They are some of the most discriminated and marginalized people in Europe.  Facing rampant racism and social exclusion, some European country policies are intentionally segregating Roma children in schools.  Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria and the Czech Republic all place Roma children in separate classrooms.  In these conditions, the quality of education afforded to Roma children is extremely poor and most drop out.

Ms Gabriela Hrabanova from the Czech Republic said that certain ministers were applauding a decision to build schools that would fully segregate the Romas from the non-Romas (i.e. the Czech).  Ms Hrabanova is the director of the Czech Government Office for the Roma Community.  When she learned of the school proposal she had to remind the ministers that it was against European fundamental human rights.  This idea never crossed the ministers’ minds.

The Roma Education Fund (REF) today reported that most Roma children simply never enroll in schools in Europe.  The REF also said that there are loose connections between assumed goals of policy documents and the local-level implementation.  At root, aside from discrimination - is social exclusion.  Romas face extensive barriers when it comes to employment, education and housing.

EU legislation prohibits discrimination on grounds of ethnic origin in employment, social protection, education, and access to services.  But Romas are stigmatized and pushed to the edges of society.  In most every major city throughout Europe, slums with no running water, no sewage evacuation, and no electricity are symptomatic of failed policies and outright social exclusion.

The above is a quick report from the Second Seminar of the Integrated European Platform for Roma Inclusion that I just now attended.  Got to go! - Nikolaj

Google Books, the ambitious plan by Sergey Brin and Larry Page to make available for free huge quantities of digitized books, suffered yet another blow on Friday as the US Department of Justice urged a federal judge to deny a settlement agreement that Google reached with authors and publishers over copyright issues.  The heart of the Department of Justice’s concerns are antitrust issues and whether the settlement would give Google an unfair advantage over competitors in the relatively new digital book market.  It is therefore no surprise that Google’s main competitors in the area, including Yahoo!, Microsoft, and Amazon, have also lined up to fight the settlement agreement.  But as an avid user of Google Books, my question is not so much about the possible antitrust issues but whether the world has a right to the information being posted there.

Article 19(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights holds that freedom of expression includes the right to information.  Specifically, it states that

Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

It goes on to admit that governments can place certain restrictions on these rights, but only if necessary.  This has long been understood to cover access to government information, such as rights covered by the Freedom of Information Act in the US.  But increasingly some are starting to include access to knowledge, particularly in regards to the internet, in this rubric as well.

Such “open access” thinking is what powers internet phenomena such as Wikipedia, which currently contains more than three million articles, and Creative Commons which allows users to find artwork that they can legally reuse.  Recently, it is also the justification behind academic sharing, such as the OpenCourseWare consortium and other smaller projects sharing academic work.  And of course, any conversation these days about easy access to written material would include Google Books.

Part of the reason why Google Books appears to run afoul of other open access projects is that it posts material that other people could possibly be paid for.  In other words, by posting an entire scanned book online, the author of that work may lose out on a royalty that they would have otherwise received.  The copyright concerns was the reason why Google entered into settlement negotiations with authors and publishers to develop a royalty system for Google Books.  But even this copyright argument is starting to lose ground among some in the publishing and academic world.  Last year, some of the faculties at Harvard and Stanford University (coincidentally two partners with the Google Books Library Project) voted to give online open access to their academic publications.  In explaining why they voted for this open access policy, John Willinsky and Deborah Stipek of Stanford University pointed out that such information should be free for all in a democratic society.  In an editorial published by the San Jose Mercury News, they wrote:

Public interest in finding information on the Web has gone academic as well, now that the virtual campus gates have begun to open. People are following links from Wikipedia to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. New York Times columns include links to economics papers. Visitors log on to Galaxy Zoo, eager to assist astronomers in classifying the galaxies within the massive data sets accumulated by the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. Students tap into open educational resources of every sort, from online textbooks to lesson materials.

Even if this new access to knowledge has yet to affect test scores or improve U.S. rankings in international comparisons in education, it does provide students with richer sources from which to learn. Citizens have new opportunities to consider and critically review sources of information. Open access of scholarly research can only add to the educational and deliberative quality of democratic life.

This is the generally thinking behind a right to information that encompasses a right to knowledge and the tools to gain that knowledge.  It is why organizations such as UNESCO encourage open access policies, especially for the developing world where access to traditional forms of knowledge such as books is out of reach for many people.  Google Books aims to provide millions of books online from around the world for anyone who wants to read them.  Are there business considerations too?  Of course.  But is it fair to deny people the ability to access that knowledge because of those business concerns?

