Civil Rights

The spectrum of practices termed “Female Genital Mutilation” (or FGM) by the World Health Organization is sometimes held up as a counterexample to moral relativism. Those who advance this line of thought suggest the practices are so harmful in terms of their physical and emotional consequences, as well as so problematic in terms of their sexist or oppressive implications, that they provide sufficient, rational grounds for the assertion of a universal moral claim—namely, that all forms of FGM are wrong, regardless of the cultural context. However, others point to cultural bias and moral double standards on the part of those who espouse this argument, and have begun to question the received interpretation of the relevant empirical data concerning FGM as well. In this article I assess the merits of these competing perspectives. I argue that each of them involves valid moral concerns that should be taken seriously in order to move the discussion forward. In doing so, I draw on the biomedical “enhancement” literature in order to develop a novel ethical framework for evaluating FGM (and related interventions—such as female genital “cosmetic” surgery and non-therapeutic male circumcision) that takes into account the genuine harms that are at stake in these procedures, but which does not suffer from being based on cultural or moral double standards.

This paper draws on the work of Michel Foucault in order to analyze the constellation of political strategies and power at the US/Mexico border wall. These strategies, however, are incredibly diverse and often directly antagonistic of one another. Thus, this paper argues that in order to make sense of the seemingly multiple and contradictory political strategies deployed in the operation of the US/Mexico border wall, we have to understand the coexistence and intertwinement of at least three distinct types of power at work there: the sovereign exclusion of illegal life, the disciplinary detention of surveilled life, and the biopolitical circulation of migratory life. By doing so this paper offers an original contribution to two major areas of study: in Foucault studies this paper expands the existing literature on Foucault by analyzing the crossroads of power particular to the US/Mexico border wall, which has not yet been done, and in border studies this Foucauldian approach offers a unique political analysis that goes beyond the critique of sovereignty and toward an analysis of coexisting strategies of power.

This paper discusses the impact that the debate on abortions has on women’s rights in the United States. The first part will focus on the pro-life and pro-choice arguments in order to give a brief introduction to the readers; in addition, the second and main part of this paper focuses on the debate in the USA by firstly presenting the main and most influential Supreme Court decisions and bills and, secondly by presenting the republican opposition and the developments so far. The main point of this brief overview of the current situation in the USA is that women’s rights are being undermined by the efforts of the Republican Party to vote bills that will ban abortions either entirely or make it extremely difficult for a woman to have one.

Black Nationalism represents one of the most heavily understudied ideologies within the history of urban America. The impact of Black Nationalism has still yet to be gauged. African Americans incurred great frustrations during the 1960s because of the government's lack of responsiveness to problems such as unemployment, overcrowded housing, and police brutality. Today, these ills still exist. Black Nationalists groups have emerged responding to these conditions across the country as the 21st century begins. This project examines the significance of the legacy and tradition of the mostly urban phenomena. Freedom movements of today are all creations of Black Nationalists from the old guard and those who survived government repression during the Civil Rights and Black Power Movements. Since the historical 1995 Million Man March, these organizations have managed to command the media's attention. The effect of President Obama's election has yielded mixed results in the original goals and aspirations of Black Nationalists. Black Nationalist effect on hyper-incarceration is suggested as one of many topics for further research.

Following the death of 17-year-old Leelah Alcorn, a transgender teen who committed suicide after forced “conversion therapy,” President Barack Obama called for a nationwide ban on psychotherapy aimed at changing sexual orientation or gender identity. The administration argued that because conversion therapy causes substantial psychological harm to minors, it is neither medically nor ethically appropriate. We fully agree with the President and believe that this is a step in the right direction. Of course, in addition to being unsafe as well as ethically unsound, current conversion therapy approaches aren’t actually effective at doing what they claim to do – changing sexual orientation. But we also worry that this may be a short-term legislative solution to what is really a conceptual problem. The question we ought to be asking is “what will happen if and when scientists do end up developing safe and effective technologies that can alter sexual orientation?”

Christopher Buck, “’Abdu’l-Baha’s 1912 Howard University Speech: A Civil War Myth for Interracial Emancipation.” ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s Journey West: The Course of Human Solidarity. Edited by Negar Mottahedeh. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. Pp. 111–144. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9781137032010.0009.

EXCERPT:

In his 1912 Howard University speech, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá invoked the Civil War and the Emancipation Proclamation in essentialist terms, anchored in historical generalizations, as a rhetorical strategy for promoting interracial emancipation. Abolition of slavery was a first step in the progressive emancipation of African Americans within color-bound American society. Slavery’s roots run deep in American history, and are yet to be fully extirpated. They extend, in more subtle forms, down to the present. Racism is a ghost of the slaver’s psyche, and legislation alone cannot eradicate the problem. Something profoundly different is needed to significantly steer social history in a new direction. This is what makes ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s 1912 sojourn in America of such historical import. . . .

To recapitulate, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, in his Howard University speech, emphasized the personal sacrifice of Northern whites for Southern blacks in the course of the Civil War, and that African Americans (as the descendants of emancipated slaves) should therefore be grateful to whites in kind. In so saying, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá invoked history (or a certain view of it) in order to make history—by completing the unfinished work of the Emancipation Proclamation. . . .

And so it is that ‘Abdu’l-Bahá tasked the whites with a mission equal to the objectives of the Civil War, Emancipation, and Reconstruction in achieving what was (and is) still undone, to “endeavor to promote your [i.e. African Americans’] advancement and enhance your honor.” Such interracial unity entails more than fostering interracial camaraderie. Advancement is required. Actual progress must be fostered, for it is this “advancement” that “will be the cause of love (sabab-i maḥabbat).” In other words, doing “good” (by tangible actions) is a precondition for “goodwill” (as an intangible feeling). This, indeed, was the mission of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), founded in 1909, as an interracial endeavor. . . .

