Moving Towards a Worldwide Moratorium on the Death Penalty

It was a good day at the United Nations. On July 3, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called on member states to abolish the death penalty. And he called for a universal moratorium on the death penalty by 2015.

"The taking of life is too absolute, too irreversible, for one human being to inflict on another, even when backed by legal process," he said. "Where the death penalty persists, conditions for those awaiting execution are often horrifying, leading to aggravated suffering."

Mr. Ban gave the introductory remarks at a panel called "Moving away from the death penalty -- Lessons from national experiences" at U.N. Headquarters in New York. The event, a gathering of diplomats, legal practitioners and civil society, focused on those U.N. member states that have made positive steps towards abolition, and the human rights implications of the death penalty in those states that execute. Also presentwere Assistant Secretary-General Navi Pillay, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, and Christof Heyns, Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions.

Speaking at the forum was Federico Mayor, president of the International Commission Against the Death Penalty, an initiative of the Spanish government that is supported by 15 countries. Mayor noted that one of the first steps taken by Spain after the Franco regime was the abolition of the death penalty.

A highlight of the forum was Witness to innocence member Kirk Bloodsworth, who spent eight years in prison, including two on Maryland's death row, for a murder that someone else committed. He was convicted of the murder and rape of a little girl. In 1993, Bloodsworth was the first death row prisoner to be exonerated through DNA testing. And he was released just months after his mother died.


Bloodsworth shared with an international audience the inherent problem of executing innocent people, of his experiences living in the hell that is death row, and the pain of being released from prison just a few months after his mother died.

Barry Scheck of the Innocence Project noted that only 5-10 percent of serious felonies have biological evidence for the purposes of DNA testing and proving one's innocence. Innocent people are sentenced to death for a number of reasons, including police and prosecutorial misconduct, incompetent lawyering, racism in the jury selection process, eyewitness misidentification, and others.

Reasonable people can differ about the death penalty, Scheck said, but no one can differ about the risk of executing innocent people. He also suggested that the U.S. Supreme Court would abolish the death penalty if the states demonstrate a trend towards abolition. The high court would conclude that the death penalty could not stand when limited to a small number of states in one region of the country.

In the past five years, five states -- New Mexico, Illinois, New Jersey, New York and Connecticut -- have abolished the death penalty, for a total of 17 states that do not execute. And in November, California voterswill have the opportunity to repeal the death penalty in the nation's largest state, thereby eliminating a quarter of America's death row.

Meanwhile, in 2007, the U.N. General Assembly voted in favor of a resolution for a worldwide moratorium. The U.S. voted against it. Over 150 nations have done away with the death penalty or do not practice it. Moreover, in 2011 only 21 nations executed prisoners.

On the day of the U.N. event I had an interesting conversation with two men, diplomats from a Muslim nation. I expressed my unequivocal opposition to the death penalty, and they explained to me why they believed the death penalty was fairly applied in their country -- the concept of blood money.

With blood money, the family of the murder victim can demand a payment from the accused criminal. If the accused is able to pay the amount demanded by the family, that person is spared. Otherwise, he or she is executed. And the family may decide not to accept blood money altogether, and the execution will proceed.

Whether they realized it or not, the two men articulated good reasons for ending the death penalty. If a person may be spared, and another executed for the same crime, then one can argue that no one should have to die.

The U.S. maintains its own arbitrary form of justice, where many murders are potentially death-penalty eligible, but the ultimate decision is made by petty local officials -- district attorneys on the county level, and U.S. attorneys in the federal system. Those who are prosecuted and condemned are typically poor, disproportionately of color, and almost exclusively in cases involving white victims.

Some studies show that universally, executions provide no deterrent effect. Capital punishment represents pure vengeance and retribution operating as public policy. It leaves no room for rehabilitation. Moreover, we cannot bring an innocent man or woman back from the grave.

Surely the day will come when the international community declares a moratorium on executions. The death penalty is the ultimate human rights violation. As long as humankind upholds the sentence of death, it tears down its own humanity.

Georgia wants to execute Warren Hill and violate the Constitution

Georgia is about to execute a mentally disabled man in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Unless the U.S. Supreme Court intervenes, the state of Georgia will execute a man that everyone agrees is mentally retarded.  A state court determined that a decade ago.  The execution would violate the U.S. Constitution if carried out, but apparently that standard is not good enough for the Peach State.

