Chemical Warfare; The Truth

Nearly a week ago, President Trump ordered the launch of 59 cruise missiles at the Sharyat air base in Syria.  US involvement in the Syrian Civil War, which began in 2011 as a subset of the Arab Spring, has been a widely contentious debate for years.  After the lack of success in Iraq and Afghanistan, the idea of US involvement in foreign disputes, particularly in the Middle East, has been unpopular.  Despite a plethora of media coverage on the war, including graphic imagery of injured and traumatized children that inundated various social media platforms, the notoriously gung-ho US military was hesitant to directly engage in the conflict – that is, until last week.

 

On April 4th, 2017, Syrian President Bashar Assad allegedly ordered an airstrike on the town of Idlib that left at least 74 (though likely more) dead and  at least 557 injured.  While attacks directed at civilians are not unusual, it was the method of this attack that was particularly atrocious.  The government forces dropped bombs containing toxic gas that resulted suffocation, paralysis, foaming at the mouth, and death.

 

The US came close to directly targeting Syria after a similar incident in 2013 that resulted in the deaths of over 1,000 civilians.  At the time of first incident, President Obama had suggested a “targeted military strike,” although the strike was not approved by Congress.  Still, Obama stated that a chemical attack would cross a “red line,” on the basis that the use of chemical warfare is legally considered a war crime, as defined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

 

To be clear, the use of chemical weapons is also violation of the agreements from the Chemical Weapons Convention, an arms control treaty that was negotiated in 1997 and has been ratified by 189 of the 193 UN member states, including the US.

 

In his statement released on Friday, President Trump cited the convention as he called for “all civilized nations,” to end the “slaughter and bloodshed,” in Syria.

While war itself is undeniably violent, both the Rome Statute and the Convention have attempted to set and enforce boundaries in regard to acceptable and unacceptable acts of war.  The use of chemical weapons is included in both doctrines for several reasons.

(Image from Business Insider)

First, once poison gas is released into a certain area, it is impossible to control who will become a victim.  This means that everyone within a certain radius of the release is a target. Toxic chemicals do not discriminate. Victims have no fair chance of escape one gas is released.  In the Idlib attack, eleven of the fatalities were suffered by children. Videos and images of these children circulated the web, evoking mass sympathy within the international community.  In the White House press release, President Trump stated that “even beautiful babies,” were victims of exposure. Chemical warfare does not just limit its scope the military or rebels, it makes everyone a victim.

 

Second, history has left us scarred from the atrocities of World War I and World War II. It is estimated that over 90,000 people, including members of both civilian and military populations were killed from toxic gas during the First World War alone.  Later, the Nazi regime used gas chambers to commit the mass murder of Jews in concentration camps.  Documentation of these horrors have rightfully left us fearful of chemical weapons, even in time of war.

 

Lastly, even when nonfatal, exposure to toxic gas is extremely painful, agonizing, and cruel. Although it has not been proven definitively, it is assumed that the chemical used in the Idlib attack was Sarin, which is known is cause nausea, confusion, foaming at the mouth, fluid build up in the lungs, and death. The use of toxic gas does not simply eliminate the enemy, it forces the enemy to suffer. 

Although direct US involvement in the Syrian conflict is still highly contentious, there is a strong consensus within the international community against the use of chemical weapons.

However, as Blake mentioned in his last blog, there are countless challenges that come alongside enforcement of international law.  While both the Rome Statute and the Chemical Weapons Convention criminalize the use of chemical weapons, military action can only be taken by individual sovereign states, like the US.
Ultimately, the goal is to stop the use of chemical weapons and to protect the citizens of Syria.  This is a difficult goal to achieve, however is my hope that both the US and the international community are able to accomplish it.

FGM

“Because women and girls are not valued equally as human beings, they are treated as less than such.  Female genital mutilation is one example of this that has to be stopped.”

-Waris Dirie

Female genital mutilation (FGM) is also known as female genital cutting or female circumcision.  FGM is mainly practiced in Africa, Asia and the Middle East.  This procedure is intentional and is usually executed for non-medical reasons.

The World Health Organization said, “This procedure has no health benefits for girls and women.”

This procedure is mainly carried out on women fifteen years old and younger.

This is a violation of human rights.

In 2016, UNICEF stated “200 million women living today in 30 countries—27 African countries, Indonesia, Iraqi, Kurdistan, and Yemen—have undergone the procedures.”

Female genital mutilation is considered a tradition and usually carried out by individuals who play large, central roles in the community at hand.

