Monthly Archives: September 2011

Capital Punishment and Women’s Rights

Posted on by




While reading the "Social Contract" by Rousseau, one section that particularly stood out for me was chapter five, "The Right of Life and Death." In this section Rousseau discusses the legality of the death penalty, specifically as the punishment for killing another man. Rousseau contends that, since man gives up some of his "natural" freedoms when joining the social contract (the contract that basically gives order to society), and acknowledges this fact by living in a society governed by law, he similarly acknowledges the punishments set out for breaking the laws of that society. It Rousseau's time, fact the penalty for murder was capital punishment. Therefore, by committing murder, the murderer has broken the social treaty agreed upon by the sovereign (the people as a collective) and has become an enemy of the state. Rousseau believes that an enemy of the state and the state itself cannot coexist, and so the only reasonable solution to resolve this problem, other than the dissolution of the state, is to exterminate the enemy.  Given the fact that the murderer understood the societies' punishment for murder, before he committed the crime, it is logical and fair for the killer to be executed by the state. 
The reason I was particularly interested by this section is because of the current debate going on now about the use of the death penalty, specifically in the United States. In light of a couple of capital punishment executions last week, there has been an international backlash against the use of such punishment, especially in a so-called "first-world" country. Personally, I have always been against capital punishment simply because I think it is almost a gentler to punishment to kill someone and put them out of their misery, rather than to subject them to a life-long sentence in a maximum security prison, where they will be treated incredibly harshly for the rest of their miserable lives. That aside however, after reading Rousseau's understanding of the legality of capital punishment, I was almost convinced to change my opinion. For me, Rousseau's explanation of the use of capital punishment makes complete and logical sense. If the known penalty for murder is state execution, and someone commits first degree murder anyway (I'll limit this argument to the case of first degree murder), it seems reasonable for the state to convict the criminal and sentence him to death. Punishments are in place to deter people from breaking laws. If a society decides that they want their punishment for murder to be capital punishment, that is their right as a sovereign society. That is the social contract they are entering into and agreeing upon and it is therefore the right of the government to execute a murderer, as they are adhering to the common will.  Therefore, if a person knows the consequence of breaking a law, and yet does so anyway? Society has every right to punish them, in the way they agreed upon when creating and agreeing upon their social contract.
Another document that was intriguing to me, as I'm sure it was to many others simply because it is so unlike anything we have read thus far, was the "Declaration of the Rights of Woman and the Female Citizen" by Georgia de Goughes.  The feminist document was quite interesting to read because it is the first time we see a woman sticking up for our rights as equal human beings. What was most interesting to me however was the fact that, unlike all of the documents which prescribe strictly to the rights of man, de Goughes does not exclude the opposite sex in her Declaration of Rights, but merely surmises that men and women should be equals. Rather than writing a vindictive diatribe against men as payback for being left out of centuries of rights documents, de Goughes is the bigger person and includes, perhaps for the first time, both sexes in one document. Furthermore, she doesn't believe women should get preferential treatment (as say, every other document written before hers did with reference to men). Rather she is merely campaigning for utter equality in all matters of the law-- "No woman is an exception; she is accused, arrested, and detained in cases determined by law. Women, like men, obey this rigorous law." I greatly appreciate and respect de Goughes document and cannot imagine the courage it must have taken for her to put out such a radical and progressive statement, at a time when women were still regarded as secondary citizens.  We owe the success of the women's rights movement to de Goughes and others like her that kicked the status quo in the butt and demanded equality in an unequal world.

