Monthly Archives: September 2011

NEw article 2 “Masacres de inmigrantes “son crímenes contra la humanidad””

Posted on by
 
 
“Masacres de inmigrantes “son  crímenes contra la humanidad”” 

This news paper article talks about recent massacres in Mexico and how Judge Baltasar Garzon from Spain classifies them as crimes against humanities, because they have surpasses the category of crimes with the goal to terminate life. This was said in the conference “justicia universal”.   
One of the crimes mentioned was a recent attack in a casino in Monterrey where 61 people especially woman were killed, including pregnant woman, just because the casino owner had affiliations with organized crimes. The attackers not only shot at people but the y also used grenades at the end, they classify this attack also as a terrorist attack due to its gruesome nature. (http://www.blogdelnarco.com/2011/08/masacre-en-un-casino-de-monterrey-32.html)
At the end of the news article Judge Baltasar Garzon provides some advice to help the situation, one that valiant leaders are needed not heroes, and that we need people to participate and social cohesion. In my opinion this advice is not very constructive but vague, It is very clear that better leaders are needed and that it is vital that people work together, but more specific advice should have been given advise that can be implemented better.

Chilean students stage mass protest for education

Posted on by
In the Chilean capital, Santiago, tens of thousand of students and teachers have joined the march to demand education reform. This protest movement, now in its fourth month, is the biggest in Chile since the return to democracy in 1990. While the government has promised reforms such as “quality education for everyone,” many believe that these reforms do not address the fundamental problems of a system set up during the 1973-1990 military rule of Gen Augusto Pinochet. The protestors are demanding wholesale reform in Chile's education system, which they say is deeply unequal and underfunded. The system is sharply divided between private and public schools, an approach critics have labeled as "educational apartheid.” The protesters want the central government to take full control of education and increase spending on public schools. This article pertains to the right to education and freedom of speech. 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-15028214

Chilean students stage mass protest for education

Posted on by
In the Chilean capital, Santiago, tens of thousand of students and teachers have joined the march to demand education reform. This protest movement, now in its fourth month, is the biggest in Chile since the return to democracy in 1990. While the government has promised reforms such as “quality education for everyone,” many believe that these reforms do not address the fundamental problems of a system set up during the 1973-1990 military rule of Gen Augusto Pinochet. The protestors are demanding wholesale reform in Chile's education system, which they say is deeply unequal and underfunded. The system is sharply divided between private and public schools, an approach critics have labeled as "educational apartheid.” The protesters want the central government to take full control of education and increase spending on public schools. This article pertains to the right to education and freedom of speech. 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-15028214

Considering the notions of contract and consent in the works of Locke and Rousseau

Posted on by
        The notions of contract and consent were a central part of the intellectual environment of the seventeenth century, providing theorists with a formula in which to cast their particular political ideas thus, opening the way to liberalism’s language of individual rights. Locke and Rousseau consider the relationship between individuals and the state as a contract in which both sides have rights and obligations. To maintain the contract, the state guarantees basic rights to individuals while the individual has an obligation to obey the laws.
      For Locke, the natural condition of human existence is “a state of perfect freedom,” in which individuals are able to “order their actions…as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature”(116). While the law of nature “obliges every one,” there are some individuals “who will but consult”(116-117). This is because humans, while capable of reason, are also liable to sin. Individuals come to recognize the fragility of the state of nature, and, thus, contract into political society to better serve their interests. Locke claims that the establishment of a political existence is only legitimately achieved through the consent of each individual. No one can be taken out of the state of nature and subjected to the political power of another without his/her own consent. The main source of legitimate political authority rests on the premise that individuals can only rationally consent to what is permitted within the bounds of their own rights. For example, since an individual cannot kill himself/herself, he/she cannot give others that right. Any act of political authority that threatens the life of an individual thus, voids the rights of the authority and renders it illegitimate.
       In the act of contracting, individuals choose and accept constraints upon themselves.  They give up equality and the executive power (“what any may do in prosecution of that law, everyone must needs have a right to do”) they had in the state of nature (132). Each individual puts himself/herself under an obligation to everyone of that society to submit to the determination of the majority. The government is thus, given a mandate from the people reflecting the majority’s preferences and works to preserve the life, liberty and property of each individual from the arbitrary force of others. Because each individual willingly furnishes the government with the rights and means to act for them and constrain them, each individual also incurs a moral obligation to the law. When the government fails to uphold its terms to the contract and when a majority of the people finds that their interests are no longer being served, Locke claims that the people no longer have a moral obligation to obey the law. In other words, the government continues to be legitimate only as long as it has the consent of the governed.
   For Rousseau, Locke’s proposal for majoritarian rule accepts a degree of competitiveness and inequality that causes political obedience to require too many individuals to consent against their wills (139). Any contract that stipulates absolute power on one side and a limitless obedience on the other is illegitimate since it would not be a contract in which everyone willingly consents. In effect, Rousseau adopts the concept of the “general will”(139). The general will is to reflect only the common interest of the community, however, it does not exist independently from individual persons. It remains the will of an individual and yet subordinates private interest to common interest. A state embodies the general will to the extent that every individual is both a member of the sovereign to private individuals and a member of the state toward the sovereign (140). The shared commitment of each citizen to promote the common good, by exercising the general will, is the means by which each citizen embodies his/her will into the law - so that no citizen will be deprived of personal freedom when obeying the law.

