The Human Rights Blog

Paul Scrom, J.D. Candidate 2012, Hofstra University School of Law

Recently, several pieces of legislation were introduced in the United States Congress aimed at preventing internet piracy and protecting intellectual property (“IP”).  Specifically, the Protect IP Act (“PIPA”) and the Stop Online Piracy Act (“SOPA”) were the two leading attempts at limiting the Internet.  The bills seemed almost guaranteed to pass until a tremendous amount of protest by internet users and internet companies greatly influenced Congress to delay voting on the bills and convinced lawmaking proponents of the bill to cease their support.  During the arguments over the bill, opponents quickly drew comparisons to the Internet censoring structures of Iran and China, two countries infamous for their internet regulation surmounting to human rights violations.  The same could be said for PIPA & SOPA, but one main difference is that the American bills at least mask censorship of speech by claiming their only goal is to stop piracy and protect IP rights.  But, there is a conundrum:  there are both human rights in IP protection, and in freedom of speech and expression.

Human Rights Issues Concerning Internet Regulation

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides for rights to freedom of speech and expression, along with intellectual property rights.  In Article 19 the rights to speech and expression are materialized:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression: this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Although the Internet did not exist in 1948, when the Declaration was created, the Internet is still a form of media and a frontier in the context of this article.  The laws of any country which limit the freedom to receive and impart information on ideas through the Internet are surely in violation of this fundamental human right.  Article 27 of the Declaration seems to deal directly with intellectual property.  There are two sections to Article 27:

1. Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
2.  Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Laws such as SOPA & PIPA have a curious task in balancing these two provisions.  How do you balance the individual’s right to protection of moral and material interests stemming from authoring scientific or artistic creations, if everyone has the right to freely participate in the cultural community and to enjoy and share in the arts and benefits of scientific advancement?  The Internet is a medium in which millions of people are creating art and advancing science every single second, participating in a cultural community (Art. 27-1).   Ironically, it may be necessary to limit the medium in order to protect such creation of the individual (Art. 27-2).  Further, the Internet is a river in which the water of ideas constantly flows, and setting up a dam to protect individual creators (Art. 27-2) will consequently impinge upon the right of others to express and hold opinions and receive information (Art. 19).  Countries like China and Iran are highly criticized because the regulatory infrastructures are far from sympathetic toward the rights found in Art. 19 and Art. 27-1.

China and Iran: Arbitrary and Disproportionate Internet Censorship

Photo credit: slashgear.com

China’s “Great Firewall” is the strongest and largest censorship structure of the Internet currently, with Iran’s filtering software right behind it.  The two countries use firewalls and other software to block online speech which it finds immoral or threatening to their system of fear they worked so hard to use to control their citizens.  China not only stymies unapproved content, but the country targets individuals and restricts them from using the Internet altogether.  In fact, a Chinese citizen can easily be arrested for writing a single email complaining about the government.  Both countries participate in this imprisonment of cyber dissidents, clearly violating the human rights embedded in the sections of the Declaration discussed above.  The governments use internet censorship to stop the infiltration of outside, specifically western, media and politics, and to monitor speech internally.  The two governments use a filtration system which requires all websites to register through the government and gain permission on its content.  Although it is well known that the two countries perpetuate abuse through their regulation of speech, the level of the abuse is hard to discern because of the censorship itself.

China’s and Iran’s main goal in internet censorship is to regulate speech in order to suppress dissidence and ensure control through fear.  The United States Congress’ attempt at censorship is aimed at protecting IP, but the fear is that the bills are too broad and even any amount of censorship would inevitably lead to a system like China’s and Iran’s where the government can pick and choose which speech is made available.

SOPA & PIPA: A Road to Another “Great Firewall?”

The human right to protection in one’s IP is uncontroverted; everyone deserves protection for their individual innovations and contributions to entertainment, the sciences, and more.  SOPA & PIPA have the right intentions, but will likely have the wrong effects.  Such effects will inevitably lead to the squelching of speech not subject to IP protection, but subject to protection as a human right.  Thus, the bills need to balance such squelching with IP protection, the two human rights at issue.  When the bills are analyzed, it is clear that they fail in sufficient IP protection, and go too far in squelching the freedoms of speech and expression.

