HEPNOVA is dedicating our cover version of Green Island Serenade (綠島小夜曲) to jailed Chinese artist Ai Weiwei. As a song that was popular in Taiwan, China, and across the Sinosphere, we think it is a poignant symbol of cross-strait solidarity. On the surface, the lyrics are a pop song about a man admiring a silent woman from afar, but it has also been interpreted by many to be a veiled protest against government censorship and oppression.

We hope you enjoy the song, learn it’s meaning, and pass it on.

You can also sign a petition by Change.org or Avaaz.org calling for Ai Weiwei’s release.

Eddie (friend from college) shared on Facebook today an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal by John Mackey, co-founder and CEO of Whole Foods, “The Whole Foods Alternative To ObamaCare”:

Many promoters of health-care reform believe that people have an intrinsic ethical right to health care—to equal access to doctors, medicines and hospitals. While all of us empathize with those who are sick, how can we say that all people have more of an intrinsic right to health care than they have to food or shelter?

Health care is a service that we all need, but just like food and shelter it is best provided through voluntary and mutually beneficial market exchanges. A careful reading of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will not reveal any intrinsic right to health care, food or shelter. That’s because there isn’t any. This “right” has never existed in America

Similarly in “Health Care, Why Call it a Right?” on the HuffPost, Duke University professor John David Lewis writes:

The reason is that advocates of government medicine are upholding health care as a moral right. The moral goal of a “right” to health care is blinding people to the cause and effect relationship between government actions and rising prices.

But the very idea that health care — or any good provided by others — is a “right” is a contradiction. The rights enshrined in the Declaration of Independence were to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Each of these is a right to act, not a right to things. “To secure these rights governments are instituted,” which means to secure the rights of each person to exercise his or her liberty in pursuit of his or her own happiness.

They are wrong.  The United States has adopted the  Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR), which asserts in Article 25, Section 1:

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

While the UDHR is largely an aspirational document, many international lawyers argue that it is now legally binding under international customary law.  The US has also signed (but not yet ratified) the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), which guarantees in article 12:

1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.
2. The steps to be taken by the States Parties to the present Covenant to achieve the full realization of this right shall include those necessary for:

(a) The provision for the reduction of the stillbirth-rate and of infant mortality and for the healthy development of the child;
(b) The improvement of all aspects of environmental and industrial hygiene;
(c) The prevention, treatment and control of epidemic, endemic, occupational and other diseases;
(d) The creation of conditions which would assure to all medical service and medical attention in the event of sickness.

Whole Foods is leaving a bad taste in my mouth right now.  I have been a frequent shopper there, but now I have my doubts.  Boycott?

Mackey continues:

Unfortunately many of our health-care problems are self-inflicted: two-thirds of Americans are now overweight and one-third are obese. Most of the diseases that kill us and account for about 70% of all health-care spending—heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes and obesity—are mostly preventable through proper diet, exercise, not smoking, minimal alcohol consumption and other healthy lifestyle choices.

<sarcasm>Well, I’m glad I have the “right” to pay a premium at Whole Foods for my healthy food fix.</sarcasm>  DJ, another Facebook friend, puts things into perspective: “of course, good food (like good health care) should take all of your paycheck. that’s the whole paycheck way.”  Telling poor people to spend more money that they don’t have to eat healthy food they can’t afford so they don’t get sick and require health care they can’t pay for is just a sick sick way of asking “why don’t they eat cake?”  I know the attribution to Marie Antoinette is apocryphal, but you get my point.

Mackey tries to bring Canada and the UK into his argument:

Even in countries like Canada and the U.K., there is no intrinsic right to health care. Rather, citizens in these countries are told by government bureaucrats what health-care treatments they are eligible to receive and when they can receive them. All countries with socialized medicine ration health care by forcing their citizens to wait in lines to receive scarce treatments.

Although Canada has a population smaller than California, 830,000 Canadians are currently waiting to be admitted to a hospital or to get treatment, according to a report last month in Investor’s Business Daily. In England, the waiting list is 1.8 million.

Unlike the US, Canada and UK have ratified the ICESCR, so there is a legally binding right to health in those countries.  Healthcare rationing and long wait times are some of the typical talking points of those opposed to national health care in this country.  But let’s look at the real numbers.  A June 2009 Gallup Poll found that 16% of US adults over age 18 are without health insurance.  The US Census Bureau estimates that there are about 307 million people in the US.  So 16% of 307 million is about 49 million Americans without health insurance.  That’s more than the entire population of Canada. I wonder how long those 49 million Americans have to wait when they need health care.  How about forever?

