The Human Rights Blog

Yesterday, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights heard closing arguments in the case of Leopoldo López v. the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, which involves hundreds of Venezuelan politicians who were disqualified or otherwise blocked from exercising their political rights.  Among the disqualified politicians is Leopoldo López, the popular, charismatic, and Harvard-educated leader of Venezuela’s grassroots opposition party, Voluntad Popular. Venezuela’s Comptroller General barred him from holding public office first for three years and later for six, without formally charging him or trying him in a court of law.  Specifically, López was prohibited from running for office in Venezuela’s November 2008 elections, where he was favored to become Metropolitan Mayor of the city of Caracas, the most important political position in Venezuela second to the President.  Incidentally, López was expected to defeat a member of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez’s party, the United Socialist Party.  Many, including López, believe that Venezuela’s government is utilizing these disqualifications to protect Hugo Chavez’s political power, as López could be a direct threat to Chavez’s presidency in the upcoming 2012 presidential elections.  In fact, at a December 2008 rally, Chavez himself said, “those who betray Chavez will die politically.”

Before his disqualification, López served as Mayor of Chacao. While in office, he held a public approval rating of over ninety percent. In 2008, the World Mayor Project named him one of the top three mayors in the world.  Despite his overwhelming popularity, he has suffered beatings, kidnappings and multiple assassination attempts by those seeking to squash chances of Chavez’s ouster.

López, along with other banned politicians, brought their case before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, based in San Jose, Costa Rica after the Constitutional Court of the Venezuelan Supreme Court refused to hear his case, citing a lack of jurisdiction.

Disqualification of politicians without a criminal trial violates international law:

The disqualification of some 575 Venezuela politicians is in direct derogation of Article 23 of the American Convention, which states,

“1. Every citizen shall enjoy the following rights and opportunities:

a. to take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives;

b. to vote and to be elected in genuine periodic elections, which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and by secret ballot that guarantees the free expression of the will of the voters; and

c. to have access, under general conditions of equality, to the public service of his country.”

2. The law may regulate the exercise of the rights and opportunities referred to in the preceding paragraph only on the basis of age, nationality, residence, language, education, civil and mental capacity, or sentencing by a competent court in criminal proceedings. (See American Convention on Human Rights)

Additionally, these actions violate articles 42 and 65 of the Venezuelan Constitution, which states that political disqualification can only occur by a final decision, i.e. conviction of a crime.  Specifically, article 42 states,

“Anyone who loses or renounces to nationality loses citizenship. The exercise of citizenship or any political rights can be suspended only by final judicial decision in the cases provided by law.”

Article 65 reads,

“[p]ersons who have been convicted of crimes committed while holding office or other offenses against public property, shall be ineligible to run for any office filled by popular vote, for such period as may be prescribed by law after serving their sentences, depending on the seriousness of the offense.”

The ban of these politicians is scheduled to expire in 2017 while Chavez’s government investigates the politicians on “corruption charges.”  In the meantime, the world will be waiting for the Inter-American Court’s final ruling, which is expected to come in late May or June 2011.  And, although Venezuela is bound to the Court’s final ruling, the country’s Court Representative, German Saltron, indicated that Venezuela may, nonetheless, choose to ignore the ruling, stating that acquiescence would only come if Venezuela’s own Supreme Court decides that the ruling is constitutional.  (See M. Jimenez, “Venezuela says it may ignore international court’s decision on blacklisted politicians,” The Canadian Press, Mar. 2, 2011.)

For More Information, please read:

Case Summary of Leopoldo López vs. State of Venezuela

Venezuelan Democracy Gets Its Day In Court by Leopoldo López, The Huffington Post, March 1, 2011.

PETITION 275-2008, July 25, 2008, Admissibility of Leopoldo López  Mendoza, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Organization of American States

Popularity: 3% [?]

Despite the Obama Administration’s failings and poor decisions in issues of and related to human rights this past year, much success has been made by the Obama Team in the advancement of the rights of indigenous individuals.  After a stream of initiatives aimed at promoting American Indian communities as well as the President’s December 8th signing of the Cobell v. Salazar settlement into law, President Obama himself delivered an encouraging announcement during the White House Tribal Nations Conference on December 16^th; that the United States now endorses the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), a measure that was previously rejected by the United States since its adoption in 2007.

