On January 13, only one day after the earthquake in Haiti that has probably killed 200,000, and the moron Pat Robertson was already at it. “They made a pact with the devil,” were more less his words because “they wanted to free themselves from the French.”  As if God is now punishing these people 200 years later.

It is this kind of tripe that needs to be dealt a blow. Why Pat Robertson has any kind of authority is beyond me but the comments on YouTube seem to suggest that there are numerous like-minded people who pretend divine intervention as an explain-all.  This has an appeal to a certain segment of our society; notably the racists, the bigots, the ignorant and  some religious fundamentalists.

In 1755, another catastrophic earthquake destroyed most of  Portugal’s capital of Lisbon.  The soothsayers and clergy were out in droves shouting divine intervention.  As if something someone did or said made God reach out and shake apart the foundations - killing women and children in the process.

However, given the lack of science at the time, divine intervention as an explanation came as little surprise. But at the very least it also spurred the beginnings of  Enlightenment and modern seismology.  And soon, scientists discovered that the earth has fault lines and that massive plates push and pull, until finally something snaps.

Haiti lies on the Enriquillo-Plaintain Garden Fault line that divides the country in two and stretches into Jamaica. Geologists have known about this fault line for years and so the earthquake that hit was not a complete surprise.

“Even though large earthquakes of this size aren’t common there, the fact that there’s a fault system that runs through there makes it not surprising,” said John Bellini, a geophysicist with the US Geological Survey’s National Earthquake Information Center in Golden, Colo.

Mr. Robertson’s complete lack of understanding, pseudo-sympathy, odd-ball explanations and excuses are at best laughable if it wasn’t all so tragic.

Peace, in the sense of the absence of war, is of little value to someone who is dying of hunger or cold. It will not remove the pain of torture inflicted on a prisoner of conscience. It does not comfort those who have lost their loved ones in floods caused by senseless deforestation in a neighboring country. Peace can only last where human rights are respected, where the people are fed, and where individuals and nations are free.

– The Dalai Lama

As the year closes, it is appropriate to stop to look back and see how we have progressed or regressed in the area of human rights in 2009.  The thing about human rights is that the path to progress is rarely ever a straight line; often what looks like a step back will actually allow people to take a step forward. Such may be the case with top human rights stories of this past year such as the Green Movement in Iran, healthcare rights in the US, or the climate change talks currently going on in Copenhagen. One thing is certain: there are still many challenges ahead of us in the fight for human rights. However here are some thoughts on 2009 and what to look for in 2010 from regular bloggers Nikolaj Nielsen, Jessica Corsi, and Kimberly Curtis.

Person of the Year:

It’s always difficult to pick out one person in the course of a year who stands out. What is interesting is that this year all three of us chose groups rather than a single individual as the most important persons of the year.

Nikolaj’s pick: Frontline Journalists and Human Rights Defenders

Vincent Kessler/Reuters

This past year has seen numerous journalists and human rights defenders killed or imprisoned for their work in revealing the human rights abuses.  Many of these people worked on the frontlines, risking their lives to bring the truth to the rest of the world. The importance of this work, particularly in the past year, is one of the reasons why the European Parliament awarded the Russian human rights watchdog group Memorial the prestigious Sakharov Prize for freedom of thought this past week. Although the award will do little to bring back the journalists that have been slain this past year such as the 31 Filipino journalists killed in November or Russian journalist Natalya Estemirova who was killed in July, it again highlights the high value of their work and the price that so many have paid this past year for the human rights of others.

Jessica’s pick: Reproductive Rights Leaders in the United States

Recognition should be given to the myriad leaders and activists who organized in the U.S. to make sure that reproductive rights were not left out of the historic U.S. health care reform package.  In the midst of the economic crisis and the political opening of landmark U.S. healthcare reform–reform that would finally bring the U.S. closer to the rest of the developed world in terms of providing access to health care–reproductive rights advocates became locked into a battle with religious leaders that had successfully captured political power during the George W. Bush era.  While many within the U.S. Democratic Party, including the few women Senators and congress people, were willing to give up access to reproductive health care in order to sidestep this fight, reproductive rights advocates ranging from high school and University students to seasoned lobbyists and journalists made sure to keep the spotlight on access to safe and affordable abortion.