At Whole Foods we allow our team members to vote on what benefits they most want the company to fund.

That’s great John Mackey, but how about this idea: “In the United States, we allow the people to vote on what health plan they most want the government to fund.” And by “the people”, I mean including those 49 million American adults without health insurance, not just CEOs who probably have very good health insurance for themselves spouting off about “what the people need” in an op-ed.

From my colleague Enrique Piraces at Human Rights Watch:

I want to share with you our submission to the UC Berkeley Human Rights Center Mobile Challenge. 

The project is great and we have an opportunity to get some attention and further develop the idea. 

Voting will take place between March 23 and March 27, 2009 and will determine the Top Ten Finalists. 

I want to invite you to keep an eye on the project and to help us spread the word about it. And if you want to further improve your karma, please consider registering to vote for the project. [It is so easy. Just register, go to the project page, and give us a "star". After that you can also share any comments and criticisms in the same page] 

http://www.netsquared.org/projects/bug4good 

Listen to my latest musical composition, NO2H8, based on audio I recorded of speeches at the Protest Against Prop 8 this Sunday and some organ and synth tracks of “deconstructed” Mendelsohn’s Wedding March.

[MP3] [AIFF]

See all my photos on Flickr.

Like John and Yoko said, “War is over, if you want it”:

November 12, 2008
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

SPECIAL TIMES EDITION BLANKETS U.S. CITIES, PROCLAIMS END TO WAR

* PDF: http://www.nytimes-se.com/pdf
* For video updates: http://www.nytimes-se.com/video
* Contact: mailto:writers@nytimes-se.com

Early this morning, commuters nationwide were delighted to find out that while they were sleeping, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had come to an end.

If, that is, they happened to read a “special edition” of today’s New York Times.

In an elaborate operation six months in the planning, 1.2 million papers were printed at six different presses and driven to prearranged pickup locations, where thousands of volunteers stood ready to pass them out on the street.

Articles in the paper announce dozens of new initiatives including the establishment of national health care, the abolition of corporate lobbying, a maximum wage for C.E.O.s, and, of course, the end of the war.

The paper, an exact replica of The New York Times, includes International, National, New York, and Business sections, as well as editorials, corrections, and a number of advertisements, including a recall notice for all cars that run on gasoline. There is also a timeline describing the gains brought about by eight months of
progressive support and pressure, culminating in President Obama’s “Yes we REALLY can” speech. (The paper is post-dated July 4, 2009.)

“It’s all about how at this point, we need to push harder than ever,” said Bertha Suttner, one of the newspaper’s writers. “We’ve got to make sure Obama and all the other Democrats do what we elected them to do. After eight, or maybe twenty-eight years of hell, we need to start imagining heaven.”

Not all readers reacted favorably. “The thing I disagree with is how they did it,” said Stuart Carlyle, who received a paper in Grand Central Station while commuting to his Wall Street brokerage. “I’m all for freedom of speech, but they should have started their own paper.”

Video: People celebrating Obama’s victory in New York City’s Union Square

Photos on Flickr

Last night I watched history in the making.  The American people elect Obama, embracing racial reconciliation, while the anti-gay sentiments behind the propositions that passed in Florida, Arizona, and California represent a punch in the stomach, a kick in the balls, and a knife in the back of another group of minorities seeking equality.

Until the philosophy,
Which holds one race AND ONE KIND OF LOVE superior
And another inferior,
Is finally and permanently
Discredited and abandoned,
Everywhere is war.

That until the basic human rights,
Are equally guaranteed to all,
Without regard to race, OR SEXUAL ORIENTATION
I’ll say “war”

Protest Against the Bush Bailout on Wall Street from lee-sean on Vimeo.

Also on YouTube and Blip.tv. Photos on Flickr.

As the Beijing Olympics begin, the world looks on with mixed emotions. It’s a moment which should bring us closer together, and Chinese citizens deserve their excitement — but the Chinese government still hasn’t opened meaningful dialogue with the Dalai Lama, or changed its stance on Burma, Darfur and other pressing issues.

Even worse, extremists in China are promoting the view that Olympic activism like ours is anti-Chinese. We can’t stay silent, but we also can’t let our efforts be abused to divide people. So what can we do? The answer comes from the Dalai Lama himself, in an unambiguous gesture of Olympic spirit and friendship: a handshake.