One main illustration of this imbalance is that although SOPA & PIPA claim to only target foreign sites which infringe on IP, the bills require compliance and liability on third party U.S. sites as well.  Not only will this result in suppressing foreign sites from entering U.S. internet domains out of fear of being subjected to lawsuits for what users or subsidiaries post on their sites, but U.S. sites have a positive duty to monitor content and would be subject to liability (under SOPA at least) if they do not act on infringing content.  This will inevitably lead to startup companies, whether foreign or domestic, and individual users, deciding to not enter the market or post on sites out of fear of violating the act, squelching potential speech.  This is particularly problematic for sites such as Youtube and Facebook, which are engines of free speech and allow for user generated content. The bills are overbroad as sites would be in violation of the bills for “enabling or facilitating” infringement.  How far does the definition of enabling or facilitating go?  Practically, the existence of the Internet itself enables and facilitates infringement.  Youtube and Facebook would have to take positive steps to monitor millions and millions of domestic and foreign users.  They would be subject to the lawsuits and potential criminal sanctions associated with bills if they fail to do so.  This would result in the suppression of both speech and the mediums of speech themselves.  Craigslist, Google, eBay, personal sites of musicians, fan sites of celebrities, and other millions of sites that enable the spread of information, speech and business will inevitably be targeted for infringement claims under the broad nature of the bills.

Also, the mechanism for censorship under the bills is exactly the same mechanism used by the Chinese: DNS blocking.  DNS, or Domain Name System, is the identification protocol for anything connected to the Internet.  The bills will block the particular DNS which supports or facilitates content in violation of IP rights.  This is a wholesale technique which will block other speech under the particular DNS that is not in violation of the bills.  This is concerning because the U.S. has promoted similar legislation in other countries, particularly Russia, which now use the legislation to suppress political dissidents, rather than to protect IP.  Although there is some evidence of China’s and Iran’s use of their anti-piracy laws to censor speech over the Internet, they do not need to use such laws to do so since their censorship laws are so blatant.  But in Russia, the government has used laws similar to PIPA and SOPA to target anti-government dissidents.  Once these bills are passed, the United States runs the risk of allowing the government to abuse, whether discretely or not, their newfound censorship powers.

In conclusion, bills such as PIPA and SOPA are too risky.  The potential for grave and far greater abuse of our Art. 19 and Art. 27-1 rights, rather than protecting violations of our Art. 27-2 rights, justifies the overwhelming protest over the bills.  For now, the bills have been tabled, but not thrown out.  The risk of falling into a censorship system eerily similar to China’s and Iran’s, is not worth the minor potential protection of IP these bills have.  In fact, many critics of the bills believe they are far too focused on enforcement.  The Internet is too dynamic and ever changing to think that DNS blocking and some fear is powerful enough to sufficiently protect IP rights.  Many think that the fix to IP violations over the Internet is to be found in the business realm.  The true path is to focus on user friendly, clean, and intuitive services, such as Netflix and Spotify, that give users incentives to pay for content at a reasonable price.  There seems to be a disparity in how much money proponents of the bills, such as the movie and music industry, want out of their products and what the consumer is willing to pay.  But, from a human rights perspective, the risk seems too great to justify the benefit.

Popularity: 8% [?]

Elizabeth Hebert, M.A. Conflict and Dispute Resolution, University of Oregon

If you do a quick Google search about Bhutan, you may quickly discover that it has been rated as one of the world’s happiest countries. In 2006 they were chosen as the happiest Asian country and the 8th happiest country worldwide. Business Week notes, “The small Asian nation of Bhutan ranks eighth in the world, despite relatively low life expectancy, a literacy rate of just 47%, and a very low GDP per capita. Why? Researchers credit an unusually strong sense of national identity.”

