Qatar’s World Cup

“The deadliest sporting event in history”

By Muhammed Bamne

Qatar: FIFA must act on labour abuses as World Cup qualifiers kick off - Amnesty  International
Courtesy of Colin Foo via Amnesty International

           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.

YouTube. (2022). Fifa/Qatar: Compensate Migrant Workers for Abuses. YouTube. Retrieved November 27, 2022, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzjdQe8Ypkk.

The Right to Post, Like and Share

By: Peter Xavier Rossetti

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:

  1. 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
  2. “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/
  3. “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/
  4. “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

A Call for a Stronger Response to Russian Aggression in Ukraine

By: Hero Aiken

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:

  1. 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/.
  2. CANDLELIGHT, amnesty.sa.utoronto.ca/about/our-chapter-2/.
  3. 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.
  4. “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.
  5. “Tracking Sanctions against Russia.” Reuters, Thomson Reuters,
    graphics.reuters.com/UKRAINE-CRISIS/SANCTIONS/byvrjenzmve/.
  6. 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.

Double Standards: What the Ukrainian Refugee Crisis Reveals About Western Racism

By: Jenna Barhoush

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:

  1. ‘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
  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/
  3. ‘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
  4. 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/
  5. 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/
  6. 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/
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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/
  10. 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
  11. Amnesty International. (2022). Poland: Digital Investigation Proves Poland Violated Refugees’ Rights. Amnesty International.
  12. 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
  13. Amnesty International. (2022). Poland: Digital Investigation Proves Poland Violated Refugees’ Rights. Amnesty International.
  14. 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/
  15. 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/
  16. 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/
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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/
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. GA Res 2198 (XXI), UNHCR, UN (28 July 1951) Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.
  23. 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/

“Rights of the People” : The Suppression of Freedom of Speech in Iran

By: Anonymous

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:

  1. Constitute Project. “Iran (Islamic Republic of)’s Constitution of 1979 with Amendments through 1989.” Constitute Project, 26 Aug. 2021.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. Ministry of Immigration and Integration. “Iran November 2019 Protests.” The Danish Immigration Service, 2020.
  6. 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.

Protect Her Choice for Her Protection

By: Penelope Giesen

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:

  1. 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

Remain in Mexico: Human Rights Abuses on the U.S.-Mexico Border

By: Tia DeRuiter

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

  1. 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/

The Ethics of the Winter 2022 Olympics

By: Tia DeRuiter

As the Winter 2022 Olympic Games come to a close, the questions of its morality still
persist. Located in Beijing, China, this year’s Olympics came under immense criticism
throughout the media due to the numerous human’s rights abuses occurring in the country.
Despite the high levels of surveillance throughout the country, restrictions in freedom of
speec, and the persecution, detainment, and torture of Uyghur Muslims and other ethinic
groups, the Games continued (Lamney 2022; Wharton, 2022). Many human rights
organizations challenged the International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) choice to hold the event
even in the country, as it has been recognized that China’s behaviours are paramount to
extreme human rights abuses, and the treatment of the Uyghur Muslims akin to genocide
(Lamney, 2022). Calling into consideration the ethics of the Olympics.

Unfortunately, the criticisms are not new, similar ones were raised prior to 2008
Summer Games in Beijing (Lamney, 2022). Many hoped these Games would prove to be
beneficial for China, encouraging them to better-position themselves in the world, as well as
improve their human rights (Lamney, 2022). Yet, these optimisms proved futile, while China
has grown influentially in the last decade, its ill-treatments of its citizens have become more
dire (Lamney, 2022).

Over the past decade, the world has seen China evolve into an authoritarian state, its
population under constant surveillance, and facing harsh punishments for speaking out
against the regime (Lamney, 2022). In 2017, numerous reports came forth, detailing the
experience of Uyghur Muslims, and other ethnic minorities, experiences in China’s Xinjiang
“re-education” camps (Amnesty International, 2022). Including arbitrary imprisonment,
torture, forced labour, forced sterilization and abortions, and the suppression of Islam
(Amnesty International, 2021). Under the guise of quelling extremism, the Chinese
Government has gone to extraordinary lengths to mask the true nature of these camps
(Amnesty International, 2021). Since then, numerous human right’s organizations, and
governments alike have called out China’s deplorable violations, such as Amnesty
International, and Human Rights Watch

When it was confirmed, in the spring of 2021, that the Winter Olympics will indeed
be held in Beijing, it sparked a wave of denouncements on the international stage. While
many columnists drew attention to the rights abuses, and the boycotts government officials,
like President Biden, have made, few called out what this piece will argue should have
happened: a complete boycott while the Games remained in China (Wharton, 2022).

