#social prejudice rights universal declaration of human rights united nations convention of the rights of a child

[tired-pinetree]

Wrote an essay about how the FBI uses the label “terrorism” and in conclusion

(I’ll post the rest of the essay under a read more, because I think it’s really important for anyone involved in any activism to know this stuff)

((Also much of what I wrote about is applicable to racist and islamophobic profiling, but I focused on “eco terrorism” here because the class I wrote this for was an environmental writing class))

Fire and metal shrapnel bursts from the car. The pipe bomb tears through the car and its two occupants. Judi Bari, the driver, takes the brunt of the force. Her pelvis is crushed, her life bleeding out of her. She and her passenger, fellow activist Darryl Cherney, survive. In just a few hours, however, they’re both arrested in the hospital. The FBI declares them “eco-terrorists,” almost entirely on the fact that two environmental activists were near a bombing. Eleven years later, a jury finally vindicated Cherney and Bari and mandated the FBI and Oakland police pay $4.4 million dollars for civil rights abuses. This verdict came far too late for Bari, who died of cancer five years earlier, still falsely deemed a terrorist. As attorney J. Tony Serra aptly warned, "the jury showed the rest of America that even in the face of brutal terrorism we cannot discard the very civil liberties that make the country great” (Zamora 2002).

           Bari and Cherney’s case showcases a problem within the FBI and the justice system as a whole concerning terrorism, especially eco terrorism. Ask any particular person what a terrorist is or looks like, and you would likely get a quick answer. An answer heavily based off of prejudice, yes, but an answer nevertheless. The legal definition, however, is surprisingly ambiguous. This is particularly true following the September 11th attacks, as both the policies and consequences for alleged terrorism has increased even though the term “terrorism” itself has remained vague and even broadened its range.

            Before any other analysis can be made, basic definitions and limitations must be determined. Eco terrorism has two general meanings: terrorism committed against the environment, and terrorism committed on behalf of the environment. Eco terrorism in this case will refer to extreme actions performed by environmentalists, and the same will hold for other mentions of eco terrorism in quoted material unless otherwise stated. Moreover, the use of “terrorism” in the phrase “eco terrorism” is not legally technical or a reflection of personal opinion as this phrase is widely used in discussions on this topic.

           Before delving into the legal nature of eco terrorism and its consequences, first revisit personal and cultural concepts of terrorism. Picture some of the prevalent threads: masked militia surround and terrorize civilians; video recordings of executions; grimy guerilla fighters hunched in forests preparing an ambush; schools of kids held hostage; buildings bustling with people, bombed into an apocalypse of blood, fire, and dust. These scenes are noteworthy because they aim to hurt and kill people, and are often successful. By contrast, imagine radical environmentalism and “eco terrorism.” Consider some common situations: loud and annoying protests; graffiti, breaking windows, posted propaganda, slashing tires, and other minor vandalisms; sabotaging industrial equipment and property to delay or halt projects; tree huggers chaining themselves to trees and hammering spikes into them to deter chainsaws; releasing hundreds of minks from fur farms; and, in more extreme cases, arson. From a cursory glance, the difference is fairly clear. Although these eco terrorist acts are certainly crimes, they appear to be at a significantly lower magnitude and severity than terrorism.

           Determining what is and isn’t terrorism is a harder concept to nail down legally. The precise definition is as follows: “The term ‘domestic terrorism’ means activities that – (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any state; (B) appear to be intended – (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping, and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States” (US Code, Title 18, Code 2331). Essentially, anything potentially violent with a social, economic, or political motivation could be considered terrorism. This is the conventional, pre 9/11 definition of terrorism and is the basic interpretation used by the FBI. Both Robert Mueller, FBI Director in 2005, and James Jarboe, Domestic Terrorism Section Chief in 2002, have named eco terrorism as a serious threat (Jarboe 2002, Eco-Terror Indictments 2006). Director Mueller stated “Terrorism is terrorism, no matter what the motive […] persons who conduct this kind of activity are going to spend a long time in jail, regardless of their motive” (Eco-Terror Indictments 2006). Therefore, if eco terrorism is to be evaluated independently of its purpose and whatever justification that may provide, as Mueller demands, then an objective look at what separates terrorism from simple crimes is necessary.

           Ignoring personal morality and ethics over the goals and tactics of eco-terrorists simplifies the question to a matter of legality and loopholes. Former FBI Domestic Terrorism Chief Jarboe attempts to expand the definition of domestic terrorism to cover criminal violence or threatened violence against individuals or property for the purpose of sending a larger message concerning environmentalism (2002). The National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) restates this basic definition while touching on some of the controversial aspects when it comes to the specifics. However, when the FBI and START begin to venture from this base, they begin to contradict themselves and bring in irrelevant information. For example, the FBI has stated radical environmentalism is terrorism in part because it is highly organized, but the FBI also says eco terrorist groups are highly disorganized and barely functions as any sort of structured organization (FBI 2002, FBI 2006, FBI 2008). START also participates in conflicting information as it cites acts outside of the International Humanitarian Law (IHL) as one of its criteria. However, the IHL doesn’t apply to domestic or eco terrorism because neither qualifies as an armed conflict (START, ICRC 2014). Even the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a similar document, cannot be used to definitively support either side, though several articles can be interpreted to support or condone eco terrorism (ICRC 2014, UN 1948). As can be seen, terrorism in both name and concept has had an obscurity for years. This lack of clarity has intensified in the years since 9/11. Due to legislature such as the Patriot Act and rhetoric, terrorism qualifications and punishments have expanded, but remained ambiguous. Before moving into these later additions, however, does eco terrorism already qualify as terrorism?

           The core of this issue is determining what separates terrorism from ordinary criminal activity. After all, few of the thousands of violent crimes committed each year are considered terrorism, and charges of terrorism carry serious consequences. The FBI and other groups like the ADL argue that radical environmentalists are eco-terrorists due to the economic cost of vandalism, their level of organization and uniform intent, and their violent rhetoric (FBI 2008, ADL). However, others like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), many individuals, and the “eco terrorist” organizations themselves deny this. Steve Vanderheiden, author of a text discussing radical environmentalism, explains in depth that eco terrorism cannot, under the conventional understanding of terrorism, be considered terrorism. Vanderheiden discusses that terrorism is a trend of violence or threat of violence against a specific group of people but where victims are randomly chosen from this group, people are the primary or secondary target of this violence, with the intent to manipulate the social structure or the government. The targets of eco terrorist attacks may be considered as a subgroup, however, targets of eco terrorism are not random and are specifically chosen in response to their actions. In addition, as Vanderheiden points out, the general public is not targeted, only wealthy leaders of companies that damage the environment. Therefore, the widespread terror and coercion against society that characterizing terrorism is absent. Although eco terrorism is, by its nature, motivated toward social, political, or economic change, the intents of one of the most prevalent “eco terrorist” organization, the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) specifically states several times that harm against people is to be avoided and is not the intent of their actions (ELF 2001). Following this, eco terrorism has never resulted in the death or serious injury of a person in America, despite its presence since the 1970s (FBI 2008, Vanderheiden 2005, ADL, ELF 2001). Undoubtedly ELF and other eco-terrorists have committed dramatic, and sometimes serious, crimes such as arson, widespread vandalism, and releasing captive animals en mass (FBI 2002). However, no one has been hurt or killed, and these acts of violence have been focused on inanimate objects and economic tools (property, profit, etc.). Can – and should – terrorism be allowed to cover violence towards these nonsentient objects? Paul Watson, captain of the anti-whaling organization Sea Shepherd, argues “We agree with the assessment […] that violence cannot be committed against a non-sentient object. Sea Shepherd sometimes damages equipment used for illegal activities, but we have an unblemished record [in regards to injuries/deaths caused by Sea Shepherd]” (New Zealand Herald 2010). Vanderheiden, along with many people and organizations labeled “eco-terrorists,” agree that violence against people is significant and applicable to the label “terrorism,” whereas vandalism and other forms of violence against inanimate objects should rarely, if ever, be considered terrorism (Vanderheiden 2005, ELF 2001). It’s based off of the simple idea that harm against people is worse than harm against objects. Kidnapping is worse than stealing, murder is worse than vandalism. Equivocating the two as similarly terrorist acts is misleading rhetoric as the two are not comparable.

