What distinguishes human rights issues from celebrations of culture? Is culture a sufficient excuse or justification for the mistreatment of minority groups? Recently, these two questions have gained substantial traction within the media as the 2022 FIFA World Cup approaches, being held this year in Qatar—which is where the controversy begins.
The decision to hold this year’s FIFA World Cup in Qatar was deemed highly problematic by some due to Qatar’s record of human rights violations, as is demonstrated by the country’s criminalization of homosexuality, which can result in up to three years of prison in the country (Lewis 2022). In response, the “OneLove” campaign, an initative founded in the Netherlands to celebrate diversity within soccer communities, was due to take center stage (New York Post, 2022). To show their support, participants wear an armband featuring a multi-coloured heart to represent those belonging to all heritages, genders, and sexual identities. These armbands are meant to stand against discrimination and promote inclusion. The captains of seven countries competing were set to wear these armbands in solidarity, including England, Wales, Belgium, Switzerland, Germany, Denmark, and the Netherlands (Ramsay and Nabbi, 2022). However, due to recent actions taken by FIFA itself, the initiative has been abandoned.
To discourage players from wearing OneLove armbands throughout the World Cup, FIFA declared that players found wearing said armbands would be given yellow cards and may face additional sanctions (Ramsay and Nabbi, 2022) as punishment. FIFA’s efforts seemingly succeeded, as all seven soccer federations backed down from the campaign. In a joint statement, they asserted that “[a]s national federations we can’t put our players in a position where they could face sporting sanctions, including bookings” (New York Post, 2022). Thus, the movement was quashed before it ever truly began. Even so, the situation introduces another issue regarding Qatar’s stance on LBGTQ+ rights: some fans feel unsafe travelling to Qatar, fearing for their safety (Lewis 2022).
The Secretary General of FIFA, Fatma Samoura, said in a statement, “[n]o matter your race, your religion, your social and sexual orientation, you are most welcome, and Qataris are ready to receive you with the best hospitality that you can imagine” (Lewis 2022). However, at the same time, a statement from Qatar’s Supreme Committee for Delivery & Legacy (SC) reads, “[e]veryone is welcome in Qatar, but we are a conservative country and any public display of affection, regardless of orientation, is frowned upon. We simply ask for people to respect our culture” (Lewis 2022). In this case, then, culture seems to obfuscate matters of human rights, as the line between what is to be considered a human rights abuse and what is to be considered part of a separate country’s culture becomes blurred.
Teams were reportedly asked to “keep politics off the field” (New York Post, 2022). This raises the question: are human rights a strictly political issue, or do they supersede the realm of politics and possess a more universal significance? Should there be certain criteria necessary for selecting a country to host an international event as important as the World Cup? If so, how could such criteria be implemented while balancing the line between cultural relativism and cultural imperialism?
The Football Supporters’ Association, a representative body based in England and Wales, made a poignant statement encapsulating the situation. It reads, “[t]oday we feel contempt for an organisation that has shown its true values by giving the yellow card to players and the red card to tolerance… No country which falls short on LGBT+ rights, women’s rights, workers’ rights or any other universal human right should be given the honour of hosting a World Cup” (Thorogood, 2022). It is clear that this situation is bigger than Qatar or soccer alone. Human rights are a topic of contention all around the world. Countries must figure out how to toe the line between respecting different cultures and standing up against blatant human rights transgressions.
References
Associated Press. “FIFA Threats Force World Cup Teams to Abandon ‘OneLove’ Armband.” New York Post. New York Post, November 21, 2022. https://nypost.com/2022/11/21/fifa-threats-force-world-cup-teams-to-abandon-onelove-armband/ .
Lewis, Aimee. “’It’s Not Safe and It’s Not Right.’ Qatar Says All Are Welcome to the World Cup but Some LGBTQ Soccer Fans Are Staying Away.” CNN. Cable News Network, November 19, 2022. https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/19/football/qatar-world-cup-2022-lgbtq-rights-spt-intl/index.html.
Ramsay, George, and Zayn Nabbi. “England’s Harry Kane and Several Other European Captains Told Not to Wear ‘Onelove’ Armband at World Cup.” CNN. Cable News Network, November 22, 2022. https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/21/football/onelove-armband-qatar-2022-world-cup-spt-intl.
Thorogood, James. “Onelove Campaign Hit by Threat of FIFA Sanctions .” dw.com. Deutsche Welle, November 21, 2022. https://www.dw.com/en/world-cup-2022-onelove-campaign-hit-by-threat-of-fifa-sanctions/a-6381 8810.
In 1989, famed director Spike Lee created Do the Right Thing, a film following the story of the Wall of Fame inside an Italian-American-owned pizzeria in a Black community. As tensions rise in the community due to the Wall featuring only famous Italian-Americans instead of also including famous African-Americans, due to the pizzeria being located in a predominantly African-America area, conversations are held to understand the treatment of Black people by other ethnicities, especially white people. Parallels can be drawn between 1989 and the present while keeping the messages of trailblazers Martin Luther King Jr and Malcolm X throughout the call to action. The main message of the movie is brought to the attention of the main character Mookie when the Mayor tells Mookie to “always do the right thing,”1 although he brushes off 1 the advice in the moment, the message becomes more apparent as the movie continues. All around the neighbourhood are conversations and actions with racial undertones and overt instances. Prevalent topics in the film include stereotypes, Black people’s influence on society, and the relationship between police and Black people.
This film creates an environment for viewers to understand the climate the characters were living in and compare it to the present day. The successes of Black people are constantly left out of the conversation when discussing people who have impacted the world we live in today. The central conflict in the film is the lack of inclusion for Black people on Sal’s wall of fame. The white characters in the movie continually disregard the importance of Black people. Pino takes away his favourite celebrities’ Blackness because they don’t fit his idea of what Black people should be like; the landlord wears a Larry Bird shirt, and when Black people don’t act according to how Sal and Pino think they should, they disregard their business and resort to using the n-word to describe them. The blatant mistreatment of the Black people in their neighbourhood directly translates into the main conflict of the hall of fame. Buggin’ Out wants people such as Malcolm x, Nelson Mandela, and Michael Jordan as people who should be on the wall, but Sal doesn’t see their importance being on the wall; he threatens his patron with violence and kicks him out as a result2. This scene is the beginning of Sal’s overt mistreatment of Black people, that catapults the movie into its following stages.
Radio Raheem’s death reflects the society where police violence against Black people is repeated. When Lee released this movie, he dedicated it to Eleanor Bumpurs, Michael Griffith, Arthur Miller, Edmund Perry, Yvonne Smallwood, and Michael Stewart. Five of these people were murdered by police while Griffth was a victim of the mob3. 36 years after this film’s release Black people are still victims of police brutality; the only difference in the headlines being the names. The names that many people today recognize are George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, Elijah Mcclain, Atatiana Jefferson, Daunte Wright. When comparing the victims of the 80s to now, it is evident that police brutality is still prevalent. Sentiments of characters in the movie reflect the opinions of people today when similar events to Radio Raheem’s death occur, such as, “They didn’t have to kill the boy,” “They did it again,” and “He died because of a radio.”4 This repetition of death within the Black community shows society’s disregard and disrespect for Black life. Black people are seen as less than their white counterparts and less deserving of their rights.
Spike Lee immerses viewers into a world similar to ours with the community, the personalities, and the heartbreak. Getting to know the characters who ultimately end up hurt by the events that play out reflects the real lives that are being affected every time the police murder a Black person. As a society, it is our job to fight the powers working against Black people. Through advocacy, action, and doing the right thing, the trajectory of Black lives can be changed.
