UK Aid

Recently, the Prime Minister of the UK, David Cameron, raised the issue of foreign aid with the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. Cameron argues that any countries being given UK aid should adhere to the rules of "proper human rights." Cameron's concerns are directed toward countries such as Sri Lanka, Uganda, and Ghana, which have intolerant laws against the homosexual community. Critics point out that it is not an easy process to change the laws of such socially conservative countries, and that there are more pressing matters, such as education and poverty, that require our attention more than the rights of homosexuals.

I know many people consider human rights to be of utmost importance, but what should be done in a case such as this? Either way, people are being denied their rights and lives. People cannot survive without basic necessities such as food, money, and protection from political corruption. At the same time, too many deaths have occurred due to the unfair laws against homosexuals. According to this article, it is even illegal to witness a same-sex marriage.

I wonder if it is right to add on conditions to aid at all. Personally, I am opposed to the persecution of homosexuals. At the same time, I cannot help but to be concerned about the alarming violations of human rights of the rest of the population. Are we, as the supposed leaders of the world, allowed to decide what is moral and what is not? Is it right to pick and choose who we help?

Clark Professor Sucessfully Sues in European Court of Human Rights

Professor Taner Akcam, a world-renowned expert on the Armenian genocide, has successfully sued in the European Court of Human Rights, which ruled that the government of Turkey violated his right to freedom of expression by enforcing a law that quashes discussion of the atrocities committed against Armenians by the Ottoman government during World War I.  Here is more on the story.

After the Uprisings

Just to complete the discussion we began at the end of class the other day; here is what is happening and is projected to happen in the next few months in Middle Eastern countries that were a part of the Arab Spring.

Excessive Rebellion in Libya

This video reminds me of how rebels in Africa have grown to be feared by the people and how notorious their atrocities have become. Do you think Libya is in danger of reaching such a level?

Persepolis Defying Stereotypes

Besides raising awareness of the issues in Iran and what the people have suffered, I realized that a major component of Satrapi's novel is overcoming stereotypes. I think that not only Iran, but most of the Middle East, has been stigmatized because the representation of resource-conflicted religious fundamentalists that form groups of terrorists is what we have been exposed to (rather than the voice of the people as represented by Satrapi).

Have any stereotypes been overcome in your own minds? Or any realizations about the people within the countries like Iran that we have only known so little about the surface of their conlicts? New opinions?

Iran as a Theocracy

This cartoon reminds me of the corrupt depction of the Iranian government in Persepolis and how religion is used as a sugar-coating over the blood shed by the people and how they are considered martyr's because of this combination of religion and politics. Although Satrapi makes it clear that the government does not function in the interest of the people, but rather their sense of fundamentalism, I am interested in how the government in Iran is "supposed" to work.

Iran is a theocratic republic (definition: a theocracy describes a form of organization in which the official policy is to be governed by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided, or simply pursuant to the doctrine of a particular religious sect or religion) and therefore the Islamic Republic of Iran has a supreme leader (who makes decisions about armed forces, foreign policies, and appoints judiciary positions) that has more power than the actual president. So even though, like the U.S., Iranian citizens 18 years or older are able to vote for president, the Supreme Leader has the final say. The cabinet, parliament, electorate, and half of the guardian council are elected within the political circle and armed forces, head of judiciary, expediency council, assembly of experts, and another half of the guardian council are simply chosen, there is no sort of election at all. The supreme leader is elected by the cabinet of experts and only they have the power to miss him.

So I hope this is helpful for a little more understanding about the Iranian government today.

How Iranian Regime Justifies Murder

Not only in Persepolis, but in other novels including The Kite Runner, there has been a presence of Islamic Fundamentalists that are supposedly the "holiest" of Muslims, yet commit atrocities against their people and believe it is for the sake of their religion. I hadn't considered that the holy book of Muslims, the Quran, actually had a loop hole that provides room for these beliefs to persist. In this article, the author provides direct quotes from the Quran:

(61:4): "Surely Allah loves those who fight in His way."

(8:12): "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them."

(5:33): "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this: that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement."

I don't know much about Islam, but I know it is a mainly peaceful religion. I was surprised to see these quotes directly from a holy text but now I have a little understanding why Islamic Fundamentalists have gotten carried away with "fighting in His way" and how they could possibly think it was for a religious sake. But the violence in the name of Allah has been taken to an entirely different level throughout Islamic history and strict beleivers in Allah and the Islamic fate have still been brutally tortured or murdered for any symbol they decide consider heresy (which, as we've seen in Persepolis, is pretty much something new every day).

Is anyone else as shocked as I am to read these quotes from the Quran? And does anyone have any additional background knowledge on the topic or a comment on how it pertains to Persepolis?