Female genital mutilation is classified into 4 categories:

1. Clitoridectomy:  This is a partial and/or total removal of the clitoris.
2. Excision:  This is a partial and/or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minora, with or without the excision of the labia majora.
3. Infibulation:  This is the narrowing of the vaginal opening through the creation of a covering seal.  This is formed through the cutting and re-closing of the labia minor and labia majora through sewing or stitching.
4.  Harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes.

Again, there are absolutely no health benefits from female genital mutation, only harm.  Some of these short term side effects are severe pain, excessive bleeding, genital tissue swelling, fever, infections, urinary problems, wound healing problems, injury to surrounding genital tissue, physical shock, and death.

Some long term effects are urinary problems, vaginal problems, menstrual problems, scar tissue, sexual problems, increased risk of childbirth complications, excessive bleeding, newborn deaths, need for further surgery (re-opening for sexual intercourse and childbirth), psychological problems, and health complications.

Below, is a graph describing the amount of women aged 15-49 who have undergone female genital mutation (red) and women aged 15-49 with at least one daughter who has undergone female genital mutation (orange) in several different countries.
Source:  Photo

As you can see, the majority of occurrences are in Middle Eastern, African, and Asian countries.

There are many cultural and social factors for performing female genital mutation.  Some of these factors are social pressure to conform, it’s considered appropriate sexual behavior, it’s a necessary part of raising a girl, and most importantly, association with culture.

As I’ve stated in previous posts, I am in no place to disrespect or patronize other cultures.  The only culture that I know is mine.  But in my opinion, this is a complete violation of human rights.

Not having the right to your body, let alone your reproductive rights is an absolute violation of those human rights.  Men AND women should absolutely have full autonomy to the actions taken upon and performed on their body.

I currently have no solution or plan of action to address and change the female genital mutilation process in the listen countries.

I’m not 100% sure if there is a solution or plan of action.

But I know this is criminal.  I know this is wrong.  I know something needs to be done to prevent women from abuse, usually at the hand of men.

There is no reason why women’s reproductive rights should be violated, abused, or terminated.  Women are the ones keeping the population of this world constant.

We, as a country with Western ideals, should attempt to educate and help those who do not have a voice for themselves.

Please keep in mind that I do not believe in pushing Western ideals onto those who do not agree or do not wish for those ideas.  I do not believe in changing cultures and do not believe that the American way of life is the best way of life.

But I do believe in the right to choose.  I do believe that the American way of life, founded on freedom, provides some saving grace to those who are in desperate need of fleeing their own country.

I believe in women’s’ right to their own body.  I believe in their right to choose reproduction or not choose reproduction.

Although this might seem culturally inappropriate, we as a nation, should step in and highlight the reasons why female genital mutation is unacceptable.

I hope we can put an end to this section of culture.  I hope we can help women all around the world gain the right to their bodies, because right now, they need a voice.  They need a helping hand.

They need those who are willing to stand up for them.  That is us.  The combination of American and European women who will help transform the horrific aspect of foreign cultures.

When Free Speech Becomes Hate Speech

This past Sunday, federal judge David Hale ruled in favor of protesters who were assaulted during a Trump campaign rally in Louisville nearly a year ago, on March 1st 2016.  The protesters, whose assault was used as a widely documented critique of the Trump campaign, claim that President Trump instigated the incident by pointing to them and exclaiming, “get ‘em out of here,” repeatedly.

*Video footage is from a similar incident in Iowa City*

Prior to the ruling, the Trump campaign attorneys cited “freedom of speech,” as defense for the current president.

Freedom of speech is a tricky issue for several reasons.

Firstly, it is protected under the First Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights.

While the amendment does not further define freedom of speech, it is perhaps the most cited claim in the entire bill.  This means that the Amendment itself excludes the prohibition of slander, libel, and hate speech. To supplement this, subsequent acts passed by state legislation in conjunction with Supreme Court rulings have established grounds for prosecution of things like hate speech since the publication of the Bill of Rights.  

Secondly, despite attempts to establish “acceptable,” and “unacceptable,” applications of the amendment, rulings are inconsistent at best.  For example, the 1973 Miller v. California case established works of art “which, taken as a whole, have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value, regardless of whether the government or a majority of the people approve of the ideas these works represent,” may be protected under the amendment.  Dissimilarly,  in the case of Lahme v. University of Southwestern Louisiana (1997), the state ruled that works involving “racial or sexual themes,” may not be located near college campuses or public schools.  Unfortunately, this inconsistency opens the gateway for lawyers to use “freedom of speech,” as defense for nearly any case, weakening the impact of the amendment.

