Monday, August 23, 2010
The self-reflection throughout the report, which documents genuine successes in advancing human rights, is to be applauded. At the same time, the report correctly identifies several areas where we, as a nation, still fall short of achieving our goals of equality, fairness, and dignity for all people.
However, the few concessions regarding the gaps between international human rights goals and US domestic policies do not go quite far enough. In sections addressing economic and social rights, for example, the report describes social services available for the most vulnerable among us – housing, health care, education, employment, food – as generosity desired by the public and thus duly enacted by elected officials. Such goodwill is an admirable American characteristic, to be sure, but it should not be confused with a rights-based framework.
As the famous saying goes, every right has a remedy. That is not the case when our government helps our fellow human beings meet their basic needs out of benevolence, rather than recognizing their right to live and work with dignity. A rights-based approach would ensure that these programs always exist, that they are designed to support everyone’s needs equally, and that they include the means for correcting inequities. The recent debate over extending unemployment benefits shows how the current system allows something as basic as one’s own home to become politicized. Can we really leave such fundamental human needs as food and shelter to political whims? President Roosevelt said one of the cornerstones of American security is Freedom from Want. The US should affirm that now by ratifying the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights and protecting those rights in US law.
Remedies, enforcement, and accountability are important components of the international human rights system. Rather than turning those actions over to an international body, each nation is responsible for providing human rights protections within its own legal system. But the US still needs to take some important steps to fully implement the human rights values we share with the world. For example, the report cites the human rights treaties the US has ratified, but does not note that in most cases, the rights expressed in those treaties cannot be enforced by US courts without additional legislation. Thus many US citizens who have suffered harmful, discriminatory impacts of government-funded programs, for example, have no way to set things right if they cannot prove the government specifically intended that harm. Proof of intent is not needed under international human rights standards for discrimination; the focus is, and should be, on the damage done to the individual. Just to cite one example, residents of communities of color disproportionately impacted by preventable toxic pollution have taken their case to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights after US courts denied them a remedy.
Along the same lines, paragraph 86 of the US report reads, “It takes vigilant action to prevent [torture] and to hold those who commit acts of official cruelty accountable for their wrongful acts.” Exactly where and when will those who committed and ordered torture be held accountable? The report does not answer that obvious question, nor does it resolve the ongoing concerns about trials by military commissions.
In issues like national security and immigration, where the federal government has primary responsibility, it also has the obligation to enact policies that protect human rights and provide accountability and redress for victims. But as a federal system, human rights implementation must also happen at the state and local levels. This fact becomes most obvious in the report's sections on criminal justice, particularly the description of the US death penalty. These gaps in implementation at the state and local level prevent the US from solving many human rights problems and putting our values of equality into practice. The report says little about how the federal or state governments intend to create an effective national human rights program.
In the report, the US Government says it wants to lead the world to a better future, and that it intends to provide friends and foes alike with a model of what that future looks like. To get there, the US urgently needs a national system that fully integrates our human rights obligations into federal legislation and policies and fosters involvement at the state and local levels. This system should include an implementation body such as an executive branch Interagency Working Group to serve as a focal point to ensure coordination of all federal departments and agencies. It would also need an independent, non-partisan monitoring body such as a US Commission on Civil and Human Rights, as well as effective coordination with state and local state officials, including civil and human rights agencies. (For more details about these recommendations, see the report on treaty ratification and implementation submitted to the UN earlier this year, which Human Rights USA helped write, and the Human Rights at Home Campaign, of which Human Rights USA is a member.)
“Human rights are universal, but their experience is local,” as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said, reiterating Eleanor Roosevelt. This truth is the reason for Human Rights USA’s work, including our continuing efforts to support the UPR process and make sure concerns like these reach the UN and the highest levels of the US Government. With appreciation for the progress this report represents and the accomplishments cited within it, significant work is still needed to make human rights real for everyone in the US.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Kate Voigt is a third year at Boston College Law School. She plans to do public interest work in the immigration and human rights fields after she graduates in the Spring.
What brought you to Human Rights USA?
I head great things about their work from a friend at Boston College who had interned here. I was excited to work on litigation that dealt directly with human rights issues.
What have you learned here?
A ton! It’s been so informative to see how much work goes through the kinds of cases Human Rights USA handles. My work here has sharpened my research skills and given me great background in the different ways to advocate on behalf of trafficking victims. My time here has definitely reaffirmed my desire to do public interest work after law school.
Have you had any particularly touching experience while working with Human Rights USA?
I was able to meet Anthony Chai in June after having worked on a few projects related to his case. It was encouraging to see how the short report I wrote on his situation made it easier for him to advocate on his behalf.
Friday, August 13, 2010
When her family found out that the teacher had been sending Sofia letters, and that rumors had spread in their village that Sofia and the teacher were dating, her father and grandfather told her she must go live with the teacher to keep from bringing shame to the family. Though Sofia did not want to live with this man, she knew that no one in her village, including the police, would defy her family's wishes and help her. By moving in with the teacher, she was considered his wife in rural Guatemalan custom.
Once Sofia was in his home, the teacher raped her repeatedly, refused to let her see her friends and family or continue going to school, and verbally abused her whenever she was "disobedient." Sofia was required to perform domestic labor for the teacher and his parents and work in the family business. She endured this sexual and domestic slavery for two years before finally finding an opportunity to escape. Her family in Guatemala had already refused to help her escape the teacher's abuse, so she fled to the U.S. to be free from the forced marriage.
Sofia received assistance and social services from the Door, an organization dedicated to helping young people in New York, and attorneys at the Door contacted Human Rights USA. Human Rights USA filed an asylum application on behalf of Sofia in June 2008, arguing that the forced marriage, sexual and domestic slavery she had endured and would likely face again if returned to Guatemala qualified her for asylum protection. On August 13, 2010 the Immigration Judge agreed, granting asylum to the 18 year old.
Sofia will now be able to remain in New York where she has been attending high school for two years. She hopes to become a teacher or social worker one day and help other young people make better lives for themselves.
Sofia's successful case is a ray of hope for other women who have fled forced marriages or other forms of human trafficking and have no hope of protection in their native countries. By granting asylum to Sofia and others like her, the U.S. reaffirms its commitment to protect refugees and survivors of trafficking and to uphold the rights to consensual marriage, freedom from persecution and torture, and freedom from gender-based abuse enshrined in treaties and domestic laws.