Works Cited
1,4Do the Right Thing (Universal Pictures, 1989).
2 Ibid
3 Richard Brody, “The Enduring Urgency of Spike Lee’s ‘Do the Right Thing’ at Thirty,” The New Yorker, 2019, https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-front-row/the-enduring-urgency-ofspike-lees-do-the-right-thing-at- thirty.
Dmitri Trenin declares in his preface that Russia is a book intended for readers who are unfamiliar with Russia’s history. As such, Trenin aims to present Russian history in a way which differs from the West’s understanding of Russia as “negative and controversial” (vii). In doing so, Russia takes the reader on a 200-page excursion of 120 years of Russian history, detailing the historical and political development, which explains much of Russia’s contemporary behaviour. Trenin treats Russia as having its own “version of exceptionalism,” which makes it distinct from other nations (8). He suggests that there is a “bedrock” underneath Russia that continues to strengthen the “core features of the nation’s existence, its self-image, and its worldview” and that the reader can only understand these changes by examining the “collective experience” of the Russian people (3). The book’s central thesis holds that, while Russia has experienced changes to its ruler and government, it nonetheless remains a “succession of states and represents the continuity of a country” precisely because Russian society has retained the core features which make it exceptional (9). Trenin presents two momentous and recurring features which have shaped the last 120 years of Russia’s political development. First, Russia’s strong rejection of foreign domination persists alongside her acquiescence toward domestic authoritarianism (9). Second, Russia’s “essentially lonely” nature (despite having a high degree of contact with other countries) (9). And Russia’s frequent contact with foreign countries is often the source of external threats and modernization (9). While his analysis of Russia’s ‘loneliness’ is a noteworthy observation, the reader should pay more attention to how Trenin imagines the boundary of Russia, as well as what he means by being Russian.
Russia gives the reader a quick survey of Russia’s 20th century, presenting important themes such as culture, economy, society, and ideology. The reader will learn about the ‘Silver Age’ of Russian arts, the New Soviet Man, refugees escaping Communist Russia, the GULAG, economic developments and policies, protest movements, state-society relations, and much more. Trenin’s discussion of the state and its leaders, foreign relations, and elite politics is the most emphasized component. By giving a brief historical account of Russian history—from the 1917 Russian civil war to Putin’s 21st-century ascension—through which he illuminates the causes of critical events, Trenin highlights the persistent and significant role of a strong state and authoritarian leader in providing stability during times of upheaval in Russia’s history. Further, Trenin asserts that evil consequences often ensue after state collapse (179).
Tracing the collective experience of the Russian people, Trenin makes the case that while leaders of Russia had extraordinary agency in shaping the country’s political trajectory, it is the enduring feature of the people’s will to reject foreign domination of Russia at the expense of their “own domestic sovereignty vis-a-vis [the state]” that prevented the breakdown of Russia in challenging times (9). Trenin believes that this forfeiture of individual autonomy to the authoritarian rule at home is the “supreme national value” and is deeply embedded in the “Russian psyche” (7, 9). However, while there is much evidence one can point to, such as the 1812 Napoleonic War, or the Great Patriotic War, there is also ample evidence that challenges the reading that Russians see their submission to authority as a “supreme national value.” Notably, Trenin himself remarks that the 1905 and 1917 peasant revolutions in Tsarist Russia were a key pretext for the rise of the Bolsheviks (26-34). Also, he notes that many Russians fled to Europe to escape Communist rule (125). Furthermore, considering Pyotr Stolypin’s implementation of martial law, Lenin’s Cheka, Stalin’s Purge, and the tradition of the Russian security agency, all to maintain social stability, fearing uprising and unrest from societal groups, the reader should seriously question the merit of Trenin’s argument that there has been a consensus, tacit or explicit, between the ruled and the ruler on the “supreme national value,” even in times of crisis (9).
Moreover, the reader is left wondering, by the end of the book, whether Trenin’s claim about the recurring core feature of Russian’s acquiescence toward authoritarianism (and the persistent pattern of authoritarianism itself) will continue to be a ‘recurring’ feature. Indeed, Trenin himself points to the possibility that generational change and existing political conditions could lead to a state that is less authoritarian in nature (163). Even though Putin and the state are authoritarian, the establishment of democratic electoral institutions and a growing middle class in Russia could one day transform this core recurring feature.
To be more charitable, the reader can concede that Trenin is suggesting an account that Russian exceptionalism derives from a transcendental conception of Russia as a nation that conceives an amorphous territory and a population that inheres Russia’s millennium-long history and the two core recurring features as its national mentality and traits. However, it is equally important to examine who are the “Russian people” and what Russia is as an “unbroken whole” (9, 11). While Trenin explains what Russia is not—that today’s Russia is not a different country from the USSR and the Russian Empire—he fails to give an affirmative account of what Russia is. Indeed, there is not a definitive answer to this, and expecting Trenin to answer it persuasively in a 200-page book is unreasonable. Nevertheless, this absence should make the reader (re)consider his formulation of Russia as an “unbroken whole.” The fact that Russia’s territory has been reduced substantially after the collapse of the Russian Empire and again after the dissolution of the USSR has central implications for the conception of Russia. This geopolitical decline seriously challenges his conception of Russia as a whole, given that many of the populations formerly belonging to the Russian Empire and USSR are not a part of contemporary Russia. It is also questionable to claim the population who were once within the territory of the Russian Empire and the USSR as “Russians.” According to NKVD records, “half-million Ukrainians, Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians, and Belarusians fought the Soviets in rural areas” (Colton 53). Also, anti-Soviet ethnonationalist movements during and after the Soviet rule also challenge Tenin’s reading of Russia as an “unbroken whole” (153-154).
Trenin’s account of the second core feature is more compelling and conforms to the charitable reading of Russia as a nation that persistently embodies “a Russian psyche” In the last 120 years, Russia has been lonely and exceptional in its vain search for national security amidst an unfriendly, modernizing world. Japan challenged Russia’s presence in the Far East, leading to a major defeat in 1905 for the Russian Empire (25-26). In 1917 Russia was forced to fight against Germany but was never invited to the 1919 Versailles peace conference and the League of Nations (46). In the 1930s, Britain and France had little concern for the fate of the USSR, so Russia, relying on itself, was pressured into signing a non-aggression pact with Germany (78-79). Trenin argues that Russia had to rely on itself in challenging times and thus often finds itself isolated. Indeed, increased connectivity with China, Britain, and the U.S. in the 1940s ended soon thereafter upon the rise of the Cold War. Meaningful and friendly engagement with the West since then never occurred, despite the disintegration of the Union and the introduction of capitalism and electoral democracy in the 1990s (145-146). Confrontation with the U.S. and NATO became more real after Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea and its intervention in Syria (173-174). However, its relationship with China grew closer (174). Russia, Trenin argues, has been estranged from the West but is “by no means isolated” (173-174). Indeed, current events support Trenin’s analysis: the ongoing Russian-Ukraine War has deteriorated US-Russia and EU-Russia relationship while Russia has become closer to China.
The reader can strengthen Trenin’s account of Russia’s relative isolation by arguing that Russia’s geography and historical legacies played a deterministic role in shaping the political attitude and choices of the Russian elites. Russia is vast, remote, and difficult to access by sea. While this geographical limit prevented Russia from naval invasions, it also foreclosed the reach of sea merchants and the exchange of ideas (Poe 49). The centrality of Russian Orthodoxy and Russia’s closed borders also stifled any intellectual and cultural exchange with the West (Poe 41). Moreover, the relative proximity with Western Europe—and the extraordinary technological and military ascendance of the former circa 1500-1600—threatened Russia and agitated its reform process, eventually producing a distinctly Russian form of social organization (Poe 38-57).