The advancement of African Americans was an integral element in the progress of America as a nation, and so there is a strong argument that the development of its own social capital was in the nation’s enlightened self-interest. Here, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s rhetorical strategy was to establish a clear basis, anchored in American history, for overcoming entrenched antagonisms in favor of reciprocal appreciation in the interests of interracial harmony and cooperation. In that sense, the accuracy of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s historical generalizations is quite beside the point, as the focus was on fostering racial healing and solving America’s racial crisis. . . .

On February 1, 2012, Cornel West, professor of African American Studies and Religion, Princeton University, expressed his appreciation of the Bahá’í efforts to foster ideal race relations: “When you talk about race and the legacy of white supremacy, there’s no doubt that when the history is written, the true history is written, the history of this country, the Baha’i Faith will be one of the leaven in the American loaf that allowed the democratic loaf to expand because of the anti-racist witness of those of Baha’i faith.” (“Cornel West praises work of Baha’is in establishing Racial Unity” (February 1, 2012). Professor West here recognizes the leavening influence of the Bahá’ís in the history of race relations in America. . . .

‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s 1912 Howard University speech was for then, yet it has a message for us now as well: It could be said that in his Howard speech, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá invited his audience to build on history by making history, in commencing a new era of global solidarity.

https://www.academia.edu/29904876/_Abdu_l-Baha_s_1912_Howard_University_Speech_A_Civil_War_Myth_for_Interracial_Emancipation_2013_

"The Color of Success tells of the astonishing transformation of Asians in the United States from the “yellow peril” to “model minorities”—peoples distinct from the white majority but lauded as well-assimilated, upwardly mobile, and exemplars of traditional family values--in the middle decades of the twentieth century. As Ellen Wu shows, liberals argued for the acceptance of these immigrant communities into the national fold, charging that the failure of America to live in accordance with its democratic ideals endangered the country¹s aspirations to world leadership.

Weaving together myriad perspectives, Wu provides an unprecedented view of racial reform and the contradictions of national belonging in the Civil Rights era. She highlights the contests for power and authority within Japanese and Chinese America alongside the designs of those external to these populations, including government officials, social scientists, journalists, and others. And she demonstrates that the invention of the model minority took place in multiple arenas, such as battles over zoot suiters leaving wartime internment camps, the juvenile delinquency panic of the 1950s, Hawai‘i statehood, and the African American freedom movement. Together, these illuminate the impact of foreign relations on the domestic racial order and how the nation accepted Asians as legitimate citizens while continuing to perceive them as indelible outsiders.

By charting the emergence of the model minority stereotype, The Color of Success reveals that this far-reaching, politically charged process continues to have profound implications for how Americans understand race, opportunity, and nationhood.
"

Winter, Aaron. 2018. ‘The Klan is History: a historical perspective on the revival of the far-right in ‘post-racial’ America’. Historical Perspectives on Organised Crime and Terrorism. eds. J. Windle, J. Morrison, A. Winter and A. Silke. Abingdon: Routledge SOLON Explorations in Crime and Criminal Justice Histories. Chapter 7.

Controversy has arisen on the left around attempts to curb provocative expression, particularly hate speech directed at vulnerable social groups. Yet that coupling of leftism with censorship is historically recent.  Karl Marx, stemming from a converted family, was maligned both for ‘being’ and ‘looking’ Jewish. He knew all about 'powerful interests' and all about offensive speech. Yet he makes abundantly clear his rejection of censorship.  The " property right " paradigm does indeed represent the type of individual right that Marx pervasively condemns because he condemns the underlying socioeconomic interest.  But Marx also tacitly adopts a second paradigm, called here a " free speech " paradigm, to represent interests that Marx by no means rejects. For those interests —including free speech, freedom of torture, and other essential goods—Marx condemns rights not because he rejects the concomitant interests but, to the contrary, because he sees the right as betraying an utterly vital interest.

“Fifty Baha’i Principles of Unity: A Paradigm of Social Salvation.”
Christopher Buck

Baha’i Studies Review 18 (2012): 3–44. (Published June 23, 2015)
(2017 update, with original Persian & Arabic primary sources added.)

[Presented at Princeton University (February 21, 2014).]

ABSTRACT
The Baha’i Faith, a young world religion, offers principles of unity—from family relations to international relations—as a paradigm for social salvation. These principles may be studied within the analytic prism of an ‘illness/cure’ approach to religious soteriologies—a conceptual model in the phenomenology of religions popularized by Stephen Prothero. World religions are systems of salvation, liberation or harmony. Their respective offers of salvation, liberation or harmony respond directly to the human predicament, as defined by each religion. If humanity is plagued by sin, then Christianity’s redemptive offer of salvation from sin makes perfect sense. Early Buddhism’s offer of liberation—from the fundamental problem of suffering—also fits perfectly in this model. In the Baha’i religion, the plight facing the world is profound estrangement at all levels of society. Therefore the social salvation that the Baha’i religion offers are precepts and practices that augment unity and harmony, as Baha’u’llah proclaims: ‘The distinguishing feature that marketh the pre-eminent character of this Supreme Revelation consisteth in that We have … blotted out from the pages of God’s holy Book whatsoever hath been the cause of strife, of malice and mischief amongst the children of men, and have … laid down the essential prerequisites of concord, of understanding, of complete and enduring unity’. After reviewing Raymond Piper’s typology, fifty (50) Baha’i principles of unity are enumerated and briefly described: types of unity propounded by Baha’u’llah in the Tablet of Unity (Lawḥ-i Ittiḥād); types of unity forecast by ‘Abdu’l-Baha in the ‘The Seven Candles of Unity’; and types of unity articulated by Shoghi Effendi—a splendid array of understudied elements of the Baha’i social gospel. Since the present study is a first extended survey—of the notion of unity vis-à-vis the Baha’i Faith, based squarely on authenticated primary sources—results are preliminary, not definitive.