It began in London, passed hand to hand by thousands of us — now the handshake has gone online, and is criss-crossing the globe on its way to Beijing. All of us can join, Chinese and non-Chinese, and it comes with a promise: to hold ALL our governments accountable where they fall short, in Tibet, Iraq, Burma or beyond. We’ll deliver our message in a bold media campaign in Hong Kong and around the world: Click below to see how the Olympic handshake started, sign up to join in, and watch it circle the globe –

http://www.avaaz.org/en/handshake

The handshake idea is nice (with all of the banality of that word fully intended), but let’s not forget to extend the dialogue to the Uighurs or with Taiwan.  Ok, I concede, the “round-the-world” map animation showing virtual handshakes is pretty rad, but I digress.

There’s not a lot of hope for the kind of openness that allows for fruitful dialogue on the Chinese side when they beat up and harass foreign journalists trying to cover the attack in Kashgar.  Then there is the systematic internet censorship.  The guarantee of press freedoms for foreign journalists was part of the contract that the Chinese government agreed to in order to host the Games.  The Chinese government isn’t living up to their side of the bargain.

And those missiles aimed at Taiwan aren’t too friendly or conducive to dialogue either, are they?  Or how about that attempted Chinese weapon shipment to Zimbabwe?  Not very peaceful either.

And then there are those Beijingers who were forcefully and unlawfully evicted from their homes without proper compensation to make way for the Olympics.  And the peaceful Chinese civil society activists (and regular residents of Beijing) who are living under lockdown as a result of the games.  Their grievances can hardly be considered anti-Chinese; since they ARE Chinese.  Same goes for the repression of Falun Gong practitioners and other religious groups.

Ok, so I’ve given a handshake for peace, but what is the Chinese government going to give its own citizens and the international community in return?  Do Chinese leaders and hardline nationalists even want a handshake?  Or do they want the world to kowtow in reverence and awe at the “new” China’s coming-out party?  As much as we all wished that the Olympics were about sports and international goodwill, the truth is, they are also about state-sponsored political propaganda (and uncomfortable displays of nationalism if you ask me) as well as corporate bottom lines.

The prize is determined by popular vote on the internet.  This is where we need your help.  Please vote for Boris at http://www.coc.nl/dopage.pl?thema=any&pagina=polls&stelling_id=87.

It only takes a few seconds, and no registration or personal information is necessary.  The site is in Dutch, but voting is simple and straightforward.  You don’t need to read Dutch or even be Dutch to participate.

• Visit http://www.coc.nl/dopage.pl?thema=any&pagina=polls&stelling_id=87.
• Mouse over to the left sidebar that says: “Voor de JOS BRINK PRIJS – de Staatstprijs voor Homo-emancipatie – nomineer ik:”
• Click on the bubble next to “Boris Dittrich.”
• Then click “Stemmen.”  That’s it.

Boris is currently in second place, but we only need a few more votes to get him to number one, so your vote counts.  The recipient of the prize will receive 10,000 Euros and an artwork.  More importantly, winning the prize would give Human Rights Watch an increased visibility in our fight to protect the rights of LGBT communities around the world, especially in places where they are being discriminated against, tortured and executed.

Thanks so much for your help, or as the Dutchies say, “Dank je wel.”

More about Boris
More on HRW’s work on LGBT rights

Have you noticed food costing more when you shop? Here’s why — we’re plunging headlong into a world food crisis. Rocketing prices are squeezing billions and triggering food riots from Bangladesh to South Africa. Aid agencies say 100 million more people are at risk of starvation right now[1]. In Sierra Leone alone the price of a bag of rice has doubled, becoming unaffordable for 90% of citizens[2]. Fears of inflation stalk the whole world, and the worst could be yet to come.

