News

Brazilian Threesome Enter Into Civil Union

By Brendan Oliver Bergh
Impunity Watch Reporter, South America

BRASÍLIA, Brazil – Civil Union in Brazil links three individuals together in legal matrimony. Some have seen the unions as a logical progression of civil rights, while others in conservative and religious groups have criticized its morality and legality.

San Paulo skyline, where the first Brazilian gay marriage was legalized. (Photo Courtesy of Telegraph)

The trio – a man and two women – have been living together in Rio de Janeiro for three years before tying the proverbial civil knot. The trio decided to keep their identities a secret in May when the union was formed. The public was made aware of the union in late August.

Each member of the union is connected to each other equally, unlike in traditional polygamous marriages which are followed by some religious sects.

According to the public notary who granted the civil union this union may be labeled as a “polyfidelitous union.” Claudia do Nascimento Domingues, the notary who performed the ceremony, had the couple legally registered as a “stable union” which extends all the benefits of marriage. The union entitles the trio to legal rights concerning the division of property in case of separation and death. The debate continues as to death benefits, child welfare, homeownership and health insurance plans and discounts. The legal question of what would happen with a child is thought to be left to the courts, should the trio pursue the matter.

A judge in San Paulo approved Brazil’s first gay marriage in July of 2011, converting their civil union to a marriage. While same sex unions have been legal in Brazil since 2004, this is first multi-partner union of its kind.

Critics, however, claim that “the union is void of any legality.” Regina Beatriz Tavares da Silva, the head of the family law committee of a lawyers’ association in Sao Paulo believes that it would be impossible for a civil union between three to be equal to that of union of two. “It goes directly against the constitution,” da Silva said. “Monogamy is defined as relations between two, not three or four or five.”

Religious groups have voiced their outcry as well, fearing the often cited “slippery slope” that would lead to a devaluing of the institute of marriage and family.

“The institution of family cannot be defended with the approval of actions that seek to distort its definition,” the religious, conservative Plinio Correa de Oliveira Institute said in a statement. “The purpose of this (union) is not to build families, but to destroy them.”

 

For further information, please see:

CNN – Unprecedented Civil Union Unites Brazilian Trio – 31 August 2012

Journal de Uberaba – Marriage Between Three People – 29 August 2012

The Telegraph – Three People Enter Into Civil Union In Brazil – 28 August 2012

The BBC – Three-Person Civil Union Sparks Controversy In Brazil – 28 August 2012

Decades After Desegregation, U.S. Schools Still Largely Segregated, Report Says

By Mark O’Brien
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

WASHINGTON, United States — Nearly 60 years after segregation was ruled unconstitutional, a new study released this week claimed students across the United States still are learning in segregated classrooms.

A new study shows U.S. Schools are largely segregated, leaving black and Latino students racially isolated. (Photo Courtesy of Chicago Magazine)

The Civil Rights Project reported on Wednesday that black and Latino students are racially isolated because whites are largely concentrated in schools with other whites.  The Project, based at the University of California, Los Angeles, analyzed data from the U.S. Department of Education in drawing its conclusions.

“Extreme segregation is becoming more common,” said Gary Orfield, author of the report and co-director of the Project.

The study showed 43 percent of Latinos and 38 percent of blacks across the country attend schools where fewer than 10 percent of their classmates are white.  Moreover, roughly one in seven black and Latino students go to school where fewer than 1 percent of the class is white.

New York, California, and Texas were states where Latino segregation is most pronounced.  New York, Illinois, and Michigan were states where black segregation is most pronounced.

“Simply sitting next to a white student does not guarantee better education outcomes for students of color,” the report said.  “Instead, the resources that are consistently linked to predominantly white and/or wealthy schools help foster real and serious educational advantages over minority segregated settings.”

In the Chicago area, for instance, 70 percent of all black students attend schools that are more than 90 percent minority.  Nearly half attend schools that are 99 percent minority, making Chicago more segregated than Detroit, New York-Newark, and Los Angeles.

“These trends threaten the nation’s success as a multiracial society,” Orfield said.  “We are disappointed to have heard nothing in the campaign about this issue from neither President Obama, who is the product of excellent integrated schools and colleges, nor from Governor Romney, whose father gave up his job in the Nixon Cabinet because of his fight for fair housing, which directly impacts school make-up.”

The report also targeted charter schools for falling short of equal education promises.

The results come nearly six decades after the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education, which marked the end of legal segregation in public schools.  The case involved a class action suit brought by 13 parents against the Board of Education of the City of Topeka, Kan.

Among states with most integrated schools for black students are Kansas, Nebraska, and Washington, according to the report.