Over 2 million American Indians from more than 560 tribes live in the United States.  While the plight of American Indians throughout the course of US history is by now universally known, the fact remains that these groups continue to suffer from disease, crime, poverty, domestic violence and substance abuse at rates much higher than the rest of the US population.  For example, according to think-tank Share the World’s Resources, a Native American in the United States is 600 times more likely to contract tuberculosis than the general population and 62% more likely to commit suicide than the general population.” (The State of the World’s Indigenous People, Jan. 15, 2010)  In fact, during his announcement, President Obama stated, “[w]e know that Native Americans die of illnesses like diabetes, pneumonia, flu — even tuberculosis — at far higher rates than the rest of the population.  Closing these gaps is not just a question of policy, it’s a question of our values.”

The plight of America’s Indians is certainly not unique, however, as indigenous people in countries throughout the world continue to suffer similar hardships; both from years of governmental abuse and systematic discrimination, as well as due to changes in our environment, such as rising ocean waters, drought, floods, and changing ecosystems.  For example, the Inuit people of the Arctic regions of Russia, Greenland, Canada and the US view climate change as an enormous impediment to their cultural survival, causing them to lose homes, access to work, and the ability to partake in traditional activities like hunting, which is closely linked to their unique cultural identity. (See Rethinking climate change from a human rights perspective, The Human Rights Blog, Nov. 16, 2009)

History of UNDRIP

Among the many human rights covenants and declarations to which the United States is not a part is the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) a non-binding text adopted by the UN General Assembly on September 13, 2007, which recognizes that indigenous people are equal to all other people and asserts their right to practice their customs and traditions freely.  Although UNDRIP, unlike a treaty, is not legally binding and thus does not carry the weight of international law, UNDRIP is nonetheless important because it provides guidelines for the fair treatment of indigenous peoples and prohibits discrimination against them.  The Declaration also expresses the hopes of indigenous groups and the strides they wish to achieve in the countries in which they live.  Most importantly, and perhaps most controversial in terms of the United States’ previous rejection of the UNDRIP is that the Declaration allows indigenous groups the right to remain distinct from the government in which they live; allowing them to pursue their own economic endeavors and social development.

When UNDRIP was adopted in 2007, 143 countries accepted the measure while four countries rejected it and eleven abstained.  Those that rejected the Declaration were Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the United States.  However, President Obama’s recent endorsement of UNDRIP signals a change of US policy towards American Indians; that the Obama Administration recognizes that it is the tribal nations and not the federal government that best knows how to develop and manage their own tribal institutions.  Specifically, in his remarks during the opening of the 2009 Tribal Nations Conference and Interactive Discussion, President Obama said, “Washington can’t – and shouldn’t – dictate a policy agenda for Indian Country.  Tribal nations do better when they make their own decisions.”  (As a political aside, wouldn’t it be interesting if Obama shared these same sentiments in regards to states’ rights?)

In any case, though today’s announcement is an obvious positive step towards the advancement of American Indians and indigenous people throughout the world, the fact remains that this is still just an endorsement on the part of the Obama administration and not a formal acceptance of UNDRIP.  And, although we will all just have to wait and see if the Obama Administration ultimately follows through by formally adopting UNDRIP in 2011, I remain optimistic, as President Obama clearly stated that, “what matters far more than words, what matters far more than any resolutions or any declaration, are actions to match those words.”

Popularity: 3% [?]

On June 1, 2010, seventh grade student Raymond Hosier filed a complaint with the US District Court, Northern District of New York for declaratory and injunctive relief against  Schenectady City School District for violation of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights after he was suspended from school for wearing rosary beads.  

The complaint alleges that the language used in the school’s dress code policy is “impermissibly vague and unconstitutional on its face.”  School officials point to evidence which suggests colored rosary beads can be indicative of gang activity, and that their school dress code policy prohibits students from wearing any articles of clothing that are gang-related.  The text of Oneida Junior High’s student dress codes states: 

All students are expected to give proper attention to personal cleanliness and to dress appropriately for school and school functions. Students and their parents have the primary responsibility for acceptable student dress and appearance. All district personnel should exemplify and reinforce acceptable student dress and help students develop an understanding of appropriate appearance in the school setting. A student’s dress, grooming and appearance, including hair, jewelry, make-up and nails, shall…[n]ot denote, represent or be deemed to be gang related, included but not limited to bandanas, colors, flags or beads. 

