Tuesday, June 23, 2009
1791: Why Sarkozy couldn't sign the Bill of Rights
Many scholars of the French Enlightenment influenced the U.S. Constitution. In the last decade, France's political elite have poised the country as less accepting of civil liberties, like those in the U.S. Bill of Rights.
In 2004, France banned all overt religious signs, like burqas, kippas and crosses, in public schools. But President Nicholas Sarkozy wants to extend the policy to a nationwide ban on the burqa. The wearing of a burqa is an Islamic tradition for the purpose of cloaking a woman's body. Muslim women wear it over their daily clothing and remove it upon returning to the household.
France has the largest Muslim population in western Europe, at 5 million. National sentiments between Muslims and non-Muslims are tense both because of France's history as a Catholic society and due to the large Muslim immigrant population that competes for jobs with French natives. Other European countries like The Netherlands forbids burqas in state schools and are considering nation-wide prohibitions.
Despite protests by some Muslim women, Sarkozy says that the burqa oppresses women by keeping them hidden from society.
"We cannot accept to have in our country women who are prisoners behind netting, cut off from all social life, deprived of identity," Mr Sarkozy told a special session of parliament in Versailles, according to the BBC.
French cabinet members are divided on whether a ban is appropriate.
The first amendment of the U.S. Constitution would eliminate Sarkozy's proposal: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
According to The Huffington Post, Obama tried to be sympathetic to France's autonomy and history, but he made a clear statement about individual rights while visiting Normandy earlier this month.
"I will tell you that in the United States our basic attitude is, is that we're not going to tell people what to wear," he said.
Islamic traditions are sometimes polarized to the point of inhibiting women from a free and fulfilling life. (See earlier post about Afghanistan and Sharia law.) But France's burqa ban will only widen the rift between non-Muslims and Muslims.
In 2004, France banned all overt religious signs, like burqas, kippas and crosses, in public schools. But President Nicholas Sarkozy wants to extend the policy to a nationwide ban on the burqa. The wearing of a burqa is an Islamic tradition for the purpose of cloaking a woman's body. Muslim women wear it over their daily clothing and remove it upon returning to the household.
France has the largest Muslim population in western Europe, at 5 million. National sentiments between Muslims and non-Muslims are tense both because of France's history as a Catholic society and due to the large Muslim immigrant population that competes for jobs with French natives. Other European countries like The Netherlands forbids burqas in state schools and are considering nation-wide prohibitions.
Despite protests by some Muslim women, Sarkozy says that the burqa oppresses women by keeping them hidden from society.
"We cannot accept to have in our country women who are prisoners behind netting, cut off from all social life, deprived of identity," Mr Sarkozy told a special session of parliament in Versailles, according to the BBC.
French cabinet members are divided on whether a ban is appropriate.
The first amendment of the U.S. Constitution would eliminate Sarkozy's proposal: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
According to The Huffington Post, Obama tried to be sympathetic to France's autonomy and history, but he made a clear statement about individual rights while visiting Normandy earlier this month.
"I will tell you that in the United States our basic attitude is, is that we're not going to tell people what to wear," he said.
Islamic traditions are sometimes polarized to the point of inhibiting women from a free and fulfilling life. (See earlier post about Afghanistan and Sharia law.) But France's burqa ban will only widen the rift between non-Muslims and Muslims.
Saturday, June 06, 2009
Guns and liquor
Alcohol impairs people's decisions. People with guns kill people. Why increase the risk of people killing people by permitting armed customers into restaurants that serve alcohol?
This week Tennessee passed legislation enabling gun permit holders to carry firearms in restaurants that serve alcohol, as long as the owner sanctions it and the gun carrier does not drink alcohol. (But customers can conceal their weapons.) The state legislature also allowed handguns in state and local parks.
The National Rifle Association (NRA) members are happy, but Metro Nashville Police Chief Ronald Serpas and Governor Phil Bredesen are not, according to The Nation's Restaurant News.
"I've witnessed shootings in bars before," Chief Serpas said. "The presence of somebody else with a gun would not have saved anybody. These things happen in the blink of an eye. It's not like it is on TV."
On May 28th Governor Bresden vetoed the bill allowing guns in bars and restaurants, but the state legislature and the NRA triumphed.
"This veto override proves Tennessee legislators trust permit holders and understand this is a common sense measure that must become law in their state," said NRA-ILA Executive Director, Chris W. Cox. "HB 962 (the gun bill) will allow permit holders the opportunity to protect their own lives and the lives of those they love."
Chief Serpas thinks that proponents such as the NRA and the Tennessee Firearms Association are missing the mark on safety when they claim that guns allow permit holders to protect themselves against criminals.
On Monday June 8, Arizona's state senate will decide on Bill 1113, which would allow customers to take concealed handguns into restaurants that serve alcohol; in 2005 the Arizona legislature passed a restaurant carry provision, which was vetoed by previous Governor Janet Napolitano. Arizona began allowing guns in state parks last month.
