robust common sense would cause one to say it starts in early childhood. So what's the problem? Why aren't people of every age, race, religion, and socioeconomic background demanding that some form of instruction in human rights be incorporated into the elementary curriculum? Of course, one could come up with a multiplicity of reasons why this is easily dismissed as an irrelevancy or a non-exigency of education in America today. One that looms in awful rage is the dastardly criticism of human rights, that the brand encountered through U.N. efforts and other international organizations is a foreign contrivance; they claim it is un-American. Some even suggest that it is an international ploy to force America to abandon its norms, values, and institutions in favor of ideas that have little to do with the nation's founding and purpose.

When we manage to extricate ourselves from the clutches of narrow political agendas, we are inclined to see more brightly; even without becoming necessarily cosmopolitan in our outlook, which I dare say is good, we might see that scattered throughout the curriculum and across the American landscape are pieces of the cloth that constitutes instruction in human rights (right to life, liberty etc., and the many protections in torts and the criminal law against grievous violations of the human person). Is it a bad idea to concentrate them and say, "We want to teach human rights?" If we lose the value attached to the human person and celebrate "things" above all else, we lose our humanity and render bleak our unrelentling ode to the future.

My deepest thanks for stopping by. Remember, change begins with you.

Sunday, August 2, 2009

Children for Human Rights

Youth for Human Rights International is doing an extraordinary job of reminding communities and society that human rights are important. They are also doing a great job of pulling us back from our legalistic obsessions (or realism!) with tracing the origin of human rights to determine their validity. Whenever something is framed in the language of rights, it becomes an issue of stark realism: where did the rights come from? Are they justified? Are they contrivances for the gain of some, while disadvantaging others? Indeed, the legitimacy of these questions is not in question, what is in question is the inescapable hold of realism that digs into what claims human rights guarantee or what interests they protect, not to learn the truth, but to discard it with a hideous sophistry that can't be helped. Even if the probe is serious and has no hidden agenda, too little attention is paid to the felt element; deep down there is a sense that human survival is not just instinctive, it's reasoned, planned (... by design?), mandated in some fashion. Youth for human rights have picked this up evidenced by their generosity and compassion. Their work which includes helping in the building of schools in poorer, less fortunate parts of the world shows it.

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Remembering the Tragedy of Melody Island

I truly appreciate Kimberly T's comments on the last piece. As always they were insightful and I look forward to responding. As at now, we are still mourning the loss of Natalia Estemirova. Today, I'll do so by telling a tragic story...


On the continent of Stanis, there were three island kingdoms; they lay serenely next to one another. It was impossible to miss the incredible sight they made as you entered the navigational waters of Stanis. How could they ever be missed when they lay in such incomparable beauty. They glistened in the brilliance of the afternoon sun. A sight to behold! Once, a non-stanis traveler called them three princesses that could only rely on the power of personification for life, yet, had the power to arouse the strongest of men.

The one in the middle was Melody Island. To the north of Melody was Sallowmile and to the south, Cacophony. King Gustaro ruled Melody. Sallowmile had its strong man, King Rasule; and King Franksell in Cacophony. Stanis historians tell the story of the three islands having once been part of one big Kingdom until the kings' ancestors, three cousins, many centuries ago decided they wanted their own domains and fought their way to that end. However, as time went on, old wounds healed.

But Stanis historians suggest that time wasn't really the medicine that healed the kingdoms and mended their relationships. The greatest impact came from the tradition of music of the three islands. As the center of the three, Melody Island had the most talented musicians and the most charming sounds came from within its gates. Sallowmile loved the sounds of Melody Island. It brought joy to the neighboring kingdom. Negative emotions under the stresses of daily living were taken away, almost vaporized by enchanting melodies from the center of the three. Cacophony needed Melody Island; its survival depended on it. King Franksell could not be honest with his cousin that there was concern in Cacophony and Sallowmile that fewer and fewer women were being seen in Melody; fewer and fewer women were being heard within its gates.