Warren Lee Hill, Jr., who has an I.Q. of 70, is scheduled to die by lethal injection on July 23.  His original execution date of July 18 was postponed due to changes in the state’s execution drug protocol.  Georgia, which once used a three-drug cocktail, has opted for a single drug dosage of pentobarbital—a sedative used to put down dogs and cats that has been banned for export by the European Union.

On July 18, Texas used pentobarbital to execute Yokamon Hearn.  Hearn was a mentally impaired man who, according to his defense, suffered mental impairments due to his mother’s prenatal drinking, and abuse from his parents.

In his order denying relief to Hill, Superior Court Judge Thomas H. Wilson wrote that Hill meets the criteria of mental retardation by a preponderance of the evidence.  In Atkins v. Virginia, the Supreme Court  mandated the states to protect people with mental retardation because there is a “special risk of wrongful execution” because of their disabilities.

Writing for the majority in Atkins, Justice Stevens opined that the mentally disabled should not be executed because it provides no deterrent effect, and that such offenders are not culpable to deserve such a form of retribution.  He added that with reduced capacity, mentally retarded defendants face a risk of wrongful conviction. They are poor witnesses, may give less meaningful assistance to their lawyers, and their demeanor may give an impression that they lack remorse.

“Those mentally retarded persons who meet the law’s requirements for criminal responsibility should be tried and punished when they commit crimes,” Stevens wrote.  “Because of their disabilities in areas of reasoning, judgment, and control of their impulses, however, they do not act with the level of moral culpability that characterizes the most serious adult criminal conduct.  Moreover, their impairments can jeopardize the reliability and fairness of capital proceedings against mentally retarded defendants.”

However, Georgia sees things differently.  Georgia requires defendants to prove they have an intellectual disability beyond a reasonable doubt—the strictest standard in the nation.  And experts agree Georgia is an outlier, as the only state in the Union with such an unreasonably high burden of proof and an impossible standard to meet.  Yet, the state judge believes that Hill does not meet Georgia’s standard, and that Georgia’s standard does not violate the U.S. Constitution.

Many have already spoken out on this case.  Several jurors from the case said they would have sentenced Hill to life without parole if they had the option.  Former President Jimmy Carter and Rosalyn Carter called for clemency, and the victim’s family called for a commutation of his sentence.  Mental health advocacy groups, including the Georgia Council on Developmental Disabilities, the Arc of Georgia and the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD) have called for a stay of Hill’s execution as well.

Further, the international community has voiced its opposition to the execution.  Christof Heyns—the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions—said Hill’s execution “would be a fatality in violation of international as well as domestic law.”

Georgia has a history of problems in its application of the death penalty, often making big mistakes by playing fast and loose with justice.  In 2005, the state of Georgia granted a posthumous pardon to Lena Baker.  A black maid who was executed in 1945 for killing a white man she said enslaved and beat her, Baker was the only woman executed in Georgia’s electric chair.  Her last words were "What I done, I did in self-defense, or I would have been killed myself ... I am ready to meet my God."

And last September—despite strong indications of innocence, an international outcry and a petition of 1 million signatures— Georgia sent a man named Troy Davis to his death.  The execution of Troy Davis, despite the absence of a murder weapon, physical evidence or DNA linking him to the crime, placed the spotlight on Georgia and the injustices of the death penalty.  This, in a state where five death row inmates have been exonerated.

And Georgia is in the spotlight once again, as it plans to execute Warren Hill, a mentally ill man.   And as the state decides to go it alone— flying in the face of the Constitution— the attention it receives is an embarrassment.

Let Us Expand the Definition of Terrorism

I begin this commentary by looking up the word terrorism.

One dictionary defines terrorism as follows:

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Similarly, the U.S. military says terrorism is:

The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.

Practically speaking, however, terrorism is defined differently in everyday American life. Terrorism is synonymous with Muslim and Arab extremism, and affiliated persons, organizations and nations. The threats they pose are either real, perceived, or purely conjured up. The terrorist-as-enemy-of-America is like the bogeyman of Red Scare fame, ubiquitous yet elusive, and you can't quite put your finger on them because they're tricky. The definition of terrorism itself can serve as a political weapon--a form of terrorism itself, dare I say. Call someone a terrorist, or a communist or socialist or supporter thereof, and you delegitimize everything that person has to say. You marginalize everything that person represents.

In these days of extremism at home, we cling to a narrow, selective definition of terrorism, while ignoring blatant forms of terrorism in our own midst. In doing so, we can't see the forest for the trees.