Hosier has worn the rosary beads in school since the beginning of the academic year.  He said that he wears the beads to honor the memory of his little brother who was killed in a 2005 auto accident.  Hosier explained that while his brother was in intensive care, Hosier held the beads in prayer over his brother’s body.  As Hosier’s mother further explained, “”[Raymond’s] uncle died within the past month from brain cancer. His uncle prayed the rosary during his life and taught [Raymond] about the rosary.” (Courthouse News Service)

This is not the first instance where students have been suspended from school for wearing rosary beads.  In May 2008, then-16 year old Marc Castro and then-14 year old Jaime Salazar were suspended from Albany High School for refusing to remove their rosary beads.  At the time, Salazar indicated that Principal Chris Equinoa, “told me it was a rosary, and it was gang-related”…”I told him ‘No, it’s a rosary. It’s a necklace and it’s Catholic.’”

Case precedence

It seems to me that Raymond Hosier has a strong case against Schenectady City School District, as existing case law is directly on point with this case.

The first constitutional challenge to a school dress code policy prohibiting rosary beads came in 1997 when high school freshmen David Chalifoux and Jerry Robertson were suspended from their high school in New Caney, Texas for refusing to remove their rosaries, which they wore in preparation for their confirmation.  In their complaint, the boys sought injunctive relief and damages, alleging that New Caney Independent School District violated their First Amendment rights to free speech and religious expression, and that the language used in the school’s prohibition on “gang-related apparel” was void, on its face, for vagueness. 

In its opinion, US District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, cited Spence v. Washington, which established that “symbolic speech is protectible under the First Amendment if the person displaying the symbol intends to convey a particularized message and there is a ‘great likelihood’’ that the message will be understood by those observing it.” The court went on to rule that, “the symbolic speech at issue in this case is a form of religious expression protected under the First Amendment” because of the great likelihood those observing the rosaries worn by the boys would understand it to be a symbol of Catholicism, and even those unfamiliar with the rosary are “undoubtedly they are familiar with the crucifix attached to the center of the rosary, which is recognized universally as a symbol of Christianity.”

The court went on to note that the Defendants had to show that the boys’ religious speech, i.e. wearing the rosary beads, caused a “substantial disruption of material interference with school activities.” The court found that the school’s activities were not disrupted, explaining that, 1.) the boys were not members of a gang or involved in any criminal activity, 2.) the display of their rosaries did not cause any disruptions or altercations at New Caney High School and 3.) the boys were never approached by gang members because of the rosary beads.

As for the language of the school’s dress code policy, the court found that while the school’s disciplinary rules “need not be as detailed as a criminal code,” the dress code must still contain some degree of specificity.  The court ruled that New Caney’s dress code language “lack[ed] a sufficient definition for ‘gang-related apparel” and was thus, void for vagueness.

Finally, the court ruled that the ban on rosary beads was a violation of the boys’ First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion.  The court explained, “[the] Plaintiffs’ decision to wear the rosary as a means of emphasizing their Catholic faith should not be viewed, from a legal perspective, as nonreligious or abnormal,” that the Plaintiffs were sincere in their religious beliefs, and they did not seek to identify themselves with a gang.

Raymond’s case – latest developments

Yesterday, a federal judge ordered that Hosier –and his rosary beads– be reinstated in Oneida Middle School immediately.

Raymond Hosier is represented by The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), a long-time defender of Christian religious speech and freedom.  “The ACLJ is specifically dedicated to the ideal that religious freedom and freedom of speech are inalienable, God-given rights.” The ACLJ, based in Washington, DC, was founded by Christian evangelical Pat Roberts in 1990, and has since represented Christian defendants in a variety of cases before the Supreme Court.

Hosier’s next hearing is scheduled for June 11.

Popularity: 2% [?]

The tide has finally turned in the murder case of Luis Ramirez, a Mexican immigrant who died last year in Shenandoah, Pennsylvania after being brutally beaten by a group of local high school football players.

As a result of an ongoing FBI investigation, two of the three football players originally charged with and acquitted of Ramirez’s murder now face federal hate crime charges.  The FBI’s investigation also uncovered serious, continuous corruption on the part of the Shenandoah police department, and three officers, including the chief of police, now face federal charges.

