Podcasts about inter american commission

This Day in Legal History: Belva Lockwood Admitted to SCOTUSOn March 3, 1879, Belva Lockwood shattered a major legal barrier by becoming the first woman admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court. A pioneering attorney and women's rights advocate, Lockwood had faced repeated obstacles in her legal career simply because of her gender. After being denied admission to the Supreme Court bar multiple times, she successfully lobbied Congress to pass a law allowing qualified female attorneys to argue cases before the nation's highest court. With President Rutherford B. Hayes signing the bill into law, Lockwood was finally sworn in, marking a historic step toward gender equality in the legal profession.Lockwood wasted no time in making use of her hard-won status. In 1880, she became the first woman to argue a case before the Supreme Court, representing a Cherokee Nation land claim in United States v. Cherokee Nation. Her success paved the way for future generations of female attorneys, proving that women could handle complex legal issues at the highest levels. Beyond her legal career, Lockwood also made history as one of the first women to run for U.S. president, campaigning in 1884 and 1888. Her groundbreaking achievements challenged the deeply entrenched biases of her time and expanded opportunities for women in law and politics.A federal judge in Seattle has extended an order blocking the Trump administration from withholding federal funding from medical providers in four Democratic-led states—Colorado, Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington—that offer gender-affirming care to transgender youth under 19. Judge Lauren King ruled that Trump's executive orders were unconstitutional, as they interfered with Congress' authority to allocate federal funds and violated the Fifth Amendment's equal protection guarantee by discriminating based on sex or transgender status. One of Trump's orders, issued on his first day in office, mandated that the federal government recognize only two biologically distinct sexes and barred grant funds from supporting "gender ideology." King criticized this move, stating it aimed to erase transgender individuals from federal recognition. A temporary restraining order was previously issued on February 14 while the judge considered a longer-term injunction. Another federal judge in Maryland has also temporarily halted Trump's orders nationwide. The lawsuit follows a second executive order from Trump that prohibits federal funding for gender transitions for minors. More than half of U.S. states have passed laws restricting gender-affirming care, and a pending Supreme Court case involving Tennessee's ban could set a national precedent.US judge further blocks Trump's order curbing youth gender-affirming care | ReutersA U.S. judge has ruled that President Donald Trump's firing of Hampton Dellinger, the head of the Office of Special Counsel, was illegal, setting up a potential Supreme Court battle over presidential authority. Judge Amy Berman Jackson determined that allowing Trump to remove Dellinger would give him excessive power to pressure federal officials. The Justice Department has already filed an appeal.Dellinger, appointed by President Biden for a five-year term, oversees whistleblower protections and ethics investigations for federal employees. Jackson rejected the Trump administration's argument that keeping him in place undermines presidential authority, emphasizing that the Special Counsel's role is designed to function independently. The case is part of Trump's broader effort to limit the autonomy of federal agencies, including the FTC and SEC. While Jackson called her ruling “extremely narrow,” the outcome could shape future limits on executive power. Meanwhile, Trump's legal team argues that Dellinger's continued role disrupts government operations, citing his recent intervention to prevent the firing of six federal employees.US judge declares Trump's firing of watchdog agency head illegal | ReutersThe ACLU has filed a lawsuit to stop the Trump administration from transferring 10 migrants from the U.S. to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, arguing that the move violates immigration law and serves no legitimate purpose. The detainees, from Venezuela, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, have final deportation orders but are not classified as high-risk criminals. The lawsuit describes harsh conditions at Guantanamo, including extreme isolation, verbal and physical abuse, and suicide attempts among detainees.Homeland Security officials defended the transfers, claiming only the "worst of the worst" are sent there, though reports indicate some have no criminal records. A previous court order blocked the transfer of Venezuelan migrants to Guantanamo, but they were instead deported to Venezuela. The lawsuit is part of broader legal battles over Trump's immigration policies, including efforts to end Biden-era parole programs for migrants with U.S. sponsors. Another lawsuit was also filed against Panama in the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, challenging the detention of migrants there.ACLU sues to block migrant transfers to Guantanamo, alleging 'degrading conditions' | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

It's New Year's Day, Wednesday, January 1st, A.D. 2025. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 125 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Jonathan Clark Gunmen killed Columbian pastor and two family members Armed gunmen killed a Protestant pastor and two of his family members in northern Colombia on Sunday. The attackers killed Pastor Marlon Lora, his wife Yorley Rincon, and his daughter Ángela. His son Santiago was severely injured. The family was having lunch after attending church. Pastor Lora led the Prince of Peace Villaparaguay Church and oversaw 35 urban and rural churches.  The South American country's human rights office has warned of the rise of religious freedom violations against religious leaders. Such incidents rose 31% between January and September of last year. Anna Lee Stangl with Christian Solidarity Worldwide said, “Despite the grave dangers faced by religious leaders, the Colombian government has stripped them of their status within the National Protection System. … We urge the government to … ensure protection for religious leaders, who remain at risk of violence and intimidation because of their role as peacemakers in their communities.” In Matthew 5:9, Jesus said, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.” Brazilian government censors pro-life speech Five lawmakers in Brazil are challenging their government before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The lawmakers accuse the government of censoring pro-life speech during the South American country's 2022 election cycle.  Senator Eduardo Girão is one of the lawmakers in the case. He warned, “Brazil is facing a very serious censorship problem. While our constitution protects our rights to speak and express ourselves freely as citizens of Brazil, Brazilians throughout the country are afraid to share their beliefs for fear of persecution and punishment.” World population hits 8 billion The U.S. Census Bureau released a report on Monday, estimating the world's population to reach 8.09 billion people. That would be an increase of 71 million people during 2024, a growth rate of just under one percent. India is the most populated country in the world followed by China and the United States. The report estimates the U.S. population to be over 341 million today, an increase of 2.6 million people during 2024. Trump strongly endorses House Speaker Mike Johnson to stay in leadership President-elect Donald Trump supported Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson to continue his leadership role in Congress. In a Truth Social post on Monday, Trump wrote, “Speaker Mike Johnson is a good, hard working, religious man. He will do the right thing, and we will continue to WIN. Mike has my Complete & Total Endorsement.” The House of Representatives will vote on a speaker this Friday. However, not all Republicans support Johnson to continue in the position, citing too much cooperation with Democrats. Free speech on college campus under attack in 2024 The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression reports 2024 was the worst year on record for free speech on college campuses. During 2023, there were over 150 attempts to cancel speech at colleges like disinviting speakers, canceling performances, and preventing the screening of films. This year, there were over 160 such attempts.  The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression also reports that 35% of faculty at major colleges self-censor their own speech. That's up from about 9% in the 1950s. 8 encouraging trends in global Christianity for 2024 Lifeway Research shared their top 10 articles from last year. One of them was an article entitled, “8 Encouraging Trends in Global Christianity for 2024.” The study noted Christianity is expected to continue growing, reaching 2.63 billion people last year. Groups with the fastest growth include Protestants, independents, Evangelicals, and Pentecostal/charismatics. The fastest growing areas for Christianity are in the global south, like Asia and Africa. Last year also continued the trend of more and more missionaries being sent and churches being planted than ever before. Psalm 22:27 says, “All the ends of the world shall remember and turn to the LORD, and all the families of the nations shall worship before You.”  Bald eagle becomes official American national bird And finally, the bald eagle officially became the national bird of the United States just last Tuesday. The designation became official after President Joe Biden signed legislation passed by Congress. The bald eagle has appeared on the Great Seal of the United States since 1782. Congress designated the bird as the national emblem at the time. Jack Davis, co-chair of the National Bird Initiative for the National Eagle Center, said, “For nearly 250 years, we called the bald eagle the national bird when it wasn't. But now the title is official, and no bird is more deserving.” The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs notes, “Bald eagles, like other eagles worldwide, had been seen by many as symbols of strength, courage, freedom and immortality for generations. And, unlike other eagles, the bald eagle was indigenous only to North America.” Close And that's The Worldview on this New Year's Day, Wednesday, January 1st, in the year of our Lord 2025. Subscribe by Amazon Music or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com. Or get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

Trump's 2018 zero tolerance policy which separated immigrant children from their parents at the border with no plan for reuniting them shocked the American conscience. And even though he claimed to cease the practice within weeks, zero tolerance is rooted in American law that dates back 100 years and remains on the books today. It can easily happen again.  Efrén Olivares was on the front lines defending immigrant families, and the work was personal. Efrén himself is an immigrant, and he joins us to talk about his incredible book, My Boy Will Die of Sorrow: A Memoir of Immigration From the Front Lines.   About the Guest Efrén Olivares is the deputy legal Director of the Immigrant Justice Project at the Southern Poverty Law Center. He was the lead lawyer in a successful landmark petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on behalf of families separated under the zero-tolerance policy. He previously directed the racial and economic justice program at the Texas Civil Rights Project. His writings on immigration policy have been published by the New York Times, USA Today, and Newsweek. He has testified before Congress and at briefings on Capitol Hill about immigration and border policies. He was the first member of his family to attend college. He is a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania and Yale Law School. He is author of My Boy Will Die of Sorrow: A Memoir of Immigration From the Front Lines.  

Lecture summary: Part 1 of the Lecture focuses on the development of the right to self-determination as a rule of customary international law and its application to the Chagos Archipelago, Africa and the Commonwealth Caribbean. The adoption of Resolution 1514 by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 14, 1960 was a decisive element in the development of the customary character of the right to self-determination. After that transformational development it was colonial peoples, not colonial powers, who determined their independence and its form e.g. whether based on a republican system or a UK parliamentary system. Thus, after that time the colonial powers were under an obligation to respect the right of colonial peoples to ‘freely determine their political status’, and any breach of that obligation would entail their international responsibility. Part 11 addresses the status of the right to self-determination as a norm of jus cogens, and concludes that on the basis of the relevant evidentiary material, the right to self-determination is a peremptory norm of general international law. Part 111 focuses on the right to self-determination in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Disappointment is expressed at the lack of clarity in the ICJ’s treatment in its recent Advisory Opinion of the jus cogens character of the right to self-determination in cases of foreign occupation. Speaker: Judge Patrick Robinson 1. In 1964 graduated from the University College of the West Indies -London with a Bachelor of Arts degree in English, Latin and Economics. 2. In 1968, called to the Bar at Middle Temple, in which year also completed the LLB degree from London University. In 1972, completed the LLM degree in International Law at Kings College, London University. 3. Jamaica’s representative to the Sixth (Legal) Committee of the UN General Assembly from 1972 to 1998. Led treaty -making negotiations on behalf of Jamaica in several areas, including extradition, mutual legal assistance and investment promotion and protection. 4. From 1988 to 1995, served as a member of the Inter American Commission on Human Rights, including as the President in 1991. From 1991 to 1996, member of the International Law Commission. From 1995 to 1996, member of the Haiti Truth and Justice Commission. 5. In 1998 elected a Judge of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and served as the Tribunal’s President from 2008 to 2011; presided over the trial of Slobodan Milosevic. 6. In 2020 appointed Honorary President of the American Society of International Law (ASIL); in that capacity, in collaboration with ASIL and the University of the West Indies, organized two International Symposia which led to the launch on June 8, 2023 of the historic Report on Reparations for Transatlantic Chattel Slavery (TCS) in the Americas and the Caribbean, which quantified for the first time the reparations due from the practice of TCS in the Caribbean, Central America, South America and North America. 7. Elected a Judge of the International Court of Justice in 2014 and demitted office on February 5, 2024. The Eli Lauterpacht Lecture was established after Sir Eli's death in 2017 to celebrate his life and work. This lecture takes place on a Friday at the Centre at the start of the Michaelmas Term in any academic year. These lectures are kindly supported by Dr and Mrs Ivan Berkowitz who are Principal Benefactors of the Centre.

Lecture summary: Part 1 of the Lecture focuses on the development of the right to self-determination as a rule of customary international law and its application to the Chagos Archipelago, Africa and the Commonwealth Caribbean. The adoption of Resolution 1514 by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 14, 1960 was a decisive element in the development of the customary character of the right to self-determination. After that transformational development it was colonial peoples, not colonial powers, who determined their independence and its form e.g. whether based on a republican system or a UK parliamentary system. Thus, after that time the colonial powers were under an obligation to respect the right of colonial peoples to ‘freely determine their political status', and any breach of that obligation would entail their international responsibility. Part 11 addresses the status of the right to self-determination as a norm of jus cogens, and concludes that on the basis of the relevant evidentiary material, the right to self-determination is a peremptory norm of general international law. Part 111 focuses on the right to self-determination in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Disappointment is expressed at the lack of clarity in the ICJ's treatment in its recent Advisory Opinion of the jus cogens character of the right to self-determination in cases of foreign occupation. Speaker: Judge Patrick Robinson 1. In 1964 graduated from the University College of the West Indies -London with a Bachelor of Arts degree in English, Latin and Economics. 2. In 1968, called to the Bar at Middle Temple, in which year also completed the LLB degree from London University. In 1972, completed the LLM degree in International Law at Kings College, London University. 3. Jamaica's representative to the Sixth (Legal) Committee of the UN General Assembly from 1972 to 1998. Led treaty -making negotiations on behalf of Jamaica in several areas, including extradition, mutual legal assistance and investment promotion and protection. 4. From 1988 to 1995, served as a member of the Inter American Commission on Human Rights, including as the President in 1991. From 1991 to 1996, member of the International Law Commission. From 1995 to 1996, member of the Haiti Truth and Justice Commission. 5. In 1998 elected a Judge of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and served as the Tribunal's President from 2008 to 2011; presided over the trial of Slobodan Milosevic. 6. In 2020 appointed Honorary President of the American Society of International Law (ASIL); in that capacity, in collaboration with ASIL and the University of the West Indies, organized two International Symposia which led to the launch on June 8, 2023 of the historic Report on Reparations for Transatlantic Chattel Slavery (TCS) in the Americas and the Caribbean, which quantified for the first time the reparations due from the practice of TCS in the Caribbean, Central America, South America and North America. 7. Elected a Judge of the International Court of Justice in 2014 and demitted office on February 5, 2024. The Eli Lauterpacht Lecture was established after Sir Eli's death in 2017 to celebrate his life and work. This lecture takes place on a Friday at the Centre at the start of the Michaelmas Term in any academic year. These lectures are kindly supported by Dr and Mrs Ivan Berkowitz who are Principal Benefactors of the Centre.

Lecture summary: Part 1 of the Lecture focuses on the development of the right to self-determination as a rule of customary international law and its application to the Chagos Archipelago, Africa and the Commonwealth Caribbean. The adoption of Resolution 1514 by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 14, 1960 was a decisive element in the development of the customary character of the right to self-determination. After that transformational development it was colonial peoples, not colonial powers, who determined their independence and its form e.g. whether based on a republican system or a UK parliamentary system. Thus, after that time the colonial powers were under an obligation to respect the right of colonial peoples to ‘freely determine their political status', and any breach of that obligation would entail their international responsibility. Part 11 addresses the status of the right to self-determination as a norm of jus cogens, and concludes that on the basis of the relevant evidentiary material, the right to self-determination is a peremptory norm of general international law. Part 111 focuses on the right to self-determination in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Disappointment is expressed at the lack of clarity in the ICJ's treatment in its recent Advisory Opinion of the jus cogens character of the right to self-determination in cases of foreign occupation. Speaker: Judge Patrick Robinson 1. In 1964 graduated from the University College of the West Indies -London with a Bachelor of Arts degree in English, Latin and Economics. 2. In 1968, called to the Bar at Middle Temple, in which year also completed the LLB degree from London University. In 1972, completed the LLM degree in International Law at Kings College, London University. 3. Jamaica's representative to the Sixth (Legal) Committee of the UN General Assembly from 1972 to 1998. Led treaty -making negotiations on behalf of Jamaica in several areas, including extradition, mutual legal assistance and investment promotion and protection. 4. From 1988 to 1995, served as a member of the Inter American Commission on Human Rights, including as the President in 1991. From 1991 to 1996, member of the International Law Commission. From 1995 to 1996, member of the Haiti Truth and Justice Commission. 5. In 1998 elected a Judge of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and served as the Tribunal's President from 2008 to 2011; presided over the trial of Slobodan Milosevic. 6. In 2020 appointed Honorary President of the American Society of International Law (ASIL); in that capacity, in collaboration with ASIL and the University of the West Indies, organized two International Symposia which led to the launch on June 8, 2023 of the historic Report on Reparations for Transatlantic Chattel Slavery (TCS) in the Americas and the Caribbean, which quantified for the first time the reparations due from the practice of TCS in the Caribbean, Central America, South America and North America. 7. Elected a Judge of the International Court of Justice in 2014 and demitted office on February 5, 2024. The Eli Lauterpacht Lecture was established after Sir Eli's death in 2017 to celebrate his life and work. This lecture takes place on a Friday at the Centre at the start of the Michaelmas Term in any academic year. These lectures are kindly supported by Dr and Mrs Ivan Berkowitz who are Principal Benefactors of the Centre.