A progressive voice for peace, Rabbi Michael Lerner, was almost certainly a victim of terrorism on the night of May 2 and early morning of May 3. Right-wing Zionists attacked his home and threatened his life. The attackers attached posters to his door and property with a strong glue. And the posters attacked Lerner personally, as well as liberals and progressives as being supporters of terrorism and "Islamo-fascism." They posted a bumper sticker which read "fight terror--support Israel" next to a caricature of Judge Goldstone, the South African jurist who issued a UN report on Israeli human rights violations during the military campaign in Gaza. The Goldstone report called on Israel to do an independent investigation into Operation Cast Lead, and punish those elements of the IDF who were responsible. The report was denounced by rightists in the U.S. and Israel as "anti-Semitic" and "pro-terror."

The crime against Rabbi Lerner came after a week of Lerner and his staff at Tikkun magazine receiving hate mail. These acts stemmed from Tikkun's announcement that if South African Zionists made good on their threat to prevent Judge Goldstone from attending his grandson's bar mitzvah, Lerner would hold the bar mitzvah in the Bay Area instead. Tikkun is presenting an award to Goldstone next year for his commitment to human rights in Israel, and apparently some people don't like that.

Although Lerner has received death threats and hate mail over the years, this recent attack is troubling because they targeted his home. "By linking Lerner to alleged terrorism, they provide for themselves and other extremists a 'right-wing justification' to use violence against Lerner, even though Lerner has been a prominent advocate of non-violence", Tikkun said in an official statement. Lerner speaks out against violence everywhere around the world, including Palestinian acts against Israelis. But when he and groups such as J Street advocate a pro-peace solution, they are branded as anti-Israel. This comes as a group of over 3,000 European Jews signed a petition criticizing Israeli settlement policies, and warning of the dangers of systematic support for the Israeli government.

Turning the page a bit, we are witnessing state-sponsored terrorism within our borders, most prominently coming from the state of Arizona. Arizona's legislature passed--and the governor signed into law--a bill which makes it a crime under state law to be in the U.S. illegally. The law allows police to stop anyone with a "reasonable suspicion" of being undocumented, and demand proof of citizenship. Those who cannot produce the documentation face arrest, a $2,500 fine, and 6 months in jail.

I submit that Arizona's anti-immigrant law is nothing more than Juan Crow racism, a codification of xenophobia, specifically designed to intimidate Latinos regardless of their citizenship status. Although its proponents will tell us it does not racially profile, the law is part of the mix that makes people with Spanish surnames feel unwelcome and unsafe, in an environment of heightened anti-Latino violence and discrimination. After all, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), a hate group with ties to the eugenics movement and white supremacists, assisted in drafting the bill. An honest, vigorous debate on immigration and border security is one thing. Bad people passing a law with cruel intentions is another.

But Arizona did not stop there. They are banning ethnic studies in the schools, characterizing such programs as "ethnic chauvinism" and "high treason." Under the policy, schools will lose state funding if they offer courses that "promote the overthrow of the U.S. government, promote resentment of a particular race or class of people, are designed primarily for students of a particular ethnic group or advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals." And the Arizona Department of Education is removing teachers with heavy accents.

Ethnic Studies were part of the civil rights movement--born in the late 1960s and early 1970s at a time of increased cultural awareness among people of color--to counter a Eurocentric perspective of history. State governments in Arizona and Texas feed into white extremist antipathy towards diversity by denigrating and eliminating people of color in their school curricula, "taking the country back" so to speak, via the textbooks.

A vibrant democracy should allow for differences of opinion, free from demonization and threats of violence against those who disagree. We may have differences of opinion with people, even those within our own family, but we don't resort to terrorist attacks against them.

A Fast For Human Rights In Gaza

There are many opinions on the Mideast conflict, but one thing is certain: the situation in Gaza is a humanitarian and human rights disaster, and it cannot continue.

Under the Israeli blockade, the following items are not allowed into Gaza: cars, refrigerators, computers, cement, concrete, wood, glass, light bulbs, candles, matches, books, musical instruments, crayons, clothing, shoes, mattresses, sheets, blankets, pasta, tea, coffee, fruit juice, chocolate, nuts, shampoo, conditioner, and toilet paper. And it takes 85 days to deliver shelter kits into Gaza, and 68 days to send health and pediatric hygiene kits.

