Human Rights – Pike & Hurricane

Rights Won’t Cure a Pandemic

Maya Diekmann — Wed, 10 Feb 2021 20:55:56 +0000

In recent months, human rights have experienced a rapid proliferation in public discourse. People are unusually concerned with the status of their fundamental rights—for a good reason. Few liberal democracies have witnessed such heavy-handed state intervention and liberty rights restrictions as in 2020.

Lockdowns infringe on the right to freedom of movement, strict distancing measures and gathering regulations on the freedom of assembly. Religious service is limited, hymns of praise are a big no-no in virus containment—restricting free religious practice. Not even the right to choose one’s employment is guaranteed where restaurants, theaters, and other non-essential businesses are forced to shut down.

As much as these restrictions might feel like a dictatorial rule to those privileged enough to have grown up in a liberal democratic society—who have not the slightest of ideas of what such implications even mean—it couldn’t be further removed from rights and freedoms as they work in practice. As much as some might want to equivocate their rights with a kind of untouchable, inviolable decree—human rights were never meant to play that role in the first place.

“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness”

“…born free and equal in dignity and rights.” Or so the fairy tale is told, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Granting humans rights merely on the basis of their existence as a human being is a fundamental underpinning of the Declaration. It is an ideal worth striving for but in practice, it could not be more problematic. It is no surprise that critical opposition to the notion of universality of human rights did not take long to arise after the Declaration first entered into force. With her essay The Rights of Man: What Are They?, Hannah Arendt launched what would become one of the most prominent critiques against the supposedly inalienable status of human rights. At the core of her critique is the critical question of how human rights are supposed to be universal, if their enforcement is conditional on the existence, willingness, and capability of the institutions of sovereign states to do so.

In short, and without granting Arendt the attention that she deserves, the answer to said question is: They are not universal. Not simply by virtue of existing. The respect and protection of human rights directly depend on citizenship and institutions, because rights—just like people—do not exist in a socio-political vacuum. They exist in a world divided into a map of sovereign states, holding societies to which people are assigned by birth. If one is lucky enough to be born into a state where democracy, rule of law, and respect for human rights governs, one, along with everyone else born in that state, has fundamental rights.

Being a citizen of a liberal democracy is principally like being a member of an exclusive club. You pay your membership, vote for your board, and avoid violating club rules. In return you reap the benefits of being a member. As do others. This is essential to keep the club running. The problem with membership, and its connected perks and duties, is that there is a risk to forget about the conditions on which this whole association is founded in the first place: To gather together with a common purpose. In the case of liberal democratic societies this is to live together, peacefully under the law, and to equally profit from the fruits of human cooperation—including the guarantee of certain fundamental rights.

It doesn’t take much calculating to figure out that in a society where all the members lay claims to their rights, there is bound to be some conflict sooner or later. You cannot have every single member of society demanding their freedom without any external interference. The current pandemic is paradigmatic of this: Were the COVID-19 “freedom fighters” to have their way, and states were to lift all kinds of restrictions, they would infringe on the rights to life and good health—enshrined in Article 6 of the ICCPR and Article 12 of the ICESCR respectively—of other members of society. This is why the freedoms set forward in international human rights documents are usually understood as liberties. And although the terms are often used interchangeably, there exists a conceptual difference: While freedom denotes the ability to do whatever one wishes without interference, the latter refers to the ability to do something without arbitrary interference. Liberties are what is granted, guaranteed, and protected by national laws.

COVID-19 Anti-Lockdown Protest in Vancouver, May 3rd 2020

Of Lives and Livelihoods

Few human rights are absolute. Among them are the prohibition of slavery and torture. This means that these rights can never be “put on hold”. Not in war, where allegedly anything goes, not ever. Most articles in the International Bill of Human Rights, however, come with limitations. This means that in cases of national emergency, where public order or public health are threatened, these rights can be derogated from. As long as measures are based in law, are necessary and proportional to the threat, it is perfectly legitimate for a state to limit rights, such as freedom of assembly or freedom of movement.

For many in the “corona-resistance” movement, these measures are neither necessary nor proportionate. Falsely claiming SARS-CoV-2 to be little more than a flu virus, which poses no serious threat to a vast majority of the population, they demand an end of the tyranny that restricts their personal freedoms and threatens their livelihoods. And while it is correct that in most cases, a COVID-19 infection takes a mild course, it is equally correct that there is a certain part of the population which is much more likely to be seriously affected by the disease. But even to those that acknowledge this fact, the equation still seems straightforward: The lives of the few do not justify risking the livelihoods of the many.

