Uncategorized

Canada Terminates Collection and Reporting of COVID-19 Cases in Schools While Texas Governor Bans Mask Mandates in Schools

By: Jessica Senzer

Journal of Global Rights and Organizations, Associate Articles Editor

NORTH AMERICA — On December 30, 2021, Ontario’s s Ministry of Education announced that it will no longer collect or report data of new COVID-19 infections starting in 2022. Before this change, the Ministry of Education collected COVID-19 data, including weekly case numbers from school boards. Education Minister Stephen Lecce stated that this was done partially because “schools are literally some of the safest places in our community…”

Texas students in school. Photo courtesy of Texas Tribune.

However, this decision was not well-accepted among all Canadians. In fact, in a statement, New Democratic Party Education Critic Marit Stiles said that this action “is going to hurt kids, families, and education workers.” Decisions that reduced COVID-19 protections have been unaccepted in the past, particularly by disabled communities. Canada’s disabled community will likely take issue with the Ministry’s new announcement.

On August 11, 2021, Texas Governor Greg Abbott passed an Executive Order that prohibited school districts and charter schools from enforcing mask mandates-the Texas governor loosened COVID-19 protections in the state. Like in Canada, this decision was met with much citizen dissatisfaction.

Less than a week after the Executive Order was passed, Disability Rights Texas and Winston & Strawn LLP filed a lawsuit on behalf of 14 disabled child plaintiffs, claiming, among other things, that the Order puts students with disabilities at great risk by depriving them of in-person education in a safe environment.

Disabled students in Canada will likely have similar concerns. Since the Ministry of Education is no longer collecting or reporting data on COVID-19 infection rates, students, disabled or not, will not know how many students, faculty, and staff, have, have been exposed to or have symptoms of COVID-19. This change could pose problems for students with various disabilities, including those that lead to a compromised immune system or anxiety.

In the Texas lawsuit, one plaintiff had ADHD, growth hormone deficiency, and asthma. She claimed she was at greater risk of serious illness because she needed to participate in in-person instruction but constantly had to worry about being exposed to COVID-19 at school. Canadian schoolchildren will face similar concerns if they do not know how many students, faculty, and staff have been exposed to, contracted, or have symptoms of COVID-19 due to government non-reporting of this data.

For further information, please see:

Disability Rights Texas- First Federal Lawsuit Filed Against Texas Governor on Mask Mandate Ban Says It Violates ADA, Section 504- 17 Aug. 2021

Global News- Ontario’s education ministry to stop collecting COVID case numbers from schools- 1 Jan. 2022

Toronto News- Ontario to stop collecting COVID-19 numbers from school boards, suspend reporting of cases – 31 Dec. 2021

Facebook and the Perpetuation of Human Trafficking

By: Kendall Hay

Journal of Global Rights and Organizations, Associate Articles Editor

UNITED STATES — In October 2021, a former Facebook employee provided an internal report to Congress which revealed the company’s awareness of several illegal activities on the site. However, despite their awareness, Facebook made a deliberate decision not to act in an effort to protect their bottom line. These recently published “Facebook papers” reveal that the company was aware of human trafficking on the platform and purposely chose to withhold efforts to combat the problem.

Facebook’s headquarters in Menlo Park, CA. Photo courtesy of Time.

The whistleblower revealed widespread trafficking occurring in the Middle East in the sphere of domestic labor. These workers are coerced into earning money for their family either by fraud or deception and then are forced to terms and undignified conditions once there. After being stripped of all forms of communication, they are then faced with domestic and sexual violence and left without the promised earnings.

One of the problems that has led to this issue is the rapid growth the social media site has experienced but has been unable to properly maintain. Being an international platform has also presented challenges to the company, one of which is the difficulty in policing illegal activity on such a widespread scale.

A search on Facebook for maids can render results with a picture and a price accompanying the image, and this even occurs after local governments have scoured the site daily in an attempt to stop such practices.

Although Facebook denies these allegations, it is clear that the advertising benefits they receive have taken precedence over taking measures to ban online solicitation. With over 2 billion users, the company generates extensive profits through advertising. And while they could use some of this advertising space for public service announcements to warn of the potential trap, Facebook has chosen to turn a blind eye. The outcry from victims for these warning messages has escalated in recent months.

In June 2021, The Texas Supreme Court ruled against Facebook in a lawsuit filed by women who were abused and trafficked from the site. The court declared that a Texas statute allows these women to bring a civil cause of action against Facebook for intentionally knowing and benefiting from participation in sex trafficking.