Lecture summary: Part 1 of the Lecture focuses on the development of the right to self-determination as a rule of customary international law and its application to the Chagos Archipelago, Africa and the Commonwealth Caribbean. The adoption of Resolution 1514 by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 14, 1960 was a decisive element in the development of the customary character of the right to self-determination. After that transformational development it was colonial peoples, not colonial powers, who determined their independence and its form e.g. whether based on a republican system or a UK parliamentary system. Thus, after that time the colonial powers were under an obligation to respect the right of colonial peoples to ‘freely determine their political status', and any breach of that obligation would entail their international responsibility. Part 11 addresses the status of the right to self-determination as a norm of jus cogens, and concludes that on the basis of the relevant evidentiary material, the right to self-determination is a peremptory norm of general international law. Part 111 focuses on the right to self-determination in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Disappointment is expressed at the lack of clarity in the ICJ's treatment in its recent Advisory Opinion of the jus cogens character of the right to self-determination in cases of foreign occupation. Speaker: Judge Patrick Robinson 1. In 1964 graduated from the University College of the West Indies -London with a Bachelor of Arts degree in English, Latin and Economics. 2. In 1968, called to the Bar at Middle Temple, in which year also completed the LLB degree from London University. In 1972, completed the LLM degree in International Law at Kings College, London University. 3. Jamaica's representative to the Sixth (Legal) Committee of the UN General Assembly from 1972 to 1998. Led treaty -making negotiations on behalf of Jamaica in several areas, including extradition, mutual legal assistance and investment promotion and protection. 4. From 1988 to 1995, served as a member of the Inter American Commission on Human Rights, including as the President in 1991. From 1991 to 1996, member of the International Law Commission. From 1995 to 1996, member of the Haiti Truth and Justice Commission. 5. In 1998 elected a Judge of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and served as the Tribunal's President from 2008 to 2011; presided over the trial of Slobodan Milosevic. 6. In 2020 appointed Honorary President of the American Society of International Law (ASIL); in that capacity, in collaboration with ASIL and the University of the West Indies, organized two International Symposia which led to the launch on June 8, 2023 of the historic Report on Reparations for Transatlantic Chattel Slavery (TCS) in the Americas and the Caribbean, which quantified for the first time the reparations due from the practice of TCS in the Caribbean, Central America, South America and North America. 7. Elected a Judge of the International Court of Justice in 2014 and demitted office on February 5, 2024. The Eli Lauterpacht Lecture was established after Sir Eli's death in 2017 to celebrate his life and work. This lecture takes place on a Friday at the Centre at the start of the Michaelmas Term in any academic year. These lectures are kindly supported by Dr and Mrs Ivan Berkowitz who are Principal Benefactors of the Centre.

The Rapa Nui people are the original inhabitants of Rapa Nui Island, commonly known as “Easter Island.” The island in the southeastern Pacific Ocean is a colony of Chile, “annexed” in 1933 without the consent of the Rapa Nui people. The Rapa Nui people, comprising 36 clans, are engaged in a collective effort to rebuild its government and regain control of their ancestral lands and sacred and burial sites. In addition, the clans want to reclaim their self-government rights so they can curb unsustainable immigration and development on the island. The Center is providing legal assistance to help the Rapa Nui people use international law to defend their rights and bring an end to more than a century of Chilean mistreatment and human rights violations.The Rapa Nui clans had begun taken actions to reoccupy their illegally taken lands, control their sacred and burial sites, and exercise their self-government rights, to call attention to the need for serious and constructive dialogue to resolve these issues.The Chilean government took a hard line against the Rapa Nui protests and clan leaders, using excessive violence to evict clan members from their ancestral lands and sacred and burial sites, and criminally prosecuting the leaders.In 2010, the Center secured precautionary measures from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to prevent human rights violations arising from forced evictions perpetuated by Chilean armed forces. As a result, the violence has decreased but the situation remains tense because of unproductive and irregular dialogue carried out by the Chilean government on Rapa Nui issues.In the Spring of 2015, Rapa Nui leaders began to manage and control the sacred archeological sites that had long been controlled the Chilean government.  Chilean authorities began arresting and prosecuting the Rapa Nui leaders, and they searched and closed down the offices of the Rapa Nui Parliament. This led to demonstrations and further arrests as Rapa Nui leaders demanded self-determination and decolonization of the island. Center attorneys have provided legal counsel to the leaders and have assisted them in addressing the United Nations Human Rights Council, demanding an end to Chile's colonial rule of the island; as well as in requesting again precautionary measures from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to protect the lives of Rapa Nui leaders. Center will help to enforce the recommendations issued by the Commission, and will continue to help the Rapa Nui to win respect for their land rights and their right to self-government.Dr. Edwin Barnhart, director of the Maya Exploration Center, has over twenty five years of experience in Central, South, and North America as an archaeologist, an explorer, and an instructor. He has appeared in over a dozen documentaries and given presentations all over the world.His involvement in Maya studies began in 1990 as an archaeological intern in the ruins of Copan, Honduras. In January of 1996 he was invited to return to Copan and help the University of Pennsylvania excavate the early acropolis and the tomb of the city's lineage founder. From 1992-1995 he studied art, iconography, and epigraphy (hieroglyphic translation) under the late Dr. Linda Schele at the University of Texas at Austin. During that same time he worked across the state of Texas as a contract archaeologist. https://www.mayaexploration.org/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/earth-ancients--2790919/support.

“Southern Alaska Native Nations' Intervention: Stopping the Extractive Mining Industry from Maiming and Extinguishing Life” Today on American Indian Airwaves, we go to southeast Alaska and British Colombia (B.C.), Canada, to discuss the Southeast Alaska Indigenous Transboundary Commission (SEITC), which consists of 15 Indigenous nations in southeast Alaska and rooted along Canada's transboundary rivers, recent submission of a formal request with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, a legal organization that is part of the Organization of American States (OAS), to halt the protracted and reckless mining activities that are violating Indigenous peoples human rights throughout the region. Dozens of mining companies are seeking permission from the British Columbia (B.C.) government to develop some of the world's largest gold mines in the headwaters of Southeast Alaska's transboundary rivers, and the Canadian government continues denying the sovereign rights of the Alaskan Native nations living downstream from the extractive mining activities. In fact, a recent decision, ordered by Canada's Ministry of Land, Water and Resource Stewardship on June 27th, 2024, could guarantee the destruction of both a critical ecological hotspot and the ways of life of the Southeast Alaska nations. For example, Skeena Resources Limited (“Skeena”) proposed in 2021 a major gold and silver mining project called The Eskay Creek Project. It is one of eight mines in B.C. that are at issue, but the Esky Project, which is in the final environmental review state, and if built, would produce an estimated 7.5 million tons of gold and silver over an estimated 14-year mine life span and the project would be in the same area as a previous mine that operated from 1994-2008. Lastly, the Esky Creek Project risk southern Alaska Native nations, rivers including the Unuk, Stikine, and Taku, five species of wild Pacific salmon, and more traditional lifeways with possible extinction if left unheeded. Guests: Guy Archibald, Executive Director, of the Southeast Alaska Indigenous Transboundary Commission (www.seitc.org). Guy is an analytical environmental chemist and microbiologist with over 20 years of experience. He works to utilize western science and apply traditional knowledge and practices to protect the various communities, the forest, salmon, trees, and people. Esther Reese is Eagle Tsaagweidí (Killerwhale) from Ḵéex̱ʼ Kwáan (Kake), Alaska. She is President of the Southeast Alaska Indigenous Transboundary Commission (www.seitc.org), and serves as the Tribal Administrator for the Wrangell Cooperative Association, the federally recognized Tribe in Wrangell, an Alaska Native nation at the mouth of the Stikine River. Archived AIA programs are on Soundcloud at: https://soundcloud.com/burntswamp American Indian Airwaves streams on over ten podcasting platforms such as Amazon Music, Apple Podcast, Audible, Backtracks.fm, Gaana, Google Podcast, Fyyd, iHeart Media, Mixcloud, Player.fm, Podbay.fm, Podcast Republic, SoundCloud, Spotify, Tunein, YouTube, and more.

In  the 2nd hour of the Marc Cox Morning Show: Peter Doocy ask who will answer the call at 11pm On July 10th the Brown family will appear before the Inter American Commission of Human Rights Dom Savino from 'This Morning With Gordon Deal' gives a check on business In Other News with Ethan: Joe Bonsall of the Oakridge Boys passes from ALS, Shrek 5 in the works, Starbucks giving away a free straw, Sam's Club making you spend $50 to get free shipping, Claussen has a pickle cupcake, and a news study says drinking is killing you. Coming Up Next Hour: Cody Sargent, Jason Isaac, and Kim on a Whim, too!

This week's speakers: Marie-Josèphe Devillers/ ICASM, France, Surrogacy around the world, Modern slavery sold as reproductive solutions
  Patrizia Tancredi (Women against Surrogacy Belgium), Belgium, A fight back against attempts to open up Surrogacy in Belgium: Creation of Women Against Surrogacy Belgium
  Amparo Domingo, Spain, The WDI UN Working Group - what we do and why it matters
  Maria Binetti, Argentina, Why the UN? The Inter American Commission and the UN
  Dianne Post, USA, The proposed new Crimes Against Humanity Treaty includes gender not sex ♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀ Feminist Question Time Enjoying our webinars? If you are a position to make a one-off or recurring donation to support our work, you can find out how to do so (and see our financial reports) at https://www.womensdeclaration.com/en/... - thank-you! ♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀ Women's Declaration International (#WDI) Feminist Question Time is a weekly online webinar (Saturdays 3-4.30pm UK time). It is attended by a global feminist and activist audience of between 200-300. The main focus is how gender ideology is harming the rights of women and girls. See upcoming speakers and register to attend at https://bit.ly/registerFQT. There is also a monthly AUS/NZ FQT, on the last Saturday of the month at 7pm (Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney)/9pm (NZ). Register to attend at https://bit.ly/registerFQTAUSNZ. On Sundays (10am UK time), our webinar series, Radical Feminist Perspectives, offers a chance to hear leading feminists discuss radical feminist theory and politics. Register at https://bit.ly/registerRFP. WDI is the leading global organisation defending women's sex-based rights against the threats posed by gender identity ideology. Find out more at https://womensdeclaration.com, where you can join more than 30,000 people and 418 organisations from 157 countries in signing our Declaration on Women's Sex-based Rights. The Declaration reaffirms the sex-based rights of women which are set out in the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 18 December 1979 (#CEDAW). Disclaimer: Women's Declaration International hosts a range of women from all over the world on Feminist Question Time (FQT), on Radical Feminist Perspectives (RFP) and on webinars hosted by country chapters – all have signed our Declaration or have known histories of feminist activism - but beyond that, we do not know their exact views or activism. WDI does not know in detail what they will say on webinars. The views expressed by speakers in these videos are not necessarily those of WDI and we do not necessarily support views or actions that speakers have expressed or engaged in at other times. As well as the position stated in our Declaration on Women's Sex-based Rights, WDI opposes sexism, racism and anti-semitism. For more information, see our Frequently Asked Questions (https://womensdeclaration.com/en/abou...) or email info@womensdeclaration.com. #feminism #radicalfeminism #womensrights

On January 18th of last year, a land defender protesting the razing of an urban forest to build a police training mega complex known as COP City was killed by a hail of bullets fired by police in Atlanta Georgia. Authorities claim the had fired a weapon at police, but there is strong forensic evidence that the protester was seated with hands up and had not fired a weapon.Many other peaceful protesters as well as those providing mutual aid and bond support have been charged in a far-reaching prosecution that has labelled many as Domestic Terrorists.On April 5th, two organizations, including Robert F Kennedy Human Rights and Southern Center for Human Rights together with the University of Dayton Human Rights Center filed a petition with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights calling for an investigation into the killing of Manuel Pize Teran, also known as Tortuguita.On this episode of Breaking Green, we will talk with Anthony Enriqez of Robert F Kennedy Human Rights.  Anthony Enriqez is an attorney working to reduce mass incarceration in the United States by exposing and stopping human rights abuses in the criminal legal and immigration systems. As the Vice President of U.S. Advocacy and Litigation at Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights, he leads a team of advocates fighting for accountability for state-sponsored racial discrimination, torture, and extrajudicial killings. He has over a decade of expertise in child refugee protection, immigrants' rights, and anti-detention advocacy and litigation. Anthony graduated from New York University School of Law in 2013 and clerked for a federal district court judge in the Southern District of New York. He is fluent in English, Spanish, and Portuguese.This podcast is produced by Global Justice Ecology Project.Breaking Green is made possible by tax deductible donations from people like you. Please help us lift up the voices of those working to protect forests, defend human rights and expose false solutions.  Donate securely online hereOr simply text GIVE to 716-257-4187

Juliana de Moraes Pinheiro is the co-founder of WBO and was the organization's first executive director. With a Master's degree in Public Policy from the Erasmus Mundus program, Juliana specialized in International Political Economy and Governance at the International Institute of Social Studies at Erasmus University Rotterdam in The Hague and the Institut Barcelona d'Estudis Internacionals at Pompeu Fabra University in Barcelona. Juliana has a Bachelor's degree in International Relations & Development from the American University in Washington. With over twelve years of experience, Juliana has worked at the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States (OAS), and has collaborated with the Global Alliance for the Green New Deal in Paris, and various NGOs in Washington, D.C. Currently, she coordinates the Socio-Environmental Program at the WBO, and the Liaison & Outreach Strategy for the Parliamentary Observatory on Climate Change and Just Transition at the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (UN-ECLAC). Brazil is going through challenging times. There's never been a more important moment to understand Brazil's politics, society, and culture. To go beyond the headlines, and to ask questions that aren't easy to answer. 'Brazil Unfiltered,' does just that. This podcast is hosted by James N. Green, Professor of Brazilian History and Culture at Brown University and the National Co-Coordinator of the U.S. Network for Democracy in Brazil.Brazil Unfiltered is part of the Democracy Observatory, supported by the Washington Brazil Office. This podcast is edited and produced by Camilo Rocha in São Paulo.https://www.braziloffice.org/en/observatory#activities

