#roeactivism

Ted Tan, MA Human Rights student at Roehampton, writes about his experience as a Human Rights Activist in Singapore and why he chose to study Human Rights at Roehampton. This article has been submitted on behalf of #Roeactivism, Roehampton’s 16 days of Activism.

As a human rights activist, I found that in trying to persuade another of the merits of human rights values, I sometimes struggle to offer a substantive defence beyond the basic premise of 'we have human rights because we are all human'. After all, I come from Singapore – yes, the once Champion of 'Asian Values'. Although recent remarks by some of the top diplomats seem to indicate that human rights is somewhat “acceptable” after all; albeit with the usual caveats of context. So it is all too easy for me to encounter cynics and sceptics, some of whom I count as friends, expressing doubt on the applicability of human rights in a country where communitarian values are officially prized over individual rights and meritocracy valorised as a key pillar of governance.

This inevitably raises the question on how else I could better persuade and convince more of my fellow citizens of the validity and universality of human rights. A case in point is the on-going struggle to obtain for migrant domestic workers full recognition as workers and their entitlement for a full off-day. I have sat through closed door consultation whereby employers have loudly remarked that they don't need “them (domestic workers) to know their rights”.

While I could perhaps acquire knowledge through self-study from books and the internet, it has been tough to balance between familial obligations and full-time work that has little to do with human rights; and not to mention the administrative and organising grind of voluntary advocacy work. There were few spare moments to reflect more deeply on the experience and to reconcile the practice with nagging questions. Also, there was simply a lack of peers who could entertain or join my quest to fulfil the intellectual hunger that gnaws at me. With such relatively barren ground for the purpose of my quest, I could only look outwards.

Although it sounds ironic, but thanks to the pragmatism that is ingrained in all Singaporeans, Roehampton won out as one of the more cost effective choice out some of the few UK universities that offer Human Rights studies beyond the legal perspective. For that I am extremely grateful for the VC Scholarship offered by the university that certainly helped in defraying the tuition fees. Thus in pursuing a MA in Human Rights and International Relations, aside from satisfying my own curiosities, I also hope to contribute in my own small way toward future human rights work at both local and regional levels. 

Samantha Bashford, second year Sociology student at Roehampton, writes about the death penalty and its undermining of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This article has been submitted on behalf of #Roeactivism, Roehampton’s 16 days of Activism.

The method of punishment by death seems a completely prehistoric concept in contemporary society. It is the ultimate denial of human rights, destroying an individual’s right to life and is essentially murder. The Universal Human Rights declaration, signed in 1948, clearly states that ‘Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.’ This statement was made over 65 years ago and yet, although some countries have abolished their death penalties, many still employ the use of it. Capital Punishment has not been abolished in many states, therefore, many individuals have been subject to torturous executions. The Death Penalty must be abolished as a punishment as it allows judges to ‘play god’. Nobody should be given the right to make decisions on ending life, not even a judge. Death is not justice.

 The concept of Capital Punishment can and has allowed for the deaths of innocent people who have been wrongly put on trial. When found innocent, these people cannot be released, death is permanent and irreversible. Mistakes such as this are evident in every justice system and are made far too often, resulting in the deaths of many innocent individuals. Although it is rare, the death penalty can also be abused by some states against the poor or members of racial, ethnic, political or religious groups. It is vital that Capital Punishment is abolished under international law so certain states cannot abuse it. Below is a picture that Amnesty International used in their campaign on the death penalty; there were many other pictures like this that showed the last meals of innocent men put on death row. 

Some may believe that the death penalty as a form of punishment would deter criminals from committing crimes as they fear the consequence. However, the UN has noted that the death penalty does not deter crime.  It is not an effective method and very much outdated.

The United States and China are important examples to use when looking into the topic of the death penalty. Failing to sign the Universal Human Rights Treaties on abolishing the death penalty, these two countries make up two-fifths of the authority of the Security Council, which has the ability to permit important world decisions. If the authorities of the Security Council are failing to provide the most basic rights to their own people, surely they should not be permitted that much power? The Security Council has the authority to sanction intervention in states where human rights violations are happening. With only five members, two of them still using the Death Penalty as punishment, branding them the right people for the job has been largely debated and often controversial. The US is well known for its Death Row where prisoners are kept before execution. These prisoners are then usually injected with a lethal chemical and killed.

Furthermore, when Amnesty International conducted an experiment on how many people were executed in China they were not provided any statistics, allowing one to assume a high number of people are being killed each year. This is an inhumane way of treating individuals; no-one deserves to lose their life no matter what they have done. If the crimes they have committed were that terrible, surely a better method of punishment would be to keep people imprisoned and make sure the individual knows that what they have done is wrong.  If they have committed an act such as murder surely to kill them will make us just as bad?