Facebook will soon be facing a class action lawsuit that will be filed at the end of December for misleading shareholders. The lawsuit claims that, among other things, Facebook failed to respond to drug cartels and human traffickers. They are also complaining of attracting pre-teens to the site as well as publicly misleading users and issuing false statements. Because of the drop in Facebook’s share price due to the alleged complaints, plaintiffs are seeking damages for their significant loss.

For further Information please see:

ABA Journal Sex-trafficking victims can sue Facebook for allegedly facilitating their recruitment – 30 June 2021

AP News – Apple once threatened Facebook ban over Mideast maid abuse – 25 Oct. 2021

AP News – People or Profit? Facebook Papers Show Deep Conflict Within – 25 Oct. 2021

Bloomberg – Facebook must face claims linked to sex trafficking judge says – 25 June 2021

CNN – Facebook has shown it has a human trafficking problem for years – 25 Oct. 2021

Washington Post – What are the Facebook papers – 25 Oct. 2021

Yahoo – Shareholder Class Action Deadline – 2 Dec. 2021

When Parents Disagree, Prioritization of Paternal over Maternal Surname Ruled Discriminatory

By: Sallie Moppert

Journal of Global Rights and Organizations, Associate Articles Editor

STRASBOURG, France — In a Chamber judgment handed down on October 26, 2021 by the European Court of Human Rights, it was ruled that Spain’s practice of prioritizing the paternal surname over the maternal surname in parental disputes was discriminatory. The case before the court was León Madrid v. Spain and it arose from legislation in Spain that required, in a dispute between parents, a child would be given the father’s last name first, followed second by the mother’s last name.

Members of the European Court of Human Rights appear in Chamber. Photo courtesy of Jean-Francois Badias.

In 2005, Josefa León Madrid gave birth to a child whose name was entered into the registrar of births using the two surnames that Josefa had, León Madrid, (Josefa’s father’s last name, followed by Josefa’s mother’s last name). After a non-marital paternity suit in 2006, the judge in the case ruled that the child in question would, in accordance with Spanish Law under Article 194 of the Regulation Implementing the Law on the registration of births, marriages and death, would be given two last names, her biological father’s first, followed by her mother’s second, due to parental disagreement. León Madrid challenged the ruling by the judge, requesting an inversion of her daughter’s last name (mother’s surname, then father’s), but the request was denied.

The Court found that the Spanish law prioritizing the father’s surname over the mother’s was discriminatory against women under Article 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which prevents discrimination. The lack of equal protection under the law, the Court found, led to a difference in treatment exclusively due to the person’s gender: “The Court noted that two individuals in a similar situation – the applicant and the child’s father – had been treated differently and that the distinction was based exclusively on grounds of sex.”

The Spanish government denied the existence of discrimination in this practice, stating that the daughter could change her last names upon turning 18 years old. However, the Court found that the lack of ability to change the surname order of a child could have far-reaching impacts that go beyond equal protection under the law and gender discrimination:  beside the “unquestionable impact that a measure of such duration could have on the personality rights and identity of a minor, who would be obliged to give precedence to the surname of a father with whom she was only biologically related, the Court could not overlook the repercussions on the applicant’s life too: as her legal representative who had shared her daughter’s life since her birth, the applicant suffered on a daily basis from the consequences of the discrimination caused by the inability to change her child’s name.”

Article 194 has since been amended by Law no. 20/2011, which would allow a “civil status judge” to decide the order of surnames in parental disagreement, but, at the time of the case, because León Madrid’s daughter was already 16 years old, the amendment did not apply to her.

For further information, please see:

European Court of Human Rights – Automatic imposition of surname order, paternal followed by maternal, when parents disagree, is discriminatory – Oct. 26, 2021

Law Euro – León Madrid v. Spain (European Court of Human Rights) – Oct. 26, 2021

Ethiopia in Crisis

By: Brianna Sclafani

Journal of Global Rights and Organizations, Associate Articles Editor

ETHIOPIA — A year-long civil war between the Ethiopian Government, led by Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, and soldiers of Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) has recently intensified. The Tigray conflict can be traced back through generations in Ethiopia, but the recent conflict began in the fall of 2020.  When elections were postponed due to the coronavirus pandemic, TPLF held regional parliamentary elections in defiance of Abiy’s orders. “Abiy called the vote illegal, and lawmakers cut funding to TPLF leadership”. Tension escalated between the government and Tigray leaders until reaching a breaking point in November of 2020. Abiy, assisted by troops from the neighboring country of Eritrea, ordered a military assault on the group in response to an attack on a federal army base. Millions have been affected by the civil war, and experts are worried that the spreading conflict in Ethiopia could destabilize the entire Horn of Africa.

