I start to question the motives of many of the characters for why they do things. I do this because they are all doing what they are to invest in positive change for their future, and many even their families also. Why would Okwe do the amount of jobs he is doing, while other illegals do less and clearly can still survive? I start to question to what purpose he wants to amass the money that he does, does he owe people money, is he saving his money for something? It shows how each illegal has different motivations for what they are doing and why. This ties into the article that we read in class, where the declaration essays the refugee’s are forced to write are discussed. This is because it stresses the individuality of each of the many different refugee cases. That those cases cannot be grouped together. It comes to represent the individuality of each persons problems, and therefore the need to accomodate to each individual, rather than a group. Furthermore one thing that is inadvertidly shown is how lucrative it is to hire illegal aliens. This is clear as it shows how they do the jobs that nobody else wants to do, and nobody else can afford to do. It truly shows that how in a world that is not willing to help them, they will contribute in to its destruction with their contributions to crime and illegality.

It is then that i start to question if these type of underworlds are present in every large city? Does each city have a dark web of underground illegal activities? This really demonstrates to what degree we are living in a superficial world, where we pretend we live a life external to these problems that are existing around us. This is just a sign also of how deep the problems in our world have arisen as people are going to extremities like the characters of the movie to survive and create a better future for themselves.

I feel that again this film explores a certain grey zone, like all the previous books and films discussed in the class prior. This comes to demonstrate that nothing is really what it seems to be, and that there is always more depth to a certain situation than may perhaps appear. In this movie the people themselves are a grey zone just by the nature of their presence within the country, and that again speaks to the many different problems that they face, that we cannot relate to. This is because we do not share the same world, nor is their world one we can easily conceive and understand due to our background.

What i saw in the documentary shocked me. I have grown up in many big cities and i know in bigger cities crime is more prevalent. So, therefore the crime rate in Vancouver doesn’t really shock me. However what does shock me is the ethnic groups that are being specifically targeted. The indigenous people, specifically women, that are targeted are mostly done so because the perpetrators know that in many cases the women have very little contact with their families as a consequence to the Canadian government in many cases splitting them up.

This added an element of depth to the problems that previous legislation and residential schools have done. I understood how due to the bad education and lack of cultural affinity, many of the native people had difficulties establishing themselves in society, and thus many became affiliated with crime out of despair. However I never considered that these exact reason made them into a perfect victim just because the perpetrators know that the women they assault have very little familial connections, and they also know that the system is sadly not in their favour either. This creates a two tier society concerning safety, the mostly white majority can live very safe and comfortable lives with police protection, whereas aboriginals and especially women live very unsafe, uncomfortable lives in a world where the system does not care much for them.

It is shameful that a country should let this discrimination to continue, the more we are learning about aboriginal issues in Canada, the more i realize how superficial the equality among citizens is. It has been shown that the equality exists purely on paper, and for the rest not much has been changed. As such the government is mocking the aboriginal people by giving them “equal” rights, that they know are just a sham in most cases. This in my opinion shows a very distinct image about the Canadian government.

I find it curious how the state on the whole does not try and fix the aboriginal issues to the satisfaction of both sides, and as such they can start to fix problems that affect the society on the whole. This truly shows how the problem concerning the first nations really isn’t something that the government can put aside, the problem is very much key to the development and the improvement of the country. I find it very shortsighted of the politicians to let the horrendous diplomatic and political situations to continue. Since the first contact, the relationship between first nations and colonists has been very difficult, so after hundreds of years, i don’t see why the government isn’t trying more to end it.

It is completely unjustified that the government does not act more on what it claims to be doing and furthermore, that it would allow for the creation of an unofficial and unequal system to be created. This shows that after all these years, the relationships have improved, but at the core, most problems have not changed since first contact. This is truly shameful.

I felt that the novel was in many ways very similar to the book “All Quiet on the Western Front” by Erich Maria Remarque. In that it showed and discussed the events of the war through the eyes of those that lived them, also while demonstrating and showing the effects of the war on those who participated in it. Both books drew on the social situation during the war, and how the situation differed for the soldiers depending on whether they were at the front or at home. This i feel was seen through Xavier. This is because his “insignificance” in Canada due to his native heritage. Whereas on the front he is very much revered and at certain points even feared for his talent and skill in sniping. As a consequence it shows to what degree his status as being a native really matters, it shows and reflects how superficial they are. This is especially noticed in how when he is Canada he is not an accepted part of society, and in his passages reflecting upon his youth, he shows how he was alienated by the white man in Canada. When serving at the front, even with his limitations in the English language, his different race, he is still very much accepted as being one of the men, but also as a fellow Canadian. I feel that the novel does play really well into the idea that the distance that exists between white Canadians and natives is a very superficial one that can and should be fixed.