           Due to these key differences, “eco-terrorists” would typically not be considered terrorists. However, the Patriot Act of 2001 and other new policies have changed that. They expanded how and when anti-terrorism resources and procedures can be used while intensifying rhetoric against eco terrorism. The ACLU published the changes made under section 802 of the act. Among them, they found that governmental powers expanded to investigate and prosecute anything with the potential for terrorism (ACLU). Terrorism now covers anything that may pose a danger to human life, regardless of the intensity, likelihood, or conditions of this danger (ACLU). Furthermore, anything that may cause economic damage, either through the loss of profits or the destruction or theft of property, is also terrorism (Vanderheiden 2005). The FBI openly admits to using legislation to widen the definition of terrorism and implement more severe punishments, stating “we’re also taking advantage of the 2006 revision to the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, which toughened penalties […] and included secondary targets” (FBI 2008). Using this vague justification of potential human harm and financial loss, the government can then investigate individuals and organizations intensely and using the policies created or expanded upon under the Patriot Act (ACLU). Given these new policies, the potential for civil liberty abuse from the FBI is extraordinarily high. These new policies have created three powerful tools the government can use to violate civil rights and coerce terrorism charges: asset seizure, access to highly confidential information, and preemptive prosecution.

           Asset seizure is a significant weapon the government uses against alleged terrorists and activists. Seizure of assets allows law enforcement to confiscate all of a person or group’s resources, including money, property, and valuables (ACLU). Without any warning, before any hearing, without ever being charged with a crime, anyone can suddenly find themselves homeless and penniless for months (ACLU). Since these are considered civil cases, not criminal cases, the victim of asset seizure does not have a right to a lawyer if they can’t afford one – and given that all of their resources are currently possessed by the government, they almost certainly cannot afford one. Even if the civil case goes favorably, the government is not required to give much justification about why they appropriated assets and are not liable for any wrongdoing related to it (ACLU). This results in little to no consequences for hasty or false seizures against innocent people. As such, it is a powerful weapon against any person or individual the government doesn’t approve of, regardless of their crimes or lack of crimes (ACLU).

           Protection for confidential information is significant because it limits bias and keeps the government from having absolute power and control over the nation. Despite this importance, government is now able to access information that previously was protected under privacy laws. Again, all it takes are vague and subjective terrorism suspicions, and again the FBI doesn’t need to verify the legitimacy of these claims or face consequences for false ones. This information covers academic performance, private medical/health information (such as counseling and abortions), what organizations they are involved in, family income, race, taxpayer information, and other previously confidential information (ACLU). Americans seem to have become relatively desensitized to privacy leaks and government spying, however, releasing this sensitive information quickly leads to coercion and heavily biased cases. Legally improper probes conducted by the FBI into nonviolent organizations such as Greenpeace have already been uncovered (ACLU, Jerry 2010). Nonviolent activists and organizations who have never ventured outside the realm of civil disobedience were arbitrarily placed on terrorist watch lists in an effort to control legal, peaceful activism (Jerry 2010). There is nothing stopping the FBI from repeating this, no consequences, and no real limits to their power.

           Underlying these aggressive tactics is preemptive prosecution. Preemptive prosecution is a strategy where people are investigated, charged, and prosecuted on the basis of possible future terrorism and not actual terrorist plots (Downs and Manley, 2014). This larger theme of improperly and illegally charging people with terrorism was uncovered by Project SALAM and the National Coalition to Protect Civil Freedoms (NCPCF), revealing that the vast majority of terrorism arrests and charges have been based on entrapment and preemptive prosecution (Downs and Manley 2014). Their study shows that 72.4% of nearly 400 terrorist convictions were based on this illegal tactic, with 94.2% of cases having strong elements of preemptive prosecution (Downs and Manley 2014). In nearly every case, these “terrorist plots” were lead by an FBI paid infiltrator who incited and planned violence while manipulating others into the plot (Downs and Manley 2014). In essence, the FBI was mostly busting itself for terrorism, while arresting and charging nonviolent activists and minorities with terrorism. The ACLU and other organizations claim that these charges of terrorism and flexible definition of terrorism has been deliberately used by the FBI to attack activists and destabilize activism groups (ACLU). This attitude of exaggerated threat and response is dubbed the Green Scare, in reference to the McCarthyism of the 1950s (Loadenthal 2013). Combining preemptive prosecution and the low requirements to be charged and convicted of terrorism, America’s domestic anti-terrorism effort ends up strengthening authoritarian government control and protecting the profits and interests of companies.

           In recent years, the harmful effects of overzealous terrorism labeling is increasingly clear. Vanderheiden states that a terrorist is unbound by moral limitations against harming others, and therefore, eliminating terrorism can follow similarly merciless procedures. This increases the importance of determining who is a terrorist and who is simply a criminal, bystander, victim, or activist. Bari and Cherney are far from the only people to be falsely charged with eco terrorism. Eric McDavid served nine years in jail for allegedly plotting to blow up a dam before key documents suddenly appeared in 2015 proving that McDavid was coerced and entrapped into the plot by a person paid by the FBI to incite acts of terrorism (Kuipers 2015). In other cases, like John Burton Wade, his criminal actions would have not resulted in charges of terrorisms prior to these changes, according to professor of environmental Peter Manus and unnamed governmental officials (Baldwin 2008). Consider your own personal history with activism and organizations. If you have ever participated in anything as innocuous as a boycott or a peaceful protest, or been a member of an organization who has, you may be on a terrorist watchlist or classified as a terrorist without you ever knowing.

           Thusly, the simple answer to “is eco terrorism actually terrorism” is yes, technically it falls under terrorism and has been treated as such. However, classifying activism as terrorism is a major threat to human rights and civil liberties. Countless people have suffered under the government’s domestic anti-terrorism policies, and anyone could be next. By their own definitions, the FBI is far more of a terrorist organization than the ELF or any other eco terrorist could be.

        References

“Eco-Terror Incitments: ‘Operation Backfire’ Nets 11.” (Jan 20 2006). Federal Bureau of Investigation archive.

“Ecoterrorism: Extremism in the animal rights and environmental movements.” Anti-Defamation league (ADL).

“Hardline warrior in war to save the whale.” (Jan 10 2010) New Zealand Herald.

“How the USA Patriot Act redefines ‘domestic terrorism’.” ACLU.

“New documents show FBI targeting environmental and animal rights groups activities as ‘domestic terrorism’.” (Dec 20 2005). ACLU.

“Putting intel to work against ELF and ALF terrorists.” (June 6 2008). Federal Bureau of Investigation archive.

“What is international humanitarian law?” (Dec 2014) International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).

Baldwin, Brent (Feb 6 2008). “Wade’s War.” Style.

Downs, Stephen and Manley, Kathy (May 2014, updated 2017). Inventing Terrorists: The Lawfare of Preemptive Prosecution. Project SALAM AND National Coalition to Protect Civil Freedoms.

Frequently Asked Questions about the Earth Liberation Front (ELF). (2001). North American Earth Liberation Front Press Office. ELF.

Jarboe, James F. (Feb 12 2002). Testimony of James F. Jarboe, Domestic Terrorism Section Chief, Counterterrorism Division, FBI, Before the House Resources Committee, Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health “The Threat of Eco-Terrorism.” Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Kuipers, Dean (Jul 30 2015). “Exclusive: tough questions for Feds after they jailed an innocent man for nine years.” Take Part.