* This updated version (1 November 2017) is dedicated to the loving memory of the present writer’s eldest son, Jason Buck (b. August 20, 1978), who—suddenly, but peacefully—passed away on 26 October 2017, at the young age of 39. See https://www.facebook.com/jason.buck.180.

Christopher Buck, Alain Locke: Faith and Philosophy. Los Angeles: Kalimat Press, 2005. Pub date: July 3, 2005. ISBN-13: 978-1890688387. ISBN-10: 189068838X. L

In print. (Order from Kalimat Press: http://www.kalimat.com/Locke.html.)

REVIEWS
•  Derik Smith. World Order 38.3 (2006/2007): 42–48. (Published in 2008.): ”Christopher Buck’s recent book, Alain Locke: Faith and Philosophy, is a welcome addition to the literature on early twentieth-century American and African American culture. But, perhaps more important, Buck’s study is a significant contribution to scholarship on the history of the Bahá’í Faith in the United States. … Any future study of Locke must necessarily make its way through Christopher Buck’s Alain Locke: Faith and Philosophy. The scholar forcefully proves his thesis that, in Locke’s thinking, philosophy and religious belief operated as synergistic terms. He has shown that the Bahá’í Faith was integral to Locke’s life and ideology. …  Yet, after reading Buck’s work, it is difficult to imagine Locke the philosopher rapt in prayer. Of course, this is not a shortcoming of the book. Rather it is an indication that, while he may have wanted to portray a more pious figure, Buck maintains the vow he made in his introduction to Alain Locke: Faith and Philosophy “to constrain any grandiose claims on Locke as a Bahá’í.”

• M. Anthony Fitchue. Journal of African American History 92.1 (Winter 2007): 131–133: “But the jewels in this book are unmistakable. … Clearly, Buck has given voice to the men and women who not only put the Baha’i faith first in their lives, but also left key documents, personal letters, notes, and memoranda related to the life of philosopher Alain LeRoy Locke for future researchers to ponder and use for years to come.”

• William P. Collins. Insights (Library of Congress Professional Association Newsletter) 38.1–3 (Jan–Oct 2006): 10–12: “Both of these books [Lights of the Spirit and Alain Locke: Faith and Philosophy] go a long way toward correcting the historians’ failure to note the important role played by the Bahá’í Faith and prominent African-American Bahá’ís in the struggle for racial equality in the United States.”

John Rawls’s political liberalism and its ideal of public reason are tremendously influential in contemporary political philosophy and in constitutional law as well. Many, perhaps even most, liberals are Rawlsians of one stripe or another. This is problematic, because most liberals also support the redefinition of civil marriage to include same-sex unions, and as I show, Rawls’s political liberalism actually prohibits same- sex marriage. Recently in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, however, California’s northern federal district court reinterpreted the traditional rational basis review in terms of liberal neutrality akin to Rawls’s “public reason,” and overturned Proposition 8 and established same-sex marriage. (This reinterpretation was amplified in the 9th Circuit Court’s decision upholding the district court on appeal in Perry v. Brown.) But on its own grounds Perry should have drawn the opposite conclusion. This is because all the available arguments for recognizing same-sex unions as civil marriages stem from controversial comprehensive doctrines about the good, and this violates the ideal of public reason; yet there remains a publicly reasonable argument for traditional marriage, which I sketch here. In the course of my argument I develop Rawls’s politically liberal account of the family and defend it against objections, discussing its implications for political theory and constitutional law.

Sojourner Truth's 1851 speech in Akron, commonly titled "Ain't I a Woman," stands as a landmark in the fight for racial and woman's equality. Truth spoke before a woman's rights convention, making arguments about women's physical and intellectual capacities, as well as religious arguments in support of equal rights. While it is clear that she asserted her identity as a woman and a citizen in this speech, our understanding of her words is complicated by the lack of an authentic text of her remarks. This essay explores the challenges in recovering Truth's rhetoric and offers an analysis of her arguments for equal rights. http://voicesofdemocracy.umd.edu/sojourner-truth-address-at-the-womans-rights-convention-in-akron-ohio-29-may-1851/

Democracy has never been more popular. It is successfully practiced today in a myriad of different ways by people across virtually every cultural, religious or socio-economic context. The forty-five essays collected in this companion suggest that the global popularity of democracy derives in part from its breadth and depth in the common history of human civilization. The chapters include exceptional accounts of democracy in ancient Greece and Rome, modern Europe and America, among peoples’ movements and national revolutions, and its triumph since the end of the Cold War. However, this book also includes alternative accounts of democracy’s history: its origins in prehistoric societies and early city-states, under-acknowledged contributions from China, Africa and the Islamic world, its familiarity to various Indigenous Australians and Native Americans, the various challenges it faces today in South America, Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Asia, the latest democratic developments in light of globalization and new technologies, and potential future pathways to a more democratic world. Understanding where democracy comes from, where its greatest successes and most dismal failures lie, is central to democracy’s project of inventing ways to address the need of people everywhere to live in peace, freedom and with a say in the decisions that affect their lives.

Students with disabilities or suspected disabilities are evaluated by schools to determine whether they are eligible for special education services and, if eligible, to determine what services will be provided. In many states, the results of this evaluation also affect how much funding assistance the school will receive to meet the students' special needs.

American national security is a priority that crosses partisan lines. Americans of all races, ethnicities, and religions are equally concerned with ensuring our country is safe from violence – whether politically motivated terrorism, state violence, or violent crime. Furthermore, we all share an interest in preventing violence before it occurs. Toward that end, citizens and elected officials have a responsibility to carefully examine whether the methods we are using to prevent terrorism are effective.

