shalzed with spain's un ambassador two

Was the UN Walkout on Israel a Proper Protest or Dereliction of Diplomatic Duty?

by with No Comment story

Was the UN Walkout on Israel a Proper Protest or Dereliction of Diplomatic Duty?

Shalzed catches up with Spain’s ambassador to the UN

When Israel’s Prime Minister spoke recently at the UN, delegates from 70 or so countries walked out. Was this an appropriate protest, or is staying to listen to people we disagree with the better path towards peace and human rights? Shalzed catches up with Spain’s UN ambassador Hector Gomez, a leader of the walkout, to understand his view.

              The Katharine Hepburn garden isn’t much, but it’s nice they bothered to plant anything green in the middle of the midtown Manhattan urban jungle. A sign proudly proclaimed that Dag Hammarskjold Plaza contains 6 fountains and 49 benches. Not quite enough to make you feel like you are out in nature, but you’ve got to give credit for trying.

              I finally spotted Spain’s UN Ambassador. He was walking quickly towards his office on the 36th floor of One Dag Hammarskjöld Plaza, taking the sidewalk instead of detouring through the garden where I was. I guess it’s hard for him to find time to smell the roses. “El Senor Gomez,” I called. He glanced in my direction, then shook his head in surprise when he realized who I was.

              “I thought you’d be working on your wormhole machine, whatever you call it. Glad to see you’ve decided to take a break and enjoy looking at some of Earth’s beautiful flowers,” he replied.

              There’s no way to make any sort of device capable of opening a wormhole with Earth’s primitive technology, but no point in trying to explain that to him. “Let me guess, someone said something you disagree with, and that’s why you’re leaving in the middle of the afternoon,” I said.

              “I disagree with most of what goes on in there,” he said, pointing at UN headquarters at the end of the block. “But I’m heading to a meeting about the new independent panel on artificial intelligence. You know I was instrumental in getting that passed.”

              He co-chaired that committee with the ambassador from Costa Rica. “So it’s only Bibi Netanyahu you walk out on? Anyone else you disagree with it’s not such a big deal?”

              He crossed his arms. “I think genocide is something we all have to stand against, don’t you? Or on your planet is genocide not a problem?”

              “So let me get this straight- Israel is the only country you feel compelled to take a stand about? North Korea, with its vast forced labor camps, restrictions on information so harsh citizens are punished for years just for watching a foreign movie, and where citizens are forbidden to emigrate and border guards are instructed to shoot anyone trying to sneak out doesn’t require taking a stand? Iran, which oppresses women, disappears and tortures dissidents, and has executed over 1000 people in just the last nine months doesn’t require taking a stand? What about Russia, which not only invaded Ukraine but now brazenly attacks civilians in Kiev with drones every night? Officials from all those countries spoke at the UN last week without any sort of walkout.”

              A young man with a backpack covered in Bernie Sanders stickers had paused near us, listening to me. “The UN is one big joke,” he said loudly. “Somebody should kick them all out and use the building to house the homeless.”

              “This guy doesn’t want to lose his job,” I told the young man, gesturing towards Gomez.

              He suddenly looked embarrassed. “Do you. . .” he began.

              “He’s the ambassador from Spain,” I said.

              “Hola. Mucho amigo,” the man said. Hector Gomez laughed and the guy started to walk away.

              “So why only Bibi?” I asked Gomez again, anxious to hear his answer to that.

              He swallowed. “Look, you can’t justify a crime by saying there are also other criminals out there the same or worse. Right now the situation in Gaza is our main focus.”

              “It’s your main focus?” I asked.

              “My government is working with other countries across the European Union to bring an end to genocide and implement a peaceful two-state solution.”

              “Is that so?” I asked again.

              Gomez gave me a quizzical look. “Of course. The European Union is considering many measures to pressure Israel, and I personally have made many statements. . . ”

              I cut him off. “So when Bibi was at the UN, why did you walk out of the room?”

              He frowned. “To show that his government’s conduct. . . ”

              “With Bibi at the UN it would have been a great chance for negotiations,” I interrupted.

              “By walking out I wanted to make a statement. . .” he began.

              “Help me understand. Is the entire purpose of your United Nations to provide a place for people to make statements?” I asked. “Or is it supposed to be about dialogue intended to maintain peace and security?”

              “Dialogue for peace and security,” Gomez dutifully replied.

              “So why didn’t you stay in the room and listen carefully to Bibi? That would have helped you better understand his positions so you can help come up with an agreement to end the war that is acceptable to both sides. How can you do that if you walk out?”

              Gomez clicked his tongue. “Everyone knows already that Bibi is against a Palestinian state.”

              “You just told me a moment ago you are working to bring about a two-state solution. Why are you doing that if it’s hopeless?”

              Bob Rae, the Ambassador from Canada, had noticed our conversation and stopped by. “Nothing is ever hopeless,” he interjected.

              “We have to bring pressure on the Israeli government,” Gomez began.

              “You do good work,” I told Rae.

              “Thanks,” he said with a smile. Then he turned to Gomez. “I just want to let you know I support you on AI. Now I have to run to a meeting.”

              “And I have to get to my meeting as well,” Gomez said to me as Rae started off.

              “Peace will only come when people talk and begin to understand one another,” I said to Gomez. “What kind of example do you think it set when you walked out of the room? Especially with all the hate that’s accompanied the Gaza war. When people see even diplomats disrespecting one another and refusing to listen to each other’s speeches, why should they make an effort to have honest dialogue and try to understand the other side?”

              Gomez sighed. “Sometimes you have to take a stand,” he replied, turning to walk back to the sidewalk, out of the garden.

              “Fine, but if your stand is against listening how will there ever be progress?”

              “Let’s hope there’s a new peace deal soon,” Gomez called over his shoulder as he walked away.

              “I hope so too,” I said, even though he was probably too far away to hear. I thought about heading over to the United Nations, but for what? After the high level event last week, right now over there it’s mostly down time. But I’d already spent enough time in the Katharine Hepburn Garden- it isn’t much of a sight.