Loadenthal, Micheal (Jan 2013). ‘The Green Scare’ & ‘Eco-Terrorism’: The Development of US Counter-Terrorism Strategy Targeting Direct Action Activists. Research Gate.

Markon, Jerry (Sept 20 2010). “FBI probes were improper, Justice says.” Washington Post.

National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Response to Terrorism (START). Data Collection and the Definition of Terrorism. Global Terrorism Database.

United Nations General Assembly (1948). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. United Nations.

US Code. Title 18. Code 2331.

Zamora, Jim Herron (June 12, 2002). “After 11 years, jury vindicates Earth First pair / FBI, Oakland officers must pay $4.4 million for civil rights abuses.” SF Gate.

[cpu-update]

Centralians speak during ACSCU Visayas Zonal Convention

The Association of Christian Schools, Colleges and Universities (ACSCU) held a Visayas Zonal Convention on June 9, 2022 with the Theme: “Shaping a Humane, Just, and Inclusive Society.” The convention was held via Zoom and was hosted by Silliman University.

The meditation was given by Rev. Francis Neil G. Jalando-on, Director for Communications of Central Philippine University. He was introduced by Ms. Grace C. Hughes, President of Fortress College. Before the message, Rev. Cris Amorsolo V. Sian, Senior Pastor, University Church, CPU, gave the opening prayer.

Rev. Jalando-on expounded the theme and that said “what is humane can be found in Jesus Christ. What is just can be found in Jesus Christ. What is inclusive can be found in Jesus Christ.” He shared three main points which are – First, what is humane is to love without boundaries and conditions. Second, what is just is what is right, and what is right starts with God. Thirdly, what is inclusive is to follow the perspective of Jesus. He ended his message with the words of Paul found in Galatians 3:28, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” This means that no barrier – be it race, economic class, or gender – should exists but all are in equal footing.

The second part of the program is the Keynote Message. The speaker was Prof. Franklin G. Robite, Former Chairperson, Department of Social Sciences, CPU. He was introduced by Prof. Janet P. Jaco, Vice Chairperson, ACSCU Visayas, and Principal of the CPU Elementary School. Prof. Robite connected his message about the theme with the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. He also said that the Preamble of the Philippine Constitution also states that we need to have a “Humane, Just, and Inclusive Society.” He also answered the question, “What is the main enemy here?” He emphasized that the enemies are “Discrimination and Prejudice.” He explained how we are discriminated because of our gender, class, age, language, race, marital status, and many more. He also said that we need to challenge injustice and unfairness. He shared that this happen around us all the time may be in the form of jokes, stereotypes, and insensitive comments. We also need to report discriminatory content wherever we can find it. He also challenge the member institutions to seek to change school policies which are discriminatory.

After the Keynote Message, Rev. Dr. Bernabe C. Pagara, Dean, College of Theology Central Philippine University together with three persons from Filamer Christian Univeristy, Fortress College and Silliman University shared their experiences during the Covid-19 pandemic, and how schools are “Embarking on a Journey of Limited Face to Face Learning.”

The convention also had their Business Meeting presided by Judge Benjamin D. Turgano and was assisted by Dr. Earl Jude Paul Cleope. It was ended by a worship and installation and commission of the new set of officers.

The one-day convention was attended by more than 60 school leaders from the member institutions of ACSCU Visayas Zone. The Program Chairperson and Master of Ceremonies was Dr. Beulah Torres, Director, Office of Instruction, Silliman University.

cpu.edu.ph

[loyallogic]

Dynamics Of Transgression Of Women’s Human Rights: The Contemporary Legal Framework In India

This article has been written by Siddharth Pareek, Student at National Law University, Jodhpur, 2nd Year, BA. L.L.B (Hons.).

Introduction

The most fundamental requirement in today’s world for people, especially women, to live with dignity is the existence of legal rights. These rights are the backbone of a human being and belong to them because of their very existence. The very purpose of having certain human rights is to get protection against the ill elements of society. The umbrella of human rights protects women’s interests globally. The basic fact behind is that “all men are born and remain free and equal in their rights[1].” The human rights basically are philosophy of egalitarian social relations expressed in law through contracts between states and people, as individuals and as social groups. States pledge to maintain indivisible, universal and interdependent standards agreed by the international community, articulated in the human rights instruments. 

The United Nations and Rights of Women

For centuries past, women all over the world have not only been denied full justice, social, economic and political but also as a ‘weaker sex’ they have been abused and exploited. The UN General Assembly[2] recognized that ‘gender-based violence, torture, sexual abuse, sexual slavery and exploitation, international trafficking in women and children, forced prostitution and sexual harassment; as well as violence against women and girls resulting from cultural prejudice, racism and racial discrimination, etc. are incompatible with dignity and worth of human person.’ In India, the principles of human rights were embedded in Indian ethos since the Vedic age. The “Vedas” and the “Arthashastras” have concepts like equality of rights of men and women and just and equal treatment of humans in the society.

“Due to the non-stopping efforts of the International Women’s Rights movement, the violence against women received the attention it deserved[3].” The moral, humanitarian, economic and political imperatives are clear. Taking cognizance of this repression all over, the United Nations passed various instruments with a focus on women’s emancipation and with the object of enhancing the dignity of women all over the world. The standards set out universally by the United Nations’ Charter[4], and elaborated through the International Bill of Rights[5] that includes the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, together with its sister Covenant International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights[6], and Universal Declaration of Human Rights[7], along with the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women[8] and Convention on the Rights of Child[9] should be honored. Gender justice, a facet of social justice is a composite concept. The term ‘Gender equality’[10] refers that women and men should be treated alike and it stands for the wiping out of male domination and focuses on protection of the legal rights of women. 

Violation Of Women’s Rights: “The Indian Corner”

The primary reason for the exploitation of women is violence against them. Its 21st century and even now the social ills against women take place quite often in different parts of India and around the world. At the international level, a significant number of declarations, conventions and treaties have been adopted in the field of human rights and protection of women. The international community has reacted to these agreements and documents positively. But still, we come across scandalous violations of human rights often. 

India, the world’s largest democracy, having an independent and extremely vibrant press also frequently suffers from incidents relating to gross violation of women’s rights. Going back to a few decades, during the UN Decade for Women (1976-1985), women from diverse cultural, geographical, religious, racial and class backgrounds initiated and organized to improve the status of women globally. There were different conferences held at different places to spread awareness about the ills and problems that women faced globally. These conferences were critical and primary venues at which different women came and stand together to help and support their community and bridge differences to create a global movement. The concept and the term ‘women’s human rights’ does not point only to the theoretical approaches and stands that women have used to recreate the concepts of human rights, agendas and different programs. Also, the idea of rights of women is directly related to and has an immense impact as a tool for political activism since it’s a revolutionary notion. 

According to the Thomson Reuters 2018 Survey[11] on the ‘World’s Most Dangerous Countries for Women’, India lies at the top. This survey measures problems like sexual and non-sexual violence, the status of healthcare, numbers of human trafficking, discrimination, etc. This shows our countries inability to protect the rights of our women and how vulnerable they are. It not only stops there, furthermore according to the National Crime Records Bureau[12], there were 338,954 incidents of crimes happened against women in 2016. Out of these, there were a total of 38,947 rape crimes. The major crimes and problems faced by the women in the society are categorized further on.

Sexual Harassment & Rape and Burden of Proof

The offence of sexual harassment and rape is considered to be one of the cruelest and heinous crimes. But it’s disheartening that such offences against women are still widespread and prevalent. Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code deals with the offence of rape. No person has the right to transgress or encroach a women’s body. Much more than physical agony, rape creates a mental turmoil. “It is a crime against basic human right and it also violates of victim’s most cherished of fundamental human rights, namely the right to life contained in article 21. To many feminists and psychiatrists, rape is less a sexual offence than an act of aggression aimed at degrading and humiliating women[13].” It destroys the physical integrity of a woman. 