A key point being made in many articles is that a total boycott of the Olympics would
be harmful, taking away chances the athletes have worked their whole lives for (Lamney,
2022; Wharton, 2022). While it is difficult to not sympathize with this viewpoint, and the
athletes potential loss, it is, in my opinion, inappropriate to dismiss the situation in China for
this reason. Yes, athletes work hard, devote their lives, and give up a lot for their sport, but
people in China are being persecuted for their religion, tortured for basic beliefs, and
imprisoned for speaking out against these injustices (Amnesty International, 2021). The stage
may be the largest in the world, the exposure and competition like no other for the athletes,
but that is not justification for complicity in this treatment. Like many human rights
organizations, this excusal of China’s violations is akin to sports-washing (Regencia, 2022).
That being, “the practice of an individual, group, corporation, or nation-state using a major or
prestigious international sport to improve its reputation, through hosting a sporting event, the
purchase or sponsorship of sporting teams, or by participation in the sport itself’ (Wikipedia).
Much like the Summer 2008 Olympics in Beijing, this event, and the attendance of it, not
only ignores the human rights abuses, but provides China with a stage to boost its reception
(Lamney, 2022; Regelcia, 2022). Despite the devastation it would be for athletes to miss-out
on the Olympics, it is what should have been done, if not to call out China’s atrocious
behaviours, then to not excuse them, or grant an opportunity to disguise them.

The IOC, and some athletes alike, took this excuse one step further, calling the
Olympics a space free from politics, which is instead focused on unity (Lamney, 2022;
Wharton, 2022). While the claim itself is not only preposterous, it is also historically and
contemporarily inaccurate. The Olympics has long been used as international stage for
politics, from the 1936 Games in Germany during the Nazi regime, to Tommie Smith and
John Carlos raising their fists during the American anthem in the 1968 Mexico City Games
(Lamney, 2022; Wharton, 2022). It too has been contended that the continued existence of the
Olympics itself rests in politics, those in which are quite troublesome (Wharton, 2022). This
year’s Olympics, and the decision to hold them in China, is claimed to be one in which stems
from China’s monetary status as an authoritarian state (Wharton, 2022). Unlike other
democratic countries, China does not have to ask and get permission for spending large
amounts on the Olympics, rather its state has full discretion over its spending (Wharton,
2022). Because of this, many have speculated that in the near future, we will begin to see a
pattern of the IOC choosing authoritarian states for their hosts, in order to avoid obstacles and
conflicts in planning and hosting the Games (Wharton, 2022). Thus, while the IOC contends
the Olympics to be a space free from politics, it is entrenched in them, and nothing to ignore.
These are not the Games of unity, but rather those of division, placing the athletes’ and
viewers’ importance above those suffering grave rights violations in China.

The Olympics have long been an enjoyable event for many people, supporting your
country’s athletes, and watching the best of the best. Yet, this year’s Games have posed a
difficult situation for many, between rooting for their country, and acknowledging the
egregious human rights violations occurring in China. While it is hard not to see the validity
of the athletes’ attendance at this year’s Olympics, especially when appealing to emotions, it
is nonetheless a Games entrenched in ethics. In my opinion, this year’s Olympics were
unethical, dismissive, and unfortunately communicative of a disastrous message. That being,
it is okay to put aside China’s atrocious behaviours, and allow them to mask such, in order to
continue the event, its profits, and ultimately its blissfully ignorant enjoyability on an
international stage.

References

  1. Amnesty International. (2022, January 11). China: Draconian repression of Muslims in
    Xinjiang amounts to crimes against humanity. Amnesty International.
    https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2021/06/china-draconian-repression-of-musli
    ms-in-xinjiang-amounts-to-crimes-against-humanity/
  2. Lamney , D. (2022, February 6). We can’t let China use the Olympics to mask genocide and
    human rights abuses . The Guardian.
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/06/we-cant-let-china-use-olym
    pics-mask-genocide-human-rights-abuses
  3. Regencia, T. (2022, February 3). Chinese exiles: Boycott winter olympics over Uighur
    ‘genocide’. Winter Olympics News.
    https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/2/chinese-exiles-boycott-beijing-olympics-ov
    er-uyghur-genocide
    Wikipedia (n.d.). Sportswashing. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sportswashing
  4. Wharton , D. (2022, February 1). The ‘feel guilty games’?: China’s human rights issues have
    forever marked the Beijing Olympics. Los Angeles Times.
    https://www.latimes.com/sports/olympics/story/2022-02-01/feel-guilty-games-beijingwinter-olympics