Capital Punishment and Women’s Rights

Posted on by




While reading the "Social Contract" by Rousseau, one section that particularly stood out for me was chapter five, "The Right of Life and Death." In this section Rousseau discusses the legality of the death penalty, specifically as the punishment for killing another man. Rousseau contends that, since man gives up some of his "natural" freedoms when joining the social contract (the contract that basically gives order to society), and acknowledges this fact by living in a society governed by law, he similarly acknowledges the punishments set out for breaking the laws of that society. It Rousseau's time, fact the penalty for murder was capital punishment. Therefore, by committing murder, the murderer has broken the social treaty agreed upon by the sovereign (the people as a collective) and has become an enemy of the state. Rousseau believes that an enemy of the state and the state itself cannot coexist, and so the only reasonable solution to resolve this problem, other than the dissolution of the state, is to exterminate the enemy.  Given the fact that the murderer understood the societies' punishment for murder, before he committed the crime, it is logical and fair for the killer to be executed by the state. 
The reason I was particularly interested by this section is because of the current debate going on now about the use of the death penalty, specifically in the United States. In light of a couple of capital punishment executions last week, there has been an international backlash against the use of such punishment, especially in a so-called "first-world" country. Personally, I have always been against capital punishment simply because I think it is almost a gentler to punishment to kill someone and put them out of their misery, rather than to subject them to a life-long sentence in a maximum security prison, where they will be treated incredibly harshly for the rest of their miserable lives. That aside however, after reading Rousseau's understanding of the legality of capital punishment, I was almost convinced to change my opinion. For me, Rousseau's explanation of the use of capital punishment makes complete and logical sense. If the known penalty for murder is state execution, and someone commits first degree murder anyway (I'll limit this argument to the case of first degree murder), it seems reasonable for the state to convict the criminal and sentence him to death. Punishments are in place to deter people from breaking laws. If a society decides that they want their punishment for murder to be capital punishment, that is their right as a sovereign society. That is the social contract they are entering into and agreeing upon and it is therefore the right of the government to execute a murderer, as they are adhering to the common will.  Therefore, if a person knows the consequence of breaking a law, and yet does so anyway? Society has every right to punish them, in the way they agreed upon when creating and agreeing upon their social contract.
Another document that was intriguing to me, as I'm sure it was to many others simply because it is so unlike anything we have read thus far, was the "Declaration of the Rights of Woman and the Female Citizen" by Georgia de Goughes.  The feminist document was quite interesting to read because it is the first time we see a woman sticking up for our rights as equal human beings. What was most interesting to me however was the fact that, unlike all of the documents which prescribe strictly to the rights of man, de Goughes does not exclude the opposite sex in her Declaration of Rights, but merely surmises that men and women should be equals. Rather than writing a vindictive diatribe against men as payback for being left out of centuries of rights documents, de Goughes is the bigger person and includes, perhaps for the first time, both sexes in one document. Furthermore, she doesn't believe women should get preferential treatment (as say, every other document written before hers did with reference to men). Rather she is merely campaigning for utter equality in all matters of the law-- "No woman is an exception; she is accused, arrested, and detained in cases determined by law. Women, like men, obey this rigorous law." I greatly appreciate and respect de Goughes document and cannot imagine the courage it must have taken for her to put out such a radical and progressive statement, at a time when women were still regarded as secondary citizens.  We owe the success of the women's rights movement to de Goughes and others like her that kicked the status quo in the butt and demanded equality in an unequal world.

Colombian Authorities Fail Survivors of Sexual Violence

Posted on by
A new Amnesty International Report 'This is what we demand. Justice!' Impunity for sexual violence against women in Colombia’s armed conflict, documents how the rights of survivors of sexual violence to truth, justice and reparation continue to be denied by the authorities.

"The Colombian authorities must take decisive action to ensure those responsible for crimes of sexual violence, many of which are either war crimes or crimes against humanity, are brought to  justice. If the authorities continue to fail in doing so, the International Criminal Court should step in."

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/report/colombian-authorities-fail-survivors-sexual-violence-2011-09-21

Colombian Authorities Fail Survivors of Sexual Violence

Posted on by
A new Amnesty International Report 'This is what we demand. Justice!' Impunity for sexual violence against women in Colombia’s armed conflict, documents how the rights of survivors of sexual violence to truth, justice and reparation continue to be denied by the authorities.

"The Colombian authorities must take decisive action to ensure those responsible for crimes of sexual violence, many of which are either war crimes or crimes against humanity, are brought to  justice. If the authorities continue to fail in doing so, the International Criminal Court should step in."

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/report/colombian-authorities-fail-survivors-sexual-violence-2011-09-21

Comment: Rachael’s Adventures in LAST 301

Posted on by

Re: “In the News” post 2: Student Protests in Chile

Comment: It’s kind of amazing to me that this movement is in its fourth month. I think the divide in funding is a real problem for most education systems.  I was speaking with the local union president for the Surrey teachers association yesterday and we were talking about the current job action happening in the province and I found out quite a few interesting things. Because of government cutbacks to funding a lot of the money is coming from parents who fundraise and it is a real problem in Toronto right now that a school in rich neighbourhoods have fundraisers and raise close to a million dollars for their schools, while people who live in poorer neighbourhoods only raise maybe ten thousand dollars for their schools. So it’s really unfair to the kids who go to school in poorer neighbourhoods because their schools A)Don’t have enough money from the government in the first place and B) Parents and neighbourhoods can’t afford to donate more money.