Kadafi's Death

Following the Libyan revolution, the National Transitional Council taking control of Libya's government, and Kadafi's death, Libya's new leaders intend to declare Libya "liberated." Kadafi was the former autocratic ruler of Libya, and since about February of this year, there has been a rebellion against his regime.

According to the Freedom of the Press, which is a United States based organization that produces a map of press freedoms around the world, Libya is one of the most censored states in the Middle East, just like Iran.

CNN suggests, that Kadafi's death is an important step in the progression of Libya as a nation, but will not necessarily end the fighting right away. But, NATO set October 31 as the date to end operation in Libya.

How do the issues Libya has experienced compare to the experience we're reading about in Persepolis? Can parallels be draw, comparisons made? How do the human rights violations in Libya compare to the violations in Iran? And were the rebellions similar or different in the reasons behind them?

Women Protesting

We have talked in class about whether women within a certain culture oppose their restraints or whether they simply accept them because it is normal within their culture. But women in Iran are now in the forefront of protesting for their freedom. The uprising of females along with the UN's ban of further arrests in Iran is a promising step for reaching peace in the country. Former president Hashemi Rasfanjani's daughter, Neda Agha Soltan was recently killed in a protest and a disturbing video of her death has been leaked to the internet. Since women are usually kept in the roles of a martyr's wife or child, despite the countless deaths of other women throughout conflicts in Iran, she is being referred to as the first women martyr in Iran. In Persepolis, Satrapi depicts propaganda in her home country that insists martyrdom is the greatest achievement and that dying for a cause is so noble. I personally think it's better to live but I suppose it is a worldwide concept that dying for a meaningful cause is heroic. Neda was absolutely heroic, as are all the protesters, but as we've seen so far in our readings, Iran has not made much progress in the last 30 years and thousands and thousands of lives have been taken. So did Neda die in vain? Have the deaths of civilians in Iran been in vain for a cause that does not prevail? Or is the idea of reaching their desirable goal truly martyrdom? These questions can also apply to conflicts worldwide across history.

"A woman dressed like this still gets raped"

I found yet another image relevant to Persepolis while surfing the internet. This time, it's directly related to what I brought up in class the other day about the part in which the TV explains how the veil is used to protect women from being raped. This woman protester is saying differently. (In case you can't read it, her sign says "A woman dressed like this STILL gets raped. Whats ur excuse now?") Thoughts?

I found this political cartoon earlier and thought that it was perfect for a conversation on Persepolis. Although perhaps not a main theme of the book, gender plays a role in Marjane Satrapi's life. In Iran, the gender divide was/is very prominent, most noticeably with the law that all women must wear some form of a veil in public, so as to not attract men.

All of us would probably be quick to say that the veil is something that aids men in oppressing women. But what about our own culture? So much of what we females do is done with the intention to attract a partner -- are we also being oppressed by our patriarchal society? And do we even have the right to judge another culture in the first place?

As we know from reading Persepolis, it seems that with the fall of the Shah, the rights of woman swiftly decrease. This report form Amnesty International suggests that despite increased literacy rate, the women's movement started in 1905 suffered greatly from 1979 Islamic Revolution. A slight respite from these views came about when President Khtami (1997-2005) founded a Centre for Women's Participation in the Office of Presidency, allowing women to become more involved with politics, despite Iranian Law which disallowed woman from running for office. Under Khtami woman's participation and prominence in various field grew, however with the election of President Ahmadinejad in 2005 the status of woman once again faced a set backs. One of the Presidents first actions was to rename the Centre for Woman's Participation to the Centre for Woman and Family Affairs, illustrating this concept that a woman's work is the family. In the years that followed the women of Iran peacefully protested against these law of their country, however the police their rights completely and often arrested them anyway.

Like Selena mentioned, the issues Marji faces in Persepolis are obviously still present in Iranian society today. In the report however Amnesty International presents several ranging suggestions, ranging from the Surpreme Leader; "Order a prompt and comprehensive review of all legislation in Iran in order to identify and remedy all laws and directives that discriminate directly against women or have a discriminatory impact on women." to international community urging them to press the Iranian government to make changes. Based on what we know from Persepolis concerning the ever changing politics of Iran, how do you think these issues should be addressed? Or can they even be solved? And what role do you think America plays considering their actions against Iran during the Iraq/Iran war?

Persepolis Sparks Riots Last Week in Tunisia

Islamists were rioting in Tunisia last week, in part because of a television broadcast of the animated film "Persepolis." In addition, to the broadcast of the film, Islamists were angry at a ban on women who wear the niqab from studying at the university.