              I figured as long as I was in New York I’d go visit the Earth and Space Center at the American Museum of Natural History. I’m curious about the other planets orbiting Earth’s star, and I can find out a little more about the propulsion technology humans have so far invented. I’m not expecting much, but maybe there’s something I can adapt and do something with. I don’t expect to be able to travel all the way home, but I’d love to get out into nearby space at least a little bit.

Subscribe to Receive Shalzed's adventures in your inbox

Read More of Shalzed's Adventures

Discussion Questions:

  1. Canada’s UN Ambassador, Bob Rae, did not participate in the walkout. He was quoted as explaining:

“My job is to listen to other people. . . In many cases, listen to people I don’t agree with. I’ve listened to, I don’t know, (Russian Foreign Affairs Minister Sergey) Lavrov, I’ve listened to the Russian Ambassador on Ukraine. I don’t agree with a word he says, but I listen to him, and I think that’s part of what diplomacy is all about.”

Do you agree with Rae, or with Gomez who participated in the walkout? Is it ever appropriate for diplomats to walk out on a UN speaker?

 

2. Why did Rae and his 70-odd colleagues target only Israel’s Prime Minister for a walkout? After all, every country commits human rights abuses. What prevents double standards or hypocrisy in these protests?

shalzed small coin

Is a Nickel All The World Can Spare?

by with No Comment question

Is a Nickel All The World Can Spare?

Is $100,000 for Haiti fair or an insult?

shalzed small coin

Let’s say someone has no money for food, clothing, or shelter, and so for lack of other options is forced to turn to friends and family for support. And a cousin living close by, by no means rich but also definitely not poor, decides to help out by giving only one nickel. Should the recipient say thank you, because even though a nickel is hardly anything, the cousin was under no obligation to give at all? Or does the recipient have a right to be angry and indignant that their relative didn’t assist in a more substantial way?

Haiti is one of the gravest, ongoing human rights disasters currently taking place. It is plagued by gang violence and a lack of law and order. According to a UN report released last April, more than 1 million people have been displaced from their homes, often multiple times. Half of the population, approximately 5.5 million people, face acute food insecurity and two million are suffering emergency levels of hunger.

For the last year or so, a multinational security support team, led by Kenya, has deployed to help Haiti’s police. It faces many challenges, high among them a lack of funding. In general, both the United Nations and NGO’s have struggled to raise sufficient funds for both humanitarian and security assistance for Haiti, and there have been numerous pleas for more aid.

This week Mexico announced a donation to help fund the multinational security mission to Haiti. Mexico declined to state the sum, but news reports based on documents available from the United Nations placed the amount at $100,000 U.S. dollars.

It’s of course unfair to single out Mexico, as many other countries have either refused to contribute at all or made very limited contributions. But to put this sum into perspective, note that in 2024 Mexico’s defense spending was $16.7 billion U.S. dollars. The total expenditures of Mexico’s government were just over $200 billion U.S. dollars. This means the Haiti contribution was 0.0006% of Mexico’s defense spending, and 0.00005% of spending overall. In other words, a proverbial nickel. It’s fair to assume that if Mexico had been inclined to do so, it could have come up with a little more.

Of course, Mexico can say that it has its own problems, including the fact that in spite of recent reforms one third of its citizens still live in poverty. Why should any country devote its limited resources to helping solve problems abroad, while it has its own population to care for?

But there are valid reasons why countries should assist. Humanitarian catastrophes have a way of spreading, as desperate citizens attempt to escape and become refugees elsewhere. It may be cheaper, more politically palatable, and also achieve better outcomes for the affected population to invest in resolving a humanitarian crisis abroad rather than having to absorb a tidal wave of refugees later.

Second, there may be a straightforward human rights imperative. When millions of people are hungry and displaced from their homes, with no government to provide them security or any assistance at all, the whole world may be called upon to act. If governments do this, it necessarily means sacrificing spending on some domestic priorities. But is that what a commitment to universal human rights demands?

What do you think? Are countries obligated to help generously when foreign populations suffer a humanitarian crisis? Was Mexico’s small donation insufficient? Or are countries entitled, or perhaps even required, to prioritize their own needs first, and Haiti should consider itself lucky to get any foreign aid at all? I’m curious to hear your thoughts.

Read more of Shalzed's Questions
shalzed watches plane take off

Our Hands are Tied: When Countries Outsource Human Rights Violations To One Another

by with No Comment question

Our Hands Are Tied:

What Can We Do When Countries Outsource Human Rights Violations to One Another?

shalzed watches plane take off

Last week the United States government deported five citizens of Nigeria and the Gambia to Ghana. While at first glance this might not seem remarkable, it endangered their lives while at the same time triggering a frustrating court case that highlights the limits of both domestic and international law. (Here are links to news coverage from Politico, and the actual decision.)

Unlike other illegal immigrants, the U.S. could not legally deport the five men at the center of this case to their home countries. This is because they had won in U.S. courts what is called ‘fear-based relief.’ This means that a judge decided that ‘more likely than not’ they will face persecution, torture, or death should they be sent back home.

This does not grant them the right to stay in the U.S. indefinitely or mean that the U.S. cannot remove them, only that if the U.S. wants to remove them it has to be to a third country where they don’t face these fears. And usually that is very difficult to arrange, since countries are not keen to accept deportees who are not citizens.

But the Trump administration got Ghana to take them, and the U.S. also got Ghana to write what’s called a ‘diplomatic note’ stating that Ghana would not torture these individuals or send them to a place where they would be tortured. This made removal of these five men to Ghana, even though they have no connection to Ghana whatsoever, no friends or family there, and no access there to help, legally okay.

Then it turns out the conditions of this diplomatic note were not followed, or perhaps that Ghana’s supposed commitment not to send these people to a place they face torture was even a sham from the start. The five individuals allege that already while they were on the plane to Ghana, ICE officers told them they were going to be taken from there to their home countries. One of the five was in fact returned to his home country the day after his arrival in Ghana, and Ghana authorities have stated that the same will shortly be done to the remaining four as well.