Progress for Peru

Posted on by

Check out this brief news story:

http://www.latinamericanpost.com/index.php?mod=seccion&secc=38&conn=6558

Well I’m a little skeptical to weather or not this is progress or not.

I mean I am happy for the indigenous people of Peru and I really hope this new law will help them when oil and mining companies try to destroy their land. But who knows if it will actually help. I suppose the companies will be held more responsible now, which is great. This article got me thinking again about the differences between rights, freedoms and laws. There’s a UN Declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples so shouldn’t that already protect their rights? Obviously not so they need their own laws to do so.  I guess another one of the reasons these declarations of rights don’t work, aside from the fact that people don’t read them or know they exist, is that they are so far removed from people’s daily lives that state laws are required to ensure the safety of people’s rights.   

However, I can’t help but be cynical and wonder how long it is until President Ollanta Humala life is threatened, or worse? I’m sure investors of mining corporations are not happy with these types of laws and will be putting pressure on the Peruvian government to let them come into the country and do and ruin whatever is necessary to jmake a buck.  So again, while I feel like this kind of news is so surprisingly wonderful, I am waiting for some backlash or some “accident” to happen. It makes me glad to think that these rights might actually be respected and protected.

While the law does not give indigenous people the right to veto the future “economic possibilties”, at the very least thier voices will be heard now. Hopefully foreign companies won’t repeat past mistakes and will listen to the indeigenous voices.


Sikuani (Indigenous Colombian) Children Starve in Oil Country.

Posted on by


This article details the tragedy. Although I have not been able to find a source for the news in English, I will provide a quick translation of some of the main parts so that we can all understand what is going on. Also, the pictures speak well for themselves. The children are shown, but also the excesses of the oil region wasted (in my humble opinion) while the kids vanish away in front of the authorities. 




http://www.semana.com/nacion/fisica-hambre/164662-3.aspx


"Nobody can conceive how in the new oil mecca of Colombia, the municipality that receives the most oil royalties in the country and where juicy child-nutrition contracts have been signed, each month, starved native children arrive at the hospital, dying of hunger."


"The majority of the children are indigenas of the Sikuani Etnia, coming from one of the region's nine, dispersed resguardos." (similar but not equivalent to reservations).


"In the past, their etnia was nomadic, but with the arrival of oil and agroindustrial companies, they lost their liberty and the environment was contaminated. They are now sedentary and have no land that is cultivable." 


"Puerto Gaitan registers an infant moratlity rate of 61 kids per 100000 inhabitants"


This cipher is made the more appalling when this is taken into account:


"The municipality only counts with 27 police officers, has running water for two hours a day, suffers from constant black-outs, and 44% of it's population lives in misery. Nonetheless, visitors are greeted on arrival by a gigantic concrete arch that cost (approximately 1 million dollars), or they have the possibility to attend a summer festival that costs (approximately 500 thousand dollars) with Willie Colon and Daddy Yankee on board." 




Hmmmmm.....

Sikuani (Indigenous Colombian) Children Starve in Oil Country.

Posted on by


This article details the tragedy. Although I have not been able to find a source for the news in English, I will provide a quick translation of some of the main parts so that we can all understand what is going on. Also, the pictures speak well for themselves. The children are shown, but also the excesses of the oil region wasted (in my humble opinion) while the kids vanish away in front of the authorities. 




http://www.semana.com/nacion/fisica-hambre/164662-3.aspx


"Nobody can conceive how in the new oil mecca of Colombia, the municipality that receives the most oil royalties in the country and where juicy child-nutrition contracts have been signed, each month, starved native children arrive at the hospital, dying of hunger."


"The majority of the children are indigenas of the Sikuani Etnia, coming from one of the region's nine, dispersed resguardos." (similar but not equivalent to reservations).


"In the past, their etnia was nomadic, but with the arrival of oil and agroindustrial companies, they lost their liberty and the environment was contaminated. They are now sedentary and have no land that is cultivable." 


"Puerto Gaitan registers an infant moratlity rate of 61 kids per 100000 inhabitants"


This cipher is made the more appalling when this is taken into account:


"The municipality only counts with 27 police officers, has running water for two hours a day, suffers from constant black-outs, and 44% of it's population lives in misery. Nonetheless, visitors are greeted on arrival by a gigantic concrete arch that cost (approximately 1 million dollars), or they have the possibility to attend a summer festival that costs (approximately 500 thousand dollars) with Willie Colon and Daddy Yankee on board." 