Ben Curtis/AP

Kimberly’s pick: Ordinary people coming together

From the record-setting attendance on the National Mall for Barack Obama’s inauguration to crowds of people in Berlin that marked the 20^th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, it seems that 2009 was all about ordinary people coming together.  Some of these crowds celebrated change, while others such as those in Iran and Guinea came together to fight for their rights, often with grisly consequences. The predicted potential of virtual social networking seemed to finally be realized as people used Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube to not just talk about the latest developments in their social lives with friends, but communicate real information to the rest of the world about what was happening in their countries.  Although revolution did not happen in many of these places, 2009 showed that the power of the people is still alive and well in the 21^st century.

Most Unexpected Event:

Both Jessica and Nikolaj picked the same event: Barack Obama being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. As the highest honor awarded in the humanitarian field, many around the world were surprised that he was awarded the prize before achieving any significant feats on the international stage.

But as Jessica notes, there were other reasons why the award was surprising:  Many claim that President Barack Obama

Bjorn Sigurdson/AP

was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to express international support for the U.S.’ reengagement with multilateral peace efforts, including efforts to bring an end to wars in Iraq and elsewhere. Another reason for the award might have been his policy of re-engagement with Muslim nations.  What was so surprising about this award was its timing.  It was given before the U.S. had fully elaborated withdrawal timelines and procedures for ending its wars, and after it had engaged in some decidedly unpeaceful and certainly unexpected military operations, such as the September 14 assassination of a suspected terrorist by U.S. Special Forces helicopters in southern Somalia.  If the prize is read as an indication of global sentiment for substantial changes in U.S. foreign policy, as opposed to a congratulations for actions that have already been taken, it comes as less of a surprise.

Kimberly chose the obvious event that has been written about on several other blogs: the Iranian election protests. Although Iranians overthrew the Shah in massive protests more than 30 years ago, Iran is not really known for street action due to the oppressive policies that the government is notorious for. That is one of the reasons why the post-election protests took so many by surprise. It’s also why the results of the protests - killings, arrests, prisoner abuses, and kangaroo courts - were not surprising at all. Still, there is a reason why most of the world was engrossed with the protests while they took place: whether you like it or not, Iran is an important regional power and will continue to be so. The post-election protests, while not a revolution, definitely altered the course of Iranian politics and will almost certainly be viewed in hindsight as the start of an important new chapter in Iranian history, hopefully one that gives more credence to human rights and the will of the people.

What to Watch for in 2010:

Kimberly’s predictions:

The general trend of using international law and universal jurisdiction to hold individuals accountable for war crimes and crimes against humanity will continue as the International Criminal Court becomes more prominent and takes on new cases. However because justice is a retroactive approach to human rights abuses, there will also be increasing pressure on prescriptive action as well. In light of this and Obama’s Nobel lecture, the debate over the Responsibility to Protect doctrine (R2P) is due for a revival. Only this time around, corporations will also be brought into the fold as their actions in conflict zones and with oppressive regimes will be increasingly scrutinized.

Jessica’s predictions:

Economic and social rights, legal entitlements for the poor: Poverty, increasing and deep, will continue to plague us for years due to the global recession.  As a result, we’re likely to see an increased focus on Economic and Social rights, such as the right to work, the right to fair remuneration, the right to food, and the right to health and healthcare.  Increased poverty will also refocus efforts around legal entitlements for the poor such as land ownership and community ownership of natural resources.

Climate justice: Climate justice will gain traction as the poor nations and poorest peoples of the world become better legally equipped and politically organized to hold everyone from corporations to governments accountable for the effects of climate change and pollution.  As a result we will see increased legal accountability for non-state actors.

Increasing legal accountability for State action during conflict: Powerful governments such as the US and the UK will be held more responsible than ever for violations of human rights during conflict, a trend helped in part by the increasing power of the International Criminal Court.  For example, a Milan Court convicted and sentenced 23 former CIA agents for the abduction of a Muslim cleric and rendition practices.  This trend of conviction in national courts will continue.

Anti-Muslim sentiments: Anti-Muslim racism and tension between the “Muslim world” and “the rest” will continue in the short and medium term, leading to more human rights violations, claims, court decisions, and policy developments on everything from religious clothing to state conducted or supported torture that was motivated by a person’s Islamic affiliations.