It is also interesting that as this debate over Google Books goes on in the US, other courts in the world seem to be going the opposite direction than the Department of Justice.  For example France’s highest court found in June that a law creating an internet police agency to fight against copyright piracy violated people’s basic human rights, which included the right to the internet.  Although the decision and the law in question mainly concerned music piracy, the general issue is not that far off from the debate around Google Books.

In other words, there may be more than antitrust and copyright issues at stake in the Google Books settlement saga.  Given the size and stature of Google, the ultimate outcome of this debate may determine more than the future of internet copyright law; it may also determine what information and knowledge the rest of us have a fundamental right to.

France’s center-right and left political parties are coalescing around a controversial issue: the idea of a national, parliamentary ban on the niqab.  Proponents of the ban cite the threat of Islamism to France’s position as a secular state, and argue further that the niqab is both a symbol of and an act of the oppression of women.  Opponents claim that banning the niqab is a discriminatory attack on Muslims, and still others point out that banning the public wearing of any article of clothing is a tricky issue and might be impossible under France’s laws.  In many ways the proposed ban signals the fever pitch that has been reached in the debate regarding Islam in France, a debate that resulted in a 2004 ban on headscarves in public schools (a ban that included all overtly religious symbols, including Jewish skullcaps, large Christian crosses, and Sikh turbans) and the denial of citizenship in 2008 for a Muslim woman that wears the niqab, on the grounds that her submission to her male relatives is counter to the sex equality inherent to being French.  

This debate seems to pit several competing rights against each other, and in particular the right of individuals and groups to freely express their religious beliefs in public and the obligation of a State to protect and facilitate this right, and the right to be free from gender based discrimination and the obligation of a State to enact laws and take actions to ensure this right.  The discussion taking place regarding the proposed ban is also uniquely French, given both that the Muslim population in France is the largest in any Western European country and that an estimated 5 million of the 63 million people living in France are Muslim, and France’s strong and often uncompromising position as a secular state suspicious of organized religious groups.  Due to the complex context in which the debate over banning the niqab is taking place, it seems possible that everything is all at once true: it is possible that the garments do represent gender based discrimination, and a threat to France’s secularism, and it is also possible that the attempts to ban them are racist and discriminatory, and a manifestation of French and general European anti-Muslim sentiment. 

France could be targeting Muslims, unfairly discriminating against them, making them bear an unequal burden not experienced by those practicing other religions.  It could be that debates over banning the niqab, arguments about whether “burquinis” (loose bathing suits that cover the full body and hair and are worn by some Muslim woman for modesty while swimming) are sanitary at public swimming pools,  President Sarkozy’s statements that the burqa is not welcome in France, and the deliberate use by politicians and the media of the word burqa as opposed to niqab (the latter is slightly less concealing, as it shows a woman’s eyes) to conjure up Afghanistan and thus fear and antipathy are deliberately and inherently racist and anti-Muslim.  Further, the negative effects of the debates and the bans to date could in themselves be considered additional human rights violations: perhaps the head scarf ban is impairing Muslim girls’ rights to education, or perhaps this debate has a  chilling effect that hinders Muslim women’s rights to work because it stigmatizes them in the eyes of employers.  Evidence demonstrates that after the banning of headscarves in public schools in 2004, Muslim enrollment in Catholic schools increased, because private Catholic schools allow girls to wear headscarves.  But if families cannot afford such schools, or if this increased enrollment represents increased segregation, do these effects imply additional human rights concern? 

On the other hand, what if the proponents of the ban are also correct? What if wearing the niqab flies in the face of France’s secularism and is disruptive to France’s ideas of citizenship? What if most French people feel that when they view a woman wearing a  niqab they are witnessing oppression, and feel that the surest way to remove both such a sign of inequality and the act of it is to ban garment?  If it is true that women and girls are forced by their families to wear such garments–a complex issue that is certainly difficult to get to the bottom of, as one would expect people being controlled to say that they are not–wouldn’t a ban provide the freedom and liberation that cannot be gained otherwise?  Wouldn’t allowing (requiring?) girls to experience education free from the obligation to wear such garments also allow them to experience the option of secular dress, which they might not otherwise have?  And isn’t it a State’s obligation to provide such options in public spaces for all of its inhabitants, regardless of the inhabitant’s religion, creed, ethnicity, national origin, or citizenship status?

And yet–why these garments in particular? Surely there are other garments that present the same set of problems? For that matter, why garments?  Is what women wear the key to their status in society?  If France is particularly concerned about sex equality in public spaces, are Muslim garments the most important issue on which to focus? It would be a rare moment in modern feminist history if the passion with which this issue is being debated was truly, purely, entirely motivated by desires for sex equality.  Unfortunately, women’s rights issues do not typically enjoy this much air time, nor do they garner such fervent support.  The pitch of the debate in France indicates that, even if women’s rights are one motivation for the proposed ban, they are certainly not the only motivation. 