Show notes and Transcript Lois McLatchie Miller is the senior legal communications officer for Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) UK and is a regular media commentator.  She joins us to discuss the work of ADF who's tagline, “Protecting everyone's right to live & speak the Truth in the UK”, is needed more than ever.  Are Christian freedoms really under threat in the UK?  Lois discusses a number of issues which are off limits legally. Speaking up for the rights of the unborn. SIlent prayer on a public footpath. Common sense factual statements on gender and sexuality. Asking people if they want to talk about the sanctity of life. Criminalising thoughts that are the wrong emotion. So many views and actions have been attacked by this so called conservative government. And where is the church amidst this woke wave of censorship? Lois McLatchie serves as a senior legal communications officer for ADF UK . She works with journalists and press representatives to advocate for fundamental freedoms in the “court of public opinion”, both in written pieces and through public speaking. Before beginning her current role, Lois was a legal analyst on ADF International's UN Advocacy Team at the Human Rights Council in Geneva. There, she provided Member State representatives with key legal resources and amendatory language which promotes the inherent value of every person. She is an alumnus of ADF International's Veritas Scholarship, under which she she completed training on on international law, communications and argumentation. Lois also holds an LLM Human Rights Law with distinction from the University of Kent, and an MA (Hons) International Relations from the University of St Andrews. During her studies, she participated in Areté Academy and Blackstone Legal Fellowship, where she completed extensive research on bioethical issues, including surrogacy. Connect with Lois and ADF UK... X                      x.com/LoisMcLatch                          x.com/ADF_UK SUBSTACK      tradical.substack.com WEBSITE          adfinternational.org Interview recorded 5.4.24 Connect with Hearts of Oak... WEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/ PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/ SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/ SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/ *Special thanks to Bosch Fawstin for recording our intro/outro on this podcast. Check out his art https://theboschfawstinstore.blogspot.com/ and follow him on X https://twitter.com/TheBoschFawstin?s=20  Transcript (Hearts of Oak) I'm delighted to be joined today by Lois McLatchie-Miller. Lois, thank you so much for your time today. Thank you. It's a pleasure to be here. Great to have you on and followed you on Twitter, on your many, many different media outlets in the UK, GB News and Talk TV, Talk Radio. People can follow you. There is your Twitter handle and all the links are in the description. You're the Senior Legal Communications Officer for ADF, Alliance Defending Freedom. I followed ADF for many, many years. And it's ADF.UK, but everything is there. And I think the tagline on ADF on the Twitter is protecting everyone's right to live and speak the truth in the UK, which is under attack. And that's truth with a capital T. Maybe we'll touch on that as well. I said before, I've had the privilege of doing work with Paul Coleman, who's your executive director. Great to have you on and discuss this whole area, which I don't know if we've talked about for a long time on Christian freedoms. But maybe I'll ask you a simple question that the left trans say, of course it's not, and that is freedoms, specifically Christian freedoms. How are they actually under threat in the UK? Yeah, well, thanks for that question. Well, I think looking around us as Christians in the UK, we can sense that there is a changing culture, which is fine. Christians at the church have survived throughout thousands of generations of many different challenges. But the one that faces us today is one that's particularly sensorial. I say that because of a lot of the legislation that has been brought in recently in my home country in Scotland, most notably, but also across the UK, where the ability to speak truth. We're taught to speak in grace and truth is increasingly being reduced for the fear of offending somebody sometimes or because, more likely, different ideologies set to take precedence. I think, in Western countries, there has always been one belief or one ideolo​gy that is dominant. In and many years ago, that was the church. The church had in place blasphemy laws back in the 1600s. It was wrong to stop people from challenging or questioning the church or even having conversations about what different interpretations of the Bible might mean, of course. We should have allowed those conversations. It was wrong to always impose blasphemy laws with very harsh sentences. But what we're seeing today is in the West, in the UK and across different countries like Finland and across the European Union; we're seeing laws come in which actually just reverse that and we have situations where we can't speak out against what are considered to be the true dogmas or the the most popular narrative views of our day. Whenever we're in a situation like that uh that's a disadvantage to everyone because we don't get to have the conversations about important societal issues that we need and especially right now it is a disadvantage to Christians who are commanded and who love to be able to speak about their beliefs and share and exchange them with other people. And maybe you want to touch on the role of Alliance Defending Freedom. I know that you work here in the UK, but I initially saw it as as a U.S organization. I think it's expanded now to to many parts of the world. It's to my mind, it's probably the major Christian organization defending individuals' rights to speak truth in many areas in society. And the attacks are becoming wider and wider in every area. But maybe our viewers in the UK may not be so aware of ADF. Do you want to just let the viewers know what ADF is and what actually it does? Yeah, absolutely. Well, ADF stands for Alliance Defending Freedom. And the US reference that you mentioned, well, we as an organisation began in the US over 25 years ago. But, 10 years ago, we started up a new branch of ADF, called ADF International, which is headquartered in Vienna. We, as a new international organization, have an eye to keep the right to live and speak the truth free all over the world. So, we have an alliance of over 4,000 lawyers who we support. Whatever their challenges are in their own country, to the concept of being able to speak the truth. They can come to us and we can support them in being able to take these things through courts. And we also have in-house legal teams based in situations of political significance: at the European Union, at the European Court for Human Rights in Strasbourg, or we have a big office in Washington DC because of the Latin American jurisdictions there or the institutions there. Here in London, we have an office ADF UK, and we work in-house to be supporting these rights, to be serving serving those individuals who are dragged through courts unfairly because of their faith. Or to be promoting in the media and in politics, these foundational ideas that are core. For example, over here in the UK, freedom of speech has been a core value to the Brits for a long, long time, as well as supporting things like the right to life, again, which has been secured in our understanding of human rights law in the West for a long, long time. Although, we have an international presence in each location that we're based in, we work locally with a local team working on local issues with local laws. I think there's a big difference between stateside and over in Europe where in the States you wear your faith on your sleeve more. The conversations are, I think, more vocal and more public, where certainly in the UK, your faith is supposedly a private thing that you keep away from your public life. Is that one of the reasons why we've got to where we're going; Christians taking themselves out of the public sphere? I think probably these things are symbiotic aren't they. As laws and culture and this kind of concept of cancel culture increases it can put pressure on Christians and others of minority beliefs to stay quiet and then that can perpetuate the kind of myth that these views are outdated and don't really exist and therefore legislation comes in to make it even more difficult to express our faith and therefore this cycle kind of continues. And that's one of the reasons why it's so important for Christians to be standing up for their freedom of speech. Sometimes, this can be seen as kind of an icky thing to do to be engaging in our rights and we were supposed to, you know, we are called to be persecuted and some people feel awkward or difficult about speaking up for their rights but we're encouraged to do so, because Paul the apostle when he was under pressure for assessing his beliefs he called on the Roman Roman justice system and invoked his rights as a Roman citizen. And it wasn't because he was afraid of going to prison or afraid of suffering, but it was because, for many reasons, firstly, upholding justice in a country is important. Secondly, because this can be an opportunity to share our story with a wider group of people and to secure the right for them too, to be able to live and speak the truth, to share their faith. It's important to engage in the structures of society that we have around us. And of course, we know that the message of Christianity can have a phenomenal impact, not only in the lives of individuals and in us loving our neighbour to be able to share the truth like this, but also in societies. If you look to pre-Christian Rome, for example, the culture was more hedonistic and awful than today. They were engaging in child sacrifice in some instances. Women were treated as about the same worth as a loaf of bread. Babies were exposed on rubbish heaps if they weren't wanted simply because they were girls. Yet, Christianity came in with a transformative message and instituted this first concept that we ever had of having human rights, of having the equal dignity of each person just because they are human. That is a message that we still carry with us today, the equal dignity and worth of each person, no matter black, white, male, female, born, unborn, child, adult, all of these things. We believe that they have equal dignity and worth. We believe that no child has ever been born in the wrong body, for example. And these are values that can be positive and make a hugely positive impact on those around us. There are great reasons to be upholding this freedom, to be able to share our faith, to be able to share this perspective in society and help shape the laws around us to be the best that they can be for the flourishing of everybody. I've been surprised. I mean, I remember back when I was working at Christian Concern and engaging with churches. And you're kind of thinking, well, surely churches should be engaging in this fight. But it seems as though often, and maybe Americans may think, you've got to stay at church. You're in a wonderful position. Well, it's not necessarily so. And it seems that the church have retreated and left the fight to organizations like ADF. That's your job to speak truth and we'll quietly have a Bible study on a Wednesday evening and that's kind of our job ticked. I mean, how do you see that? Because, really it should be the church that are standing up for rights and freedoms and truth in the world. Yeah. So, the church has a commission, doesn't it, to be sharing the message and making disciples of those who believe. And I don't think that everybody in the church has the same necessarily frontline role in the politics that I do. I think that we all are called to have different parts of the body, but especially when we have state churches. But the church as an institution in society does have freedom to be able to speak into the societal issues of our day and to be sharing a perspective about how lives can be approved for everybody. And I think that church leaders have perhaps lost confidence in their ability to do that, that they do have a voice, that they can speak to politicians, they can speak to newspapers, to society and share their perspective and that it isn't wrong to do so. I wonder if there's been a little bit of a shyness over the last 50 years and speaking externally, but also internally about some issues that can be seen as controversial and maybe not having the language to articulate these things well. It is so important that we do so because we know, we believe the Bible as a church, not just because it's the Bible or because we're told to do so, but because we fundamentally do think it's true. We do think it holds valuable knowledge about how to best support everybody in society, best point them towards the way that they can be flourishing the most. If we truly believe that truth, then it is unfair, unjust and unkind of us to not be sharing that message, to not be speaking out. So, if we take our mission seriously, if we think that this is good for society, then we must be speaking about these issues in compassion and grace and holding out the wisdom that we've been taught. 100% Many of our viewers, not necessarily Christian viewers, may be non-Christian, but I think certainly the response we've got is many people looking for what truth is and looking for certainty in life, especially during the last four years of COVID chaos and trying to find that certainty. I want to talk to you about the the pro-life conversation and the Christian freedom conversation wider. I do need to ask you as a scoff of the the chaos that's north of the border. We've all read about uh it wasn't an April fool's joke it was actually the SNP going fully woke and restricting all conversation. As been reported on a lot, but maybe you want to just mention that, firstly, as an example of this wave against the right to speak what you believe. Sure. Well, like I mentioned earlier, it was 1697 that the last man in Scotland was condemned for blasphemy. He had, Thomas Aitkenhead, a 20-year-old Edinburgh student who had questioned the validity of the miracles of the Bible and made some jokes about Scripture. He was condemned for that, and that was absolutely wrong. That law went defunct for hundreds of years nobody used it in 2021 it was repealed finally, but on the same day that it was repealed a new blasphemy law was put into place. That came into action on the 1st of April this year. That law creates a new offense called stirring up of hate. I certainly don't like to be hated. I don't like anyone else to feel hated either and obviously we've talked about Christianity. Christians should never be called to be stirring up hate in any measure. The problem with this law is that we don't know exactly what kind of language can be seen to come under this. There's no definition of what it means to stir up hate and essentially it's been left wide open to abuse for the government to decide what speech they don't like and to ban that now JK Rowling very famously tested this law right in the morning that it came out. She tweeted, of course, some some fiery tweets about trans activists. She asked the police to come and arrest her if she had done anything wrong. The police investigated these tweets that had been reported as a hate crime. They found that they did not meet the threshold and that is good. It is really good that we've had that benchmark set for feminists that these particular tweets did not meet the threshold. However, we don't actually know, because there is no clear definition if different tweets were worded differently on a different day. And perhaps even might I add, coming from somebody who isn't as famous or on a big platform, or doesn't have the world's attention watching them. We don't know if the police will find a different reason as to prosecuting tweets as hate crimes and we don't know also about other topics that haven't been tested so JK Rowling talked about um trans activists and their link to criminality. We haven't tested this out when it comes to speaking about marriage we know one of the protected categories within law is obviously transgender identity and sexual orientation so we don't know about Christians who might speak out about marriage being between a man and a woman and if in different contexts. That could potentially meet the threshold. There's many Questions about this law that we have not been bottomed out. Police of Scotland had three years to clarify you know to a greater extent what this law was really going to mean for us and really all the best they came up with was a kind of campaign about a hate monster and watching out that the hate monster doesn't doesn't get you doesn't cause you to accidentally commit a hate crime I think it's very disappointing from our establishment that we're in this situation. I do see it as a new form of blasphemy law and that can essentially be used in the future to to criminalize people who are simply expressing their beliefs and it creates it's a culture I think of kind of you can't say that. You know, we'll chill conversations about important societal issues even in the home. This reaches into the family dinner table. Where it still applies, and if kids were to report their parents for their quote-unquote hateful beliefs if that's what they've been taught in school or hateful beliefs, then their parents could be ended up in trouble for what they've said there too. I think it's a very far-reaching law. It is something to be concerned about. And it's frightening that a government are trying to legislate feelings. Maybe the first government in the world to say a certain feeling or a certain emotion is wrong. I guess we'll be told what emotions are right and you must feel those emotions at certain times. And then it falls on the police and in some ways although it's the bobby on the beat that they will have to implement this. They're probably thinking this there are no guidelines this is not explained properly and it it's dangerous. We see it time and time again. Legislation coming in that's worded so badly, so widely, that actually it's up to any individual. And on a Monday someone could be arrested,  on a Tuesday they're not and that's frightening. I guess no safeguards and it's so subjective. Yeah, that's right. I mean we've seen this actually with hate speech laws across the world, so we kind of have a flavour of where this is going already. ADF International was supporting a case in Finland and still is a politician a parliamentarian of 20 years and a former Home Secretary, and a grandmother mother. Paivi Razanen, tweeted in 2019, she tweeted a Bible verse and she challenged her church leadership as to whether they should really have sponsored the Pride parade in Helsinki. She felt that that was perhaps an inappropriate thing for a church to be doing. She was charged for hate speech. She was dragged to the court. She's been acquitted twice at the district court and the court of appeal, and her case has been appealed a third time to the Supreme Court in Finland. The charge that she has been, or what she's been charged under carries a potential sentence of up to two years in prison. We don't think that she would get the full sentence, but the fact that that hangs in the air is quite phenomenal. We've seen where this lands of grandmothers being dragged through courts for years for tweeting their beliefs. Again, in Mexico we've seen this with politicians out there who we've supported, who were convicted actually of gender gender-based political violence for having expressed their beliefs on biological reality. Their are cases being appealed to the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights, but there are two politicians whose careers have been severely jeopardised because they simply tweeted their well-founded beliefs about reality. They spoke the truth. We know where this goes. We know how the story ends. For Scotland and Ireland are now looking at putting in place their own hate speech law as well. It is concerning, but we're going to have to wait and see how this shakes out. Of course, like you say, it comes down often to an individual police decision on the day, and Police Scotland are now a centralised unit. There's no kind of peer review between different forces in Scotland. It really is down to just one hive mind making the decision on what could count as offensive in the future. The police recently in Scotland said that they were no longer going to be investigating over 24,000 crimes including some examples of theft, because they simply don't have the resources, but we're told that they are going to be investigating every single report of hate speech that comes in. And we've had over 4,000 so far. Bear in mind that this law has been enacted for four days. If you can compare the before and after the effect this is going to have on our resources of policing in the country when it comes into looking about who said what on Twitter. It's a phenomenally interesting place for a country to be, but we're going to see how it shakes out in the next few weeks, I imagine. It really is weird whenever politicians are more concerned of hurdy words than rape, because the rape convictions are, what, one and a half percent, I think, is a conviction from an allegation to conviction. And yet, it's falling over themselves to find a word that may cause someone offence somewhere and to go after that. It is unbelievable the waste of finance and police resources of going after something while you've got these massive problems in society and simply turning a blind eye to it. Yeah, no, absolutely. And you're right. Hate isn't a human emotion. It's a motion of the human heart. It'd be as well trying to ban greed or envy or lust. Hamza Yusuf. Justin Trudeau. Simon Harris. All of these guys can try to ban hate, but that's not essentially what it's going to make the difference in society. Do we have societal issues, societal tensions, of course we do, but resolving those conflicts is going to take more conversation not less. Telling people that that their views or that they are bad people for expressing beliefs is not going to be helpful in engaging those societal conversations. If we let bad speech go underground and be hidden, then it festers into even worse speech for the issues that the government is concerned about. Having conversations out in the open is really the best place for a democracy to be. We need to have these types of conversations and the marketplace of ideas will sort itself out. The ideas that need to be fleshed out can be done so with debate and discussion. I think that's the direction the West needs to be headed. It was certainly historically where we seem to be headed for a long time when we've taken this U-turn back to a kind of more authoritarian, censorial approach, which I think is going to not have the desired consequences of our government. I want to move on to life. Lots of conversation, probably in the UK more on what they call assisted dying or assisted suicide, which is assisting someone to end their life, so to murder. We've seen that, especially probably during COVID, it's becoming even a bigger conversation. I see a number of MPs just get rid of the older members of society and that fixes us, the survival of the fittest. It's a frightening. I guess,  where the conversation goes when you don't have any Christian ethos or belief of the value of life. But the value of life at the beginning as well; I mentioned to you before we went on we've had uh some great individuals: Scott Klusendorf and Seth Gruber, and Janique Stewart. It's always great to drop this in the conversation, because when you look at the other alternative media, I think this is a topic that people are afraid to go on and choice seems to trump life and the right to the individual. Maybe you want to touch on what the situation is in the U.K for me for U.S audience who aren't sure. What is the life abortion situation in the U.K? Legally speaking our uh our laws in effect allow abortion for any reason up till 24 weeks. Then after 24 weeks there's three reasons why it could go all the way up to birth. One is in cases of disability. For the child, one is if the mother's life is at risk, and one is if there's a risk of serious risk of physical or mental injury to her as a result of the pregnancy. That's as things stand now. We are are a bit of an outlier in Europe. Average kind of benchmark for European abortion caps between 12 and 15 weeks. At 24, we're almost double. We are much, much more liberal in our abortion law than others. But an amendment has been put forward as part of the criminal justice bill in our parliament by a politician who would like to see abortion decriminalised all the way up till birth in the UK for any reason. Whether you count yourself as pro-life, or pro-choice, or pro-abortion or whatever label you hold, this iteration of an abortion law is extremely dangerous and should be opposed. The reason is that it puts women's lives in danger. We have a scheme in the UK called Pills by Post. Since the pandemic and now permanently, a woman can call up an abortion provider, say that she is less than 10 weeks pregnant, and the abortion provider will be able to administer her by the post Misoprostol pills for her to perform her own abortion at home. The danger with this, of course, without saying obvious, is also that a woman can essentially acquire these medicines very easily, even after the 10-week mark all the way up to the 40-week mark. And this has happened in various instances. There was a case over the summer of a lady called Carla Foster who performed an abortion by obtaining pills in this way on, I think it was, between a 33 and 35 week old baby I believe. She had a very traumatic experience performing her own abortion in her bathroom at home and she talked she later named her baby who she had to give birth to of course, after having performed the abortion she named her baby Lily. She talks about the traumatic experience that was. Now, if we we take away laws which prevent women from doing this, because a small number of women have got around the system to do it. If we take away laws that prevent many more women from doing it, we'll have so many more women like Carla who obtain a very dangerous style of abortion at home like this. It would be an absolutely traumatic result for women. So, no matter what your ideological stance on abortion is, this is something to write to your MP and oppose, because no woman should be going through an abortion alone at home. We're told it was meant to be safe, legal and rare. There seems to be none of those things. Now, there's also been another amendment proposed to the same bill that MPs will have to pick between. The second amendment looks at this 24-week mark and says, well, hang on. This means that now that babies are surviving from 22 weeks outside the womb. We now have situations where in the same hospital; there can be a woman having a 23, 24 week baby aborted whilst the same age of baby is fighting for their lives and we're supporting them to survive. How can we just be discriminating against these two children simply because one is wanted and one is not. That doesn't seem just at all. They're taking the very they made the very modest and moderate proposal of simply lowering that limit on abortion from 24 down to 22 in line of the current state of viability in the UK. Now, of course this still makes us very much out of sync with Europe which is 12 to 15 weeks, but it is a step towards a more humane view of life. I think it's something that should be definitely supported by all MPs. Again, it's not even a defining ideological stance. It's not the Only pro-life. People should think this... It is just a reasonable measure to take to ensure that babies of all, at least at the same age, are treated equally. That no baby's life is being ended in the womb that could be surviving on the outside. My hope is that plenty of people in the U.K will see the sense in this, see the justice in this, and write to their MP and encourage them to support the amendment for 22 weeks and opposed the amendment for 40 weeks. Sorry, that was a lot of information in one go, but I hope that it came across okay. No, it did. And the changes in legislation are often incremental that you don't go for it straight away. It is a conversation and slowly you have to move people with you. But it's interesting, the state, the conversation in the legislation, acouple of states on the heartbeat legislation, and that goes around actually what is life? Can we define what life is? And I've been perplexed with conversations with those who are are absolute desperate for abortion. It's actually something that people are really fired up with, certainly in the left. And I remember touching on different issues, and it's fine, you touch on the issue of abortion, how dare you stop a woman taking the life of her child. But that conversation of life, and I don't see that as much in the UK, because the Harvard legislation, what is life? You feel the pulse, actually the heart's beating, and that makes sense. I would go down to conception, but hey, let's have a conversation. But no one seems to understand what life is and that seems to be the crux of the problem, I think. Yeah, and I think ideologically we're always put into this debate mould where we're told that we have to pick between a woman or her baby, you know, it's like pro-woman or pro-baby. Some people say that, you know, we should protect the woman at all costs and therefore if she doesn't want to have a pregnancy in her body at at all, then like it's absolutely her choice and the child gets no rights. There's not many people who go to the full extreme of saying that at any point up to birth, she should be able to make that choice or even after birth. Very few people would go to that extreme. But there are some. And on the other side, we have this kind of polar opposite opinion of only the child's life matters. And the woman doesn't matter at all. And forget about her. We just have to protect this baby's life. I personally never met anyone who said that, but I'm sure that there have been instances where that's come across. And that's obviously not right either. We're kind of locked into this strange polarization where actually very few people think on these extremes. And I think what most of us want to see is an option where we can protect both. Can we find solutions where we can protect both mother and baby? And I think that's what needs to come through far more in this debate into the mainstream and stop feeding this idea that we can now just have to pick a tribe and in fact look to solutions where we can support mothers and support babies far better. I know the U.S have a great network of pregnancy help centres, which I think do a great service to women, because many, you know, in one in five women in the U.K who have had abortions say that they didn't want to, they felt pressured or pushed into it. So, if we had better options of support, and I think we can all work towards situations where we can be doing more to support and encourage women to take the empowered step to choose motherhood, to choose life. In a culture where so often they're told that the only option is abortion and that they have no future apart from that. So, I'd love to see further changes in our culture towards supporting women. And I guess the danger is the organisations that provide abortion make money from it. BPAS are not going to provide a conversation with a mother saying, actually, these are your options. The option for them is one thing because that's their business. We don't seem to have a, mothers don't seem to be able to have a conversation, actually, of the options. And it seems to be if a mother is thinking of ending the life of her child, then she's kind of funnelled into one direction, and that is abortion. I think that probably needs to change. I guess that partially is the role of the church to have that conversation. Yeah, there's a lot more we can be doing for sure. I think we can all agree that women deserve far better than abortion. When we think about it no little girl ever grows up saying I would love to have an abortion when I'm older. It's never an ideal choice so, the fact that we are in a culture where one in three or one in four women are ending up having abortion is a great failure on society. It's a great failure in the rhetoric that, you know, my body my choice is so empowering when in fact it's really allowed men and family members and people that were meant to be rallying around women in crisis pregnancies to say, well, your body, your choice, your problem, I'm out. And the kind of abandoned woman to a responsibility that was always meant to be shared. So, I do think there's a lot more churches and charities and things to be doing, but we also, we do have great charities in the U.K who do volunteer support. Outside abortion facilities and have made a real life difference in the lives of many women who have chosen help and decided that they would like to continue their pregnancies if only they could have support. But unfortunately, we're seeing a clampdown on their work at a governmental level, which I think is the most anti-woman policy that this government has ever proposed. Completely. And you've written to Rishi Sunak. Have you got a reply back to your letter? I did not. You know it's so funny I I wrote that letter it wasn't an ADF initiative I would just write to my MP, but my MP is standing down and I knew that she wouldn't agree with me anyway on this. At the last minute I said, oh I'll write to Rishi, and I put it on on Twitter. So thank you for saying and noticing that, I'm glad I'm glad somebody did. Yes, no. I wrote to Rishi because I think that we've had a quote-unquote conservative government for 14 years in this country. But in the course of those years, we have seen the destruction of the family. We've seen no support for mothers. Our maternity policy, in essence, has really amounted to just cheaper childcare, which, of course, cheaper childcare is fine and good. But many women feel that they would love to be able to invest more in their families, in their children by staying home, by having tax rewards for being able to put those years into early motherhood. Yet we have very little support for the idea of a family other than getting women back into work as soon as possible. We've had an abortion rate that's only growing under the Conservative government. We've had pills by post implemented by this government and now potentially abortion up to birth under the the criminal justice bill amendment. So I think it's an absolute blight on any party that calls themselves conservative, who should be standing up for family, for freedom of speech, for life and for cherishing these values that are so important to so many of us in society. I felt frustrated that that had not been done. And so I wrote a letter. If only in the manifesto, all lives matter and both lives matter were two policies, I think, actually would have a very different society. You know, it's funny, in the Conservative manifesto; I checked in the 2019 manifesto and family is mentioned dozens of times as support for the family as this campaign was promised to us. But I personally have not seen any measures taken to support and uphold families. I've only seen the opposite. So I think that's a real miss by a government who could have done much better. Yeah, if only we could listen to Hungary and have the most family friendly policies in Europe, it could be quite different. I saw you, I think, recently, back in March, you'd been with, I think, Right to Life had been outside Parliament, highlighting what was happening. Just mention that because it's important for the public to come around initiatives and to try and let MPs know that there is vocal support for policies like this. Yeah, absolutely. I really encourage everybody in the U.K to be writing to their MP about this. The group right to life. I think it's https://righttolife.org.uk, have a tool on their website where you can very easily write to your MP. Put in your postcode and they'll let you know who it is and provide you with information that you can send on to your MP. It's very easy, just takes a couple of clicks and, yeah, even if you want to do it in a different matter you just get in touch. I think there's so many, I wasn't really aware until recently about the number of methods we do have available to us to engage in really important decisions that are made in Parliament. Writing to your MP can make a difference if they're on the fence, or at least letting them know that people in their constituency do care about this issue. It's something important to them and they of course are elected to represent you. There's also things like public consultations that frequently come up, and it's always worth just filling out that consultation and making your voice heard and engaging with these tools that we have before us, because other people do. And so if we're not voicing our own opinion in these measures where the government is looking for opinions, we won't be heard. I really encourage everyone to engage with those tools. Completely. And one MP who I saw you retweeted, a former guest of ours,  Andrew Bridgen. His tweet was there should not be double standards when it comes to free speech, yet repeatedly we see evidence that Christian expression is harshly censored while the right to voice more fashionable views is protected. This was a sign, someone holding up a sign if you want to talk you can talk, and this I think fits in with the buffer, so do you want to fill the audience in on that? Yeah, of course he was referring to the case of Livia Tossici-Bolt Livia has been volunteering to help women outside an abortion facility for quite a few years now. She's a retired medical scientist, and so she frequently has has held a sign that says here to talk if you want, or she's provided information about a helpline and just giving women that chance to talk over their options to hear about resources available to them, if they want, to consider keeping their child if it's if they're at an abortion, but they're not sure about whether they want to go ahead. It's a chance just to look at other options. I think you know pro-life or pro-choice,  especially if you're pro-choice, you should be pro having having these conversations, looking at all the true choices. However, Livia was recently charged and now faces trial because she held this sign near an abortion facility in Bournemouth, where there is a buffer zone, or a censorship zone, as we sometimes like to call them. Placed around the clinic. These buffer zones have been rolled out in five places across England and Wales so far, and under new legislation coming in soon, they will be rolled out across the country, and it makes it a crime to engage in influencing within 150 metres of a clinic. The law, the regulation that Livia was charged under prevents her from agreeing or engaging in disapproval or approval of abortion. So again, it's very, in both instances, it's very vague, ambiguous language and the authorities have deemed in Bournemouth that just by offering to talk. They're here to talk, if you want; that Livia has committed a crime. We're thrilled to be defending or to be supporting Livia's legal defence, because we believe that everybody should have the right to be engaged in these conversations. Nobody should be on trial just for having a belief about abortion or for offering to talk in any circumstance. The UK has public streets. We've always been able to express our views. We have a culture of democracy here and we can't understand why some issues are banned in certain places just because the government might not like what we have to say. So, that's one to watch out for. We're grateful that five politicians last week, as you alluded to, have spoken out for Libya. They've seen what happened in Bournemouth and they're aware that the new legislation coming in will roll this out across the U.K and we could see many more cases like Libya's. We've already seen a few. There was a priest, Father Sean Gough, who was arrested and put on trial, unfortunately vindicated, for holding a sign saying, praying for free speech. There was Isabel von Spruce, of course, most famously, also supported by ADF UK, who was arrested, actually twice, for a viral video for praying silently inside her head. So, this law has a very far-reaching consequence, even into the minds of individuals who are poor life. So something that whatever you think about abortion, we should be concerned about any form of censorship in our country and be able to keep those conversations open. Well, that, I mean, no one would have five years ago have said actually praying silently would be illegal in the UK. But in effect, that buffer zone legislation forced through by my MP, sadly to say, actually is, it means that prayer is now criminalised 150 yards from every abortion centre. That's how it's been acted on by the police. Well, we do have an opportunity to engage here for the better. So, the legislation that has been passed by the government bans influencing, like we talked about, very vague or unclear exactly what this means. Now, because it's so unclear the government are going to provide or the home office are going to provide guidance within the next few weeks to explain to police and prosecutors exactly how they should act outside of buffer zones and we know of course that freedom of thought is protected absolutely in human rights law as incorporated into the U.K law as well. It is wrong that Isabel was arrested for praying inside her head and the government have a chance to clarify here what the line is for being able to at least hold thoughts and conversations in public. Now, let's be clear for a second. We all disagree with harassment or intimidation or violence or anything like that. Nobody should be engaging in harassment of women in any situation. Of course, not here either. So, we're all comfortable with laws, which have already existed for a while, that ban that. But the government must clarify that while this legislation applies to harassment, It must not apply to silent prayer or simply peaceful prayer on the street or conversations like the one that Livia was trying to hold. A consensual conversation between two adults. So, that kindness is going to drop fairly soon. You know, there's still opportunities to engage with that. Again, you write to MP and encourage them to contact the Home Office about this and encourage them to do the right thing and clarify that we need freedom of thought and freedom of conversation. I mean, why not write to the Home Office as well and give your opinion? There is a chance still that we'll be able to preserve this and we'll have something to watch out for in the next few weeks. And just to finish, Lois, let me reiterate your comment about engage with MPs. You mentioned there was five and one of them, the awesome Carla Lockhart, DUP from Northern Ireland. And you realize there are voices, there are MPs who actually do have a belief. They are conviction politicians and they may be fewer of them than there used to be, but actually they are still there. And I think it's vital for us, whether you're watching it as Christians or not, whether you just believe in these fundamental rights that actually do engage with your MP, because you will you will find there are good MPs and you may be blessed by actually having a good MP different to Lois or myself that maybe don't have. Yeah Lois, there is, just want to reiterate that because there are good MPs and they will be fearless on speaking up on these issues. Yeah, yeah, absolutely I mean the the buffer zones debate in parliament before it was passed It was a very fiery debate and we were encouraged, although unfortunately the vote did not go in our favour when it came to the amendment. We were encouraged about the number who did stand up and in fact mentioned Isabel von Spruce by name in their speeches. So, we can see that these stories do have an impact. And hopefully because of the attention that has been shown to Isabel and the unjustifiable arrest that was made for the thoughts that she had inside her head. We hope this information will trickle through to MPs and government officials in places of power and we will be able to protect that freedom to pray silently at least. Lois, thank you so much for your time. It's great to have you on. As I said at the beginning, I followed ADF closely and people can find all the links. If they just go to your Twitter handle, they can find the links for ADF and find the links for your Substack and everything is there and it is in the description. So thank you so much for joining us today. Thank you so much. Thank you for all that you do.