Release Osman Kavala

By: Lara Hovagimian

Background

Turkey’s decision to ignore the Council of Europe’s deadline to release Turkish activist and businessperson Osman Kavala has come as no surprise. Assaults on human rights and the rule of law have been commonplace in the last few years, particularly since the attempted 2016 coup against President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. In fact, Kavala was indicted due to his alleged role in the July 2016 attempted coup, hours after being acquitted for “attempting to overthrow the government by force and violence” in connection with the 2013 mass protests which began in Gezi Park (Human Rights Watch, 2020). Kavala was accused of financing the Gezi Park protests, attempting to overthrow the government by helping orchestrate the 2016 coup, and espionage. He denies the charges, which carry a life sentence without parole. After a hearing on January 17, 2022, a Turkish court ruled that Kavala should stay in prison, despite his more than four years in pre-trial detention (ABC News, 2022).

The European Court judgment in Kavala v. Turkey (Application no. 28749/18) found violations of the following provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights: Article 5(1) (right to liberty and security), Article 5(4) (right to a speedy decision on the lawfulness of detention), and the rarely used Article 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights) taken together with Article 5(1). The Court continues to demand the Turkish government to release Kavala. Any continuation of his detention would prolong the violations and breach the obligation to abide by the judgment in accordance with Article 46(1) of the Convention. The Court said that by detaining Kavala, the Turkish authorities have “pursued an ulterior purpose, namely to silence him as human rights defender” (International Commission of Jurists, 2020).

Osman Kavala’s History of Activism

In 2002, Kavala founded the civil society organization Anadolu Kültür. It works towards developing collaborations among artists, cultural workers, and NGOs from Turkey and its neighbours, as well as other countries. The organization also supports youth social involvement, and implements projects to strengthen Turkey’s relations with Armenia. It has also published works relating to the history of the Armenian Genocide and the Syrian refugee crisis (Anadolu Kültür).

What Can You Do?

You should consider signing a petition to release Osman Kavala from prison at https://www.osmankavala.org/en/statements-about-osman-kavala/202-a-petition-to-the-president-prime-minister-and-grand-national-assembly-of-turkey-by-an-international-network-of-artists. The petition appeals to the President, Prime Minister and Grand National Assembly of Turkey to review the case of Osman Kavala as a matter of urgency. This petition has already been signed by several prominent academics and journalists, including Thomas de Waal, Christina Maranci, and Clare Shine.

You should also considering looking at Anadolu Kültür’s publications at https://www.anadolukultur.org/EN/36-our-publications/, which remain the fruits of Kavala’s work as an activist.

References

  1. “Turkey: Events of 2020.” Human Rights Watch, https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2021/country-chapters/turkey#.
  2. Bilginsoy, Zeynep. “Turkish court rules to keep philanthropist Kavala in prison.” ABC News, ABC, January 17, 2022, https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/trial-philanthropist-dozens-resumes-turkey-82303822.
  3. “Turkey: Release Osman Kavala.” International Commission of Jurists, September 7, 2020, https://www.icj.org/turkey-release-osman-kavala/.
  4. Anadolu Kültür, https://www.anadolukultur.org/EN/.

The Janus-Face of Injustice: A Scathing Review of Humanity

By: Hero Aiken

Internationally, Canada has a spotless reputation. It is a clean, developed, technologically advanced country with a plethora of natural resources. In addition, the people are known for their kindness and exemplary treatment of others. In fact, to foreigners, “Canada is bathed in a glow as rosy as the leaf upon its flag.” (How Canada is Perceived Around the World, CBC, §3). The city of Toronto represents the crowning jewel of Canadian urbanism for many. It merges sophistication, excitement, opportunity and wonder, all while boasting the title of “most multicultural city in the world.” (Toronto: the City of 140 Languages, BBC). For these reasons, it might give the uninformed observer whiplash to consider the underlying failures of this fabled city to protect its most vulnerable. On a daily basis, commuting along Toronto’s major arterial roads will expose the commuter to countless unhoused individuals. It is enough to shatter any unqualified and false illusion of the city and, by extension, the country as a whole and its citizens. On average, 8,700 Torontonians are experiencing homelessness on any given day. This means that for every 10,000 people in Toronto, approximately 30 are homeless (About Toronto Homelessness, Homes First). And yet, the city maintains only 6,800 beds for those experiencing homelessness, many of which are only 24-hour respite beds (City of Toronto). How can good PR mask such glaring negligence of our most at risk? When brutal Canadian nights are spent in outdoor parks and on street corners, babies and seniors alike feel hunger gnawing at their insides. More than 100 unhoused people died in Toronto in 2021 alone (CBC). How do we muster the audacity to present such a falsely noble image to the world?