In 2011, the Obama administration initiated a “Countering Violent Extremism” program purportedly aimed at tackling the underlying causes that may contribute to terrorism domestically and abroad. According to the White House, “CVE efforts address the root causes of extremism through community engagement” and “the underlying premise of the approach to countering violent extremism in the United States is that (1) communities provide the solution to violent extremism; and (2) CVE efforts are best pursued at the local level, tailored to local dynamics, where local officials continue to build relationships within their communities through established community policing and community outreach mechanisms.” In January 2017, the Trump administration announced it would change the name of the program to “Countering Islamic Extremism” to reflect his administration’s intentions to focus exclusively on terrorism committed by individuals claiming to be Muslim, while excluding terrorism committed by others including White Supremacists. Notwithstanding the outcry by civil rights advocates on Trump’s renaming of the program, CVE has always been focused on Muslim communities in the United States. Trump’s actions merely validated what critics of the program claimed all along.

Despite the Obama administration’s lofty rhetoric, this article argues that CVE programs are fundamentally flawed for three reasons: they are counterproductive, unnecessary, and a waste of government resources. Government programs seeking to build community resilience are most effective when administered by social service agencies with the requisite expertise, not law enforcement agencies.

Accordingly, this article addresses four fundamental flaws with CVE:

1) CVE programs securitize Muslim communities and validate terrorists’ narratives that America is at war with Islam;

2) CVE programs are unnecessary to prevent domestic terrorism;

3) CVE programs are a waste of government resources; and

4) government funds for community development and resilience should be funded and administered by social service agencies without law enforcement control.

This chapter seeks to re-interpret Iraqi politics after the US-led intervention of 2003 by examining the alternative discourses of democracy emanating from within Re-Colonial Iraq. It details the complex public sphere of the post-Saddam era and points to the inclusive nature of the positive developments that have occurred across the nation since 2003. The first part discusses the post-Saddam media landscape which has played a positive role in covering the nation’s difficult transition to democracy. The second part of this chapter documents and examines the Iraqi people’s exercise of their democratic right to protest and the influence these protests have had on the politics of the post-Saddam era. The chapter concludes that Iraqi citizens who play an active role in their own governance and participate in democratic mechanisms such as elections and mass demonstrations are helping to create a more robust democracy.

I had the pleasure of having this conversation with Cathy Cohen, the David and Mary Winton Green Professor of Political Science and chair of political science at the University of Chicago, in late 2015. Cohen’s work, both academically and as an activist, has inspired my own, particularly in terms of making connections between black feminist theory, social movements, and issues of race and racism in the United States. Cohen is the principal investigator of two major social change projects: The Black Youth Project and the Mobilization, Change and Political and Civic Engagement Project. Her books, Democracy Remixed: Black Youth and the Future of American Politics and The Boundaries of Blackness: AIDS and the Breakdown of Black Politics have offered important interventions in scholarship on race and politics. She is also the coeditor, with Kathleen Jones and Joan Tronto, of Women Transforming Politics: An Alternative Reader.

Since the publication of my book, Black Celebrity, Racial Politics, and the Press: Framing Dissent, I have been particularly compelled by the use of technology by racial justice activists like the women who started #BlackLivesMatter. My recent collaborative work with Brooke Foucault Welles, “Hijacking #myNYPD: Social Media Dissent and Networked Counterpublics” and “#Ferguson is Everywhere: Initiators in Emerging Counterpublic Networks," has illustrated that everyday citizens—particularly young women and people of color—are having a very real impact on national narratives of equality and citizenship. In the following conversation, Cohen and I discuss the potentials for feminist theory in racial justice movements, the unique ways in which race and gender intersect in state violence, challenges for feminist academics of color engaged in activism, and the shape of the #BlackLivesMatter movement. You can follow us on Twitter at @cathyjcohen and @sjjphd respectively.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> update Feb 2021:
1000 or more death, then-thousands with heavy symptoms because of Covid-19 vaccine!!!

https://swprs.org/covid-rna-vaccines-close-to-1000-post-vaccination-deaths/

is this a new Euthanasie-project????
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


>>>>>>>>>>>>>> updates July 2020:

https://swprs.org/a-swiss-doctor-on-covid-19/

Please visit the website of "Swiss Policy research" for further information!

https://swprs.org/

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<



>>>>>>>>>>>>> updates June 2020:

(1) Fully referenced facts about Covid-19, provided by experts in the field, to help our readers make a realistic risk assessment. (Regular updates below)

“The only means to fight the plague is honesty.” (Albert Camus, 1947)

https://swprs.org/a-swiss-doctor-on-covid-19/

(2) Corona Quick Update:

https://swprs.org/2020/06/14/corona-quick-update/

(3) Corona-App: "Ein ekklatanter Betrug"

“Der Quellcode bleibt bei Microsoft, das Protokoll wird von Apple und Google implementiert und kontrolliert, der Server wird von Amazon gehostet. Die aktuelle Informationspolitik leidet unter unklaren oder falschen Angaben.” (Aus der Analyse von Professor Vaudenay)

https://swprs.org/corona-app-ein-eklatanter-betrug/

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<





>>>>>>>>>>> update 21.05.2020:

"In response to the very broad international interest in our work, SPR has been renamed into Swiss Policy Research. Our research focus will remain on geopolitical propaganda in Swiss and international media.

Regarding Covid-19, a new and comprehensive overview of Studies on Covid-19 lethality has been published, including a section on hospitalization rates. A new update on medical and political developments will follow shortly."

https://swprs.org/2020/05/20/swiss-policy-research/
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<



>>>>>>>>>>>
update 06.05.2020:

SPR has published a comprehensive new Covid19 update plus a fully updated 25-point summary. Translations of the updated summary into 24 languages will follow shortly.

The medical debate is mostly over, as all new serological studies converge towards a flu-like 0.2% overall lethality with 50 to 70% of deaths occurring in vulnerable nursing homes. Instead, the focus is quickly shifting towards the political and geopolitical impact of the coronavirus.