Even if the reader rejects the persistent “bedrock” underneath Russia, Trenin’s analysis of Russia’s political pattern—1) authoritarian rule as a persistent feature and 2) relative isolation—offers a good measure by which the reader can judge Russia’s contemporary political development. When the authoritarian state is absent, Russia will likely reverse into political instability (9). Trenin suspects that “a political crisis following Putin’s final departure is virtually pre-programmed” (162). And, while Trenin makes clear in Russia’s conclusion that post-Putin Russia might not embrace liberal capitalism and conform partially to the West, his analysis of Russia’s relative isolation gives freshness and trenchancy to his interpretation of a “Russian’s Russia” and provide the non-specialist reader with a good historical account of where “Russia is coming from.”
Bibliography
Colton, Timothy J. Russia: What Everyone Needs to Know. New York, Oxford University Press, 2016.
Poe, Marshall T. The Russian Moment in World History. New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 2003.
Tens of millions of football fans all over the world were rejoicing as the 2022 FIFA World Cup began. Since 2010, when Qatar won the contract to host the 2022 World Cup, it has spent upwards of $220 billion on unprecedented construction to prepare for this World Cup (Worden, 2022). Qatar has evidently spared no expense to transform its desert into a beaming hub of decadence, complete with new stadiums, buildings, hotels, and highways—that is, until one considers the migrant workers who built this infrastructure. Investigative journalism and reports from Amnesty International (AI) and Human Rights Watch (HRW) have found disturbing human rights abuses including the death of over 6,500 migrant workers during Qatar’s construction, making it one of the deadliest sporting events in history (Pattisson & McIntyre, 2021). The list of human rights abuses also includes expensive recruitment fees, appalling living conditions, threats from their employers, modern-slavery tactics, and lying about and delaying worker salaries (Goodman & Worden, 2022) all against a backdrop of LGBTQ+ discrimination, disregard for women’s rights and a lack of press freedom to investigate aforementioned migrant abuses (Goodman & Worden, 2022, Human Rights Watch, 2022).
Gianni Infantino, FIFA’s president, opened a news conference in Doha, Qatar, with a surprising one-hour monologue, stating: “Today I feel Qatari. Today I feel Arab. Today I feel African. Today I feel gay. Today I feel disabled. Today I feel a migrant worker.” (Goodman & Worden, 2022). Doubtful to say the least, as Qatar has some of the most repressive migrant labour policies in the world, beginning with their abusive “Kafala” labor sponsorship system which uses “modern-day slavery” tactics to provide as much cheap and dispensable labour as possible (Goodman & Worden, 2022). The “Kafala” is a debt-bondage system, in which migrant workers looking to work in Qatar must take out loans to be recruited for work. These loans can range from seven hundred to fourteen thousand USD, in some cases a financially crushing responsibility which can take years to pay off (Goodman & Worden, 2022). Migrant workers in Qatar are then tied to their employers, or “sponsors,” and cannot request or renew their residence permits without the sponsor’s permission. However, if the sponsor fails to renew the permit, it is the worker who faces punishment (Amnesty International, 2021).
Additionally, these workers face deadly working environments, some of which possess exorbitant heat levels. There is also the systemic use of stealing and delaying wages of migrant workers. Thousands of migrant workers suffer from late or non-payment of wages (Amnesty International, 2021), thus taking out costly loans to pay the illegal recruitment fees. These have devastating impacts on workers who are providing not only for themselves but for families back home–many of these workers have had to return home with no money as a result (Amnesty International, 2022).
Additionally, the living conditions within dorms are just as horrid as working conditions outside. Workers tend to live in dirty, cramped, unsafe accommodations (Amnesty International, 2021). Indeed, Amnesty found men sleeping in bunk beds in rooms of eight or more people, although Qatari law and the Workers’ Welfare Standards allow for a maximum of four beds per room and prohibit bed sharing and the use of bunk beds (Amnesty International, 2021).
When workers are bold enough to complain about their conditions and human rights transgressions they are met with strong threats from their employers. One migrant worker working at the Khalifa Stadium said that they “went to the company office, telling the manager I wanted to go home [back to my country] because always my pay is late. The manager screamed at me saying ‘keep working or you will never leave!’” (Amnesty International, 2021). Mohammad, who maintains green spaces in the Aspire Zone, said, “The company has my passport. If my sponsorship status changes they will send me back and I have a lot of debt to pay…, I want my passport back… [and] the camp is no good, there are eight of us in one room – it is too many. But I cannot complain [because] they will end my job.” (Amnesty International, 2021). Couple this with the fact that migrant-worker trade unions are illegal and therefore one cannot organize, protest, nor strike against their employers’ hopeless system of control, exploitation, and abuse—migrant workers in Qatar cannot strike for their basic human rights. Workers who refuse to work because of their conditions are threatened with pay deductions, or get handed to the police for deportation without receiving the pay they are owed (Amnesty International, 2022).
These Migrant workers overwhelmingly arrive from poorer countries such as India, Nepal, Bangladesh, the Philippines, Ghana, and Kenya (Worden, 2022), leave their country behind for years in hopes of providing a better future for their children. As Gianni Infantino once said, “Qatar is offering migrants the opportunity to provide for their families, whereas Europe has closed its borders,” adding elsewhere in the press conference that he would compensate workers and their families who faced abuse and death while building the World Cup stadiums (Goodman & Worden, 2022). However, there is no indication that the legacy fund will go to any of the thousands of families who lost their fathers, husbands, brothers, and sons to Qatar’s brutal working regime. Furthermore, Qatar forbids the press freedom necessary to investigate migrant labour abuses, making it nearly impossible to document and track death and abuse as a result of the World Cup construction (Goodman & Worden, 2022). Qatar has also refused to do autopsies on workers who have died; if officials claim the deaths were “natural causes” then they are not obligated under Qatar’s labour law to compensate the families (Worden, 2022).
Importantly, all of these violations occur against a larger backdrop of intense LGBTQ+ discrimination. Homosexuality is illegal in Qatar and as recently as this past September, Qatari security forces arrested and abused LGBTQ+ people in detention (Goodman & Worden, 2022). The teams of England, Wales, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, and Switzerland announced that their captains will no longer be wearing armbands in support of LGBTQ rights during the World Cup, since tournament organizer FIFA promised to sanction any players who wear the bands (Goodman & Worden, 2022). Qatar also has a male-guardianship system which shows discrimination and a lack of rights for the women of Qatar as well.
Some of the saddest cases that Human Rights Watch have seen regard families wherein the main breadwinner, a young man, goes to Qatar, takes out a loan to work there, works in debt bondage, gets cheated of wages, does not receive the wages he was promised, and then has his body returned home to his family in a coffin (Goodman & Worden, 2022).
The following is a statement from former Qatar migrant worker, Hari, featured in a “report” by Human Rights Watch: “When I went to Lusail in Qatar, there was nothing. There wasn’t even a single building. Now there are towers everywhere. We built those towers. In the heat, we worked out of compulsion with face covers. We were drenched in sweat. We poured water, sweat, from our shoes. Even in that heat, we worked hard. My son did not recognize me when I first came from Qatar to Nepal…I met my son only five times in the 14 years I was away. I used to cry and feel bad that I had to stay away from children for work” (HRW, 2022).