However, this happiness and strong sense of national identity does not include the thousands of Bhutanese who were imprisoned, tortured, or forced to flee and who have been living in refugee camps in Nepal. Forced to leave Bhutan in the 1980s-1990s, groups of Nepali-speaking Bhutanese refugees have been living in limbo with uncertain futures.

History
Bhutan has many different ethnic groups, including the Lhotshampa, people of Nepali origin whose ancestors came to Bhutan in the 1890s as government contracts to cultivate Southern Bhutan farmland. The Lhotshampa stayed in Southern Bhutan and were given citizenship in 1958, which was later revoked in the 1980s under the guise that they were participating in anti-national movements. Tens of thousands of Southern Bhutanese were imprisoned, tortured, or fled the country. Some of them were arbitrarily expelled, while others fled in order to escape imprisonment. (See HRW “Last Hope, The Need for Durable Solutions for Bhutanese Refugees in Nepal and India” May 2007)
Although many fled to India, they were not allowed to set up permanent camps and therefore either stayed without documentation in India or moved to East Nepal, where the United Nations Higher Council for Refugees (UNHCR) established seven refugee camps. It is estimated that nearly 105,000 Bhutanese refugees were living in these camps in Nepal, which is approximately 1/6 of Bhutan’s actual population. (See “Bhutanese Refugees – A Story of Forgotten People”)

Bhutanese Refugee Journey:  From a Refugee Camp in Nepal to Freedom in Seattle

Resettlement
As of 2008, nearly half of these hundreds of thousands of Bhutanese refugees have been resettled to third countries, including the United States, Australia, Britain, and other European countries. Resettlement to a third country is considered to be one of three viable solutions for refugees, the other two being returning to their country of origin or settling in their second country (i.e. Nepal and India). In the beginning of 2011, the United States had resettled nearly 35,000 Bhutanese refugees and promised to resettle up to 60,000. However, nearly 71,000 Bhutanese are still awaiting resettlement in the camps in Nepal.

Although there has been inter-camp strife about whether refugees should resettle in a third country or wait for repatriation, many Bhutanese easily chose to resettle in hopes of a better future for their children and families. However, as Human Rights Watch points out, it is not everyone’s goal. “But it’s not everyone’s dream. For many still in the camps – for older refugees, in particular, who remember their lives in Bhutan and still mourn their losses – watching their compatriots leave has been a bitter experience. About 17,000 of the remaining refugees have not sought third country resettlement, many still holding out for repatriation.”

The fact that the United States and other countries have so generously welcomed the Bhutanese into their countries is indeed admirable. However, that should not overshadow the fact that the Bhutanese, wherever they are, have the right to return to their homeland.

Sources
Amnesty International: Bhutan Human Rights
Bhutanese Refugees: The Story of a Forgotten People
Business Week: The Happiest Countries
Human Rights Watch: Last Hope
Human Rights Watch: For Bhutan’s Refugee, There is No Place Like Home

Popularity: 5% [?]

Sumbu Chantraine Temo, President of Amnesty International at Stockholm University.

Exotic fruits and world-class wine labeled from South Africa are popular in the European market.  More and more wineries claim that their wine is grown and harvested in conditions that conform to human right norms and fair labor practices; however, reports from NGO’s such as Human Rights Watch (HRW) and The South African Human Rights Commission allege the opposite.

South Africa is the seventh largest wine-producing country in the world.  The country’s vineyards are concentrated primarily in Western Cape, known as the “Paradise of South Africa,” a province internationally recognized for its vast wine production.  Six of South Africa’s nine wine regions are located there.

South Africa’s emerging wine export industry accounts for 2.2% of the country’s GDP and generates over $3 billion a year for the South African economy.  In 2009, the export value for wine in Western Cape reached $700 million US dollars. According to the South African Wine Information and Systems, the wine industry supports employment opportunities to over 275,000 workers, most of whom are unskilled (58%).

A recent report by HRW indicates that despite the fact that wine is a profitable industry in South Africa, farmworkers in Western Cape reap little benefit from the flourish in business and rather suffer human rights abuses at the hands of farmers, including uninhabitable living conditions, illegal evictions, and exposure to chemicals and pesticides.

