One World, One Dream: China in the Spotlight

The Olympic Games are traditionally a celebration of international cooperation and a time of global importance. The occasion of the 2008 Olympics taking place in Beijing means that China has been placed in the global spotlight – unfortunately, the first thing this spotlight has illuminated is an abysmal human rights record.

China’s human rights record has been marred for decades, the most indelible black mark being the Tiananmen Square incident in 1989, in which the violent suppression of pro-democracy protests resulted in 2,000 to 3,000 civilian deaths. Other continuing offenses include restrictions on freedom of expression (for example, the government aggressively censors the Internet), poor labor rights (there is a ban on independent trade unions), and repression of minorities such as Tibetans, Mongolians, and Uighurs. The treatment of prisoners is highly questionable, as is the government’s use of the death penalty, as China leads the world in executions.

China also has strong economic and diplomatic ties to Sudan, and has been criticized for not using that relationship to apply pressure on Sudan to stop the genocide in Darfur, in which 200,000 people have died. In fact, China has even vetoed proposals to impose sanctions on Sudan by the UN Security Council, likely to protect their own economic interests.

Criticism of China’s human rights record has not gone unheard now that the Olympic Games are offering a global platform for the opposition. A large and diverse set of organizations, most notably Reporters Without Borders, are calling for a worldwide boycott of the broadcasted event this summer. In February, Steven Spielberg withdrew as an artistic advisor to the event, citing his disapproval with China’s stance on Darfur. And most recently, amid increasingly popular and violent protests against Chinese rule in Tibet, protesters have interrupted torch-lighting ceremonies in several locations.

Some people believe that the attention itself will actually be the catalyst that brings change to China’s human rights policy. Francois Carrard, the legal advisor of the International Olympic Committee, has said that China has been “monitored” ever since Beijing was awarded the Games in 2001, and that the event will provide “an opportunity for considerable progress.” China has made changes recently, though admittedly modest: international attention may have influenced the recent decision to give Chinese internet users access to the BBC News website.

According to the official website of the 2008 Beijing Olympics, the slogan for this year’s event – “One World, One Dream” – is meant to express “the common wishes of people all over the world, inspired by the Olympic ideals, to strive for a bright future of Mankind.” It is undeniable that everyone shares the wish for a brighter future – the victims of genocide in Darfur, the Tibetan Buddhists facing military repression, and the sweatshop workers laboring in filth for a penance surely all want a brighter future in which China stands up for, protects, or at least allows them their deserved human rights. Let us hope that the 2008 Olympics gives occasion for the Chinese people and government to join in that wish as well.

Sources:
Human Rights Watch: China
USINFO: “Views Mixed on Boycotting 2008 Beijing Olympics”
BBC: “Chinese leader boosts Sudan ties”
BBC: “IOC backs China human rights push”
Human Rights in China
Official Website of the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games

Jena 6

When I walk through the hallways, what do you see?

Do you see the skin that happens to be black? Or what’s inside of me?

When one of your white friends die, will you pin the murder on me?

Or will you sabotage me and make fun of me jokingly?

You say that you aren’t a racist.

However, is it really true?

When I walk with my head held up high on the pathway to success, you mimic me and say that I’m a no-for-good, ghetto thug.

Stop looking at the color of my skin! Judge me by character, not by what influential stereotypes surround you.

It’s okay I understand. How could you anyway? When you discriminate against my “kind” because all of your friends send your personality and mind into a disarray.

Jena 6 is a group of six black teenage men who were charged with the beating of a white teenager, Justin Barker, at Jena High School in Jena, Louisiana. The case was followed by several white students of Jena High hanging painted nooses on a tree at the Jena High campus site. So as a protest, black students of Jena High took a specific day to sit under the tree with the nooses.