In response to many inquiries, please note that there has been no censorship of SPR. Future updates will be provided about once per month. SPR doesn’t discuss medication and doesn’t link to political content. Donations to SPR are not possible.

https://swprs.org/2020/05/06/covid19-may-update/
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


published on April 7, 2020

https://swprs.org/2020/04/03/c19-final-update/

Our C19 article is now available in 14 and soon 20 languages. Daily updates will now be discontinued, a summary analysis and additional background information will follow.

The medical evidence from all parts of the world is clear: for the vast majority of the population, even the elderly, C19 produces no symptoms or mild symptoms. Local healthcare collapses and excess mortality have psychological and political reasons first and foremost.

Anybody showing exponential „case curves“ is deceiving or has been deceived: while the number of tests increases exponentially, the test-positive ratio remains relatively constant in all countries examined, irrespective of measures taken.

„C19 deaths“ are defined and reported in a nonsensical and obviously exaggerating way. Doing the same with herpes simplex would yield a 90% mortality. In reality, it is 0%.

Politicians claiming to protect or liberate a people while having other things in mind is nothing new; nor is a media instilling fear and panic into the population, even by using manipulations. Edward Snowden has already voiced his warning of current developments.

This is what world renowned virology Professor John Oxford has to say about the current situation: „I would say the best advice is to spend less time watching TV news which is sensational and not very good. I view this Covid outbreak as akin to a bad winter influenza epidemic. We are suffering from a media epidemic!“

"The only means to fight the plague is honesty." Albert Camus, The Plague (1947)

Cyber-security relates to the threats posed to the nation’s critical infrastructure, but should not be limited to the traditional concept of national security. The militarization of the cyber-security discourse has produced a security dilemma, which is not addressing sufficiently the needs of the people. The article highlights this shortcoming and views cyber-security, through a human-centric approach. The challenge ahead is to establish a governance regime for cyberspace that successfully addresses human rights norms.

This article advances an interpretative account of parental rights and builds a normative case against them. This normative account considers how parental rights function in existing constitutional and family law, and assesses theoretical arguments that seek to justify them.

This article begins by describing the most common, child-centered justification for parental rights: that parents are empowered in order to protect children’s best interests. I argue that these child-centered accounts do not justify the current legal regime governing parental rights. Instead, current parental rights are better understood as quasi-property interests, residual from historical traditions where children were more explicitly regarded as their parents’ property.

The middle part of this article advances the thesis that the quasi-property functioning of parental rights is not a contingent feature of American law of parents and children. It is instead characteristic of granting parents separate autonomy interests in determining the path of their children’s lives. Parental autonomy rights displace and diminish consideration for children’s interests and objectify children. This article introduces the concept of “desire-contingent goods” and argues that parental autonomy rights are paradigmatically the right to choose desire contingent goods for children regardless of whether they are desired or not.  This denies the equal importance of children’s desires, subjective experiences and perspectives on their own lives. As a consequence, basic doctrines in constitutional and family law cannot be reconciled with liberal and egalitarian commitments.

The later portion of this article evaluates alternative theoretical justifications for parental rights. These include constitutional and philosophical arguments based on personal liberty and family privacy, as well as philosophical arguments based on relational rights, ethics of care, and the Lockean labor theory of value. These arguments all fall short and, in crucial ways, rely on denying children equal moral consideration. The article concludes with recommendations for legal reform.

Introduction
At its core, the United States is a nation built on a few fundamental values. The values of freedom of religion and basic civil liberties are enshrined in the Bill of Rights and have been upheld time and time again by the U.S. Congress and courts. A basic respect for the rights of minority groups throughout the country—whether these minorities are ethnic, religious, political, geographic, or social—are inherent in the founding principles of the United States. All Americans—progressives and conservatives alike—share these core values that have formed the backbone of an inclusive, multidimensional society for nearly 250 years.
But the journey toward a more perfect union has not always been smooth. During World War II, for instance, Japanese Americans were unjustly interned because they were seen as “others.” In 1960, many opposed the election of President John F. Kennedy because they erroneously believed that his Catholic faith meant that his first loyalty would be to the Pope rather than the Constitution—and that if the two ever came in conflict, he would take orders from the Pope.
More recently, American Muslims in the United States have been targeted, profiled, or seen as suspect because of their faith.
In 2011, the Center for American Progress published “Fear, Inc.: The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America”1 in order to identify and expose the organizations, scholars, pundits, and activists comprising a tightly linked network that spread misinformation and hateful propaganda about American Muslims and Islam. The report found that seven charitable foundations spent $42.6 million between 2001 and 2009 to support the spread of anti-Muslim rhetoric.2 The efforts of a small cadre of funders and misinformation experts were amplified by an echo chamber of the religious right, conservative media, grassroots organizations, and politicians who sought to introduce a fringe perspective on American Muslims into the public discourse.

n the three years since “Fear, Inc.” shined a light on the Islamophobia network and exposed the network’s key members, a number of them have been marginalized by the mainstream media and politicians. For example, the American Conservative Union publically reprimanded misinformation expert Frank Gaffney and made it clear that he is no longer welcome at their annual Conservative Political Action Conference.3 Conservative politicians from Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) to former presidential candidate Mitt Romney have pushed back against the “sinister accusations” of the Islamophobia network.4 And the anti-Muslim caucus in Congress took a huge hit by losing some of its loudest members, such as Reps. Allen West (R-FL) and Michele Bachmann (R-MN).
Unfortunately, in both the United States and abroad, some have seized on CAP’s 2011 report as evidence to support their own negative perceptions about the United States, claiming that the United States is indeed hostile to Muslims and Islam. To be clear, the Islamophobia network that CAP identified in 2011 is not indicative of mainstream American views. In fact, the views of anti-Muslim actors stand in stark contrast to the values of most Americans. The findings of the 2011 report, as well as this report, should not be misconstrued as a sign of widespread public antipathy toward the Muslim community in the United States, although concerns remain about the rise of anti-Muslim attitudes in the United States during the past few years. Instead, these two reports reveal how a well-funded, well-organized fringe movement can push discriminatory policies against a segment of American society by intentionally spreading lies while taking advantage of moments of public anxiety and fear. We are seeing this dynamic play out yet again in the aftermath of the attack on French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, as former elected officials and certain media commentators have used the terror attack as an opportunity to call for increased profiling of the American Muslim community.
Although the first report succeeded in identifying and marginalizing many members of the Islamophobia network, a number of these misinformation experts are still able to disproportionately influence public policy in America. From hate-group leader David Yerushalmi’s impact on anti-Sharia legislation across the country to Islamophobe William Gawthrop’s influence on the FBI’s training manuals, it is clear that the well-funded and well-connected individuals within the Islamophobia network still have the ability to promote bad public policies that ultimately affect all Americans.