Rabbi Linda Holtzman of congregation Mishkan Shalom in Philadelphia has taken a stand on Israel’s policies in Gaza. In a recent Rosh Hashanah sermon, she discussed the need for people to set limits, and to challenge ourselves to set limits with those we love. “The men and women who have formed the settlements on the West Bank love Israel. All of those who have built barriers, set up roadblocks, and stopped humanitarian aid from entering Gaza, love Israel,” Rabbi Linda said. “I too love Israel, but under no circumstances can I condone these actions, and my understanding of love and the limits love demands will not let me sit quietly by while this is taking place.”

Rabbi Linda is a part of Jewish Fast For Gaza (Ta’anit Tzedek), an ad hoc group of Jewish, Muslim and Christian clergy, as well as other concerned individuals, who have undertaken a monthly daytime fast for Gaza. Founded by activist Rabbis Brant Rosen and Brian Walt, this association grew out of the Jewish tradition of communal fasting in times of crisis, as a form of mourning and repentance. “As Jews and people of conscience,” the group declares, “we can no longer stand idly by Israel’s collective punishment of the Palestinian people in Gaza.” Their efforts have been endorsed by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI).

Jewish Fast For Gaza seeks several goals, including: lifting the blockade that prevents civilian goods and services from entering Gaza; calling for the delivery of humanitarian and developmental aid to the people of Gaza; calling on Israel, the U.S. and the world community to negotiate without pre-conditions with all relevant Palestinian parties, including Hamas, to end the blockade, and calling on the U.S. government to engage Israelis and Palestinians toward a just and peaceful settlement of the conflict. Participants are asked to donate the money they save on food to the American Near Eastern Refugee Aid (ANERA), a relief agency combating Gazan preschool malnutrition.

Israeli and international human rights groups alike were shocked by the most recent Israeli military operation in Gaza— the disproportionate and indiscriminate use of force against a civilian population, the massive civilian deaths, and the level of destruction of property and infrastructure it created. As a result of Operation Cast Lead—which was conducted between December 27, 2008 and January 3, 2009—over 1,400 Palestinians were killed. Of these, 773 were non-combatants (over 60%), including 320 children. These statistics fly in the face of the official narrative that the operation was part of the war on terror, and that those who were killed were the terrorists.

Civilians could not flee the combat, and there was no safe place to hide, as Fred Abrahams, senior researcher for Human Rights Watch, noted. In a recent report on Operation Cast Lead, Human Rights Watch documented the Israeli Defense Force’s (IDF’s) illegal use of white phosphorous artillery shells in densely populated areas, and the shooting of unarmed Palestinian civilians—including women and children— waving white flags. Warnings the IDF sent to Gaza residents in the form of fliers and phone calls fell short of international humanitarian law standards. Further, according to a UN report recently issued by South African Justice Richard Goldstone, “houses, factories, wells, schools, hospitals, police stations and other public buildings were destroyed.” Around 240 of the Gazan deaths were police officers. And the Palestinian Legislative Council and a prison were bombed as well.

Further, the Gaza population suffers significant trauma, including insomnia, depression, childhood bed-wetting, and other medium- and long-term mental health problems.

As Jessica Montell, Executive Director of the Jerusalem-based human rights group B'Tselem recently said, “when there is wrongdoing, there must be a remedy." For Montell, justice is to be done at home. This includes not only the individual behavior of Israeli soldiers, but people throughout the chain of command, both military and government, who dictated policy and decided what to target. B’Tselem and all 11 Israeli human rights organizations are calling for a nonpartisan body to examine Israel’s conduct in Operation Cast Lead.

After Hamas’ electoral win in January 2006, Israel imposed the crippling blockade on Gaza, turning the territory into the functional equivalent of a prison. The blockade severely limits Gaza's ability to import essentials such as food and fuel, and to export finished products. The result has been a complete devastation of Gaza’s economy, and the closing of most of its industrial plants. Increased unemployment, poverty and childhood malnutrition now plague an already economically crippled and depressed region.

Wherever human rights abuses are committed throughout the world, someone must be held to account. And no longer can we turn our backs and close our eyes when injustices occur. Depriving human beings of basic necessities, food, water, employment, and freedom of movement in their own land cannot and will not make Israelis more secure. Maintaining a culture of impunity in the region, and denying people their basic rights and sense of dignity will not bring peace to anyone. It will only result in what Justice Goldstone calls “a situation where young people grow up in a culture of hatred and violence, with little hope for change in the future. Finally, the teaching of hate and dehumanization by each side against the other contributes to the destabilization of the whole region.”