Perhaps these competing ideals and converging forces, many of them discriminatory, are what render the debate regarding Islam in France confused and confusing, impassioned and polarizing.  What is discrimination against women for some French citizens can easily be seen as a right to religious expression by others.  Political parties and governments often manipulate the idea of sex equality when it suits their aims; France justifies its military presence in Afghanistan on such grounds, as did the United States under President Bush, despite the fact that women and girls are often the most harmed by war.  Sex equality concerns often create strange bedfellows, and this would not be the first time the right and left have coalesced on “gender” issues but have been motivated by diametric forces.  And certainly, if a political party or government wants to attack one religion or racial group, they will not say so outright, but will cloak their policies in other, more palatable, more popular terms.  

On the other hand, just because something is a religious practice does not mean it is not oppressive to women, or that people should be free to practice it in any situation. Nor should religions be thought of as unchanging and separate from the worlds and contexts in which they are practiced, but than again, neither should national or political cultures be conceived as static; perhaps it is France’s laïcité that should bend to its changing demographic.  Certainly there should be some rational reasons behind the decision to preserve one and ban the other, rather than tradition or continuity for its own sake. 

It will be informative to see whether or not the proposed ban on the niqab is found illegal under existing French laws.  As other parts of Western Europe, such as Denmark and Germany, continue to expand bans on garments worn publicly by Muslim women for religious reasons, the outcome of France’s current parliamentary proposal could have a wider regional significance.  A decision on the proposed ban could clarify lines drawn between private practice and truly public spaces, such as streets.  On the other hand, if equally valid human rights are at odds in this scenario, it will be difficult for the parliament or courts to weigh them against each other without using political reasons to reach a conclusion as to which should prevail.  

Moshi is a small town in Tanzania, about an hour drive south of the International Criminal Tribunal in Arusha. But this post is not about the endearing legacy of a genocide, or the incapacity of a court to bring to justice those responsible. Instead, this post is about hope - or at the very least - about a group of former street children building a life together at the Amani Children’s Home.

A few years ago I had gone there and was given a tour by one of the co-founders - Valerie - an American girl who had recently graduated from Duke University. At the time, the school was seeking funds to expand.

There was a small courtyard with a garden, surrounded by a kitchen, a sleeping hall, an administrative center, and of course a school with a tiny but growing library.  The children would help work the garden, growing vegetables, tending the plants.  Every once in a while I would receive in my email box an update and newsletter.  So when I opened it, I was delighted to find that Amani is making it work.  A grassroots initiative with the support of the local and international community is making a positive impact.

Today, new buildings have emerged, a better equipped school and a capacity to provide better health care for the children.  Both boys and girls, who had been left on the streets, are getting the special attention and care they require. A group have  even found sponsors to play soccer in the East Africa Cup, an annual youth football tournament for boys and girls from 12 to 16 years old.

Few have any family support mechanism, so social workers, both volunteer and paid, work to build a rapport and boost the child’s confidence.  Some of the children come from the streets in Arusha and Moshi, and I imagine elsewhere.  Because many have never had any formal education, Amani has created a non-formal education program where children learn Swahili,  English,  math,  science, history,   sports, and performing and visual arts.

Ultimately, the goal is to get the children prepared for independent living, or in some cases, to reunite them with their families where possible. Last year, graduate students from Columbia University wrote a 100 page report following their research at Amani how older youths can best make the transition from the school to life.  But the challenges are numerous.

Opportunities in Tanzania are not widespread and many of the children who eventually leave live with traumas that can never really disappear.  Amani supports many who have left the school and aid them in paying rent and food until they find something substantial and land on their feet.

For more information, click here.

photo - nikolaj nielsen

Three years ago I attended the Make Poverty History month in Edinburgh, Scotland.  I distinctly remember the chain of people forming a circle, hand in hand, united against the struggle of poverty afflicting many of Africa's poorest.  I also remember being rather disappointed about the extravaganza as the partying seemed detached from the cause.

The only black person I saw was busy picking up “Make Poverty History” signs off the ground and tossing them into a bin.  Nonetheless, the event did raise millions and helped countless children attend primary schools in Africa.

Organized by celebrity power houses of the likes of Bono and Bob Geldof, the festivities were committed to bringing the world's attention to those in greatest need.  Occurring at the same time only a few dozen kilometers away was the G8 summit in Gleneagles.