We need to act now — before it’s too late. As Ban Ki-Moon holds a high-level UN meeting on the crisis, we’re launching an urgent campaign with African foreign minister and human rights campaigner Zainab Bangura. Click below to see Zainab’s video message and add your name to the food crisis petition — we need to raise 200,000 signatures by the end of this week to deliver a massive global outcry to leaders at the UN, G8 and EU:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/world_food_crisis/9.php

The prices of staple foods like wheat, corn and rice have almost doubled, and the crisis is slipping out of control — so we’re calling for immediate action on emergency food aid, speculation and biofuels policy, while asking forthcoming summits to tackle deeper problems of investment and trade.[3]

The global food crisis touches and connects us all, creating a tsunami of hunger for the poor and damaging economies and squeezing citizens in the rich world too. But solutions are on the horizon if leaders act fast [4] — sign the petition at the link below now, then forward this email and ask friends and family to do the same:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/world_food_crisis/9.php

With hope,

Paul, Galit, Ricken, Graziela, Iain, Mark, Pascal and the whole Avaaz team

Sources:

1. BBC: “How to stop the global food crisis”: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7365798.stm

“The New Economics of Hunger”, Washington Post, 27 April 2008 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/26/AR2008042602041_pf.html

2. Zainab Bangura, Foreign Minister of Sierra Leone, video message to Avaaz members http://www.avaaz.org/en/world_food_crisis/9.php

3. Chinese news citing World Bank figures: http://www.cctv.com/english/20080426/102406.shtml

Reuters: “Rising food prices to top UN agenda” http://www.reuters.com/article/gc08/idUSL1890947220080424

4. See BBC article above, and “Rising Food Prices” by Alex Evans (Chatham House report) http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/files/11422_bp0408food.pdf

UN scientific report on fixing the world food system: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7347239.stm

The Guardian: “Credit crunch? The real crisis is global hunger”, George Monbiot http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/15/food.biofuels

For those of you new to the blog or who do not know me personally, I worked at Avaaz for 1 year during its initial start-up phase. I’m now at Human Rights Watch, working with their China team on their China Olympics campaign, among other things. My commentary is solely my own as a concerned and engaged citizen blogger and activist and does not reflect the opinion of Human Rights Watch. I am doing this for the sake of open debate and dialogue about China, the Olympics and human rights.

Dear Friends,

The Beijing Olympics are a crucial chance to persuade China’s leaders to support dialogue and human rights in Tibet, as well as Burma and Darfur, and we need to seize it.

Dialogue alone is not enough, Tibetans, Burmese, Darfurians, Chinese and everybody else need concrete actions that result in better human rights. It’s also time to China to work on human rights in China as well. Learn more about the human rights issues surrounding the Olympics on Human Rights Watch’s China Olympics page.

Also, don’t forget the issue of Taiwan and the rise of rampant nationalism in China. I hope a Taiwanese athlete wins a medal. As in previous Olympic games, China has pressured the international community into forcing Taiwanese athletes to compete under the name “Chinese Taipei.” The Taiwanese (Republic of China) flag and national anthem are banned at the Olympics. When an athlete wins a medal, s/he gets to stand with the other medalists while their national flags are displayed and national anthems are played, but if and when a Taiwanese athlete wins a medal, s/he will stand without the Taiwanese flag and in silence. I’m not one for flag waving and national(ist) anthems, but I have to admit, the silent symbolism will sure be poignant.

China wants the Olympics to be a coming out party for a newly modern, powerful, and respectable nation. But the Olympics are about humanity and excellence–we can’t celebrate them in good conscience while ignoring the suffering of Tibetans and others. The Olympics are also about perpetuating nationalist propaganda and corporate sponsors making millions of dollars (or Euros or Yuan since the US dollar is becoming increasingly worthless).

So Avaaz is launching a major new campaign: SAVE THE OLYMPICS. We’ll ask China to save the Olympics for all of us (and more importantly for the Chinese Communist Party’s propaganda team and for the shareholders of the corporate sponsors), by making specific, reasonable progress in dialogue with the Dalai Lama, securing release of Burmese and Tibetan political prisoners, and supporting peacekeeping in Darfur.

Ok, so even if the Chinese government does talk to the Dalai Lama, what will they say, what are the asks? Talking for the sake of talking is a start, but there has to be an agenda and a concrete roadmap for improving the human rights of Tibetans.

Our appeal will be placed on billboards and ads in major Olympic cities, in Chinese overseas publications, and we’ll hire a Chinese language team to engage directly on China’s lively blogs and in chatrooms. Sounds like a great idea, I hope they can pull this one off, especially the billboards and ads. Do the major Olympic cities in Beijing? Probably not, since I don’t think the Chinese government would allow that to happen. That’s pretty indicative of the lack of freedom of speech in China, isn’t it? We need 10,000 donations from people from 100 countries to kickstart the campaign this week with a truly global sponsorship–click below to see the ads and donate whatever you can, however small:

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/save_the_olympics/1.php?cl=77024255

Within China, where the Olympics were once seen as a victory for greater openness and internationalism, the internal debate has taken a bitter turn. Most Chinese are now growing angry over Olympic activism, seeing it as biased and “anti-Chinese.” Most Chinese also live on a highly controlled media diet, which along with a fiercely nationalistic education system, indoctrinates them to think that attacks against the Chinese Communist Party and government (which are one and the same) are attacks against “China” or the Chinese people.

