The Human Rights Blog

The US premier of award-winning documentary, Mugabe and the White African airs tonight at 10 p.m. EST on PBS’s acclaimed Point of View series.

Filmed over a twelve-month period, Mugabe and the White African follows the story of white Zimbabwean farmer Mike Campbell, his wife, Angela, their daughter, Laura, and son-in-law Ben Freeth who successfully fought the compulsory Land Reform Programme implemented by Zimbabwean dictator, Robert Mugabe at the turn of this century.  The documentary captures many pivotal moments throughout Campbell’s journey including the challenges he faced in trying to bring the case within the purview of Zimbabwe’s domestic court system, his journey to the Southern African Development Community Tribunal, and the family’s horrific kidnapping and torture in 2008, which ultimately led to Mike Campbell’s death this past April.

Watch the full episode. See more POV.

Mike Campbell’s story and a brief overview of land reform in Zimbabwe 

The Campbell family settled in Zimbabwe over three hundred years ago.  Farmers for centuries, Mike Campbell continued with the family business when, in 1980, he purchased Mount Carmel, a three thousand acre farm located approximately eighty miles outside of Harare.  In addition to employing five hundred people, mostly black Zimbabweans, Mount Carmel served as an environmental conservation site, as Campbell strove to preserve and protect African wildlife.

On April 18, 1980, around the same time Mike Campbell bought Mount Carmel farm, the British government granted independence to Zimbabwe after the Rhodesian Bush War, a violent and long-fought revolution which lasted from 1964 to 1979.  In Zimbabwe’s first general elections, the public elected Robert Mugabe as Prime Minister, and later President, of Zimbabwe.  Mugabe was a black liberation hero and leader of Zimbabwe’s African National Union, which was victorious in the revolution against white minority rule.

Immediately following his inauguration, Mugabe worked to help reconcile peace between warring political movements, which took the lives of thousands.  After years of fighting, the opposing groups finally reached a settlement and Mugabe was free to turn his attention to a series of reforms aimed at bringing equity and balance to black Zimbabweans who were disenfranchised under colonial rule.

In 2000, Mugabe began an aggressive, fast track land redistribution program aimed at removing white Africans from land they acquired during the country’s colonization.  The goal of the program was to “right the wrongs” of Zimbabwe’s colonial rule by redistributing farming lands that had been previously been owned overwhelmingly by white commercial farmers.  At this time, Zimbabwe had a population of approximately twelve million.  Although black Zimbabweans made up ninety-seven percent of the population, white Zimbabweans owned nearly all of the viable farming land.  In fact, in 2000, “there were approximately 4800 large scale commercial farms located on eleven million hectares of land.  Of these commercial farms, 4500 were white-owned.  In contrast, one million black families had been confined to farming in exclusively black communal areas covering sixteen million hectares. Only a small percentage of this communal land, however, was arable enough to farm.” (See Jonathan Shirley, The Role of International Human Rights and the Law of Diplomatic Protection in Resolving Zimbabwe’s Land Crisis, citing Thomas Mitchell, The Land Crisis in Zimbabwe: Getting Beyond the Myopic Focus upon Black & White, 11 Ind. Int’l & Comp. L. Rev., 2001)

Mugabe’s Land Reform Programme was thus born.  White commercial farmers’ lands were compulsorily reacquired by the government and redistributed to black Zimbabwean farmers.  Of course, on its face, the Land Reform Programme appeared to be equitable and justified given Zimbabwe’s harsh colonial history.  However, the implementation of the Programme became increasingly controversial, especially amidst reports of lands being violently seized by veterans of Mugabe’s revolution, who then redistributed the land not to disenfranchised Zimbabweans but either to themselves or those loyal to the Mugabe regime.  Moreover, the Zimbabwean legislature went a step further in 2005 by enacting Constitutional Amendment 17, which denied white farmers access to domestic courts by 1.) stripping the courts’ jurisdiction to hear cases involving the acquisition of agricultural lands and 2.) promulgating that questions related to the proper manner of land acquisition were no longer those for the judiciary.

