North America & Oceania

Washington Post Considers The Word ‘Redskins’ A Slur And Refuses to Use the Word In It’s Opinion Columns

By Lyndsey Kelly
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

WASHINGTON, D.C., United States of America – The editorial board of the Washington Post has decided to no longer use the word “Redskins” when referring to Washington’s professional football team in opinion articles. The board stated that the term degrades Native Americans and was the reasoning behind their decision.

The Washington Post editorial board says that the word ‘Redskins’ is a slur and it’s opinion columns will no longer use such word (Photo Courtesy of The Washington Post).

Washington Post’s editorial board operates separately from the news staff and controls only the paper’s opinion pages. The Post’s newsgathering side will continue to use the Redskins name.

The Post’s editorial board stated, “We have decided that, except when it is essential for clarity or effect, we will no longer use the slur ourselves,” and continued to state, “that’s the standard we apply to all offensive vocabulary, and the team name unquestionably offends not only many Native Americans but many other Americans, too.” The board also made it a point to state that it did not think that fans who supported the team’s name had racist feelings towards Native Americans.

Opposition to the name has been extant since the 1960’s. However, the campaign has recently taken off as a result of efforts made by the Oneida Indian Nation. Ray Halbritter, the representative of the New York State tribe, and Jacqueline Pata, the executive director of the National Congress of American Indians calls the Post’s decision, “appropriate and honorable.”

The owner of the Washington Redskins, Daniel Snyder, who bought the team in 1999, has refused to change the name, and says that he honors Native Americans. Roger Goodell, the NFL Commissioner and a group of Redskins players have voiced their support for Snyder’s opposition to change the team’s name. Snyder has come under pressure from U.S. Senators, journalists, newspapers, and the President to change the team’s name.

In June, the U.S. patent office cancelled six of the trademarks belonging to the Redskins, due to their finding that the team name is a slur against Native Americans, thus making it ineligible for trademark protection. The team has decided to appeal the patent office’s decision, which would ultimately force the franchise to drop the team’s name.

 

For information, please see the following:

BBC – Washington Post Editorial Board abandons ‘Redskins’ – 22 August 2014.

NEW YORK TIMES – Washington Post Editorial Board No Longer Using Word ‘Redskins’ – 22 August 2014.

REUTERS – Washington Post Editorial Board No Longer Using Word ‘Redskins’ – 22 August 2014. 

WASHINGTON POST – Washington Post Editorial Board Stops Using the Word ‘Redskins’ – 22 August 2014.

 

 

 

West Papuan Independence Movement Struggles Against Long Lasting Indonesian Control

by Max Bartels 

Impunity Watch Reporter, Oceania

 

Manokwari, West Papua 

West Papua is the western half of the of the Island of New Guinea, the other half being the nation of Papua New Guinea. West Papua has been under the control of the Indonesian government since the late 1960s when a vote mandated by the U.N ended in a sham where only a handful of the indigenous population were allowed to vote.  As a result of the vote the province remained in the hands of the Indonesian government against the will of the majority of the local population.

IW #10 West Papua
Indonesian police arrest West Papuans celebrating the anniversary of their independence from Dutch colonial rule.
(Photo curtesy of Aljazeera)

 The West Papuan Independence movement has since had the goal of expelling Indonesian occupation from West Papua. There have been many similar incidents over the years but the most recent was in April. There was a shooting near the border with Papua New Guinea where the resistance fighters shot an Indonesian border guard and set a car wash on fire. The resistance fighters raised the flag of West Papua as a symbol of resistance.

There seems to be a split amongst West Papuan leaders on the best approach to achieve their goals. Some support the actions of the independence movement, most of these leaders now live in a exile in countries and islands around the South Pacific. Other leaders, mainly those in the West Papuan congress believe that it is better to work with the Indonesian government to achieve a better standard of living within the province.

In February the Guardian reported an incident in a West Papuan village where the Indonesian military and police woke up the locals at 3am and shuffled all the families into the town square to be questioned for their involvement in the resistance movement. Many people were interrogated with guns held to their heads, others were arrested and beaten and some families were forced to burn down their own homes.

The resistance movement has a lack of outside international support. While it has been reported that the Indonesian government has committed many human rights offenses to the indigenous population of West Papua, the Indonesian government still has the support of the Australian government. Indonesia is an import political ally for Australia and therefore Australia has not been unwilling to support the movement. West Papuan exiles have also been denied entry into Australia.