Islamophobia in the United States takes many shapes and forms. It takes the form of a general climate of fear and anger toward American Muslims, as seen in the “civilization jihad” narrative,6 the religious right’s rhetoric, and the biased media coverage of the Boston Marathon bombing. It comes out in cynical political efforts to capitalize on this climate of fear, as seen in state-level anti-Sharia bills introduced across the country and in far-right politicians’ grandstanding. And perhaps most dangerously, it manifests itself in institutional policies that view American Muslims as a threat, as seen in the FBI training manuals that profile Islam as a religion of violence.7
But while the Islamophobia network has launched a variety of attacks on the American Muslim community during the past several years, the general public has also been more vigilant, and both progressives and conservatives have effectively rejected many of these anti-Muslim efforts. The public pushback—from New York City to Lansing, Michigan, and from Boston to Birmingham, Alabama— has been crucial in keeping the Islamophobia network where it belongs—on the fringes of American society. And while anti-Muslim groups continue their efforts incessantly, there has been a rise in religious and interfaith groups pushing back against Islamophobia.
Although the American public largely dismisses such prejudiced views, the Islamophobia network’s efforts to target American Muslim communities remain significant and continue to erode America’s core values of religious pluralism, civil rights, and social inclusion. The rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, or ISIS, offers the Islamophobia network a new opportunity to leverage unrelated geopolitical events in order to create a caricature of Islam, foment public anxiety, and push discriminatory policies against American Muslims. The Islamophobia network’s new effort to equate mainstream American Muslims with the perverted brand of Islam promoted by ISIS is a reminder of the ongoing vigilance needed to push back against the anti-Muslim fringe.
This report examines several key elements of the Islamophobia network, including:
• The civilization jihad narrative and theories of Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of the U.S. government
• The Islamophobia network’s influence among the religious right and faith groups combating anti-Muslim sentiment
• The impact of the Islamophobia network on law-enforcement training
• The response to the Boston Marathon bombing and the narrative of Islamic extremism
• Politically motivated Islamophobia and pushback by mainstream conservatives
The first “Fear, Inc.” report sought to expose elements of the Islamophobia network by giving the mainstream public the information it needed to refute the claims and distortions made by the network’s misinformation experts. This report identifies the Islamophobia network’s ongoing efforts to promote policies that violate and contradict core American values and interests. The defense of these core values remains ongoing. As this report demonstrates, it only takes one individual with disproportionate influence to negatively affect the treatment of an entire group of American citizens.

Christopher Buck, “Religious Minority Rights.” The Islamic World. Edited by Andrew Rippin. London/New York: Routledge, 2008. Pp. 638–655. [Final chapter.] DOI: https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9780203019139.ch49.

This chapter also suggests that Islamic identity and praxis must now withstand the scrutiny of the international community — a relatively new situation that certainly did not exist when Islam was the world’s superpower during the so-called Dark Ages of Europe. Inevitably, Islamic law will be measured against international law, and will increasingly be constrained by it. More importantly, in the twenty-first century, the legal “right” of minority religions to an identity may be as important as the “truth” of their respective identities. The cosmopolitanism of human rights requires the right to an identity of a minority where that identity stands in tension with the identity of the majority.

Three of the most controversial religious minorities within the Islamic world with be examined in their respective socio-historical contexts: the Alevis in Turkey, the Ahmadiyya in Pakistan, the Bahá’ís of Iran. These three faith-communities provide ideal subjects for a comparative study of the identities of religious minorities within the modern Muslim world. In an increasingly globalized world, Islamic identity is ultimately a legal as well as a religious issue. Characterizing the Ahmadiyya and the “Bahá’í Faith” as “Islamic minorities” is problematic in itself, as the Ahmadis profess themselves as Muslims while the Bahá’ís do not. Indeed, the distinctive identity of the Bahá’í Faith as an independent world religion is universally upheld by the Bahá’í scriptures, authorities, and adherents themselves, while the adamantine Islamic identity of the Ahmadiyya is universally upheld by the Ahmadiyya writings, authorities, and adherents with equal vigor. Where the self-identity of each of these two religious minorities is at issue within a given Islamic state offers a case-study in terms of Islamic claims to authenticity.

So, what is Islamic identity? More to the point is this question: Can an Islamic state tolerate a religious minority that has an alternative Islamic identity (as in the case of the Alevis), a rival Islamic identity (as in the case of the Ahmadiyya), or a post-Islamic identity (as in the case of the Bahá’ís)? The resolution of these vexed questions depends on which lens is used as a frame and focus. Here, the choice of the framework of analysis is critical, for it will largely determine the outcome. This study employs a three-faceted inquiry. The identities of religious minorities within Islamic states implicates: (1) emic (insider/subjective), (2) etic (outsider/objective), and (3) international perspectives. Together, these three perspectives operate as a prism that works its own ideological optics, refracting claims to Islamic identity and breaking those claims into their constituent colors - the spectral measure of which is the treatment of religious minorities in an Islamic state.

