There are many choices that, in a democratic country, should be a woman’s right to make—including the choice of what to wear and where to pray. For Muslim citizens of Western countries, however, the right to make these choices is in question. In May, the French government approved a measure to ban full-body veils (burqas, niqabs) in public. According to the leader of the French National Assembly, the ban is both necessary for public safety and a good thing for France and democracy. In response, many women’s rights activists assert that the ban is patronizing and dehumanizing for French Muslim citizens. In the US, the debate is about where Muslim women can pray. A group of Muslim women have begun organizing mosque pray-ins in an attempt to end the gender segregation that occurs in nearly two-thirds of American mosques. (Segregation in mosques is not practiced traditionally and historically in Islam. In the Grand Mosque of Mecca, Islam’s holiest shrine, women and men perform all the hajj rituals, including praying, without segregation.) In a recent Huffington Post article, Jehan Harney asserts that these activists can gain supporters “not necessarily by demanding mosques change their policies to have men and women pray side-by-side, but rather demanding mosques to give women their right to choose where to pray.”

The United Nations (UN) is in the midst of a historic reform process that has the potential to change the status quo for women’s human rights around the world. Five decades ago, the UN became a galvanizing force for protecting and promoting women’s rights by creating a framework of international laws and commitments. However, the four small UN agencies exclusively dedicated to women’s issues lack the necessary status, funding and country presence to enable the wider UN system and national authorities to fully implement their obligations. This has limited the potential for women around the world to fully enjoy their rights in practice. In September 2009, all 192 member states of the UN General Assembly finally agreed to the creation of a consolidated and stronger UN agency for women. At this moment, member states are negotiating about this new agency. The Gender Equality Architecture Reform (GEAR) Campaign — a network of over 300 women’s, human rights and social justice groups from around the world — is urging the General Assembly to adopt a resolution about the agency by July 2010 and to commit to fund the entity with an annual budget of 1 billion USD. Sign the petition today to ensure that the UN gets this reform right. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to influence systematic change in women’s rights worldwide.

“Immigration” is an issue that embodies many of the concerns and issues that are central to any discussion of human rights. It touches on many of the worries that people have about their lives. Nobody wants to experience discrimination, any form of degradation or torture, or have their movements restricted based upon nationality, religion or ethnicity. Everyone wants to be free to make a living.

There are two core questions in the current immigration issue that are not being addressed: 1)  How does someone prove their citizenship in the United States? 2)  What are the fundamental causes of illegal immigration and how do we prevent them?

Every country has the right and responsibility to protect its borders and to determine who has a legal right to inhabit the country and therefore legitimate claims on the resources of the nation and how those resources are to be distributed. In the United States, we have only one method of identifying citizenship. Only an American passport, or the newer passport card, can irrefutably identify someone as a citizen of the U.S. However, very few U.S. citizens have passports, and if they have them, no law exists that requires them to carry them on a daily basis. Many countries have national-identity-cards that details an individual’s citizenship status, but in the U.S., any talk of anything that approximates such a card, or something that might become a proxy for such purposes, instantly raises fears about government intrusion and control of personal information.

Without some national-identity-card, how does someone prove citizenship? Attempts to visually identify non-citizens, who may or may not be illegal immigrants, automatically requires a form of ‘racial profiling’, and is so arbitrary, that it leaves it to the enforcement officer to make judgments based upon their own perceptions and biases. This becomes a particular problem in the U.S. because the popular perception is that ‘illegal immigrants’ are Latinos crossing the Southern borders into the US. However, approximately 50-percent of illegal immigrants are people who have been legally admitted into the U.S. but have overstayed their visas. Therefore, most American citizen contact with illegal immigrants, are with people who are from countries not commonly associated with illegal entry, such as European and Asian countries.  Unfortunately, there is no reliable entry/exit tracking-process for people who have visited the U.S.

Ultimately, undocumented immigrants exist in the U.S. because of the ease of acquiring employment from the many businesses that hire them as cheap labor. Those businesses are also reluctant to participate in any efforts to identify undocumented immigrants.  It is likely that people would not seek to breach the U.S. borders if there was not a potential job awaiting them.

The appropriate questions for this dilemma are: 1)  Is there a form of citizenship identification that would be acceptable to U.S. citizens? 2)  How can the government enforce a process that punishes businesses for hiring undocumented  immigrants?