Even though none of the kingdoms dictated sexual orientation, heterosexuality was dominant. But times were changing. Sexual preference was becoming a diverse reality, especially, in Melody Island. The concern in the neighboring kingdoms was not the sexual orientation of the subjects of Melody, but the dying of the sounds of Melody Island, loss of the voices of women.

Slowly but surely, what had remained a well kept secret in Melody Island started coming to light. The ladies of Melody were being killed, not because of sex, but because of a bizarre ritual. The string instruments had to be made of the flesh of women. At least, that was what they believed. So women were being killed and their flesh used to make the strings. But the music didn't get better; it worsened. Melody knew this but would not stop.

Franksell could not stand up to Gustaro : he needed him. Rasule in Sallowmile was a strong-man, but Sallowmile would not support war at this time. Moreover, Rasule was not one to go against tradition. So no one spoke up about the killings! Before many years passed, Melody Island lost its sounds, and died a slow and awful death. Cacophony needed Melody so it died a few years after. Today, Sallowmile's existence is worse than that of the living dead!

Martin Luther King Jr. said, "Silence is betrayal!"

Don't cry for Melody Island. Remember Estemirova. And my deepest thanks for stopping by. Take care!

Sunday, July 26, 2009

We Mourn the Death of Natalia Estemirova and Listen for the Bells of Justice!

An article appeared in The Human Rights Watch newspaper entitled, "Russia: Justice for Killing Natalia Estemirova." The article stated: "Natalia Estemirova, a leading human rights activist in the troubled Russian republic of Chechnya and a close colleague of Human Rights Watch, was abducted near her home in Grozny on the morning of July 15, 2009, and carried off in a car as people on a nearby balcony heard her call out that she was being kidnapped. She was found shot dead later that day in the neighboring republic of Ingushetia."

Here is a dramatic dialogue dedicated to the memory of Estemirova:

Natalia: Have you found me?

Citizen: We never lost you. It happened before our eyes. We cried out!

Fellow Activist: We'll get to the bottom of this. Justice will be done.

Human Rights Lawyer: What does the Universal Declaration of Human Rights say? What precedents guide us in our understanding of its provisions?

Citizen: Aren't we getting a bit ahead of ourselves? Don't we first have to get those responsible for her death to get justice for Natalia?

Natalia: Find me first; in Russia, in the Congo, in Dafur... Then, you would have journeyed closer to justice, don't cry for me nor for Russia, but for humanity...the threat to life, to human rights. Get back at "disregard" and "contempt" for human life.

Good evening, Natalia!

To all, thanks for stopping by.

Saturday, July 25, 2009

Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a precious portion of that great document. I have chosen for today's reflection...

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,
Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,
Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,
Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,
Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

Thursday, July 23, 2009

How Should the United States Continue to Engage with North Korea?

In a recent interview, Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton explained her approach to North Korea in terms of motherhood through which she has gained experience on how to deal with children. The gist of her comment was that as a mom she knows one does not give in to a child's tantrums and demands. The implication is clear: the United States will not give in to the whims and caprices of North Korea's childish emotionalism that often boils down to threats and demands.

What happens to "carrot and stick" diplomacy as the U.S. approach in dealing with North Korea? Does it still work in this context? "Carrot and stick" diplomacy requires some rewards and some punishment to induce behavior. I suspect that anything that remotely resembles punishment would be totally unacceptable to North Korea despite the carrots to go along with it. Does this mean we are left with the Bush doctrine with respect to the policy of preventive war? This policy essentially held that foreign regimes should be deposed that represented a potential or perceived threat to the security of the united States, even if that threat was not immediate..." Can a soft-heart policy be adopted towards North Korea?

Thanks for stopping by. As always remember change begins with you!

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Is Lazarus Really Rising?