Hmmmmm.....

The Origins of Rights

Posted on by

This week’s readings focused on documents that have shaped the ideologies of modern republics and their subsequent declarations of rights. The only reading that did not influence modern republic’s ideologies is Olympe De Gouge’s document on women’s rights. I found this to be a pretty witty and necessary response to the masculine bravado of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Rousseau’s Social Contract in which the Declarations of the Rights of Man was largely based. Rousseau states that the family is the first and only natural society consisting of the father as the leader of the family. De Gouge counters this by stating that men and women are equal within the family as well as within society. She states that male and female species work together equally and harmoniously in nature so to oppress and dominate women actually goes against the natural order of things. Like the rest of the authors we studied this week, De Gouge states that property is a right for all, but she states that men and women have equal rights in regards to property, unlike the other authors who do not mention women’s rights and more than likely consider women to be man’s property.

I also find it interesting how every author asserts that every person is born free and equal under the law but also states the necessity of property rights. Ultimately, I believe this is contradictory. Locke is especially adamant in the protection of property rights stating that the state is ultimately created for the security of property (one’s life, liberty and possessions) and if one’s property is threatened then the state is no longer properly functioning and must be replaced. By maintaining that the accumulation of goods is a right, Locke allows for the creation of an unjust and unequal society, one is which people are not born with equal possessions or opportunities. If we were to maintain that everyone is free and equal in society we would then have to state that all goods in society should be distributed equally and that we must all contribute equally to the labour that produces these goods. Marx states this argument as a rebuttal to Locke’s theories on government and the right of private property.

There are certain differences in the political theories put forth by these authors. In Hobbes Leviathan, he argues that to avoid a state of nature in which life is short and cruel, one must enter a social contract with the rest of society in which a central authority, the leviathan, maintains order and a civil society. He states that some abuses of power may be necessary to maintain this civil society. This is contrary to Rousseau’s theory in which the people are sovereign and no one person or group of people may have authority over others. Thomas Paine reiterates a similar argument stating that obedience towards a sole authority is based in ignorance and if man uses reason then the only legitimate government is a republic with the people as the sovereign. This then creates a society that is truly responsible to each other rather than a society which relies on a sole sovereign to hold all responsibility to maintain a civil society.

While all the readings were important for the formation of modern republics, some of the language and ideas are quite antiquated, particularly in reference to women, as De Gouge points out, and in their views on private property. Many of us now realize in this era of extreme inequality, that these ideas have proven to be false, as assertions of private property rights have not created a just and equal society.


Readings for Sept 26: The Origins of Rights

Posted on by
This week's readings featured some familiar names, but I did find myself unfamiliar with the first reading, "The Declaration of the Rights of Woman" by Olympe de Gouges. In fact, I had never even heard of de Gouges before, and am a bit embarrassed to admit that even after reading her letter to the Queen of France and proposed declarations, for some reason I imagined her as being a man! Oops.


I found this document really interesting, especially since I was not familiar with it. I found many of her ideas to be extremely progressive given the time that it was written, and also found it in a way almost sad that this brilliant woman had such progressive ideas about equality and recognition for women, but it took another 2 centuries for it to really kick into motion. I especially liked her ideas about how a union of marriage should  involve the equal sharing of property between the spouses and how this property should be distributed to all children and each other in the case that one spouse passes or the marriage separates. I also really liked this line: Regardless of what barriers confront you, it is in your power to free yourselves; you have only to want to.

When I started to read the excerpts from the Leviathan, I saw that Hobbes' definition of rights and laws was very similar to the concepts we discussed in class: that rights discuss what we can do and what liberties we have - what we are free to do - and laws determine and bind us to our rights - that they go hand in hand. Then we get into what truly sets Hobbes' ideas apart: the idea that we have a right to everything, even another's body, and that for this reason we are never secure (we live in a State of Nature where life is nasty, brutish and short!). As a result of this, every man must endeavor to create peace but when it cannot be obtained, one can use all helps and advantages of war. Realists rejoice.


Though it was not my first time reading through parts of the Leviathan, I found the most interesting section to be the part where it is written that while one may enter into a covenant signing over his life ("if I don't do ___, kill me"), one cannot enter into a covenant which signs over his right to not fight back if someone threatens his life ("unless I do ____, I will not resist you when you come to kill me".) Though we can allow someone to take our life, we cannot allow someone to take our right of defending our life. Interesting!