The Jena, Louisiana white youths were being treated too nicely when it came to racial discrimination. I don’t understand how, for example, when a black student commits racial discrimination against a white student and get charged with above and beyond consequences. However, when a white student commits racial discrimination against a black student it is taken very lightly. This brings me to the question of, are Dr. Martin Luther/Coretta Scott King’s, Rosa Parks, Malcolm X, Bessy Smith, Robert Williams, and many other black activists work in-vain?

I think that we have not really come to a change as a society, as we think we have. If you look around you will see that there still are discriminatory acts against many different ethnicities occurring each day. When will we see that this is useless and extremely dumb?

*Treat others the way you want to be treated* This is a rule i commonly think we should abide by. If we take this rule and apply it to our everyday  lives, i think that it’ll help us realize that discrimination against any type of people is wrong. Whether they be black, white, Asian, Indian, Native American, Puerto Rican, yellow, purple, red, blue or what ever ethnicity, discrimination of any type is just plainly wrong.

United States v. Human Trafficking

Human trafficking, to put it simply, is the harbouring, transport, or recruitment of people in order to exploit them in some manner. Essentially, this is modernised slavery.

The United States, however, is not cleared from such a thing taking place within its borders, as trafficking has been reported in each of the 50 states. America, in fact, seen as a destination for thousands who are trafficked for sexual and, to a lesser extent, labour exploitation, and though the precise numbers are undetermined there are approximately 50,000 people being trafficked. Aound 80% of those trafficked are female, and up to 50% are children.

One such case, reported about on Newsline recently, features two young, female foreign exchange students from Ukraine. Two men greeted the girls, and informed them that they were to take jobs waitressing in Detroit in order to hone their language skills. As soon as they arrived at the hotel in Detroit, however, the girls were stripped of their passports and papers, and told that they owed the men money for being brought to America, and were forced to work in a strip club every night for 12 hours, and turn over all of the money to the two men, who repeatedly abused them mentally, physically, and sexually.

These girls have since escaped and resumed as normal of a life as is to be expected after enduring such a thing, but thousands of other women are subject to much the same thing every year in the US alone. Unfortunately, it’s difficult to prevent these sorts of crimes as they are so under-the-radar that there cannot even be a precise number of incidences. It would seem that the government is, actually, doing the best they can to curtail these activities, but eliminating them altogether seems difficult nearly to point of becoming unfeasible.

The US recently put out a report that put countries on tiers of abuse. The third tier, meaning that their government has not complied with the minimum restrictions set down by the US. Uzbekistan, Cuba, Kuwait, Malaysia, Qatar, Bahrain, Burma, Equatorial Guinea, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Syria, and Venezuela can all claim the rights to this charming title, clearly far too many for such grievous offences. This raises no major issues at first, but then one must wonder: Why was India not on that list, when it’s claimed to have approximately 65 million forced labourers? So as not to alienate the Indian government, it‘s been revealed. Apparently, keep up and forging friendships is far more important than petty human trafficking. (The US got a “special cases” tier, if you’re wondering.)

This report that the US did, however, was a means by which to give the offending countries a time period to reform, and if they don’t, then they have to face sanctions, meaning no non-humanitarian, non-trade money (what exactly that leaves is questionable, however). So the US can place an embargo on Cuba for being Communist, but it’s just going too far to do that with countries that couldn’t care less about human trafficking. Again, humanitarian aid falls just a little short of being as important as money.

Sources

Newsline

Trafficking in Persons Report.

India Escapes…

Anti-Gay Promotes Discrimination

So far whenever I’ve written an article for my Modern Problems class, I haven’t been filled with anger at the topic I’ve chosen. I try to stay neutral, but I think it’s time I take a stand. Because to tell the truth, the topic I’ve chosen today makes me very angry and disappointed in humanity.

I read an article about gay rights. It told the story of a man whose partner needed to go to the hospital. When they called the ambulance, the injured man’s partner wasn’t allowed to ride in the vehicle. Instead he had to go home to get some paperwork, and when he arrived at the hospital, he was informed his partner had died in the ambulance. “And he says that for the rest of his life, he’ll wonder if his partner woke up and wondered where he was.” (voanews 1)

Can you imagine that pain? That guilt? That never-ending wonder of whether or not you failed to be there for a person you cared about?

