Greetings and salutations my fellow CAP members (those who are currently enrolled in the Law and Society Stream that is). I would like to share with you all this posting which was added as a supplement to my UBC blog.

I remember recently in one of our seminars for Arts Studies that we read from within the course handbook, the Universal Declaration of Rights. The way Amnesty International presents their ideas in the form of laws is certainly interesting to witness! It is almost as if they were expecting us to follow these laws as the format would most likely generate engagement from the reader and discussion amongst groups and organizations. To me this is almost flattery to our species. Now we may have already discussed about this in the seminars, but I would be honored to ask you all a question, one I have just recently thought of.

Do you think Amnesty International is being realistic with their decisions or are they being too ambition and pushing their views and beliefs to pass legislature?

So I’ll start off by stating my own opinion on this matter. I think that Amnesty International is being realistic and rational with some of their proposals, but there are a few statements that they have made which I believe will cause a lot of controversy. The first one I would appreciate pointing out to is from Article 13 which states that “Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.” I would like to stress upon the word “freedom” here as if the law passed without fail I would presume anyone, including those convicted of a crime could enter any nation. In today’s world we are bound by immigration laws attached to each country, laws which give those clean of all offenses freedom to access but impose restrictions on criminals. Also the thought of having to renew passports and go through lengthy immigration processes is not considered freedom as it just goes as far as to hint that these laws are controlling us and forcing us through these processes. Some countries go as far as to prevent anybody regardless of race or gender access beyond their borders, an example that could be made with North Korea. If Amnesty is really ambition about their proposals, in my opinion they should reconsider carefully about the fact that paranoia is rampant throughout the globe and is a factor that hinders freedom.

Another topic I would like to talk about is the message that Joyce Carol Oates is conveying to us with her short story entitled Tetanus. I found it rather surprising that Zwilich instead of opting to help Cesar Diaz in the end, decided to abandon him after the child viciously attacked him. While this is a rather rational act to commit on Zwilich’s behalf as self protection, it is an extremely shocking ending for a story based on Article 6 of Amnesty International’s Universal Declaration of Rights. Article 6 states that “Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law,” and while Zwilich almost shows sympathy for the boy at the beginning of the story he grows to loathe him towards the end. I’m guessing the reason Oates did this was to show the consequences that would occur if a child was continuously abused, neglected and becoming the result of bad parenting. It’s almost as if it is sending a message to parents that if they stoop so low as to treat their children the way Cesar was treated, then their child might succumb to a life of danger, hatred and crime. The writer also portrays the end as a clear message that these children will be incredibly difficult to rehabilitate almost as if to warn abusive and neglectful parents that they will be producing monsters if they continue their parental treatment.

What do you think? It is of course, my opinion.