After a 16-hour debate, and a vote that ended in the wee hours of the morning, Argentina’s Senate passed a bill recognizing same-sex marriages, thus becoming Latin America’s first nation to grant homosexual couples the same rights, protections, and privileges of marriage as heterosexual couples. Less comprehensive measures towards marriage equality have been instituted in other regions of Latin America, such as the legalization of same-sex civil unions in Uruguay and in a small number of states in Brazil and Mexico. And recently last year, Colombia’s Constitutional Court granted equal civil, political, social and economic rights to gay couples, including such protections as inheritance rights and the inclusion of partners in health insurance plans. In Buenos Aires, proponents of the same-sex marriage bill framed the issue in terms of fulfilling the constitutional mandate of equality before the law and ending discrimination towards individuals based solely on their sexual orientation. Opponents, on the other hand, argued that the passage of such a bill would signify a threat to the “existence of the human species.”

Despite the existence of  reasonable objections to gay marriage based on religious belief, I find the argument that a bill granting same-sex couples the right to marry if they so choose will endanger the survival of humanity a bit absurd, if not dangerous in its fear-mongering. Passing legislation that grants homosexual couples equal rights will not magically change the sexual orientation of heterosexuals. The earth is currently the home of 6,830,000,000 human inhabitants; and according to a 2004 UNICEF report, more than 16,000,000 children are without parents, a number which is only increasing with the spread of HIV/AIDS. It doesn’t take a genius to realize that procreation is not an issue for the human race. It seems to me that the larger, more pressing issue for humanity is caring for humanity, and creating a world where all 7 billion of us have an equal chance at healthy, self-determined lives, free of discrimination in all of its forms.

Gay Pride Activists in Buenos Aires (AP Photo)

.

On this day in 1852, the day following the spectacular celebrations of July 4th, the great abolitionist leader Frederick Douglass delivered one of the hallmark speeches of the anti-slavery movement, the Fifth of July speech. The speech is a profound work that weaves together both irony and powerful demands for human liberty. It is often overlooked, however, that Douglass was invited to deliver this address by the Ladies of the Rochester Anti-Slavery Society. In understanding the significance of this speech, it is thus crucial to recognize the interconnectedness among social justice movements and how the long-fought struggles for racial equality and women’s rights were able to transform popular consciousness by drawing upon principles outlined in the Declaration of Independence- namely the existence of inalienable rights and the Right of the People to alter or abolish government if it becomes destructive of securing the rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. While the speech is a most pressing condemnation of the hypocrisy of the United States- in proclaiming freedom and liberty while profiting from the cruel and exploitative practice of slavery- the echo at the conclusion of the speech inspires critical reflection of the Declaration and resounds a call to action to uphold the nation’s most fundamental principles.

“Fellow citizens; above your national, tumultuous joy, I hear the mournful wail of millions, whose chains, heavy and grievous yesterday, are today rendered more intolerable by the jubilee shouts that reach them… To forget them, to pass lightly over their wrongs, and to chime in with the popular theme, would be treason most scandalous and shocking, and would make me a reproach before God and the world. My subject, then, fellow-citizens, is American Slavery…

What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer; a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which lie is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciations of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade, and solemnity, are, to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy- a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices, more shocking and bloody, than are the people of these United States, at this very hour.”

“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?

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.

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.

On April 13 – 15 the first multi-party elections since 1986 took place in Sudan. The results will be announced on Apr. 22 in Khartoum — preliminary reports suggest that the president incumbent of the ruling National Congress Party, Omar al-Bashir, is leading nationwide. However, two international observation missions have issued reports that the elections did not meet international standards and Sudanese observer groups reported widespread electoral rigging and political oppression. Leading human rights groups are calling on the Obama Administration to acknowledge that the presidential election will not reflect the legitimate choice of the Sudanese people. The past 20 years in Sudan have been dominated by warfare that has starkly divided the country on racial, religious, and regional grounds; displaced an estimated four million people; and killed an estimated two million people. The lack of investment during this time, particularly in South Sudan, has meant a generation lacking basic health services, education, and jobs. This weekend I attended the screening of a powerful documentary, Rebuilding Hope, that follows three “Lost Boys” – Gabriel Bol, Koor, and Garang – from the US to Sudan to find surviving family members, discover what the current situation is in South Sudan, and determine how they can help their community rebuild after devastating civil war. I recommend this film to all!

We learned, long ago, that elections are not a panacea indicator of ‘democracy’ because they can be staged and corrupted, but democracy without free and open elections is not a possibility. Mohammed ElBaradei, former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, and an Egyptian citizen, has emerged as a potential Presidential candidate in Egypt. While a recent rally on his behalf in Egypt was allowed (reportedly because it was not expected to gather many attendees) in recent days his supporters have been harassed inside Egypt and been arrested and deported from nearby Kuwait, according to a report by Human Rights Watch. Dr. ElBaradei is reported to have more than 200,000 followers on a Facebook page. The Kuwaiti’s arrested and deported ElBaradei’s supporters because Kuwait “does not allow demonstrations in this country” – but there was no reported ‘demonstration’ only a meeting of expatriates at a local café. Kuwaiti law doesn’t allow any groups of more than 20 people to assemble without a permit. This would appear to make a social party illegal and perhaps some family gatherings. It is also a vague reminder of days in the USA, first under slave laws, and then later when Jim Crow Laws first began to made it illegal for more than five black people to gather together in any location, to be seen in public parks, or participate in representative democracy via elections.

On the evening of March 24, 1980, while performing mass, Archbishop Oscar Romero was assassinated by a death squad for his public denunciations of El Salvador’s militarized state and mass human rights violations. In 1993, a report by the U.N. Truth Commission on El Salvador revealed the person responsible for ordering the assassination as Roberto D’Aubuisson, a graduate from the School of the Americas in Colombus, Georgia. Archbishop Romero’s funeral on March 30, 1980 was attended by more than 250,000 people, and is recognized as one of the largest demonstrations in Latin American history. Today, people throughout El Salvador and the world remember a man who was committed to the principles of liberation theology and spoke out bravely against poverty, torture, and social injustice. For these same reasons, Romero was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize in 1979, and is widely considered the unofficial patron saint of the Americas. Ironically, as the world celebrates Archbishop Romero, the Texas Board of Education voted on March 10th to remove all mention of Romero’s life, work, and political activism from its curriculum because he is, as members argued, “not well known.” My question: Isn’t making things known the precise point of education?