Thirdly, the amendment, like much of the legislation in the US, has historically been used to oppress marginalized groups like women, blacks, union workers, immigrants, and other minorities, while simultaneously benefitting the highest class of Americans.  For example, Whitney v. California in 1928 found a Communist Labor Party member guilty for expressing beliefs that allegedly taught the “violent overthrow of the government.”  Later, in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1968), the Supreme Court ruled that the conviction of Clarence Brandenburg – a KKK leader who invited television viewers to attend a rally that resulted in hate speech, and cross burnings – was a violation of the First Amendment right to freedom of speech.  

These problems are not just seen in big court cases – they can be seen in everyday life.  As a college student, I’ve frequently heard people exclaim, “freedom of speech,” in defense of their own hateful or offensive remarks.  Unfortunately, making this claim does not erase the harm created by such remarks.

Of course, I am not saying that freedom of speech should not be a right protected in our Bill of Rights, nor am I advocating for government censorship of the media or press. Written in 1791 by James Madison, the First Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights was a revolutionary step in the history of democracy.  The right to freedom of speech is a fundamental human right, protected also under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that is key to ensuring justice around the world.

Fortunately, the right itself is protected from “abridging,” on the part of Congress, meaning that the government cannot alter or remove a US citizen’s right to freedom of speech.  However, it is possible, as previously mentioned, for judges to make rulings based on additional guidelines.

For example, in his ruling on Sunday, Judge Hale declared that President Trump’s remarks incited violence, and that the protesters injuries were a “direct and proximate result,” of his words.  

Limiting the right to freedom of speech to extend protection only over speech that is not a “direct and proximate,” cause of violence, seems like a decent starting ground from which future judges, attorneys, and legislatures can defend or prosecute cases. Though again it may be difficult, getting courts to consolidate on these grounds alone would be a huge step towards ensuring safety for all citizens.

This case in particular has the potential to be incredibly impactful considering that the accused is the current President of the United States – a man who has himself made statements alluding to press censorship.
Ultimately, the right to speak freely is a right that everyone should possess at birth.  It only becomes a problem when people exercise that right in a manner that results in the direct infliction of harm (in this case, physical harm) on other human beings.  As Shane mentioned in his blog on ability status, language has a huge impact on the ability of individuals and groups to function in society. In the coming years, it will become our duty as citizens to stay informed, and stay involved in the conversation about drawing the line between free speech and hate speech.

Voluntarily or Forced?

“Marriage is not kick-boxing, it’s salsa dancing.”
― Amit Kalantri

UNICEF defines child brides as, “couples who are formally married, or who live together as a sexually active couple in an informal union, with at least one member — usually the girl — being less than 18 years old.”

The top three countries that use child brides are Niger (76%), Central African Republic (68%) and Chad (68%).  More often than not, families in these countries force their young daughters into marriage for several reasons.  The family might be unable to afford to feed their daughter, it creates family alliances, and may often settle a debt between families.

Please view the National Geographic produced a short documentary called “Too Young To Wed” below.

*Disclaimer:  This video has graphic content, please be advised.*

(Source:  Video)

This video portrays the horrors of being married off at such a young age.  Young women were going as far as lighting themselves on fire, hoping it would be the end to their suffering.

More specifically, the video talks about a girl named Marzia, who was married at the age of nine years-old.  Marzia set herself on fire because she broke her husband’s television set and was fearful of her consequences.

Another young woman, named Jamilia, was stabbed by her husband after attempting to visit her mother without his permission.

A girl named Asia, was 14 and already had two children.

A woman’s body is not fully grown at age nine.  A women’s body is not fully grown at age 14.  This negatively impacts the child and the child’s growth as well.

Now please understand, I was born in the United States.  I am a Westerner.  This would not occur on American soil.  In fact, if such an atrocity were to occur, the public, police, and media would be up in arms, interfering in any way possible.

This post is not meant to criticize a culture different than mine, but

This is not their society.
This is not their culture.
This is not their way of life.

More prominently in the Middle East, “men are kings”.  They own their wives just as they own their houses or television set.  There are no laws against men abusing, raping, or harming their wives.

Once she is married, she is forever indebted to her husband.

These marriages are rarely stopped or hindered.

It absolutely puts into perspective the degree of human rights from a Western culture to an Eastern culture.

In America, we’re concerned about equal pay between the sexes for the same job.  Although this is a valid concern, those in the Middle East are far more alarming.

Women are not entailed to their bodies.  They are not entitled to property or belongings.  They are not entitled to their own decision-making process.  Blatantly put, they’re enslaved.

Enslaved to their husbands.

Unfortunately, there is also little no media attention on the topic.  First, it isn’t related to the United States, which makes it less likely to be reported on.  Second, it’s not a cultural norm we abide by or follow.  Third,

Not only does this form of slavery hinder women, it completely blocks women from receiving an education.