Suspected Nuclear Technology

President Obama wants weapons inspectors from the United Nations to release any information they have about possible nuclear weapons within the country. If the information is released it will fire up the debate between the United States and its allies about how exactly to begin dealing with this issue. The United Nations group, International Atomic Energy Agency, is concerned that if such data is published Iran will eject inspectors from the country once and for all, thus closing the only window of opportunity to see just what experimentation Iran is doing with nuclear weapons. Iranian trade partners, such as Russia and China, are resisting proposed oil and financial sanctions that would cause isolation in Iran until solid information comes out about possible nuclear weapons. In the meantime inspectors continue visiting the country regularly though the future of an actual report on weapons of mass destruction remains in question.

The article suggests that the United States is once again proposing evidence that it does not have regarding nuclear weapons (the same thing happened in Iraq). What are the rights that Iran has in this? We already know about their poor record regarding human rights; does possible nuclear weapons take this to a new level? What about the United States? If we once again decide to invade a Middle Eastern country based purely on our own supposed evidence what could happen to Iranian citizens? In Iraq not much came of the search for nuclear weapons yet many innocents were killed as a result of our invasion.

Iranian Film Star Sentenced

After appearing in Tehran for Sale, an Australian film from 2009 that was highly critical of her home country, Iranian film star Marzieh Vafamehr has been sentenced to a year in jail as well as 90 lashes. The Australian government is telling Iran to, "protect the rights of all Iranian citizens" and that it is deeply concerned with regard to her punishment. The producers of the movie believe that Vafamehr's charges are most likely due to the scenes in which she appears without a hijab headscarf. (the trailer for the movie can been seen here)

The article says that this type of punishment is not surprising in Iran, a country which is known for oppressing citizens. Why is Iran so intent on punishing those who speak out against the government when most of the world already condemns them for such? This is a scare tactic but it is not keeping news of such incredible punishment and inhumane treatment out of the news. Such violence would not seem out of place in Persepolis, which takes place over thirty years ago; how can such strict punishment still happen without more condemnation from other nations? Why does it seem that nothing has changed in regard to the way Iran treats its citizens?

Iranian Revolution

I felt that the context of the revolution was more clearly explained in the story than that of the war but, just to go along with my posting regarding the war yesterday, this site has more information about the revolution that preceded the Iran-Iraq War for those who are interested.

Iran-Iraq War

As I started Persepolis I was not even aware that there had been a war between Iran and Iraq in the eighties and felt disoriented as the book explores the protests but, when told from ten year old Marjane's view, does not clearly explain what is going on. This website offers an overview of the conflict that could help understanding while reading. Basically on top of religious differences between the two nations (a Sunni Iraqi government and a Shiite Iranian one) a dispute over the ownership of the Shatt al-Arab waterway sparked the war, which lasted eight years.

European Court of Human Rights
The court was open for signature on Nov 4 1950, but did not begin operating until Sept 3 1953. The purpose is to hold states accountable for the human rights set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as rights added by protocols. Either other states or individuals can appeal to the court against a state. Judges of the court are elected for nonrenewable 9 year terms. States propose lists of 3 candidates and the winner is elected through the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.
The official website is http://www.echr.coe.int/ECHR/homepage_en, but I would suggest the FAQ page (http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/5C53ADA4-80F8-42CB-B8BD-CBBB781F42C8/0/FAQ_ENG_A4.pdf) to get a good overview of the system.

Nobel Peace Prize Laureates

It doesn't directly relate to The Reader but I thought it was important to bring up this year's Nobel Peace Prize Laureates.

President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf of Liberia, peace activist Leymah Gbowee, also of Liberia, and pro-democracy campaigner Tawakkol Karman of Yemen all shared the prize this year for their efforts in activism and equality, especially for women's safety and full participation in work. This is seen as a symbol of women's rights, and in fact was directly recognized by the head of the Nobel Peace Prize committee in Norway - women's equality is necessary for the world to achieve lasting democracy and peace.

The three laureates are the first women to receive the Peace Prize since 2004, and most of the recipients of the prize in the past have been men. I was excited when I learned about this, because each of these women are both inspirational and impressive.

To learn more about the Nobel Peace Prize, or the other Nobel Prizes, visit the Nobel Prize website.

Inter-American Court of Human Rights

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights was established in 1979 and works in conjunction with the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights to protect and stand up for the human rights of citizens in the Americas. It is composed of seven judges from the member states of the Organization of American States(OAS), though no two are allowed from the same state, and each of which is elected to a six-year term and can be re-elected for another six years. More information can be found on their website here.

Eleanor Roosevelt Introducing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

A wonderful video of Eleanor Roosevelt endorsing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations.

French Railroads

Right now in Maryland, there's a legal battle going on regarding whether or not a French railroad company can be held liable for transporting people to concentration camps during the Holocaust. If this legislation is passed there will be another new standard in how the crimes can be addressed. At the same time, this brings up the whole issue of the German occupation of France, and France's role in the events of WWII and the Holocaust. As is frequently the debate, the issue is whether the railway workers and officials were coerced or if they acted in partnership with the Nazis.