Moving on to Locke, the future starts to look a bit brighter as he believes that God gave man enough reason to make use of the world collectively with other men to their best advantages and that everything on earth – fruits and beasts – belong to mankind in common. No brutish State of Nature here. 
Locke also holds that something becomes my property when I instill effort into it, or work upon it, and remove it from common use. This idea really wouldn't fly in Hobbes' State of Nature as nothing is ever truly secure in that world - I'd turn around and someone else would be instilling their effort into my field or whatever it was.
As with Hobbes, I have read Locke’s Treatise before, but had never noticed the 31st clause (treaty?) before where Locke specifies that though it may seem as though anyone who “gathers acorns or other fruits of the earth […] may engross as much as he will”, he counters that this is not the case, for that in that God created everything for our enjoyment and for the “use of the industrious and rational”, whatever is beyond “[our] share […] belongs to others.” If only everyone were truly as selfless as this! Locke then continues to add that if one allows his possessions of food to rot before their use, he has offended the common law of nature and is liable to be punished as a consequence of “invading his neighbour’s share”. I wonder what Locke would think of the amount of waste we created nowadays.

I wasn’t quite sure what to read of Paine, as the website said pg 84-89, and that seemed to be right in the middle of a chapter, so simply started on page 84 at the beginning of the first whole paragraph on that page. This is another author that I was not familiar with but I found that he too established meanings behind terms we attempted to define as a class: namely those of “natural” and “civil” rights, defined as “intellectual rights, rights of the mind, and […] rights of acting as an individual for [one’s own] comfort and happiness” and “rights which pertain to man in right of being a member of society”, respectively. Reminiscent of Hobbes’ theory of contracts, Paine holds that civil rights come about through exchange of one’s natural rights.

Finally, I arrived at the longest reading for this week – Rousseau’s Social Contract – another work I have long been familiar with (I think everyone at one time or another has heard ‘Man was born free, but everywhere he is in chains’) but never actually read. In his introduction, Rousseau holds that social order is a “sacred right”, one which provides a “foundation for all other rights”, but that it is not natural, but rather grows out of “agreed conventions” - back to contracts!
Similarly to Hobbes and Locke, Rousseau believes the only way there can be “legitimate authority” between men is through these aforementioned “agreed conventions” – social, mutual contracts, or covenants between two people which transfer some mutual rights and gains for both parties.  That being said, we cannot contract or “transfer” ourselves and our freedom, for doing so would be against “our character as men, our rights and […] the duties of humanity” (59). This, together with the idea that conventions are null if they allow for complete authority to one party and complete obedience from another, is used by Rousseau as a way of denouncing slavery. I find it personally very interesting that despite these ideas, and the number of countries who used this work in their endeavors for revolution and as inspiration for reform, problems with slavery and indenture continued for years to come. 
Besides serving as a bulwark against slavery, social contracts cause those who enter into them to lose their natural freedoms - freedom to do whatever they want and take whatever he wants, restraint only through an individual's own strength - but gains civil freedom - the right of property over whatever they possess, restraint by "the general will". These definitions were very reminiscent of those provided by Paine.
When Rousseau mentions that "the sovereign [can] be [no] other than a collective entity" (63), it is easy to see why The Social Contract became such an influential work in many political revolutions and reforms, especially the French Revolution. 
While I can see both the validities and faults in some of the other works, such as Hobbes' insistence on a sovereign to rule over us 'naturally brutish' creatures, or Locke's simple optimistic claim that everyone will just take what they need and to take more will be a violation of nature and intolerable, Rousseau's Social Contract seems to be the most realistic and useful text when one thinks about what are considered to be our rights and freedoms and how do we obtain and secure these - though maybe this is only because many of today's societies have shaped their rules and governmental systems as a result of this work.

Readings for Sept 26: The Origins of Rights

Posted on by
This week's readings featured some familiar names, but I did find myself unfamiliar with the first reading, "The Declaration of the Rights of Woman" by Olympe de Gouges. In fact, I had never even heard of de Gouges before, and am a bit embarrassed to admit that even after reading her letter to the Queen of France and proposed declarations, for some reason I imagined her as being a man! Oops.


I found this document really interesting, especially since I was not familiar with it. I found many of her ideas to be extremely progressive given the time that it was written, and also found it in a way almost sad that this brilliant woman had such progressive ideas about equality and recognition for women, but it took another 2 centuries for it to really kick into motion. I especially liked her ideas about how a union of marriage should  involve the equal sharing of property between the spouses and how this property should be distributed to all children and each other in the case that one spouse passes or the marriage separates. I also really liked this line: Regardless of what barriers confront you, it is in your power to free yourselves; you have only to want to.