One of the great features of human rights is that they protect minorities from the will of the majority. Just because those facing a serious risk from SARS-CoV-2 are outnumbered does not mean that they do not deserve a healthy and safe life. This is part of what characterizes the liberal democratic society that so strongly protects exactly those fundamental rights that some understand as their personal trump card in the current crisis. Those same rights are designed to work as a protective shield for all the others whose lives and health endangered are endangered.

It is easy to demand something that unlikely affects oneself negatively. The vast majority of lockdown protesters in the US are white, whereas those disproportionately affected by the virus are people of color. Conversely, in Germany, 93% of those aged 60 and older, people facing higher risks from the virus, have no sympathy for anti-lockdown demonstrations. Undoubtedly, many of those demanding the end of corona-measures are negatively impacted by them, some disproportionately heavily. Their entire existence is at risk because of government restrictions. This should by no means be downplayed. Neither should human rights in times of the pandemic. The point is that there is a difference between making oneself heard by participating in a productive socio-political debate, and obstinately chanting for some sort of personal freedom which was never there in the first place.

There is no easy solution to a crisis as multifaceted as the current one. In fact, one of the greatest challenges in handling the COVID-19 pandemic is that alleviating one crisis seemingly aggravates another. Where individuals find themselves in the crossfire of government crisis-response mechanisms, it is easy to clutch onto the one tower of strength that promises protection from the great sovereign: Human rights. But once the underlying dynamic of this symbolic narrative is taken into consideration, one thing becomes painfully obvious: Insisting on your personal rights won’t heal a sick collective.

Related articles:

The Swedish COVID-19 pandemic strategy or: The Comeback of the “Ättestupa”

Back from the borderlands: taming and framing COVID-19

Socially Progressive, Economically Conservative: What Does It Mean to Be Liberal?

Human Rights Crisis

Photo credits:

“COVID-19 Anti-Lockdown Protest in Vancouver, May 3rd 2020” by GoToVan is licensed under CC BY 2.0

The post Rights Won’t Cure a Pandemic appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

The horror of fast fashion industry in the globalized world

Elena Wasserzier — Tue, 05 Nov 2019 13:04:14 +0000

The “I want it, I got it” mentality

We shop it, we toss it. Only after a couple of years, or in some cases months. But do we, as the consumer, really consider the working conditions under which our acid-washed denims or cosy coats have been produced? How little money can be spent, without any second thoughts, on numerous pieces of clothing in stores like Primark compared to how little money is received on the other end by the seamstresses?

What is fast fashion?

The term “fast fashion” depicts the speed, at which clothing designs are drafted, come into product and are available for purchase in stores worldwide and online. Fast fashion is mainly characterised by huge amounts, low profit margin, fast-paced production and extremely cheap and disposable items.

Globalisation contributes significantly to the rise of the acceleration of fast fashion, because open markets are existing all over the world and industrialisation is on its peak. Furthermore, the consumer is also responsible for the well-known “I just want that, so badly” mentality, following weekly trends which of course give us instant satisfaction but also lead to mass consumption and an unreasonable shopping of items, we do not need. In most cases the clothing is produced cheaply, hence, it does not last long which then again sends us in an infinite spiral of shopping and tossing.

Developing countries as financial remedy?

We have to ask ourselves why our everyday life clothing is produced in developing countries such as Bangladesh, China or Vietnam. It would make so much more sense for huge apparel companies like Zara or Primark to produce the clothes in the countries they sell it to, right?

Many people would like to believe so, but the EU labour law regulates working conditions that are ought to accomplish high employment and social protection, improve the living and working conditions and help to build a healthy work community. Therefore, the payment for seamstresses is way higher and more expensive for fashion companies in European locations.

Here, globalisation comes into play: To avoid having to pay their workers reasonable salaries many fast fashion companies set up their manufacturing business in Bangladesh. Production there is even cheaper than in China, the previous number one for cheap fashion production, because wages in China have started to rise due to the country’s overall increase in wealth. The minimum wage for Chinese garment workers fluctuates between 100-200 USD whereas Bangladesh’s seamstresses may earn as little as 38 USD per month due to the country’s general lack of regulations.

And of course, the low wages it pays its garment workers make it really attractive to fashion companies giving them an opportunity to reduce their costs and make more profit. The minimum wage in the garment sector, remains one of the lowest in the world, even though the government in Bangladesh raised it as a result to the Rana Plaza collapse.

