The Human Rights Blog

David Prater, J.D. Candidate 2012, University of Maryland

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a preliminary ruling on July 18^th ordering a demilitarized zone (“DMZ”) around the Preah Vihear Temple on the border of Thailand and Cambodia.  While only a provisional measure, this judgment is a departure from a previous decision regarding Preah Vihear and indicates the Court is shifting its position of exclusive Cambodian control over Preah Vihear to an international or bilateral arrangement where responsibilities are likely to be divided to protect a site, which is recognized to be of “outstanding universal value.”

Background

The Preah Vihear Temple is a flashpoint for violent border confrontations between Thailand and Cambodia. It is the most visible representation of a border dispute dating back to Cambodian independence in 1953.

Constructed in the 9^th century by the Cambodian Khmer Empire, the Preah Vihear Temple is a Hindu temple to Shiva.  Subsequently, Cambodia came under the control of Siam, the predecessor of Thailand, and French Imperial powers.  (The majority of populations in Cambodia and Thailand practice syncretic Buddhism, which incorporates elements of Hinduism and popular religions.)

After Cambodia’s independence from France in 1953, Thai troops occupied Preah Vihear.  In 1962, Cambodia applied to the ICJ to determine which country was sovereign over Preah Vihear.  The ICJ ruled the Preah Vihear Temple to be within the sovereign territory of Cambodia and thus subject to Cambodian control.  However, access to the Temple was nearly impossible from the Cambodian side.  The Thailand side of the border, however, provided direct access to the Temple.  Cambodia has permitted regular access from the Thailand border to Preah Vihear without a visa, provided visitors do not go beyond the Temple.

Since the ICJ 1962 judgment, nationalist movements in Thailand and Cambodia have gained in popularity and moved toward cultural homogeneity within their borders.  In 2008, Cambodia applied to the UNESCO World Heritage Centre to have Preah Vihear inscribed as a World Heritage Site.  Thailand, believing that the two countries should jointly manage Preah Vihear, protested Cambodia’s unilateral application by withdrawing from the World Cultural Heritage Convention.

Low-level border disputes in 2008 continued to escalate and in 2011 the disputes erupted into more intense violence resulting in at least 18 deaths and thousands of displaced civilians along the border.

So, while Cambodian and Thai religious beliefs are more alike than different, the Preah Vihear Temple has become a point of pride for nationalists within both countries.

The Order

Cambodia brought an application to the ICJ under article 60 of the Court’s charter, which permits the court to interpret “the meaning of scope of [a previous  judgment],” in this case the 1962 ICJ judgment. Specifically, Cambodia asked for clarification on the meaning of the ICJ’s order for Thai troops to withdraw from areas “within the vicinity of Preah Vihear.”

The ICJ ordered provisional measures on Cambodia’s application and created a DMZ at Preah Vihear as well as within the borders of Thailand and Cambodia.   Five judges dissented because the provisional measures ordered by the Court went beyond the issues presented in Cambodia’s application and created a DMZ in territories not in dispute.

The scope of the ICJ’s provisional measures can be explained by the unique status of the Preah Vihear Temple and its importance to human rights.

Analysis

The ICJ provisional measures should be read in the context of the Convention Concerning the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage (“the UNESCO Convention”) and the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict of 1954 (“the 1954 Hague Convention”).

The UNESCO Convention recognizes “the importance, for all the peoples of the world, of safeguarding this unique and irreplaceable property, to whatever people it may belong,” and seeks to protect monuments and sites of “outstanding universal value.”  By inscribing World Heritage Sites, UNESCO brings those sites under the protection of the UNESCO Convention.  Moreover, Article 6(1) of the UNESCO Convention reads:

“Whilst fully respecting the sovereignty of the States on whose territory the cultural and natural heritage mentioned in Articles 1 and 2 is situated, and without prejudice to property right provided by national legislation, the States Parties to this Convention recognize that such heritage constitutes a world heritage for whose protection it is the duty of the international community as a whole to co-operate.”

The 1954 Hague Convention reiterates to sanctity of cultural property “to all mankind” and requires state parties to “refrain[ing] from any use of the property and its immediate surroundings or of the appliances in use for its protection for purposes which are likely to expose it to destruction or damage in the event of armed conflict; and by refraining from any act of hostility directed against such property.”