When I started to read the excerpts from the Leviathan, I saw that Hobbes' definition of rights and laws was very similar to the concepts we discussed in class: that rights discuss what we can do and what liberties we have - what we are free to do - and laws determine and bind us to our rights - that they go hand in hand. Then we get into what truly sets Hobbes' ideas apart: the idea that we have a right to everything, even another's body, and that for this reason we are never secure (we live in a State of Nature where life is nasty, brutish and short!). As a result of this, every man must endeavor to create peace but when it cannot be obtained, one can use all helps and advantages of war. Realists rejoice.


Though it was not my first time reading through parts of the Leviathan, I found the most interesting section to be the part where it is written that while one may enter into a covenant signing over his life ("if I don't do ___, kill me"), one cannot enter into a covenant which signs over his right to not fight back if someone threatens his life ("unless I do ____, I will not resist you when you come to kill me".) Though we can allow someone to take our life, we cannot allow someone to take our right of defending our life. Interesting!

Moving on to Locke, the future starts to look a bit brighter as he believes that God gave man enough reason to make use of the world collectively with other men to their best advantages and that everything on earth – fruits and beasts – belong to mankind in common. No brutish State of Nature here. 
Locke also holds that something becomes my property when I instill effort into it, or work upon it, and remove it from common use. This idea really wouldn't fly in Hobbes' State of Nature as nothing is ever truly secure in that world - I'd turn around and someone else would be instilling their effort into my field or whatever it was.
As with Hobbes, I have read Locke’s Treatise before, but had never noticed the 31st clause (treaty?) before where Locke specifies that though it may seem as though anyone who “gathers acorns or other fruits of the earth […] may engross as much as he will”, he counters that this is not the case, for that in that God created everything for our enjoyment and for the “use of the industrious and rational”, whatever is beyond “[our] share […] belongs to others.” If only everyone were truly as selfless as this! Locke then continues to add that if one allows his possessions of food to rot before their use, he has offended the common law of nature and is liable to be punished as a consequence of “invading his neighbour’s share”. I wonder what Locke would think of the amount of waste we created nowadays.

I wasn’t quite sure what to read of Paine, as the website said pg 84-89, and that seemed to be right in the middle of a chapter, so simply started on page 84 at the beginning of the first whole paragraph on that page. This is another author that I was not familiar with but I found that he too established meanings behind terms we attempted to define as a class: namely those of “natural” and “civil” rights, defined as “intellectual rights, rights of the mind, and […] rights of acting as an individual for [one’s own] comfort and happiness” and “rights which pertain to man in right of being a member of society”, respectively. Reminiscent of Hobbes’ theory of contracts, Paine holds that civil rights come about through exchange of one’s natural rights.

Finally, I arrived at the longest reading for this week – Rousseau’s Social Contract – another work I have long been familiar with (I think everyone at one time or another has heard ‘Man was born free, but everywhere he is in chains’) but never actually read. In his introduction, Rousseau holds that social order is a “sacred right”, one which provides a “foundation for all other rights”, but that it is not natural, but rather grows out of “agreed conventions” - back to contracts!
Similarly to Hobbes and Locke, Rousseau believes the only way there can be “legitimate authority” between men is through these aforementioned “agreed conventions” – social, mutual contracts, or covenants between two people which transfer some mutual rights and gains for both parties.  That being said, we cannot contract or “transfer” ourselves and our freedom, for doing so would be against “our character as men, our rights and […] the duties of humanity” (59). This, together with the idea that conventions are null if they allow for complete authority to one party and complete obedience from another, is used by Rousseau as a way of denouncing slavery. I find it personally very interesting that despite these ideas, and the number of countries who used this work in their endeavors for revolution and as inspiration for reform, problems with slavery and indenture continued for years to come. 
Besides serving as a bulwark against slavery, social contracts cause those who enter into them to lose their natural freedoms - freedom to do whatever they want and take whatever he wants, restraint only through an individual's own strength - but gains civil freedom - the right of property over whatever they possess, restraint by "the general will". These definitions were very reminiscent of those provided by Paine.
When Rousseau mentions that "the sovereign [can] be [no] other than a collective entity" (63), it is easy to see why The Social Contract became such an influential work in many political revolutions and reforms, especially the French Revolution. 
While I can see both the validities and faults in some of the other works, such as Hobbes' insistence on a sovereign to rule over us 'naturally brutish' creatures, or Locke's simple optimistic claim that everyone will just take what they need and to take more will be a violation of nature and intolerable, Rousseau's Social Contract seems to be the most realistic and useful text when one thinks about what are considered to be our rights and freedoms and how do we obtain and secure these - though maybe this is only because many of today's societies have shaped their rules and governmental systems as a result of this work.