On July 22, 2001, the Zimbabwean government first attempted to seize Mount Carmel farm, but the High Court of Zimbabwe denied the government’s acquisition attempt.  Soon thereafter, war veterans invaded the property.  In 2006, the Zimbabwean government attempted to transfer ownership of the entire farm to former government minister Nathan Shamuyarira, and though Campbell opposed the action by filing suit, recourse in Zimbabwe’s domestic courts was impossible, as land acquisition was no longer a judicial question as per the Constitutional Amendment 17.  (See Memory Dube and Rob Midgley, Land Reform in Zimbabwe, Chapter 12)

Mike Campbell (Pvt) Ltd et al v. Republic of Zimbabwe

On October 11, 2007, while awaiting judgment from the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe on the same issue, Mike Campbell filed an application with the Southern African Development Community Tribunal (SADC)  to challenge the Zimbabwean government’s compulsory acquisition of the Mount Carmel agricultural lands under Zimbabwe’s Land Reform Programme.  It was not long until 77 other white farmers joined in the claim, asserting that the legislative aim of the Programme was to racial discriminate  against and target white Zimbabwean farmers. Specifically the Applicants challenged Amendment 17 of the Zimbabwean Constitution, alleging that it violated Article 6(2) of the Treaty of the Southern African Development Community, which states, “SADC and Member States shall not discriminate against any person on grounds of gender, religion, political views, race, ethnic origin, culture or disability.”  (Established under Article 9 of the SADC Treaty, the SADC serves as a compliment of the African Union and focuses on promoting sustainable and equitable economic growth and socioeconomic development while the SADC Tribunal hears related disputes.)

Of course, since the case with the SADC Tribunal was filed before the Zimbabwe Supreme Court rendered a verdict, the Republic of Zimbabwe claimed that the SADC Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the case, as the Applicants had not “exhausted all available remedies or were unable to proceed under the domestic jurisdiction.”  The SADC, however, rejected this argument and found that the Applicants were unable to proceed in Zimbabwe’s domestic courts since Constitutional Amendment 17 clearly “obliterated” the jurisdiction of the domestic courts to hear cases involving the acquisition of agricultural lands. Specifically, the SADC Tribunal stated,

“where the municipal law does not offer any remedy or the remedy that is offered is ineffective, the individual is not required to exhaust the local remedies. Further, where, as the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights states, ‘…it is obvious … that the procedure of achieving the remedies would have been unduly prolonged”, the individual is not expected to exhaust local remedies. These are circumstances that make the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies meaningless, in which case the individual can lodge a case with the international tribunal…”

The Tribunal went on to remind the Respondents that,

“[i]t will be recalled that the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe delivered its judgment dismissing the Applicants’ claims in their entirety, saying, among other things, that the question of what protection an individual should be afforded in the Constitution in the use and enjoyment of private property, is a question of a political and legislative character, and that as to what property should be acquired and in what manner is not a judicial question…[B]y the clear and unambiguous language of the Constitution, the Legislature, in the proper exercise of its powers, had lawfully ousted the jurisdiction of the courts of law from any of the cases in which a challenge to the acquisition of agricultural land may be sought. The Court further stated that the Legislature had unquestionably enacted that such an acquisition shall not be challenged in any court of law. The Supreme Court, therefore, concluded that there cannot be any clearer language by which the jurisdiction of the courts has been ousted.” (Opinion, Mike Campbell (Pvt) Ltd et al v. Republic of Zimbabwe, SADC (T) Case No. 2/2007)

After reaching the decision that they also had jurisdiction to decide the overarching issue of the validity of Zimbabwe’s Land Reform Programme, the SADC Tribunal held that while the Programme itself “cannot be attributed to racism but circumstances brought about by colonial history,” and thus was not in violation of Article 6(2), the effects of Constitutional Amendment 17 had “an unjustifiable and disproportionate impact upon a group of individuals distinguished by race.”  After citing the United Nations Charter, Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 2 of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights, and Article 2 of both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights as well as answering the question, “what is racial discrimination,” the SADC Tribunal ultimately found that the implementation of Constitutional Amendment 17 discriminated against the Applicants on the basis of race and thereby violated its obligation under Article 6 (2) of the Treaty. (Id.)