I feel that through the way the novel is portrayed as being a series of flashbacks to the past of Xavier, actual character development is not shown. Rather a more in depth explanation is given to why he is the way he is. The book gives the reader the opportunity to learn more about Xavier, rather than showing his development on a continuous scale. This would mean that in the beginning of the book, we learn about Xavier, and we read about him at that current state, but as the book progresses we learn as how he became the way he is. In that sense the book does not show a concrete characterization, but its an explanation of why Xavier is the way he is. The book is interesting in that our view of the character changes continuously throughout the book just purely due to the fact that we continuously learn about Xavier, and furthermore the conditions that he was forced to endure both at home and on the front.

I also believe that Niska holds an important role in the book in that she provides a background for Xavier’s story. Through showing her life we learn about the circumstances at which the natives are forced to live. As a consequence through Niska the reader learns about Xavier’s motives for going into the military, but most importantly, to show how the barriers that exist between the white man and the natives are largely superficial as under a common strife, all barriers between them fall away.

When is a violation of human rights allowed? Should it ever be allowed? Are there certain things you can/want to do that mandate a restriction or annulment of your human rights?

Guantanamo bay prison is an active example of a breach and violation of human rights. The US government detains men there without a trail, and in many cases without tangible evidence. Therefore the US government is keeping prisoners in the prison whom have been kidnapped from their homes, in foreign countries, purely because the US government suspects them of potentially being terrorists. For many of the prisoners, they were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. One of such victims is a German national, Murat Kurnaz. He was held in Guantanamo bay for five years, after which the US stated that all evidence they had against him were “groundless.” As such he was held innocently in Guantanamo, without proper trial, without having committed a crime, for the US to decide after five years that he was innocent. During his interrogations he was beaten repeatedly and went under torture such as; waterboarding (simulated drowning), hanging (from the arms, for days at a time), beatings (by soldiers in full riot gear), and also electric shocking. He suffered torture for five years, before the US government finally accepted that he could be innocent. He stated that many of the prisoners admitted to crimes they never committed purely because they didn’t want to be tortured further.

In what way is this justified? In what circumstances could Murat’s treatment perhaps be permitted? Should the US do such atrocities to perhaps save its citizens and soldiers from harm? Ultimately, should the US be able to limit and deprive the human rights of some, to conserve and protect the lives and rights of others?

Perhaps one can argue that in the plight of many one has to sacrifice a few. However doing so with Human rights, relegates the few to animals. Therefore meaning that those few that lost their rights, have lost their status as humans and are thus relegated to the rank of non-humans. Essentially by doing so, the US government brings eliminates the status of a few men to that of lesser humans, purely based upon a political ideology, or the suspicion of some attack on any US interest. Therefore the US dictates who exactly it considers a worthy and rightful human, and whom it considers a lesser human. This would mean based upon political ideology, the US creates a divide in the global society, by giving some rights, and taking the rights away of others.

Every country in the world has laws that are unique to itself. This being because laws are inspired from the country’s culture, history, population and religion. Therefore there is no way that each country has an identical group of laws. Therefore how can we create international laws? How can we create laws that perhaps may conform to a set of cultures, but not others? By doing so, international laws really do prioritize certain cultures, histories, populations and religions over that of others. So to what degree are international laws really international laws? Or are they rather the “most popular” or “most powerful” countries’ expression of how they believe the rest of the world should live in cohesion with each other?

I believe that true international law is something that will never be really achieved in the near future. However I do consider the idea that all the countries can come to a consensus or an agreement on certain issues is manageable. An example of this may be the Geneva convention. Even then there are certain issues that are not in the interest of certain nations for them to agree upon, therefore hindering global progress through global unity. Again an example of this may be the Kyoto protocol, through which the world essentially could lower its CO2 output, and make a development in saving the environment.

This made me come to the conclusion that countries, and more specifically their leaders, care too much about their own nation rather than the entire world they live in. This therefore would put the priorities of the nation above that of the entire world. This is seen through the lack of cohesion in the accurate global representation of international law. This can be seen through countries such as the United States and Iran being at odds about certain issues, and consequently hindering the progress of both nations, and especially their people by refusing to work together.

Through diplomatic issues of the present and especially the past, countries are hindering the progress of the world on the whole through the refusal of co-operation and legal cohesion. Through legal cohesion, countries would be able to stand together on equal footing. No country would be bigger or better than another, each country would and could have its equal say due to its legal equality. There would be no inferiority in between nations, therefore restricting global tensions and issues due to the accepted equality between nations.

Laws and legal systems may just be a foundation for justice for the individual but it is also a source of equality and therefore a source of importance. WIthout accurate global input on a concrete set of laws that apply globally on all issues, no country will ever stand on equal footing with another. Each country will have those above it and below it. Without a legal system, the world will be a huge feudal hierarchy. As much as the UN is trying to do this, it has still proved inefficient to be able to provide the world with what it needs.