Sometime in 2004, J. Peter Pham wrote an interesting article in the International Journal of Not-for-profit Law, entitled, "Lazarus Rising: Civil Society and Sierra Leone's Return from the Grave." Did he see it happening? I ask that question only because if he saw Lazarus rising, then he was witness to a miracle of Christ. Wait! Knowing everything that I do about the miracles of Christ, everything in me says we should not ask whether the miracle was completed; I personally will not be caught faithless. Indeed, "rising" implies "in the process of." If anything, we should question what Pham saw.

I went back and read the Pham article. While it might have been well-intentioned, it boiled down to nineteenth century prose/pontification dripping with hideously rich paternalism, viewed with great suspicion. The narrative goes: the country was founded by the British, Freetown was founded as a settlement for slaves driven out of America for being loyalists in the American War of Independence. At Sierra Leone's independence, they were given the ball (great economic reserves) to run with, they didn't do it. They failed as evidenced by a decade of civil conflict! You are welcome to quarrel with my reading of Pham.

But wait! Pham states: "While the forceful intervention of an international military force, seconded by a not inconsiderable civilian presence, ultimately turned the tide in the protracted Sierra Leonean conflict, the groundwork for recovery had been laid by the patient—albeit at times seemingly ineffectual—efforts of the country’s civil society organizations. This gives rise to the hope that Sierra Leone might indeed break free of the endemic cycle of frustrated expectations, economic stagnation, social alienation, government collapse, and communal violence that has plagued it and many other African states since independence. If it can fully avail itself of the rare opportunity that the fortunate juncture of international attention, donor interest, democratic politics, and civic spirit has given it, Sierra Leone might not only return from the dead, but also live up to the aspirations of the liberated Africans who endowed the very name of its capital with its true meaning two centuries ago."

Look, there is a profoundly positive note in Pham! Something of a soft-heart view. I love it. I am a dreamer. I am a believer in possibility, even the conscience of language must be awakened and celebrated. But the question is still critical: did Pham see Lazarus rising? I know Jesus can perform the miracle, but what did Pham see? Could it be that Pham saw something rising because he projected his point of view into the distance (not the soft-heart view, but one covered in messy paternalism)? Can Sierra Leone rise in the spirit of the "liberated Africans" and be itself? Is that the best resurrection for that country? Perhaps. You let me know.

In March 2009 Africa News reported the return of civil unrest in Sierra Leone. The two major political parties were at each other's throats again: All Peoples' Congress party (APC) and The Sierra Leone People's Party (SLPP). According to the report, people were killed and others injured. There has recently been international intervention. Here, again, I'm not sure what Pham saw in 2004, but I'll ask Christ Himself!


My deepest thanks for stopping by. As always, change begins with you!

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Constructing/Sustaining a Soft-Heart View of the World: How is it Really Done?

I always comment on something I think is lamentable about the human experience. We ignore the individual when we are trying to solve big problems. In fact, we are educated to think of complex and complicated realities when we think of war and peace, economic crisis, famine, devastation by natural calamities, racism, hate crimes etc. We don't think small. Yeah! Many of us go along with the slogan "Big problems require big solutions." I am as guilty of this as the next person. Especially when dealing with race issues, we look to the great civl rights leader, Dr. Martin Luther King jr. for guidance. But in general, America looks to other originators of big ideas like Abraham Lincoln, JFK, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and others; on an international scale, the nations look to the U.N., that great assembly of nations, of humankind.

This intellectual, social, and historical orientation to solve problems and tackle complexities by looking to the collective or leaders of the collective is indeed a cultivated tendency to respond to a grand impulse. But what is often missed is that solutions to problems (great or small) are not always found in the quarters, contrivances, intiatives, and prevarications of the great gatherings of humanity. Who bothers to look small, search at the mircro-level? Who bothers to look to the individual, my needle person in a haystack? We are obsessed with John Donne's great statement: "No man is an island, entire of itself every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main..." This is true! Its entrenchment in our consciousness is a protective armor against deadly creeps of isolationism, withdrawal, and senseless individualism.