A following statement from Nanda Kali Nepali, whose husband was one of those deaths: “My husband used to work as a driver. He used to come for two months every two years. This time, only his dead body came, four years after he had last visited Nepal. What would he say? He used to say, “I will work here ’til I can. We have loans we need to repay.” My husband was my source of support. Without him, who do I rely on? I sit and I cry on my own. Whom can I show my tears to?” (HRW, 2022)
Although FIFA regards themselves as “not the police of the world” (Worden, 2022), they were entirely aware of the Kafala system in Qatar along with Qatar’s position on social issues, but none the less granted them the contract while turning a blind eye to the severe human rights abuses, presenting them as a strong ally and friend to the international governing body of FIFA.
Bibliography
A. I. (2021, July 29). Qatar World Cup of Shame. Amnesty International. Retrieved November 27, 2022, from https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2016/03/qatar-world-cup-of-shame/
A. I. (2022, October 20). Reality check: Migrant workers’ rights in QatarA. Amnesty International. Retrieved November 27, 2022, from https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2019/02/reality-check-migrant-workers-rights-with-two-years-to-qatar-2022-world-cup/
H. R. W. (2022, November 19). Qatar: FIFA World Cup opens without remedy for migrants. Human Rights Watch. Retrieved November 27, 2022, from https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/11/19/qatar-fifa-world-cup-opens-without-remedy-migrants
H. R. W. (2022, November 21). Qatar: Rights abuses stain FIFA World Cup. Human Rights Watch. Retrieved November 27, 2022, from https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/11/14/qatar-rights-abuses-stain-fifa-world-cup
Goodman, A., & Worden, M. (2022, November 21). World Cup in Qatar is “deadliest major sporting event” in history, built on a decade of forced labor. Democracy Now! Retrieved November 27, 2022, from https://www.democracynow.org/2022/11/21/fifa_world_cup_qatar_labor_rights
Pattisson, P., & McIntyre, N. (2021, February 23). Revealed: 6,500 migrant workers have died in Qatar since World Cup awarded. The Guardian. Retrieved November 27, 2022, from https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/feb/23/revealed-migrant-worker-deaths-qatar-fifa-world-cup-2022
Worden, M. (2022, August 23). The World Cup is exciting, lucrative, and deadly. Newsweek. Retrieved November 27, 2022, from https://www.newsweek.com/world-cup-exciting-lucrative-deadly-opinion-1735799.
In the twenty-first century, the internet has become a vital method of communication. Most people use it to receive information, socialise and express personal feelings, emotions and/or concerns on an abundance of issues to a wide audience. It is these attributes that create the internet’s enabling nature. The idea that the internet is a place of limitless connections and we, as its users, are limitless by extension, has helped mould it into a cornerstone in popular culture. Ultimately, it has become a very hard thing to live without and yet that is exactly the reality many Iranians will come to face.
The government of Iran has a complicated history with suppressing access to the internet and consequently the freedoms of expression, association and information. From the early 1990s to the mid 2000s Iranians enjoyed free access to the internet without much government intervention or overreach (Alimardani, 2021). It was only until the presidential election of 2009 did the fate of free and unrestricted internet access in Iran change for the worse. After winning re-electron through widely suspected voter fraud the returning President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sought to crack down on all anti-government, anti-Islamic and reformist/regime change rhetoric being spread across the internet in Iran (Alimardani, 2021). What resulted was a decade of off-and-on again bans and restrictions placed on Western media and internet services such as Youtube, Twitter and Facebook (Alimardani, 2021). Since 2009, there seems to have never been a time where Iranians once again enjoyed free and uncensored access to the internet like they had previously. Yet somehow, the situation may have further worsened.
In July 2021, the government of Iran moved forward with a certain piece of troubling legislature. When first made public it had been officially titled by Iranian parliament as the “Cyberspace Users Rights Protection and Regulation of Key Online Services Bill” and was seen by many observers as another effort to further censor and control internet access in Iran (Committee to Protect Journalists, 2021). Concerns over access to the internet, journalism and certain individual freedoms due to this bill were presented to the government but all proved futile. This disturbing bill, roughly half a year later, is now well on its way to being passed into formal and official Iranian law.
As of the time of writing the bill is now called “Regulatory System of Online Services Bill” but is commonly referred to as the “Protection Bill”. Sadly, this new name did not entail a change in structure as the complete nature of the bill is just as terrifying as it was originally predicted to be. Firstly, the bill will prohibit and ban any foriegn internet service that does not maintain physical representation in Iran itself (Article 19, 2021). What this does is essentially block American internet services which cannot have an official presence in Iran due to US sanctions. The bill also encourages Iranians to use locally provided internet services only and criminalises the creation, distribution and usage of VPNs (Article 19, 2021). These two parts of the bill go hand-in-hand. By making VPNs illegal the government is forcing Iranians to strictly use Iran-based services if they want to access the internet. Yet perhaps the most frightening features of the bill are the last two. The government will require Iranians to use their real, legal identity when accessing the internet and most internet infrastructure will be overseen by the Iranian Armed Forces (Article 19, 2021). With online anonymity completely extinguished the public will be forced to censor themselves. This is especially true if they know the army is constantly motoring what they say and do on the internet.
The “Protection Bill” has been condemned by many organisations, namely the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). In an official statement published at the beginning of March 2022, the OHCHR denounced the bill. The statement claimed that the “Protection Bill” would isolate Iran from the global internet and cited concerns about the restrictions on the free flow of information in and out of the country the bill would inevitably cause (OHCHR, 2022). Both cases brought up by the statement are of equal legitimate concern yet the bill is still set to pass in mid-March 2022 and the Iranian government is seemingly unheeding to international criticism. The future of the internet and Iran is no doubt in trouble.
The implications of the “Protection Bill” will be detrimental not only to many of the rights and freedoms of Iranians but also the nature of the internet itself. For a while now it has been difficult for Iranians to advocate for change over the internet but this bill will be the final nail in the coffin. By pacifying Iranians internet access the government is actively destroying what the internet is supposed to do. It is ultimately a service intended to connect people and help bring ideas together for further development. Without unrestricted access to the internet none of this is possible. The death of free internet access in Iran is not only a disgusting betrayal of human rights but also an attack on the internet itself.
References:
Alimardani, Masha. “New “Protection” Bill on Internet Freedom.” The Iran Primer. October 14, 2021. Updated February 23, 2022. https://iranprimer.usip.org/blog/2021/oct/14/internet-freedom-iran-and-new-protection-bill
“Iran’s parliament moves forward with troubling bill to further restrict internet.” Committee to Protect Journalists. November 1, 2021. https://cpj.org/2021/11/iran-parliament-bill-restrict-internet/
“Iran: Parliament’s “Protection Bill” will hand over complete control of the Internet to authorities.” Article 19. August 5, 2021. https://www.article19.org/resources/iran-parliaments-protection-bill-will-hand-over-compl ete-control-of-the-internet-to-authorities/
“UN human rights experts urge Iran to abandon restrictive internet bill.” Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. March 1, 2022. https://www.ohchr.org/SP/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=28176&LangI D=E
War is evil. The consequences of war are unequivocally atrocious and unimaginably far-reaching. Monuments are destroyed, families are torn apart, precious human lives are lost. No one escapes war unscathed. Amnesty International does not support war. I, like many others, am fundamentally a pacifist, and abhor war and armed conflict in all cases. Amnesty International does, however, support “freedom from mental and physical violence” as well as “freedom of conscience and expression” (Candlelight U of T). My agreement with this second tenet compels me to present my argument for the armed intervention of NATO in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, because I feel that the war in Ukraine will not end until Putin is forced to retreat from Ukrainian land. To this end, I will dispel a common justification for the nonparticipation of NATO troops in the conflict.