Re:2. Formation of Rights

Posted on by

The basic hierarchy of rights and laws, based on most of the readings, seems to be that there are basic,fundamental natural laws,which are essentially the physical laws of protection and self-preservation given to men upon birth. Upon these, based on morality and reason are founded civil laws which deal with the relationship that the individual has to society and the political body.

Here is where it gets what one may deem “abstract”. While the natural laws seem almost inalienable in that they are connected to the very physicality of the human being, such things as social contracts, obligation, duty, liberty and nothing but concepts imagined in the human mind. These contractual agreements again are subject to being upheld by physical force as outlined especially  by Locke and Rosseau.

What interests me is the philosophical basis for the formation of these civil laws. Paine states that the “duty of man(…) ..is (h)is duty to God, which every man must feel;and with respect to his neighbor, to do as he would be done by. This is consistent with the philosophical thoughts of his contemporary Imanuel Kant and Kants’s theory of the categorical imperative,however to enforce these laws by physical force seems counterintuitive to the rest of these readings. Hobbes states that the second law of nature is that every man wants peace and will strive for it. If this is true than it would seem the the formation of an executive power is destructive in that it allows for an unequal amount of power to be put in the hands of a small group of people In relation to human and civil rights I think we see the consequences of this unequal power distribution in the impunity and abuses that are present in many parts of Latin America.

Should we question if these social contracts as developed by Hobbes are universally applicable?Timeless? Binding?

CLAIMING RIGHTS AND TAKING NAMES

Posted on by
CLAIMING RIGHTS AND TAKING NAMES 
Re: ‘The Origins of Rights’ readings. 

On De Gouges
Out of this week’s readings, Olympe De Gouges’ writings really stood out for me. I actually thought it was awesome and my margins are full of comments like “Damn!!!”. The first thing to strike me was the language; the confrontational, direct language in which her letter to the queen was written. While the other readings for the week were written in a more abstract, philosophical plane, De Gouges speaks her mind rather than expounding on societal models based on divine rights and natural laws. I believe the difference I felt was that De Gouges’ readings seemed to me to be the expression of a perceived oppression, while the others seemed to be philosophical constructs designed to justify or delineate particular social structures. 
Here are some of the things that I enjoyed from her writings: 
In her letter to the queen, De Gouges builds a case for the royal to support the cause of women’s rights and equality. Cloaked in praise and respect, the author manages to appeal to the queen’s own ‘sex’, makes her aware of the numbers (political support) involved (“soon you will have half the realm on your side, and at least one-third of the other half”) and did anyone read “Believe me, Madame, our life is a pretty small thing, especially for a Queen, when it is not embellished by people’s affection and by the eternal delights of good deeds” as a nicely veiled death threat?!? Perhaps I’m reading too much into her sharp, almost-sarcastic tone. 
In The Rights of Woman, she strikes brilliantly at her rival, the enlightened men of the revolution (and presumably 2/3s of the male population, according to the letter to the queen), knowing just where she can hurt them most. She calls into question their ability to be just (their capacity for Justice!) right off the bat. She then attacks their most precious weapon, reason, asking them in very empirical terms to survey creation (appealing to their alleged reverence to nature and to their scientific identity) and point out an example of such sexual imbalance anywhere on the planet. 
“Bizarre, blind, bloated with science and degenerated - in  a century of enlightenment and wisdom - into the crassest ignorance...” No words minced before she goes on to declare the Rights of Woman. I was also interested by the way in which she framed womanhood in the preamble around the notion of family (176), the claim of female superiority in beauty and courage (177), and the notion of the imagined nation not as a Father nor Mother Land, but as a marriage (Article IV). Also powerful was her call for a democratically drafted constitution (Article XVI), which is a topic we have discussed more than once in class. 
On the other readings:

On a quick comment on some of the other readings, I found Hobbes’ distinction of law as obligation and right as liberty was of use for the class. I was confounded by the section titled Covenants exhorted by fear are valid. Did this legalize theft and kidnapping?
At this moment I also remember Locke’s idea of one’s ownership of self as having interested me a lot (Chapter V, point 27). In general so far the readings for Monday have clarified many of the concepts present in the discourse of rights, although the fact that the definitions vary almost from author to author, also convoluted things at the same time. Looking forward to the class’ insights. 