These five men sued for relief in a U.S. District Court, claiming the U.S. government was violating the protection they had been granted by U.S. courts against being returned to their home country. The judge wrote she was ‘alarmed and dismayed’ by the government’s actions, but reluctantly denied their request. She said the reason is that judges cannot evaluate or second guess diplomatic agreements such as the one between the U.S. and Ghana, as that would be an intrusion into foreign policy. And now that the men are in Ghana, she has no jurisdiction to tell the government of Ghana what to do. In other words, she wrote in conclusion, her hands are tied.

The question therefore becomes, what is the solution? In a world divided into nearly 200 independent, sovereign countries, what can stop a government from using another country to easily get around whatever domestic legal restrictions it wants to evade? Since every country’s judicial system only has jurisdiction over its own territory, it seems quite simple for governments to get around their judiciaries by outsourcing whatever dirty deeds they want to commit to each other. This is particularly true for powerful countries such as the United States, which can offer money or other incentives for smaller countries to do its bidding.

The obvious answer would be to dream of some world body in charge of enforcing the law, but there does not seem to be any scenario by which that could be created. There is also plenty of reason to worry that some powerful new organization with jurisdiction over the whole world would end up being biased and corrupt, no matter how good the intentions behind it.

So is the only answer to hope that citizens don’t like their government circumventing the courts to violate human rights and vote out governments that do this? It may turn out that these sorts of things are a low priority for voters, and even at best that’s a long term process which offers no help to the five people whose rights are being violated now. Is there any other answer? I’m anxious to hear your thoughts.

Read more of Shalzed's Questions
robege by tourny fountain smaller

Punished for Prayer?

by with No Comment shalzedstory

Punished for Prayer?

Shalzed speaks with Quebec minister Jean-Francois Roberge about new law to forbid praying in public

Quebec recently proposed a law forbidding prayer in public places. Shalzed catches up with that province’s Minister of Secularism Jean-François Roberge to find out how he doesn’t see this as a violation of religious rights.

I waited outside the Hôtel du Parlement du Québec, watching water flow through the Tourny Fountain. I have no idea why the fountain has so many elaborate carvings of fish. On my planet there are very small oceans, so everything to do with marine life is foreign to me.

An English speaking family rode by on the kind of bicycles you rent from automatic docks by the minute. I assumed they were from South of the border. In Montreal it’s common to hear English, but not all the way up here in Quebec.

“Bonjour,” I called as Jean-Francois Roberge approached, striding quickly on his way towards parliament.

He nodded and waved at me without slowing down. Roberge has only been in politics for about ten years, when he gave up life as a teacher to serve the proud people of Chambly in Parliament. But evidently that’s been plenty of time for him to get good at brushing people off and to learn to make himself look busy. “Oh father in heaven, may you appear before us and spread your blessings far and wide like insecticide from a crop duster,” I began.

Now he slowed down. “Shalzed?” he exclaimed.

“Sorry, I’m in the middle of a prayer,” I said. A young Muslim couple, just finished taking a selfie in front of the fountain, gave me a funny look.

Roberge rolled his eyes. “I’m sure you’re not praying. There must be no religion where you come from.”

That was true. On my planet we have nothing comparable to what humans call religion, and we have long since disproved the existence of any sort of supernatural power. “Okay, you’re right. But I was exercising my right to pray. Before you pass a law telling all citizens of Quebec what they must and must not believe in.”

Roberge gave me what I’d best describe as a snort, probably how he used to react when a middle school student got sassy. “No one is going to tell Québécois what to believe. And people can still pray, just not in public. I think that’s very fair.”

The Muslim couple took a few steps, but lingered by the fountain. I had the feeling they were listening. Fine with me. “And here I thought freedom of religion was a fundamental right,” I said to Roberge. “Isn’t it even in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or am I mistaken?”

“Absolutely,” Roberge agreed.

Smart, because I knew I was not mistaken. “So I’d say prayer is pretty fundamental to freedom of religion. And your new law tramples that right.”

“Not in the slightest,” Roberge said. “Here’s an example. People have the right to have children. But you don’t do it in a public park, you do it in your bedroom.”

The Muslim woman who was listening smiled, while the man she was with started laughing. “That’s ridiculous,” I said.

“The point is that people praying is not the sort of thing we want to see in Quebec,” Roberge said. “Whoever wants to pray is welcome, but do it in your church.” He noticed the Muslim couple and added, “Or mosque, synagogue, or whatever you call it. But prayer is not what public places should be used for.”

“And what’s so bad about prayer? Does it hurt someone?” I asked, genuinely clueless as to why he was so adamantly opposed to displays of religion in public.

A man wearing a dirty T-shirt advertising the dates and cities of some long ago concert tour and sneakers held together with masking tape walked straight up to Roberge with his palm extended. Roberge glanced at me and also the Muslim couple, then took out his wallet and handed the man a loonie. I thought the man would come to me next, but instead he walked right past me and went to the Muslim couple.

“Are you going to make a law against asking for money? I assume the site of needy people begging is not something you want in Quebec either,” I asked Roberge.

“Those are completely different things,” Roberge said as he put away his wallet.

“Really?” I asked.

“Absolutely,” Roberge said as he folded his arms across his chest. “There are facilities specially designed for prayer. Churches and the like. So there is absolutely no reason why people should be allowed to take over public places being used by others in order to do it. For beggars, there is nowhere else they can go.”

The Muslim woman gave the man a coin from her purse. Then he headed away, in the opposite direction of Parliament, towards the Plains of Abraham park.

“I’m curious,” I asked Roberge. “Let’s say there is yoga in the park, and it begins with meditation. Will that be forbidden as public prayer? What if there’s a picnic, and someone says grace or a blessing over the food?”

Roberge swallowed. “The law will be enforced sensibly,” he said. “The police will only issue tickets where the prayer is a major or prominent part of a gathering’s purpose.”

“Sounds pretty subjective to me,” I said.

The Muslim woman walked closer, pulling her partner along. Roberge seemed to resign himself to the fact that there was no tactful way he could avoid her. “How do we know you won’t enforce the prayer law only against Muslims?” she asked.