I am against the development and continuation of the war in Ukraine. That said, because Putin’s aggression and greed are what caused the invasion to begin, it is impossible to achieve this aim without forcing his retreat from Ukraine’s sovereign territory. The Kremlin’s invasion of Ukraine is an all-too familiar scene. In an unfortunate turn of events, the only way to stop the war in Ukraine is to briefly escalate tensions by forcibly expelling Russian troops from Ukrainian territory to restore peace in Europe and around the world. This is not Putin’s first foray into Ukrainian sovereign territory. In 2014, he annexed and occupied the Ukrainian region of Crimea. At the time, sanctions were launched by the United States, the European Union, and other international organisations against individuals, businesses and officials from Russia. Despite this, Russia maintained control of this Ukrainian region. It is clear from this example that sanctions, while admirable and useful, are insufficient to deter Vladimir Putin’s aggression towards Ukraine.
When Russian troops crossed the border into Ukraine on February 24th 2022, they renewed a brazen attack on the sovereignty of that country, as well as the safety and human rights of its citizens. The European and African unions, individual countries, NATO, as well as the United Nations have all condemned the Russian Federation’s illegal attack on Ukraine in the strictest terms. The Canadian Government called on the Kremlin to suspend “hostile and provocative actions”, terming the attack “egregious” and an example of “unwarranted aggression” (Prime Minister of Canada). There has likewise been an enormous and quasi-unanimous push towards implementing harsh sanctions on the Kremlin and the oligarchs whose interests it is said to privilege. These include penalties in the areas of aviation, trade, energy, private wealth, shipping, media and technology (Reuters). This amounts to an escalation of the tactics employed by the West following the 2014 attack on Ukraine, but it is clear that sanctions alone have not been enough to stem the violence which has been constant since the initial incursion.
When Russian troops crossed the border into Ukraine on February 24th 2022, they renewed a brazen attack on the sovereignty of that country, as well as the safety and human rights of its citizens. The European and African unions, individual countries, NATO, as well as the United Nations have all condemned the Russian Federation’s illegal attack on Ukraine in the strictest terms. The Canadian Government called on the Kremlin to suspend “hostile and provocative actions”, terming the attack “egregious” and an example of “unwarranted aggression” (Prime Minister of Canada). There has likewise been an enormous and quasi-unanimous push towards implementing harsh sanctions on the Kremlin and the oligarchs whose interests it is said to privilege. These include penalties in the areas of aviation, trade, energy, private wealth, shipping, media and technology (Reuters). This amounts to an escalation of the tactics employed by the West following the 2014 attack on Ukraine, but it is clear that sanctions alone have not been enough to stem the violence which has been constant since the initial incursion.
Western leaders have implicitly stated that NATO troops will not be sent into Ukraine to oppose Russian forces out of concern for the safety of their countries, and in order to avoid an escalation to the violence. Joe Biden opposed the presence of American troops in Ukraine as that would be “a world war when Americans and Russia start shooting at one another” (CNN). Unfortunately, Ukrainians don’t have the luxury of choosing to stay uninvolved for their safety. 81% of Canadians support the actions which Trudeau and his cabinet have already taken with regard to Russia’s attack on Ukraine (Global News). So far, this includes assistance for Ukrainian refugees, economic sanctions levelled at Russia and Russian oligarchs, and the sending of lethal military equipment to aid Ukraine’s defensive efforts (Government of Canada). Despite this, only 39% of Canadians support the direct involvement of Canadian troops in this conflict, something which is predicated on NATO’s involvement (Global News). Although it cannot be doubted that the above sanctions are effective and important, they have been proven painfully unsuccessful at avoiding war in the Ukraine. The Ukrainian people are refused military intervention even as they suffer at the hands of the Russian invasion. Hundreds of Ukrainian civilians are dead, including many children. In the face of this tragedy, the potential danger posed to our Western nations cannot be enough to dismiss sending military support to Ukraine. If the West refuses to “escalate tensions”, Putin will. And this to the detriment of innocent Ukrainians.
If Putin’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 has taught us anything, it is that he will not be placated. If his troops take Kyiv, it will only be a matter of time before he targets Moldova or Poland, or any number of neighbouring nations. Because of this, it is not only unfair of NATO and its allies to refuse to send troops out of a concern for their own sovereignty, it is also illogical. If Putin is allowed to continue his march on Ukraine, it will become a march on Europe. Poland, Romania, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia… These are all NATO powers which border on Russia or its ally of Belarus. NATO countries will not be spared violence by allowing Russia’s government to occupy Ukraine. Russia will gain land, resources and momentum, and NATO will still have to defend its member states when Putin decides he is not satisfied with Ukraine, as he was not satisfied with Crimea in 2014.
For these two reasons, it is both unjustifiable and illogical for NATO to refrain from sending troops into Ukraine to repel Russian forces. Doing so is not only callous, when Ukrainians cannot choose safety through non interference, but also useless, because it is clear that Putin will continue to threaten NATO and its allies through his potential revised position as occupier of Ukraine. Therefore, in order to avoid further war and in both Ukraine and neighbouring countries, it is imperative that NATO send troops to the defence of Ukrainian sovereignty. It must be made clear to Putin, and to all other oligarchical and authoritarian regimes, that peace in Europe and around the world is critical to ensuring “freedom from mental and physical violence” as well as “freedom of conscience and expression”, and that those who seek to infringe upon it will not be given the leeway to do so. Though it may seem oxymoronic, the above exposes the escalation of tensions in Ukraine as the swiftest course to peace.
References:
Boynton, Sean. “Canadians Support Actions against Russia over Ukraine, but Have Economic Concerns: Poll – National.” Global News, Global News, 11 Mar. 2022, globalnews.ca/news/8674701/ukraine-russia-canada-ipsos-poll/.
Canada, Global Affairs. “Government of Canada.” GAC, Government of Canada, 10 Mar. 2022, www.international.gc.ca/world-monde/international_relations-relations_internati onales/sanctions/russia-russie.aspx?lang=eng.
“Statement by the Prime Minister on Russia’s Attack on Ukraine.” Prime Minister of Canada, pm.gc.ca/en/news/statements/2022/02/23/statement-prime-minister-russias-att ack-ukraine.
“Tracking Sanctions against Russia.” Reuters, Thomson Reuters, graphics.reuters.com/UKRAINE-CRISIS/SANCTIONS/byvrjenzmve/.
Wolf, Zachary B. “Here’s What Biden Has Said about Sending US Troops to Ukraine.” CNN, Cable News Network, 24 Feb. 2022, www.cnn.com/2022/02/24/politics/us-troops-ukraine-russia-nato/index.html.
The Russo-Ukrainian war is a localized invasion that managed to expose the global human rights violations of refugees from around the world. In the span of the first few days of the attacks, Europe’s acceptance of White Ukrainian refugees and the media’s overtly racist portrayals and discrimination of non-European refugees all quickly played out to show the blatant double standards of Western dealings with the refugee crisis.
Following the third week of the influx of 3 million Ukrainian displaced persons into Europe, the European Union (EU) activated a renewed Temporary Protection Directive (TPD) that aimed for the immediate integration of Ukrainian refugees into other European societies and their protection for the span of one year. The original TPD was initially formed in 2001 to establish the required process for hosting asylum seekers fleeing persecution or conflict. It was renewed March of 2022 to specifically address the needs of Ukrainian citizens. The renewed TPD’s first few articles grant Ukrainians the ability to travel without a visa for 90 days out of a 180 day span as a way to maintain autonomy over their choice of residence, and to spread the burden of hosting refugees across Europe. The directive also provides Ukrainians the right to medical care, employment, education and shelter.