On May 29, President Bingu Wa Mutharika of Malawi pardoned Tiwonge Chimbalanga and Steven Monjeza, who were sentenced to 14 years of hard labor for homosexuality. The couple was arrested in December, a day after celebrating their engagement. Since the arrest, Malawi has faced international criticism for their criminalization and harsh punishment of individuals based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. Celebrity advocates such as Madonna are publicly celebrating the release of the two men, yet concerns still remain for their safety and the possibility of a backlash of homophobia-related hate crimes in the country. While it is clear that intense international pressure helped to bring about the pardon of Chimbalanga and Monjeza, what is the role of the international community in combating the pervasive stigma and bigotry related to homosexuality that millions of people face on a daily basis, both in Africa and around the world?

Gay Engagement Featured in Malawian National Newspaper

A peace jirga — which aims to bring together 1,500 Afghan policymakers, community leaders and elders to end the Taliban insurgency — will begin on June 2 in Kabul. The jirga will determine a reconciliation process for members of the Taliban “who are not part of al-Qaeda or any other terrorist network, who denounce violence and who will return to normal life respecting the Afghan constitution.” President Karzai asserts that this historic forum will enable Afghans to chart a way forward. At a recent meeting at the United States Institute of Peace, Karzai sought to allay fears that negotiations with the Taliban would turn Afghanistan away from its commitment to human rights. Karzai distinguished rank-and-file militants from their leadership, asserting that low-level Taliban sympathizers are “countryside boys” who are not enemies of the U.S. Although the peace jirga is slated to include at least 20 percent women, Afghan elders and community leaders have demonstrated reluctance. Many observers fear that the Afghan government, desperate for an agreement with the Taliban, will compromise on the issue of women’s rights and women will be a pawn in the negotiations. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has asserted that it is “essential that women’s rights and women’s opportunities are not sacrificed or trampled on in the reconciliation process.” Afghan women’s rights activists assert that “the US should not support any project, with any amount, where women are not strongly present.”

It began four weeks ago. Thousands of students at campuses across Puerto Rico began a strike to demand their right to quality public education. After the University of Puerto Rico (UPR) instituted $100 million in budget cuts, and in part inspired by other student movements in California earlier this spring, students began occupying their campuses. Sustained by food and water tossed over fences by family, and encouraged by faith leaders and unions across the country, it appears that these students will remain committed into month two until the university agrees to come to the table. University professors and workers have declared their support for the student strike and are strongly urging the UPR administration to begin negotiations. Professor and dramatist Roberto Ramos-Perea has sent an appeal to the international community outlining the reasons for the strike and documenting the human rights abuses that are being committed in response to the strike, such as the refusal of light, water, and food to the students. Thus far, the university has refused negotiations and has only responded with the deployment of riot police. Curiously, coverage of this historic strike by Puerto Rican students has been virtually non-existent among U.S. media sources. Democracy Now, however, is one exception.

"University of Puerto Rico is Not for Sale"

Last week the Honduran government inaugurated a truth commission to investigate the June 2009 coup. The commission will “document human rights abuses related to the coup, address grievances where they are found and consider reforms to prevent similar incidents from happening again.” Human rights groups have, however, criticized the commission. Committee for the Families of the Detained and Disappeared of Honduras (COFADEH) states, “the only purpose of the Lobo commission is to support the Honduran regime’s continued efforts to whitewash those responsible for the coup and its violent aftermath.” Since last year’s coup, a powerful nonviolent resistance movement has emerged. Women make up the majority of the movement and play a critical leadership role. The resistance is united not just by opposition to the regime but also a positive vision of a new Honduras, characterized by this slogan: “Por un constituyente no excluyente” (For a constitutional convention that doesn’t exclude). The regime has responded with brutal repression. As of last August, women’s groups documented 249 cases of violations of women’s human rights, including beatings, sexual assault and gang rapes by police. To date, COFADEH has registered 47 assassinations of anti-coup activists. On May 10, the U.N. Human Rights Council urged protection for Honduran journalists after seven were killed in the past six weeks. The truth commission has no mandate to examine these current human rights violations.