Mass consumerism and its results

The irresponsible cheap prices of fast fashion clothing brands promote mass consumption solely by their price tags. An obvious example would be the clothing store Primark, where people often leave the store with ten or more items in a huge shopping bag, bragging about their yields. And this word-of-mouth recommendations clearly work for Primark.

Often in our society, clothing and “shopping” is considered a hobby without second thoughts regarding the consequences globally, economically or the exploitation of the seamstresses. After all, it is always a question of demand and supply and the more people that fall for “unethical cheap thrills” the more seamstresses suffer under bad conditions and get exploited for an inhumane minimum wage, often not even able to care for their families. “A report by Sabina Dewans Just Jobs network found that the typical wage in Bangladesh was just 14% of a living wage that would provide for the basic needs of a worker“

Labourers life as commodity: the Rana Plaza collapse

The tragedy of the collapse Rana Plaza which was housing five garment factories in Dhaka, Bangladesh that happened in the year 2013. The collapse of the building killed over 1,132 people and injured more than 2,500. As a result of the disaster, the world finally noticed the poor labour conditions of workers in the garment sector in Bangladesh where millions of low-paid people, most of them children and women, are working in an unsafe work environment with a high occurrence of work-related accidents and deaths, as well as diseases caused by toxic chemicals. Most of the factories are not meeting international standards required by building and construction laws. Therefore, deaths from fire incidents and buildings, which are caving in happen on a regular basis. The worker and their labour are considered disposable and convertible, a commodity to reach fast production under cheap salary.

Alternatives

After all these bloodcurdling news we should ask ourselves how we, as consumers, can change these circumstances. Well, after all it is in our hands: Do we want to act based on laissez-faire principles and just continue to mindlessly consume, or do we want to try and alter the conditions for seamstresses and rebel against this exploiting, inhumane system that treats labourers as commodity and only sees the product and not the person behind it?

To be more political and set strong examples one can always use the streets as a form of protest. Demonstrations against working conditions in third world countries are highly common and frequently made use of. Many seamstresses in Bangladesh, their families and families of the deceased used the uproar after the Rana Plaza incident to protest against their working conditions and to express their mourning.

Another method would be to boycott the fast fashion industry and brands like Primark or Zara that produce their disposable items in countries like Bangladesh under inhumane labour conditions. Thrift shopping in second hand stores is a great, and budget-friendly, alternative. This way we will not support the fast fashion industry and its huge money-stacking, capitalist companies.

Slow fashion brands like Reformation try to set a new example with ethical clothing which, however, does come with a price tag. Reformation sets their aims in using eco-friendly materials and reducing its carbon footprint by manufacturing many of its products close to where they are sold. This means the production, manufacturing and designing takes place close to the company’s headquarters in Los Angeles

Along with every item, their website shows how many gallons of water were used to produce it. Additionally, they are working towards paying 100% living wages extensively. About a third of Reformation’s management team are women, people with a disability or minorities.

Another improvement towards conscious clothing and shopping is the German green button, which since 2018 stands for ethical work conditions, fair fashion and better payment. It is also known as the “world’s first government sustainable textile label” drafted by the federal government in Germany and will make it easier for buyers to recognise ethical fashion. The seal is only awarded to vendors that comply with social and economic minimum standards, for instance minimum wage and sufficient health protection. Certified by external institutions, companies have to prove that they align with those standards to obtain the green button for their clothing.

And if one still cannot resist to buy the cute top presented on the mannequin in the next forever 21 store, one should be aware of the true cost of that little piece of polyester and cotton. There should always be a regard towards the buyers consciousness. In the end, it is always a question of demand and supply.

by Elena Wasserzier

Photo credits

Dhaka Savar Building Collapse, Jaber Al Nahian, CC BY-SA 2.0

BANGLADESH-BUILDING, coolloud,CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

The post The horror of fast fashion industry in the globalized world appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

A defector’s tale

Anna Bernard — Sun, 29 Oct 2017 20:01:06 +0000

On September the 22nd, UF Malmö members and others intrigued had a rare chance to sit down and hear the story of Mi Jin, a North Korean defector. The hall in Orkanen filled up with curiosity – the lived reality of people inside North Korea remains the great unknown of our time. The experiences of this woman, defecting from the totalitarian rule of one of the world’s most isolated countries, are unimaginable to most of us. She professed in a calm and composed manner the significance of determination and defiance in a battle from destitution to a position of advocacy.