Living conditions unfit for human habitation

In August 2011, HRW published a comprehensive report entitled, Ripe with Abuse: Human Rights Conditions in South Africa’s Fruit and Wine Industries, which includes 260 testimonies from Western Cape’s farmers.  (See REPORT:  Ripe With Abuse, Human Rights Watch, August 2011)  Sinah B.’s testimony is one of them.  She revealed that the farm’s security guards, in an attempt to drive families away, threatened her and her children with dogs and guns in the middle of the night.

“They came at night at 1 or 2 in the morning; slammed on doors, took children over 18 who didn’t work here to the police station… Security would come with dogs and guns at night. It happened a lot of times … [about] three times a week for two to three years.” (HRW report, pg. 52)

40 year old Isaak S. worked on the same farm for a decade. During this time, he and his family lived in a pig stall, which has remained unchanged since he moved to the farm – with no toilet or improvements to the condition of the stall. (HRW report, pg. 46)

Sol C. tells a similar story.  He worked the farm for nearly 20 years until he became disabled in 2010.  Evicted from shacks numerous times following his accident, he and his wife eventually moved into one of the farm’s outhouses.  Landowners simply covered the toilet holes and he and his wife have remained there ever since.

These stories illustrate the biggest problem that South Africa’s land laborers face:  access to safe, stable housing, which is a basic human right recognized in Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).  As Article 25 of the UDHR states, “everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.”

Evictions

In addition to living in very poor conditions, farmworkers also face the constant threat of illegal evictions.

Between 1994-2004, more than 930,000 farmworkers – including dwellers – were evicted from their farms, despite the fact that laws exist that are meant to protect farmworkers from being illegally and unfairly removed from their homes.

In a documentary entitled, “Beneath the Surface, Fruit and Wine Workers in the Western Cape,” Siphokazi Mthathi of HRW reports on the living conditions of the region’s land laborers.  Though inhabitable housing and the harassment are well documented by the government and NGO’s, little efforts have been made by the South African government to curb these illegal activities or strengthen current laws.

To evict a farmworker, the farmer must follow specific regulations stated in the Extension of Security of Tenure Act (ESTA), which also defines who qualifies as a farmworkers.  For example, the ESTA outlines specific situations where a farmworker may not be evicted.  Specifically, “[a] long term occupier is someone who has resided on a farm for more than 10 years and is over 60 years of age or who cannot provide labour to a land owner as a result of ill health, disability or injury. Long term occupiers’ rights of residence may not be terminated unless they have:

1.  intentionally and unlawfully harmed any other person occupying the land, 2. intentionally damaged property of a farmer engaged in behaviour which threatens others occupying the land, 4. assisted other unauthorised people to establish new dwellings on the farm, 5.  breached a condition or term of their residence with which they are able to comply, but have not done so despite being given one month’s notice to comply. (For example: when an occupier allows unauthorised people to reside with them)  6. such a fundamental breach of the relationship between the farmer and themselves that it is not possible to restore this relationship. (For examaple: if the farm worker assaults the farmer.)”  (See A Guide to Tenure Security Rights on Farms, pg. 4)

In South Africa, farm dwellers also have the right to due process under the law before they are evicted.  Procedurally, in order for a landowner to legally evict a farmer, the landowner is require to warn the workers and deliver an eviction order to the court.  Any attempts to evict are illegal without the court order.  However, according to HRW, less than 1% of farm worker evictions are done so legally.

According to the HRW report, many landowners have found illegitimate, but unfortunately effective, methods to evict farm dwellers.  By blocking electricity or cutting of the water supply, landowners can easily drive farmworker away.  Others simply allow new workers to move in without providing an eviction notice to the current resident farm worker.  Despite the fact that these eviction methods are illegal, they have become the norm because South African authorities by and large do not enforce the law and landowners in violation of eviction laws are not sanctioned.

As an ESTA inspector explained in the HRW report:

“If I lose my job here today, I still have a place to stay and so does my wife.  If a farmworker loses his job today, he loses his place to stay and so does his family.”