Do Chimps Have Human Rights? This Lawsuit Says Yes Read more

Do Chimps Have Human Rights? This Lawsuit Says Yes

I read online that a New York based law firm is trying to extend human rights to chimpanzee’s. This i found intrinsically fascinating, what would that mean for society if our own rights were not limited to the human race? If the court rules that chimpanzee’s do have human rights it would mean many changes. It would mean that they can’t be bought or sold, and therefore they cannot be owned. They cannot be held captive in zoo’s against their will. They cannot be tested on in science labs against their will.

So with that being said, what effects will this have upon the global human society, that essentially the rights derived therein are extended to other species? I feel like this brings a situation similar to District 9 to light. This is because it places a situation wherein humanity has its position for the dominant species put in theoretical contestation. This will be because with the extension of human rights to chimpanzee’s you are therefore stating that there are no differences between humans and chimpanzee’s. This is because of the exact universal rights that are extended to both species. This places humanity in a situation that it is no longer the dominant species, because then technically on paper chimpanzee’s are equal to humans. Consequently humanity will have to share its position as the dominant species in terms of rights.

How would we go around treating chimpanzee’s as humans? I personally cannot even start to imagine a world where animals have the same rights as man. Not in a negative sense either, it’s just that this has never occurred in any culture in past and present. As such we have no basis to explain as to how society would react. I personally think that society would not react well. Just say, that in times of economic crisis, such as today, the government was spending money on providing shelter from the chimps during winter, while the homeless were still on the street. It would create a situation of anger and jealousy. That just because they are not human, society still assumes that they are inferior, regardless of legislative changes in the country.

However i do consider this to be a positive evolution for mankind. I think the days of ignorance on the sake of humanity have long gone. We have become the dominant species on earth many many years ago. With power also comes responsibility. We have to be responsible towards the other animals that we co-inhibit this earth with. We have assumed control over this earth. We have dictated which animals live where, we have dictated where nature rules, and where humanity is in power. As such we have to hold responsibility over those we claim to rule and care over.

Humanity has a lot to live up to. I feel that we still live as if we cannot or should not be held accountable for what happens in the world. It is time to change this and assume responsibility.

The tone in the movie is one that i find hard to follow and distinguish throughout. At the start of the film, the film is presented in a documentary form, one consisting of many interviews and personal accounts. The movie then progresses into sci-fi scenes from the new die hard movie, only then to ultimately finish up with a tad more documentary. I don’t know what Blomkamp intended with this format, but I imagine he tried using the documentary style to implement a more serious and believable sense into the film. As such he prevented the film from just being a pop corn fiesta.

As far as the story goes, I found it at first hard to relate to South African apartheid due to the circumstances, but towards to the end I did see it. I saw it with the transition of Wikus from human to alien. With this transition he is suddenly scooped into the group that he was working against. As such you see that he sees what exactly the internment is like on their end, however idealistic the idea of the internment started out as. Relating this back to apartheid, I wondered if the intent of it was one of good nature, that just turned out badly, or whether it was just a plan a racist plan from the start.

I also wondered, if the situation in the film actually happened in reality, what would we do? They aren’t human, so human rights would technically not apply to them, however their intelligence is too high for them to be considered animals either, so animal rights would be degrading them. What should be done? Can a race with equal intellectual capacities as humans coexist with us on earth? Or would one try to oppress and rule over the other as portrayed in the film. In the end you begin to wonder if naming human rights “human rights” isn’t an infringement on the rules of nature in itself, because by that you assume that each  of animals has its own set of rights, some having more than others, and thus claiming that there are some animals which are superior to others. Furthermore, the degree to which we value life shows as a way as to how we segregate and categorize the entire world based upon their necessity to us. Due to the emotional bond many people have with dogs, beating or hurting a dog is a criminal offence and is seriously frowned upon by society. However, if I were to squish an ant, nobody would say anything because its “only an ant,” whereas it too has a life of its own. So by looking at this I think I can safely say, that i personally believe that should aliens, such as in district 9, were to come to earth, we really wouldn’t treat them much better than portrayed in the film. This based upon how we treat other living creatures on this earth and how we place ourselves, as humans, above the rest.