From this example come the following questions: where has this delusion come from? Who is perpetuating it? What are the consequences of its continued existence and success?

Unfortunately, in the midst of tragedy, the overwhelming response often consists of disguising the issue. For example, in the case of homelessness in Toronto, funds and efforts are lent to make transit shelters and subway stations inaccessible to those in need of shelter. Iron bars are placed on park benches to avoid the unseemly sight of someone hopeless to get some rest. Unnecessary architecture, like the pop-up restaurant that evicted dozens of unhoused individuals in 2019, misuse resources that could be allocated to the care of these people. These changes do nothing to solve the underlying issues which cause homelessness (The Problem with Literally Dining in A Bubble, Toronto Star). Toronto is not alone in this hypocrisy, perpetuating an aura of wholesome trustworthiness while simultaneously declining to meet the needs of the people. Many are those jurisdictions that enjoy a glamorous appearance in the sight of the world, all while perpetuating injustices on their people. Failure to clothe, feed and house all those who are in need is among humanity’s greatest failures. Who can we rely on if we cannot rely on each other?

The above is a concrete example of this frightening phenomenon. If it a surface level slight -if the material reality of millions was not affected by this farce – it would be unreasonable of me to condemn it so harshly. After all, who has not attempted to show their best face to the world? Who does not shy away from their faults? As it stands, however, the failure to recognize this issue will prevent the full provision for the survival and thriving of individuals both locally and worldwide. Thus, we would be irresponsible to denounce it in any but the clearest terms. How can we respect the humanity of each person 一 including “the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services” (UDHR) 一 if we do not acknowledge that it is not indeed being respected? To amputate the roots of inequality and suffering in society, we must cease to be dazzled by the blooms of good manners and good PR. This article aims to sweep aside these distractions and reveal our dangerous attitudes towards injustice and inequality. As long as an ounce of humanity’s energy is spent masking our equals’ suffering, rather than working towards the alleviation of their suffering, we will fail to enact lasting change.

Our greatest strength as humans lies in our ability to collaborate and pool our resources. Conversely, our greatest weakness is our propensity towards factionalism and discord. That said, two things can be gleaned from this: first, we will be unable to act ethically and care for all of humanity if we do not overcome the delusion that we are already doing so. Second, if we do not overcome this misapprehension and work together to provide equality, all will be weakened. Even those who do not suffer acutely from inequality will not fail to suffer from the failure to address it. These are the stakes we are operating under. We cannot afford to hide from our mistakes any longer.

Works Cited

“About Toronto Homelessness.” Homes First, 9 Feb. 2021,

homesfirst.on.ca/about-toronto-homelessness/#:~:text=There are approximately 8,700 people,wait list for supportive housing.

City of Toronto. “City of Toronto 2021/22 Winter Plan Adds Additional Shelter Spaces, Affordable Homes and Enhanced Street Outreach for People Experiencing Homelessness.” City of Toronto, 22 Oct. 2021,

www.toronto.ca/news/city-of-toronto-2021-22-winter-plan-adds-additional-shelt er-spaces-affordable-homes-and-enhanced-street-outreach-for-people-experie ncing-homelessness/#:~:text=From April 2020 to September,within the Toronto Community Housing.

Drolet, Gabrielle. “The Problem with Literally Dining in a Bubble.” Thestar.com, 8 Apr. 2019,

www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/2019/04/08/the-problem-with-literally-dini ng-in-a-bubble.html.

“Ever Wonder Why You Can’t Lie down on Most City Benches? It’s Thanks to ‘Defensive Design’ | CBC News.” CBCnews, CBC/Radio Canada, 2 July 2019, www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/how-defensive-design-leads-to-rigid-benches -metal-spikes-and-visual-violence-in-modern-cities-1.5192333.

“More than 100 Unhoused People Died in Toronto This Year. Some Say the Shelter System Is ‘Crumbling Quickly’ | CBC News.” CBCnews, CBC/Radio Canada, 30 Dec. 2021,

www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/homeless-deaths-toronto-2021-1.6300513. “Toronto: the City of 140 Languages.” BBC Travel, BBC,

www.bbc.com/travel/article/20170728-canadas-city-of-140-languages.

Aiken 5

“Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” United Nations, United Nations, www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights.

“What the Rest of the World Thinks of Canada | CBC News.” CBCnews, CBC/Radio Canada, 3 July 2015,

www.cbc.ca/news/canada/how-canada-is-perceived-around-the-world-1.31323 43.