How can holding gun manufacturers legally accountable reshape the fight against gun violence? In a world where accountability in various industries is becoming increasingly scrutinized, the unique legal immunity of gun manufacturers, as granted by the Protection of Lawful Commerce and Arms Act (PLCAA) in 2005, poses a controversial exception. This challenges law firms and the legal industry to explore novel approaches and international avenues to advocate for change and justice in a landscape resistant to traditional civil litigation. In this episode of the Cut to the Chase: Podcast, we're joined by Jonathan Lowy, the tenacious legal strategist behind Global Action on Gun Violence. We invited Jonathan on the show to delve into his groundbreaking work challenging the long-standing protections afforded to gun manufacturers and his effort to refashion the conversation around gun-related harm and policy as a human-rights issue. Did you know that Jonathan Lowy and his organization are part of a landmark human rights action in the Inter American Commission on Human Rights, representing victims of the tragic Parkland shooting? This is a bold move that underscores how US gun policies are not just a domestic concern but a human rights dilemma scrutinized on an international stage. Listeners can expect a riveting conversation that not only sheds light on the dark corners of the gun industry but also equips them with insights into innovative legal tactics being employed to tackle one of today's most pressing issues. Episode Rundown:    - The special legal status of gun manufacturers and the impact of the PLCAA    - Exploring the role of gun marketing tactics in gun violence    - How Global Action on Gun Violence is pioneering new strategies to hold the gun industry accountable    - The implications of gun violence as an international human rights issue    - The influence of U.S. gun policy on international concerns like drug cartels and migration    - The potential for safety innovations in firearms and the resistance from manufacturers    - A discussion of ongoing litigation efforts, including the groundbreaking case filed on behalf of the Mexican government Key actionable takeaways:    - Consider the role that international law and human rights litigation can play in circumventing domestic legal barriers    - Analyze the importance of corporate accountability in litigation strategy    - Explore the incorporation of public welfare considerations into legal practices and case arguments    As we bring this episode to a close, remember that justice often requires us to Cut to the Chase and uncover not just the surface issues but the underlying rights and responsibilities at the heart of our society. And sometimes, it's about challenging the untouchable status quos and creating movements that transcend borders. Join us next time for more insightful discussions that push the envelope of legal practice.

A daily news briefing from Catholic News Agency, powered by artificial intelligence. Ask your smart speaker to play “Catholic News,” or listen every morning wherever you get podcasts. www.catholicnewsagency.com - A Catholic priest reputed for rescuing homeless and impoverished children on the streets of Omaha, Nebraska, is expected to soon be declared Venerable by the Vatican, placing him on the path to canonization. Father Edward J Flanagan, who died in 1948, was an Irish-born priest whose saintly life has been narrated in a recent documentary, “Heart of a Servant — the Father Flanagan Story.” In a follow-up interview after the film's premiere on July 26 in Sligo, Ireland, Bishop Kevin Doran of Elphin, Ireland, told CNA that there is a good reason to hope that Flanagan will soon be declared Venerable by the Vatican. Reflecting on the life of the heroic Catholic priest, Doran told CNA that Flanagan “rescued children from homelessness and poverty in Omaha and provided a place for them that they could call home.” https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/255370/irish-born-founder-of-boys-town-father-flanagan-may-soon-be-declared-venerable Three pro-life activists who took part in an October 2022 “rescue” in a Washington, DC, abortion facility were each found guilty of felonies that could land them up to 11 years in prison and fines as much as $350,000. https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/255394/three-more-pro-lifers-guilty-on-face-act-charges-face-up-to-11-years-in-prison A Catholic priest in China was convicted of “fraud” and “impersonating religious personnel” on September 13. Father Joseph Yang Xiaoming of the Wenzhou Diocese in Zhejiang, China — south of Shanghai — was found to be in violation of the law after he refused to register with the state-sanctioned Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association. https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/255391/chinese-priest-convicted-of-fraud-for-refusal-to-recognize-state-sanctioned-church A Christian legal group has filed a petition with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on behalf of Nicaraguan Bishop Rolando Álvarez, who is serving a prison sentence under the regime of President Daniel Ortega for criticizing the dictatorship's human rights violations. Álvarez, the bishop of Matagalpa, began serving a 26-year, four-month prison term in February, charged with being a “traitor to the homeland.” The regime's police trapped him in his chancery for more than two weeks in August 2022 and entered by force in the middle of the night to take him to Managua and hold him under house arrest. Álvarez later refused to leave the country with 222 other political prisoners who were being deported by the dictatorship to the United States, including four priests, a deacon, and two seminarians. ADF International announced the filing of its petition September 14, saying there are “no effective avenues for legal recourse available in Nicaragua” under Ortega, who has effectively ruled the country as a dictator for years. https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/255390/legal-group-pleads-for-imprisoned-bishop-alvarezs-rights-before-human-rights-commission Today, the Church celebrates Saint Joseph of Cupertino, a mystic who was perhaps most famous for his ability to fly. Despite being moved from one friary to another, because of the disruption he caused by his ecstasies and the persecutions he endured from some of his brothers who were envious of his gifts, he remained profoundly inundated by the joy of abandoning himself to Divine Providence. He died on September 18, 1663 and was canonized in 1767 by Pope Clement XIII. He is the patron of air travelers and students preparing for exams. https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/saint/st-joseph-of-cupertino-598

Legal inequality is a product of the same colonial, patriarchal systems that continue to perpetuate other forms of gender inequality. In this episode, we explore the impact and legacy of religious and cultural traditions on how women today are treated under the law. Guests include Margarette May Macaulay, Jamaican Commissioner and former President of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights; and Jody Heymann, Founding Director of WORLD Policy Analysis Center.

Five years ago, Nicaragua's authoritarian leaders, Daniel Ortega and Rosario Murillo, cracked down on protests, killing 355 individuals between April 2018 and July 2019. In response, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights established the Special Follow-up Mechanism for Nicaragua (MESENI) to investigate the regime's abuses. MESENI has interviewed victims and met with local human rights groups and other civil society organizations that are documenting human rights abuses. Despite the international scrutiny, the regime continues to repress the democratic opposition. In February, it expelled 222 political prisoners to the United States. It has also targeted the Catholic Church, breaking off diplomatic relations with the Vatican, banning Easter processions, and unjustly sentencing Bishop Rolando José Álvarez to 26 years in prison. To learn more about the deteriorating human rights conditions in Nicaragua and the implications for the United States and the region, please join us for our conversation. The dialogue is part of the Wilson Center's Hemisphere of Prosperity and Freedom series.