If the games are a fiasco, China’s repressive hardliners will win the day–and we could see the worst crackdown yet.

We need to stop this, and fast. So our campaign aims to reach out to China and Chinese people to show that we’re not anti-China but pro-humanitarian, and that our desire is to save the 2008 Olympics, not ruin them. Click below to donate now: China, Chinese People, and the Chinese Communist Party are three very different things. One can be pro-human rights, anti-Chinese Communist Party, but still be pro-Chinese people.

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/save_the_olympics/1.php?cl=77024255

The Slogan of the 2008 Olympics is “One World, One Dream”. Let’s reach across barriers of perception and division, and ask the Chinese to make this dream come true for us this summer.

Does the implied “we” in “let’s reach across barriers of perception and division” include the Chinese government and state-controlled press? The Chinese government can help “reach across barriers of perception and division” by going easy on the jingoist national propaganda, letting journalists report unhindered in China, and by bringing down the “Great Firewall of China,” which prevents netizens in China from accessing fair and balanced news and other information about their own country and the world.

With hope,

Ricken, Ben, Graziela, Galit, Pascal, Iain, Milena, Sabrina and the whole Avaaz Team.

PS – If you are new to Avaaz, we are a new global campaigning organization launched in January 2007 that has rapidly grown to over 3 million members in every nation on earth. The Economist magazine has written of the power of Avaaz to “Give world leaders a deafening wake up call”, and we have been featured on the BBC talkshow HARDtalk. David Miliband, the UK foreign secretary, calls Avaaz “the best of the new in foreign policy”. You can see the results of our last campaign fundraiser, on Burma here, and the results of our last campaign on climate change here, as well as other campaign results here. Avaaz Foundation is a legally registered non-profit organization.

ABOUT AVAAZ
Avaaz.org is an independent, not-for-profit global campaigning organization that works to ensure that the views and values of the world’s people inform global decision-making. (Avaaz means “voice” in many languages.) Avaaz receives no money from governments or corporations, and is staffed by a global team based in London, Rio de Janeiro, New York, Paris, Washington DC, and Geneva.

Don’t forget to check out our Facebook and Myspace pages!

For continued coverage and commentary on China, the Olympics and Human Rights, check out Human Rights Watch’s China Olympics website.

请不要出席29届奥运开幕式–致世界各民主国家首脑的公开信
作者:
中国社会民主党中央委员会

尊敬的先生们、女士们：
第29届夏季奥运会四个月后将在北京举行。我们获悉世界上的民主国家中，有的国家领导人拟定出席29届奥运会的开幕式，如美国布什总统等；有的拟定不出席，如加拿大哈珀总理等。我们谨敦促所有民主国家的领导人都不要出席29届奥运会的开幕式。
本来，作为中国人对奥运会能在中国的国土上举行是有着由衷的喜悦。可是我们又不能不看到举办奥运已被中国共产党政府高度政治化。它倾全国之力来举办奥运，仅为奥运改善北京空气一项就投入了150亿美元，这本身就是政治行为。中国共产党是想通过举办奥运来粉饰现实，来为它充满暴力、谎言、贪腐的政权涂脂抹粉，以欺骗世界舆论，延续其一党专政的政治结构。
虽然我们深刻地洞察这一点，但我们考虑到运动员们经过几年的刻苦训练都希望在运动会上显示自己的成绩；考虑到一些中国民众以在自己的国家举办奥运为荣；考虑到更多的中国民众将观看奥运比赛作为重要的娱乐项目，故此，我们不主张抵制奥运，我们愿意看到奥运如期举行。愿意看到中国运动员多获奖牌。
但是，你们作为国家领导人出席奥运开幕式就有着不一般的意义。开幕式不同于一般的比赛项目，高层政治人物云集的开幕式明显带有政治意味。你们出席开幕式可以诠译为对中共政权的认同、支持。作为民主国家的领导人去支持一个专制政权明显是不恰当的。我们诚恳地希望你们都不要去出席奥运开幕式。如果你们对某些体育运动项目确实爱好的话，你们可以专项地去观看那些比赛。
敬请你们能认真考虑我们的意见，并作出有利于中国民主事业的正确的抉择。
顺致崇高的敬意！