This week’s news has been a long time coming for the family of Luis Ramirez, concerned locals, and Shenandoah’s Latino immigrant community, who have endured nearly a decade of growing racial tensions between Latinos and non-Latinos.  To truly understand what this breaking news means for the people of Shenandoah and its nearby towns, particularly Hazleton, Pennsylvania, it is important to understand the history of Shenandoah and the events leading to Ramirez’s death on July 14, 2008.

Shenandoah was once an immigrant haven:

Shenandoah, commonly referred to as “Shendo,” is a small yet densely populated blue-collar town in the southern portion of Pennsylvania’s coal region.  Shendo encompasses only one square mile but has 5600 residents living within this space.  Once known as the “only Wild West town in the East,” for its early, rough reputation, Shendo’s original settlers were immigrants, primarily from Lithuania, Ireland, Carpatho-Russia, Poland and Germany.  From the turn of the century through the 1920’s, Shenandoah, like many of Pennsylvania’s coal towns, was a bustling city with a thriving economy and over 30,000 residents.  Shenandoah was so populated, prosperous, and diverse that is was nicknamed “Little New York.”

After the decline of the coal industry, Shendo fell into an economic downward spiral and has since been unable to recover.  Although proud in its ethnic history and tight-knit community, today’s Shendo is comprised of mostly lower-middle class residents, as the median income for a household is approximately $18,000 a year.  Over 20% of the population lives below the poverty line and many do not have access to higher education.

Since 2000, Shendo has seen a dramatic, 82% increase in the number of its Latino residents, many of whom are illegal immigrants. Legal and illegal immigrants alike are drawn to Shendo, and neighboring towns like Hazleton, because of the low cost of living, proximity to factory and farm work, and opportunities to operate small “mom and pop” businesses.  While new immigrants to Shendo are generally accepted, there is a growing fear among a vocal group of locals who believe that all Latino immigrants are illegal criminals who bring trouble to the town.

Fear and mistrust of Latino immigrants run rampant in many of Pennsylvania’s the coal towns. For example, in 2006, the neighboring town of Hazleton passed the controversial Illegal Immigration Relief Act, which penalized local businesses and renters who either hired or rented homes to illegal immigrants. The Act also made English the official language of the town. While the Act was held to be unconstitutional in federal district court on July 26, 2007, the sentiment behind the ordinance remains the same for many.

The story of Luis Ramirez:

Luis Ramirez was a 25-year old man who came to Shenandoah one year before his death.  He lived in the United States illegally for six years, working as a strawberry and cherry picker. Ramirez and his fiancé, Crystal Dillman a life-long resident of Shendo, had two small children together.  On July 12, 2008, Ramirez was asked to walk Dillman’s 15-year old sister to a sleepover at a nearby friend’s house at approximately 11:30pm.  On the short walk there, they encountered a group of drunken high school football players who, from all eyewitness accounts, began yelling racial slurs at Ramirez.  Some witnesses say that that group of teens mistakenly believed that Ramirez and Dillman’s young sister were a couple, which angered the group. Provoked by the racial epithets, Ramirez walked down the street to confront the boys and a fight ensued, resulting in the brutal beating of Ramirez, who was kicked to the head, even after he lay motionless in the street. Two days later, Ramirez died from the head injuries he suffered.

The aftermath:

Three teens were charged in connection with Ramirez’s beating death:  Brandon J. Piekarsky, Collin Walsh and football team quarterback, Derrick Donchak.  Piekarsky and Walsh were charged with homicide and ethnic intimidation while Donchak was charged with aggravated assault, ethnic intimidation and providing liquor to minors, in state court.  Although eyewitnesses testified to the teens’ use of racial slurs, and despite the fact that medical evidence proved that Ramirez died from blunt trauma to the head, which left his “brain oozing from his skull,” the teens were acquitted of the most serious charges by the jury, which was all Caucasian.  Ultimately, Donchak was convicted of providing alcohol to minors and Piekarsky and Walsh were convicted of simple assault, a misdemeanor.

New developments – a police cover-up:

Just this week, federal prosecutors indicted three of Shenandoah’s seven police officers, Police Chief Matthew Nestor, Officer William Moyer, and Officer James Hayes, boyfriend of Piekarsky’s mother, charging them with obstruction of justice and conspiring to obstruct justice.