How dare the paramedics forbid the couple from being together? What does it matter they were romantically involved – usually couples are best friends along with being lovers. If my best friend needed to be driven to the hospital in an ambulance, I’d insist upon accompanying her. Was it because the men were gay? Why should that matter to the paramedics?

Honestly, straight people think gays and lesbians are screwed up, but what do they think about us? Don’t you think they think the same thing? They probably think just the reverse of what we do – “How could they possibly be attracted to the opposite sex?”

There was a demonstration in Moscow where gays protested the banning of having a Gay Pride parade. Homophobes gathered and actually – get a load of this – threw eggs at the protestors. (aljazeera) How immature can you get?! Gays don’t protest to straight people being together. They accept it because it doesn’t affect them in any way. What goes on in the bedroom at night is of no concern to anyone else.

Compare sexuality to religion. Why shouldn’t we have the right to practice what we believe? Where is there a difference in the two beliefs? Conservatives and Catholics “define marriage in the state constitution as the union of one man and one woman.” (voanews 2) They argue that a man and a woman provide a better household environment for children. Isn’t that subjective?

A) If gays aren’t allowed to be married, how can they raise a child together in order to prove the point above?

B) If they were married and allowed to raise children together, who’s to say they would be inadequate parents? Can anyone honestly say that all man and woman relationships are healthy? I don’t think so.

Anti-gays are teaching their children discrimination is okay. They aren’t setting good role models for their own children.

http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2006-10/2006-10-30-voa44.cfm?CFID=213330235&CFTOKEN=51036823

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A3C12783-2886-4A22-8A85-0405210215FF.htm

http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2007-03/2007-03-09-voa30.cfm?CFID=213329470&CFTOKEN=45027153

Assisted Suicide

Assisted suicide, or, euthanasia, is the generally when a physician assists a patient who is terminally ill and wishes to die. Recently in France, there was a case of a woman who has a rare type of tumor that engulfed her entire face, making her eye bulge to 5 or 6 times it’s normal size and mutate her entire face. She was living with constant pain and the only thing she had to look forward to was death, as it was inevitable. The problem was she didn’t want to suffer until it happened, she wanted to die on her own terms, so she pressed the courts to change the euthanasia laws and to allow her doctor to assist her in her suicide by prescribing a lethal amount of drugs. After the court battle, the verdict returned as a no. The law would not change and her Doctor could not assist in her suicide. Two days later her body was found in her house, an apparent suicide, though the official autopsy is not in yet.

This incident has sparked much debate in France over euthanasia and it’s place in law. Currently it is still illegal, however; it is more of front line issue now and there are many debates taking place over it.

In Oregon, more than 300 people have killed themselves under the “Death with Dignity” law that was incited 10 years ago. The problem that occurs is the fact that those who wish to kill themselves with aid from doctors are not subject to a mental evaluation first. This leaves room for people who are depressed, but could be rehabilitated, to die.

Suicide is the choice of an individual to take their own life, I believe one should have the right to death if they so please. If someone wants to die, I do not believe it is unethical to assist them. I believe this because you are not causing harm to any non-consenting parties and in fact could be drastically helping the person who wants to die.

Dr. Kevorkian assisted in the suicides of over 100 terminally ill patients before he was arrested. I do not believe what he did was wrong. He advertised himself as a death consultant, and was contacted by terminally ill people who wanted to die, people who were sick of suffering and living in a hospital bed. He then put an IV in them, and they would push a button themselves, releasing the drugs that would end their own life. Kevorkian never forced anyone to do anything, never sought out people to do this to, they all came to him. He never killed them, as they pushed the button, ultimately, thus he assisted their suicide.