The surge of gun rights across the nation is dangerous. When laws protect a citizen's right to carry a weapon into establishments that serve alcohol, the safety of others is jeopardized, and the vulnerability of violence increases.
This week Tennessee passed legislation enabling gun permit holders to carry firearms in restaurants that serve alcohol, as long as the owner sanctions it and the gun carrier does not drink alcohol. (But customers can conceal their weapons.) The state legislature also allowed handguns in state and local parks.
The National Rifle Association (NRA) members are happy, but Metro Nashville Police Chief Ronald Serpas and Governor Phil Bredesen are not, according to The Nation's Restaurant News.
"I've witnessed shootings in bars before," Chief Serpas said. "The presence of somebody else with a gun would not have saved anybody. These things happen in the blink of an eye. It's not like it is on TV."
On May 28th Governor Bresden vetoed the bill allowing guns in bars and restaurants, but the state legislature and the NRA triumphed.
"This veto override proves Tennessee legislators trust permit holders and understand this is a common sense measure that must become law in their state," said NRA-ILA Executive Director, Chris W. Cox. "HB 962 (the gun bill) will allow permit holders the opportunity to protect their own lives and the lives of those they love."
Chief Serpas thinks that proponents such as the NRA and the Tennessee Firearms Association are missing the mark on safety when they claim that guns allow permit holders to protect themselves against criminals.
On Monday June 8, Arizona's state senate will decide on Bill 1113, which would allow customers to take concealed handguns into restaurants that serve alcohol; in 2005 the Arizona legislature passed a restaurant carry provision, which was vetoed by previous Governor Janet Napolitano. Arizona began allowing guns in state parks last month.
The surge of gun rights across the nation is dangerous. When laws protect a citizen's right to carry a weapon into establishments that serve alcohol, the safety of others is jeopardized, and the vulnerability of violence increases.
Friday, June 05, 2009
Congress wants to help Uganda fight war crimes
On May 19th, Senators Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Sam Brownback (R-KS) proposed The Lord’s Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009, or Senate Bill 1067; in the House of Representatives, Reps. James McGovern (D-MA), Ed Royce (D-CA), and Brad Miller (D-NC) introduced the same bill, H.R. 2478. The bill requires Barack Obama’s administration to help Uganda fight the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA).
The LRA evolved in the 1980s as a prophetic religious movement that opposed Uganda’s government and the military. The group has attempted to purify northern villages through violence, specifically targeting non-combatants, and create a “new generation” of the northern Acholi people. In addition to its merciless massacres, the LRA is infamous for recruiting and imprisoning child soldiers, up to 80 percent of its military force. The LRA’s forces have displaced over two million during the last twenty years. In the late 1990s the LRA attempted to overthrow the government, killing and raping more civilians and destroying communities, and displacing over two million since 1990.
According to Sen. Feingold’s website, the Act “would require the Obama administration to develop a strategy to support multilateral efforts to protect the region’s civilians from the LRA and eliminate the threat it poses. The bill also authorizes funding for humanitarian assistance for those areas affected by the LRA’s brutality, including additional funds to support recovery and reconciliation in war-torn areas of Uganda.”
The bill underscores America’s dedication to human rights, but it cannot sustain Uganda’s long-term security without assessing the critical conflicts and vulnerabilities between the warlords, citizens, and the government.
The Amnesty Law of 2000 between the LRA and Uganda’s government granted amnesty to all of the LRA insurgents willing to surrender continued involvement with the LRA. The Act gained western attention from the Carter Center’s Conflict Resolution Program and the World Bank, who responded to the Amnesty Act by resettling former rebels into community camps in the north. But low government resources limited the maintenance of the refugee camps and aid workers are unable to protect the security of northern Ugandan citizens and former rebels from continued LRA attacks.
The United Nations is skeptical of the Amnesty Act, proclaiming that acts of “murder, enslavement, torture, rape, and slavery” cannot be pardoned by amnesty and are subject to judicial prosecutions under international law. The LRA’s continued human rights abuses challenge the ability of the Amnesty Act in rectifying relationships among Ugandan communities, the government, and criminals. Subsequent LRA abuses and thousand of displacements reveal the failure of Uganda’s government to contain and punish the LRA.
Uganda's constitution designates a Human Rights Commission (UHRC) as the main independent government agency to monitor human rights abuses and recommend change. But the government has not consistently adopted its recommendations regarding the LRA, and parliament only held its first discussion of UHRC recommendations made over the last decade in May 2009. Thus there remains a discrepancy between President Museveni’s dedication to human rights and the pseudo humanitarian initiatives.