The mainstreaming of LGBT rights: LGBT rights will continue to become more mainstreamed in the global North.  We will witness expanded recognition of gay marriage and related civil rights and family law claims such as child custody and health care rights.

Last Sunday, Swiss voters opted to legally ban the construction of any new minarets in the country.  Since then, the topic has been debated online and in the media, with plenty of analysis by people on both sides of the ban on what the minaret ban is really about, or what minarets are really about.  Despite the opinions offered on these questions, it is clear that last weekend’s vote put Switzerland front and center on the question of what modern Europe is really about.

Historically, Europe has always had a problem with the “other” aspect of their societies.  While the most blatant examples of this can be found with anti-Semitism, whether it be the 1492 expulsion of Jews from Spain or the Shoah, other groups have faced their fair share of discrimination and mistreatment due to their perceived non-Europeaness.  Such treatment continues today, as seen with the Czech government’s admission that Romani women are still being forcibly sterilized and the continuing anti-Semitism detailed by Ben Moscovitch in his blog post today.  Islamophobia is also part of this trend, and has been growing since 2001.  Although such fear may be part of human nature, it also should have no institutionalized place in Europe today.

In addition to bans on headscarves and minarets, there has been a substantial increase in violence against Muslims across Europe, but also a reluctance on the part of police forces and governments to address the problem.  Doing so essentially says to European Muslims, “You have rights, but don’t depend on us to uphold them.”  Similarly, the ban on minarets (and headscarves for that matter) essentially says, “We tolerate your religion, as long as we never have to see any sign of it.”  Unsurprisingly, this does not come as a comfort to many European Muslims and falls far short of the human rights norms of equality and freedom of expression that European countries love to proclaim.  It also creates a cycle of exclusion, which ultimately leads to the creation of two communities - the us and them, the included and the excluded, the haves and have-nots - with no bridges in between.

That is why the minaret ban is central to the question of what Modern Europe is really about, though the answer to the question is not yet clear.  In a way, the vote on minarets does pose traditional European values against something, though it is not really Islam and it is not the traditional values that anyone should be eager to preserve.  Instead, it squares them off against the modern values that Europe molded from the lessons it supposedly learned from the Holocaust and the Cold War.  The election asked Swiss voters to choose between traditional exclusion and tolerance of diversity; this time around, the voters went with tradition over progress.  The general trend across Europe has been the same.  However, it is still early in the debate.  Hopefully, the attention that the Minaret Ban is getting in the media will encourage people to look at the reasons for their prejudice, and start a constructive dialogue with the same people they have been trying to exclude rather than continue on with the regular status quo.

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd gave an emotional apology on Sunday to the victims of a largely forgotten chapter of Western history. Addressing a crowd of about 1000 former child migrants, Rudd issued a national apology for the mistreatment they received from the government when they had been promised a new chance and a new life in Australia decades ago.

Those present at the ceremony were part of the 150,000 poor child migrants sent by the UK to its colonies and former colonies since the late 19th century. The children were often born to impoverished families or to unwed mothers and taken by the state. Although many of the children were not orphans, they were treated as such and many of the parents of child migrants were never told what happened to their children. Once resettled in faraway lands such as Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and South Africa, the children were raised in state and church-run orphanages and foster care facilities. The Child Migrants Programme, which lasted until 1967, was supposed to give the children the chance at a better life. Instead, the child migrants often faced abuse and neglect in their new homes, and with their nearest family being continents away, were left with nowhere to turn for support.

Although the program ended decades ago, the issue re-emerged in the late 1990s with Parliamentary hearings in the UK and attempts in Australia by survivors to track down their real families. Watching the crowd reaction to the Prime Minister’s speech, it is clear that the trauma of those events still resonate with the adult migrants who still live in Australia. It is expected that British Prime Minister Gordon Brown will follow Australia’s lead and offer an official apology on behalf of the UK to the survivors of the Child Migrants Programme early next year while the issue is being closely watched in Canada, where the majority of the migrant children were placed.