Roberge waved his hand. “The government of Quebec would never do such a thing,” he said. “This law will apply equally to everyone.”

The woman laughed. “That’s very hard to believe, since the fact that you don’t like the prayers at the rallies for Palestine is what got this all started,” she said.

Roberge cleared his throat. “I need to be going,” he said. He pulled out his phone like he was checking a message.

“So you think it’s alright to take away people’s freedoms in public, as long as they can still exercise those same rights at home?” I asked him.

Roberge shook his head. “People absolutely have the right to pray, but only in their home or in their house of worship. Anything beyond that is an attempt to impose religion on others,” he said. “Now I have to head straight to the Salon Rouge.” He put his phone back in his pocket and started to walk away.

“À la prochaine,” I said, feeling certain that with Roberge’s aggressive secularism I’d be back to see him soon.

He waved a hand at me. “Good luck finding a way back home,” he said. “So then you’ll leave us alone.”

I caught the eye of the Muslim woman and we exchanged a smile as Roberge walked away. “Why is your skin blue?” the man she was with asked me.

I shrugged. “I’m just a little different. You see, we’re both minorities.” I don’t like giving humans too many details about my planet so I started towards the park. The couple did not follow.

I wanted to tour Quebec’s old city, so I decided to rent one of those pay per minute bikes to get around and I spotted a kiosk nearby. As I approached, two women wearing long dresses and carrying signs saying that two questions could determine if I was going to heaven or hell asked me whether I owned a copy of the Bible. I told them no, and so they shook their heads and offered me a pamphlet summarizing the teachings of Jesus. I decided to walk to another kiosk rather than be stuck with them watching me while I tried to figure out how to rent a bike.

I wondered if Roberge’s next law would forbid people like this from passing out religious literature in public. That might remove a minor inconvenience, but I hope he doesn’t do it. There’s an awful lot it’s worth putting up with in order to preserve freedom and rights.

Subscribe to Receive Shalzed's adventures in your inbox

Read More of Shalzed's Adventures

Discussion Questions:

  1. Is a prohibition on public prayer a violation of citizens’ religious rights, even if prayer is still allowed at home and in houses of worship?
  2. If public prayer is forbidden, what stops a government from defining prayer or enforcing the law selectively in a way that discriminates against disfavored religious groups?
shalzed watching ship fire gun

Low Standards on the High Seas

by with No Comment question

Low Standards on the High Seas

Was blowing up a boat of drug smugglers alright?

shalzed watching ship fire gun

Wednesday, Sept. 2nd, the U.S. military attacked a boat in international waters in the Caribbean. The U.S. claims the boat was smuggling drugs into the country, and as a result of the attack all eleven people on board were killed.

How does this U.S. attack fits into human rights and humanitarian law. Was this legal on the part of the U.S.? Was it wrong for the U.S. to do? Or does it show flaws in the international legal system? Explore below.

Image of the boat moments before the attack released by Donald Trump on Truth Social. Trump claims 'bags of drugs were all over the boat' but that does not seem to be clear from any of the photos.

Image of the boat moments before the attack released by Donald Trump on Truth Social. Trump claims ‘bags of drugs were all over the boat’ but that does not seem to be clear from any of the photos.

Criminal Law

The U.S. government certainly can make it a crime to import drugs and to punish anyone who tries to do so. However, Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights begins:

Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

 

In other words, if this was a boatload of criminals they would have to be arrested and put on trial. A trial is particularly important because the government has not offered any evidence that these were drug smugglers, and the fact that 11 people were on a boat that could easily be crewed by just 2 or 3 points to this being some sort of human trafficking ring and not drug smugglers at all. So before punishing the people on the boat, a judge or jury would have to be convinced that they really were smuggling drugs.

If U.S. authorities had attempted to stop the boat and it had responded by trying to flee, or by firing on the U.S. ships, that would have been a legal rationale for use of force. But in this case it does not seem the U.S. even made an attempt to apprehend the boat. Instead, U.S. forces just destroyed it with no warning.

Any scenario in which a U.S. President unilaterally declares a group of people to be drug smugglers and orders them killed with no judicial oversight is a violation of human rights. The good news is that at least as of now I don’t believe that even the Trump administration is claiming the right to do this.

Self-Defense

The U.S. claims the boat did not contain just random individuals smuggling drugs for their own personal financial gain, who would have to be treated as criminals, but rather it was operated by the Tren de Agua gang. The administration has labelled Tren de Agua ‘narcoterrorists’ and claim the gang is a threat to the United States.

This leads a claim of self-defense. For example, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio was quoted as saying, “These are organized, corporate, structured organizations who specialize in the trafficking of deadly drugs into the United States of America. They pose an immediate threat to the United States. Period.”

However, this assertion may not survive legal scrutiny. The internationally recognized right to self defense is codified in Article 51 of the UN Charter, which reads:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations. . .

Is drug smuggling an armed attack? It’s hard to see how. In fact, it would seem like the phrase ‘armed attack’ was carefully selected to exclude criminal activity and make clear that states can invoke a right of self-defense only against military attacks, not criminals.

Of course illegal drug use causes tremendous suffering, economic loss, and deaths. But so do many other societal ills. The fact that something is harmful (or even criminal) doesn’t mean the government has a right to resort to extrajudicial killing to defend us from it.

Armed Conflict

The U.S. government, with its rhetoric about the ‘war on drugs’ and labelling Tren de Agua as terrorists, makes it seem as though it is engaged in what would be called a ‘non-international armed conflict’ with the gang. In armed conflict it is permitted to attack enemy combatants without warning and without judicial process, as happened here.

However, there are some major issues. First, it’s not clear that Tren de Agua is really a ‘non-state armed group’, or even if it is that the U.S. is currently at war with it. That would hinge on a lot of factual questions about Tren de Agua’s size, level of organization, armaments, and activities which are hard to answer.