 

One could say; as a person, you gain certain rights, one of them being the right to live. If someone were to infringe on that right, without consent, such as murder, then that person has done something wrong. However, if one has the right to live, why then, can they not also have the right to die? There is absolutely no reason why anyone should not have the right to die. Someone’s life is their own, and though perhaps taking their life may be selfish, they have the complete right to do it, as it belongs to them. If someone is suffering, and wants to ends their life, there is nothing wrong with that. So if someone is suffering, and wants to end their life but hasn’t the means to do it, and another person assists them, there is also nothing wrong with that. I think it is wrong for the state to mandate what we do to our own bodies (so long as it doesn’t harm others.)

Dying a slow, painful death from diseases such as Cancer or Huntington’s disease does not sound very appealing. If one knows they are going to die, and it will be painful, and they will suffer, why wouldn’t they want to end their lives on their own terms, without suffering? Euthanasia; a painless death, A.K.A. assisted suicide is not something that should be illegal. When a terminally ill patient wants to end their life, why shouldn’t they be able to? If a doctor is allowed to stop treatment, why can’t they assist in a suicide? After all, stopping treatment is essentially assisting in a suicide, except the death doesn’t happen as quickly; instead it is painful and drawn out.

We all have the right to live, however; we all have the right to die.

http://www.lifenews.com/bio2370.html

http://www.koin.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=a02a1f99-3621-4b6a-8483-8e53f084df61

 

 

 

 

हिजड़ा (transgender) rights in India

“Everywhere all over India, in villages, cities, there are hijras! There is no place where you wouldn’t find them!” – Kamal Baksh, hijra

Hijras have long been involved in the make-up of India, between 500,000 to 1 million, and are a caste unto themselves. These people are neither male nor female; rather, they are what is known as the “third sex”. Most hijras are male by birth, and some may have been subject to castration to eradicate the production of male hormones, feeling that they were more suited towards femininity, although some simply prefer to take on feminine attributes.

In Indian society, this third gender has taken on a vast mix of connotations, and they are sometimes seen to be something akin to “holy”, as they appear to have surpassed even the most basic of human roles. This view leads some to hold a sort of fearful respect for the hijras, and they are often paid to perform blessings at childbirths and weddings. This respect, however, does not affect all people living in India, and many hold a great distaste for the hijras, with their often garish manner as a means by which to obtain money from people on the street. This has left the hijras with generally low opportunities for gainful employment, where they are forced to either perform, beg, or prostitute themselves. This third option is geared towards homosexual males, due to the fact that homosexuality is illegal in India, but as the hijras are neither gender, partaking in sexual dalliances with them is of no illegality.

These people are outcasts in their society. They are expected to exist, but generally looked upon with disdain by the members of the general public as unusual or freakish. Even in this day and age, hijras are denied basic rights and are often more subtly discriminated against They are given sub-human status in the law for the same reason that some regard them as holy: they don’t fit into the confines that “average” people are comfortable with. In the mind 20th century, the British rulers tried to outlaw being a hijra, as being such was seen to be an insult to decency.

In the past few years, however, the hijras’ rights are beginning to be found, and there are several incidences where a member of the gender has even been elected to high political offices. Still, though, hijras can have the right to vote, to obtain a passport, and even to be a issued a ration card denied them. Their medical plights are largely ignored, as well, and around half of the hijras living in Bangalore have contracted HIV through due to prostitution, as such a problem does not register with the government, being that the hijras are scarcely seen as human. Well-spread violence against hijras has a blind eye turned towards it for the same reason.

Clearly, such cases of disgusting discrimination oughtn’t to continue in the 21st century. In history, eunuchs had always had a higher place in Indian society, but along with the Western imperialism came a sense of values, values that sometimes debased the ideas that had always been in Indian society. The Indian government needs to take a look either into their past, or into the future if it will help them to stop their vast discrimination against such a large portion of the population.

Sources:

Taboo, television show

“Being a Eunuch”.

Quarantine

 Can you just imagine being taken away from everything you love, your family, home, children, maybe even your pets? Being taken from everything that you once knew, and all of a sudden it’s gone. Living one day as it was your last, to the fullest, and all of a sudden you basically have no life, and if you do have one you’re the only one in it! And for what reason? Because you’re sick or have some type of disease? Either way it goes being quarantined can definitely be prevented in more ways than one!