Sexual harassment can be in various forms. It is something, which compels a person to join in unwanted sexual contact or attention. Exhibitionism (exposing sexual parts in public) and Voyeurism (gaining pleasure by watching others private sexual acts) are some examples of sexual harassment without physical contact. The distinguishing factor between rape and sexual intercourse is consent[14]. However, it is extremely difficult to prove the presence or absence of consent in a rape offence. A man is said to commit the offence of rape[15] when he has sexual intercourse with a woman, without her consent and against her will or when the consent has been obtained by putting that person under threat of death or hurt. If the victim in a rape offence submits that her body was put under threat of danger or fear, then the same would never amount to consent. It has been laid down[16] that there is a rule or prudence requiring corroboration of the victims in a case of rape. A woman is just a victim of a carnal desire. In cases of rape, corroboration need not be searched for by the judge if, in the particular circumstances of the cases before him, he is satisfied that it is safe to rely on the evidence of the victim.

Moreover, for proving guilt in sexual harassment or an offence of rape a woman is on the safer side since she is not required to prove that there was any sort of resistance on her part while the commission of the act. Under the India Evidence Act,[17] there is a compulsory statutory presumption, which requires the courts to believe that consent is absent in such cases. This section was included in furtherance and aftermath of the infamous Mathura rape case[18] in which the court acquitted the accused because there were no signs or marks of resistance, which were visible on the body of the accused. Also, to protect the women at the workplace and in the light of the absence of legislation, the Supreme Court formulated a set of legal framework and guidelines.[19] If the victim alleges that there was an absence of consent, then the burden of proof lies on the accused to prove his innocence. It would be inhumane and disastrous if we try to shift this burden of proof on the victim since this would put them in an extremely uncomfortable and vulnerable situation and it might even deter them from filing the complaint in the first place. Therefore, we need more safeguards to protect the women and the victims from primary and secondary victimization.

Assault and Criminal Force against Women

Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code criminalizes assault or criminal force to women. The use of criminal force against women means assaulting a woman with intent to outrage her modesty. Such cases happen frequently and every day but only a small fraction of them are reported. The Supreme Court while deciding the case of State of Punjab v. Major Singh[20] pointed out that an offence, which does amount to rape, may come under the ambit of section 354 of the I.P.C. 

In the case of People’s Union Democratic Rights v. Police Commissioner, Delhi, Police Headquarters[21] the Supreme Court charged the accused under Section 354 I.P.C. where the accused stripped a woman bare and thrashed her. Though she was awarded compensation the actual loss that she suffered is not recoverable since the damage was done. We need strong preventive measures rather than merely providing some sort of compensation to the victims.

In the case of Rupen Deo Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill[22], the Supreme Court stated that any offence under this section should not be treated trivially since it’s a grave offence transgressing and outraging the modesty of a woman. Right to privacy and personal liberty are sacrosanct rights of any individual, therefore any action, which affects the modesty of a woman, or put her into an uncomfortable situation should be made an offence and the accused should be properly dealt with. 

Honour Killing and Women

The expression ‘honour killing’ is in itself falsified. It is used to cover the cold-blooded murders done by the members of the family if any member has brought shame and dishonour to the family. It is often perceived as a ritualistic form of murder. In the majority of the cases, females are the victims of honour killings when they do anything, which the family considers are immoral or impure. It is also called as customary killing in which another member justifies the killing of a member of the family. 

The perceived dishonour can be because of various reasons. There are several actions, which are strongly linked to honour-based violence; some of them are as follows:

Pre-marital pregnancy

Infidelity

Asking for custody of children after divorce

Falling victim to rape

Loss of virginity outside marriage

Having unapproved relationships

Refusing an arranged marriage

Asking for divorce

Leaving the family or marital home without permission

Causing scandal or gossip in the community

In India, honour killings have been reported in various northern regions (primarily in the states of Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Rajasthan and Bihar) as a result of persons acting against their family’s will. Also, the erroneous concept of ‘Khap Panchayat’s is a serious concern since it is against the law of the land. The only legally constituted body to account such issues is the Judiciary and any such non-judicial body should be scrapped. It is very obvious that the country needs stringent legislations to tackle this heinous crime as thousands of people in India have become victim to this social ill and have died.

Domestic Violence

Domestic Violence is an expansive term but one of the very astonishing features is that economic, emotional, mental and verbal abuses have been considered to be constituents of domestic violence. In some countries like the U.S.A., the above-mentioned elements are not considered to be in the ambit of so-called domestic violence. The first set of international norms in the area of protection of women from violence was the UN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women[23], which focused on the security of women from certain forms of violence. Both the terms ‘legislation’ and ‘violence’ are extremely controversial.

When we talk about Indian society, violence in home or violence behind closed doors even today in many areas isn’t considered as unacceptable behaviour. This “practice” is deeply rooted in Indian society. However, after the recent development in legislation to domestic violence has helped women in the society to raise their voices and fight against the violent patriarchal society. But so far if we talk about the efficacy of such legislation, it is limited and somewhat have a dubious benefit to women. “The statistical literature on domestic violence in India to date has focused on the sub-national scales such as studies over a few villages in a sub district or slum areas in metropolitan cities [24].” The approach of domestic violence is complex. “Across the subcontinent there exist a wide variety of cultural norms and practices relating to domestic violence. The over-arching regional pattern is of more patriarchal and traditional states in the North such as Uttar Pradesh and Punjab, and relatively more egalitarian and educated states in South, such as Kerala and Tamil Nadu.”[25] There have various social and non-social factors been emerged which have helped the women to change their outlook towards the society on one hand and have changed societies perception towards them on the other. Phenomena like industrialization, globalization, and migration have given a ‘positive push’ to the women in the society and have enabled them to work away from home and become self-sufficient. Thus, we can see that the structural inequalities present in society have begun to dilute. A penal provision like Section 498A[26] and The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is the major legal framework in India to protect women from Domestic Violence. 

The contemporary legal framework

The International Perspective

The progress towards the constitution of women’s legal rights can be categorized into 3 stages.

The first stage witnessed the development of international convention that focused on the specific rights of women. 

The Second stage witnessed the emergence of Universal Declaration of Human Rights[27], International Covenant on Economic, social and Cultural Rights[28], European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights[29] etc. were developed.

Finally, the third stage witnessed the development of important conventions like Convention on Elimination of Discrimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women[30] and various laws, practices and policies to bring in a genuine change in the society.

Convention on Elimination of Discrimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) – It lays down comprehensive rights for women and also the additional measures for the protection of the women’s rights in the international arena. This convention imposes obligations on the Governments of various countries to take comprehensive actions to combat violence against women and to carry out efforts for the safety of women. “CEDAW is a truly significant statement of Women’s rights, which supersedes and particularizes the applicability of other instruments of international law to women. Its comprehensiveness touches every aspect of women’s lives, in the political, social, economic, legal, health and family spheres.”[31]

The National Perspective

“As a reaction to the male-dominated patriarchal structural and culture of our society and politics and the chauvinistic role of men, women of our time have become vocal and home started amplifying their equal rights to that of men. So, ours is a women’s era in as much as there is an increased consciousness about women rights.”[32] India, today has a set of stringent legislations like – 

The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956

The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013

The Commission of Sati (Prevention) Act, 1987 (3 of 1988)

The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961) (Amended in 1986)

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005

The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (PREVENTION, PROHIBITION and REDRESSAL) Act, 2013

The Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986

But still we need a lot more stringent and comprehensive women-specific legislation to protect the rights of women and spreading an air of deterrence against crimes against women in the society. “To make population policies fully supportive of women’s rights, countries must modify restrictive national laws, enforce laws that ensure women’s rights and reassess policies of non-ratification of international treaties that bear on women and reproductive rights.”[33]

Sine India ratified the CEDAW, which imposes a positive obligation to take appropriate steps to take appropriate steps to prevent discriminations of all forms against women besides taking steps to protect the honor and dignity of women. In Madhu Kishwar v. State of Bihar[34], the Supreme Court observed that CEDAW is an integral scheme of Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of the Indian Constitution. “The Government had ushered in the new millennium by declaring the year 2001 as ‘Women’s Empowerment Year’ to focus on a vision ‘where women are equal partners like men’. The objective of Government policy in India has been to bring about development, advancement and empowerment of women in the country through active participation of all stakeholders.”[35]

Conclusion

The present social system cannot be called as a full-fledged prosperous system because we have not reached the stage where we can bring men and women at parity. India, the world’s largest democracy, having an independent and extremely vibrant press frequently suffers from incidents relating gross violation of women’s rights like Rape and Sexual Harassment, Cruelty and Dowry Death, Domestic Violence, Honour killing and suppression of their liberty.