中国社会民主党中央委员会
2008年4月15日

Please Do Not Attend the Opening Ceremony of the 29th Olympic Games
—A letter to Leaders of Democratic Nations

Respected Ladies and Gentlemen:

The 29th Summer Olympic Games will be taking place in Beijing about four months from now. We learn that some leaders of Western democracies, such as the president of the United States, have planned to attend its opening ceremony; others, such as the premier of Canada, have decided not to. We, members of the Central Committee of the Social Democratic Party of China, urge all of you not to attend the opening ceremony.

As Chinese, we are sincerely happy to see the Olympic Games take place in China. However, we cannot ignore the fact that hosting the Olympic Games has been highly politicized by the communist government of China. On the one hand, the Chinese government makes an all out effort to host the Olympic Games and takes advantage of this opportunity to promote nationalism. On the other hand, it does not keep its promise to improve human rights in China. Its goal is to whitewash reality, to cover up the regime’s brutality, lies, and corruption, and to deceive the world community. Its real intention is the legitimization and continuation of the current political structure, the one party dictatorship. Therefore, its actions are highly political.

We do not advocate boycotting the 29th Summer Olympic Games even though we see through the Chinese government’s intention. We understand that all athletes want to show their accomplishments achieved after many, many years of hard practices. We understand that most Chinese feel honored to have the Olympic Games held the first time in their country. We understand that the Chinese view the Olympic Games as the most important sports event, and they want to see them in their own land. For all these reasons, we would like to see the Summer Olympic Games take place as scheduled, and we hope Chinese athletes will win a lot of medals.

Nonetheless, we want to point out that, unlike sports games, the opening ceremony featuring the presence of high ranking political leaders is a highly political event. As leaders of nations, your attendance will have political implications. The presence of leaders of democracies at the opening ceremony may be interpreted as approval and support for the Chinese communist regime. It is obviously inappropriate for democratic leaders to support an autocratic regime. We sincerely call on all of you not to attend the opening ceremony. You may certainly go and see your favorite items if you really like sports games, but please do not attend the opening ceremony.

We respectfully request all of you to consider this suggestion and make the right choice to support the cause of China’s democratization.

With best regards,

The Central Committee of the Social Democratic Party of China

2008.4.15

Human Rights Watch Media Director Minky Worden on Democracy Now!

The Olympic Torch Relay dates back to the Nazi Olympics in 1936.

Minky Worden:

There is a wonderful new academic book called Nazi Games, which gives a concise history of this. The torch relay itself is essentially a PR invention of the Nazi era, and the point of it was to run the torch through parts of Europe that Nazi Germany hoped to take over, including the Sudetenland. So I think if the corporate sponsors of the torch relay really knew the history of this, I can’t imagine that they would want to be associated with it. And the sponsors are Coca Cola, Lenovo, and Samsung…There certainly will be a price to pay in terms of corporate reputation if the torch relay inside China turns into a major human rights debacle.

Minky’s upcoming book: China’s Great Leap: The Beijing Games and Olympian Human Rights Challenges.

My view: The Olympics are essentially about political propaganda and making money. The role of activists and people who are simply engaged and concerned with the issues, both in China and people standing in solidarity with the people living in/under the PRC, is to exploit the inherent weaknesses and flaws of authoritarian propaganda (and it’s private sector corollaries, corporate branding and marketing) and to communicate an alternative message of respect for rule of law, human rights, and basic universal freedoms. We need to brand-jack and culture jam the marketing/propaganda of the Olympics to refocus attention on real issues of human rights and freedoms.

Burma, China, North Korea – should travelers visit oppressive countries with bad human rights records?  I read this article this morning while I was waiting at the dentist’s office.

In her April 2008 article, “See Mo’ Evil,” Outside senior editor Stephanie Pearson rebuts Nobel Prize Winner Aung San Suu Kyi’s call for tourists to stop visiting Myanmar. What does Pearson think is the best way to respond to a travel boycott in a human-rights-violating country ruled by an oppressive regime? Go there and check it out.