The Conventions are in direct opposition to both Cambodian and Thai government claims and conduct.  Both sides use Preah Vihear as a symbol to enflame nationalist feelings as a part of the larger border dispute.  Both sides have also inflicted incidental damage on the Temple with bullets and mortars.

But because of Preah Vihear’s inscription under the Convention, its value cannot be reduced to competing Cambodian and Thai claims.  Instead, the value of Preah VIhear is universal for all people – Thai, Khmer, French, South African, etc.  Both Cambodian and Thai armed forces have an obligation to refrain from use of cultural property, which will endanger the property to destruction or damage.

The status of Preah Vihear as an UNESCO World Heritage Site, protected by both the UNESCO Convention and the 1954 Hague Convention, justifies the ICJ’s creation of a DMZ that reaches into the borders of Cambodia and Thailand.  While this decision clearly protects the Preah Vihear, it also protects the human right to cultural heritage.

Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:

“(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.”

Because of the universal value of the Preah Vihear, the right to share in the benefits of Preah Vihear is a right of all people.  While the DMZ around Preah Vihear in Cambodia and Thailand protect this human right for the time being, the ICJ’s opinion also points toward an internationalization of the area in order to protect both the Temple itself as well as the human right to enjoy the cultural benefits of the Temple.

The unique location of the Temple means it is most easily accessed from the Thai side of the border, even though the Temple remains on Cambodia territory.  So, it is likely that any long-term solution to the border dispute, which protects the Preah Vihear and the human right to access the Temple, will require an internationalization of Preah Vihear and the area surrounding it.   Officials of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (“ASEAN”) have tried to negotiate an international zone before and Thailand has similarly made motions toward internationalization of the area.  It is clear that the ICJ’s preliminary measures push Cambodia and Thailand toward the negotiating table for internationalization of the area.  Moreover, the preliminary measures not only move toward the internationalization of the Preah Vihear Temple area, but also subordinate state claims of Cambodia and Thailand in favor of protecting the universal human right to cultural heritage.

For more information, please read the following:

Thailand to Comply With Cambodian Temple DMZ Imposed by UN, Bloomberg, July 18, 2011.

Popularity: 8% [?]

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

Issues regarding refugees have plagued the international community throughout the 20^th and 21^st centuries (UNHCR 2000). Refugees present a unique set of problems to their host countries throughout the world, as well as raise both theoretical and practical questions on the issues of forced migration, migrant’s rights, and host countries’ responsibilities and limits thereof (See *Forced Migration Online).  Following the end of WWII, the United Nations worked to address the issue of European refugees.  On December 3, 1949, the UN established the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in order to find solutions for displaced people.  The statutes of the UNHCR were ratified and accepted at the ‘Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees of 28 July 1951,’ or the ‘1951 Convention’ (**Knudsen, 2009, p. 53).  If a country is party to the 1951 Convention, it is responsible to provide an environment free of discrimination to refugees, access to the labor market, access to the courts, access to healthcare, access to public education, the freedom of movement, and identity papers among other rights guaranteed in the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol. Lebanon along with all other Arab countries, except Egypt is not party to the 1951 Convention (Knudsen, 2009).

Palestinian refugees were, however, not included in this convention (Id). Forced to move from their homeland since 1948, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians have relocated throughout the Middle East.  The United Nations Disaster Relief Project (UNDRP) was the first organization created to respond to the crisis of the Palestinians who had been forced to flee, or had chosen to leave their homes. Following the lack of the UNDRP’s success due to poor performance and the threat of war that engulfed them, the UN Relief for Palestinian Refugees (UNRPR) was created, then the UN Conciliation Commission for Palestinians (UNCCP), and finally the UN Relief and Works Agency for Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), which is the organization that is still in place today to address the needs of the Palestinians living throughout the Middle East (Knudsen, 2009, p 52-53). UNRWA is operational in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip and is only available to the Palestinian refugees who are residents of one of these countries (Knudsen, 2009, p. 54).

While some Palestinians have successfully integrated into their host countries, others have been marginalized and given few opportunities to succeed. Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria are countries with significant populations of Palestinian refugees, due to their proximity to Palestine. Jordan and Syria are considered to have semi-successfully integrated Palestinians into their societies; while in Lebanon, Palestinians have found themselves without basic socio-economic and civil rights. Decree No. 117780/1948 of Lebanese law (13 May 1948) defines Palestinian refugees in Lebanon as “every person who sought refuge in Lebanon as a result of the conflict in Palestine, regardless of nationality, original residence location, and economic situation.”