Considering the notions of contract and consent in the works of Locke and Rousseau

Posted on by
        The notions of contract and consent were a central part of the intellectual environment of the seventeenth century, providing theorists with a formula in which to cast their particular political ideas thus, opening the way to liberalism’s language of individual rights. Locke and Rousseau consider the relationship between individuals and the state as a contract in which both sides have rights and obligations. To maintain the contract, the state guarantees basic rights to individuals while the individual has an obligation to obey the laws.
      For Locke, the natural condition of human existence is “a state of perfect freedom,” in which individuals are able to “order their actions…as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature”(116). While the law of nature “obliges every one,” there are some individuals “who will but consult”(116-117). This is because humans, while capable of reason, are also liable to sin. Individuals come to recognize the fragility of the state of nature, and, thus, contract into political society to better serve their interests. Locke claims that the establishment of a political existence is only legitimately achieved through the consent of each individual. No one can be taken out of the state of nature and subjected to the political power of another without his/her own consent. The main source of legitimate political authority rests on the premise that individuals can only rationally consent to what is permitted within the bounds of their own rights. For example, since an individual cannot kill himself/herself, he/she cannot give others that right. Any act of political authority that threatens the life of an individual thus, voids the rights of the authority and renders it illegitimate.
       In the act of contracting, individuals choose and accept constraints upon themselves.  They give up equality and the executive power (“what any may do in prosecution of that law, everyone must needs have a right to do”) they had in the state of nature (132). Each individual puts himself/herself under an obligation to everyone of that society to submit to the determination of the majority. The government is thus, given a mandate from the people reflecting the majority’s preferences and works to preserve the life, liberty and property of each individual from the arbitrary force of others. Because each individual willingly furnishes the government with the rights and means to act for them and constrain them, each individual also incurs a moral obligation to the law. When the government fails to uphold its terms to the contract and when a majority of the people finds that their interests are no longer being served, Locke claims that the people no longer have a moral obligation to obey the law. In other words, the government continues to be legitimate only as long as it has the consent of the governed.
   For Rousseau, Locke’s proposal for majoritarian rule accepts a degree of competitiveness and inequality that causes political obedience to require too many individuals to consent against their wills (139). Any contract that stipulates absolute power on one side and a limitless obedience on the other is illegitimate since it would not be a contract in which everyone willingly consents. In effect, Rousseau adopts the concept of the “general will”(139). The general will is to reflect only the common interest of the community, however, it does not exist independently from individual persons. It remains the will of an individual and yet subordinates private interest to common interest. A state embodies the general will to the extent that every individual is both a member of the sovereign to private individuals and a member of the state toward the sovereign (140). The shared commitment of each citizen to promote the common good, by exercising the general will, is the means by which each citizen embodies his/her will into the law - so that no citizen will be deprived of personal freedom when obeying the law.