The kidnapping and torture of Mike Campbell

While the SADC Tribunal’s ruling was a monumental win for Mike Campbell and the 77 other farmers whose property had been forcibly seized, the conclusion of the Campbell family’s story has been tragic nonetheless.

In 2008, Mugabe loyalists stormed the Campbell’s home, captured the then 74 year-old Campbell, his wife, Angela, and their son-in-law, Ben Freeth.  The three endured torture for nine hours, which included whippings to the back and feet, beatings to the face and body, proddings to the mouth and lips with burning sticks, and threats of dismemberment and death.  Freeth sustained a five inch skull fracture and Campbell was beaten beyond recognition.  Those that took them forced them to sign a document stating that they would drop their case against the Mugabe regime.  (See They Beat Him, But Not Into Submission. Los Angeles Times, Aug. 7, 2008.)

Of course, the harassment did not stop there.  In 2009, Campbell and his wife were again “driven from their home and the family’s ancient pet horse, Ginger, who lived in the garden, ran away into the bush. Months later, the house was burned to the ground.”   (See Tough Zimbabwe farm family survives another blow. Los Angeles Times, Sept. 7 2009)

The nine hours of torture ultimately cost Campbell his life, as he died from complications of the beatings this past April.  According to his obituary in the Los Angeles Times, following the beating, Campbell “found he couldn’t solve easy sums, like calculating how much fertilizer to put on a mango tree. His family said he never recovered.”  (See Mike Campbell dies at 78; white Zimbabwean challenged seizure of lands. Los Angeles Times, Apr. 8, 2011)

Today, as stated on Ben Freeth’s fundraising page, Campbell’s remaining family members continue to be harassed.  Their homes have all been destroyed and their crops stolen.

Mugabe and the White African premiers on PBS tonight, July 26, 2011 at 10 p.m. EST.  

Check your local PBS listings for complete details, as local viewing dates and times may differ.

Learn More

Official website

Mugabe and the White African on Facebook

Popularity: 10% [?]

By now, nearly everyone with access to cable has either seen or heard of TLC’s latest “documentary,” My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding.  Originally broadcast on Britain’s Channel 4, TLC boasts that American audiences can now watch the “secret” and “outrageous” lives of Gypsies unfold.

When I first learned that TLC was to air this program, I was horrified, as anyone who reads my blog knows that the plight of Europe’s Roma is very close to my heart.  Initially, I intended to boycott the show entirely as well as write a letter to TLC to express my outrage with the network’s decision to air a program that glorifies stereotypes and misconceptions about Europe’s most discriminated minority group.  However, after considering it might be unfair to criticize the show before watching at least one episode, I decided to hold off on the letter and temporarily rescind my personal boycott.  Now, after watching three full episodes, I feel better equipped to voice my views concerning TLC’s “newest smash hit.”

Much like a car wreck from which you cannot look away, My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding is undeniably mesmerizing.  All of the racial archetypes surrounding the Roma are present – exotic girls dancing seductively to fast paced violin music in colorful “belly dancer-like” costumes, grown men fist fighting and playing dice in the street, and, in general, seemingly uneducated and low class people who inexplicably manage to have of loads of cash on hand for fast cars, extravagant weddings, and lavish first Communion celebrations.  One cannot help but marvel at the spectacle of it all, making it easy to forget that the program is, in actuality, an ignorant, incomplete, and grossly xenophobic caricature of “the Gypsy.”