Lebanon has not granted Palestinians full legal and socio-economic rights, which has created a situation of poverty and deprivation. During the last 60 years since Palestinians have been in Lebanon, the government has granted them various rights and then later taken them away, such as the right to own property. Palestinians at one point had the right to own property, however, now they do not have this right.  Likewise, regional and international governments and organizations have, for the most part, failed to address Palestinian refugees’ needs in Lebanon on all levels.

After analyzing the situation of Palestinians in Lebanon, I have found that they lack the necessary access to the Lebanese labor market. I argue that the status of Palestinians in Lebanon and their lack of access to work opportunities have been formed by a complex web of the political and historical context, the state of the economy, and the lack of consensus among Lebanese politicians. Indeed, I argue that these reasons have led to a policy of deliberately ignoring Palestinians, which I believe could be mitigated by taking small steps on a local level.  More broadly, the situation of Palestinians in Lebanon is multi-layered, and requires action from the international community, the Lebanese government, and the Lebanese and Palestinian communities.

After completing my field research, I also came to the conclusion that there is significant unwillingness to integrate Palestinians into the Lebanese society and grant them basic socio-economic rights. I believe that this is also related to the two types of discrimination—institutionalized and individual.  In my research, I found that discrimination is a major issue that needs to be addressed in considering ways to increase Palestinian access to the labor market.

Institutionalized discrimination or essentially the discriminatory laws, contribute significantly to the difficulties Palestinians face in gaining access to the labor market. As it is now, even with new legislation in place, it is still difficult to get a work permit. Interviewees commented that the August 2010 labor law amendment to Article 59, which grants Palestinians access to the labor market without applying the principle of reciprocity of works permit fees to them was a step in the right direction, but did not eliminate all the issues Palestinians face. With inspiration and motivation from the international community and recent revolutions throughout the Arab world, Palestinians in Lebanon can hold onto their right to access to basic socio-economic and civil rights they have been denied.

Bibliography:

*Forced Migration Online

**Knudsen, A. (2009). Widening the protection gap: The ‘politics of citizenship’ for Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, 1948-2008. Journal of Refugee Studies, 22(1), 51-73.

To request access to Elizabeth Hebert’s entire graduate thesis, please contact her through her website, On the Olive Tree.

—–

Editor’s Note:  For more information, visit Free Middle East.com

Popularity: 2% [?]

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% [?]

The Human Rights Blog seeks two volunteer Bloggers/Contributors to offer monthly articles to the publication.

Position:  Blogger/Contributor (2)

Responsibilities:

The Blogger/Contributor will be responsible for one substantive article per month.  Possible blog topics may include, but are not limited to, human rights, international law, children’s advocacy, religious freedom, the rights of indigenous and underrepresented groups, and foreign policy as related to social justice issues.  Candidates with particular interest in topics relating to Christians of the Middle East, Europe’s Roma, Chinese dissidents, and the sociopolitical situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo will be given special consideration.

Note:  While each Blogger/Contributor will have the freedom to formulate their own pieces, the Editor-in-Chief must approve each topic, as all articles must be representative of the views and ideologies of The Human Rights Blog.  Each piece must be well researched and factually accurate as to maintain the integrity and reputation of the publication.

Qualifications:

The position of Blogger/Contributor is open to students and professionals alike.  The position is especially ideal for law students or graduate students of human rights, comparative politics or international relations who wish to weigh in on the global discussion of human rights.  Undergraduate students with demonstrated writing proficiency will also be considered.  The Human Rights Blog encourages applications from individuals from a variety of backgrounds and nationalities.

To apply:

Send a short statement of interest, resume or CV, and two writing samples (no more than three pages each) to Justina Uram Mubangu at justinamarie [at] thehumanrightsblog [dot] com.

The Human Rights Blog is dedicated to the discussion and dissemination of human rights and international law related news and information.  Since its launch in November 2009, The Human Rights Blog has received over 176,000 page views from 129 countries.

Popularity: 2% [?]

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: 19% [?]