Reflections on events and ideas with significant consequences on the discourse and the standing of institutions of rights Share Your Thoughts! (authors may submit their essay or provide a link if already published and they wish to republish it here).
“Free Speech for Me, Not for Thee”: The Double Standard of Power
In contemporary political discourse, the concept of freedom of speech has become a powerful tool wielded by influential figures to navigate the complexities of public opinion, dissent, and accountability. Here, we examine how prominent actors, notably political leaders, like former and current US President Donald Trump, have employed the tenets of free speech to distance themselves from violent actions taken in their name, while simultaneously seeking to suppress dissenting voices. The January 6 Capitol Riots On January 6, 2021, a violent mob stormed the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. Congressional investigation and media reporting found that ten people died and many more were injured due to the events of January 6. In the aftermath, Trump faced intense scrutiny for his role in inciting the violence through his rhetoric. His defense largely hinged on the interpretation of free speech, claiming that his statements were protected under the First Amendment. Trump argued that he did not directly call for violence, thereby absolving himself of responsibility for the chaotic events that unfolded. This use of free speech as a shield highlights a critical aspect of political power: the ability to manipulate public discourse to evade accountability. While Trump framed his rhetoric as a legitimate expression of political opinion, the consequences of that speech—including physical violence and loss of life—were stark and undeniable. By invoking free speech, he effectively deflected blame, illustrating how powerful actors can exploit legal protections to mitigate the fallout from their […]
Freedom of Speech and Its Limits
For decades, Western colonial nation-states have touted freedom of speech and freedom of expression as nearly absolute rights. When anti-Muslim offensive cartoons were published in Western tabloids, and Muslims reacted by labeling them as forms of hate and politicized speech, Western governments consistently dismissed these concerns. They argued that freedom of expression supersedes all other rights, including the need for protective limits against hate speech. However, the landscape has dramatically shifted since the onset of the war in Gaza in October 2023. As student protests erupted, condemning the atrocities of the conflict—particularly the disproportionate impact on children and women—Western governments began to take aggressive actions to limit, and even criminalize, anti-war dissent under the pretext of combating antisemitism. This reaction raises serious questions about the integrity of the very freedoms that have long been championed. The Trump administration, for example, moved swiftly to deport students who held valid immigration status solely for participating in protests. It also threatened universities with the withdrawal of federal funding unless they silenced student activists. Such tactics not only undermine the principles of free speech but also set a dangerous precedent where dissent is equated with disloyalty or hatred. In this context, it is crucial to scrutinize the legal and political frameworks governing freedom of speech, both in the United States and in international law. The erosion of these rights under the guise of national security or social cohesion poses a significant threat to democratic values. When governments can suppress dissenting voices by labeling them […]
Do the violations associated with the war in Gaza amount to a Genocide
by Amanda Nelson The term “Gaza genocide” refers to allegations and findings that Israel has committed genocide against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip. These allegations have been made by various United Nations bodies, human rights organizations, and experts. United Nations Findings: The UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) has concluded that Israel has committed at least three of the constitutive acts of genocide in Gaza since October 7, 2023. Statements by high-level Israeli military and government officials have been cited as evidence of genocidal intent 1. The UN Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People determined that Israel’s actions in Gaza are consistent with the characteristics of genocide 1. International Court of Justice (ICJ): On December 29, 2023, South Africa filed an application with the ICJ, accusing Israel of violating its obligations under the Genocide Convention in relation to Palestinians in Gaza. The ICJ issued provisional measures on January 26, 2024, ordering Israel to prevent the commission of acts within Article II of the Genocide Convention and to ensure that Israeli military forces do not commit any of these acts 1. Human Rights Organizations: Amnesty International has concluded that Israel has committed and continues to commit genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. Their report documents the systematic destruction of essential infrastructure, including universities, schools, mosques, churches, museums, and libraries 23. Human Rights Watch and other rights organizations have also accused Israel […]
The Perils of Individualism
How Rooting Human Rights in Individualism Fuels Supremacism and Atrocity by Demhas The modern conception of human rights is often rooted in individualism—placing the individual at the center of moral, political, and legal consideration. While individualism has undeniably contributed to personal freedoms and autonomy, an extreme focus on the individual can lead to dangerous distortions. Among these distortions, supremacism emerges as a byproduct of unchecked individual entitlement, and history has shown that supremacism is a powerful driver of human rights atrocities. At its core, individualism champions self-interest, autonomy, and personal achievement. While these values can encourage creativity and progress, they also risk fostering an exaggerated sense of self-importance and entitlement. When individuals or groups internalize the idea that their rights and desires take precedence over those of others, a supremacist mindset can take root. Supremacism—whether based on race, nationality, religion, or ideology—relies on the belief that certain individuals or groups are inherently superior and therefore justified in exerting control over others. History provides numerous examples where supremacist ideologies, deeply intertwined with extreme individualist thinking, have led to some of the worst human rights violations. Colonialism, for instance, was largely driven by the belief that European individuals had a superior right to land, resources, and governance over indigenous populations. Similarly, racial segregation, apartheid, and ethnic cleansing have often been justified by supremacist narratives that elevate certain groups above others, leading to systematic oppression and violence. The 20th century bore witness to extreme individualist and supremacist ideologies culminating in mass atrocities. The […]
Did Trump implicate US government and himself in crimes when he stated his intent to remove the people of Gaza and take over their land?
