CNN: Mortar lands outside kindergarten buildings in Israel
Just one question: where's the story about the countless number of Israeli mortars that have landed not only outside, but inside Palestinian kindergartens, elementary schools, and so on- actually killing students?
(If anyone wants to know more, just ask me for a copy of my paper on the realities of education for Palestinian children in Gaza and the West Bank. This was a result of careful research- not usually things you'd find in the front pages.)
Friday, September 10, 2010
Thursday, September 9, 2010
The Hidden Violence
CNN: Doctors remove nail allegedly hammered into maid by employers
This article brought up a lot of reactions in myself when I read it. In summary, it discusses the plight of a Sri Lankan maid who underwent surgery to remove 18 nails that had been hammered into her arms, legs, and forehead, allegedly by her Saudi employers. The woman was a registered domestic employee in Saudi Arabia.
The article reflects (sadly) much of the news I encountered over the summer in the course of my research in Nepal. About once a week there would be an article in at least one paper, usually on the front page, detailing the plight Nepali workers faced abroad. What Americans, desperate to protect 'their' jobs from foreigners, may not realize is the actual practice of migration worldwide. The largest region for employing migrant workers? The Gulf countries (particularly Saudi Arabia and Kuwait). The majority of workers come from South Asia.
People in the US argue about laws being too protective of these types of workers (typically portrayed in the US as illegals). However, would Americans really want to live in a country where this type of abuse is common? Rarely this summer did I encounter an article about the benefits of Nepalis working abroad. The vast majority detailed the situation of an individual, abused sometimes to the point of full disability.
Sadly, this abuse is all too common, and people in the Western world know nothing about it. To the West's credit, news mostly focuses on local and national events, and international events only when it is relevant to the country as a whole.
I will say, there are other international issues that get attention that deal with human rights- Darfur and Burma to name a couple. However, those are few and far between, and usually brought to the spotlight by celebrity attention.
Where is the attention for these workers, who are forced to leave their countries due to a lack of opportunities in order to provide for their families? Sadly, this is one important issue that gets left out of a lot of discourse on human rights.
In searching Human Rights Watch's website, if one wants to find articles related to migrant workers, they have to be searched for specifically. Many of the articles in the 'Workers, Forced Labor & Trafficking' section focus on issues of human trafficking. Finding articles on abuse and/or exploitation of legal migrant workers requires a dedicated search on the subject. Casual viewers of the website looking for recent topics of interest will not find this. It is therefore difficult to bring this issue to light when even human rights workers keep it in the back of the closet.
This article brought up a lot of reactions in myself when I read it. In summary, it discusses the plight of a Sri Lankan maid who underwent surgery to remove 18 nails that had been hammered into her arms, legs, and forehead, allegedly by her Saudi employers. The woman was a registered domestic employee in Saudi Arabia.
The article reflects (sadly) much of the news I encountered over the summer in the course of my research in Nepal. About once a week there would be an article in at least one paper, usually on the front page, detailing the plight Nepali workers faced abroad. What Americans, desperate to protect 'their' jobs from foreigners, may not realize is the actual practice of migration worldwide. The largest region for employing migrant workers? The Gulf countries (particularly Saudi Arabia and Kuwait). The majority of workers come from South Asia.
People in the US argue about laws being too protective of these types of workers (typically portrayed in the US as illegals). However, would Americans really want to live in a country where this type of abuse is common? Rarely this summer did I encounter an article about the benefits of Nepalis working abroad. The vast majority detailed the situation of an individual, abused sometimes to the point of full disability.
Sadly, this abuse is all too common, and people in the Western world know nothing about it. To the West's credit, news mostly focuses on local and national events, and international events only when it is relevant to the country as a whole.
I will say, there are other international issues that get attention that deal with human rights- Darfur and Burma to name a couple. However, those are few and far between, and usually brought to the spotlight by celebrity attention.
Where is the attention for these workers, who are forced to leave their countries due to a lack of opportunities in order to provide for their families? Sadly, this is one important issue that gets left out of a lot of discourse on human rights.
In searching Human Rights Watch's website, if one wants to find articles related to migrant workers, they have to be searched for specifically. Many of the articles in the 'Workers, Forced Labor & Trafficking' section focus on issues of human trafficking. Finding articles on abuse and/or exploitation of legal migrant workers requires a dedicated search on the subject. Casual viewers of the website looking for recent topics of interest will not find this. It is therefore difficult to bring this issue to light when even human rights workers keep it in the back of the closet.
Sarah Palin says something smart?
CNN: Sarah Palin: Quran burning insensitive and un-American
Unbelievable, I know. But according to this article on CNN's Belief Blog, Sarah Palin responded to questions of whether or not she would comment on Florida's Terry Jones's plan to burn copies of the Qur'an at his ironically-named "Dove World Outreach Center" via Twitter and Facebook, denouncing the planned actions of Jones.
Of course, she then goes and equates Qur'an-burning with Park51 (again mistakenly calling it a mosque). Way to go. However, I think it does speak to the disgustingness of the act that there is such a wide base of criticism against this- Republicans, Democrats, a wide range of religious leaders (Jones's actions have also drawn a response from the Vatican, calling it an "outrageous and grave gesture"). That Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton can agree on something is nothing short of a miracle. In fact, the only big name I can think of hearing in defense of Jones (although condemning the act itself) is Michael Bloomberg.
It has sprung up a huge debate about First Amendment rights. The whole issue of Park51 and Jones's Qur'an-burning have the nation teetering on the balance of what is protected free speech. At what line does sensitivity take over the freedom of speech, assembly, religion? Palin argues that it is a sensitivity issue when Jones burns copies of the Qur'an, just as it is a sensitivity issue in building the community center (she believes the backers should be sensitive to 9/11 victims and build elsewhere). Bloomberg argues it is a freedom of speech issue- Jones has the right to burn the Qur'an, no matter how disgusting people may view the actions; the developers of Park51 have the right to build their community center, no matter how many people view their actions as insensitive.
So, where do we draw the line?
Unbelievable, I know. But according to this article on CNN's Belief Blog, Sarah Palin responded to questions of whether or not she would comment on Florida's Terry Jones's plan to burn copies of the Qur'an at his ironically-named "Dove World Outreach Center" via Twitter and Facebook, denouncing the planned actions of Jones.
Of course, she then goes and equates Qur'an-burning with Park51 (again mistakenly calling it a mosque). Way to go. However, I think it does speak to the disgustingness of the act that there is such a wide base of criticism against this- Republicans, Democrats, a wide range of religious leaders (Jones's actions have also drawn a response from the Vatican, calling it an "outrageous and grave gesture"). That Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton can agree on something is nothing short of a miracle. In fact, the only big name I can think of hearing in defense of Jones (although condemning the act itself) is Michael Bloomberg.
It has sprung up a huge debate about First Amendment rights. The whole issue of Park51 and Jones's Qur'an-burning have the nation teetering on the balance of what is protected free speech. At what line does sensitivity take over the freedom of speech, assembly, religion? Palin argues that it is a sensitivity issue when Jones burns copies of the Qur'an, just as it is a sensitivity issue in building the community center (she believes the backers should be sensitive to 9/11 victims and build elsewhere). Bloomberg argues it is a freedom of speech issue- Jones has the right to burn the Qur'an, no matter how disgusting people may view the actions; the developers of Park51 have the right to build their community center, no matter how many people view their actions as insensitive.
So, where do we draw the line?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)