Health and safety concerns

Lack of access to safe and secure housing is not the only hurdle South African farmworkers encounter.  Testimony gathered in HRW reports show that farmworkers also face health and safety threats in the workplace.

According to HRW, most of the farms in Western Cape do not provide drinking water or toilet facilities on or near the fields.  Furthermore, farm workers are regularly exposed to injurious pesticides without proper safety equipment, which causes rashes and even acute intoxication.  Despite the fact that the South African Occupational Health and Safety Act promulgates that workers should be provided with “suitable respiratory protective equipment and protective clothing,” many farm workers in Western Cape continue to be exposed to health hazardous poisons and chemicals.  These farm dwellers allege that they have developed conditions such as asthma and chest pain as a result of direct contact with these pesticides.

Recent developments and responses to HRW’s report

According to a November 2011 article in the Wall Street Journal entitled, “Becoming Truly South African,” Professor Solms, a neuroscientist turned wine maker, explains that the HRW report only represents the minority of South African farmworkers.  He explains, “The most important thing for people in our industry to face up to is that what the Human Rights Watch report describes is happening.  But it is not the norm, nor the average situation. What I would say is that it is a minority. That is not to excuse it. There is no excuse.”

In order to help break the cycle of extreme poverty among farmworkers, Solms, along with Richard Astor, created a trust for their farmworkers, which was funded by the winery’s profits.  The trust pays for housing, education, health care and music lessons for the workers and can be used as a model for other wineries.  (See Becoming Truly South African, Nov. 11, 2011, WSJ.com)

In October 2011, Andries Burger, member of the Cape’s Winemaker’s Guild, told the Financial Times that despite the fact that even one report of human rights abuse against farmworkers is too many,, the HRW’s decision to maintain the anonymity of the wineries in question raises concerns because it does not allow for actions to be taken against wineries that treat their workers poorly.  As Burger explains, “the problem is that not naming the farms in question has been counterproductive, because how can we rectify it? Let’s name and shame, I say.”

According to the Financial Times, HRW’s reasoning for keeping the identity of offending wineries confidential is as follows:

“Human Rights Watch said it did not want to name or locate its informants for fear of reprisals, and would not even specify which of their more horrific reported examples were wine rather than fruit farms. This, unfortunately, has given those too complacent or mean to bring their workers’ living conditions into even the 20th century, as well as the Western Cape government, the perfect excuse for continued inaction.” (See Cleaning Up the Cape, Oct. 21, 2011, The Financial Times)

Finally, Su Birch, CEO of Wines of South Africa, which is responsible for the promotion of all South African wine in export markets, claims that the HRW report is bias.  According to The Guardian, Birch stated that “most of the farm workers interviewed were identified by unions and NGOs, who have a vested interest in presenting the worst of cases.” (See South African wine industry rooted in human misery, says report. The Guardian, Aug. 22, 2011)

While she admits that some farmworkers live in poor conditions, she maintains that it is a small group that is not representative of the entire South African wine industry.

“For every poor house on a farm, I can show you loads of good ones and some exceptional ones. Wine farmers are currently providing housing for over 200,000 workers, which represents an investment of billions of rands. Our industry is working hard to correct the wrongs of the past, and we accept that there is much work to be done. Even one case of abuse is one too many. But ‘ripe with abuse’? I don’t think so.”  (See South African wine industry rooted in human misery, says report. The Guardian, Aug. 22, 2011)

Decide for yourself!  For more information, please read the following:

Becoming Truly South African, The Wall Street Journal, November 2011

South African wine industry rooted in human misery, says report. The Guardian, Aug. 22, 2011

REPORT:  Ripe With Abuse, Human Rights Watch, August 2011

A guide to TENURE SECURITY RIGHTS ON FARMS, Lawyers for Human Rights.

Popularity: 9% [?]

Elizabeth Hebert, M.A. Conflict and Dispute Resolution, University of Oregon

Author’s note:  When investigating human rights abuses, I typically stray far from home.  I’ve studied refugee rights in the Middle East and migrant domestic worker trafficking theory.  However, so many human rights abuses exist right under our noses – in cities and towns in the United States.  