CLAIMING RIGHTS AND TAKING NAMES

Posted on by
CLAIMING RIGHTS AND TAKING NAMES 
Re: ‘The Origins of Rights’ readings. 

On De Gouges
Out of this week’s readings, Olympe De Gouges’ writings really stood out for me. I actually thought it was awesome and my margins are full of comments like “Damn!!!”. The first thing to strike me was the language; the confrontational, direct language in which her letter to the queen was written. While the other readings for the week were written in a more abstract, philosophical plane, De Gouges speaks her mind rather than expounding on societal models based on divine rights and natural laws. I believe the difference I felt was that De Gouges’ readings seemed to me to be the expression of a perceived oppression, while the others seemed to be philosophical constructs designed to justify or delineate particular social structures. 
Here are some of the things that I enjoyed from her writings: 
In her letter to the queen, De Gouges builds a case for the royal to support the cause of women’s rights and equality. Cloaked in praise and respect, the author manages to appeal to the queen’s own ‘sex’, makes her aware of the numbers (political support) involved (“soon you will have half the realm on your side, and at least one-third of the other half”) and did anyone read “Believe me, Madame, our life is a pretty small thing, especially for a Queen, when it is not embellished by people’s affection and by the eternal delights of good deeds” as a nicely veiled death threat?!? Perhaps I’m reading too much into her sharp, almost-sarcastic tone. 
In The Rights of Woman, she strikes brilliantly at her rival, the enlightened men of the revolution (and presumably 2/3s of the male population, according to the letter to the queen), knowing just where she can hurt them most. She calls into question their ability to be just (their capacity for Justice!) right off the bat. She then attacks their most precious weapon, reason, asking them in very empirical terms to survey creation (appealing to their alleged reverence to nature and to their scientific identity) and point out an example of such sexual imbalance anywhere on the planet. 
“Bizarre, blind, bloated with science and degenerated - in  a century of enlightenment and wisdom - into the crassest ignorance...” No words minced before she goes on to declare the Rights of Woman. I was also interested by the way in which she framed womanhood in the preamble around the notion of family (176), the claim of female superiority in beauty and courage (177), and the notion of the imagined nation not as a Father nor Mother Land, but as a marriage (Article IV). Also powerful was her call for a democratically drafted constitution (Article XVI), which is a topic we have discussed more than once in class. 
On the other readings:

On a quick comment on some of the other readings, I found Hobbes’ distinction of law as obligation and right as liberty was of use for the class. I was confounded by the section titled Covenants exhorted by fear are valid. Did this legalize theft and kidnapping?
At this moment I also remember Locke’s idea of one’s ownership of self as having interested me a lot (Chapter V, point 27). In general so far the readings for Monday have clarified many of the concepts present in the discourse of rights, although the fact that the definitions vary almost from author to author, also convoluted things at the same time. Looking forward to the class’ insights. 

Land rights restitution in La Hacienda de Las Pavas,Colombia

Posted on by

Article: Colombia: Constitutional court opens way for restitution for rights to Las Pavas community

Accessed from the Latin America bureau on September 25th,2011

It is welcoming news to read an article in which the “small guys” turn out to be the winners against large industrial companies. This article deals with the community of peasents in Las Pavas who for almost a decade have had no guarenteed aceess to their land and have been forcefully evicted from it. Finally with some outside help they have managed to make a claim to their land and the contitutional court has deemed their eviction illegal, ordering that the Columbian government grant them full land rights.

As the article points out this has positive benefits not only for the communities involved but also for the surrounding ecosystems. The group that sought to buy up their land in 2006 (a subsidiary of the DAABON group) planned on turning it into a palm oil mono-plantation. As much of the surrounding environment is wetlands and forests this would have led to deforestation and destruction of the wetlands. I think this allows us to see the interconnection of human rights,land rights and environmental conservation.The communities that have been managing these ecosystems for decades have a vested interest in preserving them as they derive much of their food,fodder,medicine,firewood etc from them. This however is only possible if they are guaranteed access to these lands. We can only hope that the Columbian government understands this as well and grants the farmers in the community of Las Pavas full ownership of these lands.