Congress is nonetheless optimistic that the new bill is an effective tool to empower Ugandans and Museveni against the LRA. “This bill rightly targets LRA leader Joseph Kony,” said former Africa sub-committee chairman Ed Royce. “Kony’s removal is essential to peace in the region.”
Ugandan president, Yoweri Museveni, has engaged in sporadic peace talks with the LRA’s commander, Joseph Kony, and other influential warlords. Negotiations between the two sides were inhibited since 2004 when Museveni summoned the International Criminal Court to investigate the war crimes by the LRA. The ICC charged Kony with crimes against humanity. Knowing that the ICC’s position outrages Kony, President Museveni has since suggested that Uganda could withdraw its case from the ICC if the leaders of the LRA were willing to stop fighting and engage in reconciliation measures. But the LRA has not stopped fighting.
IRIN, the humanitarian news and analysis service of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, recorded this month that northern Ugandans still suffer from fear of rebel attacks. For example, up to 90 percent of schools have not opened since January due to LRA attacks on schools and teachers, according to Charles Uma a Gulu government leader.
"Most of our people here are not living, but existing,” Uma told the IRIN. “Marriages are also breaking. Men are running away from responsibilities. When life becomes hard, you feel you have nothing to offer your children. The war has a lot of effects. We have lost a whole generation.”
The bill can help alleviate poverty by providing clean water, health care, and schools in addition to enhancing the accountability of local governance and police forces. It says,
It is the policy of the United States to work vigorously for a lasting resolution to the conflict in northern and eastern Uganda and other affected areas by eliminating the threat posed by the Lord's Resistance Army to civilians…to apprehend or otherwise remove Joseph Kony and his top commanders from the battlefield, and to disarm and demobilize Lord's Resistance Army fighters.
Although the bill could develop an effective mechanism in repairing Uganda’s livelihood, it mentions little about Yoweri Museveni's role in repairing the country. Museveni has ruled Uganda for 23 years; whether or not he can garner peace is imperative to both Uganda’s reconciliation with the LRA as well as the future of its citizenry. The bill is nonetheless a good foundation for giving Uganda's impoverished victims the tools for subsistence and culture, and for punishing Joseph Kony and LRA insurgents.
The LRA evolved in the 1980s as a prophetic religious movement that opposed Uganda’s government and the military. The group has attempted to purify northern villages through violence, specifically targeting non-combatants, and create a “new generation” of the northern Acholi people. In addition to its merciless massacres, the LRA is infamous for recruiting and imprisoning child soldiers, up to 80 percent of its military force. The LRA’s forces have displaced over two million during the last twenty years. In the late 1990s the LRA attempted to overthrow the government, killing and raping more civilians and destroying communities, and displacing over two million since 1990.
According to Sen. Feingold’s website, the Act “would require the Obama administration to develop a strategy to support multilateral efforts to protect the region’s civilians from the LRA and eliminate the threat it poses. The bill also authorizes funding for humanitarian assistance for those areas affected by the LRA’s brutality, including additional funds to support recovery and reconciliation in war-torn areas of Uganda.”
The bill underscores America’s dedication to human rights, but it cannot sustain Uganda’s long-term security without assessing the critical conflicts and vulnerabilities between the warlords, citizens, and the government.
The Amnesty Law of 2000 between the LRA and Uganda’s government granted amnesty to all of the LRA insurgents willing to surrender continued involvement with the LRA. The Act gained western attention from the Carter Center’s Conflict Resolution Program and the World Bank, who responded to the Amnesty Act by resettling former rebels into community camps in the north. But low government resources limited the maintenance of the refugee camps and aid workers are unable to protect the security of northern Ugandan citizens and former rebels from continued LRA attacks.
The United Nations is skeptical of the Amnesty Act, proclaiming that acts of “murder, enslavement, torture, rape, and slavery” cannot be pardoned by amnesty and are subject to judicial prosecutions under international law. The LRA’s continued human rights abuses challenge the ability of the Amnesty Act in rectifying relationships among Ugandan communities, the government, and criminals. Subsequent LRA abuses and thousand of displacements reveal the failure of Uganda’s government to contain and punish the LRA.
Uganda's constitution designates a Human Rights Commission (UHRC) as the main independent government agency to monitor human rights abuses and recommend change. But the government has not consistently adopted its recommendations regarding the LRA, and parliament only held its first discussion of UHRC recommendations made over the last decade in May 2009. Thus there remains a discrepancy between President Museveni’s dedication to human rights and the pseudo humanitarian initiatives.
Congress is nonetheless optimistic that the new bill is an effective tool to empower Ugandans and Museveni against the LRA. “This bill rightly targets LRA leader Joseph Kony,” said former Africa sub-committee chairman Ed Royce. “Kony’s removal is essential to peace in the region.”