The Pacific Circuit is a human trafficking ring that runs along the West Coast.  When I first read that the Pacific Circuit existed, I was surprised; when I read about where the human trafficking actually took place – right in my home state of Oregon – I was astonished.  Known as the Interstate-5’s dirty underbelly, these human trafficking rings stretch from Seattle to San Francisco.  And, although Oregon has anti-trafficking laws on the books, additional steps must be taken to prevent trafficking and better help the victims of trafficking for sexual exploitation.

Background:

The Pacific Circuit is a human trafficking ring for sexual exploitation on the West Coast, specifically running its victims up and down the Interstate-5, which stretches from Seattle, Washington to San Francisco, California.  The main hubs of criminal activity are Seattle, Portland, and San Francisco.  However, virtually any truck or rest stop along the freeway is a potential location for trafficking crimes.

The Eugene Weekly, an alternative newspaper based in Eugene, Oregon, explains that Lane County, Oregon is a hotspot for trafficking victims.  The paper writes, “[i]n sleepy little Eugene, some 90 miles south of the maligned “Pornland” and far from the populous cities of San Francisco and L.A., there would seem to be nothing for sex traffickers to prey on: no destitute starlets, no major international port, no out-of-control crime wave to hide behind.  But local treatment facilities, women’s advocates and law enforcement say Eugene is no stranger to sex trafficking, and it’s not just that trafficking passes through rural Oregon on I-5.  Lane County is a recruitment ground and a market for sex traffickers.”

In addition to Interstate-5, sex trafficking extends onto the offshoots of the freeway to Sacramento and Las Vegas. No matter the routes or the miles the victims travel, it is important to note that trafficking does not necessarily involve movement. Migrant smuggling and trafficking are two different concepts that revolve around a person’s consent in the process.

Oregonians Against Trafficking Humans (OATH), a nonprofit organization that seeks to “encourage citizens to…help combat the growing scourge of human trafficking within the state of Oregon,” aptly writes, “[t]he key distinction between trafficking and smuggling lies in the individual’s freedom of choice. A smuggling situation can escalate into a trafficking situation if and when the smuggler sells or ‘brokers’ the smuggled individual into a condition of servitude, or if the smuggled individual cannot pay the smuggler and is then forced to work off that debt.”  (See OATH: What is Human Trafficking)  Simply put, human trafficking is all about the lack of consent of the victims.

Who’s At Risk:

Often times, human trafficking occurs to women and girls who are native to the area. Since trafficking for sexual exploitation does not necessarily involve movement, it can be forced upon the local and vulnerable populations.  Susceptible groups include chronically homeless youth or youth from troubled homes.  In addition, many women who are trafficked are refugees who initially sought asylum in the United States. For example, though all women regardless of ethnic background are subject to human trafficking, Southeast Asian women are particularly at risk for trafficking on the West Coast.

In an interview with The New York Times this past May, Elizabeth Sy of Banteay Srei, an Oakland-based program for at-risk Southeast Asian girls, said, “[m]any Southeast Asian girls come from new refugee populations. Recruiters target these girls because they know they are struggling with issues of cultural identity.”  (See In Oakland, Redefining Sex Trade Workers as Abuse Victims, NY Times May 2011.)

How Human Trafficking Works:

Generally, pimps and traffickers target women and girls who are a part of a vulnerable population or who suffer from low self-esteem.  In Portland, for example, these individuals often canvass the local malls, bus stops, and even schools to choose “their girls.”  According to Sgt. Mike Geiger of the Portland Police Department, these pimps befriend young girls and identify their needs, promising clothes, jewelry and affection.  Typically, they lavish the chosen girls with gifts to make them feel wanted and loved, as was the case with 13 year old “Katie,” a victim of sex trafficking in Portland.  After being wooed with gifts by a man who turned out to be a pimp, she was told she needed to repay him for all the presents he had purchased for her by dancing at one of the hundreds of strip clubs in Portland.