What to expect when you watch:

Sadly, My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding gives viewers a very limited and exaggerated perspective into the lives of the UK’s Gypsy and Travelling communities.

Within the first minute of the premiere episode, the narrator sets the scene very melodramatically, indeed, explaining to viewers that they will soon be granted access into Britain’s “most secretive community.”  This “us versus them” attitude only advances negative attitudes towards Gypsies and puts viewers on notice that the people they are about to encounter must be very mysterious and cannot be trusted.  A non-Gypsy woman who is a bridal dressmaker specializing in Traveller weddings goes on to explain, “[Travellers] don’t like anyone knowing anything about them at all.”  (The dressmaker appears numerous times each subsequent episode, ostensibly the “documentary’s” resident expert on all things “Gypsy,” providing her insight on Traveller culture and beliefs.)  Finally, after a long series of clips showing scantily dressed teenaged Gypsy girls writhing around on dance floors and literally walking the streets, the narrator very seriously explains that, “the show will explore every aspect of Gypsy life.”  (Here it is important to note that My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding focuses almost exclusively on Irish Travellers, which is a group separate and distinct from Roma Gypsies.  While the program does identify the two groups, it provides no explanation as to the reasons for the difference, so Romani Gypsies and Irish Travellers are thus lumped together, leaving viewers with the impression that the two are indistinguishable.)

My perspective on the show:

Ironically, a Gypsy or Traveller who is interviewed within the first two minutes of the premiere episode best states my opinion of the program, though the quote is meant to promote the show:

“Ninety-five percent of people in this world have had no contact with [Gypsies], and they don’t know anything about them.  The only information they have on Gypsies is what certain tabloids write about them, or what certain television programs put on about them, and that’s the only information.  Ninety-nine percent of it is a load of nonsense.”

Certainly, after having watched My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding, I would have to agree with the show’s own assertion.  Ninety-nine percent of it is a load of nonsense.

Each episode begins in relatively the same way.  Viewers are introduced to a young Gypsy or Traveller girl, who is portrayed as a virginal seductress though totally powerless and without control over her own life.  Beautiful yet pitiably uneducated, she prepares to marry and move hundreds of miles from the only family she has ever known only to cook, clean, and submit to the will of her soon to be husband.  She is innocent and chaste before marriage yet dresses like a Vegas prostitute.  From childhood, she has dreamt of her wedding day and it consumes her thoughts.  Though she may be somewhat disenchanted by the drudgery of her everyday life, she is nonetheless acquiescent and rarely questions her role in society.

On the other hand, the young Gypsy man is street smart and tough; a hustler who has a lot of cash available even though he is a laborer or migrant worker.  He does not have to answer to anyone and can come as go as he pleases.  He is brash and bold and enjoys drinking and fighting.  From childhood, he was taught to settle his scores “like a man.”  He wears “wife beaters” and baggy pants, has slicked back hair and may be heavily tattooed.  He is worshipped by his mother and female family members and will be the adoration of his future wife. (Of course, there are a few deviations from this basic premise, but each episode can guarantee these characterizations.)

The real “Gypsy Experience:”

What is particularly disturbing about My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding is that this program is, in most cases, the first and only experience American viewers have with the Roma community.  Because Gypsies live primarily in Eastern and Central Europe, American audiences are largely unfamiliar with the plight of Europe’s Roma and have little knowledge of the group’s long and painful history, which is marred by persecution, violence, slavery and genocide.  The treatment they suffer is tantamount to the persecution that African Americans in the US suffered leading up to the Civil Rights Movement.  Once slaves to Eastern Europe’s elite, today’s Roma continue to be victims of race-based violence including beatings and murders, as well as employment and housing discrimination, forced sterilization, extreme poverty and school segregation (as was the case in Oršuš and Others v. Croatia). This past summer, France and Italy implemented controversial Roma expulsion policies, which were hotly debated by world leaders as possible human rights violations.  (SeeFrance begins controversial Roma expulsion, CNN Aug. 2010)

Perhaps the only redeeming aspect of My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding is the account of the perspectives of the Irish Travellers, especially the children, as state authorities bulldoze their trailer homes. Still, such a serious subject is sensationalized.  At one point in the opening scene, the narrator asks, “Gypsies are fighting for their very survival, but how long can the party last?” as young Gypsy girl gyrates across the screen to quick violin music.