 In China, one of the biggest counties on planet Earth, people are being quarantined for having bird flu ( also know as Avian Influenza ), which is a contagious disease of animal origin caused by viruses that normally infect only birds and, less commonly, pigs, and can kill humans. If you ask me, if the people already have the disease, and are sadly going to die from the disease, why put more pain on them by taking them away from all they have and have ever known?

According to the news in China, other outbreaks of bird flu have included ones in the northwestern Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, two in the southwestern Tibet Autonomous Region and one in the southern Guangdong province. Sure, I understand local health officials being worried that other people may catch the disease, but there has to be some type of medicine to momentarily cure the flu!

On Feb. 25 a 44-year-old woman surnamed Zhang in Haifeng County in Guangdong, was killed by the H5N1 strain of the bird flu virus. This only raised the number of people to have had the flu virus to only 29, in which only 19 have been fatal! No, not 290 only 29, and sure I understand again the risks, but this sounds like something that can be stopped, and somehow dealt with at one point or another, where people dont have to be taken away from their home.

According to news reporters in Vietnam, the bird flu outbreak has stricken 11 people, and killed approximately 7! I understand why that may be a concern to people, because it’s half of the people that have been stricken with the virus, but my only question would be, when will the people ever see their families again?

Believe it or not people are being quarantined daily, whether it is China, Vietnam, or even Indonesia ( located in southern Asia ) it is being done, and frankly shouldn’t be! Is it really their fault that they have the virus? And will the people unfortunately have to die on an island, while being by themselves? How do you really think their family would feel? Just take one minute to think, and you’ll realize what I already see, people are being forced to live where they don’t want to live, for doing absolutely nothing wrong. And sadly, the only thing we can do is…. SIT BACK… AND WATCH IT HAPPEN:(

Works Cited:

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-03/17/content_7805977.htm

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-03/18/content_7816543.htm

China: The One Child Law

Here in America we understand that we are free to make many decisions. Most importantly we are free to decide our social and economic well being through the means of our jobs, education, and families. China, on the other hand, does not allocate the same freedoms to its people.

In china there is a law that has been in place since 1970 called the “One Child Law”. It seems pretty self explanatory as to what it is, but I will explain the stipulations surrounding it. In the 1950’s and 1960’s, Mao Zedong was the leader in china and he encouraged all of the Chinese people to have as many children as they could in order to bury the United States in a “Human Wave”. The population sky rocketed and the average amount of children per family rose to nearly 6! Mao then died and the new leader, Deng Xiaoping, took office. He saw the problem with the immense population spike, China did not have nearly enough natural resources to care for all these people, especially if the population  growth continued at or near the rate it had been. Xiaoping was afraid that China did not have enough food to feed all these extra mouths. This is when he put the “One Child Law” into use.

In this law there are a few exceptions. If you are a member of a minority group, a rural farmer, or have no siblings, you may have two children. The punishment for having another child is a large fine, a fine so large that many families in china are being crippled because of it. The problem is the wealthy can basically disregard this law because the fine is chicken scratch to them, while the poor are diminished if they have to pay the fine.

Some of the terrible things that have happened in regards to this law would be the fact that there are many, many instances of forced abortions. If a policeman or any state executive official saw you (a woman) pregnant and he knew you had another child already, he would then take you to an abortion clinic and force you to have an abortion.

A forced abortion, just think about that for a second.

 

Done? Well I’m done too, because to me that is just sickening and wrong, not to mention the fact that this one child law is a major violation human rights to being with. The fact that the Government has the ability to control their citizen’s bodily functions is disturbing to me. Then again what else can you expect from China? The country where millions of people were displaced simply because the government wanted to build a dam in the middle of a town, the country where a highly populated lower-class village was bulldozed because the government wanted to put a train there, the amount of human rights violation that china has shown the world is ridiculous.