To conclude, the death penalty very much exists in contemporary society and is still used by some the most powerful countries in the world. Its flaws are evident and killing innocent people cannot be condoned. The death penalty should have been abolished globally years ago. To kill people for their crimes is an old-fashioned method of punishment; there are other ways to punish individuals. We do not need to take their basic human rights and dignity because it is immoral, and also strongly opposes the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There is no morality in the death penalty; it is simply revengeful murder. 

By Samantha Bashford – 2nd Year Sociology Student

On the anniversary of the 2008 Mumbai attacks, Amrita Gokal writes about experiences of Terrorism and how they, along with the media and society, have unjustly reinforced notions of Islamophobia. This article has been submitted on behalf of #Roeactivism, Roehampton's 16 days of Activism.

Today, the 26th of November, Mumbai (India) completes 5 years of facing the worst possible terror attacks. South Mumbai happens to attract a lot of tourist attention due to its lively atmosphere. With the restaurants, bars and shops always open. There’s always something to keep the people of this city and its tourists entertained. However, on the night of November 26th 2008, a group of terrorists managed to turn the entire city of Mumbai upside down. There was open firing at tourist spots such as Leopold Café and innocent people were held hostage in the two best hotels of South Mumbai; The Taj Mahal Hotel & the Trident and Oberoi group of hotels. This went on for 3 whole days and over 166 people were confirmed dead while over 300 were injured. Mumbai had never been that chaotic. It was later known that the group of terrorists who were all set to make Mumbaikers panic were a part of the Lashkar-e-Taiba(LeT) and were trained in Pakistan. However, this massive attack was not planned by a Pakistani. The mastermind behind this was a man named David Headley who was actually American. Shocking, right?

In 2011, a man named Anders Breivik bombed government buildings in Oslo (Norway) and then moved on to the island of Utøya (Norway) where he shot approximately 85 people. At first it was assumed that it was an Islamic terrorist group that carried out this atrocious attack in Norway. After all the assumptions made regarding how this could have been an act of terror in the name of ‘jihad’, it was later discovered that Anders, a Norwegian,  was working alone and had his own personal motives in terrorising people of his country. The point of this being, before anything was known about the attacker, it was immediately assumed that it was an Islamic-terror group.

9/11 has been one of the worst terror attacks ever. It was all over the news in every country. What I personally fail to understand is why did the CIA detain and torture random innocent people? The CIA appointed a group of doctors and psychologists in order to torture apparent suspects of the 9/11 terror attack. Health professionals working with the military and intelligence services "designed and participated in cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment and torture of detainees". All of this was against their ethics, but it was still carried out. Over 500 innocent people were tortured and after a year when no evidence was found they were released. Again, most people who were detained were Muslim/Israeli college students or just normal working class men. What made the CIA detain these people? Well, a student wrote about the hijackers in his college book, which made him a suspect. There were other such random picks and all of them had one thing in common- they were Muslims.

All these major atrocities have led people to believe that the entire Muslim community is bad. Halloween 2013 and other fancy dressed parties in London now leave me disappointed as I realise to what extent this belief has succeeded in sowing seeds of stereotypical thoughts in young minds. Boys and men dressing as Arabic suicide bombers is seen as humorous and, strangely, accepted. Of course these are often done by students. But, according to my point of view, this is a really shallow thing to do and I’m surprised how people found this amusing. Considering the Muslim population living in London, I find it a little insensitive to play jokes that reinforce negative stereotypes in such an unsympathetic manner.

Terror-groups have managed to interpret the word ‘jihad’ very differently. ‘Jihad’ does not mean killing innocent people for their religion. It’s a reason they use to cover up for the sin they are committing now. I read an article by BBC that explained the true meaning of jihad and it had nothing to do with hurting innocent people. It was more about being peaceful, protecting their religion, doing social work etc. In places like France, Muslim women have been asked not to wear a ‘hijab’; however that is against the rules of their religion. How can one be stopped from preaching its own religion? Especially as freedom to choose your own religion is a fundamental right enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Another thing I would like to point out is that when the New York, London, Mumbai and Norway attacks happened, it was all over the news in every country and was a very big deal and it should be.  But things like this happen near enough daily in Afghanistan, Pakistan and other predominantly Islamic countries and people are still unaware of it.

I blame media for this stigma that has been attached to the entire Islamic religion. Islam is a religion that preaches peace just like every other religion. For instance, the Daily mail a few years ago wrote about how Muslims were migrating to the UK and then were trying to ban Christmas. This was completely sensationalised and this story is still being shared every year on social networks. Things like this have created a hatred for the Muslim community. I do not stand for such discrimination amongst people. In my opinion, the media holds great responsibility in reporting current happenings of the world impartially. They exist to create awareness amongst people but in reality it’s all for profit, hence the crazy sensational and hateful stories promoting nothing but fear against Muslims.