Recently two French journalists attempted to enter West Papua in an attempt to film a documentary on the resistance movement. Both were arrested for visa violations, France and the U.S have appealed to Indonesia to lessen their restrictions on journalism in West Papua.

For more information, please see:

The Guardian — West Papuans Beaten and Had Guns Held to Head In Military Operations — 3 February 2014

The Guardian — West Papuan Independence Fighters Injure Two in Border Shooting — 8 April 2014

The Guardian — West Papuan Independence Movement- a History — 28 August 2013

The Sydney Morning Herald — Indonesian Authorities Arrest French Journalists in west Papua in the Company of Separatists — 8 August 2014

Ferguson, Missouri Protests Infringe on Constitutional Rights

By Lyndsey Kelly
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

WASHINGTON D.C., United States of America – On the fourth night proceeding the fatal shooting of a Missouri teenager, Michael Brown, what community members considered mostly peaceful protests were met with extreme police violence. The protests began after Brown was shot and killed by a local police officer.

SWAT teams prepare to disperse large crowds of protestors in Ferguson, Missouri (Photo courtesy of The Huffington Post).

The police violence came in the form of tear gas, rubber bullets, heavily armed SWAT teams and mine-resistant vehicles. Reports indicate that the police force zeroed in on a mostly peaceful protest in Ferguson, Missouri, where protesters were seen symbolically holding their hands in the air, the same gesture Brown was believed to be doing when he was shot by an unidentified officer. In an effort to disperse the crowd of protestors, a group of at least 70 armed SWAT officers fired smoke bombs so regularly that it made it difficult to breath.

The racially charged protests in Ferguson, which have resulted in a military-style police crackdown, resulted in the arrests of numerous demonstrators and at least two journalists. A news crew from the TV network Al Jazeera America reported that tear gas and rubber bullets were fired in the proximity of the crew, and later released a statement expressing the incident’s impact on constitutional rights, “Al Jazeera is stunned by this egregious assault on freedom of the press that was clearly intended to have a chilling effect on our ability to cover this important story.”

President Barack Obama made his first statement regarding the protests on Thursday, 14 August, condemning the violent tactics used on both sides of the ongoing protests. Obama acknowledged the constitutional issues with the police crackdown, stating, “There’s…no excuse for police to use excessive force against peaceful protests or to throw protestors in jail for lawfully exercising their First Amendment rights,” he continued by stating, ”Here in the United States of America, police should not be bullying or arresting journalists who are just trying to do their jobs and report to the American people on what they see….”  The President also acknowledged that those demonstrators whom engaged in violence against the police, specifically those who were said to have thrown rocks and Molotov cocktails, and used this time of unrest as an excuse for violence, vandalism, and looting were equally as wrong as the police.

Obama concluded by calling for a calm in Ferguson, Missouri, saying that now is not the time for unrest, instead it is time for an, “open and transparent process to make sure that justice is done.”

 

For more information, please see the following: 

BUSINESS INSIDER –  Obama: There’s ‘No Excuse’ For Police To Use Excessive Force In Ferguson – 14 August 2014.

HUFFINGTON POST – Obama On Ferguson: ‘ No Excuse For Police To Use Excessive Force – 14 August 2014.

HUFFINGTON POST – Ferguson Protests Met With Heavy Police Response, 2 Reporters And Alderman Arrested – 14 August 2014.

NBC NEWS – “No Excuse’: Obama Expressed Concern About Violence In Missouri – 14 August 2014.

U.S Secretary of State Urges Myanmar Authorities to Address Human Rights Issues

By Lyndsey Kelly
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

WASHINGTON, D.C., United States of America – On Saturday, 9 August 2014, U.S Secretary of State John Kerry pressed Myanmar’s political leaders on Washington’s human rights concerns. Kerry, who was in Myanmar’s capital for the ASEAN Regional Forum, met President Thein Sein and urged him to step up constitutional reforms in order to prepare for next years elections.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry met with Myanmar President Thein Sein to discuss the democratic reform, human rights issues, and an advancement in Myanmar’s relationship with the United States (Photo Courtesy of Fox News).