Obasan really made me think, was the Canadian internment of Japanese-Canadians necessary? I came to conclude, it was the best of all the bad ideas. With the rate of immigration the Canada has, with the huge influx of Canadian immigrants, is it really strange to assume that perhaps one of these immigrants still holds fealty and loyalty to Japan rather than Canada? How can you find out, out of thousands, who could be a spy, or who has the potential to be one? So in the end, i tried to find alternatives to internment camps that still did maintain control over a group of people of which a small amount could be enemy aliens. By this i stress, i am not justifying what the government did, nor the repercussions or how they did it, i am merely wondering what else they could have done? What i found more shocking however was that, Canada also fought against Germany, Austria and Italy, how come immigrants with those roots were not interned? Or at least not to the same scale as the Japanese. So I think it is safe to assume that the internment camp system had racial connections as just seen, but why all the confiscation of property? why the revoking of citizenship, why the mandatory expulsion? I can understand the interment camp system being put in place for possible spies, but really the way it was done was far from what it should be! It was entirely inhumane and the magnitude to which was uncalled for. However, what would the consequences be if they didn’t do it, good and bad i wonder…

The political situation in Egypt is a complicated one. One one side you have the democratically elected government (now deposed), and the other side the military. The supporters of Morsi claim that the military has no right to depose the democratically elected leader, because if doing so it would be fighting against he wishes of its own people. However the military and its supporters are claiming that the President wasn’t acting upon the wishes and promises he made during his candidacy, furthermore that he was radicalizing the country. So you wonder, who is right? Who has the right to rule or depose? The answer of these questions is unclear, hence the unrest in Egypt at the moment. However, does the democratically elected president, elected by the people, not deserve the opportunity or the constitutional right to execute the position he was elected for? I am not one to promote religious interference in the government, nor am I one to promote the reduction of rights and privileges of religious minorities. I do not condone what he has done, but is it correct to undermine the first time the country has ever tasted democracy?

Imagine a country, when anyone doesn’t agree with the president, that they attempt to depose him? Is this respecting the democracy of the country? Democracy is as much about the elections as it is about respecting the results. If one does not agree with the democratically elected leader, if it is a true democracy, the people can annul his leadership in the next following elections. Is this not what Egyptians should try to do? I can understand that deposing ones dictator, is a great feat in itself, but is it really a trend to try to keep up and follow. I mean you can’t continue your life deposing each leader you don’t like. There will never be an election where a candidate receives one hundred percent of all the votes. How would any country work that whenever a leader was elected that the opposition would try and depose him just because they don’t approve of his leadership. Granted some of his policies were sketchy to say the least, however can we automatically assume that a country will go through the harmonious transition from a dictatorship to a pure democracy easily?

If we look at this through a historical lens, what were the processes of countries becoming a democracy. The French revolution lasted for over ten years, it went through a series of bad and corrupt leaders, and look at it now? France today is a global symbol of democracy. Robespierre massacred thousands in the reign of terror, Napoleon amended election results, and the Royalty kept on trying to change France into a Monarchy again. So after all of this, is it really a correct assumption that Egypt can make this transition in less than a year. It took France over 150 years to become the democracy it is today. It is currently on its fifth trial of a republic. So what expectations do Egyptians have of themselves, and do we have of Egypt? Ultimately, the change Egyptians sought for when they started the revolution won’t be for themselves but for their children and grandchildren.

Having lived in the middle east for most of my life, i have come to have a strong bond and connection with the region. I have met many people that come from Syria and therefore have created a personal connection with the country. Consequently the conflict there is of great interest of me. Not only from a personal perspective but more of a geopolitical one. I find it interesting to see how foreign nations interact with the turmoils inside a country. Especially having seen what happened during the arab spring, i find it shocking to see how little the international community is doing in promotion of the aid and defence of the Syrian peoples. Having gone through the Egyptian revolution and having first hand witnessed the consequences of which I can say that I can relate more than many concerning having to live in a place in turmoil. I understand the fear of going out during the day and night because you are scared for what might happen to you. I know what it is like going to bed while seeing and hearing bullets outside your own house. All i can say is that even in how calm and mellow the aggressiveness of the Egyptian revolution was in comparison with the Syrian civil war, the situation is far form pleasant, and it is not a living situation in which anyone would want to endure.

Having said this I find it intolerable that any self respecting powerful nation could allow the atrocities, from whichever side, to happen. I am not insisting that nations intervene and police the syrian people, but I do insist that the rights of the people are respected. War as a conflict is very much a part of humanity and it is i many senses the key to human history, however that does not justify it. It is because of this that I think that any country that has the means or the power to stop the conflict and end the misery of the people should not only do so, but also has the moral obligation to help the people of the country they are protecting. For once I am glad that the US is taking the authority of saying that it is time for the conflict in Syria to end. I was always a bit of a critic of US foreign policy, however for once I agree with the administration when it says that Syria has had enough turmoil. I am not promoting that the US goes in only to cause more turmoil, but that it seeks to end the conflict, since no country has made any concrete effort to do so. If it comes in their interests or not politically, it is of little concern to me, i am just content with the fact that finally there is a country that wants to do something about the situation within Syria. I think the time has come where people have to really stop looking at themselves and then considering the lives of others. If you want to know what someones life is like, put on his shoes and walk around in them.