But even so, it’s not clear that even in the context of an armed conflict it would be legal to blow up the boat. In armed conflict it is only permitted to target enemy combatants. Even if the boat was smuggling drugs, and the drug money was used to fund the war, drug smugglers would likely still be viewed as civilians. They would seem to be just like enemy citizens who even though they may play a role in enabling the military effort are still not part of the military themselves. The U.S. might allege that in this war, drugs are a weapon, but that’s very hard to justify. By similar logic countries could say that information is a weapon so journalists or bloggers are targets, or the like.

Questions

So I end with two questions. First, was the sinking of this ship somehow justified under international law, or was it an illegal act of violence?

Second, how important is it that military actions such as this comply with international law? Even if this sinking was illegal, there wouldn’t seem to be any consequences, and for many years the U.S. has struggled mightily to stop the flow of drugs. If sinking a few boats will help keep large quantities of deadly drugs off U.S. streets, is it worth it? If international law doesn’t provide an affective path to stop drug smugglers is the U.S. entitled to just do what it seems necessary? While perhaps in we all benefit from living in a world based on law and rules, since these international laws are seldom followed, never enforced, and exploited by criminals is it okay for countries to sometimes just not follow them?

Notes

  1. For more discussion of these issues in the media, see this analysis on ABC News and this article on the BBC. For a more scholarly treatment, see this piece on Just Security.
  2. A separate legal question was whether Trump was within his authority to carry out this attack without authorization from Congress. Since that is solely a U.S. domestic matter it is not addressed here.
Read more of Shalzed's Questions
shalzed watching ambulance

Would Restricting a Right Save a Life?

by with No Comment question

Would Restricting a Right Save a Life?

Rethinking freedom of information in an era of copycat shootings

The public naturally wants to know more about the shooter who killed 2 and wounded 17 others Aug. 27th at a Minneapolis Church. And according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the freedom to seek and receive that information is their right. However, media coverage of the shooter’s life, beliefs, manifesto, and guns may have the perverse effect of encouraging copycat shooters. This week Shalzed asks, as mass shootings continue does Earth need to restrict freedom of expression some more?

shalzed watching ambulance

On Wednesday, Aug. 27th a gunman killed 2 and wounded 17 others at a school church in Minneapolis. As with previous mass shootings, an outraged public immediately wanted to know who would do something like that and how someone with a mind to commit such a crime had access to the necessary guns.

The shooter was quickly identified as Robin Westman, a former student at the school. It turns out Westman had left behind what the media quickly labelled a manifesto. It contained numerous grievances and racist slogans (a video is here, a written description here .) The manifesto also revealed a dark obsession with previous school shooters, in particular Adam Lanza, the perpetrator of the Sandy Hook Massacre.

This raises a chilling reality: The widespread publicity surrounding a school shooter may help encourage the next one. When an individual such as Westman or Lanza, who was otherwise unknown, is instantly transformed into a focus of public attention, such that their motivations and personal struggles are broadcast to the world, along with the methods they use to carry out their crime, it creates a perverse incentive for other similarly positioned individuals to do the same.

For many years there has in fact already been a movement asking the media to voluntarily refrain from giving undue attention to shooters and to focus on their victims instead (see here and here for coverage.) But based on a simple Google search yesterday for ‘Robin Westman’, it seems this has not achieved much success. Also, the rise of blogs and online news sites means that setting consistent media standards is becoming impossible. Some government imposed censorship would seem to be the only way to bring this about.

However, any legal attempt to limit information about the shooter runs into an immediate problem. Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states:

Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

This means that if the public wants to know the name, appearance, mindset, upbringing, political, and racial views of the shooter, access to this information is their right. In the U.S., this is protected as a constitutional right as well.

And of course there are valid reasons why the public might want this. To evaluate police performance, push for changes to legislation, or to be better on guard in the future all come to mind.

But shouldn’t there at least be a discussion about whether the danger of encouraging copycat shooters outweighs the benefits of making details about the shooter public? Would a restriction on publishing flattering, happy, or childhood photos of the shooter really be too much of a violation of the public’s right to information if it could help stop mass shootings? Would a ban on long profiles of a shooter’s mental health struggles and political grievances be too much to ask, if this can help increase safety for the future?

It should be noted that while there are already several exceptions to the right of freedom of information, none of them seem to be at all relevant here. But is that a mistake? Do further limits on the right to freedom of information need to be considered? I’m anxious to hear your thoughts.

Read more of Shalzed's Questions
shalzed home demonstration

The Right to Be Heard — Even From Outside the Kitchen Window?

by with No Comment shalzedstory

The Right to Be Heard — Even From Outside the Kitchen Window?

Shalzed investigates a new law criminalizing protest outside homes

shalzed home demonstration

On Aug. 15th New Zealand’s Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith introduced a law making it a crime to protest outside a home. Shalzed visits Auckland to find out whether this is respect for people’s right to privacy, or a step towards taking away the freedom to demonstrate and express political opinions.

I felt a little out of place hanging around in front of Paul Goldsmith’s house. A few cars slowed  as they drove by, trying to figure out whether I belonged in their neighborhood or maybe just curious about my pale blue skin. And I have to admit, here on Earth I do stand out. I wondered if any of them might call the police.

I thought of taking a seat in the rocking chair on the porch. It would be more comfortable, and I’d also be less visible from the street. But that would be trespassing- not a good idea for a law-abiding, rights-respecting citizen like me.

A black sedan with tinted windows finally pulled into the driveway. Goldsmith lived in an older house with a detached garage, meaning that after parking his car he would have to come back out. He noticed me as he pushed the garage door button. “Shalzed?” he called. “What are you doing in New Zealand?”

“Since I’m from the other side of the galaxy, a little more travel isn’t a problem,” I told him. Of course I came to Earth in a wormhole, which takes absolutely no time to cross. Primitive airplanes are nowhere near as convenient.

“So what do you want?” Goldsmith slung his briefcase on top of a green plastic recycling bin and put his hands on his hips.

“To protest,” I told him.

He gave me a funny look. “For what, the farmers?”

“No, I just want to be able to protest,” I told him. “Before your new law takes effect.”