But we have come a long way and have been fighting to bring a genuine change through effective legislations and social participation. Due phenomena like globalization, industrialization and migration, we can see the transformation in the ideologies of people in the society and the change in the outlook of people towards women with a positive difference. We still have a long way to go but with constant productive efforts, we will surely be able to achieve the status of a society in which women are self-sufficient and safe.

Endnotes

[1] France: Declaration of the Right of Man and the Citizen, 26 August 1789

[2] “Women 2000: Gender Equality, Development and Peace for the 21st Century” The UN General Assembly 23rd Special Edition.

[3] Radhika Coomaraswamy and Nimanthi Perera Rajasingham, “Constellations of Violence: Feminist Interventions in South Asia”, Women Unlimited, 2008

[4] United Nations, Charter of The United Nations, 24 October 1945, 1 UNTS XVI

[5] Newman, ‘The International Bill of Rights: Does it exist?’ in Cassese, A., Current Problems of International Law, (ed.) at 107-16

[6] UN General Assembly, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 16 December 1966, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 999, p. 171.

[7] UN General Assembly, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948, 217 A(III).

[8] UN General Assembly, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, 18 December 1979, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1249, p. 13.

[9]  UN General Assembly, Convention on the Rights of the Child, 20 November 1989, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1577, p. 3.

[10] B.K. Ghatak, Dr. Ambedkar’s Thought, APH Publishing Corporation, 1997 at p. 121.

[11] Thomson Reuters 2018 Survey, The World’s Most Dangerous Countries for Women .

[Link – https://poll2018.trust.org/].

[12] National Crime Records Bureau, Crime in India Survey, 2016 

[Link-http://ncrb.gov.in/StatPublications/CII/CII2016/pdfs/NEWPDFs/Crime%20in%20India%20-%202016%20Complete%20PDF%20291117.pdf].

[13] Bodhisattawa Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty, (1996) 1 SCC 490.

[14] Tukaram v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SC 185.

[15]  S. 375, The Indian Penal Code, 1860.

[16] State of Maharashtra v. M.N. Mardikar, (1991) 1 SCC 57.

[17] S. 114, The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 .

[18] supra, 14.

[19] Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 214

[20] State of Punjab v. Major Singh, AIR 1967 SC 63.

[21] People’s Union Democratic Rights v. Police Commissioner, Delhi, Police Headquarters, (1989) 4 SCC 730

[22] Rupen Deo Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, (2005) 6 SCC 161.

[23] Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women, A/RES/48/104, 20 December 1993

[24] Hackett, Michelle T. “Domestic Violence against Women: Statistical Analysis of Crimes across India.” Journal of Comparative Family Studies, vol. 42, no. 2, 2011, pp. 267–288. 

[Link – JSTOR, https://ift.tt/33Mhd5c].

[25] id

[26] S. 498A, The Indian Penal Code, 1860.

[27] supra, 7

[28] UN General Assembly, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rights, 16 December, 1966, United Nations, Treaty Series, Vol. 993, p. 3.

[29] Council of Europe, European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 4 November 1950.

[30] Supra, 8.

[31] Tinker, Catherine. “Human Rights for Women: The U. N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.” Human Rights Quarterly, vol. 3, no. 2, 1981, pp. 32–43. 

[Link – JSTOR, https://ift.tt/2MUluNj]

[32]  Das, Jogendra Kr. “Reflections on Human Rights and the position of Indian Women”, The Indian Journal of Political Science, vol. 64, no. 3/4, 2003, pp. 203–220. 

[Link – JSTOR, https://ift.tt/2MX8aI4].

[33] Pine, Rachel N. “The Legal Approach: Women’s Rights as Human Rights.” Harvard International Review, vol. 16, no. 4, 1994, pp. 26–77. 

[Link – JSTOR, https://ift.tt/2BxC1kN].

[34] Madhu Kishwar v. State of Bihar, 1996 AIR 1864

[35] Ojha, Purnima. “Women’s Issues in India: Role and Importance of Media”, The Indian Journal of Political Science, vol. 72, no. 1, 2011, pp. 87–102.

[Link – JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/42761809]

Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skill.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/joinchat/J_0YrBa4IBSHdpuTfQO_sA

Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.

The post Dynamics Of Transgression Of Women’s Human Rights: The Contemporary Legal Framework In India appeared first on iPleaders.

Dynamics Of Transgression Of Women’s Human Rights: The Contemporary Legal Framework In India published first on https://namechangers.tumblr.com/

[marymosley]

International Law and the thrust for women’s human right under CEDAW Convention

‘International law consists of certain rules of conduct which modern civilized States regard as being on them in their relations within one another.’

The international law also includes the rules of law relating to functioning of international institutions or organizations, their relations with each other, and their relation with states and individuals.

The notion of modern international law can be considered from the renaissance and reformation of European countries. But its origin can be traced back to ancient historical politics and relationships of thousands of years old. The Greek City State and the Roman law concept of jus gentium underpin that example. After the fall of Roman Empire and the collapse into independent cities, principalities, kingdom and nations, there was a real need for rules of conduct between the international communities. International trade was one of the real catalysts for the development of objective rules of behavior among the nations. Economic self-interest drove the evolution of common international trade rules and customs of maritime law.

        Following the world war-1, the League of Nations was established which attempted to established a new international law of peace. An international court was established to arbitrate disputes between nations without resorting to war. However the post war era show a highly appreciable form of international law, plunging many areas of human necessity in an organized way. One of the important developments in modern international law is the concept of ‘consent’. Before the Second World War, a nation would not have been considered to be bound by a rule unless it had formally agreed to be bound by it, or it was already customarily abiding by that rule. Now a days merely consenting to an international practice is sufficient to be bound by it, without signing a treaty. Moreover, customary international law applies to every country, regardless of whether they have formally agreed to it or not. Again the international organizations are created on the basis of international agreements for certain specific functions. The United Nation is one of such international organization which was established after the Second World War in the year 1945. The General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, which is the first international law on Human Rights. The human rights delineated by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 are to be understood as applying to women also. However, traditions, prejudice, social, economic and political interests have combined  to exclude women from prevailing definition of ‘human rights’ and to relegate women to secondary status within human rights consideration. This marginalization of women in the world of human rights has been a reflection of gender inequality in the world at large and has also had a formidable impact on women’s life. Generally human rights of women are violated in variety of ways and through various institutions and system of society such as family, religion, education, service, health etc. That was the focus of the work of the United Nations since its establishment. The Preamble of the UN Charter set a basic goal to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights and equal rights of man and woman.

             As early as in 1946 the Commission on the Status of Women was established by the; to deal with women’s issue. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights had affirmed the principle of the non-discrimination and proclaimed that all human beings are been free and equal in dignity and rights and that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth therein without any distinction based on sex. On November 7th, 1967, the General Assembly adopted a Declaration on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, and in order to implement the principle set forth in the Declaration, finally a Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women was adopted in 1979.  This Convention is considered to be one of the most comprehensive international legal instrument in the field of human rights of women and more concrete provisions aimed at the real implementation of the rights already recognized.