The Australian apology to child migrants is the latest in an increasing trend of political apologies for wrongs committed by the government against their own people. Last year the Canadian government apologized to former students of the county’s residential school program which took aboriginal students away from their parents and placed them in state sponsored schools. Though the program was supposed to encourage integration and assimilation into White culture, in reality the students experienced horrific abuse and substandard education and care as the result of their ethnic heritage. Similarly, Australia apologized last year to the “Stolen Generations”, the term given to Australian Aborigines who were forcibly removed from their homes to be raised in state schools in an effort to “civilize” them. Both programs ran until shockingly recently. In the case of Canada, the last residential school did not close until 1996, while Aborigine children were removed without cause from their families in Australia up until 1971.

These apologies represent a significant change in how Western governments view vulnerable populations and the lasting effects of harmful state policies. To go from official policies of ethnocide to condemnation for such policies in such a short period of time is a drastic cultural shift, and one that these countries are better off for. More than anything, these official apologies demonstrate a basic recognition that such policies and programs hurt people who deserved the protection and respect of the government. In the cases outlined above, these were groups of children who by definition depend on the protection of adults. Apologizing for wrongs committed against them - whether in the name of racial assimilation or poverty alleviation - allows societies to reflect on the choices they have made in the past and how to prevent further abuses in the future. However such apologies also have their limits in usefulness. Even the most well intentioned speech cannot erase the toll that decades or centuries of degrading policies have on a people. True reconciliation cannot be accomplished with an apology alone, but rather an apology can be a useful first step in a much longer process.

As Australia, Canada, the UK, and others contemplate their past, this last point should be kept in mind if there is to be real change in the cultural assumptions, prejudices, and politics that allowed these events to occur in the first place. After all, that is the best way to say that you are truly sorry.

A state news agency in China confirmed today that nine people have been executed for their role in the rioting that overtook the northern city of Urumqi in July. As reported earlier on this blog, the rioting had a long simmering ethnic component to it that pitted the majority Muslim Uighur population against the growing Han Chinese. While there were many causes to the violence, a lot of it has to do with China’s policies towards ethnic minorities who find themselves being even more politically vulnerable than the mainstream population. The three days of violent rioting in Urumqi brought this issue into the international spotlight.

Though both sides participated, the majority of the violence was blamed on Uighurs. As a result, the security forces focused mainly on Uighurs in the rioting’s aftermath. Though China pledged to apply its justice evenhanded, eight of the nine prisoners convicted in October over the riots had Uighur names. It is unclear whether these nine prisoners are the same that were executed, but it seems likely since the prisoners sentences were confirmed by the Supreme People’s Court which is required for all death sentences.

The news has not received a lot of press coverage so far, perhaps because the confirmation came on the same day Europe is celebrating the fall of the Berlin Wall in Germany. However it does not speak well for the trend of increasing oppressive policies on the part of the government towards ethnic minorities in China. Thus, while the world marks the anniversary of the end of one struggle against oppression twenty years ago, more than anything this news demonstrates that political and economic oppression can take many forms and have many different outcomes.

Yesterday I had the opportunity to attend the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food’s, Prof. Olivier De Schutter’s, second presentation to the UN General Assembly.  The interactive dialogue that followed Prof. De Schutter’s presentation is an excellent example of how the Special Procedures system of the UN Human Rights Council allows for greater flexibility and responsiveness to thematic issues like the right to food and to country specific situations. 

The role of a Special Rapporteur and of independent UN mandate holders in general represents progress in the human rights field and within the UN system because it takes a pressing human rights concern that has bubbled up to the UN via civil society and member state activity, empowers an individual or small team to further investigate and recommend solutions to these concerns, and can harness all members of society, from States to grassroots organizations to United Nations bodies to the media, in researching and formulating responses to these problems.  Appointing an independent expert who is both within and beholden to the UN system and yet functions independently and flexibly enhances the efficiency and capability of the UN.  And, it allows for reporting from these experts in a manner that is often impossible for member states of UN bodies to undertake on their own.

Prof. De Schutter’s latest report is a case in point regarding the ability of a special expert to say things that others cannot.  The report takes on current intellectual property rights as they relate to seeds, agricultural technologies, and the right to food.  In the first place it is both innovative and necessary that a right to food approach to food security takes into account the commercial side of food production and related agricultural concerns such as climate change, as opposed to limiting the right to food focus on (the also important and necessary) legal entitlements to this right located in court cases, framework laws, and constitutional provisions. 