The country is at a disadvantage for not educating half of their population.  Half of their population is not being utilized for business growth, job growth, governmental growth, and societal growth.

In my opinion, the use of child brides is absolutely heinous and disgusting.  The entire mentality that women are property, instead of humans is what’s wrong with all societal stigmas about women.

As a woman who has had the privilege to practice and express her freedom in any possibility I’ve desired, it would be the most degrading experience if I ever had to ask my partner to visit my mother.

I am blessed to live in this country, under a governmental process that attempts to create equality for its citizens.  After being exposed to this type of mentality, I do not take my freedom for granted.  I am lucky to also be born to a woman who encourages independence and womanhood.

I was taught to be self-dependent.  I was taught to stand by myself.  I was taught to educate myself if someone refused to.  I was taught to attempt to be a positive example for not only women, but my peers.  I was taught that whatever a man could do, I could also do, if not better.

It’s time for those as privileged as myself to begin educating the rest of the world.  It’s time that we stand up and highlight that women have just as much right on this Earth than men do.

De-Stigmatizing Mental illness

Going off my blog post last week, I’m going to continue a conversation surrounding ability status. This week we are diving into a dialogue that isn’t typically addressed as being an intersecting identity that can affect someone’s every day life: Mental illness.

“Mental illness refers to a wide range of mental health conditions – disorders that affect your mood, thinking and behavior. Examples of mental illness include depression, anxiety disorders, schizophrenia, eating disorders and addictive behaviors.”

Mental illness is an all encompassing disability that can drastically affect someone’s every day experience. More than 25% of college students have been diagnosed with a mental illness, and even if you take college out of the equation one in four young adults (18 – 24) have a mental illness that could be diagnosed.

A common myth that is placed in society is that if “I” don’t have a mental illness it doesn’t affect “me”. Why does it Matter? Education is an important conversation starter for individuals who don’t understand the severity of mental illness going untreated.

• One in five American adults have had a run in with some variation of a mental illness.
• One in ten young people have fought depression within themselves.
• One in twenty-five Americans have lived with a serious mental illness.

We talked a lot about systematic discrimination in regards to systematic racism in my blog post about the film Get Out Well systematic discrimination exists within the constructs of mental illness as well. This systematic discrimination is within both Medicaid and Medicare laws, and makes it so individuals who are hospitalized in psychiatric hospitals are neglected the appropriate amount of care, and sometimes are forced out of the hospitals before their treatment is done.

Mental illness can encompass a lot of very negative aspects within our society.

1. The most obvious being the individual who has a diagnosable mental illness’ well being comes first. Without getting the appropriate care individuals struggle with maintaining jobs, doing well in school, and even sometimes keeping interpersonal relationships.
2. The United States experiences a number of human and financial costs by not putting any effort or empathy to those with a mental illness.
3. When mental illness is neglected it can lead to very serious repercussions including some of the shootings that you find on the news.
4. Stigma! Mental illness establishes a system of “difference” on individuals who have a treatable illness, but cannot get the appropriate help.

I want to expand on stigma. Whenever we have a conversation surrounding stigma I do not think individuals put enough emphasis on the fact that stigma is one of the leading causes of discriminatory behaviors. There are stigmas attached to individuals who identify as a LGBTQ+, as trans or nonbinary, as a person of color, as a religion that isn’t Christian (at last in American culture), and that doesn’t stop with mental illness.

Individuals face a number of stigma when they have mental illness. A lot of society still has trouble believing mental illness is a real life illness that people deal with on a daily basis. People can help people – human rights can only truly exist with the backing of a predominant part of society.

“Only 44% adults with diagnoseable mental health problems and less than 20% of children and adolescents receive needed treatment.”

Friends and family can be the advocates for their loves one, and help get them into treatment. If someone you know has a mental illness and seems to be struggling, never be afraid to let them know that you are there as a support system.

Mental illness needs to be taken more seriously within American culture. We need to get away from challenging the idea that mental illness is real, and accept that individuals do have mental illnesses and we need to be there for them.

“Suicide is the 10^th leading cause of death in the United States. It accounts for the loss of more than 41,000 American lives each year, more than double the number of lives to homicide.”

Mental illness is a big factor on why people attempt or commit suicide. Reaching out to individuals, and believing them when they say that there could be something wrong is of vital importance.

Recognize the signs that individuals need help. Reach and out and say that you are there for them, and never neglect someone’s illness. Be an empowering ally to individuals who are diagnosed or looking into treatment for their mental illness.  We need to begin the road to de-stigmatizing mental illness, and providing the prevention and care needed to have a healthier community over all.