Comparisons

My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding has been compared to MTV’s Jersey Shore , which is outrageous and highly entertaining, but certainly not an accurate depiction of the majority of Italian-Americans.  While I am inclined to agree with that characterization to a certain extent, the fact remains that the ramifications of a program like My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding further exacerbate the already dire situation of Europe’s Roma, who are, in reality, concentrated in Eastern and Central Europe. Frankly, I see little difference between a program such as My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding and the minstrel shows of America’s past, which exploited African American culture by perpetuating unfair stereotypes and misconceptions about a group that continues to face discrimination.

Jane Jackson, deputy chief executive of the Rural Media Company, a charity that publishes the Travellers’ Times, had this to say about the show when it first aired on Britain’s Channel 4.

“It’s posing as a documentary.  The voiceover is saying we’re going to let you into the secrets of the traveller community – and it just not true.  It might be true of the particular families in front of the camera, but it’s not generally true. It just confirms prejudices that Travellers are just people who choose not to live in houses.”

Certainly, one would hope that a program like My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding – one that blatantly promotes extreme prejudices and stereotypes about a maltreated minority group that continues to face persecution – would not be tolerated, especially here in the United States.

(Note:  The two-hour premiere of My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding, which aired on June 3 on TLC, delivered 2.2 million viewers and earned the night’s top slot.  Since, then, viewership has increased. See (Ratings – TLC Starts Summer Strong With “My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding” )

What you can do to support protests of My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding:

Boycott Advertisers:  http://thegypsyconnection.blogspot.com/2011/06/help-support-protest-of-my-big-fat.html

How and why you should protest My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding: https://apps.facebook.com/causes/posts/790204

For UK readers:  File a programme complaint with Ofcom:  http://consumers.ofcom.org.uk/tell-us/tv-and-radio/a-specific-programme/

Stop Gypsy Persecution on Facebook:  http://www.causes.com/causes/170001-stop-gypsy-persecution

VISIT:  National Romani Anti-Discrimination Organization http://www.nrado.com

Popularity: 18% [?]

On March 22, 2011, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France held a Chamber hearing in the case of V.C. vs. Slovakia concerning a Roma woman who alleges she was forcibly sterilized by a Slovakian state hospital.  While Roma women have made claims of forced and coercive sterilizations by Eastern European countries for decades, this is the first case of its kind to reach Strasbourg.

Case Facts:

V.C. is a Roma woman and Slovakian national from Šarišská Poruba, Slovakia.  At the time of the sterilization, she was approximately twenty years old.  She has a sixth grade education and is unemployed.

According to her complaint, V.C. gave birth to her second child in 2000 via caesarian section at the Slovakian Ministry’s University Teaching Hospital in Presov.  While hospitalized at Presov, V.C. alleges that she was segregated because of her ethnic origin and placed in a “Gypsy room,” which was separated from the white patients.  It is also alleged that she was made to use separate bathroom facilities.

Hospital records indicate V.C. requested to be sterilized after being told by physicians that a third pregnancy would likely result in a ruptured uterus.  However, V.C. claims that the sterilization procedure was performed without her full and informed consent.  She alleges that while in the pain of the final stages of labor, doctors asked her if she wanted to have more children.  After responding in the affirmative, she was then informed that if she had another child, it would die.  V.C. states that it was at that time when she signed the consent form, without having knowledge or understanding as to the consequences of sterilization.  (See European Court of Human Right’s 2009 decision as to the admissibility of V.C.’s 2007 application)

V.C. claims that her ethnic origin played a key factor as to the way in which she was handled and the medical advice and treatment she received.  The Slovakian government denies all of the allegations, stating that V.C. was treated in the same manner as the white patients and that the medical advice provided was not based upon her ethnicity or skin color.