Goldsmith waved his hand. “Give me a break. It only forbids protests outside of people’s homes. If people want to make a public statement they can go to the park. They can march down the street. What’s the problem?”

I didn’t come all the way to Auckland just to listen to that sort of B.S.. “Really? And how long will it be now until you make a law against protests in the parks also? Don’t joggers deserve not to be disturbed too?”

“That’s absurd. The only point is that people have a right to privacy in their own homes. How would you like to have dozens of people right outside your door waving signs and chanting slogans each evening?”

“Well the whole point of a protest is to draw attention,” I told him. “Protesting is worthless if you can only do it at a faraway place no one sees.”

A woman wearing a red apron with a picture of a kiwiburger stepped out of the house. Probably Melissa, Paul Goldsmith’s wife. “If you want to talk to my husband you need to make an appointment to see him at his office. Now it’s dinner time,” she scolded me.

“Actually, I’m starting a protest,” I replied.

She groaned. “It’ll just be a minute, sweetheart,” Goldsmith told her. Then he turned back to me. “Protests outside of politicians’ homes aren’t fair to the neighbors. What did they do to deserve it? And what about the family? Why should kids have to see people calling calling their mom or dad names every time they leave for school in the morning? It’s not right, that’s all.”

“Sure, sure,” I told him. “And also Premier House. Probably no protests there either because the Prime Minister might have innocent little children.”

Goldsmith looked unsure. “Doesn’t the law apply there also?” I asked him. “After all, the Prime Minister’s official residence is a house.”

“There’s nothing unusual about this new law,” Melissa chimed in from the doorway. “In the United States they don’t allow protests outside of people’s homes either.”

That wasn’t really true- it depends which state or even which city. But she was right that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that restrictions on protests outside of private homes are legal as long as protestors can still march through residential areas and spread material door to door.

“You know that this is only going to be enforced selectively,” I told Goldsmith. “Protest at the home of a government minister, the police will come right away. But if it’s a member of the opposition, or someone the government doesn’t like? Then what?” I asked.

“Speaking of the police,” Melissa said.

I turned and saw a squad car pulling into the driveway. “We got a call about a suspicious individual standing in front of your house,” an officer said to Goldsmith as he got out. He started looking me over.

“Just here to protest the law against protests,” I said, hoping a little silliness would set them at ease.

“He’s harmless,” Goldsmith told them.

Harmless? Hardly the way to talk to about someone who designed a system of super reflective mirrors that focus a full 50% of a star’s energy output onto a single point, causing it to reach 15,000 degrees. It provides enough energy to hold open a wormhole. But why argue?

“We’ll escort him away,” the officer said. Some neighbors, attracted by the police car, came out on their lawns to see what was going on.

“You see how much of a disturbance just you are causing right now on your own?” Goldsmith said to me. “Imagine if there were protests here each evening. Noise, traffic, it’s not fair to everyone who lives in the neighborhood.”

The policeman started stepping towards me, giving me his menacing look. “Hey, I’m a tourist,” I said to him. “I’m just on my way to Sky Tower. Buddy, relax.”

“Well Sky Tower closes at eight, so you’d better get going,” he said, snapping the back of his right hand against his other palm.

I turned to Goldsmith. “You know noise and street blockages aren’t valid reasons to ban protests,” I told him. “There are already separate rules for that. You’re just trying to sweep protestors away where you don’t have to see them.”

“I made roasted lamb for dinner and it’s getting cold,” Mellissa said, pointing her husband towards the door. “You have to come now.”

Goldsmith took his briefcase and went inside without giving me another look. The officer remained facing me with his arms crossed.

“I’ll be on my way,” I told the policeman.

“I don’t see any reason to take you in,” he said. “But give me one, and it’ll be my pleasure to do it.”

“Have a good evening,” I told him, then I started walking towards the main road. A few minutes later the squad car drove by, and the officer gave me a long glance. If he followed me he would find out I had been lying. I wasn’t going to Sky Tower- a chance to look around from atop a pile of concrete a few hundred meters high didn’t exactly excite me. But I did want to check out Auckland’s aquarium- on my planet we have very small oceans, so I find the variety of sea life on Earth fascinating. I’ve never seen anything like an anemone or clown fish before.

I imagine Goldsmith means well with his law against protests. But there’s a saying Earthlings attribute to John F. Kennedy that comes to my mind: Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. As long as protestors are peaceful and follow rules about not impeding access to private property or causing other undue disturbance, trying to shoo them away seems like a bad move.

 

 

Questions:

  1. Does a prohibition on protests outside homes, while still allowing protestors to march through residential areas or distribute literature door to door, properly balance residents’ right to privacy against the public’s right to protest?
  2. Does a prohibition on protests outside of homes represent the start of a slippery slope towards eroding the public’s right to protest? For example, could this law also be used to forbid protests outside of a governor’s mansion or other official residence? Will it begin a movement towards future laws that prohibit protest in other sorts of places?

 

Read more of Shalzed's Stories
shalzed reading human rights report

Who Should Keep the World’s Human Rights Scorecard?

by with No Comment question

Who Should Keep the World’s Human Rights Scorecard?

Trump Stops the U.S. from Doing It- But Now Who Will?

shalzed reading human rights report

U.S. Human Rights Reports

Every year since 1977, the U.S. State department has compiled an enormous report tracking the human rights record of nearly every country in the world. These human rights reports have traditionally covered the entire gamut of internationally recognized human rights, along with workers’ rights such as collective bargaining, the prohibition of forced and child labor, and much more.

These reports are a massive undertaking, compiling information from governments, victims of alleged human rights abuses, media reports, academic studies, and non-governmental organizations. While their official purpose is to help Congress make decisions about foreign aid and security assistance, they are also relied upon for many other things. For example, information in the reports helps determine whether illegal immigrants face a credible fear of persecution if returned to their home country, and international advocacy organizations and human rights lawyers use the reports for their work as well.