Indeed, Gaza is a walled prison, seemingly out of sight and out of mind for some. But the Jewish Fast For Gaza is committed to tearing down the walls that separate us, and allowing justice to flow.

Cross-posted from Huffington Post and Black Commentator.

Obama Administration Must Not Boycott World Racism Conference

The following has been cross-posted on Daily Kos and Open Salon.

On April 20, a world conference on racism is taking place, and the Obama administration hasn’t decided if it will attend.

The Durban Review Conference is being held in Geneva, Switzerland, and NGO’s and representatives from around the world will be in attendance. The purpose of the meeting is to follow up on the 2001 World Conference Against Racism (which was held in Durban, South Africa), and to promote full ratification and implementation of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), of which the U.S. is a signatory.

What ICERD really represents is the legal foundation for the Durban process. Article 1 of the convention says the following:

In this Convention, the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

The Obama administration originally expressed opposition to the Geneva meeting, based on draft resolutions which called for reparations for slavery, and stated that Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians is based on racism. That language was deleted, yet, no final decision from the White House on whether they will participate in the most significant global effort to fight racial discrimination. Israel has decided not to participate, for fear of being singled out over the Palestinian issue.

If you read the Washington Post, you’re given the impression that the U.S. will boycott the conference. And in an official press release, the State Department expresses some continued reservations with the draft text. However, the newspaper Haaretz reported that senior U.S. officials are leaning towards attending the summit in Geneva. There seems to be some uncertainty, some confusion about what really will happen. And there really is no time for equivocation on the issue of racism.

Human rights groups look forward to U.S. participation, as it would further legitimize the conference, and help to increase the visibility of U.S.-based human rights groups that are committed to fighting against racism. These organizations are working on issues such as diverse as juvenile justice, immigrant rights, labor, the death penalty, prisoner’s rights and prison reentry, racial profiling, domestic violence, housing discrimination and voting rights. A group of 40 organizations and 92 individual signatories wrote an open letter to the President, urging him to participate in the conference.

"If the Obama Administration is willing to engage in dialogue with avowed enemies such as Iran then surely it should be willing to engage the international community in a dialogue on methods and principles to end racism and xenophobia," said Ajamu Baraka, Executive Director of the US Human Rights Network (USHRN). Baraka added that "as we all know, at time of global and economic crisis, we must make a special effort to protect the human rights of groups most vulnerable to racial discrimination and intolerance."

For human rights advocates, this is about far more than attending a single conference in Geneva. Rather, it is about what happens beyond the meeting. America needs to stop playing games and start to show a commitment to human rights. USHRN’s Baraka—who fears that the administration has "Reverend Wrighted" the Durban Review Conference—believes that an administration that is committed to eliminating racism and white supremacy "would be truly revolutionary."

And racism and racial discrimination certainly are issues that many societies refuse to confront and tackle head on. It speaks to that "drum major instinct" that Dr. Martin Luther King, the great human rights champion, so poignantly described:

A need that some people have to feel superior. A need that some people have to feel that they are first, and to feel that their white skin ordained them to be first.... And think of what has happened in history as a result of this perverted use of the drum major instinct. It has led to the most tragic prejudice, the most tragic expressions of man’s inhumanity to man.

Dr. King was a man of action, direct action. In his Letter From Birmingham Jail, he criticized the moderate clergy who felt that his activities—that is, fighting against racial injustice through nonviolence— were "unwise and untimely." Well, today, there are some who would rather sweep the world’s racism problem under the rug. They believe that now is not the time to deal with it, on the grounds that we might embarrass this or that person, this or that nation. As for the U.S., a nation which has embarrassingly turned its back on civil rights, human rights, the rule of law and international standards during the Bush administration—there is a need to exert some global leadership on human rights. What better place to start than the Durban Review Conference? And as they say, there’s no better time than the present.

Bush Defends America’s Indefensible Human Rights Record

By David A. Love
Published By The Black Commentator
February 14, 2008

On February 21 and 22, U.S. State Department and Department of Justice are going to Geneva to defend George Bush’s record on human rights and racial discrimination. But what does one say about a record that cannot be defended?

Specifically, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination will take a look at United States compliance - or rather, noncompliance - with the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, also known as the Race Convention or ICERD.