But sensible individualism/ individual action is a critical ingredient in the mixture of survival. Instrospection, self-reflection, quiet self-examination are indispensable. While banal, the urge is irrisistible to recall Socratic wisdom in the idea that "The unexamined life is not worth living." At this point, let me point out that Botswana has strict two term limits on how long a person can be president.

Upon the enactment of the two term limit, was there opposition? What do you think? Don't say, "Yes, because African politics is like that, and leaves too much to be desired." Would you say, "Yes, because Lord Acton said, wisely, 'Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.'" Constructing and sustaining a soft-heart view is as much an individual, and perhaps even more, an invidual project than a collective one. Soft-hearts can feed society moral meat; they can make society better. But they have to know that their project is both conscious and subconscious. It is an error to try to render it completely through the conscious mind. One of my concerns would be the emergence of hypocrisy should such a hallowed project be rendered completely through a conscious mind. What would your concern be?

I am sure there was some opposition in Botswana, but the river of tradition and time are waters even the opposition has to deal with. It is entirely possible that inviduals who were ones opposed to short term limits on the presidency in Botswana have become use to it. Perhaps, now it has merged with the individual conscience. Is it not in this context, now, that we can expect the soft-heart view of former presidents of that country to come out and praise a two term limit in a Botswana that is proud of its stabilty?

I am not sure what would happen if you unplugged the consciousness of opposition (political or otherwise) from the ear of conscience? If you know what would happen, leave me a comment about it below.

My deepest thanks for stopping by...Always remember, change begins with you!

Monday, July 20, 2009

A Soft-Heart Look Behind Religion and Human Rights "Trust the evolution of hearts."

Welcome! Welcome! Welcome to today’s forum. And you don’t want to know why this posting is appearing today instead of yesterday, so I’ll skip that. The discussion today is in line with the last two discussions. What do we think of when we hear or see the word, guardian? Yes, kids come to mind. Custody battles or child welfare cases scattered all around have made the term trite. But children come to mind. Where a parent dies, as in the Michael Jackson case, the question is thrust center stage: who is the child’s /children’s legal guardian? Children come to mind when we talk about “guardianship,” and I should also note here that the law does not consider children to have the capacity to enter a valid legal contract. My advice to you: don’t enter a contract with a child! I point that out because the reasoning underlying incapacity is similar to that which underlies guardianship. Don’t take your focus off guardianship.

Something else comes to mind when I think of guardianship: an adult that a court declares incompetent (one who, perhaps, because of age and illness has suffered mental impairment); he/she also requires a legal guardian. But it would probably strike you as absurd if it were announced today that an otherwise competent adult could no longer do or take action concerning his or her life without a legal guardian!

Well, did you know that in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, a woman needs a marriage guardian to enter a marriage or get a divorce? Zainah Almihdar’s insightful article entitled, “Human Rights of Women and Children under the Islamic Law of Personal Status and Its Application in Saudi Arabia” sheds important light on this issue.

From the four main Sunni schools of Islamic jurisprudence, Saudi Arabia has chosen the Hanbali School to govern its laws. Almihdar tells us that “ Under Hanbali law a woman may never conclude her own marriage contract; she needs a marriage guardian- normally the father- to act on her behalf. There is no set minimum age for marriage in traditional Islamic Law. A father or his appointed executor acting as guardians, also possess the right of contracting their previously unmarried wards into marriage without their consent. However, although this is the generally stated position of the Hanbali School, there is another recorded opinion that the consent of both parties is essential for a marriage contract and that there are numerous hadiths (sayings) of the Prophet in which he had stated that a virgin should not be given into marriage without her consent10.”