"In the News" post 2: Student Protests in Chile

Posted on by
This week the story that I chose to write about involves recent demonstrations that took place in Santiago, Chile,  as students and teachers protested against what they have labeled as "educational apartheid": the sharp divide between public and private schools and the amount of funding spent on each. Among other demands, the protesters want more funding to be spent on public schools, as well as the the introduction of scholarships, and state control of education.While President Pinera has promised some reform, many students find this unsatisfactory, and feel that the problem actually stems from problems created during the Pinochet regime of 1973-1990, which are what truly need reformation according to some student leaders.
While this story may not be one of the most prominent stories about human rights currently making headlines in the news in Latin America, it stood out to me as worthy as it caused me to stop and think about my own university education and my university experience, as well as our human rights of freedom and expression - seen in action in these protests, and education. While I don't believe any university is perfect, I can definitely say that I feel no desire to protest for change, and am satisfied with my education that I am receiving here at UBC. This story, at least for me, proved a welcome reminder to be appreciative for what I have and the importance of education - a feeling which can sometimes get lost as the workload of a semester increases!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-15028214

"In the News" post 2: Student Protests in Chile

Posted on by
This week the story that I chose to write about involves recent demonstrations that took place in Santiago, Chile,  as students and teachers protested against what they have labeled as "educational apartheid": the sharp divide between public and private schools and the amount of funding spent on each. Among other demands, the protesters want more funding to be spent on public schools, as well as the the introduction of scholarships, and state control of education.While President Pinera has promised some reform, many students find this unsatisfactory, and feel that the problem actually stems from problems created during the Pinochet regime of 1973-1990, which are what truly need reformation according to some student leaders.
While this story may not be one of the most prominent stories about human rights currently making headlines in the news in Latin America, it stood out to me as worthy as it caused me to stop and think about my own university education and my university experience, as well as our human rights of freedom and expression - seen in action in these protests, and education. While I don't believe any university is perfect, I can definitely say that I feel no desire to protest for change, and am satisfied with my education that I am receiving here at UBC. This story, at least for me, proved a welcome reminder to be appreciative for what I have and the importance of education - a feeling which can sometimes get lost as the workload of a semester increases!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-15028214

I’m still thinking about Goldcorp and UBC…Just doesn’t seem right…

Posted on by
I received a link to a film that was going to be shown at the Goldcorp Center for the Arts, part of SFU's contemporary arts school...And this got me thinking. Had UBC received a similar lurid donation? So I looked around, and yep, sure enough, we at UBC have also received a similar donation.  I went to the Goldcorp (http://www.goldcorp.com/corporate_responsibility/sponsorship/) website to see what they had to say, and it seems that they are sponsoring a number of initiatives at UBC.  This all transpired after I watched the film, Cry of the Andes, in May. While that film may not deal specifically with Goldcorp, it displayed the wretched way in which Barrick Mining went about manipulating municipal elections, polluting mountain lakes and lands, and ignoring indigenous rights and pleas to leave their mountains intact.  Has Goldcorp done similar things? Is UBC part of the plan to buy off people that may otherwise cause a ruckus protesting Goldcorp's involvement in Latin America?  Then I came upon this Ubyssey article.

http://ubyssey.ca/opinion/goldcorp-raises-questions/

I agree with what Krissy has to say, and am feeling more and more shame daily, for what I used to take pride in: my university.

I’m still thinking about Goldcorp and UBC…Just doesn’t seem right…

Posted on by
I received a link to a film that was going to be shown at the Goldcorp Center for the Arts, part of SFU's contemporary arts school...And this got me thinking. Had UBC received a similar lurid donation? So I looked around, and yep, sure enough, we at UBC have also received a similar donation.  I went to the Goldcorp (http://www.goldcorp.com/corporate_responsibility/sponsorship/) website to see what they had to say, and it seems that they are sponsoring a number of initiatives at UBC.  This all transpired after I watched the film, Cry of the Andes, in May. While that film may not deal specifically with Goldcorp, it displayed the wretched way in which Barrick Mining went about manipulating municipal elections, polluting mountain lakes and lands, and ignoring indigenous rights and pleas to leave their mountains intact.  Has Goldcorp done similar things? Is UBC part of the plan to buy off people that may otherwise cause a ruckus protesting Goldcorp's involvement in Latin America?  Then I came upon this Ubyssey article.

http://ubyssey.ca/opinion/goldcorp-raises-questions/

I agree with what Krissy has to say, and am feeling more and more shame daily, for what I used to take pride in: my university.