Trump Scales Down

Now the Trump administration has decided to vastly scale this down. Last week the State Department released the reports for 2024, and entire sections were removed. The parts about LGBTQ rights, indigenous rights, and government corruption were eliminated. It no longer condemns governments for retaining political prisoners without due process or restrictions on free and fair elections. It also no longer highlights forcibly returning a refugee to a place where they may face torture or persecution, or governments denying freedom of movement or peaceful assembly. Even more important, the 2024 reports are much slimmer. They speak only in broad generalities, mostly giving just basic information that is already widely known.

Many human rights groups are up in arms about the change. They say it means the United States is abandoning its traditional role as human rights defender and advocate. They also fear that not only has much of the content they’re used to from the old reports been lost, but also what remains is now politicized and unreliable.

Two Reasons

While the administration has not provided a formal justification for the changes, two simple and straightforward ones come to mind. First, the U.S. government itself routinely violates many of the rights in the reports. It seems especially hypocritical, for example, for the U.S. government to criticize other countries for inhumane prison conditions while it is building ‘Allegator Alcatraz’ in Florida and subcontracting with El Salvador to house prisoners in its notorious 40,000 mega prison which has been widely accused of violating prisoners’ rights. So what entitles the U.S. to judge the rest of the world?

Second, the reports require immense time and resources to compile. Why should the United States be expected to investigate human rights abuses in all corners of the world at its own taxpayers’ expense? This slimming down is a version of Trump putting America first and letting foreigners deal with their own problems by themselves.

Who Can Take the U.S. Place?

But these reports are vital for human rights advocacy, and if the U.S. doesn’t compile them, who will? Non-governmental organizations such as Amnesty International, Freedom House, and Human Rights Watch play a role. But they lack the resources to do as thorough and comprehensive a job as the State Department, particularly in less prominent places and regarding issues that are less in the news. Also, these groups are funded via private donations and so are not accountable to the public. Their priorities and methodology may be skewed or unknown.

Intergovernmental organizations such as the United Nations might seem right for this role. The United Nations, and particularly its Human Rights Council, ought to have the resources to objectively examine human rights around the globe. But sadly, we see how biased and prone to political manipulation the U.N. can be. Do we really want a body with many countries that are among the worst human rights offenders as members to do this investigating? With the UN Human Rights Council in charge, the reports would certainly be subject to extreme political meddling and bias.

So if NGO’s don’t have the transparency or resources, the U.N. is too politicized, and it’s both hypocritical and too much of a burden to ask of the United States, where should authoritative, comprehensive human rights reporting come from? Or is the incomplete patchwork of reports non-governmental organizations decide to compile the best we can do? I’m curious to hear your thoughts.

Read more of Shalzed's Questions
shalzed recognize state

What Does It Mean To be a Country?

by with No Comment question

What Does it Take to Become a Country?

How Do We Decide Whether To Recognize a Palestinian State?

shalzed recognize state

Shalzed’s home planet is united (click here to learn more about Shalzed. . .) On his planet there are committees to deal with local and regional issues, but nothing like our patchwork of nearly 200 constantly bickering states, each different in size and resources, often with different culture, language, and religion as well.

Dividing Earth into countries may seem normal to us, but how do we decide what’s a country? Is it simply a matter of facts? Does it depend on politics? Or should there be other criteria? This is especially pressing in light of the current move to recognize a state of Palestine. This week Shalzed asks a question to help us discuss what it means to recognize a new country.

Recently Britain, France, and Canada announced their intention to recognize Palestine as a State. A group of prominent British lawyers argue not only that this shouldn’t be done, but that recognition of Palestine would even violate international law.

The exact definition of a state is the subject of tremendous scholarly debate. The fundamentals come from the 1933 Montevideo Convention, which sets out four criteria. A state must have:

  1. A permanent population
  2. Defined territory
  3. A government
  4. Capacity to conduct international relations

Those objecting to recognition of Palestine claim that it currently does not have defined borders.  They also say that since Fatah (in the West Bank) and Hamas (in Gaza) are enemies, it does not have a functioning government. These matters are the subject of much debate- for example, see these links to The Guardian  and EJL Talk.

But most striking from the Montevideo criteria is that statehood is simply a matter of fact. A fanatic band of extremists could capture a capital in a bloody, illegal siege, hang the democratically elected leaders, install themselves as a military dictatorship and meet the criteria just fine. Recognition of statehood does not depend on the prospective government’s democratic legitimacy, human rights record, or policies it plans to implement. Montevideo does not ask about good or bad, right or wrong- only these four facts.

Is whether a prospective state fulfills the four Montevideo criteria the question we need to ask?

When considering recognition of a new state, and in this case a Palestinian state in particular, should the question be whether Palestine currently has a government and recognized borders, the way the debate over British recognition is being framed? Or should it be about whether a Palestinian state would be the best way to safeguard the human rights of Palestinians (and Israelis) going forward, as opposed to some other political arrangement that might be easier to implement or be more likely to lead to peace?

In general, should recognition of statehood depend on whether the prospective state’s government has been democratically elected and whether it is committed to peace and human rights? Or is that naïve and unrealistic, injecting a level of subjectivity and discretion that is prone to prejudice and abuse? Does realpolitik mean that like it or not any group meeting the Montevideo criteria has to be dealt with as a state, whereas otherwise they don’t.

I’m anxious to hear your thoughts.

Read more of Shalzed's Stories
Read more of Shalzed's Questions
Shalzed outside St. James Cathedral in Seattle

Children’s Safety vs. A Priest’s Right to Silence

by with No Comment shalzedstory

Children's Safety vs A priest's Right to Silence

Does freedom of religion include a priest’s right not to report information about child abuse he may learn while hearing a confession?

Shalzed Outside St. James Cathedral in Seattle
Shalzed outside St. James Cathedral in Seattle

Washington State recently passed a law requiring priests to report child abuse—including information given during confession—to the authorities. The Church responded by suing, arguing that the seal of the confessional is absolute and that the law unconstitutionally burdens their religious freedom. On July 18, a U.S. federal judge agreed and blocked the state from punishing priests who refuse to comply with the new law. Today, Shalzed speaks with Seattle Archbishop Paul Etienne to find out why he believes that even in order to protect children, priests should not be forced to violate this sacrament.