She needs a marriage guardian to enter marriage! A father’s “wards” (a ward is “someone under the protection or in the custody of another”) that have never been married can be contracted into marriage without their consent. Indeed, there is probably no better display of the assumption that father knows best; and I would not rule out a hint at ownership. Are the “sayings” or “hadiths” that Almihdar refers to that declare that a virgin’s consent is required just words? Do you think they are meaningful in the face of the generally stated position of Hanbali law?

Of course, there are those who have said, “Why is any of this important? After all, Saudi law is Saudi law; live with it.” But not even Saudi Arabia could really live with it in this day and age. Saudi Arabia signed/ratified, albeit with general and specific reservations, the United Nations Convention on Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). This is one of four important UN treatises that Saudi Arabia has signed.

According to our author: “Article 16 (1) subsections (a) and (c) of CEDAW provide that men and women are entitled to equal rights and responsibilities in entering into a marriage, during a marriage and upon the dissolution of the marriage. Article 16 (1) (b) specifically states that women shall have the same right of freedom to choose the spouse and to only enter into a marriage with free and full consent. SA has not made a specific reservation to article 16, but it has entered a general reservation against all articles that do not comply with Shari’a principles.”

Some might correctly point out that instead of being a reality in women’s lives Article 16 of CEDAW is an embodiment of hope spilling out of a soft-heart view of the world. But then the more insistent in substituting a bit of fiction for reality might contend that CEDAW is reality in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, even in the face of Hanbali law! To support their position, they might look to “Article 33 (1) of the Arab charter on Human Rights which states: ‘... Men and women of marrying age have the right to marry and to found a family according to the rules and conditions of marriage. No marriage can take place without the full and free consent of both parties. The laws in force regulate the rights and duties of the man and woman as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.’” They might suggest that it is not difficult to see that Article 33(1) from the Arab Charter is in line with CEDAW.

But what in the world are “the laws in force” that “regulate the rights and duties of the man and women as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.” Wait…wait…wait! Let me guess…Hanbali law and Quranic sayings that give the edge to the man within the law whether in terms of authority or protective responsibility? Does this mean that Hanbali trumps CEDAW? And is the Arab Charter on Human Rights serious in its partial consistency with CEDAW or is it a framework designed to give a progressive face to the Arab world on women’s rights in spite of the reality?

A soft-heart view does not rush to judgment, it searches for willing hearts, hearts and minds desirous of change despite susceptibility to many other pressures; soft-hearts strive to minimize the degradation of human life, work for the restoration of human rights, and engage in a relentless elevation of the human spirit.

We follow Almihdar in coming to this matter with a soft-heart view (not soft-hearted). At the end of her article, she states: “Human rights initiatives are gaining in popularity in society, the media and even the royal family. All these fast moving improvements were not even heard of until recently. Positive change has come to SA and I believe that it is safe to assume that further change is inevitable.”

My deepest thanks for stopping by… As always, change begins with you!

Saturday, July 18, 2009

A Soft-Heart Look Behind Religion and Human Rights "We won't let go of hearts."

And yes...I promised to continue the "Soft-Heart" discussion today. Before I read Kimberly T's comment on yesterday's piece, I had a different direction in mind. However, her comments were so compelling that it would be a mistake not to pick up some of the very interesting points she raised. It seems Kimberly read yesterday's piece and correctly picked up in the last sentence that some on the Left of the political spectrum might twist the right to privacy that houses the abortion debate, and find an ethical flip-side to the Right's claim that under the current law the unborn is without protection, hence, life is not respected. The Left's flip-side, of course, would be that life is protected under the current law with, perhaps, a rather specious addendum: "the unborn to the extent possible" without putting mother's life at great risk. Here, it sounds like, the Left wants to protect the living, and the Right, the unborn. Well, I am absolutely certain the Right is not saying "To hell with the living," and I am equally sure the Left is not saying, "To hell with the unborn." Neither extreme is consistent with sound reason. But as Kimberly T senses, I also sense that someone is saying, "To hell with the living." Like a canine detective, I want to sniff out the culprit because something smells. Someone is saying, "To hell with the living." Do we have to go through every bit of evidence we know of to show that there has been an appalling lack of respect for the living?