The Race Convention defines racial discrimination as “any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.” Notice the emphasis on purpose or effect.

Ratified by the U.S. in 1994, the Race Convention is one of those international treaties that have become part of U.S. law. However, this and other international conventions pose an inconvenience because they are more progressive and inclusive than the Constitution, based on universal standards and are free from the baggage and hangups of America’s sordid and tortured history. And some American politicians and jurists prefer to ignore America’s international obligations and dispose of these conventions like discarded junk mail or yesterday’s newspaper.

In a recent Color of Law commentary, I discussed a shadow report by the over 250-member US Human Rights Network (USHRN), which claims that America is failing to comply with its obligations under the Race Convention. The shadow report was a response to an April 2007 report submitted by the U.S. government on its compliance with ICERD, a report that all signatory nations are required to submit every two years. The U.S. report angered the human rights community, and according to critics it represented a whitewashing of America’s racial problems.

“Our analysis reveals that the Bush Administration is utterly out of touch with the reality of racial discrimination in America,” said Ajamu Baraka, the Executive Director of the USHRN. “From failing to address the chronic persistence of structural racism to even acknowledging the disparate racial impact on people of color of Hurricane Katrina, the State Department reports reads like a fantasy; unfortunately a fantasy that is to often experienced as a nightmare for Americans of color,” Baraka added.

So, exactly how will the Bush administration defend their atrocious record on racial discrimination?

Will they say that the victims of Hurricane Katrina were already poor and had nothing to lose, and that Brownie did a heck of a job?

Will Bush’s yes men and women sugarcoat the problem of race-based police brutality and pretend it doesn’t exist?

What of the school-to-prison pipeline that criminalizes youth, and condemns poor children and children of color to underperforming schools, few opportunities and a life behind bars? Certainly, the Bush regime will claim that these children need to buckle down, pull themselves up by their bootstraps, study hard and play by the rules.

Blacks and Latinos make up 60 percent of the 2.5 million Americans behind bars in the United States. But what will the U.S. government say about the alarming disparities in the criminal justice system? “These people commit more crime,” they will respond.

What of the continued colonialism and racial oppression experienced by America’s indigenous population? “What indigenous population?,” Bush will ask.

And what about the post-9/11 epidemic of hate crimes against Muslims, Arabs and South Asians, perpetrated by law enforcement agencies in the form of round-ups, interrogations and registration programs? “These people are Islamofascist terrorists who hate us for our freedom,” the government will likely say.

So, how do you defend the indefensible? The Bush administration pretends the problem doesn’t exist, and tells the victim to stop playing the victim and show some personal responsibility. On the issue of human rights, this administration never fails to disappoint.

America’s Racism is a Human Rights Violation

By David A. Love
Published in Black Commentator
January 10, 2008

In 1964, Malcolm X called Uncle Sam “the earth's number-one hypocrite” on the issue of human rights. It's nearly four and a half decades later; some things never change.

On December 10, 2007, International Human Rights Day, a broad coalition of 200 human rights groups and social justice organizations sounded the alarm on the state of racism and discrimination in America.

According to a report by the US Human Rights Network (USHRN), which includes such groups as Amnesty International, the ACLU and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, America is failing to comply with its obligations under the International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination (Race Convention).

The Race Convention, a United Nations treaty ratified in 1969, defines racial discrimination (art. 1, paragraph 1) as “any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.” The convention is enforceable as a part of U.S. law. But you wouldn’t know it, looking at the conduct of the U.S. government.

Pointing to such events as the disastrous response to Hurricane Katrina, the nooses hanging in Jena, Louisiana, and the epidemic of hate crimes on college campuses across the country – not to mention continuing racism in voting rights, housing, health and education, and a hostile environment to immigrants - USHRN says that the Bush administration’s track record on race has been an abysmal failure. And the group notes that the U.S. government whitewashed its report to the UN on its compliance with the Race Convention (or lack thereof). For example:

• The U.S. government’s report, issued by the State Department, chose to ignore the racially-tinged issue of police brutality.

• Failing to comply with the convention by providing statistics on racism at the state level, the government report only provided full information on Oregon, South Carolina, Illinois and New Mexico, and chose to ignore states with large populations of immigrants and people of color, including New York, California, Texas and Florida.

• The report pointed to programs that encourage sensitivity by law enforcement to Arab and Muslim communities, yet failed to acknowledge the racial profiling and targeting of Arabs, Muslims and South Asians by law enforcement in the post-9/11 era.