Thus, this chapter explores Islamic and non-Islamic identities from multiple perspectives — internal, external, and international. Internal identity emanates from the perspective of the faith-community itself. Its own identity is refracted externally from the perspective of dominant Islamic authorities. International opinion regarding the identity of both religious minorities and the majority of a given Islamic state is best viewed from the perspective of international human rights standards. In trying to make sense of all three vantage points, the connections between how Islamic authorities characterize certain religious minorities and how they treat them with respect to fundamental human rights will be explored. It is critical, then, to be clear throughout which perspective is being presented.

In this paper I suggest that the same sex marriage advocate has a strong burden to prove that there is a natural right to same-sex marriage. In order for there to be a natural right to same-sex marriage the union must adhere to the natural law. I argue that same-sex marriage fails to fulfill the natural law for many reasons. First, homosexuality fails to fulfill the natural ends for the body parts that are used in this union. Second, homosexuality is often deleterious to the health of those who participate in it. I then argue that for there to be a natural right to same-sex marriage same-sex unions must actually be marriage by nature.  Natural rights require natures. If constructivist accounts of marriage are correct in saying that there are no such things as natures, then there also is no natural right to same-sex marriage. Thus, to say one has the right to same-sex marriage in the same way the American Founding Fathers used the term, requires one to embrace natural law. By appealing to the natural law, the same-sex marriage advocate is also able to be judged by it. By getting rid of the natural law to avoid this judgment, the same-sex marriage advocate has thrown out the ability to appeal to an objective principle upon which we can justify the written law. Thus, the same-sex advocate cannot appeal to natural rights for the endorsement of same-sex marriage laws. By demanding that one has a natural right to same-sex marriage, the union is judged against the law and found wanting.

You can also locate this piece at Academe, the AAUP Blog--where you can leave comments.

https://academeblog.org/2018/03/31/i-will-not-be-silenced-the-vital-work-of-free-expression-in-the-academy-in-the-education-of-free-citizens/

Enclosed is an account of my continuing efforts to gain greater attention and solidarity concerning recent attempts to repress academic freedom--and the university administrations who, out of either paralyzing aversion to controversy or active complicity, aid and abet the effort to intimidate, harass, and ultimately silence professors. There is so much more to be said--especially about the connection between the deliberate work of white nationalists, the suckering of students into believing that education exists for not other purpose than better wages, and the privatization and/or corporatization of the academy.

We live in dark times, and apparently it must get yet darker before the light.

Die (österreichische) archäologische Denkmalpflege befindet sich in einer schweren Krise: das ursprünglich 1923 erstmals erlassene und seither nur unwesentlich novellierte Denkmalschutzgesetz (DMSG) ist hochgradig veraltet und genügt modernen denkmalpflegerischen und wissenschaftlich-archäologischen Erfordernissen nicht mehr. Als reaktives Gesetz beruht das DMSG in erster Linie auf dem traditionellen Schutzlistenprinzip; im Bereich der archäologischen Denkmalpflege ergänzt um eine Meldepflicht für Zufallsfunde und damit verbundene, kurzfristige Arbeitseinstellungspflichten bei der zufälligen Entdeckung sogenannter "Bodendenkmale". Das war 1923, als selbst Baugruben noch mehrheitlich von Arbeitern händisch mit der Spitzhacke und Schaufel ausgehoben wurden, durchaus adäquat, weil allfällig durch Bauarbeiten betroffene archäologische Denkmale dabei unweigerlich auffielen und daher - als Zufallsfunde - geschützt waren. Heute hingegen sind Bau-, Land- und Forstwirtschaft durchgehend maschinisiert und industrialisiert und Zufallsfunde archäologischer Denkmale kommen daher bei bodenverändernden Arbeiten so gut wie gar nicht mehr vor, weil allfällig vorhandene archäologische Denkmale von den Arbeitern einfach nicht bemerkt werden. Es bedarf daher heute eines präventiven archäologischen Denkmalschutzes, bei dem vorausschauend vor bodenverändernden Arbeiten nach archäologischen Überresten gesucht und diese erforderlichenfalls vor Beginn der Erdarbeiten wissenschaftlich erforscht (d.h. ausgegraben) werden. Das DMSG und insbesondere seine Auslegung durch die für seinen Vollzug verantwortliche Behörde, das Bundesdenkmalamt, behindern eine derartige, moderne präventive archäologische Denkmalpflege massiv. Stattdessen versucht die Behörde mittels des inzwischen untauglichen Gesetzes einen totalen Denkmalschutz zu erreichen, der dem explizit ausgedrückten Willen des Gesetzgebers diametral widerspricht und betreibt somit rechtswidrige Denkmalpflege.

On the right-wing side of the dictatorial strongmen’s political spectrum, we find the philosophy and practice of “fascism.” Donald Trump, what he has stated and the policy directives he has supported, in many aspects falls directly within the parameters of fascism. This article spotlights the connections between Donald J. Trump and the Italian fascist leader Benito Mussolini.

Ellen White’s opposition to fugitive slave laws, her support of the abolition of slavery, as well as her promotion of prohibition and temperance legislation is well known.  What is less explored is her underlying philosophy of law and rights, and how this philosophy guided her actions in relation to social reform movements.  This paper explores the thought of Ellen White in relation to her view of natural law and civil rights, and how it helped guide her social activism. 
This paper has three parts: the first will explore Ellen White’s engagement with biblical and Protestant concepts of natural law; the second will examine how her conception of natural and moral law shaped her thinking about natural individual and civil rights; third, it looks at several examples of how her activism drew on these underlying ideas and concepts and applied them to real world problems and injustices.  In conclusion, it draws lessons about how these insights can provide guidance for appropriate Christian social activism today.