The lecture “Inside North Korea” dealt with the reality of North Koreans’ lives and the Human Rights movement for North Korea. We also had the pleasure of having South Korean Eun Kyoung, Secretary General of the International Coalition to Stop Crimes against Humanity in North Korea, acting as interpreter for Mi Jin and sharing her own knowledge regarding the human rights violations found by the UN Human Rights Council’s Commission of Inquiry.

Life in North Korea

The story that Mi Jin shared with us was a narration riddled with hardship and perseverance under the strongman rule of a totalitarian regime. She faced personal loss and famine, overcame bigotry and was forced to endure seeing her young child work instead of study just to make ends meet. Eventually she exerted all the strength she could amass to be able to perform her mission impossible escape from the most isolated country in the world. She abandoned the regime, risking it all, to be able to provide a future defined by freedom to her daughter.

Mi Jin left escaped with her 14-year-old daughter in 2009, arriving in South Korea in January 2010 after traversing Laos, Cambodia and Thailand. Mi Jin emphasized on several occasions that her daughter was the core reason for leaving, because their life defined by hardships became increasingly insecure after Mi Jin’s husband died when their daughter was only 10. At this point the daughter had to quit school in order to provide for the two remaining members of the family.

What chimed clearly throughout her recollections of her past in North Korea was the arduous everyday life; getting enough money to secure sufficient amounts of food was a perpetual battle, creating a situation where merely existing in the system was a daily fight for survival: “being employed does not mean anything in North Korea”, Mi Jin declared with contempt in her voice, having reminisced on her various jobs including an army-affiliated job and selling bread in the market.

A new life

The impetus for their plans to defect came when Mi Jin was almost detained by the officials. She reminisced with reticence how a police officer tried to “make trouble”, which led her into further problems. As Mi Jin was almost sent away to a prison camp she looked back at her life – she had always been a law-abiding citizen and a patriot. The constant influx of insecurities inflicted onto her life by the authorities seemed unscrupulous.

It is at this point that she took the required steps to commence her defection. She first explored the possibility of finding a Chinese broker who could sell them into China. Finding a broker who will sell a North Korean woman to a husband in China is a common way of defecting. However this plan did not take flight because she wanted to defect with her daughter, a factor that complicated issues. Thus she was forced to study the regimen of the border patrol squads to find a weak point in order to cross the border undetected.

And in this she managed, and she and her daughter fled the country into China. The perils, however, were not over, since they were forced to make their way out of China across several other countries, finally finding refuge in South Korea.

After settling in South Korea, Mi Jin has worked as a journalist in the South Korean online magazine, DailyNK, exploring the North Korean “ins-and-outs”. Her daughter, even after being so many years away from school, was welcomed by her South Korean peers and has reveled in her studies to the extent that she has been granted a scholarship to attend university in one of the most competitive societies in the world. Time after time, Mi Jin solemnly asserted with a smile on her face how incredibly proud she is of her daughter.

Advocating for change

There is something very impressive about hearing stories of the most vulnerable or marginalized people becoming strong advocates for their rights and the rights of others, trying to highlight an abusive situation in their home country while functioning as an influencer for positive change.

Mi Jin provided us with an insight into this kind of advocacy. Mi Jin and Eun Kyoung came to Malmö from Geneva to show us the power of evidence: the data derived from the monitoring of the UN Human Rights Council’s Commission of Inquiry are critical for successful lobbying work.

Their visit showed us the power of relationship building – in this case engaging with the UN and other institutions and organizations. Both advocates make an effort to extend this relationship-building to potential future decision-makers and influencers which explains their eagerness to engage with students.

After the lecture some students had the opportunity to sit down with the guests for a more intimate conversation.

Mi Jin is an example to us all of co-operation of the media in raising awareness with the wider public while relentlessly telling the stories emanating from her North Korean informants still residing in the regime. Her disdain for the North Korean government became clear: advocates are able to and want to work, and it is their basic human right.

A leader cannot lead if nobody follows

Leadership takes many forms, and sometimes the underdog will go to the greatest lengths to advocate for real change. Mi Jin and Eun Kyoung’s cause, however venerable it is, requires not only their work and sacrifice, but it needs followers and support to gain momentum. On a number of occasions Mi Jin pointed out that there is too much focus on the North Korean leader, and not enough focus on the suffering and troubled everyday existence of the North Korean population. They are working to shift this focus, and we should be receptive for their plea.

By: Anna Bernard

Photo Credits

The post A defector’s tale appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.