Although the TPD was already well-established during the wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and Yemen, it was not extended to the refugees of these countries. During the influx of Syrian citizens in 2015, European countries did not activate the TPD with the claim that the refugees had not met the required criteria to put the directive into effect. Most Syrians were placed in temporary camps and not given the necessary aid as stipulated by the directive, putting them in a ‘state of limbo.’
In as recent as 2021, European states including Denmark, Turkey and Sweden intensified the pressure put on Syrian refugees to return to their countries, and protection was restrained. A report by Amnesty International identified that those who did return to Syria faced harrowing consequences of torture, rape and disappearance. While military attacks were less frequent, the “Coverage of Ukraine Refugee crisis is ‘racist’” – Cartoon [Sabaaneh/Middle East Monitor] instability of the region and its ongoing human rights abuses did not cease. European countries, however, declared Syria a safe zone and enforced deportation strategies. The pressure put on Syrians is only made worse with the hostilities held by European citizens who continue to express blatant Islamophobia and nationalism. In Turkey, mob attacks and a public outcry against Syrians pressured the government to deport some of the refugees in 2019. Denmark was one step ahead and decided to not deal with the issue at all by preventing refugees from any form of aid with its self-declared “zero-asylum policy.” It also instituted a “jewelry law” that granted the government the right to seize refugee assets as a way to ‘pay rent’ for their stay. These laws do not extend to Ukrainians.
Poland is another European country exhibiting striking double standards. It has been praised for its open-door policy as it welcomes all Ukrainian refugees and encourages its citizens to be generous hosts. Poland’s humanitarian efforts extend from the community to the federal and military levels who, as borders open up to 1.4 million Ukrainians, offer transportation services, shelter and healthcare upon arrival. Poland’s hypocrisy exposes itself when looking at its past dealings with refugees that are as recent as late 2021. In the fall and winter of 2021, between 2,000 and 4,000 Afghan, Iraqi and Syrian refugees were left stranded between the borders of Poland and Belarus, prevented entry from either country. They were not allowed proper shelter, food, clean water or medicine. 13 people died from hypothermia as temperatures fell to below freezing, and 431 Iraqis were forcefully sent back to Iraq in repatriation flights. In October of 2021, Poland adopted an amendment that denies refugees the right to seek asylum and dismisses further applicants, an illegal violation of international refugee law of which Poland is a signatory.
Even when looking at Ukrainian refugees today, discriminatory practices are still prevalent as Polish generosity is only extended to White Ukrainians. African students recount the segregation process initiated by Polish forces, where students were explicitly given second priority to entry and forms of humanitarian aid, sometimes being charged for it. Their spots on buses and trains were taken to make room for Ukrainians and, upon arrival in Poland, refugees were separated into two lines: one for White Ukrainians, and the other for visible minorities. Visual footage and personal accounts further reveal that physical and verbal abuse was a common tactic used against African, Indian and Arab students upon entry into European countries.
Public portrayals of the Ukrainian crisis only furthers the antagonism, while also revealing the racist criteria of refugee admission and hypocritical nature of European governmental intervention. A popular justification for the conflicting treatments of Ukrainian refugees as opposed to Syrian, Afghani, and Yemeni refugees has been the different proposed levels of civility. Undue judgements are made that accuse non-White refugees of posing a threat to European culture, and sometimes going to the extent of claiming that refugees might be harbouring potential terrorists. While Ukrainians are praised for their armed resistance, Palestinian and South African struggles for freedom are simultaneously condemned and given the label of ‘violent terrorism.’ The strategies taken by governments, corporations and media outlets are also revealing of the double standards they inhibit. Examples include the immediate sanctions imposed on Russia and the promotion of cultural boycotts, two tactics USA and Europe refrained from using against Apartheid South Africa and Israel. Biden’s rash labelling of Putin as “war criminal” – a contradictory term previously avoided until thorough investigation has been conducted – also exposes the politically-motivated and far from righteous double standards when dealing with oppressive regimes.
Political science assistant professor Lamis Abdelaaty points to the astounding immediacy of labelling oncoming Ukrainians as refugees. She draws on the 1951 Refugee Convention that defines the status of a refugee as one that is directly persecuted and unable to return to their country of origin. Contrastingly, while not dismissing the dangerous state of Ukraine, its citizens are fleeing generalized violence rather than persecution. They have the ability and capacity to flee as opposed to other refugees whose treks across the world were arguably as dangerous as their presence in their country of origin. Syrians were not initially given the status of refugees and were subliminally portrayed as migrants, the former being a term to represent temporary asylum seekers in need of aid, while the latter encompassing individuals seeking permanent residence and hence ones who are in competition with the locals for employment and shelter.
The striking double standards presented by the Ukrainian crisis are attributed to two factors: the inherent racism of European states that were built on the exploitation of the Global South, and the political motivations of USA and Europe that jump at the chance of delegitimizing Russia. However, such motivations are not credible enough to justify the continued racist treatment of non-European asylum seekers. Afghans and Iraqis, who are in the situation they currently are in due to US and Western interference, and Syrians and Yemenis, are still victims of persecution in their origin countries and should thus be extended the protection of Europe’s TPD. The same goes for non-European asylum seekers from Ukraine, who are fleeing from the same threats as European Ukrainians.
The most important action we can take as individuals is to dismantle our societies’ inherently racist structures that exhibit themselves most vividly during times of crisis and to call out the institutions and individuals who harbour such hostilities. Humanitarian efforts supporting victims of malicious war crimes and racist refugee policy must be endorsed so they can continue to help refugees who face physical and psychological trauma in both their home countries and European countries alike.
Solidarity is an action that must be equally extended to all victims of oppression and its selective use is a facade calling for deconstruction. If you stand in solidarity with Ukrainians, you must extend the same empathy to African-Ukrainians, Indian-Ukrainians, Syrians, Iraqis, Afghanis, Yemenis, Palestinians, Indigenous communities, Sahrawis, the Rohingya, Uyghur and every other oppressed group around the world that you have the power of supporting.