I arrived at St James Cathedral in downtown Seattle a little early, so I went inside. The giant marble altar in the center got my attention- a sign says they call the window in the roof that bathes it in sunlight ‘the eye of God.’ I saw someone exiting a confessional and thought of going over, but I decided that would be in good taste. Instead, I went back out to wait on the stairs until the confessions would finally be over.

“Good morning, Archbishop, I’m curious what sins were confessed to you this morning,” I said when Paul Etienne finally came out.

At first he seemed taken aback, then he frowned. “Shalzed?” he asked. “Why are you here?”

“Because I care about children,” I told him. “If someone confesses to you about child abuse, I understand you refuse to notify authorities. So I thought I’d ask you and then do it myself.”

He waved his hand. “You know it’s wrong to say the church doesn’t care about children.”

“Sure you care. Just not enough to put aside your religious rules and do anything about it.”

A sudden wind blew his violet skullcap off his head and it fell at his feet. He bent down to pick it up, being careful no to get his white robe dirty. I stepped a bit closer so it wouldn’t be so easy for him to walk away. “Any Priest who hears about child abuse is obligated to report it,” he said as he stood up. “It’s only for what’s shared during confession that we need an exemption. Because of the sacred seal.”

“Because if you tell anyone what you found out during confession, even to help prevent child abuse, you’re liable excommunication and eternal damnation (p. 15).”

“That’s right.” He nodded, without a trace of irony.

“And you don’t think preventing child abuse is a good enough reason for the state to require you to violate your religion?”

He gave me that sympathetic look clergy use when a congregant keeps asking pesky questions about faith and refuse to just shup up and accept a tried and true millennia-old answer. “What about the soul of the abuser?” he asked. “The solution is for the priest to encourage the penitent to inform the authorities on his own, or to arrange to receive the information again in a different setting (p. 21). That way the sacred seal of confession will remain unharmed.”

I put my hands on my hips. Two Japanese-looking young women, both wearing shirts from the Seattle Art Museum and holding the city guides distributed for free at the airport, passed by walking up the stairs towards the church. They slowed to glance at us. I couldn’t tell if they were looking at me, or maybe wondering if the Archbishop was someone famous and trying to decide whether to ask him to be in a selfie. I frowned, and they continued inside.

“And what if that doesn’t work?” I asked Etienne. “You really think you’re going to burn in hell for helping to save a child?”

“This whole controversy is really about nothing,” the Archbishop said. “Did you realize that the state government also just passed a law that specifically exempts lawyers from reporting information about child abuse they get from clients (p. 16)? No one thinks that’s such a big problem.”

“So maybe they shouldn’t have passed that law either,” I said.

“Remember, parents, neighbors, and other caregivers are not mandatory reporters (p. 16). Everyone is comfortable with that. The likelihood that someone is going to give a priest actionable information that could be used to prevent child abuse, but not reveal that information to anyone else in any other setting, is absurdly small.”

A woman came out of the Church, looking lost and sad, with her eyes red like she had been crying. She seemed shocked to see the Archbishop. After a moment of hesitation, she stepped over. “Your excellency, may I ask you a question. It’s very, very important,” she said so softly her voice was nearly a whisper.

The Archbishop turned to her with a warm smile. “Of course,” he said.

“It’s about my oldest daughter, Elizabeth. She needs to hear the Lord’s voice. Would you pray that she agrees to go on the upcoming high school retreat?”

“Absolutely. And I’d be happy to call her about it myself if you give me the number.”

The woman brightened. I waited while Etienne typed the number into his phone. “There are some things I need to tell you,” the woman said to Etienne, then glanced at me.

“Is this confidential?” I asked. The woman nodded. “Then you shouldn’t worry. The Archbishop is extremely, extremely serious about confidentiality,” I told her.

She gave me a funny look, and Etienne cleared his throat. “Confidentiality is an important part of being a member of the clergy,” he said. “But when hearing confession, it becomes a sacred religious duty as well.”

“That you must defend even if it requires the shedding of blood (p. 5),” I added.

“That’s only a metaphor,” he snapped.

“Okay, but you must agree the government has the right to put limits on religious beliefs at least sometimes. I mean, what if someone decided actually shedding blood or putting children in danger was a necessary part of their religion?”

“I’m sure you’re right. But the Catholic Church would never condone doing anything that is harmful to society. Also by the way, this Archdiocese has taken tremendous steps to protect children (p. 21).”

I shrugged. The woman stepped closer, so her shoulder was between me and Etienne, nudging me aside. “Six months ago my husband and I decided to separate. Just as sort of a trial,” she began.

“If you’d excuse us,” Etienne said to me. “Perhaps there is some research related to space travel that you need to attend to?”

If only. Earth has none of the materials needed to build a wormhole gate. “I really think you should consider how you’re conscience will feel if you hear something in a confession and don’t take action,” I told him.

“And maybe you should recognize that confession lightens the conscience of the penitent by providing atonement and forgiveness. But that requires confidentiality. Or maybe on your planet there is no such thing as forgiveness?”

The woman began describing how her daughter had always been a good child, but recently began skipping school and hanging around with kids from what she called ‘bad families.’ I decided to go. I thought of heading to the Space Needle, but instead decided to go to the Chihuly glass garden. The shapes of those sculptures remind me of home.

On my planet of course we have forgiveness, but nothing like what Earthlings refer to as religion. Maybe that’s why I’m struck by how easy it is for humans to invoke religion as a justification for violating one another’s rights. But I suppose the Archbishop has a point- religion can do good, too.

Questions:

  1. What do we do when a religious group claims that a law forces adherents to violate their faith? . How much respect do we give religious beliefs, and at what point do we say that religion can’t be an excuse for not following the law?
  2. A key reason the judge concludes this law is unconstitutional is that while the State of Washington wants to require priests to report what they hear in confessions, it also exempts other professionals, such as lawyers, from reporting confidential information they may receive from clients (p. 21). Does religion deserve this high level of deference, such that if an exemption is created for anyone else then there must be an exemption for religion too?
Read more of Shalzed's Stories