Civilians walk next to an abandoned tank in the Tigray region of Ethiopia. Photo courtesy of Foreign Policy.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights led a joint investigation into alleged violations of international human rights in Tigray. The report highlighted the widespread use of sexual violence, torture, and unlawful attacks on civilians committed by parties on all sides of the conflict. October 23, 2021, the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights released a statement reflecting its deep concern “about the escalation of the conflict in the Tigray Region of Ethiopia and its impact on the civilian population”.  The commission urged the federal government “to restore and facilitate the speedy and unhindered access of humanitarian aid and relief” to the millions of civilians affected by this war.

Now more than a year later since the original developments, Tigray forces, supported by other rebel groups in Ethiopia, have their eyes on the capital city of Addis Ababa. Current reports are conflicted as to how close the rebels are to the capital city, however, a new state of emergency has been declared by the government. While the state of emergency was apparently instated due to an abundance of caution, it allows for the conscription of any citizen over the age of 18 who owns a firearm. The armed forces have also asked veterans to rejoin the military. In a recent speech and multiple Facebook posts, Abiy pledged to keep fighting the rebels. The Nobel Peace laureate has found himself suspended from Facebook for these posts which violated the companies’ policies on incitement and support of violence. U.S President Joe Biden, German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas, the U.N. Security Council, the African Union, Kenya, and Uganda have all called for a ceasefire. In a conflict that has already killed thousands, and displaced millions, it remains unclear how many more civilians will be affected by the crisis.

For further information, please see:

Anadolu Agency – Germany calls for immediate end to hostilities in Ethiopia – 4 Nov. 2021

African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights – Press Statement On The Recent Airstrikes In The Tigray Region Of The Federal Democratic Republic Of Ethiopia – 23 Oct. 2021

CNN – Ethiopia is at war with itself. Here’s what you need to know about the conflict – 5 Nov. 2021

CNN – Ethiopia’s leader said he would bury his enemy. His spokeswoman doesn’t think it was incitement to violence – 10 Nov. 2021

NPR – Rebels are closing in on Ethiopia’s capital. Its collapse could bring regional chaos – 9 Nov. 2021

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights – Ethiopian Human Rights Commission Tigray Report – 3 Nov. 2021

Reuters – Ethiopians denounce U.S. at rally to back military campaign – 8 Nov. 2021

The Polish Power Struggle: Poland’s “Unprecedented” Pushback on EU Primacy and Rule of Law

By: Gabriella Kielbasinski

Journal of Global Rights and Organizations, Senior Articles Editor

WARSAW, Poland — The current reality: Poland and the European Union (EU) find themselves in a critical tug-of-war with dire implications for the future of rule of law and the primacy of EU law. Before addressing Poland’s latest pushback against EU primacy and rule of law, let’s look back at how the Polish judicial system has changed in order to accommodate such challenges to the most foundational tenants of EU law.

Thousands of Polish protestors group together in opposition of the changes to the Polish judicial system concerned about the threat to judicial independence and the future of rule of law. Photo Courtesy of BBC.

Since 2015, the Eurosceptic, right-wing Law and Justice Party (PiS) has increasingly taken control of Polish judicial bodies, including the Constitutional Tribunal, Supreme Court, and Prosecutor General’s Office. Organizations such as Human Rights Watch have noted that, under PiS’s influence, these courts “composition, independence, and functioning have been severely compromised.”

As PiS continued to infiltrate the should-be neutral judicial system, judges were replaced with PiS political allies. This raised many concerns about the overall integrity of Poland’s courts as they became increasingly politicized bodies. To reign in the remaining independent judges, PiS created a disciplinary process to sanction, and in some cases even remove, those who rule contrary to the party’s interests. This disciplinary regime continues to exacerbate the deterioration of judicial impartiality across the country.

Notably, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) weighed in on the aforementioned disciplinary system, holding that Poland’s disciplinary regime against judges is not compatible with EU law and should be immediately suspended. However, Poland has failed to comply with the order to disband it.

Looking now to 2021, on October 7th, the Constitutional Tribunal ruled that two core articles of the Treaty on European Union, Article 1 and Article 19, were “incompatible” with the Polish constitution asserting the “primacy of the Polish Constitution over EU Law.” This is a sharp deviation from the founding principles upon which the EU’s legal framework rests. Historically, primacy of European Union law was the precedent. In other words, where a conflict lies between EU law and national law, EU law should still prevail.