          It is worth mentioning here that the right of women along with men has been recognized in major human rights instruments since the establishment of the United Nation. But, by early 1960s, a sense of dissatisfaction let to renew proposals for the elaboration of a global instrument covering all aspects of discrimination against women. Subsequently, the adoption of the Declaration on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women was found to be only a moral force with lukewarm response by the government. Finally the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women was found to be the major instrument relating to the status of women under human rights concept.

         The Convention has twin objectives:  to prohibit discrimination and to ensure equality. The scope of the obligations created by the Convention extends to political, economic, social, cultural, legal, familial and personal fields of activity. The Convention is the first international treaty for women who include provisions for a reporting system and review machinery. It is considered as the crowning achievement of the Commission on the Status of Women in the field of standard setting.

           Part-I of CEDAW define discrimination against women as any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field.

          Article-3 of Part-I requires States to take appropriate measures in all fields, particularly in the political, social, economic and cultural fields, to ensure the full development and advancement of women, for the purpose of guaranteeing them the exercise and enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms on the basis of equality with men.

              Article-5(a) requires States to take all appropriate measures to modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, with a view to achieving the elimination of prejudices and customary and all other practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes or on stereotyped roles for men and women.

             Article-6 also requires States to suppress all forms of traffic in women and exploitation of prostitution of women.

             Part-II of the Convention focuses on equality within political and public life of the country, including equality in voting and participation in formulating government politics.

            Part-III addresses equality of men and women in the field of education, employment, health care and economic benefits. A special provision requires States to take into account particular difficulties experienced by rural women in the areas of health, education and other aspects of rural life.

            Part-IV establishes equality between men and women in civil matters, including the right to contract and administer property. Women shall also enjoy the same rights with regard to freedom of movement and choice of residences as men. State shall also eliminate discrimination in marital and other family matters, allowing women equal rights with respect to choosing spouse, choosing a family name or profession, and owning and disposing of property.

           Article-17 of Part-V of CEDAW establishes a Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women for the purpose of considering the progress made in the implementing the treaty. State party of CEDAW must submit periodic reports on measures taken to effect provisions of CEDAW to the Secretary General of the United Nation and for consideration by the Committee.

         Part-VI contains procedural provisions, including a settlement procedure for resolving dispute between two or more State concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention.

                                Thus, the Convention combines three main approaches: a non discrimination approach, a protective approach and a corrective approach. The Convention mandates the monitoring of its implementation by State parties through a reporting procedure. In October, 1999, two new monitoring procedures for CEDAW Committee, namely, communication and an inquiry procedure were added to the Convention through the adoption of Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women and this came into entry into force in December, 2000.

            While it had been one of the goals, stipulated in the Beijing Platform for Action, to achieve universal ratification of the Convention by the year 2000, but it was not achieved. At the end of 1992 Lijnzaad records 120 State parties to the Convention, of which 81 had ratified without reservation and 27 had entered reservation to substantive provision or other declaration. By January 2004, there were 175 States parties to the Convention with the reservation by 55 States parties. It is true that reservation to this Convention raise not only a number of legal, but also many political, economic, moral and social problems.

            It is notable that the Convention itself does allow for reservation as described in Article – 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treatise.  However, despite the withdrawal provision of reservations, most of the general reservations as well as those to substantive articles are found to be going against the ‘object’ and ‘purpose’ of the Convention. Many countries, though signed the Convention, made reservation to the Convention. These reservations and widespread objection to the CEDAW Committee’s power to questioning reservation can be seen as part of the overall marginalization of women’s rights. Rejection of the fundamental obligation of non-discrimination on the basis of sex through broad reservations to the Women’s Convention should be seen as undermining commitment to all human rights guarantees.

            The strength and effectiveness of the Global campaign can be seen on the adoption of the Optional Protocol to CEDAW which was approved by the United Nation General Assembly in December 1999 and went into force in 2000, by the General Assembly, Resolution No.54/4. The Protocol contains 21 Articles and deals with the individual’s petition of member States, regarding the violation of Women’s Human Rights.

            Article-2 of the Protocol provides for the submission by or on behalf of any individual, claiming to be a victim of violation of any of the right set forth in the Convention. Some of the cases decided by the CEDAW Committee are mentioned hereunder:

    X and Y –vs- Georgia. Communication No. 24/2009, UN Doc.CEDAW/C/61/D/24/2009(2015)

   R.P.B.-Vs-The Philippines. Communication No.34/2011,UN Doc. CEDAW/C/57/D/34/2011(2014)

   Angela Gonzalez Carreno-Vs-Spain.  Communication No.47/2012. UN Doc. CEDAW/58/D/47/2012(2014)

   Cecilia Kell-Vs-Canada. Communication No. 19/2008, UN Doc. CEDAW/C/51/D/19/2008(2012)

      In these cases the women’s rights are discussed thoroughly.

Finally it can be concluded that the CEDAW Convention is an effort for protection of women’ human rights at the International Forum.

  Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women:-

        The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women is the monitoring body of the CEDAW, established in 1982. The legal basis of the Committee can be found Article – 17 of CEDAW. The Committee consists of 23 expert persons having knowledge on Human Rights issues. The mandate of the Committee is to watch the programme for women made in those countries which are members of the CEDAW Convention. The Committee monitors the implementation of national measures to fulfill this obligation. The Committee also makes recommendations on any issues affecting women to which it believes that the state parties should devote more attention. Governments which have ratified the Convention are obliged to submit reports to CEDAW on implementation of the Convention on every after four years. CEDAW holds two seasons a year for a period of three weeks each and it is serviced by the Division for the Advance of Women [DAW].

                 Periodic Report: In each session the Committee reviews a number of periodic reports submitted by the member States regarding any matter on legislative, judicial and other measures and asks the respective government representatives about the implementation of the Convention. Being a member of the CEDAW, the Government of India submitted its annual report to the Committee annually.

               The Optional Protocol to the Convention provides for an inquiry procedure against the individuals complaints. Under the Optional Protocol, any individual women or group of women whose rights under the Convention have   been violated in a State which is a member to the Optional Protocol will be able to present a complaint to the Committee on condition that her domestic remedies have been exhausted. The Committee will not consider any complaints which have been placed before any other International Court.

The main functions of the Committee are –                                               

[a] Examination of State reports.

 [b] Individuals Complaint.

 [c] Fact finding through confidential enquiry procedure for gross and systematic abuse.

        However, it may be concluded that the discussion on the United Nation and the CEDAW Convention, and the role of IGOs for adopting those Conventions and implementing those women’s human rights, painfully realize the fact that even after 50 years of adoption of Universal Declaration of Human Rights, women’s right have recently been acknowledge conceptually, while its practice and reality still remain tangled in complex issues of culture, inadequate or lack of enforcement, accountability systems and political will. All these combine to ensure a long struggle ahead for making human rights a reality for all women. But, regarding the position of the Convention in India, it may be stated that though India have included the provision of UDHR in its Constitution, more fully under Part-III and Part- IV of Indian Constitution, still  the provision of CEDAW have not been included.

The post International Law and the thrust for women’s human right under CEDAW Convention appeared first on Legal Desire.