Anyone with a general understanding of international law, human rights norms, and historical precedents would recoil at the suggestion that a community be forcibly relocated to other countries while their land is seized by another nation-state. When such statements come from the leader of the world’s most powerful nation, they are cause for serious concern. To grasp the gravity of such remarks, it’s essential to consider the historical, legal, and political context behind them. In 2010, highly respected journalist Helen Thomas faced significant backlash after making a controversial statement suggesting that Jews who had migrated to Israel should return to their countries of origin. While speaking to Rabbi David Nesenoff at the White House during a Jewish Heritage event, she stated that Jews in Israel should “get the hell out of Palestine” and “go home” to places like Poland, Germany, and the United States. Her remarks were widely criticized as anti-Semitic and historically insensitive, given the long history of Jewish persecution in those countries. The consequences went beyond mere criticism—Thomas’s life and career were profoundly transformed. A prominent White House correspondent and columnist for decades, she abruptly retired from her position at Hearst Newspapers following the incident, effectively ending her career in journalism. In addition to losing the job she had excelled at for decades, several organizations rescinded the awards and honors she had previously received. Her comments dominated the news cycle for weeks, drawing widespread condemnation from political figures, media outlets, and advocacy groups, particularly Jewish organizations. Thomas later […]
Comments on Rights
- “Free Speech for Me, Not for Thee”: The Double Standard of Power
In contemporary political discourse, the concept of freedom of speech has become a powerful tool wielded by influential figures to navigate the complexities of public opinion, dissent, and accountability. Here, we examine how prominent actors, notably political leaders, like former and current US President Donald Trump, have employed the tenets of free speech to distance - Freedom of Speech and Its Limits
For decades, Western colonial nation-states have touted freedom of speech and freedom of expression as nearly absolute rights. When anti-Muslim offensive cartoons were published in Western tabloids, and Muslims reacted by labeling them as forms of hate and politicized speech, Western governments consistently dismissed these concerns. They argued that freedom of expression supersedes all other - Do the violations associated with the war in Gaza amount to a Genocide
by Amanda Nelson The term “Gaza genocide” refers to allegations and findings that Israel has committed genocide against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip. These allegations have been made by various United Nations bodies, human rights organizations, and experts. United Nations Findings: The UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the - The Perils of Individualism
How Rooting Human Rights in Individualism Fuels Supremacism and Atrocity by Demhas The modern conception of human rights is often rooted in individualism—placing the individual at the center of moral, political, and legal consideration. While individualism has undeniably contributed to personal freedoms and autonomy, an extreme focus on the individual can lead to dangerous distortions. - Did Trump implicate US government and himself in crimes when he stated his intent to remove the people of Gaza and take over their land?
Anyone with a general understanding of international law, human rights norms, and historical precedents would recoil at the suggestion that a community be forcibly relocated to other countries while their land is seized by another nation-state. When such statements come from the leader of the world’s most powerful nation, they are cause for serious concern. - The History of Deporting Migrants Out of the USA and Its Conflict with Human Rights Treaties
Introduction: The United States has a long and complex history of deporting migrants, a practice that has often sparked significant controversy and raised questions about its compliance with international human rights standards. From the early 20th century to the present day, U.S. deportation policies have evolved in response to shifting political, economic, and social landscapes. - Globalism and Human Rights
Globalization is the term used to describe the liberalization and interdependence between the world’s economies, cultures, and populations (Peterson Institute for International Economics). Globalization encompasses the growing cross-border trade of goods and services, foreign direct investment (FDI) and foreign portfolio investment (FPI), technology, and information between countries. Think of it as a “McDonaldization” of not - On the Release of Political Prisoners in Syria and Human Rights
There are good reasons for cheering the freeing of political prisoners held in Syria after the fall of the Baath rule. Indeed, no one should be imprisoned for political expression or for belonging to a political trend that disagrees with the ruling party. Therefore, probing evidence of torture and holding those responsible should be the - Towards a global alliance to compensate for colonialism and its crimes
by Muhammed Khalil Al-Mousa * The idea of colonialism has historically been based on the practice of imposing political, economic, social, cultural and legal domination by a foreign state, often a Western state, over a foreign territory and its inhabitants. Colonialism, which extended from the sixteenth century until the middle of the twentieth century, was - UN: “Stop denying racism, start dismantling it”
UN Human Rights Chief urges immediate, transformative action to uproot systemic racism GENEVA (28 June 2021) – UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet on Monday issued an urgent call for States to adopt a “transformative agenda” to uproot systemic racism, as she published a report casting a spotlight on the litany of violations - The human right that benefits…
This provocative article’s main thesis is succinctly captured by the title, the human right that benefits nature. While informative with the level of details and timelines that chronicle the struggle of community organizers to secure livable clean spaces, it nonetheless perpetuates the idea that human rights are claims for specific rights independent of whatever else - Impact of Sovereign and Absolute Immunity on Human Rights
by Ahmed E. Souaiaia Those who believe in top-down paradigm for the promotion of human rights norms are given another good example of the misplaced expectations as the new US administration tackles the legacy of abuse and human rights violations. I have consistently argued that legislating through executive order does not necessarily promote the long-term