Many people have accused the Chinese government of genocide in regards to the fact that the practice of eugenics, or, selective breeding, has been taking place. The government can deny your right to marry if you are mentally ill, handicapped, or for any reason they want basically. Recently it has been shown that the state has been forcing woman of the Uyghur ethnic group to have abortions all over the country. This seems to me to be an attempt to minimize the amount of Uyghur people there are living in China.

Some solutions to the food problems and other problems which were the reason for this law in the first place can be found outside violating human rights, I think. For instance, China is a world power with a large amount of income from exporting; they can afford to buy all the food they would need to sustain their people. An economic growth is, in my opinion, the best way to control a population explosion. This is because with wealthier citizens, the need for more children lowers. This is because less people are needed in a family in order to keep the family running (they would no longer need to have 5 people working to pay the bills, only 3). I also think along with economic growth, child labor laws need to be examined in china, because currently, there are none. If there were more enforced child labor laws, then the incentive to have children in order to have them work and make money for the family will be gone, as they will not be able to work.

The one child law is a major violation of Human rights, but this law is a single straw in the haystack that is human rights violation in China. I think China really needs to get its act together, if you’re going to claim to be a world leader, and if you’re going to actually BE a world leader, then lead in a way that isn’t despicable, use your sphere of influence to encourage and advance people, not shun and abuse them.

Grow up China.

 

 

Sources:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/11/wchina311.xml

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article3452460.ece

The Military Junta in Burma

Human rights violations in the southeast Asian country of Burma (officially known as Myanmar since 1989) have been occurring at alarming and increasing rates for the past several decades, with offenses ranging from restrictions of freedom of expression and assembly to more overt abuses like forced labor, unlawful execution, and persecution of minority ethnic groups. Almost all of these violations can be traced to the efforts of the existing government, the military junta, to maintain a forced control over the country. (A military junta is a government by a committee of military leaders. Burma’s military junta is officially known as the State Peace and Development Council, or the SPDC.)

Burma was a British colony prior to 1948, and after they attained independence they established themselves as a democratic republic with an elected president. But due to instability left over from colonial dependency and tension, the government was toppled in 1962 by a military coup. The new military government established a narrow one-party system and pursued socialistic policies. This government was protested almost from the beginning, and for every protest there was a violent suppression in return. Most dramatically, the 1988 pro-democracy protests known as the 8888 Uprising resulted in the massacre of hundreds of citizens. This conflict also resulted in a turnover of power – but only from one militaristic government to another, the SPDC.

In an effort to appease the obviously discontented people, the military junta held free elections in 1990. But when the opposition party, the National League for Democracy (NLD) led by Aung San Suu Kyi, won an overwhelming majority, the SPCD refused to step down and placed Suu Kyi under house arrest. Since then, human rights violations have only grown as the military junta struggles to retain control over a country that overwhelmingly opposes its rule. Forced labor, child labor, and human trafficking are all used to support the unstable economy. The military also widely uses sexual violence as an instrument of control, especially systematic rape and the use of sex slaves. Citizens’ intellectual freedoms are also strictly limited, as the government censors the internet and other media and restricts opposition groups from gathering. An estimated 1,100 political prisoners are being held without trial for an indeterminate amount of time.

Despite these prevalent inhumane offenses, the situation in Burma went relatively unnoticed and unreported in the United States until late last year. In the spring of 2007, deteriorating economic conditions (paired with an overnight, unwarranted doubling in the price of fuel) spurred a massive new wave of protests lead by Buddhist monks. The regime’s attempts to suppress the demonstrations resulted in the arrests of 200 to 700 monks, over 200 deaths (though the government’s official count remains at nine), extensive use of tear gas and violent police tactics, and a near-shutdown of telecommunications.