It has been an interesting two weeks, to say the least, since Arizona governor Jan Brewer signed SB1070 into law, a law which effectively makes the failure to carry immigration documents a crime and gives police broad power in detaining anyone who is “reasonably suspected” of being an “illegal immigrant.” I do not aim to provide a perspective that has not already been articulated by former Nobel peace prize winners or millions of recent immigrants whose lives will be directly impacted by such legislation. However, I would like to highlight Arizona’s recent ban of ethnic studies, which underscores what is really at the heart of Arizona’s immigration law: legalized xenophobia, targeted not at the immigration system, but at human beings of a different color, origin, and linguistic heritage than those who have the power to identify themselves as “real Americans.” This is why, on May 1st, also recognized as International Workers’ Day, hundreds of thousands of people around the country rallied for immigration reform that respects human dignity. In Washington DC, the four students who marched 1,500 miles from Miami along the Trail of Dreams were joined by thousands in their rally at the White House; in Los Angeles, more than 60,000 marched; in Atlanta, more than 5,000.

Of course, media coverage and public discourse on this issue end with the person who claims: “It’s simple. Those people are illegal.”

As a person of conscience, however, I can’t help but ask myself: Looking back in history, who gets to decide who is us or them? Who writes the laws? What happens when a certain group of people is dehumanized and made into the scapegoat, the root cause of all of the society’s problems? How would an honest, and thus radical, reading of human rights principles interpret the concept of ‘illegal people’?  Not surprisingly, the only source I am able to find that seems to make some sense of this current immigration ‘debate’ is in the form of brilliant satire:

On May 3rd, American Chris Flaherty will commence a hunger strike to pressure the US government to call for the immediate release of Birkutan Mideksa from wrongful imprisonment in Ethiopia. Mideska is Chairperson of the Unity for Democracy and Justice Party of Ethiopia, a single mother of a 5 year old daughter, caregiver for her 74 year old mother, and was among dozens of opposition leaders, journalists and civil society workers arrested following anti-government demonstrations in  2005. After spending nearly two years in jail Mideska was pardoned but then re-arrested in December 2008. On January 9, 2010, the prime minister of Ethiopia stated that any discussion of her release was “a dead issue.” Meanwhile, her arbitrary detention is recognized by UN Human Rights Commission. In a report released on March 23, 2010 Human Rights Watch stated that the Ethiopian government is waging a sustained attack on political opponents, journalists, and rights activists in advance of May 2010 parliamentary elections. When announcing his hunger strike Chris Flaherty (who produced a documentary, Migration of Beauty, depicting the grassroots movement of Ethiopian taxi drivers in DC who used their U.S. citizenship to impose foreign aid restrictions against their native country) implored Ethiopian Americans that “you must instigate the government… in the Diaspora you hold a responsibility.” Freebirtukan.org is focusing it’s grassroots mobilization efforts on Ethiopian mothers in America.

Currently making its way through the Georgia State Legislature is Senate Bill 67, or the English-Only for Driver’s License Exams bill. The bill’s proponents argue that the bill will work to keep the roads safe and that it is “tough on illegal immigration.” However, many human rights groups and religious organizations in Atlanta, such as the Georgia Refugee Policy Initiative, the Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights (GLAHR), and the First Iconium Baptist Church, among others, argue that it is a fallacy to claim that the same language level is needed to take a written exam as to follow clearly marked street signs and warnings. Such a bill, they assert, would make roads less safe by preventing people from taking the exam in their native language, and thus increasing the likelihood that they may not fully understand the rules of the road. Moreover, the bill targets “lawful, documented immigrants who are trying to make a living in the state of Georgia, but whose English may not have yet reached the level of proficiency needed for a full license exam,” as Teodoro Maus, President of GLAHR, points out. Because the bill makes exceptions for illiterate Georgians, many claim the bill is discriminatory against newly arrived Americans, and is reminiscent of the Jim Crow literacy tests of the past. For New Americans unable to pass a full English-only driver’s license exam, the bill would take away their ability to fully participate in their new community- with mounting cuts in public transportation, how do the bill’s sponsors propose that these Americans get to their English classes or buy groceries to feed their families?

Groups such as the Refugee Women’s Network have argued that the bill would be especially detrimental to refugee and immigrant women by keeping them isolated and unable to access jobs or health services, attend domestic violence prevention programs, or engage in parent-teacher conferences or their children’s after school activities. Many of these women are also active entrepreneurs who contribute greatly to the economy by opening up restaurants, day care centers, beauty salons, etc. Such driving restrictions would prevent them from providing for their families and helping to strengthen Georgia’s economy. The test is currently offered in 13 languages, and not only are there no data that prove that people who pass the translated tests are less safe drivers than those who take the test in English, but Americans who travel or live abroad are overwhelmingly given the opportunity to take their driver’s exam in English. For a state that is trying to become an “international destination,” it is hard to understand why it would impose restrictions on people of international origin.