Current Law:

Oregon is one of thirty states that passed anti-human trafficking bills. (See Initiative Against Sexual Trafficking)  Oregon’s laws against human trafficking include:

ORS 163.263 – Involuntary Servitude – Second Degree: Encompasses forced labor by multiple means, most of which involve non-personal threats, such as deportation or unlawful debt collection;

ORS 163.264 – Involuntary Servitude – First Degree: Encompasses forced labor by means of personal threat to cause death or serious physical injury;

ORS 163.266 – Trafficking in Persons: Generally encompasses harboring, transporting, providing for, or obtaining persons who are subjected to Involuntary Servitude, or those who are financially benefiting from them; and

ORS 167.017 – Compelling Prostitution: Encompasses causing or inducing a person under 18 years of age to engage in prostitution, or compelling any person of any age to engage in prostitution.

Sentencing for sex traffickers ranges from 3 years to more than 20 years.  Currently, state efforts exist to increase the penalties for human traffickers and penalize men who solicit sex from sex trafficking victims.  (See Oregon sex-trafficking bills would increase penalties for pimps and johns. Mar. 2011, Oregon Live.com)

Conclusion:

Human trafficking for sexual exploitation is just beginning to gain more attention and understanding among communities on the West Coast.  Though efforts in Oregon to curb human trafficking and sexual exploitation are steps in the right direction, we must all remember that human trafficking is not an isolated problem or one that does not exist here in the United States.  The fact of the matter is that this is an issue that is in our own backyards and potentially impacts us all.

Popularity: 8% [?]

Sumbu Chantraine Temo, President of Amnesty International at Stockholm University.

Colonel Nyiragire “Kifaru” Kulimushi, known as Congo’s “rape Colonel” surrendered in early July together with 116 of his soldiers amid accusations of mass rape and looting.

Kifaru was a former member of the militia Maï Maï, which played a significant, and sometimes problematic, role in the Second Congo War. As a result of a peace agreement and palaver, the Maï Maï militia joined Congo’s national army, the Armed Forces of the Democratic Republic of Congo (FARDC) along with other rebel groups in 2009.

At a military training course in South Kivu in late spring 2011, Kifaru learned that he was to be demoted due to a restructuring within the FARDC.  Unwilling to accept the FARDC’s decision, Kifaru and his men defected as a means of protest. In the days that followed, it is alleged that Kifaru and his soldiers looted villages and committed mass rapes.  NGO’s estimate that approximately 250 women were raped between June 10-12 in villages of Nyakiele, Kanguli and Abala, all in eastern Congo.

Because the rapes garnered international media attention, government spokesman Lambert Mende, DRC’s Minister of Communications, declared that the national army would begin a manhunt for Kifaru. The army soon managed to locate Kifaru, and he and his men surrendered.

According to AFP, Colonel Sylvain Ekenge, spokesmen for FARDC, indicated that Kifaru and his men were ordered to surrender and did so with no demands. “He did not negotiate the conditions of his surrender because there were no conditions to negotiate…“[w]e gave him the order to come out and he came out of the bush.”

“He said he is afraid and that he had done nothing,” Ekenge added.

A BBC article dated July 8, 2011, reported that the UN held the FARDC responsible for the mass rapes.  “[T]he rapes highlighted poor discipline in the army, and the failure to properly vet rebels integrated into the army following a peace deal to end years of unrest.”

Though government authorities are watching the alleged perpetrators, Kifaru and his men are not in detention, as AFP reported that the soldiers are located in an army base in wait for an investigation.  As Ekenge told AFP, ”[Kifaru] remains at the disposal of the authorities while waiting for the outcome of a military hearing. He is not in detention.” (See DR. Congo colonel and men accused of mass rape surrenders. AFP, July 8, 2011)

Not the first time…

This is not the first time Kifaru has been accused of involvement in mass rapes. On New Year’s Day 2011, a group of soldiers led by Kifaru’s deputy, Lieutenant Colonel Kibibi Mutware, attacked Fizi, a village in South Kivu.  This time, approximately 50 women were raped.