The Affordable Care Act requires that health providers allow for equal coverage for mental and physical health, so there are steps going in the right direction, we just need to continue moving in a positive direction. Write to your legislator, create a petition, even just be a supportive friend to deconstruct the myths and establish education as the key to helping and empowering others.

Shipping Their Lives Away

Eastern hemisphere governments have a notorious oppressing background which seems to still remain around today. Recently in Leer, South Sudan, their government engagement in horrific behavior reigning down tyranny among male citizens. The Sudanese government detained 60 men and boys, ranging in all ages, inside of a shipping container.

Everyone suffocated painfully and stared at each other as they took their last breath. They then dumped all their remains in and open field inside of Leer town.

“They found the remains of many broken skeletons still strewn across the ground.”

“The arbitrary arrest, torture, and mass killing of these detainees is just one illustration of the South Sudanese government’s absolute disregard for the laws of war.”

How is this government getting away with these killings? Does anyone want to aid and help these citizens out so their lives can get better?

Multiple witnesses described hearing the detainees crying and screaming in agony while pounding the sides of the container to get free. None of the containers had windows or a form of ventilation so the detainees could breath. Each witnesses attested that the government, or military officials, had knowledge that the prisoners where in agony.

“She saw the area command order soldiers to open the container and remove the bodies of four dead men and then close the container again on the remaining detainees who were still alive inside.”

“We could see the people inside and they were not alive…what we saw was tragic…the container was full of people. They had fallen over one another and on to the floor. There were so many people.”

Following the deaths of the detainees, witnesses said government soldiers loaded bodies by the dozens into the truck and dumped them in the pits of Kulier and Juong payam. This government atrocity is take similar patterns of the Khmer Rouge regime and starting their own type of killing fields.

These prisoners had their rights violated. This relates to my previous blog post on how the Syrian prisoners where being treated. Both of these events resulted in multiple prisoner’s death and suffering. How are neither of these countries being charged with any type of human rights violation?

On the bright side, South Sudan is being accused of war crimes. Will anyone actually hold them accountable? How does a government become so tyrannical? Do other governments not see that these types of governments are committing such horrendous actions? We need to take action and save hundreds if not thousands of innocent citizens that are taken for unjust reasoning. This action is just one of the many that has happened during South Sudan’s oppressing times.

South Sudan has been in a civil war close to five years and still going now. Thousands of civilians have had their human rights thrown away due to their ethnicity or political alliances. Close to 3 million people where forced from their homes in fear of losing their lives in this on going war. Key buildings such as hospitals, schools, and government oriented buildings, have been looted, destroyed, or left in abandonment because of the civil war outbreak.

What was thought to be the end of the civil war during a peace agreement in 2015, only fueled the leaders on both sides, and ramped up the abuses by both forces.

The town of Bentiu in the north of South Sudan has had by far the worse human rights violation in the civil outbreak. April 15^th, 2015 the Bentiu massacre was put into action and changed the way of the South Sudanese civil war. This massacre was fueled by hate speech and genocidal ways. Revels broadcasted on national radio as this was happening to rape women of specific ethnicities and demand that rival groups be expelled from town.

“Worst single atrocity since the fighting broke out in the worlds newest country”

The United Nations stated that rebel’s slaughters hundreds of people as they seized in Bentiu. These people sought refuge inside of this town’s hospital, mosque, and Catholic church. Rebels killed so many refugees in this massacre that bodies had to be removed in the jaws of a bulldozers.

South Sudan is among one of the highest human right violating nations today. Ignorance and hate is amongst this country and hopefully will be put to a stop so suffering will cease.

Silencing the Watchdog

“Journalism can never be silent: that is its greatest virtue and its greatest fault. It must speak, and speak immediately, while the echoes of wonder, the claims of triumph and the signs of horror are still in the air.”

– Henry Anatole Grunwald

Nearly all citizens depend on the mass media to acquire some type of information about issues happening within and outside our borders.

With this dependency comes a level of uncertainty due to the spread of fake news happening across the globe.

The idea of misinformation continuously being spread has made it easier for government officials to publicly denounce any accounts of reports given from news outlets and even specific journalist.

In February, Trump officially announced that the new enemy of the American people is the American news media.

Source: Photo

It has been 63 days since Trump has assumed office, and he, along with those within his administration, have continuously been vocal about the media. In fact, Trump addresses the media as the “opposition party”.

Fortunately, his devotion to deteriorate the news media hasn’t had a big impact on American’s trust. In February, The Quinnipiac Poll University released a poll that showed that 52% of Americans trust the media more than Trump, while only 37% of Americans trust Trump more than the media.