International Law and the thrust for women’s human right under CEDAW Convention published first on https://immigrationlawyerto.tumblr.com/

[bintaeran]

Yoga and Human Rights

Yoga and Human Rights Nina Zolotow by Jivana

Mural of Human Rights: The Seeds That Give the Fruit (Detail) by Vela Zanetti

“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.” — Universal Declaration of Human Rights, United Nations, 1948 I imagine that for most people talking about yoga and human rights in the same sentence may seem strange. But this connection became clear in my mind when I had the privilege of attending a special event at the United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva in 2015. The event was the celebration of the International Day of Persons with Disabilities, December 3, a holiday established by the UN. That year, I was invited to teach Accessible Yoga as part of a variety of offerings focusing on the positive steps that people with disabilities can take to achieve full equality and human rights.  Most of the other presenters were leaders of disability rights groups from around the world. They spoke about how people with disabilities make up the largest minority group in the world: well over 1 billion people! And they discussed the basic human rights that they are seeking for people with disabilities. In 2006, the UN’s Human Rights Commission set the gold standard for these human rights in their Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. They declared:  “The purpose of the present Convention is to promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities, and to promote respect for their inherent dignity.” Article 1, United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities I was struck by the correlation between basic human rights, and the fundamental teachings of yoga philosophy. According to the yoga tradition, each person has a spiritual essence, which is called the atman or purusha. The work of yoga, the poses, breathing practices, ethical living, and meditation, are all about opening the pathways to the experience of that essence. I’ve always loved the fact that yoga begins with this positive assumption. The idea is that every single one of us has an atman, and that there is no differentiation made between the atman of any two people, regardless of their ability or background. Yoga begins with equality, as we are all equal in spirit. And because we are all equal in spirit, yoga is equally powerful in helping anyone, of any background or ability, to find the inner peace that we all crave. Of course, embracing diversity is an essential part of human rights, and the disability community is extremely diverse. There is currently a shift in the disability community towards disability pride, towards embracing difference. As a gay man, pride has a special meaning to me. I grew up thinking that being gay was a deficit, and learning to be proud of my differences has been a great source of my healing. Now, I am not only proud of being gay, but I see how being different makes me stronger. Swami Sivananda, a famous yoga master, used to say that spiritual life was about seeing the “unity in diversity.” This means being able to see that we are all connected, and to simultaneously embrace our differences. Yoga and human rights both stem from this dual vision—the ability to hold both equality and diversity simultaneously. It’s really a paradox: we are all the same and yet all unique. This perspective is challenging in a modern world where some people are empowered and some are not, a world that is filled with division and the separation of groups based on race, class, gender identity, political affiliation, etc. Our job as yoga practitioners, and human rights advocates, is embrace those differences and at the same time to see the same essence in everyone we meet.  According to the Bhagavad Gita, one of the most essential texts of yoga, as we become more in tune with ourselves, we begin to experience that underlying connection with others. Lord Krishna, who is teaching Arjuna how to be a yogi, explains: “As your mind becomes harmonized through yoga practices, you begin to see the Atman in all being and all beings in your Self; you see the same Self everywhere and in everything. Those who see me wherever they look and recognize everything as my manifestation, never again feel separate from me, nor I from them. Whoever becomes established in the all-pervading oneness and worships me abiding in all beings – however he may be living, that yogi lives in me. The yogi who perceives the essential oneness everywhere naturally feels the pleasure or pain of others as his or her own.” (6.29-32 translation by Swami Satchidananda). Just seeing through the diversity of nature to experience the oneness of creation isn’t enough. Krishna is teaching us that once we go down that path, we will literally feel the pleasure and pain of others as our own. That’s the ultimate level of awareness – true connection. And that is the first step on the path to equality and human rights. If we feel intimately connected to others, then we automatically take care of them. But this can only happen if we understand our personal privilege and the perspective we are coming from, otherwise that concept of oneness can be used to avoid the harsh reality of human rights abuse and leave us complacent. This is called spiritual bypassing. “Spiritual bypassing perpetuates the idea that the belief “we are one” is enough to create a reality where we are treated equally and as one. It is not. Spiritual bypassing permits the status quo to stay in place and teaches people that if you believe in something and have a good intent that is enough. It is not.” —Michelle Cassandra Johnson Those of us in positions of power and authority can use our yoga practice to reveal hidden truths in our own behavior and attitude—things we may not want to see in ourselves. The practice of svadhyaya, or reflection, is an essential part of yoga. In svadhyaya we attempt to witness the workings of our own mind, to see our ego and its prejudices. In the self-reflection that our practice brings, we can consider this question: Are my efforts reinforcing the status quo or is my practice inspiring me to actively work on achieving human rights for all?  Regarding ableism specifically, yoga teachers can reflect on whether unknowingly they may be teaching yoga in a discriminatory way. For example, am I teaching in a wheelchair-accessible space? Am I teaching in a way that values physical ability as superior or advanced? Am I giving all students the same respect, attention, and kindness regardless of ability? Are my offerings advancing equality in the yoga community? What can I do to cultivate svadhaya in myself, in my students, and in my peers? We can also examine our language: Am I reinforcing stereotypes that I am also the victim of? For example, do I hide my own physical challenges out of an effort to seem like the perfect yogi, rather than honestly share with students about where I am at? Can I examine the culture of the yoga studios I teach or visit to see if they are in line with my own beliefs? Do the social media accounts I follow make me feel better about myself or reinforce insecurity and self-doubt?  For those of us who are oppressed or lacking in human rights, we can use our yoga practice as a source of power and healing. That means seeking out supportive yoga communities that don’t make us feel less than but rather help to lift us up. In this way, we can use yoga as self-care and as a source of empowerment. According to Audre Lorde: “Caring for myself is not self-indulgence, it is self-preservation, and that is an act of political warfare.” This paradox of unity and diversity is at the heart of yoga and at the heart of human rights. With practice, self-awareness, and action, we can deepen our experience of yoga, connecting with our true self and simultaneously begin to honestly and openly address human rights and discrimination of all kinds. Subscribe to Yoga for Healthy Aging by Email ° Follow Yoga for Healthy Aging on Facebook and Twitter ° To order Yoga for Healthy Aging: A Guide to Lifelong Well-Being, go to Amazon, Shambhala, Indie Bound or your local bookstore. For this month only, you can buy our e-book for only $2.99 on Kindle, Nook, Apple, Kobo, and Books-A-Million!

Follow Jivana Heyman on Facebook and Instagram and see Jivana's Workshops and Trainings for upcoming workshops and trainings. For information on Accessible Yoga, see accessibleyoga.org and follow Accessible Yoga on Facebook and Instagram. Yoga and Human Rights https://ift.tt/2RCEnou themostdangerous1 https://ift.tt/2PbCVNa via IFTTT

[theconservativebrief]

“You could say I was red-pilled by Nietzsche.”

That’s how white nationalist leader Richard Spencer described his intellectual awakening to the Atlantic’s Graeme Wood last June. “Red-pilled” is a common alt-right term for that “eureka moment” one experiences upon confrontation with some dark and previously buried truth.

For Spencer and other alt-right enthusiasts of the 19th-century German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, that dark truth goes something like this: All the modern pieties about race, peace, equality, justice, civility, universal suffrage — that’s all bullshit. These are constructs cooked up by human beings and later enshrined as eternal truths.

Nietzsche says the world is in constant flux, that there is no capital-T truth. He hated moral and social conventions because he thought they stifled the individual. In one of his most famous essays, The Genealogy of Morality, which Spencer credits with inspiring his awakening, Nietzsche tears down the intellectual justifications for Christian morality. He calls it a “slave morality” developed by peasants to subdue the strong. The experience of reading this was “shattering,” Spencer told Wood. It upended his “moral universe.”

There is, of course, much more to Nietzsche than this. As someone silly enough to have written a dissertation on Nietzsche, I’ve encountered many Spencer-like reactions to his thought. And I’m not surprised that the old German philosopher has become a lodestar for the burgeoning alt-right movement. There is something punk rock about his philosophy. You read it for the first time and you think, “Holy shit, how was I so blind for so long?!”

But if you read Nietzsche like a college freshman cramming for a midterm, you’re bound to misinterpret him — or at least to project your own prejudices into his work. When that happens, we get “bad Nietzsche,” as the Week’s Scott Galupo recently put it.