After an investigation, Colonel Kibibi and his group of soldiers were arrested and later convicted after a hearing in military court.  Nine of Kibibi’s men were sentenced for crimes against humanity. Colonel Kibibi and three other officers were sentenced to 20 years in prison. Five other officers were sentenced for between 10 and 15 years imprisonment for the same crime. One man was exonerated whilst another one will be charged in a juvenile court.

Brief history of rape in eastern Congo.

Rape as a tactical weapon conflict in DRC can be traced back to the 1994 genocide in neighbouring Rwanda. Likewise, during the Congo’s eight year Civil War, rape was used as key weapon of war, just as it had been in neighbouring Rwanda.

Although the spillage from the Rwandan conflict is more or less settled the eastern part of Congo, the violence continues because of the region’s vast minerals resources. Today, the Congolese army, rebels, local militias, and warlords continue to vie for control over the mines. Rising conflicts result in risks to the civilians lives and personal safety.

“Because one mine alone can export upwards of ten million dollars worth of minerals per month, rape is the cheapest and easiest means to keep civilians intimidated, humiliated and in a state of constant fear, thus making them completely powerless against the rebels.  Civilians who favor an opposing rebel group are often times punished with rape by the group seeking power, often done in a public way in order to shock and destroy the local community.” (See UN admits peacekeeping efforts failed to protect civilians of Eastern Congo from coordinated mass rapes, The Human Rights Blog, Sept. 30, 2010)

In July 2011, the United Nations published a report on mass rapes that occurred last year in villages in North Kivu. The report states that 387 people were raped; among the victims were 44 were children and 23 men.

Experts say that the extent of sexual violence in Congo is to be regarded as a strategic move by the armed forces. The rapes take brutal forms, working as a weapon intended to paralyze, degrade, and weaken communities.

Many of the rape victims are rejected by their husbands and families and often find themselves without legal support. Although men are also victims of rape, it is yet a greater taboo that is rarely discussed.  “A recent study found that 24% of men and 39% of women have been raped in Congo while many more cases go unreported.” (See video Nation of Vice – DRC, Journeyman Pictures, 2010.)

Recent reports also show that soldiers and civilian workers in MONUSCO have also been guilty of sexual exploiting the Congolese women by offering food and shelter in return for sex.  (See Mass Rape: Time for Remedies, Amnesty International, pg. 15.)

Amnesty International says that the frequency and brutality of the mass rapes is due, in large part, to the government’s inability to find and prosecute human rights abusers. (See New Mass Rapes in DRC are Result of Horrific Failure of Justice, Amnesty International, June 23, 2011)  However, some rule of law experts on the ground point to barriers in the Congo’s Constitution, particularly Article 166, which prohibits charges from being brought against government officials without an absolute majority of the National Assembly.  (See Constitution of the Democratic Republic of Congo)

On the right path:

In light of the recent convictions of Colonel Kibibi and others as well as the surrender of Colonel Kifaru, the DRC seems to be moving in a more positive direction in preventing future sexual violence against civilians.  As Amnesty International’s DRC Campaigner, Claire Morclette, said, “[The Kibibi] conviction is a step in the right direction…[f]or decades crimes like this have gone unpunished in DRC, their perpetrators never bought to justice. However much remains to be done to ensure victims of gross human rights violations in the country receive justice.” (DR CONGO COLONEL’S RAPE CONVICTION IS FIRST STEP ON ROAD TO JUSTICE, Amnesty International: February 23, 2011)

KÄLLA – Bibliography:

RDC : “Kifaru” et 116 soldats accusés de viols massifs se sont rendus, Jeune Afrique, Aug. 7, 2011.

En RDC, le «colonel Kifaru», présumé coupable de 250 viols, entendu par l’état-major, RFI, 09 Juillet 2011.

DR Congo hunting for colonel suspected of mass rape. The African Confidential.

Congo’s shame: Rape used as tool of war. The Washington Times.

When Rape Becomes a Game. Huffington Post via Enough Project, July 6, 2011.

Popularity: 12% [?]