Federal prosecutors believe that the police cover-up began shortly after Ramirez was beaten.  According to the indictment, Officer Moyer, whose son played on the same football team as the teens that beat Ramirez, called the teens’ parents and advised them to discard certain items that would have been used as evidence against the teens. Prosecutors also say that the officers mischaracterized eyewitness statements and advised the teens to “get their stories straight” before officially talking to police.

Chief Nestor, a family friend of the Piekarsky’s, has also been named in a civil lawsuit alleging that he and his deputy covered up the fatal 2006 beating of another Mexican immigrant, David Vega, and made it look like a suicide. Currently, Nestor is being held without bail in Wilkes-Barre, as Judge Malachy Mannion called him “clearly, unequivocally a serious danger to witnesses in this case.”

As for the teens involved in the attack, Piekarsky and Donchak now face federal hate crimes charges, as Department of Justice prosecutors believe the attack against Ramirez was, indeed, racially motivated and intended to intimidate Shenandoah’s Latino community.

I think this is a particularly important case to follow involving widespread, domestic xenophobia in an area of the country that was built on the toil of immigrants.  Small towns like Shendo can greatly benefit from the influx of Latino immigrants, both economically and culturally, if the fear of change could be quelled.  I know that many readers of The Human Rights Blog either live in coal towns or have contacts to this area of the country, as I do.  As such, I implore each and every one of you to do what you can to speak out about this issue, educate your neighbors, family and friends about the dangers of racial violence and fear, and remember that most of our families, especially those of us from Pennsylvania’s coal regions and Northeastern Pennsylvania came to this country as immigrants.

For more information, check out:

FBI Philadelphia – DOJ Press Release

CBS – Immigrant Murder Sheds Light on Pa. Town

The Guardian.co.uk – Pennsylvania police accused of cover-up in immigrant’s murder

Popularity: 2% [?]

This Sunday marks the start of the Cartagena Summit on a Mine-Free World, during which over 1,000 delegates will review The Ottawa Treaty, otherwise known as the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, or simply The Mine Ban Treaty. With the review conference and President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize ceremony just days away, the Obama Administration deemed it an appropriate time to announce its decision to join human rights bastions like China, Pakistan, Cuba, and Myanmar, in its refusal to support The Mine Ban Treaty.   158 other countries endorse the Treaty, including every other country in the Western Hemisphere (minus Cuba) and all our NATO allies.  The decision was made in a brief, closed-door State Department session and no official reasons have since been offered.

The Mine Ban Treaty bans the construction and development of all AP landmines.  State Parties must also promise to destroy all their AP landmines within four years, provide annual transparency reports and offer victim assistance for those devastated by landmine explosions. The Covenant’s inception was inspired by Princess Diana’s 1997 visits to Angola and Bosnia, where she was famously photographed wearing a helmet and ballistic jacket while walking through mine fields.  At the time, Angola had more than one landmine per Angolan citizen, or 10 million land mines, buried in the country while Bosnia had an estimated 750,000.  As a result of Princess Diana’s work and The Mine Ban Treaty, more than 2.2 million AP landmines have been removed worldwide in the past decade.

The United States’ refusal to ratify The Mine Ban Treaty seems a strange turn, even for an Administration that has, thus far, straddled the fence in their approach to human rights. The fact that President Obama intends to send an observer to Cartagena was viewed by most as a positive indication of the United States’ intended support of the Treaty.  Moreover, since the United States has not produced or used an AP landmine in over a decade, and since nearly all of the United States’ allies support the Treaty, it is particularly puzzling that the State Department’s only explanations for this decision are conflicts with current national defense needs and US security commitments.

If the Obama Administration truly wants the world to believe that human rights is, indeed, an “essential element of American global foreign policy,” as Secretary of State Clinton said earlier this year, the Administration must break free of the human rights routine of former President Bush and take substantive steps towards protecting the world’s citizens. The first step could have been an easy one; ratifying a covenant that the United States already follows. How sad that such a perfect opportunity was missed.  Perhaps a second review of The Mine Ban Treaty is necessary not only in Cartagena, but in Washington as well.

Has this post sparked your interest?  Read more at:

The Nobel Peace Prize’s International Campaign to Ban Landmines

The Miss Landmine Beauty Pageant

UNICEF – Landmines pose a particular threat to children

Popularity: 2% [?]