Myanmar has struggled with human rights issues, including sectarian violence in Rakhine state, where access to humanitarian aid has been denied to more than 140,000 displaced people, most of whom are Rohingya Muslims. Most people in Myanmar refuse to acknowledge the Rohingya as a group belonging to Myanmar, instead referring to them as “Bengalis,” implying that they are immigrants from Bangladesh and thus not entitled to Myanmar citizenship. The Rohingya are denied most rights that citizens of Myanmar are privy to including freedom of movement and access to health care.

The United States has promised to ease sanctions on Myanmar if the process of democratic reform and respect for human rights advances. U.S officials have acknowledged significant changes in Myanmar since its political transition in 2011 from military rule, however some officials have accused Myanmar authorities of falling short on commitments to protect human rights, including issues such as freedom of press and constitutional reforms.

Kerry reaffirmed American support for the reform process in Myanmar on Saturday. Additionally, he raised issues of concern to Washington. Some of these issues included: the minority Muslim Rohingya community, the designation of the term “Bengali,” the need for changes in the constitution  put in place by a pre-reform military government, the necessity of addressing religious intolerance and press freedoms.

Kerry said that Thein showed no resistance to discussing the issues. Kerry also warned the leaders of Myanmar that a significant improvement in its democratic transition and a solid commitment to improve human rights is required to advance Myanmar’s relations with the United States.

 

 For more information, please see the following: 

ABC NEWS – Kerry Pressed Myanmar on Democratic Reform – 9 August 2014.

FOX NEWS – Kerry Urges Myanmar to Speed Democratic Transition, Halt Rights Backslide – 9 August 2014.

REUTERS – U.S.’s Kerry Pressed Myanmar leaders on Human Rights, Reforms – 9 August 2014.

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL –  U.S. Backs Myanmar Reforms, No Threat to Resume Sanctions – 9 August 2014.

Media Restrictions in Fiji Threaten Free and Fair Democratic Elections

by Max Bartels

Impunity Watch Reporter, Oceania 

 

Suva, Fiji

Fiji is preparing for its first democratic election since the military coup in 2006. Since the coup the Fijian media has been subjected to restrictions by the military government seeking to control the flow of information to its citizens, the government has ramped up these restrictions as the September elections approach. The Fijian government has added new regulations monitoring the level of bias in political reporting. The regulations cover both local Fijian reporters as well as foreign reporters working in Fiji and covering Fijian politics. Violation of the regulations results in fines and can be punishable by up to five years in jail. So far a number of foreign reporters have been banned from Fiji after writing articles or conducting interviews that the government believed  to reflect bias that they did not want the public exposed to. One of these reporters was New Zealander Michael Field who made comments about the state of the Fijian media being farcical and that it does not represent a fair and free democracy.

FIJI DEMOCRACY MARCH SYDNEY
Fijians protest the military government and the restrictions to freedom and democracy they’ve suffered.
(Photo Curtesy of SBS News Australia)

Amnesty International has stressed that in regards to the Fiji election freedom of expression is crucial for the media to achieve governmental transparency. The government has passed legislation aimed at restricting the freedom of journalists writing on the election and other issues within the government. Many journalists have been intimidated by the government, slapped with heavy fines and jail time. Amnesty International also reported there has been a number of arbitrary detentions of  number of local journalists. In order for elections to be free and fair there must be an unrestricted media with the ability to criticize the government and the candidates without fear of retribution by the authorities.

When the media decree was first enacted after the coup it stated that media reports must not include material, which goes against public interest or order. These decrees put the media under the effective control of the military government. When the laws were first enacted there was an opportunity for public consultation, however those members of the public who had the opportunity to consult were only given two and a half hours to read the law and prepare for the consultation. There was not a proper opportunity for an opposition to the decree. This sort of policy has continued even during the transfer to democracy and these sorts of laws are in opposition to the democratic changes the country is trying to make and hopefully not a reflection of the rest of the election process.

For more information, please see:

ABC Australia Network News — Fiji to Set up Media Monitor Ahead of Election — 27 March 2014

Fiji Times — Media restrictions — 29 April 2014

Amnesty International — Fiji: End Harassment of Journalist Ahead of Election — 27 June 2014

ABC News Australia — Fiji Media Decree ‘Extremely Worrying’ — 7 April 2010

SBS News Australia — In Fiji, Free Press Remains Elusive — 11 July 2014