Every country in the world, including the US, is guilty of human rights abuses to one extent or another, so if I wanted to be totally consistent, then I wouldn’t travel anywhere. With all the photos, video and reports of human rights abuses in Burma, I don’t think it is necessary to go and visit to “see for myself.” I find the whole idea of “disaster tourism” a little bit distasteful. I guess it is ultimately an individual choice. Personally, I would respect the wishes of Aung San Suu Kyi and avoid traveling to Burma until there is real substantive change.

This is our 3rd award to date. We also won the 2007 DoGooderTV Non-Profit Video Award and a Progressive Source Award.

Thanks for the love everyone!

Peace.

Here is an update direct from Avaaz:

Great news — our video “Stop The Clash of Civilizations” is one of six films nominated for “Best Political Video” at the 2007 YouTube Awards. Dismantling the false clash between Islam and the West, this 2-minute clip shows how global people power can bridge cultures and change things for the better — starting with a real peace process for the Middle East. The video has already been seen by milliions of people, and shown in hundreds of schools.

In the YouTube Awards, unlike the Oscars, the public decides which video wins — but we only have 24 hours to cast our votes, so now’s the time to act. If enough people vote for “Stop the Clash” in the next 24 hours, and we win, we can spread our message of hope like wildfire around the world. Click this link now to watch the video and cast your own vote:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/stop_the_clash_award/5.php

Stop The Clash’s message is that the people of the world don’t buy, and don’t want, the “clash of civilizations” that the extremists are dragging us into. Beyond Bush and bin Laden, the world desperately needs us to join together across divides if we are ever to solve the shared challenges of climate change, poverty, tyranny and conflict. The clash of civilizations lie hides the bigger picture — where there’s far more to unite than divide us.

The winner of the YouTube award will get a lot of media attention, so we could spread the “Stop the Clash” message to many millions more. It’s up to us –- click here to watch the video and vote:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/stop_the_clash_award/5.php

With hope,

Paul, Ricken, Galit, Esra’a, Ben, Pascal, Graziela and the whole Avaaz team

ABOUT AVAAZ
Avaaz.org is an independent, not-for-profit global campaigning organization that works to ensure that the views and values of the world’s people inform global decision-making. (Avaaz means “voice” in many languages.) Avaaz receives no money from governments or corporations, and is staffed by a global team based in London, Rio de Janeiro, New York, Paris, Washington DC, and Geneva.

Don’t forget to check out our Facebook and Myspace pages!

LS outside the UN with Human Rights Watch colleagues

I went to the New York launch of the Yogyakarta Principles on LGBT rights in the international human rights context on Wednesday. It was my first time inside the UN, so it was very exciting. I was very upset by a very rude and racist security guard working at the security entrance, but it did not damper my spirits at this historic event in the struggle for international human rights for ALL people.

From the Yogyakarta Principles website:

In 2006, in response to well-documented patterns of abuse, a distinguished group of international human rights experts met in Yogyakarta, Indonesia to outline a set of international principles relating to sexual orientation and gender identity. The result was the Yogyakarta Principles: a universal guide to human rights which affirm binding international legal standards with which all States must comply. They promise a different future where all people born free and equal in dignity and rights can fulfill that precious birthright.

So here is the story of the security guard: He was a white man and most likely an Eastern European immigrant based on his heavy accent. There was a woman ahead of me in line wearing metal bracelets. He told her to lift her hands up while going through the metal detector, because the machine indicates where the metal objects are. If she beeps only because of her bracelets, then he would let her through. But he did not convey this in a clear manner, or the woman did not understand him well. So the security guard cracks a not-so-funny comment: “You know, I’m not speaking Japanese here you know!” I cringe.

Then it is my turn to go through the metal detector. I take off my coat and empty my pockets and place my belongings on the conveyor belt x-ray. Then I walk through the metal detector. My belt buckle sets off the metal detector. He tells me to take off my belt. “What!?” I retort. I have been in airports countless times, and NEVER have I had to take off my belt or seen anybody take off their belts. That is why they have wands. Taking off one’s belt in public is 1 step too close to a strip search. Ok, maybe that is overexagerating, but it is undignified in any case. “Don’t you have a wand?” I ask. “No, I’m kidding when I tell you to take off your belt!” he snaps back. I would have gladly taken off my belt the first time if he had asked nicely, without sarcasm and spite in his voice. I say, “well, you could at least ask nicely…”

“Please, thank you” was his curt reply.