References:
‘European Union Council directive 2001/55/EC establishing the existence of a mass influx of displaced persons from Ukraine’ (2022) Official Journal of the European Union L 71
Micinski, N.R. (2022). The E.U. granted Ukrainian refugees temporary protection. Why the different response from past migrant crises? The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/16/eu-granted-ukrainian-refugees-temporary-protection-why-different-response-past-migrantcrises/
‘European Union Council directive 2001/55/EC establishing the existence of a mass influx of displaced persons from Ukraine’ (2022) Official Journal of the European Union L 71 p. 2
Micinski, N.R. (2022). The E.U. granted Ukrainian refugees temporary protection. Why the different response from past migrant crises? The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/16/eu-granted-ukrainian-refugees-temporary-protection-why-different-response-past-migrantcrises/
Petillo, K. (2022). Stuck in limbo: How Europe can protect Syrian refugees. European Council on Foreign Relations. https://ecfr.eu/article/stuck-in-limbo-how-europe-can-protect-syrian-refugees/
Amnesty International. (2021). Syria: Former refugees tortured, raped, disappeared after returning home. Amnesty International. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2021/09/syria-former-refugees-torturedraped-disappeared-after-returning-home/
Ozduzen, O., Korkut, U., & Ozduzen, C. (2021). ‘Refugees are not welcome’: Digital racism, online place-making and the evolving categorization of Syrians in Turkey. New Media & Society, 23(11), 3349–3369. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820956341
Hardman, N. (2022). Denmark’s Mismatched Treatment of Syrian and Ukrainian Refugees: Government Should Treat All Refugees Equally. Human Rights Watch. https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/03/16/denmarks-mismatched-treatment-syrian-and-ukrainian-refugees
Rosenzweig-Ziff, D., Rauhala, E., Bearak, M. (2022). As trains of Ukrainian refugees arrive in Berlin, E.U. offers warm but ‘temporary’ welcome. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/03/02/ukraine-refugees-berlin-temporary-protection/
International Rescue Committee. (2022). What is happening at the Belarus-Poland border? International Rescue Committee. https://www.rescue.org/article/what-happening-belarus-poland-border
International Rescue Committee. (2022). What is happening at the Belarus-Poland border? International Rescue Committee. https://www.rescue.org/article/what-happening-belarus-poland-border
Rosenzweig-Ziff, D., Rauhala, E., Bearak, M. (2022). As trains of Ukrainian refugees arrive in Berlin, E.U. offers warm but ‘temporary’ welcome. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/03/02/ukraine-refugees-berlin-temporary-protection/
CBS News. (2022). Black Ukraine refugees allege discrimination while trying to escape Russian invasion. CBS News. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/black-ukraine-refugees-racism-discriminationrussian-invasion/
Dias, I. (2022). Ukrainian Refugees Are Being Embraced by Europe. Why Weren’t Syrians? MotherJones. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2022/03/ukrainian-refugees-are-being-embraced-byeurope-why-werent-syrians/
The Associated Press. (2022). Europe’s different approach to Ukrainian and Syrian refugees draws accusations of racism. CBC. https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/europe-racism-ukraine-refugees-1.6367932
Al Jazeera Staff. (2022). ‘Double standards’: Western coverage of Ukraine war criticised. AlJazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/27/western-media-coverage-ukraine-russia-invasion-criticism
Dias, I. (2022). Ukrainian Refugees Are Being Embraced by Europe. Why Weren’t Syrians? MotherJones. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2022/03/ukrainian-refugees-are-being-embraced-byeurope-why-werent-syrians/
Munayyer, Y. (2022). On Watching Ukraine Through Palestinian Eyes. The Nation. https://www.thenation.com/article/world/ukraine-palestine-occupation/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily%204.03.2022&utm_term=daily
Long, C., Corder, M., & Tucker, E. (2022). EXPLAINER: Who’s a war criminal, and who gets to decide? AP News. https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-putin-biden-united-nations-jenpsaki-40e21508055f7ff65424afe2d8e406d8
GA Res 2198 (XXI), UNHCR, UN (28 July 1951) Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.
Dias, I. (2022). Ukrainian Refugees Are Being Embraced by Europe. Why Weren’t Syrians? MotherJones. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2022/03/ukrainian-refugees-are-being-embraced-byeurope-why-werent-syrians/
The 1906 Constitution of Iran would only age seventy three years before the theocracy resulting from the Islamic revolution would replace it in December of 1979. The new collection of laws took influence from Islamic principles and concepts. At first glance, with the exception of the inclusion of religious ideas within a number of articles, the Constitution reads as any other. However, it is not what’s written down that matters, rather whether it is put into practice; whether reality is congruent with legislation.
Chapter 3 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran concerns itself with the “Rights of the People.(Constitute Project, 2021)” Article 27, specifically, states that, “Public gatherings and marches may be freely held, provided arms are not carried and that they are not detrimental to the fundamental principles of Islam. (Constitute Project, 2021)” In short, peaceful demonstrations are permitted.
Despite this law having been in the constitution, untouched, since 1979, the Iranian regime is notorious for shutting down any form of protest, no matter how peaceful. The demonstrations of November of 2019 are a recent and tragic example.
Years of government mismanagement and corruption led to an almost 300% increase in the price of fuel; a natural resource that was supposed to have been nationalised, but never was (United States of Peace, 2021). Despite people being aware of the government’s brutally intolerant reactions to any form of opposition, the people of Iran courageously took to the streets in peaceful protest on the 15th of November (United States of Peace, 2021).. Unarmed civilians were met with riot police, tear gas, and live bullets (United States of Peace, 2021). Personal acquaintances of deceased protesters asserted that their companions died of gunshots to the head and/or to the chest (Human Rights Watch, 2020). Later, the testimony of a former security officer would assert that orders from the office of the Supreme Leader authorised the firing of bullets directly at people (Iran International, 2022). On the 16th of November, the government enacted an internet blackout, effectively cutting off the country from the international community (Human Rights Watch, 2020). This was detrimental given the fact that local news outlets are heavily censored. Social media was the primary form of communication between the average Iranian and the outside world and, for those who were unable to protest physically, it was a means of using their voice to accumulate attention from international media and other groups.
By the end of the protests, hundreds were killed, thousands were injured, and at least seven thousand people were arrested (many of whom had sustained severe wounds) (Ministry of Immigration and Integration, 2020). The specific numbers are a subject of controversy as the regime, unsurprisingly, threatened many of the victims’ families to silence. Furthermore, they were forbidden from holding funerals or hosting memorial services This attempt to supress the truth becomes increasingly abhorrent when we consider the fact that many of the victims’ families were already underprivileged, scilicet, low-income and working-class (Fassihi and Gladstone, 2019). Such systematic repression in response to a public gathering where arms were not carried (by anyone other than the IRGC and other such security forces) and the subject matter was not in any way “detrimental to the fundamental principles of Islam,” is emblematic of the regime’s efforts to subjugate the Iranian people and prevent them from seeking justice, reform, or even just closure for their loss. The “Rights of the People,” as outlined in the regime’s very own constitution have never and still do not translate into reality.
There are myriad other examples of protests that ended in public devastation including (but not limited to): the Student Protests of 1999, the 2009 Green Movement, and the 2017 Economic Protests (United States of Peace, 2021). All started peacefully, all ended in spilt blood and thousands of arbitrary arrests. Detainees have since been subject to torture, and in some cases, execution. Furthermore, their families have been routinely threatened and gaslighted. Violence from the theocracy is not unprecedented, but that is not an excuse to overlook these atrocities.
Every human should have the right to speak freely, especially with regards to their fundamental needs. The people of Iran have been deprived of this right for decades. They have, and continue to suffer under a regime that cannot even uphold the laws that they, themselves, wrote. It is the responsibility of the international community and human rights organisations to hold the Iranian government accountable for their infringement of human rights. Formal investigations into these crimes should not simply be ideas that are forgotten as soon as they are suggested, rather they should be seriously followed through. The regime has been a source of trauma and agony, not only for the people living on Iranian soil but also the millions of Iranians scattered across the globe. Their continuing presence in a position of authority is detrimental to both the victims of their obscenity and those who must witness it.
References:
Constitute Project. “Iran (Islamic Republic of)’s Constitution of 1979 with Amendments through 1989.” Constitute Project, 26 Aug. 2021.
Fassihi, Farnaz, and Rick Gladstone. “With Brutal Crackdown, Iran Is Convulsed by Worst Unrest in 40 Years.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 1 Dec. 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/01/world/middleeast/iran-protests-deaths.html.
Human Righs Watch. “Iran: No Justice for Bloody 2019 Crackdown.” Iran: No Justice for Bloody 2019 Crackdown, 17 Nov. 2020, https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/11/17/iran-no-justice-bloody-2019-crackdown.
Iran International. “IRGC Officer Says 850 Killed in Two Iranian Provinces Alone in 2019 Protests.” Iran International, Iran International, 6 Feb. 2022, https://www.iranintl.com/en/202202065630.
Ministry of Immigration and Integration. “Iran November 2019 Protests.” The Danish Immigration Service, 2020.