In this episode of Occupied Thoughts, FMEP Non-resident Fellow Peter Beinart speaks to Maya Berry (Arab American Institute) and Jim Cavallaro (University Network for Human Rights) about the Biden Administration's recent decision to rescind Cavallaro's nomination to the serve as an independent expert on the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Their discussion explores the Biden Administration's pitiful profile on Palestinian human rights, and an optimistic take on where the Democratic Party might be headed. For resources and more information, please visit: https://fmep.org/resource/the-cost-of-a-palestine-caveat-biden-admin-chooses-politics-over-human-rights-expertise/

James Cavallaro and Lara Sheehi join the show to talk about being canceled over their criticism of Israel. James Cavallaro is a prominent Human Right expert who was blocked by Biden from his nomination to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) over his criticism of Israeli apartheid. Lara Sheehi is Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychology at George Washington University who is the subject of a Title VI complaint launched by the Right Wing organization Stand With Us. Then Tara Alami, a Palestinian writer and organiser from occupied Jerusalem and occupied Yafa, talks about the latest settler violence against Palestinians. James Cavallaro is a visiting professor at Columbia, UCLA and Yale and a professor of the practice at Wesleyan University. He is also the Executive Director of the University Network for Human Rights. He has taught human rights law and practice for nearly a quarter century, most recently at Yale Law School (Spring 2020), Stanford Law School (2011-2019), and Harvard Law School (2002-2011). At both Harvard and Stanford, he established and directed human rights clinics and ran human rights centers. Cavallaro has overseen dozens of projects with scores of students in over twenty countries. In June 2013, Cavallaro was elected to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. He served as President of that body from 2016-2017. Lara Sheehi, PsyD is an Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychology at the George Washington University's Professional Psychology Program where she is the founding faculty director of the Psychoanalysis and the Arab World Lab. Lara's work takes up decolonial and anti-oppressive approaches to psychoanalysis, with a focus on liberation struggles in the Global South. She is co-author with Stephen Sheehi of Psychoanalysis Under Occupation: Practicing Resistance in Palestine (Routledge, 2022) which won the Middle East Monitor's 2022 Palestine Book Award for Best Academic Book. ***Please support The Katie Halper Show *** For bonus content, exclusive interviews, to support independent media and to help make this program possible, please join us on Patreon - https://www.patreon.com/thekatiehalpershow Follow Katie on Twitter: https://twitter.com/kthalps

Recently the US State Department withdrew its nomination of eminent international human rights scholar Jim Cavallaro, solely on the basis of some tweets in which he called out Israeli apartheid and the undue influence of AIPAC (America-Israel Public Affairs Committee--a pro-Israel lobbying group). In 2019, Israel deported Omar Shakir, the Israel and Palestine Director at Human Rights Watch, for issuing reports calling out similar human rights violations. In this episode, we talk to both of them about their individual cases, and then do a deep dive into the difficulties of exposing Israel's violations of human rights, and talk about ways the message is getting out, nonetheless.James (Jim) Cavallaro is a visiting professor at Columbia, UCLA and Yale and a professor of the practice at Wesleyan University.  He is also the Executive Director of the University Network for Human Rights. He has taught human rights law and practice for nearly a quarter century, most recently at Yale Law School (Spring 2020), Stanford Law School (2011-2019), and Harvard Law School (2002-2011). In June 2013, Cavallaro was elected to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. He served as President of that body from 2016-2017.Professor Cavallaro has worked in human rights for more than three decades. He received his BA from Harvard University and his JD from Berkeley Law School. He also holds a doctorate in human rights and development (Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Seville, Spain). In 1994, he opened a joint office for Human Rights Watch and the Center for Justice and International Law in Rio de Janeiro and served as director, overseeing research, reporting, and litigation before the Inter-American system's human rights bodies. In 1999, he founded the Global Justice Center, a leading Brazilian human rights NGO. Cavallaro has authored or co-authored dozens of books, reports, and articles on human rights issues, a list of which is available below. He is fluent in English, Spanish, and Portuguese and also speaks Italian and French.Omar Shakir serves as the Israel and Palestine Director at Human Rights Watch, where he investigates human rights abuses in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza and has authored several major reports, including a 2021 report comprehensively documenting how Israeli authorities are committing the crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution against millions of Palestinians. As a result of his advocacy, the Israeli government deported Omar in November 2019. Prior to his current role, he was a Bertha Fellow at the Center for Constitutional Rights, where he focused on US counterterrorism policies, including legal representation of Guantanamo detainees.As the 2013-14 Arthur R. and Barbara D. Finberg Fellow at Human Rights Watch, he investigated human rights violations in Egypt, including the Rab'a massacre, one of the largest killings of protesters in a single day. A former Fulbright Scholar in Syria, Omar holds a JD from Stanford Law School, where he co-authored a report on the civilian consequences of US drone strikes in Pakistan as a part of the International Human Rights & Conflict Resolution Clinic, an MA in Arab Studies from Georgetown University's School of Foreign Affairs, and a BA in International Relations from Stanford.

Raw and uncut again this week, just like we expect the hems to be at Skateboard P's Louis Vuitton. In addition to talking about the newest man taking creative helm at LV Men's, we discuss shoddily put together airplanes from both the Nazi and USSR regimes (Lions Led By Donkeys), a one-year look back at Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the Biden admin making a questionable walk-back of its nomination to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights over calling Israel an apartheid state (American Prestige). Once we get that heavier stuff out of the way, we use some random topics to transition into a discussion on recent episodes of How Long Gone and Throwing Fits, and we finally address the whole thing with the "Big Red Boots". --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

Dr. James Cavallaro discusses how the State Department withdrew the Biden administration's nomination of him to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights due to tweets he had posted about Israel's human rights violations and Apartheid practices towards Palestinians. Cavallaro is co-founder and Executive Director of the University Network for Human Rights. He teaches courses on human rights law and practice at Wesleyan University, Yale Law School, and UCLA Law School.

Danny and Derek welcome James Cavallaro, professor of law and executive director of the University Network for Human Rights, for a discussion of the State Department's recent decision to withdraw his nomination to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights over comments categorizing the treatment of Palestinians by Israel as “apartheid”. They discuss James' work in human rights advocacy, the weaponization of anti-Semitism, the US goverment's particular aversion to the word “apartheid”, and more. The University Network for Human Rights has released this statement on the incident. Recorded Thursday, February 16, 2023 This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.americanprestigepod.com/subscribe

World News in 7 minutes. Thursday 2nd February 2023.Support us and read the transcripts at send7.org/transcriptsToday: Equatorial Guinea PM. Tunisia labour arrest. Nigeria human rights. Myanmar emergency. NATO Japan visit. Australia radioactive capsule. UK Walkout Wednesday. EC electric vehicles. Latvia Olympics boycott. Brazil Congress elections. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Brazil ghost carrier.Please leave a rating on Apple podcasts or Spotify.With Juliet Martin.Contact us at podcast@send7.org or send an audio message at speakpipe.com/send7If you enjoy the podcast please help to support us at send7.org/supportSEND7 (Simple English News Daily in 7 minutes) tells the most important world news stories in intermediate English. Every day, listen to the most important stories from every part of the world in slow, clear English. Whether you are an intermediate learner trying to improve your advanced, technical and business English, or if you are a native speaker who just wants to hear a summary of world news as fast as possible, join Stephen Devincenzi, Namitha Ragunath and Juliet Martin every morning. Transcripts can be found at send7.org/transcripts. Simple English News Daily is the perfect way to start your day, by practising your listening skills and understanding complicated stories in a simple way. It is also highly valuable for IELTS and TOEFL students. Students, teachers, and people with English as a second language, tell us that they listen to SEND7 because they can learn English through hard topics, but simple grammar. We believe that the best way to improve your spoken English is to immerse yourself in real-life content, such as what our podcast provides. SEND7 covers all news including politics, business, natural events and human rights. Whether it is happening in Europe, Africa, Asia, the Americas or Oceania, you will hear it on SEND7, and you will understand it. For more information visit send7.org/contact

In this episode of Brazil Unfiltered, James Naylor Green speaks with Marcelle Decothé. Marcelle is the advocacy director at the Instituto Marielle Franco. She is completing a doctorate in sociology at the Fluminense Federal University. Her academic interests include activism, race, favelas, and public security. As a representative of the Instituto Marielle Franco, Marcelle was one of the members of a delegation of 19 Brazilian NGOs that traveled to Washington D.C. in late July 2022. The trip was organized by the Washington Brazil Office with the purpose of speaking to policymakers and legislators about the threats to democracy in the upcoming Brazilian elections. The delegation met with officials at the State Department, members of Congress, a representative of the AFL-CIO, ambassadors of the Organization of American States (OAS), and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Brazil is going through turbulent times. There's never been a more important moment to understand Brazil's politics, society, and culture. To go beyond the headlines, and to ask questions that aren't easy to answer. 'Brazil Unfiltered,' does just that. This podcast is hosted by James N. Green, Professor of Brazilian History and Culture at Brown University and the National Co-Coordinator of the U.S. Network for Democracy in Brazil.Brazil Unfiltered is part of the Democracy Observatory, supported by the Washington Brazil Office, and produced by Camarada Productions.➡️ https://www.braziloffice.org/en/observatory#activities

In the Public Interest welcomes renowned environmental activist and former Argentine Secretary of the Environment and Sustainable Development, https://center-hre.org/6471-2/romina-picolotti/ (Romina Picolotti), who speaks with WilmerHale Senior Associate https://www.wilmerhale.com/en/people/kelsey-quigley (Kelsey Quigley) and Counsel https://www.wilmerhale.com/en/people/jessica-lutkenhaus (Jessica Lutkenhaus). This episode focuses on the important intersection of climate justice and human rights, and highlights the work of environmental defenders around the world—and the threats that they sometimes face. Picolotti has filed a claim before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, challenging Argentina's criminal prosecution of her for a crime that she did not commit, and which she alleges is politically motivated and filed in retaliation for her groundbreaking environmental justice efforts. The case has been stagnating in Argentine courts for nearly 15 years, and is just one example of how judicial and criminal processes around the world have sometimes been used to threaten and intimidate environmental defenders—at a time when their work fighting the climate crisis is ever more important. Quigley and Lutkenhaus are two of the lawyers on Picolotti's WilmerHale legal team, which also includes Partner https://www.wilmerhale.com/en/people/david-bowker (David Bowker) and Associate https://www.wilmerhale.com/en/people/courtney-murray (Courtney Murray), who both deserve special thanks for their work on this case. Quigley focuses her practice on representing individuals and corporations involved in investigations, enhancing regulatory compliance, and complex litigation/controversies. She is part of the firm's globally renowned litigation team, and is active in pro bono matters involving human rights and critical issues related to Latin America. Lutkenhaus represents corporations and individuals in criminal defense and civil and government regulatory litigation matters, and has substantial experience in government and internal investigations. Lutkenhaus was selected as WilmerHale's 2019 Pickering fellow and spent six months at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). She also represents pro bono clients in various matters, including one alleging numerous violations of the American Convention for Human Rights. Related Resources: https://www.wilmerhale.com/-/media/files/shared_content/editorial/publications/documents/20190921reportonthemisuseofcriminaljusticesystemstoretaliateagainstenvironmentaldefenders92120191760443391.pdf (Report on the Misuse of Criminal Justice Systems to Retaliate Against Environmental Defenders) https://www.wilmerhale.com/-/media/files/shared_content/editorial/publications/documents/20190921informesobreelusoindebidodesistemasdejusticiapenalparatomarrepresaliascontralosdefensorasydefensoresdelambiente-92120191760443.pdf (Informe sobre el uso indebido de sistemas de justicia penal para tomar represalias contra los defensoras y defensores del ambiente) https://www.wilmerhale.com/-/media/files/shared_content/editorial/publications/documents/20180302petition1667213521.pdf (Petition Alleging Violations of the Human Rights of Environmental Defender Romina Picolotti by the Republic of Argentina) https://www.wilmerhale.com/-/media/files/shared_content/editorial/publications/documents/20180503-p39518petitionspanish1675865271.pdf (Petición que alega violaciones de los derechos humanos de la defensora del medio ambiente Romina Picolotti por parte de la República Argentina) https://center-hre.org/ (Center for Human Rights and Environment (CHRE) )

Today I welcome disaster law expert Kathleen Bergin back to COVIDCalls. My guest today is Professor Kathy Bergin.  Kathy is a recognized expert in Disaster Law, she presently teaches at Cornell University Law School—her research extends to humanitarian aid programs and the catastrophic impact of climate change. She has been crucial in promoting Disaster Law as an academic discipline. She is also a successful advocate. Her team in Haiti established binding precedent in a proceeding before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights that reinforced post-disaster human rights obligations. Her work on mass evacuation shelters after Hurricane Katrina is used across the humanitarian sector as a blue-print for protecting displaced survivors. She is on the steering committee for Project Blueprint, a policy advocacy organization aimed at promoting a progressive US foreign policy. 

Lecture summary: In a series of recent decisions related to same-sex relationships, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has stated that the American Convention on Human Rights does not advance a singular notion or closed conception of family. A 2017 Advisory Opinion from the Inter-American Court also concluded that the American Convention demands that same sex couples have equal access to de jure marriage. This lecture considers what is to be gained from more broadly contending with the question, ‘what is a family’ in the Americas’ regional human rights system. Even though the inter-American system now clearly rejects ‘a limited, stereotyped perception of the concept of the family’, it has only infrequently considered the question, ‘what is a family?’, across the diversity of the Americas. That question matters not only to determining the scope of various rights to family life in inter-American instruments. Rethinking the family as a ‘basic element of society’ (American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man), grounded in time, space, human mobility and our political-economic systems, could help us see more fully ‘who’ constitutes the Americas, which is an essential for a human rights system aspiring to be universally applicable across the Americas. Tracy Robinson is a senior lecturer at the Faculty of Law, The University of the West Indies, Mona, and serves as Deputy Dean, Graduate Studies and Research. She researches and writes in the areas of constitutional law, family law, human rights law and gender, sexuality and the law. She is a co-founder and co-coordinator (with Arif Bulkan) of the Faculty of Law UWI Rights Advocacy Project (U-RAP) that led successful strategic litigation in Belize and Guyana on the criminalization of LGBTQ persons. She served on the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights as a Commissioner, President of the body (2014-2015), Rapporteur on the Rights of Women and inaugural Rapporteur on the Rights of LGBTI people. In 2020, she was appointed as one of three experts on the Independent Fact Finding Mission on Libya, a mandate established by the UN Human Rights Council.

Lecture summary: In a series of recent decisions related to same-sex relationships, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has stated that the American Convention on Human Rights does not advance a singular notion or closed conception of family. A 2017 Advisory Opinion from the Inter-American Court also concluded that the American Convention demands that same sex couples have equal access to de jure marriage. This lecture considers what is to be gained from more broadly contending with the question, ‘what is a family’ in the Americas’ regional human rights system. Even though the inter-American system now clearly rejects ‘a limited, stereotyped perception of the concept of the family’, it has only infrequently considered the question, ‘what is a family?’, across the diversity of the Americas. That question matters not only to determining the scope of various rights to family life in inter-American instruments. Rethinking the family as a ‘basic element of society’ (American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man), grounded in time, space, human mobility and our political-economic systems, could help us see more fully ‘who’ constitutes the Americas, which is an essential for a human rights system aspiring to be universally applicable across the Americas. Tracy Robinson is a senior lecturer at the Faculty of Law, The University of the West Indies, Mona, and serves as Deputy Dean, Graduate Studies and Research. She researches and writes in the areas of constitutional law, family law, human rights law and gender, sexuality and the law. She is a co-founder and co-coordinator (with Arif Bulkan) of the Faculty of Law UWI Rights Advocacy Project (U-RAP) that led successful strategic litigation in Belize and Guyana on the criminalization of LGBTQ persons. She served on the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights as a Commissioner, President of the body (2014-2015), Rapporteur on the Rights of Women and inaugural Rapporteur on the Rights of LGBTI people. In 2020, she was appointed as one of three experts on the Independent Fact Finding Mission on Libya, a mandate established by the UN Human Rights Council.