In 2006, V.C. filed civil complaint against the hospital staff, but ultimately the Presov Regional Court dismissed it on appeal.  The Court found that the sterilization was lawfully done, that it was a medical necessity and that V.C. had given her consent.

As indicated in the European Court of Human Rights’ Press Release issued by the Registrar of the Court on March 22, 2011, “[t]he applicant’s sterilisation has had serious medical and psychological after-effects. Notably in 2007/2008 she showed all the signs of being pregnant but was not (known as a “hysterical pregnancy”). Treated since 2008 by a psychiatrist, she continues to suffer from being sterilised. She has been ostracised by the Roma community and her current husband has left her several times due to her infertility.”

Slovakia’s History of Forced Sterilizations:

The practice of “Roma sterilization” dates back to the 1970’s when the Communist regime in Czechoslovakia regularly used forced or coercive sterilization measures to “control” the Roma population.  Roma women who participated in the procedures were given a government financial incentive as encouragement.

According to written comments submitted in 2009 to the UN’s Committee Against Torture by the Centre for Civil and Human Rights, “60% of the sterilisation operations performed from 1986 to 1987 were on Romani women, who represented only 7% of the population of the district. Another study found that in 1983, approximately 26% of sterilised women in eastern Slovakia (the region where the Applicants reside) were Romani women; by 1987, this figure had risen to 36.6%.  In 1992, a report by Human Rights Watch addressed the practice of coercive sterilisation in Czechoslovakia, noting that many Romani women were not fully aware of the irreversible nature of the intervention and was forced into it because of their poor economic situation or pressure from authorities.”  (also citing Statistical Evaluation of the Cases of Sexual Sterilisation of Romani Women in East Slovakia, 1990)

Although the Communist regime collapsed in the early 1990’s, the sterilizations continued.  Procedurally, they varied from hospital to hospital but the results were the same.  According to a 2001 Open Society Institute report, Finnish nurses noticed unusually high occurrences of sterilization and ovary removal in female Roma asylum seekers from Slovakia seeking refuge in Finland.

The “Body and Soul Report”

Perhaps the most influential and widely circulated report concerning the forced sterilization of Roma women in Slovakia came in 2003 when the Center for Reproductive Rights released Body and Soul:  Forced Sterilization and Other Assaults of Roma Reproductive Freedom.  For three months, the Center for Reproductive Rights, based in the United States, and the Centre for Civil and Human Rights, based in Slovakia, conducted interviews with more than 230 Roma women throughout eastern Slovakia.  “The interviews revealed numerous instances of coerced, forced and suspected sterilization of Romani women, along with physical and verbal abuse, racially discriminatory standards of care, misinformation in health matters, and denial of access to medical records.”  The Report culminated in a criminal investigation into the sterilization of Roma women.  However, it was eventually discontinued on the grounds that no wrongdoing had been committed.

The following 2003 documentary from Journeyman Pictures provides a comprehensive overview of the recent history of forced sterilization of Roma women in Slovakia.  Slovakian human rights attorney Barbora Bukovska, who gave comments in Strasbourg last month and who has been instrumental in bringing such cases to light, is highlighted in the film.

Access to Medical Records - K.H. and Others vs. Slovakia

Perhaps one of the most difficult hurdles Roma women faced in filing suit against state hospitals for forced sterilization was gaining access to their own medical records.  In 2002, eight Roma women in Slovakia attempted to retrieve their medical records after finding they were unable to conceive after undergoing caesarian sections.  The women wished to establish cause as to why they were unable to conceive.  After the hospitals refused to release their records, the women filed a civil suit in Slovak court.  However, their requests were denied and the Court held that the records were the property of the hospitals and not the women.