It was this troubling bloodshed and chaos that finally led the UN, the EU, and ASEAN (the Association of Southeast Asian Nations), among other international organizations, to condemn the actions of the military junta. But how much good has been accomplished by releasing position statements? Though UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon quickly called on the military to end the violence and start a dialogue with the pro-democracy opposition, the military junta has obviously not taken this recommendation to heart. How much action has actually taken place to rectify the situation in Burma? China, India, Russia, and Ukraine continue to sell substantial numbers of weapons to the SPDC, and last year Russia even announced they were selling a nuclear test reactor to Burma.

The United States and all other nations should not recognize the military junta as a legitimate government, because the means they have used to attain and maintain power are obviously illegitimate. If they have not already, foreign governments need to begin imposing serious economic sanctions on Burma, specifically targeting their oil industry and gem trade, making it clear that sanctions will not be lifted until human rights are respected. And in order to ensure that these sanctions hurt the military junta and not the people of Burma, as well as to facilitate a more peaceful transfer to democracy, we need to send as much humanitarian aid as can be afforded. This aid could be used to address endemic human rights problems domestically as well as to help maintain the popular democracy movement.

But aside from these broad policy recommendations, what can you, as an individual, do to help end the brutal violence and unfair balance of power in Burma? As Aung San Suu Kyi has said, “Please use your freedom to help ours.” First, you can contact an appropriate elected official and encourage them to take up the issue of Burma’s situation in whatever capacity they can. You can help spread awareness by writing in to your local newspaper or speaking to acquaintances about the situation. Also, many independent student groups have formed in support of the democracy movement in Burma, which try to raise awareness and funds through speaking events and benefits. At best, you can contribute directly to the movement by donating to an organization like the US Campaign for Burma, the Foundation for the People of Burma, or Give to Burma; or even by volunteering with the Burma Volunteer Program on the Thailand border (as at least one City High alumna has done).

“It is not power that corrupts but fear. Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it.”

– Aung San Suu Kyi.

Sources:

Human Rights Watch: Burma in the 2008 World Report

Global Policy Forum: Burma/Myanmar
The Guardian: “Paranoid, insular and inept, the junta has no plan B”
The Guardian: “How Junta stemmed a saffron tide”
Amnesty International: “Myanmar authorities step up crackdown on protesters”

Capital Punishments

There are many types of capital punishments. Some of the most common types of capital punishments are decapitation, electrocution, firing squad, gas chamber, hanging, lethal injection, and shooting. Decapitation means to remove limbs from living organisms. Electrocution you can most likely draw a conclusion to, for example the electric chair. A firing squad is a method of capital punishment, particularly common in times of war. It’s generally composed of several soldiers or pes-eace officers. A gas chamber is basically a chamber in which people are forced into and locked inside of. Then who ever is in charge opens up the top and pours the gas holding substances over them and onto the floor. The gas eventually chokes the people inside. We all know what a hanging consists of and shooting so all that’s left to explain is lethal injection. Lethal injection is the process involving injecting a person with poisonous drugs to cause death.

Now that you know the some of the types of capital punishments we can really get this post started. Why are these considered just regular punishments? When we were little a punishment was like time out in the corner or getting your toys taken away. Since when did killing people and violating their rights to life become a form of punishment? It seems as if we are conflicting with a lot of the rights given to us as citizens of the United States.  These forms of “punishments” are cruel and unusual.

Each year there are about 250 people added to death row and 35 executed.The death penalty is the harshest form of punishment enforced in the United Sates today. Once a jury has convicted a criminal offense they go to the second part of the trial, the punishment phase. If the jury recommends the death penalty and the judge agrees then the criminal will face some form of execution – lethal injection is the most common form used today. There was a period from 1972 to 1976 that capital punishment was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Their reason for this decision was that the death penalty was cruel and unusual punishment under the eighth amendment. The decision was reversed when new methods of execution were introduced according to this source.

My question for this article is why would they go back, and make it legal just because they’ve found another way to kill people?  I understand that sometimes the people given these sentences deserve what they are in-store for, but I personally don’t believe that it is right to sacrifice others lives.

Additional Information-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_States