If I were to give this guy the benefit of the doubt, perhaps his English abilities were not good enough to convey instructions in a polite way. Or maybe he is just rude. Either way this is still unacceptable, especially at an institution such as the UN. In addition, we were not tourists; we were invited guests to a special event. Not that we should get preferential treatment in any way, but the UN does belong to the people of the world after all. Racist comments and unnecessary rudeness have no place. Also, if you are going to work in a customer service position that deals with the public, it should be expected that you can communicate politely.

Sorry for the rant. In any case you can read more about the Yogyakarta Principles New York launch on the Human Rights Watch website and visit the official Yogyakarta Principles homepage.

More photos on Flickr.

Dear friends,

Our emergency petition to stop the crackdown on peaceful protesters in Burma is exploding, with nearly 500,000 signers from every nation of the world. But the situation in Burma remains desperate, with reports of hundreds of monks being massacred and tortured. Burma’s rulers have also killed and expelled international journalists, cutting off global media coverage of their cruelty.

China is still the key – the country with the most power to halt the Burmese generals’ reign of terror. We’re delivering our message this week with a massive ad campaign in major newspapers, beginning Thursday with a full page ad in the Financial Times worldwide, and in the South China Morning Post. The strength of the ad comes from the number of petition signers listed – can we reach our goal of 1 million signatures this week? The link to sign the petition and view the ad is below, forward this email to all your friends and family!

http://www.avaaz.org/en/stand_with_burma/u.php

China continues to provide key economic and military support to Burma’s dictatorship, but it has been openly critical of the crackdown. Now we need the government to match words with actions. Our ad paints a powerful moment of choice for China in its relationship with the world – will it be a responsible and respected member of the global community, or will it be associated with tyranny and oppression?

People power, on the streets of Burma, and around the world, can triumph over tyranny. Our strength is in our numbers, spread the word!

With hope and determination,

Ricken, Paul, Ben, Graziela, Pascal, Galit and the whole Avaaz team.

For the best local reporting on the situation in Burma, try these links:

http://www.irrawaddy.org

http://www.mizzima.com

From Avaaz.org:

After decades of military dictatorship, the people of Burma are rising – and they need our help. Marches begun by monks and nuns have snowballed, bringing hundreds of thousands to the streets. Now the crackdown has begun…

When the Burmese last marched in 1988, the military massacred thousands. But if the world stands up and supports their struggle, this time they could succeed. We’ll send our petition to United Nations Security Council members (including the dictatorship’s main backer China) and to media at the UN, while also alerting the Burmese to our support:

To Chinese President Hu Jintao and the UN Security Council:

We stand alongside the citizens of Burma in their peaceful protests. We urge you to oppose a violent crackdown on the demonstrators, and to support genuine reconciliation and democracy in Burma. We pledge to hold you accountable for any further bloodshed. (Sign this petition)

Amnesty’s letter-writing campaign to George W. Bush:

Ask President Bush to urge the UN Security Council members, especially the Permanent members like China, to immediately deploy a UN Security Council mission to Myanmar (Burma). This mission should act to resolve the human rights crisis and avert the risk of further violence and bloodshed. The Council should also consider the possibility of imposing an arms embargo and to address the dire human rights situation in Myanmar. The peaceful mass demonstrations taking place compare in scale to those in 1988, when security forces broke up massive pro-democracy demonstrations with deadly violence, killing thousands. (Take Action)

I started a new job last Thursday at Human Rights Watch. My official job title is Associate in Development and Outreach. I’ve spent the first few days getting settled in, oriented, and setting up meetings. The office is half empty right now since many of the staff are out on holiday, but things should pick up soon. More later!

Thanks to everyone for voting for us!

Encounter Point is an 85-minute feature documentary film that follows a former Israeli settler, a Palestinian ex-prisoner, a bereaved Israeli mother and a wounded Palestinian bereaved brother who risk their lives and public standing to promote a nonviolent end to the conflict. Their journeys lead them to the unlikeliest places to confront hatred within their communities. The film explores what drives them and thousands of other like-minded civilians to overcome anger and grief to work for grassroots solutions. It is a film about the everyday leaders in our midst.

The film successfully takes us into the complicated array of emotions behind decades of conflict and occupation, as well the great potential for peace through everyday citizens engaging in dialog and non-violence, following in the footsteps of Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, and Gandhi. I’m glad I could help with the proofreading to help bring the message to a wider audience. Learn more at EncounterPoint.com. Definitely worth checking out.