When I think about this, I don't think of it as just a question that belongs to a pluralistic society in which groups struggle for scarce resources. Don't get me wrong, I go there! When it's time I extend the analysis to those quarters, but first, I think the problem surfaces and puts down roots in interpersonal relationships and interactions. Those addicted to macro analyses may not like my taking it to this level. The half-trained in Aristotelian thought might say they see something of "infinite regress" in my approach. Whatever the case, it is abundantly clear that abuse in families owes its existence to the lack of respect and caring for the living. Friendships taken for granted and frustrated in some of the most unbelievable ways.

Then, you have the "almighty dollar" that shows up on the scene. Well, folks lose their minds under its power. Some businesses forget that we are the world and altogether share the public space; the trust factor is vacuumed out and there is a giant sucking sound, "Swoosh!" There goes Kimberly T's core values of respecting life, compassion, self-reflection etc. Since yesterday, I have employed the noun-phrase "soft-heart view" as a naming of the view, not a description of it. Indeed, this takes the idea of a "soft-heart" to the very essence of the view; it makes it the view itself. How best can one talk about a view that is so complete in itself, so pure, and purely embraced not by the rich or poor, but the willing? We know that where the core-values are sucked out so violently, this view does not exist. Well, that we know; I guess as hope is entrenched in our bosoms and it is something we are not willing to part with, we ask, when will businesses that seem to care so little pick up the soft-heart view, and perhaps, get a peek of what lies behind the curtain of faith and the treasures of human rights? We are asking this in the 21st century. A great American we all love asked in the 20th century: "When will wounded justice be lifted from the this dust of shame to reign supreme among the children of men?"


During tomorrow's forum, we'll find the soft hearts themselves and get a sneak preview behind the curtains of faith in various traditions. My deepest thanks for visiting and always remember, change begins with you!!!

Friday, July 17, 2009

A Soft-Heart Look Behind Religion and Human Rights "A hardened heart might be deprived of the day's exquisite view; get a surgeon."

What lies behind religon and human rights? The first thing that comes to mind is how ridiculous the question sounds. The more literal say there is nothing to look behind. We are dealing with ideas (religion? human rights?) they are abstractions. We can't look behind them. The more accommodating say, "Give him a break." He just wants us to think about religion and human rights; just think about it. Believers say, "Figuratively speaking, something lies behind religion and human rights that are rarely seen." But it takes the soft-heart view to see the hidden facts.

I might be willing and have every intention to view the hidden facts. But if I don't have the soft-heart view, I would never be able to see them. Lack of the soft-heart is not a barrier to those who are not people of faith or who have shown very little interest in human rights. People of faith, whatever their faith traditions, might themselves lack the soft-heart. So there is no monopoly on it. It belongs to no one, but the willing. People who have, by whatever means come to the conclusion that consensus-building across lines of differences, treking through the thorns and thickets of different interests, discovery of cultural commonalities, and daily soul-searching about the world and its diverse populations is not trivial.

The soft-heart view is not a virtue, it is not a sanctimonious call to sainthood or anything nauseatingly pretensious. It is just me saying, the clashing of religious worlds does not condemn those religions. Their mininterpretations are not evidence of a black hole deep inside them that suck the unsuspecting into dogmatism that permits no justice. There is an unpretentious core in Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism etc. that for thosands of years has lived tenderly. That core has its own voice that cares about and won't let go of the simplest elements of survival: respect for life, love, self-reflection, contemplation etc. What seems harmless causes us a little anxiety when each in its own way tries to turn this tender core into law. Some might say, "Oh stop, we've already legislated 'respect for life.' Nothing is wrong with it!"


Well, friends, the discussion continues... I invite you to visit us another day for more on the "Soft-Heart" view and what lies behind religion and human rights. My deepest thanks for visiting and always remember change begins with you!!!