Without addressing the commercial regime in which the production of food takes place the right to procure and obtain food rings hollow, as it captures only the demand side of the equation.  Analyzing the commercial concentration of agricultural inputs through a human rights lens and with a focus on the smallest, poorest farmers, who are not only food producers but must use their livelihoods from this production to secure their own food, refocuses the food security debate on those most affected.  While dominating the seed market may be seen as a success for companies such as Monsanto, agro-business monopolies have a significant impact on the lives, livelihoods, and production capabilities of small, poor farmers that is often detrimental.  These monopolies also impact agro-biodiversity, which has become even more crucial to maintain in the face of climate change.  And yet it can be hard for member states who benefit financially from such companies or whose governments are highly oriented to accept foreign investment in any form to take a critical eye or a public voice to such commercial concentration issues.

What is fascinating about the interactive dialogue process between a Special Rapporteur and the General Assembly is that it provides a platform for member states and affiliated organizations to respond to such claims and for the special experts to further explain themselves.  Yesterday, countries were not reticent to comment on their own view of the world’s intellectual property regime and to ask pressing questions.  In turn, Prof. De Schutter was able to respond briefly and advance and further elaborate upon the claims made in his report.  It is always heartening to see a report being put to use to further discussions and plans for action rather than just sitting on a shelf gathering dust. 

And, it is encouraging to see UN member states fully engaging UN special experts on topics that often call for substantial changes to be made at the national level and thus for engagement and resource shifting from these governments.  While no one pretends that the global food security problem will be solved over night, it is nonetheless inspiring to see people in positions of influence asking all of the right questions.

While it is no secret that racism lives on in the United States, it was nonetheless shocking news that a justice of the peace in Louisiana had refused to marry an interracial couple because he doesn’t “believe in mixing the races that way.”  Keith Bardwell, the justice of the peace in question, has served in his elected position for 34 years, and his current term runs until December 31, 2014.  By “mixing the races that way,” (emphasis added) Mr. Bardwell expanded that he is primarily concerned with the children of an interracial marriage, who–he concludes–are not accepted by either of their parents’ racial groups and often end up being raised by relatives other than their parents.   He is quoted as saying:

• “I don’t do interracial marriages because I don’t want to put children in a situation they didn’t bring on themselves.  In my heart, I feel the children will later suffer.”


Mr. Bardwell has also offered the media some other very interesting quotes.  He has stated that he is not in fact a racist, pointing out that when he marries black couples, he allows them to use his bathroom.  This statement supposes that a racist would not share a bathroom with someone of a different skin color. Segregated bathrooms were certainly the case under the Jim Crow laws that plagued the southern United States from the late 1800s to the late 1900s.  Perhaps it is this type of manifested racism that Mr. Bardwell is referring to in defining himself as not a racist, particularly given that as late as 1971 the U.S. Supreme Court was still involved in dismantling Jim Crow laws by upholding the desegregation of public school buses in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education.  Given his lengthy tenure as Justice of the Peace it is likely that Mr. Bardwell remembers this era clearly, including the unanimous 1967 Supreme Court ruling in Loving v. Virginia prohibiting all race based restrictions on marriage.

Mr. Bardwell is also quoted as acknowledging reprimands from Louisiana’s Attorney General regarding his refusal to marry interracial couples.  Hammond, Louisiana’s Daily Star newspaper writes that

• He said the state attorney general told him years ago that he would eventually get into trouble for not performing interracial  marriages.

”I told him if I do, I’ll resign,” Bardwell said. “I have rights too. I’m not obligated to do that just because I’m a justice of the peace.”

It appears that Mr. Bardwell has been admonished and yet allowed to continue refusing to marry interracial couples.  It is unclear who he was supposed to “get in trouble” with if not the Attorney General him or herself.  As a justice of the peace he is formally part of Louisian’s judicial system, and so an agent of the state.  Due to his official state position and the fact that the highest state officials were aware that he was breaking the law, it is likely that Louisiana and/or its highest state officials can be found liable for violating the prohibition on race based marriage restrictions.  It would seem that, given Mr. Bardwell’s blatant refusal to comply with the law and his insistence that, despite his position as a public official, he had a “right” to break the law, Louisiana officials should have forced him to resign many years ago.  That his current tenure extends to 2014 is also problematic.  Given Mr. Bardwell’s adamant admission of his practice of refusing to marry interracial couples, Louisiana should at the very least temporarily suspend him from his position until the case is formally resolved.