United States Institute of Peace. “Fact Sheet: Protests in Iran (1979-2020).” The Iran Primer, 21 Jan. 2021, https://iranprimer.usip.org/blog/2019/dec/05/fact-sheet-protests-iran-1999-2019-0.
In the United States’ latest revision on placing legal restrictions for women’s access to safe reproductive care, the Florida State Legislature voted to ban abortions for women after 15 weeks. This latest law is following a similar law passed in Mississippi which will go to the Supreme Court sometime this summer. Florida had been a haven for women seeking abortions throughout the south, so this ruling poses a threat to millions of women seeking safe healthcare. Access to safe abortions is a human right and despite the religious rationale given by conservative politicians, the reality is that abortions happen. Though sanitary and safe abortions with legal oversight are the ones restricted, illegal and horrific procedures that are a danger to women seeking them will continue.
The reality is that women who seek abortions, often who fall into younger age groups with comparatively less disposable income relative to their peers, are likely to seek protect their future and fear of the situation a baby would be born into. This results in many cases where women seek abortions whether they are legal or not. The New York Times published data on the abortions sought in Texas following a new restrictive law on abortions in that state. This data found that though the number of abortions shrunk, its impact was severely restricted by women seeking abortion pills and out-of-state legal abortions. In total, the New York Times estimates that abortions fell by about 10%.
The reality is that these laws don’t stop abortions, yet they endanger women and harm marginalized and lower income communities the most. Women who can afford to travel to another state, take time off from work, and pay for child care and/or transportation will continue to have safe and legal abortions. Yet, women who don’t have the ability to do so will be faced with a horrifying reality. Some effects include women carrying to term a fetus when they are not emotionally or physically prepared for or seeking a dangerous, painful, and horrifying illegal procedure. The Guttmacher Institute reports that in 1965, illegal abortions accounted for close to 200 deaths and 17% of pregnancy-related deaths.
The laws being introduced in Florida, Mississippi, and many others are ineffective in stopping abortions, and will result in horrifying deaths as well as traumatizing and unwanted pregnancies that are easily avoidable. These restrictions will further burden the most vulnerable and marginalized groups of our society.
References:
Gold, Rachel Benson. “Lessons from before Roe: Will Past Be Prologue?” Guttmacher Institute, 14 Sept. 2018, https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2003/03/lessons-roe-will-past-be-prologue. 2. Mazzei, Patricia, and Alexandra Glorioso. “Florida Lawmakers Vote to Ban Abortions after 15 Weeks.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 4 Mar. 2022, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/03/us/florida-abortion-ban.html?searchResultPosition=4. 3. Sanger-katz, Margot, et al. “Most Women Denied Abortions by Texas Law Got Them Another Way.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 6 Mar. 2022, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/06/upshot/texas-abortion-women-data.html
In January of 2019, former U.S. President, Donald Trump, and his administration, enacted the “Remain in Mexico” policy (MPP) (Abdalla, 2022). Since then, this program has become a contentious issue, making up a key tenant in Joe Biden’s 2020 election campaign (Abdalla, 2022). Shortly after President Biden’s inauguration, he ceased accepting new enrollments in this program, and finalized the eradication of MPP in June of 2021 (Abdalla, 2022). While fulfilling his promises, two states, Texas and Missouri contested the removal in court, and won, the program being reinstated in August (Abdalla, 2022). While Biden has since asked the Supreme Court to overrule this decision, and will begin doing so in April of 2022, the program continues (Abdalla, 2022).
Former president, Donald Trump, made much of campaign and tenure, on the premise of anti-migration and xenophobic sentiments (Abdalla, 2022). The MPP program is in consequences of these discriminatory ideologies, looking to end “frivolous” asylum-claims (Abdalla, 2022)). This program mandates the removal of any arriving migrants to the U.S.-Mexico border, forcing them to, much like its namesake, remain in Mexico (Human Rights Watch, 2022). These migrants must stay in Mexico while their claims are heard in court, processed, and ultimately until the decision has been made to grant or deny them entry into the U.S. (Abdalla, 2022).
Since its establishment in 2019, this program has come under heavy criticism for the dangerous conditions and violence asylum seekers are subjected to as a result (Abdalla, 2022; Human Rights Watch, 2022). It is estimated that over 71,000 migrants have been a part of this program in its duration, including children, and people with disabilities and chronic health issues (Human Rights Watch, 2022). Subsequently, many of these asylum seekers have reported to be at risk of and experienced violence, including rape, extortion, kidnapping, and murder (Abdalla, 2022). According to Human Rights Watch (HRW), this number reached upwards of 1,500 as of February 2021 (Human Rights Watch, 2022). Many of these migrants have also reported a lack of access to basic services, such as health care (Human Rights Watch, 2022). In addition to these grave violations of human rights, these asylum seekers have also been forced to to wait months, and even years to have their claims heard in court (Abdalla, 2022). This program is evidently a violation of human rights law, international law, and migration law, and yet it continues.
Since courts in Missouri and Texas ruled in favour of reinstating the program last year, Biden and his administration has made strides to make the process safer for asylum-seekers (Abdalla, 2022). Including providing interviews to evaluate the threat of returning to Mexico, determining whether these asylum seekers are well-founded in their fear, and thus not safe to return to Mexico (Abdalla, 2022). In addition to making access to lawyers readily available, and mandating that case decisions be made within 180 days (Abdalla, 2022). While these changes may be a step towards protecting more migrants, they are also largely symbolic. Migrants and asylum seekers alike continue to have their rights violated, and those who are forced back to Mexico, remain in danger.
This programs, and others like it, such as Title 42, a policy restricting asylum-claims during Covid-19, are evidence of the United States’ failing immigration laws, and xenophobic foundations (Human Rights Watch, 2022; Montoya-Galvez, 2022). It has been, according to HRW (2022), fundamental to Donald Trump’s efforts to destroy the asylum-system in the U.S., and to the exacerbation of the inadequacies of the current system. Ultimately, creating an institution that is deleterious to immigrants, and in contradiction to many laws. Sparking investigations into this program, and others like it; court challenges, and appeals to previously made legislative decisions by human rights groups, and others (Human Rights Watch, 2022).
In February of 2022, the Supreme Court answered calls-to-action by many of these organizations, deciding to rule on the ultimate fate of the MPP program (Montoya-Galvez, 2022). Arguments will begin in April of this year, against the court decisions to restore the policy (Montoya-Galvez, 2022). This case is a part of many other’s taken out by the Biden administration to fight the numerous blocks the Texan government has made to President Biden’s immigration policies (Montoya-Galvez, 2022). While there is hope that the Supreme Court will overturn the smaller court’s decisions, effectively ending the MPP’s reign, it does not end the atrocious conditions migrants experience when attempting to enter the United States. The high-levels of migrant apprehensions, and later detainments, in conjunction with other discriminatory policies, such as the aforementioned Title 42, continue to contribute to the deplorable circumstances surrounding migration (Montoya-Galvez, 2022).
References
Abdalla, J. (2022, January 7). ‘Remain in Mexico 2.0’: How did the Trump-era policy get revived? Aljazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/1/7/remain-in-mexico-how-did-a-trump-era-pol icy-get-revived 2. Human Rights Watch. (2022, February 7). ‘Remain in Mexico’: Overview and Resources. Human Rights Watch. https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/02/07/remain-mexico-overview-and-resources 3. Montoya-Galvez, C. (2022, February 19). Supreme Court agrees to weigh in on legal fight over the ‘Remain in Mexico’ border policy . CBS News. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/immigration-supreme-court-remain-in-mexico-border -policy/