However, this would set a new precedent in reparations lawsuits, and it would then mean that other countries can do the same thing to the United States for things that they have done.

The French railroad company in question has not only been paying reparations in the past but has donated to Holocaust education programs and memorials.

What do you think of this? Especially when paired with the recent news of the old cases being re-opened for accessory to murder, it seems that there has been an extra push lately to make sure everything possible is being done to bring the perpetrators of the Holocaust to justice. What do you think of this legislation and lawsuit?

United Nations Human Rights Council

The United Nations Human Rights Council was created in 2006 with the intention of looking at human rights violations and then making suggestions on them. 47 nations in this group hold a responsibility for building an advancement and recognition of human rights around the world. Their website has good descriptions of how they go about working on looking at possible violations. On a personal note I found it interesting that the group works closely with NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations) in looking at human right violations since these groups could be more reliable than simply working with a government that is perhaps corrupt.

The African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights

The African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights is a panel of 11 judges who promote and protect the rights, freedoms, and duties of the people living in any of the 26 African countries who are a member of the court. The court has their own website, with a nice FAQ page that sums up the history of the court and what they do. It can be found here. (To get to the main page of the website, click the badge at the top of the page.)

Nazi Guards: Investigations Re-Opened

In this article from The Guardian, it was announced today that Germany will re-open hundreds of investigations of Nazi death camp guards, because of a new precedent set in the trial and conviction of John Demjanjuk. However, the authorities are not going to wait until the end of Demjanjuk's appeals process to make sure the ruling isn't going to be overturned; this is because of the age of the suspects, all of them over eighty years old.

The case against Demjanjuk basically said that since he had been a guard at Sobibor, he was an accessory to murder on 28,060 counts. That's a lot, but when you think about it that number is nothing compared to the number of deaths totaling from the Holocaust. His prosecutors argued that if they could prove he was a guard at the camp (Sobibor existed solely for the purpose of extermination) it was enough to convict him as an accessory to murder. After eighteen months of trials, he was found guilty. This marks the first time someone could be convicted in a Nazi-era case with no direct evidence that they participated in the killing.

In The Reader, Hanna is convicted many years after she actually worked in the camp, and convicted in a trial that arguably was not handled perfectly. She is directly connected to the camp through witnesses and sentenced to life in prison. After all the time that has passed, investigators are going over every file they can to see if they can prosecute other suspects in the same way Demjanjuk was. One of the excuses Michael makes for Hanna is that she was just trying to make people more comfortable, and that she had taken this job because she was illiterate and was ashamed of her secret. Demjanjuk has appealed his conviction. Is it enough to sentence someone as an accessory to murder if they were a guard at a camp that existed just to kill prisoners? Authorities are going to test in court whether or not this prosecution will hold up for cases from camps not just for killing.

Is it enough to simply say you were doing a job that was assigned to you, and appeal for innocence? Or does being a guard at a death camp condemn a person to guilt? A five year sentence for accessory is not a life sentence, true, but what's your opinion? When it comes to investigating these war crimes, people have been acquitted on the argument that they didn't know explicitly what was going on; however, this might start to change that mindset. Is that for the better or for the worse?

Literacy in Germany

A quick look at literacy in Germany: Google archives a lot of older newspapers, one of which is The Evening Tribune (from Providence, RI). It isn't in circulation anymore, but an old article from November 23, 1922 says that Germany was in fact leading the world in literacy rates, while America was number eleven. The article attributes its data to a consensus, and I couldn't locate anymore articles about literacy in Germany at this time, but seeing that Germany wasn't exactly a country that was extremely illiterate can help us look at The Reader through a different lens.

By admitting to her illiteracy, Hanna can essentially save herself. But her pride and her person prevent that admittance. Like we talked about in class, Michael is an unreliable narrator that tells the story subjectively and really emphasizes Hanna's illiteracy in order to generate sympathy for Hanna. Instead of putting her illiteracy at fault for the situation she's in, we can also look at Hanna like many of Michael's peers looked at their parents - by condemning her to shame. Even if Hanna was illiterate and couldn't get a better job than a guard at a camp, does that mean she had the right to be an active participant in the Holocaust?

Unlike how some of Michael's peer's parents were passive members of society while the Holocaust was happening, Hanna was a guard at a camp and she, according to some people, can be held accountable for the death of those women in the church. Setting her illiteracy and the circumstances that made her a guard aside, did Hanna have the right to keep the door of the church locked or was she indifferent to her morals, and thinking only on the basis of following orders? And did she have a right to disregard morals just to do her job?