The Evolution of the Declaration of Rights

Posted on by

The readings put forth for discussion this past week clearly depict the linear historical progression of human rights development from the trivial affairs of medieval feudalism to preventative measures against human rights violations that modern technology has enabled.

I thought that the differentiation of the concepts of rights, freedoms, and law were important distinctions that should be made. Personally, I denote the aforementioned as following:

Rights:  the idealistic, innate properties every human being is entitled to, regardless of any distinction i.e., religion, gender, sexual orientation, age, etc.  While these are entrenched by birth, freedoms enacted by others, granted or external to law, may violate these premises.

Freedoms: based upon the premise that all human beings are free to do what they choose at will; humans are free agents that have the ability of enacting their desires, i.e. freedom of expression, association, choice of religion.

Law: the binding/restricting agent set forth by societal standards to prevent freedoms from impinging upon rights.  It also establishes the consequences for such violations.

While I found each historical document to contain interesting details pertaining to the evolution of human rights, a particular document spoke to me, and appealed specifically to the greater question of the course: “What is the purpose of human rights?”; this document being the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.    While genocide originates as far back as Sparta, it wasn’t until 1948 that the term was defined by the convention, specifically after the atrocities experienced in the Armenian genocide by the Turks in WWI, and more notably, the hallmark of genocide, the Holocaust in WWII.  Nullum crimen sine lege prevented any Nazi’s of being convicted of genocide against Jews in WWII; despite this horrific loophole of the legal system, one would expect with the instatement of such convention, any future acts of genocide would be prevented and furthermore penalized; however, no convictions were made, despite numerous acts of genocide (re: Guatemala, East Timor, Sudan and Darfur) until 1998 when the first conviction was made in regards to the perpetrators of the Rwandan genocide.

In class, professor Beasley-Murray said in passing that this convention was the UN’s bread and butter; if it could not prevent mass murder of people, what can it do for human rights?  There is a marked 50 year period throughout which the UN not only failed to prevent genocide, but did nothing to the perpetrators of genocide.  Genocide is not a spontaneous action; it is the result of long-term social, economic, and racial contempt between parties.  This does not arise out of the blue; these are long-felt historical trends and the impending threat of mass murder is easily foreseeable in periods of radicalization.  Furthermore, while there are no concrete consequences for committing the act of genocide, it appears as though the efficacy of conviction by International Court Tribunals is extremely poor.  Take for example the fact that the ICTR overturned the genocide conviction of Protais Zigiranyirazo, the brother in law of Juvenal Habyarimana, the former president of Rwanda during the genocide on the basis of “lack of sufficient evidence.”  While the Convention is undoubtedly supported by all UN member states, its intrinsic worth is questionable at best; I often wonder if this convention is a mere idealistic formality brought forth by the UN to maintain the illusion of a stance against genocide, when in reality efforts of the UN miniscule in concrete situations.

LD

Posted on by

My name is Lydia.

I am 20. I am half South Korean, half Romanian; my parents met in ESL class here in downtown Vancouver. I have two older brothers, one of whom has Trisomy 14.

I am currently in my fourth year at UBC, studying Psychology and International Relations.  In January I will be going to Uganda for 3 months through ISL to intern at TASO.  Once I get back and finish my degree, I hope to intern for the WHO before attending Uppsala Universitet for a MA in Genocide and Holocaust studies.

I have a fixation with ensuring all my time is accounted for; accordingly, I frequently overload my schedule.  While attending school full time, I also intern at Amnesty International, work at American Apparel, volunteer for the Vancouver International Film Festival, and train Brazilian Jiu Jitsu at the Gracie Barra Academy.

My father endured extreme conditions growing up in Communist Romania; his trials and tribulations greatly affected my perspective on global events growing up.  Accordingly, human rights have become an impassioned interest in my life.  Despite having limited previous background knowledge on Latin America, I chose to take this class precisely because it is a personal area of knowledge I feel could stand to use a lot of supplementation.  Furthermore, I am enraptured by the passionate lifestyle which is endemic, albeit stereotypical, of Latin America, and I am interested in learning about the distinct problems faced in their society.

In all honesty, I harbour some serious anti-blogging sentiments; however, I am a rather soft spoken person, so this may prove to be a beneficial tool in terms of voicing my opinion, whereas I may fail to do so vocally in class participation.

Looking forwards to getting to know y’all on the interwebs over these next few months!