Currently in Colombia protesters are facing brutal reprisals by the U.S. backed regime. Like in many countries in the global south the austerity imposed state policies to protect the ravages of capitalism post 2008 crash are causing citizens from broad sectors of society to form coalitions to challenge government agendas to bleed the poor even further to cover for the abuses of capital that have brought forth the push towards austerity. On this episode, we will investigate Colombia's battle for economic humanity.   About Ajamu Baraka: Ajamu Baraka is a geopolitical analyst, organizer, writer, and human rights defender with over 48 years of movement work in the U.S. and internationally. Baraka is the national organizer of the Black Alliance for Peace (BAP) and was the 2016 candidate for vice president on the Green Party ticket. Baraka serves on the Executive Committee of the U.S. Peace Council and leadership body of the United National Anti-War Coalition (UNAC) and the steering committee of the Black is Back Coalition and an editor and contributing columnist for the Black Agenda Report. Baraka was awarded the US Peace Memorial 2019 Peace Prize and the Serena Shirm award for uncompromised integrity in journalism.   About Charo Mina-Rojas: Charo Mina-Rojas is a Colombian human rights defender with nearly 30 years of activism with the Black Communities Process –PCN. Mina-Rojas has served as National Coordinator of Advocacy and Outreach in the U.S, for PCN. She was part of the Ethnic Commission that worked to ensure the inclusion of the Ethnic Chapter in the Final Peace Agreement, which contains specific provisions to ensure the protection and advancement of Afro-descendant collective rights. Currently, she coordinates the "Afro-Colombian Initiative for Gender and Peace Justice, 2021". Mina-Rojas has authored several articles on the plight of Afro-Colombia women and women in Latin America, and has provided expert testimony on human rights before the committees of the United States Congress, Inter American Commission for Human Rights, and various organs of the United Nations, including the United Nations Security Council where she became the first Afro-descendant woman to testify as such before the United Nations Security Council on racial and gender violence against black/afro descendant women in Colombia and Latin America.   Thank you guys again for taking the time to check this out. We appreciate each and everyone of you. If you have the means, and you feel so inclined, BECOME A PATRON! We're creating patron only programing, you'll get bonus content from many of the episodes, and you get MERCH!   Become a patron now https://www.patreon.com/join/BitterLakePresents? Please also like, subscribe, and follow us on these platforms as well, (specially YouTube!) THANKS Y'ALL YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCG9WtLyoP9QU8sxuIfxk3eg   Twitch: www.twitch.tv/thisisrevolutionpodcast www.twitch.tv/leftflankvets​   Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Thisisrevolutionpodcast/ Twitter: @TIRShowOakland Instagram: @thisisrevolutionoakland   The Dispatch on Zero Books (video essay series): https://youtu.be/nSTpCvIoRgw   Medium: https://jasonmyles.medium.com/kill-the-poor-f9d8c10bc33d   Pascal Robert's Black Agenda Report: https://www.blackagendareport.com/author/Pascal%20Robert   For THIS IS REVOLUTION>podcast Merch: www.thisisrevolutionpodcast.com

Ignacio de Casas, Austral University, Argentina, gives a seminar for the PIL discussion group. The terms ‘international human rights standards' or ‘inter-American human rights standards' are often used by the Inter-American human rights bodies as almost a synonym for human rights or the obligations that States have in this area. In their discourse, these ‘standards' are usually considered not to refer solely to the normative expression of human rights in treaties, custom or general principles of law. On the contrary, such expression is given a use that also includes non-binding instruments whose normative (legal) content is doubtful or, at least, its bindingness is not expressly declared or recognized by any international rule (e.g., declarations, resolutions of international organizations, judicial decisions, views and general comments of treaty bodies, case law of the Commission, etc.). In recent years, the Inter-American Commission in particular has produced many thematic reports of so called ‘Inter-American standards', which are compendia of the jurisprudence of the Court and the Commission. They contain no clear definition of the concept of standards. Yet, inadvertently or boldly, they are invoked as a rule of conduct (source of obligations) for States, even when their content has clearly not been determined by, or based on, the traditional sources of international law. It is possible that this term is used as a performative utterance, pursuing a specific ideological intentionality with the meaning attributed (i.e., a progressive case for human rights). Is the jurisprudence of both the Inter-American Commission and Court a source of international law? Have they attributed themselves a law-making power? C. Ignacio de Casas is an adjunct professor at Austral University in Argentina, where he also coordinates the Graduate Diploma in Human Rights Law. Prior to that, he worked for a law firm focussing on human rights international litigation. He has an Abogado degree from the University of Mendoza, a masters from the University of Oxford and is a PhD candidate at Austral University. He is also co-founder of the Centro Latinoamericano de Derechos Humanos (CLADH).

Dr. Yolandra Hancock, a board-certified pediatrician and obesity medicine specialist, joins us to discuss coronavirus vaccine issues. New variants of the COVID-19 seem to be presenting challenges to vaccine efficacy as Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech announced their vaccines are less effective against the South African variant, and that they are working to find alternatives. Also, Europe is experiencing infighting between nations who are struggling to access enough doses for their populations. Mark Sleboda, a Moscow-based international relations and security analyst, returns to discuss the recent phone call between Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Joe Biden. Putin argued for better relations between the two nuclear powers and Biden brought up a number of Western media stories that touched on the alleged Afghan bounty plot, opposition figure Alexey Navalny, and the Solar Winds hack. Roger Harris, a human rights activist, joins us to discuss his recent article, “In the Wake of the Riots: The Blowback from Defeating Trump was Criminalizing Dissent.” Harris argues that "as the neoliberal state's crisis of legitimacy matures, anti-terrorism laws and the institutional apparatus of fascist repression are being perfected to use against future insurgencies.” The activist adds, “fundamental institutional factors ... will likely continue to determine the trajectory of neoliberal capitalism towards an ever more authoritarian state. Austerity for workers, and imperialism abroad.”Gareth Porter, an investigative journalist, returns to discuss his latest article, "Biden admin's coercive Iran policy threatens serious new regional crisis." Porter writes that Biden's plan to use sanctions to coerce Iran into renegotiating the nuclear deal will cause tremendous pain and hardship in the region. He argues the Biden team has no intention of returning to the 2015 agreement, and that their ill-fated plans are based on falsehoods and dangerous propaganda. Carlos Castaneda, an immigration attorney, joins us to talk about the recent court ruling on deportations. A federal judge in Texas temporarily blocked the Biden administration's 100-day halt on deportations. District Judge Drew B. Tipton issued a 14-day temporary restraining order that blocks the deportation moratorium and will remain in effect until he has considered a motion for a preliminary injunction. Tipton claims Biden's immigration move violates two separate federal laws.Randi Nord, the co-founder of GeopoliticsAlert.com, joins us to talk about Yemen. Relatives of at least 34 Yemenis have filed a petition with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights asserting that six drone strikes and one special operations raid conducted during the Obama and Trump administrations inflicted catastrophic damage on two families including the deaths of nine children. Chris Sorensen, author of "Understanding the War Industry," joins us to discuss the influence of military hardware giant Raytheon. The conflict of interest issue has already started with the Biden administration as Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin is recusing himself from any decisions involving Raytheon, his former employer. Also, the Biden administration is expected to block the sale of $500 million in bombs to Saudi Arabia. Ajamu Baraka, former US vice presidential candidate for the Green Party, joins us to discuss a recent article from the Black Alliance for Peace. The article, "Biden's First 48 Hours Affirm U.S. ‘Greatest Purveyor of Violence,'" discusses Dr. Martin Luther King's remarks about the US empire. Baraka posits that Dr. King broke from cold war Democrats when he stated, “When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.” Additionally, Baraka discusses the current day neutering of the Black peace movement and what needs to be done to overcome it.

Today I discuss recent COVID-19 battles in the courts with Kathy Bergin and Lindsay Wiley.Kathy Bergin is a recognized expert in Disaster Law, she presently teaches at Cornell University Law School—her research extends to humanitarian aid programs and the catastrophic impact of climate change. She has been crucial in promoting Disaster Law as an academic discipline. She is also a successful advocate. Her team in Haiti established binding precedent in a proceeding before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights that reinforced post-disaster human rights obligations. Her work on mass evacuation shelters after Hurricane Katrina is used across the humanitarian sector as a blue-print for protecting displaced survivors. And her knowledge of constitutional standards helped coalition partners in Puerto Rico secure changes in the federal government’s response to Hurricane Maria. She is on the steering committee for Project Blueprint, a policy advocacy organization aimed at promoting a progressive US foreign policy.  Lindsay Wiley is a professor of law and director of the health law and policy program at American University Washington College of Law. She is the author of Public Health Law: Power, Duty, Restraint and Public Health Law and Ethics: A Reader (with Lawrence O. Gostin). Her recent work on the coronavirus pandemic has been published in the Washington Post, Democracy: A Journal, the American Constitution Society’s Expert Forum, and the Harvard Law Review Forum. Professor Wiley is a board member and former president of the American Society of Law, Medicine, and Ethics and a former member of the National Conference of Lawyers and Scientists. She received her JD from Harvard and her MPH from Johns Hopkins.

This episode is dedicated to the memory of Congressman John Lewis. We will continue the fight for equality and justice in America. ANGELYN C. FRAZER-GILES is the Executive Director of the National Network for Justice (NNJ). She is also the founder of Solace for Sistas a social and support network of Black and Brown women committed to human and civil rights, and social and criminal justice advocacy and activities. Angelyn has degrees from the Fashion Institute of Technology and the University of Washington. She studied Spanish at the Universidad de Guadalajara in Jalisco, México, and received her Paralegal Certificate from Delaware State University. She is a licensed instructor of Zumba and is currently studying to be an End of Life Doula. NKECHI TAIFA, ESQ. Nkechi Taifa is President of The Taifa Group, LLC, and convenes the Justice Roundtable, a Washington-based advocacy coalition advancing federal justice reforms. She is also a Senior Fellow with the Center for Justice at Columbia University. Nkechi previously served as Advocacy Director for Criminal Justice for the Open Society Foundations, as founding Director of the Equal Justice Program at Howard University Law School, and as an adjunct professor at both Howard Law and American University Washington College of Law. She was legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, public policy counsel for the Women’s Legal Defense Fund, and staff attorney for the National Prison Project. As a private practitioner, she represented indigent adults and juveniles and practiced employment discrimination law. Over the course of her career she has spoken extensively across the country on justice reform and human rights issues and has testified before the U.S. Congress, the U.S. Sentencing Commission, the Council of the District of Columbia, the American Bar Association Justice Kennedy Commission, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, and the U.S. Helsinki Commission. Nkechi Taifa is a founding member of NCOBRA - the National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America and serves as a Commissioner on the National African American Reparations Commission. She has written extensively on issues of justice, including four law review articles, and has received numerous awards for her social justice advocacy and accomplishments. Nkechi is the author of a forthcoming memoir, Black Power/Black Lawyer: My Audacious Quest for Justice --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/cinncine/support

On this episode, our second release since the COVID19 Pandemic began here in Michigan, we feature a true local hero. Monica Lewis-Patrick (aka The Water Warrior) is the president and CEO of We the People of Detroit. An educator, entrepreneur, and a legendary human rights activist/advocate, Monica Lewis-Patrick is actively engaged in almost every struggle on behalf of Detroit residents. She is an active member of the People’s Water Board Coalition, US Human Rights Network, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), and more. She was named to the World Water Justice Council in October of 2015. As a former Lead Legislative Policy Analyst for Detroit City Council, Monica has authored legislation, conducted research and delivered constituency services to thousands of city residents. We’re so honored that she took the time to call in to Seth Bernard to have this truly moving conversation, and we’re so grateful for the work that she’s continually engaged in. /// State of Water is a program of the Michigan-based non-profit organization Title Track, and is powered by the Clean Water Campaign for Michigan. The podcast is made possible through a generous contribution from the Esperance Foundation. /// EPISODE 14 / Monica Lewis-Patrick interviewed by Seth Bernard / Produced, edited and mixed by Dan Rickabus / Narrators - Alex Smith, Ben Darcie, Dan Rickabus, Jenny Jones, Rachel Marco-Havens / Music - Mike Savina, Seth Bernard & Dan Rickabus / Featuring a musical performance by Antwaun Stanley, recorded for our very first episode

更多英语知识，请关注微信公众号: VOA英语每日一听Todd: Katia, we've been talking about law and international law. Now you worked in Argentina for an NGO, a non-government organization, related to law. What kind of courts did you work for or work with?Katia: Actually it's one court. The Inter-American Court but also before bringing a case into the court, we had to work with the Commission, with the Inter-American Commission first so it's two different entities, the Commission and the Court.Todd: Can you first explain the Court, so Inter-American Court that's all the countries in South America?Katia: Actually this is the countries of South America, Central America and North America, so it's North and South America.Todd: So how does the Court work?Katia: Well, the judges are from different countries of Latin American countries and the US for example or Canada and once a case is seen by the Commission, the Inter-American Commission, if the person that is suing wants to continue the sue or the state has not done what it is supposed to do, then it can be taken into the Court and then the Court will decide whether the state has committed or it's in fault or not and will give a sentence.Todd: So does this Court has a lot of power, like for example can other smaller countries or can any country just ignore it, ignore the ruling?Katia: Well yes they can ignore it but it will not be seen very good by other countries. It's not an obligation. You cannot force the country to do something but it's very rare for this to happen. Maybe it takes a long time for a state to pay the victim or to do something regarding the decision but usually, they do obey, most of the time.

更多英语知识，请关注微信公众号: VOA英语每日一听Todd: Katia, we've been talking about law and international law. Now you worked in Argentina for an NGO, a non-government organization, related to law. What kind of courts did you work for or work with?Katia: Actually it's one court. The Inter-American Court but also before bringing a case into the court, we had to work with the Commission, with the Inter-American Commission first so it's two different entities, the Commission and the Court.Todd: Can you first explain the Court, so Inter-American Court that's all the countries in South America?Katia: Actually this is the countries of South America, Central America and North America, so it's North and South America.Todd: So how does the Court work?Katia: Well, the judges are from different countries of Latin American countries and the US for example or Canada and once a case is seen by the Commission, the Inter-American Commission, if the person that is suing wants to continue the sue or the state has not done what it is supposed to do, then it can be taken into the Court and then the Court will decide whether the state has committed or it's in fault or not and will give a sentence.Todd: So does this Court has a lot of power, like for example can other smaller countries or can any country just ignore it, ignore the ruling?Katia: Well yes they can ignore it but it will not be seen very good by other countries. It's not an obligation. You cannot force the country to do something but it's very rare for this to happen. Maybe it takes a long time for a state to pay the victim or to do something regarding the decision but usually, they do obey, most of the time.

更多英语知识，请关注微信公众号: VOA英语每日一听Todd: Katia, we've been talking about law and international law. Now you worked in Argentina for an NGO, a non-government organization, related to law. What kind of courts did you work for or work with?Katia: Actually it's one court. The Inter-American Court but also before bringing a case into the court, we had to work with the Commission, with the Inter-American Commission first so it's two different entities, the Commission and the Court.Todd: Can you first explain the Court, so Inter-American Court that's all the countries in South America?Katia: Actually this is the countries of South America, Central America and North America, so it's North and South America.Todd: So how does the Court work?Katia: Well, the judges are from different countries of Latin American countries and the US for example or Canada and once a case is seen by the Commission, the Inter-American Commission, if the person that is suing wants to continue the sue or the state has not done what it is supposed to do, then it can be taken into the Court and then the Court will decide whether the state has committed or it's in fault or not and will give a sentence.Todd: So does this Court has a lot of power, like for example can other smaller countries or can any country just ignore it, ignore the ruling?Katia: Well yes they can ignore it but it will not be seen very good by other countries. It's not an obligation. You cannot force the country to do something but it's very rare for this to happen. Maybe it takes a long time for a state to pay the victim or to do something regarding the decision but usually, they do obey, most of the time.

更多英语知识，请关注微信公众号: VOA英语每日一听Todd: So Katia you were saying that you were working in Argentina as an internship. What type of internship was it?Katia: It was called a legal internship. You help lawyers to deal with cases or anything that they need you to do regarding the legal field.Todd: OK. So what kind of legal field were you working in?Katia: It's human rights, human rights in the inter-American system so cases that are related to human rights abuses in the American continent.Todd: So what are some types of cases that often come up regarding human rights?Katia: There are unfortunately many kinds of human rights abuses in Latin America. Some are from the dictatorship, for example, disappearances. Many people disappeared during the seventies and they have not received justice so they are still looking for some kind of clarification. So, for example, a case like that would be brought before the Inter-American Commission and Court.Todd: Anything else? Any other types of stuff that you would look into?Katia: Yes, there are many kinds. For example, looking at the military justice system which in many situations civilians are judged before a military justice system which it should not be. Also, extra-judicial killings. For example freedom of speech also. So there are many kinds of human rights abuses in Latin America that you get to see.Todd: So if somebody has a problem, if they have some type of human rights abuse, how do they get in contact with a lawyer like you? How does it work?Katia: Actually I'm not a lawyer but yes first before you contact somebody like this NGO, you need to try to find justice in your own country before you go into a higher system like the Inter-American Commission and Court. So first you go into your local lawyer and local courts and local judges and try to see if you can get justice from there. When you tried that and you did not receive what you're entitled to, then you go outside of your national system and try to find another way to get justice which would be contacted for example an NGO like this one and try to bring this case into the Inter-American Commission.Todd: So usually when people have a case like this or some type of case and they go to an NGO or some legal entity for help, obviously they don't have resources usually, correct, so it's all done free?Katia: Yes. Many of these people have already spent a lot of money to try to get some kind of justice in their systems or sometimes don't have enough resources, so entities like this NGO will be free of charge and try to help people to get some kind of justice.Todd: Sounds good. Hopefully, everybody gets the justice they deserve.Katia: I hope so too.