The fact that Mr. Bardwell has been allowed to do this for so long also raises the question of whether Louisiana should undertake a more systematic investigation into its justice of the peace system.  It is one of the few remaining states in the U.S. that employs justices of the peace, a position inherited from the UK and utilized for minor administrative legal tasks that nevertheless can have a huge impact on people’s lives, such as issuing a search warrant or signing a marriage license.  Given that Louisiana has apparently turned a blind eye to Mr. Bardwell’s actions for so many decades, it could be the case that racial prohibitions on or obstacles to marriage are taking place in other pockets of the law.  

The evidence that Louisiana state officials tolerate and perpetuate race based marriage obstruction implies Louisiana’s tolerance for racism in its myriad forms. At a minimum the state of Louisiana should publicly clarify that the law prohibits race based restrictions on marriage and explain the state’s process for ensuring that state officials uphold the law.  It should also clarify the mechanisms and programs it utilizes to end racism and discrimination of all kinds, and perhaps its plans to reinvigorate them.  At the moment, it is giving the impression that it has been asleep at the wheel and complicit in and thus liable for state administered racism.

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

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.  

A recent incident where Madonna was booed by concert goers after speaking out against the widespread discrimination against Roma in Romania has reignited the debate over the general treatment of Roma in Europe, particularly in Eastern Europe.  Roma, more colloquially referred to as Gypsies, have suffered rampant institutional discrimination since their arrival in Europe centuries ago.  While there have been some improvements in recent years, the current economic crisis has found many Roma being targeted as classic scapegoats once again.

Discrimination and anti-Roma sentiment in Europe is nothing new.  Much like Jews, they have suffered systematic discrimination throughout European history and are probably the second largest victim group of the Nazi Holocaust after European Jews.  However while Europe has taken a firm stance against anti-Semitism since World War II, there has been no such concentrated movement for the Roma.  In 2004, the European Commission released a report entitled “The Situation of Roma in an Enlarged EU” that detailed the widespread discrimination that Roma face throughout Europe in the fields of education, health care, employment, and housing.  As a result, Roma typically have lower life expectancies, higher rate of unemployment and illiteracy, and exist outside of mainstream life.  Further reports have detailed the segregation of Roma children in the education system, a situation that led to a landmark decision by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in 2007.

In that case, D.H. v. Czech Republic, the lower court found in despite of overwhelming evidence that the Czech government did not practice racial discrimination with its policies of placing Roma children in schools for mentally disabled children despite their actual IQ.  The Grand Chamber overturned that decision and for the first time found that there was systematic government discrimination against Roma.  Since then, the EU has launched programs to encourage the inclusion of Roma into European society.  However the onset of the current economic crisis has served to justify anti-Roma sentiment in many European countries.

Part of the increase in anti-Roma sentiments lies in the boost that far-right wing extremist parties have gained in Europe as a result of the recession.  While these groups by no means account for the majority of European political parties, they received unprecedented support in many countries during the European Parliament elections this past June.  Yet to argue that the rise in extremism and growth in anti-Roma attitudes is only the result of the economic crisis would be too simplistic.  Anti-Roma policies have existed for decades in Europe, and continue to emerge.  For example, Amnesty International issued a news brief on the increase of anti-Roma sentiment and discriminatory policies throughout Europe, including forced evictions in Italy and Romania and forced deportations to Kosovo.  Many of the policies detailed in the brief have been going on for years, long before the economic crisis started.  But the crisis has led to increased tensions with Roma serving as a convenient scapegoat for government problems.  This in turn has led to an increase in violent attacks against Roma, even in countries such as Hungary which has typically been far more progressive towards their Roma citizens than their neighbors.

The issues that Roma face in Europe and their potential solutions are complicated and would require far more attention than is available to give here.  But the Madonna concert incident last week and the ensuing commentaries in the European press illustrates how deep these sentiments run.  It also illustrates that these issues are serious enough and ingrained enough to require more attention than the EU is currently giving them if there is any chance of real change.