And it would appear that “bad Nietzsche” is back, and he looks a lot like he did in the early 20th century when his ideas were unjustly appropriated by the (original) Nazis. So now’s a good time to reengage with Nietzsche’s ideas and explain what the alt-right gets right and wrong about their favorite philosopher.

White nationalist Richard Spencer speaks to select media in his office space on August 14, 2017, in Alexandria, Virginia. Photo by Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

In her recent book about the rise of the alt-right, Irish academic Angela Nagle discusses their obsession with civilizational decay. “They’re disgusted by what they consider a degenerate culture,” she told me in a recent interview.

Nietzsche made these same arguments more than 100 years ago. The story he tells in The Genealogy of Morality is that Christianity overturned classical Roman values like strength, will, and nobility of spirit. These were replaced with egalitarianism, community, humility, charity, and pity. Nietzsche saw this shift as the beginning of a grand democratic movement in Western civilization, one that championed the weak over the strong, the mass over the individual.

The alt-right — or at least parts of the alt-right — are enamored of this strain of Nietzsche’s thought. The influential alt-right blog Alternative Right refers to Nietzsche as a great “visionary” and published an essay affirming his warnings about cultural decay.

“Future historians will likely look back on the contemporary West as a madhouse,” the essay’s author writes, “where the classic virtues of heroism, high culture, nobility, self-respect, and reason had almost completely disappeared, along with the characteristics of adulthood generally.”

There is something punk rock about his philosophy. You read it for the first time and you think, “Holy shit, how was I so blind for so long?!”

In his interview with the Atlantic, Spencer, an avowed atheist, surprised Wood with a peculiar defense of Christianity: that the religion is false but it “bound together the civilizations of Europe.”

Spencer’s view is common among the alt-right. They have no interest in the teachings of Christ, but they see the whole edifice of white European civilization as built on a framework of Christian beliefs. From their perspective, Christendom united the European continent and forged white identity.

It’s a paradox: They believe the West has grown degenerate and weak because it internalized Christian values, but they find themselves defending Christendom because they believe it’s the glue that binds European culture together.

Last August, Vox Day, a prominent alt-right thinker (who often cites Nietzsche in his posts), laid out the central tenets of the alt-right in a post titled “What the Alt-Right is.” There are a number of revealing points, one of which reads:

The Alt Right believes Western civilization is the pinnacle of human achievement and supports its three foundational pillars: Christianity, the European nations, and the Graeco-Roman legacy.

Nietzsche accepted that Christianity was central to the development of Western civilization, but his whole philosophy was focused on convincing people that the West had to move beyond Christianity.

When Nietzsche famously declared that “God is dead,” he meant that science and reason had progressed to the point where we could no longer justify belief in God, and that meant that we could no longer justify the values rooted in that belief. So his point was that we had to reckon with a world in which there is no foundation for our highest values.

The alt-right skipped this part of Nietzsche’s philosophy. They’re tickled by the “death of God” thesis but ignore the implications.

“Nietzsche’s argument was that you had to move forward, not fall back onto ethnocentrism,” Hugo Drochon, author of Nietzsche’s Great Politics, told me. “So in many ways Spencer is stuck in the ‘Shadows of God’ — claiming Christianity is over but trying to find something that will replace it so that we can go on living as if it still existed, rather than trying something new.”

A man makes a slashing motion across his throat toward counterprotesters as he marches with other white nationalists, neo-Nazis, and members of the alt-right during the “Unite the Right” rally August 12, 2017, in Charlottesville, Virginia. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

The alt-right renounces Christianity but insists on defending Christendom against nonwhites. But that’s not Nietzsche; that’s just racism. And the half-baked defense of “Christendom” is an attempt to paper over that fact.

Nietzsche was interested in ideas, in freedom of thought. To the extent that he knocked down the taboos of his day, it was to free up the creative powers of the individual. He feared the death of God would result in an era of mass politics in which people sought new “isms” that would give them a group identity.

“The time is coming when the struggle for dominion over the earth will be carried on in the name of fundamental philosophical doctrines,” he wrote. By doctrines, he meant political ideologies like communism or socialism. But he was equally contemptuous of nationalism, which he considered petty and provincial.

Listening to Spencer talk about Nietzsche (and, regrettably, I listened to his Nietzsche podcast) is like hearing someone who never got past the introduction of any of his favorite books. It’s the kind of dilettantism you hear in first-year critical theory seminars. He uses words like “radical traditionalist” and “archeofuturist,” neither of which means anything to anyone.

Like so many superficial readers of Nietzsche, Spencer is excited by the radicalism but doesn’t take it seriously. Spencer’s rejection of conventional conservatism clearly has roots in Nietzsche’s ideas, but Spencer’s fantasy of a white ethnostate is exactly what Nietzsche was condemning in the Germany of his time.

“Nietzsche’s way forward was not more [racial] purity but instead more mixing,” Drochon told me. “His ideal was to bring together the European Jew and the Prussian military officer. Spencer, I take it, only wants the latter.” Nietzsche, for better or worse, longed for a new kind of European citizen, one free of group attachments, be they racial or ideological or nationalistic.

Racists find affirmation in Nietzsche’s preference for “Aryan humanity,” a phrase he uses in several books, but that term doesn’t mean what racists think it means. “Aryan humanity” is always contrasted with Christian morality in Nietzsche’s works; it’s a reference to pre-Christian Paganism. Second, in Nietzsche’s time, “Aryan” was not a racially pure concept; it also included Indo-Iranian peoples.

People often say that the Nazis loved Nietzsche, which is true. What’s less known is that Nietzsche’s sister, who was in charge of his estate after he died, was a Nazi sympathizer who shamefully rearranged his remaining notes to produce a final book, The Will to Power, that embraced Nazi ideology. It won her the favor of Hitler, but it was a terrible disservice to her brother’s legacy.

Nietzsche regularly denounced anti-Semitism and even had a falling-out with his friend Richard Wagner, the proto-fascist composer, on account of Wagner’s rabid anti-Semitism. Nietzsche also condemned the “blood and soil” politics of Otto von Bismarck, the Prussian statesman who unified Germany in 1871, for cementing his power by stoking nationalist resentments and appealing to racial purity.

So there’s no way to square Nietzsche’s philosophy with the racial politics of the alt-right, just as it wasn’t fair to charge Nietzsche with inspiring Nazism. But both of these movements found just enough ambiguity in his thought to justify their hate.

The alt-right renounces Christianity but insists on defending Christendom against nonwhites. But that’s not Nietzsche; that’s just racism.

Nietzsche liked to say that he “philosophized with a hammer.” For someone on the margins, stewing in their own hate or alienation or boredom, his books are a blast of dynamite. All that disillusionment suddenly seems profound, like you just stumbled upon a secret that justifies your condition.

He tells you that the world is wrong, that society is upside down, that all our sacred cows are waiting to be slaughtered. So if you’re living in a multiethnic society, you trash pluralism. If you’re embedded in a liberal democracy, you trumpet fascism. In short, you become politically incorrect — and fancy yourself a rebel for it.

Nietzsche was a lot of things — iconoclast, recluse, misanthrope — but he wasn’t a racist or a fascist. He would have shunned the white identity politics of the Nazis and the alt-right. That he’s been hijacked by racists and fascists is partly his fault, though. His writings are riddled with contradictions and puzzles. And his fixation on the future of humankind is easily confused with a kind of social Darwinism.

But in the end, people find in Nietzsche’s work what they went into it already believing. Which is why the alt-right, animated as they are by rage and discontent, find in Nietzsche a mirror of their own resentments. If you’re seeking a reason to reject a world you don’t like, you can find it anywhere, especially in Nietzsche.

Original Source -> The alt-right is drunk on bad readings of Nietzsche. The Nazis were too.

via The Conservative Brief