The poll also reported that 90% of Americans think that it is important that the media holds public officials accountable.

While most individuals urge for independent news sources that provide unbiased opinions and only state facts, citizens still understand the importance of freedom of the press.

Citizens have a right to information and the press helps ensure that.

By their oversight, they become our watchdogs. They help us become better informed citizens by guiding us through events that are happening all across the globe. The immense amount of time they take to uncover a wide range of topics that affect us is why they are essential.

They gather information on issues and events that often are not within our reach to obtain.

What happens when we silence them?

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) reported that in terms of respect for media freedom, there has been an disturbing decline on a global and national level.

Many citizens across the globe are denied their right to know. Governments deprive their citizens of the knowledge that they need to become better informed individuals.

Source: Photo

Source: Photo

In its latest report, Freedom House reported that 3.4 billion people do not live in a country where their press is free.

As of right now, the governments of 66 countries suppress their citizens by punishing those who freely express their opinions.

On January 25^th, 2017, Abdihamid Mohamed Osman, a Somalian, was severely wounded by a bomb implanted in his car in Mogadishu.

On March 13^th, 2017, Anania Sorri, an Ethiopian, was just released after serving 4 months in prison.

On March 15^th, 2017, Tayseer al-Najjar, a Jordanian, was sentenced to 3 years in prison.

Osman, Sorri, and al-Najjar are all journalist who have been subjected to torture and imprisonment for simply informing the public about their governments.

They comprise only a short list of the many journalists who are often put in dangerous positions when they report on issues to inform the public.

As of right now, Somalia, Ethiopia, and Jordan remain dangerous countries for journalists to report on issues that are often critical of their government. Journalists within these countries are severely restricted and their freedom of expression are not protected.

Within these countries, rarely are those who are responsible for these attacks face any form of prosecution. Even though calls to the government to take action have been made, their governments still fail to condemn these acts against the press.

These three journalists provide an example of what happens when we attack and wage war on the press.

When governments decide to censor what type of information that their citizens can and cannot obtain, they are undoubtedly trying to undermine the role of the watchdog.

When the government controls what you can see and what you can hear, there’s little opposition that can be voiced by citizens.

Citizens have a right to know what is taking place within their own countries.

To say that all news is trustworthy would be false. We should be caution of what we read and how we interpret it. However, government officials should not overreach their power by regulating what they want us to believe to be true.

As for the United States, it is vital that our news media continues to place pressure on this new administration in the White House.

When public officials only accept praises and discredit any form of criticism, severe skepticism should be expressed by citizens.

The news media should continue to assume its role as our watchdog. With an increase state of uncertainty, we need them now more than ever.

Our watchdogs seek to ensure that governments are transparent, responsible, and accountable when they make decisions on the behalf of their citizens. It is important that we protect them and their rights because they protect ours.

– Azuree Bowman

Being Intentional: Ability Status

If you are an able-bodied individual you probably do not think about ability status often. Ability status affects people with disabilities in a lot of different ways. Within this blog post appropriate language is going to be outlined, universities will be discussed in how they don’t have accessible spaces for individuals with disabilities with a specific focus on James Madison University, and how to improve in general.

The National Youth Leadership Network outlines a plethora of ways that someone can be better equipped linguistically on how to reference individuals with differing ability statuses. Some key points that they made that people might want to take into consideration when they are speaking with individuals in general include:

• Don’t bring attention to someone’s disability if it has nothing to do with any of the current circumstances.
• When referring to places that can be utilized by individuals with a disability do not refer to these accommodations as “disabled” or “handicapped”, but rather use the term accessible.

Accessibility defined in reference ability status is ‘”ability to access’ the functionality, and possible benefit of some system or entity and is used to describe the degree to which a product such as a device, service, environment is accessible by as many people as possible.”

• Be very intentional with language. Remove “retarded”, “cripple”, and “special needs” from your vocabulary. There are way more listed by the National Youth Leadership on words to completely avoid in that they are discriminatory by nature to individuals who are a part of the disabled community.
• One important factor that The National Youth Leadership Network didn’t really reference was that when referring to a community of individuals when talking about their specific talk about their identity first. Such as:
  • Individuals who identify as LGBTQ+
  • People of Color
  • Individuals with disability
  • People who identify as Muslim.

James Madison University, and colleges around the country are starting to enact programs that focus specifically on language, but aren’t adapting their campuses at a quick enough rate to make individuals feel accommodated.

“Estimates are that currently about 9 percent of students on college campuses have some form of disability”. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with disabilities Act is supposed to supply accommodations for these individuals on their college campuses.