Street vendor Mohamed Bouazizi’s self-immolation ignited protest throughout Tunisia in December 2010. Bouazizi’s response to the confiscation of his fruit cart by President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali’s regime officials resonated throughout Tunisia and the wider Arab world. A personal protest in a provincial city of Sidi Bouzid in Tunisia’s interior became the point of departure for the Arab “Spring”. In a matter of weeks, people were unified in a series of uprisings against their respective authoritarian governments. Driven by socio-economic deprivation, young politically disenfranchised, socially marginalised and unemployed citizens across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) marched demanding a political voice. Tunisians triggered a wave of home-grown uprisings, many of which became revolutionary movements across the Middle East. Broad-based independent associations of people across the Arab world mobilised to exert popular pressure on the government and the state. These independent associations of people, including non-governmental organisations (NGOs), community groups, labour unions, charities, political, professional and faith-based associations defined by the World Bank as civil society organisations (CSOs), unified in unprecedented demands for political representation, free association and regime change.

Liberal political theorists often argue that justice requires limits on policy outcomes, limits delineated by substantive rights. Distinct from this project is a body of literature dedicated to elaborating on the meaning of democracy in procedural terms. In this article, I offer an alternative to the traditional divide between procedural theories of democracy and substantive theories of justice; I call this the ‘value theory of democracy’. I argue that the democratic ideal is fundamentally about a core set of values (political autonomy, equality of interests, and reciprocity) with both procedural and substantive implications. Further, I contend that limits on policy outcomes can be newly understood as part of the democratic ideal.

In 1969, the Black Panther Party (BPP) established a relationship with the North Korean leadership that was based upon the principle of self-reliance (under the rubric of the Juche ideology), the transnational goal of Third World revolution, and a mutual antagonism toward American intervention around the world. Although the U.S. government forbade its citizens from travelling to North Korea, BPP leader Eldridge Cleaver along with other Panthers bypassed travel restrictions and visited North Korea to join anti-imperialist journalist conferences in 1969 and 1970. In North Korea, officially known as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), the Panthers found a new ideology and a government that was critical of the U.S. government. The Panthers established an alliance with North Korean leaders who they recognized as an independent force within the world communist movement. They believed that the “Black colony” inside the United States could learn from the DPRK’s self-reliant stance in political, economic, and cultural matters. This study adds to recent scholarship on the global influence of the BPP and opens a new field of inquiry, as the BPP-North Korean relationship has not been analyzed in-depth.

This paper tries to highlight the dysfunctional relationship of the indigenous people and their rights. Despite having the treaties and conventions, indigenous people are not getting the proper access to their rights. This paper tries to get an insight on the reality of their rights and conditions.

The Quit India speech is a speech made by Mahatma Gandhi on August 8, 1942, on the eve of the Quit India movement. He called for determined, but passive resistance that signified the certitude that Gandhi foresaw for the movement is best described by his call to Do or Die. His speech was issued at the Gowalia Tank Maidan in Bombay (now Mumbai), since renamed August Kranti Maidan (August Revolution Ground). However, almost the entire Congress leadership, and not merely at the national level, was put into confinement less than twenty-four hours after Gandhi's speech, and the greater number of the Congress leaders were to spend the rest of the war in jail. Many years later, Martin Luther King, Jr., would mimic Gandhi in his "I Have A Dream" speech that promoted nonviolence and equality of races. Gandhi made this speech to help India gain Independence.

Pemenuhan hak-hak dasar rakyat' adalah tuntutan yang ambisius. Tuntutan ini melekat dalam gagasan tentang demokrasi ataupun kedaulatan rakyat. Ironisnya, derasnya wacana 'demokrasi' yang beredar selama ini justru menjadikan kita tidak menyadari betapa ambisiusnya tuntutan ini. Capaian dalam mewujudkan demokrasi, misalnya keberhasilan menyelenggarakan pemilihan umum dengan baik, telah mengecoh kita seolah-olah hak-hak dasar rakyat telah terpenuhi. Kita termakan oleh retorika demokrasi yang kita buat sendiri.

This paper argues that self-determination mirrors the ideological system of a particular state or group of states (whether capitalist, communist or socialist), which affects the way in which self-determination is understood by each state. During the Cold War, self-determination encompassed two different visions: Woodrow Wilson’s vision of self-government by trusteeship and V.I. Lenin’s vision of independence through revolution. Given this history, self-determination is better understood as a contest of competing ideologies that was intimately linked to the rise and fall of empires, rather than a legal principle of general applicability, let alone a super norm of international law. Seen from this view, it was Lenin’s revolutionary vision of self-determination that triumphed during decolonization, although only in the early 1970s did the colonial powers concede this, when the General Assembly passed the Declaration on the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. This vision of self-determination would subsequently enter the corpus of international law as reflected in the Namibia and Western Sahara advisory opinions, but would plummet following the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, and the creation of another new world order: an order in which the idea of self-government by trusteeship (as applied to Bosnia, Kosovo, and East Timor) would once more come to the fore as the dominant form of self-determination.

The unprecedented rise in the number of people held in U.S. jails and prisons has garnered considerable attention from policy makers, activists, and academics alike. Signaled in part by Michelle Alexander’s New York Times bestseller, The New Jim Crow, and the unlikely coalition of activists, policy makers, celebrities, and business leaders on both sides of the political aisle who have pledged to end mass incarceration in our lifetime, the prison system has returned to public policy discourse in a way that was unforeseen less than a decade ago. On any given day in 2014, just over 2.3 million people were held in U.S. jails and prisons. This figure represents a tenfold increase in the inmate census since 1973, and about 22 percent of the world’s prisoner population. Unfortunately, while the causes and consequences of mass incarceration warrant rigorous examination, the focus on arrest and imprisonment has left a curious, yet equally historic phenomenon hidden in plain sight—the rise of a supervised society, and with it, an alternate track of citizenship.

Dr. Warren J. Blumenfeld argues that advancing a positive social and academic climate in schools for students, faculty, staff, and administrators of all social identities, including sexual and gender identities and expressions, should be major priorities (“agenda” items) for all (including people as individuals and at politically and religiously conservative organizations like Focus on the Family) if they are truly concerned and interested in ensuring safer and more welcoming school environments.