For further information, please see:

Chicago Magazine — Chicagoland Schools: For Blacks, the Most Segregated in the Country — 20 September 2012

The Huffington Post — American Schools Still Heavily Segregated by Race, Income: Civil Rights Project Report — 20 September 2012

The Root — Too Many Black Kids in ‘Apartheid Schools’ — 20 September 2012

The New York Times — Segregation Prominent in Schools, Study Finds — 19 September 2012

Family of Dead Guantanamo Detainee Vows Quest for Answers

By Mark O’Brien
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

WASHINGTON, United States — The family of a Yemeni citizen found dead nearly two weeks ago at the military prison in Guantanamo Bay said this weekend they want answers.

The parents of Adnan Farhan Abdul Latif doubt their son died from natural causes in his Guantanamo Bay detention cell on Sept. 8. (Photo Courtesy of National Yemen)

Adnan Farhan Abdul Latif, 32, was found unconscious in his cell on Sept. 8.  The military said efforts to revive him were unsuccessful.  Government officials said Latif’s death was due to natural causes, but his family was doubtful.

“He is dead now, but this case will live until the truth is revealed,” said Latif’s father, Farhan Abdul Latif, in an interview with the English-language United Arab Emirates newspaper, The National.  “All along, he was being held illegally.”

U.S. forces captured Latif in January 2002 following the invasion of Afghanistan in the wake of Sept. 11, 2001.  The U.S. government accused Latif was of traveling from Yemen to Afghanistan to attend terrorist training camps.  But Latif said he was traveling to Pakistan for medical care after a car accident, only to be captured with other expatriate Arabs after 9/11.

“Whatever the cause, it was Guantanamo that killed him,” said Latif’s lawyer, Michael Remes, who was scheduled to meet with his client on Tuesday.  Indeed, Latif had been on hunger strikes and made suicide attempts during his decade in prison.

“I prayed to see him before I die [but] my prayer was not accepted,” Latif’s mother told The National.  She described her son as the “most obedient of all my children” who “only wanted good health.  This was his only crime.”

Prosecutors never had proof that Latif was linked to Al Qaeda or the Taliban.  That lack of evidence led a federal judge to order the Obama Administration in 2010 to release Latif to Yemen as soon as possible.  The ruling followed a recommendation by government officials earlier that year—as well as in 2008—that Latif be transferred out of Guantanamo as a low-level threat.

But last October, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that court order.  In a split opinion, the appellate majority held that the government’s uncorroborated intelligence about Latif must be treated as reliable and accurate, like official tax receipts, unless there was “clear evidence to the contrary.”

Latif becomes the ninth detainee to die at Guantanamo since the prison was established after 9/11.  The Pentagon said six have killed themselves, while the other two died of natural causes.

Human rights supporters expressed hope that Latif’s case would bring attention to those being detained indefinitely without trial at Guantanamo.

“It’s time for the Obama administration to make good on its promise to close Guantanamo, and either charge the remaining detainees in civilian court or release them,” said Andrea Prasow of Human Rights Watch.  The nonprofit says only six of the remaining 167 detainees at Guantanamo face active charges.

Meanwhile the family promised it would not to let their son’s death be in vain.

“This case is far from over,” Latif’s father told The National.  “We are holding US President Barack Obama responsible for the killing of my beloved son.”

For further information, please see:

Yemen Times — The Face of Indefinite Detention — 17 September 2012

The National — Questions Linger for Parents of Yemeni Prisoner Who Died in Guantanamo — 16 September, 2012

National Yemen — Yemeni Guantanamo Bay Detainee Found Dead in Cell — 16 September 2012

Salon — Guantanamo Prisoner’s Tragic Letter — 16 September 2012

CNN — Guantanamo Still a Blight on U.S. Record? — 15 September 2012

The New York Times — Death at Guantanamo Bay — 15 September 2012

Support for Euthanasia Grows After High Court Dismisses Assisted Suicide Case

By Mark O’Brien
Impunity Watch Reporter, Oceania

WELLINGTON, New Zealand — A new poll this week showed increasing support for legalizing euthanasia after the country’s High Court dismissed charges against a man accused of helping his wife commit suicide.

Support for legalizing euthanasia in New Zealand grows after the country’s High Court dismissed without conviction the case of Evans Mott (right), who was charged with assisting his wife’s (left) suicide after a long battle with multiple sclerosis. (Photo Courtesy of The New Zealand Herald)

The poll, released on Friday, showed 63 percent of respondents supported a change in the law, compared to 12 percent who were opposed.  The poll’s margin of error was roughly two percent.

“Why should the law prevent you from [assisting in a loved one’s suicide], or prevent someone who loves you to assist you from doing that,” said Member of Parliament Maryan Street, who has introduced a bill that would legalize euthanasia.

Street’s “Right to Life” bill would allow people 18-years-old or older to be assisted in their own death if certain conditions were met.   At least two doctors, in consultation with the person’s family, would have to determine that the person is mentally competent.  The person then would have to wait a one-week “stand down” period before they would be allowed to proceed.  The bill has yet to be taken up for consideration.