• The State Department report failed to address the “school to prison pipeline” that funnels Black and Brown children into prison through discriminatory policies and under-funded public schools. And the government report dared to suggest that the wide disparities in the criminal justice system (African Americans and Latinos are 60 percent of the nation’s prison population) are not due to the effects of racist policies, but are “related to differential involvement in crime.”

Certainly, those who oppose equality and justice for all, including the Bush administration, are inclined to say that people of color should stop complaining and learn to take personal responsibility. They should top whining, stop playing the victim, and learn to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, the argument goes.

And certainly, the fox has been known to lecture the residents of the henhouse on the virtues of personal responsibility.

The Bush administration has proven itself unable and unwilling to promote equality in America, to make the land whole. On a regular basis, this column and others provide a detailed account of the crisis of racial injustice in America, and the ways in which this administration, in criminal fashion, has stoked the fires of racial hatred, trampled on the civil rights and voting rights of people of color, and encouraged the widening gap of inequality in the land of the free. This country has failed to come to terms with its devastating legacy of genocide, slavery and Jim Crow, and its present-day incarnations.

Although USHRN calls on the U.S. to address this abysmal track record and to take action to bring the U.S. in compliance with its international obligations, it does not seem likely that much can be expected in the final year of the Bush regime. Perhaps we can begin to heal the land once the “compassionate conservative” crowd in Washington leaves the White House and takes their white sheets and brown shirts with them.

America, your record on racism drips with hypocrisy. As the self-proclaimed beacon of human rights, yet a chronically habitual human rights offender and purveyor of wolf tickets, now is the time to clean up your act and practice what you preach. International standards demand no less.

A Human Rights Treaty for the Protection of Minorities: A Draft Proposal

(Author's note: The following is a draft document that I developed with a group of colleagues while studying international human rights law at the University of Oxford in 2002. It reflects a proposed international standard for minority group rights on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, culture, language, etc., and also demonstrates the inadequacies of current documents such as the United States Constitution in protecting the rights of vulnerable, oppressed and disenfranchised groups.)

Preamble

Recalling the rights that are set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Recognizing the inherent dignity of all people[s], and in particular, persons who are the object of discrimination based upon characteristics which [persons] cannot or should not change by virtue of their cultural, linguistic, religious, gender identification or [other status]

Considering the developments and protections of international human rights instruments have furthered these important objectives but require articulation and bolstering by the international community in greater specificity and commitment,

Calling attention to the distinctive contributions of all [people and in particular marginalized groups] to the cultural diversity and social and ecological harmony of humankind and to international cooperation and understanding,

Recognizing that legal institutions and treaty bodies can have a cultural bias in procedural issues, should not be a barrier to any of the rights guaranteed,

Insisting that use of the term minorities in this instrument [is meant in the most inclusive way] and shall not prejudice the use of this instrument for its application by indigenous [peoples], women, refugees [gays and lesbians],

Further noting that the protections set forth herein and invoked by [people] shall not be deemed to detract or disparage the rights of other minority groups present within the territorial boundaries of States Parties,

Adopts the following treaty the twenty-sixth day of July 2002, with the understanding that state parties shall take affirmative steps to promote equality of minority groups consistent with the groups’ conception of self [and their goals and desires],

Section I

Article 1

1. The Parties undertake to guarantee to persons belonging to national minorities the right of equality before the law and of equal protection of the law. In this respect, any discrimination based on belonging to a national minority shall be prohibited.
2. The Parties will adopt, where necessary adequate measures in order to [ensure or] promote, in all areas of economic, social, political and cultural life, [full] equality between members of a minority group and the majority society. In this respect, they shall take account of the specific conditions of persons belonging to minority groups.
3. No one shall be denied opportunities on the basis of his or her minority status.

Article 2

1. Minority groups shall have a right to determine the representation of their group in educational materials. The state shall make efforts to insure a proportional representation in teaching faculty so that all members of society may benefit from a diverse learning environment.
2. Members of minority groups shall have the right to establish separate educational institutions, in conformity with state standards. Such institutions shall have access to the same proportionate level of resources as institutions of the majority culture. This provision shall be interpreted as consistent with the state’s nondiscrimination policies [such as the separation of church and state].
3. Minority groups shall have the right to meaningful participation in the establishment of educational standards and curricula.
4. The state has an obligation to promote education in the general population which facilitates understanding and awareness of minority groups, and validation of their histories and cultures.
5. Members of minority groups have the right to learn and use their mother tongue.
6. States Parties are mindful that discrimination against minorities can and is often compounded by gender discrimination and shall undertake to promote equal opportunity in access to the same education at all levels for all persons, and further, that the state shall provide effective redress for claims of discrimination.