Observers have noted that this decision may create a dangerous precedent in which Poland can pick and choose which parts of EU law it will abide by. For independent judges struggling in Poland’s current judicial climate, this ruling inhibits their ability to rely on CJEU rulings or EU law in order to defend their decisions against PiS’s pressures. In other words, the October 7th decision has the power to wholly destabilize the already shaky legal framework of rule of law within Poland’s borders.

Moreover, human rights watchdogs have blown the whistle that this ruling not only curtails democratic interests in Poland, but also has the potential to hinder rule of law across the EU. Some world leaders worry that other EU states may follow suit after Poland, carefully selecting when EU law is binding based on the respective state’s self-interests. Sensing this potential for disaster, the European Commission was quick to respond calling out the serious concerns raised by the Polish Constitutional Tribunal and reaffirming that “EU law has primacy over national law, including constitutional provisions.”

Given the gravity of the harm at stake – the breakdown of the rule of law within the EU, it is unsurprising that other Europeans bodies also responded to the October 7th decision with decisive action: The European Parliament openly condemned the ruling; The EU has withheld €36 billion of stimulus funds for Poland; And, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has imposed a daily fine of €1 million for Poland’s noncompliance with EU rules and orders, the highest daily penalty ever imposed on an EU state. One thing is clear, as economic consequences continue to pile up for Poland, tensions across the parties involved have only grown. 

Most recently, it has been the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) pushing back against the actions of Poland’s courts. On November 8th, the ECHR ruled on a case in which two Polish judges were rejected for positions by Poland’s Chamber of Extraordinary Review and Public Affairs. The ECHR ruled that the judicial applicants had been denied a fair hearing because the Polish body which heard their case “isn’t an ‘independent and impartial tribunal established by law.” Rather, it is a politicized body composed of members who are mostly politicians, not judges. The ECHR called Poland’s current running of the courts a “blatant defiance of the rule of law.”

Notably, the ECHR’s decisions are legally binding, not merely advisory, upon the members of the Council of Europe (which Poland is a member of).

In response, on November 24th, the Constitutional Tribunal said that the ECHR has no power to question its appointment of judges, thus rejecting the ECHR’s November 8th rulings. In a move mirroring the Tribunal’s previous October 7th holding, the rationale rested upon a finding that European law was “incompatible” with the Polish Constitution. Specifically, the Tribunal found that Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights was “incompatible… in as far as it gave the [ECHR] the right to assess the legality of the appointment of the Tribunal’s judges.”

While proponents of Poland’s controversial judiciary exalted the decision as a win for Polish sovereignty, others expressed concern calling the decision an “unprecedented challenge against a ruling from the European Court of Human Rights.” Any hope that Poland’s October 7th ruling was a unique departure from previously held legal principles seems effectively crushed by this latest decision. Some opposition lawmakers have gone as far as to label the November 24th ruling as an attempt to “[push Poland] out of the group of democratic countries.”

In the coming days, the European community’s response to Poland’s bold challenge to an ECHR ruling has the potential to shape the EU’s legal landscape for years to come.

For further information, please see:

Balkan Investigative Reporting Network – BIRN Fact-Check: What the Polish Constitutional Tribunal Ruling Means in Practice – 18 Oct. 2021

BBC – Poland’s Top Court Ruling Marks Major Challenge to EU Laws – 7 Oct. 2021

Bloomberg – Poland Ordered by Top Human Rights Court to Fix Judicial System – 8 Nov. 2021

Deutsche Welle – Poland Court Says European Rights Pact ‘Incompatible’ with Constitution – 25 Nov. 2021

Euractiv – Poland Makes ‘Unprecedented’ Challenge to European Rights Pact – 25 Nov. 2021

European Commission – European Commission Reaffirms the Primacy of EU Law – 7 Oct. 2021

European Commission – Independence of Polish Judges: Commission asks European Court of Justice for Financial Penalties against Poland on the Activity of the Disciplinary Chamber – 7 Sept. 2021

Human Rights Watch – Poland’s Compromised Court Threatens Rule of Law in Europe – 13 Oct. 2021

Politico – Poland Hit with Record €1M Daily Fine in EU Rule-of-Law Dispute – 27 Oct. 2021

Reuters – Polish Tribunal Rules European Rights Court Cannot Question Its Judges – 24 Nov. 2021.