When I worked for Orientation at James Madison University, one student that I worked with was in a wheelchair. Prior to this experience, I had never fathomed how inaccessible our campus is to individuals with differing ability statuses. We had to go out of our way to get to basic locations on campuses:

• Dining halls
• Places to get your JMU Access Card
• Even the quad – one of our school’s biggest attractions.

JMU does have the Office of Disabilities, but accommodations need to be present for every individual, ramps need to be all over campus, more diversity learning programs need to be enacted.

The problem is funding – there is such a hardship with affording students with disabilities the same opportunity as those without disabilities. You almost have to go out of your way in order to receive funding if you are an individual with a disability.

Private institutions and corporations will sometimes supply these opportunities because public and private institutions alike cannot allot these separate funds. This isn’t fair to students across the board.

How can we be more accessible? How can all colleges be more accessible?

On the administration side of things the first step is listening. Individuals with disabilities can give testimonies about how their experiences have been altered by how their campus handles accessibility. This can result in proposals and change within these institutions. Universities want to welcome diversity, but in a lot of ways don’t know how. Demand to have your voice heard.

If you are a student without a disability be an ally to the community of people that do have a disability. Be understanding, be empathetic. Speak out for individuals who don’t have the platform to do so themselves. Organize campus wide events that give focus to differing ability status identities. If these campus events are available, go to them.

The first step to any program being implemented or changing is to become more educated, and equip yourself with the language, knowledge and tools to enact major change. You can also always contact your local legislators and get them involved. Sometimes speaking to your university isn’t enough – especially if the university you attend is public the state has a lot of say in how things may change. Don’t let your voice be diminished by ignorance, brighten up your campus with diversity by establishing that you aren’t going anywhere.

 

Water, Rights, and Oil

“It is a pipeline that is threatening the lives of people, lives of my tribe, as well as millions down the river.”

Standing Rock Sioux Chairman, Dave Archambault II

The Dakota Access Pipeline was announced to the public on June 25th, 2014.  This $3.78 million dollar project was meant to run from North Dakota into South Dakota, Iowa, and Illinois please view the image below: 
(Source:  Photo)

The pipeline was originally proposed and constructed to help the production and movement of oil throughout the United States.  This has been one of the more controversial topics in the recent media.

Changing the course of construction, the pipeline’s new course happens to interfere and violate sacred Native American land.  Many tribe and community members began protesting at the main location where most of the media coverage is directed, the Standing Rock reservation in North and South Dakota.  The main protest site is at the tip of the reservation in North Dakota.

The tribe residing in the boundaries, the Sioux tribe, filed a lawsuit against the federal government arguing they were not properly notified or consulted about the construction of the pipeline.

These communities are primarily concerned about the contamination of the environment and drinking water, as well as the destruction of their sacred land.  Government courts have denied the tribe’s suit and request to stop the construction of the pipeline.

Twice.

Referring to my friend Azuree’s blog post from a few weeks ago, Donald Trump officially lifted the ban under Barrack Obama and has demanded the Army Corps of Engineers to prohibit further construction of the project.

“I am, to a large extent, an environmentalist, I believe in it… But it’s out of control, and we’re going to make it a very short process,” said Donald Trump in a meeting with auto industry executives.

Throughout American history, Native Americans have been at the brute end of systematic violence, oppression, and discrimination dating back to Christopher Columbus’ discovery of this land.

Today, we see the same type of violence, oppression, and discrimination targeted toward the same group of people.

In an article by the Washington Post, the United States is addressed for “using violence against protesters peacefully opposing the construction of the Dakota Access pipeline in North Dakota” and “the inhuman and degrading conditions those arrested faced in detention.”

We, as a policing-driven nation, are violating rights and liberties of individuals who peacefully protest for an organization and movement they whole-heartedly believe in.

Wasn’t that one of the values the United States Constitution was coined on?  Freedom of speech?  Freedom of expression?  Freedom to gather?

Freedom.

Freedom is what we’re taking away from the men and women of the Native American Tribe living in peace and harmony along the North and South Dakota state line.  Not just the individuals who live in the reservation, but the individual protesting for the sanctity of the tribe land as well.

Not only is it a violation of civil liberties, but there’s a strong possibility of contamination.  An oil spill will immediately cut off the Native American tribes’ source of clean drinking water.

This is not an uncommon occurrence.

Recently, Flint, Michigan has fallen victim to unsafe, dirty, contaminated drinking water.  This isn’t a Native American reservation that has less resources and law enforcement than a city.  This is a city.

The individuals living in the Native American territory are more prone to disease and sickness from the contaminated water due to the lack of health resources.  The communities don’t contain the same amount of resources a modern American society has today.