The renewed interest in changing New Zealand’s euthanasia laws came after the High Court dismissed the case of Evans Mott.  The Auckland man was charged with helping his wife, Rosie, commit suicide late last year after her four-year battle with an aggressive form of multiple sclerosis.  Mott, 61, had pleaded guilty earlier this year.

“It’s a miracle [and] it’s so good that New Zealand had the vision to tell right from wrong,” Mott told TVNZ after the justices discharged him without conviction.  “If you know someone who’s got a hideous disease that’s degenerative, you’re hardly going to say wait until you’re a basket case.”

In discharging Mott’s case, High Court Justice Patricia Courtney said his was vastly different from other cases and the consequences of conviction would outweigh the gravity of what he had done.

“You acted out of love, and your motivation was to support your wife in the decision she made,” Justice Courtney said in court, adding that she wished Mott luck.  She also pointed to increasing public support for a change in the law.

The court’s decision marked a distinct change in precedent.  Just last November, an Auckland man was sentenced to five months of home detention for assisting the suicide of his terminally ill mother.

Opponents were quick to call the Mott outcome “a dangerous precedent” for future cases.

“[This] has opened the door for others to assist in suicide and not suffer any consequences,” said Colleen Bayer of the Family Life New Zealand lobby group.  “This decision also flies in the face of New Zealanders’ concern over the high suicide rate in our country.”

For further information, please see:

The New Zealand Herald — Courts Mirror Mood on Euthanasia MP — 15 September 2012

Radio New Zealand News — Court Decision Fuels Euthanasia Debate — 15 September 2012

The New Zealand Herald — Euthanasia Debate: Wife’s Death Video — 14 September 2012

Stuff — Support Grows for Euthanasia — 14 September 2012

TVNZ — Man Discharged over Wife’s Suicide Can Now Move On — 13 September 2012

Canada Cuts Diplomatic Ties with Iran to Protect Human Rights

By Mark O’Brien
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

OTTAWA, Canada — Citing Iran’s record of alleged human rights abuses, the Canadian government severed diplomatic ties with the Middle Eastern country on Friday.

Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird has called Iran world’s worst violators of human rights. (Photo Courtesy of The Toronto Sun)

Canada closed its embassy in Tehran and ordered all Iranian diplomats to leave Ottawa.  Other reasons for the decision included Iran’s support of the Syrian regime and its disputed nuclear program.

“[Iran] is among the world’s worst violators of human rights, and it shelters and materially supports terrorist groups, said a spokesperson for John Baird, the Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister.  Baird has called Iran the “most significant threat to global peace and security in the world today.”

The move formally puts Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism under Canada’s Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act.  A press release from Baird’s office indicated that Canadian diplomats in Tehran were no longer safe, also prompting Canada’s decision to close its embassy.

Not long after Canada announced its decision, Iran closed its embassy in Ottawa.  Embassy Newspaper, a Canadian foreign policy newsweekly, reported that closure signs were posted on the front doors within 30 minutes.  A small crowd also gathered outside the closed Iranian embassy after they reported had come for consular services.

“Several told Embassy they were concerned about their next steps, and several said they had family in Iran on their mind,” the newsweekly reported on its website.  “One man expressed anger at the two governments that they couldn’t come to terms.”

Human rights activists were quick to praise Canada’s move.

“This needed to happen,” activist Shabnam Assadoliahi told the Toronto Sun.  He had been lobbying the Canadian government to cut ties with Iran.

Israel also applauded Canada’s decision, calling it a model for other countries to follow.

“Iran is a threat to global peace and security,” said Israeli Ambassador Miriam Ziv.  “Prime Minister [Stephen] Harper’s leadership serves as an example to the international community of the bold and moral measures needed to set clear red lines for Iran.”

Canada’s decision also came amid claims that Iranian officials in Ottawa were trying to infiltrate the Iranian community in Canada in efforts to stifle opposition to the Middle Eastern regime.

The relationship between Ottawa and Tehran had worsened since a Canadian photojournalist died in an Iranian prison in 2003.  Since then, Canada has imposed sanctions on Iran, but many political observers have called the closure of embassies as the worst point in the relationship in years.  That has caused some to worry about the fate of Canadians on death row in Iran.

For further information, please see:

Embassy Newspaper — ‘Upset and Scared’: Iranian Community in Shock as Canada Expels Diplomats, Shuts Down Embassy in Tehran — 8 September 2012

The Guardian — Canada Cuts Diplomatic Ties with Iran — 7 September 2012

The Toronto Star — Canada Closes Iran Embassy, Expels Remaining Iranian Diplomats — 7 September 2012

The Toronto Sun — Iranian Human Rights Activist Lauds Fed’s Decision to Close Embassy — 7 September 2012