In 2004, the eight women filed suit against the hospitals with the European Court of Human Rights.  In April 2009, the Court ruled that denying the women access to their medical records was in violation of Article 6 paragraph 1 and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Specifically, the Court held that access to medical records is a right to private and family life and that those persons wishes to make photocopies of their own medical records should be allowed to do so without providing reason as to their purpose or objective.  The applicable articles of the European Convention on Human Rights states:

Article 6 paragraph 1:

In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgement shall be pronounced publicly by the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.

Article 8:

1.  Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2.  There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Human rights attorney Barbora Bukovska said this in response to the ruling:

“This case indicates the complicity of the Slovak Government in the practice of forced sterilization of Romani women.  Originally, in spring of 2002, we were able to access and copy medical records of our clients. But as soon as the hospitals realized we were seeking access to medical records on forced sterilizations, they halted the access. The Slovak Government, instead of rectifying the situation, supported the hospitals in their position and over the years, denied their responsibility for the violations. All of this in order to prevent forcibly sterilized Romani women from finding truth about their sterilization surgeries and seeking compensations for them.”  (See Press Release, Centre for Civil and Human Rights, April 2009)

A.S. vs. Hungary

While V.C. vs. Slovakia is the first case of forced sterilization against Roma women to be heard by the Human Right’s Court, legal precedence nonetheless exists.  In 2004, A.S. vs. Hungary was submitted to the UN’s Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) alleging that a Hungarian Roma woman was forcibly sterilized in a Hungarian hospital while being treated after her unborn child died in the womb.  According to its findings communicated in 2006, CEDAW found that the woman signed a consent form to perform a caesarian section to remove the dead fetus, but that included within the consent form was a “barely legible” handwritten note that read:

“Having knowledge of the death of the embryo inside my womb I firmly request my sterilization.  I do not intend to give birth again; neither do I wish to become pregnant.”

After the procedure but before leaving the hospital, A.S. asked the doctor when she could try to have another baby.  “It was only then when she was informed as to the meaning of “sterilization.”’  (See CEDAW’s findings, 2006.)

Ultimately, CEDAW found that Hungary violated Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, specifically articles 10 (h), 12 and 16 paragraph 1 (e) which state:

Article 10 (h):

States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in order to ensure to them equal rights with men in the field of education and in particular to ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women:

(…)

(h) Access to specific educational information to help to ensure the health and well being of families, including information and advice on family planning.

Article 12:

1. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in the field of health care in order to ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women, access to health- care services, including those related to family planning.

2. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1 of this article, States Parties shall ensure to women appropriate services in connexion with pregnancy, confinement and the post-natal period, granting free services where necessary, as well as adequate nutrition during pregnancy and lactation.

Article 16, paragraph 1 (e):

States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in all matters relating to marriage and family relations and in particular shall ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women:

(…)

(e) The same rights to decide freely and responsibly on the number and spacing of their children and to have access to the information, education and means to enable them to exercise these rights.

United States’ response:

In regards to forced and coercive sterilization, Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, United States Congressman Christopher Smith (R-NJ) stated, “as a matter of justice for the victims and truth about the past due to all the people of Slovakia this practice should be condemned as a grave human rights violation.”

The European Court of Human Rights is not expected to rule in the matter of V.C. vs. Slovakia for several weeks.  After their decision, either side may appeal the seven-judge ruling to the Court’s Grand Chamber.

For more information, please read the following article on NPR:  Court Hears Claim of Forced Roma Sterilization, Associated Press.

Popularity: 7% [?]

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% [?]

The world’s most persecuted ethnic group is one with which many people are unfamiliar – The Roma – descendants of Punjabi warriors who left Northern India towards the end of the first millennia to escape the spread of Islam. The Roma are the largest ethnic minority population in Europe, with approximately 12 million living throughout the European Union.