Article 3

1. States shall take measures where required to ensure that persons belonging to minorities may exercise fully and effectively all their human freedoms and fundamental rights without any discrimination and in full equality before the law.
2. [defining discrimination, discrimination can be against minorities, compounded by gender]

Article 4

1. Members belonging to minority groups shall have the right to work and enjoy the benefits of prosperity in common with other members of society. Further, State Parties shall undertake to ensure that minority members are compensated on par with members of the society as a whole in the same occupation and at comparable levels of experience.
2. States Parties shall undertake to remove barriers which prevent minority members who choose to participate [in the economic mainstream] from realizing their potential on par with other members of society.
3. States shall make available institutional and capital development support for culturally specific occupations.

Article 5

1. Every person within the territory of a state party has the right to security and liberty of person and shall not be deprived of such without due process of law. All persons shall be equal before the tribunals and have the right to be informed of the specific nature of the charge against them in a language they can understand.
2. Every person has the right to a fair hearing before a competent and independent tribunal established by law and free of prejudice. Cultural differences can be taken into account as a mitigating factor in determining the proper punishment.
3. Disparity in sentencing and incarceration between minority and majority groups can be considered as evidence of de facto discrimination and measures shall be taken to correct such disparate treatment.
4. Efforts by the state parties shall be made to increase the representation of minority members in the legal and judicial professions in proportion with their numbers in the society as a whole.

Article 6

1. Negative media images have a profound effect on the negative stereotyping of minority groups. Therefore, members of minority groups have a right to full participation in the mass media of the nation in which they reside. Minority groups have a right to play an active role in creating positive images of their group [including inter alia the ownership of media organizations and corporations]. The state shall aid members of minority groups in their efforts to establish their presence in broadcast, print, electronic and other forms of media.

Article 7

1. States shall respect the right to privacy and family of minorities, and shall act in ways that affirm cultural sensitivity. Further, minority groups have a right to self-identification in society, without the interference of arbitrary and discriminatory state policies.

Article 8

1. States and their actors are prohibited from encouraging or engaging in hate speech [hate speech which incites violence against minority groups, or encourages acts or policies that further their oppression] and other discriminatory acts directed towards minority groups. Further, states must take all actions to create an environment which is not conducive to the perpetration of crimes against minorities. The tribunals of the individual states shall prosecute with vigor all hate crimes committed against members of minority groups.

Article 9

1. Members of minority groups shall enjoy full political rights, including the right to vote in national and local elections. States shall not engage in any practices that hinder the ability of minority groups to exercise their voting rights. Further, states shall make efforts to ensure [proportional representation] minority group representation in legislative assemblies.

Article 10

1. States and corporations operating within the boundaries of such states shall be prohibited from engaging in discriminatory economic practices against members of minority groups. Such practices include inter alia predatory lending practices, the charging of exorbitantly high interest rates, policies which bar access to capital, and the redlining of minority communities.

Section II

Article 11

1. There will be a non-political Minorities Protection Committee consisting of experts of high moral character and recognized competence in the field of human rights protections, serving in their personal capacities.
2. The committee shall be composed of 18 members, of which no less than half shall be women. Further, no less than half of the members shall be representatives of self-identified minority groups.
3. Members shall be elected by secret ballot after nomination by the states’ parties to the treaty.
4. Attention shall be paid to ensuring a fair geographical representation.

Article 12

1. The committee shall receive communications from individuals, states, Non Governmental Organizations with United Nations consultative status or special recognition with the Committee, and other bodies of the United Nations.
2. Each state party, in cooperation with Non Governmental Organizations, or national human rights commissions of the state where they exist, shall issue a joint report on a periodic basis. The report shall detail the state’s compliance with all relevant articles of this treaty.

Article 13

1. The committee has the power to appoint special mediators to work toward the resolution of disputes between states parties and aggrieved minority groups.
2. Where mediation fails, the committee shall have adjudicative powers and the ability to release advisory opinions on general questions referred to it.
3. The committee has the ability to work in cooperation with other United Nations entities on issues of common concern.