Ugandan president, Yoweri Museveni, has engaged in sporadic peace talks with the LRA’s commander, Joseph Kony, and other influential warlords. Negotiations between the two sides were inhibited since 2004 when Museveni summoned the International Criminal Court to investigate the war crimes by the LRA. The ICC charged Kony with crimes against humanity. Knowing that the ICC’s position outrages Kony, President Museveni has since suggested that Uganda could withdraw its case from the ICC if the leaders of the LRA were willing to stop fighting and engage in reconciliation measures. But the LRA has not stopped fighting.
IRIN, the humanitarian news and analysis service of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, recorded this month that northern Ugandans still suffer from fear of rebel attacks. For example, up to 90 percent of schools have not opened since January due to LRA attacks on schools and teachers, according to Charles Uma a Gulu government leader.
"Most of our people here are not living, but existing,” Uma told the IRIN. “Marriages are also breaking. Men are running away from responsibilities. When life becomes hard, you feel you have nothing to offer your children. The war has a lot of effects. We have lost a whole generation.”
The bill can help alleviate poverty by providing clean water, health care, and schools in addition to enhancing the accountability of local governance and police forces. It says,
It is the policy of the United States to work vigorously for a lasting resolution to the conflict in northern and eastern Uganda and other affected areas by eliminating the threat posed by the Lord's Resistance Army to civilians…to apprehend or otherwise remove Joseph Kony and his top commanders from the battlefield, and to disarm and demobilize Lord's Resistance Army fighters.
Although the bill could develop an effective mechanism in repairing Uganda’s livelihood, it mentions little about Yoweri Museveni's role in repairing the country. Museveni has ruled Uganda for 23 years; whether or not he can garner peace is imperative to both Uganda’s reconciliation with the LRA as well as the future of its citizenry. The bill is nonetheless a good foundation for giving Uganda's impoverished victims the tools for subsistence and culture, and for punishing Joseph Kony and LRA insurgents.
Thursday, June 04, 2009
Saving and cleaning San Diego's water
Outdoor watering counts for 60 percent of water use in California. San Diego is mandating a water restriction from June 1- Oct. 31. The city’s regulations include reducing individual home water use by 13 percent and following the following guidelines when irrigating outside:
* Homes with odd-numbered addresses can water: Sunday, Tuesday & Thursday
* Homes with even-numbered addresses can water: Saturday, Monday & Wednesday
* Apartments, Condos and Businesses can water: Monday, Wednesday & Friday
A provision to the city of Los Angeles’s summer water restrictions that is not enforced by San Diego is the prohibition of watering hard surfaces like sidewalks, driveways and parking areas. This mandate not only saves water, it helps curb urban run off, pollutants and garbage that flow from the city’s unfiltered storm drains into the ocean. Storm drains carry thousands of gallons of chemicals, oils, and litter into the Pacific each year.
The cigarette butt, is San Diego’s number one piece of litter and is easily washed into the ocean. Contrary to popular thought about a cigarette’s materials, a cigarette’s filter is made of plastic, and therefore stays on earth forever. (Earlier this week, The New York Times reported on the misconception that throwing cigarette butts on the ground is acceptable rather than a violation of no littering policies.)
In addition, urban runoff creates increased health risks to swimmers toxicity to aquatic life, according to the City of Santa Monica. Santa Monica also reports that clogged storm drains can lead to area flooding when it rains, traffic problems and unsanitary conditions.
San Diego can protect its beaches from pollutants and garbage (such as the tiny but toxic cigarette) by demanding that citizens employ more responsible water usage like refraining from watering hard surfaces.
* Homes with odd-numbered addresses can water: Sunday, Tuesday & Thursday
* Homes with even-numbered addresses can water: Saturday, Monday & Wednesday
* Apartments, Condos and Businesses can water: Monday, Wednesday & Friday
A provision to the city of Los Angeles’s summer water restrictions that is not enforced by San Diego is the prohibition of watering hard surfaces like sidewalks, driveways and parking areas. This mandate not only saves water, it helps curb urban run off, pollutants and garbage that flow from the city’s unfiltered storm drains into the ocean. Storm drains carry thousands of gallons of chemicals, oils, and litter into the Pacific each year.
The cigarette butt, is San Diego’s number one piece of litter and is easily washed into the ocean. Contrary to popular thought about a cigarette’s materials, a cigarette’s filter is made of plastic, and therefore stays on earth forever. (Earlier this week, The New York Times reported on the misconception that throwing cigarette butts on the ground is acceptable rather than a violation of no littering policies.)
In addition, urban runoff creates increased health risks to swimmers toxicity to aquatic life, according to the City of Santa Monica. Santa Monica also reports that clogged storm drains can lead to area flooding when it rains, traffic problems and unsanitary conditions.
San Diego can protect its beaches from pollutants and garbage (such as the tiny but toxic cigarette) by demanding that citizens employ more responsible water usage like refraining from watering hard surfaces.
Subscribe to Comments [Atom]