My great-grandfather was a Cigany (Hungarian Roma) who came to America at 18 years-old with only his violin and the clothes on his back. Very tall, thin, handsome, and dark, my Great-Grandfather Holti stood out amongst Berwick, Pennsylvania’s immigrant population of Italians, Carpatho-Rusyns, and Poles. Although he was quiet and gentle, most viewed him as a dangerous man with “strange talents” (referencing his ability to graft a tree to produce four different types of fruit) and who played bizarre music on his violin. Because of fear and prejudice, my great-grandfather and his children faced many forms of mistreatment; from being banished from church to being stoned in the streets. While the discrimination against our family faded over time, my grandfather’s tale is similar to present-day accounts of abuse found across the Atlantic.

Throughout history and still today, the Roma experience some of the worst forms of persecution and disenfranchisement on earth – slavery, genocide, systematic segregation, extreme poverty, public humiliation and racism. Shortly after settling in Europe, the Roma were enslaved by the Romanians because of their dark features and seemingly strange lifestyle and language. Roma slavery lasted nearly 500 years until Romanian abolitionists, influenced by the United States’ anti-slavery movement, gradually freed the Roma in the mid-1850’s. After enduring subsequent banishments, imprisonment, and social exclusion, Roma suffered multiple periods of genocide; most notably Spain’s “Great Gypsy Round-up,” where Spanish Roma (gitanos) were captured and systematically separated by sex to avoid further procreation of the Roma race, and the “Gypsy Genocide” by the Nazis during WWII, in which 500,000 Roma were killed while thousands of others were used as subjects in genetic “race” testing.

Though many years have passed since the days of Roma round-ups, the Roma continue to suffer horrible human rights abuses, ironically at the hands of countries that boast the most progressive human rights policies in the world. Many Europeans harbor extreme prejudice towards Roma people because of pervasive cultural stereotypes. Hate crimes against the Roma are widespread and violent, as evidenced by a killing spree of Roma people in Hungary this year. Roma children in Europe have little access to adequate education, making their primary school completion rate equal to that of many countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. Most Roma children attend segregated schools and those who participate in Europe’s mainstream schools are routinely placed in special education classes for the developmentally disabled.

In addition to citizen-prejudice, Roma families are often subjected to extreme EU member state policies. For example, 27 Roma-owned homes were demolished by Bulgaria’s Burgas municipal government just this fall. As a result, nearly 200 Roma people, including 80 children, were forced to the streets because no housing alternatives were provided. Even though the European Roma Rights Centre sent four letters of concern to Bulgaria’s Interior Minister, these families have yet to receive reparations. An example of the most controversial measure taken by an EU member state is Italy’s Ethnic Registration policy, which requires Italian Roma to register with the Italian government and submit to fingerprinting.

While conditions remain difficult for the Roma, there is some evidence of improvement. Just last week, donors in Brussels announced that over €25 million in funding will go towards the Roma Educational Fund. Still, while most measures are designed to help the Roma directly, most do nothing to change negative, long-standing stereotypes, which is the true catalyst for change. And, while the European Union strongly condemns all forms of violence against the Roma, public, blatant racism against them largely goes unchecked. For example, during a concert in Bucharest this past August, Madonna, who is adored by most Europeans, was booed offstage after she told the crowd of 60,000 that discrimination against the Roma in Eastern Europe “made her sad.”

The answer to protecting the most persecuted people in the world is a two-fold process: Educate and mandate. Europeans must be educated as to the true nature of Roma culture and identity. Public humiliation and violence against the Roma must not only be denounced by the European Union, but also punished by the European Commission. Likewise, European and Roma children alike should be taught Roma history, including the Roma Holocaust experience, and must be made aware of the Roma’s influence on European culture and society.

Do you agree that the Roma are the most persecuted people on the planet? Learn More About the Roma:

Hope for the Roma

Opre, Roma!

The Decade of Roma Inclusion

European Committee on Romani Emancipation

Popularity: 8% [?]