What does this mean?  This means that we, as a society need to come together and protect the rights of the Natives of the land.  It’s their home.  Not ours.

In 2003, the local government sent my mother several letters in the mail, stating that they would be building a cell tower in my backyard.  Concerned for her children’s health, my mother made several signs, wrote back several letters, and gathered several of her friends to help fight the construction of the cell tower.

My mom didn’t want the tower on her property and did everything in her power to fight it.  Although this was on the smaller, local scale, imagine the federal government writing letters saying that they’re drilling into your property, with no chance of restitution.

There’s no winner in that.

Displacement, on any scale, is immediately a violation of human and civil liberties.  That’s their home.  That’s their culture and their religion and their way of life.  No one deserves for those aspects to be uprooted.

There’s no justice in that.

There’s no respect in that.

There’s no integrity in that.

 

NO DAPL.

Submerging America’s Voice

“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”

– Voltaire

Free speech is core to America’s foundation. It gives Americans the platform to express their ideas, concerns, and solutions that usually are intended to make America better than worse off.

It allows us to rise above the actions that are brought to our attention when those in positions of power aren’t using it to better the will of the people.

With freedom of speech comes the power of protest.

The mechanics and tools that activists use to motivate those around them to stand up and fight for their rights is something that every citizen, globally, should continue to express when it is deemed necessary.

At the beginning of this year, Republican lawmakers have expressed their desire to submerge this right.

Republicans have introduced anti-protest bills.

Source: Photo

The American Civil Liberties Union reports that these 17 states have introduced anti-protest bills as of March 1^st, 2017.

Republicans argue that these bills are designed to address past marches from mass protest from movements by groups like Black Lives Matter, and events that have taken place in the Midwest due to the Dakota Access Pipeline.

The lawmakers that are introducing these bills believe that those who partake in protest should be criminalized because they obstruct the traffic flow and block the streets and highways.

Ironically, conservatives, who tend to be adamant about the rights declared in our amendments, only stand firm to uphold them if it is twisted to fit the narrative in the lines of what they believe.

The bills that certain states are seeking to propose solely demonstrate how often marches are misconstrued when biased opinions are being substituted for facts.

They are giving off an impression that all protest will lead to violence without wanting to address the real issues.

What enables lawmakers to push bills like this?

The media’s coverage of protests is essential. We only know what we are told and what we see. If the news only shows rioters while ignoring the peaceful protestors, we assume that the whole march was disruptive.

False headlines give false narratives which leads to false representations of the events that actually occurred.

Time and time again, conservative news outlets push the agenda of dangerous rioters or paid protestors that are quickly categorized as liberal whiners, or commonly known as “snowflakes”, who aren’t getting their way.

They disregard the fact that Americans are protesting as a way to express their opposition to what is taken place in Capitol Hill.

When we start to give negative connotations to something as powerful as protesting, the message is often obscured and attempts to discredit it is often in favor. It becomes easy for lawmakers to gather support for bills like these to pass, even though many are subliminal to the fact that they are favoring their own rights being taken away.

Most protest are nonviolent. However, they are rarely reported on because the media willfully ignores any aspect of nonviolence due to the fact that it doesn’t meet the threshold of being newsworthy.

So, what do these bills mean?

These bills would increase the possibility of protestors getting fined and/or face a prison sentence.

What they are actually doing is discouraging Americans to practice their fundamental right to peacefully assemble.

What they should be doing is ensuring that protestors are protected while exercising these rights.

With the political climate as it is now, there will undoubtedly be more protest as Americans try to ensure that their voices are being heard and that their rights are being protected.

On an individual level, we can agree to disagree on how we personally visualize America being great. That’s OK. Being able to have the ability to organize and mobilize those opinions and discussions are vital to guaranteeing that every American is being equally represented.

As protests continues to flourish across America, we, as the American people, need to make sure that our rights are not being limited and/or diminished.

The possibility that lawmakers want to limit that should be frightening not only to you, but to all constituents that continuously put these lawmakers into power to make these ill-advised proposals.

If they limit our speech, then our voices are not heard. If our voices are not heard, our ideas are not represented. If our ideas are not represented, then that is not democracy.

When actions are being implemented that threaten the safety and well-being of all our citizens, protesting should be highly praised instead of rebuked.

As Blake mentioned in his blog pertaining to worker’s rights, it’s a country’s duty to make sure that their own citizen’s rights are upheld.

Whether we assess this nationally or globally, the most dangerous part of any society is when the state of their human rights are on the verge of suppression.

We have a right to criticize our government. We have a right to resist. We have a right to peacefully protest.

That is what democracy looks like.

– Azuree Bowman