更多英语知识，请关注微信公众号: VOA英语每日一听Todd: So Katia you were saying that you were working in Argentina as an internship. What type of internship was it?Katia: It was called a legal internship. You help lawyers to deal with cases or anything that they need you to do regarding the legal field.Todd: OK. So what kind of legal field were you working in?Katia: It's human rights, human rights in the inter-American system so cases that are related to human rights abuses in the American continent.Todd: So what are some types of cases that often come up regarding human rights?Katia: There are unfortunately many kinds of human rights abuses in Latin America. Some are from the dictatorship, for example, disappearances. Many people disappeared during the seventies and they have not received justice so they are still looking for some kind of clarification. So, for example, a case like that would be brought before the Inter-American Commission and Court.Todd: Anything else? Any other types of stuff that you would look into?Katia: Yes, there are many kinds. For example, looking at the military justice system which in many situations civilians are judged before a military justice system which it should not be. Also, extra-judicial killings. For example freedom of speech also. So there are many kinds of human rights abuses in Latin America that you get to see.Todd: So if somebody has a problem, if they have some type of human rights abuse, how do they get in contact with a lawyer like you? How does it work?Katia: Actually I'm not a lawyer but yes first before you contact somebody like this NGO, you need to try to find justice in your own country before you go into a higher system like the Inter-American Commission and Court. So first you go into your local lawyer and local courts and local judges and try to see if you can get justice from there. When you tried that and you did not receive what you're entitled to, then you go outside of your national system and try to find another way to get justice which would be contacted for example an NGO like this one and try to bring this case into the Inter-American Commission.Todd: So usually when people have a case like this or some type of case and they go to an NGO or some legal entity for help, obviously they don't have resources usually, correct, so it's all done free?Katia: Yes. Many of these people have already spent a lot of money to try to get some kind of justice in their systems or sometimes don't have enough resources, so entities like this NGO will be free of charge and try to help people to get some kind of justice.Todd: Sounds good. Hopefully, everybody gets the justice they deserve.Katia: I hope so too.

更多英语知识，请关注微信公众号: VOA英语每日一听Todd: So Katia you were saying that you were working in Argentina as an internship. What type of internship was it?Katia: It was called a legal internship. You help lawyers to deal with cases or anything that they need you to do regarding the legal field.Todd: OK. So what kind of legal field were you working in?Katia: It's human rights, human rights in the inter-American system so cases that are related to human rights abuses in the American continent.Todd: So what are some types of cases that often come up regarding human rights?Katia: There are unfortunately many kinds of human rights abuses in Latin America. Some are from the dictatorship, for example, disappearances. Many people disappeared during the seventies and they have not received justice so they are still looking for some kind of clarification. So, for example, a case like that would be brought before the Inter-American Commission and Court.Todd: Anything else? Any other types of stuff that you would look into?Katia: Yes, there are many kinds. For example, looking at the military justice system which in many situations civilians are judged before a military justice system which it should not be. Also, extra-judicial killings. For example freedom of speech also. So there are many kinds of human rights abuses in Latin America that you get to see.Todd: So if somebody has a problem, if they have some type of human rights abuse, how do they get in contact with a lawyer like you? How does it work?Katia: Actually I'm not a lawyer but yes first before you contact somebody like this NGO, you need to try to find justice in your own country before you go into a higher system like the Inter-American Commission and Court. So first you go into your local lawyer and local courts and local judges and try to see if you can get justice from there. When you tried that and you did not receive what you're entitled to, then you go outside of your national system and try to find another way to get justice which would be contacted for example an NGO like this one and try to bring this case into the Inter-American Commission.Todd: So usually when people have a case like this or some type of case and they go to an NGO or some legal entity for help, obviously they don't have resources usually, correct, so it's all done free?Katia: Yes. Many of these people have already spent a lot of money to try to get some kind of justice in their systems or sometimes don't have enough resources, so entities like this NGO will be free of charge and try to help people to get some kind of justice.Todd: Sounds good. Hopefully, everybody gets the justice they deserve.Katia: I hope so too.

Dr. Robert A Williams Jr. (Lumbee Nation), is the E. Thomas Sullivan Professor of Law and Faculty Co-Chair of the University of Arizona Indigenous Peoples Law and Policy Program. Professor Williams received his B.A. from Loyola College (1977) and his J.D. from Harvard Law School (1980). He was named the first Oneida Indian Nation Visiting Professor of Law at Harvard Law School (2003-2004), having previously served there as Bennet Boskey Distinguished Visiting Lecturer of Law. He is the author of The American Indian in Western Legal Thought: The Discourses of Conquest (1990), which received the Gustavus Meyers Human Rights Center Award as one of the outstanding books published in 1990 on the subject of prejudice in the United States. He has also written Linking Arms Together: American Indian Treaty Visions of Law and Peace, 1600-1800 (1997) and Like a Loaded Weapon: The Rehnquist Court, Indian Rights and the Legal History of Racism in America (2005). He is co-author of Federal Indian Law: Cases and Materials (6th ed., with David Getches, Charles Wilkinson, and Matthew Fletcher, 2011). His latest book is Savage Anxieties: The Invention of Western Civilization (Palgrave Macmillan 2012). The 2006 recipient of the University of Arizona Koffler Prize for Outstanding Accomplishments in Public Service, Professor Williams has received major grants and awards from the Soros Senior Justice Fellowship Program of the Open Society Institute, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the American Council of Learned Societies, the U.S. Department of Education, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the National Institute of Justice. He has been interviewed by Bill Moyers and quoted on the front page of the New York Times. He has represented tribal groups and members before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Peoples, the United States Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court of Canada. Professor Williams served as Chief Justice for the Court of Appeals, Pascua Yaqui Indian Reservation, and as Justice for the Court of Appeals and trial judge pro tem for the Tohono O'odham Nation. He was named one of 2011's "Heroes on the Hill" by Indian Country Today for his human rights advocacy work as Lead Counsel for the Hul'qumi'num Treaty Group of Canada before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. He lives and works in Tucson, Arizona. https://law.arizona.edu/robert-williams-jr Tonight's broadcast is from a 2013 presentation on why the United States initially voted against the United Nations Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The current exodus of Venezuelans has generated the largest migration crisis of its kind in recent Latin American history, as Human Rights Watch has pointed out in its most recent report. More than 2.3 million Venezuelans have left their country since 2014, according to the United Nations, and many others have left whose cases have not been registered by authorities. Venezuelans are fleeing their country for multiple reasons, which includes severe shortages of medicine, medical supplies, and food; extremely high rates of violent crime; hyperinflation; and thousands of arbitrary arrests, torture and other abuses against detainees. Today on CID’s Speaker Series podcast, Nizar El Fakih, MPA/MC Mason Fellow candidate at the Harvard Kennedy School, interviews José Miguel Vivanco, director of the Americas division of Human Rights Watch and a general expert on Latin America, who provides insight on this mass exodus and the current humanitarian crisis in Venezuela, and the role of the international community in this crisis. // www.growthlab.cid.harvard.edu // Interview recorded on September 26, 2018. About José Miguel Vivanco: José Miguel Vivanco, director of Human Rights Watch's Americas division, is a general expert on Latin America. Before joining Human Rights Watch, Vivanco worked as an attorney for the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights at the Organization of American States (OAS). In 1990, he founded the Center for Justice and International Law, an NGO that files complaints before international human rights bodies. Vivanco has also been an adjunct professor of law at Georgetown University Law Center and the School of Advanced International Studies at John Hopkins University. He has published articles in leading American and Latin American newspapers and is interviewed regularly for television news. A Chilean, Vivanco studied law at the University of Chile and Salamanca Law School in Spain and holds an LL.M. from Harvard Law School.

John Suarez is the program officer of the Washington, DC based Center for a Free Cuba. He has been interviewed by TV, radio and print media on Cuba. Mr. Suarez is a human rights activist. He holds degrees from Florida International University and Spain’s Universidad Francisco de Vitoria. He has testified before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in Washington DC, the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, and served as an interpreter for Cuban dissidents in Congressional hearings. Since 2009 he has maintained the blog, Notes from the Cuban Exile Quarter. He is a member of the Cuban Democratic Directorate (2002-present). See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Almost 200 people are facing excessive criminal charges following mass arrests on Inauguration Day. We tell our story before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, and hear an encouraging response from Commissioner Margarette May Macaulay, mediator for the Jamaican Supreme Court and human rights advocate. #DropJ20 · twitter.com/dropj20 · facebook.com/dropj20 petition.dropj20.org Music: Dark Fog by Kevin MacLeod is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/...) Source: http://incompetech.com/music/royalty-... Artist: http://incompetech.com/ Speaker: http://twitter.com/elizariadne

Diego Rodríguez-Pinzón on The Inter-American Human Rights System: The Inter-American Commission

You might know about Japanese Americans incarcerated during WWII, but did you know the U.S. also rounded up Japanese Latin Americans, mostly from Peru. They were held and imprisoned in the U.S. to be used as pawns of war. About 2,200 were rounded up.  On Emil Amok's Takeout, I talk to two survivors, Art Shibayama, 86 , and Blanca Katsura, 86. Both were 12-years old and living in Peru when their families were taken from their Latin American homeland and placed in a camp in Texas. Recently, Shibayama brought his case before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights at the Organization of American States. The hope is to force the U.S. to give a proper apology and reparations equal to the Japanese Americans who were interned during WWII. Because of their foreign status, Japanese Latin Americans were offered a fourth of what Japanese Americans received. Show Notes: 2:00 Emil's take on Trumpcare defeat 5:00 How to Fix Obamacare 8:00 Art Shibayama calls it kidnapping. 14:20 Blanca Katsura felt she was without a country. 16:11 Phil Tajitsu Nash, civil rights activist and AALDEF board member talks about the significance of the case before the IACHR.  To support our podcast, go to the blog at http://www.aaldef.org/blog If you like our show, please consider a donation to AALDEF, where any donation is fully tax-deductible. For feedback to to my personal page at  http://www.amok.com Twitter@emilamok And please subscribe for free on iTunes, where you can rate and review our show and help more people learn about the issues we talk about on the show. Thanks for downloading and listening to Emil Amok's Takeout! Emil Guillermo    

Ep. 98: Brian Concannon, Jr. is an attorney and the Executive Director of the Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti ("IJDH").   Prior to joining the IJDH, Brian co-managed the Bureau des Avocats Internationaux ("BAI") in Haiti for eight years, from 1996-2004, and worked for the United Nations as a Human Rights Officer in 1995-1996. He founded IJDH, and has been the Director since 2004. He helped prepare the prosecution of the Raboteau Massacre trial in 2000, one of the most significant human rights cases anywhere in the Western Hemisphere. He has represented Haitian political prisoners before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, and represented the plaintiff in Yvon Neptune v. Haiti, the only Haiti case ever tried before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Listen as Brian discusses with Alex the important work of the IJDH, including: working with grass­roots groups in Haiti to help develop an effective human rights advo­cacy pro­gram with global out­reach. In addition, in the U.S., IJDH collab­o­rates with grass­roots orga­ni­za­tions, includ­ing faith-based, sol­i­dar­ity, development, and human­i­tar­ian orga­ni­za­tions to coor­di­nate advo­cacy on human rights in Haiti, and net­works with sol­i­dar­ity and Hait­ian Dias­pora activists through­out the world. Their work seeks to change the inter­na­tional envi­ron­ment that allows such mas­sive dis­re­spect for social, eco­nomic, civil and polit­i­cal rights to flourish. For more on host, Alex Barnett, please check out his website: www.alexbarnettcomic.com or visit him on Facebook (www.facebook.com/alexbarnettcomic) or on Twitter at @barnettcomic To subscribe to the Multiracial Family Man, please click here: MULTIRACIAL FAMILY MAN PODCAST Intro and Outro Music is Funkorama by Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons - By Attribution 3.0 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/      

Cultural Genocide, Water Protectors and OilDiscussion with Martin Wagner on the human rights violations associated with the Dakota Access Pipeline and the Standing Rock Sioux, Cheyenne River Sioux and the Yankton Sioux’s petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. We discuss the environmental impact of the construction of the pipeline and potential oil spills as well as the cultural impact on the Sioux tribes, including the destruction of spiritual and sacred sites. We further discuss U.S. legal obligations under international human rights law as well as relief under domestic law. We also discuss the water protectors at Sacred Stones’ Camp, police violence and media intimidation and the future of the pipeline under the impending Trump administration.For More Info:Standing Rock - Cheyenne River - Yankton Sioux Tribes - Request for Precautionary Measureshttp://www.ohchr.org/http://earthjustice.org/http://earthjustice.org/http://earthjustice.org/https://www.democracynow.org/breaking_riot_charges_against_amy_goodmanhttp://standwithstandingrock.net/sioux-tribal-chairman-responds-governors-executive-order/https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/http://www.commondreams.org/

Everything about the Arctic Inuit communities’ way of life depends on ice and snow, so is the failure of the world to act on climate change a gross violation of Inuit human rights? Sheila Watt-Cloutier currently resides in Iqaluit, Nunavut. She was born in Kuujjuaq, Nunavik (northern Quebec), and was raised traditionally in her early years before attending school in southern Canada and in Manitoba. Ms. Watt-Cloutier was an elected political spokesperson for Inuit for over a decade. She is the past Chair of Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC), the organization that represents internationally the 155,000 Inuit of Canada, Greenland, Alaska, and Chukotka in the Far East of the Federation of Russia and was previously the President of ICC Canada. During the past several years, Ms. Watt-Cloutier has worked through the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to defend Inuit human rights against the impacts of climate change. She has received many awards in recognition of her work. In November, 2015 she was one of 4 Laureates to receive “The Right Livelihood Award” considered the Nobel Alternative, awarded in the Parliament of Sweden. Her recently published book The Right To Be Cold has been shortlisted for the B.C. National Award for Canadian Non-Fiction, the Shaughnessy Cohen Prize for political writing and the Cobo emerging writer prize.

Why do Indigenous people kill themselves in such numbers? What do we know about suicide that can help us understand this? Can we overcome the tragedy of young people dying in a suicide epidemic? Jesse Bering is an award-winning science writer. His "Bering in Mind" column at Scientific American was a 2010 Webby Award Honoree. Bering's first book, The Belief Instinct (2011), was included on the American Library Association's Top 25 Books of the Year. This was followed by a collection of essays--the critically acclaimed Why Is the Penis Shaped Like That? (2012), and Perv (2013), a New York Times Editor's Choice. All three books have been translated into many different languages. An expert in psychology and religion, he began his career at the University of Arkansas, as an Assistant Professor of Psychology from 2002-2006. He then served as the Director of the Institute of Cognition and Culture at the Queen's University, Belfast, Northern Ireland, where he was a Reader in the School of History and Anthropology until 2011. Presently, he is Associate Professor of Science Communication at the University of Otago, New Zealand. His next book, on the science of suicidology, will be released in 2017. Vanessa Lee, from the Wik and Meriam Nations, resides on the land of the Gadigal people. She is a social epidemiologist, educator, writer and public health/ health sciences researcher in the Faculty of Health Sciences at the University of Sydney. Her area of expertise is Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health service delivery. Vanessa was the first National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Vice President of the Public Health Association of Australia for a period of four years where she contributed to significant changes in policies for Indigenous people. She is a director on the board for Suicide Prevention Australia.  Dr Lee chairs the Public Health Indigenous Leaders in Education Network and is on the executive board of the Australian Health Care Reform Alliance. She holds expert advisory positions with Close the Gap Steering Committee, the International Group of Indigenous Health Measurement and the Sydney Centre of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Statistics. All of the research, engagement and curriculum development that Vanessa is involved in are directed towards the overarching goal of improving the determinants of health, efficacy and linkages of services for better health of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Sheila Watt-Cloutier currently resides in Iqaluit, Nunavut. She was born in Kuujjuaq, Nunavik (northern Quebec), and was raised traditionally in her early years before attending school in southern Canada and in Manitoba. Ms. Watt-Cloutier was an elected political spokesperson for Inuit for over a decade. She is the past Chair of Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC), the organization that represents internationally the 155,000 Inuit of Canada, Greenland, Alaska, and Chukotka in the Far East of the Federation of Russia and was previously the President of ICC Canada. During the past several years, Ms. Watt-Cloutier has worked through the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to defend Inuit human rights against the impacts of climate change. She has received many awards in recognition of her work. In November, 2015 she was one of 4 Laureates to receive “The Right Livelihood Award” considered the Nobel Alternative, awarded in the Parliament of Sweden. Her recently published book The Right To Be Cold has been shortlisted for the B.C. National Award for Canadian Non-Fiction, the Shaughnessy Cohen Prize for political writing and the Cobo emerging writer prize.

Forced Sterilization, the Work of the International Justice Resource Center and the Election of the New U.N. Secretary General.Discussion with Lisa Reinsberg on the incidence of forced sterilization throughout the Americas and around the world and the International Justice Resource Center's (IJRC) petition in I.V. v Bolivia to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights arguing for the need of a reformulation of forced sterilization as an autonomous core human rights violation with a need for positive measures imposed upon medical staff to ensure proper consent is provided for any sterilization procedure. We also discuss the new election process of the U.N. Secretary General. Lisa is the Executive Director of the IJRC. Before founding the IJRC, Lisa was an attorney with Prisoners’ Legal Services of Massachusetts and Rómulo Gallegos fellow at the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights where she worked on complaints of torture, extra-judicial executions and violations of criminal due process. Earlier, she represented people seeking asylum in the United States at the Cabrini Center for Immigrant Legal Assistance of Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston. POST SCRIPT: Pedro Pablo Kuczynski has been elected Peru’s President and will take office on July 28, 2016. The United Nations Security Council will begin deliberations on the new Secretary General on July 21, 2016. The September 23, 2016 training session for “The Human Rights of Migrants: Challenges and Opportunities in California” is now available for registration.