Anti-globalist gathered in Edinburgh.  They too formed human chains as the riot police faced them off in the city's historic centre.

Now another anti-poverty celebrity, Kidjo from Benin, is accusing big Western donor agencies of secret agendas to export neo-colonial interests.  Kidjo is a goodwill ambassador of UNICEF. She claims Western donor monies end up supporting corrupt officials that only perpetuates the vicious cycle of poverty.

“Aid was supposed to replace the consequences of colonised living in Africa, but the colonial powers did everything to keep on going in Africa,” she told Reuters.

Kidjo makes an interesting and valid point. Donations from large aid organizations are often tied to conditions established by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.  One of these conditions is opening up national markets to free trade for rich countries who have unfair subsidies.

I remember once going into an upscale supermarket in Nairobi (in 2005).  Two crates of oranges were sprawled out on display.  One crate of oranges came from Europe.  Another crate was locally grown.  Guess which one was cheaper?

Certainly one has to address unfair trading practices and tied donor conditions to seriously reverse poverty.

On July 18, two French ACF (Action Contre Faim - in French) aid workers were abducted by armed militias in central Afghanistan. ACF has since temporarily suspended operations leaving behind 130,000 people who faced acute malnutrition.

The lack of security in Afghanistan is preventing NGOs and aid agencies from delivering services in a time when a severe drought and rising food prices is having devastating affects on millions.

According to UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) and the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Organisation, Taliban attacks against aid workers is occurring throughout the country and not just in the more volatile south. However, many of the attacks are by unidentified gunmen.

Anja de Beer, director of ACBAR, a network of 100 of local and international NGOs in Afghanistan told IRIN that the current situation could provoke a crisis.  “If insecurity continues to hamper NGO [non-governmental organization] access, and needs remain unmet, we worry that the humanitarian situation will deteriorate into a crisis,” she said.

The US State Department has reinstated the scholarships of seven Gaza Strip students.  Last Thursday the students were denied exit visas.  Israel's tight security makes it nearly impossible for any Gaza Strip resident to leave the territory.  However, there are ”humanitarian” exceptions.  Israeli officials are now blaming the US for not requesting special exemptions for Fulbright scholars.   

Higher education, according to an Israeli Defense minister is not a humanitarian concern. Within the bantustan-like confines of the Palestinian territories, seven Gaza Strip residents awarded Fulbright scholarships are coming to terms with yet another causality of the Israeli blockade.

Denied visas by Israel, the US State Department has had to withdraw their grants. Inside Israel, lawmakers from the Knesset Education Committee have labeled the policy as immoral and are pressuring the Israeli military to reverse its decision.

The Gaza Strip is already suffering a humanitarian crisis on a scale never before seen since the Israeli military occupation of 1967 (see Oxfam report).

To deny the fundamental universal right to an education, to deny the "full development of the human personality," and "the strengthening of respect of human rights," is a crime that further demonstrates Israel's myopic closure policy (Article 26 , Universal Declaration of Human Rights).

The eleven-month blockade is an abomination exasperated by what Desmund Tutu has called the international community's "silence and complicity".

Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is perfectly clear. Everyone has a right to an education. And yet after seven years of brutal war in Afghanistan, education and schools in the Helmand district have plummeted to an all time low as the Taliban regain momentum and influence. "Make no mistake, NATO is not winning in Afghanistan," reads the very first sentence of a report (pdf) by the Atlantic Council of the United States earlier this year.

The Taliban claim to support education but obviously under their terms. A Taliban spokesman had the following to say - "Many changes have been made to the textbooks in other schools. For instance, the letter A used to be for Allah but in these textbooks A is used for "anar' [pomegranate]. J used to be for Jihad, but these books have J for "jowar' [maize]. We do not permit such changes." To prove the point, the deputy head of education in Helmand, Taj Mohammed, says 34 schools have since been closed and 64 torched in the past four years. Anti-government militants reportedly murdered seventeen students and teachers.

No future, disenfranchised, uneducated, and unemployed. This is what the children and youth of the Helmand district have to face. For the Taliban, it represents a potential repository of fresh recruits as Kabul scrambles to fulfill the conditions and agendas from 60 donors , from both nations and international organizations.

However, all is not lost. According to a 2007 report (pdf) by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), non-formal education initiatives are being implemented on a community and home-based levels targeting the unemployed and the youth. It's unclear in the report if indeed such programs are effectively being implemented in Helmand. Though the report does mention stratagems for evaluation, it also remains ambivalent on how one goes about quantifying its effectiveness outside Kabul.