Human Rights Violations of Nicaraguan Indigenous and Afro-Caribbean Communities in the Expropriation of Their Ancestral Lands for the Development of an Environmentally Disastrous Canal Linking the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans through Nicaragua.Discussion with Professor Thomas Antkowiak on the development of the Nicaragua Canal which would link the Pacific and Atlantic oceans through Nicaragua and the concessions provided to the Chinese company HKND over the traditional lands of Afro-Caribbean communities without their informed consent and in denial of their human rights. We discuss their pending petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, indigenious rights as interepreted by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and their development in international law. Thomas teaches international public law and international human rights law at Seattle University's Law School. He is the Director of its Latin America Program and its International Human Rights Clinic and is currently arguing on behalf of Nicaragua's indigenous and Afro-Caribbean communities in various human rights fora, including submitting their petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Thomas’s previous positions include being the Senior Attorney at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of the Organization of American States and Director of the Access to Justice Program at the Due Process of Law Foundation.For More Info:International Human Rights Clinic joins fight to stop Nicaragua canal Rights, Resources, and Rhetoric: Indigenous Peoples and the Inter-American Court

Mexico with its problems with human rights, corruption, and migration provides the central themes this week on Latin Pulse. The program includes a wide-ranging segment discussing the findings by independent investigators for the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights that the Mexican government actively harassed their workers and thwarted the inquiry into the case of 43 missing university students. The Mexican government disputes that view.  The program also discusses how remittances by Mexican migrants are not only more and more economically important, but also have become an issue in the U.S. during the presidential campaign.The program includes in-depth interviews with:Shannon O'Neil of the Council on Foreign Relations; andManuel Orozco of the Inter-American Dialogue.Executive Producer: Rick Rockwell; andAssociate Producer: Jim Singer.(To download or stream this podcast, click here.)   (The program is 30 minutes in length and the file size is 42 MB.) podcastnewsLatin AmericapoliticsMexicoviolencekidnappingjusticecorruptionhuman rightsDrug Warpoliceextrajudicial killingsPanama PapersEnrique Pena NietoeconomicsmilitarytortureoilreformsPRIGuerreroPemexlaborremittancesmigrationelectionstradeimmigrationDonald TrumpUnited StatesUnited Nationsglobalization

Neli Vazquez-Rowland of A Safe Haven Foundation discusses innovative approaches to rehabilitation for incarcerated females with Nischa Pieris of the Inter-American Commission of Women and Meade Palidofsky, founder and artistic director of Storycatchers Theatre. Immediately following, view Another Word for Beauty at the Goodman Theatre.

Megan Threlkeld is an associate professor of history at Denison University. Her book Pan-American Women: U.S. Internationalists and Revolutionary Mexico (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2014) provides a rich transnational examination of the years following World War I and American women activists who saw themselves global leaders in promoting women's rights and international peace. U.S. internationalists such as Jane Addams, Carrie Chapman Catt, and Doris Stevens sought to build friendships with Mexican women, including educator Margarita Robles de Mendoza and feminist Elena Torres. They established new organizations, sponsored conferences and rallied for peaceful relations between the two countries at a time of tense or broken diplomatic ties. The efforts at an apolitical “human internationalism” were complicated by differences in ideologies, and cross-cultural misunderstanding that took for granted that Mexican women wanted the same political rights as U.S. women. To U.S. women, Mexican nationalism appeared as an obstacle while the revolutionary spirit of Mexico inspired its female citizens to focused on wide-ranging social reform and international economic justice. Despite failures internationalism endured through women's political involvement in the Peace with Mexico campaign, and the establishment of the Inter-American Commission on Women. Pan American Women exposes the ideological and racist views that brought failure to building an inter-American movement for peace and equality and illuminates the role of U.S. feminism and women's activism in forwarding imperialism abroad. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Megan Threlkeld is an associate professor of history at Denison University. Her book Pan-American Women: U.S. Internationalists and Revolutionary Mexico (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2014) provides a rich transnational examination of the years following World War I and American women activists who saw themselves global leaders in promoting women's rights and international peace. U.S. internationalists such as Jane Addams, Carrie Chapman Catt, and Doris Stevens sought to build friendships with Mexican women, including educator Margarita Robles de Mendoza and feminist Elena Torres. They established new organizations, sponsored conferences and rallied for peaceful relations between the two countries at a time of tense or broken diplomatic ties. The efforts at an apolitical “human internationalism” were complicated by differences in ideologies, and cross-cultural misunderstanding that took for granted that Mexican women wanted the same political rights as U.S. women. To U.S. women, Mexican nationalism appeared as an obstacle while the revolutionary spirit of Mexico inspired its female citizens to focused on wide-ranging social reform and international economic justice. Despite failures internationalism endured through women's political involvement in the Peace with Mexico campaign, and the establishment of the Inter-American Commission on Women. Pan American Women exposes the ideological and racist views that brought failure to building an inter-American movement for peace and equality and illuminates the role of U.S. feminism and women's activism in forwarding imperialism abroad. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Megan Threlkeld is an associate professor of history at Denison University. Her book Pan-American Women: U.S. Internationalists and Revolutionary Mexico (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2014) provides a rich transnational examination of the years following World War I and American women activists who saw themselves global leaders in promoting women’s rights and international peace. U.S. internationalists such as Jane Addams, Carrie Chapman Catt, and Doris Stevens sought to build friendships with Mexican women, including educator Margarita Robles de Mendoza and feminist Elena Torres. They established new organizations, sponsored conferences and rallied for peaceful relations between the two countries at a time of tense or broken diplomatic ties. The efforts at an apolitical “human internationalism” were complicated by differences in ideologies, and cross-cultural misunderstanding that took for granted that Mexican women wanted the same political rights as U.S. women. To U.S. women, Mexican nationalism appeared as an obstacle while the revolutionary spirit of Mexico inspired its female citizens to focused on wide-ranging social reform and international economic justice. Despite failures internationalism endured through women’s political involvement in the Peace with Mexico campaign, and the establishment of the Inter-American Commission on Women. Pan American Women exposes the ideological and racist views that brought failure to building an inter-American movement for peace and equality and illuminates the role of U.S. feminism and women’s activism in forwarding imperialism abroad. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Megan Threlkeld is an associate professor of history at Denison University. Her book Pan-American Women: U.S. Internationalists and Revolutionary Mexico (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2014) provides a rich transnational examination of the years following World War I and American women activists who saw themselves global leaders in promoting women’s rights and international peace. U.S. internationalists such as Jane Addams, Carrie Chapman Catt, and Doris Stevens sought to build friendships with Mexican women, including educator Margarita Robles de Mendoza and feminist Elena Torres. They established new organizations, sponsored conferences and rallied for peaceful relations between the two countries at a time of tense or broken diplomatic ties. The efforts at an apolitical “human internationalism” were complicated by differences in ideologies, and cross-cultural misunderstanding that took for granted that Mexican women wanted the same political rights as U.S. women. To U.S. women, Mexican nationalism appeared as an obstacle while the revolutionary spirit of Mexico inspired its female citizens to focused on wide-ranging social reform and international economic justice. Despite failures internationalism endured through women’s political involvement in the Peace with Mexico campaign, and the establishment of the Inter-American Commission on Women. Pan American Women exposes the ideological and racist views that brought failure to building an inter-American movement for peace and equality and illuminates the role of U.S. feminism and women’s activism in forwarding imperialism abroad. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Megan Threlkeld is an associate professor of history at Denison University. Her book Pan-American Women: U.S. Internationalists and Revolutionary Mexico (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2014) provides a rich transnational examination of the years following World War I and American women activists who saw themselves global leaders in promoting women’s rights and international peace. U.S. internationalists such as Jane Addams, Carrie Chapman Catt, and Doris Stevens sought to build friendships with Mexican women, including educator Margarita Robles de Mendoza and feminist Elena Torres. They established new organizations, sponsored conferences and rallied for peaceful relations between the two countries at a time of tense or broken diplomatic ties. The efforts at an apolitical “human internationalism” were complicated by differences in ideologies, and cross-cultural misunderstanding that took for granted that Mexican women wanted the same political rights as U.S. women. To U.S. women, Mexican nationalism appeared as an obstacle while the revolutionary spirit of Mexico inspired its female citizens to focused on wide-ranging social reform and international economic justice. Despite failures internationalism endured through women’s political involvement in the Peace with Mexico campaign, and the establishment of the Inter-American Commission on Women. Pan American Women exposes the ideological and racist views that brought failure to building an inter-American movement for peace and equality and illuminates the role of U.S. feminism and women’s activism in forwarding imperialism abroad. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Megan Threlkeld is an associate professor of history at Denison University. Her book Pan-American Women: U.S. Internationalists and Revolutionary Mexico (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2014) provides a rich transnational examination of the years following World War I and American women activists who saw themselves global leaders in promoting women’s rights and international peace. U.S. internationalists such as Jane Addams, Carrie Chapman Catt, and Doris Stevens sought to build friendships with Mexican women, including educator Margarita Robles de Mendoza and feminist Elena Torres. They established new organizations, sponsored conferences and rallied for peaceful relations between the two countries at a time of tense or broken diplomatic ties. The efforts at an apolitical “human internationalism” were complicated by differences in ideologies, and cross-cultural misunderstanding that took for granted that Mexican women wanted the same political rights as U.S. women. To U.S. women, Mexican nationalism appeared as an obstacle while the revolutionary spirit of Mexico inspired its female citizens to focused on wide-ranging social reform and international economic justice. Despite failures internationalism endured through women’s political involvement in the Peace with Mexico campaign, and the establishment of the Inter-American Commission on Women. Pan American Women exposes the ideological and racist views that brought failure to building an inter-American movement for peace and equality and illuminates the role of U.S. feminism and women’s activism in forwarding imperialism abroad. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Megan Threlkeld is an associate professor of history at Denison University. Her book Pan-American Women: U.S. Internationalists and Revolutionary Mexico (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2014) provides a rich transnational examination of the years following World War I and American women activists who saw themselves global leaders in promoting women’s rights and international peace. U.S. internationalists such as Jane Addams, Carrie Chapman Catt, and Doris Stevens sought to build friendships with Mexican women, including educator Margarita Robles de Mendoza and feminist Elena Torres. They established new organizations, sponsored conferences and rallied for peaceful relations between the two countries at a time of tense or broken diplomatic ties. The efforts at an apolitical “human internationalism” were complicated by differences in ideologies, and cross-cultural misunderstanding that took for granted that Mexican women wanted the same political rights as U.S. women. To U.S. women, Mexican nationalism appeared as an obstacle while the revolutionary spirit of Mexico inspired its female citizens to focused on wide-ranging social reform and international economic justice. Despite failures internationalism endured through women’s political involvement in the Peace with Mexico campaign, and the establishment of the Inter-American Commission on Women. Pan American Women exposes the ideological and racist views that brought failure to building an inter-American movement for peace and equality and illuminates the role of U.S. feminism and women’s activism in forwarding imperialism abroad. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

At hearings of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in November 2013 on the human rights situation in Mexico, the issue of the internally displaced in particular caught my attention.

Honduras Vice President Ricardo Alvarez proudly presented the results of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (CDIH) report. It highlighted the recent exclusion of Honduras from the “black list” of countries with serious human rights violations.

Audio from a side-event at United Nations headquarters in New York on “Women, drug policy and incarceration in the Americas”. The panel discussion was organized by the Permanent Mission of Uruguay, in collaboration with the Inter-American Commission of Women, the Organization of American States, the International Drug Policy Consortium, the Harm Reduction Coalition and the Washington Office on Latin America. Discussion is a mix of English and Spanish.

In May 2010, New York prosecutors issued an extradition request for Jamaican Kingpin Christopher Coke – gangster to some, local hero to others. The search for Coke triggered a government crackdown on the neighborhood of Tivoli Gardensin Kingston, leaving 73 civilians dead in a span of just a few days. Their families continue to fight for justice and accountability, despite Jamaica's long record of police violence and government corruption. Today we bring you a documentary on police violence in Jamaica. Special thanks to Jamaicans for Justice and University of California at Berkeley's Human Rights Center and the European Union. Featuring: Paulette Wellington, Mother of Sheldon Wellington, Earl Witter, Jamaican Public Defender, Carolyn Gomes, Jamaicans for Justice, Susan Goffe, Jamaicans for Justice, Monica Williams, mother of Jason Smith and Activist, and Dr. Ademola Odunfa, Kingston Hospital *For More Information:* Jamaicans for Justice http://www.jamaicansforjustice.org/ Jamaica Human Rights http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/countries/americas/jamaica Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in Jamaica http://www.cidh.oas.org/Comunicados/English/2010/55-10eng.htm *Articles and Books:* Jamaica must tackle shocking wave of police killings http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/jamaica-must-tackle-shocking-wave-police-killings-2012-03-08 A Case Built in New York Against a Jamaican Kingpin http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/27/world/americas/27coke.html?ref=americas Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Jamaica Report: http://www.cidh.oas.org/Comunicados/English/2008/59.08eng.htm Amnesty International Report 2003 – Jamaica http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,AMNESTY,ANNUALREPORT,JAM,,3edb47d810,0.html Amnesty International May 27, 2010, calling for an investigation: http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/jamaica-violence-investigation-must-be-thorough-2010-05-27 Jamaican Forces Accused of Killing Unarmed Men, New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/03/world/americas/03jamaica.html January Jamaica Gleaner article on Witter's investigations: http://go-jamaica.com/news/read_article.php?id=25797 ______________________________ _________________ The post Making Contact – Seeking Justice and Police Accountability in Jamaica (Encore) appeared first on KPFA.

In May 2010, New York prosecutors issued an extradition request for Jamaican Kingpin Christopher Coke – gangster to some, local hero to others. The search for Coke triggered a government crackdown on the neighborhood of Tivoli Gardensin Kingston, leaving 73 civilians dead in a span of just a few days. The majority of those victims were innocent and their loved ones continue to fight for justice andaccountability, despite Jamaica's long record of police violence and government corruption. Today we bring you a documentary on police violence in Jamaica.   Featuring:   Paulette Wellington, Mother of Sheldon Wellington Earl Witter, Jamaican Public Defender, Carolyn Gomes, Jamaicans for Justice, Susan Goffe, Jamaicans for Justice, Monica Williams, mother of Jason Smith and Activist, and Dr. Ademola Odunfa, Kingston Hospital For More Information:   Jamaicans for Justice http://www.jamaicansforjustice.org/   Jamaica Human Rights http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/countries/americas/jamaica   Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in Jamaica http://www.cidh.oas.org/Comunicados/English/2010/55-10eng.htm A Case Built in New York Against a Jamaican Kingpin http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/27/world/americas/27coke.html?ref=americas   Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Jamaica Report: http://www.cidh.oas.org/Comunicados/English/2008/59.08eng.htm   Amnesty International Report 2003 – Jamaica http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,AMNESTY,ANNUALREPORT,JAM,,3edb47d810,0.html   Amnesty International May 27, 2010, calling for an investigation: http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/jamaica-violence-investigation-must-be-thorough-2010-05-27   Jamaican Forces Accused of Killing Unarmed Men, New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/03/world/americas/03jamaica.html   January Jamaica Gleaner article on Witter's investigations: http://go-jamaica.com/news/read_article.php?id=25797   The post Making Contact – Seeking Justice and Police Accountability in Jamaica appeared first on KPFA.

In this episode of rabble radio: transit police in Vancouver accused of violence, a new report recommends protection for women and girls in Haiti, and Canada's government continues attempts to eject war resisters. Music this episode: Bad Cop. The lawyer working on the case of transit riders facing violence from Vancouver Transit Police talks about the case. You'll be shocked. Wayne's got some new webtools to help you get your photos online fast when it matters most. A report from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights said that the Haitian Government has failed to provide adequate protection for women and girls in those camps. While a ruling might not make a difference, Brian Concannon believes that the report is going to make a difference. He talks about why. The Canadian government is developing more and more complex ways to stop Iraq war resisters from entering Canada. Allyssa Manning is a lawyer for Iraq War Resisters, and she spoke at a Day of Action for Iraq War Resisters. Here's some of what she said. Bad Cop are part of the final installment of a feature on ROIR records, brought to you by The Ruckus. The song is called Daylight.

Robert A. Williams is the University of Arizona's E. Thomas Sullivan Professor of Law and American Indian Studies & Director of the Indigenous Peoples Law and Policy Program. He also teaches federal Indian law courses via the relaunched and renamed UANativeNet, a respected and widely used resource on issues affecting tribal nations, their members and indigenous peoples abroad. Williams, an enrolled member of the Lumbee Indian Tribe of North Carolina, is a professor in the James E. Rogers College of Law. He has represented tribal groups before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Peoples. He also has served as co-counsel for Floyd Hicks in the United States Supreme Court case, Nevada v. Hicks during the 2001 term.

If you experience any technical difficulties with this video or would like to make an accessibility-related request, please send a message to digicomm@uchicago.edu. Argentinean advocate Juan E. Mendez has devoted his career to the defense of human rights throughout the Americas. His work onbehalf of political prisoners of Argentina's military dictatorship in the 1970s resulted in his torture and administrative detention forover a year, during which time Amnesty International adopted him as a "Prisoner of Conscience."After his release in the late 1970s, Mr. Mendez helped found Human Rights Watch, becoming the organization's general counsel in1994. Mr. Mendez was the Executive Director of the Costa Rica-based Inter-American Institute of Human Rights (1996-99) and Professorand Director of the Center for Civil and Human Rights at the University of Notre Dame, Indiana (1999-2004). He was Argentina'srepresentative on the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States from 2000-2003,serving both as Special Rapporteur on Migrants and as President. In July 2004, the United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan appointedhim as a Special Advisor on the Prevention of Genocide. He currently serves as the President of the International Center onTransitional Justice.